Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-26-05 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Rolf call 1. Discussion regarding Hennepin South Suburban Collaborative (HSSC) 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 fhe meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Meeting of April 11, 2005 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005 PRESENTATIONS Introduction of and discussion with newly-appointed District C Metropolitan Airports Commission Commissioner, Kari Berman 2. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Richfield High School "Spartans" boys basketball team and coaches for finishing second in Class 3A basketball State Championship 3. .Presentation by Richfield Recreation Programs/Athletic Manager Frank White regarding Richfield Playground Program and funding donations 4. Presentation of proclamation designating May as Arbor Month in Richfield 5. Presentation of proclamation designating May 1-7, 2005 as National Drinking Water Week in Richfield 6. Presentation of proclamation designating May 15-21, 2005 as National Public Works Week in Richfield 7. Presentation of proclamation designating May and June as Commuter Challenge Days in Richfield 8. Presentation of summary report from City Hall Advisory Task Force Notes: COUNCIL DISCUSSION 9. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 10. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 11. 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 granting off-street parking permit at 7709 Pillsbury Avenue S.R .No. 74 B. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting donation from Richfield Foundation to fund Richfield Playground Program S.R. No. 75 C. Consideration of approval of resolution encouraging State executive and legislative leaders to find long-term funding solution to State's transportation improvement needs S.R. No. 76 D. Consideration of approval of resolution designating National Incident Management System as basis for all incident management in Richfield S.R. No. 77 E. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with Conworth, Inc. for land acquisition services in Airport Noise Acquisition Program/Cedar Point Project Area S.R. No. 78 F. Consideration of approval of continuation of agreement for 2005 with City of Bloomington for public health services for City of Richfield S.R. No. 79 G. Consideration of approval of contract with City of Bloomington, using grant funds distributed by federal grant from Centers from Disease Control, to provide services in public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and development of response system S.R. No. 80 H. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Sandman Enterprises, Inc. for refinishing of wood ceiling and beams at Richfield Ice Arena in amount of $77,750 S.R. No. 81 I. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for 2005 diseased tree removal on private property in amount of $116,928 S.R. No. 82 J. Consideration of approval of purchase of tandem dump truck" chassis from. Astleford International Trucks in amount of 63,131.07 and box and snow fighting equipment from J-Craft in amount of $61,958.51 for use by Street Maintenance Division S.R. No. 83 K. Consideration of approval of purchase from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet for two new pickup trucks for use by Building Services and Park Maintenance Divisions in amount of $39,754 plus tax and license S.R. No. 84 Notes: 12. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 13. Public hearing regarding resolution denying appeal from decision of Hearing Examiner and affirming Hearing Examiner decision to deny variance for garage at 7221 Sheridan Avenue (continued from March 22, 2005) Notes: Staff Report No. 85 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 16. Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room regarding condemnation award for property at 7744 Penn Avenue 17. Consideration of condemnation award for property at.7744 Penn Avenue Adjournment of Regular City Council Meeting SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding planning for mid-year City Council goalsetting session 2. Discussion regarding City of Richfield's Bereavement Leave Policy 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: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # HS ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY r~/ MANAGER: ~Q ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding City staff's determination that a private garage is larger than City regulations allow. Continued from March 22, 2005 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the decision of the Hearing Examiner and affirming the Hearing Exa'miner's decision to denv a variance for the garage at 7221 Sheridan Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The request to deny the variance appeal was continued to the April 26, 2005, City Council meeting. The continuance was allowed to give staff and the applicant, Mr. Ross the opportunity to discuss alternatives to a variance so that he could come into compliance and not need a variance. Staff met with Mr. Ross on April 11, 2005, to discuss the options available for the garage and they were: 042605_7221 Sheridan_varianceappeal 1. Reduce the garage to the size of the house or smaller. 2. Build an addition to the house to equal 1,000 square feet and tear off part of the garage that would exceed 1,000 square feet. 3. Attach the garage to the house through aroofed-structure. • Submit a certificate of survey. The garage must meet a rear yard setback of 25 feet. Remove the portion of the garage that is located within 25 feet of rear lot line. An additional variance would be required for a rear yard setback of less than 25 feet. The garage use can not exceed 1,000 square feet. In discussing the options available to Mr. Ross, he stated that since the City Code does not allow for him to keep the vehicle he uses for work on his property because it exceeds 3/4 ton, he would have to move because as a Snap-On Tool dealer the vehicle is his livelihood. Therefore he opted to pursue option number one. He will remove the rear portion of the garage making the length. shorter. The City Council had concerns regarding the way the garage was being used and Mr. Ross stated he does not use the garage as a show room and clients do not come to his house, the garage is strictly used for storage. Option one meets the detached garage requirements of the Zoning Code and by completing option one it would not require a variance. Mr. Ross has been given a total of 90 days to complete the work. This includes 30 days to obtain all appropriate permits and 60 days to complete the work and obtain all inspections required. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM MARCH 22 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Shawn Ross lives at 7221 Sheridan Avenue. In November 2004, Mr. Ross received a letter from the Inspections Division stating that the 24'x24' addition to his already existing 24'x24' garage was added without the proper permits and inspections. The letter also stated that Mr. Ross was in violation of the Zoning Code section 521.05, which does not allow a private garage over 1,000 square feet. The letter sent by the Inspections Division stated that Mr. Ross had to obtain the proper permits and inspections for the garage and that he also had the option of requesting a variance for the size of the garage. Mr. Ross applied for a variance and the Hearing Examiner date was set for January 18, 2005. The Hearing Examiner heard the case and during the meeting clarification was made regarding the garage. The original garage built in 1973 was 24'x24', then a previous homeowner had added an addition to the garage of 12'x22'. Mr. Ross stated that he had removed the addition of 12'x22', before he added an addition of 24'x24'. Making the current total square footage of the garage 1,152. As part of the Hearing Examiner application packet the applicant could use a neighborhood petition to seek support from surrounding property owners for his variance. The applicant used the neighborhood petition and obtained nine out of a total of forty-four signatures from property owners who are within 350 feet of the subject property. During the Hearing Examiner meeting Mr. Ross explained he had hired a contractor to do the garage work. Mr. Ross also explained that the contractor he hired had stated that they obtained all appropriate City permits. The contractor than began the work but never finished. Mr. Ross stated the contractor could not be found. At the time of the Hearing Examiner meeting, he could not locate a contract for the work. Mr. Ross explained he assumed that all the city permits had been pulled for the work and so he completed the garage. The Hearing Examiner had denied the request for the variance since it did not meet the State statute for granting a variance. The applicant was notified that he could petition the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (City Council) to have the decision reheard by the Board if he did not agree with the decision. The applicant sent a letter requesting an appeal. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 546.03, Subdivision 4 of City Code states that "The Board (of Adjustments and Appeals) shall have the following powers: a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director in the interpretation or enforcement of this code..." • The current Zoning Code has a number of regulations regarding private garages but the two regulations that affect this case are: • A detached garge can not exceed 1,000 square feet • A detached garage can not exceed the size of the primary residence. • Applicants' house is 885 square feet and the garage is 1,152 square feet. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Community Development and Public Safety Departments are concerned that if the variance is approved it then sets a precedence that the City zoning regulations and State Statute for variances are not of importance. • The reason for regulations in the Zoning Code is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in the community. • There are four requirements by State Statute 462.357 that an applicant must make in order for the variance to be approved they include: o Undue hardship, which denies the applicant reasonable use of their property. o A unique circumstance related to the property o No adverse impacts on the neighborhood. o The request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. • Economic considerations alone cannot constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the Zoning Code. • In the opinion of staff none. of the conditions exist. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • City Code Section 546.03 regulates how the Board of Adjustments and Appeals hears and considers appeals. Subdivision 7 states that "The Board shall make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is .provided to the applicant". • The application for an appeal was received on February 11, 2005. A decision must be made no later than May 27, 2005. • Public Notice for this hearing was published in the Sun Current on March 10, 2005, in compliance with the requirements of Section 546.03, Subdivision 6. The city attorney will be available at the council meeting. The attached resolution if adopted by the Board (City Council) would deny the appeal of the applicant and require the garge to be brought into conformance with City regulations by removing the excess. The resolution requires the Board (City Council) to establish the amount of time to bring the garage into conformance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the motion and find that the detached garage meets City requirements and require the applicant to pay the appropriate fees and obtain the proper permits and inspections. V. ATTACHMENTS • Board of Adjustments and Appeals Resolution • Copy of Variance Report from Hearing Examiner • Copy of Inspection Division Violation Notice • Letter of appeal from applicant • City Code Sections: • 521.05, Subd. 2-Private garages • 521.13-Additional rules for accessory building and structures • 546.03-Board of Adjustments and Appeals • Photos of structure VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Shawn Ross, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND AFFIRMING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE AT 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: fact: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of FINDINGS OF FACT 1. -The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the location and size of detached garages on residential property. 2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield City Code, which is also known as the Richfield Zoning Code. 3. On or about December 28, 2004 the City received an application from Shawn Ross (the "Applicant"), 7221 Sheridan Avenue, requesting a variance for an increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage. 4. The property at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is located in the Single Family Residential (R) zoning district. 5. Subsection 521.05, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code allows private garages as a permitted accessory use in the Single Family Residential .District, provided the garage does not exceed 1,000 square feet gross floor area. 6. Subsection 521.13, subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code provides that an accessory building may not be greater in lot coverage than the principal building on the property. 7. The Applicant requested a variance to allow fora 24 foot by 24 foot garage addition, to an existing 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage, for a total of 1,152 square feet. A 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars, and the 24 foot by 24 foot addition would accommodate an additional two vehicles. 8. The existing house is approximately 23 feet by 37 feet for a total building envelope of 885 square feet. The lot coverage of the garage exceeds the lot coverage of the house by 267 square feet. 9. The parcel at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is 75 feet by 134.53 feet with a lot area of 10,090 square feet. Other properties in the neighborhood are of a similar size. 10. The garage meets required zoning standards for setback and height requirements, and the only variances required are from the provisions of Subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8. 11. On January18, 2005 the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the variance request. 12. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he would like to keep the garage addition because it is already built. 13. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he had hired a contractor for the job and that the contractor told him that all City permits had been pulled., The Applicant testified that the contractor had left the job and the Applicant had continued the work on the garage addition. The Applicant testified that he could not locate a written contract for the work and that he could not locate the contractor. 14. On or about January 21, 2005, the Hearing Examiner published a written decision denying the variance request. 15. On or about February 11, 2005, the City received a written request (the "Appeal") to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the "Board") to consider an appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 16. The appeal came before the Board for review and action on March 22, 2005,and was continued to April 26, 2005. The Board conducted a public hearing, at which the Applicant was provided the opportunity to testify. II. The Board hereby makes the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant has not shown that compliance with the provisions of subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8 will result in an undue hardship that denies the Applicant the reasonable use of the property. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars. Two-car garages are customary in most areas of the City, and atwo-car garage allows a reasonable use of the property. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute an "undue hardship" within the meaning of state law or the Richfield Zoning Code. Although it may have an adverse economic impact on the Applicant, economic considerations alone do not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use of the property exists. 2. The Applicant has not demonstrated that any unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property that does not apply to other properties generally. The property is similar in lot size, house size and lot coverage to other properties in the neighborhood. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage is similar in size to other garages in the neighborhood. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute a "unique circumstance." To the extent that the completed garage addition could be considered a unique circumstance, the Applicant created that circumstance by failing to obtain proper permits or to ensure that proper permits were obtained. If required permit applications had been submitted, the City's building inspections division would have notified the Applicant that a variance was required before any construction could be started. 3. The variance, if granted, would alter the character of the neighborhood and would have adverse impacts on the neighborhood. A four-car garage is out of character in a neighborhood that consists primarily of smaller, single-story houses with detached one- car or two-car garages. The properties in the neighborhood do not have accessory structures that exceed the size of the principal residential dwellings on the same lots. The petition signed by the neighbors is an indication that the petition signers do not object. to the variance, but the petition is not a legally sufficient substitute for the requirements that the Applicant demonstrate undue hardship and unique circumstances, both of which are lacking here. 4. The variance is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship, since no undue hardship exists. 2 III. Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby makes the following decision: DECISION The appeal of the decision by the Hearing Examiner to increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage variance for 7221 Sheridan Avenue is hereby in all respects DENIED. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed, and the variance is denied. The Applicant is ordered to bring the garage at 7221 Sheridan into compliance with the provisions of the Richfield Zoning Code within 90 days (30 days to obtain all appropriate permits, and 60 days to complete the work with all appropriate inspections) and to pay all required permit fees and penalties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of April 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3 ~ Hearing Examiner Letter ~~ January 18, 2005 Richfield City Hall, Heredia Room 5:30 p.m. Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item#: 1 Case #: OS-VAR-O1 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Variance request for an increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage Petitioner: Mr. Shawn Ross, applicant of 7221 Sheridan Avenue South. Location: 7221 Sheridan Avenue Zonin : R -Sin le Famil Residential Current Land Use: Sin le famil residential home Com .Plan: Sin le family residential Surroundin See ma attachments for surroundin zoning and land uses References: See attached Citations section for exce is Zoning Code: Sections 521.05, Subd. 2 (private garage) and 400.04, Subd. 3 (a lication, administration, and enforcement) State Statute: Cha ter 462.357 sub. 6 Public Notice: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's consideration and public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant is seeking a variance from the Zoning Code per Section 521.05, Subdivision 2. A garage can not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached ara es. The a licant built a ara a addition without obtainin the 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc proper permits which is a violation of City Code 400.04, Subdivision 3, which requires permits for any work performed. The applicant had an existing garage of 24' x 24', and added an addition of 24' x 24'. The garage is 152 square ,feet over the allowed square footage. Variances requested: 1) Increase in the maximum allowed square footage for a garage to 1,152 square feet where 1,000 square feet is allowed. History: • There is no record of an zonin matters at this address. Issues: • The request is for an interior lot (75x134). The house is 870 square feet and the existing garage is 576 square feet. With the addition to the garage the structure is now 1,152 square feet. The work for the addition to the garage was done without a permit. • The .applicant is interested in keeping the addition to the garage. The applicant does meet all required setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: • Deny the requested variance to allow an increase in the allowed square footage for a garage at 7221 Sheridan Avenue with a finding that the four requirements for granting a variance are not met. Basis: This request for a variance to allow an increase in the allowed garage square footage does not meet City and State requirements for granting a variance. The following conditions are needed to grant a variance for the garage addition: 1. There is an undue hardship which denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. If the applicant had contacted City Hall initially to verify that what he was proposing to build would meet City Code he would have learned that he could not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area for the garage. 2. There are unique circumstances related to the property. The lot was conforming to City Codes before the addition to the garage was added. The applicant has created a nonconforming structure without obtaining a permit. 3. There would be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. If a neighbor were to see the garage they would assume they could also build a garage of that size. This. alters the character of the neighborhood because now there is a garage that is larger than allowed. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to . alleviate the undue hardship. The request is not a minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Also the applicant stated no reason on the zonin a lication. Alternative: • Deny the requested variance with a finding of fact that the request does meet the State and City tests for a variance. • Approve the requested variance with stipulations requiring for the requested variance. Procedural Items • Richfield City Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 9 states "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director of Community Development within ten_days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals." The fee for such an appeal is $100.00 • If a variance is granted, the applicant will need to obtain a building ermit from the Cit 's Public Safet D artment. Attached • State Statute citation • Zoning Code citations • Zoning and Land Use Maps • Application form from the applicant • Variance petition and map • Letter from Inspections Department • Site lan and Gara a Drawin s 0118054-7221 SheridanAve. doc MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE 462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments maybe taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decisions, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variance from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for each sheltered construction as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case maybe may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc 4 Richfield City Code (Zoning) Administration 546.09, Subd. 1 (a)(i) (Rev. 1999) 546.09. Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances: a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and all the following criteria are found to exist: (i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists. under the terms of this code. Undue hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; (ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in the property; (iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and (iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the undue hardship. b) use variances shall not be granted. Subd. 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director. The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve. doc 5 Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 6) Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide. a written report to the Hearing Examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request. Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena relevant reports,. and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in attendance at the public hearing shall have the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony. Subd. 8. Record keep. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or may be transferred to State Archives. Subd. 9. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc 6 Subd. 11. (Repealed, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 12. ExQiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard. Subd. 15. ~ecific project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board. Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void. Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of variances to the literal provisions of this code. 0 1 1 8054-722 1 SheridanAve. doc 7 Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District 521.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1 accessory uses in the R District. (Rev. 1998) The uses listed in this subsection are allowable Subd. 2. Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. 400.04. Application, Administration and Enforcement. Subdivision 1. The application, administration and enforcement of the code shall be in accordance with the Minnesota .State Building Code. The code enforcement agency of the City of Richfield is called the inspections division. This code shall be enforced by the state certified building official designated by the city to administer the code, as provided in this subsection. Subd. 3. Permits and Fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.62, subdivision 1. Permit fees will be assessed for work governed by this code in accordance with the schedule contained in appendix D of. this code. In addition, a surcharge fee will be collected on all permits issued for work governed by this code in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.70. It is unlawful for any person to perform any work regulated by this section without first having obtained a permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees contained in appendix D. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE: JANUARY 18, 2005 ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 71 1 /2 ST ST. R 72ND ST. a Z a R R ' R R R R R R R R R R R R R R W Q Q 2 H R R O R R~ R 72R 1 R R R R R R R R R R LLI Q a D w R R R : R R R R R R 'W Q J R R Q J W R W ~ ~ R ~ (J LLI Q Z z w C ~~~I~~~i ~_. ZONING SYMBOLS R = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet 1-5-05 9 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE: JANUARY 18, 2005 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 71 1/2 ST ST. CEMETERY 72ND ST. LLI Q Z O a RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES ES RES RES RES W Q Q O N RES RES ~ REST RES RE RES RES RES RES LLI -- Q RES Q RES O ~ RES W = RES N RES RES RES ~ RES RES J RES J RES N RE N RES N RFS RES RES RES RES uj Q RES ; Z W W d LLI 'a Z Z W o. LAND USE SYMBOLS RES = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Feet 1-5-05 I 10 `~ ~' ::. 3,,, :,, . -I PLANNING Zoning Appi~cat~on ZONING Community D•volopm•M L)epertrnsiN Street Address of Subject Property: ~ ~ }' ~ ~ ~n ~i/L,. ~ ~ ~ e. ^ 1,~ V~. ,~ ~? Legal Description of Subjeict Properly: Applicant/Contact ~ KA ~J~1 ~b $ 5 Date j ~' ~' ~ Oy (print or type) Applicant Signature _~ Company City E-mail Address: Application For: Conditional Activity Permit Nonconforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development Plan Subdivision Waiver Amended Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan Address (if different) _ Zip Phone _ Fax #: ~ f ,}- --~1~ - t 11 ~7 Conditional Use Permit Off-Street Parking Permit Plat (Preliminary/Final) Transitional Activity Permit Amended Conditional Use Permit Final Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit (PUD) Ordinance Amendment Rezoning Variance Amended Off Street Parking Permit Brief Description of Repuest: l a ~ dy ` k ~I' ~ `~~~ '~'~ °'~ ~-a ~ a ~-~ f~_ `z`~a City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South e Page 2 861-9760 11 ay - - - ~~ PLAN N i NG Zoning Appl~cat~on ZONING l ~_ __ ___ -- Community Dsvalopm•M GepsrfmsM Provide the Following Information on the Requested Variance: 1. What is the variance being requested? Describe why the proposal requires a variance. 1Q l ~av/ S 2. Answer the following questions as they apply to your request: a) Is there an undue hardship present which denies reasonable use of the property? (explain) b) -Are there any unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property or building which are beyond your control? (explain) c) Will the variance, if granted, result in an adverse impact on surrounding properties or alter the character of the building or neighborhood? (explain) Ne ~ S t, ~ o p~,5 c.o. ~ awl ~ fl G P ~ '~^GY-~., OT 'f~ at dot. ~'~ ~-~ . d) Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship? (explain) City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South • 861-9760 12 Variance Petition Applicant: ~ ~'1G: ~ ~ ~~.:',~ Address: ~7 ~~ ~ ~ i ~~ i2... . ~ ~~ ~ 5 (~ ~~ I :~: II II ~n:E1 :i~R -~l,_._. PLANNING ZONING c~,~.,•ny o•r•w~ ~ I am Requesting a Variance to Allow: ~.~ g ~ C (~.<.~ ~ ~_ ~- z.~,.,.~,,,. ~~ ~~ ~'~r I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE: 'ks1Q'flfltlli'L' /nrnnarfv nwnvr•.c nr~h~) Arlrlrpec / I,,,...,, ., ,,.f .,i,,,...~..~ - - * --- - v. ~ ~ Y~~Lv l~~ 9Yi l./a/ ~^6' °'~~ ''~r~ ~/ ~ 3~ ~ f j ~ l__`~~:u F`~ ~ ~ 1 v ,~ ~ ~_ .. ~~5, J y ~'S '~ t. c ~~ 1 ... .~ ~' 1 ~ ~ ~ W & t k ~i{{ ) t I~J! ~~.~y ~ S~~ 1 `~ l S ~ pr1 !~ ~ ^ g~ y . f '.) ~. - m._ ,• T ~agnazures may not de removed after tfae petition is submitted to the City. City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue South • 861-9760 i 'C~-..s~ 13 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE: JANUARY 18, 2005 RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED PETITIONS IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED VARIANCE ui Q z 0 a 71 1/2 ST ST. ~ 72 ND ST. 7201 t 7, 8 7215 7214 7220. 7221 7220 a a 7227 ~ ~> J a N Z 7233 ~ ~-~. 7239 N w i=- ~ ~ ~ 73RD ST. ~ ui 'a z z w n. '~ LOCATION OF RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED PETITIONS IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED VARIANCE N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet 1-5-05 14 • s'" ~ 'ir" ! • ,, ~ '. irr'~Q~tB%~~1. Sttriie~ails .,a• • ..' .. ' ~ _ ' ' +~ 821D GOODRICN,AVENUE' ." •' ~ '' 740 MIDLAND.BANK BUILDING , ' MINNEAPOLIS'16~ MtNN, ~' , WALNUT 8994 i" ~r ~ ~:.• ,~ `~ / MINNEAPOLIS 2, M1NN:• •,, 1 i+1,~, ~~• •1 _ S ' 'l i'w ;M~n, N,/ , .1,k~'..l ,•• f _`.e - ,1. .•i' J• ~ t 1 • ;;. ••• . •Y }~~' ', .• Y.. 1• f~{'~+V+~•~~`1.°`•r •, •~~.~~ ••`i'..: .r.f 1 ~ .. ~f .' jr .f.~+r, +., R •` .w`~•'V.-•.~ ' •, °." ,~ ~,` •~ ~ 8rirvoy''8a~r~•; Boy C~tsiio~ioa oo. • ~ • . ' ' , ' ~ '• ~•!•', '~ ^, ,1 ••• •1.51 41 w"y,ll : ` fib ~ '°`;'~x /° .`. y~• .~ ~ '~1• ~,I .k ;~' t .a. nY j~_ 1.! •. + •• ~•1~~'1'• •' ~ • •• 1 1 '•/'1 :mot 1• ~i s y~ .•~ 4 ,Cr ~ „', ~ •u•• ..,f , ~ b ~ rlp:f :'r.~j JZ•i'r t'•ir I ;.l"~~~ . (S '. !rf . ' ' .L• .. ; ,' .. . .. ~ `,'',,•'~~`•f~'Y+b'~01~Oby'OCi"(G1~g:rh~t8fi rC~;~C~@+D 1G' Q`'~r'+ BYIa 002"~Q'9`p~le$ OP A - `,;` ' . • •~ ~..:• •surv~g o!: Lp•C .15;:,8~°vk';3,~.;.~em~,.llo~ie •Ad~9it3,on.•*.~i .-~us"v~ygd:by-'ns .<. 1, r.„+.fY•.^` ' ~ •.,a 1. CY•~~fiVYii~~ M~ I.M.Ii~N,CiVwY • ~ „ ~+ , .. , 1 ! .: ~~• •; .+ •, • • 1. : .' 1 ,,' n±1 w , J;II y•'•, h• 1. y fill ~~~ {~J~t'1J Y• 1. ~1': .' 'f ~1. .... 1: ,.~ + +~~ ~.~+ ' ..Y •ty . Y , 41i 1 : ~ r ,•J. _] i1, it•, i- •'' r ~~. . 1 • •dt:~1 ~ ~ P - •. ! ~•'y" •',f ! •:..' - ~y (~.~, tip, . , .. 1, E • T ra , , • .r't.w' 4,kr'4.~'~~'"'.~iT. ~ ..7 1•a~~+y~e31•?• .'4~1-'4 ~.. .. Ilju.,~ 16 Public Safety Department Inspection Division November 24, 2004 Shawn Ross 7221 Sheridan Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: Detached garage at 7221 Sheridan Ave S, Richfield, MN, 55423. It has come to the attention of the City of Richfield Building Inspections Department that a 24' X 24' addition has been added to the existing 24' X 24' detached garage at the above stated address without proper permits and inspections. This is in violation of Richfield City Code 400.04 Subd. 3, which states, "It is unlawful for any person to perform any work regulated by this section without first having obtained a permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees contained in appendix D." You are also in violation of Richfield Zoning Code 521.05, which does not allow private garages over 1,000 square feet. You must obtain proper permits and inspections, and bring the above structure in to compliance with the Richfield Zoning Code within 30 days of the date of this letter, or remove the structure. You may have the option to request a variance for the above zoning violation as allowed by section 546.09. Please call Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator, at (612) 861-9766 if you have questions about the variance process. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in resolving the above violations in a timely manner. Tim Kirk Building Inspector Copy: Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator Martin Costello, City Prosecuting Attorney 8700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 15 ~a~- Ck~ C~~~~.~, ~~- ~ ~ `1 1 VIA.. ~~~~ °1 ~ 1~ [: "'~ ~ ~~ C :'r`... ~ 1 ~~i,.~. ~~` ~ • /! ~.. ~' -- ~ ~ ~ ~' ~i t T ~ r~ ~~ ¢ ~" ~ L' ~I ~ j j . ~'~' - ty/ ~ • L• t-l / ~ , ./ Gr f a. ' ~~ f,-¢-t,~t/ ~' ~ ~ .~ 1 ~ ~. ~ I . S ~~ l 'Z~M-C.l~~ ~}~. C. Gt ~'~ S-~Z.__ ~~. /i,,.l~ i~ ~ r'' / i~.!L~ (Z. ~. " J Cj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.• ~ t 4i~. V r= ~' ~z ~ (~-~,~ ~ C. e- .'~-~''~- (Jf ~ Lz.:~ ~C {. ~~ 4' ~,~ ,~/ M ~ ~ 6'9 ~-~' ~ ~ 4 vL~'~ (~f ~`~ ~~c! ~ Cyr ~ 7 ~ s.~t' r" ~'• j.. ~'• +~. ~1 / ~~ r~. ~i "~-~.. ~- ~ fit' ~: ! J ~:, r ~~ S ~--~ ~ ~u s ~ 1.~ ~~' G, ~c.~~~ ~ ~ ~ r 17 ]] ~ ~! \, 5 ~ ~ 9 S l ~ C1~_ r I ~ ~ :4~1 /(.a~~ L^y~1 ~ v~ irJ V v1 ~ , Pr~ ~/ J ~f' ~ • '•1 ~ d'~1 ~ .r~'Z..~ ~//~'~~ '~ ~V1 ~ .-5' l~ ; ., ~' ~ ~ ~1.1 ~ ~--~ ~A 111111 j ,4-~c,~e ~/ ~,~~ ,~ ~' ~ is CITY CODE SECTIONS Section 521.05, Subdivision 2 -Private Garages Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square. feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Section 521.13 -Additional Rules for accessory buildings and Uses Subd.1. The additional rules set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Accessory buildings shall be located not less than five feet from any other building (dwelling included) on the lot. The Building Code requires fire protected walls for buildings located less than six feet apart. The eave overhang from adjacent structures on the same lot shall be no less than four feet apart. Subd. 3. The roof overhang (eave projection) for accessory buildings shall not be located closer than two feet from any lot line. Subd. 4. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front line of the principal building. Subd. 5. In the case of a through lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting either street. Subd. 6. No accessory building shall be constructed on any residential parcel prior to the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless specifically approved by the City Council. Subd. 7. No more than one detached garage, no more than one greenhouse, no more than one storage building, and no more than one gazebo shall be located on a residential parcel Subd. 8. No accessory building shall be more than one story in height, greater in lot coverage than the principal building, or greater in height than the principal building. 19 Section 546.03 -Board of Adjustment and Appeals Subd. 1. Establishment. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is established and continued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354. Subd. 2. Short name. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be referred to as the "Board" in this Section 546. Subd. 3. Council as Board. The. City Council shall serve as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 4. Powers. The Board shall have the following powers: a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director in the interpretation or enforcement of this code; b) to hear and decide variances to the literal provisions of this code upon the expiration of authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners established by Section 546.09 of this code; c) to hear and decide appeals of any decision .made final by the Planning Commission or by a Hearing Examiner. Subd. 5. Application. An application/request for an adjustment or appeal shall be made to the Director by written notice. Subd. 6. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a written notice requesting an adjustment or appeal, the Board may set a time and place for a public hearing on the request. At least ten days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper. Subd. 7. Procedures. The Director shall prepare reports and other necessary information for the Board. The Board shall make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Board fails to make a timely decision, the appeal shall be deemed to have been approved. A copy of the Board's decision shall be served by mail upon the person requesting the adjustment or appeal Subd. 8. Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments or appeals are granted under the provisions of this subsection, the Board may require such evidence and guarantees as it deems necessary to insure compliance with any conditions placed upon such granting. Zo 21 PHOTOS OF DETACHED GARAGE AT 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE The garage is 24 feet in width across the front and 48 feet in depth. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11K REPORT # H~+ ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 04/26/05 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, FLEET AND PARK SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: .DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase for two new Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4X4 pickup trucks for use by the Buildin Services and Park Maintenance Divisions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a purchase in the sum of $39,754.00 plus tax and license to Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet for two new pickup trucks for use by the Building Services and Park Maintenance Divisions. IL BACKGROUND Unit 371, a 1994 Chevrolet 1500, and unit 374, a 1995 Ford F150, currently used by the Building Services and Park Maintenance Divisions are fully depreciated and in need of replacement. Both trucks have been extended several years beyond their original depreciated life and are currently scheduled to be replaced next year. Due to a large savings on the purchase of a zamboni ice resurfacer, the 2005 Garage budget will be revised to reflect the purchase of the trucks. Purchase of replacements has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. Under this program, the State of Minnesota solicits bids from a variety of dealers for specific motor pool equipment. The low bidder for the type of equipment required is then awarded a contract to supply 042605pickups equipment to the participating members of the Cooperative Purchasing Program at the low bid price. The City of Richfield participates in this program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the April 26, 2005 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the two new pickup trucks. . • Staff has chosen extended cab pickups to provide more versatility for moving a whole crew with one truck instead of using two trucks for a crew of four. This is especially important in the months we have many part-time employees on staff. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for these vehicles will be equipment certificates issued in 2003. Due to the fact that we received a much lower than expected purchase price, and a much higher than expected trade-in price on our zamboni ice resurFacer, we have the funds to purchase these trucks in 2005. This will lower our amount of equipment certificates needed for 2006-2007. Upon delivery of the vehicles, charges for rustproofing and strobe lights will be deducted from the remaining funds. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually cost thousands of dollars in repairs. • Council could direct staff to further investigate other options of trucks. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11J REPORT # $3 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK L. HALL, FLEET 8L PARK SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase of a new tandem dump truck for use by the Street Maintenance Division. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase of a tandem dump truck in the amount of $125,089.58 consisting of the following items: • chassis in the amount of $63,131.07 to Astleford International Trucks • box and snow fighting equipment to J-Craft in the amount of $61,958.51. II. BACKGROUND Unit 345, a 1989 Ford L8000 dump truck, currently used by the Street Maintenance Division is fully depreciated and scheduled for replacement in 2005. This unit `s mileage is approximately 102,000 and is extended six years beyond its original depreciated life. 042605TandemDump Purchase of a replacement has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. Under this program, the State of Minnesota solicits bids from a variety of dealers for specific motor pool equipment. The low bidder for the type of equipment required is then awarded a contract to supply equipment to the participating members of the Cooperative Purchasing Program at the low bid price. The City of Richfield participates in this program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the April 25, 2005 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the tandem dump truck. • Snow fighting equipment includes such items as: front reversible plow, wing plow, sander and controls etc. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2004 budget contains $130,000.00 for this purchase. • Funding for these vehicles will be equipment certificates issued in 1993. D. LEGAL • When the purchase price of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $25,000.00, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually cost thousands of dollars in repairs and lost efficiency in plowing, and other Public Works operations. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: ~c~~isent AGENDA ITEM # 11I REPORT # 82 J APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RAYMOND WROBLEWSKI, FORESTRY INSPECTOR/OPERATIONS ASSISTANT NAME TITZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company in the amount of $116,928 for removal of diseased trees from rivate ro ert in 2005. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for $116,928 for 2005 diseased tree removal on private property. II. BACKGROUND In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When the City's Forestry Inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the homeowner has three options: • Homeowner removes the tree. • Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work. • Homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work. If the City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to pay the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over athree-year period. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 042605 Diseased Trees A formal bid opening for this work was held on April 7, 2005. Bid documents were mailed to seven tree removal contractors. The contactors were asked to bid aper- inch cost, based on the average number and sizes of trees removed in the past three years. Two bids were submitted. Bids were as follows: • Asplundh Tree Expert Company $116,928 • Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. $137,370 Contract amounts for this year and the last three years are as follows: Year Amount Contractor 2002 59,880 Top Notch Tree Care 2003 $ 83,766 Top Notch Tree Care 2004 $107,746 Asplundh Tree Expert Company 2005 $116,928 Asplundh Tree Expert Company III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Asplundh Tree Expert Company submitted the lowest qualifying bid for this work. • The City has had a previous positive working relationship with Asplundh. • Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield homeowners with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to have the City coordinate the removal of their diseased tree(s). B. CRITICAL ISSUES Approval at the April 26, 2005 Council meeting will assure sufficient time to process the necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for removal. C. FINANCIAL Funding to allow the assessment option is through the Permanent Improvement Revolving fund. D. LEGAL When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. State and City ordinance provides authority to conduct a diseased tree program. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices could be obtained from a responsible contractor. V ATTACHMENTS I • Bid minutes/tabulation ~VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 7, 2005 9:30 a.m. Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Bid No. 05-05 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property, bid no. 05-05, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 24, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative Ray Wroblewski, Public Works Representative The following bid was submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount Asplundh Provided $116,928.00 Spring Lake Park, MN Ceres Environmental Services Provided $137,370.00 Brooklyn Park, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 26, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING °'" APxIL 26, 2005 Consent 11H 81 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Sandman Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $77,750.00, for the refinishin of the wood ceilin and beams at the Richfield Ice Arena. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award contract to Sandman Enterprises, Inc, in the amount of $77,750.00, for the refinishing of the wood ceiling and beams at the Richfield, Ice Arena. II. BACKGROUND The wood ceiling and beams at the Richfield Ice Arena require refinishing and have not been refinished since their original construction thirty years ago. This year, the work was due to be performed and was included in the 2005 capital improvement budget. Sealed bids were solicited and two were received and opened on Thursday, April 14 at 10:00 a.m. The following bids were received. CONTRACTOR BASE BID Sandman Enterprises, Inc $77,750.00 Rainbow $114,640.00 0426 arena ceiling III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The purchase cost exceeds $50,000, so the bid process was followed, ensuring a fair and responsible selection process. The advertisement for bid was published in the Richfield Sun, the bidders were asked to sign an affidavit of non-collusion and bid form, include specifications and a bid bond or certified check. • Two bids were received at the bid opening on Thursday, April 14 and Sandman Enterprises submitted the low bid. • The low bidder was Sandman Enterprise, Inc. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Periodic refinishing of the ceiling and beams at the Ice Arena is .imperative to prevent more extensive wear and damage. C. FINANCIAL • Sandman Enterprises' contract amount is $77,750. • Funding for the refinishing project has been approved as part of the 2005 capital improvement budget through general obligation capital notes. The initial estimate for beam refinishing at the time of budget preparation was $70,000. The remaining $7,750 will also come from the 2005 capital improvement budget but from the prairie restoration project at Wood Lake Nature Center which is receiving funding from a different source. • Sandman Enterprises is required to provide a Performance Bond in the full amount of the awarded contract. Sandman is required to guarantee the work against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of one year from the date of completion and acceptance of the project. Any and all defects that may appear within this period shall be repaired without charge to the City. The performance bond shall cover this one- year guarantee period. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney reviewed the attached contract.. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • City Council may decide to postpone the award of contract and refinishing work causing the wooden beams to further deteriorate. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid Tabulation • Specifications and bid documents • Contract between City of Richfield and Sandman Enterprises, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 14, 2005 10:00 a.m. Richfield Ice Arena Ceiling & Beam Refinishing Bid No. 05-06 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Richfield Ice Arena Ceiling & Beam Refinishing, bid no. 05-06, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 31, 2005. Present: Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative AI Payne, Recreation Services Representative Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Representative The following bid was submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Bond Bid Amount Sandman Ent., Inc. Provided $77,750.00 Elko, MN Rainbow Inc. Provided $114,640.00 Minneapolis, MN The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 26, 2005 City Council Meeting. Deborah Guiher Deputy City Clerk RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING CITY BID N0.05-06 PROPOSAL FORM ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEA9VI REFINISHING The undersigned hereby agrees to provide services specified in accordance with the contract and approved specifications of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. BASE BID: Refinishing of ceiling and beams at the Richfield Ice Arena $ ~ ~ 5Q. D 0 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 9'r~~- DS Descriptive literature for this project is enclosed as part of this proposal. Bidders are required to complete the attached Affidavit of Non-Collusion and Statement of Intent to Comply with EEO Laws. Failure to comply shall result in disqualification of bid. ~'a..>~d-~ar~ Ent ~ c . BUSINESS NAME ~ ~ K.~ and PERSON SUBMI NG PROPOSAL i~ A THORIZED SIG ATURE ~'~78 ~~0~' S+. E . EI KD, Mn. 550.0 ADDRESS QCr f'~i~r~ TITLE q5a) ~~I - 3158 shop ~~a)a~l-~i57 Ctll TELEPHONE NOTE: Bids to be opened at 10:00 am on Thursday, April 14, 2005. CITY OF RICHFIELD ATTN: CITY CLERK 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING CITY BID NO: 05-06 AFFIDAVIT OF (VON-COLLUSION REQUIRED OF BIDDERS ! hereby swear (or affirm) under the penalty for perjury: 1. That I am the bidder (if the bidder is an individual), a partner in the bidder (if the bidder is a partnership), or an officer or employee of the bidding corporation having authority to sign on its behalf (if the bidder is a corporation). 2. That the attached bid or bids have been arrived at by the bidder independently, and have been submitted without collusion with, and without any agreement, understanding, or planned common course of action with, any other vendor of materials, supplies, equipment or services described in the invitation to bid, designed to limit independent bidding or competition; 3. That the contents of the bid or bids have not been communicated by the bidder or its employees or agents to any person not an employee or agent of the bidder or its surety on any bond furnished with the bid or bids, and will not be communicated to any such person prior to the official opening of the bid or bids; and 4. That I have fully informed myself regarding the accuracy of the statements made in this affidavit. BIDDER'S REPRESENTATIVE: l ~lr e ha~1 ~ ;' ~~no hd SIGNA FIRM NAME: me this j~ day of ~ I'~1 ~- , 2005. I~Ca~iiun~~'~• NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ,~~- '~~ ,20~----• BIDDER'S E.I. NUMBER: ~' ~ - ao i a ~ sr~ {number used on employer's quarterly Federal Tax Return, US Treasury Dept Form 941): FAIR TRADE ITEMS List below each item upon which a bid is made, the price of which is affected by a resale price maintenance or "fair trade" contract between the bidder and the person or firm supplying the item to she bidder. (use reverse side if necessary}. RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING CITY BID NO. 05-06 STATEMENT OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH EEO AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS The City of Richfield and various funding sources that are used for major capital projects have requirements and standards to ensure equal employment opportunities and anti-discrimination practice. These standards must be met in order to receive the funds described above. The undersigned hereby states that he fully intends to comply with these standards as required by the regulations of the City and the funding agencies. DATE: ~ -13 - DJr BIDDER'S I C hGt eI J, EYnO hGit SIGNATURES v1z G"L~ TIT ~ ~ FIRM NAME ~ ADDRESS ~~d ~ ~~' ~C' ~'l7g ~.~-D~"' ~~-. E , ~ I k~ Nl n . 5500 RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING CITY BID N0.05-06 BIDDER'S WORK REFERENCES The City of Richfield requests permission to contact five prior clients for whom the bidder performed work similar to that detailed in these specifications. BUSINESS NAME I i-f' ~ ~~ ~ ~d,: TELEPHONE ~ ~ a 8 ~ I _ (,~ ~~~ CONTACT NAME ~ ` p(~ h~ APPROXIMATE DATE OF WORK ~~/ oZ.~~l~ BUSINESS NAME ~,A o -Fot~nda-I~-on TELEPHONE 50'1 ,~ ~ (p - S~5 CONTACT NAME "rOm ~ 2 ~ ~'Q{~ APPROXIMATE DATE OF WORK ~pr.l ~ a©~5 ~n 11~~~~C~IG~' Tl..,~1.. ,.1,,,. BUSINESS NAME ~ ~~ ~ ~~~,~ ~ ~ -~} TELEPHONE R5 a~ c~.31 _ 5R p~ CONTACT NAME ~ j ^e ~j ~ ~ APPROXIMATE DATE OF WORK ~~ V ~,oQ~ THIS DOCUMENT HAS AN ARTIFlCIAL WATERMARK PRINTED ON THE BACK. THE FRONT OF THE DOCUMENT HAS A MICRO•PRINT SIGNATURE LINE ABSENCE OF THESE FEATURES WILL INDICATE A COPY. Drawer. Travelers Express Gom pen ,Inc. 1 R ~~~~ P.O. Box 9476, MtnneaPpol s~MN 55480 C~ OFFICIAL CHECK ~ j V Drawee: Flrst Interstatg,9gnk, Helena, MT '~ ~t 93-541/920 i`* r''~ Sandman-.Enterprises DaT~ 04/13/2005 EA'~~ TO THJr .. - ~ mxDEx of ~ City of Richfiel Bid Bond 3,887.50 ~~R ~. mow. ..,887.50 ~ ,{ ~~~ ~ , ~ T .~ :~,: t. .._ f > .~ 7 r ~,, ~ r. ~ y r~ 9~ ~ r ; ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ :r~ ,~ _ f _T9~ _ i~~~ t83Ba K~~Aek~A ~ t ~/r:"l4*~ ~~1 ~ ~,' t c ' ~~' ~ ~° , for Travelers Exp -~ • ti ~ ~ •~' ~ ~ AUTHORIZED 51GN T ;,~~1~874 2 2ii'~'~~~'~~200:54 LL~~~~O i~500 LO533363~~' J AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND SANDMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, hereinafter called OWNER and Sandman Enterprises, Inc., hereinafter .,called CONTRACTOR. OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1: WORK 1.01 CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the bid documents. Work is generally described as follows: Refinishing of ceiling and beams at the Richfield Ice Arena, 636 East 66th Street. ARTICLE 2: PROJECT 2.01 Project for which Work under contract documents may be whole or only a part is generally described as follows: Richfield Ice Arena Ceiling and Beam Refinishing ARTICLE 3: CONTRACT TIMES 3.01 Time of the Essence A. All time limits for milestones and substantial completion, and completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the contract documents are of the essence of the contract. 3.02 Project Start and Completion • The work is to begin on August 22, 2005. The surface preparation of the ceiling and beam areas to be re-coated is to be completed by August 26, 2005. • The preparation and priming of the fire sprinkler pipes to be done while the ceiling and beams are drying. • The drying time, approximately 2 weeks, for the ceiling and beams will be until there is less than a 15% moisture content (12-13% optimum). • The ceiling and beam coating to begin a soon as the moisture level in the wood is less than 15% and completed by September 26, 2005. • The clean-up of the rink and spectator stands is to be completed by September 28, 2005 in order to begin the installation of ice. • Work under all contracts shall be completed and ready for final payment by the dates defined in thsi paragraph. 3.03 Performance Bond The bidder to whom the contract is awarded shall provide a Performance Bond in the full amount of this awarded contract. The CONTRACTOR shall guarantee the work against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of one year from the date of completion and acceptance of the project. Any and all defects that may appear within this period, and which are reported in writing to the CONTRACTOR, shall be repaired by the CONTRACTOR and without charge to the City. The performance bond shall cover this one-year guarantee period. ARTICLE 4: CONTRACT PRICE 4.01 OWNER shall pay CONTRACTOR for performance of work in accordance with contract documents an amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts determined. A. For all work; a lump sum of Seventy-Seven Thousand. Seven Hundred-Fifty Dollars ($77,750.00) RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING PROJECT CITY BID #05-06 ARTICLE 5: PAYMENT PROCEDURES 5.01 Submittal and Processing of Payments A. Upon completion of work to the satisfaction of OWNER, CONTRACTOR shall submit one single application for payment in accordance with the general conditions detailed in the job specifications. ' 5.02 Final Payment A. Upon final completion and acceptance of the work, OWNER shall pay the contract price, based on the amount of the bid submitted by CONTRACTOR and agreed upon by OWNER and CONTRACTOR. ARTICLE 6: CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS 6.01 In order to induce OWNER to enter into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: A. CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and the other related data identified in the Bidding Documents. B. CONTRACTOR has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. C. CONTRACTOR is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. CONTRACTOR is aware of the general nature of the work to be performed by OWNER and others at the site that relates to the work as indicated in the contract documents. E. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. ARTICLE 7: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 7.01 Contents A. The Contract consists of the following: 1. This Agreement 2. Performance Bond 3. Project Specifications 4. Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR with bid, which includes: a. Bid Bond - 5% b. Statement of Intent to Comply c. Affidavit of Non-Collusion d. Work References 5. Any written amendments or work change directives agreed upon by OWNER and CONTRACTOR after the effective date of this agreement and, therefore, not attached. RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING PROJECT CITY BID #05-06 ARTICLE 8: MISCELLANEOUS 8.01 Assignment of Contract A. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in Contract will be binding on another party hereto without written consent of party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, monies that may become due and monies that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to extent that effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge assignor from any duty of responsibility under Contract Documents. 8.02 Successors and. Assigns A. OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds himself, his partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, his partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in Contract Documents. 8.03 Severability A. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intentiorrof the stricken provision. IN WITNESS THEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in duplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER and to CONTRACTOR. All portions of the contract documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or on their behalf. This Agreement will be effective on April 26, 2005. OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD Its: Mayor Its: Manager Date Date CONTRACTOR: SANDMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. Its: Date RICHFIELD ICE ARENA CEILING AND BEAM REFINISHING PROJECT CITY BID #05-06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11G REPORT # $O J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration and approval of a contract with the City of Bloomington, using public health '' emergency preparedness grant funds to provide services in the area of public health ewer enc re aredness/bioterrorism and the develo ment of a res onse s stem. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached contract with the City of Bloomington, using grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the develoament of a response system. II. BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota has received funds from the federal government (Centers for Disease Control) to be used in developing agencies' public health emergency preparedness/response to bioterrorism. This is part of a nationwide effort to respond to serious public health emergencies. There are requirements in the grant in the areas of coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response surveillance, Health Alert Network, risk communication and training. 0426 Contract with Bloomington for Emergency Preparedness Funds The City of Richfield will receive $43,096 in the third year of the grant cycle, which runs from September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005. The contract with the City of Bloomington for this same period of time is in the amount of $34,046. Richfield has pooled- its resources with Bloomington and Edina with a portion of these funds to support a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the three cities. Denise Dunn, Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, is representing the Tri City area (Bloomington, Edina and Richfield) and has been meeting with Richfield and Edina health staff to plan and develop requirements of the CDC grant. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield became a Community Health Services (CHS) agency in 1977, which makes the City eligible to receive these grant funds to use in the development of a public health emergency response system. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • These funds are part of a .nationwide effort to respond to serious public health emergencies, to include threats of bioterrorism. C. FINANCIAL • Funds being used are those given to Richfield as a CHS agency, from the federal government, to develop a system for responding to public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism threats. D. LEGAL • The City must comply with the requirements of the grant in order to receive grant funds. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ The City Council could decide not to approve the contract with the City of Bloomington for the services of a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator in developing a public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism plan. This would mean that the City would have to hire a staff person to assume some of the grant's responsibilities, which cannot be met with current City staffing levels and would result in a budget increase. ATTACHMENTS ~ • City of Bloomington Public Health Emergency Preparedness/bioterrorism contract. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TO BIOTERRORISM THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 26th day of April, 2005, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides public health emergency preparedness services to respond to bioterrorism, infectious diseases, and other threats to public health, including, but not limited to coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response, surveillance, Health Alert Network, and training (hereinafter referred to as "PH Emergency Services"); and provides services and activities to improve the mass dispensing of medicines and medical supplies through the Cities Readiness Initiative (hereinafter referred to as "CRI Duties); and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to .promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing public health emergency preparedness and Cities Readiness Initiative activities, and to contract with Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from August 29, 2004, through August 31, 2005, provided that either party may terminate the same by sixty (60) days' written notice to the other. In the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of Bloomington's invoice. 2. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with the following PH Emergency Services: a. Coordination (1) Liaison with the. Minnesota Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as "MDH"), Hennepin County, and regional planning groups. (2) Update the Richfield Community Health Administrator on a regular basis. (3) Assist in completing quarterly reports, as requested. (4) Meet with local public health emergency advisory committee and/or electrical officials, as requested. b. Leadership (1) Provide leadership for public health preparedness activities in the community by developing relationships with community partners at the local, regional, and state level. (2) Work with local and regional partners (e.g., other public health agencies, hospitals, emergency managers, clinics, first responders) to develop roles and responsibilities for public health emergencies. c. Assessment (1) Assist in assessing the ability to respond to public health emergencies. (2) Assist with or support assessments that are conducted by other local, state, or federal agencies. (3) Participate in the identification of potential local or regional hazards. d. Planning (1) Provide planning coordinator services for PH Emergency Preparedness services. (2) Assist in developing, enhancing, and maintaining city emergency operations plans, assuring that public health preparedness and response plans are coordinated within the existing emergency management infrastructure. (3) Assist in developing and maintaining agency operation plans to fulfill public health roles identified in city emergency plans, in coordination with regional and state plans. (4) Participate in the identification of the local public health role in patient care coordination. 2 (5) Develop a draft plan to assure that the basic needs of individuals in isolation and quarantine are provided. (6) Participate in continuing regional planning to strengthen and build on the regional and local planning efforts (developed in the 2003-2004 duties) to effectively manage the CDC Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) assets. (7) Represent the city in the development of a regional SNS plan for the placement, maintenance, and activation of the regional pharmaceutical cache based on the recommendations and standard operating procedures developed by MDH. (8) Attend awareness training and education on the CHEMPAK Project, which provides state and local governments a resource of locally placed nerve agent antidotes. e. Surveillance and Monitoring 1. Implement disease-reporting protocols, as outlined in the Infectious Disease .Prevention and Control Common Activities Framework. 2. Receive and evaluate urgent local disease reports from MDH on a 24/7 basis. 3. Maintain and develop relationships with local providers and reporting sources to enhance surveillance and reporting. 4. Share public health emergency preparedness and reportable disease information and training with local providers and reporting sources. 5. Maintain communication with local partners through Health .Alert Network messages and personal contacts. 6. Participate in outbreak response training and disease reporting training provided by the MDH, as needed. 7. Continue to work with local providers and reporting sources on the implementation and use of an immunization registry (MIIC) to better support its widespread use in an emergency. f. Response (1) Assist the city in responding to events of bioterrorism, other infectious .disease outbreaks, and other public health threats and emergencies: 3 g. Workforce Readiness (1) Participate in the development and implementation of local and/or regional training plans. (2) Assist in developing or refining a system to deploy the workforce necessary to respond to a public health emergency. (3) Assist in the process of identifying and recruiting a surge capacity workforce that can be called upon during a public health emergency. (4) Identify the staff responsible for the activity (the "volunteer coordinator" listed on the MDH Workspace). The staff must participate in training about the registry database. (5) Assist in identifying and recruiting local volunteers. (6) Assist with populating the Minnesota Responds database with data regarding existing volunteers and other health professionals, with the assistance of MDH and Hennepin County. Assist potential volunteers to register. h. Communication (1) Reply to all time-sensitive state health alert messages within two hours of receipt, during business hours. (2) Transmit the state's health alert messages to local health alert networks (when appropriate) within two hours of receipt, during business hours. (3) Participate instate 24/7 alerting tests and maintain 24R alerting capacity at the local level. (4) Ensure that the local health alert network (HAN) is effective and accurate using the following methods: ^ Testing response rate and response time of all or a sample of local HAN contacts once during the grant year; and ^ Testing response rate and response time of all or a sample of local HAN contacts a second time during the grant year; or ^ Surveying all or a sample of local HAN contacts to determine the procedure for distributing the health alert to appropriate staff; or ^ Designing and conducting a test that focuses on a particular issue within the local HAN. 4 (5) Assist in completing the risk communication assessment tool provided by MDH. (6) Assist in maintaining and exercising the risk communication component of the agency operation plan. (7) Assist with assuring that the risk communication component of the agency operation plan includes strategies for communicating with special populations. 3. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with the following CRI services: a. Overall CRI Duties: (1) Participate in CRI-related activities: ^ Multi-year exercise planning ^ Regional mass dispensing exercise with emergency management during 2005 ^ Workforce and Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) promotional, recruitment and training activities ^ Clinic and home health planning for regional response roles in mass dispensing ^ Mass dispensing logistical functions being defined by Public Health/Emergency Management taskforce ^ Emergency Communication and Health Outreach (ECHO) communication to vulnerable populations (2) Participate in and contribute to ongoing regional response plan revisions, scheduled for December 31, 2004 and August 31, 2005. (3) Participate in and contribute to regional discussions of coordination in a response and use of an incident management system for mass prophylaxis and receipt of the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). b. CRI Mass Dispensing Operations: (1) Submit estimates to MDH of local staff that are currently a planned part of mass dispensing operations and their current level of training. (2) Submit handshake letters or MOUs to the MDH for each point of dispensing that is included in regional plan. (3) Train staff on mass dispensing functions by moving one group of staff one level. 5 (4) Exercise at least one logistical or support aspect of mass dispensing locally. (5) Assist in assessment and planning for prophylaxis of vulnerable/non- mobile populations. The assessment should include identifying and quantifying: ^ number of persons being served by home-based agencies or living in institutions; ^ geographic locations of institutions and multi-lingual populations; ^ communication needs of these populations, including those who are not yet served well by the current ECHO communication plan. (6) Work with the agencies or institutions serving vulnerable populations to document their capacity to prophylax staff and clients and develop a plan to provide supplies, forms, prophylaxis material, communication venues and training. (7) Assist in developing a local plan for prophylaxing essential personnel that are part of first responder agencies (police, fire, and independent ambulance operations). This might entail a plan for early mass dispensing run by public health or prophylaxis to staff and households done by the first responder agency itself, or both. (8) Develop security plans (for mass dispensing sites included in the regional plan) with local law enforcement. This might include site surveys/assessments with law enforcement, calculating staffing needed to secure personnel, transit and materiel, and developing communication, call-up, and assignment plans. These plans should also consider the need to secure local queuing sites as those plans are developed. (9) Assist in completing progress and financial records in the manner specified by the MDH. 4. Bloomington shall provide the PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 5. All PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be .rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council; and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal 6 laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield or Bloomington.. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto. 6. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington .$34,046 for the provision of PH Emergency Services and $3,982 for CRI Duties during the term of this Agreement, for a total amount of $38,028, on terms as follows: a. Bloomington shall bill Richfield for PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties rendered in quarterly installments of $9,507. Payment shall be made within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Richfield of Bloomington's invoice. b. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions hereof 7. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 8. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. 9. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments shall request. 10. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield quarterly reports describing the activities performed and PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Councilor appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and PH Emergency Services and CRI Duties rendered. under this Agreement. 11. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. A copy of the policies shall be furnished to Richfield. Said policy shall be with. an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. 12. The. parties- agree. to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. ADA. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and agrees to hold harmless and. indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740. 8 b. Human Rights. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. 13. Non-Assignment. The parties agree this Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of both parties. 14. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 15. Data Practices. Each party will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 16. Indemnification. Each party shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other party, its officials, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from either party's (including its officials, employees, volunteers or agents) performance of the duties required. under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of either party including its officials, agents, volunteers or employees. Liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Nothing in this paragraph is intended or shall operate as a waiver of any defenses or limitations on liability available under the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The provisions of this paragraph are not intended for the benefit of any third party. 17. Mediation. The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the dates written below. Dated: Dated: Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: By: Its Mayor By: Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD: Dated: By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager 10 ..AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Consent 11F 79 REPORT PREPARED BY: C®UNCII, PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER Naue TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of ublic health services for the Cit of Richfield for the ear 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the attached agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for the year 2005. II. BACKGROUND In 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act, which transferred the responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions. The state also provided funds for the program and encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of their programs by grouping together. Richfield and Edina entered into a joint powers agreement with Bloomington, and the program has been administered under that agreement since that time. The contract amount for providing public health nursing services in 2005 reflects a 3% increase over the 2004 contract amount. This is due to cost increases as it 0426 2005 Bloomington Health Services Contract relates to salaries and benefits. The contract for 2005 is for $167,629, while the contract amount for 2004 was for $162,747. There have been some shifts in services within the home health area in 2004, but the newly added changes result in a larger base of seniors being assisted than in the past. In 2004, changes were made to the Community Health Services Act at the State level to make reporting and accountability recordkeeping more efficient. Those changes also "regrouped" a large number of funding sources into one, which gives more personalization of the funds for the best specific use of dollars within the community. It is now referred to as the Local Public Health Subsidy. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. h®LICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of public health services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services has shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner and that Richfield residents receiving their services are very satisfied. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • .None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own public health nursing services. The cost of hiring the nursing staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures, and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a-lower rate, which would require designated reductions in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2005 Bloomington Public Health contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 26th day of April, 2005, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community health services, including, but not limited to public health nursing services (including home visiting), public health clinics, health education, health promotion services, disease prevention and control, health planning, and program administration; and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing community health services such as health education, communicable disease programs, public health. nursing services, health assessment, counseling, teaching, and evaluation in the community, home and clinic setting at a nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.04, Subdivision 5, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, Subdivision 10, to provide community health services and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by Bloomington of community health services to residents of Richfield; and WHEREAS, through this contractual arrangement the provision of community health services will enable Richfield to document progress toward the achievement of statewide outcomes, as stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.10, Subdivision 5. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with community health services (hereinafter called "Health Services"), which includes activities designed to protect and promote the health of the. general population within a community health service area by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability, and preventable death through the promotion of effective coordination, and use of community resources, and by extending health services into the community. 2. In addition, Bloomington will also provide Maternal Child Health services which includes services provided to women of childbearing age, infants, children and adolescents and to provide services to women and children who qualify for TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) services. The payment for these additional services is made directly to Bloomington from the Minnesota Department of Health; these grant dollars ($65,610) are not part of this Agreement. 3. Bloomington agrees to provide community health services to the residents of Richfield utilizing the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment and facilities as health services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington. 4. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 5. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies; rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted. by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield, Bloomington, or any other municipality. -2- Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of Health Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto, 6. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington for the provision of Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows: a. The annual sum of $167,629 shall be paid in quarterly payments of $41,907.25 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph 5.B hereof, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph 5.C hereof. b. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 2005 and on January 15, 2006, Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certified by the person in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct, and covering the period of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield shall reasonably require, the numbers of persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations where such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield shall reasonably request. c. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions hereof. 7. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for .inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 8. It shall be the-sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. -3- 9. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments shall request. All reports relating to the providing of Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield. 10. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the activities pertormed and Health Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. The annual report shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report acquired by Paragraph 5.B hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement. 11. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. If requested, the City of Bloomington will provide a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage. 12. Bloomington shall further require personal medical malpractice insurance coverage by its physicians and other health professionals with whom Bloomington has a contract for professional services. 13. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, provided that either party may terminate the same by one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the -4- parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the provisions of Paragraph 12 hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such termination, a report in the form of, and in lieu of, the annual report required by Paragraph 9 hereto, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of both such reports. 14. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants, matching funds, and payment of all kinds from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall belong to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement. 15. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered .personally to an officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To Bloomington: 1800 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Attention: City Manager To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: City Manager Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as herein provided. 16. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but -5- not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740. b. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. 17. Non-Assignment. The parties agree that this Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of both parties. 18. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 19. Richfield will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 20. Both parties shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other party, its officials, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from either party's (including its officials, employees, volunteers or agents) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or -6- - expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of either party including its officials, agents, volunteers or employees. Liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 21. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation. shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall. be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable. statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD: By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager -~- AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11E REPORT # 78 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY ry MANAGER: IJ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. for land acquisition services in the Airport Noise Acquisition Program (ANAP) /Cedar Point Project Area I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Conworth, Inc. IL BACKGROUND • On December 14, 2004, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners (Hennepin County Board) approved a budget that included $2 million in grant Multi-jurisdictional Project Funds (MJP) to the City of Richfield (City). It is assistance for the Cedar Point area which is bounded by Taft Part to the north, 66th Street to the south, Cedar Avenue to the east, and 18th Avenue to the west (Project). • On January 25, 2005, the City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) between the Hennepin County Board, Hennepin County HRA, City of Richfield and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the use of these funds. • Prior to this, on January 18, 2005, the HRA approved the Agreement. 042605_C o nwo rth P SA. doc • In accordance with the agreement, the MJP funds may be used for costs related to land acquisitions activities, such as appraisals, real estate purchases, relocation benefits, environmental audits and remediation, and site clearance. • Earlier, staff identified properties that have yet to be acquired and/or cleared for the Project for which the MJP could be utilized. Specifically, these include: 6300, 6320, 6400, 6500, 6520, and 6528 Cedar Avenue. • One of the City's long-time consultants, Conworth, Inc. is able to provide a range of land acquisition and site clearance services in conjunction with its subcontractors to expedite the majority of work necessary by November 1, 2005. • Conworth, Inc.'s proposal is summarized in Exhibit A. The total contract cost is not to exceed $144,350 including all subcontractors. Any changes to the cost would require an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement. • The Professional Services Agreement is a standard agreement prepared by the City's attorneys, Kennedy & Graven, and utilized by the City in the past. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Cedar Point area is located within the "87db Low Frequency Noise Impact Area." • Hennepin County has designated $2 million in Multi-jurisdictional Project Funds for use in assisting redevelopment of this area. • A Cooperative Agreement governs the use of the county funds. • Land acquisition and other related costs may be paid for with the county funds. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff has determined that it would require control of certain parcels of land by November 1, 2005 to expedite the redevelopment of the Cedar Point area. • A proposal by Conworth, Inc. would assist the City in achieving this land control. Staff capacity requires this work be contracted. C. FINANCIAL • The proposal by Conworth, Inc. would not exceed $144,350. • Any costs beyond $144,350 would require an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between Conworth and the City. D. LEGAL • The Cooperative Agreement providing for the expenditure of county funds has been signed by all parties, allowing acquisition activities to proceed. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the Professional Services Agreement with Conworth. • Suggest modifications to the proposed agreement with Conworth. V. ATTACHMENTS • Exhibit A -Summary of Proposed Costs by Conworth • Exhibit B -Professional Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A EXHIBIT A Summary of Proposed Costs by Conworth, Inc. Land Acquisition Services 6300, 6320, 6400, 6500, 6520, 6528 Cedar Avenue Appraisals $15,500 Review Appraisals Fixture Appraisals Environmental Audits $21,500 Legal Services $7,350 Title Insurance * Acquisition/Relocation Services $70,000 Property Management $20,000 Site Clearance $10,000 Well capping Total not to exceed $144,350 *To be determined on a case-by-case basis. 042605_Conworth PSA.doc PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Conworth, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and Conworth, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONWORTH". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to purchase the services of CONWORTH; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the CITY and CONWORTH agree as follows: TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT CONWORTH agrees to furnish services to the CITY for the implementation of various phases of a land acquisition process that include appraisal and review appraisal (if required), acquisition, relocation, property management, professional environmental services, demolition specifications and related activity services, well capping (if required) and legal services in the Cedar Point Project area, specifically related to 6300, 6320, 6400, 6500, 6520, and 6528 Cedar Avenue, as described in the CONWORTH proposal dated April 18, 2005. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $144,350.00 unless amended by the CITY. This figure does not include the cost for title insurance, well capping (if required), fixture appraisals (if required) and review appraisals (if required). Should these additional services be required, an amendment to the AGREEMENT will be necessary. All reports, memos, and other data produced by CONWORTH become the property of the CITY. 2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to CONWORTH by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the CITY to determine the line item task being completed. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the CITY. The cost of the work conducted under this Agreement shall not exceed $144,350.00 unless amended by the CITY. 2 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONWORTH shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the CITY. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between CONWORTH and the CITY or as constituting CONWORTH as the agent, representative, or employee of the CITY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. CONWORTH is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. CONWORTH represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of CONWORTH or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the CITY, and shall not be considered employees of the CITY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against CONWORTH, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the CITY. CONWORTH shall defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and. vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION The CITY operates in accordance with the City of Richfield's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. CONWORTH shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A). 3 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE CONWORTH agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of CONWORTH, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of CONWORTH to fully performance in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 6. RECORDS =AVAILABILITY CONWORTH agrees that the CITY, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of CONWORTH and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The CITY agrees to give CONWORTH access to data collected or maintained by the CITY as necessary to perform CONWORTH 's obligations under this contract. CONWORTH agrees to maintain all data obtained from the CITY consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et sea. (the "Act"). CONWORTH will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the CITY. CONWORTH agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted against CITY as a result of CONWORTH 's failure to comply with the .requirements of this paragraph; provided that CONWORTH shall have no duty to defend or indemnify where the CONWORTH has acted in conformance with the CITY's written directions. Upon termination of this contract, CONWORTH agrees to return data to the CITY, as requested by the CITY. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT CONWORTH shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 4 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 CONWORTH fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the CITY, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The CITY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of CONWORTH with the activities of the CITY so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, John Stark, Assistant Director of Community Development, shall manage this contract on behalf of the CITY. In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between CONWORTH and CITY staff. CONWORTH may also report directly to the City Council of the CITY. 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. 5 Notices shall be sent as follows: City of Richfield Community Development Department John Stark, Assistant Director of Community Development City Halt 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Conworth, Inc. Ken Helvey 4725 Excelsior Boulevard Suite #200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 CONWORTH having signed this contract, and the CITY having duly approved this contract on , 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper CITY officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Martin L. Kirsch Its: Mayor By: Steven. L. Devich Its: City Manager CONWORTH, INC. By: Ken Helvey Its: Vice President 6 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. 7 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for CONWORTH, hereby states that CONWORTH is in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti- discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Dated: By: Its: 8 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 9 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Consent 11D 77 REPORT PREPARED BY: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of NIMS as the Basis for all Incident Management in Richfield. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution designating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the Basis for all Incident Management in Richfield II. BACKGROUND It has become increasing clear that the federal, state, local and tribal agencies need to be able to communicate, assist and work together in a manner that is clear, coordinated and consistent to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management during emergencies or disasters. The President of the United States issued a Homeland Security Directive (HSPD) that directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS). The NIMS would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity. 0412 Resolution National Incident Management System (NIMS) The Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout the State and the City of Richfield, including current emergency management training programs. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is necessary and desirable that all federal, state, local and tribal emergency agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management. • The Governor of Minnesota has, by Executive Order 05-02, dated February 9, 2005, designated the NIMS as the basis for all incident management in the State of Minnesota. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is critical that federal, state, local and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform planning, training, and exercising standards, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters. • The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommends that adoption of a standardized Incident Command System. • Failure to be in compliance with the nationwide directive to use NIMS procedures for handling all incident management situations would make Richfield ineligible for Homeland Security grants. C. FINANCIAL • Training and certification needed by Richfield police officers will be funded by Federal grant. D. LEGAL • N/A ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl~ There is no alternative because this has been directed by the President of the United States through the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and further by the Governor of the State of Minnesota and requires nationwide compliance. L V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • Resolution. Vl. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE BASIS FOR ALL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the President of the United States, in Homeland Security Directive (HSPD) 5, directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System, which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity; and WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all federal, state, local and tribal security partners has been and will continue to be vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS; and WHEREAS it is necessary and desirable that all federal, state, local and tribal emergency agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management; and WHEREAS, to facilitate the most efficient and effective incident management, it is critical that federal, state, local and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform planning, training, and exercising standards, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters; and WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities, and resources will improve the county's ability to utilize federal and state funding to enhance local agency readiness, maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes; and WHEREAS, the Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout the State and City of Richfield, including current emergency management training programs; and WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System; and WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Minnesota by Executive Order 05-02, February 9, 2005, has designated the NIMS as the basis for all incident management in the State of Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council does hereby establish the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the standard for incident management in the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Consent 11C 76 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution encouraging legislation to increase funding for necessary trans ortation im rovements throu hout the state. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution urging the state legislature and Governor Pawlenty to work together to find a long- term funding solution for necessary transportation improvements throughout the state. II. BACKGROUND The 494 Corridor Commission has requested its member cities to adopt the attached resolution urging the state legislature and Governor Pawlenty to work together in finding a long-term financing solution to the state's transportation needs. The attached resolution does not address specific funding amounts or sources of increased funding. Many cities have passed a similar resolution as shown in the attached document provided by the Regional Council of Mayors. Council member Sandahl represents the Richfield City Council on the 494 Corridor Commission Board. 0426 Transportation Funding III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan has identified improvements that are needed to the regional highway network, including I-494 in Richfield. Current funding is inadequate to make the necessary improvements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The 494 Corridor Commission is encouraging its member cities to pass new resolutions that can be handed to the Governor, local legislators and members of key transportation committees in the Legislature about the need for increased transportation funding for the state. C. FINANCIAL • The resolution has no financial impact on the City. D. LEGAL • The resolution does not have legal implications for the City. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Oppose passing the resolution. However, MnDOT 2030 Plan shows the cost of needed improvements of Twin Cities Area roads to far exceed current funding levels. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Encouraging State Executive and Legislative Leaders to Find a Long Term Funding Solution to the State's Transportation Improvement Needs Document from the Regional Council of Mayors listing other cities that have passed similar resolutions. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION. ENCOURAGING STATE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO FIND A LONG TERM SOLUTION TO THE STATE'S TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS WHEREAS, Minnesota needs to adequately and strategically invest additional resources in superior transit and road with predictable, accountable, and long-term funding that supports a variety of options, including transit and roads; and WHEREAS, new transportation resources must prioritize public transit within a comprehensive, multi-modal, interconnected transportation system that serves the 11- county metro area. Additional light rail and commuter rail lines, along with expanded bus service, must be employed to support our fast-growing region; and WHEREAS, courageous and visionary leadership is vital to forging a sustainable, long-term transportation plan for our state and region. Dedicated leadership must drive progress on that plan and maintain accountability for the process to the public; and, WHEREAS, urgent attention to this challenge is essential; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we call on our state leaders in the legislative and executive branches to get to the table, to work on a long-term funding solution for our transportation needs, and to get something done in 2005 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Regional C~ia€i~ayors Regional Cauncil of Mayors Statement on Transportation Priority As Mayors representing cities in Minnesota's fast-growing 11-county metropolitan region, we hereby declare our belief that transportation has become. one of the most vexing problems facing our communities and requires urgent attention from our state's leaders. Too many of our communities are choking under congestion and suffer undue economic hardship from inadequate transit and road infrastructure. Although many positive transportation improvements have been implemented in recent years, Minnesota's investment in roads and transit continues to fall behind our peer regions around the country. Our roadways are our economic lifeline. If we don't act now, the implications of an inadequate transportation system will affect the productive growth and development of the entire state for decades. Far too many of our fellow Minnesotans unnecessarily waste time and money stuck in traffic gridlock. Every day, thousands of people and business vehicles sit in traffic. According to researchers, metropolitan area drivers each absorb a "congestion tax" of over $700 per year, and collectively waste over 93 million gallons of fuel annually. One million more people are expected to move to our metropolitan region in~the next two decades and unless something is done, traffic congestion will only continue to increase. Clogged highways hinder economic prosperity and erode the quality of life Minnesotans have come to expect. As local government leaders, we see daily how congested and unsafe roads complicate numerous aspects of life in Minnesota: parents spend less time with their kids and more time in traffic, hospital ambulances take longer to get to and from accident scenes, and truckloads of consumer goods increase in price as commercial vehicles take longer to travel. As public officials, we recognize that solving our transportation problem is a complex and long-term challenge that will require various strategies: / Minnesota needs to adequately and strategically invest additional resources in superior transit and roads with predictable, accountable, and long-term funding that supports a variety of options, including transit and roads. / New transportation resources must prioritize public transit within a comprehensive, multi-modal, interconnected transportation system that serves the 11-county metro area. Additional light rail and commuter rail lines, along with expanded bus service, must be employed to support our fast-growing region. / Courageous and visionary leadership is vital to forging a sustainable, long-term transportation plan for our state and region. Dedicated leadership must drive progress on that plan and maintain accountability for the process to the public. / Uraent attention to this challenge is essential. We call on our state leaders in the legislative and executive branches to get to the table, to work on a solution to our transportation needs, and to get something done in 2005. As Mayors, we will focus our united voice on the need for immediately increased transportation resources. Working with the go Minnesota! public outreach campaign, we aim to be a catalyst to inform Minnesotans about the transportation problems we face and to activate concerned Minnesotans to take responsibility for our future. We elect state leaders to address the challenges facing Minnesota and to produce results. Minnesotans are crying for action to end the transportation gridlock and we hope that Governor Pawlenty and the Legislature will provide leadership and answer that call. Toward this end, we request our legislative leaders to act now before it is too late. Let's get Minnesota moving again! Signed, Mary Hamann-Roland, Apple Valley Bjorn Skogquist, Anoka* David Orrock, Big Lake Gene Winstead, Bloomington* Steve Lampi, Brooklyn Park Elizabeth Kautz, Burnsville* Tom Furlong, Chanhassen'` Bruce Johnson, Cokato Tim Howe, Coon Rapids Doug Anderson, Dayton Pat Geagan, Eagan Jim Hovland, Edina* Kent Hartzler, Elko Nick Ruehl, Excelsior* Sue Gehrz, Falcon Heights Terry Smith, Forest Lake Ronald Jabs, Jordan Edward, Mullarky, Lilydale RT Rybak, Mirineapolis* Karen J. Anderson, Minnetonka* Gloria Karsky, North Branch* Judy Johnson, Plymouth* Jack Haugen, Prior Lake Thomas Gamec, Ramsey Bill Droste, Rosemount* Craig Klausing, Roseville* Sandra C. Martin, Shoreview Beth Baumann, South St. Paul Randy Kelly, St. Paul* Jerry Rockvam, Spring Park Mark Schiffman, Waconia* Andrew Humphrey, Wayzata Bill Hargis, Woodbury* Susan Banovetz, Vadnais Heights* Jerry Bohn, Victoria * =RCM executive committee member / Uraent attention to this challenge is essential. We call on our state leaders in the legislative and executive branches to get to the table, to work on a solution to our transportation needs, and to get something done in 2005. As Mayors, we will focus our united voice on the need for immediately increased transportation resources. Working with the go iitlinnesota! public outreach campaign, we aim to be a catalyst to inform Minnesotans about the transportation problems we face and to activate concerned Minnesotans to take responsibility for our future. We elect state leaders to address the challenges-facing Minnesota and to produce results. Minnesotans are crying for action to end the transportation gridlock and we hope that Governor Pawlenty and the Legislature will provide leadership and answer that call. Toward this end, we request our legislative leaders to act now before it is too late. Let's get Minnesota moving again! Signed, Mary Hamann-Roland, Apple Valley Bjorn Skogquist, Anoka* David Orrock, Big Lake Gene Winstead, Bloomington* Steve Lampi, Brooklyn Park Elizabeth Kautz, Burnsville* Tom Furlong, Chanhassen* Bruce Johnson, Cokato Tim Howe, Coon Rapids Doug Anderson, Dayton Pat Geagan, Eagan Jim Hovland, Edina* Kent Hartzler, Elko Nick Ruehl, Excelsior* Sue Gehrz, Falcon Heights Terry Smith, Forest Lake Ronald Jabs, Jordan Edward, Mullarky, Lilydale RT Rybak, Minneapolis* Karen J. Anderson, Minnetonka* Gloria Karsky, North Branch* Judy Johnson, Plymouth* Jack Haugen, Prior Lake Thomas Gamec, Ramsey Bill Droste, Rosemount* Craig Klausing, Roseville* Sandra C. Martin, Shoreview Beth Baumann, South St. Paul Randy Kelly, St. Paul* Jerry Rockvam, Spring Park Mark Schiffman, Waconia* Andrew Humphrey, Wayzata Bill Hargis, Woodbury* Susan Banovetz, Vadnais Heights* Jerry Bohn, Victoria * =RCM executive committee me. ~ Aber AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11B REPORT # 7 S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution accepting a donation from the Richfield Foundation for the Richfield Playground Program and authorizing City staff to administer the funds in accordance with rant a reements and terms rescribed b donors. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the, acceptance of a donation from the Richfield Foundation to fund the Richfield Plavaround Program. II. BACKGROUND In the wake of cuts in Local Government Aid from the State of Minnesota, funding for the Richfield Playground Program was cut from the operating budget. The free program was highly regarded in the community and alternate funding sources were immediately sought by City staff. To raise funds for the program, staff partnered with the Richfield Foundation to stage a concert. This concert featured Richfield's own Peterson Family. The Richfield Foundation acted as the financial administrator for the event and entered into a three year matching grant project with Best Buy Corporation to increase their endowment fund. Through a combination of these efforts, the Richfield Foundation 0426 Foundation Grant is presenting a check in the amount of $10,269.47 to the City of Richfield for youth recreation programming. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the funds of the grant money. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • This donation has enabled staff to continue the Richfield Playground Program. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could not approve the resolution, which would void the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL GRANTS AND DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY 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 has received grants and donations as described below: Donations Donor .Amount Pla round Pro ram Donation Richfield Foundation $10,269.47 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 all grants and donations as listed above for the year 2005 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 11A REPORT # 74 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~/' REVIEW: u REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 7709 Pillsbury Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7709 Pillsbu Avenue. II. BACKGROUND • 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 additional tenants. The landscape contractor business is the only business before the Council for an off-street parking permit. The business is required to have four parking spaces. 041205-OS P-7709Pi I Isbu ry • 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, at the most, by four people. • City parking standards require. a landscape contractor's office use to have one space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For this business their clients do not come to the office, the applicant goes to the job site to meet with the client and complete paperwork. They are required to have four parking spaces and have provided the required amount of parking. The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff, where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site plan: • The site does not meet the parking lot setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, but due to the constraints of the lot and the fact that the landscape business meets with their client in the field, there is not a high demand for vehicle parking. The only long-term parking will be for employee vehicles when they are in the office. • Currently the landscaping of the site does not adequately meet the City's landscape requirements. The entire lot is paved for parking. The applicant will be adding landscaped planting beds to the front of the building. The planting bed walls will be made of natural stone and the beds will be planted with low growing sumac and clematis. • The parking lot does not meet setback requirements. City standards require a minimum three-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of--ways; however, such a setback would make it impossible to keep the parking on this parcel. Meeting the parking lot standards would make the entire lot non- conforming and useless for any business. Due to the constraints of the site, a boulevard permit will need to be obtained in order for the applicant to provide the sufficient size parking space. The applicant will also be striping the parking spaces to clearly define where to park. • .For the outside storage the rear of the building is already fenced off with a privacy fence so any item stored outside will be appropriately screened from view. The outdoor storage will include the storage of minor landscaping equipment for a residential landscaping contractor. The screening on the fence will need to be maintained to ensure that it does not become in a state of disrepair. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes 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 • The applicant will need to obtain a boulevard permit from the Engineering Division since the parking will encroach into the right-of- way. This is common in this area due to the constraints of the site. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when the 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(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 Location map Site plans Photos of the site VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Bill and Linda 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. 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 site plan entitled "Kerker Inc." 2. All landscaping must be completed by October 15, 2005. 3. All landscaping, screening, and fences shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly in appearance or in a sate of disrepair. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 7709 PILLSBURY AVENUE APRIL 26, 2005 LOCATION OF ADDRESS C 76TH ST. i ui 'a j a ui a > I ~ ~ J ~ _ m J ~ Z to a ~. m Z i 77TH ST. 7709 78TH ST. INTERSTATE 494 N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet 4-15-05 __ _, i . -.-~-'~~_i~ -- - - ~; ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~°I i ~. ~~ ~ _~~.~~ -_.:~~ , ~~~; ~:~.~ T_ t i i P D A ~y Z c ,.; P ~Z s p ,,' V' Z y- ~. o a k~: o-. V'; ~ i~[; ~ 0 3f ~, ~-. -~i ~; ~' i i ~\ \, J \' \ `\~~ y ~~ ~. ~ 3 {{{\~~~` c ~ 'O 'D r ~. ~~ .i' N .~ G s ~ ~ ~ ~ } w ~- °: :~ `~ ~~__~ o' .. s ~ I 2 ~_ ,T ~ ~r_r~ - I ~ r _ _ 4 - ~ ~ -_ - a r ,+ ~' - ~ v ~-e ' ~ 3~ 1~ I 1~~~ 1 ~ ~, ~ ~~ "~ ~_ 5 ~ '>~, ~~~'` 111 _ ~C ::. q -~ r ~ s c:. ~ . i ~ I 1 F y ~ :'I ~~r ..l ~`' ~ ~ ~ I ' -t ~. ` Y j ` ~~ E~ t ., ~,. ~ fl S _ :-h ~' 3'~ ° Fi, , 4 g, ~\`=: 1 _.. . f _ . r`y /T ~f:~~ / - ~~ ~~. ~ i R,..t, ate ,' ; .3~ - L. i ~~ ~ ' ? "~ .~" ~-°^`~'{' yea ~~ZV`. .- x ~~~ ~ ~~ `'--a~ * c ..{., i JI ~'Pltt J ,~ d ~,RGtb~j a ~ } (fir'` ~ ~,~~l) fqi 1 ~K: SI 3 j r f q ~ I ....... tl ~~' i 'E_~~ j{ ~"e"C~'~ ~ FS -~. `~i ~ ` _ ~ ~4'~~ ~~ ~k ~ ~~ `'U^ ~c ~ y~-d ~a ~~ ~'aa ~ ~ ~ ~ iLR ~~ _. ` ~'.,, . ~.. ~",~' at kit s ~ . -- ~ ~ ' - ~ ~~d -~ ~+l K I h : ~ ~ ~~ F s ~ 0. ..~ 3+R-,0.V«"es -~'!+ Y ' S, ~5f .ux~*n Fc. y f -lam ~%'"'~ ~ ~` ~' ~- ~,~7~ ~~ ~~ _~ '~' ~ 3 .~[ ~ ~ N ., ~ 1 T ~ _ .?' ,~" a "a ~- .a.,~ wx .1y~ 4 ~ r _ ..- -_ ~ ._j ~'"~ ,€ '~ ~ t ~ ~, y 4~~ - ~ .. ' ~ n - - ,fin. „~a ~„~. ~' ~ ~ y. f4 ~t #. ~ Y ~ ~~ 9 s '` i-i~~_ ~ t. _ c ~~' ~ t" ' ~~~~ ~ '.rat ~ y j 1,,4 mss. ' ~ i _-~J s>~. ~~~ '~' ~ ~ _ `~ ~-. ~ tC • (~ I F 71 4( @ ~ ~. ,t,_~ ~~: z ~ air ~, , f a,. ~- -- _ , -"~ z~ Via. -~.it j 4.. ri r ~ •~`• ~~ d `~:.~F ~ ~ i tc ~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ arc' n~ ~ I ~ i ~ _ § ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I 1 ~ _' k5 . ~m a~, ` ~ ~~i~ ~ ~^ [ 6 m' .'°^J'r. s.,a.«",;..`- ks it } t .3'.S ~ ~ 3~-. # f(I ~ ~ .yr" _ r.. .`S.bus„ :M. .~ ~,. 4 ~ .}.iyi~ yC#f E £a~ a ~A~ i ~ ~~~ ~, .. ,__