Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-09-05 Agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 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 relocation of Cedar Avenue Municipal Liquor Store (Council Memo No. 103) 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 (heir comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on ifems 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 July 26, 2005; (2) Special City Council Worksession of July 26, 2005; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of July 26, 2005 PRESENTATION Annual meeting with Friendship City Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution rescinding Resolution No. 9556 related to Appendix D and amending Appendix D to increase Fire Services Fees, Reimbursement Fee for Fire Rescue Unit in Section 6, paragraph 3; increase room rental fees for Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center in Section 14; and change photocopy fees in Section 13, paragraph 5 S.R. No. 145 B. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program and Cedar Point Project) S.R. No. 146 C. Consideration of approval of on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor temporary license and itinerant food license for Church of the Assumption annual Fun Fiesta on August 14, 2005 S.R. No. 147 D. Consideration of approval of setting public hearing for September 13, 2005 regarding issuance of new on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses with optional 2 a.m. closing for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street S.R. No. 148 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing regarding proposed transfer of control of cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and continuing to September 13, 2005 Staff Report No. 149 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding resolution adopting special assessment roll for 2004 removal of diseased trees from private property Staff Report No. 150 Notes: 8. ~ .Public hearings regarding resolutions adopting special assessment rolls for 2004 maintenance services and resolutions ordering current 2006 maintenance services 77th Street maintenance Staff Report No. 151 Notes: Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet maintenance Staff Report No. 152 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of Transportation Commission recommendation to remove stop control. on 76th Street at Third Avenue Staff Report No. 153 Notes: 10. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Shank Construction, Inc. for renovation of Water Treatment Plant Filters #1 through #5 in amount of $1,774.650 and award of contract to Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates for engineering services provided during construction in amount of $69,600 Staff Report No. 154 Notes: 11. Consideration of work order to add right turn lane on 66th Street for access to Cedar Point development site Staff Report No. 155 Notes: 12. Consideration of purchase of engineering services from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for City Hall roofing improvements in amount not to exceed $23,750 Staff Report No. 156 Notes: 13. Consideration of canceling Regular City Council Meeting and scheduling Special City Council Worksession on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 Staff Report No. 157 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report 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 # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 13A 158 REPORT PREPARED BY: CORRINE THOMSON CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of lease agreement with Metropolitan Council for a driver's break facility on City- owned land. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve the lease agreement with Metropolitan Council for the leased remises on Tract C, Re istered Land Surve No. 618. II. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council has been operating a park and ride facility on the parking lots located south of and adjacent to the Best Buy corporate campus, near Knox Avenue. The Metropolitan Council is interested in constructing a driver's break facility on land owned by the City and abutting Knox Avenue. Metropolitan Council has determined that the break facility will be needed for at least 25 years, regardless of whether the park and ride facility continues in operation. City staff has negotiated a proposed lease agreement with Metropolitan Council. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The property to be leased is not currently in use by the City. • The lease of the premises to Metropolitan Council will meet a transit need for the Metropolitan Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has no current or foreseeable need for the property. • The lease is fora 30-year period, terminable only in the last 5 years of the lease. C. FINANCIAL • The lease amount is $1. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared the proposed lease. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed lease. It is anticipated that minor, non-substantial changes might be made to the lease after Council approval VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. LEASE AGREEMENT This LEASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2005, by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota ("City") and the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, a public corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the state of Minnesota ("Metropolitan Council"). WHEREAS, the City owns property (the "Leased Premises") legally described as: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 618, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is in need of a break room facility in the vicinity of the City's property for its bus drivers; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to allow the Metropolitan Council to construct a break room facility on its property and will lease the property to the Metropolitan Council for this use; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. LEASED PREMISES The Metropolitan Council agrees to lease from the City and the City agrees to lease to the Metropolitan Council the Leased Premises. 2. USE OF LEASED PREMISES The City grants the Metropolitan Council, its agents, officers, employees and invitees the right to operate and maintain the Leased Premises for a bus driver break room facility ("Break Room Facility"). The City also grants the Metropolitan Council and its agents, contractors and employees the right to make improvements to the Leased Premises, including the construction of the Break Room Facility, subject to the provisions in paragraph 4 of this Lease. 3. TERM The term of this Lease shall be for a period of thirty (30) years commencing on ,2005 and terminating on , 2035. This Lease may be. terminated by the City at any time during the last five (5) years of the term in the event that the City determines that it has another public use for the Leased Premises. The City must give120 days' written notice to the Metropolitan Council prior to terminating the Lease. 265486v1(SJS) RC160-4 4. CONSTRUCTION The Break Room Facility shall be constructed on the Leased Premises by the Metropolitan Council, at the Metropolitan Council's sole cost and expense. Metropolitan Council must obtain the City's prior written approval of the plans and specifications for the construction of the Break Room Facility and for any subsequent improvements or repairs, where the estimated cost is $15,000 or more or where the planned improvements do not conform to the minimum standards set forth at paragraph 7 of this Lease. 5. CONDITION OF THE LEASED PREMISES AT THE END OF LEASE TERM. At the end of the Lease term, the Metropolitan Council shall surrender the Leased Premises to the City in the same condition as it was in the beginning of the term, except for improvements that the Metropolitan Council has added during the term, and ordinary wear and tear. The Break Room Facility and all -other improvements, alterations, additions and fixtures made by the Metropolitan Council on the Leased Premises, shall at the option of the City, remain on the Leased Premises at the expiration of the Lease and become the property of the City without any compensation to the Metropolitan Council. In the alternative, the City may elect to require removal of the Break Room Facility. The City must give Metropolitan Council written notice to remove the Break Room Facility at least 120 days prior to the expiration or termination date of the Lease, and Metropolitan Council must remove the Break Room Facility and any other improvements to the Leased Premises at its own expense prior to-the expiration or termination date of the Lease. 6. RENT AND OPERATING COSTS A. The Metropolitan Council agrees to pay to the City the sum of one dollar ($1.00) for the use of the Leased Premises for the term of this Lease. B. The Metropolitan Council agrees to be responsible for all costs for water, sewer, street lighting, electricity, natural gas and any other utilities, if any, used or consumed in connection with the Leased Premises, including waste or trash removal costs and snow removal costs. C. At all times during its occupancy of the Leased Premises, the Metropolitan Council shall be responsible for one hundred percent of the expense of maintaining the Leased Premises. This expense includes, but is not limited to, trash and snow removal, weed control and maintaining the Break Room Facility in good repair. D. It is expected that the Metropolitan Council's use of the Leased Premises will be exempt from real property taxes. If for any reason the Metropolitan Council's use of the Leased Premises results in anon-exempt classification, the Metropolitan Council shall be responsible for paying all real estate taxes on the Leased Premises. The Metropolitan Council shall also be responsible for paying special assessments against the Leased Premises to the extent permitted by law. 265486v3(SJS) 2 RC160~} 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES The Metropolitan Council agrees to comply with all laws, .and regulations of federal, state, and local government agencies, other than the City, that are applicable to the Metropolitan Council. The City acknowledges that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.449, the Metropolitan Council's exercise of powers generally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the City, except as provided in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473. Notwithstanding that section or any other provision of this Lease, the Metropolitan Council agrees that its use of the Leased Premises will comply with the ordinances of the City relating to use -and maintenance of real property and, except as otherwise approved by the City, all constructed improvements will comply with the following minimum standards: front setback of 35 feet; rear setback of eight feet; setback between buildings of six feet; maximum height of 15 feet; no signage. The Metropolitan Council also agrees not to use the Leased Premises for the production, storage, deposit or disposal of toxic, dangerous or hazardous substance pollutants, wastes or contaminations, including but not limited to, nuclear fuel or wastes or wastes that are considered hazardous by law and regulations. Subject to the limitations set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.04, the Metropolitan Council shall indemnify the City, its officials, employees, agents and other acting on City's behalf, hold it harmless and defend and protect it from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, claim, cost or expense (specifically including attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of investigation and defense), of any sort, resulting from injury or death to any person or from loss of or damage to any property; however caused, which occurs on the Leased Premises with respect to the production, storage, deposit or disposal of toxic, dangerous or hazardous substance pollutants, wastes or contaminations. 8. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES. The Metropolitan Council shall keep the Leased Premises free of all liens and encumbrances arising out of its interest in, construction or activities on the Leased Premises. 9. NOTICES All notices required or permitted pursuant to this Lease shall be directed to the following individuals and shall be either hand-delivered or mailed to the following addresses: To the Metropolitan Council: Metropolitan Council Office of the General Counsel Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1633 To the City: City of Richfield Attn: City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55016 265486v3 (SJS) 3 RC160-4 11. INDEMNITY Each parry agrees that it shall be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, so to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The City and the Metropolitan Council's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Council is contained herein and this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed part of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE The Metropolitan Council and the City each warrant that it is .able to comply with the aforementioned liability requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program and have minimum insurance coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Metropolitan Council agrees to work cooperatively with the City to establish mutually acceptable procedures to resolve as reasonably as possible any security, maintenance or operational issues related to the Leased Premises. If a dispute should arise between the City and the Metropolitan Council with respect to this Lease, the parties agree to settle such dispute through the use of a mediator mutually acceptable to the parties prior to the initiation of any legal action on the part of any of the parties with respect to this Lease or its enforcement. The costs of the mediation shall be shared equally by the parties entering into the mediation. i5. AMENDMENT This Lease maybe amended only by a written amendment signed by both parties. 16. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES Nothing in this Lease shall be interpreted or construed as a partnership or joint venture between the City and the Metropolitan Council concerning the Metropolitan Council's activities on the Leased Premises. 17. GOVERNING LAW The parties agree that the interpretation and construction of this Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 265486v3(SJS) 4, RC160-4 18. SEVERANCE Should any portion of this Lease be declared invalid and unenforceable, then such portion shall be deemed to be severed from this Lease and shall not affect the remainder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units by action of its governing bodies have caused this Agreement to be executed this day of , 2005. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: Its: Regional Administrator Date: Approved as to form: Assistant General Counsel CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Mayor Date: By: Its: City Manager Date: 265486v3 (SJS) GJ RC 160-4 AGENDA SECTION: Other ~us~ness- AGENDA ITEM # j3 REPORT# j57 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COOR. NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of canceling the Regular City Council meeting and scheduling a Special City Council Worksession on Tuesda , Au ust 23. 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel the Regular City Council meeting and schedule a Special City Council Worksession on Tuesda , Au ust 23, 2005. II. BACKGROUND The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Tuesday evening of each month. Items for the August 23 (fourth Tuesday) Council meeting can be carried over to September 13, 2005. Therefore, the~City Council may wish to cancel the regular Council meeting scheduled for August 23. However, a Special City Council Worksession should be scheduled for August 23 to discuss the key financial strategies (Session 1) with Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associate. The City Council directed staff to undertake the planning for key financial issues. In addition to staff meeting with Mr. Prosser, it will be necessary to have discussions with the City Council. It may be necessary to have four meetings with Council. The August 23 Worksession will be Phase I and a Special City Council Worksession on Tuesday, September 13 will be Phase II. These discussions are necessary because the City Council will need to make significant financial decisions this fall. 0809cancel i ~-i III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Regular City Council business can be carried over to September 13, 2005. • A Special City Council Workession is needed because the City Council will need to make significant financial decisions this fall. • This item has been placed on the August 9 City Council- agenda so proper notification can be made if the Regular Council meeting is canceled and a Special Council Worksession is scheduled. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not cancel the August 23 Council meeting. • Do not schedule a Special City Council Worksession on August 23. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # Z Z REPORT # 156 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorizing staff to hire Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to prepare lans ands ecifications for roofin im rovements at Cit Hall. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the purchase of engineering services from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for roofing improvements at City Hall in amount not to exceed $23,750. IL BACKGROUND At the July 26 Council meeting, the Council reviewed several options for repairing/replacing City Hall's roof. Staff received direction to proceed with the design of a ten-year rubber roof. However, Council requested additional information before deciding on whether the roof should be repaired in sections or all. at once because cost figures were not available. Bonestroo has agreed to do specifications for the roof so it may be bid with several alternates. The City Council will have an opportunity to decide whether to repair all or part of the roof after the bid opening at the bid award. 0726reroof design /~- Bonestroo has proposed a fee not to exceed $23,750 to spec, bid and monitor a full construction and $20,000 to spec, bid and monitor a partial construction. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Council approval is required if Council's decision results in expenditures over $25,000. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The leaking roof will continue to cause more damage to the building and could cause health concerns. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2003 Building Services budget has $300,000 on Line Item 7230 for building improvements for roof repairs D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bonestroo's proposal for Engineering Services and August 1, 2005 letter. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None /~`~ August 1, 2005 Randy Hughes City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement Discussion of Project Segmenting Costs Bonestroo File No. 673GEN Dear Randy, This letter is written is response to your questions relating to the proposed repair of the Richfield City Hall roof. The proposed roof repair under consideration consists of installing a new 60-mil EPDM rubber membrane overlay on top of the existing 4-ply built up roofing system. By performing this work in accordance with Membrane Manufacturer's specifications, a 10-Year warranty can be established. Project Segmenting Scope In our letter of June 27, we noted that the proposed overlay project could be performed over the entire roof, or that portions of the overlay project could be deferred to other years to make the project more affordable. Expanding on this, the roof can be broken up into five or six areas. Each roof area is bounded either, by the building perimeter, or by the intermediate expansion joints that exist. The overlay work in each area would completely cover each bounded area so that proper terminations can be made. To move forward with this project and consider the option of deferring some of the work, we would recommend setting up the Construction Document Bid Proposal that allows for alternate scopes of work as follows: 1. Base Bid Item No. 1: Perform an overlay of the entire roof. 2. Base Bid Item No. 2: Provide metal coping caps and metal wall panels over the existing concrete parapet cap stones and precast concrete banding, located along the upper portions of the exterior walls. 3. Alternate Bids: In lieu of Base Bid Item No. 1, Contractors would be asked to provide pricing to perform overlay work on each of the five or six individual roof areas. 4. Along with receiving these alternate prices, Contractors would be asked to provide a mobilization demobilization price. The purpose of this is so that Contractors do not have to concern themselves with how to account for mobilization/demobilization pricing knowing the City could select any of the roof area alternates. C:\Documents and Settings~lvtEastline\I,ocal Settin s\g Tempararv Internet Files\OLK2\Hu lg ies MBJ^8-1-OS City Hall Roof Replacement pronosal2 follow-up info.do^rnn^^.,..,^.,.~ .,,,,a c^,.: ~..>,,, t,o~:r ^^,1 c^«:.,rt~~~r^.,,.,,,..,..., r.,«o....or F;t^~1(ll T771U„nt,^~ RrTR I^4_i hG (": . T7.,11 'D.,..fA 1.,..o.,,e..« ..ooi ~ f ii..,,,_., cam- ^ ~a -3 Once the roof bids have been received, the City can choose whether they want to move forward with the entire roof project, or select any combination of alternates. In any case, we would recommend completing the entire roof parapet and metal wall panel work as part of awarded project scope. Project Segmenting Costs During our telephone discussion, you inquired about the additional costs that the City could possibly incur if portions of the roof repair were to be performed under separate contracts in subsequent years. In this case, the additional contractor fees would mainly be comprised of mobilization and roof system tie-in or interfacing efforts. The A/E fees would include the assembly of accurate construction documents and administration and inspection of the construction activities. To calculate a value, let us assume that the initial project is set up as described above and our A/E services are performed as identified in our June 27, 2005 proposal. With these assumptions in mind and using 2005 cost figures, each subsequent year's project would incur approximately $5,000 to $10,000 in contractor fees and $5,000 to $7,000 in A/E fees per project. Our low estimate of the subsequent A/E fees assumes that we will have done most of the project set-up in the first project and will be able to make use of our previous work in the subsequent projects to greatly minimize the efforts required. To further illustrate this point, the following table has been assembled to help identify the estimated prof ect costs along with the additional costs that the City could possibly incur if the roof repair were performed under separate contracts in 2 or 3 years. Richfield Ci Hall Roof Overla -Estimated Costs Potential Additional Potential Additional 1 Project -Complete Project Costs to Project Costs to Complete the Roof Complete the Roof Re air in 2 Pro'ects Re air in 3 Pro'ects Contractor Fees $190,000 to $200,000 $5,000 to $10,000 $10,000 to $20,000 A/E Fees $20,000 to $23,750 NTE $5,000 to 7,000 $10,000 Total $220,000 to $223,750 $10,000 to $17,0.00 $20,000 to $30,000 We hope that this additional information is helpful to you. If you have any comments, questions, and concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 651.604.4878. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. Associate Principal C:\Documents and SettinesQvlEas~tlinaU.,ocal Settin s1e Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Hu zes MBJ^8-1-OS CitkHall Roof Replacement proposal 2 follow-up info.doc a ~ ' F:~o~~.nr v~~.u,,,,t,o~ n~izi^4_i nc r:.,> u.,n A....fT? 1....0«.,o„r ..~.,t ~ f il...,~_„ n ~a µ Apri15, 2005 Randy Hughes City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement Proposal for Engineering Services Bonestroo File No. 673GEN Dear Randy, The roof on Richfield's City Hall continues to have chronic leaking problems. The existing roof is approximately 23 years old and the City of Richfield is planning to move forward with some type of roof repair or replacement project. In our April 5, 2005 proposal, we described a complete roof replacement project having a 20+ year useful life. The estimated construction costs for this project was between $300,000 and $350,000. In May, the committee concerned with replacement or renovation of the existing City Hall building returned with preliminary recommendations to construct a new City Hall within the next 3 to 5 years. Based upon this recommendation,. the City is now interested in a roof repair project for the existing City Hall building that only has a 10+ year useful life. At our meeting on Thursday, June 2, 2005, we heard from Clancey Barry ofTop-All Roofing. Top-All roofing is the contractor currently working on the roof replacement project for the City's Water Treatment Plant Sludge Dewatering Facility. At this meeting, Mr. Barry indicated that.a 10-Year roof repair project was feasible and could even be warranted by a roofing manufacturer such as Firestone. During our meeting, we toured the building and were shown area where the building was leaking through the walls of the structure. After some discussion, it was concluded that a good portion of this leaking was likely coming from the horizontal joints along the top edge of the precast concrete banding. This banding is located along the upper portions of the exterior walls. As you requested at our meeting, this letter provides construction cost estimates for this roof repair project along with our proposal for engineering services. The scope of this proposal covers services for Phases 2 and 3, which comprise the planning, design and construction administration/surveillance phases of the Project. Randy Hughes Richfield, MN .~ '~ ~ June 27, 2005 Page 2 Project Description The existing 4-ply built up roofing membrane is proposed to be covered with a new 60-mil EPDM rubber membrane system. The loose pitch and rocks will be swept off the roof and the existing insulation system will be sawed into 5' by 5' squares as required by the manufacturer's before the polyisocyanurate insulation, recovery board and EPDM membrane is put down. The existing concrete parapet wall cap stones are proposed to be covered with treated wood blocking and sheet metal coping. Following the assumption that the roof has been leaking for some time, we propose to have the roof inspected with infra-red cameras to determine if there are any areas where the existing insulation is saturated. If found, these areas would be removed and inspected to determine the condition of the existing metal roof decking. The project bid documents would include Unit Price bid items for miscellaneous removal and replacement of sections of decking and insulation. This work would occur before the new overlay system is installed. Along with the roof overlay, it is proposed that the upper 2' of the exterior walls be covered with metal wall panels similar in color to the proposed parapet cap flashing. These wall panels are intended to seal off the horizontal joints along the top edge of the precast concrete banding that are believed to be leaking. We estimate the construction cost for this modified project scope to be approximately $190,000 to $200,000. Our estimate for just the roof portion is $170,000 to $190,000, but this project also includes the new wall panels which we did not include in the last project description. Please note that portions of the overlay project could be deferred to other years to make the project more affordable. Engineering Services The City of Richfield desires to complete preparation of construction plans and specifications as soon as possible to allow for spring construction. See Appendix A for a detailed description of the scope of the engineering services. Consultant Staff I will serve as the client liaison for this project. Our architect, Bruce Paulson will serve as project manager and will be responsible for the layout and design of the improvements. I will assist Bruce in coordinating the work efforts and schedules of our other team members. As needed, we will utilize Chuck Oehrlein -electrical engineering; and Phil Caswell -structural engineering, who are both 20+ member of our firm. Compensation Phase 2 Engineering Fees: Assuming that the repairs move forward as one project, we propose to complete the Phase 2 design services on an hourly basis that is Not-to-Exceed $11,500, plus Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses include such items as mileage, postage, printing, lodging, and meals. Reimbursable expenses are billed at cost as they are incurred and are estimated at no more than $750 for Phase 2. We understand that the value of this Not-to-Exceed amount, totaling $12,250, cannot increase without further authorization from l ~^w Randy Hughes Richfield, MN June 27, 2005 Page 3 you. The terms and conditions of this proposal wholly include the contents of the December 10, 1999 Agreement between the City of Richfield and Bonestroo, Roserie, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. If the repairs are to move forward under multiple year portions, we -would propose to prepare plans that identify the full scope of repairs and then identify portions that can be discretely bid. Phase 3 Engineering Fees: Phase 3 costs are dependent on significant factors outside our control: • Extent of on-site presence desired by the City of Richfield • The contractor's responsiveness, competency, and profit level The contractor's adherence to the schedule Assuming that the repairs move forward as one project, we propose to complete the outlined Phase 3 efforts on an hourly basis that is in accordance with our standard billing rate schedule. Assuming a 3-month construction period, we propose aNot-to-Exceed amount of $1,250 for bidding and $8,250 for contract administration, construction engineering and periodic construction observation, plus Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are estimated at no more than $2,000 for the entire construction phase including printing of the project plans and specifications. Again, we understand that the value of this Not-to-Exceed amount, totaling $11,500, cannot increase without further authorization from you. If the repairs are to be undertaken over several years, we would simply seek hourly compensation for our efforts as they become needed. We want to thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal to you. It is very important to us that our services continue to meet Richfield's needs. So after you have had an opportunity to review this proposal, we would like to hear any comments, questions, and concerns you may have. If this proposal is acceptable, please sign and return a copy of this letter, authorizing us to proceed. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposal is accepted; CITY OF RICHFIELD Miles B. Jensen, P.E. Associate Principal By Date Date Randy Hughes ~~ Richfield, MN Appendix A Scope of .Engineering Services A. Basic Services Phase 2 -Final Design Services June 27, 2005 Page 4 Purpose: To work closely with the City of Richfield in the design of a new roof system. To complete the creation of project bidding and construction contract documents; and to submit documents necessary to obtain the necessary City approvals. Tasks 2.1 Final Construction Plans 2.2 Submit 60% Drawings to City of Richfield. 2.3 .Prepare Project Specifications 2.4 Submit Final Documents to City of Richfield 2.5 Formal City of Richfield Approval to Bid Phase 3 -Construction Services Task 1 -Bidding and Award 3.1.1 Prepare bid proposal and contract forms 3.1.2 Issue bid advertisement 3.1.3 Reproduce project bid documents with 11'x17" drawings and distribute to interested contractors 3.1.4 Respond to questions from prospective bidders 3.1.5 Attend bid opening to receive bids 3.1.6 Analyze bids, prepare bid tabulation, and prepare bid summary letter 3.1.7 Make presentation to City of Richfield if directed by Staff. Task 2 -Contract Administration 3.2.1 Hold pre-construction conference 3.2.2 Begin construction observation and contract administration 3.2.3 Review shop drawings. 3.2.4 Review and recommend approval of contractor's partial payment requests 3.2.5 Attend twice-monthly meetings with contractor and City of Richfield Staff 3.2.6 Direct Contractor in the interpretation of contract documents. 3.2.7 Process change order requests as required. C:\Documents and Settings\CKrumholz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Ilughes_MBJ^6-27-OS City Hall Roof Replacement proposal 2.doc Randy Hughes ! ~ ~ June 27, 2005 Richfield, MN Page 5 Task 3 -Construction Inspection 3.3.1 Perform periodic on-site construction observation 3.3.2 Act as City of Richfield's liaison with contractor 3.3.3 Coordinate construction activities with City of Richfield staff to assure access to City hall is maintained throughout the project 3.3.4 Review, correct, and approve contractor submitted construction progress schedule. 3.3.5 Maintain field records during on-site inspection • Inspection diary • Phone call log • Note work activities and work force for all contractors and subs • Record site deliveries • Record meetings, discussions, observations and decisions • Photograph project progress 3.4 Attend periodic job. site progress meetings Task 4- Contract Close Out 3.4 Request and obtain roof warranty documents 3.5 Request and obtain final roof system inspection certification by roof system manufacturer 3.6 Prepare construction punch lists to expedite project completion 3.7 Provide notification to City of Richfield and contractor of potential liquidated damages 3.8 Fully execute and bring closure to any liquidated damages issue 3.9 Recommend final payment to contractor upon project completion 3.10 Notify surety of final payment and commencement of warranty period B. Supplemental Services If authorized by the City of Richfield, the Engineer will provide. the following services: 1.1. Making revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are: 1.1.1. Requested by the City of Richfield and are inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given by the City of Richfield; 1.1.2. Required by the enactment or revisions of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents; 1.1.3. Due to any other causes beyond the Engineer's control. 1.2. Providing consultation regarding the replacement of all such parts of the Project as may be damaged. by fire or other cause during construction and assisting the City of Richfield in arranging for continuation of the work should the Contractor default for any reason. 1.3. Providing services made necessary by the default of a Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the work of a Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the City of Richfield or a Contractor under the Contract for construction. 1.4. Construction dispute resolution assistance. 1.5. Providing services in connection with warranty work to be done by the Contractor. 1.6. Preparation of applications for funding assistance. 1.7: Assisting the ,City of Richfield or its representative in connection with mediation, arbitration, litigation or other proceedings involving the Project, including preparing to testify and testifying as an expert witness. 1.8. Providing one or more full-time Resident Project Representatives (and assistant[s]) in order to provide the City of Richfield with continuous representation at the Project site during the Construction Phase. 1.9. Providing any other service not otherwise included in Basic Services or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. C:\Documents and Settings\CICmmholz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Hughes_MBJ^6-27-OS City Hall Roof Replacement proposal 2.doc AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 155 ,:;: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY ~ MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approving a work order to add aright-turn lane on 66th Street for access to the Cedar Point development. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a work order to add aright-turn lane on 66th Street for access to the Cedar Point develo ment site. II. BACKGROUND City staff has been working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to add aright-turn lane on westbound 66th Street as part of the 66th Street and Highway 77 Interchange Project. The right-turn lane will provide aright-in only access to the new Cedar Point development. The new driveway entrance will generally be in the vicinity of 18th Avenue. (See attached map.) The cost to add the right-turn lane is $26,000. By adding the work to the MnDOT project, the City could save money by not having to tear out some of improvements that MnDOT will be installing soon. The City needs to authorize the work now so that it can be done as part of the new interchange being built by MnDOT. 0809 Right Turn Lane /~-1 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The right-turn lane improvement will support the Cedar Point development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • MnDOT needs City authorization now to add the work to the interchange project at 66th. Street and- Highway 77. C. FINANCIAL • Funds for the $26,000 project will come from the City's Municipal State Aid funds (gas tax revenues) and from the developer of the Cedar Point Project in negotiations for necessary public improvements. By performing the work as part of the MnDOT project, the City can save over $5,000 for the cost of the work. D. LEGAL • Council must approve purchases in excess of $25,000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The work could be done in 2006 under a City contract but the cost would be increased substantially because some work done by MnDOT in 2005 would have to be removed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map showing the location of the proposed right-turn lane. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. f l-a- C m Q ~i J L1Ill~~ E t C r o ~p Ric.~rrTuRn Lane ~II~~I (~ INI ._1 a G 0 ~I«I~ IIII~~ Fieure 2 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # LO REPORT # 1S~F J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ra~ SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the award of contracts for the renovation of filters #1 through #5 in the Water Treatment Plant and the En ineerin Services to be rovided durin construction. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award of contract to Shank Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,774,650.00 for the renovation of Filters #1 through #5. • -Award of contract to Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates in the amount of $69,600.00 for Engineering Services to be provided during construction. II. BACKGROUND The Water Treatment Plant was built in the Early 1960's. Since that time the filters/filtering system has not been replaced except for minor repairs in 1992. The current filter system is operating with the original equipment, media and controls from the early 1960's. The media has become calcified .(sand particles cemented together) thus hampering performance. The filter renovation plan started in early 0809Filters1-5 D-1 2005 when the City Council approved a pilot project to renovate filter #6 on February 8, 2005. The City hired the consultant, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlink and Associates to prepare plans and specifications for the renovation of filter # 6. Their proposed scope of engineering services follows directly from their experience with the filter #6 renovation with the basic difference being increased replacement work and increased duration of the construction project. Their detailed proposal for the renovation of filters #1 through #5 is attached. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. I~OLICY • A bid opening was held on July 14, 2005. • Shank Constructors was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current filter system is operating with the original equipment, media and controls from the early 1960's. The age of the current filter system makes it difficult to repair and almost impossible to find replacement parts. • The renovation of filter #6 was used as an information gathering tool to better evaluate the remaining five filters thus producing a better specifications when bidding these remaining 5 filters. • Approval at the August 9, 2005, Council meeting will facilitate the process to begin renovation of the remaining filters #1 through #5. C. FINANCIAL • The Water Division has budgeted $1,100,000.00 in 2005 and an additional $1,800,000.00 in 2006 for the renovation of the filters. • The Water Division will fund 100% of the invoiced amount, thus having no impact on the general fund. • The low bid came in roughly $600,000.00 lower than the original Engineering's estimate. • The balance of the combined- Water/Wastewater fund has over $6 million in cash balance. The City Council will be addressing the long term capital needs of the utility divisions as part of the Financial Plan the City Council sill be preparing later this year. D. LEGAL • All contracts or purchases in excess of $25,000 require Council approval. • All contracts or purchases over $50,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by public notice. pl.. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the bid submitted by Shank Constructors Inc. is reasonable and responsible. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes and tabulation • Bid evaluation • .Proposal for Engineering Services VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None io-,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening July 14, 2005 2:00 pm 2005 Filter No. 1-5 Renovation Bid No. 05-09 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2005 Filter No. 1-5 Renovation, bid no. 05-09, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 23, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Robert Hintgen, Utility Superintendent Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bid Bond Total Bid Total Base Bid Unit Prices Bor-Son Provided $169,859.60* $1,860,000.00 Construction Gridor Construction Provided $111,608.00 $2,117,392.00 Shank Construction Provided $145,958.00* $1,628,692.00 Inc. Rice Lake Provided $$41,422.90 $1,825,420.10 Construction Grou *denotes corrected figure The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the August 9, 2005 City Council Meeting: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk B:onestroo ®Rosene Anderfik Asspri~tes Engineers & Architects, July 19, 2005 Robert Hintgen City of Richfield Utility Division 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 2335 West Highway 3G ^ St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 ^ Fax: 651-G36-1311 www.bonestroo.com ~ ~ °~ Re: Recommendation of Construction Contract-Award Water Treatment Facility Filter Cells 1 through 5 Renovation Project City ContractNo. 2686 City Project Bid No. OS-09 Bonestroo File No. 673-OS-1 i0 Dear Robert: Bids were opened for the Filter Cells 1 through 5 Renovation Project on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 2:00 P.M. Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Bid Tabulation for your information and file. Ten copies will follow by mail. Copies will also be distributed to each Bidder. There were a total of four (4) Bids. The following summarizes the results of the Bids received: Contractor Unit Price Total Bid Base Bid Items #1 Shank Constructors, Inc. $1,628,692.00 $145,958.00 $1,774,650.00 #2 Rice Lake Construction Group $1,825,420.10 $41,422.90 $1,866,843.00 #3 Bor-Son Construction, Inc #4 Gridor Construction, Inc. $1,860,000.00 $169,859.60 $2,117,392.00 $111,608.00 The following is a summary of the Base Bid and the Unit Price Items: $2,029,859.60 $2,229,000.00 Base Bid: This Base Bid includes removal of the filter wash troughs, underdrains, installation of all new filter equipment, replacement of the filter. function valves and filter controls, miscellaneous air piping, and painting work. Unit Price Items: .The Unit Price Items include items such as removal of the existing falter media, protection of the- filter room terrazzo floor, and miscellaneous concrete repair items. St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, WI ^ Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned I ©-.~ Mr. Robert Hintgen City of Richfield Page 2 July 19, 2005 Discussion: We are pleased with the Bids received. Our estimated construction cost was $2,400,000.00. With respect to the Contractors that Bid this. Project, all four (4) have a considerable amount of experience with these types of Projects. Any of the Contractors would be well suited to perform the work and would do a fine job for the City. For this Bid, Shank Constructors, Inc was the low Bidder. Should you wish award the Project to the low Bidder, then Shank Constuctors, Inc. should be awarded the Project on the Total Bid Amount of $1,774,650.00. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4878. Vnurc very tnily_ ASSOCIATES, INC. ~nciosures ~tc~ - r., m ;~ C U .Q d N o O Of ~:- r L ~ U O "O ~ w o U w .U R LL .. c Z° y ~ °~ 3 u. O ': I N a O O N m 0 0 N <P r v a Z ~ ~ y m j LL H ~ O ~ cEo Z ~~ Z ~ a ~ ~ m U N N y v+ ~ ~ 'u _, °J a, ~ o ~ 0 o c ~ a m m Q Q v t) C 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N C+ 7 M ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q r r b 4 ~ r r N N t!7 N! O O O O O O O O O ~ - ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - a C"T E4 64 ER CA ffT fA E4 CA .,,, n 'c ~ N ffT ° ° ° 0 0 ° ° ° o o o o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o ° o ° ° ~ ° ~ 0 0 v v ~ d - v v o o ao o ao ao ao o m :a ~ ~ ~ ~ E9 EA 69 t!> ~ 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ . O O O O O O O O O ~ V 00 O O C O O O O O .~ 0- O ~ EFT vT » ~ sa » r Ess ~ r ~T c .~ ~ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °~, o o ~ o o o o o o ~ ~ 7 O ~ 7 0 N N ~ V ' d V: ~ Cp 0 Cp Cp - tp 0 Cp fD .~., ~ ~ ~f1 - N N ~ N ~ N ~ N N' ~ CV N . N - N . E4. E4 E9 E4• ER EiT E9 _ fR ~ O O O O 6 , EFT ~ O O O ~ O O O O O ~ ~ .` ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 6 4 E4 6 4 - E 4 a ~ C N • O O ° ° ° o ° ° o ° o ° H o o o o o o o m o ~ N N ~ N N N N N N C p t D - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N N H ~ ~ ~ r 64 !f! ~ .~+ ~ C Z U m 0 ~ a ~ m ~ d C O y •tT 3 w N tf C O o V z~ ~ o ~N ~ `o m m a 3 • O C O C7 .~. N C N O U Z Y N J ~ V m ~ V C N O V 7 r y O) C C V z v a` ., m e 'c ~ r ~ m ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~ ~ ( p E9 64 E!) ~ E9 K-T ~ E9 ffT ~. v v V' ~ N ~C z O Q J ~ ~ y Q F- ° m 0 2 2 S 2 = S 2 S ~ U U U U U U U U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O ~- O Z 2Y U W= W= W= W= W 2 W= W 2 (~jtS F- ~ Y - ZO a. a' F- F- = I- F- 2 H ~ 2 f- ~- 2 F- H = !- ~ 2 I- f- = H N _ J~~ J~~ J~~-• ~ J~F.. J~F" J~F- J=~- J~H . ?~On- ~Oa ~Oa ~Oa u.0a ~Oa ~Oa u.O.a u.0a ~ = ~,}~F- J Z wZw i,•,mw LL,zw wcnw LLZw LL,cnw wzw ~,•;cnw O~o O'"'~ p">~ tnO~o ON~ ON~ Ov~ O~'~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ in ui ui O O Z ^ O ^ O ZO O O ~ n O OOp ZF-m U NZZ yZZ yZZ NZZ NZZ NZZ c c c vZ c v Z 2~~U ~j~UX~~UX~~UX~~Ux~~UXj~UX~~(=jX I.- Q ~ N ~ ? F. Q F ? ~ Q ~ ? ~ Q ~ ? n Q ~ ? ~ Q ~ ? ti'Q F ?.h Q ~ ? ~ C ~ ? ~ rn Z I- Q a ° m Z J a. 0 J~ O J~ 0 J a. 0 J a. o J~ O J~ l11 J a. 0 X OLL ~~ OLL W ~LLW ~~ F- W W ~LL ~LLW W yu Z m OZ U ? - - - • W r r r r r -W.- r .- O ° a?Q a? ° "? ¢ ~ Q a aZ ~Z¢ ~Z ~ o ~ `S _ O ao, _ o Z O o~z S QO QO o J ' m ~ Q W ~ Q ~SUwtLa'm J ~ Cn J J ~ (n -J r J ~ (/1 J J ~ Cn J J ~ Cn J J ~ Cn J J ar Cn -J J ~ f/1 ¢tL0¢¢wOaawOQ¢lL0¢aLL0¢¢ti000tLOQ¢WOQic~ w~~~~~ Q F-OQ JOOQ JOOQ JOOa J00? JOO¢ JOOQ JOOQ~O° ~ ~ ~ N J J Z H J~~ J~~ J~~ D: ~ O J 2~ ~ J~~ ~ J~~ ~ J~~ ~ J~~ a~~U~~~U~~~U~~~U~~~U~~~U~~~U~~~U~ m¢m?~m~ a r N c+~ V ~ 0 ~ O O °1- ®I ~ n~~ ~ N Z U ~ L ~ O O m c~ V C C O V 3 N M C o U z c ~ O ~ y .~ O m m a O U C O V 7 N C N O . V Z m ~' J tU '0 V r C) C O V 3 ~ y O C Z ~ U ~ Y d O V R ~_ m H O O O O o o O o0 000 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O d7 O 00 N OJ O O O M O O O 00 O O 0 0 0 N N 1~ O O ~ ~ a- t0 M CO O ~ .. N N O 1~ tt7 ~ M CM r - r Of ^ O 64 Eft N N Ef3 EFS r . -- ~ N F- ER EF7 ER ffl r ~ N ff! ~ EiT ~ ~ ~ ' CO O O O O O O O O L` Z O M N } ~ C N~ O M L L ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 6 O ~ ~ M ~ H c -a 4. ' cr3 U a~ O rn C OO EMM Ornm c~ a CCc7 m ~ . a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Sri o 0 o ai ~ci of o ai of v v rn ~ o ~ o ~ u~ o n o ~ M Cq O r' O I~ ~ N OD O CD CO O V d? ~ b4 C[7 ~ M eO ~ M M N M fig r- Of (fT CO O ~ t7f COO N c ~ O ~--~ E3 f/3 EA CA r M r O N ,a, tR ~ i .~`~ O EA d l ~ 47 ~ O ` ~ O O ~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "O t) O O O ~ y CD a0 ~ (6 a b4 O O O Esr E/7 b9 - c ~ ~ ~ N !fl v} a o- ~ ~ c c O Y ~ O t10 O .D O ~ ~ O o C tC> to ~ N O C : m N~ °.' °:m a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0~0~ Arno O O O to O O CA O N O N M O. ~ a' M M O CC') CO ~ N N N ~' O CO CO 1~ ~ N ~ M Q ~~ O O O N ~ O Y3 64 E9 M ~ ~ O N F'~ 6 9 d9 fJi tR d' C O o0 tf? 00 C ~ ,d, ~ ~ O _ CA CR U O V ~ 0 ~ 0 O O ~ O~ O O O O O O ~~ ~ ~~ ~ °m °m ~ ~ ~r « s<a °~ ~ inn ~~ U ~ ~ o~ oJ ~ o a ~ ~ c c ~ ~ ~ d o o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N U U N ~ C _ ~_ ~ND.N..~~>mO O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O W Cb N t70 O O O M O O O O a0 1C7 CA l(7 lC1 N N I~ N O O to CO O CO w N N O O O M M 4) Cq lC) V' ~ O f- ER EA ~ EA 'd' fA ~ V3 N fA (f3 EH V r N ~ CD ~ C tA ~ ~ EA N y Z O i c" O O O O O V 0 ~ ~ O ~L t a_ b9 69 MEA C O O O O O O GH b9 EA fig ~ O Y O O C C¢ 00O-L i _ U ~ CNN c ~ Ya0~7d'~~ O L O ~ CD CD ~ ~ ;O C fnc0'~m.C~mn.m0 a' d' O tf') O O ~ eh n aM-- Ott N to O ~ t70 O M M w _ = H z z ~ ~ ~ ~ F- H a v J Z Z ~ ~ Q Z ¢~ O O W~= w~= JpOQVOWpO Q~ ~pO Q ~W~= w J~ ~. J~ F.. W - W- Z O u.0a. ~Oa >m~""~cnl->Q~. Wa ~WLL ~OQ~ C~ ~ O ~= p~np~p~np~Ww~pdwp=~ZZ`1~w W~C i-Wa'f-OOp~Ua~ D ~ wa0~ a wm0 F- J m y Op Op ~ = ZZONZZON WSW ~ j W Q~F,I-Q~U Qf-C1 HQ O~~ 0O0'UQO ' U~ J U U J p p=2'~ Z O~d~ Q _ X~ [.C ~ X X U U ~O W OQm~~ Q~Z Q~z i i W W W LL W ~Q~~ F- ~ ~ ~ . - I - I ~ - 2J~~SJ~~ ~F-W 2'I-W W ~~mOmo ~Zd W W W ~ZoZ ~F- QQ' ~Q~ ~LL-W ~U~-W ~ m JZ~O--~N ~~ Q _ m ~ J J ZJ Z W M O O OO W CJ W ~YMp J ~~ ~~ -Z Q p I QZ O O C~MpF-~a.Q O~ Y o U Y o U U w U~ 'S ~~~~~ O Q O O Q ~~J~~~J~ WOo ZQ~~QF-Z W JUCnO~Z w 0~~¢ m w >~Q~~UF- ~ W W W W W W W W~>M O>MI-2'QO2J W W I JO ~~ U~~~ U 2 J> O U> O !n U~ U U Q fn Q' Q. W~ O W JOW ZO U CC W U O Q f- O Z J N c*') 7 ~ CO r .- .- .- .- ~ I~ .-- ~~°~I W U a H- Z D ~ m m N ~ ~ ~ m d m aa~ m O O O N O+ ..+ O C O m + d ' _ L LL ~ ~ O 'O O Q t j N y 4. t o 3 o~ c ~ ~° c° f4 m U 4) Q t0 N Z 'O ~ `o ~ U N Q O U N H m X F- m O O 0 M O O O /~--~ 2335 West Highway 3G • St. Paul, MN 55113 Bonestroo ~ ROSerle Office: 651-G36-4000 ^ Fax: G51-G3G-1311 Anderllk & www.bonestroo.com Associates Engineers & Architects July 19, 2005 Robert Hintgen City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Proposal for Step 3 Engineering Services. Water Treatment Facility Filter Cells 1 through 5 Renovation Project City Contract No. 2686 City Project Bid No. OS-09 Bonestroo File No. 673-OS-110 Dear Robert: The City of Richfield has recently bid the construction project for renovation of the Water Treatment Facility's Filter Nos. 1 through 5. This letter is our proposal for engineering services associated with the upcoming Phase 3 (Construction Administration), which comprise the construction. administration/surveillance phases of the Project. Project Schedule Based upon an expected construction contract award date of August 9, 2005, the duration of this project is expected to be nearly 44 weeks. The schedule for this project has been planned as follows: • On September 12, 2005, demolition and reconstruction of Filters 4 and 5 and replacement of the filter function valves and controls for Filters 4, 5 and 6 is planned. • Between August 9 and September 12, shop drawing review, approval and equipment fabrication efforts will occur. • The work on Filters 4, 5 and 6 is scheduled to be complete on, or before December 12, 2005. Once this work is complete, • Demolition and reconstruction of Filters 1, 2 and 3 and replacement of the filter function valves and. controls is planned to proceed and be completed on, or before May 15, 2006. • Final project completion and closeout is scheduled for June 12, 2006. Engineering Services Our proposed scope of engineering services follows directly from our experience with the Filter No. 6 Renovation project aril is detailed in Appendix A. In terms of our engineering efforts, the basic difference between this project and the former is simply that our engineering efforts have been increased to account for the added valve and filter control replacement work and the increased duration of construction. St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, WI ^ Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned ~ ®--g Mr. Robert Hintgen Richfield, MN Consultant Staff July 19, 2005 Page 2 I will continue to serve as the project manager for this Project and will be responsible for coordinating the work efforts and schedules of our other team members. As needed, I will utilize Karen Cavett and Chuck Oehrlein -electrical engineering; and Phil Caswell -structural engineering, who are all staff that have worked with me on many other filter plant projects. Compensation Phase 3 Engineering Fees: We propose to complete the outlined Phase 3 efforts on an hourly basis that is in accordance with our standard billing rate schedule. Assuming an 11-month construction period, we propose a Not-to-Exceed amount of $69,660 for contract administration, construction engineering and periodic construction observation, plus Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are estimated at no more than $1,400 for the entire construction phase. Again, we understand that the. value of this Not-to-Exceed amount cannot increase without further authorization from you. It is very important to us that our services meet the needs of you, our client. So after you have had an opportunity to review this proposal, we would like to hear any comments, questions, and concerns you may have. If this proposal is acceptable, please sign and return a copy of this letter, authorizing us to proceed. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENEi~A~ERLIK & ASS-OCIATES; INC._ // // Miles B. Jer~n,~P.E. Associate Principal Date ~/~ 9~OJ~ Proposal is accepted; CITY OF RICHFIELD By .J7. Ea~]~.~.g~ ir~ctor of P.W. Date < / BY Steven Devich, City Manager Date Mr. Robert Hintgen ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ July 19, 2005 Richf eld, MN Page 3 Appendix A Scope of Engineering Services A. Basic Services Phase 3 -Construction Services Task 2 -Contract Administration 3.2.1 Hold pre-construction conference 3.2.2 Begin construction observation and contract administration 3.2.3 Review shop drawings. 3.2.4 Review and recommend approval of contractor's partial payment requests 3.2.5 Attend twice-monthly meetings with contractor and City of Richfield Staff 3.2.6 Direct Contractor in the interpretation of contract documents. 3.2.7 Process change order requests as required. Task 3 -Construction Inspection 3.3.1 Perform periodic on-site construction observation 3.3.2 Act as City of Richfield's liaison with contractor 3.3.3 Coordinate construction activities with City of Richfield staff to assure continued operation of the existing treatment plant throughout the project 3.3.4 Review, correct, and approve contractor submitted construction progress schedule. 3.3.5 Maintain field records during on-site inspection • Inspection diary • Phone call log • Note work activities and work force for all contractors and subs • Record site deliveries • Record meetings, discussions, observations and decisions • Photograph project progress and buried details 3.4 Attend periodic job site progress meetings 3.5 Coordinate material compliance testing work 3.6 Observe that record plans are maintained by all contracting forces 3.7 Require that all plant tankage and piping be cleaned and disinfected per AWWA and State Plumbing Code guidelines prior to start-up 3.8 Coordinate and assist with filter start-up Task 4- Contract Close Out 3.4 Request and obtain final Operation and Maintenance manuals for contractor provided equipment. , 3.5 Request and obtain final copies of as-built drawings and sketches from contractor 3.6 Assist with training of operators 3.7 Prepare construction punch lists to expedite project completion 3.8 Provide notification to City of Richfield and contractor of potential liquidated damages 3.9 Fully execute and bring closure to any liquidated damages issue 3.10 Recommend final payment to contractor upon project completion 3.11 Notify surety of final payment and commencement of warranty period 3.12 Prepare final Record Plans C:\Documents and Settings\cmi\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKi 3\Ilintgen_MBJ^7-19-OS Filter 1 thru 5 Renovation Step 3 proposal.doc i®-~C Mr. Robert Hintgen July 19, 2005 Richfield, MN Page 4 B. Supplemental Services If authorized by the City of Richfield, the Engineer will provide the following services: 1.1. Making revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are: 1.1.1. Requested by the City of Richfield and are inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given by the City of Richfield; 1.1.2'. Required by the enactment or revisions of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents; 1.1.3. Due to any other causes beyond the Engineer's control. 1.2. Providing consultation regarding the replacement of all such parts of the Project as may be damaged by fire or other cause during construction and assisting the City of Richfield in arranging for continuation of the work should the Contractor default for any reason. 1.3. Providing services made necessary by the default of a Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the work of a Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the City of Richfield or a Contractor under the Contract for construction. 1.4. Construction dispute resolution assistance. 1.5. Providing services in connection with warranty work to be done by the Contractor. 1.6. Preparation of detailed operation and maintenance manuals. 1.7. User rate studies. 1.8. Preparation of applications for funding assistance. 1.9. Assisting the City of Richfield or its representative in connection with mediation, arbitration, litigation or other proceedings involving the Project, including preparing to .testify and testifying as an expert witness. 1.10. Providing one or more full-time Resident Project Representatives (and assistant[s]) in order to provide the City of Richfield with continuous representation at the Project site during the Construction Phase. 1.11. .Providing any other service not otherwise included in Basic Services or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. C:\Documents and Settings\cmi\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKl3\Hintgen_MBJ^7-19-OS Filter 1 thru 5 Renovation Step 3 proposal.doc AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # 153 r STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Transportation Commission's recommendation to remove the stop control on 76th Street at 3rd Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider the Transportation Commission's recommendation to remove the stop control on 76th Street at 3rd Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On August 10, 2004 the Traffic Control Committee considered a resident request to have blinking light installed above the stop signs located on 76th Street at 3rd Avenue. In response to the request an intersection investigation was conducted reviewing the traffic volumes and history of the intersection. The following was observed/noted: • Vehicle counts showed volumes on 76th Street to be considerably higher than those on 3rd Avenue (2654/day vs. 199/day). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states, "Multi-way stop installation... should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal". 9-I Crash history revealed zero (0) crashes reported here over a five (5) year crash review (1998-2002). This may be attributed to the low volumes on 3rd Avenue. Traffic control history was also considered. Originally the stop signs on 76th Street were installed when there were school children walking to and from Assumption School, located on 77th Street and 2nd Avenue. Also, the signs were installed well before the 77th Street arterial was constructed and the noise wall subsequently severed the connection to 77th Street from 3rd Avenue. • In the past, we have received complaints about the unreasonableness of the stop control at this location or complaints about people failing to stop at the intersection. This raised concern for the integrity and effectiveness of the stop control. Public safety confirmed the non-compliance complaints, which is a safety concern for those travelling on 3rd Avenue. • 76th Street is defined as a collector road and the stop control at 3rd Avenue is inconsistent with all other collectors and arterial roadways within the City (70th, 73rd).. Based on these findings, the Traffic Control Committee recommended that the City Council approve the removal of the stop signs on 76th Street at 3rd Avenue. After reviewing comments collected from the neighborhood and reviewing the traffic/pedestrian operations near the intersection, the Transportation Commission voted unanimously to remove the stop control on 76th Street: III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • According to the Minnesota Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) the four way stop control located at 76th Street and 3rd Avenue is not warranted. Unwarranted stop signs are frequently violated and may introduce rear-end and right angle crashes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The neighborhood was alerted via a letter sent to their homes in November of 2004. Comments were collected and compiled for the Transportation Commission's review. • A postcard was mailed out on July 15, 2005 to inform the neighbors of the Transportation Commission's recommendation and the August 9th City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL • No additional cost to the City is expected regarding this item. D. LEGAL • N/A ~~ ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Dismiss the Transportation Commission's recommendation and leave the stop control in place. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter to residents dated November 17, 2004. • Postcard to residents dated July 15, 2005. • Map of residential area included in mailings. • December 2, 2004 Memorandum to Transportation Committee including attachments. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected. ~~3 Public Works Department Engineering November 17, 2004 RE: Traffic Control Committee Recommendation Proposal to Change Traffic Control at 76th Street and 3rd Avenue Dear Richfield Resident: Recently, the Richfield Traffic Control Committee was asked to consider installing blinking lights on the stop signs located at 3rd Avenue on 76th Street. In reviewing the request, the Committee needed to investigate the existing traffic control at the intersection. The intersection investigation concluded that the stop signs on 76th Street were inappropriate for the existing conditions and ineffective traffic control devices. The remainder of this letter reviews the findings of the investigation in more detail. First, vehicle counts were obtained on all four approaches. The 24-hour counts showed that the volumes on 76th Street are considerably higher than volumes on 3rd Avenue (2654 vpd ws. 199 vpd). (vpd =vehicles per day) Second, the crash history was reviewed for this intersection. The history revealed that there has been zero (0) crashes reported over our five (5) year crash records (1998-2002). This can likely be attributed to the low volumes on 3rd Avenue_ Next, the intersection's traffic control history was considered. Originally the stop signs on 76th Street were installed when the volumes on 3rd Avenue were considerably higher and there were school children walking to and from Assumption School, located on 77th Street and 2nd Avenue. Also, the signs were installed well before the 77th Street arterial was constructed and the noise wall subsequently severed the connection to 77th Street from 3rd Avenue. This change in access explains the drop in volumes along 3rd Avenue. Finally, our records indicate that we continually receive complaints regarding either the unreasonableness of these signs or the high number of drivers on 76th Street that fail to stop at the intersection. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of the signs. Based on the above intersection investigation results the Richfield Traffic Control Committee recommends removing the stop signs located on 76th Street. We are interested in hearing from affected residents. Please contact me by December 2, 2004 to share your comments. The Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee will consider this matter at their December 8, 2004 meeting. The Transportation Committee will then recommend action to the City Council. It is current policy that the City Council must approve the removal of any stop signs within Richfield. Sincerely, Kristin Asher, P.E. Project Engineer 612-861-9795 kasher@ci. richfield. m n. us 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 q, ~l tCS ~ N ~ aL ~ 0 3 a ~ T -"` ~ g a° ~ ° g a a a o~ N 3 0 ~,4 rn tf1 ~ ;; ° a ~ N ~ ~ o ~ ~ cQ c~ ~ ~ .N C .r ..~+ ~ ~1 ..r N ~ .r ..+ Z Q N~ U y O p ~~ O~ NN ~ N '~ Q ,J, +-c~aoa~ oL ~ •o~ a'N -- o o -a o~ :~ y a o r-- o Q :~- Z ~. o -~ N ~ ~ Q o ~ t6 (n N'~ .~ C O a"~m~o~n NL~u-~v ca~ O a ~NN~~~ s~ U~ ~~ •~~ N ~ O ~aN`-''.•~ E-o ao a~ G W a o ~ ~ ~ U ~ a~ -~ U ~ N ~ ~ tl. c OC us o~ m o • .~ .~ N ~ ~ N ~ v ~ ~ ~ q) ~ cA p~ ~ p Z M ~o~L°~ ~~ a N -g `Q ~ r ~' G S o --- N ~ ~ j ~ ~ o fir" ~ N ~ ~ N -~ 7 ~TLeCoa~~ ~~ N c~a a LV O a~ ~ ~ •~' s o 0 0 ~' ._ ' .~ a LL- W ~ 4) N N E ~ 7 v~ ~ D R c~ ~ (,~ ~ ~ .~ N U ~ to ~ A ~ Nom' a;,, ~> O C U N 'N ~ y 0 .~ z ~= ~ O ~ v v G ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ U O ~- ~ U pVj ''U ~ C~ ~ day c a 3a +-oa~ a `~ ~' 3 O o ~~ Nia~ paG-av ti .a a ~U~ r ~ ~. __ {.4 ~ Q. ~ ~ U 7 ~ ~ ~ NT3 N ~N~ ~ O N ~ci T N c~ N ~ p ~ ~ Q to i y ~ r ~ - ~' ~ ~ ~ Z O ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~. ~ ~ m n - ~ C o ~ ~ O m z ~ ~ rn ~ ~ -~ Cn ~- -I r = __ .~ ~ ---- ~~ - ~ . _. __ _. _- ___ -- ~_ -~ _ CITY OF R CHFIELD Memorandum DATE: December 2, 2004 TO: Transportation Committee FROM: Kristin Asher, Project Engineer SUBJECT: 76th Street/3rd Avenue Stop Sign Removal Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Remove Stop Control on 76th Street at 3rd Avenue. The attached letter was sent out to seventy-eight (78) residents in the proximity of the " stop sign. -.Staff received twenty (20) citizen comments with five households supporting the removal of the signs, eight households not in support, one that was open to what was safest for the area, and one that wanted the sign moved to Clinton Avenue.. The comments received are summarized and attached for your review. The overhelming concern for those not in support of the removal was the potential for speeds to increase along 76th. Street.:There was also concern for the safety of those crossing -76th Street to reach Roosevelt Park; alt)~ough I got the impression that. most people are crossing at Clinton Avenue. Staff's recommendation to remove the stop signs is based on the engineering data collected and summarized in the attached letter, as well as the understanding that 76th Street is defined as a collector road and operates as a .collector, not a residential road. This stop control on .76th Street is not consistent with the rest of 76th Street, -and. other collectors within. Richfield, which are stopped of signals-only where crossing an arterial or collector roadway. Prior to the construction of 77th Street,- the volumes on this section of 76th Street were 5000 vehicles per day vs. 2654 vehicles per day that are currently on the road.. Attachments KDA:kda [R:\PubWorks\TRANSP\Transportation Committee\76th 3rdStopRemoval.doc] l ~' / W a~ Q M N ti N .,-.. ~ ~ ti ~ O ~ O C ~ U ~ ~Q O > "L- N ~ _~ O O '''' U c ~ o }, ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~U 0 U N m a~ ~_ O .~ U N O U U C O 0 U U N .~ a~ .3 0 O O H a~ L O c c~ a~ O O L Q A Q U -~ U U. t6 ~ ~ (~ _ .... O ~ U v o ~ ~ a a~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ c , ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ °'~ L ~ ~ O p O :~ ~+ N 'a O j Q- L ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A Q • ~~ QM N U ~ ~ 'a ~ O Q O N ~~ M p h C U~~ (n c 6 ~ ~ C (n O N > U C O = "J ~ ~ ~ - ~ C cn : ~ „_O N C .~ O O O Q N ~ •~ O ~ to c0 C ~ ~ U O ~ L N ~ p ~ '~ ~ N O .~ O ~ ~ O ~ U O ~ ~ N (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , (B O ~ O O ff- Q~ ~ O O +~,, Q p C a~ ~ O oU_ O L L~~ ca ~'' O N *-'' ~ ~'in N `f' to U E Qo-~ ~ ~ ~~•~ o > a~ L a~ C N ~ o~ ~ •~z °x'~ ca = O ~ U ~' o ~ cB ~ c O ~ ~ U p U cn a~ ~ O m N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q ~ ~ C p ~ ~ U ( ~~ O ~ ~ _~ t ~ U . ~ Q . ~ N 3 ~ o Q (~ 0 N Y O L ~ ~ N U L ~ U - (Q Y ~ ~ fn Q~ ~ y-+ ~ O fn S O ~ ~ ~ ~ N .«. ~ O ~ O ~ ~ C ~ ~ U N O Y ~ ~ U (~ Q. ~ 4- c ~ ~o ~U ~ ~ca 02 a~~cn ~a ~ ~'NC~- ~ ~ O ~ ~ o ~ i o ca ~ ca o~~z v i ~ ~o> N••• ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a w U co U co ''-' +. U ?> Q LL N LL w w w ~ z ~- ~- Z a Z ~- z w ~ C O U O N O O N U N ~ U O O .-. 'C C O O 'C C ~ O C Y ~ O N ~ O f0 .Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q 2 ~ 1 ~ nQ ~ O ~Oa O¢ C~ U¢ Q ~ O o U O"O ~ c06N Q~ ~N N~rLj ~N EM ~ ~ _ J ~ ~ ~ ~'~t Q-V Up Jp Op OLp LU - ~V ot$~ ~~ ~M ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ O~ -~~ -01~ O~ 'ip+ ~ ~ z V~ I` ti f~ ~,' o ~' O N ~ ~ ~ ~ cr N .~+- ~ ~ N is ,,,. W SU O -z Q- ~ CAD ~ q.. COD 3' ~ fl- CAD < ~ Q- fGD C!N ,~ O ~ ~ G G.' ~ CD ~ '~- ~ ...- (D p ~. -~ Nam m ~ ~ ~ tD ~~~,~ rn N ~.~ Q.=m N ~~ 3 CD ~ N ~ % ~ m ~- m~ w m o o ~' ~ z ~ ~-- -C~ m of ° TI C7 .~ N ..t. ~ O CD c, ~ O ~~ N N D~ t N ~' ~ ~ N. N , ~ tom'} tD ~ tp 't3 N • O O 7 -s fi ~G N ~ O. -s ~ N ~ ~ CD N O- CQ N Q n CU U' o • cs~ ~ N n CD (11 '' N O ~ * N O O- W ~ ~ n ~ O ~ s ~ ¢ t1 ~ s (I1 O ~- OG ~ CD ~ O ~ p ~ ~ SU ~ ~ '~ (p O C~ O N ~ CD N ~ t0l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD r+ ~- CNi N ~; N~~s BCD tQ N O C.D,s N Q- ~ ~^ UN N, O ~ O fi ~ ~ N CD fi ~* O CD O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ '~ ~ N ~~~~~ fi N. ~' G 4 ~ ~ N ~ CD O ~ ~ • ~ LU ~ ~ O ~ -p N O ~ CD O -' fi cQ O O_ O' CD ~ O- CDr+,s G O O ~ N ~ N r` CD O tD ~ O O ''. Q- N. CD ~ ~ ~ n N O o~ can c°n ~~~ n o ~ a'~ ~~ `~ ~ ~o ¢-O ~z o N O N N O ~ CD N ~ .~ `'G ~ ~ N C7 t.Q CA 7j, N ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~~ O O ~ ~ ro ~ .~+ ~ N ~ N CGD ~ n ~ Q- ~ ~ ~ O.. ~ ? ~ CD tom)} ~ ~ p N N ~ a ~ tiZ LU N O; ~ CD ,.~ O O ~~-oCD~oo ~.3~~ ~ ~o ~'~~ cQ ~~~ oN~„ cv'~ o -~ ~o ~Q.a ~- N, ~ 7 O O Rs N •* tT ~ Cp L O -~- ~ .~- Q, O NrL N Ct! CD p fi 7 4J p0 N~ NN N tD~ NO tND ~ "0 cQ N v O. O N_, ~ CD t0~~-. N ~ ~Z ~ ~ Ci O N Q- N ~ N 7 ~O.ti x ~ ~ ~" C7 N p. ~ ~- na O N. ~ ~ tD U I ~ ~ ~ N O. O ~ N ~ ~`" ~ T tS1 ~ ¢ ~ L (L5 ~ ~ N N ~ U L~ ? N ~ N ~ ~ Q .fir ~ g- ct5 C3 ...i t0 O ~ ~ N N ~ 'f Q. ~ tp "~ ~ ~ ~ U) i ~ Q.. ° .,~ q). N ~ ~'~ N ~ ~ `~ ~ N cNsd ~ ~ N Ov ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N '" -c3 :,- N~ ~ ~ _? .a 7 ~ ~ ~ o • 0 a~ ~ ~ ~ U Q IO Z Z ~~~ ~U ~ ~ . ~ ~ ..r tD ~ ~. a ~ ~ ~ ~ N 4} C ~ ~ 'sN'.. 3 t/1 N _ 7 t~/'~ ~ ~ i CU N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O .~ O ~ ~ 4? ~ ~ ~ ~V o ~ c~u~~ .,~ N ca ~ ~ S ~ ~ N ~ ~ N Q ~ U U ~ 7~ s2 T,3y U} ~ ~ Ca '+'' to N ?+ ~ Q ~ ~ s- LT ~ j L ~' N ~ ~ O. v T3 ~ ~ ~ ~ V O •~ N ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ u`~.. W ~ ~ Z i>- C O ~ N ~ S1 U ~ ~ ~ t0 N ~ ~ ~ N . N ~ N O ~ N ~ ~ ~ cv tU ~~ ~ ~' O ~ ~_ ~ iR ' .+r N ~ 'C3 ~ O p ~ ~ O O .'~ .~ ~ N ~ N oa Cab O .~ v S2 ~ ~ N rNn'~ ~'T~ ~C.7 > °~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ O N''f O O z~ ~ ~ N ~ d 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ v 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q• N ~. O- ~~ ~~ N T~~~ ~ ~ ~ V i- N cfS ~ ~, -~ m ~ ~~ U Z ~ Z >~-• p ~- t ~ ~~ ~ o Q7oc N~N`~ ~ p 'a clS ~' v ~ N ~ ~ = U t4 ~ f~6 ~ M .~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~~o ~Y ~~ ~~~ ~ cs~ ~ r ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ p~r- rte-- ~ ~`~., ~ AGENDA SECTION: p Bbl i H i n~ AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # 152 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR G~~ _ ~' " REVIEW: "~ IGNA RE S REVIEWED BY CITY ! ~" 1VIANAGER: ,~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the attached resolutions pertaining to the annual L ndale/HUB/Nicollet LHN maintenance assessment rocess I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolutions adopting the assessment for 2004 for Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) Maintenance and proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2006. II. BACKGROUND The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment was established to recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN (Lyndale, Hub, Nicollet) area in 1981. The extraordinary services include irrigation and weeding and mowing of landscaped areas. The LHN Redevelopment Area is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue. City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2004 maintenance of this area and estimated costs for the 2006 maintenance. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 08091hn0305assess °" 1 A. POLICY • Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established a policy for assessing the costs. • Staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the. City Clerk, notice was published in the official newspaper and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. • Notice of the public hearing for the proposed maintenance costs in 2006 was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and was published in the official newspaper July 14,.2005, as required by law. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. In 2004, staff reviewed the possibility of extending the size of the assessment district. After consultation with legal counsel, staff recommended that the boundaries of the assessment district not be changed. The City does not assess residential properties for maintenance costs in the LHN maintenance district. C. FINANCIAL • Total cost for 2004 LHN maintenance services is $44,031.39. • City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with taxes. It is the staff recommendation that such payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the initial funds for the services. It is also staffs recommendation that the interest rate be established as five percent (5%). Payment may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 2005 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. • The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 2006 is $50,000. Ail commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. Generally, the businesses maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City must perform this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given property. ~~ D. LEGAL • The City Council scheduled a public hearing for August 9, 2005 on the assessment for the cost of maintenance services performed in the \ LHN development area for 2004 and to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for maintenance service costs for 2006. • The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting assessments for 2004 LHN Maintenance • The assessment roll • Resolution proposing to specially assess the costs of current services for 2006 • Graphic displaying Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet special assessment district • Copy of letter sent to assessed property owners • Comments/responses from assessed property owners VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • City staff has been available during business hours and at City Hall immediately prior to the public hearing to answer questions and concerns of property owners regarding the 2004 special assessment. ~-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue,. 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of $44,031.39 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 2005 and shall bear interest at the- rate of five percent (5%) from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Finance Division, and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of'the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of August, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 8-4 O cB a 0 J W LL. ~ 2 .~ U ~ J u. J ~ ~ v ~ O V N O O O O O O O N i~ O O M O O O O M V' O M C1 M ~ O ~ - d' W ~ ~ N ~ ~ O O v_ eo o = ~ W O O V r- N M N N ~ ~ ~ M ~ r ~ N (O O O N O ~ to . - ~ ~ p ~ W V O V O N N O M M (O O N EA V' (O N 'cY. <f' M M N V t M ER EA ER ff} ER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z O. ^ ^ Q f- Z O Q a w z' 0 w ^ ^ Q Z O H ~ U M O O tf O ^ O N ~ M ~ , Q a N ~ ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O O fA H3 fR ~. 6H EH 64 EA fA fH fA V3~ O W M r W O O .- sue- N N p N (O W N O ~ l1') I~ O CO N V ~ M ~ ~ ~ N V V W ffT ER fR ff-T 64 (-l-J 69 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V W ON N V O) O O ~ O ~ ~ M r V (D M N to ^ ~ V M O N ~ ~ N ap` N ~ N ~ tf~ (~ ~ V M ~ CO (O M h. O CO ~ O t1') M O ~ M EA (f} ~ ~ 6(p4 V O M N ~ ~ ~3 °o °o °o °o °o °o °o o° E9. fFJ EH (fT KT fPr. ~ fA N M ~ f~ to V M ~ - (O CO M (~ ~ O ffT lA ~ ~ ~ d. O M M N ~ ER fiT z z z z z z z z z z i- w w w w w w w w w w ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w Q a a a a a a a a a s a Z O O O O O O O O O O ~ O ~ Q J J J J- J J J J - W J J U - U Q ~ ~ ~ > > > > > > > > a > > ~ ~ Y a J O m Q Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o o ~ cn _O H z Z j z ~ (~ (~ (~ ~ ~ fn ~ (~ O (~ [n ~ z ~ U O ~ Q W ~ W W W W W W W W U W W - ~ } O a a a a a a a a c~n a a w o W ~ H O -' w} o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w o o a w a~~~ z cn ~ rn cn cn cn ~ ~ ^ cn cn a = a ~ ^ U` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ W H U F- U O Y LL z w w w w w w w w w Y w w J~ a~ z U g h- w ~ u.. ~ ~ ~ u.. ~ ~ ~ a ~ ii Z ~ Oa ~ ~ v~i ^ cn } o z z=___= z Q= z w o ~~~ v U U U U U U U a U U o= o=~~ o ~ _ cn a ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ o ~ ~ -~ Q U Q g C7 ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ w w w w w w w w w ~' w w ~- F- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ w w w w w w w z z z z z z z z z w z z w W ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w w w w w w w w w ~ > ~ ~ ~ w w w w ~.a_. w a a Q Q Q Q a Q¢ Q Q ~' ~>>>>~> ~- H ~-- F- F- ~ ~- ~- H = ~ ~ z z Q Q Q Q = Q W W W W W W W W W~ W W ~~ J J J J ~ J J J J J J J J J J O J J O O Q Q Q Q (Mp Q O O O O O O O O O ~' O O F' f' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ U _U U _U U U _U U U ~ U _U ~ U Z Z Z Z ~j Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z W W J J J J ~ J to r O .-- ~ ~ O O V M ~ N CO I~ O O O (O (O (O C9 CO (O CO (p (O O (O (O O O (O CO (p (O MO (D N M O O N M 'V ~ CO 1~ V ~ O M ^ h W OHO O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r .M- f ~ cM- ~ .M- .M- ~ ~ r r ~ M M M M M M N N N N N N V V V' V V V' V' V d' d' V V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W CO 00 N W DD W CO OD W 00 W ~' ~ W W OND 00 00 ONO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f~ ~ ~ h r ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N N N N g-s N N ~"' LL O O O O ~F O O O O c0 O O O I~ O M O O O O O O O d' O O O f~ d O O _ O O O O. O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ 00 A M N V V M (O N M O ~ - ice- (O O M O M N O ~ (O M ~ tf) O t17 N O ~ N O O ~ 1~ O 00 ~ V N ~ rn N ~ f~ W .- r V N W O O O f0 N I~ ~ O M ~ CO N ~ N M N N -N V' co d N O 00 O ~ O ~ O N d' c r n 4T ~ ~ N N r tq ~- O t!') M O O ~ N --~ ~ c- W M I`~ 00 '~ ~ (O N (O O ~ O f~ M O N O N W ~ .O ti M CO ~ to 07 ~ I`~ r s- N O N ~- (9 tt7 O O '. 00 ~ d O O 00 ~ n U') O N M ~ d' 'mot M O V ~ (O ~ (O O M W M ~ d V' O <I' ~ ~1'l ~ (O O N ~ t0 V' f- ER N Efl M fA M fFT M EFT O ER ER O ~,.~ EA EPr M EH N EPr. N M ~ ~' <i-T N N N fFT CO EA O EF) ~ HT (R EFJ ~ ER EFT KT ER Z O ~ O O _O 64 O O O EFJ O O O ER O O O EFT O O O fFT O O O EFT O O O (fT O O O ffT O O O - EFT O O O EA O O O ER O O O EH O O O .EFT O O O EA O O O EPr O O O EF} O O O fFT O O O EA O O O ER O O O ER O O O (A O O O EFT Q Q h c0 h ~ N 4 tom. 6) O> W o0 M to ~ [~ N N (D Z M o~ V tp Q ~- O M N N ~ ~- (D tI'): d ti O O O ^ Q co d o O ~ d' f~ ui M ;v M Sri V v M o V ~ Cp ui CO o M 00 M ~ Q V co V ~ Q1 Sri ~ - cd o N r l!') v_ Q ER N ER M d3 M ER M EA O r, (n- F13 EA O ~,-~ Ef-T ER fFT M EA N EA N ER M ~ ER <t (~ N N EFT N F9 M !FT O fA EFT d' KT J W LL V CL ~- Q ~ (, p) .~ -~ ~, ai J W Z o i Q ~ ~ Q C~ w Z ~ IW=- ~ _ Q } ~ Q C7 w Z_ ~ fW=- ~ W U ¢ Z "' ~ w ~ ~ ~ W r O ~ W U ¢ Z "- ~ w ~ ~ fY LL r O v m ~ U o Z w ~ ~ p ~ ~ O ^ ~ ~ W Q ~ d ~ ~ O z q cn Z w J W ~ ~ O Q v ~ W ~ O U a a- W Y a ~ ~ Q v ~ W ~ O U g W W Y ~ ~ O ¢ v cX W ~ O U Q a n- w Y a ~ v ~ W O ~ O W Z ~ _ ~ w ~ ~ a w H Q w .J W ~ ~ = ~ w ~ ~ a w ~- Q w W W ~ ~ N ~ a Z o ~ ^ m U ^ ~ ~ W U ~ F- Q UO ~ Q Q Z o Q Z Y Q m W W m m ~ d ° z ~ ~ ~ J ~ } ~ ^ ~ Q ~ O Z w ~ O z Q ~ ~ z O Q U Y ~ ~ d ° z ~ ~ w J ~ } J ^ ~ 4 J Z a 5 W --~ = a ~ W U ? ~- U W ¢ w I- Q ~ ~ W U ~ Y W w ~ ~ U -~ ~ w ~ w ~ Z Z a Q J ~ Z ~ Q U ~' ? ~ W w X ~ O ~ ~ Y > ~ vo o J cn z W W Z Z a p m ~ W d Q- z O Q U ~ J > 0 w > Q J Q ^ ~ M M V W > 0 w > Q J Q ^ ~ O V' V (O > 0 w > Q J Q a } d' cr 'ct (O ~ 0 w > Q J Q ^ ~ V V V CO ~ 0 w > Q J Q ^ ~ O O ~ (O ~ 0 ` w > Q ,....J Q ^ ~ O V c9 > a Y J D o O ~ O ~ CO > o Y ~ ^ o O ~ O O (O W ~ ~ 2 ~ (O ~ W ~ O O 1~ o ~ ~ w > F- J J o U Z O V W 0 ~ a w > F- J J 0 U Z- N C CD 0 ~ > w > F- J J 0 U Z O N ct' C9 0 ~ > w > }- J. J 0 U Z O V V- C9 0 ~ ~ w > F- J ~l 0 U Z O O ~ Gp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn = 1- ~ ~ W ~ N w ~ cn 2 CO CO ~- W > O N N w ~ cn _ CO (O ~ W ~ O d' .- a o ~ ~ > ¢ -~ Q ^ ~" J O n (O ~ o ? w > ¢ --~ Q ^ ~ J ~ V' (O CO w ~ v, _ ~ CO ~ W ~ O O d' z j ~ ~ W ~ W W ~ (n ~ ~ ~ tD ~ «s = ~- O ^ W > Q ^ 7 O ~ O 0 N p~j O ~ q ^ 1 ~" I-' ' ~ W 4. ~ ~ CO O O. M N ~ N o~ N M O O O M N 'cY N m N ti O O O ~ N d' N m N O O - O O M N 'd' N ao N O O O O M N V N w N N d O O M N V N m N ~ O p c7 N ~ N w N M O O M N '~t N ao N n O O C7 N V N co N O ~ O 0 d' N d' N ~ N V O 0 V N V N ~ N a ~ O O V N V N m N ti O O O V' N V' N w N O M O O d~ N d' N w N M O O V N V N o~ N M M O O ~' N V N m N V' M O O V' N V' N co N t0 N O- ~ N M '7 N co N I~ N O N M V N co N O M O N M V N ao N N M p N M d' N 00 N M M O N M V' N 00 N ~ ~ a' 0 N N 0 ~ N O ti N O ~ N o ~ N O ~~ N O r~ N O ~ N O ~ N O r- N O r N O ~ N O ~ N O r= N 'O ~ N O i:. N O ti N O ~ N p ~ N O ~ N O ~ N O ~ N I M ~ W ~ L L O O ~ ~ r U W (O ~ tf) (0 O ' ~ 'O. ( O ~ a. ~ u7 N V M CO Cq ~ W In O N N ` f M I~ M M M OT M N ~, M ~ N n .- 1~ ~ M 1+ N N i Q O W ~ N O 6~ M W o p ~ O ~ b Cq ~ CO N M M ~ r ~ N ~ _ ~ N <H ER En I V I' Z O O O O O O O O O l7 (A EH EfT EFT EH N- <R EH E9 D Q H I ~ 1 Z ~ O W N O 6~ ~ -~ M ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ (p (V o'M ir- ' V N M N M ~1' W M V O Q N EFT ER _ ER ,V. Efl EH ~ ~. (FT EFT (A i ~- Efl 0 W ~ ~ J ~ ' C J_J. J W U U .N ~ O J ~/ J - Z Z U J J - Q Li A ~ ~ J. W U I .. (J,. ~ Q q Q W ~ i O --~ J J ~ o ~ ~ J J ~ ~ Z ~ Q > ~ ~ Z Q ~ W W ~ ~ O LLJ U Z W a . Y Y J ~ W U ~ Q Q ~ Q ~ W ~ W W ~ ~ m ~ W O ~ Z O O H U I ~ O O O o r a O ! ~ ~ U ~ aC cJ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O i ~ - W W W W W W W W (!> ~ W = Z ~ ~ L1J W W ~ W W u [ ~ ~ i W > ~ O Q S Q ~ Q `t 2 2 j lii W W J ~' J J Z J ..,:.~ ~ C.1 ~ O {~ '~i' O M O P M V M ~ M V M M M cV0 ~ CO O O I~ W N W N O O O O ~ M M d' O O O O O i~ O N - '~ O O O O O C.] O ' O i ~'. F- N M N M N. N ' - -- ~. - ~ I M M 7 . . < <} Q q a ~ aNO oNO mN Nm `cVO ~ Nm ~ ~ ~ O o O o o q O O m Q ~ N N N N . N N N N H ~~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain services be undertaken by the City in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 9, 2005 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; h. Operation of the street lighting system; i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of--way; j. Maintenance of civic plaza; k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; 1. repair of furniture; and m. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. g- 3 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 2006. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of August, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~-~ o 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 «PIN» «oName1» «oName2» «ADDRESS» «CSZ» NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ..CERTAIN SERVICES. OF THE'CITY WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AREA I=RON JANUARY 1,2004 - DECEMBER 31, 2004 NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council wilt hold an assessment hearing on the date and at the time and place given below; to,pass upon the proposed assessment of maintenance services to that area known as the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (L1H/N) Redevelopment Area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: August 9, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Gity Hall; 6700. Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO 8E ASSESSED: From January 1, 2004 through becember 31; 2004, the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of-the L/H/N area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for L/H/N maintenance and repair, which totaled $44,031.39 against the properties which benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $44,031.39. The amount to be assessed against your particular property is: «TotalAmt» Payment can be made. after the assessment is adopted and before November 15, 2005 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield: A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file. for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, .6700 .Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF TH{S ASSESSMENT. NO _ SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON AUGUST 9, 2005. TeE~phone {612) 861-9700 • Fax (612) 86.1-9749 g~l I A copy of the proposed assessment. roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota.55423. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the rate of four percent (4%) per year. The amount of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 dam of adopted assessment: If the original principal amount of the assessment is $300 or more, you. may make a partial prepaymenf of $100 or more within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for August 9, 2005. No interest will be charged on the prepaid portion. Partial prepayments are not allowed after the 30-day period. The unpaid balance will be spread over the life of the adopted assessment. 15thr percent (4%) interest will not be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November Payment on or after November 15, 2005: Interest at the rate of four percent (4%) wi{I be charged, calculated from the date of adoption of the assessment until the date of payment. Interest is calculated- for 15 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $1.50 surcharge. per year over the life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Annabelle Thomas at 612-861-9714. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting .upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unlessyou file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on August 93 2005, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on August 9th. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2005. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Questions? Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator, at 612-861-9175. ~-ra- CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2005 TO: Special Assessment File FROM: Randy Hughes SUBJECT: Comments on Special Assessments Randy Hughes, Operations Superintendent of the Public Works Department received the following comments from the owner(s) of the properties affected by the proposed Special Assessment ordinance to be presented to Council on August 9, 2005. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR LHN REDEVELOPMENT AREA Roy Peterson - owner of 6630 Lyndale called to say that he gains no benefit from the assessment. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 151 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NA,xs, 7fi~E COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ® ~~ REVIEW: N TU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the attached resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment rocess. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolutions adopting the assessment for 77th Street maintenance in 2004 and proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2006. II. BACKGROUND Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street around the Hampton Inn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th Street. The special maintenance services include irrigation and weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services, are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses. City staff . has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the 77th Street redevelopment area between I-35W and Cedar Avenue. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0809-77th0406assess ~' A. POLICY • Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. • Staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was published in the official newspaper and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. • Notice of the public hearing for the proposed maintenance costs in 2006 was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and was published in the official newspaper July 14, 2005, as required by law. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council ordered the work, and the work is done. • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall fist the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. • In 2004, the existing assessment process was reviewed and discussed with legal council resulting in staffs recommendation to keep the existing assessment process. C. FINANCIAL • Total cost for 77th Street Maintenance is $63,842.79 for 2004. • City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with taxes. It is the staff recommendation that such payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the initial funds for the services. It is also staffs recommendation that the interest rate be established as five percent (5%). Payment may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 2005 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. • The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 2005 is $80,000. All commercial properties would be assessed on a square foot. basis. All residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. D. LEGAL • The City Council scheduled a public hearing far August 9, 2005 on the assessment for the cost of maintenance services performed in the 77th Street Project area for 2004 and to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for maintenance service costs for 2006 • The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." ~`,~ V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution adopting assessments for 77th Street Maintenance in 2004 • Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services for 2006 The assessment roll • Graphic displaying 77th Street special assessment district. • Copy of letter sent to property owners • Comments/responses from assessed property owners • Letter from Canadian Pacific Railway VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • City staff has been avai{able during business hours and at City Hall immediately prior to the public hearing to answer questions and concerns of property owners regarding the 2004 special assessment. ~~ RESOLU71O NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 -DECEMBER 31, 2004 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Project, which is approximately bounded east of 1- 35W and west of Cedar Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of $63,842.79 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of five percent (5%) from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Finance Division and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner in other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of August 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk aM~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the 77th Street Project Area, approximately bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and ., WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 9, 2005 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the 77th Street Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; e. .Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; f. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; g. Operation of the street lighting system; h. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; i. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; i. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contractor by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 2006. Costs of the project shall be in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of August, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~-5 Q7 O d 0 J _W O1 '..-+ U_ .~ ~ ~ ?, O ~ J H U F" O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O iS- O O O- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (~ N O W V O O O O O O O O u7 LO M N M ~ ' O ~ ~ 00 N. if'J h t!7 N h ~t _ O ~ O LL) - O -M W V O t1) O to O ~ O O h O tC) V d; O V O 1`~ ci N O ~ r O N h O O N E M M M p (O O N N M CO W tl) 00 ~ O l O r ~-- ~-- N -~ ~ M - cfl M i.[) h- 1~ <D 6) W W M W El0 tT1 N O M W O W q O O r O O to O W aC/ C V ~' d' N O ~ ~ . h h d; V f~ k'" a0 N 00 M ~ O ~ O EA O O O O (zJ u7 O M EA ET O a6 O M 'V' M (P N to r O O) tCJ M to ~f) .- M to W ~- r M O _ N ~,.~ ~,.~ EH ffT EA EFT EFT ff3 to ffT EA EFT EFT E!T fFT Ef? fn EH V? EFt EFT EFT O O O q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z O O O q O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O Q~ .O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ EFT fH VT M EFT EH (!T V-T lfT EfT EFT EFT fH {fT Efl EFT ER ER EfT EH tfT O Q F" ~ M O M i.f) h h CO O M W Ep O M -O N O M 00 W M Z rn o o rn ~ o co ao v v v v m rn ~ ti ~ v, ~ h ~ a0 N- M M ~ Q~ ~ 6~ O O O O O M M O C4 O ~ O 00 Q M V M (P N tl) r O O tf) lE') ~ to s- OJ tfj (A r r tf) M ~' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Q N m- ~. EFT EFT ffT EFT ff) EfT EFT E9 fFT KT (!-T (fT fR fFT EF} E!j- (fT EFT w z o' ~' d, Q' Z Q F- ~ U _ O J M (T O Q O N ~ M ~ m w Q a ~ ~! ~ a M U ~ z Z ~ ~ W a U Z ~ U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U z o? a z_ Z _z z z z_ z z z z z z z z z z vi F= m ~ vi cn uS v~ v~ ui vi v~ vS vi vi vi uS vi vi cn o h o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ n. O q cn ~ cn <n <n ~ ~ M ~ N cn cn cn ~ N cn w~ O ~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O = cn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? U U o z Z z Z z_ z z z_ z_ Z z z z Z Z z v ~~ o o ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ v ~ ~ v S T O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W W W W W W w W W W W Z Z ~ Z Z W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W S ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W F- ~ ~ Z Z Z Z F- 1- k- F- I- I- 1- F- F- I- N I- 5 ~ lA ~ ~ W W W W In (n (n U1 In N cn in to (n cn N Z Z I- ~ ~ q q Q Q r ~ r .~- .~- ~ r .~- .= N N `v O O ~ U U X Q ~ x r~ h h h h r- h ~ ~. ~ h n. ~ ~ h Z Z ti LL W W r h h h h h h n ti ~ r- r` W W Cn Q Q J J J J {~- H }- F- F- I-- F- F- I- 1- I- I- ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~ O O O O w w w w w w w w W w w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S ~ s ~ ~ ~ O N O ~ S` O ~ N M O V' 00 N O O O m O N et W h h d' i~ n h h O O O N O O O O O I~ h r N h h h f~ M W W W W M W 00 O O [A E}) 07 O 6T O O ~ (O h- M M 'V' ~ O h M O N M V O O V O N N N N f`~ h h h h h W CO M W to W O O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M M c~ M tY V d' tt V' 'V' V d' <f '7 V V .V V~' 'V' R~ d' ~ tt V d' V~' ~ <Y 'V V ~i' V 'V V V ~ V 'V' V' ~Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m w co co w m m m m ~ EC) m ~ ~ ~ m ~ co m w ao N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ('7 M M M (`~ M M M M M ch c~ c7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C7 M M M M ~~ N f'" O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O ~ V- O O lp O O O O O o O CO O O O O ~ O O O O O O ~ a~ M N ~ O W f~9 ~ ON N O m O '~Y O N (O O ~ 000 O N ~- U N N O - O N ~ N o0 h N 0 N M f`- h- 0 M O h O O V' CO W ~i' N P? V d' h p M O W V m M CO N r O h O c- N d' N ~ r ~ - .- 'V ~ N 0 -~ V U7 cp 0 cq M st V h V 0 p h 6~ 6~ t0 N tf'/ 0 O N h N V r V; O O'> h N C' O ~ W N m h 07 V O 1` N 07 ~ U7 h (O ~ M M tC) N CO h O N M N 00 a0 M h N 0. Imo- 00 O h m e[') n h _M <- 00 CO N u7 f~ V' cD h h cD ~-- (fl Ncf? ~ ~ M V-T ~T ~ ~ fA Ef} b~? ~ ~ ER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O Z. O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O O_ Q O O O O O O ~' GA b9 EA ffl 64 cft 64 fA V} ER 64 H} EA (f> fA fR fH EA fH ER fR 69 Q f... ' V. 0 CO M W M 'ct d' h 'ct i1T 61 h O. .m fD N 0 O O N Z N tl'. V O m h N V p M. N O h ,61 V -O h N O cr O.: to h CO O) M M 0 M M h O N M N W W M h N t~ M O h O) ~ h h M a0 c0 N u"~ h V c0 h h CO <{,. M- N d' h M- fFT (A c- N M N N 00 N fH 'd' O Q fH KT ~ ffJ V3 (~R 64 ffT lA ffl fA (~} (A fR H3 fR H3 64 0 ...~ W O1 Z .__ U ~ ~ NN Z LL J ~ ~ a J ~ ~ O w O U U U J U U U U U U U U U U 'J J J J J 0 ~ >- Z z z~ z z z z z z z z z z¢¢¢¢ Q Q w ~ ~ v v~ uS w vS v~ vS v~ u> v~ vi vi u~ uS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p („) a Z a a w a a a a a a a a a a w w w w w J a O O O S O O O O O O O O O O E- ~-- F- ~- ~-- a F- Uj h- F- U F- F- F- I- F- !- f- F- F- F- Q Q Q Q Q cn a ~ ~ w cn ~ to cn ~ cn cn ~ ~ C7 c~ (7 C~ (7 ~ ~- w O w w a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a ~ _ ~ - ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ > > > ~ ~ 5 J J J J J Z w Z ~ Z Z O Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q Q Q Q J Z ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z O ~ ~ v~ cn cn N ~- cn cn cn cn cn cn ~ cn cn cn ~- ~ y. ~- ~- O 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J (A _7 J = O w } O T O ~ k- F- F- ~ }- h 1- I- I- f- I- F- f- fn F" ~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ~ -' w~ w~~ w w w w ~ w w w w w w w w w rn °~ ~ O ~ z w ~ a a a a z a a a a a a a a a =~ z~ z w a c~i~ c~n c i ~ j c~i> c~i~ c~iy ~ c~n ~ c~i~ c~n t~n ~ w > ~ > Q ~ Q N N N = Q N N N N N ~ N ~ N N h. ~- Q Z Q ~_ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q i~ ~ ti ~ rh- ~ n ~ ~ N aS = Q Q Q u n Z F- F- F- F- Q !- H F- F- f-- F- F- F- F- F- W ~ O W ~ Q F-- O . cn cn N to Z cn cq N cn ~ v7 cn cn v7 ~ J h Z ..~ Z W v7 ~ w w w >w> r ;v w w w w w w >w w w ¢ >- ~C >- -~ w ~ U.., O d' ~ o Q oo N V' cD ~ to ~ > M ~ } w OM Z Vim' O O O ~- O. N h- O .- O O O N ~ t0 J 0 O ~--~ O O O O h I~ h h 1~ h h i~ W I~ h "~ h h- h tf~ M O CO f~ M O O N M ~!' 0 0 h O O N M V l(') V M O M M W 00 O O O O O O O O m O O - O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O N r V 'C V 'R V ~ ~ ~Y V' ~' V 7 V V - V' V' 'U V' .t V M M f- - V V' V V' 'et' 'd' d' V V V' V' V V R V~' - V - ~ ~' ~d' ~' N M o~ a v v v v v ~ ~ v~ v v v ~ v v ~ ~- v v v v v ~ ~ w N N N N N N N N- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q d '. W 00 W 00 W OJ M W O0 W M W a0 00 00 M M W 00 OD W 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M c? M SY 'd' M M ' M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M J~ M h O O p O O- O O O O O O O O O (? O O o0 O ~ ~- O O O ~ O O O r O N M r M V N O O I~- O ~ U'_ 0 O to N Q~ h- 1~ t1 O '~' M V O M d' 00 M ~ O f~- ~ ~ O~ M N M ~ N ON O M ~ N O O N O M ~ O (LJ 6~ 67 O R h- I~ r M V N I`~ O M N ~t f~- u~ O r .- ~' 00 N J p O cr ~ t17 c0 tc~ r to M N O ~cT lCJ N O V d' ~ V r V ~- V' V' O M N M tC1 ~ M «~-. M W r9 N OJ h- tf) O I~ N M ~ ~ N f` tl' M O- N M_ O ~ ~ O 67 O I`~ O `7 CD (fl p O O _N N M r In N a' to f- ~ M c0 N c0 c0 N r r N. N f~ to M _ (!1 FA fA - fR ~ _ fA fR d3 K} ER EH (f} d~ tfT 64 _ 6q M M~ H} EH - Z O O O O O O O O O O -O O O O O- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O - ~ (~f-3 £R 64 (f3 N (fl b9 E9 E!Y fR EH Gf? Ei? fiT Ef} ER fA d3 to d Q ~" O CO d' iC) - V' M - ~ M M N O ~ ~ N O 'ct 'cl' Z V' d'. V d' O W N M ~ I'~ M ~ M W cD N Op O N ~ O' I~ M M d' ~ N ~ V to CO N M [D >n tI) 07 O f~ O V CO CO O O to N N M ti) N V ~ cd u7 M W N e0 c0 N .- r N N f~ l(') M Q tf} (~ EA lfl ' N _ W) fH ~, d3 fA ff? fFJ ~ ER ER 64 EH _ EH M~ ~ ~ J _W ~. - ~ _ .~ U U (~ n Z Z W J ~ d ~ >, Q J J Z Z O U IJ.. O J } } O O -.O ~ ~ ~ ~ J J ~ J. W Z ~~ ~ X to (n = (~ O O W W W W Q ~ 2 = U V U O U cn O ~ w w Q ~ w w ~ ~ O O ~ LWi ~ ~ Q w ~ z w ,Zq, g (.~ ~ Q J Q 00 ,~ ~ ~ i O w w O O O O ~ _ w g U O ~ g -~ w -~ ~ m = 2 0 a~ cn w w w w ~ v o p Z a a ~ w~ z ~ U W w w u. w w i-- ~- t- F-- w n. Q w o~ w Z Q O Q Q w w LL O U ~ >L U U u> v> ~ O t~ us ~ J Q Z Z S U 2 ~ T 2 2 } 2 S Z Z Z Z ~ } O W J '~ J ~ a0 U p U O U U U t- a U U 4 Q 4 Q = ~" Q¢ O J O ~ ~ ~ ~ FS- cx ~ ~ U 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ -~ d a ~ S ~ p O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~-- U cn ~ cn cn U U rn w Z w w w w w w w w W w w w w w w ~- z w j ~' ~ z ~ a ~ z z~ ~ z z z z z z w> a <t Q ~ W ti ~ m Q Q ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q of"o o=D ~ O z ~- ~ ~- ~ i- ~ ~ t- r o 0 0 o Q n ~ ~ ~. O cjn ~ tjo w c!) Z Z j NN Z Z Z Z Z Z I- J_ N ?W Ip. N O O O V O 'ci" V ct V <Y V ~ O O O _ O O I~ O V O 1~ ti O ~ M LO M M O p V h- O I~ J tin 1~ ~ O V ~- I`- M M I~ ti` h 1\ ~ N W h N I'~ M 07 ~ V M (D f~ O N f~ N O N M d' ~ N M 7' O O O O O OJ W t0 W W ~ t[) ~ ~ t!') tf) O to to tf) O ~~-. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - '- O O O O O O O O O O O O. O p O. O O O O N ~" M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M- V V V V' _ c~7 I- M M M M c"i c'~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M OI ~ V V d' ~Y. '~T a V V ~1' 'V' V V V~ ~t a' - tf' V V R ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N W- M W c0 CO o~ M M W c0 00 00 00 c0 W [p M W W 00 ~ ~ O 4 O O Ci Q O O O O O O O O Q O O O O ~ a v v v ~ a v v v ~- ~ v v ~~~ v ~ v r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (h M M M g-8 0 p ~ o p O O O ~J ~ O O ~? ~ u'i O M ~. O O Q N ~ M a ~ p O O O ~ O ~ ~ N lr, h-, O M,r, r O -..m ~ ~O) o' tom`- O ~ O ~ N N ~ c- O p ~ 6? ~ M ~p N 6i _. ~ N c- 'a' Ll. ~ N c0 N.,. O O c0 ~ d M ~ d c? r c~ ~ Ci d ~ O N? d. O r- N as Cn ~_ c- ~ ~ N ~ lr) ~- N N M O ~ c0 ~ N ~ ~p ~ O a? ~ O ~ ~ M d .c- ~ N co ~ M ~ ~ tfi `~ r ~ ~ 's' ~ ~a ~, ctr ~ M ~ ~ O r u3 a p Q O O O O O O p O O p p ~ to o p °a ° o o °~ ~+ `~ o ~ O p Q ~ O O ~ ~ o ~ O O ~ ~ p O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca3 N `_ u ~ ,n cs? ` ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ M d ~ ~ N ~irJ 1O'- ~ M ~ ifi '`- F- ~ d '~ ,si ~ i- r- ~ ea va ~' ~M ~ ~ 4fl 4 U r a. a W ~ z ~ -~ r J ~ U u ~ w V ' J ~i Y ~ ~ `n w = uNi c~. ~ c9 a W W ~ o ~~~ w Z ~_ ~- J Z F- w Y a a ~ ~ O o W ~ ~ W Q ~ z °- o w w >' >- a z~~ r- ~~ o~~ m ~ o t ~ ~ r a~ w~ Q a ~?~~ v m n m o m ~¢ a °~ ~ cC c9 ~ 4 '~ CN z ~ ~ c°n ~ ~ ~' r r ~" w w ~ Z -~ O Q. ~ m ~ z ~ ~ Q S z ~ ~ ~ z c~ = z r ~ ~ cn z ~ r r ~ s~~ r ~ r~ o~ z w "' r~~ o w ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ Z W uws O ~ w ~ 0 0 o W ~ ?~~ ruwi ~ w o 4 c N~ z~ r z w > ~ r a. z z~ r ~> c cn 4 ~ ~ 4 ¢ ~ ~ }.. ~ ~ ~ J 4 ice- ~ r 2. +x,. ~ 4 W rz- N >' ~ a' ~ m a J ~ o ~_ ~ a a ~ ~ r o ~ 0 ~.. ~ °r° m m ~ ~ J ~ O Q Z Z `t' O_ p O a q" r- d _ p r- r- u'r N a w W J Q p" ~ O O N ~ ~" ~ N N ~''~ O O O (.~ ,. N ~ N ` r- O ~ ~ ~ O '9 O O O O, O d d d d r- ~ N 1^- r- ~ ~ cp9 p O p O d' ~ d' d d, d N ~ ~ ', ~,,,, O p p0. O 00 O O, M d, d ,d. d 4dy N ~ CO 6i `n o ~ o ° ~? d d `y' ~ d N ~ ~ cv N ~? O, d 4 (.J ~ O pd' M M v'- N (¢V ~ NCd N ~ O p d, M d M t~7 0 r M ~~ th N N rNA ~ N N ~ d' M M M M M d. d O CL' d N N ~p c0 ~ O ~ d d ~ M M w. N ~ ao N NO p d, .~ M M 6+ Ll- N N O pi KT M M 4 ~ O mod' M M M 0' M v O. M M. 89 `r' ~ ~-- u- o O 0 O 0 O ~n O ~n N - o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 ~ O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O ~n N o O 0 O ~p ~ (;f ~ (O h ~ h. (O m I~ ~i'1 d' O 67 N h M ~' O ~[7 ~ O O to O O M tip h m CO O N O ~ N O O O t0 N_ O O to O _O O ~ O O t!7 7 h N O ~ N N tJ' O O ~ O h N ~ O N tf) V M b' M M p O tf') V' ~ _ N ~- M M N N M N N d' ~ .- d' ~ N M d' O M s7 -~ ~ ~ h N h. CO O r O r N N V' r r9 M O O V r c0 O h O h cp O) ~ CO M r M W N (O V' o~ tt - O N O . O ~Y' (O N W p M O (O h O M N- ~ h V ~. N . 'af' M N '7 SD ~ +n ~ M M O- ap V R O O R! V N (A p ~-- M N tl) M M ~ to V V' h O N W O 07 (O- CO 6i (fl d' (f} ffl fA fR d-} ff3 H3 EH ER E9 ff-1 ER ~' ff3 fA fR V3 V3 N (f} fH OZ O o O O 0 CO O 0 O O 0 O O 0 GJ - O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O ' O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O- O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O ~ (~} 64 KT EA tf~ H3 d) 64 fR fH EF? fA Ef} ER 64 69 fR lf3 (fl fA ¢ ' ~ Z h N h CO p O N N 7 (O M O O R N O h O h- OJ 07 tS) (P (O M W N (fl d' CO 'V' O N O O V CO N OJ O M O (O h O M N U') h V' ~ N '~t M N ~ (O ~t 7 ti7 to M M p M V' d' O O ~ V N CO 61 Q M (iT N 64 to 6FJ (O EH M ff7 ICJ d} CC) EfT ~I' EF? ~ fA h ER O ER N Efl M ({} O _ E3? O. EA CD Efj O fH O EH GO (A V N fR J W ~ .., li _ U ~ O U ~ ~ N -' ~ -~ ~ ; O ~ z d v O } ~ m a v Z ~ z ~ ~ a ua = U ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ v Z ~ z ~ m ~ w = U ~ ~ w ~ Q ~ ~ z ~ O ~ ~ O o ~ z ~. VJ 4 ¢ o 0 ~ ¢ o z Uj w o z ~ ~ - Z ~ ~ Q o J m ~ j O ~ g Z cn O ~ ~ ~ J ~ J z ~ a O > Q z ugi otS m O w C7 m C7 ¢ o w w _U ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ O a ~ w w ~ m (~ - ¢ z ~' ~ O w C~ m C9 ¢ z Lt. ~ O w C~ m C~ ¢ o ~ ~ ~ ~= QQ W a O m ~ O ~ ~ z Q z O a LL ° ~ c.> ~ ~ r=- ¢ ~ w a W -~ z w Q ~ O w ~ (~ = Q ~ ~ W ~ v ~ a 2 w z Q a O Z D _, m Obi v 1 C7 = F- ¢ z J O F- t- F- ~ ~ ~ ~ p _ M ~, W ~ O ~ O J- ~ o w W ~ v M h 1~ ~ O w W ~ ~r t0 h h ~ O w W F=- ~n <t V h h w w ~ h- ~ ~ w ~- V M O w z w > Q Zz O n. O h h O w z w > ¢ z O a r N h I~ O w z w > 4 ~z O a M M h h w w ~ i- ~ ~ i¢ CD GO = F-- o rn W ~ > N ~ d' V h h _ F- o cn W ~ > ~ .- tq h h w ~ F-- v~ w Q w O O N r w ~ F- cn ~m ~ w O- ~ O 'ct r w ~ f- ~ w Q w O N d' r w ~ E-- cn ~ Q w O O In ~ W ~ Z ¢ w v (O M - O h w ~ F- u> aro 4 w O r h <- w ~ F- ~ o~"o Q w O cr. O r w ~ I- m ado Q W O N O r w ~ I- m m~ Q w O O O w oc t- m w Q W O In ~ O o ~ M rn ¢ ~ > 7 d - '. } I- ~ W a ~. d rn N o O 'V' 7 v N m N O CF M O M 0 O V 'cY ~ N o N O d' M M 0 O V' V v N m N O 'd' M N M 0 O •.t d' v N o N OO V M O O 0 O M (`~ o N 0 N O ~ M - h O 0 O M C7 ~ N 0 N O to M c0 O 0 O (`~) M v N 0 N O O M 6i O 0 O M M v N o N O to M N O 0 O 'cY M ~t N m N O ~ M CO O 0 O M V' v N w N O. lfj M c0 O 0 O C~ ~ v N ao N O to M M h 0 O M V' v N m N O to M ~t h 0 O cn. q' <r N w N O 1:(') M cp h 0 O M V v N o~ N O to M. V O 0 O d' '7 v N oo N O ~ M Cp O 0 O V 'd' v N co N O to M h O 0 O ~i' <}' ~t N ao N O tf) M ep O 0 O 'V V' v N 0o N O tf~ M O O 0 O V' [r' v N ao N O lf~ M O 0 O ~ ~' v N 00 N O l() M. ~- ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~~ 0 M J.M.. Q ~ - F- N ~ ~' _ ~, o~ M - r9 ~ ', O - ,_ O. o 0 ! [fi ~' - Q V- M Z ~ ~ ~ Q '. M 4R J W T C .i.~ '~' _ U N N~/ ~ W > ~j ~ ~ Q J 1° ~"' r cs w ~. 0 ~„ u~ , w' Q',, O" Q Z, O Q', ~ ~' M. 6/ N o p ', ~ N ~-. io r a- M a o ~ a ~ ~ a ' `~ ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~~-I / ~ .. o ~ W z ~ r L w ~ n ~ ~ N U 3 ` ~ ~ ada3o C~ Z ~ ~ TTD]]1~~1 ? 1LILIJ~ `_r U186 U1L6 W iIL'~Ti LIlIJ ~~ 1 U396 ` Z ~ _ ~~~)Q~[]rrll 1 L I ] ~ ll L L1 1 1 1 JNIWOOIa NOl U39 6 Z ~ ~ ~ TT ]] ~~ ]] ~~j ] II T ~~__[ ~ [ 1 1J I 1J 1` ll LI .I 11 4141 "~ ~r ~' TT .j ] _ r ~m[ 1 ~~ ] .11111 ~I l ~ 11111 UlE 6 F' u- ]~~~1~~~~ _ llQ1~1~1L' 1L1 ~ 4u6 ~ ~ U_ ~' _ _. Ul6l 4106 W U W ~T~~[T~~ii~~ 1_I~ ll LI7 LIII~ j,]]f L ~ ~ -- _- lOlll3 w Z llJ _ I}~~~~ ~ ~ _ _. ~I OJt/OIHO D W Z r /1 , l i ~11J l~Il Ili 1_ snawmoo ~ladd Z L1J ~ V J v / ~~~~ E~~{~ ~ ' L ' ~~ aNdlHt/O N`dllaOd W o ~ k W _ i ~ m ( 1 C~~17 ! L-- -~ ~ a U19 ~ W ~ Z ~ ^ ~ / ~ WJ LL ~ d~`1 Ulv Q J , J ~ ~ ~ n V , I~T ! 1 L[III] i ~ llI ~~ P O1NIl0 ~~ ~II ~J l L ll I U 1I ~ rJ ll ~'~ _ ~1 p~Z ~ ~ ~ t I l l ~ l ~ T ~ ~_I III iI [ LI?lI~ SN3n31S ~ ~ ~(r fiT~~T~~~ ~IIT~ CIT~llLJ is 6 O W I `~I ~~~~ )~irr ~_~ ~ ~ ~ 13llOOIN ~ W l i 1 f ~~i ~~ ' ~ ~'~ ll3tJSl`dl8 ~~~ ~ ~ HlaOM1N3M ' ` .lanaSllld ~ ^ ONtfa~J v, T y ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I ~~ ~ LI~~ ~ 131aa`o'H m3ldavo ~C~ ~~v~~y,~~ ~rl' ' T~1~TIl ~ - ~117 II 3lb'ONAI O O ~ ,1 ,t~~~~-i~,i 'll llll: f L_LI11J ~ HOladl`d M _ frrn I1ll L 1[! !1 1 ~ - J ~ 1Nd~aa Xd3100 [[ [[ x~ 1 ( ll i ll ~llli; f~ I~11~1 ll J ^` ~ ] ~lili:~ l~ l~ V 1NOdna Z _ .~ ~, ~L7 I[~D ~r~~ ~~ NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad ~ ~~~~ CC !1!~L' `-~ aadalo ~~'' laloawnH JNlnal ~ / ~ s3wdr ~3 - l 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 «PIN» «oName1» «oName2» «ADDRESS» «CSZ» NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT NEARING NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE 77TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT AREA l=ROM JANUARY 1, 2004 -DECEMBER 31,2004 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: August 9, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the. matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield. City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance. of the 77th Street area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street project area, which totaled $63,842.79, against the properties that benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $63,842.79._ The amount to be assessed against your particular property is: «TotalAmt». Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 15, 2005 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue,. Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. A copy of the proposed assessmentroll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS 1S THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON AUGUST 9, 2005. Telephone (612) 861-9700 • Fax (612) 861-9749 ~ fl 3 A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file. for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the ,rate of four percent (4%) per year.. The amount of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made,'and the following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: If the original principal amount of the assessment is $300 or more, you may make a partial prepayment of $100 or more within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment., scheduled for August 9, 2005. No interest will be charged on the prepaid portion. Partial prepayments are not allowed after the 30-day period. .The unpaid balance will be spread over the life of the adopted assessment. Four percent (4%) interest will -not be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 15t". Payment on or after November 15 2005: Interest at the rate of four percent (4%) will be charged, calculated from the' date of adoption of the assessment until the date of payment. Interest is calculated for 15 months on the first year of the. assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $1.50 surcharge per year over the life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Annabelle Thomas at 6 i 2-861-9714. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council uvill conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners,. as the Council deems advisable. The Council .may. adapt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal-.the -City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon. the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you-must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten. days after service upon the Mayor. or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection signed by you with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on August 9. 2005 or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on August 9th. BY ORDER. OF THE CITY COUi~CIL THiS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2005. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Questions? Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator, at 612-861-9175. ~~G CITY ~_~~~ RICHFIELD Me;fi;~randum DATE: August 9, 2005 TO: Special Assessment File FROM: Randy Hughes SUBJECT: Comments on Special Assessme~,~. Randy Hughes, Operations Superintendent of tfie Public Works Department received the following comments from owners of property affected IJ= 'ihe proposed Special Assessment ordinance to be presented to Council on August 9, 2005. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH. STRE`w#`` DISTRICT Elizabeth York - representing Market Plaza (~~}~J1 Wood Lake Drive and 700 West 66th Street) requested a detailed report of 2004's expensL~;. The report was faxed to her. Jim Wenthold -representing Jerry Mathwig, o~nr~~er of 1640, 1620 and 1550 East 78th Street, requested copies of the assessment letter be :xed to him. This was done. He will probably be at the meeting. The Soo Line Railroad Company sent a letter ;:>rotesting the assessment. (See attached) Meridian Crossing's representative called to in ;faire how much their assessment had increased from last year. He was informed that the increLae was $213.19 on Meridian 1 and $194.80 on Meridian 2. r CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY City of Richfield City Clerk 6700 Portland Ave Richfield MN 55423-2599 ~~ ~ Real Estate Suite 804 Fax (612) 904-6147 501 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 ~.ECEIVED JUL 2 6 2005 BY: . . July 22, 2005 IN THE MATTER OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, IN ITS CONSIDERATION FOR 77TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT AREA ASSESSMENT; WHICH IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED, ALONG WITH WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED BY OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS, AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 9, 2005 AT 6:30 PM. NOTICE Off' PROTEST CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RICHFIELD: You and each of you are hereby notified that the Soo Line Railroad Company DBA Canadian Pacific Railway, does hereby protest the assessment action of the City Council and does file this Notice of Protest with the City Clerk of said City, and the grounds upon which this protest is based are as follows: That it is owner of property within Richfield, MN described in the City's Notice of public hearing as PARCEL 34 028 24 21 0004. That the Soo Line Railroad Company's present and future use of said property is restricted entirely to railroad uses and will not benefit from the improvement. Respectfully submitted, SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY Real Estate Department 501 Marquette Ave South -Room 804 Minneapolis, MN 55402 By for Director Rea ate Marketing U.S. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 Public Hearings 7 150 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNA ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: - Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for removal of diseased trees from private ro ert for work ordered in 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and. by motion: Approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment for removal of diseased trees private property for work ordered from January 1 through December 31, 2004. II. BACKGROUND In the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, forty-two (42) property owners chose to use the City's contractor and requested that the cost of the tree removal be assessed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0809TreeAssess ~J-~ A. POLICY • The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. • City staff has calculated the amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was published in the official newspaper and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. C. FINANCIAL • The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for work ordered during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 have been determined to be $63,967.75. • City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county Auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the assessments be completely paid in the first year or in annual installments. It is recommended such payments be due and payable over afive-year period due to the increased cost of removals. • The adopted assessment roll for the period of January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 will be certified with the County Auditor by the end of October, 2005. The City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds for the initial expense. It is recommended that the interest rate be established at five percent (5%). D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Copy of letter sent to residents • Comments/responses from assessed property owners VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None J ~~~\ E:Y1S2o~ 5 ,~, -~ # "~~S~U ~ ? RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2004THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to removal of diseased trees from the following private property in the City of Richfield: Property Address 6205 Logan Avenue South 6217 3rd Avenue South 7508 Oakland Avenue South 6400 Morgan Avenue South 7513 Aldrich Avenue South 7545 Bryant Avenue South 6345 Bloomington Avenue South 6820-Upton Avenue South 6916 Thomas Avenue South 6809 12th Avenue South 6744 Elliot Vincent Avenue South 6839 12th Avenue South 6801 12th Avenue South 6912 Penn Avenue. South 2905 W 71st Street 633313th Avenue South 6324 Oliver Avenue South 6629 Logan Avenue South 7626 Dupont Avenue .South 6331 Pillsbury Avenue South 7001 5th Avenue South. 100E 66th Street 6444 16th Avenue South 6512 Logan Avenue South 6855 Oakland Avenue South 7415 Thomas Avenue South 6517 Bloomington Avenue South 7209 Sheridan Avenue South 6211 Morgan Avenue South 7004 Columbus Avenue South 6819 Irving Avenue South. 6237 Thomas Avenue South 7012 Portland Avenue South 6616 15th Avenue South Property Identification Number 28-02824-21-0124 27-02824-11-0003 35-02824-32-0013 28-02824-23-0044 33-02824-41-0166 33-02824-41-0140 26-02824-11-0025 29-02824-43-0030 29-02824-43-0170 26-02824-43-0026 26-02824-31-0065 26-02824-43-0028 26-02824-43-0016 29-02824-44-0161 32-02824-12-0052 26-02824-12-0146 28-02824-22-0123 28-02824-31-0054 33-02824-43-0024 27-02824-21-0088 34-02824-11-0087 27-02824-13-0075 26-02824-14-0085 28-02824-23-0120 26-02824-33-0100 32-02824-41-0022 26-02824-14-0114 32-02824-14-0052 28-02824-22-0049 35-02824-22-0011 28-02824-34-0005 29-02824-11-0016 34-02824-11-0072 26-02824-42-0067 6528 Logan Avenue South 7338 Thomas Avenue South 2920 W 71 1 /2 Street 7226 Sheridan Avenue South 7020 Garfield Avenue South 6436 Oliver Avenue South 6817 Lyndale Avenue South 28-02824-23-0123 32-02824-13-0044 32-02824-12-0032 32-02824-14-0058 34-02824-22-0025 28-02824-23-0005 27-02824-33-0122 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. .Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $63,967.75, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than five annual installments and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Assessing Division, and he may at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of August, 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~-a. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2004THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to removal of diseased trees from the following private property in the City of Richfield: Property Address 6205 Logan Avenue South 6217 3rd Avenue South 7508 Oakland Avenue South 6400 Morgan Avenue South 7513 Aldrich Avenue South 7545 Bryant Avenue South 6345 Bloomington, Avenue South 6820 Upton Avenue South 6916 Thomas Avenue South 6809 12th Avenue South 6744 Elliot Vincent Avenue South 6839 12th Avenue South 6801 12th Avenue South 6912 Penn Avenue South 2905 W 71st Street 6333 13th Avenue South 6324 Oliver Avenue South 6629 Logan Avenue South 7626 Dupont Avenue South 6331 Pillsbury Avenue South 7001 5th Avenue South 100 E .66th Street 6444 16th Avenue South 6512 Logan Avenue South 6855 Oakland Avenue South 7415 Thomas Avenue South 6517 Bloomington Avenue South 7209 Sheridan Avenue South 6211 Morgan Avenue South 7004 Columbus Avenue South 6819 Irving Avenue South 6237 Thomas Avenue South 7012 Portland Avenue South 6616 15th Avenue South Property Identification Number 28-02824-21-0124 27-02824-11-0003 35-02824-32-0013 28-02824-23-0044 33-02824-41-0166 33-02824-41-0140 26-02824-11-0025 29-02824-43-0030 29-02824-43-0170 26-02824-43-0026 26-02824-31-0065 26-02824-43-0028 26-02824-43-0016 29-02824-44-0161 32-02824-12-0052 26-02824-12-0146 28-02824-22-0123 28-02824-31-0054 33-02824-43-0024 27-02824-21-0088 34-02824-11-0087 27-02824-13-0075 26-02824-14-0085 28-02824-23-0120 26-02824-33-0100 32-02824-41-0022 26-02824-14-0114 32-02824-14-0052 28-02824-22-0049 35-02824-22-0011 28-02824-34-0005 29-02824-11-0016 34-02824-11-0072 26-02824-42-0067 ~-3 6528 Logan Avenue South 7338 Thomas Avenue South 2920 W 71 1 /2 Street 7226 Sheridan Avenue South 7020 Garfield Avenue South 6436 Oliver Avenue South 6817 Lyndale Avenue South 7046 5th Avenue South 28-02824-23-0123 32-02824-13-0044 32-02824-12-0032 32-02824-14-0058 34-02824-22-0025 28-02824-23-0005 27-02824-33-0122 34-02824-11-0096 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $63,967.75, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than five annual installments and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Assessing Division, and he may at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments. shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of August, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~- 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, .Minnesota 55423-2599 «PID» ~n,avoR «NAME» MARTIN J. KIRSCH «ADDRESS» CITY COUNCIL «CITYSTZIP» JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG suzANNE M. sANDAHL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING GERTRUDE ULRICH cirYMaNaGeR NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF sTEVEN L. DEVICH THE CITY FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (JANUARY 1, 2004 - DECEM$ER S1, 2004) NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearingon the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the removal and disposal. of diseased trees on private property. DATE; TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Augusf 9, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield City Hall, 6700 .Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: Costs incurred for removal of diseased trees from private property with the consent and approval of the property owners for work ordered from the City of Richfield, January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. The City proposes to assess the costs for this work, which totaled $63,967.75. THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY 1S: $<cAMOUNT» Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 15, 2005_ at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your. check payable to the City of Richfield..- THIS. IS THE ONLY hIOTICE YOU WILL RECELVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. The Urbczn Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9700.• Fax (612) 861-9749 -www.ci.richfield.mn.us _ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~-s A copy of the proposed assessment. roll is on file fior public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield; Minnesota. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT:. You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office,. 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the rate of four percent (4%) per year. The arnouht of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, andthe following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: If the original principal amount of the assessment is $300 or more, you. may. make a partial prepaymenf of $100 or more within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for August- 9; 2005. No. interest will be charged on the prepaid portion. Partial prepayments are not allowed after the 30-day period. The unpaid balance will be spread over. the life ofi the adopted assessment. 15ur percent (4%) interest will riot be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November Payment on or after November 15, .2005: Interest at the rate of four percent (4%) will be charged,- calculated from the date of adoption of the assessment. until the date of payment. Interest is calculated for 15 months on the first year of the assessment and. 12 months thereafter. There is a $1.5Q surcharge. per year over the life of the. assessment when certified to the property tax. .Questions .regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Annabelle Thomas at 612-861-9714. NEARING PROCEDURE :AND OBJECTIONS:.The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, .but. the' Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed: individual assessment at an adjourned meeting .upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council' may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting. as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You .have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice. of an appeal .upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must. also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court. within ten days after. service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on August 9, 2005, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on August 9th. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2005. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Questions? Questions- concerning this assessmeht amount should be directed to Randy Hughes, Operations. Coordinator, at 612-861-9175. 7-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2005 TO: Special Assessment File FROM: Randy Hughes SUBJECT: Comments on Special Assessments Randy Hughes, Operations Superintendent of the Public Works Department received the following comments from owners of property affected by the proposed Special Assessment ordinance to be presented to Council on August 9, 2005. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL Dorothy Michel - 7415 Thomas Avenue South - 612-869-6969, called to ask when the tree assessment will show up on her taxes. AGENDA SECTION: (:onsent AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT # 148 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of a public hearing to be held September 13, 2005, to consider the issuance of a new on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses with the optional 2 AM closing for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~y Motion: Approve a public hearing to consider the following: • Issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street. Richfield; and, • Approval of the optional 2 a.m. closing time. • Set public hearing for September 13, 2005. II. BACKGROUND Applications for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with the optional 2 a.m. closing time, for Aribel's were received by the City on June 8, 2005. 0809 Set PH for Aribel's New Liquor Licenses 4D-I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license applications. • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. • The new process has been initiated. • Holding the public hearing on September 13, 2005 will. provide ample time to complete the licensing process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. .LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the application for a new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with the optional 2 a.m. closing time. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Not known. AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 149 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from. Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and to determine if there may be adverse affects on cable television subscribers. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct the public hearing and take testimony on August 9, 2005 regarding the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and continue the public hearing to September 13, 2005. II. BACKGROUND • At the July 12, 2005, City Council meeting, a public hearing was scheduled for August 9, 2005 to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers. Notice of the public hearing was published 14 days in advance of the public hearing. A final decisior by the City regarding Comcast's transfer request must be issued within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. • This public hearing is required under the City's cable regulatory ordinance for the proposed transfer of its cable television franchise. In this case, Time Warner Cable has presented the City with a request to transfer its franchise to Comcast Communications. The City received this request in mid-June and notified Time Warner of the need for a public hearing. The City is a 0809cableph ~-I member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) which generally handles the regulatory oversight of cable television matters on the City's behalf. The commission's attorney, Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, is preparing a report regarding the proposed transfer as well as the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast. The commission has set a meeting on the afternoon of September 1, 2005 to review the findings and -report prepared by Moss & Barnett and to develop a recommendation for City action on this matter. • Given that the City does not yet have the benefit of the commission's recommendation nor the final report to be prepared by Moss & Barnett, staff recommends that the City listen to all interested parties at tonight's public hearing, and thereafter continue the public hearing to the first meeting in September (September 13) at which time Mr. Grogan will present the commission's recommendations as well as the findings of his report for the City's review and consideration. At that time, the City can determine whether to acceptor reject Time Warner's request for transfer or can take action at a subsequent meeting. The deadline for the City action on this matter is mid- Octoberand, therefore, the process has been set up to provide sufficient time to complete the City action prior to the scheduled deadline. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing was deemed necessary in that the City should perform due diligence in determining any potential adverse impact on Richfield cable subscribers. • From a public policy perspective, staff strongly recommended that this issue be considered after holding a public hearing. • Of the five cities of the SWSCC, it appears that most , if not all of the cities will pursue the public hearing track before deciding on the transfer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing was deemed necessary to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will have an adverse effect on the .City's cable television subscribers. Notice of the public hearing was published 14 days in advance of the public hearing. A final decision by the City regarding the transfer request must be issued within 30 days of the closing of the public hearing. • Given that the City does not yet have the benefit of the commission's recommendation nor the final report to be prepared by Moss & Barnett, staff recommends that the City listen to all interested parties at tonight's public hearing, and thereafter, continue the public hearing to September 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL • The transfer of control should have no adverse impact on the financial arrangements between the cable provider and the City of Richfield. ~- ~: The cost of processing the transfer could cost the SWSCC member cities several thousand dollars. However, the cost will likely be fully reimbursed by the cable providers. D. LEGAL • Under state and federal law as well as the City's ordinance, the City may review the qualifications of the prospective controlling party. • The Moss & Barnett report will outline their recommendations regarding the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast under the proposed transfer. The report will also incorporate appropriate closing documentation including a detailed resolution and related documents. The SWSCC is expected to issue a recommendation to the City later this summer concerning the transfer application. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter dated July 21, 2005 from Communications Workers of America, MN State Council VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Communications Workers of America, MN State Council DECEIVED (~" JUL 2 2 ~nn~ N~~r~~~~o~a ~~~e o~ncil >y~rvrs~xs t~in1~ ~ 's«n~~,t>:~ c:~~.~ L~r~l 720.1 (St. YaEit ~ Sc~htir@~) t:~~~,t L~~nI 72tt2 (Iron It~Eny~^<Citi:sj C'1'4'_1IA~caI ;203 lhuvh.~lcr<Art ~F} cj<~ I,,,~~:~I ntu (Seut3ctaastetn \f~) c~ti~:',I.uta 7ztl~ (ll`illm.ir~reu) Ca~`.1 F,oi~s~l 72D6 (lt'itt~iela.Arta) C''<!`.+t L~ra~ 7212 `Wi't. C']uiFd,-S.itlkCeutftv'_ Ie ~'~II~, F3raintrd) C`~1';1 [,~cNl ?21:3 (P~ ir}rat~ [t, th;°ta tn3~u a, itwtiit_ _ill'~ut I,oal c~~ ',1.~~.~I 721a (1)ul~rth, I3e.~lridji, ;~~wrtl,«st~~,~ ~I~; ~t I~itl~ C.`it .lrcaj c ~~> r r 0~ at ?2rs ((l`r3d~ir~t. [~ei_~;iis Falls, I)einrii l.l,s, Parl` Ra~dst {.'~t:i Luc:~l 7220 711E i {2t~ca'I~alls, Ros~«u, A6 arrczad ~: E'w«ksCOn? t,.~~.~ I,~~:~I ~2stl (tiiiirieap~,llsj c.^1~~ t~+~c:~I 72711 { Sitax2tici I lz.:'<p}~lu t atlfv5 k p,tr9< <~f" S<niih~r~t \f\ } c ~~:~ t,~~~:~I ?272 E°'11`.l - I t C> I:,cn:al 3'; f~f2 «hr~,~, ~,t.~~ C`~'v:1 A.YI;N~"I' Local ~?4I1 (~4utrtza(~oIis ~ SY. Yatil} July 21st ?005 City Manager Steve Devich City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield MN 55423 Dear Steve ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~,~ I am Jim Meyer, Minnesota CWA State Political Coordinator. CWA represents about 400,000 communications workers in cable, telephone, wireless, television, radio, and the print media. We promote and support public policies in our industry that assure quality service to the consumer and economic stability in the community. Comcast and Time Warner, the first and second largest cable companies, have agreed to acquire Adelphia, ,the fifth largest cable company. Time Warner and Comcast have also agreed to swap various cable systems in order to increase their clustering, or level of concentration in specific markets. These cable companies will need your approval for the transfer of the franchise. We know that this transfer request affords the city an opportunity to ensure that the current franchise holder is meeting all of its responsibilities under the franchise agreement, including a commitment to stable employment and good corporate citizenship. We understand that the local franchise authority-has 30-days after receiving. the transfer application to notify the cable operator of any issues of concern and to request additional information. We urge. you to request that the.: applicants provide information about-their employment plans :after the transfer. Specifically: Will the purchaser maintain, at a minimum, current employment levels after the transfer? Will the purchaser retain current employees? Will the terms and conditions of existing collective ,bargaining agreements continue after the merger? What is the relationship with the union? What percentage of work is performed' by employees working under contract for vendors? How do those wages and benefits compare with those of the cable employees? If there is a customer service office located in the local franchise area, will it remain in the local franchise .area after the transfer? :3^i21 k~r~~t [.~~t~~ fitttet9 1'Iinncailc}liti, 1linltc~t~t~I ~~,tt~G {MI,~[.I;atr'12.722.7?Oty F-.1~'. l;12.722.1?"~) ~~~~ ~ a~KF~~ ~~ ~~ ~ o~m~~~c~t~~s r~~-~e~s o~ ~.rne~~ca ~~~ ~ ~~~ , STATE &O~1NClL' ~., ~p i~7 F, ~I R F tt; S <:'l1:1 J,~c~1 , 2iHl t~Inh ~~ s~~urt~> 'In addition to employment-related information,:: we fully support your efforts c~~ti., I.~~~al ;~,,, '' to ensure that the applicants provide adequate 'information to evaluate the Est, r""` ~"s"~"rbz~ technical and financial impact of the: transaction, and to'ensure that all {~~~~~~_~~_~ z~z ' commitments in the franchise a reement re ardin~ ro rammin consumer ~r~,~~, >z<<F~~~ cIl~o~j g g ~ P g g, protections, upgrades, public educational and-:governmental programming; ~'~~~"`°"~"~ institutionalnetworks servicequalty public safety' g 1,I~~~~]LSt~rr~r~zj ~ , , aIT10I1 Ot11erS are I11et -before transfer approval is;granted. c~~:ti~~;~1~2~a ESau~I~~~~,,rurt~ ~~,~} c~s.~~,~,t.~i ;~2us Our community expects the companies that are granted franchises to be good t~~'~II~=i=ir ~~~~_>> corporate citizens, providing stable employment, family-supporting jobs, high' c 1\ 1La~c.ar,2tXr quality and safe-service, and recognition of their employees' right to organize (t'r``a=~,Y~a,~T°'> and bargain collectively without'interference. Quality service requires r~r, r.n~~L ~~~z adequate staffing of skilled; trained career' employees. ~ fit: ci~ul~I, Maui, L~.I,er~__ 'a ha1Tk, F3Talftt'tn')' ~ We look to you for leadership in' ensuring that the cable operator in our (.'~§ ~ T t~r~t1 T~1 (rairi,u~!€. cn~~~to3,n~, ' community meets high standards of corporate citizenship and-quality service, ~"~'~'~x'.~€~z>~~"`'~ and to working with you duringthis process toward thesegoals'. t~3~~~~,~:~L<z~a ~ll[lcith E3e=uidji. i ~;~_~~,~~E~i~, ~~:,. ~ Please let me know when there are public hearings on thetransfer as my 1~"" c'`' `~'"j} members in your community will want to attend'. er~~~r I,o~~€ "lls (t~t'~ti n~ ~ f z.rv5 I •illa, i~ir~~~ I.~4~ ~>~,!*~::~~~~ Sincerely, t~ts~t t~~ ~~ °z2u ({llrcfRx~crFu[Is. Rotiesu, ~~.u-r~ati c~; ~ ~~ ta~oh:~to=~} Jim Me er ~~ '` ~' c-ii~~ €,~~a€ ~z~I y ~~ C~ ~~~hn,I~~n~>>~.~' Communications Workers of America rti~~n,,,~;,~ ~~~~, Minnesota State Political Coordinator ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~i3~~n=,.III~. ~~r>pi~t.~u,:,: (C) 651:: 263-5875' ~ psI=t,~3 ~uuti=vn='~I~) jimbo@cwaloca17250.org ~ - rN~ ~2 ( `1~.a 1 \ G 1.cu~a13?fHl2 ~ ~~~~~ „ f.. ~ ~. C`~~_~ 1 ~I3Fs11.€Irat :~~$I1 jjj ~ r ~;/°; ~ ~~' - ~f (\ium~apolu ~'SY. I'aEilj ~ ~'~ ~ O~/~~ G:i~~ ~~~,~~ ~. 3>2T ~~t ~~<~f:e Staiet, °lintae,~~~irlis,it'ti~ar~c~cvtr~ j~1Qfi ft~l.~#R.,taCrt2.7?2,7~i1€) Fr~x 612.'?22.12'`:tj ~-~ Communications 601 Third Street, N.W. Workers of America Washington, D,G. 20001-2797 AFL-CIO, CLC 202/434-1100 C~Y~9 s Comcast Corp. is the nation's biggest provider oi: cable services, with ~4 million subscribers. If the Adelphia purchase is approved, Comcast will have more than 26 million subscribers. Comcast is a highly profitable company, one that pays its top executives well, while workers earn, on average, about $27,000 a year. Comcast also is a company that has a systematic strategy to intimidate and misinform workers about unions, stall bargaining where workers have voted for union representation and when all else fails, orchestrate decertification campaigns to bring about a "union-free" environment. Just a few examples: Laalzham, MD. On April 13, 2005, an Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Comcast had illegally fired two workers for .their union activities during an IBEW organizing drive in 2002 and 2003. The Judge required Comcast to reinstate the workers with back pay and ruled against the company on 11 unfair labor practices. According to the decision, -the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by "coercing... threatening... and interrogating" employees. Comcast may appeal the decision. Pittsburgh. In 2002, Comcast illegally fired two Pittsburgh area technicians who .were union supporters. A year later, both were ordered reinstated by arbitrators, along with back pay and compensation for lost benefits. Workers in Pittsburgh continue to fight for a first contract, nearly four years after voting for a union voice. In fact, these workers have voted for union representation in three National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections. But under current labor law, they and more than 2,000 others who voted for a union can't get a contract. A worker in Beaver Falls, Pa., also was fired for trying to organize a union. Comcast's latest tactic: Pittsburgh area layoffs that target union supporters and blame the Communications Workers of America far the job losses. ~-~ Comcast is so determined to keep out the L~.n.ion that it won't agree to contract language in Pittsburgh that it has agreed to at other locations. Hialeah, .Fla. Comcast fired a union supporter who was called to active duty with the Navy in Guantanamo Bay in 2001. Comcast refused to return this employee to work after his military service was finished. The NLRB determined that Comcast had erred and called on the company to reinstate the worker. When Comcast refused, the NLRB issued a complaint. The worker accepted a cash settlement. Ocean City, Md. Comcast orchestrated a decertification campaign by refusing to provide the retiree health care benefits that are standard at non- union facilities to workers at Ocean City. Three~technicia.ns nearing retirement age were forced to choose between retirement security and union representation. In more than three-dozen communities, Comcast has violated labor law and refused to respect workers' rights to make a free and fair choice. The company also spends millions of dollars on union busting law firms. Subterfuge is another favorite Comcast tactic. In Sacramento, Ca. in 2003, Comcast. found an employee to press for decertification of the union. That employee was rewarded with a promotion into anon-union represented job. Los. Angeles, Ca. A similar tactic was used in Los. Angeles, where an employee who agreed to head up the decertification campaign was made a maintenance supervisor. The company .permitted workers to distribute anti- union material on company time. A Comcast manager even told workers there that he had been ordered to "do whatever it takes to get rid of the union in Los Angeles." Comcast also has created what it calls the "Labor Swat Team." This team is deployed to any location in the country to wage a union decertification .campaign. At captive audience meetings, workers are asked "winat will it take to get rid of the union?" Short-term fixes might be made, but workers continue to face losing their union or being unable to bargain a contract.. Ali of these tactics violate the letter and spirit of federal labor law. yet Comcast, like so many other companies, realizes that there is no real penalty for violating workers' rights. Please take a stand for working Americans, who simply want to exercise the rights they have under federal law: to freely and fairly choose whether they want union representation in the workplace. 2 ~-~ Communications 501 Third Street, N.W. Workers of America Washington, D.C. 20001-2797 AFL-CIO, CLC 202/434-1io0 CK/s4 On April 21, 2005, Comcast and Time Warner, the first and second largest U.S. cable operators respectively, agreed to acquire Adelphia, the fifth largest cable operator with 5.2 million subscribers, for $17.7 billion in cash and stock. Comcast and Time Warner .also agreed. to swap various cable systems in order to increase their clustering, or level of concentration in specific markets. Major additions to Comcast include Philadelphia, Pittsburgh suburbs, Maryland and Virginia, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando,. and Minneapolis. Major additions to Time Warner include- Los Angeles and surrounding counties, Dallas, Cleveland, Western New York, and Ohio. Workers at these cable .companies .must have guarantees. that they will have. a job at no reduction in wages, benefits, and-working conditions after the transfer.. Some cable workers have heard that they will have to re-apply for their jobs after the transfer, with no job guarantee. Collective bargaining rights and contracts must also be protected. The transaction will result in massive consolidation in the cable industry, giving Comcast and Time Warner even more power to raise cable rates, to determine what we watch on our cable systems, and to continue their anti-worker labor policies. ^ Concentration and Market Power. After the acquisition, Comcast will have 26.1 million subscribers and Time Warner will have 16.1 million subscribers., Together, these two media giants will control access to more than half (57.4 percent} of the nation's 73.6 million cable subscribers. Even if one adds in satellite, these two media giants will control access to 45 percent of the nation's 92.6 million pay-TV subscribers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, a cable programmer must reach 40 percent of customers to succeed. in the cable business. ....After the transaction, Comcast and Time Warner will therefore effectively control what we see over our cable systems. ~- ~ Clustering. By swapping properties, Comcast and Tirne Warner will gain control over entire metropolitan media markets where before competing companies had adjacent- franchises. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Time Warner's base will expand from 355,000 to 1.9 million customers, representing 63 percent of the customers in . Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. This will: give the companies even greater control over cable rates, ad rates, and programming. Access to Programming. Comcast and Time Warner will have virtual "gatekeeper" power over which channels customers receive and.what programs they are able to view over their cable system. These media giants abuse their control over the "pipe" into the home in favor of the programming they own. In Philadelphia, where Comcast owns the Flyers, 76ers, and TV rights to the Phillies' games, Comcast won't negotiate a deal with satellite providers to air these popular sports programs. In Washington, DC, Comcast won't air the new Nationals' baseball games unless it gets a stake in their regional cable sports network. ^ Access to Internet. Time Warner allows competitors' ISPs access to its broadband (cable modems):. But; Comcast refuses to ,allow competitors to access, its broadband cable -thus giving it the power .to divert customers to sites in `which Comcast has an economic interest. ^ Rates. Cable rates are going up at three times the rate of inflation. After the transaction, Time Warner and Comcast will have even greater market power to raise cable rates. These increases are mirrored at the local level: LA rates now average $60-70 a month - almost double the rates in 1996. Advertising Rates. Cable ad rates will go up too, since Comcast an:d Time Warner will control regional cable markets and a larger share of the national market. ^ Consumer Choice. Comcast forces customers to pay for channels they don't want. For example, a Consumer Federation of America study found that 80 percent of Comcast customers would not pay for ESPN if they did not have to -but the company refuses to allow customers the option to choose channels they wish to keep or keep out. Family Friendip Programming. Comcast is the biggest provider of pornography among cable providers. Yet, Comcast refuses to allow consumer choice in selection of programming. 2 6-9 Workforce Issues and Service Qualitp. The cable industry has adopted aloes-road labor policy. According to a report by the non- partisan Economic Policy Institute, cable technicians earn 23 percent less than comparable telephone technicians, and cable customer service representatives earn almost half (43 percent) the compensation of comparable telephone customer service employees. Cable workers receive less training, and cable technician turnover rates axe eight times as high.. Cable employs many outside contractors who do not have the training or tenure to perform a quality job. As a result, cable customer satisfaction rates are one-third lower than the telephone industry, as measured by the American Customer Satisfaction Index, 2004. Labor Policies. Workers must have guarantees that they will have a job at no reduction in wages, benefits, and working conditions after the transfer. Where there is a collective bargaining agreement, union representation and the contract must continue after the transfer. Some Adelphia workers have been told that after the transfer they will have to re-apply for their jobs, with no guarantees that they will have a job. Workers' Rights. Comcast has a dismal record of reaching collective bargaining agreements with its workers, many of who organized themselves into unions prior to Comcast's acquisition of AT8sT Broadband. During the transfer of those franchises, Comcast promised union members and local franchise authorities that it would respect the agreements made between ATBvT Broadband and union members. However, once Comcast took over operations, it began a process of delaying contract negotiations. Comcast's Senior Vice President and General Manager for Oregon asserted, "I will tell you we're going to wage war to decertify the CWA." By delaying negotiations, Comcast effectively appropriated the power of unions to improve wages by denying union shops wage increases until unions are decertified. Comcast also discriminated in pay, performance evaluation, and working conditions against union supporters. (See "No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers' Rights in Telecommunications", American Rights at Work, 2004) AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4G REPORT # 147 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration ofi the request by the Church of the Assumption for an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor temporary license and an itinerant food license for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held Au ust '14, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an on-sate 3.2 percent malt liquor temporary license and an itinerant food license for the Church of the Assumption for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held on August 14, 2005. II. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2005, the Church of the Assumption submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor. They also submitted a request for an itinerant food license for their annual Fun Fiesta (formerly Fun Fest) to be held August 14, 2005. The event will take place from noon to 5 p.m. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as roast -beef sandwiches, cote slaw, enchiladas, sweet corn and ice cream. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food 0809 Assumption Fun Fest yc-~ handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and - follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Liquor liability insurance coverage has been provided showing The Catholic Mutual Relief Society as affording the coverage. The Public Safety Department received no complaints regarding this event for the previous year. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been obtained. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Church of the Assumption staff/representative. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4B REPORT # 146 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST Naas, Tilts ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the apartment building located at 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program and Cedar Point Pro~ect . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6400 Cedar Avenue ort Noise Acauisition Program and Cedar Point Pro II. BACKGROUND • On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations. • Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue were identified for first priority purchase with the funds. The remaining funds are to be used to purchase as many of the apartment buildings north of 66th Street as possible, beginning with the northern most building and moving south. • Five apartment buildings, 6328, 6344, 6412, 6444, and 6520 Cedar Avenue, have been purchased to date. 080905_JustComp6400 cedar ~~~~ • The previous owner of the apartment building located at 6400 Cedar Avenue declined the City's purchase offer in 2003. The current owner is aware of the City's need to purchase the property. • Areal estate appraisal was recently completed for this property. The appraised value is $405,000. MAC's review appraiser concurred with the appraised value. • MAC has been informed of the appraised value. • Staff is recommending that the City Council set just compensation in the amount of $405,000. An offer to the property owner can then be made. The apartment tenants may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act when the City's offer is accepted by the property owner. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the Agreement. • The subject property is within the 87 dB contour. • The property will need to be conveyed from the City to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority for inclusion in the Cedar Point Project. • Uniform acquisition procedures will be followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Conworth, Inc. will present a purchase offer to the property owner upon the City Council's approval of just compensation. C. FINANCIAL • Sufficient grant funds remain for the purchase of this property. • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the Agreement. D. LEGAL • MAC has concurred with the appraised value for this property and purchase offer. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay approval of just compensation. • Do not approve just compensation and acquisition. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~~ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6400 CEDAR AVENUE AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations; and WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property identified for purchase is: Property Address Le al Description 6400 Cedar Ave S Lot 6, Block 2, Iverson's T~ird Addition, Hennepin County Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused an appraisal for the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser for the real property has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with professional appraisal standards, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203).set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and WHEREAS, the fair market value, as recommended by the review appraiser and approved by MAC and recently updated to reflect current market conditions, is $405,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amount of $405,000 for the purchase of 6400 Cedar Avenue is hereby approved. 2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is authorized to present purchase offers of approved amounts to the respective property owners. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of August, 2005. artin irsc , ayor ATTEST: ancy i s, ity er STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITE COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 9, 2(105 C~neent 4A 145 BRAD SVEUM, ACTING FIRE CHIEF; REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR; NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NaME Tr7zE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 9556 related to Appendix D and amending Appendix D as follows: • Increase Fire Service Fees, Reimbursement fee for Fire/Rescue Unit, in Section 6, and • Increase room rental fees for the Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center in Section 14, and • Chan a photocop fees in Section 13. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution rescinding Resolution No. 9556 related to Appendix D and amending Appendix D as follows: • Increase Fire Services, Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit, in Section 6, paragraph 3, from $150 per hour to $250 per hour, and • Increase room rental fees at the Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center as detailed in Section 14, and • Change photocopy charges in Section 13, paragraph 5 to comply with State Statute 13.03 C. 0809Fireand Rental Fees ~A-1 II. BACKGROUND Fire: The City may charge reasonable fees for certain emergency services. In 2003, this rate of charging was originally included in Appendix D. Recreation Services: The City of Richfield charges an hourly rate for the rental of rooms at the Richfield Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center. The rental year runs from September 1 to August 31, so rates are updated on September 1. Administration: The City of Richfield charges for photocopies based upon the paper size and a per page fee. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Fire: The City of Richfield bills insurance companies for vehicle fires, personal injury auto accidents requiring spine immobilization or victim extrication from vehicles, control and containment of spills of fuel, oit or other hazardous materials. The City of Richfield will charge for response to natural gas leaks caused by commercial excavation and other hazardous condition responses caused by human events. • Recreation: The City of Richfield charges an hourly rate for the rental of rooms at the Richfield Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center with the rental year running from September 1 to August 31, Therefore, rates are updated on September 1. • Administration: The City of Richfield charges for photocopies based upon paper size and a per page fee. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Fire: This is only a fee schedule increase. Residents are not billed, only insurance companies or commercial entities in the case of gas line strikes. The proposed fee is in line with the low range of what other cities, that do charge, are currently charging. • Recreation: Customers renting rooms at the Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center are made aware of the rental rate increase prior to booking their rentals. • Administration: A State law change effective August 1, 2005, states that if 100 or fewer pages of black and white letter or legal size paper photocopies are requested, the actual cost shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page photocopied. C. FINANCIAL • Fire: The proposed fee will more closely match the costs of equipment and staffing to respond to these types of incidents. • Recreation: The proposed rental rate reflects an increase of approximately 3%. • Administration: The new fee is less than the old fees. ~F~-z. D. LEGAL, • Fire: Minnesota Statutes 1156.02, 1156.04, 299A.52, 366.011 and 415.01 provide the ability of cities and towns to charge a reasonable fee for services. • Administration: Minnesota Statute 13.03C, which changes the fee for copies is effective August 1, 2005. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Do not increase the fees. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Proposed Fee Schedule for Room Rentals VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 4A-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION N0.9556 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield in 2003 originally set a fee of $150 per hour for a fire unit being used at certain emergency scenes. The current reimbursement fee for a fire unit as listed in Appendix D does not totally cover personnel, vehicle and other equipment costs associated with these types of responses. Billing for certain emergency responses is charged to insurance companies or commercial vehicle operators, and the proposed reimbursement fee is consistent with other local cities fees; and WHEREAS, the increase in room rental fees reflects cost-of-living increases, and the City of Richfield has hourly fees set for the rental of rooms at the Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 13.03C, which changes the fee for copies is effective August 1, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 9556 related to Appendix D be rescinded and Appendix D be amended as follows: Increase Fire Services, Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit, to $250 per hour in Section 6, paragraph 3, • Increase room rental fees at the Richfield Community Center and Wood Lake Nature Center as detailed in Section 14, and • Change the photocopy fees in Section 13, paragraph 5 to reflect the State Statute providing that if 100 or fewer pages of black and white letter or legal size paper photocopies are requested, the actual cost shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page photocopied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of August, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk