05-24-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
5:30 - 6:10 q. m.
1. Discussion regarding City's bereavement leave policy
(Council Memo No. 56)
Notes:
6:10-6:15 p.m.
2. Discussion regarding phasing plan for parking and vehicle regulations within Richfield
(Council Memo No. 58
Notes:
6:15 - 6:20 p.m.
3. Discussion regarding City Hall Task Force
Notes:
Adjournment (not later than 6:20 p.m.)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special -City Council Worksession of May 9, 2005; (2) Regular
City Council Meeting of May 10, 2005; (3) Special Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning
Commission Meeting of May 11, 2005; (4) Special City Council Meeting of May 11, 2005;
and (5) Special City Council Meeting of May 17, 2005
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation by Russ Susag, of Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc., regarding
Financial Report for years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003
2. Presentation by Richfield Recreation Programs/Athletic Manager Frank White
regarding Richfield Playground Program and funding donations
3. Receipt of City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004
Staff Report No. 94
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
4. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Counci{ 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 authorizing summary publication of ordinance
amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Section 506.07 Subd. 79 and 521.05 Subd. 11
and Section 521.21 Subd. 10 and Section 521.41 Subd. 10 to create new regulations
for private driveways S.R. No.95
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing off-street parking permit at 6333
Penn Avenue S.R. No. 96
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing public hearing by City Council on
proposed adoption of modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area S.R. No. 97
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City not to waive monetary limits
on statutory municipality tort liability established by Minnesota Statute 466.04 S.R.
No. 98
E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of grant from US
Department of Homeland Security, Assistance to Firefighters Grant in amount of
$145,787 to purchase new self-contained breathing apparatus for Richfield Fire
Department S.R. No. 99
F. Consideration of approval of resolution- authorizing eligible deferral of special
assessment against owner occupied homestead property S.R. No. 100
G. Consideration of approval of agreement with Richfield Historical Society, Inc. for provision
of certain services pertaining to preservation of historical City data S:R. No. 101
H. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with McCombs Frank
Roos Associates, Inc. for preparing amendments to City's Zoning Code S.R.. No. 102
I. Consideration of approval of purchase order to Court Surface and Repair for repaving
and resurfacing six tennis courts at Augsburg Park in amount of $38,950 S.R. No. 103
Notes:
7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
8. Public hearing regarding resolution approving property tax abatement for certain
properties in Cedar Point Project Area in City of Richfield
Staff Report No. 104
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
9. City Manager's report
Notes:
10. 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: PU.h~~c Hearing
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # j QLF
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NAn~tE, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding a resolution approving Property Tax Abatement for Certain Properties
in the Cedar Point Pro'ect Area in the Cit of Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a
resolution approving Property Tax Abatement for Certain Properties
in the Cedar Point Project Area in the City of Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
• The Cedar Point Area has been identified as an area in which redevelopment is
necessary in order to remove structures which cannot tolerate the negative effects of
.low frequency noise that will occur when the new "north-south" runway at the
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport becomes operational.
• The affected area is bounded by Trunk Highway 62 ("the Crosstown") on the north, by
66th Street on the south, by 17th Avenue on the west and by Trunk Highway 77 on the
east.
• In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area was amended to "Regional
Retail/Office" to reflect the recommendations contained in the Cedar Corridor
Redevelopment Concept Master Plan.
052405 Abatement
• The City of Richfield, in cooperative efforts with the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) and the State of Minnesota, have purchased and cleared many properties in the
Cedar Point Area, including 30 single-family homes, five apartment buildings (72 units)
and 25 commercial properties.
• Thirty-three single-family homes, two apartment buildings and .two businesses remain
on the development site. The estimated cost to purchase these properties, plus the
cost of cleared land from the City, is estimated at $14 to $16 million.
• Based on discussions with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) financial
analysts, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. and with retail developers, it has been concluded
that public assistance is required in order to make a development project on this site
feasible.
• Evidence shows that this area will not meet the definition of "substandard" as currently
identified in redevelopment statutes. Without special legislation, a TIF District is not a
viable source of public financing.
• It is proposed that the $2,068,700 of the required public assistance, therefore, be
provided by the City of Richfield through a tax abatement.
• The proposed structure of the tax abatement would run for 15 years and would abate
the taxes to a "$0 Base," meaning that all of the taxes on the site during the duration of
the 15-year period would be abated.
• The total future value of the tax abatement is estimated at approximately $3,946,000;
when considering the impacts of inflation, this amount translates to a "net present
value" of $2,068,700.
• The attached abatement resolution pledges the entire tax abatement up to a total net
present value of $2,068,700 to the redeveloper of the Cedar Point area as a "pay-as-
you-go" note; meaning that as the development pays its tax bill each year, the
abatement funds for that year are paid to the developer.
• Upon the expiration of such a tax abatement, it is estimated that the City of Richfield
could recuperate the property taxes that would have been realized during the
abatement period at the property's present state in approximately two and a half years.
• In past discussions with the City Council and HRA at work sessions, policymakers have
indicated a willingness to provide tax abatement as an impetus for redeveloping the
area.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield has committed itself to the removal of homes and
businesses in the low frequency noise area that will be unable to
withstand the negative affects of low frequency noise.
• The City of Richfield has committed itself to replacing the acquired
homes and businesses with uses that will serve as a noise buffer to
homes and businesses to the area's immediate west.
• Staff has determined that it is infeasible for private redevelopment to
occur in this area without additional public assistance.
• Evidence suggests that the area will not qualify for tax increment
financing under current State statues.
• Tax abatement is an alternative source of public assistance that could
facilitate redevelopment in the low frequency noise area and, in
particular, in the Cedar Point redevelopment area.
• The concept of tax abatement in this area was discussed at a
concurrent work session of the City Council and the HRA on
November 17, 2003.
• At its regular meeting on November 17, 2003 the HRA adopted a
motion to provide the City Council with an advisory recommendation
to support the concept of tax abatement in this area.
At its regular meeting on November 25, 2003 the City Council
unanimously adopted a motion supporting the concept of tax
abatement in the Cedar Point area.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES.
• Without additional public assistance, it is unlikely, if not impossible, for
private redevelopment to occur in this area.
• Without private redevelopment, this area will remain as tax exempt, it
will require perpetual funding for property management and it will not
buffer adjacent neighborhoods from the negative effects of low
frequency noise.
C. FINANCIAL
• City and HRA staff has been working closely with financial analysts at
Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in order to conclude that private
redevelopment will not occur without additional public financing and
that tax abatement is the most feasible source of additional public
financing.
D. LEGAL
• City and HRA staff has been working closely with legal counsel in
exploring the need for, and legal ramifications of, tax abatement.
• The Tax Abatement Resolution was drafted by the City's legal firm of
Kennedy & Graven.
• A legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun-
Current on May 12, 2005.
TERNATIVE
• Ask staff to provide further information and continue the consideration of a
motion on the issue to a later meeting.
• Do not adopt a motion supporting the concept of tax abatement in the Cedar
Point redevelopment area.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• Kesoiution.
• A map of the Tax Abatement Area.
~ Vl. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETTN~
• pia Inman, tnlers and Associates, Inc.
Exllhi It A
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota ("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City has determined a need to grant a property tax abatement to certain
property in the City, depicted on the map in Attachment A (the "Property"), all pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Act").
1.02. The purpose of the abatement is to provide funds to make payments to a
redeveloper on a note to be issued by the HRA to be used in the acquisition, site
preparation and related redevelopment activities within the area described in Exhibit A (the
"Project."):
1.03. Hennepin County (the "County") has agreed to contribute to the financing of
the Project, but has .declined to grant a tax abatement after receipt of a request from the
City. The City's request to the County was made in accordance with Section 469.1813,
subdivision 6 of the Act.
1.04. This Council has fully reviewed the proposed Abatement (as hereinafter
defined) and on May 24, 2005 conducted a public hearing thereon, at which the views of
all interested persons were heard.
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. It is hereby found and determined as follows:
(a) the benefits to the City from the Abatement will be at least equal to the costs to
the City of the Abatement;
(b) the Abatement will help to increase or preserve the tax base by the resulting
location of new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the Abatement;
(c) the Abatement will provide access to services for residents of the City by the
resulting establishment of new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the
Abatement;
(d) the Abatement will provide employment opportunities in the City by the
resulting establishment of new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the
Abatements;
(e) the Abatement will assist in the redevelopment of areas that are subject to
blighting influences; and
(f) the new retail businesses established on land purchased with assistance of the
Abatements will be paying for part of the cost of new public infrastructure.
JBD-257698v1
RC125-239
Section 3. Actions Ratified; Abatement Approved.
3.01. The Council hereby ratifies all actions of the City's staff and consultants in
arranging for approval of this resolution in accordance with the Act.
3.02. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Abatement is hereby approved and
adopted subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) The term "Abatement" means the real property taxes payable in the years
2007 through 2022: (i) generated in any tax-payable year by extending the
City's local tax rate against the tax capacity of -the land and improvements,
excluding any portion of the tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F) as of January 2 in the prior year;
and (ii) paid to the City by the county. The term also includes, to the extent
permitted by law, any delinquent real property taxes which are due and
payable during the period of the Abatement, and which are subsequently
paid, either during the period of the abatement or afterwards. In no event wil{
the Abatement in any year exceed the greater of (1) ten percent of the City's
current levy, or (2) $200,000 (the "Abatement Cap.").
(b) The Abatement will be paid for a period of 15 years, commencing with taxes
payable in 2007. In order to grant abatements longer than 10 years, the City
acknowledges receipt of written notice from Hennepin County formally
declining to participate in abatement for the Project.
(c) The Abatement is hereby pledged to make annual payments on a Tax
Abatement Limited Revenue Note in the maximum amount (principal and
issuance costs) of $2,068,700 (the "Note") which will be issued to
redeveloper of the Project and used to reimburse site acquisition and related
expenditures incun-ed by the redeveloper. The Note will bear interest at the
rate of 7.0% per annum, payable only from the Abatement. It is anticipated
that if the Note were issued in the maximum amount, interest would total
approximately $1,750,000.
In accordance with Section 469.1814, subdivision. 4 of the Act, the total
amount of the Abatement authorized under this resolution may not be
modified during its term.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Attest:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
CEDAR POINT TAX ABATEMENT AREA
LL!
-- Q
t~D
TAFT PARK
6 RD ST. _ _ _ _
6 0
6315 6314 6315 6300 6311
6315
6321 6320 6321 6320
6327 6326 6327 6325
6328 '
6333 6332 6333
i 6333
6339 6338 6339
6344 6341
6345 6344 ~ 6345 6345
~ 64TH ST. _ ~
6401 6400 6401 6400 6405
6409 640$ W 6409 ~,j
6415 6414 i Q 6415 Q 6409
6412 6417
6421 6420 ~ 6421 Q 6421 '
6427 6426 ~ 6427 W 6425
6433 6432 6433 U 6429
6439 ; 6438 6439 6444 6437
' 6441
6445 j 6444 6445 6445
~ 65TH ST. ~
6501 6500 6501 6500 6501
` 6509 6508 6509 '
6515 6514 6515 6520 6511 I
6521 6520 6521 6521
6527 6526 627 6528 ~
6533 6532 33
O O ~ N O 6 7'
~ r` r` ti co 1820
r r r r r
L ........... ~ ~
66TH ST.
f ~1
ti
ti
Q
S
2
Z
- - - -
~ ~ TAX ABATEMENT AREA
~----J
N
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet
__ _ - --
_ _ _.___ - - DATE: 1-19-05
iigis comdevlstaftlbillicedar pt tax abate area.apr
4
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6I
REPORT # j 03
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK L. HALL, PARK AND FLEET
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract to Court Surface & Repair for repaving and resurfacing
Au sbur Park tennis courts.
I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a purchase order to Court Surface and Repair for
$48,950.00 for repaving and resurfacing six tennis courts at Augsburg
Park.
II. BACKGROUND
The tennis courts at Augsburg Park are the City's premier tennis courts hosting
many tournaments throughout the course of the year. These courts are the City's
only lighted courts adding even more playing time to the heavy amount of playing
time that they already receive. These courts were rebuilt in 1995, but have settled
over time and no longer drain, as they should. This results in excess wear on the
surface,. as well as increased cracking.
Under professional examination by contractors, it was determined that these courts
would only need an overlay, not a complete rebuild, which would have resulted in
the complete removal of the courts at a much higher cost.
052405tennis
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• As required by City policy, staff solicited quotes from three companies
and the lowest quote was received from Court Surface and Repair.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the May 24, 2005 Council meeting will facilitate the
repaving and resurfacing of the six tennis courts at Augsburg Park.
C. FINANCIAL
• The approved 2005 CIP budget contains $50,000 for the repair of
these tennis courts.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services
exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City
Council for consideration.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to solicit more bids in an
attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices
could be obtained from a responsible contractor.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ($
REPORT # 102
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
d
~a'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration regarding a Professional Services Agreement with McCombs Frank Roos
Associates, Inc. for re grin amendments to the Cit 's Zonin Code.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached Professional Services Agreement
with McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. for preparing
amendments to the Citv's Zoning Code.
II. BACKGROUND
The Zoning Code is inadequate in several areas. The areas of most significance
include; off-street parking, landscaping, lighting for commercial buildings, signage
(this would be restricted to new signage) and definition of terms. There are some
items related to the organization of the Code itself that would make it easier to use
and include a table of contents and page numbers for example.
Two professionals with considerable experience in municipal zoning were
interviewed. Staff is recommending William Weber, A.I.C.P. and the Director of
Community Planning with McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) located in
Plymouth, Minnesota. Mr. Weber has over twenty-five years of experience in
matters related to land use planning. He has authored and rewritten zoning
052405 McCombs
ordinances for cities and counties. Some of his work has received awards from the
American Planning Association and the Metropolitan Council.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield desires to have a strong competitive position in the market
place with renovation and new construction being common activities
throughout the community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Policy makers and staff as well as people wanting to do business in
the community need an ordinance that has greater clarity is more
reflective of contemporary thinking and easier for all to use.
• The updating process will require approximately six months.
C. FINANCIAL
• MFRA has indicated they could undertake the work required for
$32,835. The funding is being provided from the proceeds of sale of
the property at 6758 Portland Avenue.
• The competing proposal was priced at $50,000.
• Revising sections of a zoning ordinance is a very complex and
unpredictable process. One may not know the extent of the work
needed until after the task has begun. Thus, estimating the cost of
this undertaking is difficult. It is everyone's intent that $32,835 covers
the cost of the project.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be involved in the updating process. Draft
documents will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council at appropriate times. Formal action by the Planning
Commission and the City Council will be required before any
modifications can be implemented.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Delay action on this item
• Direct staff to recommend another consultant
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Professional Service Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield,
State of Minnesota; hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and McCombs Frank Roos
Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "MFRA".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS; the CITY wishes to purchase the services of MRFA; and
WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the CITY and MFRA agree as follows:
1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
MFRA agrees to furnish services to the CITY for updating portions of the zoning
code, as described in the attached proposal. The total cost of this Agreement
shall not exceed $32,835 unless amended by the CITY. All reports, memos, and
other data produced by MFRA become the property of the CITY.
2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly
to MFRA by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the CITY to determine
the line item task being completed. Payment shall be made within 30 days of
receipt of an invoice by the CITY.
3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
MFRA shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services
herein in consultation with the CITY. Nothing is intended or should be construed.
in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between
MFRA and the CITY or as constituting MFRA as the agent, representative, or
employee of the CITY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. MFRA is to
be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services
performed under this Agreement. MFRA represents that it has or will secure at
its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this
Agreement. Any and all personnel of MFRA or other persons while engaged in
the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have
no contractual relationship with the CITY, and shall not be considered employees
of the CITY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment
Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment,
including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against MFRA, its officers,
agents, contractors, or employees shall in noway be the 'responsibility of the
CITY. MFRA shall defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any
determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court.
Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any
compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY,
including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability,
severance pay, and PERA.
4. NONDISCRIMINATION
The CITY operates in accordance with the City of Richfield's policies against
discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any
service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the
grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public
assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is
protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be
otherwise subjected to discrimination. MFRA shall (1) furnish all information and
reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it
shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A).
5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
MFRA agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, and
employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or
expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from
a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or
omissions) of MFRA, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the
services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of
MFRA to fully performance in any respect, all obligations under this contract.
6. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY
MFRA agrees that the CITY, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized
representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they
may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine,
2
audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which
are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of MFRA and involve
transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years
from date of final payment with respect to the project.
7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE
This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the
provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The GITY
agrees to give MFRA access to data collected or maintained by the CITY as
necessary to perform MFRA's obligations under this contract. MFRA agrees to
maintain all data obtained from the CITY consistent with the requirements of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et seq. (the
"Act"). MFRA will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not
public to any person except at the written direction of the CITY. MFRA agrees to
defend and indemnify the CITY from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted
against CITY as a result of MFRA's failure to comply with the requirements of
this paragraph; provided that MFRA shall have no duty to defend or indemnify
where the MFRA has acted in conformance with the CITY's written directions.
Upon termination of this contract, MFRA agrees to return data to the CITY, as
requested by the CITY.
8. NON-ASSIGNMENT
MFRA shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the
services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior
written consent of the CITY.
9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties
is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements
and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof.
All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and
are deemed to be part of this Agreement.
b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions
of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to
writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto.
10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
a. If MFRA fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails
to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement,
this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the CITY,
3
may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety.
b. The CITY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a
relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing.
Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment
throughout the entire term of the Agreement.
c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty
(30) days written notice.
11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of MFRA with the activities of the CITY so as
to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Bruce Palmborg, Director of
Community Development, shall manage this contract on behalf of the CITY.
In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between MFRA and CITY
staff. MFRA may also report directly to the City Council of the CITY.
12. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the
terms of this Agreement shall be in writing.
4
Notices shall be sent as follows:
Community Development Department
Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
McCombs Frank roos Associates, Inc.
William C. Weber
15050 23~d Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
MFRA having signed this contract, and the CITY having duly approved this contract on
May 24, 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper CITY officials having
signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set
forth.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By:
Martin L. Kirsch
Its: Mayor
By:
Steven L. Devich
Its: City Manager
McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
By:
Jeff Roos
Its: President
5
EXHIBIT A
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
On January 1, 1988, the Richfield City Council approved an affirmative action program
which requires the City "to provide equality of opportunity in employment to all person
and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, place of
residents, political affiliation, disability, marital status, status with regard to public
assistance, sex, or age in all aspects of the City's personnel policies, programs, and
practices".
The program further requires that the City support the various relationships with
contractors, subcontracts and vendors. Therefore, requirements have been adopted for
contracts as follows:
a. The contractor shall submit a signed statement (Exhibit B) signifying that they are
in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as
cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act.
b. In accordance with the City of Richfield's Affirmative Action policy, no person
shall, on the ground of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin be
excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or
activity for which the parties received, or will receive financial assistance under
the provisions of any and all applicable federal and state laws against
discrimination. The contractor will furnish all information and reports if required
by the City of Richfield or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No.
4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the
State of Minnesota for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with
such rules, regulations, and orders.
c. 1971 Minnesota Statutes 181.59 is made a part of this contract. See
Exhibit C.
6
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for MFRA, hereby states that MFRA is in
compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act.
Dated:
By:
Its:
7
EXHIBIT C
181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR
PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT.
Every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, city,
town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials,
supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the contractor agrees:
(1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work
under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor,
shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who
are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to
perform the work to which the employment relates;
(2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner,
discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons
identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent,
the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of
race, creed, or color;
(3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and
(4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city,
town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for
employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited
for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract.
History: 1941 c 238; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 609 s 11
8
ATTACHMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
Engineering • Planning • Surveying
1
Meeomha FFanN woos
Asaoolataa. loe.
Amendments to the
Richfield Zoning Ordinance
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., represented by William Weber, AICP, will prepare
draft and final amendments to the Richfield Zoning Ordinance (City Code Sections 506.01
through 546.09). An outline of the elements to be addressed is presented below.
Mr. Weber will work with the City staff, led by Director of Community Development Bruce
Palmborg, the City Planning Commission and City Council to prepare, review and revise
these amendments. A description of the review process is included below.
Elements to Be Amended
Parking: Review the "Parking Lot Standards," which are presently used in place of any
parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. Recommend any needed revisions and
incorporate them into an appropriate location in the zoning ordinance. In particular, review
the number of required parking spaces, including for such land uses as restaurants and mixed-
use developments. Delete the parking requirements presently found in the C-3 district.
Review and possibly incorporate regulations from Section 800.17 and 1320 of the City Code,
then recommend deletion of regulations that were made redundant.
S'tgnage: Sign regulations are located in Section 416 of the City Code (not in the sections
collectively known as the zoning ordinance). Revise these regulations to make them easier to
understand and use. Move sign regulations .from the SO-1 district. Review the sign
regulations with the intent of possibly reducing the allowable face area and height.
Landscaping: Completely revise the landscaping regulations, using the existing
"Landscaping Standards" together with the landscaping requirements found in the C-3
regulations as a base. Incorporate them into either the Administration or Performance
Standards section of the zoning ordinance so that they apply to all commercial, industrial and
multiple-family residential development. Separate the landscaping requirements from the site
plan regulations for the sake of organization.
Site Plan Review: Review the present regulations for site plan review found in the C-3
district and recommend revisions as appropriate so they apply to any new structures in the
commercial, industrial, multiple-family residential districts or planned-unit districts.
15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447
phone 763/476-6010 fax 763/476-8532
9 E-mail: mfrs Ca?mfra. com
ATTACHMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Page 2 of 5 AGREEMENT
Lighting: Revise Section 541.03 to make the regulations easier for the staff to apply and
enforce and to ensure that the most troublesome aspects of outdoor lighting are adequately
regulated (e.g., service station canopies).
Permitted, Accessory and Conditional Uses: Review and amend the list of permitted,
accessory and conditional land uses in each zoning district to ensure that the items are
appropriate for the district and the category.
Summary Tables: In each zoning district, create one or more tables to collect and
summarize dimensional regulations such as height, lot size, setbacks and so on. Delete
clauses that then are made redundant. Create an overall summary table of permitted,
accessory and conditional land uses by district.
Consistency with other Part of the Richfield City Code: With help from City staff,
find instances where regulations in the zoning ordinance conflict with regulations in other
parts of the Richfield City Code (e.g., signs, parking and minimum lot area). Recommend
amendments to one or the other.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Review and revise the regulations for maximum lot coverage
and the definition of such.
Commercial Districts: Remove the site planning requirements from the C-3 district and
incorporate them in revised form elsewhere in the ordinance.
Multiple-Family Residential Districts: Review and streamline the multiple-family
residential districts.
Non-Conforming Uses: Move the regulations on non-conforming land uses from General
Regulations for all Residential Districts and move them to the Administration Section.
Conditional Use Permits: Move CUP regulations from Section 521.97, General
Regulations for All Residential Districts, to Section 546.05, Conditional Use Permits, in the
Administration Section.
Definitions: Review and revise the definitions as appropriate.
Table of Contents: Create a table of contents.
Page Numbers and Index: Create a copy of the sections of the City Code that constitute
the zoning ordinance and give them page numbers and an index of subjects that is
electronically linked to the contents for the purpose of distributing the zoning ordinance as a
stand-alone document.
10
15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447
phone 763/476-6010 fax 763/476-8532
E-mail: mfra@mfra.com
Page 3 of 5
Preparation and Review Process
Staff
ATTACHMENT':i'FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
Meet as needed with the City staff to review drafts of the amendments.
Edit the digital copy received from the City in the "Track Changes" mode so that changes can
be easily identified if desired. (The text may also be printed and read without the strikeout
and boldface features for easier review.)
Planning Commission
Meet with the Planning Commission at the outset of the process to explain the process,
review the work program and hear their thoughts about amendments to the ordinance. Meet
twice with the Planning Commission to review the amendments.
City Council
Attend a public hearing on the adoption of the amended ordinance with the City Council.
Project Schedule
Initial draft 2 months
Review draft with staff 1 month
Review with Planning Commission 2 months or as needed
City Council public hearing After Planning Commission ap royal
15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447
11 phone 763/476-6010 • fax 763/476-8532
E-mail: mfra@mfra.com
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6G
REPORT # I01
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an agreement with the Richfield Historical Society for the provision of certain
services ertainin to the reservation of historical Cit data.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the agreement with the Richfield Historical
Society for the provision of certain services pertaining to the
preservation of historical City data and authorize the Mayor and City
Manaaer to execute the agreement.
II. BACKGROUND
At the May 9, 2005 City Council Worksession,staff was given general direction to
investigate how the City may partner with the Richfield Historical Society to assist
them by providing matching funds up to a one time payment of $5,000 toward the
cost of completing the new Richfield History Center. In response, staff has drafted
a proposed agreement with the Richfield Historical Society for general services to
the City of Richfield regarding the collection and preservation of data in exchange
.for a matching contribution of up to a one time payment of $5,000 through calendar
year 2006. In addition the agreement also provides for limited use of the History
Center for City meetings and that the City be listed as "Platinum" sponsor of the
History Center.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The safe storage and retention of certain historical Richfield data are
important to the community of Richfield.
• The City of Richfield will provide a one time payment of up to $5,000
in matching funding for these services .
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order for the Historical Society to maximize the potential for the
matching contribution, this agreement should be approved as soon as
practicable.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City will need to provide for up to a one time payment of up to
$5,000 for this funding in the revised 2005/proposed 2006 budget.
• There is no funding provided after 2006.
D. LEGAL
• The City has the legal authority to enter into such agreements.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City Council could either increase or decrease the amount of the
proposed agreement or its term. _
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed draft agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0524HistoryCenter
RICHFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC.
SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 2005 between the
City- of Richfield, a Minnesota public municipal corporation, ("City") and the Richfield
Historical Society, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, ("Historical Society").
WHEREAS, preserving the history of the City for future generations is important
to the City, its residents and the general public; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 471.93, a city may
appropriate money for the purposes of collecting, preserving, storing, housing, printing,
publishing, distributing and exhibiting data and. material pertaining to the history of -the
city, in order to preserve the history data and material for future generations; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Society's past efforts have preserved the City's
history, including its restoration of the General Riley Bartholomew House, located in the
City which is open to the public for tours; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to use the services of the Historical Society in
preserving the past of the City's history, including the addition of a Richfield History
Center located in the City which will include exhibits on City history, a genealogy library
and a video on the history of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to compensate the Historical Society for the
operation and maintenance of the Richfield History Center, the General Riley
Bartholomew House and the Historical Society's other efforts to preserve the City's
history ("Historical Services"); and
WHEREAS, the Historical Society is willing to undertake these efforts.
THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and of the following terms and
conditions, the parties agree as follows:
1. General Description of Services. The services to be performed by the
Historical Society for the City consist of the complete operation and
management of the Richfield History Center, the General Riley
Bartholomew House and other efforts to preserve the City's history in full
accordance with: (1) this Agreement; and (2) any written instructions from
the City. In the operation of the Historical Services pursuant to this
Agreement, the Historical Society will familiarize itself with and comply
with all applicable State and Federal regulations and statutes, local
ordinances, and instructions and policies of the City.
2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on
and terminate on December 31, 2006. The term of this
Agreement maybe extended by mutual written agreement of both parties.
3. Consideration. The City shall pay to the Historical Society the lesser of the
following two amounts for the Historical Services:
a. An amount equivalent to the Historical Society's donations received
during the term of this Agreement; or
b. A one time payment of up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00).
The City shall pay a one time payment of the Five Thousand Dollars to the
Historical Society immediately upon execution of this Agreement. If the
262aii~i ~srs>
RC160-1
Historical Society does not receive donations equivalent to Five Thousand
Dollars by December 31, 2006, it shall .reimburse the City for the
difference between Five Thousand Dollars and the amount received. by the
Historical Society through donations.
4. Duties of the Historical Society. In addition to providing the Historical
Services for the City, during the term of this Agreement, the Historical
Society shall provide the following to the City:
a. The Historical Society shall list the City as a "Platinum" sponsor on all
of its newsletters;
b. The City shall be listed as a "Platinum" sponsor on the web site of the
Historical Society;
c. The City shall receive copies of the Historical Society's quarterly
newsletters;
d. The City shall receive a copy of the Historical Society's Annual Report;
and
e. The City shall be entitled to use of the Historical Society's History
Center for City meetings and gatherings for up to a total of six hours
during the term of this Agreement.
5. Indemnification & Insurance Claims. The Historical Society agrees to
indemnify and save harmless the City from and against all claims or
demand of every nature on account of injury to or death of persons or
damage to or loss of property, caused by or resulting in any manner from
any acts or omissions of the Historical Society, its agents, officials,
volunteers or employees, in performing or failing to perform any of the
Historical Services.
The Historical Society shall provide and keep in force, and furnish
evidence of, a contract or contracts of insurance with reliable companies
authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota by which contracts the
City and is insured against any claim, demand or loss for injury to persons
or damage to property resulting from, growing out of, or connected with
the Historical Services or the Historical Society's facilities or any act or
omission to act by the Historical Society or its officials, agents, volunteers
or employees.
6. Termination. The parties hereto covenant and agree that their liabilities
and responsibilities, one to another, shall be contingent upon the
availability of monies by the City for the funding of this Agreement and
that this Agreement may be terminated at any time by the City if such
funds cease to be available.
7. Audits and Data Practices. As required by Minnesota Statute, Section
15.17, the operational records and documents of the Historical Society and
of its agents relating to work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be
subject to audit and examination by the City and the State Auditor. The
Historical Society also agrees to comply with the City's requests relating to
requests for information pursuant to the Data Practices Act, Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 13.
8. Assi ent. Neither party shall assign this Agreement or any interest
arising in this Agreement, without the written consent of the other parry.
262811v1(SJS) 2
RC160-1
9. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any
portion of the Agreement is, for any reason, held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be contrary to law, the decision shall not affect the remaining
provisions of this Agreement.
10. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained in this
.Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter in this
Agreement, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between
the parties relating to the subject matter in this Agreement. Any
alterations, amendments, deletions or waivers of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed
by the parties, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD RICHFIELD HISTORICAL
SOCIETY, INC.
By:
Its:
Its:
Mayor
By:
By: By:
Its: City Manager
Its:
262811v1(SJS)
RC160-1
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ~r.
REPORT # j 00
~~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution certifying deferral of special assessments for certain
eli ible homeowners.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving eligible deferral
of special assessments against an owner occupied homestead
II. BACKGROUND
N/A
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Resolution No. 9531, approved by the City Council on October 26,
2004, authorizes the City to approve requests for the deferment of
special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons
65 years of age or older or by persons of permanent total disability for
whom it would be a hardship to pay such special assessments.
0525assessmentdeferral
One application for deferral of payment of special assessments has
been received. The request is for 2004 tree removal assessment,
payable 2005, in the amount of $2,449.00.
Staff has determined that the applicant is eligible according to the
provisions contained in Resolution No. 9531 dated October 26, 2004.
B. GRITTY CAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The amount of the special assessment to be deferred is $2,449.00.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the resolution deferring the special assessment. However,
this may cause severe financial hardship for the applicant.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ELIGIBLE DEFERRAL
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER OCCUPIED
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES IN HARDSHIP CASES FOR QUALIFYING OWNERS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9531 was passed by the City Council on October 26,
2004, establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner
occupied homestead properties of persons 65 years of age or older and persons
permanently and totally disabled; and,
WHEREAS, application for deferral of payment of special assessments have been
made on forms prescribed by the county auditor and the homeowner has furnished the city.
the necessary information for determining eligibility in compliance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 435.193 to 435.195.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the following owner-occupied property be approved for deferral of special
assessments as listed below:
PROPERTY ID ADDITION NO. AMOUNT
32-028-24-43-0071 45830. $2,449.00
Such deferral of payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts
accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any
of the following events:
(a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouses is not eligible for the
benefits hereunder;
(b) the sale, transferor subdivision of the property or any part thereof;
(c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or
(d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine
that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify a copy of this resolution to the
County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6E
REPORT # g9
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing acceptance of the 2004 assistance to firefighters
rant monies.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of the
grant from the US Department of Homeland Security, Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (EMW-2004-FG-06336) in the amount of $145,787 to
purchase- new self-contained breathing apparatus for the Richfield
Fire Department.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield Fire Department has applied for and received in 2002 and
2003 similar grants for training and the 800 MHz radio system from the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant program.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
BRAD SVEUM, ACTING FIRE CHIEF
0524 F i refig hte rsG ra nt
A. POLICY
• Formal of acceptance of this grant is pursuant to Minnesota Statute
465.03 which requires city councils to formally accept all grants by a
two-thirds majority vote.
• The City has been notified that the Fire Department has been
awarded the grant by the Department of Homeland Security.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Acceptance of this grant. will allow the Fire Department to purchase
new self-contained breathing apparatus which complies with current
safety standards and is more compatible with surrounding
communities.
The Fire Department has completed all necessary steps to comply
with the federal regulations for award of this grant.
C. FINANCIAL
• The Fire Department has funds available in its budget to cover the
10% matching fund component of the grant in the amount of $16,198.
D. LEGAL
• This acceptance is required by Minnesota Statue 465.03.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
Department of Homeland Security letter advising approval of grant
application.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT, RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS
PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows:
Any city, county school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or
personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance
with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or
use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the
council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ahs been awarded the grant as described below,
Assistance to Firefighters Grant from the US Department of Homeland Security for
the amount of $145,787 to be used for the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus
and related accessories.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts the US Department of
Homeland Security, Assistance to Firefighters Grant (EMW-2004-FG-06336) for the
year 2005 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with the grant
agreements and terms prescribed by the donors.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota the 24th day of May, 2005
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
'~~~.
~,-
...
~~ "
mo't' 4
6
Mr. Brad Sveum
Richfield Fire Department
6700 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2560
Re: Grant No.EMW-2004-FG-06336
Dear Mr. Sveum:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office for Domestic Preparedness
Washington, D.C. 20531
Congratulations, on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Your grant application submitted under the FY 04 Assistance to Firefighters Grant has been approved. The
approved project costs amount to $161,985.00. The Federal share is 90 percent or $145,787.00 of the approved
amount and your share of the costs is 10 percent or $16,198.00.
As part of your award package, you will find Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and
understand the Articles as they outline the terms and conditions of your Grant award. Maintain a copy of these
documents for your official file. You establish acceptance of the Grant and Grant Agreement Articles when
you request and receive any of the Federaf Grant funds awarded to you.
The first step in requesting your grant funds is to confirm your correct Direct Deposit Information. Please go
on-line to the AFG eGrants system at https://portal.fema.gov and if you have not done so, complete and submit
your SF 1199A, Direct Deposit Sign-up Form. Please forward the original, completed SF 1199A, Direct Deposit
Sign-up Form, signed by your organization and the banking institution to the address below:
Department of Homeland Security
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (FEMA)
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, SW, Room 334
Washington, DC 20472
Attn: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
After your SF 1199A is reviewed and you receive an email indicating the form is approved, you will be able to
request payments online. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the process to request your grant
funds, please call 1-877-510-6762.
Sincerely,
Matt A.Mayer
Acting Executive Director
Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness
^f ~ 2/ 18/2005 9:02 AM
Agreement Articles
-~~It ~ ,;,f .
`~=~.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20531
" ~ :~~j 5~
~..
AGREEMENT ARTICLES
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM -Operations and Firefighter Safety program
GRANTEE: Richfield Fire Department
PROGRAM: Operations and Firefighter Safety
AGREEMENT NUMBER: EMW-2004-FG-06336
AMENDMENT NUMBER:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article I
Article II
Articte III
Article IV
Article V
Article VI
Articte VII
Article VI11
Article IX
Article X
Article XI
Article XII
Article I -Project Description
Project Description
Grantee Concurrence
Period of Pertormance
Amount Awarded
Requests for Advances or Reimbursements
Budget Changes
Financial Reporting
Performance Reports
DHS Officials
Other Terms and Conditions
General Provisions
Audit Requirements
The grantee shall perform the work described in the approved grant application's Program Narrative. That
narrative is made a part of these grant agreement articles by reference. The purpose of the Assistance to
Firefighters Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and
fire-related hazards. After careful consideration, DHS has determined that the grantee's project, as detailed in
submitted project narrative and budget information, submitted as part of the grantee's application (and
considered part of this agreement by reference), was consistent with the program's purpose and worthy of award.
As such, any material deviation from the approved program narrative must have prior written approval.
Article 11 -Grantee Concurrence
By requesting and receiving Federal grant funds provided by this grant program, the grantee accepts and agrees
2/18/2005 9:02 AA
~f 7
to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and the documents identified
hcln:;~ All rwln~wimcnt~ gwihmittcri ag n~rt ~f the ~nnlira+inn arc maNln a part of +hig agrccment by rcfarcn~e
rte... "rr.~......,...
Article III -Period of Performance
The period of performance shall be from 10-FEB-05 to 09-FEB-06.
The grant funds are available to the grantee for obligation only during the period of performance of the grant
award. The grantee is not authorized to incur new obligations after the expiration date unless the grantee has
requested, and DHS has approved, a new expiration date. The grantee has 90 days after period of performance
to incur costs associated with closeout or to pay for obligations incurred during period of performance. Award
expenditures are for the purposes detailed in the approved grant application only. The grantee cannot transfer
funds or assets purchased with grant funds to other agencies or departments without prior written approval from
DHS.
Article IV -Amount Awarded
The amount of the award is detailed on the Obligating Document for Award attached to these articles. Following
are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this grant (including Federal share plus grantee match):
Personnel $0.00
Fringe Benefits $0.00
Travel $0.00
Equipment $161,285.00
Supplies $0.00
Contractual $700.00
Construction $0.00
Other $0.00
Indirect Charges $0.00
Total $161, 985.00
Article V -Requests for Advances or Reimbursements
Grant payments under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program are made on an advance or reimbursable
basis for immediate cash needs. When the grantee needs grant funds and has obtained a user account, the
grantee fills out the on-line Request for Advance or Reimbursement. If the grantee has not obtained a user
account, an account may be obtained by calling the help desk at 1-866-274-0960.
Article VI -Budget Changes
Generally, changes in the budget-line items are permitted, as long as the original program narrative is
accomplished. The only exception to this provision is for grants where the Federal share is in excess of
$100,000.00. In grants where the Federal share exceeds $100,000.00, the budgeted line items can be changed,
but if the cumulative changes exceed ten (10) percent of the total budget, Changes must be pre-approved.
Article VII -Financial Reporting
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement mentioned above, will also be used for interim financial reporting
purposes. At the end of the performance period, or upon completion of the grantee's program narrative, the
grantee must complete, on-line, a final financial report that is required to close out the grant. The Financial Status
Report, is due within 90 days after the end of the performance period.
Article VIII -Performance Reports
The grantee must submit asemi-annual and a final performance report to DHS. The final performance report
should provide a short narrative on what the grantee accomplished with the grant funds and any benefits derived
~f~ 2/18/2005 9:02 AM
~anei tceview naps:iiponai.Tema.govirire~-anv~spit~re_actmuvawards/spec/view_aw,:.
.there from. The semi-annual report is due six months after the award date.
Article IX -DHS Officials
Program Officer: Tom Harrington, Deputy Chief of the Grants Program Office, is the Program Officer for this
grant program. The Program Officer is responsible for the technical monitoring of the stages of work and
technical performance of the activities described in the approved grant application.
Grants Assistance Officer: Christine Torres, is the Assistance Officer for this grant program. The Assistance
Officer is the Federal official responsible for negotiating, administering, and executing all grant business matters.
Grants Management Branch POC: Christine Torres is the point of contact for this grant award and -shall be
contacted for all financial and administrative grant business matters. If you have any questions regarding your
grant please call 202-646-4298.
Article X -Other Terms and Conditions
A. Pre-award costs directly applicable to the awarded grant are allowable if approved in writing by the DHS
Program Office.
Article XI -General Provisions
The following are hereby incorporated into this agreement by reference:
44 CFR, Emergency Management and Assistance
Part 7 Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs
Part 13 Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements to state and local governments
Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement)
Part 17 and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-free Workplace
(Grants)
Part 18 New Restrictions on Lobbying
31 CFR 205.6 Funding Techniques
OMB Circular A-21 Cost Principles for Educational Institutions
OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principles for State/local Governments, Indian tribes
OMB Circular A-122 Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations
OMB Circular Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With State and Local
A-102 Governments. Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application and Assurances contained therein.
OM8 Circular Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With institutions of Higher
A-110 Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations Assistahceto Firefighters Grant
Application and Assurances contained therein.
Article X!I-Audit Requirements
All grantees must follow the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments,
and Non-Profit Organizations. The main requirement of this OMB Circular is that grantees that expend
$500,000.00 or more in Federal funds (from all Federal sources) must have a single audit performed in
accordance with the circular.
As a condition of receiving funding under this grant program, you must agree to maintain grant files and
supporting documentation for three years upon the official closeout of your grant. You must also agree to make
your grant files, books, and records available for an audit by DHS, the General Accounting. Office (GAO), or their
duly authorized representatives to assess the accomplishments of the grant program or to ensure compliance
_F~ 2/18/2005 9:02 A
with any requirement of the grant program.
Additional Requirements if applicable
This grant award was reduced by $3,300. The approved amount is for 1 facepiece @ $300 not 12 @ $300
indicated in the initial application. The reduction has already been made in the grant award and in the application
as approved by the grantee (brad Sveum) via email on January 10, 2005. The total project cost was reduced per
the program office comments from $165,285 to $161,985. The federal share was reduced from $148,757 to
$145,787. The applicant share was reduced from $16,528 to $16,198.
~f~ 2/18/2005 9:02 A
""`Y •• •~ ~ Yvr ..asa. iviuu. by v! lu vsl c4ttuJ J1.!! L11 G~0.llllllll/0. W Q1 UJ/ JI.7G(./ V 1G W_Cd W ...
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
p
V$LIGATIN G DVCVIYIEIdT Fvr4+A'. Y,AnDf A1YlENV1Y1EAdT
1 a. AGREEMENT NO. 2. AMENDMENT NO. 3. RECIPIENT NO. 4. TYPE OF 5. CONTROL NO.
EMW-2004-FG-06336 0 41-6005490 ACTION W397589N
AWARD
6. RECIPIENT NAME AND 7. ISSUING OFFICE AND ADDRESS 8. PAYMENT OFFICE AND ADDRESS
ADDRESS ODP/Financial and Grants Management Division OOPlFinancial Services Branch
Richfield Fire Department 500 C Street, S.W., Room 350 500 C Street, S. W., Room 723
6700 Portland Ave. S. Washington DC, 20472 Washington DC, 20472
Richfield POC: Christine Torres 202-646-4298
Minnesota, 55423-2560
9. NAME OF RECIPIENT PHONE NO. 10. NAME OF PROJECT COORDINATOR PHONE NO.
PROJECT OFFICER 612-243-4501 Tom Harrington (202) 307-2790
Brad Sveum ~
11. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 12. METHOD OF PAYMENT 13. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT 14. PERFORMANCE PERIOD
THIS ACTION SF-270 Cost Sharing From:10-FEB-05To:09-FEB-06
10-FEB-OS
Budget Period
From:01-OCT-04To:30-SE P-05
AFG 97.044 2005-62-0364RE-63000000-4101-R $0.00 $145,787.00 $145,787.00 $16,198.00
TOTALS $0.00 $145,787.00 $145,787.00 $16,198.00
b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here.
N/A
16 a. FOR NON-DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT iS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS
DOCUMENT TO FEMA (See Block 7 for address)
15. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
a. (indicate funding data for awards or financia{ changes)
PROGRAM CFDA NO. ACCOUNTING DATA PRIOR AMOUNT CURRENT CUMMULATIVE
NAME (AACS CODE) TOTAL AWARDED TOTAL NON-
ACRONYM XXXX-XXX-XXXXXX-XXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-X AWARD THIS ACTION AWARD FEDERAL
+ OR (-) COMMITMENT
Assistance to Firefighters Grant -Fire Prevention and Safety Program recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this
document. However, recipients should print and keep a copy of this document for their records.
16b. FOR DISASTER Pf20GRAMS: RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN
This assistance is subject to terms and conditions attached to this award notice or by incorporated reference in program legislation cited
above.
i7. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
N/A
18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
Christine Torres
Go Back "
i1~11~~~~ y
DATE
NIA
DATE
09-FEB-05
2/18/2005 9:02 AN
F~
AGENDA SECTION: consent
AGENDA ITEM # 5D
REPORT # 9$
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory
munici alit tort liabilit
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
IL BACKGROUND
The City purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating
municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This
action must be taken before July 1 of each year.
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000
occurrence limit or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is
purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess
liability insurance.
0524 Tort Liability
Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is historically true of
slightly more than half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to
purchase excess liability coverage for the past several years.
The cost of excess liability insurance has. been, and continues to be very expensive.
An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost in excess of $55,000 annually.
Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess
of the statutory $1,000,000 cap.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities at the current
$1,000,000 level was established fairly recently and appears to be a
reasonable limit.
Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the
monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes
466.04.
• The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years if a decision was
made to do so.
• The City Council may also wish to further consider purchasing excess liability
in the future. If this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust will renew on July 1, 2005. This action must be completed on, or
before that time.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of
the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage
would be between $55,000 and $65,000 if the City does not waive its liability
limits.
D. LEGAL
• The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protected
cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary
award in excess of the statutory limits against a municipality.
• Each city must annually decide whether the City would voluntarily waive the
statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the
$300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate,
the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the
limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for
Minnesota cities; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each
city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive
it's limits; and
WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report
to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not.
waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes
466.04.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ~,r
REPORT # R 7
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ^ /
REVIEW: ~~"
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority to call a
public hearing on the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Pro'ect Area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing a public
hearing by the City Council on the proposed adoption of a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area.
II. BACKGROUND
• The current Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
(Plan) is in need of revision in order to incorporate the Cedar Point project
(Project) into the Plan.
• On May 16, 2005, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
approved a resolution requesting the City Council to take certain actions with
respect to the Modification of a Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area.
The HRA also proposed to refer the Plan to the Planning Commission to
052405_C a I I P H C e d a r P t
determine consistency with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
• Dan Cornejo of Cornejo Consulting was authorized by the HRA (also on May 16.
2005) to render certain professional technical services related to the plan
modification.
• It is appropriate for the City Council to call for a public hearing on this matter for
their regular meeting on June 14, 2005.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statutes require that modifications to redevelopment plans
undergo a public hearing.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The modification to the redevelopment plan needs to be in place
before the developer of the Cedar Point project can proceed with
acquisitions in the area.
• A public hearing by the City Council is proposed for June 14, 2004.
• The Planning Commission has been requested to hold a special
meeting on June 13, 2005 in conjunction with an already scheduled
study session to make a finding of consistency of the Plan to the city's
Comprehensive Plan.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel has been working with staff on this matter and has
prepared the attached resolution.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not call for a public hearing on this matter at this time and direct staff on
alternative procedures. However, the developer of Cedar Point will be held
back from moving forward with site assembly or other critical actions until the
redevelopment plan is revised.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on June 14, 2005, at
approximately 6:30 PM, to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, all
pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469, in an effort to
encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the
City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and
directed to work with Cornejo Consulting to prepare a Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Community Development Director
is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map
as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not
later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to June 14, 2005, and to place a copy of the
Plan on file in the Community Development Department at City Hall and to make such
copy available for inspection by the public.
2005.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May,
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
052405_Ca II P H CedarPt
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
Consent
6B
96
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 6333 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking
permit at 6333 Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The applicant, Chip Heads, currently of 6417 Lyndale Avenue, is the
proposed owner of 6333 Penn Avenue pending the outcome of the City
Council's decision of the off-street parking permit. The applicants are
requesting an off-street parking permit for a computer repair store.
• Chip Heads has been in Richfield for nine years and this location better
serves their business.
• The location is zoned `C-2' General Commercial District. A computer repair
store is an allowed use.
The site currently contains one building and is currently vacant and has been
since June 2004.
• Chip Heads is proposing to relocate their business to this location. The
business has three employees that "come and go" frequently. They also
052405-OSP-6333Penn
have customers stop by to drop off computers for repair.. Chip Heads stated
they have an average of two to three customers coming to the store per day.
• City parking standards indicate a computer repair store is to have one space
per 250 square feet of gross floor area or five parking spaces.
• The site currently contains four parking spaces. The applicant will be paving
an area on the south side and rear of the building for an additional paved
parking space. This paved space will be the fifth parking space and will be
used by an employee.
The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff.
The following matters were addressed.
• The site can accommodate five spaces; four in front and one at the rear.
• The maximum impervious surface standard for this lot is 85%. Currently the
lot is at 74%.
• Currently the landscaping of the site meets the City's landscape standards.
The applicant will be maintaining the landscape areas including the
preserving of the large oak tree in the rear of the property.
• The parking lot does not meet setback requirements. City standards require
a minimum three-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of-ways
(boulevards); however, such a setback would make it impossible to utilize
parking at the front of the building. The parking spaces in the front of the
building will not require a Boulevard Feature Permit since the spaces will not
be located within the boulevard.
Under Section 800 of the City Code the City Council has the discretion to
determine-the number of off-street parking spaces. The five spaces meet the
standard. The parking standards include both customer and employee
parking, there are not separate standards. The use does not have a large
customer base coming to the store. This is not a typical retail use and it has
a small staff.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in
City Code Section 800.17, and authorize the City Council to issue a
permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have
an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the
community..
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Staffs recommendation is to grant an off-street parking permit with the
following stipulations:
a). Provide four striped parking spaces in front of the building
and one space to the south and rear of the building.
The space at the rear is for employee parking only.
b). Additional occupancies, which require off-street
parking, are prohibited.
c). That all landscaping is maintained and not be unsightly in
appearance or in a state of disrepair. The landscaped area
in the front of the building must be weeded, trimmed,
and additional bedding rock added.
d). That all parking spaces be accessible year round.
e). The graffiti on the north wall be removed, not covered by
paint.
f). Scrap and re-paint the wheel stop (curb) at the edge
of the landscaped area.
g). Remove leaf bags from the rear of the building.
h). Scrap and re-paint the signpost and remove two metal
bands located below the reader board.
i). Clean the outside of the reader board sign to
improve appearance.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
received on May 3, 2005. A decision must be given to the applicant
by July 7, 2005, OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is
extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120
days total) for issuing a decision.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the
proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as
a whole.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
Photos of the site
• Site plan
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Chuck Whitney,(Chip Heads) applicant
• Nick Carmichael, (Welsh Company) applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 6333 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6333 Penn
Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 14, Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition.
WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street
parking permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That an off-street parking permit is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in
the site plan entitled "6333 Penn Avenue Proposed Site Plan", which provides for five
off-street parking spaces.
2. Additional occupancies, which require off-street parking, are prohibited.
3. All landscaping must be maintained, and not be unsightly in appearance or in a state of
disrepair. The landscaped area in front of the building needs to be weeded, trimmed,
and additional bedding rock added.
4. All parking spaces are accessible year round.
5. The graffiti on the north wall be removed, not just painted over.
6. Scrap and re-paint the wheel stop (curb) at the edge of the landscaped area.
7. Remove leaf bags from the rear of the budding.
8. Scrap and re-paint the signpost and remove two metal bands located below reader
board.
9. Clean the outside of the reader board to improve appearance.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
l~3 33 I~~nrt ~ve. 1 roPcsed 5i~e (~0.Y1
_ .,
6333 Penn Ave So, •Richfield,, Minnesota 55423
1"= 20 feet
~ Denotes iron mo°nument II ~ '
• 1 Building No. 6325
I
~.•ar9e. ~yalc,kr~-
r
yi, s
--r ~ ~.~'
~,a .l~ fZ6;33 ~~
:" ~
. .•'.
O,
I . 'r' ~O
b '/
a•
~ `~ ;,
`4
• r[;~~ t •
:
I
~
'
• ~
~•
~.~~' ..r.~•
.......: :.v:.:.:.::.:.:: .:::.:::
~:,,
ff~:•E)f~
~1
...
t r
•~~
Building No. 6333 Arc ~' I Sserirer
eh ~'.•f.•' h1 .;0: ~:•:{•}:•:• ~:i•: ~ :•}:• yb tC~~ .0.6 aaC ~N. ~Mln(j~ ~` ~ ~
b~' 26.?d '
l.°eta~ion
--~ ~1~.~
r---`Y
b o~
~ I pav
Building N
.
I ` 6 3 3 7 ~
~, n~ s ~ac2.
,L, ', 1.
.o'• +
Grass Ptre_o~..
3
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # E)A
REPORT # 9 5
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution approving the summary legal notice for the ordinance
amendment creatin the new re ulations for rivate drivewa s.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the summary
publication of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield Zoning Code
Section 506.07 Subdivision 79 and 521.05 Subdivision 11 and Section
521.21 Subdivision 10, and Section 521.41 Subdivision 10 to create
new regulations for private driveways.
II. BACKGROUND
Chapter 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter authorizes the City to publish an
ordinance by title and summary in certain circumstances. The primary
circumstance for which a summary publication is intended is lengthy ordinances,
which would result in costly publication charges. Such publications are not deemed
cost effective.
To forego the publication of the entire ordinance, the City Council must determine
that a summary of the ordinance would clearly inform the public of the intent and
052405- S u m m a ry P u b l i ca d o n_D r i vewa y 0 rd i n a n ce
effect of the ordinance. The summary must then be approved by a City Council
resolution.
The ordinance creating the new regulations for private driveways was considered by
the Council on May 10, 2005. It is an example of an ordinance that could be
summarized rather than published in its entirety. Therefore, a resolution and
ordinance summary has been prepared for City Council consideration.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City uses Charter authority to publish ordinance summaries where
such summary publications meet the requirements of the Charter.
• The adopted ordinance creating new regulations for driveways would
cost $386.00 to publish.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Unanimous consent from the Council is required for approval.
• The resolution indicates availability of the complete ordinance.
C. FINANCIAL
• The summary publication will cost $42.00 to publish, versus $386.00 for
the complete publication, for a cost savings to the City of $344.00.
D. .LEGAL
• The authority to do summary publications is provided in the Richfield City
Charter: Section 3.12, Manner of Publication of Ordinances. if the City
Council determines that publication of the complete text of an ordinance
is not worth the expense and that a summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, the Council may by a
unanimous vote direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary
be published with notice that printed copies of the ordinance are
available to any person during regular office hours at the office of the
City Clerk and any other location which the Council designates: Prior to
the publication of the title and summary, the Council shall approve the
text of the summary and, determine that it clearly informs the public of the
intent and effect of the ordinance. (Amended Bill 1981-33).
• Legal counsel has opined that the summaries meet Charter
requirements.
~ 1V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ ~
.sect the recomme
ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution approving
private driveways.
re the full ordinance be published.
e summary publication of the new regulations for
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 506.07 SUBDIVISION 79, SECTION 521.05 SUBDIVISION
11, AND SECTION 521.21 SUBDIVISION 10, AND SECTION 521.41 SUBDIVISION 10
OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO NEW REGULATIONS FOR
PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendments to the
Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. 2005-8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 506.07 SUBDIVISION 9, SECTION
521.05 SUBDIVISION 11, AND SECTION 521.21 SUBDIVISION 10, AND SECTION
521.41. SUBDIVISION 10 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO NEW
REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD.
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
The purpose of this ordinance is to improve the private driveway requirements in the
"R" Single-Family Residential District, "R-1" Low-Density Single Family Residential District,
and the "MR-1"Two-Family Residential District to allow for turnaround areas for properties
along arterial and collector streets and to reduce the amount of impervious surface in the
front yard of properties for driveways.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May,
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: presentations
AGENDA ITEM # 3
REPORT # 94
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 24, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal
ear ended December 31, 2004.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the
City for the year ended December 31, 2004.
II. BACKGROUND
The City's auditing firm, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., has completed the annual
audit of the City's financial records for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. A
representative of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is present tonight to make a brief-
presentation on the 2004 financial information and answer. questions.
In addition, the CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota pursuant to State
law and to the Government Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
0525CAFR
A. POLICY
• Action to be taken at the May 24, 2005 City Council meeting is the
official receipt of the December 31, 2004 City of Richfield
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the City Council.
• The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial
records for the year ended December 31, 2004 and prepared reports
to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Action on this item is requested at the May 24, 2005 City Council "
meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to
State law.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanations of their
findings at a future Study Session.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Tom Hodnefield, Officer, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd.