05-11-2004 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004
SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL/HRA/
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion of Cedar Corridor redevelopment planning
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient Time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of April 27, 2004 and (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of April 27, 2004
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation from Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar
2. Presentation of proclamation designating May 9-15, 2004 National Police Week in
Richfield
3. Presentation of proclamation designating May 16-22, 2004 Small Business Week in
Richfield
4. Annual meeting with Advisory Board of Health
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
5. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
6. City Manager's report
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
7. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the
City Council. in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the
individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further
Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an
item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda
for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City Council not to waive
monetary limits on statutory municipality tort liability established by MN Statute
466.04 S.R. No. 78
B. Consideration of approval of hiring WSB & Associates to conduct Transit Oriented
Development planning study for Airport Noise Mitigative Area S.R. No. 79
C. Consideration of approval of purchase of signal equipment for reconstruction of 67th
Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection for City Bella project S.R. No. 80
D. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Pearson
Bros. Inc. for 2004 sealcoating project in amount of $337,596.16 S.R. No. 81
Notes:
9. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
10. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment relating to City Council
salaries
Staff Report No. 82
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
11. Consideration of request for new multi-pet license for 6913 Washburn Avenue; three
dogs
Staff Report No. 83
Notes:
12. Consideration of resolutions (1) accepting Alternative 4, Fly Over with HOV Lane, as
preferred northbound access at 76th Street and I-35W as recommended by
Transportation Committee and (2) encouraging Minnesota Department of
Transportation to construct access ramps, including fly over structure, when 76th
Street/I-35W bridge replacement project constructed
Staff Report No. 84
Notes:
13. 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:
14.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702..
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # j 2
REPORT # $Lf
STAFF REPORT
~w,.. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
.=ova MAy 11, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 30, 33
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 36, 39
KRISTIN ASHER, PROJECT ENGINEER
NAMC, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ra'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolutions (1) accepting Alternative 4 -Fly Over w/HOV Lane
as the preferred northbound access at 76th Street and I-35W and (2) .encouraging Mn/DOT to
construct the I-35W access ram s when the 76th Street brid a is re laced.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions (1) accepting Alternative 4
- Fly Over w/HOV Lane as the preferred northbound access at 76th
Street and I-35W as recommended by the Transportation Committee
(2) Encourage Mn/DOT to construct access ramps, including fly over
structure, when the 76th Street/I-35W bridge replacement project is
constructed.
IL BACKGROUND
At their April 22, 2004 City Council-Meeting, the City Council asked the
Transportation Committee to make. a recommendation for a preferred alternative for
the 76th Street access ramps to I-35W. Six design alternatives were considered
051176thStreet
with three different alignments. This resulted in a total of 22 alternatives to choose
from. The 6 main design alternatives were:
• No Ramps
• Ramps as Proposed in the Final EIS for I-494
• Compressed Diamond Ramps
• Fly Over Ramps from West Side of I-35W
• Northbound Loop Ramp on South Side of 76th Street
• Half Single Point Diamond Ramps
The Transportation Committee was charged with determining a preferred alternative
that minimizes the right-of-way impacts on the eastside of the interstate. Through
developing a scoring criteria and scoring the design alternatives, the committee was
able to narrow the 6 design alternatives down to 3. Plan views of these 3
alternatives are attached.
• Compressed Diamond Ramps
• Fly Over Ramps from West Side of I-35W
• Half Single Point Diamond Ramps
After further analysis and discussion of the final 3 design alternatives and alignment
options, the committee chose Fly Over Ramps with HOV Bypass Lane as the
preferred alternative for the following reasons:
• There is only one conflict point for pedestrians and bicyclists
• The cost of the alternative is comparable to the other alternatives
• The west frontage road can be maintained
• Right-of--way impacts on the eastside neighborhood are minimized, no
homes are taken
• Safety along I-35W mainlines is not compromised
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The reconstruction of I-494 including the Lyndale Avenue Bridge and
the 76th Street Ramps has been identified as a priority of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to evaluate the alternatives, the Transportation Committee
developed weighted criteria which included: Project Cost; Right-of-
Way Impacts; Environmental Impacts; Safety; Travel Advantages on
Non-single Occupant Vehicles; Affected Neighborhood Social
Impacts; and, City Wide Social Impacts among other factors.
C. FINANCIAL
• All of the three final alternatives had comparable cost figures for
construction and right-of-way.
• The recommended alternative had minimum right-of--way affects,
compared to the other two.
• The preferred alternative will not have an affect on City finances.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to address any concerns.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject recommendation and send back to the Transportation Committee with
specific instruction of what the Council would like to see differently.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution to accept Alternative 4 -Fly Over w/HOV Lane as preferred
access.
• Resolution to encourage Mn/DOT to construct the entire interchange when
they schedule the replacement of the 76th Street bridge.
• Layout of Alternative 3 -Compressed Diamond.
• Layout of Alternative 4 -Fly Over.
• Layout of Alternative 6 -Half Single Point Diamond.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Steve Lingren and Barb Kritzman, Co-chairs of the Transportation
Committee. Lezlie Vermillion of the Transportation Committee.
• Residents of Humboldt/Girard neighborhood.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ALTERNATIVE 4 -FLY OVER w/HOV LANE AS THE
PREFERRED NORTHBOUND ACCESS AT 76TH STREET AND 1-35W
WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee has recommended the Fly Over Ramps
as the preferred alternative; and
WHEREAS, City staff finds this as an acceptable solution with no reservations; and
WHEREAS, this alternative considers safety concerns along I-35W; and
WHEREAS, this alternative has only one conflict point with pedestrians and
vehicles along 76th Street; and
WHEREAS, the cost of this alternative is comparable to the other alternatives; and
WHEREAS, this alternative will maintain the west frontage road; and
WHEREAS, this alternative minimizes the right-of--way impacts on the eastside
neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALTERNATIVE 4 -FLY OVER
W/HOV LANE IS ACCEPTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR
NORTHBOUND ACCESS TO I-35W AT 76TH STREET.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May,
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING MN/DOT TO CONSTRUCT THE I-35W ACCESS
RAMPS WHEN THE 76TH STREET BRIDGE IS REPLACED.
WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee has strongly recommended that the
preferred alternative, the Fly Over Ramp, happen; and
WHEREAS, building both the Fly Over Ramp and the replacement of the 76th
Street Bridge over I-35W at the same time would limit the disruption to the neighborhood
and traffic operations within the City; and
WHEREAS, this would result in substantial cost-savings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
ENCOURAGES MN/DOT TO CONSTRUCT THE I-35W ACCESS RAMPS AND
STRUCTURES AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE 76TH STREET BRIDGE IS REPLACED.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May,
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~NNESp\
~a
P 1
Probable Relocate
Potential Relocate - 4 - 5 Properties
Preliminary Probable Partial Acquisition
Subject to change potential Partial Acquisition - 14 - 31 Properties
as design is refined. ~~~
® ~,..~
City of Richfield, Minnesota wse ~~ 4
Shifted Alignment without HOV Lanes
HNESp\
~_
~~
~-
ic
-~
J
Ij-~~j.~~~_
r_
~iy~ ~~,~
~®
Probable Relocate
Potential Relocate 1 -1 Properties
Preliminary Probable Partial Acquisition
Subject to change -14 - 26 Properties
as design is refined. Potential Partial Acquisiton
.~ o.,..,.~~
City of Richfield, Minnesota Wse~w ,m
Shifted Alignment without HOV Lanes
4.
~ I i ~ ,...
~ ~.,
1- _ - I j X ~
h...~i - F
-... _ -~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~I~'
~h ~ \
~_- ~_ i 1
I ~I
- '1 ~ III ~ F ~ ~. r ~~; I ~
fl ~ ~ I
'~ .T C~J ..~ _~
' iii phi ~~ n I ' ._ ... ~ L ~- ..LI
_,~-
~ f I, iilil I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~,
i
iii.,. ~~~ ,~~
_,
Shifted Alignment without HOV Lanes
. _ __- -
e: r
. - _.
Probable Relocate
~ Potential Relocate 4 - 5 Properties
Preliminary Probable Partial Acquisition -~
Subject to change potential Partial Acquisition . 114 - 31 Properties
as design is refined. ~ ,, ~p , _ ,
Ci of Richfield Minnesota wSB.,~o=
ty ~s ~L
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Other Business
11
83
MAY 11, 2004
RELATED TO:
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT I~REPARED BY:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ N/A
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
s1N/A
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Q~J
7
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for the issuance of a new multi-pet license for Tony and Birgit
DiBartolo, 6913 Washburn Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve or deny the request for the issuance of a new.
multi-pet license for Tony and Birgit DiBartolo, 6913 Washburn
Avenue South.
II BACKGROUND I
On September 17, 2003, Tony and Birgit DeBartolo submitted an application for a
new multi-pet license. They own three dogs. Mr. and Mrs. DiBartolo's application
contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner did
not sign the application. The applicants did not seek the signature of the neighbor
to their south because they do not have a good relationship.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on October
26, 2003. There were no apparent problems found at that time. During this
0511 New Multi-Pet License DeBartolo
~,''
inspection, the Community Service Officer was approached by the neighbor at 6917
Washburn Avenue South. This neighbor stated that he was against the issuance of
the requested license. He further stated that the applicants do not take care of their
dogs and that the dogs are aggressive towards others.
Staff received one letter and two phone calls regarding this license request. The
concerns involved barking, fe nnea dohs Medbation Program erOnly one of thent and
concerned residents to the M p
opposing residents was interested in mediating.
On March 9, 2004, staff received notification from the Minneapolis Mediation
Program that this case was successfully mediated and is now closed.
Staff contacted the Minneapolis Mediation Program and requested information
regarding the mediation. Staff was informed that they could not release any
information regarding the mediation session. Staff was informed that this
information is considered confidential, and they are unable to release it to the City.
Staff called both parties present at mediation and confirmed that they had agreed
on the following provisions: The dogs would not be allowed outside when the
owners are not home. The oldest dog, Luna, would wear a bark collar. Dog feces
would be picked up every day. If the dogs are outside and start barking, they would
be brought inside ASAP, within five (5) minutes.
Environmental Health staff received one complaint for this address in the previous
year. The complaint was regarding barking dogs. The applicant was notified of the
City ordinance relating to barking dogs and no further complaints have been
received.
Police have had four contacts with this address in the past year. Two calls were on
barking dogs, one domestic call, and one follow-up investigation.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors
surrounding the area that an application has been submitted for a
multi-pet residential license. Staff received two calls and one letter
regarding this application. The concerns were regarding barking,
feces, odor, and biting.
Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or
• deny the request fora multi-pet residential license.
Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the
maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy
on July 22, 1991.
$. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
s N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
None
V ATTACHMENTS I
Two letters from applicants, Tony and Birgit DiBartolo.
One a-mail from Tony and Birgit DiBartolo.
One letter and one a-mail from neighbor opposed to license.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Tony and Birgit DiBartolo
September 17, ZOQ3
Kathy Mueller
Licensing
City of Richfield
Dear Ms. Mueller:
We are enclosing an application for a kennel licensee in Richfield. We do not intend to
start a business, only to breed our German Shepherd dogs to have a litter of puppies every
two years at the most, probably less often. We presently have two licensed dogs, Cooper
and Luna, and would like to keep a third dog. We do not intend to build a structure to
accommodate the third dog.
