Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
071415Complete Agenda
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BABCOCK ROOM JULY 14, 2015 5:45 PM Call to order 1. Interviews of persons interested in serving on the City's advisory commissions (Council Memo No. 62) 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. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM JULY 14, 2015 6:15 PM Call to order 1. 6:15 p.m. -6:35 p.m. Update regarding the 5-year Street Reconstruction Plan (Council Memo No. 64) 2. 6:35 p.m.- 6:55 p.m. Discussion regarding Emerson alley (Council Memo No. 64) 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. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 14, 2015 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of June 15, 2015; (2) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of June 18, 2015; (3) Special Concurrent City Council & Community Services Commission Worksession of June 23, 2015; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of June 23, 2015. COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Hats Off to Hometown Hits AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Approval of the agenda. 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items,which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on August 11, 2015, for the consideration of the issuance of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for My Burger Operations, LLC d/b/a My Burger, 6555 Lyndale Avenue South. Staff Report No. 100 B. Consideration of the approval of a resolution allowing the Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept funds in the amount of$37,964 from the Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto Theft Prevention Grant. Staff Report No. 101 C. Consideration of the approval of an agreement to extend an easement as part of a Site Lease Agreement at 7401 Logan Avenue South between the City of Richfield and T-Mobile Central LLC (successor-in-interest to APT Minneapolis Inc.). Staff Report No. 102 D. Consideration of the approval of the Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield and the owner of 6253 Penn Avenue allowing the existing building to remain within the County Auditor's Easement . Staff Report No. 103 E. Consideration of the approval of a two-year Use and Indemnification Agreement between the City of Richfield and Tom Price for the use of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field. Staff Report No. 104 F. Consideration of the approval of the purchase of an MT Trackless tractor, with v-plow and snow blower attachments, from Mac Queen Equipment Inc. in the amount of$119,099. Staff Report No. 105 G. Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the amount of$2,743.66, and authorizing Recreation Services Staff to administer the funds in accordance with the attached grant agreement and terms prescribed by donors to operate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the Richfield Farmers Market. Staff Report No. 106 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Public hearing regarding resolutions for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Preliminary Plat to allow construction of a cluster housing development consisting of five townhomes at the intersection of 76th Street and Sheridan Avenue. Staff Report No. 107 6. Public hearing regarding a resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Properties LLC Addition that will combine four parcels (1400 -78th St E, 1420 -78th St E, 1500 -78th St E, and 7711 - 14th Ave) in order to allow construction of an Audi car dealership. Staff Report No. 108 RESOLUTIONS 7. Consideration of a resolution approving a Local Road Improvement Program Grant Agreement in the amount of $2,500,000 for the design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project. Staff Report No. 109 OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of a proposal for WSB and Associates, Inc. to provide preliminary and final design services and environmental documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project for an amount of$2,165.000. Staff Report No. 110 9. Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. Staff Report No. 111 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 10. City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. 12. 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 July 9, 2015 Council Memorandum No. 62 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Advisory Commission Interviews (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: In January 2015, the City Council made several appointments to the various City advisory commissions. However, there are still some vacancies. Applications continue to be accepted. The attached applications were received. The City Council is scheduled to interview applicants on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:45 p.m. in the Babcock Room. Approval of the appointments is scheduled for the July 14, 2015 Regular City Council meeting. Plea contact me if you have any questions. pe tf ly ubmitt , r" L. Devich City Manager SLD:tjs Attachments E-mail: Assistant City Manager Department Directors rn C) C) 0 00 1--1`0 0 TI-T-T-TI-T- 7 O O O O O N N N N N L_ r r r r r x M co co co co ca2Sc� W cc3cccc J � ca ca cv co co W U w LLI F— o w V Z N E z z � Q VM z J O O av, CL ca Ecn Q y m cw O � E ani V Cl) CL CL 0 r— cu0 co cn E EE O � Q 00 O m � � Y (B L �1 "m �� 0 "OHO(D � O co OF—-a co o C:coLO O w — 00 o Ucocn=0Q a cA c LOLn0000 m LnV)0� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 9, 2015 Council Memorandum No. 64 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: July 14, 2015 Worksession Discussion Items Council Members: At the upcoming City Council Worksession the following items will be discussed: 1. 5-Year Street Reconstruction Plan Update — Staff will provide an update on the proposed 5-Year Street Reconstruction Plan (2016-2020) (City Council Goal 4a). 2. Emerson Alley— Staff will review comments received after distributing the attached handout and will request Council feedback on how to proceed. Please contact Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director, at 612-861-9795 with questions. e ully submi d, - r e en L. Devi Cit Manager SLD:kda Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors ALLEY CHANGES PROPOSED /hate Access Changes (®earl Fnd) The City is considering the removal of the south connection to Emerson Avenue from the 1-35W noise wall alley that serves your property. Access would still be available at the existing 65'h St and 64'" St locations. Snow removal would continue to be completed by the City. A map of the proposed change is included on the reverse side of this handout. Why: Safety Concerns The change would address several concerns that have been expressed by both alley users as well as the general public. o The sharp 90 degree curve at the south end of the alley has very limited sightlines. City staff has received numerous complaints regarding this issue and has explored several options to address the concern. Potential solutions that were determined to be unfeasible included: o The installation of a mirror at the corner o Impacting private property to increase sight lines o Connecting the alley directly to 66"' St. ® Entering and exiting the alley at Emerson Ave/66'" St is sometimes difficult or unsafe. In peak periods of traffic, vehicles on Emerson Avenue may block the ability to enter or exit the alley. In addition, the proximity of the alley to 66'"Street can cause safety concerns as drivers attempt to maneuver in or out of the alley. Walking and biking on 66'"Street can be uncomfortable or unsafe. The proximity of the sidewalk to heavy traffic as well as the retaining wall along the alley has caused safety concerns for many users. There have been documented crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists hit by cars at this location. The current design for the 66'" Street reconstruction includes adding boulevards along the roadway to separate bicyclists and pedestrians from traffic on 66'"St. However, the alley currently prevents this design between Emerson Avenue and the 1-35W entrance ramp. When: With 66th Street Deconstruction If implernented, the alley changes would occur as part of the 66"' Street reconstruction in 2017- 2018. Comments: We want your input! The City is seeking your thoughts on the proposed alley changes. Comments may be submitted to Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer, via email jpearson@cityofrichfield.org or phone 612.861.9791. Comments received by July 3, 2015 will be included in consideration. 1�,It �, P w •� �h•• 4. y ��V u I;��. yf �� r i��ri'� E ..0. ,'✓nth , b — Ic - � •Y., 1Ov .F' rc:+?. q C� t ^ y 4 A R G t'td 6> r•1 " • tv u, , v7 U 111) i IItuj � LU Cl � LU IMV J ZS'1,!`u yr�i rel A SGI'�IN N 41 � d1 'a 101 tN?EItStiAIE aV d) O C M a) yH yO. IL C W �, rJp © d ,Af uj '�w' t 't' ilk x�t 0 LI UJ. IF0 .,• j� + �; irk I°'' M , C CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota I! ' Special City Council Worksession June 15, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:47 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; and Pat Elliott Council Members Absent: Michael Howard and Tom Fitzhenry Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; and Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager. Item # 1 DISCUSSION REGARDING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST— 66T" STREET AND STEVENS AVENUE (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 52) Community Development Director Stark reviewed Council Memo No. 52. Allison Kern, Capital Real Estate, Inc., addressed the City Council and distributed some drawings regarding the general project concept design for the property. Mayor Goettel asked about project orientation and abutting the single family neighborhood. She also commented on the driveways opening onto residential streets, First and Stevens Avenue. She was also concerned about car lights shining into the neighborhood. Mayor Goettel asked about vacancy rates for commercial properties in Richfield. Mr. Stark responded that the HUB had some vacancies but the strip center to the east of it has very few vacancies. Council Member Garcia asked about potential tenants and if other parcels were considered. Ms. Kern responded that there were none identified at this time. Council Member Elliott stated that he was not opposed to a service-office, commercial type of development in this location. He asked how long this property had been on the market. Mr. Stark responded that it has been on the market for a long time and that the price point may be the reason. Mr. Stark defined service-office, C-1 and C-11. Erin Vrieze Daniels, 1812 West 66th Street, (Planning Commission Member), stated that she felt the service-office might be more acceptable and the neighbors were originally opposed to the church because of traffic. Sean Hayford Oleary, 7229 Second Avenue, (Planning Commission Member), asked why staff was not in favor of this project as there are other similar project areas in the City. Special Worksession Minutes -2- June 15, 2015 Mr. Stark responded that it was due to staff concern about continued commercial encroachment into an existing residential area and that staff would prefer a better transition from existing retail to the adjacent homes. Ms. Kern asked about why the curb cut access to 66th Street might be changed. Mr. Stark said he wasn't sure but the one curb cut on 66th Street might be allowed to remain. Council Member Garcia stated that she thought there were a lot of ifs and questions about the project. She stated that she wanted to walk the area, see the location and talk to the neighborhood. There was general consensus of what might work on those parcels. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:29 p.m. Date Approved: July 14, 2015 Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota • ' • Special City Council Closed Executive r Session June 18, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The Closed Executive Session was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Babcock Conference Room. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott, Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; and Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager. Others Present: Julie Fleming-Wolfe, LMCIT appointed Attorney. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION ENTITLED: • GREG PETERSON V. THE RICHFIELD POLICE AND FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL. MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT NO. A13-2337 The Closed Executive Session was convened pursuant to M.S. 13D.05, subd. 3(b). ADJOURNMENT The Closed Executive Session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:30 p.m. Date Approved: July 14, 2015 Debbie Goettel Mayor Pam Dmytrenko Steven L. Devich Assistant City Manager/HR Manager City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent City Council and Community Services Commission Worksession June 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:46 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry Present: Council Members Pat Elliott Absent: Commissioners Reed Bornholdt, Chair, Carolyn Engeldinger, Michele Thompson; Arthur Present: Felgate; and Charles Seth Rima Commissioners Daniel Edgerton, Tracy Hollenback, Celestin Radison, Teresa Kruse, Crystal Absent: Brakke; and Joannette Cintron de Nunez Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; and Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING ORGANIZED GARBAGE COLLECTION (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 60) Dan Krivit, senior project manager for Foth, presented a status update of the City of Bloomington's organized garbage hauling efforts and specific steps undertaken. Mr. Krivit then presented a comprehensive study of the new Minnesota statutory organized garbage hauling statute and ways that municipalities could avail themselves of the statute. Included in the presentation was a brief history of other metro communities who have initiated organized garbage hauling processes. Mayor Goettel asked about specifics of the rate structure. Mr. Krivit responded with rate structure analysis. Council Member Howard indicated that he felt it was very important that there be a thorough analysis of rates and other aspects of organized hauling before moving ahead in the process. Commissioner Bornholdt asked where administrative costs were covered. Mr. Krivit clarified how administrative costs are handled. Initiated by Mayor Goettel, general discussion was made regarding organic pickup and yard waste. Special Worksession Minutes -2- June 23, 2015 Mayor Goettel asked about how citywide cleanup day might fit in the process. Mr. Krivit discussed Bloomington's process for the fee collection. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained yard waste pick up as it has been implemented in Minneapolis and Bloomington and that in Bloomington there has historically been a monthly charge of approximately $3.00 on all residential accounts to cover the cost of citywide cleanup and the new Bloomington organized hauling contract includes a mandatory monthly charge. General discussion about how fees are charged for cleanup day and also how residents might apply for exemption from participating in organized pick up if they believe they didn't have significant pick up or had other means of disposing. In conclusion, there was general discussion regarding the passion and fierce debate that individuals on both sides of this issue have displayed in the past and will likely happen in Richfield as the matter progresses. ADJOURNMENT The worksession was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:58 p.m. Date Approved: July 14, 2015. Debbie Goettel Mayor Elizabeth VanHoose Steven L. Devich City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota e� Regular Meeting June 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry Council Member Absent: Pat Elliott Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Howard; S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of the (1) Regular City Council Meeting of June 9, 2015. Motion carried 4-0. Item #1 UPDATE ON THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S 2035 LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 55) Neil Ralston, Airport Planner for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, presented a summary of the 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan, reviewed potential future expansion, customer service, parking, flight data and outreach strategies. Council Meeting Minutes -2- June 23,2015 Dana Nelson, Manager of Noise, Environment and Planning, addressed environmental considerations, noise assessments and land use. Mayor Goettel asked question about parking and the impacts shuttle services might have. Mr. Ralston stated that the demand for parking has not decreased with shuttle services being offered. Mayor Goettel inquired about the time frame on the new proposed hotel on the airport site. Bridget Rief, Director of Airport Development for MAC, spoke on the proposed start time negotiated for early Spring of 2016, open in Fall of 2017. Council Member Fitzhenry addressed issues with airport noise and inquired about what's being done. Ms. Nelson indicated that they will be phasing out smaller planes, replacing with larger, quieter planes which will result in fewer number of flights. Council Member Fitzhenry asked if there were any future plans to change flight paths. Ms. Nelson noted that there are no changes to come but if there were affected homes would be mitigated. Mayor Goettel recognized Council Member Fitzhenry for his work as a representative for the Noise Oversight Committee. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Member Garcia o Presented an update on a summary of upcoming events; o Noted that Miss Richfield sent the Council a very thoughtful, well written thank you note; and o Noted a visit to Flex Academy in Richfield is a great place and they are taking applications. Council Member Howard o Commended State Representative Linda Slocum on her work in obtaining $10 million for the Richfield underpass; and o No Farmers Market on July 4. Mayor Goettel o Gave update on July events; and o Acknowledged awards received from League of Women Voters and a Grand award from the ACEC. Mayor Goettel stated that she believed residents on 66th Street were not aware of impacts of construction and asked City staff to reach out. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. Council Meeting Minutes -3- June 23,2015 Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of a second amendment to the Site Lease Agreement at 7401 Logan Avenue South between the City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, LP (successor-in-interest to Sprint Spectrum LP) with regard to the location of an antenna system. S.R. No. 91 B. Consideration of the approval of a Reservation of Funds Financial Policy. S.R. No. 92 C. Consideration of the approval of an annual request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the activities scheduled to take place July 4, 2015, for the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post#435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue South. S.R. No. 93 D. Consideration of the approval of an annual request for a Community Celebration Event license, with a fee waiver and a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license, from the Fourth of July Committee for the events scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park, July 1 - 5, 2015. S.R. No. 94 E. Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the United States Postal Service for the use of fourteen parking spaces in the lower parking lot of the Wood Lake Nature Center. S.R. No. 95 M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #6 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF NEW ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND SUNDAY LICENSES FOR GM RICHFIELD, LLC, D/B/A FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT, LOCATED AT 7745 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH S.R. NO. 96 Council Member Howard presented Staff Report No. 96. Victoria Nelson, regional manager for Four Points, invited Council Members to tour the facility and stood for questions. M/Fitzhenry, S/Howard to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. M/Howard, S/Goettel to approve new On Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday licenses for GM Richfield, LLC, d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton Minneapolis Airport, located at 7745 Lyndale Avenue South. Motion carried 4-0. ITEM #7 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING LAND USE APPROVALS THAT WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY BAND SHELL AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. S.R. NO. 97 Council Meeting Minutes -4- June 23,2015 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 97. Community Development Director Stark summarized Staff Report No. 97 and focused on the land use approval. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer presented site plans and indicated shared parking with the American Legion. Council Member Fitzhenry questioned sustainability and durability of materials used to build the band shell. David Linner, architect addressed materials sustainability. M/Garcia, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 11092 RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY BAND SHELL AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK The following people spoke against the community band shell at Veterans Memorial Park: • Nancy Norton, 132 East 66th Street, Richfield • Jan LaVictoire, 6301 York Avenue South #103, Edina • Steve LaVictoire, 4308 — 15th Avenue South, Minneapolis • Elise Morton, 2852 —38th Avenue South, Minneapolis • Susan Myers, 6226 —4th Avenue South, Richfield. Ms. Myers also spoke in favor of a community band shell at Lyndale Gardens. • Patricia Taylor, 6128— 15th Avenue South, Minneapolis • Haven Elwell, 6321 — 11th Avenue South, Richfield • Heidi Gaibor, 6915 Wentworth Avenue South, Richfield The following people spoke in favor of the community band shell at Veterans Memorial Park: • Kevin Klos, 10308 Stevens Avenue South, Bloomington • Suzanne Sandahl, 7601 Bryant Avenue South, Richfield • Maureen Scaglia, 6410 Washburn Avenue South, Richfield • Tom Zarat, 5200 West 92nd Street, Bloomington • David Butler, 7072 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield. Mr. Butler also read positive responses from residents in favor of the community band shell at Veterans Memorial Park. • Linda Shurtleff, 6627 — 15th Avenue South, Richfield • Rick Jabs, 6805 Knox Avenue South, Richfield Mayor stated that concludes the community input time. Council Member Garcia reminded citizens that 11% of Richfield is dedicated to park property and that Veterans Memorial Park is a community park. Council Member Howard indicated that residents are passionate, both for and against, and asked that we be clear with the public on allotted funds. He noted that the band shell would be a positive addition to Richfield. Council Meeting Minutes -5- June 23,2015 Council Member Fitzhenry stated that there are concerns with over flight noise. Mayor requested a roll call vote. Motion carried 3-1. (Fitzhenry opposed) This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11092. ITEM #8 CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND DAVID LINNER ARCHITECTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE DESIGN OF A COMMUNITY BAND SHELL. S.R. NO. 98 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 98. M/Goettel, S/Garcia to approve the agreement between the City of Richfield and David Linner Architects for professional services in the design of a community band shell. Motion carried 3-1. (Fitzhenry opposed) M/Howard, S/ Goettel to amend the motion between the City of Richfield and David Linner Architects to preclude any additional funding for the band shell beyond what has already been appropriated by the City. Motion carried 4-0 ITEM #9 CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPER SELECTION FOR THE CEDAR POINT HOUSING AREA REDEVELOPMENT. S.R. NO. 99 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 99. Lori Boisclair of the Boisclair Corporation spoke on Cedar Point II and stated they were excited to embark on the project. Council Member Fitzhenry inquired about the length of time in phases of the building process. Ms. Boisclair responded that construction is to start in the Fall of 2016 with a completion in Spring to early Summer 2017. Council Member Howard spoke in favor of the project and thanked the other developers. Council Member Garcia asked City Manager Devich to find out more about the $10 million and present a status report at the next Council meeting. M/Goettel, S/Howard to approve the developer selection of Boisclair Corporation for the Cedar Point Housing Area Redevelopment. Motion carried 4-0. Item #10 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT The mid-year goal setting will be held July 28th at 4:30 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes -6- June 23,2015 Item #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 06/23/15 A/P Checks: 241477-241871 1,947,838.32 Payroll: 110922-111297 $ 613,197.28 TOTAL $ 2,561,035.60 Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:33 p.m. Date Approved: July 14, 2015 Debbie Goettel Mayor Elizabeth VanHoose Steven L. Devich City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 100 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn, Support Serivices Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 7/1/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on August 11, 2015, for the consideration of the issuance of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for My Burger Operations, LLC d/b/a My Burger, 6555 Lyndale Avenue South. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 11, 2015, the City received the application materials for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for My Burger Operations, LLC, d/b/a My Burger, located at 6555 Lyndale Avenue South. My Burger is a new addition to the City of Richfield at the developing Lyndale Station property. All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on August 11, 2015, for the consideration of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for My Burger Operations, LLC d/b/a My Burger, 6555 Lyndale Avenue South. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT This information is contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): - City ordinance provides the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all On-Sale wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license applications and a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. - The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. - The new process has been initiated. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Holding the public hearing on August 11, 2015, will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All licensing fees have been received. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Reject the applications for new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for My Burger Operations, LLC d/b/a My Burger. • Schedule the public hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: There are no parties expected at this meeting. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.13. STAFF REPORT NO. 101 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jay Henthorne, Director/Chief of Police DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 7/1/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution allowing the Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept funds in the amount of$37,964 from the Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto Theft Prevention Grant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Richfield Department of Public Safety has applied and been approved for grant money in the amount of $37,964 to be used in 2016 and 2017 from the Minnesota Department of Commerce for the purchase of two additional Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)to be used in the Patrol Division. One ALPR unit will be purchased in 2016 and the other in 2017. This will bring the total number of ALPR units being used by the Police Department to four by the year 2017. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution allowing the Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept funds in the amount of$37,964 from the Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto Theft Prevention Grant. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • In June 2013, the Richfield Police Department was notified that it had been awarded $26,300 in grant funding from the MN Department of Commerce Auto Theft Prevention grant for the purchase of two ALPR units to be deployed in the Patrol Division. These two units were purchased and installed in 2014. • Between 2008 and 2013, Richfield averaged 65 auto thefts, 100 recovered stolen vehicles and 750 thefts from autos annually. From 2013 to 2014, there were 96 auto thefts, 57 recovered stolen vehicles and 313 thefts from vehicles reported. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • The Police Department does not accept financial support unless it is designated for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole. • The grant money will be used by the Police Department for the training and purchasing of equipment. • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by a resolution of more that two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two- thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The previous grant expired in June 2015. • The current grant is for two years and will expire in 2017 D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Council could disapprove the acceptance of the grant monies and the funds would have to be returned. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D MN Dept. Of Commerce Grant for ALPR Resolution Letter D MN Dept. of Commerce Grant contract Contract/Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT THE AUTO THEFT PREVENTION GRANT FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR $37,964 TO BE USED TO PURCHASE TWO AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS. WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Department has been approved to receive funds from the Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto Theft Prevention Grant; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Department is scheduled to receive $37,964 to be used as designated by the grant agreement for the purchase of one Automated License Plate Reader in 2016 and one in 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Department has designated $37,964 for the purchase of two new Automated License Plate Readers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield Department of Public Safety will accept funds designated for the purchase of two Automated License Plate Readers in accordance to and as listed above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Commerce ("State") and City of Richfield Police Department, 6700 Portland Ave So, Richfield MN 55423 ("Grantee"). Recitals 1. Under Minn. Stat. §299A.01 and § 65B.84, the State is empowered to enter into this grant. 2. The State is in need of projects to reduce the incidence of automobile theft and has made grant awards pursuant to its Request for Proposals. 3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §16B.98 Subdivision 1, the Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant. Grant Contract 1 Term of Grant Contract 1.1 Effective date: July 1, 2015, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 2, whichever is later. The Grantee must not begin work under this grant contract until this contract is fully executed and the Grantee has been notified by the State's Authorized Representative to begin the work. 1.2 Expiration date: June 30, 2017, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 12. Publicity and Endorsement; 13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 15 Data Disclosure. 2 Grantee's Duties 2.1 Activities. The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will perform project activities in accordance with the specified tasks and line-item budget approved by the State, which is attached and incorporated into this contract as Exhibit A, and will comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn.Stat_§1613.97, Subd. 4(a)(1). 2.2 Reporting Requirements. Grantee shall report to the State as specified in the Grant Manual of the Office of Justice Program, which is posted online at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/oip/grants/Documeiits/Grant Manual pdf and is incorporated by reference into this grant contract. (1) Financial Reporting. Grantee shall submit a financial reporting form to the State's Authorized Representative utilizing the format identified by the State within 30 days after the end of the reporting period. (2) Progress Reporting. Grantee shall use forms prescribed by the State to submit a quarterly progress detailing progress achieved towards the accomplishment of the program goals and objectives within 30 days after the end of the reporting period. (3) Other Requirements. Grantee shall submit such other reports and attend meetings and training as State shall reasonably request. (4) Evaluation. The State shall have the authority, during the course of this grant period, to conduct evaluations of the performance of the Grantee. (5) Requirement Changes. The State may modify or change all reporting forms at its discretion during the grant period. (6) Special Requirements. The State reserves the right to include in the grant, at any time during the term of the grant, special administrative requirements deemed necessary to assure the Grantee's successful implementation of the program. The State will notify the Grantee in writing of any special administrative requirements. Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 1 3 Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this grant contract, time is of the essence. 4 Consideration and Payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows: (a )Compensation. The Grantee will be reimbursed for activities and budget amounts according to the line-item budget approved by the state in Exhibit A: (1) $18,982.00 is available for fiscal year 2016 (2) $18,982.00 is available for fiscal year 2017 Grant funds available for fiscal year 2016 are permitted to be carried forward into fiscal year 2017 only with written approval in advance by the State's Authorized Representative. (b) Line-item Changes. Expenditures specified in Exhibit A may not be moved from one line-item to another unless in accordance with the requirements listed below: (1) Any changes to the line-item budget must advance the purpose of the Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program and must remain within the total dollar amount available for each fiscal year. (2) Any fund transfers which exceed an annual amount of$10,000 must be approved in advance by the State's Authorized Representative, and will not be effective until an amendment to this Agreement has been executed. (3) Total annual transfers of more than ten (10) percent of the amount from one line-item to another line-item must be approved in advance by the State's Authorized Representative, and will not be effective until an amendment to this Agreement has been executed. (4) Total annual transfers of ten (10) percent or less of the amount from one line-item to another line- item, and which do not exceed an annual amount of$10,000, are permitted without the approval of the State's Authorized Representative. Transfers to a newly created line-item are not permitted. At least ten business days prior to any transfer made under this clause, the Grantee must inform the State's Authorized Representative in writing of the specific changes to be made. (5) The State may refer approval requests for line-item transfer(s) to the Automobile Theft Prevention Advisory Board to review for reasonableness. (c) Travel Expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee as a result of this grant contract will not exceed the amount identified and approved for travel in Exhibit A; provided that the Grantee will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state. (d)Total Obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant contract will not exceed $37,964.00. 4.2 Payment (a) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely upon completion of services, but not more often than monthly. The state fiscal year is July 1 to June 30 of each year. Amounts submitted on each invoice must reflect goods ordered and services rendered prior to June 30 of each fiscal year. The final invoice pertaining to each state fiscal year of this grant contract must be received by the close of business on July 31 following the end of the fiscal year. (b)The Grantee must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 2 I accounted for in a financial report to the State due at grant closeout. 4.3 Contracting and Bidding Requirements Per Minn. Stat.§471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 must do the following if contracting funds from this grant contract agreement for any supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property: (a) If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $100,000, a formal notice and bidding process must be conducted in which sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice. Municipalities may, as a best value alternative, award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals as described in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2); (b) If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $25,000 but not $100,000, the contract may be made either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quotations obtained shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt thereof. Municipalities may, as a best value alternative, award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals as described in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2) and paragraph (c); (c) If the amount of the contract is estimated to be $25,000 or less, the contract may be made either upon quotation or in the open market, in the discretion of the governing body. If the contract is made upon quotation it shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt. Alternatively, municipalities may award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals as described in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2); (d) Support documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in the grantee's financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if applicable; (e) For projects that include construction work of$25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per; Minn. Stat. §§177.41 through 177.44 consequently, the bid request must state the project is subject to prevailing wage. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. A prevailing wage form should accompany these bid submittals. 5 Conditions of Payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State's satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 1 6 Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Brandon Johnson, Grant Manager, 85-7`h Place E, St. Paul, MN, 651-539-1611, or his successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee's performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 3 The Grantee's Authorized Representative is Mike Koob, Deputy Police Chief, 6700 Portland Ave So, Richfield MN 612-861-9825. If the Grantee's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7 Assignment, Amendments,Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete 7.1 Assignment. The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments. Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.3 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the State's right to enforce it. 7.4 Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8 Liability The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney's fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee's agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract. 9 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. §16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 10.1. Government Data Practices. The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee's response to the request shall comply with applicable law. i 10.2. Intellectual Property Rights. Grantee represents and warrants that materials produced or used under this grant contract do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another, including but not limited to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, and service marks and names. Grantee shall indemnify and defend the State, at Grantee's expense, from any action or claim brought against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the materials infringe upon the intellectual property rights of another. Grantee shall be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees arising out of this grant contract, amendments and supplements thereto, which are attributable to such claims or actions. Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 4 If such a claim or action arises, or in Grantee's or the State's opinion is likely to arise, Grantee shall, at the State's discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to continue using the materials at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing materials. This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be exclusive to other remedies provided by law. 11 Workers' Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee's employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State's obligation or responsibility. 12 Publicity and Endorsement 12.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract. 12.2 Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 14 Termination 14.1 Termination by the State. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro-rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 14.2 Termination for Cause. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if: a) It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature; or b) If funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. c) Termination must be by written notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro-rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice. 15 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 5 its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION � 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumberea`a4P required by Minn.Stat.§§16A.15 and 16C.05. By: (with delegated authority) Signed: a. F ' Title: Date: Ito Date: SWIFT Contract/PO No(s). 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s)have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles,bylaws,resolutions,or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 6 EXHIBIT A RICHFIELD PD Approved 2016 Approved 2017 Total Approved Program Expenses 3M on-site install(2 ALPRs) $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 3,500.00 Equipment over$5000 2 ALPR systems $ 17,232.00 $ 17,232.00 $ 34,464.00 Total $ 18,982.00 $ 18,982.00 $ 37,964.00 Automobile Theft Prevention Grant Program FY 16-17 7 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 102 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, City Manager 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of an agreement to extend an easement as part of a Site Lease Agreement at 7401 Logan Avenue South between the City of Richfield and T-Mobile Central LLC (successor-in-interest to APT Minneapolis Inc.). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Richfield entered into a Site Lease Agreement with APT Minneapolis, Inc. on August 1, 1996. The agreement allowed the Tenant to erect cellular telephone antenna system on the City water tower located at the 7401 Logan Avenue South location. T-Mobile Central LLC is a successor in interest to APT. On December 31, 1998, a first amendment to the original Site Lease Agreement was amended to allow the tenant to install up to twelve antennas rather than only nine as originally approved. On March 10, 2015, a second amendment was approved to allow T-Mobile to modify its installation on the site by upgrading its antennas and equipment. As part of the current upgrade, the tenant needs to modify the existing easement, which is part of the original site lease agreement, in order to place fiber optic cable as required for the upgrade. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the agreement to extend an easement as part of a Site Lease Agreement at 7401 Logan Avenue South between the City of Richfield and T-Mobile Central LLC (successor-in-interest to APT Minneapolis Inc.). BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): None. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The tenant is awaiting City Council approval for the extension of the easement prior to completing the upgrade. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Any costs incurred will be borne by T-Mobile Central LLC. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has worked with City staff and the tenant to draft the modification to the existing easement. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D T-Mobile Logan Site Easement Contract/Agreement Marko: Minneapolis Site Number:AIPOO 17A Site Name: Richfield WT Abstract EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (Grantor), and T-Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (Grantee). Recitals A. Grantor is the fee owner of the following described property in Hennepin County, Minnesota(the "Property"): Parcel 1: The South (S) Twenty (20) rods of Government Lot Four (4) of Section Thirty- three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota And The North half(NI/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NEI/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SWI/4) of Section Thirty-Three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-Four (24), according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: A tract of land bounded by the following described line, to-wit: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the North One-half (N1/2) of the East three-fourths (E3/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 114) of the Southwest Quarter (SWI/4) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four(24) West; thence North along the East line of the Northwest Quarter (NWl/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SWI/4) of said Section Thirty-three (33), a distance of 490 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 100 feet along 1 463205vMPF RC 160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number:AI POO 17A Site Name: Richfield WT the said Easterly line of the Northwest Quarter (NWl/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SWI/4) of Section Thirty-three (33); thence West a distance of 100 feet; thence South a distance of 100 feet; thence Easterly a distance of 100 feet to the actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Site Survey attached as Exhibit A for illustration.) B. Grantor grants an Easement to the Grantee, and Grantee accepts, according to the terms and conditions contained herein. C. The Easement is for the benefit of and appurtenant to a wireless communications facility, as may be modified or extended from time to time, located on the Property ("Communications Site"). Terms of Easement 1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee, and each of its affiliates, the following easement: A permanent, non-exclusive easement for Fiber Optic Cable utility purposes over, under, across and through that part of the Property described as follows and further described and depicted on the attached Exhibit A: The South 326.00 feet of the West 10.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ("Easement Area") Said Fiber Optic Cable to be located not less than 8 feet from the water main within the Easement Area. 2. Scope of Easement. The permanent fiber optic cable utility easement granted herein includes the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, and employees to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering, replacing, upgrading and repairing fiber optic cable not less than 8 feet from the water main within the described Easement Area. 3. Warranty of Title. The Grantor warrants it is the owner of the Property and has the right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein. 4. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release 2 463205vMPF RC160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number AIPOO 17A Site Name: Richfield WT of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that may have existed on, or that relate to, the easement area or Property prior to the date of this instrument. 5. Restoration of Property. Whenever the Grantee shall engage in construction or repair of the fiber optic cable, the Grantee shall restore the Easement Area and any facilities adjacent to the Easement Area damaged by such activity, including but not limited to other cables and utilities, to a condition equal to or better than the condition that existed prior to such construction or repair. 6. Indemnification. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from any and all claims arising out of Grantee's use of the Easement Area, including but not limited to, claims of damage to existing cables or utilities owned by other users of the Easement Area. 7. Notices. All notices must be in writing and are effective only when deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid or when sent via overnight delivery service as follows: Notice to Grantee: T-Mobile Central LLC 1.2920 SE 38`h Street Bellevue, WA 98006 Attn: Lease Compliance/Site AIPOO 17A Notice to Grantor: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 8. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantor, its successors and assigns. 9. Duration. This Easement will terminate sixty (60) days after Grantee and its affiliates (and each of their respective heirs, successors, assigns, tenants, subtenants, mortgagees and licensees) stop using the Communications Site for communications purposes because of the expiration or termination of the lease or other agreement giving Grantee the right to use the Communications Site (and any extension, renewal, modification or replacement of that lease or other agreement). Upon the expiration or termination of the lease or other agreement, the Grantee, or its successors and assigns, and Grantor shall execute and record an agreement releasing the Easement. 3 463205vMPF RC 160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number:Al POO 17A Site Name: Richfield WT STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE GRANTOR City of Richfield By: Name: Debbie Goettel Its: Mayor Date: By: Name: Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager Date: GRANTEE T-Mobile Central LLC a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Hossein Sepehr Its: Area Director,Network Eng. & Ops. Date: Dated this day of , 2015. CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager 4 463205vMPF RC 160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number:AIPOO I7A Site Name: Richfield WT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015, by Debbie Goettel and Steven Devich, the mayor and city manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation, Grantor. Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL 5 463205vMPF RC160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number:AIP0017A Site Name: Richfield WT Dated this day of 2015. T-MOBILE CENTRAL LLC By: Its: STATE OF } } ss. COUNTY OF } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015, by , the of T-Mobile Central, LLC, Grantee. Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis. MN 55402 6 463205vMPF RC 160-4 Market: Minneapolis Site Number:AIPOO T7A Site Name: Richfield WT Exhibit A Site Survey of Easement Area (Attached for Illustration) A-1 463205vMPF RC 160-4 O� b` 0 :o: d sLIJ - w'oCo z N. c K Z z 3 u �n m 4J _ 5 M ` W LL ,.ti ws gaff sn iso x _ ?y�� Li! z _ F-- ].I z P `.omd a Jga' `m S g r _ s LuW r■ 4�� az e Q r d JJ A J I i r I a Y` -• i . .., ,. w .uy,,a `�."' i 4»1 _ 71 ro Vim 54 S Wp �zc z� a i a ryn zo , I A 1 t {{ _ u E AM tj ia� o `z'o _ 4o sod a 09 LU I d ff �z AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 103 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Derick Anderson, Engineering Technician DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield and the owner of 6253 Penn Avenue allowing the existing building to remain within the County Auditor's Easement . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owners of 6253 Penn Avenue are in the process of selling the property. A survey for the property indicates that approximately 0.6 feet of the existing building is within an "Easement per County Auditors Map". In order to clear the title work to allow for the sale of the property, an encroachment agreement is required to allow the existing building to remain in the easement area. The proposed agreement does not allow for any new buildings to be placed within the easement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield and the owner of 6253 Penn Avenue allowing the existing building to remain within the County Auditor's Easement. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The building was constructed in 1952; on September 15, 1957 the Village of Richfield acquired an easement for the north 18 feet of 63rd Street between Penn and Oliver. The easement document stated that possession of the 63rd Street ROW would be delayed until July 1, 1958 in order to allow the grantor the opportunity to remove buildings or parts thereof located in this easement. The survey for the property shows the 18 foot easement from the centerline of 63rd Street granted to the City, and a 12 foot"Easement per County Auditors Map" north of the 18 foot City easement. The existing building is located approximately 0.6 feet into the County Auditor's Easement. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The City does not allow any structure to be built in an easement area without an encroachment agreement. The agreement will not allow a new building to be installed in the easement area if the existing building is ever removed. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The property is for sale and the title work needs to be cleared up before the property can be sold. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the City. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has drafted this agreement and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council may choose not to approve this Encroachment Agreement. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Encroachment Agreement Contract/Agreement D Survey Exhibit D 1957 Easment Backup Material ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Encroachment Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 2015, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and Todd P. Rosen and Rosemary Rosen, husband and wife (together"Owner"). RECITALS A. Owner is the owner of property located at: 6253 Penn Avenue South, City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section; thence East along the South line of said North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section to the point where said line would intersect with the center line of Oliver Avenue, if same were extended North as said avenue appears in plat of"Ray's Lynnhurst"; thence at right angles North a distance of 100 feet; thence at right angles West to the West line of said North 1/ of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section; thence South along the West line of said North '/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section to the place of beginning EXCEPT the East 150 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota ("Property"); and B. According to the Hennepin County Auditor's map there was granted to the City an easement (the Easement") for road purposes over the north 12 feet of the south 30 feet of the West 329.6 feet of the South 100 feet of the North One-half (N1/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 ("Easement"); and C. A survey has been prepared (the "Survey") and it shows that a portion of the building currently situated on the Property encroaches slightly on the Easement area (the "Encroachment Area"), which survey is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A; and 463693v2 CBR RC160-4 D. The City acknowledges and agrees that the existence of the building does not interfere with the City's use of the Easement area and that it would cause undue and unnecessary hardship to require that the building be removed. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Owner may repair and maintain the building within the Encroachment Area according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. The permission granted by the City by this Agreement is limited exclusively to the existing building within the Encroachment Areas. 3. This Agreement shall not prevent or impair the use of the Encroachment Area for the drainage and utility purposes by the City or any other entity entitled by law to so use the Encroachment Area. 4. The City shall have access to the Encroachment Area in the event that the City needs to maintain, operate, repair, access, install or remove any public facilities or improvements. 5. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns. 6. If the building currently situated on the Property is removed from the Encroachment Area or the encroachment is otherwise eliminated, this Agreement shall terminate immediately. 7. Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officials, employees, contractors and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), arising from or in connection with or caused by any act, omission or negligence of Owner, its contractors, licensees, invitees, agents, servants or employees in connection with the repair or maintenance of the building. 8. Owners agree not to suffer or allow any liens, claims and processes to be placed against the City's rights to or interest in the Encroachment Area as a result of the use of the Encroachment Area, including, without limitation, any liens for labor or materials provided for the repair or maintenance of the building. 9. Required notices to the parties to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall either be hand delivered or mailed to the following addresses: 463693v2 CBR RC160-4 2 a) As to the City: City of Richfield 1901 E. 66th Street Richfield,MN 55423-2560 Attn: Public Works Director b) As to Owners: Owners 6253 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Debbie Goettel, Mayor And by: Steven Devich, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015, by Debbie Goettel and Steven Devich, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public 463693v2 CBR RC160-4 3 OWNERS: Todd P. Rosen Rosemary Rosen STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by Todd P. Rosen and Rosemary Rosen, husband and wife. Notary Public This document was drafted by: Kennedy& Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 463693v2 CBR RC160-4 4 EXHIBIT A Survey 463693v2 CBR RC160-4 A-1 Sameyor's Cermlixte SURVEY FOR: 'Todd Posen UESGRiBE❑ AS: The SVest 329 . 6 feet of the South 1.00 feet of the Northwest 114 of the Northwest 114 of Section 28 Township 28 North Range 24 l est Hennepin County, Minnesota except the east 1.50 feet thereof, suhieCt to easement for street purposes over the South 1S feet . EXISTING BUILDING 179. 6 ' �a 33 �\ �\ 24.! ea Z7 A Q) m I2, U L C Y �* eX 1 (,T I f1G 1—CTORY f tU I LD I hG j C) a m ,roJ4640 9Q. FT. o O AL1 d� 0 64.7 BITUMINOUS 0\ c�SIGN� -- Easement per County Auditors Map— In --------------- __ Easement per document number 30i539 -�-. 179. 6 63RD STREET WES T PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK, otate of Annelotap,, as County December .•. ........ 19...57••, before mm a..-,.--.-....._.._...NaYary Public „•,•within and f�r sad Co�ant� ersonally appeared Leo Leonard Grave and E1Xen,Grava� u§ au.............. £c�' .................................................._..................... ......... ............._......:...........I............•............. . .I......... ............... . . to me known to be the person...s.......described in,and who executed the forrgoine inscrament, _......_.._..,_....._.._,._................._.._.._.._........_.._._._.._.....orad aeknowledped that.--_...._t..hcY.•-.•.••-•exeeatrd i the same a*-. _thaiC....._.._._._....free sot and deed.....................:......._O.:..........._......._.... Notary rubuo. _. �'............County J MI&. MAn i ..L:. ..:7_.... Dlc.:•y:b1•L�,IF�at7ep�nCMr. <�1 My aommiedion,exptrc{".sc•[�ammi.acq�•tn,ytr,,.�t�}y.�p;.l}j;�A...,-,... Horse SM 4Ynk11■N m.rk.e"ew Hsu^■r■lar w.w1Na w lnnu■ue.q Nwuge ay■u■etpedallil.ee..'`•r�1 ' 1 • � r 1 Filed Tor r000rd oa.the�l day of Jan A-D. 1956 at 11115 olalook A.U. opd.cl.t.D.". Form Pio.31-M. Nuq.•na,%c..,w.r.eft swl. Wr■.,■eaa q C.Mr.tlas _�_•-,___,__ _ _ ,__N1M.w!►Ualfotw C.anr!.�1n}L Ny lNill.-_ 57 PAGE561- �fjig �fnbenture, dfade this..... ^I�1AA sora bau `ee�..�'y........., ....... 1A'-57, I between............._.....fir)..t.;4.le.,..PY eHea...-InC..t,.R....81,. t.....................................,.......,.......... .. a eorporat{on under the laws o the take o _AA nesota ,par6yof the first part,and f 11 SS + f.................. _.......TAR ...Village....°�....RiC_..f1e... . ...munici ....,_.....,..,._....•.,...... j Socrporatlon under the laws of the State of..................................l�iuue9ota;........................... j party of the seoond part, �i ration e f the sum of One Doi!aregaoa otdk#1 gh8os����r�fJ�bl�ted�ttd��'a ° ..............................................................................._.........................................,...................._..........................................._........................... DOL 485, to u in /land paid by the said party of the second part,the receipt whereof U hereby aeknawledged, � does hereby Granh,Bargain,Quttoiain,and Convey unto the said party of the OCaond part,its aaeoesaera and assigns,Forever,all the trac6..........or parcel,....,_.of land dying and being in the County of................ .,_ fff Henn&pin..........................and State of.dfinnuota,described as follows,10-wit: q An easement for street purposes only, over and across the {I Easterly Thirty (30) feet and the Southerly Eighteen (18) feet of the following described parcel of land, to-Wit: j The West 329.6 feet of the South 100 feet of the North One-half (N}) of the Northwest Quarter (NW}) of the North- west Quarter (NWI) of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24. j It is expressly agreed' as 'part of the considersitibn hereof that possession of the said westerly 30 feet (comprising a parttiot the right-of-way of Oliver Avenue) shall not be takeh by the Village of Richfield prior to September 15, 1957, and thit'•possessiou � of the balance, of said easement (comprising a part og •the right-of- way of West 63rd'Street) shall not be taken by the Village of f Riehfieldlprior to July 1, 1958; the purpose of such delayed possession being to afford the grantor an opportunity to remove buildings or parts thereof located on the property across which an easement is herein granted. The grantee agrees that at-such i i time as possession is taken of that part of West 63rd Street ; i herein granted the grantee will remove the hedge which is located on and adjacent thereto. • � I To oabe atib to P)olb Me 9Pnme. Together with all the hereditansents and apjourtenanm there. ! � unto belonging or in anywise appertain(ng to the said party of the second part,its suwessors and asadgM, ii { 1�,�',``,, T,;,C;•'L':V, '+�';'1';*' •"�1��ItpStib�►t�1ECtOti`Ths'ettld ot4r86 party has oatrad lhae .�' :i y)d�tlt4'tO be,Aa?eOlEft�d�'G.►,,�,OW.Q�fIfrpbro0o namu'bj/ , � r�j^ �',�J t,l�"�C F- •+. y7bfCdet►11 4!{��EI..`..:.:iR1.M�iwll�.'�!J•w.:..:w,...Q/fd'L�007'pD1�E�tiY IOr I ''�,:1, j_ •be'�ian'eicrttd•;a_fl;•,red E1te'8ajj'atid�gear Jlr'rt�itboue�urLtk!�:' ' .... i • w+n Pruenee aJ Byt.:.»..... .�j..._�.» ....,,..,...... , T_ _...lam ...._._...., ..,..»... tta....,,8ecrltin�.]G.„,_.y.. • 1 'Mate-ot A1411COota, Coernty of..._...._..-sannepiii.................... ; t� ►9............:....::............._....I 1q..:v,.».».r before me,a i On thin..._..:..._.._........., , ./ dmf/.of.......,.,..:.,......»,.....,. l ....._....,............ I cartel I ..»,......_....:........ .RtRl�.yt.... Up.,....»..__..,..r»._..„.._........».._..,.within and for personally app 1�...... ...._,,..._._...:»._,—artd..s��Cl�llttA«��t7!!.._._..,....,....... , ,... to rLe p'rraonatiy known,who,being each by ma duty swd7d say that they are rsspaetivety a Elie:........................._...President and the,...._._,_..........._........_,»............._................of the corporation named to Wee fbrcgning instrument,and that the Beni a reale to said;nttnaiaenE to the corporate stat of said carporBoard �•dtt ',A'otpdration by authority of tit Beard and th" aid i trunlan-0 was signed and seated ia' sha�f a I,1 1e J, ;,,,,,,_,:,•,,,..,,,,,•_„•,. and °l�rec'�sors ..........,and said.,._.., :...:....» _ _.�».».»...»... ' ,.",,L:t Vent to be the res act Wand deed of said, .................V.i�lf;i A: :.,Li........ ...,........aokreowitd¢ed Bald tnstru f icorporation. .............. � b. + Notary Publio.. ...HBnnespl!?.. ;. ;;Co ritg,:dt4nn NY eommiaetoa expires.................w.. `.:, �. Nataff�fpcyycc, ( I fIk�A •I; 1 �(�OomnWNenB�i�sOao+?1,14ttl:''r' I � o - ! r p � No •'•1i�4' ..j Uj A;a r nI I I , u.z Filed for reoord on the7"dny,ef Jai ll.tl. 196�'ai.11e2U aralook A:�. . . . .; ,,:• -:. ... .. ..� ..•. dim. � -. - rratue.one fDHv.q sw amcr 1,4.1. ' ''OCEq NO.35+M stlnxwa 1�tttU D+d.Oe.• t ttvtq, •t •• .-- tlntlarm Com.r I t:; l Ur U41 21PAGE 3101650 3101650 � } ' �t� ZYb£ittltt'C, ,3tada thio.......,.3tt.�.�.,......;.........,..,..day of».,...�.as;,�m�bax..,....»,.......,.., I (ie .x a....�ktdd.._..............._..».,,...............w,...,._.,......,.,.........».....,,..........,....,...,.....»......._,»._.......»..,.,.......,.._,..,,,...,......».._ basses. ..............Q 8 dm .. ra . .............. »....,.....,,»,.,.,,.....»..............._........_._..aa.....,..............?4........�......._...�.......t9?'....,....._...,....... ........... of the zatate of..._.....A...P%A 1q.X'....A..1?dk3{i�.�,aFd.,.,...........................».. ..,.......,...,,,.,........,.....,,.»._..,.......,,part.. ..,..., � _................_....._... ...........»....,..,..,..,.,...,....,»,...»,..,,,..,.»...... .....,....�.,,..._.» J , + I of the first part,and.....»...N�.t_1,.�1......I?.suidtlt).n. .. ...............................,.......,.._......,,,..,_......,.............,,. .,,...,............ ......,. .,......,,,.».....».,..............�.. i Y3ennepitl.»_.»....._........_,.,. ,..and titate oJ....:.......Mi;117bsgta...............,.....,part,.y...... o the Cou a ..•....,.»•. } of the second part, , Witnuggeth, That wharaae the Probata Court ......_.....................................county, t Minnesota,in the matter of the Batate of..»»..,�1d r1K! Ql!:..(tA.6 U,t1 7 ...................:.....:......................,,._.._...:.,m.. I i ,o {l I ......................................»,,.._._............»,.,.,....»._.......»._............_..._».,....».,....._t,.....,........ dtd n���......,..:�..bio......,.........,........:,.,dayo enter its order auth6"m1f and empowering the'part._X.of tho Jlrot ' ............................_.......... to mak ;.,».,., s private eate•of.Ehe real estate IuretnafEer,deaorlbed,and Bald part,as suchi Bart...y.....of the first part;having Vada and fixed tis said court the bond and oath:iegWrM by la4h,and by said order,and having'cauaed 8044 real estate to be appraised by two oompatent persons appointed by'eaid' ort,and having sold the same to the stearal part..:......hereto at private sate,foi the consideration 1wroi.n-, oul after wme4,and having rn� and filed in said oourt......his....,..report of sail,and 't' AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 104 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: John Evans, Recreation Services DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a two-year Use and Indemnification Agreement between the City of Richfield and Tom Price for the use of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mr. Price, owner of the manufactured home park Woodlawn Terrace, has rented the northern ten feet of the Lincoln Athletic Complex for many years for purposes of accommodating five larger units. The City rents out the property through a use and indemnification agreement that has been renewed every two years since 1997. The current agreement expires on July 31, 2015 and staff has negotiated a new agreement and rental rate. Mr. Price has agreed to pay rent of$2,283 per year, based on the current land value of a manufactured home park of similar size to Woodlawn Terrace and a 5% increase since 2013 in land value, as determined by the County Appraiser. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a two-year Use and Indemnification Agreement between the City of Richfield and Tom Price for the rental of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Mr. Price has leased the strip of land for many years and has agreed to two-year lease agreements since 1997. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): By policy, the City Council reviews, considers and executes all City contracts, including lease renewals. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The arrangement has been revisited every two years. The City does not have an immediate need for the land. The current two-year lease agreement expires on July 31, 2015. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Mr. Price was agreeable to the annual lease rate of$2,283 for 2015-2017. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The attached Use and Indemnification Agreement was reviewed by the City Attorney. • The City has a number of provisions to terminate the Use and Indemnification Agreement including if Mr. Price should decide to sell his property. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Do not approve the Use and Indemnification Agreement with Tom Price for the strip of land at Lincoln Field. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Tom Price, Woodlawn Terrace Owner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type n Lease Agreement Contract/Agreement USE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THOMAS PRICE THIS USE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of July 14, 2015 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and THOMAS PRICE, an individual residing at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 ("Price"). RECITALS A. Price is the owner of a tract of land which is legally described in the Property ID number 34 028 24 32 0015. ADN UNPLATTED 34 028 24. METES/BOUNDS DESCRIPTION: THE S 5 ACRES OF THE N 10 ACRES OF NW 1&4 OF SW 1&4 AND THE N 4 FT THAT PART OF THE NW 1&4 OF SW 1&4 LYING S OF THE N 10 ACRES THEREOF EX R R R&W AND THE ROAD ("Price Property"). B. The City is the owner of a parcel of land which is legally described in the Property ID number 34 028 24 32 0025. ADN UNPLATTED 34 028 24. METES/BOUNDS DESCRIPTION: W 468 68/100 FT OF E 493 68/100 FT OF THAT PART OF THE S 20 ACRES OF N 30 ACRES OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF THE N 4 FT THEREOF ("City Property"). C. Price is desirous of obtaining permission from the City to utilize a portion of the City Property in conjunction with the mobile home park which Price operates on the Price Property. This portion consists of the northern ten feet of the City property from the east to west boundaries, approximately 4,690 square feet. D. The City is willing to permit such use in return for Price's agreement to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City and to fulfill the other obligations contained herein pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENT 1. Offer and Acceptance of Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of This Agreement, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the City and Price agree that Price may use the City Property for the period commencing on August 1, 2015, and terminating July 31, 2017 for a fee of$4,566 payable in two installments: $2,283 on or before November 15, 2015 and $2,283 on or before August 1, 2017. 2. Maintenance and Repair. Price shall, at his own cost and expense maintain and repair the City Property and shall at all times keep it in compliance with regulations of the City. The City shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the City Property. 3. Indemnification and Insurance. (a) Price shall at all times defend, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, servants, and employees from any and all claims for damages and other remedy, including but not limited to costs and attorney fees, arising from or by reason of the maintenance, use, and repair of the City Property. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Richfield.692.1.0714_Tom_Price_Agreement.doc (b) Price, at his sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of$1,000,000 bodily injury, including death, per person; $1,000,000 bodily injury, including death, per occurrence; and $500,000 property damage per occurrence. A certificate of insurance evidencing compliance with this Agreement shall be provided to the City by Price. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy described herein, and such policy shall contain a stipulation that Price's insurer will provide thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of such insurance to the City. The insurance shall be carried by solvent and responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. 4. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) Any titles of the several paragraphs of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. (b) Any notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (i) in the case of Price, is addressed to or delivered personally to Price at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, and (ii) in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at the Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Paragraph. (c) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. (d) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Price and the City with respect to the City Property and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties on that subject. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing signed by the parties. (e) The City may terminate this Agreement: (i) if the termination is based upon health, safety or the need to make modifications within the City Property or by Price's transfer or sale of the Price Property, by the giving of 90 days written notice to Price; or (ii) otherwise by the giving of 180 days written notice to Price. The termination shall be effective at the end of such notice period, at which point neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder, except that Price's obligations under paragraph 3 shall survive. (f) On or before the expiration date or the effective date of termination of this Agreement, Price shall remove all structures from the City Property and restore the City Property with fully established sod. (g) Price agrees to make no claim against the City for damages which Price may suffer as a result of the City's termination of this Agreement. (h) Except as specifically set forth herein, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt Price from or waive the application of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation. (i) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as abandonment of the City Property by the City or as any relinquishment of any right the City may have with regard to the Property. Price specifically acknowledges and agrees that its construction and maintenance of the Property is at the sufferance of the City and subject to the City's right to terminate such use in accordance with the provisions in paragraph 4(e) hereof. Q) In the event that the use of the City Property under this Agreement renders the City Property taxable, Price agrees to pay, before penalty attaches, all ad valorem property taxes or other similar taxes levied against the City Property. (k) This Agreement may be extended by the parties from time-to-time and upon such terms as they shall mutually agree to. (1) No new structure shall be erected on the City Property without the prior written consent of the City; and, Price shall not use the City Property for any purpose other than in connection with the mobile home park without the prior written consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Price and the City have executed this Agreement this 14th day of July, 2015. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Debbie Goettel Its Mayor And Steven L. Devich Its City Manager Thomas Price AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.F. STAFF REPORT NO. 105 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the purchase of an MT Trackless tractor, with v-plow and snow blower attachments, from Mac Queen Equipment Inc. in the amount of$119,099. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Public Works Department currently uses three MT Trackless tractors for snow removal from sidewalks, park paths, and ice rinks. The tractor to be replaced was purchased in 1997 and has been extended three years past its scheduled replacement date. This machine has experienced two major breakdowns during the last two snow seasons and it is no longer cost effective to make needed major repairs to this equipment and the attachments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase of an MT Trackless tractor, with v-plow and snow blower attachments, from Mac Queen Equipment Inc. in the amount of$119,099. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield's Sidewalk Snow Removal Policy was discussed at the July 12, 2011 Study Session. At this meeting, the following was discussed: • Location of Sidewalks/Trails • Large number of bus ridership of Richfield residents • Difficulties of sidewalk plowing with current streetscape design • Sidewalk Plowing Policy • The need for current equipment to be replaced to continue to provide the expected level of service. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. • Mac Queen Equipment Inc. is included in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Approval of the purchase will ensure that the equipment is delivered prior to this year's snow season and within the year it was budgeted. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Council Approved 2015 Budget contains $115,000 for the purchase of this equipment. The Revised 2015 Budget will be adjusted to reflect the actual purchase amount. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $100,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council may take no action; however, the continued use of the tractor past its useful life will likely result in additional breakdowns, costly repairs, and a delay in service delivery. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D MT Trackless Picture Backup Material III�w t � ink ��■ �.� I VIII uas muf ■ ""'""YIV prw a. 1 ISI 4h wI ■ 9 � ��'■xw3 VIII 1 IWI 6I. 6 u R ■ [oi �5� G j {i5 I I ti � 1 wl l l� m JI�1 I�wu Nw�V ■ ulii IIT .■.. Ili �'� uu� ■ fl' mill PIII ik U.j "IIwmsulll'1V' IIII ll: I�wt w w L., IIII�( u IVI i JIw AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 3.G. STAFF REPORT NO. 106 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director 7/6/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: Mary Tietjen, City Attorney CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the amount of$2,743.66, and authorizing Recreation Services Staff to administer the funds in accordance with the attached grant agreement and terms prescribed by donors to operate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the Richfield Farmers Market. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Richfield Recreation Services Department is receiving a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) grant in the amount of$2,743.66 to fund the administration of SNAP payments for fresh foods at the Richfield Farmers Market. The SNAP program benefits citizens that receive food stamp assistance through the use of issued debit cards to purchase local fresh and nutritious food at our Market. The program helps our farmers market to be more accessible to all citizens of Richfield, regardless of economic status. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the amount of$2,743.66, and authorizing Recreation Services Staff to administer the funds in accordance with the attached grant agreement and terms prescribed by donors to operate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the Richfield Farmers Market. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT This will be the fifth season that SNAP debit cards have been accepted at the Richfield Farmers Market and the number of card transactions continues to grow (from 143 transactions in 2011 to 653 in 2014). B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires acceptance of grants or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no critical timing issues associated with this item. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All of the donations were given without obligation to provide any additional matching funds. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): There are no alternative recommendations for this item. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Farmers Market Grant Resolution Resolution Letter ❑ Farmers Market Grant Agreement Contract/Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,743.66, AND AUTHORIZING RECREATION SERVICES STAFF TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENT AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY DONORS, TO OPERATE THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AT THE RICHFIELD FARMERS MARKET. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described below: DATE DONOR PURPOSE AMOUNT June, 2015 US Department of Agriculture Farmers Market SNAP $2,743.66 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts the grants and donations as listed above and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with the attached grant agreement and terms prescribed by the US Department of Agriculture. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0610 Farmers Market Grant Acceptance This worksheet contains private information and should not be reproduced or distributed externally without express written permission of the grantee. If you circulate this grant contract internally, only offices that require access to the tax identification number and all individuals/offices signing this grant contract should have access to this page. Total Amount of Grant Contract $2,743.66 BOBS FinDeptlD H5532471 I amount for state fiscal year 2015: 2 743.66 X Unspent encumbrances to be certified to meet future obligations in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.28 Starts in fiscal year:2015 Vendor ID:0000197711 SWIFT Grant#/Encumbrance#: GRK%90687/3000035028 Number/Date/Initials 4/8/15 SBB Individual signing certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.15. Notice to Grantee: You are required by Minnesota Statutes, section 270C.65 to provide your social security number or Federal employer tax identification number and Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This grant contract will not be approved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in approving the grant contract and the payment of state obligations. Grantee Name and Address: Richfield Farmers Market 7000 Nicollet Ave Richfield, MN 55423 Soc. Sec. or Federal Employer I.D. No.: 41-6005490 Minnesota Tax I.D. No. (if applicable): 8024817 State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Grant Contract EBT and Market Bucks Initiative THIS GRANT, and amendments and supplements thereto,which is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Office of Economic Opportunity (hereinafter STATE) and, in Richfield Farmers Market,7000 Nicollet Ave Richfield, MN 55423 an independent grantee, not an employee of the State of Minnesota, address, (hereinafter GRANTEE). RECITALS WHEREAS,the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 256.01, subd. 2(a)(6) is empowered to enter into contracts for the following services: provision of a means to accept Electronic Benefits Transfer("EBT") at various farmers markets ("Markets")throughout Minnesota, including the implementation of new EBT systems at Markets that do not already have one; continuation of EBT systems at Markets that already have one; and by providing a "Market Bucks" incentive ("Market Bucks" or "Incentive") to encourage EBT utilization at farmers markets by participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"); WHEREAS STATE is permitted to share information with the GRANTEE in accordance with Minnesota Statute, section 13.46; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein. NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed: CONTRACT 1. GRANTEE'S DUTIES. GRANTEE shall: (a).The GRANTEE shall perform the specific duties as described in Attachment A"Program Requirements",which is incorporated by reference and made a part of this grant contract. (b).The GRANTEE shall comply with any operating procedures,guidelines, and policies issued by the STATE relating to the performance of this Agreement. (c).The GRANTEE agrees to cooperate in the STATE's monitoring activities and will implement and comply with such remedial action as is proposed by the STATE. 1 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 2. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. 2.1 Consideration. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant shall be paid by the STATE as follows: is j t oinpensation. GRANTEE will be paid as follows Compensation shall be consistent in accordance with Attachment B, Budget,which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract. The total obligation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursements to GRANTEE shall not exceed Two thousand seven hundred forty three dollars sixty six cents ($2,743.66). tL.J W appl,cae;,e.y For compensation payable under this grant contract, which is subject to withholding under state or federal law, appropriate amounts will be deducted and withheld by the State as required. .,.'.2. Terms of Payment (a). Payments shall be made by the STATE promptly after GRANTEE'S presentation of invoices for services performed and acceptance of such services by the STATE'S authorized agent pursuant to Clause VII. Invoices shall be submitted in a form prescribed by the STATE and according to the following schedule: each month the GRANTEE shall submit to the STATE a request for reimbursement by reporting expenditures to the Enterprise Grant Management System (EGMS). (b).The GRANTEE shall maintain an accurate and up-to-date Authorized to Draw Cash Form on file with the Office of Economic Opportunity,with signatures of the individuals authorized to draw cash. A duplicate will be kept on file by the GRANTEE. . CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be performed to the satisfaction of the STATE, as determined at the sole discretion of its authorized representative, and in accord with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations including business registration requirements of the Office of the Secretary of State. GRANTEE shall not receive payment for work found by the STATE to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation. 4. PAYMENT RECOUPMEN I o The GRANTEE must reimburse the STATE upon demand or the STATE may deduct from future payments under this grant any amounts paid by the STATE, under this or any previous grant, for which invoices and progress reports have not been received, or for which the GRANTEE'S books, records or other documents are not sufficient to clearly substantiate that those amounts were used by the GRANTEE to perform grant services. i. TERMS OF CONTRACT.This grant shall be effective on 5/1/2015 or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 2, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect through 11/30/15, or until all 2 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled,whichever occurs first. GRANTEE understands that NO work should begin under this grant contract until ALL required signatures have been obtained, and GRANTEE is notified to begin work by the STATE's Authorized Representative. The GRANTEE shall have a continuing obligation, after said grant period, to comply with provisions of the following grant clauses: 10. Indemnification; 11. State Audits; 12. Publicity; and 15. Jurisdiction and Venue. 6. CANCELLATION. r, 1 IF-r Cause -r ConvenienCL This grant contract may be canceled by the STATE or GRANTEE at any time,with or without cause, upon thirty(30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation, GRANTEE shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis,for work or services satisfactorily performed. The STATE has the right to suspend or terminate this grant contract immediately when the STATE deems the health or welfare of the service recipients is endangered, when the STATE has reasonable cause to believe that the GRANTEE has breached a material term of the grant contract, or when GRANTEE'S non-compliance with the terms of the grant contract may jeopardize federal financial participation. 6.2. Insufficient Funds. The STATE may immediately terminate this grant contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination will be by written or fax notice to the GRANTEE. The STATE is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However,the GRANTEE will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The STATE will not be assessed any penalty if the grant contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The STATE must provide the GRANTEE notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the STATE's receiving that notice. Notwithstanding clause 6.1., upon STATE's knowledge of a curable material breach of the grant contract by GRANTEE, STATE shall provide GRANTEE written notice of the breach and ten (10) days to cure the breach. If GRANTEE does not cure the breach within the time allowed, GRANTEE will be in default of this grant contract and STATE may cancel the grant contract immediately thereafter. If GRANTEE has breached a material term of this grant contract and cure is not possible, STATE may immediately terminate this grant contract. 7.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. 7A._- 'qtTtP- The STATE'S authorized representative for the purposes of administration of this grant contract is Tikki Brown or her successor. Such representative shall have final authority for acceptance of 3 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 GRANTEE'S services and if such services are accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause 2.2. 1.2. Grantee.The GRANTEE's Authorized Representative is Steven Devich or his/her successor. If the GRANTEE's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract,the GRANTEE must immediately notify the STATE. 8. ASSIGNMENT. GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the STATE. 9. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. In the performance of this grant contract by GRANTEE, or GRANTEE'S agents or employees,the GRANTEE must indemnify, save, and hold harmless the STATE, its agents, and employees,from any claims or causes of action, including attorney's fees incurred by the STATE,to the extent caused by GRANTEE'S: 1) Intentional,willful, or negligent acts or omissions; or 2) Actions that give rise to strict liability; or 3) Breach of contract or warranty. The indemnification obligations of this clause do not apply in the event the claim or cause of action is the result of the STATE'S sole negligence. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the GRANTEE may have for the STATE'S failure to fulfill its obligation under this grant contract. t1. STATE AUDITS. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 5,the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE and its employees, agents, or subcontractors relevant to this grant contract shall be made available and subject to examination by the STATE, including the contracting Agency/Division, Legislative Auditor, and State Auditor for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant contract. 12. PUBLICITY. Any publicity given to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract, including but not limited to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the GRANTEE or its employees individually or jointly with others or any subcontractors, shall identify the STATE as the sponsoring agency. 13. WORKERS' COMPENSATION.The GRANTEE certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statute, section 176.181, subdivision 2, pertaining to workers' compensation insurance coverage. The GRANTEE'S employees and agents will not be considered employees of the STATE. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees or agents and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees or agents are in no way the STATE'S obligation or responsibility. 4 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 14. OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT.The STATE shall have the right to require transfer of all equipment purchased with grant funds (including title)to the STATE or to an eligible non-STATE party named by the STATE. This right will normally be exercised by the STATE only if the project or program for which the equipment was acquired is transferred from one grantee to another. 15. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This grant contract, and amendments and supplements thereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this grant contract, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court, without STATE waiving its sovereign immunity, with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 16. WAIVER. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract,that failure does not waive the provision or the STATE's right to enforce it. 17. CONTRACT COMPLETE. This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the STATE and the GRANTEE. No other understanding regarding this grant contract,whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 18. OTHER PROVISIONS. A. Intellectual Property Rights. 1. Definitions. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable or copyrightable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials,tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the GRANTEE, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of the grant contract. Works includes "Documents." Documents are the originals of any data bases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials,tapes, disks, or other materials,whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the GRANTEE, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this grant contract. 2. The STATE owns all rights,title, and interest in all of the intellectual property, including copyrights, patents,trade secrets,trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant contract. The Works and Documents will be the exclusive property of the STATE and all such Works and Documents must be immediately returned to the STATE by the GRANTEE upon completion or cancellation of this grant contract. To the extent possible,those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be "works made for hire." If using STATE data, GRANTEE must cite the data, or make clear by referencing that STATE is the source. S Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 3. Whenever any Works or Documents (whether or not patentable) are made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the GRANTEE, including its employees and subcontractors, and are created and paid for under this grant contract,the GRANTEE will immediately give the STATE'S Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. The GRANTEE will assign all right,title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the STATE. 4. Filing and rPr---ling of ownership interests. The GRANTEE must, at the request of the STATE, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the STATE'S ownership interest in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant contract. The GRANTEE must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in these Works and Documents are the sole property of the STATE, and that neither GRANTEE nor its employees, agents, or subcontractors retain any interest in and to these Works and Documents. 5. Duty not to Infringe on intellectual property rights of others The GRANTEE represents and warrants that the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant contract do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of other persons or entities. Notwithstanding Clause 10,the GRANTEE will indemnify; defend,to the extent permitted by the Attorney General; and hold harmless the STATE, at the GRANTEE'S expense,from any action or claim brought against the STATE to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of these Works or Documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The GRANTEE will be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises, or in the GRANTEE'S or the STATE'S opinion is likely to arise,the GRANTEE must, at the STATE'S discretion, either procure for the STATE the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing Works or Documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement claim. This remedy of the STATE will be in addition to and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law. B. Insurance GRANTEE agrees that it will at all times during the term of the grant contract keep in force a commercial general liability insurance policy with the following minimum amounts: $500,000 per occurrence and $500,000 annual aggregate, protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury, including sickness or disease, death, and for care and loss of services as well as from claims for property damage, including loss of use which may arise from operations under the grant contract whether the operations are by the GRANTEE or by a subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by the GRANTEE under the grant contract. 6 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 C. GRANTEE agrees that no religious based counseling shall take place under the auspices of this grant contract. D. f tyiiieltL to SUhcontractor$. (If applicable) As required by Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.1245,the prime GRANTEE must pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within ten (10) calendar days of the prime GRANTEE's receipt of payment from the State for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). E. VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. GRANTEE certifies that it will comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 201.162 by providing voter registration services for its employees and for the public served by the GRANTEE. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Signature Page Follows 7 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED: 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minnesota Statutes, By (with delegated chapter 16A and section 16C.15. authority): By: Title: Date: Date: Grant No: Distribution: 2. GRANTEE Agency-Original (fully executed) contract Signatory is authorized by applicable articles, Grantee by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances to sign on State Authorized Representative behalf of the Grantee. By: Title: Date: Signatory is authorized by applicable articles, by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances to sign on behalf of the Grantee. By: Title: Date: 8 Grant Contract#: GRK%90687 Revised 09/2014 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 5. STAFF REPORT NO. 107 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director 7/6/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/8/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding resolutions for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Preliminary Plat to allow construction of a cluster housing development consisting of five townhomes at the intersection of 76th Street and Sheridan Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2010, after the property had failed to sell for a number of years, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) purchased the six-bedroom single-family home located at 2517 - 76th Street West. The home was subsequently sold and moved in order to make way for redevelopment that would be consistent with the medium-density guiding of the Comprehensive Plan. In March of this year, the HRA approved the sale of the lot to the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) for the development of five townhomes. This property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R) and guided for Medium-Density Residential (7-10 units per acre) by the Comprehensive Plan. These designations are not inconsistent given that the Single-Family Zoning District allows for cluster housing developments at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed townhomes offer 1,400 square feet of finished living space on the main level and include 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, and an attached 2-car garage. Buyers will have the option of finishing the basement for additional bedroom and living space; however, as proposed, the homes will provide single-level living. The development has a traditional design and height that will complement the existing homes in the area, while providing some transition to the high-density housing complex to the east. The proposal meets all zoning requirements with the exception of lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. Cluster housing development regulations were adopted in 1996 and intended to provide additional opportunities for infill development and allow for a wider variety of housing choices. Regulations were meant to allow higher-density housing while ensuring that the design of that housing would be compatible with the single-family character of the surrounding neighborhood. There is only one other development within the City (Penn Place)that was developed under these regulations. Given this exceptionally small sample size, it is difficult to determine whether or not the regulations adopted in 1996 are truly workable standards. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a structure that covers 39.4 percent of the lot; 4.4 percent more than what is permitted by Code. Staff believes that the proposed variance is reasonable and will have no adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Upon completion of the development, the existing lot will be separated into five individual parcels and an association will be established to manage common elements such as irrigation and roof maintenance. The preliminary plat of the property describes the proposed land division. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed development. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: • Approve the resolution for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to allow the construction of a cluster home development at 2517 -76th Street West; and • Approve the resolution for a preliminary plat of Sheridan Villas Addition. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Discussed in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): There are a number of different review criteria that apply to this proposal. A full discussion of all requirements has been included as an attachment to this report. General and Conditional Requirements for Cluster Home Developments: The proposed development meets all conditional and dimensional requirements (design compatibility, landscaping, parking, open space, density, lot size, setbacks, height, impervious surface)for a cluster home development, with the exception of lot coverage. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 35 percent; the proposed development covers 39.4 percent of the lot. The applicant has requested a variance to allow this increased coverage in order to construct units that offer single-level living; a product that is largely missing n the community and is in high demand. Staff believes that the criteria necessary to approve this variance are met; specifically the fact that the cluster housing regulations have been tested only one other time in the community and we don't have the history to determine whether or not these regulations are reasonable and appropriate. The proposed project advances community goals for providing a variety of housing choices and is complimentary to the single-family units across Sheridan Avenue. A full discussion of the variance criteria related to this request can be found in the attached requirements document. Conditional Use Permit: In addition to the criteria specific to cluster home development permits, there are eight criteria required for the issuance of any Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These criteria primarily address whether or not a proposal is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and the general regulations of the District in which it is located. The Medium Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan is intended for attached housing, primarily townhomes or condominiums, in slightly higher densities than the Low Density areas. The Single-Family Zoning designation accommodates these slightly higher densities through the specific design guidelines for cluster home developments. Staff believes that these general CUP criteria are met. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. The applicant must address all items identified in the City Attorney's plat review prior to approval of the final plat. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock 'started'when a complete application for the conditional use permit and variance was received on June 8, 2015. A decision is required by August 7, 2015 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total)for issuing a decision. 120-DAY RULE: A complete plat application was received on June 8, 2015. A decision on the plat is required by October 6, 2015 unless the applicant agrees to an extension of this deadline. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: - A public hearing related to the conditional use permit and variance was also held before the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015. • Plat requests are not considered by the Planning Commission. Public hearings related to plats are held before the City Council. • Notice of both required public hearings was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site. • No members of the public spoke before the Planning Commission. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests (5-1). ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Approve the attached resolutions with modifications. • Deny the requests with findings that requirements are not met. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Bill Buelow, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution -Conditional Use Permit&Variance Resolution Letter D Resolution - Preliminary Plat Resolution Letter D Requirements document Backup Material D Proposed plans Exhibit D Planning &Zoning Maps Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENT AT 2517 — 76TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of conditional use permit for a cluster home development on the parcel of land located at 2517 — 76th Street West (the "Property"), legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit includes a building that covers 39.4 percent of the lot; WHEREAS, the City Codes allows a maximum building coverage of 35 percent for cluster home developments in the Single-Family District; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause "practical difficulty" to the owners of the property under consideration; and WHEREAS, based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the requested variance from Richfield City Code Subsection 514.11, Subd. 2; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council makes the following general findings: a. The Property is zoned Single-Family Residential. b. Cluster home developments are conditionally permitted in the Single-Family Residential District. C. The proposed site plan will fully comply with all but one Code requirement. d. Code states that the maximum building coverage permitted is 35 percent of the site. The proposed structure will cover 39.4 percent of the lot. A variance from Subsection 514.11, Subd. 2 is required. 2. With respect to the application for a variance from the above-listed requirement, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 514.11, Subd. 2 would cause a practical difficulty. The residential product that is proposed, single-level living, is in high demand and is largely unavailable in the community. In order to provide adequately-sized units, in a single-living format, that also meets the City's density requirements, this development needs to cover more space than is generally permitted. Considering that one of the City's goals is to provide a variety of housing products, it is reasonable to consider an exception to make that possible. b. Unique circumstances affect the Property that were not created by the land owner. Rules regulating cluster homes developments were development were adopted in 1996; however, they have only been tested once. Such a small sample size makes it difficult for City staff to gauge whether or not the rules are reasonable and appropriate. These circumstances were not created by the applicant. The proposed development does not overwhelm the site. C. Granting the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The requested variance is relatively small and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. . d. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow construction of the proposed single-level living units. A reduction of the square footage would reduce the marketability/viability of the units. e. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance will allow construction of the type of housing envisioned for this site by both the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 3. With respect to the proposed conditional use permit, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed development is consistent with the Medium Density guiding of the property in the comprehensive plan. b. The proposed use of the site for a cluster home development is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Single-Family Residential District. C. The proposed use will be in compliance with Code guidelines related to performance standards. d. Undue adverse impacts to government services or public safety, health and welfare are not anticipated. e. There is a public need for such a use at the proposed location. The City has been working for a number of years to develop medium-density housing on this site. 4. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to permit a maximum building coverage of 39.4 percent. 5. Based upon the above findings and variance, the proposed conditional use permit is hereby approved according to the terms of Richfield City Code Subsection 547.09, Subdivision 6, with the following additional stipulations: a) The property must be platted and the plat recorded, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise agreed to by the Community Development Director. b) The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee Report dated May 29, 2015, and compliance with all other City and State regulations. Permits are required prior to commencement of any work; c) That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7. Proof of recording is required prior to the issuance of a building permit; d) Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements (based on two bids including labor cost) not yet complete. 6. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk EXHIBIT A That part of the East 3/4 of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of SE 1/4) of Section Thirty-two (32), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence East along the North line of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 170 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said East 3/4 of SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 258 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 170 feet to the West line of said East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence North along said West line of East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR SHERIDAN VILLAS ADDITION WHEREAS, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation ("Applicant") has requested preliminary approval to subdivide land located at 2517 — 76th Street West; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is the fee owner of the land and has consented to this application; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as SHERIDAN VILLAS ADDITION; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed preliminary plat of SHERIDAN VILLAS ADDITION on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed preliminary plat of SHERIDAN VILLAS ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat of SHERIDAN VILLAS ADDITION is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant must address to the City Attorney's satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter prepared by the City Attorney's office. b. The Applicant must apply for final approval once construction of improvements has been completed or construction of said improvements has been secured by contract and bond. c. The Applicant must submit a completed application for final plat within one year of preliminary play approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the East 3/4 of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of SE 1/4) of Section Thirty-two (32), Township Twenty- eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence East along the North line of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 170 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said East 3/4 of SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 258 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 170 feet to the West line of said East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence North along said West line of East 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Code Requirements / Required Findings Part 1 — Cluster home developments in the Single-Family (R) District: Permitted provided that the following conditions are met (514.07, Subd. 3). 1. The design of the development must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building materials, architectural design, scale and mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics. The roof pitch, building materials, front porches, landscaping, building height and setbacks have been chosen/designed so as to compliment the single-family homes across the street. 2. Landscaping must be provided in accordance with the Performance Standards. The applicant has provided a plan that exceeds requirements. 3. Two off-street parking spaces, at least one of which must be enclosed in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Each dwelling includes a two-car garage. 4. There must be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor open space provided on the lot per dwelling unit. There is over 1,800 square feet of open space behind each unit. 5. The number and location of driveways and curb cuts shall minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses. The proposed development will have one more driveway/curb cut facing Sheridan Avenue than a stand-alone single-family development (50-foot lots) of four homes would likely have. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has not indicated any concern. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. The density of the development may not exceed the density recommended in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan calls for densities of 7-10 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) in this District. The proposal has a density of 7 du/acre. Part 2 — Conditional Use Permit: The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This property is guided for Medium Density Residential development. This guiding district is intended to provide areas for townhome and/or condominium-type development of attached single-family housing. The proposal provides this type of housing. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. One of the purposes of the Single-Family Residential District is to provide opportunities for cluster housing development. Additional purposes include minimization of traffic congestion and the protection of safe, attractive and quiet neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with these purposes. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. There are no specific redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines that apply to this parcel. 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development will exceed the applicable standards of Section 544. 5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City's Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. No adverse impacts on public health, safety or welfare are anticipated. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. The City has been working for a number of years to develop medium-density housing on this site. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement shall be met and is guaranteed through the conditions included in the proposed resolution. Part 3 -Variance: The applicant has requested a variance from Subsection 514.11, Subd. 2 to increase building coverage from the permitted 35 percent to 39.4 percent. The findings necessary to approve a variance are as follows (Subd. 547.11): 1. There are "practical difficulties"that prevent the property owner from using the property in a reasonable manner. The residential product that is proposed, single-level living, is in high demand and is largely unavailable in the community. In order to provide adequately-sized units, in a single-living format, that also meets the City's density requirements, this development needs to cover more space than is generally permitted. Considering that one of the City's goals is to provide a variety of housing products, it is reasonable to consider an exception to make that possible. 2. There are usual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which were not created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Rules regulating cluster home developments were developed in 1996, but have only been tested once with a development constructed in 2004. Such a small sample size makes it difficult for City staff to gauge whether or not the rules are reasonable and appropriate. This is not fault of the applicant. 3. The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality. The proposed increase in lot coverage is relatively small and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposal does not overwhelm the site. 4. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow construction of the proposed single-level living units. A reduction in the square footage would reduce the marketability/viability of the units. 5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans provide the type of housing envisioned for this site. cc � ,f— cd Oo 2 IHIu ~O k oz oaz mg �k s ae n 00 8Sc ma,h1 Zb iTo005 Ilk c:s m a = m. F- m5 th 7 � a Y off- 8 e 2^ a me 00'85L m„zt,I[o00S 'S 3[1N�/1d Nb'Qld'�`iS i _ rE WIS U3 `r CA M z - �� umbu 1.3NO - - m s o >y� 96 E LO W W LU z a o 0 0 00 R �zin m -© c V ^ _ avM ME u P ^=- d�E 1 f m o Q � 3 3 3 z yxa;u o e 50 cd O O LL .:.._F 6"m w a _ az offil 900 SSc I" b 7T 00S ca V (A I I o 0 N 1031 4350 O I f18 dObd Q] I 3 - p is o� o es f 9�9 y 00-RS� M„b,I[o00SEl -'S 3r1N�/1d N Qld'�`iS - I � � - �1!J t D D 000 i D La ca O F _ ofOf — w ca N W e W W Lu CILLO - H = v = --_ _ _ _ bu 0 L CZ O - - - - W --' - O - W o _ - - W W -V LU W S N ^Lu N ~ HWO� u1 Q Z = .0000 0o Ce �z�� Z yNQ H 4 a>ZLL r Z �.Ln LU W ���o W y o , Z n N H s C WCIL = y a a � O^ v Z W e - CL 0:=i OU W i C/� 3 CIL 3 V ,•F,g,S13311HO8tl EZb59 tl1os3NNWu'al3ldHola _ S3(3VO HN NV V4 H30 133x15 H19[1531A[lSZ a a s�aea°H "` °"�jj SVIIIA Nh'ONNS JHM)� w � NVId 1f10AVl us —�� ——— 206'-11" I I -------------- -----------s I e. F— w H— C/) I I FE I I II ------------ -------------- m w I I I I I � I I I I I " I SHERIDAN AVENUE d U Li ii ii i m sill I - a= -------- -- Z9B 9Z Si Ba 031lHO8Y _ 9—OSIHIJI 013I3HOIH 534tl0 Hb SIV W1130 ^_9F 133H1S HAL 1S3AA[l5Z a'o°a as off Joao"aW SVIIIA NvaIH3HS SNV]d a00131Sa13 ONV 1N3W3SVO F t- -- I w= Fl Ivi 4 I e = h I � I I I I e I o \ i n -- _ o 76 9e � II„ i z 6 O — _ o o w I w -- a I _ 9dL s �q n I " m o 0 = a s w T --— I k I lr 3 P I " 0 0 U o j o m Ilo v I of I �ry o"1 1 Io1„ - LL o I w III � I ae � _ Z9B 9ZS1 031lH O 8 Y _ Ba 9—OSIHIJI 013I3HOIH 534tl0 Hb SIV W1130 ^_9F 133H1S HAL 1S3AA[l5Z _ a�°a as off p„Ioao„aW SVIIIA NvaIH3HS �eaa� US SNOIIVA313 HOIH31X3 0 El LE I ER I I ❑00❑ 800❑ �I ❑❑ I ❑00❑ III I 800❑ I� ❑❑ goo❑ ---- eoo❑ I�,II fi I goo❑ II - ❑ eoo❑ El I ED 0000 II ® 0000 -- 0000 o a o I 800❑ ---�I ❑00❑ 800❑ O00❑ ---❑ 800❑ EIEIEI ❑00❑ ❑❑ ❑� X00❑ ❑E - - a d o Hm II w El - I II o� III a o, II LL_ V u II I i II � II El FETII II � --moi III❑ -- _- ���� II,� 0 �= 0000 m ----❑ 000 III � I ,, III e�osauu��`p�a�}ya��'�saM'�Su�9GG15Z NV'Id (IVDS(INV I SVTIIA NV(II2 AHS' w _ . T , oG � F Fz W ¢ W az •-•� cV �v da I o ' l a p II I ,�/� �/'P � f ��,.���),AI .S Ily J L� �.��'1F '• C7 Jx � F - O o r j i� r l '` r➢ r rtir 1�. fr'�� I; ' c^, , . f �f Un Z ltd°Ire ��ark d� j :7 O W' LLJ L LU ei-,Pr- 8E Q � �M 5M6 _ �\����.� F W au: a. cGd CCOO d� N 1331 tS H-LI- 2517 W 76th Street - CUP 7/2015 Surrounding Zoning LU R Q R RLU Q R Z R Z OR R R W _ � a H R R LU R U) 76TH STREET R R R R R R R R R R R R R R MR-3 77TH STREET Feet 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 MR-3 - High Density Multi-Family Residential R- Single Family Residential N I:\GIS\Community Develop ment\Staff\Planning Tech\Projects\2517 W 76th -Z.mxd 2517 W 76th Street - CUP 7/2015 Surrounding Comprehensive Plan CHURCH W QLDR ; LDR ; QLD LDR Q LDR Z OLDR LDR LDR W _ � a H LDR LDR W2 LDR � 76TH STREET LDR LDR LDR LDR MDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LD LDR LDR LD LDR L HDR 77TH STREET Feet 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 HDR- High Density Multi-Family Residential MDR- Medium Density Residential N LDR- Low Density Residential CHURCH - Church I:\GIS\Community Develop ment\Staff\Planning Tech\Projects\2517 W 76th - CP.mx AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 6. STAFF REPORT NO. 108 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Properties LLC Addition that will combine four parcels (1400 - 78th St E, 1420 -78th St E, 1500 -78th St E, and 7711 - 14th Ave) in order to allow construction of an Audi car dealership. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council approved plans for a new Audi car dealership at the intersection of 14th Avenue and 77th Street on April 28, 2015. The proposed plat for Richfield Properties LLC consolidates a number of parcels of land into a single legal parcel on which the new dealership will be located. The proposed preliminary plat has been reviewed by the the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City's Engineering Department and the City Attorney's Office. Prior to consideration of a final plat application, Audi will be required to satisfactorily address all comments made by these three entities. No major issues are anticipated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Properties LLC Addition that will combine four parcels (1400-78th St E, 1420-78th St E, 1500-78th St E, and 7711-14th Ave) in order to allow construction of an Audi car dealership. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • All plats or subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.357. • Prior to approval of the final plat, all improvements must be completed or their construction secured by contract and bond. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Per State Statute, the City has 120 days from the date of submittal of a complete application to issue a decision regarding plat unless the applicant agrees to an extension. • On June 8, 2015 the Applicant authorized an extension of this deadline (June 13, 2015) to allow for Council consideration on July 14, 2015. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: David Phillips, PHILLIPS Architects ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution - Preliminary Plat Resolution Letter ❑ Survey and Preliminary Plat Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC WHEREAS, Phillips Architects on behalf of International Autos Group ("Applicant") has requested preliminary approval to combine the properties located at 1400 — 78th St E, 1420 — 78th St E, 1500 — 78th St E, and 7711 — 14th Ave; and WHEREAS, the A.G. Bogen Company is the fee owner of the land and has consented to this application; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed preliminary plat of RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed preliminary plat of RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat of RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant must address to the City Attorney's satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter prepared by the City Attorney's office. b. The applicant must address any/all comments by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City Engineering Department. c. The Applicant must apply for final approval once construction of improvements has been completed or construction of said improvements has been secured by contract and bond. d. The Applicant must submit a completed application for final plat within one year of preliminary play approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk J LA 20 z Z Ln Lu Lu = 0 LL 0 L-uj 0 a: PZ 0 > z E r (u Lu o o UJ °oe u wzlk LA co Ln Ln i!EN f C z E- IIS a®�oi��ma��®-�d II a a . d . a . it dada it m m T I I I t5m `I Z 0 z . . . H-4 6L.*59 M.zo.z000s -Z I 1�-E�1� ARCEL D z -------- ------- ------ --E ------- - 4- ---------- E2 ------------ -- --------- A LD `11,i'Z�E"NT E PARCEL C I&H&I-7771 nn- -N� 000 z S ST b 11-EN Z A�C E l�L'B < lT LD s PARCEL A-,,. -- ----------- -H SL M."N000s \14TH AVENUE S E Rl--I-T'IT'LLo01 n V, T 6L-1199 3.ZOZO.00N 0 Hh, ---------------------------- --------------------------- ------ --- -------------- ———-------- —-------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- —————— -T-T— 0 Z o Ej z -- ------------- ---------- =o I ---------------------------------------------------- ------- ------ Ln ---------------------------------------------------- ------- LU HinOS3ON3Av Hit?, 'IN"0 N 31TM` GL*099 MJ4,000S LU 1/1 31 L I/L 49 3w JO 3NP N LU LL a j t z a f z 19 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 7. STAFF REPORT NO. 109 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director 7/8/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/8/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving a Local Road Improvement Program Grant Agreement in the amount of$2,500,000 for the design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City received $2,500,000 in the 2014 Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) to be used towards the preliminary and final design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing. The program is administered by MnDOT and requires a grant agreement as part of the process to release funds. Once the agreement is in place, the LRIP funds will be available immediately for design. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve resolution authorizing a Local Road Improvement Program Grant Agreement in the amount of up to $2,500,000 for the design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing Project. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • The cost estimate to complete the 77th Street Underpass, including design, right of way, and construction is $22.5 million. • The 77th Street Underpass was earmarked in 2014 legislation to be funded through the LRIP; however, a total was not included in the earmark. • After considerable negotiation, MnDOT agreed to award $2.5 Million for the design of the project with the understanding that additional money could be awarded in the future once design was in progress or complete. • The LRIP funds can only be used for consultant work. City staff time will be covered using city funds. • MnDOT administers the LRIP funding and requires a grant agreement with the City. • Any remaining portion of the $2.5M after design is complete will go back into the LRIP for redistribution to other projects. • An additional $10 Million for the 77th Street project was included in the 2015 bonding bill to be used for right-of-way acquisition and construction costs. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • Increasing capacity of the 1-494 corridor and the 77th Street crossing of TH 77 are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 -Transportation). C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Design and right-of-way acquisition must be complete to make the project "shovel ready." • The remaining funding gap on the project is $10 Million. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The grant funds will be used to cover the consultant design costs. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the grant agreement and will be available at the meeting for questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • The Council may choose to reject the LRIP Grant Agreement and direct staff on how to proceed; however, this would delay the start of design work. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None anticipated ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D LRIP Grant Agreement Resolution Resolution Letter n LRIP Grant Agreement(Working Version) Contract/Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP) GENERAL FUND PREDESIGN OR DESIGN GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR UP TO $2,500,000 TO BE USED FOR THE DESIGN OF THE 77TH STREET EXTENSION AND CROSSING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a Local Road Improvement Program General Fund Grant in the amount of up to $2,500,000.00; and WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to complete preliminary and final design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Local Road Improvement Program General Fund Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in the amount of up to $2,500,000. 2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreement and the terms described by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 2015. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk 07142015 LRIP General Fund Grant Mn/DOT Agreement No. LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP) GENERAL FUND PREDESIGN OR DESIGN LRIP GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") and the LRIP grantee named below is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 174.50 and pursuant to Minn. Laws 2014 Chapter 295. The provisions in that section and the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference constitute this Agreement and the persons signing below agree to fully comply with all of the requirements of this Agreement. This Agreement will be effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes §16C.05, subdivision 2. 1. Public Entity(LRIP grantee) name, address and contact person: —City of Richfield 1901 E 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Contact: _Jeff Pearson, Transportation En ingeer_ 2. Project(s): Amount of Amount of Required Name of Project LRIP Funds Matching Funds Completion Date 77'1' Street $2,500,000 $0 01/31/17 Underpass Design 3. Total Amount of LRIP grant for all projects under this Agreement: $_2,500.000 4. The following Exhibits for each project are attached and incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement: Exhibit A Completed Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule Exhibit B Project Completion Schedule Exhibit C General Fund Financed Property Certification Exhibit D LRIP grant Application Exhibit E LRIP grantee Resolution Approving LRIP grant Agreement Exhibit F General Terms and Conditions 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. 5. Additional requirements, if any: 6. Any modification of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. (The remaining portion of this page ivas intentionally left blank.) 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. PUBLIC ENTITY (LRIP GRANTEE) By: Title: Debbie Goettel, Mayor Date: By: Title: Steve Devich, City Manager Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Title: State Aid Program Engineer Date: OFFICE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT By: Contract Administrator Date: 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 EXHIBIT A SOURCE AND USE OF FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT (Complete a different schedule for each project. For the first project label it A-1; for the second project label it A-2; etc.) SOURCES OF FUNDS USES OF FUNDS Entit Supplyin Funds Amount Ex enses Amount Y.................. ... ........... ............................................................;..................................................................................... P............................................................................................................................e..................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... State Funds: Items Paid for with ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ LRIP ..................................................................................................... ................................................ .................................................................................................................................................................................... Consultant Design $_2,500,000_ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Services Other: $ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................o..................................................................................... Subtotal $ 2,500,000 Subtotal $ 2,500,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................,..................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Public Enti Funds: Items aid for with Non- .................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................p.............................................................................................................................................................................................. Matching Funds $ LRIP rant Funds: ............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................e..................................................................................... Other: $ $ ............................................................................................................................................................:........... ..... .......................... ................................... ..... $ $ ............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Prepaid Project Expenses $ Prepaid Project Expenses o $ ... ..... $ $ $ $ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................,..................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subtotal $ Subtotal $ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... TOTAL FUNDS $_2,500,000_ = TOTAL PROJECT $_2,500,000_ COSTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Mn/DOT Agreement No. EXHIBIT B PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE (Provide a different schedule for each project. Label each project to correspond with the project as listed in Exhibit A; e.g., B-1, B-2, etc.) 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. EXHIBIT C GENERAL FUND FINANCED PROPERTY CERTIFICATION (Complete only one Certification for all projects) S.A.P. - - State of Minnesota General Fund Financed Property The undersigned states that it has a fee simple, leasehold and/or easement interest in the real property located in the County(les) of _Hennepin_, State of Minnesota that is generally described or illustrated graphically in Attachment 1 attached hereto and all improvements thereon (the "Restricted Property") and acknowledges that the Restricted Property is or may become State general fund-financed property. To the extent that the Restricted Property is or becomes State general fund-financed property, the undersigned acknowledges that: A. The Restricted Property is State general fund-financed property under Minn. Stat. Sec. 174.52, is subject to the requirements imposed by that statute, and cannot be sold, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise disposed of without the approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget; and B. The Restricted Property is subject to the provisions of the Local Road Improvement Program LRIP grant Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the undersigned dated , 2015; and C. The Restricted Property shall continue to be deemed State general fund- financed property for 37.5 years or until the Restricted Property is sold with the written approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget. Date: , 2015 City of Richfield, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota By: Name: Debbie Goettel Title: Maw By: Name: Steve Devich Title: _City Manama 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Attachment 1 to Exhibit C GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RESTRICTED PROPERTY (Insert a narrative or graphic description of the Restricted Property for each project. Label each project to correspond with the project as listed in Exhibit A; e.g., C-1, C-2, etc. It need not be a legal description if a legal description is unavailable.) 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. EXHIBIT D LRIP PREDESIGN/DESIGN GRANT APPLICATION (Attach the LRIP grant application for each project and label each application to correspond with the projects listed in Exhibit A; e.g., D-1, D-2, etc.) 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. EXHIBIT E LRIP GRANTEE RESOLUTION APPROVING LRIP GRANT AGREEMENT 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. EXHIBIT F GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP) GENERAL FUND GRANTS (Applicable to each project.) Article I DEFINITIONS Section 1.01 Defined Terms. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set out respectively after each such term (the meanings to be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of the terms defined), unless the context specifically indicates otherwise: "Advance(s)" means an advance made or to be made by MnDOT to the Public Entity and disbursed in accordance with the provisions contained in Article V hereof. "Agreement" — means the Local Road Improvement Program grant agreement between the Public Entity and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to which this Exhibit is attached. "Certification" means the certification, in the form attached as Exhibit C, in which the Public Entity acknowledges that its interest in the Real Property is subject to the provisions in this agreement. "Commissioner" - means the Commissioner of Management and Budget and any designated representatives thereof. "Event of Default" -means those events set forth in Section 4.01. "LRIP grant" - means a grant from MnDOT to the Public Entity under the Local Road Improvement Program in the amount specified in the Agreement, as such amount may be modified under provisions hereof. "Public Entity" - means the grantee of the LRIP grant and identified as the Public Entity in the Agreement. "Predesign Stage" - means the performance of predesign or design functions relating to the Public Entity's acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property and, in addition and if applicable, the acquisition, improvement, renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction of a facility[Al]. "Real Property" - means real property identified in the Agreement on which the Project is located. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Article II LRIP GRANT Section 2.01 LRIP grant of Monies. MnDOT shall issue the LRIP grant to the Public Entity and disburse the proceeds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The LRIP grant is not intended to be a loan. Section 2.02 Use of LRIP Grant Proceeds. The Public Entity shall use the proceeds of the LRIP grant to perform, complete and fully pay for the Predesign Stage. Section 2.03 Completion of Predesign Stage. The Public Entity shall diligently pursue and complete, or cause to be completed, the Predesign Stage and pay all of the costs related thereto. Section 2.04 Public Entity Representations and Warranties. With respect to the Predesign Stage the Public Entity represents and warrants to MnDOT as follows: A. It has legal authority to enter into, execute and deliver this Agreement, and it has taken all actions necessary to its execution and delivery of this Agreement. B. This Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Public Entity enforceable against the Public Entity in accordance with its terms. C. It will comply with all of the terms, conditions, provisions, covenants, requirements, and warranties contained in this Agreement. D. All of the information it has submitted or will submit to MnDOT or the Commissioner relating to the LRIP Grant or the disbursement of the LRIP Grant is and will be true and correct. E. It is not in violation of any provisions of its charter or of the laws of the State of Minnesota, and there are no actions, suits, or proceedings pending, or to its knowledge threatened, before any judicial body or governmental authority, against or affecting it relating to the Predesign Stage, and it is not in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction, decree, or demand of any court or any governmental authority which would impair its ability to enter into this Agreement or to perform any of the acts required of it in this Agreement. F. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor compliance with any of the terms, conditions, requirements, or provisions contained herein is prevented by, is a breach of, or will result in a breach of, any term, condition, or provision of any agreement or document to which it is now a party or by which it is bound. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. G. It will use the LRIP grant solely to reimburse itself for expenditures it has already made, or will make, to perform and complete the Predesign Stage. H. The Predesign Stage will be performed and completed in full compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the Predesign Stage. I. It has complied with the matching funds requirement, if any, contained in Section 6.18. J. It will supply or cause to be supplied whatever funds that are needed above and beyond the amount of the LRIP grant to complete and fully pay for the Predesign Stage. K. It will furnish to MnDOT as soon as possible and in any event within 7 calendar days after the Public Entity has obtained knowledge of the occurrence of each Event of Default, or each event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default, a statement setting forth details of each Event of Default, or event which with the giving of notice or upon the lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default, and the action which the Public Entity proposes to take with respect thereto. L. It will promptly notify MnDOT if and when it acquires an interest in or improves the Real Property, or acquires an interest in or improves, renovates, rehabilitates, or newly constructs a facility. M. It shall furnish such satisfactory evidence regarding the representations and warranties described herein as may be required and requested in writing by either MnDOT or the Commissioner. Section 2.05 Termination/Modification of LRIP grant. If the Predesign Stage is not started within five (5) years after the effective date of the Agreement or the LRIP grant has not been disbursed within four (4) years after the date the Project was started, MnDOT's obligation to fund the LRIP grant shall terminate. In such event, (i) if none of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date MnDOT shall have no obligation to fund the LRIP the Agreement shall terminate and (ii) if some but not all of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date, MnDOT shall have no further obligation to provide any additional funding for the LRIP grant and the Agreement shall remain in force but shall be modified to reflect the amount of the LRIP grant that was actually disbursed and the Public Entity is still obligated to complete the Project by the Completion Date. In addition, if all of the LRIP grant has not been disbursed on or before the date that is 5 years from the effective date of this Agreement, then MnDOT's obligation to continue to fund the LRIP grant shall terminate, and in such event(a) if none of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date then MnDOT's obligation to fund any portion of the LRIP grant shall terminate and this Agreement shall also terminate and no longer be of any force or effect, and (b) if some but not all of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date then MnDOT shall have no further obligation to provide any additional funding under the LRIP grant and this Agreement shall 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. remain in full force and effect but shall be modified and amended to reflect the amount of the LRIP grant that was actually disbursed as of such date. In the event that the legislation that authorized the LRIP grant is amended to increase or reduce the amount of the LRIP grant or in any other way, then this Agreement shall be deemed to have been automatically modified in accordance with such amendment and the amount of the LRIP grant shall also be automatically modified in accordance with such amendment. Section 2.06 Excess Funds. If the full amount of the LRIP grant and any matching funds referred to in Section 6.18 are not needed to complete the Predesign Stage, then, unless language in the legislation that authorized the LRIP grant indicates otherwise, the LRIP grant shall be reduced by the amount not needed. " [A--I ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND USIE OF ANY REAL PROPERTY- apply iii the eveiit that and at the time that the P41ie Entity ae"4:es a+1 iiitei:est i1i a+ld, if appheable, impfeves the Real Pfopefty. Sueh applieatien shall oeeuf even if the Public Entity does flat feeeive aiiy additional tnefties ffem MnDOT f6f the subsequent aequisitieft of interest in and, if applieable, the improvement of the Real Prepei4y. if the Publie Entity nevef i iiiterest the Real Prepefty, then this ki4iele M shall ha-,�e no eff-eet. Seetion 3.02 Opeiration of the Real Aropeirty. The Real Wepeft-y must be ttsed by the publie entity in eenjunetion with of ifef the opefatien of a eounly highway, eounly state aid highway, town > Of eity Afeet fietr Otffief t1ses eustofflafily assoeia4ed thefewith, Sueh as tt-ails a-Rd Utility eoffidofs' a-Rd t4 fie athef purposes of uses. The Publie Entity shall have tie intention on the effeetive date of the Agreement to use the Real WepeAy as a ttunk highway or RHY P R44 0 f a t f U4+k h i 'ay. The Publie Fntit-y must annually detefmine tha4 the Real Pr-epeA-�-� Ceftifiea4ion to MnDOT in the form attaehed as Exhibit C with all of the reeording infoffflati: Seetion 3.04 Publie Ent" Representations and Mlar-r-anties. With 1:espeet to the Publie Entity's aequisition of aft intefest in and, if appheable, the impfevement of the Real. ,k. 14 has legal atAhei:ily to exeetite, delivei: and peffefm the kgfeemeiit and all 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. ,,1 ,lel;. o of the Ceftifiealion. C. The Agreement and all other doeuments referfed to therein are the legal, valid and biiidiiig obligations of the Publie Fntit-y eiifefeeable against the Publie Entity iii D. With fespeet to the RealTivpef�y it,;11 hold €itzl"of (i)ze simple title, a lefm of 37.5 yeafs if thei:e is no > easement, in fen:n and substanee ---'-'-r------ to ---- - - and ------ eann-- be r------------'-y eat -" -- - of -------------d ..-------- he �ttett eettsent of MnDOT-, f_r „ te.-m of yeafs equal to o gfe„+e,- +b,,,,•, 1251% of the facility,is a addition,ift will possesses all easements fteeessafy ifef the epefalion-, P. Its aeVisition of at intefest in if > applieable, stat-tttesand > > > > state, of Weal pelitieal- F. It .;11 "btaiftall applicable liee3ises, pefmi+", a 1 ,fids ,-equire`l�ts aequisitieii of an iiitefest in > if > addition and if > its aeEtuisition, impfevemetit, > feliabilitatieti, Its e of the Real PfoFeft. 1� pefifafmed in iPdll eamphaftee with all. appheable > statutes, > > > state, 14. 14 will oblain all > pefmits, Pfepefty. > if applieable, the t of the Real > in additieft and if applieable, the aequisition, > felleva iell, AgFeement pending,pfeeeedifigs befefe of by a" jttdieial body E) of to its knewledge thfeatened, 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. delineated in Seetion 3.02 of (iii) if applieable, affeet its ability to > , delineated in Seetion 3.02. T* additieti, it will not take any aetion that would be in vielatio L. As of the date of this Agfeement thefe afe fiat any aetions, suits, of pf oeeedifigs pending, or to its knowledge th+eatened, bef6fe or by any judieial body or govemm deli•-----a he ------- ion, r-i ----eet its __----y to --=z----- an ince =s- in and, if-err--=----, C rn i �� et it b lity �e t�eE�n�r��-EH3�i" �,—FiirEc�-icrnrrc��6zcE�ili�e���irv=v'�zEl3vcicc� c eeti.r m M. As of the dftte of this Agfeement it is not in de&alt with fespeet to a+tY- , > deefee, the Real Pfopefty of opefating the , > or newly eenstfueting a faeility or operating the > rehabilitating, f4eility fef the pufpese delineated iii Seeti n 3.02. in adddditiA-44, it Will iiet take any aetieii of dema+id of an > > .7 that would pfevent the peffefma+tee of stteh ffe�. N. As of the date of this Agfeement, neithef (i) its > feeafding, of delivefy of the Certifieation, (ii) its ability to aequire an interest in improve the > if applieable, Real Pfopefty of opefate the Real Pfopefty f6f the ptifpese delineated in Seetien 3.02-,--er (iii) if applieable, its ability to ae"ife, timpfave, > feehabilitate, of newly eetistfue > , of any agfeement of daeument to w-hieh it is a pafty of by whieh it is bound. in addition, it. will not entef into any agfeeffient Of Z-ramm..Feflt� that Would pfevent the peffofmanee of sileh n As of the date-of�Tgfeeme13t its aeVisition of a+t into,-ti n pufp se de-l-lie-Ated in Seetieft 3.02 and, in addition aiid if > its aequisition-, the faeility for the putTese delineated in Seetion 3.02 will not violate any applieable of use statute, of any eovenait of agfeeme > building eode, fale of fegulation, f eeefd. in additieii, it will tiet take a*y aetieti that would eadse stteh a . 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Seetion 3.05 Sale. The P41ie Eii4y shall tiet sell its intefest iii the Real Pfopefty ttfiless A. The Publie Entity determines, by affieial aetion, that it is no longer usable e B The sale ; made as &athefizedlaw. C. The sale is ifef Faif Maf-ket Value, eXEe-ptas may be fequifed by Minn. Sta4. g 117.226. Entity'sD. Wfilleff neliee of stieh pf epesed sale has been supplied to both MnDOT- and th-e Commissieiief at least 30 days pfief thefete. The aequisition of the Publie aeeepta-nee of a deed in lieu of fBfeelasufe of the Publie J J s ifitefest in the RealthefeeflJ iiilef est -- ofbellefmetit of the Real Pi:opefty shall ii__be eeiisidef___ __ ___-_ -_- the pufpeses uses its best eff-afts to sell sueh aectuif ed intefest to a thifd pafty fef Faif Market Value. The lendefJ s ultimate sale of disposition of the aequifed ifitefest ift the Real Pfopefty shail beedeemed to be a sale fef the pufpeses of this and the pfeeeeds thefeef shall be J Entity's Thi The rrr+ distribution shalle o the Com v ,. an arneunt equal to the ametint of the Gfa+tt -1 __-_ __-__ aidif_the __—___—_ of____—net ______ shall be B. The f+ the d + '1 e3# ,1 ' c n6 n s n�cTei33z'li�iiir�pv��"rrzcrccr- �ri3cri o cc ir�7c zccriir-QcEt16"' J be dist6buted to pay ift full any outstanding publie of pfivate debt ifietiffed to aequife the , Entity'sshall be divided nd d is ft�_�Nal ted in pfopeftien to the shaf es eentfibuted to the aequisition of the Publie J full that supplied funds in eitheF Feal monies eF like kind eentFibutions f0F sueh aequisition J and and J 7 s dist+ibutien shall be made to the C . Sue dist,-;l.,,te,l F,,,.,1s 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. The Publie Entity shall not be feqttifed to pay of feimbufse N4ftDOT f6f any fidnds above a-nd beyand the full fiet pf aeeeds of sueh sale, even if sueh net pf oeeeds af e less tha-ft the amail Seetion 3.07 Effeet of Sale. Upon the oeetiffenee of a sale that is made in eeiif6fma+tee with the p - i-i- - - - itained in Seetions 3.05 afid 3.06, this AgFeement shall tefmittate a-Rd as a+t additional f o f e l t1 of•— Section 3.09 Condemnation. 4f all of a" peftion of the Real Pfopefty is eefidetwied to an extent that the Publie Entity ea-n tie longef eamply with the pfavisions eantaitted itt Seeti > then the Publie Entity shall, at its sale option and disefetion, purposes, eithef.- (i) use of eause the of (ii) sell the femaining pe shall be applied in aeeefdanee with the pf i i taiiied in Seetieii 3.06 as if the Pttb Eiilily's inief est iii the Real Pfopefty had been sold, and stieh ametmts shall be eFedited agai the amettfits "e and owing ttfidef Seetieti 3.06 upon the tiltima4e sale of the P41ie EntitJ4 Real Pf apefty that femains aftef the eandemnatiatt, then sueh sale must a6euf within a feaseflable- time period 4-om the date the eondemnation aeafffed and the eum-ulative sum of the eendemnation pmeeeds pitts the preeeeds of sueh sale must be applied in aeeOFda-H6e with the een4ained in Seetion 3.06, with the eendem*atien pfeeeeds being so applied within-a leaseiiable time pefied 4,.m the ,late they afe feeeived by the D„l.lie la'f,t;ty with the fequif fits of this Seetief, Seetion 3.10 7 7 Repair- and The Publie Entity shall , efdinanees> of > of sueh othef altefations as may impfove the Real D--4— I-, 3.02, (iii) take any aetion w-hieh would tm"Iy impaif of depfeeiate the vaitte of the Real Pfopefty (iv) aba+tdeii the Real of (v) eemmit of pefm+t a+ty t to be done iii of on the > > Do„1 Df•. petty iii vialatian ,)F.,f,y law, ,)f•�l;f., iee E) „ .,t; f , o l 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. if the Publie Entity fails to maintain the Real Wepefty ift aeeefdanee With this seetieft-, MnDOT may pef�ann wha4evef aets and expend v��atevef funds neeessafy to so maintain the Real Property, and the Publie Entity iffevaeably au4herizes MnDOT to enter Upon the Real fespettsible> eF entity,able to the Publie of othef ift good faith and fiat ift a fiegligent mannef. Any funds expended by MnDOT pufsuafit to th Seetieft shall be due and payable on demand by MnDOT and will beaf interest 4-effl the date of pa��ent by MnDOT- a4 a fate e"al te the lessei: of the maximum intefest fate allowed by law ef O Seetion 3.11 inspeetion by A!nDOT-. The Publie Entity shall allow MttDOT to iffspeet the Real Wepefty upon feaseftable fequest by N400T and without inteffefing with the n0F use of the Real Pf apefty, Seetion 3.12 Applienbility to Real Pr-opef!ty. This Agfeement applies te the Publie cc• » cc » exists,meant to indieate thfft this AgFeement will apply to a f4eility if etie Entity'stheft this Agfeement will only apply to the Publie Article IV EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Section 4.01 Event(s) of Default. The following events shall, unless waived in writing by MnDOT, constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement upon MnDOT giving the Public Entity 30 days written notice of such event, and Public Entity's failure to cure such event during such 30 day time period for those Events of Default that can be cured within 30 days or within whatever time period is needed to cure those Events of Default that cannot be cured within 30 days as long as the Public Entity is using its best efforts to cure and is making reasonable progress in curing such Events of Default, however, in no event shall the time period to cure any Event of Default exceed 6 months. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any of the following events that cannot be cured shall, unless waived in writing by MnDOT, constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement immediately upon either MnDOT or the Commissioner of Management and Budget giving the Public Entity written notice of such event: A. If any representation, covenant, or warranty made by the Public Entity herein, in any other document furnished pursuant to this Agreement, or in order to induce MnDOT to disburse any of the LRIP grant, shall prove to have been untrue or incorrect in any material respect or materially misleading as of the time such representation, covenant, or warranty was made. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. B. If the Public Entity fails to fully comply with any provision, term, condition, covenant, or warranty contained in this Agreement. Section 4.02 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and at any time thereafter until such Event of Default is cured to the satisfaction of MnDOT, MnDOT or the Commissioner may enforce any or all of the following remedies. A. MnDOT may refrain from disbursing the LRIP grant; provided, however, MnDOT may make such a disbursement after the occurrence of an Event of Default without thereby waiving its rights and remedies hereunder. B. The Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, may demand that the portion of the LRIP grant already disbursed to the Public Entity be returned to it, and upon such demand the Public Entity shall return such portion to the Commissioner. C. Either MnDOT or the as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, may enforce any additional remedies they may have in law or equity. The rights and remedies herein specified are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies that MnDOT or the Commissioner would otherwise possess. If the Public Entity does not repay any portion of the amount specified in Section 4.02.13 within thirty (30) days of demand by either MnDOT or the Commissioner, then such amount may, unless precluded by law, be taken from or off-set against any aids or other monies that the Public Entity is entitled to receive from the State of Minnesota. Section 4.03 Notification of Event of Default. The Public Entity shall furnish to both MnDOT and the Commissioner, as soon as possible and in any event within 7 days after it has obtained knowledge of the occurrence of each Event of Default or each event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default, a statement setting forth details of each Event of Default or event which with the giving of notice or upon the lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default and the action which the Public Entity proposes to take with respect thereto. Section 4.04 Effect of Event of Default. If an Event of Default occurs and the Public Entity is required to and does return the amount specified in Section 4.02.13 to the Commissioner, then the following shall occur. A. This Agreement shall survive and remain in full force and effect. B. The amount returned by the Public Entity shall be credited against any amount that shall be due to the Commissioner under Section 4.02.13, and against any amount that becomes due and payable because of any other Event of Default. Article V DISBURSEMENT OF LRIP GRANT PROCEEDS 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Section 5.01 The Advances. MnDOT agrees, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, to make Advances from the LRIP grant to the Public Entity from time to time in an aggregate total amount equal to the amount of the LRIP grant. Provided, however, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 2.05, MnDOT's obligation to make Advances shall terminate as of the day and date which occurs 5 years from the effective date of this Agreement even if all of the LRIP grant has not been disbursed by such date. Section 5.02 Draw Requisitions. Whenever the Public Entity desires a disbursement of a portion of the LRIP grant, which shall be no more often than once each calendar month, the Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT a Draw Requisition duly executed on behalf of the Public Entity or its designee. Each Draw Requisition shall be submitted on or between the Is' day and the 15`h day of the month in which an Advance is requested, and shall be submitted at least 7 calendar days before the date the Advance is desired. Each Draw Requisition shall be limited to amounts equal to the portion of the Predesign Stage that has been completed since the submittal of the last prior Draw Requisition. At the time of submission of each Draw Requisition the Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT such supporting evidence as may be requested by MnDOT to substantiate all payments that are to be made out of the relevant Draw Requisition. If on the date an Advance is desired the Public Entity has complied with all requirements of this Agreement and MnDOT approves the relevant Draw Requisition and receives a current construction report from the Inspecting Engineer recommending payment, then MnDOT shall disburse the amount of the requested Advance to the Public Entity. Section 5.03 Additional Funds. If MnDOT shall at any time in good faith determine that the sum of the undisbursed amount of the LRIP grant plus the amount of all other funds committed to the completion of the Predesign Stage is less than the amount required to pay all costs and expenses of any kind which reasonably may be anticipated in connection with the completion of the Predesign Stage, then MnDOT may send written notice thereof to the Public Entity specifying the amount which must be supplied in order to provide sufficient funds to complete the Predesign Stage. The Public Entity agrees that it will, within 10 calendar days of receipt of any such notice, supply or have some other entity supply the amount of funds specified in MnDOT's notice. Section 5.04 Conditions Precedent to Any Advance. The obligation of MnDOT to make any Advance hereunder (including the initial Advance) shall be subject to the following conditions precedent: A. MnDOT shall have received a Draw Requisition for such Advance specifying the amount of funds being requested, which such amount when added to all prior requests for an Advance shall not exceed the maximum amount of the LRIP grant set forth in Section 1.01. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. B. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to MnDOT, that (i) the Public Entity has legal authority to and has taken all actions necessary to enter into this Agreement, and (ii) this Agreement is binding on and enforceable against the Public Entity. C. MnDOT shall have Feeeived evidenee, iii f f, 1a „bsta+tee aeeeptable to D. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to MnDOT, that the Public Entity is in compliance with the matching funds requirements, if any, contained in Section 6.18. E. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to MnDOT, that the Public Entity is in compliance with those provisions contained in Attachment I attached. F. No determination shall have been made by MnDOT that the amount of funds committed to the completion of the Predesign Stage is less than the amount required to pay all costs and expenses of any kind which reasonably may be anticipated in connection with the completion of the Predesign Stage, or if such a determination has been made and notice thereof sent to the Public Entity then the Public Entity has supplied or has caused some other entity to supply the necessary funds in accordance with Section 5.03, or to provide evidence acceptable to MnDOT that sufficient funds are available. G. No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute an Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or time elapse shall have occurred and be continuing. H. The Public Entity has supplied to MnDOT all other items that MnDOT may reasonably require. Article VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 6.01 Records Keeping and Reporting. The Public Entity shall maintain or cause to be maintained books and records pertaining to the costs or expenses associated with the completion of the Predesign Stage and shall allow MnDOT, auditors for MnDOT, the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota, or the State Auditor for the State of Minnesota, to inspect, audit, copy, or abstract, all of such items. The Public Entity shall use generally accepted accounting principles in the maintenance of such items, and shall retain all of such books and records for a period of six years after the date that the Project is fully completed and placed into operation. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Section 6.02 Data Practices. The Public Entity agrees with respect to any data that it possesses regarding the LRIP grant, the Predesign Stage, and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property and, in addition the contemplated use of the Real Property, to comply with all of the provisions and restrictions contained in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act contained in Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes, as such may be amended, modified or replaced from time to time. Section 6.03 Non-Discrimination. The Public Entity agrees to not engage in discriminatory employment practices in the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the facility, and it shall, with respect to such activities, fully comply with all of the provisions contained in Minn. Stat. Chapters 363A and 181, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time. Section 6.04 Worker's Compensation. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of the provisions relating to worker's compensation contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 176.181 Subd. 2 & 176.182, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time, with respect to the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property. Section 6.05 Antitrust Claims. The Public Entity hereby assigns to MnDOT and the Commissioner all claims it may have for overcharges as to goods or services provided in its completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property which arise under the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota or of the United States of America. Section 6.06 Prevailing Wages. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of the applicable provisions contained in Chapter 177 of the Minnesota Statutes, and specifically those provisions contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.435, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time, with respect to the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property. Section 6.07 Liability. The Public Entity and MnDOT agree that they will, subject to any indemnifications provided herein, be responsible for their own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law, and they shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of both MnDOT and the Commissioner is governed by the provisions contained in Minn. Stat. § 3.736, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time. If the Public Entity is a "municipality" as such term is used in Chapter 466 of the Minnesota Statutes, then the liability of the Public Entity, including but not limited to the indemnification provided under Section 6.08, is governed by the provisions contained in such Chapter 466. Section 6.08 Indemnification by the Public Entity. The Public Entity shall bear all loss, expense (including attorneys' fees), and damage in connection with the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their agents and employees, from all claims, demands and judgments made or recovered against MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their agents and employees, because of bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, or because of damages to property of MnDOT, the State of Minnesota, or others (including loss of use) from any cause whatsoever, arising out of, incidental to, or in connection with the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property, whether or not due to any act of omission or commission, including negligence of the Public Entity or any Contractor or his or their employees, servants or agents, and whether or not due to any act of omission or commission (excluding, however, negligence or breach of statutory duty) of MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their employees, servants or agentsl[mi. The Public Entity further agrees to indemnify, save, and hold MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their agents and employees, harmless from all claims arising out of, resulting from, or in any manner attributable to any violation by the Public Entity, its officers, employees, or agents of any provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including legal fees and disbursements paid or incurred to enforce the provisions contained in Section 6.02. The Public Entity's liability hereunder shall not be limited to the extent of insurance carried by or provided by the Public Entity, or subject to any exclusion from coverage in any insurance policy. The Public Entity's maximum liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat. § 466.04. The Public Entity does not by this Agreement waive any immunities available to it by law. Section 6.09 Relationship of the Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co- partners or a joint venture between the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, nor shall the Public Entity be considered or deemed to be an agent, representative, or employee of either- MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota, in the performance of this Agreement, the completion of the Predesign Stage, or, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property. The Public Entity represents that it has already or will secure or cause to be secured all personnel required for the performance of this Agreement, the completion of the Predesign Stage, and, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property. All personnel of the Public Entity or other persons while engaging in the performance of this Agreement, the completion of the Predesign Stage, or, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property shall not have any contractual relationship with either MnDOT, the Commissioner, or- the State of Minnesota, and shall not be considered employees of any of such entities. In addition, all claims that may arise on behalf of said personnel or other persons out of employment or alleged employment including, but not limited to, claims under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota, claims of discrimination against the Public Entity, 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of either MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from either MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota including, but not limited to, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, disability benefits, severance pay and retirement benefits. Section 6.10 Notices. In addition to any notice required under applicable law to be given in another manner, any notices required hereunder must be in writing, and shall be sufficient if personally served or sent by prepaid, registered, or certified mail (return receipt requested), to the business address of the party to whom it is directed. Such business address shall be that address specified below or such different address as may hereafter be specified, by either party by written notice to the other: To the Public Entity at: At the address indicated on the first page of the Agreement. To MnDOT at: Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of State Aid 395 John Ireland Blvd., MS 500 Saint Paul, MN 55155 Attention: Patti Loken To the Commissioner at: Minnesota Department of Management and Budget 400 Centennial Office Bldg. 658 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55155 Attention: Commissioner of Management and Budget Section 6.11 Binding Effect and Assignment or Modification. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Public Entity and MnDOT, and their respective successors and assigns. Provided, however, that neither the Public Entity nor MnDOT may assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. No change or modification of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on either the Public Entity or MnDOT unless such change or modification is in writing and signed by an authorized official of the party against which such change or modification is to be imposed. Section 6.12 Waiver. Neither the failure by the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, in any one or more instances to insist upon the complete and total observance or performance of any term or provision hereof, nor the failure of the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, to exercise any right, privilege, or remedy conferred hereunder or afforded by law shall be construed as waiving any breach of such term, provision, or the right to exercise such right, privilege, or remedy thereafter. In addition, no delay on the part of either the Public 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, in exercising any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right or remedy preclude other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or remedy. Section 6.13 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the documents and Exhibits, if any, referred to and incorporated herein by reference embody the entire agreement between the Public Entity and MnDOT, and there are no other agreements, either oral or written, between the Public Entity and MnDOT on the subject matter hereof. Section 6.14 Choice of Law and Venue. All matters relating to the validity, construction, performance, or enforcement of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All legal actions initiated with respect to or arising from any provision contained in this Agreement shall be initiated, filed and venued in the State of Minnesota District Court located in the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. Section 6.15 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is finally judged by any court to be invalid, then the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, and they shall be interpreted,performed, and enforced as if the invalid provision did not appear herein. Section 6.16 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all of the matters contained in this Agreement. Section 6.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Section 6.18 Matching Funds. Any matching funds as shown on Page 1 and Exhibit A of the Grant Agreement that are required to be obtained and supplied by the Public Entity must either be in the form of (i) cash monies, (ii) legally binding commitments for money, or (iii) equivalent funds or contributions, including equity, which have been or will be used to pay for the Project. The Public Entity shall supply to MnDOT whatever documentation MnDOT may request to substantiate the availability and source of any matching funds. Section 6.19 Source and Use of Funds. The Public Entity represents to MnDOT and the Commissioner that Exhibit A is intended to be and is a source and use of funds statement showing the total cost of the Predesign Stage and all of the funds that are available for the completion of the Predesign Stage, and that the information contained in such Exhibit A correctly and accurately delineates the following information. A. The total cost of the Predesign Stage detailing all of the major elements that make up such total cost and how much of such total cost is attributed to each such major element. B. The source of all funds needed to complete the Predesign Stage broken down among the following categories: 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. (i) State funds including the LRIP grant, identifying the source and amount of such funds. (ii) Matching funds, identifying the source and amount of such funds. (iii) Other funds supplied by the Public Entity, identifying the source and amount of such funds. (iv) Loans, identifying each such loan, the entity providing the loan, the amount of each such loan, the terms and conditions of each such loan, and all collateral pledged for repayment of each such loan. (v) Other funds, identifying the source and amount of such funds. C. Such other financial information that is needed to correctly reflect the total funds available for the completion of the Predesign Stage the source of such funds and the expected use of such funds. If any of the funds included under the source of funds have conditions precedent to the release of such funds, then the Public Entity must provide to MnDOT and the Commissioner a detailed description of such conditions and what is being done to satisfy such conditions. The Public Entity shall also supply whatever other information and documentation that MnDOT or the Commissioner may request to support or explain any of the information contained in Exhibit A. Section 6.20 Third-Party Beneficiary. The Public Entity and MnDOT agree that the completion of the Predesign Stage will benefit the State of Minnesota, and the provisions and requirements contained herein are for the benefit of both MnDOT and the State of Minnesota. Therefore, the State of Minnesota, by and through its Commissioner, is and shall be a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement. Section 6.21 E-Verification. The Public Entity agrees and acknowledges that it is aware of Minn. Stat. § 16C.075 regarding e-verification of employment of all newly hired employees to confirm that such employees are legally entitled to work in the United States, and that it will, if and when applicable, fully comply with such statute. Section 6.22 Term of LRIP Grant Agreement. This Agreement shall, unless earlier terminated in accordance with any of the provisions contained herein, remain in full force and effect for the time period starting on the effective date of this Agreement and ending on the date that corresponds to the date established by adding a time period equal to 125% of Useful Life of the Real Property[A51 and, if applicable, facility to the date on which the Public Entity first acquires an ownership interest in the Real Property and, if applicable, facility and puts such property into use for the operation of the Governmental Program. If there are no uncured Events of Default as of such date this Agreement shall terminate and no longer be of any force or effect, and the Commissioner shall execute whatever-documents are needed to release the Real Property and, if applicable, facility from the effect of this Agreement and the Certification. 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 Mn/DOT Agreement No. Section 6.23 American-Made Steel. Minnesota Laws 2014, Chapter 295, Section 21, requires public entities receiving an appropriation of public money for a project in that act to ensure those facilities are built with American-made steel, to the extent practicable. The Public Entity shall comply with this requirement, and shall furnish any documentation pursuant thereto reasonably requested by MnDOT. Section 6.24 State Owned Property. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the location of the work includes State-owned property as a necessary part of the Project. State-owned property is not subject to those provisions, requirements, restrictions and encumbrances applicable to "Real Property" as defined in Article I Section 1.01 of this Agreement and"Restricted Property" as referenced in Exhibit C. (The remaining portion of this page was intentionally left plank.) 464390vMDT RCI 60-4 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 8. STAFF REPORT NO. I10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director 7/8/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/8/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a proposal for WSB and Associates, Inc. to provide preliminary and final design services and environmental documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project for an amount of$2,165.000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In May, the City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to design firms for preliminary and final design services for the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project. Three proposals were received and the highest scoring proposal was WSB and Associates, Inc. Proposed fees associated with their proposal were an amount of$2,165,000. The proposed work will be fully funded by the $2,500,000 in the 2014 Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) grant funds the City received for preliminary and final design. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve hiring of WSB and Associates, Inc. to provide preliminary and final design services and environmental documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing project for an amount of$2,165,000. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • The cost estimate to complete the 77th Street Underpass, including design, right of way, and construction is $22.5 million. • The 77th Street Underpass was earmarked in 2014 legislation to be funded through the LRIP; however, a total was not included in the earmark. • After considerable negotiation, MnDOT agreed to award $2.5 Million for the design of the project with the understanding that additional money could be awarded in the future once design was in progress or complete. • The LRIP funds can only be used for consultant work. City staff time will be covered using city funds. • MnDOT administers the LRIP funding and requires a grant agreement with the City. • Any remaining portion of the $2.5M after design is complete will go back into the LRIP for redistribution to other projects. • An additional $10 Million for the 77th Street project was included in the 2015 bonding bill to be used for right-of-way acquisition and construction costs. • An RFP for the design of the 77th Street Extension and TH 77 Underpass was released in May 2015. • Three proposals were received by the June 19, 2015 deadline and scored using a "qualification based selection criteria." Under this selection method, the proposals were each scored on a variety of categories. Cost proposals were kept sealed in a separate envelope until scoring was complete at which point the winning envelope was opened for review and negotiation. • The proposal from WSB and Associates, Inc. scored the highest and their cost proposal was $2,165,000. • The proposed cost is lower than the $2.5M funding limit allowing for the possibility of any unexpected additional design costs to still be covered by LRIP funds. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • Increasing capacity of the I-494 corridor and the 77th Street crossing of TH 77 are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 -Transportation). C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Design and right-of-way acquisition must be complete to make the project "shovel ready." D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The consultant design costs will be fully covered by the Local Road Improvement Program grant funds. • City staff costs related to the design will be covered using other city funds. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney will be available for any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • The Council may choose to not approve the design consultant selection and direct staff how to proceed; however, this would delay the start of design work. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None anticipated ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ WSB Proposal—Part 1 Backup Material WSB Proposal—Part 2 Backup Material - r r� f rr f 1��` 2+ �m'F �.� .�TM, „w✓; r t ,a t rr t.v N/ I ,'i} �r����� fix, � �r�✓/ r'� yr"`s' ✓rr✓- ar' C i 'sl pit�f�� 9 / � '�✓r`�.r'"t� t ,r � tf� si.1 v.' y✓�. t N( N. r� _a � t x ry 7 el { a ,�'� ` ������'. �"+'x `' 2-.:-.'l y""s-.Lire r✓s. a r 7-1 Underpass77th Street East Extension & TH 77 6th Avenue to Longfellow Avenue June 19, 2015 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 WSB Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel:(763)541.4800 • Fax:(763)541-1700 wsheng.com E Ii I c o ; ' k r c 2 7 i 4 AL WS &Associates,Inc. engineering•planning•environmental•construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 i Fax: 763-541-1700 June 19,2015 Jeff Pearson Transportation Engineer City of Richfield 1901 E 66"Street Richfield,MN 55423 Re: Proposal for Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation 7r Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass 16'h Avenue to Longfellow Avenue Dear Mr.Pearson: WSB&Associates,Inc.(WSB),along with American Engineering Testing,Inc.(AET),is pleased to provide the following proposal for the Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for 71h Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass 16"Avenue to Longfellow Avenue. We are excited for the opportunity to complete the design for this final piece of the 77h Street project. We believe that we have the most qualified team to assist the City complete this project. Members of the proposed WSB team have been working on elements of this project since the late 1990s. Our team has a history and knowledge of the project that can be used to quickly complete the preliminary design and to update the staff approved layout while evaluating innovative solutions for key issues and reducing project costs. Our team includes Tony Heppelmann as Project Manager. He was the Project Manager for the original design of 71h Street. Another familiar team member is Sabri Ayaz,who was involved in the design of many of the bridges in this area. Our team is available and committed to providing a high quality product on time and within budget. We look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the City of Richfield in completing this project. Should you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me at(763)287-7199 or via email at theppeimann@wsbeng.com. Sincerely, WSB&Associates,Inc. Tony Heppelmann,PE Project Manager,Vice President-Transportation theppelmannCa.wsbeng.com 763.287-7199 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com i i d � f 11.,rr'ra i n�f, _ w r r , � i t 77th Street East Extension ♦ TH 77 Underpass FF i • Avenue to LongfellowAvenue June 19,2015 Contents INTRODUCTION &EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. I ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS............4 PROPOSED TECHNICAL PROCESS/ PLANNING PROCESS............................5 0 � '- PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION..........31 �•EAGUE o, MINNESOTA ,.1 REFERENCES.......................................... 37 CITIES :WORKACE§ DBE/MBE PARTICIPATION.................... 37 Cost Proposal-Submitted Separately Contact., 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 Tony Heppe/mann, PE Minneapolis,MN 55416 763 287-7199- 999 WSB Tel:(763)541.4800 • Fax:(763)541.1700 , theppelmann@wsbeng.com ANNESEEM wsbeng.com I A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield S - ---- - - ----- -- - - - - - - -- ------ --- --- lull ri� i Established in 1995,WSB&Associates, Inc. (WSB) is a professional Contact consulting and design corporation providing diverse engineering, planning,environmental,and construction services to clients in the Information: government,energy,and commercial markets. WSB&Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue S. Our corporate culture of creativity, long-lasting relationships, Suite 300 and high technical standards allows us to deliver cost-effective, Minneapolis,MN 55416 successful projects.WSB delivers technical excellence in the kind of Tony Heppelmann, PE Project Manager trusting relationship our clients appreciate and value. T(763)270-3461 WSB has more than 290 staff members who are passionate about F. (763)541-1700 theppelmann ct wsbeng.corn meeting challenges in new,innovative,and collaborative ways. i r, The 77th Street Underpass project will fill a short, but critical 0.36 mile gap in R,�F,ELo the 77th Street reliever arterial that will provide a connection from the MSP I� Airport, Mall of America and South Loop Area and the City of Richfield. The City of Richfield currently has$2.5 million to complete the final design and ? construction plans for this remaining segment of 77th Street. It is the goal of i gggg.y 1 the City to complete preliminary design plans in 2015,and final construction Ii ( plans in 2016. If funding is available,the right-of-way acquisition could begin f � in 2016 and construction could start by 2017. 4q4 As our proposal will demonstrate,WSB has the most qualified team to /f LOOP \\ II complete the preliminary and final design services for the 77th Street 77 _ Extension and TH 77 Underpass because our team has worked on the previous phases of 77th Street and understands the remaining issues to be resolved in the design of this final phase of the overall project. Our team is extremely experienced and will provide innovative solutions that help achieve the goal of the City of Richfield and other stakelholders. Some of the key points in our proposal are summarized,as follows. i i'. INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 1 I I A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield ------------- jct Team r 3 WSB staff has been working on the 77th Street project since the Project Understanding 1980s. Tony Heppelmann,WSB's project manager, led the 1-494 Our team's knowledge of the history and issues related Corridor Study where the concept for parallel arterials was first to this project is unsurpassed. There are some unique developed and he was the project manager for the preliminary features to this project that may only be known to this and final design of 77th Street between 1-35W and TH 77. On team,including: pervious projects for the City of Richfield,Tony has demonstrated his ability to complete a high quality project on-time and within The original 77th Street project established an alignment and grade for the underpassand constructed budget. His,and his team's experience relative to this project is ` unmatched in the industry. a retaining wall and noise wall along Washington Park based on this alignment and grade. fillwas placed Sabri Ayaz will provide technical oversight on the bridge design. around the retaining wall so it is currently not visible. Sabri has over 40 years of bridge design experience. He led the The early plans for 77th Street also proposed drainage bridge design for many of the bridges in this area and is familiar into the northeast loop of the TH 77 and 1-494 with all of the potential bridge types that may be involved in interchange. The grade on 77th Street is critical to this project. Sabri will work with Carl Osberg who will lead making this plan work. the bridge design team in selecting the most appropriate bridge Recent plans have been changed to grade separate types for this project and in designing the bridges to best fit the the TH 77 west frontage road over the 77th Street complex requirements for the project. extension. This plan will reduce the right-of-way Derek Schmidt will lead the roadway design efforts for this impact of the project and utilize right-of-way already project. Derek and Tony have worked together on several acquired by the City. successful projects for the City of Richfield including the Lyndale The need to accommodate future plans for the Avenue and 1-494 Interchange project. Derek has demonstrated expansion of the TH 77 and 1-494 interchange may that he can work with MnDOT staff to quickly resolve issues have implications for the design,of the 77th Street and complete a high-quality product on time and within budget. extension and should be addressed early in the Through his work on other projects Derek has developed a process. solid reputation within MnDOT and knows the staff who will be Bridge vertical clearance and structure depth will be reviewing plans for the project, an important factor in the design.Our team will focus Jon Chiglo is available to address alternative delivery if appropriate on the alternatives and trade-offs early in the design and to provide assistance with resolving issues if necessary, process. Jon is known for his innovative problem-solving and can assist the project team when interacting with MnDOT and other stakeholders in helping achieve the project goals. r, t w 1 � 2 / INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AL A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Poofchl'ield WSB 211_.. r , 1 r r ; Technical Approach Our proposal addresses our approach to the overall design process and emphasizes an integrated approach to evaluating _ } alternatives for all elements of the design including horizontal and vertical alignments cross-section, bridge type,drainage, FIT-71 ' constructabilityand right-of-way. Our goal will be to provide a high-quality design while minimizing the project costs. Because s our team understands the trade-offs between these project elements,we are in the best position to explore alternatives and innovative solutions to the present plan. f<- Our team understands the need to work with other agencies d ' on the project and has excellent working relationships with the potential project partners including MnDOT, MAC, Metro Transit, MCES,Three Rivers Park, FHWA, FAA as well as other permitting agencies. Availability We have identified a Public Involvement Plan that incorporates WSB places a strong emphasis on completing high- the agencies into the project development process and includes quality projects on time and within budget. We opportunity for business and resident input to the plan. Our recognize that a strong project manager who has the Public Involvement Plan incorporates the principals of Systematic time to dedicate to the project is a key component, Development of Informed Consent(SDIC). We will assist City as well as a project team that is available to meet the staff,as neede, in keeping elected officials informed regarding project schedule. WSB has examined the current study issues and decisions so that project approvals do not involve workloads of our team members and is committing any last minute surprises. them to complete the project. This is illustrated on the Our approach also addresses other technical issues like staging following table. and bridge design. i r INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 3 I A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfteld Authorized Negotiator { Tony Heppelmann, PE Project Manager WS13&Associates, Inc. T: (763)287-7199 701 Xenia Avenue S,Suite 300 F:(763)541-1700 Minneapolis, MN 55416 theppelmann@wsbeng.com Name Project Start Date Completion Date %Committed %Available i TH 14 at Eagle Lake Apr 2015 Apr 2016 10% g0% Tony Heppelmann,PE Broadway Avenue Corridor Study Apr 2014 Sep 2015 10% 1-35E MnPASS Design Build, Aug 2013 Aug 2015 25% 50% Derek Schmidt,PE Sep 2014 Aug 2015 25% 105th'St—Blaine Jon Chiglo,PE TH 59 resurfacing June 2015 May 2016 10% TH 53 realignment June 2015 Jan 2018 20% 70% Plank Road Study-Minneapolis June 2015 Aug 2015 10% Carl 01 PE 75% Opus Bridges-Minnetonka May 2015 Oct 2015 15% OPUS Bridges Apr 2015 Oct 2015 15% James Winters,PE Douglas Drive Box Apr 2015 Oct 2015 5% 75% Culvert SHV 2015 July 2015 July 2016 5% Earth Retaining Inventory,Inspection and Management—MnDOT Aug 2014 Dec 2015 10% Ashley Grzybowski,PE Smartform—MnDOT Aug 2014 July 2015 5% 75% Bridge Maintenance Manual-MnDOT Aug 2015 Oct 2015 10% I' Dan Flittie,PE 2015 SHV Load Ratings July 2015 July 2016 40% 10% MnDOT Earth Retaining System Inventory&Inspection Project Sep 2014 Nov 2015 50% Greg Roy Peony Lane Extension Apr 2015 Sep 2015 80% 20% Opus Bridges Design Review June 2015 Sep 2015 20% Sabri Ayaz,PE 70% Miscellaneous Structures Review Dec 2015 Dec 2015 10% Nic Hentges,PE CSAH 101 Construction Apr 2015 Aug 2016 10% 70% OPUS Area Improvements May 2015 Apr 2016 20% Josh wnk TH 59 Preliminary Design June 2015 Aug 2015 50% 50% CR 21 Improvements Oct 2013 Nov 2015 10% Sean Delmore,PE PTOE TH I I'Corridor Study May 2015 Mar 2016 5% 80% 2016 ND Signing Retrore0ectMty Improvement project June 2015 Apr 2016 5% TH 14 at Eagle Lake Apr 2015 Apr 2016 5% Erik Seiberlich Civic Center Drive—Rochester May 2015 May 2016 10% 70% Pinecone Road Lighting—Sartell Mar 2015 July 2015 15% US 59 Categorical Exclusion Apr 2015 June 2016 10% Jack Corkle,PTP AICP TH I I Corridor Study May 2015 Mar 2016 25% 60% TH 13 Northern Frontage Road July 2015 Dec 2015 5% Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park Public Involvement May 2015 May 2015 20% 70% Rose Ryan,AICP TH I I Corridor Assessment May 2015 May 2015 10% Southwest Light Rail Transit Apr 2014 Nov 2016 20% Todd Hubmer,PE 70% Afton CR 21,Levee&Water Quality Construction July 2015 Nov 2017 10% Ted Witkowski TH I I Corridor Study May 2015 Mar 2016 35% 35% TH 14 at Eagle Lake Apr 2015 Apr 2016 30% City of Lonsdale Street Recon June 2015 Dec 2015 10% Pete Helder City of Minnetonka 2016 Recon June 2015 Sep 2016 20% 60% City of Rogers,Rogers Drive June 2014 Sep 2015 10% Southwest LRT Aug 2014 Dec 2016 25% Jeff Voyen(AET) 50% Blue Line LRT Extension Aug 2014 Dec 2018 25% Greg Reuter(AET) MN Highway 43 Winona Bridge May 2014 Dec 2015 15% 70% CN Rail Oliver Bridge Jan 2014 Dec 2015 15% ADA project—Baudette,MN Mar 2015 Apr 2016 20% Penny Rolf Blue Earth County—CSAH 12 Feb 2015 Dec 2015 15% 55% City of Minnetonka—Opus Parkway June 2015 June 2016 10% Becky Haydon,PE Washington County On Site Consultant Nov 2014 Nov 2016 75% 25% 4 / ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS G V A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield � � I g V, t iif i J J /r Nrr J>=%i rJ- 'i'Iti a✓ f girl f r J �„ .2 ,' ;yi"f : , J Project Understanding The 77th Street Project involves the extension of 77th Street from 16th Avenue to Longfellow Avenue. The 77th Street Underpass project will fill a short, but critical,0.36 mile gap in the regional A Minor Arterial Reliever network and will provide an alternative to 1-494 for short-to-medium length trips. This final connection between the 24th Avenue Interchange and 77th Street in the City of Richfield has been in regional plans since the 1980s. This link will provide a direct route for commercial and commuter traffic between businesses on Longfellow Avenue or within the South Loop in Bloomington and the City of Richfield. It will significantly increase the accessibility of the properties on the east end of 77th Street. The 77th Street underpass also fills a critical gap in the pedestrian,bicycle,and transit system in the southeast F corner of Richfield. The project includes a 10-foot wide f multi-use trail along the north side and a sidewalk along the south side of 77th Street.The trail will become a part of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail linking Hopkins, Edina,Richfield, Minneapolis,and Bloomington.The project will provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection underneath TH 77,a major barrier to bicycle and pedestrian travel between residential areas and the Mall of America and businesses in the South Loop and IMinneapolis-St. Paul Airport. 1" The project will also improve the efficiency of transit operations. Metro Transit plans to re-route local transit routes to 77th Street. The project will also provide more 6 direct connections for buses returning to the south Metro Transit bus garage on the east side of TH 77. r7 PROPOSED TECHNICAL PROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS/5 I A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield —....--------------------- P G The project will involve building bridges on TH 77 and the adjacent C-D roads and ramps to carry these roadways over the new 77th Street extension. It is expected that the grades on TH Project 1SSUes to Be Addressed 77 will be close to the existing grades because of the existing There are several issues that will require evaluation during bridges just to the south. Therefore, 77th Street will be lowered the preliminary design phase of the project. These issues are in order to provide adequate vertical clearance from 77th Street briefly identified below,and further described and illustrated i to the bottom of the new bridges. The TH 77 west frontage on the issues map that follows. road may also be carried over 77th Street in order to minimize i. Buried Retaining Wall by Washington Park right-of-way acquisition. The original plan terminated the west frontage road at an at-grade intersection with the lowered 77th 2• MCES Interceptor Sewer Street and required the acquisition of two apartment buildings 3. TH 77 West Frontage Road Alignment in addition to the acquisition of the Motel 6. The current plan 4. TH 77 and 1-494 Interchange bridges the west frontage over 77th Street, maintaining the continuity of the frontage with the 1-494 north frontage road. A S. Sewer and Water Crossings of TH 77 connection between the frontage road and 77th Street is then 6 Drainage provided on the south side of 77th Street. This plan does not 7. Runway 4-22 require acquisition of the two apartment buildings. 8, Bridge Vertical Clearance Requirements The currently proposed cross-section includes a multi-use trail on the north side of 77th Street,the four lane divided roadway and 9• Soil Conditions for Bridge footings a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. The multi-use trail 10. Roadway Cross Section on the north would provide a planned connection for the Three 11. Northbound TH 77 On-ramp Rivers Park Regional Trail to 24th Avenue. y T . I l 4 — t l u r-; Fes'' -'4�.f- 3 - `4 (' _._,.. .._ .,.�;. :•r�ie-.=.w,"x .;z.,'.�r-_- .i..-,�`Urt.x'li... ,v1�,e_,.:v`,e,#��:j_'�r`,rl i?y�'F�dl�i �`,�.-.��.�'YIL�'.'_ ,: .:.�ri'"ltis's�.,�..sn,-.�.tc., r�t,..¢'e+�:i. ..� - f. i 6/PROPOSED TECHNICAL PROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS a mQ o� v cm yr svo = v ° � o» a Y � m uo �� a c m o t °ua ov v w m „ °a m ma w L 3 $ c o-o «s U 7 00 1 v ° E i0— d av n� 'ter ,s, v > v c -� ` n o mo � .sl `m a r co o O 2 d Q oo '> o > v L a ,77 ` Ea dTN mv � ao G a°'mm o4-1 30A� o � a5E I r d o� � v o H t W o \.w - E o = ` .y c o 4 ` N mo= o LL � ��; r ma a Q b ti � 2Ga c8n deo a ° vo°°a� I o } } .: £ �B.0 2 L o y aoi F•, N V Ea o o y� i11 11 O t m y °e C c Yw. 1t 'x, ' R mts V Qp U m 0 75} 2 v m`E. £°n =1 1°E o Zen $ m st � m o i jta �.`Irt'' h =o �° v nv s `° v 3 o o m vim o $ vE 4z ym o k n V c 0 0 0 o o o N p c v L o �r z `o m Y 3 o c 4 a3 n a a E n° v E t4 v ; ooo v d — w a ms iE 6b aA 91 _ k fA y, uon f A° o ` dco No— d a v v o r o 6 '^ 3s EEL i vac v ° 3 vK oNo .1 u= O R E pp ,41 c i 3 aai'O V LL u� v� E' d § `� - E •� m 3 3 E°F f H a vl o c I V A Proposal to Provide.Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield J --------- ---- -- - - - _ _..- ---— ----- -- --- ---- - - I "n a. r i � , v Project Coals Project History The City of Richfield has received$2.5 million for design of this The 77th Street underpass was first envisioned in the 1980s project. It is the goal of the City to complete final construction in the 1-494 Corridor Study. The 1-494 Corridor Study plans for the project and obtain the necessary approvals and recommended the development of parallel minor arterials permits to be able to construct the project. These plans will north and south of 1-494 between 34th Avenue and East Bush also provide the information needed to finalize the right-of- Lake Road in order to provide an alternative to 1-494 for short way requirements of the project and to be able to proceed and medium length trips. 77th Street was designated as the with acquiring the necessary right-of-way. The City desires to parallel minor arterial on the north side of 1-494 in this area. complete the final plans for the project by December 2016 so the 77th Street,between 1-35W and TH 77,was reconstructed in project could be constructed in 2017, pending available funding. the 1990s as a four-lane divided arterial. However the project The City of Richfield may receive the funding needed for right-of- ended at the west frontage road of TH 77 because of funding way acquisition for the project and be in a position to complete limitations. right-of-way acquisition in 2016. Therefore,final right-of-way A staff approved layout was completed and signed in October, plans should be completed by December of 2015 in order to 2000. A federal environmental assessment was completed for provide adequate time to complete the right-of-way acquisition the 77th Street project between 1-35W and 24th Avenue which process. included the 77th Street underpass in 1992. This document It is the goal of the City to minimize the overall project costs was approved and the project was constructed between and the potential impacts of the project. The preliminary design 1-35W and the TH 77 west frontage road.A federal project phase of the project will evaluate alternatives that can reduce memorandum was prepared in 2009 when it was anticipated project costs or right-of-way needs for the project. This will the project would receive funding through the American include evaluating bridge types,slight modifications to alignment Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The project manager was to minimize right-of-way,and alternative approaches to staging never signed because the project was not selected for funding. and traffic control. i. f. PROPOSED TECHNICAL PROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS/9 k i r A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield G Approach WSB's approach to delivering the services required for 4 this project is addressed below. We have addressed our approach and methodology in two ways. First this section specifically discusses our approach and methodology to the r n tasks that are critical to delivering the project on time and within budget. Second,this section provides a detailed work yo � plan for the project. Project Management Quality Control:A quality management plan will be adopted A strong project manager is a critical component of every for the project that includes all required procedures and successful project. The project manager's role is to plan requirements for review and checking of project documents and and organize the project and the project team, provide the calculations. technical supervision and direction for the project team,and manage the schedule, budget and quality. The successful Project Cost Control: Budgets will be established for each major project manager will effectively plan the project and anticipate task item based on the contract. The project costs will then problems to avoid unnecessary problems,or make them easier be tracked by task to determine how the project is progressing to control. Experience is one of the key attributes that a relative to the project expenditures. Work orders will be project manager must have to effectively plan the project and prepared for major tasks,and for subconsultants,to ensure that anticipate problems. Effectively managing risks is a key skill the deliverables, budget and schedule are clearly defined. for all projects. The successful project manager will also have Progress Reports:WSB will submit written monthly progress strong communication skills, be able to delegate and administer reports to the City that will clearly document the hours and tasks,and be able to coordinate the efforts of a diverse project dollars spent by task compared to the estimated percent team. Tony Heppelmann has this combination of experience complete for that task. This will be reported for the current and communication skills,as well as an unsurpassed project month and for the duration of the project. The progress report understanding. Tony will use these skills to provide the leadership will also provide a description of the tasks or deliverables that for the project team and ensure that the project is completed on were completed during the month and note any problems with time,within budget and on schedule. He will utilize the following the budget or schedule. techniques to assist in the management of the project. Client Strategy Meetings:WSB will meet or talk with the City's Project Schedule:A detailed project schedule will be prepared project manager on a weekly basis to discuss project progress and that will outline the work tasks, personnel assignments, project issues. The purpose of these discussions are to keep the client milestones and deliverables. The schedule will be reviewed and informed regarding key issues on the project and discuss strategy updated monthly to ensure that the project stays on schedule. or alternatives for key project issues. Project Team Meetings: Project team meetings will be held Intermediate Completion Dates:Occasionally,scheduled monthly(or more often during critical phases of the project)to completion dates for major tasks can slip because deadlines may exchange information, review progress and deliverables, identify be months away. WSB has found that interim work products problems and coordinate the efforts of individual task managers. provide a method for keeping these tasks on schedule. Project Organization:A project filing system will be established Subconsultant Contracts:Contracts will be prepared with all for all project documents and computer files. In addition a subcontractors that will define their scope of work,and billing terms. process will be developed for file sharing and design to ensure The contract will also include all of the required federal language. that project team members are working with the most current Risk files and so that individual designers cannot change files for which Management: A risk matrix will be developed documenting the they are not responsible. various project risks and strategies to effectively manage each risk. i 10/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS I i A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield WSB Public Involvement Plan There are two general groups that need to be considered in in developing the Public Involvement Plan. The plan will be the development of the public involvement plan: businesses flexible to meet the needs of the project as it evolves. It is f and residents. The businesses that are served by 77th Street, anticipated that a major component of the Public Involvement Longfellow Avenue and the TH 77 west frontage road will be Plan will involve meetings with the potentially affected interests. concerned about future direct access to their businesses and with These meetings will include: potential right-of-way impacts. They will also be concerned with Technical Advisory Committee(TAC):It is recommended that a the duration of construction and the access that will be available technical committee made up of staff from the affected agencies during construction. (MAC, Metro Transit,City of Bloomington,City of Richfield, Mn/ Residents of Richfield who will be affected by the project will have DOT,and FHWA)be formed and meet on a regular basis over the similar issues as the businesses as well as their own unique issues. course of the project. The Technical Advisory Committee would Richfield residents have seen the airport and highway expansion review and provide direction on the technical analyses and results. take many existing homes and businesses as well as restrict access They would also act as a communication link back to the agencies to regional facilities. These concerns will impact how residents that they represent. We have assumed that this committee will view this project. meet on average,monthly over the time frame of the project. The public involvement plan will be tailored to specifically Traffic Commission, Planning Commission and City Council reach each of these two groups. The plan will be based on the Meetings:WSB will make presentations to the City traffic principals of the Systematic Development of Informed Consent commission, planning commission,and City council at key points (SDIC).Some of the SDIC principles that will be incorporated in in the study process. We will work with City staff on when these the public involvement plan are: presentations should be made,the content of the presentation Establish the need for the project(or for a specific element of and who should make the presentations. We have assumed that the project)with all of the potentially affected interests. there may be up to three key points during the preliminary and Establish the legitimacy of the problem-solving and decision final design that WSB would be involved in presenting to these making process with all affected interests. It is important that groups. These presentations will likely be at the following stages: the potentially affected interests believe the process is fair. Prior to the approval of the layout for 77th Street The public involvement process will provide an opportunity Interim presentation on final plans including proposed to gain an understanding of the issues from the perspective construction staging and schedule of the potentially affected interests. The process will address Approval of the final plans for 77th Street the issues that are of concern to the businesses and residents that are affected by the project and make sure that everyone The presentation for the approval of the 77th Street layout could include information on the proposed schedule and construction has an opportunity to be heard and that all reasonable alternatives have been considered. staging plan for TH 77. WSB would also provide City staff with material that they can use to brief commission and City council The public involvement techniques will be focused on members about the project between these major milestones. effective two-way communication. Neighborhood/Public Meetings:The neighborhood or public WSB will work with the City of Richfield and other stakeholders w, rav 1' II: PROPOSED TECH NICALPRO CESS/PLAN NINGPROCESS/11 I' i A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Podipeld i meetings would be held to inform residents and businesses about d ' the project status and get input on alternatives and impacts for the unresolved issues related to the 77th Street layout. This k input will be critical to getting approval of the 77th Street layout. WSB anticipates that two meetings will be required during the preliminary and final design phases of the project. A final public meeting should be held prior to approval of the final plans for 77th Street to discuss construction related issues that could affect residents or businesses. WSB will coordinate these meetings with the City of Richfield so that residents and businesses can be informed and provide input into the process. The actual format of the meeting(open house or presentation)will depend on the r R issues to be discussed at these meetings. Property Owner Meetings:WSB has often found that it is beneficial to have small group or one-on-one meetings with some of the affected property owners to discuss the specific impacts of they project on their property and potential mitigation measures. Often times this is done during the right-of-way acquisition phase,but / it is also helpful to talk with affected property owners during the preliminary design phase so that changes can still be made before final plans are developed. We anticipate that up to 15 property owner y,r ✓ g 3 meetings would be held over the course of the project. Other Communication Tools:WSB has found that social media, J; including Facebook and Twitter,as well as email project-related J, websites are an excellent method for keeping the public informed about the current status of the project. Project information like project layouts, newsletters,schedules, presentations,articles, � AJ etc.,can all be posted on the City's website or Facebook page and/or on a project-specific website. The website can be advertised through public meeting notices, newsletters, news articles or other methods. This allows the public to keep up with changes as they occur. If the site is established during the preliminary and final design phase it will be familiar to people as the project goes to construction,and it can also be used to inform local businesses and residents about construction-related issues. The website is also a good way for the public to provide comments on the project on an ongoing basis by providing an _ email option or a location to post comments. A project hotline is another communication method that is helpful for addressing wewent your input, issues that come up during construction. WSB also can provide a visualization of proposed plans if necessary to assist the public in understanding the proposed project and design. WSB will prepare meeting notes or minutes for all project — meetings. h; } 12/PROPOSEDTECHNICAL PROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS I V A Proposal to Provide.Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield 4 Alternatives Evaluation k i Over the years there has been significant work completed on this project. However, needs and standards change. Therefore, it is important to evaluate alternatives for the proposed improvements in order to ensure the best value and a project that will achieve all of the stakeholders goals. The alternatives that will be considered include both roadway cross-section,alignment and profiles as well as alternative bridge types. [ The WSB team will use a proven three-phase process for the bridge type and geometrics study. The bridge alternatives analysis will be completed parallel to,and in unison with,the roadway design alternatives and environmental documentation. Phase I discussion and analysis will include: Development of a design criteria document — Establishing Richfield's essential design criteria: Graphics such as the following two figures will be load capacity,design life,clearances used throughout the alternatives analysis to vet the — Citing Richfield's desirable design criteria: bridge options. aesthetic features, maintenance efforts Structural accommodation of preliminary geometric alignments and profiles Bridge Superstructure Type Costs • Structure types to be considered Structure locations to be considered 6 6 II 6 1 Bridge cross-sections to be considered Subsurface and utility investigation Reinforced ConcreteSlab $110-$150 26"-32" N/A N/A Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab $175-$225 18"-20" 33"-36" N/A Preliminary square-foot costing information for screening Prestressed Girder $155-$180 27'31" 45^-54" 63"-72" studies Steel Plate Girder—ParallelFlange $200-$250 26"-30" 42"-48" 58"-70" Identification and discussion of preliminary bridge issues and constraints — Span lengths:The two TH 77 Bridges may have enough vertical clearance and are short enough to accommodate single-span bridges,saving pier costs. — Bridge curvature:The curvature of the ramp Bridge Superstructure Effective Span Ranges and frontage road bridges may impact the viable bridge types. Large curvatures may eliminate concrete superstructure alternatives,which are Steel Plate Girder 170 600 less expensive and require less maintenance Prestressed than steel girders concrete Girder 50 170 — Superstructure depth limitations:Superstructure Post-Tensioned depths will have a great impact on the drainage Concrete slab 50 90 design,required fill,and construction tie-in Reinforced 20 y 50 locations Concrete Slab Anticipated Bridge Span Lengths(55ft-160ft) - Existing structures and utilities for Richfield Bridges — Questionable soil bearing properties:WSB's 0 125 250 500 previous design of the Mall of America bridges Span in Feet encountered unique soil conditions,leading to the innovative use of corrugated steel pipe pilings Presentation of options at TAC,agency,stakeholder and public meetings for feedback i I' I PRO POSED TECH NICAL PRO CESS/PLAN NINGPRO CESS/13 I A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Ridif1eld Next, Phase 2(initial analysis of concepts)will be conducted. r Using a series of matrices,the concepts passing through phased ,' r I will be vetted against the purpose and need statement, , environmental criteria,collected data, potential impacts and roadway alternatives. Phase 2 will include: Compatibility with roadway geometrics Impact assessments 3-D graphical renderings Refined structure types, locations and cross-sections Refined costing information—based on unit quantities Viable foundation type and footprints Staging concepts Utilization of context sensitive solutions Presentation of options at TAC,agency,stakeholder and will work MnDOT staff in identifying the specific design criteria public meetings for feedback for layout development. An issue that will be addressed early in the process will be the potential for future expansion of the TH Phase 3(refinement of build alternatives)will take the preferred 77 and I-494 interchange. Also,the potential for future access bridge/roadway alternative and further refine and optimize in from 77th Street to TH 77 will be discussed. Although,we do detail—concluding with a public meeting presentation of the not anticipate the need to incorporate these into the design and preferred alternative and geometric layout. Phase 3 will include: layout,we believe it is important to address these issues early Resolution of unresolved or partially resolved issues in the process so they are not raised later during the final design Refined impact assessments process. WSB anticipates meeting with the MnDOT layout Refined 3-D graphical renderings review committee after the initial layout has been developed in Refined costing based on advanced quantity units order to get MnDOT input on the layout and key design issues. Life cycle costing if desired The staging plans will be considered in the development of the layout to ensure that the project can be constructed as it is Constructability review envisioned on the layout. Refined staging Architectural treatments—single basic concept Bridge Design Approach Bridge Alternatives Study Report Early in the bridge design,WSB will coordinate the final bridge Presentation of options at TAC,agency,stakeholder and alignments with the roadway group approach alignments. public meetings for feedback Currently,the bridges carrying the ramps and frontage road have curvatures that are small enough to be accommodated in Traffic Forecasting and (Modeling the overhang design, if a beam style bridge is desired. However, the design of the expansion joints and the bearings will need to There have been several forecasts completed for 77th Street accommodate the movements of a curved and skewed bridge. since the project's initial conception in the 1980s. Given some WSB will look at eliminating the bridge joints through the use of of the changes that have occurred since then WSB proposes to semi-integral abutments, if warranted. update the forecasts using the current Metro Council Regional Travel Demand model. The land use and trip generation at the Another step in the bridge design process will be to coordinate Airport and South Loop will be reviewed against the recent the bridge aesthetics with the City of Richfield project manager. development and development plans for these areas in order to WSB is familiar with the aesthetic features of the metro and develop the traffic forecasts. Richfield corridors. We have reviewed the aesthetics of TH77, 494, 77th Street and the local roads. WSB would like to identify and solidify the desired aesthetic characteristics during the bridge Staff Approved Layout alternatives analysis process, but small modifications are expected WSB will develop a layout for MnDOT staff approval that can during the final design. also be used for public involvement and City approvals. WSB Designing the bridges,as they are currently laid out,will be is i 14/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS f (ft I V A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City o(Richfeld relatively simple. It is anticipated that the superstructures will include reconstructing the existing sanitary sewer that crosses most likely be prestressed beams, but they could be steel girders TH 77 and temporary sheeting needed to avoid disruption to if higher curvature is needed or post-tensioned slabs might be existing structures and walls. WSB will evaluate multiple staging used if profiles cannot be modified to accommodate the vertical alternatives in selecting a preferred plan. clearance requirements. Each bridge superstructure will likely consist of two designs,an interior beam(or slab strip)and a fascia beam(or slab strip). The fascia beams will be positioned to Environmental Documentation create overhangs that satisfy MnDOT's maximum and minimum Environmental rules at the federal and state levels dictate projection criteria. When possible,the skew of each substructure the environmental documents that need to be completed for for each bridge will be kept the same,so the beam lengths(slab transportation projects. For 77th Street,the Federal Highway strip lengths)per span will also be the same—leading to design Administration(FHWA)is the agency whose rules need to be and construction savings. followed.At the state level, rules outlined and posted by the WSB anticipates that screeding,during deck casting,will be Environmental Quality Board(EQB)dictate what thresholds performed along the bridges'skews. This will assist in avoiding trigger an environmental document.Should a project not be differential deflections for the young concrete deck. In addition, required to complete formal documents at the state or federal any acute corners of the deck slab will require in-depth analysis to level, permitting from the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding ensure the cantilevers work properly. water bodies could initiate a review of historic resources.Given the project location,that is not a likely scenario for 77th Street. Some of the foundation designs may require more design effort than is typical. Skewed foundations will require the longitudinal The 77th Street project currently does not have federal funding, and transvers a-loads from the pier model to be transformed which is the trigger to complete a federal environmental into the skew axis of the footings. Also,from WSB's experience document. Without federal funding, FHWA will not sign an with the Mall of America bridges, it was discovered that there environmental document.The 77th Street project also does not is a shallow layer of sandstone(30 to 40 feet)and over 100 feet meet the criteria established at the state level for completing of organic poor soil beneath that layer. This may require the and Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)or an use of fluted steel piling,which increases skin friction values. Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).As such,the City would Viable foundation options will be vetted and established early in not be required to complete an environmental document for the the alternatives analysis process. In addition,the TH 77 bridge project as it is funded today. footings will be in close proximity to the existing bridge footings. The City of Richfield could choose to be proactive and complete The construction and impact of these footings will require what is known as a Planning and Environmental Linkages coordination and analysis. (PEL)document.This document can be used as an"up-front" NEPA-compatible document in coordination with FHWA to Staging and Traffic Control identify issues that will need to be addressed should a federal environmental document be required in the future. It is WSB will develop staging plans to keep the TH 77 mainline essentially an environmental document that does not get signed open during the construction of the 77th Street extension. The and can be used to complete the official document if federal sequencing of the bridge construction will be key to maintaining funding is used. Components of the PEL include: background, traffic on TH 77 and minimizing the length of construction. The methodology,agency coordination, public coordination, staging of traffic on TH 77 is a monetary risk to the budget that purpose and need, range of alternatives, planning assumptions can have a negative or positive impact. It may be possible to close and analytical methods,environmental resources,cumulative the TH 77 ramps to and from 1-494 during construction as well as impacts, mitigation,and other or future issues. Completing this close the TH 77 west frontage road at 77th Street. A portion of document would require the City to meet with FHWA and other the southbound C-D road could also be closed temporarily while stakeholders. Generally PELs are used on projects that would the bridge carrying the C-D road is built. However, mainline merit an EAW or an EIS. traffic will have to relocated to either northbound or southbound TH 77 lanes while the mainline bridges are constructed. One The other option for the City would be to update the existing potential construction staging option is to route northbound draft Project Memo that was completed previously to address and southbound TH 77 traffic onto the northbound lanes while current conditions,the revised concept,and updated rules and building the bridge carrying southbound TH 77 and then route guidance related to noise,environmental justice populations and all mainline traffic onto the southbound lanes while building the threatened and endangered species(this approach assumes that northbound bridge. Other considerations in the staging plan will the Project Memo is still the appropriate federal document). PRO POSEDTECH NICALPRO CESS/PLAN NING PROCESS/15 a 3 f A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Piclipeld r. While FHWA would not sign the document, it would include the Intent & Philosophy of the QMP �. issues/resources that would need to be addressed for the project The intent of the QMP is to provide a mechanism by which to move forward in the future. Completing this document would all documents produced by the project can be subject to a not require coordination with FHWA at this time, but WSB recommends doing so if they are willing to meet. systematic and consistent review needed to deliver a high quality product,on time,and within budget. The manual is intended The WSB team can prepare either document(PEL or updated to be a living document which will be reviewed and updated Project Memo)should the City decide to take a proactive matter periodically to ensure compliance with changes to document with regard to environmental documentation.Team members are preparation requirements, processes and organizational structure. experienced in preparing and obtaining environmental clearance from review and approving agencies and have good working The final project specific QMP will be based on the philosophy that: relationships with agency staff.WSB recommends meeting with Quality control should ensure that the work is done correctly FHWA early in the process to identify which path they would the first time. support for this project. It is anticipated that both documents Quality is achieved by focusing on preventing problems or would be similar in scope and cost due to topic requirements errors rather than reacting to them. covered in the analyses. Quality is achieved by qualified individuals performing all work The topics that will be most important for the City to investigate functions. include noise and environmental justice. Both of these topic areas Quality is achieved by providing proper training of personnel have required more detailed analyses and scrutiny since the draft and ensuring that all personnel remain current on the Project Memo was prepared. Noise will likely come into play near knowledge and skills needed for their position. the apartment buildings located on the west side of TH 77. It may Quality is verified through checking, reviewing,and also be an issue by Washington Park,depending upon how well monitoring of work activities,with documentation by the existing noise wall mitigates for sound impacts. MnDOT and experienced, qualified individuals who are not directly FHWA have both adopted updated noise policies that are more responsible for performing the work. stringent than they have been in the past,and noise will need Quality is continual improvement of the quality system. to be reevaluated under those new rules.Along with the noise issue,another focus for reviewing and approving agencies is the Quolity Management Plan Structure impacts associated with transportation projects on low-income or The final QMP developed for this project will contain the minority populations.The apartment buildings located west of TH following sections: 77 are likely to be an area that will require additional investigation. • Quality Management Organizational Structure Quality Management Overview Quality Plan Implementation and Training List of Requirements Quality is the result of a partnership between the providers Technical Document Review Process of project development services(plan development,technical reports and environmental documentation)and those responsible — Quality Control Flowchart for auality assurance.Those providing project development — Quality Control Checking Procedures services must implement quality control audits to ensure that — Formal Review Process products and services meet or exceed expectations of quality. — Disciple Coordination Review(DCR), Constructability The overall outcome of these efforts is continuous improvement Reviews(CR)and Independent Technical Review(ITR) in the ongoing quest for the highest quality engineering products Quality Assurance/Verification&Auditing and technical reports with the most efficient use of resources. Documentation If selected for this project,WSB's quality manager will develop a project specific Quality Management Plan(QMP)that will be WSB is very committed to delivering quality plans that have been implemented prior to any work is completed. This plan will thoroughly reviewed. Our project specific QMP will reflect these adhere to the guiding principles of MnDOT's Design—Bid-Build values and our project manager will ensure the plan is adhered to. QMP(required on all projects that impact a state highway)and WSB's Corporate Quality Management Plan, i it 16/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS I WSB A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richteld 11 ANNEEMEEM Work Plan ���!! r i I. Project Management:WSB will be proactive in managing this project to ensure that the project stays on schedule and within budget. The following subtasks will be completed as part of the project management task. f a. Project Schedule: Prepare project schedule and update on a monthly basis. :6 b. Project Team Meetings: Hold monthly project team meetings to exchange information, review progress y and deliverables. c. Project Organization: Establish project filing system, file sharing and project standards. d. Other Agency Meetings:WSB will hold up to four d. Quality Control: Prepare quality control plan and meetings with other agencies to coordinate project monitor compliance with the plan. design. This could include Metro Council,watershed, e. Project Cost Control: Monitor project budget and and other agencies. schedule. Prepare work orders for major tasks and e. Property Owner Meetings:WSB will meet individually subconsultants. with property owners directly impacted by the project f. Progress Reports: Prepare and submit monthly to discuss impacts and alternatives. We have planned progress reports along with the project invoices. for up to ten property owner meetings. g. Client Strategy Meetings: Hold weekly discussions f. Other Communication Tools:WSB will provide current with the City to discuss project issues and direction. materials for posting on the City's website to keep the h. Subconsultant Contracts:Contracts will be prepared public informed regarding the project status. with all subcontractors that will define their scope of g. Meeting Notes and Summaries:WSB will prepare work,and billing terms.The contract will also include meeting notes or minutes for all project meetings. all of the required federal language. 3. Field Surveys/Design Surveys:WSB will update all of the 2. Public Involvement Plan: WSB will prepare a public boundary information regarding the existing right-of-way of involvement plan that will document the communication TH 77 and 77th Street and all of the tracts of land adjoining timing and methods for communicating with the potentially this project.The information to be collected is as follows: affected interests. The plan will include the following Geographical Information System(GIS) Parcel Mapping elements: Existing right-of-way plats a. Technical Advisory Committee(TAC):WSB will work Existing subdivision plats with the City of Richfield to establish the TAC which Existing street and utility easements of record will be made up of staff from the affected agencies Section corner ties and section calculation sheets (City of Richfield, MnDOT, MAC, Metro Transit,and Geodetic control datum FHWA). It is assumed that there will be up to 18 TAC meetings over the course of the project. County half-section maps b. Traffic Commission and City Council Meetings:WSB Ownership and encumbrance reports on adjoining will make presentations to the City traffic commission, parcels. planning commission,and City council at key points in This information,combined with the field survey data of the study process. Up to three meetings are assumed. existing monumentation on the adjoining tracts and right-of- c. Neighborhood/Public Meetings:WSB will hold up ways,will be used to calculate an accurate, boundary survey to three public involvement meetings to inform the grade base map.Accurate base mapping will determine general public about the project and gather their input existing right-of-way as well as right-of-way to be acquired. on alternatives and impacts. I PRO POSED TECH NICALPRO CESS/PLAN NINGPRO CESS/17 1 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield The survey control established during the base mapping 7. Project Cost Estimating: WSB has prepared cost phase of the project will be utilized,along with the vertical estimates for the project as it is currently envisioned. datum established,to prepare a complete topographical These cost estimates do include a large contingency to survey of the project site.The field survey will include cover items that are currently unknown and will become spot elevations,cross-sections,centerline profiles,all better defined as we complete the preliminary and final existing features and underground/overhead utilities.The design of the project. WSB will provide cost estimates survey data will be collected electronically in the field and for alternatives as they are identified to help in choosing downloaded directly to the project CAD file in the office. the most cost-effective alternative and to ensure that 4. Geotechnical Services: This phase of the project there are sufficient funds to build the final project as involves conducting subsurface exploration and testing, designed. WSB will provide updated project costs at key laboratory testing and engineering review for the purpose points in the study which will include at the completion of providing Foundation Reports for the bridge and of the preliminary design and staff approved layout, 30% retaining walls,and a Design Recommendations Report plans,60%plans,95%plans and the final approved for pavements and embankments. The work will be plans. Key items that may significantly impact project conducted byAET. costs include storm drainage,decision on the alignment of the west frontage road and connection to 77th Street, AET is familiar with the foundation design of many of the potential ramp to northbound TH 77, and the need to MnDOT bridges in the area. Many of the MnDOT bridges accommodate future improvements to TH 77 and 1-494 are supported on driven steel monotube piles bearing interchange. As the project scope becomes better within the upper sand and gravel strata. These are tapered known, the cost estimates will become more accurate piles which can,with the right subsurface conditions, and the contingencies should decrease. WSB believes that derive their capacity at shorter depths than conventional during the preliminary design phase one of the purposes steep CIP or H-piles. of the cost estimates is to help in the decision making 5. Staff Approved Layout/Construction Limits: A MnDOT process. Therefore we would prepare cost estimates for staff-approved layout is needed for the proposed different elements of the project such as the bridges,the construction of 77th Street under TH 77 since it will storm water drainage system,the lighting,signals,etc. As impact MnDOT facilities.Although there is a staff- different alternatives are investigated for addressing these approved layout from 2000,there are potential changes to elements, cost comparisons can be provided to help in the the layout that was approved. The staff-approved layout decision process. will also be used to obtain municipal consent from the Another purpose of the cost estimates is to determine City of Richfield. This 77th Street layout may also need a financing plan for the project. To assist in developing a to consider MnDOT's long term plans for 1-494 since complete financial plan,WSB would prepare a preliminary the 77th Street alignment and the bridges built over 77th cost participation layout showing the anticipated Street will provide constraints on the future expansion of funding for different elements of the project. The cost the TH 77 and 1-494 interchange. Alternatives that will be participation layout would be based on MnDOT cost discussed during the development of the staff-approved participation policies. layout will include the following: 8. Governmental Permits and Approvals: A permit Future ramp access to northbound TH 77 from 77th application for the project will be developed and submitted Street to the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Alignment of TH 77 west frontage road Organization. The previous construction of 77th Street Alignment of the Southbound TH 77 ramp to WB 1-494 incorporated storm water treatment of this section of 77th 6. Interchange Modification Report(optional): The Street into the plans. However,stormwater regulations interchange modification report is required to obtain have changed and a drainage analysis will be completed to approval from FHWA for modifications of access to 1-494. determine if any additional stormwater treatment will be Depending on the conclusions from the alternatives required for this project. Other permits required for this evaluation process the 77th Street project could require project that will be obtained by WSB include: modifications to access ramps to 1-494. If access to 1-494 MPCA NPDES permit for stormwater discharge is modified and Interchange Modification report may be MPCA NPDES permit for dewatering required to satisfy federal requirements.. •A DNR water appropriation permit i f �I 18/PRO POSEDTECHNICAL PROCESS/PLAN NINGPROCESS 4 �/�A A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield W underpass, including the following: — Water resource related agreements " — As-built drawings of the existing trunk storm water conveyance system i r; — Water resource related ordinances such as I shoreland,floodplain,erosion control,storm r water,and/or wetland ordinances t — Existing storm water policies for the City of Richfield and City of Bloomington r ' — Available topographic maps of the City of �, mr Richfield and City of Bloomington — Existing hydraulic/hydrologic models � b. Information will be collected from the following agencies: Minnesota Department of Transportation, A Federal Aviation Administration clearance for the City of Richfield and City of Bloomington. Part 77 of FAA Regulations c. Develop Preliminary Drainage Study: The water MnDOT staff-approved layout resources data collected as part of the previous tasks will be analyzed, interpreted and modified MnDOT approval of final construction plans to reflect the proposed construction. This will be City of Richfield approval of final construction plans used to develop the preliminary drainage study. The Other agencies that do not have specific permitting or Preliminary drainage study will include the following: approval authority but are affected by this project include: — Determination of impacts of the proposed Three Rivers Park District, Metro Transit, and Metropolitan construction, including an increase in runoff rate Airports Commission. The project is not expected to have and pollutant loading, it any any direct impacts on the City of Bloomington, but WSB — Preliminary layout of proposed storm water will provide an opportunity for Bloomington to provide conveyance system input into the project design. — Preliminary discussion of possible storm water 9. Right-of-Way Plan: Information prepared as part of the treatment systems base mapping phase of the project,as well as information d. Present Preliminary Drainage Study: The preliminary obtained from the final design,will be utilized for the drainage study will be discussed with the affected right-of-way plan.The right-of-way plan will include the stakeholders to get input on the proposed plan. This following: will involve meeting with the Minnesota Department Existing right-of-way of Transportation, City of Richfield and City of Proposed right-of-way to be acquired(permanent and Bloomington. temporary easements)with acreages e. Develop Final Drainage Study: With the input Ownership information received as part of the previous tasks,the final Parcel identification numbers drainage study will be developed that will meet 10. Drainage Study: The drainage study must resolve drainage the needs of the Minnesota Department of issues for 77th Street as well as determine how the plan Transportation,City of Richfield and City of will affect flows in the TH 77 corridor. The study will Bloomington. also determine whether the previous plans for treating 11. Utility Coordination: The proposed construction of the stormwater runoff from the project are adequate or if 77th Street underpass could potentially have an effect additional stormwater treatment is required. The tasks on public utilities belonging to the City of Richfield as that will be completed to accomplish this include: well as impact private utilities. We know that there is a. Data Collection: This part of the work effort an 18"sanitary sewer line that will have to be moved consists of gathering relevant water resource-related to accommodate the underpass and there also may be information for the areas tributary to the 77th Street a desire to provide water service to the east side of the i. PRO PO SED TECH NICALPRO CESS/PLAN NINGPRO CESS/19 I 4 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield highway. In addition,there are utilities in the TH 77 west The construction details for the construction staging plan frontage road that may be impacted by the project. Finally, will be developed during final design. The details will there is a twin 24" MCES sanitary interceptor line in the TH address the design for any temporary roadways or ramps r 77 west frontage road that may have to be relocated with and how each of the construction stages would proceed in the project, order to maintain traffic operations. The plan will identify j In addition to public utilities within the project area, the requirements or restrictions for closures or other coordination with private utility companies will also be changes to the existing traffic flows. required. WSB will follow MnDOT's utility coordination 13. Traffic Control Plans:Detailed plans and notes will be prepared checklist in working with the private utilities in the corridor. by WSB showing the location of signs,barriers and pavement The tasks that would be part of the utility coordination markings necessary to accommodate the construction staging include the following. within the project area or via a detour in a manner consistent a. Preliminary Design Stage: The utility aspect of this with the MMUTCD Manual,Field Manual A tabulation showing project will broken down into preliminary and final the description and estimated quantities of traffic control design stages to match the other elements of design. devices by stage will also be prepared. During the preliminary design stage,WSB will meet 14. Preliminary Bridge Study and Plans-Phase I: Extensive with City staff from Richfield to identify any changes coordination will be done between bridge layouts and the t that may need to be made as part of this project. We horizontal and vertical alignment for 77th Street. A key will evaluate the impacts to the existing utility in regard part of the preliminary bridge study will be to consider to the proposed bridge and roadway improvements. alternative bridge types and the impact on structure Impacts to the existing system will be determined depth. Very little change in the profile of TH 77 will be based on grade and alignment changes, right-of-way possible because of the existing bridge just to the south of acquisition,and other project related factors. Identified the proposed bridges. It is desirable to limit how much improvements will be prepared as a component of the 77th Street is lowered in order to maintain a gravity overall preliminary project plans and reviewed with outlet for storm water and minimize the excavation costs. city staff. A preliminary cost estimate will also be The amount that 77th Street must be lowered can be developed based on the identified modifications. minimized by minimizing the bridge structure depth. b. Final Design: The final design stages of the utility a Bridge Architectural Treatment—WSB will coordinate component of this project will include the preparation with the City of Richfield,MAC,and MnDOT to identify of plans and specifications based on necessary any potential architectural treatments for the bridge improvements and modifications to existing systems abutments,retaining walls and bridge railings. WSB will identified in the preliminary design phase. The design identify potential architectural treatments that would for replacement sanitary sewer and watermain facilities fit with other architectural treatments in the area and will be coordinated with the design of the bridge and develop renderings of how the bridges may look from roadways and will be included in the complete plan set 77th Street and nearby roadways. for the project. Preliminary Bridge and Retaining Walls Plans-Phase II: 12. Project Staging Plans:The construction staging plans will Preliminary bridge plans will be prepared as well as retaining be of interest to the businesses and residents that rely on wall plan and profile. Following,as a minimum,are the plan 77th Street or the TH 77 west frontage road for access, sheets that will be prepared as part of the preliminary plan In addition, MnDOT will have a major interest because of submittal: the impact to traffic on TH 77. We will also review staging Title Sheet with Design and General Notes plans with MAC and metro transit so they understand the Bridge Plan and Elevation potential impact to their operations. Bridge Layout with Abutment Corner Details and Working WSB proposes to address the construction staging during Point Layout the preliminary design phase of the project and get Unique Architectural Details agreement from the affected agencies on how the project Bridge Deck Layout with Superelevation Transitions will be phased in order to be able to construct the project efficiently while minimizing the amount of disruption to Bridge Survey Sheet(s) access and traffic. The plan would address how traffic Bridge Survey Plan and Profile with Soil Boring Logs would travel through the area as well as the access into the Retaining Walls plan and Elevations area. t 20/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS i i C A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield S ---- I i r Preliminary bridge and retaining wall construction cost The second submittal will be the 60% review plan. This estimates and special provisions will be prepared. The plan will consist of beam sheets(or other superstructure plans,construction cost estimate and special provision will element),abutment,and pier sheets at a halfway point of be submitted to MnDOT bridge office for their review. development between the partial plan submittal and the The same documents will be included with the highway final submittal. The purpose of this submittal is to give the plans for MnDOT Metro District preliminary submittal. MnDOT reviewer a chance to review WSB's development 15. Final Bridge Design and Plan Preparation:Once the of the plan set and to make sure it follows the prescribed preferred alternative has been approved and preliminary MnDOT standards and practices. WSB will submit to plans and layout for each bridge have been established, Richfield and MnDOT two review sets and working WSB will begin working on the final designs. All design copies of the electronic files. At this point,all discussions work will be in accordance with the current MnDOT regarding state aid participation will be properly vetted and State Aid Manuals, MnDOT Bridge Manual and Standards, communicated. WSB will also facilitate a project progress/ AASHTO Bridge Specifications and any additions required review meeting after this submittal. by Richfield. All plan sets will be developed following The third submittal will be the 95% Review Plan. This MnDOT's"Summary of Recommended Drafting for all practical purposes is the final plan set developed Standards"and shall be detailed in Microstation Version by WSB for submittal to Richfield and MnDOT. It will 8i (select Series 2)format. It is envisioned that WSB will consist of all final plan sheets for the abutments, piers, stagger the submittals for each of the bridges,to allow superstructure, beam elevations, beam details, bearings, WSB to progress the design and detailing,while the railings,and miscellaneous bridge details. All quantities agencies review the plans. will be calculated and placed on the summary of estimated The first submittal will be the partial Plan submittal quantities sheet. WSB will submit to Richfield and MnDOT (30%submittal). Each bridge plan set will consist of the two review sets,working copies of the electronic files, following sheets:general plan and elevation,summary of engineer's cost estimate(costs split broken down into the estimated quantities, bridge layout,construction staging, proper funding sources), unique special revisions,and the aesthetic details,framing plan,survey sheet,survey plan associates design calculations. Richfield and MnDOT will and profile,in-place utilities and topography plan. WSB review the final plan, create redline markups,document will submit two review sets to Richfield and MnDOT. WSB any design/detailing comments and meet with WSB to will also facilitate a project progress/review meeting after return the plan to discuss any plan revisions. this submittal. The last submittal will be the final certified plan. WSB PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNINGPROCESS/21 i i A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Pochpeld plans. In addition the final construction plans will include wJ 9 -a Gra 7 tt ❑ i( 7 U � W` IF•m k9 6. _..S title sheet,storm water drainage plans, removal plans, r construction plans and profiles,signing and striping, typical sections,cross-sections, intersection details,quantities and tabulations,and engineer's estimate. The plans will be completed using Microstation and GEOPAK and will utilize MnDOT CADD standards. WSB anticipates plan reviews at 30%,60%,and 95%. The 95%plans would be WSB's 100%plans for final review. Following the final review, WSB would make any final changes and print plans for final signatures. - 20. Constructability Reviews:WSB will have a senior bridge inspector review the construction plans during key will respond to comments from Richfield and MnDOT, phases of the project to identify any potential issues with and then revise the plan and design accordingly. When construction of the project as it is being designed. This resolution of comments has occurred,WSB will sign the could include the use of sheeting for construction of bridge plan set and submit the original signed set,a copy of the abutments, adequate staging areas or other factors that signed set,a bound copy of all design calculations and a sometimes are overlooked in the design process. DVD consisting of all electronic drawing files and pdf files 21. Quality Reviews:WSB develops a project specific quality of the plan,calculations and specifications, plan for each project. A summary plan is included at the 16. Signal justification Reports and Signal Plans: It has not end of this proposal. The plan spells out the plan review been determined whether a signal will be needed at process and key points in the design process where quality the intersection of Longfellow Avenue and 77th Street. reviews will be conducted. WSB will work with MAC, Metro Transit and the City of 22, Bid Documents and Advertising: This task involves Richfield to update the traffic forecasts on 77th Street preparing the final construction bidding documents,which and Longfellow Avenue and use the updated forecasts to includes but is not limited to,special provisions, bidding determine whether a traffic signal will be warranted long instructions, bid proposal,and appropriate MnDOT term at this intersection. If forecast volumes are close to attachments. The special provisions will include separate meeting signal warrants WSB will develop a signal design divisions for roadway, lighting,signage,signals, bridges, for the intersection and include the installation of the sanitary sewer,and watermain to address special project underground elements as part of this project. requirements not covered under"MnDOT Standard 17. Lighting Plan: A lighting system plan will be developed for Specification for Construction." Each special provision 77th Street.The plan will follow the Cities Light design will contain a description, materials,construction standards.WSB will also evaluate the need for relocating requirements, method of measurement,and basis of any of the high mast lighting at the TH 77 and 1-494 payment for each item. Deletions and additions to interchange. standard specifications will be written and included as 18. Aesthetic Design: The purpose of this task will be to necessary. review each of the project elements and discuss potential WSB will prepare the advertisement for bidding, aesthetic design treatments that may be desired in the coordinate the placement of the advertisement in the corridor. This would include the preparation of any appropriate legal paper,and the construction bulletin. landscaping plans for 77th Street or the TH 77 west WSB will tabulate and verify each qualified bid received to frontage road, certify the lowest responsible bidder. 19. Final Roadway Construction Plans and Specifications: 23. Right-of-Way Acquisition(optional): We have assumed in This task involves preparing final construction plans for this proposal that either the City of Richfield will do the the project. The construction plans will incorporate right-of-way acquisition, or it will be a separate contract. plans that were developed under other tasks including WSB has identified staff who could assist with the right-of- the lighting plans,traffic signal plans,construction staging way acquistion if desired. plans,traffic control plans, bridge plans, landscape plans, aesthetic design details,and utility relocation construction i 22/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS i I M N_ T W Cl) N " O Z n Y+ L W U o m E a V o 0 o >°. U a E ❑ Z '> Z Q v o v ❑ ° �U Q F= F` m c U m 3 m a` E v — c v o F t = p = o U d ❑ U E °p U a v v o a° It Z = U .o h c a U c c $ a o " U a ° a v v m 0 —o ° 3 i Q Q w a 3 oa Q 3 a O Eo s v Q m w ° �°u U ° ° vc 3 a 3 m v _° v c v v ❑° -vo 3 w o a > c v @ a = 'o 'o 'a - .o o A a` 2 Y U z Q F Q` a' m` E a ❑ a a ❑ ¢ a = 1 2 Q E a Q a V a < a z a O CC Y , a e f, at Alv ig n s - `; gy W EV x a, a n� 5 N s "Nr 4, � t � � a ED a " 0 m `m 2-0 E> c V c « oC. o, o d o E. a N o m Q On " „ d -e u .w oC0 O b E a U ''U ❑° :�E E v E _ o o c. ` o 1° �"-- N E o C c ou coiO o oo v : a mUc:' s Q❑-- omii�i ao aEoVa V v to ❑E0 `V Do `i 7 mfnT aLL Vy .:: d m:: A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for tire City of Richfield WS ---__ ---- --- - -- -- - --- -- -- -- - --------- i., ,z r ■■ illV __ _ u-rr sure K./ f ` oon Lyndale Avenue Interchange Richfield and Bloomington, MPSI w� Client: City of Richfield Total project cost:$25,000,000 Completion: October 2009 WSB&Associates, Inc., along with its partners,teamed to provide the City of : Richfield with engineering services to complete the design for a new single- `� point diamond interchange at Lyndale Avenue and 1-494. The cites of Richfield and Bloomington had been pursuing reconstruction r`f• hr' of the Lyndale interchange for a decade,or more,to serve the traffic needs in this commercial district along 1-494. The close proximity of Lyndale to the 1-494 and 1-35W interchange posed a challenge along with the need ® ® -4 to develop a project that met the access needs of the local businesses. Adequate spacing between entrance and exit ramps on 1-494 was needed. The plan also needed to provide for the future upgrade of the 1-35W and V i 1-494 interchange. WSB worked with Mn/DOT and the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington to develop a design that accomplished these goals. ' a6 � � This project required the development of a final preliminary layout,final design plans,and construction support. The preliminary phase required WSB to develop an interchange plan for the I-494/1-35W interchange so the r s ' Lyndale Avenue Bridge could accommodate the future CD roads emanating from the adjacent interchange. Once the final design was completed,WSB ® , had nine months to complete the final design plans and have it out for bids. This was accomplished through our effective project management techniques and prior work experiences. Elements of the project included: Construction staging with Frontage road work maintenance of traffic Landscaping Utility relocation Aesthetic treatments Lighting,traffic signal Right-of-way Ramp meters Sidewalks j i, PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS/25 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield 77th StreetImprovements I Richfield, Hennipin County, MN Client:City of Richfield Total project cost:$12,000,000 `i Completion: 1995 The 77th Street Improvements Project converted 77th Street between 1-35W and TH 77 from a two-lane 44-foot roadway- serving a mix of residential and commercial uses-to a four lane divided roadway with channelized left-turn lanes. The project included the purchase of a row of single-family homes on the north side of the existing street that was used to widen the roadway, as well as to provide a buffer area between 77th Street and the residential area to the north. A 12-foot noise wall was constructed in the buffer area to reduce traffic noise in the residential area. The east end of the project was designed in anticipation of a future extension of 77th Street under TH 77 to Longfellow Avenue. Members of the WSB team were involved in the preliminary and final design of the project as well as in the public involvement, environmental documentation and construction. The improvements required teamwork and partnerships with MnDOT, FHWA,and the City of Richfield. 1, i Q) BVINSM0101- 10 1 „ Penn Avenue Interchange Improvements The$25 million MnDOT Cooperative Agreement project went from Richfield and Bloomington, MN preliminary design,through final design and construction letting in just Client: City of Richfield, City of Bloomington, and MnDOT over ayear. Total project cost:$25,000,000 Completion:2002 WSB was responsible for preparing and obtaining concurrence on both the Environmental Assessment and the Interchange The Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 located in the Cities of Modification Request documents for the project. While with Richfield and Bloomington, MN was reconstructed in 2002 to a different consulting firm,Tony Heppelmann, now of WSB, accommodate the future expansion of 1-494. The single point was instrumental in the development of the conceptual and (one intersection with one traffic signal)diamond interchange preliminary design of the interchange as well as the future provides for dual left turn lanes in each direction as well as two development of the corridor. His professional relationship with through lanes in each direction. The interchange reconstruction the communities along the corridor facilitated the process of schedule was compressed to meet the aggressive redevelopment obtaining municipal consent in the ultimate corridor design. of the immediate area including the new Best Buy Corporate Headquarters facility. t i i 26/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS [( I WSA Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield t Bren f s T5"fir' - V Road and TH 169 Interchange completion incentives to limit the time the bridge was out of service Minnetonka, MN Client: City of Minnetonka to 75 calendar days. Total project cost:$15,250,000 The internal business park roadway system is a series of one way Completion: November 2011 roadways which made construction staging and traffic control difficult. The TH 169/113ren Road Interchange project was developed as Also,adding to the complexity was the requirement to replace the concrete ramps while maintaining ramp access throughout a public-private partnership where benefitting business chipped in to expand the capacity of an aging interchange to support the construction activity.Traffic on TH 169 was shifted outward expansion of the business park.The project was developed on a to maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction at all times and temporary ramps were constructed to maintain access.The local tight time frame to meet the requirement that the interchange be opened prior to occupancy of the new construction within the roadways systems require eight separate construction phases in order business park.The project involved a complete replacement of to construct the project and maintain traffic access. the bridge and concrete interchange ramps,three signal systems The project was constructed in a very tight urban environment along with expanding the capacity of the local street system to within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.Additional ponds handle the increased traffic volume.Seven retaining walls were and infiltration systems were developed to meet the environmental constructed to accommodate the wider local roadway to avoid requirements along with a detailed SWPPP to meet the regulatory loss of developable land for business expansion. agency requirements. Close coordination and cooperation with The project schedule required that all of the work be completed MnDOT, both cities, and the regulatory agencies helped expedite in one construction season which required the bridge to be closed the development,design,and construction of the project which was for replacement.Also,compounding the project's complexity key in meeting this very aggressive project schedule. was the lack of alternative access to the business park during WSB was responsible for preliminary and final design,contract the closure.The design team worked with MnDOT to identify administration,quality management,construction surveying,and accelerated bridge construction techniques along with early inspection. i PRO POSEDTECHNICALPRO CESS/PLAN NINGPRO CESS/27 i 4 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of R chfield TH 95 i Bridge Project t North Branch, Chisago County, MN ' Client: City of North Branch Total project cost:$8,900,000 Completion: October 2010 WSB&Associates, Inc,was retained by the City of North Branch to develop a design for the improvement of TH 95 at 1-35 in CSAH 18 1-94 Interchange the City of North Branch, Chisago County. The improvements Improvements included construction of a new bridge over 1-35, reconstruction Monticello, MN of TH 95 from Tanger Drive to Oakview Avenue(approx. Client: City of Monticello 0.35 miles)from a two-lane to a four-lane roadway with turn Total project cost:$25,000,000 lanes, ramp reconstruction and revised signal systems. The Completion: 2006 project also included a linear pathway system as part of the pedestrian enhancements and safety improvements. The bridge WSB assisted the City of Monticello with infrastructure was constructed in two stages to allow TH 95 to remain open improvement projects related to the CSAH 18/1-94 interchange throughout construction. area, resulting in an investment of$25 million. WSB's assistance to the City with innovative financing resulted in having much WSB's services included the concept development, design of of the cost on this project paid by other stakeholders,with as a MnDOT staff approved layout, right of way,environmental little as 15%coming from the general fund. The newly located documentation,and assistance to the City in obtaining funding. interchange replaces the previous existing half interchange, The City received layout approval from MnDOT in October providing two full interchanges to serve the City's transportation of 2006. The project was coordinated with the City of North needs. This project consisted of several area improvements that Branch and MnDOT. required significant planning and coordination. During the construction,the WSB/SEH team provided contract The CSAH 18/1-94 Interchange also included Minnesota's administration,construction inspection, materials testing,traffic first multi-lane roundabout. The roundabout was added as a control compliance, project certification,and project finalization. supplemental agreement to the original contract. MnDOT had previously not allowed multi-lane roundabouts on the State Aid system.When MnDOT changed this policy, it happened while the CSAH 18/1-94 Interchange was already under construction. b '' f The City and WSB raced to get agency approvals,design plans and negotiate a supplemental agreement with the contractor in time for the roundabout to be completed during the current construction season. The massive coordination effort paid off. The distinctiveness of the project was the creative funding ry program developed to maximize both public and private investments the various bid packages utilized to meet the compressed schedule and the first multi-lane roundabout in Minnesota. ° The interchange, utility systems,and local streets including the roundabout were fully operational in November 2006. ` � 4 P Awards: 2007ACEC/MN Engineering Excellence Honor Award . 2006 CEAM Municipal Project of the Year- Honorable Mention 10 j 28/PROPOSEDTECHNICALPROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS V A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield Key er nnel Experience Matrix a„ ��;��,,.. x x xx xx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx x I" \, p ! \ x x x x x x x x x x x x x y x x x x x x >e xxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ae x x x x x x x x x x x f. Q ... ... _ E _ E •m•�•c rn m `oo o y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . a1di a - mm `loe e > > e A f � � � � A J. J. e rrNe a e e r2 r2 L 'C Y. �• c G C + T, t m m m T. m c E E E v vo vo vo vo vo vo vo a •Tdi a m i_' S •rn- - rn`� 5 �' t �' L L w w v v w -e m e rn m Q •o Q 'o'o y y o y m y'o 'o 'a 'o'o a o P '- - m A '� vs D ... W C G � g E 'E co 9a a -� ee at E E 6o m z z N ti m I d ? o it .ioi n m c oe G rn .s c s p1 9 d s s z d o a o o c c e S a� m d• m 9 -�'a v E �+ e°ic v -� z 9 E •�• 'C v o• u mu C ti s c 'E a .c o o: — o'v v o� y m a o e n d ._ e 173, o p _ a `m ao v, m` '^ _ '^ 3 v Z _ g 'O ` C N d � •� t d 9� � � v r O 7 — N N a0 •_ •_ •_ 61 r N V m D E oe °1 otl o o a `7 w x o' ._ c 3 •E N E d ' e = f.2 7 M s Ysa m 0� N o. — c 3 a o a oe i tJ 2 i ate' m d Y ►�- D v Q PROPOSED TECH NICALPRO CESS/PLAN NING PROCESS/29 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Podipeld I `r x x x x x x x xxxx sx x x x x xxxx x x x x x xxxxxxx xx xxx s< x x >C -1-1-1 sax scxxxx x xxxxxacxxxxxxx x xxxxfsxx xsexxxx �w x x x sa sc x x sc x x x o. 1 x x x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxae xxxx x x ficy x xxxxx x x xxx x x l x x x acxxxxx o. m. o• X saacx W xxc x -c xxacsaxxac xsa xxxxxx xxxacaax xx x x xxxx xxxxxxxx >4 >4 3M -- f o a o 0 o c c 9 -Z j J j _ e :20 •o •o 'a •a •a o aoi d m rn m m rn a m•_ _ eU .o adl eU .a etl etl M _ c o r r t r t r t a W W c c c c •c c •�•c•c c G D a D O D $ G G G G G /� D W au W W rn m rn rn et! eN eC uci uca uca ucag g ga ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ c c tt c c c c W X W W o W W W oIj"I W d V V V V V V V al rn & rn rn rd y •y Q o 0 o y o y y o o 0 0 D D a F- 4- t- �- R 19R � � r � .2 an .n vdi u°i vdi v°i an c C g i2 d C } m = a Y d m E c .o v E y os 9 .- v gE rn o a. ' a 'ori m` m N E p1 a a' o •, m* v — "'� N a e o`. o_ c ccs E a' V �.o rn m ai �• V ;a o o c o a "e oc L^ Z; `w a`� m rn m Y � F- 'c c c �- a c v o _ V �+ :! o N �a �• a �;.v� v� a Q � o — a c o, a. c M r •- o. Q m o 3 ao .a, 2 ? M H � ai S S M 2 2 Q * 2 d C N yQj y p 2 0 1 2 2 2 ' H H S H m S i� V d V N V H y V Y d d d S e a E e � c Y >:. x 1df. C Y 9 d O d i. 30/PROPOSED TECH N[CAL PROCESS/PLANNING PROCESS i t I �/�/S A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield //�/ —� �t YF yr i Jon Chiglo,PE Tony Heppelmann,PE .®- Derek Schmidt,PE Derek Schmidt,PE - - Carl Osberg,PE Design lead Sean Delmore,PE,PTOE Jack Corkle,PTP,AICP Bridge Lead Staging Traffic Control Environmental Ted Witkowski Tony Heppelmann,PE Nic Hentges,PE Documentation Lead Hydraulics Lead Public Involvement Lead Sabri Ayaz,PE Design Engineer Erik Seiberlich independent Traffic Signal Design Rose Ryan,AICP Todd Hubmer,PE Jack Corkle,PTP,AICP Technical Review Josh Vink Environmental Hydraulics Public involvement CAD Technician Documentation James Winters,PE Bridge Design Ashley Grzybowski,PE Bridge Design Dan flittie,PE AE . Design Checker Pete Helder Jeff Vo yen( D Penny Rolf Becky Haydon,PE Greg Roy Greg Reuter(AET) Constructibility Review PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION / 31 i I A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield ` Tony Heppelmann, PE Jon Chiglo, PEi Project Manager ' ` Principal j Tony is a Senior Project Manager and has more ra' Jon is a Senior Project Manager at WSB with than 35 years of experience in plan and project more than 18 years of experience. During ' development,specializing in traffic forecasting, this time,Jon has managed numerous projects traffic impacts and needs assessment,alternatives ranging from preventive maintenance to analysis,and preliminary geometric design. He has worked on major river crossings and urban reconstructs.While at MnDOT, a wide variety of transportation projects and has managed many Jon successfully managed numerous projects and led an effort design studies similar to this study. He has been involved in the 77th to strengthen the project management skill sets within the Street project since the first concept in the 1980s. In addition to Department. He will use his own project management experience managing the previous design of 77th Street,Tony also led the design to assist the Project Manager,City of Richfield and other for Lyndale and 1-494 Interchange in Richfield and he had significant Stakeholders in achieving the goals of the project.As Principal,Jon involvement in the Penn Avenue and 1-494 Interchange Project. will also be responsible for ensuring the Project Manager has the Tony was also the Project Manager for the preliminary design of necessary resources to achieve the goals set forth. the Bren Road/TH 169 Interchange in Minnetonka,TH 95 and 1-35 Interchange in North Branch,CSAH 83 and TH 10 Interchange inCarl Osberg, PE Ramsey. In each of these projects,Tony successfully lead the WSB Structures Manager/Bridge Lead team in developing a staff approved layout that provided for future development and traffic needs and that received the funding needed Carl has more than 17 years of structural design and for implementation. He also provided overall direction during the management experience with bridges(including final design of these projects. Each of these projects came in on curved steel girders,steel truss,post-tensioned and time and under budget while accomplishing the project goals. In reinforced concrete slabs,and prestressed concrete addition to the overall project management,Tony was responsible for girders),retaining walls,tunnels and buildings from concept thru leading traffic forecasting,traffic operations analysis,environmental construction. In addition to design and management,his background approvals,and the public involvement process. includes construction administration,detailing,inspection,studies, public outreach and interdisciplinary coordination.Carl's relevant trek( Schmidt, experience includes providing structural engineering and/or project Deputy Project Manager management for the following projects:MnDOT's Cayuga Bridge No. � 62610,St.Paul,MN;Hennepin County's CSAH 101 Bridge over BNSF Derek is a Senior Project Manager in WSB's Wayzata,MN;MnDOT's LRFD Bridge Design Manual Development, Transportation Group with 17 years of experience. Oakdale,MN;MnDOT's Wakota Interchange Bridges,Newport, His primary focus of work includes preliminary and MN;US 14 Missouri River Bridge Replacement Study,Pierre,SD;Oslo final highway design on interstates,trunk highways Bridge Rehabilitation Study,Oslo,MN;1-90 Mississippi River Bridge and County highways. Derek has been the Project Manager/Design Improvement Study,Dresbach,MN;and MAC's MSP Airport Airside Engineer for multiple high profile projects including the 1-494/Lyndale Tunnels,Minneapolis,MN. Ave Interchange,also lead by the City of Richfield and is very adept Carl understands the need to provide cost-effective,timely and state- at managing projects with multiple agency involvement during both of-the-art standard solutions. He further comprehends the importance preliminary and final design. Derek has also served as a ISO 9001 of professionalism,cooperation,and clear communication in this role. Quality Manager and is currently WSB's Design Quality Manager.In Carl will oversee all structural activities,ensure quality protocols are addition,Derek also co-developed and taught MnDOT's internal usedand coordinate all work with the Project Manager. Geometric Layout/Preliminary Design class. This class was requested by MnDOT's Geometric Design Services Unit who oversees the process for MnDOT. Derek worked closely with them to set the Sabri Ayax, PE goals and parameters for the class. He then developed five case Independent Technical Review studies that he taught at two classes for MnDOT staff and other local Sabri has over 40 years of unparalleled bridge agencies teaching how to develop and receive full staff approval. design experience. He has designed and/or Similar project experience includes,1-494/Lyndale Ave SPUI managed the design of complex,high-profile preliminary and final design,TH 101/CSAH 144 DDI preliminary projects such as the Mall of America access design,CSAH 18/US 10 interchange preliminary design,TH 95/1-35 ramps from TH 77 in Bloomington, MN,the Return to the Interchange final design and CSAH 18/1-94 interchange preliminary Terminal Bridge at the International Airport in Minneapolis, and final design. 32 / PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION l WSBA Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of/Richfield MN,the Bengal Stadium approach ramp bridges in Cincinnati, FHWA(if both agencies needed to approve)during the expected Ohio,the Penn Avenue and Lyndale Avenue over 1-494 between project schedule. Richfield and Bloomington, MN. In managing and designing those In addition to leading the environmental tasks associated with the well-known projects, Sabri has become thoroughly familiar with 77th Street project,Jack will assist Tony with the associated public and MnDOT's bridge standards and requirements for preliminary and agency engagement activities.In her role in leading the environmental final design of steel, precast-prestressed and other type of bridges. documents for the projects listed above,Jack also led or was a key Sabri's role on the proposed project will be the Independent team member in the public and agency involvement process.She Technical Review Engineer. He will be overseeing the bridge is familiar with developing materials that are easy to understand— preliminary and final design activities and also be in charge of the taking complex concepts and putting them into common language quality assurance of the project. that members of the public can relate to.She also has experience in reaching out to members in the community that may not normally � � participate in outreach activities for projects like 77th Street.Given the Traffic Engineering Managerlikelihood of Environmental Justice populations,it will be important to gear outreach activities to these groups. Sean is a Senior Project Manager in WSB's Transportation Group with 25 years of Witkowski experience in transportation, specifically in traffic engineering design and operational analysis. Hydraulics Dead Sean is a certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer,and Ted has more than 22 years of experience in leads WSB's technical experts on the traffic design elements of the field of water resources engineering.As our roadway projects.Sean has extensive experience with traffic is a hydrologic technician, he is responsible for control and staging plans and managing final design deliverables completing hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of on similar improvement projects including TH 101 and CSAH drainage systems for a wide variety of surface water management- 144 Interchange in Rogers, 1-35 and TH 95 Interchange in North related projects.Ted is also familiar with numerous water quantity Branch,and TH 169 and Bren Road Interchange in Minnetonka. and quality models that can be used to assist in hydrologic/ hydraulic analysis. Jack Corlde, PTP AICP Environmental Documentation Todd Hubmer, PE Jack is a transportation planner with 18 years Hyd rats l ics of transportation planning,environmental `. Todd has over 22 years of experience in the field documentation and public outreach experience. of water resources engineering.As a manager and Her background and experience in these areas project hydrologist,Todd has been responsible for enables Jack to understand the processes and coordination that is completing hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for needed in order to take an idea from concept(planning)to obtaining drainage systems in a wide variety of water resource management, funding(grant writing)to getting the project built(environmental transportation,environmental and municipal projects. He has been documentation and public involvement). For this project,Jack will responsible for the development of comprehensive water resource lead the environmental documentation for the identified roadway management plans,numerous feasibility studies and the preparations and bridge improvements. Jack has completed a number of federal of plans and specifications and construction management. He is also and state environmental documents for roadways,interchanges, an expert in utilizing numerous water quality and quantity models trails and transit facilities. She has good working relationships with used in hydrologic/hydraulic analysis. Key experience includes approving agencies and understands the level of effort that is needed hyrdologic and hydraulic analysis for the Southwest LRT,Highway when coordinating with multiple reviewing and approving agencies 100,Central Corridor Light Rail Transitway,and CSAH 61. as this project will require. Jack recently completed project memo and categorical exclusion documents for roadway,intersection and/ James inters, PE or bridge improvements for TH 101 and CSAH 144 in Rogers,CSAH � ridge Design 3 in Benton County,CSAH 24 in Anoka County,and the 50th Avenue Extension project in Sartell.These projects had elements similar to James has structural design experience ranges from the 77th Street project.All of the environmental documents were concrete dams and retaining walls to steel overhead approved by MnDOT(if the only approving agency)or MnDOT and , sign structures and bridge superstructures for PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION / 33 ' A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield both new designs and rehabilitation projects.James has worked his responsibilities have included project management, plan on the design of both steel and concrete superstructure bridges. and estimate preparation,alignment/profile design, drainage i. In his previous role,he worked for the Wyoming DOT gaining an system design, pavement design,superelevation design, utility understanding of the required coordination with state DOTs.At coordination,agency coordination, public involvement, and WSB,he has coordinated closely with MnDOT on several projects. construction management. Nic's recent experience includes i. preliminary and final design projects in Hennepin County, (' As hleS�(ly Minnetonka, Monticello, Rosemount,Wyoming, Ramsey,and Bridge Design Hugo,as well as plan review for MnDOT Central Office. Prior to joining WSB, Nic was a graduate engineer with MnDOT where he Ashley has experience in all aspects of worked on multiple preliminary and final design plans. „r; bridge design including preliminary and final .�� design, planning, layouts, bridge type studies, josh Vinic superstructure design,and substructure design. CA® Technician She has worked on design-build projects, multiple MnDOT and local agency projects, bridge inspection, bridge load rating, Josh Vink has 12 years of experience working and writing and assisting numerous states in creating and ;, with state and state aid projects using computer updating their bridge inspection program manuals.Ashley is also f aided drafting and design software(MicroStation knowledgeable in the use of various engineering software and and GEOPAK)for all phases of project MnDOT software programs, including Virtis, MathCAD, MDX, development,from importing survey data, plan preparation, PSBEAM, LEAP Bridge, MIDAS,STAAD, Microstation,and SIMS, quantity take-offs,and drainage.Josh utilized MicroStation and GEOPAK to design and calculate quantities for temporary bypass Dan ilttiq PE construction,earthwork,and maintenance of traffic. For the 2 '/z Design Checker -mile reconstruction of TH 52, he was responsible for final design plans and quantities. Dan is a Project Manager with 14 years of experience in MnDOT bridge design,load rating, Erik Seiberfich R and safety inspection of in-service bridges.He is a MnDOT certified Bridge Safety Inspection Team Traffic Signal Design Leader(FHWA Fracture Critical Certification). Dan has worked " Erik is a Project Manager primarily involved extensively with MnDOT,performing over 250 SHV load ratings with transportation engineering and planning along with statewide bridge inspections. Dan has performed special projects. He has 15 years of experience in the inspections on Minnesota's larger and more unique bridges,including areas of traffic signal, ITS,and lighting design as the Blatnik Gusset Plate Inspection the Robert Street Bridge. well as traffic impact analysis and traffic simulation models.Erik's recent experience with traffic signal design and traffic engineering Greg Roy projects include preparing,and providing QA/QC for many Signal r Justification Reports(SJR),Roundabout Justification Reports(RJR)and Constructibility Review Intersection Control Evaluations(ICE). Recent signal and lighting Greg is a senior construction specialist with over design experience includes design for reconstruction of two traffic 38 years of experience in project development, signals on CSAH 101 in Minnetonka,the design of two traffic signals cost analysis,design,and construction inspection. and a pedestrian actuated flasher system on Kellogg Boulevard as part He has coordinated a variety of public and of the Union Depot project in St.Paul,and the design of roadway private projects and is familiar with ensuring that contract work lighting systems for the TH 43 Bridge and its approaches in Winona, is performed in accordance with contract provisions,verifying 69th Street in Richfield,Valley View Road in Edina,and lighting for results of material testing,and project documentation. three roundabouts on CSAH 24 in Anoka County. NicHentges, Rose Ryan, AICP Design Engineer Environmental Documentation Nic is a Project Manager with more than 14 Rose is a planner with experience preparing years of experience. He is involved in both environmental review documents for L 4 , preliminary and final design projects where transportation projects.She has worked on Project 34 / PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION k i WSBA Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield AMMEMINIM Memorandums and Environmental Assessment Worksheets,as University of Minnesota Geotechnical Engineering Conference. well as Section 6(f)conversion documentation for a wide variety of His bridge experience includes such projects as the 1-90 transportation projects throughout Minnesota.Rose understands the Mississippi River bridge(Dresbach bridge) near La Crescent,the necessary components and detailed requirements of environmental rehabilitation of the TH 43 over the Mississippi River in Winona, documents. the 1-90 Bridges over the Crow River in Wright County. He has also provided geotechnical engineering on numerous projects jPete H eider in Bloomington having diverse foundation conditions,such as, Norman Point(monotube pile foundations),Circuit City Plaza Surveyor (Expanded base pile foundations),Chili's restaurant(CIP pile Pete has more than 24 years of experience in foundations),and the Sun Country hanger at the MSP airport the construction and survey industry. He has (spread footing foundations). participated in numerous surveying projects, including projects within the City of Richfield like Penny Rolf Richfield Parkway,the 69th Street Improvement project and the 66th and Portland roundabout project, With responsibilities including Right-of-Way Specialist j P P platting for commercial and residential boundaries and topographic Penny has more than 22 years of experience in surveys,ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys,scheduling of survey crews, right-of-way acquisition, relocation,contract preparing stake-out data for survey crews,Pete coordinates seven to administration,and plan review.She has been eight survey crews for projects across the state. the Project Manager for multiple projects with the past 15 years exclusively devoted to acquiring right-of-way and providing relocation assistance for utility companies,counties, E oJeff � cities, MnDOT,and WisDOT.Penny's knowledge and experience � .� p enable her to earn the trust of the property owners from the time Geotechnical Expert of her first contact and throughout the negotiation process.This Jeff is a Vice President and Principal Engineer in foundation of trust,along with her strong communication skills and the St. Paul home office of American Engineering ability to understand and resolve project related issues or concerns, Testing(AET).Jeff has 37 years of experience as has resulted in a high percentage of settlements that are fair to all a geotechnical engineer,working on hundreds of parties. foundation and roadway projects of varying size and complexity. In recent years,Jeff has focused on infrastructure projects, being PE closely involved with MnDOT, County,and Municipal bridge BeckyHaydon, and roadway projects.Jeff has led AET's soil exploration/testing Noise Analysis and engineering efforts on major bridge projects,such as: 1-90 Becky has more than 15 years of experience in Dresbach and TH52 Lafayette bridges over the Mississippi River, noise studies and has completed a number of Lyndale Avenue over 1-494,Target Field Plaza bridges over 1-394, studies for city,county and MnDOT facilities in nine bridges for or over 1-35E in St. Paul to Little Canada, CSAH both rural and urban areas, including a number of 96 over I-35W, Phalen Blvd over Westminster RR Junction,and interchange projects such as: US 10 at CSAH 83 in Anoka County, numerous bridges associated with LRT projects in the Metro 1-35 at TH 95 in North Branch,and TH 169 at Bren Road. She area. Jeff also performed the geotechnical engineering for the is familiar with the State's recently updated noise policy and has Bloomington Central Station project. used the polling method on a number of projects since the new rules went into effect. Becky is technically strong and easily Greg tri PE, PG, D.GEcommunicates complex noise information to the public. (AET) Geotechnical Expert a Greg is a Principal Geotechnical Engineer with AET. He has a Master's degree in Geotechnical Engineering with over 30 years of professional experience. He is a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Geologist in the State of Minnesota. He is a past President of the Minnesota Geotechnical Society,and past Chairman of the Annual f G j PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION / 35 A Proposal to Provide:Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Richfield Estimated toff Hours by Class General Employee Classification Associate/ Senior Principal/ Deputy Engineer/ Engineer/ Senior Project Project Planner/ Planner/ CAD CAD Survey TASKS Manager Manager Architect Scientist Tech Tech Staff Clerical Total Hours Preliminary Design Project Management(Phase 1) Administration 48 24 24 6 102 p General Coordination 64 80 40 184 Public Involvement Plan(Phase 1) TAC Meetings(6 Meetings) 24 24 36 1 84 Public Meetings(1 Mtg) 8 1 8 24 8 24 72 Traffic Commission(I Mtg) 8 1 1 4 12 City Council(I Mtg) 8 4 12 Property Owner Meetings(5 Mtgs) 15 20 35 Field Survey/Design Surveys 2 24 240 266 Geotechnical Services 168 84 50 23 1 325 Alternatives Analysis and Staging Considerations 8 40 80 80 40 248 Bridge and Retaining Wall Studies Ib 160 1 184 176 112 648 Staff Approved Layout/Construction Limits 16 40 120 8 80 40 304 Project Cost Estimates 8 40 80 24 152 Government Permits and Approvals 4 16 24 16 1 60 Right of Way Plans 4 40 80 24 1 8 156 Preliminary Design Phase Total 253 304 700 370 519, 248 248 38 2,660 Final Design Project Management(Phase II) Administration 96 48 48 12 204 General Coordination 96 56 48 40 240 Public Involvement Plan(Phase II) TAC Meetings(12 Meetings) 48 48 72 48 16 232 Public Meetings(2 Mtgs) 8 8 24 8 48 Traffic Commission(1 Mtg) 8 4 12 City Council(I Mtg) 8 8 Property Owner Meetings(5 Mtgs) 15 20 35 Environmental Document(Optional) 8 120 64 24 216 Drainage Design 8 24 80 120 120 352 Utility Coordination 8 16 24 60 108 Staging Plans 40 40 80 80 40 280 Traffic Control Plans 4 24 40 80 148 Preliminary Bridge Plans 104 348 296 360 1,108 Final Bridge Plans 30%Plans 220 340 208 328 1,096 60%Plans 220 340 208 328 1,096 95%Plans 240 340 208 328 1,116 Final Plans 140 180 280 140 1 1 740 Retaining Walls 40 60 80 120 300 Signal Justification Report and Signal Plans(Optional) 24 80 1 104 Lighting Plans 24 64 88 Aesthetic Design 160 80 240 Final Roadway Construction Plans and Specifications 30%Plans 16 80 120 80 120 1 1 416 60%Plans 16 80 120 80 120 416 95%Plans 16 80 120 1 80 120 416 Final Plans 16 64 80 40 40 240 Permitting 2 40 120 40 202 Constructability Review 2 40 16 40 8 8 114 Quality Reviews 2 120 200 20 180 20 1 1 542 Bid Documents and Advertising 2 80 16 8 106 Right-of-Way Acquisition(Optional) Final Design Total Excluding Optional Tasks 571 752 2,312 1 2,124 1 2,100 2,196 0 48 91903 Total Prosed Hours Excluding Optional Tasks 604 1,056 3,012 1 2,494 1 2,619 2,444 248 86 12,563 36 / PROJECT STAFF INFORMATION A Proposal to Provide Preliminary and Final Design Services and Environmental Documentation for the 77th Street East Extension and TH 77 Underpass for the City of Nchfeld d� RENCES ii i Julie Dresel Will Manchester Kevin Western State Aid Program Engineer assistant City Engineer Assistant Bridge Engineer Metro District City of Minnetonko WDOT- Bridges & Structures 1500 County Road B2 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard 3485 Hadley Avenue North Rosevill, MN 55113 Minnetonka, MN 55345 MS 610 Richfield, MN 55423 (612)939-8232 Oakdale, MN 55128 (651)234-7780 wmanchester@eminnetonka.com (65 1)366-4506 jul ie.d reset@state,mn.us kevin.western@state.mn.us s WSB has a long standing tradition of teaming and working with members of the DBE community. Our relationships with these companies are extensive and current. WSB consistently meets the DBE goals for various projects and actively takes steps to keep our DBE partners involved in lead roles where they can develop their skills. CUMFIED - 9 More importantly, it is our goal to help enhance the current capabilities of our DBE partner and help them gain knowledge and experience through our project specific Mentor-Prot6g6 Program.This program has been used successfully on past projects. It is designed to have DBE staff deliver certain aspects of the work,while at the same time, learning from a senior, more established team member.This approach not only provides experience to these firms and individuals, but creates a unique opportunity to help accelerate their knowledge and growth in various roles,as well as their general profession. REFERENCES / 37 E I AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 9. STAFF REPORT NO. '111 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/14/2015 REPORT PREPARED BY: Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, City Manager 7/7/2015 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 7/7/2015 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In January 2015, the City Council made several appointments to the various City advisory commissions. However, there continue to be some vacancies following these appointments. The City Council continues to accept commission applications and interviews all applicants. Applications were received and a Special City Council Meeting was scheduled on July 14, 2015 to conduct interviews. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the appointments to fill vacant terms on the City advisory commissions. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT This historical context is fully contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): • City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. • Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Applications were received and interviews were conducted on July 14, 2015. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The July 14, 2015 Special City Council Meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council could defer the appointments to a future City Council Meeting. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Vacancy list Backup Material 0 0 QO fl- fl-CD CO ry 00000 U) N N N N N L 17,717,717 C.X MMMCoc'7 LU m ca ca ca ca � ca ca ca ca c6 N W_ V Z U Z O U) _U) O U Z O cn _LO O N N U a c U a/ U a >