Loading...
05-10-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS 5~~~~~ 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 April 26, 2005;- (2) Regular City Council Meeting of April 26, 2005; and (3) Special City Council Worksession of April 26, 2005 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by I-494 Commuter Services 2. Annual meeting with Advisory Board of Health 3. Presentation of proclamation designating May 21, 2005 as Richfield History Day 4. Presentation of proclamation designating May 15-21, 2005 as Small Business Week in Richfield 5. Presentation of proclamation designating May 15-21, 2005 as National Police Week in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION 6. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution assigning professional services agreement with Conworth, Inc. for land acquisition services related to Cedar Point Project to Richfield HRA S.R. No. 86 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield Public Safety Department to participate jointly with Minnesota State Patrol in agreement with and acceptance of grant funds not to exceed $400 from State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, to pay overtime to officers involved in Operation NightCAP S.R. No. 87 _ C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety Department acceptance of $2,000 donation from Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union to be used by Police Division S.R .No. 88 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of $88,200 in grant funds from Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division to purchase 800 MHz radio equipment S.R. No. 89 E. Consideration of approval of revision to contract with Orfield Laboratories contract for additional $5,500 for creation of summary document of completed design standards for low frequency noise compatible construction in 87 dB area S.R. No. 90 Notes: 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 10. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Section 506.07, Subd. 79; Section 521.05, Subd. 11; Section 521.21, Subd. 10; and Section 521.41 Subd. 10 to create new regulations for private driveways in single family residential, low density single family residential and two family residential zoning districts Staff Report No. 91 Notes: RESOLUTION 11. Consideration of resolution regarding off-street parking permit for 7709 Pillsbury Avenue (continued from April 26, 2005) Notes: Staff Report No. 92 OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of new taxi license for Morelos Taxi, 3909 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN Notes: Staff Report No. 93 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 13. City Manager's report Notes: 14. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed. after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 15. Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room regarding attorney-client discussion of potential litigation against Minnesota Department of Public Safety 16. Consideration of potential litigation against Minnesota Department of Public Safety Adjournment of Regular City Council Meeting Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 93 ~. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 ' BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~. REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new taxi license for Morelos Taxi, 3909 Fifth Avenue South, Minnea olis. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny the request for a new taxi license for Morelos Taxi, 3909 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis. II. BACKGROUND On April 11, 2005, the City received an application for a new taxi license for Morelos Taxi. The required fees have been paid. The applicant is the co-owner of the business. At the present time, there will be three licensed vehicles. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Rafael Miguel Gutierrez Saavedra is a co-owner of the business. He has no known criminal record; however, his driving record indicates he pled guilty to driving under the influence on August 26, 1997. In addition to this, he was driving after 0510 Morelos Taxi New License withdrawal on March 8, 1998. His driving privileges were reinstated on June 19, 1998. The following are violations that appear on his driving record: August 26, 1997 Driving while under the influence March 8, 1998 Driving after withdrawal November 15, 1998 Fail to obey sign September 22, 1999 Improper address on driver license March 28, 2000 Fail to obey semaphore Alberto Onofre Sanchez is a co-owner of the business. He has no known criminal record; however, the following are violations that appear on his driving record: July 5, 1997 Speed January 19, 1999 Speed November 19, 2001 Suspension -fail to appear or pay fines The certificate of liability insurance has been submitted for two of the three vehicles showing American Country Insurance affording the coverage. The third vehicle insurance will be submitted as soon as possible. At the present time, the number of vehicles that will be operating in Richfield will not exceed three; however, there is a possibility new vehicles could be added. The drivers of the three vehicles all have current taxi driver licenses for the City of Richfield. The applicant has supplied the information regarding the make, body style and year of the vehicles to be operated and agrees to supply this information for any added vehicles in the future, as well as pay additional fees for additional vehicles making pick-ups within the City of Richfield.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1~. hOLICY • Fees have been paid and insurance information supplied, with the exception of one vehicle needing insurance verification. B. CxITICAL IssUEs • Three vehicles are currently listed on the application to be licensed as taxicabs. Therefore, no additional vehicles will be allowed to pick up patrons in the City without first obtaining the appropriate license. • The City is waiting on insurance information for one of these vehicles. Future vehicles could be added to the license, providing that the proper paperwork has been completed, fees paid, and proof of current liability insurance submitted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for a new taxi company license for Morelos Taxi. This would mean that the applicant could not pick up fares within the City of Richfield. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rafael Miguel Gutierrez Saavedra, owner/operator • Alberto Onofre Sanchez, owner/operator (iv) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and (v) upon .written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of necessity and public convenience. > , ~ fl any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, turnaround area or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit. # g) any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3) h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front yard subiect to the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is limited to the front yard of arterial and collector streets only. The turnaround area can not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to the driveway. Sec. 4 Section 521.41, Subdivision 10 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 521.41, Subdivision 10. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks provided the following conditions are met: a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas. and sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a finding of necessity and public convenience; b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas. and sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director; vvm~h/ \A/i+h ~t~e fnll/•\\A/Iran 4.+hlo• 4 ~~~~ ^MMwwww IA/i~Fhir~ 4h~CTr~rs~~ ~Q ~.a-rcrr~--res~ : ~~i Jr 7G f°°~• Ate. 0~ no parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area d) , ;within the front yard area vehicles shall only be parked on the driveway area e) driveways, where located within the boulevard the front yard area, are subject to the following requirements: (i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of the front yard area (curb cut radii excluded); (ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of abutting properties; (iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect; (iv) only one curb cut per dwelling unit shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut per dwelling unit from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and (v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of necessity and public convenience. ~ ~ any expansion or installation of a driveway,. parking area, or sidewalk shall be subject to a City permit. 5 # g~ any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3) h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front yard subject to the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is limited to the front yard of arterial and collector streets only The turnaround area can not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to the dnveway. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of May, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # I 1 REPORT # 92 NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 7709 Pillsbury Avenue. Continued from A ril 26, 2005 . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking ermit at 7709 Pillsbu Avenue. II. BACKGROUND • The off-street parking permit request was continued from the April 26, 2005, City Council meeting in order for staff to develop a revised plan. • The applicants, Bill and Linda Kerker, are the proposed owners of 7709 Pillsbury 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 residential landscape contractor's office and outside storage for Kerker Incorporated. • The location is zoned `C-2' General Commercial District. A landscape contractor's office is allowed. • The site currently contains one building with two additional tenants. 051005-OSP-7709Pi I Isbu ry • Midwest Auto Damage Appraisers and Secret Auto Body are the other two tenants in the building. Secret Auto Body will be vacating on June 21, 2005. One person works part-time in the body shop. • Midwest Auto Damage Appraisers is a permitted use. They operate with a staff of nine people, three employees work in the office. The other six are appraisers and "come and go" frequently. Clients do not come to the office. According to the parking standards an office use such as this needs ten parking spaces. They will remain in~the building and require an off-street parking permit. The operator has been notified of this requirement. • For the Kerker business, the employees go directly to the job site. On occasion three to four employees may go to the office to pick up equipment. The office will be occupied irregularly at the most by four people. • City parking standards indicate a landscape contractor's office is to have one space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Clients do not come to the office; the applicant goes to the job site to meet with the client and complete paperwork. The standards state they should have four parking spaces. With both users parking standards state 14 spaces are needed. The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff. The following matters were addressed. • The site cannot accommodate 14 spaces. • Currently the landscaping of the site does not adequately meet the City's landscape standards.. The entire lot is paved. The applicant will be adding landscaped planting beds to the front of the building. The far north parking space will be converted into a landscaped area as well. The applicant will submit to the Director of Community Development a proposed landscape plan for this area. • 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. Due to these constraints a Boulevard Feature Permit is needed for the applicant to provide sufficient striping and adequately sized parking spaces. • It would be necessary for the applicant to secure five off site/off street parking spaces from a neighboring property that has an excess of approved parking spaces. • Five spaces maybe provided in front of the building. Four spaces maybe provided on the south side of the building. Three additional spaces could be provided at the rear. However, that would leave the applicant with no on site storage space for landscape material. • Under Section 800 of the City Code the City Council has the discretion to determine the number of off-street parking spaces. Staff recommends 11 spaces. That would require two off-site off-street parking spaces if the applicant needs the on-site space at the rear for storage. The standards which state a need for 14 spaces should not be applied in this situation. Neither use has customers coming to their office. These are not typical office uses. Both uses have a small core of daily office staff. Other employees are in and out of the office daily. • The applicant would like to comment to the City Council on the number of required parking spaces. 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 five striped parking spaces in front of the building; four striped spaces to the south of the building, and two off--site/off-street - parking spaces in a parking facility which is officially authorized by the City that are convenient and within the Pillsbury/VI/entworth block. b) That the security gate remain open during working hours and are secured during non-working hours. c) That all parking spaces be accessible year round. d) Provide 294 square feet of landscaped area to be completed by October 15, 2005, with a plan subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. e) Completion of a Boulevard Feature permit. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL - • 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was received on March 30, 2005. A decision must be given to the applicant by May 27, 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. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl • ueny 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. • Increase/decrease the numberof off-site/off-site parking spaces. I V . ATTACHMENTS I • KeSOIUtIOn • Zoning Chart • Aerial photo • Site plans VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • ~slll ana ~Inga Kerker, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 7709 PILLSBURY 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 7709 Pillsbury Avenue, legally described as: SOUTH 75 FEET FRONT AND REAR OF LOT 6, BLOCK 5, R.C. SOEN'S ADDITION, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. 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 for 7709 Pillsbury Avenue is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the "Proposed" site plan entitled "Kerker Inc.", which provides for 11 off-street parking spaces. 2. All landscaping must be completed by October 15, 2005 based on a plan reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 3. All landscaping, screening, and fences shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly in appearance or in a state of disrepair. 4. Approval of a Boulevard Feature Permit by Public Works. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10h day of May 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Do ~ c~i ~• ~ n. ~ o ,~ c~~~ Q O ~. C7 ~ Q. ~ O nm ~ N c~ o ~ N~ .-t n (D O ~ ,.F O 3 ~. ~ ¢;. O p ~ ~ O (D 3 3 ~ ~ ~ O n ~ ~ C "'~-~ ~ O 3 n (D . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (D 3 ~ ~. (D ~ (D Q N. ~ N ~ n ~~ ~ o o ~~ ~ ~ ~' O ~ ~ O ~ o'o ~~~ ~m~ ,~-~• ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ 3 ~,: ,~ oa~o -a n. 3 ?~;'o ,m cn~G cn ~?. ~ ~u ~ gin' cu ~ _ ~ O ~a .a m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c m ~ ~~ ~' c ~ c ~ U O n N N ~ 'G ` N N ~ d 3 ~ cn ~ O -v 7o D ~ ~ v? ao ~ a (~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. O N O ~ N ~ O 3. ~ ~ ~ < X ~. ~. ~. (D O n ~ m n m Q ~ (D w m 0 O ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~. r N c ~~ c 3 ~ ~ c o ~ N ~ ~ y ~ D N ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ m ~ a N O O ~ ~ ~ O N N_: ~ O O O '~ ' O fl ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ A~ p ~ : ~ ~ ~ (D ~ Q ~ O ( y (D ~ ~ ~f ~ • ~ Q 0' A~ 3 N ~ ~ O ~ n ~ N o N ~ ~ ~ ~• N ~ o N N CA -p O ' ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ (Q N (D O N ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ m m '~ N ~~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~..f n O ~v~~' ~ " c ' a?~ cn ~ ~ o cn ~ cn N `~ m 3 ~ ~' o ~ O ~ o O ~~ O m o < o ~ N N W u i ~ mn~m in ~0~ j 0 V C) A N ~ N ,i (D ~N N ~ O o m D N U7 O ~ 0 N ~ N C O N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ rn ~ ~N ~~ ~ ~~ N. ~ . . ~ O _ ~ . ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~ D ~ °- °' 0 ~ ~Q c~~ ~ '~ ~° m ° ~ 00 _ ~• o ~x o 0 0~ :gym -• ~ ~ ~ .. ° m ~ O N ~ ~ o ~ ~ .-+ N N ~v ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ m .. m .. ~ ~' Z ~~ .i (fl ~ w j ~` 3 _ O~N ~ j 3~ cncooco °° i g~ m x s N ~ Z ~ A N N ~ ~ 1 w N 1 o ~ j v ~ ~ n N Q ~ O O Qnn (Q O cD O O O ~ ~ O ~ Z o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o N ~pC Q~(n N ~_ N N (A ~ ~ ~~~~ m Z I a ~ ~ ~ m ~ o 0 0 6 ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~~~~ ~ i ~ o~ a m a m ~ ~~ ~ ~3 ~ . ~ o o ~ 3 0 u~ ~ m m ~ ~ _ ~ '~ ~' m o ~~~~~ ~~~ m ~ Q ~3~ ~~c ~ . r:~ c m r:m i m~'mnm~ _n N~.~ ~ ~~ .10 Q~ ~ N W ~ ~ N'p ~ Q.C oQ ~ N ~ a1 n ~..h n n o Z Z Z C ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (D i~ V (~ ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ O cD ~~ t O O O ~~ a D vcco~ O O O ~ X 3 3 ~' ~ ~ ~ ? O O ~ ~ O O 'r1~ ~ p~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ j ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (D N cn -m QQ ~~ ~ v, ~o i o~v° m m m ` m ~o~. m m m mO~ m i ~ ~,~o'~ce° - ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~, ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ O~ 3 m d in s x ~ N ~ m c° ~ . m N • ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~, (D . . ~ ~ ~ o ~ cQ ~n (D 7709 Pillsbury Avenue N .~,.~ ~f;,4'~ w 1:; $: 3 i ~ m ~~ r ~ ~ °• ~ tv~Qv f 1 ~ ! i , s: J ~ .., ~ i ~ ~ I ~ Z ~ ~ II L 1 • - _ - ,~ - g ~ ~ ~: i ~ ~ ~ ~, J ~ lJ 7. ~ I i ~ ~ _;,.>. ~ ~ - L- AI'ki~ is hc~- 5~ripEc~ .u ,~ ~ 7 ._ 6 ~ ~ ~N~ Fjou~@Varc~ ~ ~~ ~1~' - i- -- _... _...- - ----...._--- 4 -•--- J L N Z ~: ~, L ^~/~ bi• Y 4 V y e`"1- . ~ ® v 1 y V w~ ~~ fib Q A L~ ~ J v ,.tj W d Q' r ,' ~ _.w•e ` t SFY?atF "~~" :S 6 ~c~e~ ~s. ~rlt rd ~ : f Q a . ? p p FP r fl "t ~ f~ ~' ~ a o) ! F f~,o3 ~~,~~~~,~ :~ ~ I~q ~? F ,~ s fh ~S~fl' fi ,4n, 2 +~J ,~ ~~ .'N kf: y~'g C~73~t . ~ ~ Tom. ~ ~. ~ . ~ n~Gr~'e c~ :... ' - ~ ~' . 5 ~~ `,, P S Q z ~ o ~- ~ ~, ~~~~ ~; 0 ~: AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # g 1 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506 and 521 to create new regulations for private driveways in the R, R-1, and MR-1 Zoning Districts I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendments 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 • In 2004 the Richfield City Council requested that staff review the front-yard parking regulations within the City. • There have been concerns from City Council as well as citizens regarding what many believe to be the excessive amount of paving and vehicles in the front yards of residential properties. • The issue of pavement in front yards is particularly common along major streets in the City where on-street parking is prohibited. • In 2004 a moratorium was placed on the issuance of driveway permits so a study could be conducted involving a review of the City's current zoning and parking regulations. The goal of this study was to determine the most appropriate amendments to the regulations relating to front yard parking. • During the study phase it was determined that current standards are too lenient and that revisions are required. • The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and City Code should offer residents adequate driveway and turnaround space. • During the study period it was also determined that there were additional areas of . the Zoning and City Code that needed to be reviewed. Staff plans to address these issues in incremental phases. The phases include looking at the following: • Outside storage of vehicles 0 including recreational and commercial • Enforcement of existing front yard parking that is not in compliance with the proposed changes. • Permitted driveway construction materials (gravel, asphalt, etc.) • Maximum impervious surface requirements • Community Development staff has also worked with the Inspections Division to create driveway requirements for the front-yard parking ordinance. These recommended requirements are also included in the attached resolution providing amendments to the City's Ordinances. • The Planning Commission did not make any changes in the proposed language changes. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to send the proposed ordinance changes to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. Summary of recommended land-use regulations and licensing requirements. The recommended revisions to the City's Zoning Code can be summarized as follows: Zoning. a) The proposed changes define turnaround areas and include such areas within the existing zoning regulations for private.driveway uses. Turnaround areas would only be allowed on parcels that are located along arterials and collector streets. A turnaround area is also only allowed for vehicle maneuvers and not for the parking of vehicles. b) Additional zoning requirements were revised and include the permitted location of parked vehicles on a driveway and allowed lot coverage in the front yard. Public Safety and Licensing_ a) The permitting process for driveway permits will not change under this proposed code revision. The changes to the Code will allow for easier interpretation and enforcement of the driveway standards. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council referred this issue to staff for study and a recommendation. in October, 2004. • The recommended ordinance amendment will create a definition for turnaround areas and provide zoning regulations for driveways in the R, R-1, and MR-1 zoning districts. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Regulations for driveway uses are necessary to provide reasonable controls for such uses to insure public health, safety, and welfare. • The City Attorney has reviewed and approved these proposed amendments to the City's Code. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: This ordinance amendment creates land-use controls for Driveways, parking areas, and turnaround areas, in the R, R-1, and MR-1 zoning districts. Land Use: R, R-1, MR-1 Comprehensive Plan: N/A Notification: Notification for the City Council public hearing on this proposed Zoning Code amendment will be provided as by State Statute and City .requirements. Other Actions: Council: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments at its March 28, 2005 meeting. First reading was approved by the Council, April 12, 2005. If the City Council adopts the recommended changes, they will take effect 30 days after the approved Council resolution is posted in the Sun Current newspaper. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject the motion to amend Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506.07 Subdivision 79 and 521.05 Subdivision 11, 521.21 Subdivision 10, 521.41, Subdivision 10 to create zoning regulations for driveway related to create new requirements for driveways, parking areas, and turnaround areas. • Delay action until a future meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Code References: Draft of proposed amendments to Zoning Code Sections 506.07 Subdivision 79 and 521.05 Subdivision 11, 521.21, Subdivision 10, and 521.41, Subdivision 10. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Persons interested in zoning and land-use regulations. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 506.07, SUBDIVISION 79; SECTION 521.05, SUBDIVISION 11; SECTION 521.21, SUBDIVISION 10; AND SECTION 521.41 SUBDIVISION 10 THE CITY.OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Section 506.07, of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding new subdivision after subdivision 78, the new subdivision to read as follows, and by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly. Subd. 79. "Turnaround area" - An area used for vehicle maneuvers. Sec. 2. Section 521.05, Subdivision 11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 521.05, Subdivision 11. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks for residential uses, provided. the following conditions are met: a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas. and sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a finding of necessity and public convenience; b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas. and sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director; c+h.+ll he C,(10% ~r ~ G:C.fI cn~ ~.~rr\ ~f..r.+ ...L.:..4........- : 1....... e ~rH~ IA/i~hir~ 4he Cr~r~4 V ri•/ idea F(1 ~feno+Tr nr 1~.~.~ /~Q~~II TTI~rTGT ~~~' ~ -RT/V -~-~nv~e°+: ~.~ of -~ c) no parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area. n ~ v~nJ ~r°~ nn rv~nr° +h.~r~ ~hr°° n.~rLir~n c•r~.+~a.n nh..ll L... c~LYli~-ti~l~-li-e~}r~~ara-crrcu~ rroTrtvr~mzarrcrn uGC~~ttaYt~lC ~n ~ m i#°rJ _ +h ~aTC°r'c~ve•cov °y °Trc°u~~'ui a~~~ ' Ica~a rnra-+crhr~~c'v°c°,+ `~ h'~ I lurr""wcmi ;within the front yard area, vehicles shall only be parked on the drivewav area. e) driveways, where located within the boulevard or the front vard area, are subject to the following requirements: (i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of the front yard area (curb cut radii excluded); (ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of abutting properties; (iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the. point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect; (iv) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and (v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of necessity and public convenience. fl rlri~i°~eiwe r+~rltinn ~r°~c~ ~r~iJ c~ii-1°~~i.+ILe. L.r...ll.. ~...:..~:..... .. .. L...t...... '/ ~ s ,~~ X0`2 m~~i nnr+}ir~~ ~° fn °vic++ .+r,.J ~.. 6... .- .-...J .....J s f ~ s ~ e , f~any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, turnaround area. or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit. g~ Any expansion, installation ~or replacement of a curb cut from a public street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3) h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front vard subiect to the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is limited to the front vard of arterial and collector streets only. The turnaround area can not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to the drivewav. 2 Sec. 3 Section 521.21, Subdivision 10 is of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 521.21, Subdivision 10. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas and sidewalks provided the following conditions are met: a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas. and sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a finding of necessity and public convenience; b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director; --! ~E lea b.lyl +DOt-ter 10~.~: C(10/ ~~-,--?z,Tc~±; ~ poi v~o -~sn foo+: --- c) no parking area shall be permitted in the front vard area. d) , F~e~iii°ci~-tl~e-af~t~v fi~i e{~--ea(`7r~i--~e-~•4 ICI ,nn~}~hTr~ c~+rec4 e.h II ;within the front yard area, vehicles shall only be parked on the driveway area. e) driveways, where located within the boulevard the front vard area, are subject to the following requirements: (i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of the front vard area (curb cut radii excluded); (ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of abutting properties; (iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect; 3 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $$ REPORT # 90 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Revision to Orfield Laboratories contract, approved October 12, 2004, for an additional $5,500 for the purpose of developing a summary document of the completed low frequency noise desi n standards. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve the terms of a proposed revision to the original contract with Orfield Laboratories for the creation of a summary document of the completed design standards for low frequency noise-compatible construction in the 87dB area. II. BACKGROUND • In 2002, the City received a grant from the Metropolitan Council to partially pay for consulting services to develop design and construction materials criteria for construction in the 87dB area. • The contract proposed by Orfield Laboratories was approved by the Richfield City Council on October 12, 2004. (The consultant hired initially did not perform.) • The Council approved an addendum to the contract on January 11, 2005 providing for additional meetings between the consultant, the City and potential developers. 051005 Orfield Labs Contract Addendum 2 • The consultant has completed sound standards for low-frequency noise- compatible construction in the Cedar Corridor. Initial reviews of the standards with City staff and developers indicate that a summary document of the standards is needed. • The sound standards also indicate that testing will be necessary following construction to ensure that construction standards actually chosen by developers meet the established criteria. • The summary document will be three to five pages in length and provide developers and contractors with a general overview of the acoustical criteria and standards for the testing that will be required to address sound attenuation in the Cedar Corridor. In addition, a list of qualified testing companies will be included. • The summary document is intended for distribution to developers and contractors and will be written in an explanatory manner. • One additional meeting with the consultant is also included in the proposed cost. III. BASIS OF .RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The 87dB area has been identified as an area in which impacts from low frequency noise will be significant. Existing buildings have not been constructed in such a manner as to adequately mitigate the impacts. It is necessary to construct new buildings according to sound-specific standards. These standards must be clearly conveyed to potential developers. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Orfield Laboratories has provided the necessary standards and is capable of providing the requested summary document. • Proposed construction methods will need to be tested to ensure compliance with proposed noise standards. Standards for that testing are needed. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of the proposed revision is $5,500. • The cost of the approved contract was $35,000. The cost of the first addendum was $4,420 for a total of $44,920. • A grant of $20,000 was received from the Metropolitan Council. The grant must be expended by the end of 2005. • The Housing & Redevelopment Authority has funds to cover the expenses which exceed the grant amount in the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment area and Cedar Point budgets. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the revision allowing for the development of a summary document. V. ATTACHMENTS • Revision to the Contract Approved October 12, 2004 with Orfield Laboratories (See Phase V for revision). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • NA REVISED CONTRACT March 22, 2005 Orfield Laboratories Inc oes~gn gco~st/'4es`0~~c cs / ~b h ~~stj0 dbo~ 9 ~%so ~~ i 9, c ~ ~~ O ~ o ~G f~ N ~ m f m ~ ~ o~ PREPARED FOR Ms. Catherine Geisen-Kisch Community Development Coordinator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: (612) 891-9758 Fax: (612) 861-8974 PROJECT Low-Frequency Noise-Compatible Construction PREPARED BY Mr. Derrick Knight, Consultant Orfield Laboratories, Inc. 2709 East 25th Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 Email: steve@orfieldlabs.com Phone: (612) 721-2455 Fax: (612) 721-2457 ~; 9s~~' 9 Client City of Richfield PROJECT INTENT The intent of this .project is to provide the City of Richfield with design criteria documentation that addresses the need for new aircraft noise construction standards near the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. In order to provide this documentation in a clear and useful manor, the following phases are proposed. Phase I -Measurement and Recording [COMPLETED] A site will be selected for measurement and recording which is similar in distance and other conditions from a current runway to the proposed development in relation to the north-south runway under construction. This simulation site will provide detailed, event-based acoustic information which will help determine the necessary degree of sound attenuation which should be provided by building facades at the development site in order to provide significant interior-to-exterior reductions. Recordings of aircraft ground noise and aircraft overflights will also allow the simulation of building facade effectiveness and be presented either over headphones or at OL. Phase II -Develop of Sound Standards Documentation [COMPLETED] After analyzing the measurement results and reviewing the projected site noise, acoustic standards for two classes of residential facades and one class of commercial facade will be developed. General practices to achieve the criteria will be provided as examples. The documentation (provided as a final project deliverable to the City of Richfield in hard and soft copy) is intended to be distributed to developers and will set a standard to provide conditions more conducive to residential and commercial activities. These standards will include required testing to determine the actual performance of facades and roofs. Phase III -Simulation of Sound Standards [OPEN] Audio simulations will be generated which demonstrate the effectiveness of each sound standard and compare them to typical construction results. The final product to be finalized in consultation with the City of Richfield, could be a CD and/or a demonstration at OL where more accurate simulations may be made in regard to low frequency noise. Orfield Labs will incorporate findings from this demonstration in its final documentation and provide a CD for use by the City of Richfield in future discussions with developers and community stakeholders upon completion of the contract. Otfield Laboratories Inc Client City of Richfield Phase IV -Meeting with City of Richfield Regarding Standards [COMPLETED] A meeting will be held at Orfield Labs to discuss these standards, and to determine if further review and action is desired with regard to these standards. Phase V -Completion of Additional Consulting Create a summary document of 3-5 pgs in length which describes the acoustical criteria chosen by the City of Richfield, compares the chosen criteria to STC and documents the test procedure required to verify compliance in the field. The document will also address the concern of low frequency sound attenuation and list qualified testing companies. This document is intended for distribution to developers and contractors and will be written in an explanatory manner. One meeting at Orfield Laboratories is included. Phase VI -Development Contractor Meetings and Assistance Meetings with contractors to assist in their efforts to meet the standards developed under this study, including assistance with design, research and testing as requested and / or required. PROJECT STAGES 1. Receipt of signed proposal 2. Receipt of requested documents 3. Selection of Simulation Site 4. Measurement/Recording 5. Summarize Results 11 6. Receipt and review of requested documents 7. Preparation of Sound Standards 8. Deliver Standards document and meet with client III 9. Simulate Sound Standards 10. Provide Audio CD or present simulation at OL Orfeld Laboratories Inc Project Sound Standard Documentation Client City of Richfield ADDITIONAL SERVICES: (ADDITIONAL COST) 1. Meetings not listed (Hourly) 2. Additional formal reports beyond report specified in this proposal 3. Additional testing and site visits beyond those specified 4. Additional, non-quoted consulting SCHEDULE Upon receipt of our signed proposal or a purchase order authorizing our proposal, review will be completed and a final contract schedule negotiated with the City of Richfield as quickly as possible. The report referenced in Phase V will be provided to the City of Richfield on or before March 31, 2005 if this proposal is approved by March 24, 2005. TERMINATION The client may terminate this contract with or without cause on 30 days' written notice. Upon termination, client is responsible for paying the remaining balance, if any, of the set fee for all completed phases of work and, as to any phase of work that is in progress but uncompleted, client is responsible for the lesser of: (1) the set-fee for the phase then in progress or (2) an amount equal to the number of hours expended in pertormance of that phase, times the applicable hourly rate of the person pertorming the work. (Fees are based on hourly rates of $200-$250 for consulting efforts, the higher rate being for Steve Ortield's time.) Orfield Laboratories Inc Project Sound Standard Documentation Client City of Richfield FEES All fees are billed as quoted on a flat fee basis, unless otherwise noted. Billings are on 1-month intervals tied to specific contract deliverables, and are due in 30 days; work may be suspended for non-payment, and full payment must precede additional phased work. Any services not offered but requested will be quoted for approval. Expenses noted in the following section, reimbursement of expenses, are additional to the fees quoted and are charged including a 20% processing /handling fee. Interest rates on unpaid balances are accumulated at the rate of 2% per month on outstanding balances. Any collection costs are -the obligation of the client. Billings are due upon completion of monthly contract work and not upon execution of the project for which that work was intended. This project is quoted on a set-fee basis as follows: (Fees are based on hourly rates of $200-$250 for consulting efforts and $250-$350 on days of testimony and depositions, if expert legal consulting is required.) Higher figures are for Steven Orfield. This project is quoted on a set-fee basis derived from time and systems employed as follows: Phase I - Measurement and Recording [COMPLETED] Phase II - Develop of Sound Standards Documentation [COMPLETED] Phase III - Simulation of Sound Standards [OPEN] Phase IV - Meeting with City of Richfield [COMPLETED] Phase V - Completion of Additional Consulting $5,500 Phase VI - Development Contractor Meetings Hourly Total $5 500 Orfield Laboratories Inc Client City of Richfield CONFIDENTIALITY The client has full control over this information and any release of information will be only to the client, to the extent that it is not publicly disclosed. The specific testing results are deemed to be confidential exclusively for the client's use. Orfield Laboratories involvement on this project is quoted to the client for this project application; this consulting is the work product of Orfield Laboratories and is not to be used on other projects or disclosed to other parties, beyond disclosure for reasonable use by the City of Richfield. DOCUMENTS Our design work often requires a set of documents drawn to conventional scale (1/4,1/8,1/16) that are available from our client at no cost. The documents must be in the same scale and accompanying specifications must also be easily available. It is assumed that these documents are accurate and this accuracy is the responsibility of the client. Specific documents requested at the commencement of this project are: • Background Information/Documents on Project and Intent X ~ Cad files (.dwg format) on development • Currently Contemplated Development Plans /Schematics X CONSULTING SERVICES The services offered are design services and are not services in the fields of architecture or professional engineering. The fields of acoustical and lighting consulting are not recognized under any professional registration practice. Any services needed in those areas related to our work are the specific responsibility of the client and are not offered by Orfield Laboratories, Inc. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES All expenses are billed, and may include: - Plan Copies/Photo Copies - Phone charges (long distance) - Auto expenses .50/mile (out of metro) -Air/Ground transportation - Delivery of plans/copies Orfield Laboratories Inc Client City of Richfield GUARANTEES While services offered are considered to be state of the art in approach, any specific stipulations as to the performance of particular designs must be stated by the client, or no stipulations are assumed to be present. Legal liability for professional services provided is limited to the total costs of these services. Claims relating to delivery of professional services are subject independent arbitration (AAA) This section shall not apply to claims arising out of the placement or use of test systems or equipment. By entering into this agreement, the client agrees to indemnify Orfield Laboratories from legal liability and judgments under this case or from actions resulting from this case. We look forward to working with you on this project, and we hope that this particular consulting experience will support the view that there are substantial benefits to be derived through the use of specialized consulting services. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Mr. Derrick Knight Orfield Laboratories, Inc. Date Authorized Signature City Of Richfield Date Orfield Laboratories Inc December 29, 2004 Ortield Laboratories Inc oes~9' ~CO~sfj9esea~ °s / ~b h,~s~~4 r?fjO 9 ~, Aso ~~ ~i 9,5~~ ~4~ 9,. o~~~sc ~G r~ d mf, ~~ PREPARED FOR ~~ Ms. Catherine Geisen-Kisch City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: (612) 891-9758 Fax: (612) 861-8974 .PROJECT Low-Frequency Noise-Compatible Construction PREPARED BY Mr. Steven J. Orfield, President Mr. Derrick Knight, Consultant Orfield Laboratories, Inc. 2709 East 25`" Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 Email: steve@orfieldlabs.com Phone: (612) 721-2455 Fax: (612) 721-2457 This memo is meant as an addendum to the proposal for Consulting Services dated September 9, 2004 and revised on December 17, 2004. The City of Richfield has requested two additional meetings as part of this contract. Orfield Laboratories, Inc. and The City of Richfield, Community Development Department agree to the following revisions in the proposal. Client City of Richfield. 1. Two additional meetings are requested. On page two (2), under "Phase IV -Meetings with the City of Richfield Regarding Standards andFina/Reporting'' A meeting will be held at Orfield Labs with city staff to discuss these standards, and to determine if further review and action is desired with regard to these standards. Upon completion of identified modifications, Orfield Labs will meet with city staff and two suggested building developers to share these standards and obtain further input. A third meeting .will be held between Orfield Labs and the City of Richfield to review a draft of final documentation for consultant services. We have estimated approximately 12 hours for 2 meetings and the billing for additional requested meetings is broken down as follows: First Additional Meeting: Preparation time: 1.5 hours per consultant C $175 per hour. Travel and meeting time: 3.5 hours @ $425 per one consultant and one principal staff Post meeting summary: 1 hour @ $375 per one consultant and one principal staff. Second Additional Meeting: Preparation time: 1.5 hours per consultant C«~ $175 per hour. Travel and meeting time: 3.5 hours @ $425 per one consultant and one principal staff $262.50 $1,487.50 $375.00 $262.50 $1,487.50 Post meeting summary: 1 hour @ $375 per one consultant and one principal staff $375 00 Additional Meeting Total $4,250.00 Orfield Laboratories Inc AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 8D REPORT # 89 .STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL .MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approving a Homeland Security Equipment Grant Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division and accompanying .funds. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the attached grant agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division. • Approve the attached Resolution allowing the acceptance of $88,200 grant funds. II. BACKGROUND In July of 2003, the Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division made the Public Safety Department aware of an opportunity to apply for funds to purchase radio equipment for. participation in the regional800 MHz trunked radio system. The funds are from a variety of sources including federal homeland security grants, Metropolitan Radio Board bonds, and a large COPS grant. At that time, Richfield Public Safety submitted an application and was approved for the request. ,c 0510 Resolution to Receive Homeland Security Equipment Grant A "Homeland Security Equipment Grant Agreement Between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division was prepared by the County and was signed by the Director of Public Safety (as the City's Emergency Management Director) on July 14, 2004, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on September 14, 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The purpose of this grant is to provide the City with reimbursement of allowable costs and. expenses incurred in performing purchases as specified in the Federal Homeland Security 800 MHz Equipment Grant Program Worksheet for 2003. • These funds are for the purchase of radio equipment for participation in the regional 800 MHz trunked radio system. • The funds are being made available to the Public Safety Department and the Fire Department for the reimbursement of equipment costs. • Departments were notified that Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant be made by a resolution of more than two-thirds of the City Council B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The purchase of the authorized equipment is limited to APCO-25 compliant, 800. MHz portable and/or mobile radios with authorized accessories, and these purchases make up the entire score of this project. • Administrative costs incurred by the grantee are not eligible for reimbursement via this agreement: • Grantee (City of Richfield) agreed to complete the project (purchase of equipment) by January 31, 2005. • A portion of the funds has been reimbursed, but there are some funds that are yet to be reimbursed to the City. C. FINANCIAL • The County granted. a sum not to exceed $88,200 to be reimbursed as defined in the agreement. • Funds will be disbursed based on copies of invoices submitted by the City of Richfield and approved by the Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could reject the agreement and the resolution; however, the City would need to find funds to pay for the 800 MHz equipment required to participate in the regional trunked radio system. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution to accept funds from the Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division. • Copy of the Homeland Security Equipment Grant Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division (Attachment A). • Copy of the letter informing Richfield of the grant fund application process, dated July 9, 2003 (Attachment B). • Copy of the cover letter transmitting the first check for reimbursement of $69,981.76, dated February 14, 2005 (Attachment C). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING 800 MHz RADIO EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, by its Public Safety Director/Emergency Management Director, .applied for funds made available from the Metropolitan Radio Board through the Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Division for reimbursement of costs for purchasing 800 MHz portable and mobile radio equipment; and WHEREAS, the equipment is necessary for participation in the regional 800 MHz trunked radio system; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Director, as the City's Emergency Preparedness Director, was granted approval for $88,200 for reimbursement for specific purchases; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been signed by the Public Safety Director/Emergency Preparedness Director and Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness detailing the terms for these grant funds; WHEREAS, the 800 MHz radio equipment is to be used by the Public Safety Department and the Fire Services Department in the performance of emergency details. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield will agree to follow the details of the agreement to reimburse the Public Safety Department and the Fire Services Department for the expenses incurred in the purchase of the 800 MHz portable and/or mobile radios-with authorized accessories. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of May 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ATTACHiViEIVT A Contract No. 5185C4 HOMELAND SECURITY EQUIPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OFRICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION This Agreement is made by and: between. the County of Hennepin,. State of Minnesota by and. through its Emergency Preparedness. Division. ("County" or "Grantor" at 1600 Prairie Drive,. Medina, MN 55340). and the city of Richfield ("Grantee" at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423). In consideration. of the. mutual.. promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. GRANT AMOUNT AND COMPLETION The. County shall. grant to the Grantee. a sum not to exceed eighty-eight thousand, two hundred dollars ($ 88,200.00) which funds. shall be. only for reimbursement of allowable. costs and expenses incurred. in performing purchases as specified. in the Worksheet for 2003 Federal Homeland. Security 800MHz Equipment Grant Program,. Part II, Application (Attachment A)._ The purchase of authorized equipment (limited to. APCO-25 compliant,. 800 MHz portable and/or mobile radios with authorized accessories). shall make. up the. entire scope of this "Project"...Administrative costs. incurred by the Grantee are. not eligible for reimbursement via this. Agreement. Grantee agrees o complete the Project no later than January 31, 2005 within the. terms. stated herein. Any material. change. in the scope of the Project, including time schedule and. budget,. must be approved in writing by the County. Funds made available pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only for equipment purchase expenses incurred as described in the Application and this Agreement. 2. ACCOUNTING AND RECORD KEEPING For all expenditures. of funds. made. pursuant to this Agreement,. the Grantee shall. keep. financial records including properly executed contracts,. invoices, and. other documents sufficient to evidence. in proper detail. the nature and propriety of the expenditures. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted. accounting. principles.' Grantee. agrees thaf the. County, the State Auditor, or any of their. duly authorized. representatives at any time. during normal. business. hours, and as often as they. may reasonably. deem. necessary, shall have access to and. the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe. any books,. documents, papers,: records, etc., which are pertinent to. the. accounting practices and. procedures of. the Grantee and involve transactions. relating. to this. Agreement... Such materials shall be maintained. and such. access and. rights shall. be in force and. effect during. the. period. of the. Agreement and. for six (Ei) years. after its termination. or cancellation. 3. PAYMENT/DISBURSMENT SCHEDULE Grantor will disburse funds to Grantee. pursuant to this Agreement, based. on copies of invoices, submitted. by the Grantee. and. approved by the. Grantor and. the. State. of Minnesota... Invoices may be gi ibrpitterl by the (;rantee ac: they become available. !li iarterly ~ fhe (_ranter submits all received inl~oiCes to the State. of Minnesota-for review and. approval. Subject to verification of adequacy of the Grantee's invoice and approval. of consistency with. this. Agreement, the. State will. provide funds. to the Grantor. for reimbursement of. the approved. expenses.. Upon verification that said funds have been. deposited. in the Grantor's. accounts,. the Grantor. shall. disburse the. authorized. amount to the Grantee. Page 1 of 5 Contract No. 5185C4 4. REPORTING Grantee shall submit on a quarterly basis to the Grantor formal. Project reports detailing total grant funds expended and equipment purchased to date. The Grantee shall submit saidreports to the Grantor. not later than the 15th of January,. April,. July and October covering the calendar quarter completed. with the end of the month. preceding. the. submittal month. Grantee shall. also. submit to the Grantor a formal Project Completion Report when the Grantee has. completed all intended. purchases with authorized.. grant funds.. This report shall provide a final accounting as to total. grant funds expended,. details of equipment purchased and any grant funds remaining unspent for which the Grantee is. relinquishing claim. Grantee is encouraged. to submit this final. report as soon:. as practicable after the final equipment purchase is made... The final report must be received by the Grantor no later than February 15, 2005. 5. CONTRACTS Grantee shall,include in any contract, provisions that require contractors. to comply with. all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. regarding employment and workplace safety. In accordance with Hennepin County's policies against discrimination, no person shall. be excluded from full employment rights or participation. in or the benefits of any. program,. service,. or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex,. disability, marital status, sexual. orientation, public assistance status, or national. origin;.. and. no. person who is protected. by applicable Federal. or State laws,. rules, or regulations against discrimination. shall. be. otherwise. subjected to discrimination. Public Grantees. and any contractors or subcontractors performing services as. part of. this' Agreement shall follow that public Grantee's Affirmative Action policy against discrimination. 6. TERMINATION, CANCELLATION AND ASSIGNMENT This Agreement may be canceled by the Grantor upon. sixty (60) days written. notice to the Grantee without cause.. In the event of such cancellation, Grantee shall. be entitled. to payment, determined. on a pro. rata basis, for work, services, or purchases satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of such cancellation. Jf. the Grantor finds that there. has been. a failure to comply. with the. provisions of this.Agreement,,that reasonable progress has not been. made toward commencement or completion. of the activities. specified in the Application. and. this Agreement, notwithstanding. any other. provisions. of this. Agreement to the contrary and. after written notice and reasonable opportunity to cure,. the. County may refuse. to disburse additional funds. and/or require..the return of all or part of the funds. already disbursed, to the extent such funds. were used. for purposes. other. than activities. contemplated by this. Agreement. This. Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the County. 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Grantee shall. select the means,. method, and manner of performing the activitias herein.. Nothing is, intended or should. be construed. in any manneras creating or establishing the. relationship of co-partners between. the parties hereto or as constituting the Grantee as the agent, representative,. or employee. of the County for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Grantee. is to be and shall. remain an independent contractor with. respect to all services and activities. performed under this Agreement.. Any and all personnel of the Grantee. or other persons while engaged in the pertormance of any work or services required by the Grantee under this. Agreement shall have no contractual: relationship. with the Page 2 of 5 Contract No. 5185C4 County, and shall not be considered employees. of the Couhty. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'. Compensation Acf of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel,. arising out of employment or alleged. employment including without limitation, claims. of discrimination against the. Grantee, its officers,. agents, contractors,. or employees shall in no way be the responsibilityof the County. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers,. agents,. and employees. 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. County,. including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital. care,. sick leave, Workers' Compensation,. Re-employment Compensation, disability,. severance. pay,. and. retirement. benefits. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Grantee agrees. to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the. County, its ofOcials, officers, agents and employees from. any liability,. claims,. causes. of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's. fees,. resulting directly or indirectly from. any act or omission of the Grantee, its. contractors. or subcontractors. or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or any party that directly or indirectly benefits. from the activities specified in this. Agreement,. and/or anyone for whose acts. and/or omissions they may be liable in the pertormance of the activities specified in. this Agreement and against al(loss by reason of the. failure of the Grantee to perform fully, in, any respect,. all obligations under this. Agreement. 9. INSURANCE In order to protect the County. and those listed above under the indemnification provision, the Grantee . agrees at all times during. the.. term. of this Agreement and. beyond such term. when. so required,. to have and keep or cause to have and. be kept in force, and to cause all contractors to do likewise, the following insurance. coverage under either a purchased insurance or self-insurance'program: Limits 9.1 The City of. Richfield. isself-insured. for Commercial General. Liability Coverage. 9.2 Automobile Liability -Combined. single. limit each. occurrence. for bodily injury and. property. damage covering owned,.-non-owned, and. hired automobiles. 1,000,000 9.3 .Workers'. Compensation. and Employer's Liability: a. Workers' Compensation ` Statutory If the: contractor is based. outside the. State of Minnesota, - coverage.. must apply to. Minnesota laws. b..Employer's Liability. Bodily Injury by: Accident -Each. accident 100,000 Disease. -Policy Limit 500,000 Disease -Each. Employee 100,000 9.4 Professional. Liability -Per Claim .and. Aggregate 1,000,000. The insurance must be maintained. continuously fora. period. of two. years after the termination of this Agreement. Page 3 of 5 ' Contract Na 5185C4 The Grantee. shall require that any independent contractors utilized under this Agreement furnish certificates. of insurance. to the Grantee of the insurance. coverage listed above,. and. provide. updated certificates as coverage. expire. An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverage is an acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits.. The above establishes minimum: insurance. requirements.. It is the sole. responsibility of the Grantee to determine the need. for and to procure additional. insurance which may. be needed. in connection with. this. Agreement. Copies. of policies shall. be submitted to the County upon written. request. The Grantee shall. not commence work until it and. any contractors have obtained the. required. proof of insurance. which clearly evidences. required insurance coverage. If the Grantee fails to. furnish. proof coverage, if requested by the County, the County may withhold payments and/or pursue any. other rights or remedy allowed. under the contract, law,. equity,. and/or statute. 10. MERGER AND MODIFICATION It is understood and agreed that the entre.Agreementhetween the parties is contained herein and that .this. Agreement supercedes 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. Any alterations,. variations, modifications or waiversof. 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. 11. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The. Laws of the. State of Minnesota shall govern all. questions and interpretations concerning the. validity and. construction of this. Agreement and. the. legal relations. between the. parties. and performance. under it. The appropriate. venue. and. jurisdiction. for any litigation. hereunder. will be those courts. located within the County of Hennepin, State of. Minnesota.... Litigation,: however, in the federal courts involving the parties will. be in the. appropriate federal -court within the State of Minnesota. if any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal. or unenforceable,. the. remaining provisions. will not be affected. The Remainder: Of This Page Was Intentionally Left Blank Page 4 of 5 ~.ontract iuo. o7tS5G4 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN - GRANTEE, having signed this agreement, and the Hennepin County Board f Commissioners having duly approved this agreement on the ~ day of 2004, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. ATTEST ,; By: r .. • . ,.s putt'/Clerk of the County Bo Chair of its County Board vW~ ' .Date: ~` / ~`-4 ~ Date: g'- ~ l~l"O c f Approved as o form: c By~ And: Assistant County Attorney. Date: 7 / Q Date: q'_ ~ '~ ~% And: (~ } As stant my Administrator, Public Works Date: ,~' `~'~~ Y Approved as to execution: c By. Assist nt County Attorney: Date: GRANTEE R ~ .Title: ~ ~' ~; ~ `~~ ~ _~~ ~ ~ ~~ Date: '~ Page 5 of 5 . _ AT~"ACH11~lENT B Hennepin- County Memo xe~y~tea Public Works Administration Phone: 763-745-7625 Emergency Preparedness Division Fax: 763-478-4001 1600 Prairie Drive TDD: 763-478-4030 Medina MN 55340-5421 DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Hennepin County Chief s/Emergency Management Directors FROM: Tim- Turnbull, Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness SUBJECT: Funds for 800 MHz Radios This information is to make sure you are aware of an unprecedented opportunity to apply for funds to purchase radio equipment for participation in the regiona1800 MHz trunked radio system. The Metropolitan Radio Board has announced financial incentives for the "Phase Two" build out of the reginal radio system. The funding is coming from a variety of sources including federal homeland security grants, Radio" Board bonds, and a large COPS grant. Any project/purchase related to participation in the regional radio system is eligible. Applicants need not identify a specific funding source/program for their projects.: The Radio Board will match requests with the most appropriate program. Requests must. be submitted to the Radio Board no later than July 24, 2003. The initial application can be in the. form of a letter to: Bill Dean Metropolitan Radio Board 2099 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Include a description of the equipment requested and a budgetary estimate. More detailed information may be requested later after an initial board review.. Please send a copy of your letter to Roger Laurence, Hennepin County Sheriff's Communications Division, 9300 Naper Street, Golden Valley, MN 55427. All project/equipment requests have to be consistent with the Hennepin County Radio Plan and Metro Radio Board plans and policies.. Beyond that we don't know what criteria will be used to prioritize requests. Whether you want one radio or a new dispatch console with microwave link, get your request in bythe 24th. The only certainty is that if you don't apply you will get nothing. More information is available on the Radio Board website at www.metroradioboard.or~. If you have questions regarding participation in the County radio system, please .call Scott Williams at 763-.525-6260. ATTACHI~IIENT C Hennepin County Public Works Administration Emergency Preparedness Division 763-745-7625, Phone -1600 Prairie Drive 763-478-4001, Fax Medina,MN 55340-5421 763-478-4030,TDD www.hennepin.us February 14, 2005 City of Richfield Dan Scott, Emergency Preparedness Director 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Scott, We have received the reimbursements from the 2003 US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Part 2, 800 MHz Radio Grant for portable and mobile radio equipment your jurisdiction purchased prior to the end of 2004. You'll find enclosed a check in the amount of $69,981.76. Please note that -these are federal funds and your accounting and/or finance staff should be notified that the funds are being received under the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #97.004: If you have any questions about this reimbursement, please contact me at 763-745-7623: ..Sincerely Wayne. Nehrefiz Emergency Preparedness Coordinator WN:ea cc: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Steven L.' Devich, Acting City Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 8C REPORT # 88 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE KOOB, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of a resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a donation of $2,000 from the Richfield/Bloomin ton Credit Union. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a donation of $2,000 from the Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union to be used by the Police Division. II. BACKGROUND Businesses, organizations, and occasionally residents are proud of the law enforcement programs and accomplishments in Richfield because the programs and quality of service add to their sense of safety and security as they live and work in Richfield. Neighboring communities such as Bloomington, Edina and the Airport Police, as well as Richfield, will at times request assistance from each other. To ensure that programs continue, they will offer to contribute to specified areas, such as the K-9 unit or protective vests for officers or, as in this case, to the Police division to be used as they see fit. 0510 Resolution to Accept Donation from Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donation to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statue 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union is offering an award of $2,000 to the police Division to use at will. C. FINANCIAL • The accepted donation will be applied to one of the programs the Department offers to the citizens of Richfield. D. LEGAL • Approval must be given by the City Council in order to accept the donation. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could deny the resolution and the funds would be returned to the Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Andre Thilbault, Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $2,000 FROM RICHFIELD/BLOOMINGTON CREDIT UNION WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department Police division, through its Director, would like to accept a check for $2,000 from Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the- City Council; and WHEREAS, the Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union would like to present Richfield Police with a check for $2,000, with the stipulation that the funds be used at the department's choosing for one of the department's programs; such as, the Police K-9 unit or the Police Safety Vest fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Director Dan Scott will accept the donation of $2,000 to be placed in the forfeiture fund. and directed for the use by Public Safety Department, Police Division. 2005. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of May Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # g$ REPORT # g7 rl STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE KOOB, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds to be used for O eration Ni htCAP. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution that: ^ Authorizes an agreement between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, and the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, pertaining to Operation NightCAP, and; ^ Accepts grant funds ,not to exceed $400, to be used for the payment of overtime for officers involved in Operation NightCAP. II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota State Patrol coordinates alcohol enforcement saturations with local police departments throughout the state and has contacted Richfield Police to participate in the periodic saturations for alcohol enforcement in coordination with the State Patrol. The State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division has awarded the Richfield Police Division reimbursements not to 0510 Resolution to Accept Operation NightCAP grant exceed $400 for overtime to participate in the NightCAP Grant Program. The scheduled event is set for May 28, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires that the City Council -must approve a resolution for acceptance of grant money. • The resolution must be approved and adopted by two-thirds majority of its members. ~. CRITICAL ISSUES • Two-thirds Council approval is needed to approve resolution. C. FINANCIAL • The overtime paid to officers will. come from the grant funds, not to exceed $400. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could disapprove the resolution; however, this would void the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. # VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/POLICE TO PARTICIPATE JOINTLY WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PATROL IN AN AGREEMENT WITH AND TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO PAY OVERTIME TO OFFICERS INVOLVED IN OPERATION NIGHTCAP WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police would like to sign a contract with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division; and WHEREAS, Richfield Police would participate in periodic saturations for alcohol enforcement in coordination with the State Patrol; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police would receive a grant funds, not to exceed $400, for saturated overtime alcohol enforcement in coordination with the Minnesota State Patrol; and WHEREAS; the contract would cover saturated alcohol enforcement for May 28, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Richfield Public Safety/Police will enter into a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol for the project entitled Operation NightCAP, for May 28, 2005. Public Safety Director Dan Scott is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Richfield Police Division and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of April, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $A REPORT # 86 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~° KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Assignment of the Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. for land acquisition services in connection with the Cedar Point Project to the Richfield Housing and Redevelo ment Authorit . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution assigning a certain contract to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and-for the City of Richfield II. BACKGROUND • On April 26,2005, the City Council (City) approved a Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. (Contract) for certain land acquisition services related to the Cedar Point Project (Project). • Previously, on January 25, 2005, the City entered into a Cooperative Agreement between the Hennepin County Board, Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment 051005 AssignPSAConworth.doc Authority (HRA) for the use of $2 million in grant Multi-jurisdictional Project funds (MJP) for the Project. • The Cooperative Agreement contemplates that the HRA undertake the acquisition activities for the Project. • The Contract with Conworth needs to be assigned to the HRA. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Cooperative Agreement governs the use of the MJP funds. • The Cooperative Agreement contemplates that the HRA undertake land acquisition activities for the Project. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Assignment of the Contract is subject to the consent of Conworth, Inc. and acceptance by the HRA. It is an agenda item for the May HRA meeting. C. FINANCIAL • The City's interest under the Contract, including the costs for Conworth's services, is being assigned to the HRA. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel reviewed the Cooperative Agreement and prepared the resolution. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not assign the Contract. However, this would prevent the City from spending the MJP funds as the HRA is authorized to undertake land acquisition activities. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ASSIGNING A CERTAIN CONTRACT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has entered into a certain Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. dated April 26, 2005 (the "Contract") for the provision of services related to the possible acquisition of six properties near Cedar Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City entered into the Contract and proposed to fund the Contract utilizing funds provided in accordance with a Cooperative Agreement approved by the City on January 25, 2005 and entered into among the City, Hennepin County, the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "Cooperative Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Cooperative Agreement contemplates that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the -City of Richfield ("HRA") would undertake the acquisition activities referenced in the Cooperative Agreement; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the City's interest in the Contract be assigned to the HRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci) of -the City of Richfield: The City's interest under the Contract is hereby assigned to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, subject to the consent of Conworth, Inc. and subject also to acceptance of the assignment by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 2. This resolution is effective upon adoption. Adopted this day of May, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk