The URL can be used to link to this page

09-27-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:30-6:20 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding revisions to temporary sign regulations (Council Memo No. 120) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of September 6, 2005; (2) Special City Council Meeting at 5:30 p.m. of September 7, 2005; (3) Special City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2005; (4) Special City Council Meeting of September 13, 2005; (5) Regular City Council Meeting of September 13, 2005; (6) City Council Meeting of September 14, 2005; and (6) Special City Council Meeting of September 15, 2005 PRESENTATIONS Recognition of Metropolitan Airports Commissioner Kari Berman's efforts to help secure Metropolitan Airports Commission's funding to assist with purchase of four homes in Richfield in the 65 DNL noise contour 2. Presentation by Kathleen Anderson, District Office Director for Congressman Martin Sabo COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for assistance in review of environmental assessment worksheet for Cedar Point Project S.R. No. 178 B. Consideration of approval of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to County Auditor S.R. No. 179 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing public hearing on December 13, 2005 regarding modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area S.R. No. 180 D. Consideration of approval of itinerant food license for Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, annual Fall Festival on October 1, 2005 S.R. No. 181 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 7. Consideration of first reading of ordinance modifying gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within City of Richfield and scheduling public hearing and second reading for October 25, 2005 Staff Report No. 182 Notes: 8. Consideration of first reading of ordinance modifying electric franchise fee on Northern States Power dba Xcel Energy for providing electric service within City of Richfield and scheduling public hearing and second reading for October 25, 2005 Staff Report No. 183 Notes: 9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules Staff Report No. 184 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Consideration of requested extension of variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow construction of attached two car garage at 6733 Lakeview Avenue Staff Report No. _185 Notes: 11. Consideration of award of bid to Metro Fire for new self-contained breathing apparatus and related accessories for use by Richfield Fire Services Department in amount not to exceed $124,259.55 Staff Report No. 186 Notes: 12. Consideration of agreement between City of Richfield and Metropolitan Airports Commission autlining procedures and conditions for acquisition of eight residential properties along 17th Avenue (6601, 6609, 6615, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639, and 6645) Staff Report No. 187 Notes: 13. Consideration of professional services agreement with Conworth, Inc. for acquisition services for purchase of properties on 17th Avenue, south of 66th Street Staff Report No. 188 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report • Elected officials out-of-state travel policy • Key Financial Strategic Planning -Session 3 Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 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. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # j 3 REPORT # j gg STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2U~5 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of Professional Services Agreement for acquisition services for purchase of ro erties on 17th Avenue, south of 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. II. BACKGROUND • The City of Richfield (City) is will be purchasing eight houses on the 6601 block of 17th Avenue that were identified for acquisition for the alignment of the new intersection at approximately 17th Avenue and 66th Street. Property owners have since been contacted regarding the acquisition. • The City will be funding the purchase of the northern four properties on 17th Avenue, while the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will fund the southern. four properties. The northern properties are the most relevant to the new intersection development at 17 1 /2 and 66th Streets. However, the City will 092705PSAConworth undertake all acquisition work. (As a reminder, MAC is participating in the purchase of these homes because absent purchase, they would expend funds to insulate as they fall within the 65 DNL.) • On September 13, 2005 the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with BCL Appraisals, Inc. to initiate appraisal work while the contract with MAC was being prepared. Appraisal work has since begun. • At this writing, the agreement between the City and MAC for funding the purchase of four properties is being completed. • The Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. calls for providing acquisition, relocation, property management, and environmental investigation services at a cost not to exceed $65,800. The Professional Services Agreement is attached. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A standard Professional Services Agreement is prepared for projects undertaken jointly by the City and MAC. B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • Conworth, Inc. will not begin actively working with property owners until the MAC agreement is approved. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of the services will be equally shared by the City and MAC. The cost is based on similar work previously completed by Conworth in the Corridor. D. LEGAL • The Professional Services Agreement is a standard agreement used by the City. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Delay approving the Professional Services Agreement. • Do not approve the Professional Services Agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Professional Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 092705PSAConworth 13 --1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Conworth, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and Conworth, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONWORTH". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to purchase the services of CONWORTH; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the CITY and CONWORTH agree as follows: TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT CONWORTH agrees to furnish services to the CITY for the implementation of various phases of a land acquisition project that include acquisition, relocation, property management, and professional environmental services specifically related to 6601, 6609, 6615, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639 and 6645 17th Avenue, as described in the CONWORTH proposal dated September 15, 2005. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $65,800.00 unless amended by the CITY. This figure does not include the cost for demolition or other site clearance. Should these additional services be required, an amendment to the AGREEMENT will be necessary. All reports, memos, and other data produced by CONWORTH become the property of the CITY. 2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to CONWORTH by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the CITY to determine the line item task being completed. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the CITY. The cost of the work conducted under this Agreement shall not exceed $65,800.00 unless amended by the CITY. 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONWORTH shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the CITY. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between CONWORTH and the CITY or as constituting CONWORTH as the agent, representative, or employee of the CITY for any purpose or in any 092705PSAConworth r3~~ manner whatsoever. CONWORTH is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. CONWORTH represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of CONWORTH or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the CITY, and shall not be considered employees of the CITY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against CONWORTH, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the CITY. CONWORTH shall defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION The CITY operates in accordance with the City of Richfield's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. CONWORTH shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A). 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE CONWORTH agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of CONWORTH, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of CONWORTH to fully performance in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 092705PSAConworth t~- ~ 6. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY CONWORTH agrees that the CITY, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of CONWORTH and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The CITY agrees to give CONWORTH access to data collected or maintained by the CITY as necessary to perform CONWORTH 's obligations under this contract. CONWORTH agrees to maintain all data obtained from the CITY consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et sea. (the "Act"). CONWORTH will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the CITY. CONWORTH agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted against CITY as a result of CONWORTH 's failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph; provided that CONWORTH shall have no duty to defend or indemnify where the CONWORTH has acted in conformance with the CITY's written directions. Upon termination of this contract, CONWORTH agrees to return data to the CITY, as requested by the CITY. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT CONWORTH shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 092705PSAConworth 3-~ 10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If CONWORTH fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the CITY, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. -The CITY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of CONWORTH with the activities of the CITY so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Patrick Smith, Community Development Manager, shall manage this contract on behalf of the CITY. In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between CONWORTH and CITY staff. CONWORTH may also report directly to the City Council of the CITY. 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices shall be sent as follows: Community Development Department Patrick Smith Community Development Manager City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Conworth, Inc. Ken Helvey 4725 Excelsior Boulevard Suite #200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 092705PSAConworth r 3-~ CONWORTH having signed this contract, and the CITY having duly approved this contract on , 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper CITY officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Martin L. Kirsch Its: Mayor By: Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager CONWORTH, INC. By: Ken Helvey Its: Vice President 092705PSAConworth 3~-~ EXHIBIT A AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS On January 1, 1988, the Richfield City Council approved an affirmative action program which requires the City "to provide equality of opportunity in employment to all person and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, place of residents, political affiliation, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sex, or age in all aspects of the City's personnel policies, programs, and practices". The program further requires that the City support the various relationships with contractors, subcontracts and vendors. Therefore, requirements have been adopted for contracts as follows: a. The contractor shall submit a signed statement (Exhibit B) signifying that they are in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. b. In accordance with the City of Richfield's Affirmative Action policy, no person shall, on the ground of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity for which the parties received, or will receive financial assistance under the provisions of any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination. The contractor will furnish all information and reports if required by the City of Richfield or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No. 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the State of Minnesota for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. c. 1971 Minnesota Statutes 181.59 is made a part of this contract. See Exhibit C. 3- `7 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for CONWORTH, hereby states that CONWORTH is in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti- discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Dated: gy. Its: i ~ -~ ~ EXHIBIT C 181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT. Every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. History: 1941 c 238; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 609 s 11 AGENDA SECTION: ether RuGines~ AGENDA ITEM # 1 ~ REPORT # ~ $~ ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27 REPORT PREPARED BY: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Agreement between the City of Richfield and Metropolitan Airports Commission outlining the procedures and conditions to be followed by the City of Richfield and the Metro olitan Air orts Commission for the ac uisition of ei ht residential ro erties. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Agreement between the City of Richfield and Metropolitan Airports Commission that outlines the procedures and conditions to be followed by the City of Richfield and Metropolitan Airports Commission in acquiring eight residential properties along 17th Avenue (6601, 6609, 6615, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639, and 6645). II. BACKGROUND On August 15, 2005 the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) approved the expenditure of funds to acquire four residential properties along 17th Avenue; 6627, 6633, 6639, and 6645). The City of Richfield (City) would purchase the four properties at 6601, 6609, 6615 and 6621 17th Avenue. All eight properties are located within the 2007 DNL 65 contour as approved by MAC and the Federal 092705 MAC Agreement Aviation Administration (FAA). Under the FAA Part 150 Program, MAC"has the option either to soundproof or acquire property to mitigate for airport noise impacts. MAC has decided to purchase. The City would purchase for street purposes. The attached Agreement requires the City to undertake the purchase process for all eight properties. The City will provide the funds for the four northerly properties. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This property is nEeded for road purposes and to mitigate noise for people living in impacted areas. • Approval of the attached Agreement is necessary by the City Council to move forward. • MAC approval of the Agreement is also required subsequent to City Council action. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has worked closely with MAC to formulate the proposed agreement to facilitate the process and comply with federal regulations. • The City will purchase the four houses to the north with interim funds coming from the capital project fund. When the Council decides on the permanent funding source and those funds become available, the interim financing will be repaid. This decision is now scheduled for October 25, 2005. • ,Offers will not be made until after the City Council makes a decision about the permanent funding. • On August 10, 2005, staff delivered letters to the affected homeowners notifying them that the City and MAC were interested in purchasing their property. C. FINANCIAL • MAC will pay the costs of acquiring the four houses to the south. • The City is obligated to purchase four homes to the north for the. street. • The City Council received a memo on August 23, 2005 stating that the City's share of these acquisition costs will likely be between $1 and $1.2 million. D. LEGAL • Staff worked directly with legal counsel for the City and MAC to formulate the Agreement. • The Agreement conforms to the pertinent federal and state rules and regulations. ~ I V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) • Propose modifications to the Agreement • No action. V. ATTACHMENTS • Agreement between the City and MAC. VL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as to this day of , 2005, by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("Richfield") and the METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, a Minnesota public corporation, ("MAC"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Richfield has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to undertake the construction of certain intersection and roadway improvements in the area of east 66th Street and 17th Avenue (the "Project") WHEREAS, land needed for the Project is located within .the 2007 DNL 65 contour as approved by MAC and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"); and WHEREAS, under the FAA Part 150 Program MAC has the option either to soundproof or acquire property in fee simple, and Richfield has requested and MAC has determined that acquisition using MAC funding ("MAC Funds") is an appropriate action; and WHEREAS, Richfield desires to undertake the purchase of the lands needed for the Project, including the parcels to be purchased using MAC Funds, and other lands to be purchased using Richfield Funds which parcels will be combined for the Project; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties hereto to provide for the procedure and the conditions upon which the MAC Funds will be made available to Richfield; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the parties that this agreement will accomplish that objective; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and mutual obligations of the parties contained herein, each of them does hereby represent, covenant and agree with the other as follows. 1. Property Acauisition. Richfield shall acquire, in its name, fee title to the parcels of land described in the attached Exhibits A and B., relocate any parties in possession thereof who are entitled to relocation benefits and assistance, and remove or demolish all improvements located on the properties so acquired. 2. Funding. Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of this Agreement, MAC agrees to provide Richfield the MAC Funds necessary to finance the cost of acquisition of the parcels listed in Exhibit B as "Parcels Acquired With MAC Funds". The parties JBD-267028v2 RC125-262 agree that the costs to be funded by MAC will be the actual costs previously incurred, incurred, expended or committed by Richfield to purchase the properties listed on Exhibit B for the following: • Purchase price for lands acquired whether by voluntary purchase or by condemnation. • Relocation payments made as the result of such acquisitions. • Title and appraisal costs, • Filing, service and commissioner fees in condemnation actions. • Real estate taxes or installments of special assessments that are required to be paid as a result of condemnation. (Subject to credit for Richfield share) • Recording filing fees and deed tax for all real estate transfers. • Richfield consultants (appraisal, environmental and relocation) fees and charges, reasonable legal fees and staff costs. Staff costs shall be only for City staff time and expenditures directly related to right-of-way acquisition and relocation activities, and shall not exceed $7,500. • Property maintenance costs following closing and prior to demolition or removal. • Demolition or removal costs, cost of any required environmental remediation. 3. Purchase process and timing of approvals and payments by MAC Richfield will be required to adhere to the following process for approval by MAC of any acquisitions and expenditures: Richfield will be required to adhere to the acquisition and relocation procedures contained on United States Department of Transportation Regulation 49 CFR Part 24, and related Minnesota laws. (a) As part of the land acquisition process, Richfield will be required to prepare one appraisal for each parcel to be acquired. Richfield shall select its appraisers, and relocation consultants from consultant lists maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Upon completion of each appraisal, Richfield will prepare a summary of the appraisal. The appraisal, along with the summary comments, will be forwarded to a Review Appraiser, selected by MAC from the approved list of appraisers, for comments, revisions, and certification. (b) The certified appraisals, review appraisal, along with a summary of anticipated settlement amounts shall be forwarded to MAC Executive Director, or his designee, for review and approval. (c) The Executive Director, or his designee, will have 10 working days to respond to Richfield with approval or disapproval of the anticipated settlement amounts to be included in an offer to the property owner, or other party entitled to relocation benefits. Upon approval, the Executive Director, or designee, will then JBD-267028v4 RC125-262 authorize Richfield to enter into purchase agreements for amounts up to 110%, of the approved settlement amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. If the Executive Director, or designee disapproves any proposed settlement amounts, Richfield and MAC will meet and confer to determine an acceptable settlement amount. At its discretion, MAC shall have the right to request an additional appraisal, to be developed by an appraiser selected by MAC from the approved list of appraisers. (d) Should the value of any settlement offer exceed 110%, of the authorized amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000, MAC shall have 10 working days following such notice by Richfield to approve or disapprove of such a settlement. Upon disapproval within such period, MAC's obligation shall be limited to the amount that does not exceed 110% of the authorized amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. (e) Richfield shall notify MAC as soon as is practicable upon acceptance of any authorized offer by a property owner. Funds for any authorized settlement amount will be made available to Richfield at the time of closing. The closing date shall be coordinated with MAC's accounts payable timeline to assure availability of funds. (f) In cases where Richfield is unable to negotiate voluntary terms of sale with a specific owner of land, it will be necessary for Richfield to proceed with condemnation actions to secure the parcel. At the earliest time possible, when it is determined by Richfield that a condemnation action is required, MAC and Richfield staff and legal counsel will meet and confer. The purpose of this meeting will be to assess the feasibility and costs of an alternative course of action and/or to prepare a joint legal strategy for condemnation action. (g) In accordance with the requirements of condemnation proceedings, the Executive Director, or his designee, will authorize payments of quick-take deposits and any court awarded settlement amounts. (h) MAC payments to Richfield for all other costs shall be made not later than 30 days following the date that MAC has received evidence from Richfield that such costs have been incurred, committed, or expended, together with customary documentation reasonably supporting such request. 4. Resale and Development Controls. Richfield may offer for sale, any portions of the Property which is not needed for the Project. With respect to the properties described in Exhibit B, Richfield agrees that these properties will be subjected to a restriction, to be approved by MAC, and which will be contained in any deed of conveyance, relating to height, noise, use compatibility, light and electronic interference 5. Use of Sale Proceeds. Richfield agrees that it will use the proceeds from any resale only for the purpose of further mitigation of the impacts of airport noise as JBD-267028v4 RC125-262 determined by Richfield. Provided, however, that such proceeds are only eligible to be used for activities that are either AIP eligible, or satisfy federal restrictions on use of airport revenue as set out in the FAA's 2/16/99 Policy and Procedure on Use of Airport Revenue. 6. Return of Funds. Funds in the hands of Richfield, whether in the form of unexpended MAC Funds or revenue from the sale or use of parcels, that are not anticipated to be needed for any purpose permitted under this agreement, shall be returned to MAC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD ay: Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager By: Martin Kirsch Its: Mayor By: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Jeffrey W. Hamiel Its: Executive Director JBD-267028v4 RC125-262 STATE OF MINNESOTA ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by Steven L. Devich and Martin Kirsch, the City Manager and Mayor respectively of the City of Richfield a municipal corporation, under the laws of Minnesota by and on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by Jeffrey Hamiel, Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, a under the laws of by and on behalf of said Notary Public JBD-267028v4 RC125-262 Exhibit A Properties to be Acquired by Richfield Address 6601-17th Ave 6609-17th Avenue 6615-17th Avenue 6621-17th Avenue PID Number 26-028-24-41-0079 26-028-24-41-0078 26-028-24-41-0077 26-028-24-41-0076 JBD-267028v1 RC125-262 Exhibit B Properties to be Acquired by Richfield with MAC Funds. Address PID Number 6627-17th Ave 6633-17th Avenue 6639-17th Avenue 6645-17th Avenue 26-028-24-41-0075 26-028-24-41-0074 26-028-24-41-0073 26-028-24-41-0072 B-1 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 1 j REPORT # 186 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM -FIRE SERVICES DIIZECTOR/CHIEF NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ^ REVIEW: SI RE REVIEWED BY CITY - ~ e°`- MANAGER: ~ ' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of bid for new self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and related accessories to Metro Fire in the amount not to exceed $124,259.55. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award the bid for new self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and related accessories to Metro Fire in the amount not to exceed $124,259.55. III. BACKGROUND ~n rebruary 2005, the Richfield Fire Department was notified it had received a grant from the 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. This is a federally funded program to aid local fire departments. This is the third year the Richfield Fire Department has been awarded and AFG grant. As part of the grant acceptance the City of Richfield must match the grant amount by 10% of the total project amount. In August 2005, the City of Richfield wrote bid specifications for new (SCBA) which will be compliant with today's safety and operational standards and advertised those bids as required by Minnesota State Statute. Competitive bids were received and opened on August 19, 2005. One bid was received, from Metro Fire. 0927SCBA III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Richfield City Council must approve all equipment bid awards in excess of $50,000 as per State Statute. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Only one bid was received. There are approximately four manufacturers of SCBA.. o One manufacturer declined to bid since the specification was written to allow several manufacturers to comply and they stated they could not bid a competitive price unless the specification was written specifically to their design. o The bid price by Metro Fire is competitive with another competitive manufacturer who recently sold five times as many units to a neighboring city. o These same units are available for purchase form the Minnesota Fire Agency Purchasing Consortium. The bid price staff received is well below the price from the consortium bid. o Two other manufacturers did not bid however in checking with other fire departments who have recently bid SCBA they did not submit bids to them either. • Optional items were also priced in the bid. Up to 10 voice amplifiers and eyeglass holders, 50 APR respirators and 2 TSI fit test adapters will be included in the bid award. The TSI fit test machine will not be included in this contract as they can be purchased from the manufacturer for a lower price. • The amount of the bid award is approximately $40,000 less than the total AFG grant award to the City. The grant request includes several other miscellaneous items to be bid or purchased separately from this bid. C. FINANCIAL • $124,259.55 represents the maximum amount of the purchase. • 90% of this bid award amount, approximately $111,800, is offset by the AFG grant. • The City's 10% share will be about $12,460. The City received a donation of $3,000 from the CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership. Grant Program, which will be used to offset a portion of the City's share. • After doing comparisons of other purchasing options and comparing this bid to bids received by neighboring departments, staff feels this to be a reasonable and competitive bid. D. LEGAL • Purchases over $50,000 must be bid by open, competitive bidding. • Specifications and wording were checked by the City Attorney prior to bid advertising and required bonds, etc. were received by the vendor. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMF,NI~ATTON(Sl • Reject the bid and direct staff to "re-bid". Staff does not believe that a lower price bid will be received though. V. ATTACHMENTS VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ne. r ~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 19, 2005 9:00 am Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for a Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 4, 2005. Present: Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Brad Sveum, Acting Fire Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Name Metro Fire Ham Lake, Minnesota Certified Check/Bid Bond 5% Provided A) 25 SCBA Add. 2nd St. Reg's ea. $76,393.89 N/A B) 50 (4500 psi) Air bottles $22,387,22 C) 4 RIT packs w/60 min. $16,576.76 D) 2 Tool Kits $2,345.80 E) 25 Face Pieces Add. Face Piece ea. $4,117.78 $278,89 F) 36 FPC. Storage Bags $450.00 G) Total of above (less add. Face Piece ea (E) $122,550.34 - 278,89 $122,271.45 H) Voice Amp. ea.* $275.49 I) Eyeglass Holder ea.* $48.07 J) 50 APR's &Adaptors* $7,016.53 K) 1 TSI Fit Test Machine* $8,555.56 L) 2 TSI Adaptors* $135.96 M) Trade-in allowance ($8,400.00) *Equipment quoted price per each -may be purchased in multiples of up to 10 or 20 The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 13, 2005 City Council Meeting. Deborah Guiher Deputy City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: nthPr RnQinPec AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 185 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME. TIT].F, DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request to extend a variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow the construction of an attached two-car ara e, located at 6733 Lakeview Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the requested extension for a variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow the construction of an attached two- cargarage, located at 6733 Lakeview Avenue. II. BACKGROUND • On September 17, 2003 the Richfield Hearing Examiner granted a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Gray to allow construction of an attached two-car garage with living space above, located at 6733 Lakeview Avenue. In August 2004 Mrs. Gray submitted a written request asking that the expiration date for the variance be extended. Bids for the project had not been within the Gray's budget. (Letter attached). 091305-Varia n ce Extension-6733LakeViewD r. doc • On September 16, 2004 the City Council authorized cone-year extension of the variance. • On August 16, 2005 Mr. Gray submitted a written request asking that the expiration date for the variance be extended for an additional year. Bids for the project have continued to be out of the Gray's budget; however, the Gray have scaled down the project and intend to commence with construction soon. (Letter attached). • On September 13, 2005 the City Council authorized atwo-week extension of the variance to allow staff and the applicants to meet and come to an understanding of the scope of the proposed project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 12 allows variances to be extended for up to one year at the request of the variance holder. • Public review by the Hearing Examiner occurred in late 2003. The requested extension will allow the homeowners more time to begin - construction of the attached two-car garage. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Section 546.09 Subd. 15 of the Richfield Zoning Code states that "a variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Nearing Examiner." • Staff believes that the proposal remains in substantial compliance with the plans brought before the Hearing Examiner. While the proposal no longer includes a second floor or a rear breezeway, the dimensions of the garage and the impact on setbacks remains exactly the same. • A structure with a lower height and less mass would have less impact. • If the Council were to require the applicants to re-apply for a variance, staff believes that the Hearing Examiner would approve this request again. The Gray's would be required to pay another $250 fee. • Past confusion over the proposal was the result of a misunderstanding of terminology. The proposed garage is an attached garage just as it was in the initial proposal. • At the time of preparation of this staff report, the applicants were seeking the signature of their neighbor to demonstrate continued support of the project. • As stated in the original staff report to the Hearing Examiner, "the City encourages investments and improvements to residential properties..." C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the requested time extension and allow the variance to expire. In order to construct atwo-car garage, the applicants would need to apply for a new variance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter dated August 19, 2004, requesting an extension. • Letter dated August 16, 2005, requesting time extension • Initial proposal of,August 2003 • Current proposal -September 2005 • Copy of Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Gray, applicant ~~-~ _ August 19, 2004 Ms. Christine Costello Hand Delivered Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: time extension for variance for 6733 Lakeview Avenue Case # 03-VAR-04 Dear Ms. Costello: As. you know, we (rny husband David and 1) are seeking. to extend the time of the variances that we were granted for our house at 6733 Lakeview Avenue. We received the approval of our varinces on September 17, 2003, and it is our understanding that .said approval is good for one year. We .need a time extension for the variances. The reasons are as follows: After being granted the variances for a remodelling project of a two car attached garage with a second floor for a bedroom and bathroom we set about meeting with several contractors to get appropriate and affordable bids. Our biggest concern was that our budget was limited to a specific dollar amount. (We got approval for a home remodelling loan.) None of the contractors was able to come within this budget. This process took all winter. We finally rnet with a friend of the family who runs aconstruction/remodelling company, Michael Otogawa-Anschel, who told us that he could put together a different remodelling project that would allow us to build the two car garage we wanted (without a second floor) with an addition off of the kitchen. He knew about the variances that had been granted to us. He was told of our budget limitations and he explained to us that he could "get the job done" within our amount. That was in late February, 2004. He and his co-workers came to the house on several occasions to appraise what needed to be done, took measurements, etc. We finally met with him over at his office sometime in 1vla}' and were told that the project would cost us $60,000.00 more than what we had told him our budget limit was! Needless to say, we were discouraged because we had told other contractors to stop with their plans and estimates. We were back to square one. We then thought about selling and moving to a new home. We met three times with a builder (Hans Hagen Homes) out in Minnetrista where a newer development is being completed.. After several weeks we decided not to go forward with new construction, again due to cost. I then had major surgery on July 14th for a hysterectomy. Even though I am more mobile now, I had been "laid up" for several weeks. This has caused more delay in trying to get something done/built on time before the variance expires. But, we have now met with four different contractors who specialize in garages (Model Garage Builders, Durabilt, Cd'd- page 2 Western Construction, and Sussel). Our original idea of a two story two car attached garage has changed to a one story two car garage that will still comply with our variances. This .change will allow us to fit within our budget. We are waiting to receive all the- bids, and with luck we could start construction before our variance time frame ends, but it would be "cutting it close." That is why we are seeking to get a time extension for our variance. If need be, we can supply paperwork regarding all of the things discussed in this letter. Both I and my husband hope to be at the meeting scheduled for September 16th at the Richfield City Hall Thank you for considering this time extension. Sincerely yours, _ - Sandra A. Gray ~~ a - s~~~- ~~~~ f (~-3 DAVID G. GRAY, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 23616 Richfield, MN 55423 Phone (612) 866-1313 Fax (612)866-1414 Email Uwolfstein@aol.com August 16, 2005 Ms. Melissa Poehlman Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 VIA FASCIMILE TRANSMISSION 1:~: ~xter~oia ~.#'ti~nc fr~r?a~~urlg ~.;a.•-ia~;ces ;:r „'~33 i.ahev~c." '~ .J t>VBIiuJ Case#: 03-VAR-04 Dear Ms. Poehlman: Thank you for meeting briefly with me eaxlier today. I am~ making this request on behalf of my wife and me .for an extension of the original variances that was granted to us almost two years ago.. These variances were necessary for us in order to expend cur single car garage into a two car garage. The origririal variances were granted to us because of limited options (side restrictions and nearness to street xestrictions),_caused by a 1?erm.placed through dux backyard by the City of Richfield,' the shape of fur lot, closeness to ~~eighbors of our already. existing garage structure, etc. We were granted a year's extension on these variances one. year ago due to the failure of our then contractor to honestly stick to his original premise to us to keep the price of the work within certain dollar amounts, and we had no time to restart the project with someone else. Within this past year, we talked with numerous garage specialty companies (Sussel, Western, Durabilt, and Model Garage Builders) that all, it seemed, over-quoted us, we think in part, because they didn't want to handle such a "small".job. We thought they were overpriced, and we honestly just. gave. up on getting the job done. Most recently, our friend, Curt Blandin, who uperaies antler the name of litEi Construction, has told as that he could do what we want for a price that we can afford. Problem is, there would be no possible way that he-could complete the task by September 17th, 2005, the deadline for the variances. We are therefore in nced of another extension. As before, we think the garage expansion would ad value to our property and therefore the neighborhood in general. We really do feel the need for a two car garage. Enclosed with the hard copy of this letter is our check for $75.00 which is made payable to the City of Richfield. We would like the extension of the variances issue to be heard before the City Council ~n the second Tuesday of ,September (the 13th) as that would be the last date possible. for us to gct,this tune extension before.the variances run out, . . Thank. you for ~,onsiderir~g this issue on such short n~itice._, ,;,~ page 2 ~ d~ Sincerely yo , avid and Sandra Gray 1 e~- O ~~ ' V ~~ Y n~ L.i~ O O ~ ~Idd Jill ~ 00"0L 3 ..91. LZoO N W a z w W Q C7 ~ n N O Um Q ~~ ~ o ~„_ .. w z ~ ~ OQ.-. N OQW p 4-Q~ .. ~~sn U W ~ o~ . ~ O N M~ ~ r ~ O L for o S ~ ~ --T; N ~ i 3Atl M31A3NM EEL9 ~ ~ ~ 1f10NltlM AtlOlS l ~JNIISIX3 ~ O Z ~' 8'9l Z'¢ ~ ~ l'Z Q~ ~i °° g'g G II II H .y o ZL 0 1 ~2 N sv WZ :~• !• ~`~ ¢ O - . < m~i~ 'm t7 o ~ X¢ WH I O/OQ ~~ W 5~. ~ .. ~, I i N / 1..LQN . /• ~, ~ ~` ~ ` V U m / ,~ ~J ¢ o'Z~ c~i~ °,o ~ S 263~y `~~ ww / ~ j-`/~ ~` \VV ~~ -~`~~ P .-- ~~~ . ~~ P~ Q,~ o~ ® ~ QP O~ ~O P~~ F 0 W Qa W ~ two Q Y w ~ ~ ~ ~ Q c~ _ ~U 'z^~a~ LW ~ V J L r I I o <Z O ~_ o~ ~ LLfA~ W ¢ m W y¢p DLO ~ ~xQ rn} O zM p boo ~ ~ II ZQa g ~r W~ Q Faz~ U ~>°~t ~ ~>Z ~¢~ik O ¢ yp W OLLOLL~ O ~ Q - ~LL ; ~ ~ FQ B O ~LL U N W t-Z'~Z N O LL¢ ~p0 p ?UC .~3a ~~ ~~ ~~m zmm ~~~;~ aaincitg .~ :e i '~ ~\ ' ~ v J ~ O Q . T o V ~ 0~ ^ A N S ~J, ~ V T ~ i ~ ~ ~) C `Y V ' V ~O, ~i~b'd Ally 00'OL 3 ..9 L. LZoO N b m n N G p Um Q° ~8 n 0 Z m° Cn Q ~~ y OoW ° a ~Qy ~~~ ~ `~~~~~I ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 7 °~I / CV ~ ~r (n ~/ J Z ~ ~ n~ L.i 6'0 z7 ~~ O N7 x¢ W F. O H Q V~ ~P. 1`~ ~~ ~Q W ~ i ~ ~ W j Q Q W ~_t~ I z ~ U i Q`•°•°C ~ ~~ I I 0 b i o QZ ~~ ~ LL. Vl ~ I.... W Q m LLl- FSH ~o o Z~ amo N LL ~~ ~~< Jr z aW~ Q ~aZv O ~ 2~Z^ O ~~~#.. ° SyO~m in O~yO O ~ Om e 4 ~~ FLL ~ F Q N <U ~w ' O 26„ NW ? OF= aa2 W ~ N LL 0 2 ?UU~d E E c f 3 ~ U rmm mm~m °z~~ a`~mcicg °9 ® pQ W w O `~ ' v O J FP antl M31n3Ntl1 eels 1f70X1tlM AtlO1S L 'JNIlSIX3 QW Y N O ~ m m~ zrz ~ 'I1 t'Z o, /• ~... a ~~i;: ~ z ~~ w `c~'~ ~ !/ ,/, 'i. W U Q ,~ ~ ~ . 7 m . i ,/ 5323' _ ' ww ~ ~ z a ~~ .~, ~• _` _/ / f `N_ ~: 7 C~J m C a E Z m N H Q 6 m l t~ -~7 546.09. Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances: a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and all the following criteria are found to exist: (i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this code. Undue hardship .includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; (ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in the property; (iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and (iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the undue hardship. b) use variances shall not be granted. Subd. 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director. The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet. Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable 0 91305-V a ri a n ce Exte n s i o n -6 73 3 La ke V i ew D r. d o c i ~~~ criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 6) Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide a written report to the Hearing Examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request. Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena relevant reports, and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in attendance at the public hearing shall have the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony. Subd. 8. Record keeping. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or may be transferred to State Archives. Subd. 9. A eals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn. Subd. 11. (Repealed, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. I a-~ Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard. Subd. 15. Specific project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board. Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void. Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of variances to the literal provisions of this code. AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 184 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR. NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of second reading of an amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 ado tin references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules. II. BACKGROUND The City Attorney has recommended to amend Section 100.07 (Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances) to reflect the adoption of the most current State Statutes and Rules. This change will update a section of the City ordinance code that should be periodically updated. Section 100.07 currently references Minnesota Statutes 2002, with 2003 supplements and Minnesota Rules in effect on July 1, 2003. First reading of the proposed ordinance amendment was conducted on September 13, 2005 and the second reading was scheduled for September 27, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0927Statute A. POLICY • Section 100.07 is an ordinance section that references Minnesota Statutes and Rules. These Statutes and Rules should be the most current and therefore, readopted periodically. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There is no critical time issue,. but the amendment should be made as soon as possible to reflect the most current law. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact associated with this change. D. LEGAL • Amendment to Section 100.07 will keep the City ordinance in accordance with State law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed City Administrative Ordinance Code change. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~'-/ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 100.07 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances" is hereby amended: 100.07. Official statutes, codes regulations and ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutes are to Minnesota Statutes 20024, Minnesota Statutes, 20035 Supplement and Laws of Minnesota 20035, unless otherwise provided in this code. References in this code to rules and regulations of state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities are to those documents in effect on July 1, 20035, unless otherwise provided in this code. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor. ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Prop _ Ordi n nt~pa AGENDA ITEM # g. REPORT# jg~ ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and schedulin a ublic hearin and second readin for October 25, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve first reading of the attached ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and • Schedule the public hearing and second reading for October 25, 2005. ~ II. BACKGROUND i ne Lity tirst adopted an Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003 to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to large commercial and industrial customers at a monthly meter charge of $65. As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $6.50 per month increase on the large commercial and industrial classification. 09272005Electric Franchise Fee • As part of the current 2006 budget preparation process, a 3% franchise fee increase is being proposed as part of the budgeted 2006 revenues. This increase will amount to a .05 cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to $2.15 per month on the large commercial and industrial classification. • Accordingly, the City has notified the electric utility, Xcel Energy, of the intended franchise fee increase. In accordance with the franchise agreement, Xcel accepted the fee increase and agreed to implement the fee increase commencing January 1, 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. • Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2006 budget and accepted by the electric company pursuant to the franchise agreement. • The fee increase was noticed and implemented by the electric company commencing with the January, 2006 billing. C. FINANCIAL • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 3% increase amount to approximately $14,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2006 budget D. LEGAL • Schedule a public hearing and second reading for October 28, 2005. • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Electric Franchise ordinance. 1V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ I • None, as the fee schedule change shoul~ Franchise Ordinance. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS Hance. be memorialized through the ~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ©°' ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER DB/A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1987-27, a Franchise Agreement between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee design as authorized in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise. (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2003-25, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of Xcel Energy as to amount and notice period, to which Xcel Energy has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2003-25, the franchise fee imposed on Xcel Energy under its Electric Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's January ~~ 2006 billing month. Subd. 3. Payment and Fee Design. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.3 of the Franchise. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the city will control. Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities - Commission. allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Support for Pay ~nt. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives that Xcel Energy will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd.- 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2006 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 2005. Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2005. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~`~ EXHIBIT A XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential $ ~A 1.65 Sm C & I -Non-Dem $ 4.~5 5.10 Sm C & I -Demand $~-~OA 11.33 Large C & I $x-58 73.65 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by April 30. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. AGENDA SECTION: prop, Ordinances AGENDA ITEM # ] REPORT # 182 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2U05 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NatirE, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield and scheduling a public hearin and second readin for October 25, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: , By Motion: • Approve first reading of the attached ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield and • Schedule the public hearing and second reading for October 25, 2005. III. BACKGROUND ~ The City first adopted a Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003, to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to LVDF (Large Volume-Dual Fuel) customers at a monthly meter charge of $10. As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $1 per month increase on the LVDF classification. 09272005Gas Franchise Fees • As part of the current 2006 budget preparation process, a 3% franchise fee increase is being proposed as part of the budgeted 2006 revenues. This increase will amount to a .05 Cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to .33 cents per LVDF (Large Volume-Dual Fuel) classification. • Accordingly, the City has notified the gas utility, CenterPoint Energy, of the intended franchise fee increase. In accordance with the franchise agreement, CenterPoint accepted the fee increase and agreed to implement the fee increase commencing January 1, 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. • Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2006 budget and accepted by the gas company pursuant to the franchise agreement. • The fee increase was noticed and implemented by the gas company commencing with the January, 2006 billing. C. FINANCIAL • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 3% increase amount to approximately $8,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2006 budget D. LEGAL • Schedule a public hearing and second reading for October 28, 2005. • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Gas Franchise ordinance. TERNATIVE None, as the tee scnE Franchise Ordinance. nge should be memorialized through the V. ATTACHMENTS • rroposea ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~- i ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD G THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003-10, a Franchise Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy ("CenterPoint"), the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint in an agreed upon amount and fee design, as set forth in Section 6.1 of the CenterPoint Franchise. (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2003-24, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of CenterPoint as to amount and notice period, to which CenterPoint has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2003-24, the franchise fee imposed on CenterPoint under its Gas Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the CenterPoint's January ~AA~ 2006 billing month. The franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by CenterPoint for its use of Public Ways and Public Ground in the City. Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth as follows. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however each change shall meet the same notice requirements and may not occur more often than annually. Such fee shall- not exceed any amount, which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for Gas service. The Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times, provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information that is not public data which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or any other information regarding specific customers. Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such ~~~ utility company for the cost of the fee and that CenterPoint will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Support for Payment. CenterPoint shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon CenterPoint by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by CenterPoint's representatives that CenterPoint will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give CenterPoint at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of CenterPoint to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 2005. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 2005. Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 7-3 EXHIBIT A CENTERPOINT GAS FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential $ ~H8 1.65 Comm-A $ ~A 1.65 Comm/Ind-B $ 4.-~-5 5.10 Comm/Ind-C $TtVty 11.33 SVDF-A $T~ 11.33 SVDF-B $TY-~yty 11.33 LVDF $~AA 11.33 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # SD REPORT # 181 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held October 1, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter's annual Fall Festival to be held October 1, 2005. II. BACKGROUND On August 3, 2005, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant food license for their Fall Festival to be held October 1, 2005. All fees have been received. The City has previously granted this license to the Church of St. Peter for the Fall Festival. At the time of this writing, the menu is undecided but in previous years they have served chicken, spaghetti and snacks. The Church of St. Peter has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. 0927 St. Peter's Fall Festival III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for an itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with St. Peter's Fall Festival. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from the Church of St. Peter AGENDA SECTION: COIISeIIt AGENDA ITEM # SC REPORT # j$Q J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~'J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority to call a public hearing on the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing a public hearing by the City Council on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. II. BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Redevelopment Plan) requires revision to address various housing program needs that are funded by tax increments. The boundary of the existing redevelopment project area is proposed to be expanded so as to incorporate unserved areas of the city for the Transformation Home Loan Program and other housing program activities. In conjunction with the modification to the Redevelopment Plan, modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for City Bella, Urban Village, Gramercy, Richfield Rediscovered A-1 through B-5 and Interchange West/Lyndale 092705 CaIIPH RedPlanMod Gateway will also be required since pooled increment from these districts provides revenue to the housing fund for various housing program activities. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statutes requires that modifications to redevelopment plans undergo a public hearing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Redevelopment Plan requires modification so as to continue current and newer housing programs that are funded with tax increments from other districts. • The Planning Commission's consideration of the modified plan is proposed for a meeting on November 28, 2005. • A public hearing by the City Council is proposed for a regular meeting on December 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Ehlers & Associates, Inc. prepared the attached resolution. • Legal counsel has reviewed this matter. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay or do not call a public hearing on this matter at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Boundary VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on December 13, 2005, at approximately 6:30 PM, to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to December 13, 2005, and to place a copy of the Plan on file in the Community Development Department at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, 2005. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~° 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s g m ~ ~ s € s ~ ~ aV03; 436 41L 479 Ol~JNIW00li 41S 4141 47EI 4R1 4113 /y 4701 {jQ101713 Q O`JtlOIHO snewmoo Z Xatld aNVnroo Q aNVUaod m ~ a W No1Nno Q~ we Q ~ ~, sN3n31s U 3sL W 131~OOIN TI3051tl'18 - _.O iLaOM1N3M Y AanBSTld a 1NVSV3'Id ONVaO Z 131aaVFi W O~31daVJ 3T/ONAI ^ HOIaQ'IV O 1NVAaS J Xtld~00 W 1NOdn0 > NOS3i3W3 W 1NOW3Lid 0 OatlalJ W 1Q70BWnH ~JNIAaI ^ S3WVf J XONH W NtKJO'I ~~ Nvoaow ,,~~_ NO1M3N a3An0a3An0 ~ NN3d N33n0 T13SSna NVORl3HS S'tlWOH1 -- NOldn 1N30NIA NanBHStlM S3Xa3X ' ~z ~ aV030 ~ 418E L 4KL 4391 e L _ NOl~JNIWOOI 43SL ~ 434E ~ 43EL ~ i '- 47ZL L 4lLG L 470E F 101"1'13 ~ C 09VOIH0 Q snewmoo Z Xatld oNV-7XVO O aNVUaod m r `~ Q ~ ~~ Q I ~ U i L auz W I ~ SN3h3J.S ~` '~` a .131'IOOIN 1~3051tl1B z II H1aOMl.N3M C Aan9STlld d 1NVSb'lld ONVa'J W ` 131aatlF1 W Ol3ldahJ 3NONJ'1 ~ HOiaO'M tNV~ae Xb'd,00 ~ 1NOdna NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad Oatlal~J 1O109WnH `JNIAaI ~ W J S3W`df XONN ~' Nt/°JO'1 r' iavoaow NO1M3N 1 a3An0 NN3d N33n0 1~3SSna MdOla3HS N ~ SVWOHl ~ I NOldn 1N30NIA NaneHSVM S3Xa3X O r _ m N m ~ n t$D S $ ~ S 0 N v ~ S S rJ rJ' ~ a ~D fO ~ ~p tO 'O ~ tip A A ~ N A A A A n n S m ~ 0 n ~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 CONSENT REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM. FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said ro erties. II. BACKGROUND Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges maybe certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also authorizes a certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 2004 the City Council certified $121,321.62 of delinquent charges for 307 properties, an average cost of $395.18 per account. The 2005 certification currently under consideration totals $250,846.85 for 976 properties, an average of $257.02 per account. Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent accounts will be paid before certification. 0927delinquent III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State Statute and Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provide that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Property owners owing utility charges will be notified in September that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners' taxes. C. FINANCIAL • Throughout-the year, the Division bills and collects charges for water, wastewater and storm water from accounts within the City. The charges include a 6.5% penalty on unpaid balances. This penalty is paid quarterly against the accrued unpaid balance. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. A $50 certification fee is charged to each account assessed to taxes. The assessment is spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent accounts. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing certification of unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~~"° RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shalt be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid within 15 days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 established rules, rates. and charges for storm water. service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof provides that all storm water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such properties, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount, which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary sewer and storm service of $250,846.85. 2. That a $50 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account, such charges totaling $48,800.00. 3. That the above-described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: ~unsent AGENDA ITEM # SA REPORT # j ]g STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with WSB & Associates Inc., for assistance in the review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Cedar Point Pro~ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. II. BACKGROUND • The Cedar Point redevelopment project requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to be completed because it exceeds the 300,00 square foot minimum threshold for commercial projects. • The EAW is a document that provides basic information about a development to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. • The EAW process consists of four steps: 092705-PSA for WSB 1. Project proposer (Ryan) completes EAW and submits data to the Responsible Government Unit or RGU, which is the City. 2. RGU reviews EAW. 3. 30-day public comment period. 4. City Council makes a decision about the need for an EIS, based on the EAW, comments received and comment responses. • Ryan Companies has hired RLK Kuusisto Ltd. (RLK) to complete the EAW. • The purpose of WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is to review the EAW on behalf of the City. • WSB is experienced with environmental impact work; EAW's and EIS's. • The assistance of WSB during this process is appropriate because of their extensive work with the City in this project area with storm water and transportation elements. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The EAW is mandatory for a project of this scope. • An EAW must be completed before any permits or land use approvals are obtained. This includes permits for any site work. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Review of the EAW by WSB ensures that the EAW is completed correctly and reviewed thoroughly and WSB would suggest modifications if necessary. • The City Council by a formal vote as the EAW determines whether or not an EIS is needed. C. FINANCIAL • The proposal with WSB will not exceed $4,000. • Ryan Companies has agreed to reimburse the City for its cost of reviewing the EAW up to $4,000. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the Professional Service Agreement. It is the standard form used with consultants. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the Professional Service Agreement allowing for the assistance in the review of the EAW work. • Delay approval of the Professional Service Agreement allowing for the assistance on the review of the EAW. V. ATTACHMENTS • Professional Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WSB and Associates, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and WSB and Associates Inc., hereinafter referred to as "WSB". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to purchase the services of WSB; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the CITY and WSB agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT WSB agrees to furnish services to the CITY for assistance in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project known as Cedar Point, which is proposed to be located in the area north of 66t" Street, east of 17t" Avenue; south of Taft Park and west of Trunk highway 77 in the City of Richfield. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $ 4,000.00 unless amended by the CITY. All reports, memos, and other data produced by WSB become the property of the CITY. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES It is understood that under applicable regulations, the project proposer, Ryan Companies, is responsible for collecting information necessary for the preparation of the EAW at its cost. WSB will: review the information provided by Ryan Companies; identify and request additional information as it determines to be appropriate in conjunction with CITY staff; assist CITY staff in review and finalization of the EAW (it being anticipated that the proposer will prepare a draft EAW); verify that necessary publications and notices have been made according to applicable regulations; review all comments received; assist CITY staff in review and finalization of responses to comments (it being anticipated that the proposer will prepare draft responses to comments); and attend meetings of the CITY's City council and other bodies as requested by CITY staff. 3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to WSB by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the CITY to determine the line item task being completed. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the CITY. 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WSB shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the CITY. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between WSB and the CITY or as constituting WSB as the agent, representative, or employee of the CITY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. WSB is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. WSB represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of WSB or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the CITY, and shall not be considered employees of the CITY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against WSB, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in noway be the responsibility of the CITY. WSB shall defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability,. severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION The CITY operates in accordance with the City of Richfield's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. WSB shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it 2 shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A). 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE WSB agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of WSB, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of WSB to fully performance in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 6. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY WSB agrees that the CITY, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of WSB and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The CITY agrees to give WSB access to data collected or maintained by the CITY as necessary to perform WSB 's obligations under this contract. WSB agrees to maintain all data obtained from the CITY consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et seq. (the "Act"). WSB will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the CITY. WSBH agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted against CITY as a result of WSB 's failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph; provided that WSB shall have no duty to defend or indemnify where the WSB has acted in conformance with the CITY's written directions. Upon termination of this contract, WSB agrees to return data to the CITY, as requested by the CITY. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT WSB shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 3 9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If WSB fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the CITY, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The CITY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of WSB with the activities of the CITY so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Pat Smith, Community Development Manager, shall manage this contract on behalf of the CITY. In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between WSB and CITY staff. WSB may also report directly to the City Council of the CITY. 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. 4 Notices shall be sent as follows: City of Richfield Community Development Department Pat Smith, Community Development Manager City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 WSB and Associates, Inc Tony Heppelmann 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 WSB having signed this contract, and the CITY having duly approved this contract on 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper CITY officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Martin L. Kirsch Its: .Mayor By: Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager WSB and Associates, INC. By: Tony Heppelmann Its: Vice President 5 EXHIBIT A AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS On January 1, 1988, the Richfield City Council approved an affirmative action program which requires the City "to provide equality of opportunity in employment to all person and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, place of residents, political affiliation, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sex, or age in all aspects of the City's personnel policies, programs, and practices". The program further requires that the City support the various relationships with contractors, subcontracts and vendors. Therefore, requirements have been adopted for contracts as follows: a. The contractor shall submit a signed statement (Exhibit B) signifying that they. are in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. b. In accordance with the City of Richfield's Affirmative Action policy, no person shall, on the ground of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity for which the parties received, or will receive financial assistance under the provisions of any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination. The contractor will furnish all information and reports if required by the City of Richfield or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No. 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the State of Minnesota for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. c. 1971 Minnesota Statutes 181.59 is made a part of this contract. See Exhibit C. 6 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for WSB, hereby states that WSB is in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Dated: By: Its: 7 EXHIBIT C 181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT. Every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. History: 1941 c 238; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 609 s 11 8