We have talked to our neighbors and they signed the application. We have the approval
of our neighbor next door, directly to our north side at 6909 Washburn and directly
behind our house at 6916 Vincent. We did not seek the signature, of our neighbor directly
to our south on Washburn, as we do not have a good relationship with him. He does not
seem to like our dogs. His dog is allowed to roam free in his unfenced back yard and the
surrounding driveways and alley. There are occasions when our dogs will bark in
excitement due to some commotion caused by our/his kids, or his dog, in his yard or the
alley, and he will shout at Cooper and Luna to "shut up" (which they will immediately
do). Our dogs seem intimidated by our neighbor, and in consideration of his dislike of
them, we try to keep them inside the house when he is outside. ~~
We have a fenced in yard and a separate fenced in area on the north side of the house to
keep the dogs away from our neighbor to the south to rl~inimi~e any barking. Our dogs
are never outside before gam or after 9 pm for any length of time. We are consistent with
the clean up and maintenance required to have two dogs and will continue to maintain
responsible ownership practices. -
Thank you,
Tony and Birgit DiBartolo
~:
,~.~-.
,`} ~,
--~
Birgit & Tony DiBartolo
• 6913 Washburn Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
January 29, 2004
Cathy Mueller
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Mueller,
Per our phone conversation yesterday, the following is a recap of a confrontation between
Tony and our neighbor, ., with whom we have had
some differences in the past.
Tony was shoveling our driveway in back that connects with!l~driveway
perpendicularly. `!IS approached Tony and told him that he would appreciate it if we
`would not drive in his (~) driveway until he had a chance to clear the snow.
(Incidentally, this would be practically impossible given the layout of the driveways). Tony
responded that he would appreciate it if'~b would keep his dog, ~R from defecating in
our yard when he lets him run around outside without a leash. wiresponded that his dog
does not go in our yard and again told Tony to stay off his driveway until he's cleared the
snow. Tony told'ieto get off of our property and words were subsequently exchanged.
imparting shot was "Good luck with your kennel license!" Tony called the next
day and apologized for his response and told ~ that he wanted us to be able to live next to
each other peacefully and communicate in a civil manner and allow our children to
continue to play together. After a long pause, said ok and hung up.
Since we moved in two and a half years ago, we have had minor issues with! off and on.
t'ou said you didri'*_ 1:rzow Ex~hat o~~r issues are ~//itl? each other and to >ae honest. with you,
I'm not sure how it started either. When we first moved in, ~rmentioned to us both
several times that he had lived in his house for 16 years. Perhaps he thinks of himself as the
adjudicator of the neighborhood, I don't know.
There was a time before last summer when we would leave our dogs outside when we were
not home and it is possible then that they would bark, but only when people would walk
through the alley and by our house, but certainly not for extended periods of time
January 29, 2004
Page 2
Since Luna (our female Shepherd) had her puppies in August, (and even when she was
pregnant before then) we have gone out of our way to be considerate towards our neighbors.
In the last 6 months, they are no longer outside when we are not home.
~rwill choose the short time that our dogs are outside to begin playing fetch with his dog,
~, who will run across several lawns in back, the alley and our driveway. This seems
very calculated since he appears in his backyard within minutes of our dogs going out.
We've observed his older daughter,=, throwing basketballs against our fence when our
dogs are outside ,which gets them riled up. often play catch with each other
in both of our driveways and throw the ball over the corner of our yard when our dogs are
outside. Both of his kids will often use our basketball hoop to shoot baskets without asking ,
again when our dogs are outside, although they have their own hoop. Friends we have had
at our home have even noticed this behavior and commented on it, because for a while I
thought perhaps I was imagining his attempts to annoy our dogs.
Several weeks ago, our dogs were sitting in the backyard when ~ojumped out of his
garage, right in front of them, and yelled "RRRRRRROOOOOWWW" waving his arms in
the air. This obviously startled the dogs and Tony was walking through our yard to the
garage whence did this, surprising him. We have observed this type of strange and
obviously aggravating behavior since we moved in, although it has recently become more
frequent and obvious. We have never once said anything in the hopes that he would
eventually stop and .accept us as neighbors. However, with our desire to keep our 3`d dog,
his interference with the license, and, we believe, his effort to rally our other neighbors to
his cause, we can no longer ignore his behavior.
Our neighbors at 6909 Washburn, have recently acquired a 2"d dog and their two dogs
together make quite a bit of noise. However, it's not bothersome to us, so we have never
made it an issue. They are outside and bark quite a bit more than our dogs ever do, yet they
have not had a formal warning from the city . This says to me that~is specifically
targeting our family. Also, we have NEVER had a complaint in person or in writing from
any of our neighbors. I think it's strange that we have had four calls and one letter
disputing our application for a kennel license, yet not one of our neighbors has ever
approached us with their concerns or complaints re: our dogs in person.
We are responsible pet owners and have.every intention of continuing our consideration
towards our neighbors. We are at a loss as to how to deal wither and would
welcome the opportunity to address his issues at arbitration. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerel ,
~-
Birgit and Tony Di] artolo
612-866-5708
Kathy Mueller _
prom: Birgit DiBartollo [birgitd@espresso-services.com]
.sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:11 PM
To: Kathy Mueller
Subject: 6913 Washburn Ave. So. Kennel application
Kathy, thanks for the time you've dedicated to our application for a
kennel license. We had the meeting with the mediator several weeks
ago. It went smoothly and we were able to work out an amicable
arrangement with our neighbors, the~~ which included the
following provisions: our dogs would not be allowed outside when we
were not home; if they barked; they would be brought inside ASAP (I
think we agreed within 5 minutes, but it's consistently been under 1
minute); dog feces would be picked up every day (we've been doing so
at least twice daily); and Luna would wear a bark collar this summer.
We have been complying with all of the above, with the exception of
the dog collar. We spoke to our dog trainer, Sherry Knez, after the
meeting. She does not think that this is a viable solution for us
because of the cost ($100) and the manufacturer's warranty on this
collar. Our dogs are large and when they play, they often tug on
each other's collars and will likely destroy such a collar fairly
quickly. She suggested several alternative methods to deter them
from barking. One of her suggestions, spraying them quickly with the
garden hose, has proved very effective so far. At the mediation, the
~~agreed to allow us time to continue to train our dogs to not
bark. Their barking has decreased substantially, and on the rare
occasion that they do let out a few darks, my husband or I are
outside immediately and they stop. Consequently, they have been
~atside more often, now that the weather is nice. They are behaving
themselves and rarely bark and we are proud of them. Our neighbors to
the north of us recently acquired a new dog and their dogs and our
three are in the process of getting to know each other. Sometimes,
they will get excited and make some noise when they are all outside
at the same time. We try to let them outside at different times,
until they are used to each other, but occasionally they are all
outside together and will bark across the fence at each other. Never
for more than a minute, until we bring them inside, or we use the
hose. This has happened, on average, once a week for the past 2
months, but has been improving the last several weeks. ~ yelled
at me angrily last weekend after one of these occurrences, and I
suspect that he will not abide by his agreement at the mediation. We
have gone over and above what WE agreed to at the mediation. We
cannot do anything more that we are not currently doing. It would be
cruel to not allow our dogs to play outside as long as they are
behaving. The other dogs in the neighborhood bark more than ours do.
My husband and I are reasonable people and have tried to get along
with~and to meet his terms. We will continue our efforts with
what we agreed upon at mediation. Please let me know when the City
Council meeting will take place so that we may be present. Thank you.
January 19, 2004
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Kathy Mueller (Public Safety):
RE: Kennel Permit (6913 Washburn Avenue South);
I and many of our neighbors oppose this permit ! ! ! ! i
1. These dogs bark from 6:00 a.m. (or earlier), til 10:00 p.m. (or later). We
have listened to this for three years already. Neighbors that are retired
and home all day have to listen, to this all day long (unacceptable)! i ! !
2. The past three years from Spring til Fall, they very seldom clean up after
these dogs. The past two summers with only 2-dogs the smell has been
so bad that we can't even open our windows, much less sit outside on our
deck. This not only effects us, but three or four neighbors down wind
(unacceptable)! ! ! ! The picture that is attached is what we see out of four
of our windows facing the north. This picture shows only about 5 ft. of
over 40 ft of dog shit (10 ft. between houses). Come take a unannounced
look some day, it's breath taking! !
3. The oldest female dog has bitten one of the neighbor boys that ran across
their front yard. It has also tried to take a bit out of many smaller
neighborhood pets (our dog included). They have told our kids to stay
out of their yard or come knock on there door if the ball goes into there
yard, because they don't trust Loona (oldest female dog).
4. 2003 they raised and sold one litter of puppies. Dog was bread on
contract from outside source. Male dog is not a full breed. If there is no
intent to breed these dogs (2-females) have they or will they be fixed?
We know they kept a second female out of the last litter to be able to
have a litter a year alternating female dogs.
5. Kennel ???? 3 ft. chain link fence around the back yard. Full grown
German Shepherds which could jump this fence with out effort. When
one of my kids (7 and 11) run between our houses these dogs go nuts.
It's so scary we have told our kids to avoid going on that side of the
house.
6. If this permit is issued by the City what steps is the City willing to go
threw to insure this neighborhood that the rules are followed and the
quality of our lives will get better! Or is it up to us to call every day
when the dogs are let out at 6:00 a.m. and start barking. Or the smell of
dog shit gets so bad that we can go outside.
7. This survey should not only involve the next door neighbors. These dogs
effect some many other neighbors. Check with the Mailman and paper
people and see how secure they feel about these dogs.
One very unhappy neighbor! !
Mu€i-Pet License Page 1 of 2
Kathv Mueller
From: Kathy Mueller
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:22 AM
To: ~~
Subject: RE: Multi-Pet License
Dea~~e
Thank you for your response to my e-mail. I'm sorry that you feel that you have been singled out as the person
complaining.. I assure you that any complaints that come into the city remain confidential. The Minneapolis
Mediation Program contacted all the neighbors around 6913 Washburn Avenue and extended their services to
meet if they had any issues or concerns they wanted to discuss. All your neighbors were contacted regarding
the mediation session and they declined to appear. The City is not allowed to give out any complainant
information. It was only at the time that you decided to meet with the mediation program to try and resolve this
issue that you revealed yourself as the complainant. I apologize if you feel that you have been singled out, but
all your neighbors were made aware of this process also and they declined to appear.
The City does rely on its citizens to inform us of any violations. Once we are aware of the violation we will
enforce the ordinance and follow-up until the violation has been corrected.
I will be setting a date as to when this will appear before Council. You and your neighbors will be made aware
of this date and are encouraged to come to the meeting.
-----Original Message-----
..r.._Y .. _.. _.
From•
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Kathy Mueller
Subject: RE: Multi-Pet License
Kathy,
RE: Multi-Pet License for 6913 Washburn Ave. So.
Our none binding agreement was bark collars for the oldest dog. Pick-up doggie treats on a very
regular (everyother day} basis. Last weekend after I received your first call I had asked them about the
bark collars. She said they had desided not to get them. I expressed my concern in outrage. The very
next day I thought I seen what was a bark collar on the oldest dog. The picking up after the three
(3) dogs has been done fairly well. They keep the dogs inside the house as much as possible. The
yard still looks like a barren waste land. They said they were going to sod this year, but was not in our
non-binding agreement. I'm not sure why a would give them another year to see if they can conform to
being responsible pet owners, but I guess I will.
One thing that upsets me is that I've been singled out as the person complaining. When numerous
neighbors have called in to complain. Why should I be responsible for Policing them. What follow-up or
responsiblity does the City have to make sure things are going OK per City ordnance?
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Mueller [mailto:KMueller@ci.richfield.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:31 PM
To: ~~,.
Subject: Multi-Pet License
4/29/04
Mi.lti-Pet License
Page 2 of 2
Per our conversation on 04/15/04, I am e-mailing you regarding the multi-pet license request for
6913 Washburn Ave. So.
It is my understanding that you and the applicant attended a Mediation Session in an attempt to
resolve issues regarding this license.
If you still have concerns or issues regarding this license please write a brief letter outlining your
concerns and return it to my by 04/21/04, in order for me to add your concerns to the council
packet. Thanks.
4/29/04
MINNEAPOLIS MEDIATION PROGRAM
,~
February. 3,..2004
RE: Neighbors on 69th St and Washburn/Vincent Aves So,
MMP Case # 040108
Dear Parties:
Recently, a matter involving issues between the parties below was referred to our office.
Parties: Birgit and Tony DiBartolo E & H Peterson.
Robert and Mary Ueland Paul Jacobson and Diane Treat-Jacobson
Jeanie and Peter Knudsen Kermit Schachtscheider
Donald Nelson Kenneth Moe
B~ iaGi Engelsta S. Pastier urrd .~. D. 3~hrsscn
Marvin and Donna Hanson Wanda Sabourin
Terri Jenstad Stacie and Christopher Kaufmann
Shannon Stanaway Francis and Laurel Peterson
Issue: Request for amulti-animal residential kennel license at 6913 Washburn Ave
The Minneapolis Mediation Program (MMP) offers individuals in conflict an opportunity to meet
together with two neutral mediators to discuss their concerns, to explore possible solutions, and
to develop an agreement that is mutually acceptable. We are a neutral organization and are
not acting as a representative of any of the parties; we work with all .parties involved.
Participation in the mediation process is voluntary, and you retain .your legal rights to pursue
this,matter through other options, should there be no resulting agreement.
The mediation session is scheduled at a time and location convenient for all parties involved
and will be arranged as quickly as possible depending upon the availability of the parties and
the mediators.
.Please call us at (612) 822-9883. We can answer your questions about mediation. You can
tell us if you do or do not want to participate in mediation. If you are willing to mediate,
we also need to know if mornings, afternoons, eveniregs or Satd~days vuouid be best
for you. The office hours are 9:00 A.M. - 5.:00 P.M., but you may leave a message on our
voice mail at any time. Please refer to your MMP file nurnber`(above) so we can give you faster
service. We will callyou within a week if we don't hear fromyou sooner.
Thank you.
Si ncereiy;~
MMP ase Management Team
enc: brochure and insert
cc:- Kathy Mueller, City of Richfield, Dept of Public Safety
310 East 38th Street, Suite 221 Minneapolis,.Minnesota 55409 (612) 822-9883 Fax (612) 822-9890 mplsmediation@mtn.org
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 11, 2004
PROP. ORDINANCE
l~
82
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/OR RICHFIELD ZO2O GOAL(S) NO
CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST.
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
N/A
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of second reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to City Council
salaries.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance
amendment relating to City Council salaries.
III. BACKGROUND I
Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the salaries of the City Council
and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed by December 1 of
each year in which an election is held. It has been the practice in past years for the City
Council to review their salaries prior to the time that work begins on proposed budgets
for the next year.
In June 1987, Council Members adopted a policy to review Council salaries. The policy
statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the Council shall
establish a revised pay schedule for the Mayor and Council Members. The policy also
provides that any increase should be based upon the amount of increase granted to
employees in the year(s) subsequent to the previous salary adjustment. The salary
increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3% in
2004 and 2003.
0511 councilsalaries
On May 14, 2002, the City Council approved a salary increase of 3%, effective January
1, 2003. Also approved, effective on January 1, 2004, was a percentage equal to the
annual pay structure increase granted on January 1, 2004 to Management and General
Services employees to keep the Council salaries comparable with other cities. That
.percentage increase was 3%.
The 2004 salary of the Mayor is $8779 which translates into $8.44/hour based upon an
average of 20 hours per week that is frequently exceeded. The Mayor also serves on
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority with no compensation.
The 2004 salary of each Council Member is $6815 which translates into $6.55/hour
based upon an average of 20 hours per week that many Council Members exceed. As
stipulated in the City Charter, salary increases do not take effect until after the next
succeeding municipal election. This means any change in salaries would be effective
January 1, 2005.
Since the 2005 proposed salary adjustment has not yet been determined, the City
Council may wish to adjust their salaries equal to the pay structure increase granted on
January 1, 2005 to General Services and Management pay plans. This equal pay
adjustment could also be granted on January 1, 2006.
The City Attorney recommended that a maximum .percentage increase be added to the
ordinance. One purpose of the legal requirement (that salaries not be made effective
until after the next election) is to allow voters to have that information prior to the
elections. Including a maximum increase in the ordinance provides the voters with
better information regarding salary increases.
Attached is a list of Council salaries of 10 selected cities in the metro area of a
comparable size.
First reading of the proposed ordinance was held on April 13, 2004 and second reading
was scheduled for May 11, 2004.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Chapter I I, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City
Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed
by December 1 of each year in which an election is held.
• The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by
ordinance.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The
policy statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the
Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the
Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to
employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would
be used as a guideline. The salary increase for employees in the General
Services and Management pay plans was 3% in 2004 and 2003.
Including a City Council salary increase effective January 1, 2006 equal to
the pay structure increase granted on January 1, 2006 to Management and
General Services pay plans will keep the Council salaries comparable with
other cities.
• A public hearing is not required per State Statute or City Charter.
• First reading of the proposed ordinance was held on April 13, 2004.
C. FINANCIAL
• Preparation of the 2004 Revised/2005 Proposed budget will begin in a few
months. The Council's decision on a salary adjustment will be necessary to
provide adequate funding,. should an adjustment be approved.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. However, budget
preparation timelines should be considered.
• Do .not approve second reading of the ordinance and take no further action.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed ordinance.
• Salary survey
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by
amending Subsection 210.01 to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Mayor. Effective January 1, 20035, the salary of the mayor ' ,
shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage
increase in the annual pawstructure granted on January 1, 2005 to Management and General
Services pay plans.
Subdivision 2. Council. Effective January 1, 20035, the salary of a member of the
council ' shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent
or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 2005 to
Management and General Services pay plans.
Subdivision 3. Effective January 1, 20046, the annual salary of the mayor and a
member of the council as provided in Subdivision 1 and 2 above shall be increased by a
percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in eg~al-te the annual
pay structure ~'^~e granted on January 1, 20036 to Management and General Services pay
plans
Subdivision 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on January 1, 20035.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May,
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City. Clerk
METROPOLITAN AREA CITY COUNCIL 2004 SALARY SURVEY
City
Population 2004 Annual Salary
Mayor Council
Apple Valley 45,527 $9,780 $6,984
Blaine 44,942 11,664 8,556
Eden Prairie ~ 54,901 7,200 6,000
Edina 47,425 7,050 5,100
Fridley2 27,449 9,636.96 6,998.22
Golden Valley 20,281 10,910 8,696
Maple Grove 50,365 12,000 10,100
Minnetonka 51,301 10,500 8,000
Richfield 34,439 8,779 6,815
Roseville 33,690 9,300 7,020
St. Louis Parka 44,126 9,760 6,365
Average Salary: $9,689 $7,330
NOTE: Each city was asked if they had a 2005 proposed salary. None did. However, Maple
Grove had a 2006 proposed salary (Mayor: $12,500; and Council: $10,500).
~ In addition to salary, the Eden Prairie Mayor/Council receive an additional per diem if they are
required to attend more than the two regularly scheduled meetings -- $25 per diem for under
two-hour meeting; $50 per diem (maximum) for over two-hour meeting.
2 The Fridley Council Member at Large receives $7,915.69.
s The St. Louis Park Mayor/Council also serve on the Economic Development Authority. The
additional salary compensation for the Commissioners is $3,600 and $5,400 for the President.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # g]~
REPORT # $ j
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' ~''"`' MAY 11, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY.
MANAGER:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 1_0
DERICK ANDERSON, ENGINEERING
TECHNICIAN
NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for the 2004 sealcoating project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to
Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of $337,596.16 for sealcoating work to
be done in 2004.
IL .BACKGROUND
sealcoating has been an effective technique for slowing the deterioration of our
residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a thin coat of emulsified
oil, then covering it with. buckshot sized rock. A map of the proposed 2004 sealcoat
area is attached.
The area to be sealcoated is larger than normal to make up for no sealcoating last year.
Unit prices for the. aggregate and oil to sealcoat have gone up 25% and 23%,
respectively since last bid in 2002. The franchise fee recently implemented will
generate about $341,286 for pavement management this year (68.2% of the total
franchise fee revenues) to cover this year's sealcoat costs. The contract is based upon
0511 sealcoat
estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual work performed. Council would
be authorizing a contract at the stated amount with the stipulation that the contract
documents allow variations.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program.
The program includes asphalt crack repair, asphalt milling and patching
and sealcoating of all City streets in five-year cycles.
• The advertisement for bid for the sealcoating contract was published in the
Richfield Sun-Current on March 18, 2004 and in the Construction Bulletin
on March 19, 2004.
• A bid opening was held April 1, 2004. A copy of the bid minutes is
attached.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
• Pearson Bros. Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid within budget
amounts.
C. FINANCIAL
• During the public hearing on the franchise fees the City Council identified
the following targets for expenditures:
Street Maintenance $440,000 (68.2%)
Forestry $ 15,000 (2.3%)
City Hall ADA/Building Code compliance $190,000 29.5%
Council approved annual franchise fee $645,000 (100%)
Because the franchise fee will be collected for less than 10 months;
$500,420 will be generated from franchise fees in 2004. The amount of the
franchise fee available in 2004 is 68.2% of $500,420 or $341,286. The
balance available from the pavement management funds after paying for
sealcoating will be used for crack repairs.
D. LEGAL
• When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $50,000, sealed
bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law
governing contracts or purchases by the City of Richfield.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids;
however, the prices received for this work are extremely good, and staff does not
believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
• Council may choose to discontinue the sealcoating program. However, the
program appears to be maintaining and extending the usable life of the City's
residential streets.
~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~
• H copy of the pia minutesitaauiation.
• A map of the proposed 2004 sealcoat area.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 1, 2004
11:00 am
2004 Bituminous Sealcoat Construction
Bid No. 04-03
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 2004 bituminous sealcoat construction,
bid no. 04-03, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 18, 2004 and the
Construction Bulletin on April 19, 2004.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Derick Anderson, Public Works Representative
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount.
Astech Corp. 5% Bid Bond $447,358.58
St. Joseph, MN
Pearson Bros. Inc. 5% Bid Bond $337,596.16
Loretto, MN
Allied Blacktop 5% Bid Bond $343,108.90
Maple Grove, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May
11, 2004 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
;v z
a O
w Y~ c ~
Q J U
Z a 30 ~ o ~ ~
z cn W v o a ~ n (~ o
W w ~~ ~ ~ u~ z~
N
w ~ ~ m z
°~ °C C7
~ O ~ z
Q v~i ~ { ~ w
cO s
-_ ~ ~
ava3~ OCR
ow
o
z
0 ~ 47Z l
w
vwi U O
W Qzz° ~
a--~ ONb'llbOd ~~ ~~ SON 1210d
~ O CC~C]~OD~C]C]0 a ~,
~ o~~l0000000000 0 0
~ DOOM 0000000
C~C700~~DD000~O
a~ ~ ~' oooo 0000000
13llO~IN ~~ ~~~ 0~0~~0 ~13llO~IN
o ~o0 00000
p ~ ~o ^oo 0 00000 a
~ ~ o 00 ^^^^oo
0000 ~o D
3lHaNl~l ~~~~ 3lVONl.I
°^ ow ~Q°o°o°o°o
~0 ~a ~ J ~a
~ ~~ ~aooo
0000 ~ °oo
V Z C~C]DOC]~C]~o~ q
oooC"1oo00~7
~, 000 oooo ~
~C]C]C] QC]C]C^C]C~C C]L~
& D~OC]G°ODC~OC]C OC]U D
oooo~a[~oooooC o0
00000 aooooo 00
NN3d 0~~~~00~0~~~0~ ~ NN3d
qo 000 00
Do 00000 00
°o~~aoooo 00
0000 00000
~ Oc~° oooo^ 000000
0 oooo a ~ooq
0 00000 a ooh
S3X213X C~C~~O^ ~~ ~ S3X2i3X
mil' 0
~~ooo ~~oc~~~o
~ m ~
.. ~
D
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # $G _
REPORT # $Q
" ~_~ STAFF REPORT
tay,W '. vim' ~;}
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
~' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ MAY 11, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. NA AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO 40
REPORT PREPARED BY: DERICK ANDERSON,
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
r SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorizing the purchase of signal equipment for the reconstruction of 67tH
and L ndale intersection for the Cit Bella ro'ect.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the purchase of signal equipment for the
reconstruction of 67t" and Lyndale intersection for the City Bella
project.
IL BACKGROUND
The City has been working with Gramercy Corporation to redevelop the area at 66th
Street and Lyndale Avenue (City Bella). Part of the City's requirement of the
redevelopment plan was the reconstruction of the signal system at 67t" and
Lyndale. The two signal masts on the west side of Lyndale are being relocated to
accommodate the reconfigured access to the City. Bella project. A protected left turn
from northbound Lyndale has also been added. The single post signal on the SE
corner of 67t" and Lyndale will be replaced with a full mast and arm, emergency
0511 67th Lyndale
vehicle preemption system (EVP) and new energy saving signal lenses to bring the
signal up to current standards.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The signal improvements will encourage diverse, high quality
development that meets the needs of all residents and neighbors.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Purchase is required at this time to keep the project on schedule, as
there is a twelve-week wait once the order is placed to receive the
equipment.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of the equipment is estimated at $39,250. The upgrades to
the signal, i.e. the EVP system and the new energy saving lenses, will
be paid by the City using Municipal State Aid funds (gas tax revenues)
at a cost of $20,900. The remaining costs will be paid by the
developer, Gramercy Park, once a contractor is selected.
D. LEGAL
• The City Council must authorize purchases of services in excess of
$25,000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny authorization, but this would delay the construction of the signal and
interfere with the opening of the City Bella project.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
~~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
`'~~'-`~~`~ MAY 11, 2004
Consent
8B
7
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. 36
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No 25
REPORT PREPARED BY:
TOM FOLEY TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
Nance, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorizing the hiring of WSB & Associates to do a Transit Oriented
Develo ment tannin stud for the Air ort Noise Miti ative Area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the hiring of WSB & Associates to conduct a
Transit Oriented Development planning study for the Airport Noise
Mitigative Area.
II. BACKGROUND
The City has been working with Ryan Companies to redevelop the area north of
66th Street, between 17th and Cedar Avenues with a retail power center. Staff has
been trying to identify additional funding for the redevelopment project and
.acquisition of property within the 87 db area.
Hennepin County has awarded a planning grant for transit-oriented developments to
the City of Richfield. WSB & Associates has submitted a proposed work program for
0511 TOD study
a planning study (see attachment). The study will assist the City in assessing future
needs for transit and transportation improvements in the Airport Noise Mitigative
Area, specifically as they relate to the proposed redevelopment north of 66th Street.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has identified the 87db low frequency noise area for
acquisition of existing property and redevelopment with noise-
compatible uses and structures.
• The change in land uses in the airport mitigative area will trigger
changes in the transportation network.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Making any redevelopment within this area transit compatible is
appropriate given the densities that will eventually be developed in the
mitigative area. There are also many opportunities to connect the
urea to transit opportunities at the Mall of America and I-35W.
• The study will assist the City and the developer in locating the
appropriate entrances to the new development.:
C. FINANCIAL
• The proposal will cost $48,200. Funding will come from a Hennepin
County grant.
• No city funds will be used to perform the study.
D. LEGAL
• The City Council must authorize purchases of services in excess of
$25,000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny authorization and direct staff to revise the work program or secure a
proposal from another consultant. However, WSB & Associates has
performed good work for the City in the past.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Letter from WSB & Associates on proposed work program dated March 26,
2004.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
March 26, 2004
Mr. Tom Foley
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
RE: Study of Transit Oriented Development at 66t" and Cedar.
Dear Mr. Foley:
WSB is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct a study of transit oriented development
near the interchange of 66t" Street and TH 77.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Richfield has identified an area of the city along TH 77 that requires
redevelopment in order to replace existing single family residential land uses with land
uses that are more compatible with the noise levels that are expected with the completion
of the new north-south runway at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. There
area affected runs from TH 62 south to about 77t" Street. The initial focus of
redevelopment is in the area around 66t" Street. Anew interchange is proposed at 66t"
and TH 77 in order to serve the additional traffic from new uses on the Airport property as
well as the proposed redevelopment in the City of Richfield. This study at a minimum
should address the following issues.
• The amount of traffic that will be generated from future development,
• the appropriate location of a new intersection to the development,
• where a new north-south arterial should be located,
• how transit can be incorporated into the new development,
• how connections to nearby transit hubs can be made, and
• how pedestrians can be accommodated into the new development.
SCOPE OF WORK
In order to address the above issues WSB will complete the following tasks.
1. Data Collection
WSB will work with the City of Richfield to obtain existing land use data and traffic counts,
as well as information regarding the types of land use that will be considered in the
redevelopment area. WSB will also collect data on exiting transit routes and ridership for
the. area from TH 77 to Portland Avenue and from TH 62 to I-494. WSB will meet with
Metro Transit to obtain information on proposed route restructuring and discuss how this
could be modified to better provide transit service to the study area. WSB will also obtain
existing and proposed roadway and redevelopment plans for the area.
2. Traffic Forecasts
WSB will estimate the traffic that would be generated by future development in this area and
determine the increase in traffic that will occur on the study area roadways. The forecasts will
include both daily and p.m. peak hour traffic. The trip generation of the proposed development will
be documented along with the transit ridership potential of each development.
3. Develop Guidelines/Criteria for site layouts.
Guidelines/criteria for site layouts will be developed that will suggest ways to provide better access
for transit/alternative modes of transportation. The guidelines would provide assistance to staff in
making sure buildings, walkways, park & rides, transit stops, etc. are placed appropriately.
4. Analysis of North/South Arterial Alternatives
Alternative alignments for a new north/south arterial will be developed and evaluated. This
analysis. will include evaluation of the location of the intersection of the new north/south
arterial with 66t" Street. The need for and design of transit accommodations will be
considered in the evaluation of the intersection location. A layout will be developed
showing the recommended design for the intersection and cross-sections will be
developed to show the proposed lane widths, shoulders and boulevard for the north south
arterial. Specific access locations will be identified.
5. Transit Alternatives and Potential Ridership
This. task will include evaluating the potential for route restructuring to better serve the proposed
redevelopment along with the feasibility of providing connections to transit hubs in the south metro
area and in particular the Mall of America. This analysis would include looking at circulator/feeder
service to the Mall of America which would provide connections to LRT and other transit routes
feeding this hub. The analysis would look at potential routes, operating costs, and ridership. Both
limited service and full day service options would be considered. This task would recommend
specific transit improvements that should be made to accommodate the proposed development. A
layout will be developed that will show proposed transit related improvements.
6. Pedestrian Circulation and Connections
This task would include evaluation of pedestrian circulation needs and connections
between various land uses and potential transit stops. The product of this task would
include the development of a map showing recommended pedestrian facilities.
7. Prepare Report
WSB will prepare a draft and final report documenting the results of the study. The
potential size of the redevelopment will be documented along with the trip generation and
potential transit ridership. The report will include recommendations for the. location of the
north/south arterial including the location for the proposed intersection of the north/south
arterial and 66t" Street. The report will document the evaluation of alternative transit
routes including possible connections to the Mall of America and the cost and ridership
implications of the alternatives. A layout of recommended transit improvements will be
presented in the report along with recommended pedestrian facilities.
8. Meetings
WSB will attend meetings with City staff, potential developers and metro transit staff to
collect data and review alternatives. A total of 8 meetings are assumed.
COST ESTIMATE
Our estimated costs to complete the study are shown below by task. We would bill the
City based on our standard hourly rates for the actual hours worked up to a maximum of
Task Cost
1. Data Collection 4,500.00
2. Traffic Forecasts 7,500.00
3. Develop Guidelines for Site Layouts 3,500.00
3. Analysis of North/South Arterial 8,200.00
4. Transit Alternatives and Ridership 8,900.00
5. Pedestrian Circulation and 5,600.00
Connections
6. Report 5,800.00
7. Meetings 4,200.00
TOTAL 48,200.00
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # $A
REPORT # 78
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 11, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A Arm/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIR.
N,9ME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY ~y
MANAGER: ~;J
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory municipality tort
liabilit
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
II. BACKGROUND
The City purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating
municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This
action must be taken before July 1 of each year.
0511 Tort Liability
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000
occurrence limit or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is
purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess
liability insurance.
Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is historically true of
slightly more than half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to
purchase excess liability coverage for the past several years.
The cost of excess liability insurance has been, and continues to be very expensive.
An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost in excess of $55,000 annually.
Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess
of the statutory $1,000,000 cap.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities at the current
$1,000,000 level was established fairly recently and appears to be a
reasonable limit.
• Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the
monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes
466.04.
The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years if a decision was
made to do so.
The City Council may also wish to further consider purchasing excess liability
in the future. If this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust will renew on July 1, 2004. This action must be completed on, or
before that time.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of
the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage
would be between $55,000 and $65,000 if the City does not waive its liability
limits.
D. LEGAL
• The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protected
cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary
award in excess of the statutory limits against a municipality.
• Each city must annually decide whether the City would voluntarily waive the
statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the
$300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
• If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate,
the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the
limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for
Minnesota cities; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each
city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive
it's limits; and
WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report
to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not
waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes
466.04.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk