05-13-03 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003
' -' SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
-1. -:Discussion:~o#-user:fees
• Street light utility fee
• Boulevard tree maintenance fee
• Update on meetings with Xcel and CenterPoint Energy regarding franchise fees
urnment
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 Counci/ 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) Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2003; (2) Richfield
Local Board of Equalization of April 29, 2003; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of May
2, 2003
PRESENTATIONS
Recognition of Little League Baseball parents' clean-up efforts at Lincoln Field
2. Recognition of Modelo de Informacion de Recursos y Apoyo (MIRA) Latino Community
Resource Center at Church of the Assumption
3. Presentation regarding emergency preparedness activities (postponed from April 22,
2003)
4. Annual meeting with Advisory Board of Health
5. Presentation of proclamation designating May 11-17, 2003 as National Police Week in
Richfield
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
6. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. 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 fora royal.
A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of
parcels at 7645 Aldrich and 7646 Lyndale Avenues to The Cornerstone Group S
R
.
.
No. 104
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City Council not to waive
monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04
S.R. No. 105
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing donation of used computer
D. equipment to Independent School District #280 S.R. No. 106
Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Business Subsid
A
reement
y
g
between HRA and Lyndale Gateway, L.L.C. for Cornerstone Group project S.R. No.
107
E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application to Hennepin County
for Transit Oriented Development Grant for Airport Noise Mitigative Area S
R
No
.
.
.
108
F. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for Church of
G. the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street S.R. No. 109
Consideration of approval of resolution supporting com
letion of 1996 S
d
p
oun
Insulation Program S.R. No. 110
H.
~ Consideration of approval of Consent to Mutual Representation for Kennedy &
. Graven regarding representation of International Design Center
1550 West 78th
,
Street S.R. No. 111
I. Consideration of approval of contract with City of Bloomington, using grant funds, to
provide public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism services and
~~ development of response system S.R. No.112
J. Consideration of approval of change orders for additional work on 76th Street
Widening Project and work order for continued service on construction observation
provided by City's consultant, Short Elliot Hendrickson S.R. No. 113
K. Consideration of approval of new taxi license for Azteca Van Lines, Inc., 3645
Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis, MN S.R. No. 114
L. Consideration of approval of new therapeutic massage license for Deborah Clarke,
6603 Queen Avenue S.R. No. 115
Notes:
8. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Public hearings and consideration of resolutions related to The Cornerstone Group
redevelopment project:
• Public hearing regarding resolution approving modification to Redevelopment Plan
for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
• Public hearing regarding resolution approving modification #11 to Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet tax increment financing plan
• Public hearing regarding resolution approving modification #1 to Lyndale Gateway
West tax increment financing plan
Staff Report No. 116
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
10. Consideration of appointment of two City residents to serve on "Blending Public
Spaces and Private Development" Work Group
Staff Report No. 117
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Notes:
~ ~
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.
.dotes:
11.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.
~ \
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
/ SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ,i~`~ 1 ~~
AGENDA SECTION: nthpr $y,~,~e~~
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # ~ ~ ~
TION:
Consideration of an appointment of two City residents to serve on a new Work Group.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:. Appoint two City residents to serve on the new "Blending
Public Spaces and .Private Development" Work Group.
II. BACKGROUND
• Each year the City Council creates a list of goals for the upcoming year.
• At the 2003 goal-setting session, the City Council adopted several goals,
including the following:
GOAL 3: BY THE END OF 2003, ESTABLISH COMMUNITY DESIGN
STANDARDS THAT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: LIGHTING,
SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
• The Community Development Department has created a work plan for
accomplishing this goal.
• The work plan (attached) calls for creating a -Work Group consisting of
representatives from the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), Planning Commission, Richfield Beautiful, businesses, and residents.
• This Work Group will meet over afour-month period to draft a set of
`community design standards' for the City Council's review in the fall.
051303-AppointLiaison. doc
• Michael Schroeder, a landscape architect and urban design expert who has
~~ worked with the City of Richfield staff, will provide limited consulting services
to the Work Group.
• On April 22, 2003, the City Council appointed Council Member Susan
Rosenberg as liaison to this Work Group and Council Member Sue Sandahl
as an alternate.
• The City Council delayed the appointment of two City residents to this Work
Group until the May 13, 2003 meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council has set a goal of establishing `community design
standards' and a Work Group will create these standards.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Work Group will meet six times over a four month period, from
May through September of this year.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMF,NDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Work plan for the "Blending Public Spaces and Private Development" Work
Group.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~~, Blending Public Spaces and Private Development
Establishing Standards for Lighting, Signage, Landscaping, and Open Space
1 Purpose
^ To create standards that offer a broader sense of the community's goals for development activities to
enhance a sense of community.
^ To engage community representatives to fully understand how they view their community and to
distill notions of "Identity" and "Livability", based on the values of the community.
^ To elaborate more qualitative directions and suggestions for development activities. Current design
guidelines and land use plans offer relatively quantitative information for development projects;
information that is typically missing includes qualitative notions of the "experience" of the place and
how it best fits the surrounding community. In this sense, standards can be particularly important in
the creation of a vital public realm.
2 Intent and goals
The intentions of this effort should be directed toward the identification of qualitative values that the
community wants to guide development, so that community values regarding matters such as
identity, livability; and connectedness can become incorporated into development plans.
The Lighting, Signage, Landscaping and Open Space Standards (LSLOSS) can;
o Offer a baseline of community values to those interested in development activities in the
City of Richfield; '
o Provide guidance about how development activities can be integrated into the community;
o Offer a sense of unity between the various parts of the community;
o Offer assurance to the community that development activities truly enhance the community;
o Build a stronger sense of livability for the Richfield community by recognizing the more
qualitative aspects of development.
^ These Lighting, Signage, Landscaping and Open Space Standards (LSLOSS) are not:
o intended to replace land use regulations, policies, or other regulations
o intended to replace building development standards or guidelines
o intended to create a Richfield "theme"
3 Process
^ The process of crafting LSLOSS should engage representatives of the community and use their "local
knowledge" of Richfield to frame the LSLOSS.
^ The process might result in potentially divergent opinions, but the process should allow time to build
an understanding of the most appropriate solutions for the LSLOSS.
A Working Group to create the LSLOSS should include representatives as follows:
o Planning Commission (1)
o City Council (1)
o HRA (1)
o Richfield Beautiful (1)
o Business owner (1)
o Residents (2)
o City staff (1)
o Consultant (1)
To be designated by the Planning Commission
To be designated by the City Council
To be designated by the HKA
To be designated by Bichfield Beautiful
To be designated by the Chamber of Commerce
To be designated by the City Manager or City Council
Bruce Sylvester, ~ohn Stark and Bruce N. as needed)
Michael Schroeder, to participate on a limited basis.
,~
^ The process will not ask the Work Group to create LSLOSS, but it will rely on their local knowledge
and values to shape the LSLOSS.
^ In order to fully engage a Work Group, they will be guided through exercises intended to help them
share ideas and glean community values.
o Photograph survey
o Project tours
o Work group meetings
4
Timeline and Schedule
^ The timeline for this process will not be long, but rather a focused effort over a shorter period
of time. It is intended that the Work Group would meet several times over the course of four
months (May through September) to complete the work and forward its recommendations to
the HRA, Planning Commission, and Ciry Council.
^ Work process
o Meeting: Kick off meeting with work group. May 14
o Photograph survey conducted by work group members and com
iled
p
by staff May 15-27
o Meeting: Work session to review photos; outline initial ideas; identify
tour sites. (Michael Schroeder to assis~ June 4
o Work group members tour projects on their own or in small groups... June 5-17
o Meeting: Outline general directions LSLOSS. (Michael Schroeder to
assist June 18
o Staff distillation of general directions and creation of draft LSLOSS July 2
o Meeting: Review draft; "test" guidelines against toured projects.
(Michael Schroeder to assis~ July 9
o Staff to create second draft of LSLOSS and distribute prior to Jul
o y
23rd
Meeting: Review second draft of LSLOSS; outline process for
July 10-15
presentation to HRA, Planning Commission, and City Council July 23
o Presentation of draft LSLOSS to HRA
Planning Commission
and
,
,
City Council August
o Meeting: Review input offered by HRA
Planning Commission
and
,
,
City Council. September 3
o Staff preparation of final LSLOSS and submittal to Ciry Council for
September 23rd meeting. September 10
Total number of meetings for work group members• 6
5
Application
^ As a tool to assist in guiding development and redevelopment activities in the City of Richfield,
the LSLOSS would apply to:
o Regional corridors -corridors focused on major roadways of regional importance:
• I-494/77~h Street
• Cedar Avenue
o Community corridors -more locally focused streets that are particularly important to the
Richfield community:
~ 66t" Street
~ • 76~ Street
• Lyndale Avenue
• Penn Avenue
• Nicollet Avenue
• Portland Avenue
o Points of Interest -including gateways into the Ciry and the Downtown area, where the mix
of activities suggests commercial or civic centers for the Richfield community.
• The LSLOSS are not intended to replace any existing tools meant to guide development activities,
but rather to offer a greater sense of coherency for the community as a whole. In this regard,
development activities will not be seen as islands or isolated activities; they may become catalysts for
the enhancement of the sense of community.
• We need to, as a part of this project, demonstrate how the information gained through this process
can be made useful or tangible -- not abstract, particularly since we are attempting to deal with ideas
that are more experiential or qualitative.
t
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
Consent
7L
115
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® /~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~i~ ~ A 1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration and approval of a request for a new therapeutic massage license for Deborah
Clarke (business not yet named) to be located on the second floor of the Curves business,
6603 Queen Avenue in Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a request for a new therapeutic massage license
for Deborah Clarke business not et named , 6603 Queen Avenue.
~ II. BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2003, Deborah Clarke submitted an application for a new
therapeutic massage license. She would like to operate the business on the second
floor of the Curves business, which is located at 6603 Queen Avenue. Licensing.
and proof of liability insurance have been submitted.
Ms. Clarke has met the requirements for the therapeutic massage license and has
no known criminal history.
Ms. Clarke will work with Bloomington health sanitarians to comply with all the
requirements for this license and follow their recommendations for health issues.
0513Massage-Deborah Clarke
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
;~
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City
application process, has paid the license fees and has provided proof
of liability insurance.
• Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the
investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the
license request.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The license fees have been paid by Ms. Clarke.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could deny the request for a new therapeutic massage
~ license for Ms. Clarke at 6603 Queen Avenue, which would mean she could
not practice therapeutic massage at that location. However, there appears to
be no reason to deny the license request.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Ms. Deborah Clarke
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
Consent
7K
114
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DNISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new taxi license for Azteca Van Lines, Inc., 3645 Nicollet
Avenue South, Minneapolis.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request of a new taxi license for Azteca Van
Lines, Inc., 3645 Nicollet Avenue South, Minnea olis.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2003, the City received an application for a new taxi license for Azteca
Van Lines, Inc. The applicant has paid the required fees.
The applicant is the sole owner and currently the sole operator of the business. At
the present time, only one vehicle will be licensed.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
Ricardo Lagunas is the owner of the business. He has no known crimin
al record.
0513 Azteca New Taxi License
The certificate of liability insurance has been submitted showing Northern Capital
;'~ Insurance affording the coverage.
At the present time, the number of vehicles to be operating in Richfield will not
exceed one. However, there is a possibility new vehicles could be added. Staff has
also received the taxi driver application along with the required fee.
The applicant has supplied the information regarding the make, body style and year
of the vehicle to be operated by the applicant and agrees to supply this information
for any added vehicles in the future. They will also pay additional fees for additional
operating vehicles making pick-ups within the City of Richfield.
~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It appears that the applicant meets the standards set forth in the
ordinance.
• Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the
investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the
license requested.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Only one vehicle is currently listed on the application to be licensed as
a taxicab. Therefore, no additional vehicles will be allowed to pick up
patrons in the City without first obtaining the appropriate license.
Future vehicles could be added to the license providing that the proper
paperwork has been completed, fees paid, and proof of current liability
insurance submitted, and it has been approved by the City Council.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
LV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 I
Deny the request for a new taxi license for Azteca Van Lines, Inc. This
would result in the applicant not being able to pick up patrons within the City
of Richfield.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Ricardo Lagunas, Owner/Operator
,~
~' STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
Consent
7D
107
REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Business Subsidy Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield and Lyndale Gateway, L.L.C. for The Cornerstone
Grou ro'ect.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the Business
Subsidy Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield and Lyndale Gateway, L.L.C.
II. BACKGROUND
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Lyndale Gateway, L.L.C
(Developer), entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (Contract) on
August 5, 2002 and into a subsequent Supplemental Agreement (Agreement) on
February 26, 2003 for The Cornerstone Group redevelopment project at 76th Street
and Lyndale Avenue. The Agreement calls for the HRA to consider economic
assistance to the developer, which may include a business subsidy. The total
amount of financial assistance to the project is estimated to be $7,710,000. The
aggregate business subsidy is estimated to be approximately $1,532,292 for the
non-housing portion of the project. Only this portion constitutes a business subsidy
05136usSubAgmt.doc
under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 (Business Subsidy
Act).
Highlights of the attached Business Subsidy Agreement are enumerated below.
1) Based on the projected market values of the non-housing portions of the
development, the total business subsidy assistance is a share of the total project
value of the completed minimum improvements required under the Contract.
2) The business subsidy is to be treated as a forgivable loan with repayment as
prescribed in the Agreement (specifically through the Developer and tax
increments generated from the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing
District).
3) The public purposes of the project, and the business subsidy to support it, are to
redevelop substandard areas and buildings with mixed-use commercial and
residential components in conjunction with the City's comprehensive plan while
increasing the tax base of the City and the availability of added housing
including that available to people of low to moderate income.
4) The goals of the business subsidy are to secure completion of the development
and insure afive-year operation by the Developer of the minimum improvements
called for in the Contract. Provisions are in place if the Developer is not able to
perform under contracted terms.
5) The business subsidy is needed to ensure the feasibility of the redevelopment
due to the cost of land acquisitions, demolition and site clearance.
6) The creation or retention of jobs is not the goal of the Cornerstone
'~~ redevelopment project. Therefore, wage and job goals are set at zero.
The HRA held a public hearing and approved the Business Subsidy Agreement at
its meeting on April 21, 2003. (Under State law the City Council does not hold a
public hearing on this matter.)
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Business Subsidy Agreement sets the level of assistance that will be
treated as a business subsidy in accordance with state law.
• On April 21, 2003, the HRA held a public hearing in accordance with the
Business Subsidy Act and approved the Business Subsidy Agreement.
• The City Council is not required to hold a public hearing on this matter.
However, per the Business Subsidy Act, it must approve the HRA's
agreement.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The level of assistance granted the Developer mandates compliance
with the Business Subsidy Act.
C. FINANCIAL
• An estimated $1,532,292 of the total assistance of $7,710,000 is
attributed to the commercial project elements in the business subsidy.
Only that amount is considered a business subsidy under the terms of
~ the law.
• Ehlers & Associates, Inc. (Ehlers) reviewed the Developer's financial
information and prepared the recommendations.
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel prepared the Business Subsidy Agreement and
supporting resolution.
• Legal counsel reviewed and concurs with Ehlers' process for
calculating the business subsidy amount.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Modify the amount of business subsidy.
• Do not support a business subsidy for the project
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution approving a business subsidy agreement between the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield and Lyndale
Gateway L.L.C.
• Business Subsidy Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
~ • Mr. Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LYNDALE GATEWAY L.L.C.
BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On or about August 5, 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Richfield (the "HRA") and Lyndale Gateway L.L.C (the "Redeveloper")
entered into that certain document entitled, Contract for Private Redevelopment (the
"Contract").
1.02. Subsequently, on or about February 26, 2003, the HRA and Redeveloper
entered into a Supplemental Agreement (the "Agreement").
1.03. Section 8.2 of the Agreement calls for the parties to enter into a separate
Business Subsidy Agreement as required by the Business Subsidy Act, setting the level of
assistance that is treated as a business subsidy under the Business Subsidy Act.
1.04. On or about April 21, 2003, the HRA conducted a duly noticed public hearing
regarding the business subsidy agreement at which all interested persons were give an
'~ opportunity to be heard.
1.05. Following such hearing the HRA approved the business subsidy agreement
and referred the matter to the City Council for action as required by law.
1.06 The City Council after consideration of the matter and hearing the report of
staff has determined that the execution thereof by the HRA and the performance of the
HRA's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Further Proceedinqs.
2.01. The City approves the Agreement.
2.02. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to take all steps and do all
things necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this resolution.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
May, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST;
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
DRAFT
March 26, 2003
Business Subsidy Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of , 2003 is
by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic
(the "HRA"), and LYNDALE GATEWAY, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
"Redeveloper").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties did, on or about August 5, 2002, enter into that certain
document entitled, Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Contract the parties have now
entered into a separate agreement entitled Supplemental Agreement (the "Supplemental
Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, Section 8.2 of the Supplemental Agreement called for the parties, as
required by law, to enter into a separate Business Subsidy Agreement in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidy Act")
setting-the level of assistance that is treated as a business subsidy under the law;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows:
Section 1.1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly suggests a contrary intention, the
terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings given them in the Contract and the
Supplemental Agreement.
Section 1.2. Business Subsidy Agreement.
(a) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows:
(1) As of the date of this Agreement, the aggregate business subsidy (in
present value terms) is estimated to be approximately $1,532,292. However, a
substantial portion of the assistance under the Contract and the Supplemental
Agreement is intended to facilitate development of housing within the project, which
assistance does not constitute a business subsidy under the Business Subsidy Act.
The total assistance under the Contract and the Supplemental Agreement is
$7,710,000. The parties agree and understand that the total business subsidy
assistance has been determined, based on the projected market values of the non-
housing portions of the development as a share of the total projected market value
of the completed Minimum Improvements. The actual amounts of the business
subsidy are subject to modification in accordance with the provisions g_f Section 6.3
of the Contraot.
The Business Subsidy is to be treated as a forgivable loan and will be
-~ repayable from a portion of the Tax Increments from the TIF District, a
redevelopment tax increment financing district, and from other sources described in
the Supplemental Agreement.
(2) The public purposes of the subsidy are to redevelop an area occupied
by substandard and obsolete buildings, establish a mixed use residential and
commercial development, implement the City's land use goals identified in the
comprehensive plan, and increase tax base. The parties agree that the subsidy
primarily serves a public purpose; and that any benefit to the Redeveloper is
incidental and secondary.
(3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure completion of the Commercial
portions by the Redeveloper, in each case by the completion date for the Minimum
Improvements under the Contract, and to ensure that such components are
operated for at least five years as described in clause (6) below.
(4) If the goals described in clause. (3) are not met, the Redeveloper must
make the payments to the Authority described in Section 6.4(c).
(5) The subsidy is needed because the cost of land acquisition,
demolition and site clearance, make development of the Minimum Improvements
financially infeasible without public assistance, all as has been determined by the
Authority and City upon approval of the TIF Plan.
(6) The Redeveloper must continue or cause to be continued operation of
the Commercial portions of the project for at least five years after the date of
issuance of the final certificate of completion for those portions. For the purpose of
this Section, space in any portion will be considered to be maintained in operation if
it is leased, or available for lease, to any person or entity, or occupied by
Redeveloper for use in its trade or business. After the five-year. period the
Redeveloper remains obligated to operate and maintain the Commercial portions of
Components One and Two as required in the Contract, provided that the remedy
described in Section 1.2 (c) will not apply.
(7) The Redeveloper does not have a parent corporation.
(8) The Redeveloper expects to receive financial assistance from the
Metropolitan Council in the amount of $500,000; and has made application to the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for approximately $400,000 of financial
assistance, all in connection with the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum
Improvements.
(b) Job and Wage Goals. In accordance with Section 116J.994, subdivision 4,
the Authority has determined after a public hearing that the creation or retention of jobs is
not the goal of this redevelopment effort. Accordingly, the wage and job goals are set at
zero. _
(c) Remedies. If the Redeveloper fails to meet the goals described in Section
2 (a)(3), and subject to the notice and cure provisions of Article IX, the Redeveloper shall
repay to the Authority upon written demand from the Authority (a) the portion of the
-~ aggregate business subsidy received by the Redeveloper as of the date of default that is
allocable to the portion of the project, which is the source of the default, and (b) interest on
the amounts in clause (a) at the rate set forth in the Business Subsidy Act, accrued from
the date of issuance of the certificate of completion for the relevant portion to the date of
payment. If the space is timely completed but the Redeveloper fails to meet the five-year
operation goal, the total subsidy amount allocable to such space will be further prorated by
the portion of the five-year operation period elapsed as of the date of default.
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the Authority's remedies under the
Contract or the Supplemental Agreement or under Article IX of this Agreement in the event
of a violation of any other provision of this Agreement, but the remedies set forth in this
paragraph (c) are the exclusive remedies for failure to comply with the terms of this
Section 1.2. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedy
available to the Authority for failure to meet the goals stated in Section 1.2 (a)(3), the
Redeveloper agrees and understands that it may not a receive a business subsidy from
the Authority or any grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five
years from the date of the failure or until the Redeveloper satisfies its repayment obligation
under this Section, whichever occurs first.
(d) Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report
regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year,
commencing March 1, 2004 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated
Section 1.2 (a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period described in
Section 1.2 (a)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in
accordance with Section 1.2 (c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994,
subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the
Redeveloper regarding the required forms. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any report
required under this Section, the Authority will mail the Redeveloper a warning within one
week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning,
the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the Authority a
penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. Failure by the Authority to
deliver a timely warning notice will not relieve the Redeveloper's obligation to pay a penalty
within 14 days after receipt of a notice to pay. The maximum aggregate penalty payable
under this Section is $1,000.
(e) Allocation of liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,
the Redeveloper shall have no liability as to a non defaulting portion of
the commercial development under this Section arising from failure to
comply with any goals or covenants under this Section related to the
defaulting portion.
Section 1.3. Notices and Demands; Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either
party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered it if is dispatched by registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally:
As to the HRA: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Executive Director
With Copy to: John Dean
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 554302
As to the Redeveloper: Lyndale Gateway, LLC
c/o The Cornerstone Group, Inc.
7661 Bush Lake Drive
Bloomington, MN 55438
Attention: Colleen M. Carey
With Copy to: Joanne L. Matzen, esq.
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
3000 Dain Rauscher Plaza
60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other .address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to
time, designate in writing and forward to the other.
Section 1.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in
any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals as of
the day and year first above written.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Dated:
Dated:
2003
2003
By:
Its: Chairperson
By:
-Its: Executive Director
`' LYNDALE GATEWAY, LLC
By:
Its: Chief Manager
-~ STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2003, by
and the Chairperson and Executive
Director of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2003, by
the of Lyndale Gateway LLC, a limited liability
company under the laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said company.
Notary Public
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ]J
REPORT # I ~
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER
N~ TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~C ~G~'eCi~~~
SIGNA RE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: '
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration for the approval of Change Orders for additional items of work on the 76th .
Street Widening Project and for the approval of a Work Order for continued service on the
construction observation provided by the City's Consultant.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached Change Orders and Work Order for
services rovided on the 76th Street Widenin Pro'ect.
II. BACKGROUND
The Richfield City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $3,753,726.46 for
the construction of the 76th Street Widening Project. The City has made regular
payment estimates to the contractor for his work. The total of contract items to date
is $3,926,049.91.
During the course of construction, there have been unforeseen conditions, which
have resulted in extra work for the contractor. Most significant was a delay in the
contractor's work while waiting for power poles to be removed for placing the utility
~ lines underground. The delay was outside of the street contractor's control and so
he is entitled to the change order. The City has also asked the contractor to change
certain items in the contract such as material use or construction methods. All of
0513-76th Street Widening Change Order & Work Order
the changes and extra work have been added to the contract through three change
~ orders. The total of the three change orders is $333,167.15. Along with this, there
has been a reduction of certain contract items within the original contract. The total
reduction of these contract items is approximately $160,000.
Along with the work provide by the contractor the City's consultant, Short Elliot
Hendrickson (SEH), has performed the construction observation and inspection for
the 76th Street Widening Project. A work order in the amount of $499,757 was
executed to pay for these services. The consultant reached the limit of the work
order and has requested the need for an additional fee. The additional fee
requested is $89,763. The additional fee requested is needed to pay for the
continued construction observation, contract administration and contract closeout,
all of which have gone over the original estimate due the extended contract time.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Additions and changes to contracts are routinely amended through
change orders. The City negotiates with the contractor to receive a
fair price on the extras. Additions to the contract in excess of $25,000
need City Council approval.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
-~~
__ Monies are due to both the contractor and consultant for services
provided in the change orders and work order.
C. FINANCIAL
• The majority of the work in the project-will be paid for out of Richfield's
Municipal State Aid Construction Account (gas tax monies) but the
Knox Avenue utility improvements will be paid for with utility funds.
D. LEGAL
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• None recommended
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Change Order 1, 2 and 3
• Pay Estimate #9
• Work order #32
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated
~S~ CHANGE ORDER
-.
! 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301
City of Richfield
OWNER
952.912.2600 800.734.6757 952.912.2601 FAX
401-30-513
OWNER'S PROJECT NO.
2001 Street Reconstruction Penn Avenue & 76th Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
June 17, 2002
DATE
1
CHANGE ORDEA NO.
ARICHF0007.01
SEH FILE NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents:
Description:
The following changes to the contract represent the work completed through May 31, 2002.
Add the following to the contract:
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`~ Street (Roadway)
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
2104.501 Remove Bituminous Curb 150 LF $1.00 $150.00
2104.501 Remove Interconnect Conduit 2500 LF $2.50 $6,250.00
2104.509 Remove Gate Valve 12 Each $350.00 $4,200.00
2130.501 Water (Truck} 56.20 MGAL $15.00 $843.00
2451.501 Structural Excavation CL E 1 Lump Sum $23,500.00 $23,500.00
2451.503 Select Granular Borrow Modified (10%) LV 2060 CY $11.50 $23,690.00
2503.511 8"PVC SDR 35 Temp. 91 LF $16.50 $1,501.50
2504.502 6" Gate Valve and Box 12 Each $850.00 $10,200.00
2504.502 Raise Hydrant 2 Each $650.00 $1,300.00
~ 2504.602 3/a" Threaded Tie Rod 675 LF $3.50 $2,362.50
2533.603 Portable Concrete Median Barrier 50 LF $12.00 $600.00
2545.601 Temporary Lighting System 1 LS $2,200.00 $2,200.00
2565.603 12 Pair #19 Interconnect 3512.12 LF $2.17 $7,621.30
2550.602 Adjust Handhole 1 Each $500.00 $500.00
2563.613 Traffic Control (Special) Winter 130 UDAY $186.50 24 245.00
$109,163.30
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`~ Street (Storm Sewer)
84% State Aid participation
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
2506.502 Construct Drainage Structure Des. 78"-4020 1 Each $4,150.00 $4,150.00
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
2533.604 Portable Concrete Median Barrier 50 LF $12,00 $600.00
S.A.P. 157-010-21 I35W Ramp •
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
2301.511 Structural Concrete 265 CY $92.00 $24,380.00
2301..513 H.E. Strength Structural Concrete 80 CY $102.00 $8,160.00
2301.608 Drill & Grout Reinf. Bars (Epoxy) 300 Each $4.75 $1,425.00
2545.601 Relocate Service 1 LS $2,340.80 2 340.80
$36,305.80
City Project No. 401-30-513
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
_ 2533.605 Portable Concrete Median Barrier 500 LF $12.00 6000.00
ADDITION TOTAL $156,219.10
•- -Short Elllctt Hendrickson Inc. Your Trusted Resource FGual Opportunity Employer
Delete the following from the contract:
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`s Street (Roadway)
Item No. Description Quantity Unit
r 2503.602 Reconnect Sewer Service 19 Each
2504.602 12" x 8" Wet Tap 1 Each
2504.602 10" Gate Valve and Box 1 Each
2504.603 10" Watermain Ductile Iron CL 52 102 LF
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Description Quantity Unit
2503.602 Reconnect Sewer Service 13 Each
S.A.P. 157-010-21 I35W Ramp
Item No. Description Quantity Unit
2301.521 Pvmt. Reinf. Steel Fabric (Style 66-33) 901 SY
2511.511 Granular Filter - Class V 4 CY
City Project No. 401-30-513
Item No. Description Quantity Unit
2503.602 Reconnect Sewer Service 15 Each
Unit Price Total
$425.00 $8,075.00
$2,100.00 $2,100.00
$1,575.00 $1575.00
$31.00 3 162.00
$14,912.00
Unit Price Total
$425.00 $5,525.00
Unit Price Total
$10.00 $9,010.00
$100.00 00.00
$9,410.80
Unit Price Total
$425.00 6 75.00
DELETION TOTAL $36,222.00
NET TOTAL $119,997.10
Purpose of Change Order.•
~-~ Additions•
_ _ S.A.P. 157-361-23 76u` Street (Roadway)
Item No. Purpose
2104.501 Remove Bituminous Curb: Construction of a bypass lane at Penn Ave. and 78m St. for detour.
2104.501 Remove Interconnect Conduit: Removed old conduit, entire length of 76`~ St.
2104.509 Remove Gate Valve: City requested the replacement of all hydrants and gate valves.
2130.501 Water (Truck): Dust control.
- 2451.501 Structural Excavation CL E: Not included in project pay items to construct retaining wall on 76`~ St.
2451.502 Select Ganular Borrow Modified (10%): Not included in project pay items to construct retaining wall.
2503.5 I 1 8"PVC SDR 35 Temp.: Necessary to tie in existing storm sewer system to new system for the winter.
2504.502 6" Gate Valve and Box: City requested the replacement of all hydrants and gate valves.
2504.602 Raise Hydrant: Necessary because of the request by the city to replace all hydrants.
2504.602 3/a" Threaded Tie Rod: City requested all mechanical joints to be tie rodded.
2533.603 Portable Concrete Median Barrier: Revision to traffic control plans.
2545.601 Temporary Lighting System: Requested by the city at the intersection of 76'". St and Knox Ave.
2565.603 12 Pair #19 Interconnect: Increase from a 6 pair to a 12 pair as requested by ICTM.
2550.602 Adjust Handhole: Egan McKay adjusted a handhole in the new bypass lane on 78`~ St. and Penn Ave.
2563.613 Traffic Control (Special) Winter: Due to delays on the project resulting from removal of overhead power
lines, necessary temporary traffic control measures were added for the winter months.
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`s Street (Storm Sewer)
Item No. Purpose
2506.502 Construct Drainage Structure Des. 78": Increased structure size to accommodate 72" dia. pipe
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Purpose
2533.604 Portable Concrete Median Barrier: Revision to traffic control plans
3i~ort Elliothf?endric~on-tnc. ~ Your Trusted Resource - Equal Opportunity Employer
S.A.P. 157-010-21 I35W Ramp
Item No. Purpose
2301.511 Structural Concrete: Concrete paving on I35W Ramp and Best Buy Entrance at Newton Ave.
_~ 2301.512 H.E. Strength Structural Concrete: Used to speed the process and relieve the traffic disruption on the I35W
Ramp. Allowed the construction of the ramp before cold weather became a factor.
2301.608 Drill & Grout Reinf. Bars (epoxy): Not included in project pay items to construct I35W ramp.
2545.601 Relocate Service: Egan McKay relocated service for I35W ramp signal to new power pole set by XCEL.
City Project No. 401-30-513
Item No. Purpose
2533.605 Portable Concrete Median Barrier: Revision to traffic control plans.
Deletions•
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`~ Street (Roadway)
Item No. Purpose
2503.602 Reconnect Sewer Service: This was planned if the streets were going to be done before the demolition of
the houses on the Best Buy site by OPUS.
2504.602 12"x8" Wet Tap: Not necessary because of the entire watermain replacement from Logan to Knox on 76`x.
2504.602 10" Gate Valve and Box: OPUS requested an 8" service to Best Buy site.
2504.603 10" Watermain Ductile Iron CL 52: OPUS requested an 8" service to Best Buy site.
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Purpose
2503.603 Reconnect Sewer Service: This was planned if the streets were going to be done before the demolition of
the houses on the Best Buy site by OPUS.
S.A.P. 157-010-21 I35W Ramp
Item No. Purpose
2301.521 Pvmt. Reinf. Steel Fabric: Revised jointing plan as approved by MNDOT.
,~ 2511.511 Granular Filter - CL V: PCI substituted a fabric equal.
City Project No. 401-30-513
Item No. Purpose
2503.604 Reconnect Sewer Service: This was planned if the streets were going to be done before the demolition of
the houses on the Best Buy site by OPUS.
Basis of Cost: ®Actual ^ Estimated
Attachments (list supporting documents) Proposal Form of extras submitted by PCI
Contract Status
Time
Cost
Original Contract
Net Change Prior C.O.'s 0 to 0
Change this C.O.
Revised Contract
Aug. 31, 2002 $3,753,726.46
$0.00
$119,997.10
$ ,87 ,723.56
Recommended for Approval: Short Elliott Hendrickson /nc. by ~ ~.
Kevin Kawiewski
Agre tdby o~actor i
/G~ ~
BY PCI
i ~
~, J
TITLE
Approved for Owner.•
BY City of Richfield
TITLE
Short Elliott hienpriekson Inc. o Your Tn!sled RAe~~,sr,? . Equa; Opportunity Employer
O
I.t7 '~`
m
~ ~1
C~ ~`
w
T"'I v
W
U
rn
~°
~, m if7
t11
Q`
M
O ;.~
O ~
y
Q
F- '°'1
.~\ a1 Q W '~
Y~Zm
ZQ?~
~
N
OZ
OJ~~p
l1NLL
~ z
U
U ~
O
Q
`a
+-!
L !I ~d'
o
4 ~
~~ ~ ~
~, r u u~
-e ? z
~ ~
~ a
p [1f C
s'- L' ~
Z <t
d
~ ~~
v N !2: ~ LT:
~ ~ ~
N ~
~ ~ ~
r"~ .~
~ ~ i?` Li! { [J
°o ~ Q`
P7 (L' (ri H
~ Etl ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~-~+ fS: ~' 'r
w
¢ 0
00
_ ~ =
0
u~ to
D3 P1i
~ti
.~ r,
r+ t1`
.a
Y
W .-~
_ ""~
U
i
i
Q
l!'1
LJl
N
Q~
s_•
Q' N
1 ~
cD ~
.-~ ~
o Z
... g
Q. -~
O t
~ ~ U
r
._ w
O ~
LTl ~
Q
-C
G~ c6
.-i O
.-~ 0..
~ O
~I
LL.
U_
0
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
---~
Contract No. 2648 Date 11-20-02
Change Order No. 2 Project. No. 40014
Location 76th Street I-35W to West of Penn Ave
To: (Contractor) Progressive Contractors Inc.
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and
specifications:
ITEM
NO.
(~) DESCRIPTION OP CHANGES -QUANTITIES, UNITS, UNIT
PRICES, CHANGE IN COMPLETION SCHEDULE. ETC.
(2) DECREASE IN
CONTRACT
PRICE
(3) INCREASE IN
CONTRACT
PRICE
(4)
1 EMPACTED MATERIAL DISPOSAL CHARGES, LS $20,063.18
Change in contract price due to this Change Order:
Total Decrease xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tota! increase xxxxxxxxxxxx $20,063.18
Difference between column (3) & (4) $0.00 $20,063.18
Net (increase) contract price ~ $20,063.18
The sum of $20.063.18 is hereby added to, deducted from the total contract price and the. total adjusted
contract price to date thereby is $ 3.909.945.56
The completion date of the contract shall change to September 30, 2001.
This document shall become an amendment to the contract and alt provisions of the contract will apply hereto.
Accepted b ` : ~ `~
ont t
Recommended by:
- Proj E
Approved by:
Public rks Director
//-moo- °~.-
Date
Date
I ~- ~ --~r
Date
GS~I CHANGE ORDER
~ 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301
952.912.2600 800.734.6757 952.912.2601 FAX
City of Richfield
OWNER
401-30-513
OWNER S PROJECT NO.
2001 Street Reconstruction Penn Avenue & 76th Street
March 21, 2003
DATE
3
CHANGE ORDER NO.
ARICHF0007.O1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents:
Description:
The following changes to the contract represent the work completed through Dec ember 31, 2002.
Add the following to the contract:
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76"' Street (Roadway)
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price
2100.601 Construct Stairway l LS $6,580.00
2105.523 Common Borrow (LV) 712 CY $6.50
2350.604 Type HV3 Non-Wear Mix 3" Thick 3339.3 SY $14.25
2350.609 Type MV3 Bit Mixture for Patching 17.74 TON $140.00
2506.603 Reconstruct Sanitary Manhole 13 LF $350.00
2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B612 (Special) 34 LF $22.00
2531.507 7" Concrete Driveway Apron 107 SY $46.20
2531.507 7" Concrete Driveway Apron (High Early) 140 SY $59.40
2531.602 Concrete Median Nose -Special 13 EA $275.00
~ ~ 2564.602 Pavement Message (ONLY) Paint 7 EA $100.00
2564.603 24" Solid Line Yellow -Paint 330 LF $2.75
2564.603 24" Solid Line White -Paint 60 LF $2.75
2564.603 6" Solid Line White -Paint 425 LF $0.39
2564.603 24" Solid Line White -Epoxy 112 LF $13.18
2564.618 Zebra Crosswalk White -Epoxy 1350 SF $6.59
2564.618 Zebra Crosswalk White -Paint 720 SF $1.40
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price
2104.603 Abandon Sanitary Sewer Pipe 350 ~ LF $6.50
2130.501 Water (Truck) 40.9 MGAL $15.00
2504.602 Raise Hydrant 2 EA $650.00
2504.602 3/4" Threaded Tie Rod 1 ] 8 LF $3.50
253].602 Concrete Median Nose -Special 4 EA $275.00
2564.603 6" Solid Line White -Paint 519 LF $0.39
2564.603 24" Solid Line White -Epoxy 148 LF $13.18
2564.618 Zebra Crosswalk White -Epoxy 666 SF $6.59
2564.618 Zebra Crosswalk White -Paint 270 SF $1.40
City Proj ect No. 401-30-513
Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price
2105.521 Granular Borrow (LV) 570 CY $9.50
2130.501 Water (Truck) 40.9 MGAL $15.00
2504.602 Raise Hydran[ 1 EA $650.00
2531.502 Concrete Curb Design Special 80 LF $27.50
2531.507 8" Concrete Driveway Apron 459 SY $62.94
2531.507 8" Concrete Driveway. Apron (24hr.High Early) 62 SY $71.50
2531.507 7" Concrete Tri-Sections 24 SY $63.80
2531.602 Concrete Median Nose -Special 4 EA $275.00
Total
$6,580.00
$4,628.00
$47,585.03
$2,483.60
$4,550.00
$748.00
$4,943.40
$8,316.00
$3,575.00
$700.00
$907.50
$165.00
$163.63
$1,475.94
$8,895.15
1 005.84
$96,722.09
Total
$2,275.00
$613.50
$1,300.00
$413.00
$1,100.00
$199.82
$1,950.34
$4,388.27
$377.19
$12,617.12
Total
$5,415.00
$613.50
$650.00
$2,200.00
$28,889.46
$4,433.00
$1,531.20
$1,100.00
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Your Trusted Resource Equal Opportunity Employer
~5~4.602 Impact Attenuator Barrels 2 EA $27.00 S»O.00
2563.61 Flag Person 30 HR $30.00 $9(x).00
$46,282.16
ADDITION TOTAL $155,621.37
Purpose of Change Order:
Additions•
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76`h Street (Roadway)
Item No. Purpose
2100.601 Needed due to elevation change from old walk to new walk
2105.523 Replacement for organic materials on project
2350.604 Temporary patching for traffic switches and winter traffic
2350.609 Bumpering curb for winter
2506.603 Raise MH's due to large grade change with concrete blocks
2531.501 Match existing curb in apartment parking lot on NW corner of Penn and 76`n
2531.507 Commercial Aprons
2531.507 Used for quick access to apartment complexes
2531.602 Changed design per City request
2564.602 Used paint rather than epoxy
2564.603 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
2564.603 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
2564.603 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
2564.603 Used epoxy rather than Poly
2564.618 Used epoxy rather than Poly
2564.618 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
Item No. Purpose
~ 2104.603 Requested by City rather than removing
2130.501 Dust control
2504.602 Necessary due to the request by the City to replace all hydrants
2504.602 City requested all mechanical joints to be tie rodded
2531.602 Changed design per City request
2564.603 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
2564.603 Used epoxy rather than Poly
2564.618 Used epoxy rather than Poly
2564.618 Used paint rather than epoxy per request by city
City Project No. 401-30-513
Item No. Purpose
2105.521 Replacement for impacted material in Fountainhead Lot
2130.501 Dust control
2504.602 Necessary due to the request by the City to replace all hydrants
2531.502 Match exiting "I" curb on Fountainhead Lot
2531.507 Large commercial driveways to Best Buy on Knox
2531.507 Used for quick access to Galyans
2531.507 Constructed where using valley gutters
2531.602 Changed design per City request
2554.602 Concrete barrier protection on Knox over winter
2563.610 Needed to facilitation traft7c congestion on Knox Avenue
Basis of Cost: ®Actcral ^ Estimated
Attachments (list scrpporting doccunents) Proposal Form of extras submitted by PCI
Contract Status
Time
Cost
Original Contract
Net Change Prior C.O.'s 1 to 2
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc
Aug. 31, 2002 $3,753,726.46
June 17, and Nov. I5, 2002 $176,282.28
Your Trusted Resource • Equal Opportunity Employer
- Change this C.O. March 21, 2003
Revised Contract
Recommended for Approval: Short Elliott Hendrickson lnc. by
Agreed Eby Contract
mil, J. c,-
~'=, ./ "
lsw Pct
;~ ~
TITLE
D'
~ 1 »,621.37
$4,085,630.11
Approved for Owner.•
BY City of Richfield
TITLE
rstr~buuan ~onrracror t Uwner 1 Project Representative 1 SEN Office 1
G:\Ct V IL\PrgwctsU2ichlicldtrich11N1TCons1 Admin\Chanee Ordcr Ldoc
~~,
E
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. . Your Trusted Resource Equal Opportunity Employer
Jlll
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND MONTHLY ESTIMATE
DATE: March 24, 2003
CITY PROJECT NO.: 401-30-513
CONTRACT NO.: 2648
ESTIMATE NO.: 9
CLASS OF WORK: 7~}` S+f~1- Cohs~,~„~4,:0...
To the City Council of Richfield: This is to certify that the following work has been performed on the above
project in accordance with the plans and specifications which govern this project and including previous
estimates.
Contract Date: July 23. 2001 Work Started: May 25, 2002 Work Completed: December 31.2002
STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED
i
r
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
2011.601 VIBRATION MONITORING LS $7,000.00 1 $7,000.00 1.00 $7,000.00
2011.601 PRECONDITION SURVEY LS $9,000.00 1 $9,000.00 1.00 $9,000.00
2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $253,300.00 1 $253,300.00 1.000 $253,300.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPED
MODIFIED EACH $8,500.00 1 $8,500.00 1.00 $8,500.00
_:2101.502 CLEARING & GRUBBING TREE $195.00 91 $17,745.00 136.00 $26,520.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING
REMOVAL SQ FT $1.20 1000 $1,200.00 10.00 $12.00
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING
REMOVAL LF $0.50 1000 $500.00 1250.00 $625.00
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING
REMOVAL -TEMPORARY LF $0.50 1000 $500.00 1476.00 $738.00
2103.501 REMOVE BUILDING LS $19,500.00 1 $19,500.00 1.00 $19,500.00
2103.507 DISCONNECT WATER
SERVICE EACH $450.00 22 $9,900.00 5.00 $2,250.00
2104.501 REMOVE WATERMAIN LF $8.00 110 $880.00 1382.00 $11,056.00
2104.501 REMOVE GUARDRAIL LF $1.50 477 $715.50 395.00 $592.50
2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB &
GUTTER LF $1.00 10854 $10,854.00 11480.00 $11,480.00
2104.501 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE LF $8.00 3093 $24,744.00 3098.00 $24,784.00
2104.501 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE LF $5.00 144 $720.00 75.00 $375.00
2104.501 REMOVE WOOD FENCE LF $5.00 112 $560.00
2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE
PAVEMENT SQ YD $7.50 6192 $46,440.00 6037.00 $45,277.50
2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE
SIDEWALK SO YD $6.00 5641 $33,846.00 5465.00 $32,790.00
2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SQ YD $8.00 642 $5,136.00 643.00 $5,144.00
2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS
PAVEMENT SO YD $1.95 27498 $53,621.10 23588.00 $45,996.60
2104.509 REMOVE CURB BOX EACH $75.00 22 $1,650.00 8.00 $600.00
2104.509
~ REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH
BASIN EACH $350.00 60 $21,000.00 58.00 $20,300.00
2104.509 REMOVE BUSINESS SIGN EACH ' $1,000.00 4 $4,000.00 3.00 $3,000.00
Item ~ ~ ~ Unit Contract i Totals to Date
i
I No.
j Contract Item
Unit
Price
~ Quantity _
Amount Quantity Amount
?104.509 ,REMOVE LIGHT STANDARD
~ BASE EACH $175.00, 15 ~ $2,625.001 12.001 $2,100.00
i
-2104.509 REMOVE DELINEATOR EACH $50.00 ' $0.00
2104.509 REMOVE EQUIPMENT PAD EACH $150.00 $0.00 i
2104.509 REMOVE SIGN ~ EACH $150.00 3 ~ $450.00,
2104.509 REMOVE HANDHOLE EACH $350.00 10 $3,500.00 31.00 1 $10,850.00;
2104.511 SAWCUT CONCRETE LF $6.75 505 $3,408.75 681.00 $4,596.75'
PAVEMENT
2104.513 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS LF $3.00 706 $2,118.00 2794.00 $8,382.001
PAVEMENT ~
2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING EACH $0.01 , 84 $0.84 I
2104.523 SALVAGE LUMINARE EACH $30.00 14 $420.00 3.00 $90.00
2104.523 SALVAGE LIGHTING UNIT EACH $70.00 14 $980.00 3.00 $210.00
2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EACH $36.00 117 $4,212.00 70.00 $2,520.OOj
2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPED EACH $45.00 40 $1,800.00 1.00 $45.00
2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (P), CU YD $7.50 9230 $69,225.00 9524.50 $71,433.75
STREET
2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CU YD $15.00 385 $5,775.00 1208.00 $18,120.00
2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD $10.00 4655 $46,550.00
2105.601 SITE GRADING LS $7,500.00 1 $7,500.00 1.00 $7,500.00
2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON $7.50 33801 $253,507.50 33801.00 $253,507.50
100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE
2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE SQ YD $3.00 2055 $6,165.00 2000.00 $6,000.00
1.5" DEPTH
241.601 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL LS $338,900.00 1 $338,900.00 1.00 $338,900.00
2301.503 8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD $28.00 901 $25,228.00 1456.00 $40,768.00
IRREGULAR WIDTH
2301.521 PAVEMENT REINF STEEL SQ YD $10.00 901 $9,010.00
FABRIC STYLE 66-33
2301.529 REINFORCEMENT BARS LBS $3.00 433 $1,299.00 478.00 $1,434.00
EPOXY COATED
2301.538 DOWEL BAR EACH $8.00 188 $1,504.00 796.00 $6,368.00
2301.541 INTEGRANT CURB DESIGN D4 LF $15.00 506 $7,590.00 675.00 $10,125.00
2301.603 PERMANENT TERMINAL LF $65.00 .116 $7,540.00 241.50 $15,697.50
HEADER
~ 2350.501 TYPE HV3 WEAR COURSE TON $32.00 3865 $123,680.00 4400.23 $140,807.36
(HVWE37540F) MNDOT SPEC
2350
2350.501 TYPE MV3 WEAR COURSE TON $26.00 621 $16,146.00 1144.22 $29,749.72
(MVW E35040F) MNDOT SPEC
2350
2350.502 TYPE HV3 NON-WEAR TON $28.00 3680 $103,040.00 3720.70 . $104,179.60
COURSE(MVNW37540B)
MNDOT SPEC 2300
2350.502 TYPE MV3 NON-WEAR TON $26.00 5520 $143,520.00 5671.85 $147,468.10
COURSE (MVNW35035B)
MNDOT SPEC 2350
2350.502 TYPE LV3 NON-WEAR TON $25.00 931 $23,275.00 933.00 $23,325.00
COURSE (LVNW35030B)
MNDOT SPEC 2350
2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR GAL $1.25. 3736 $4,670.00 3260.00 $4,075.00
TACK COAT ~ ~
451.609 GRANULAR BEDDING TON $25.00 $0.00
X451.609 AGGREGATE BEDDING TON $25.00 $0.00
2
Item
i ~ I Unit ~ Contract ~ Totals to Date
j No. ~ Contract Item Unit I Price I Quantity ~ Amount ~ Quantity Amount
-X2501.515 12" RCP APRON WITH TRASH
GUARD ~ EACH
! I $585.00 1 2 $1,170.OO j 2.00; $1,170.00:
'2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN
CORRIGATED WITH SOCK LF $12.00 183 $2,196.00 183.00 $2,196.00
2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL V LF $21.50
~ 1032 $22,188.00 1134.00, $24,381.00
2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL V LF $23.00 369 $8,487.00 398.00 $9,154.OOj
, I
2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL V LF $26.50 460 $12,190.00 369.001 $9,778.501
2503.541 21" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF 1 $29.00 103 $2,987.00 79.001 $2,291.00
12503.541 3006 C PIPE SEWER DESIGN LF $31.50 549 $17,293.50 409.00 $12,883.501
2503.541 27" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $39.00 433 $16,887.00 136.00 $5,304.00
2503.541 30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $43.50 162 $7,047.00 377.00
i $16,399.501
2503.541 33" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $51.00 131 $6,681.00 150.00 $7,650 00
2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $59.00 190 $11,210.00 190.00 $11,210.00
2503.541 42" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $81.50 304 $24,776.00 304.00 $24,776.00
2503.541 48" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $96.00 338 $32,448.00 338.00 $32,448.00
2503.541 54" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $130.00 57 $7,410.00 56.00 $7,280.00
2503.541 60" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN
3006 CL III LF $145.00 226 $32,770.00 223.00 $32,335.00
2503.602
_ CONNECT TO EXISTING
SANITARY SEWER EACH $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
2503.602 DISCONNECT SEWER
SERVICE EACH $350.00 79 $27,650.00 8.00 $2,800.00
2503.602 RECONNECT SEW ER SERVICE EACH $425.00 47 $19,975.00
2503.602 12" PVC PIPE BEND 22.5deg EACH $185.00 1 $185.00 1.00 $185.00
2503.603 12" PVC PIPE LF $53.00 15 $795.00 15.00 $795.00
2504.602 12" X 12" WET TAP EACH $3,100.00 1 $3,100.00 1.00 $3,100.00
2504.602 12" X 8"WET TAP EACH $2,100.00 1 $2,100.00
2504.602 1"CURB STOP EACH $350.00 2 $700.00 2.00 $700.00
2504.602 1"CORPORATION EACH $300.00 2 $600.00 2.00 $600.00
2504.602 12" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $1,875.00 5 $9,375.00 5.00 $9,375.00
2504.602 10" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $1,575.00 1 $1,575.00
2504.602 8" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $1,175.00 5 $5,875.00 8.00 $9,400.00
2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING
WATERMAIN EACH $750.00 10 $7,500.00 8.00 $6,000.00
i 2504.602 RELOCATE WATER SERVICE EACH $550.00 16 $8,800.00 2.00 $1,100.00
2504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH $350.00 37 $12,950.00 24.00 $8,400.00
2504.602 RELOCATE HYDRANT EACH $650.00 11 $7,150.00 11.00 $7,150.00
1 2504.603 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON
CL 52 LF $25.00 111 $2,775.00 418.50 $10,462.50
2504.603 8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON
CL 52 LF $27.50 522 $14,355.00 582.00 $16,005.00
_504.603
I 10" WATERMAIN DUCTILE
RON CL 52 LF $31.00 102 $3,162.00
j 2504.603
I 12" WATERMAIN DUCTILE
RON CL 52 LF $34.50 1315 $45,367.50 1705.00 $58,822.50
Item ~ Unit Contract ~ Totals to Date
~ No. ~ Contract Item j Unit ~ Price Quantity I Amount ~ Quantity Amount
-'2504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER ~ LF I $12.00 1 100 $1,200.00 100.00 ; $1,200.00,
,2504.604 3" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION ' SQ YD i $20.00 200 $4,000.00 46.20 1 $924.00:
1
2504.608 D.I.P. FITTINGS POUND
S $2.85 ..2300 $6,555.00 2315.00 $6,597.75
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE i
STRUCTURE -AREA DRAIN EACH $795.00 1 $795.00. 2.00 $1,590.00;
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE X EACH $825.00 27 $22,275.00 22.00 $18,150.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE Y EACH $1,100.00 18 $19,800.00 22.00 $24,200.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE B EACH $1,200.00 3 $3,600.00 3.00 $3,600.OOi
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE C EACH $2,100.OO I 8 $16,800.00 8.00 $16,800.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE D EACH $3,300.00 3 $9,900.00 3.00 $9,900.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE E EACH $5,400.00 2 $10,800.00 1.00 $5,400.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE E-1 EACH $5,700.00 1 $5,700.00 1.00 $5,700.00
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE F-1 EACH $7,400.00 1 $7,400.00 1.76 $13,024.00
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY R-2572 EACH $450.00 1 $450.00 2.00 $900.00
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY R-3246-A
8624 EACH $680.00 37 $25,160.00 40.00 $27,200.00
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY R-3246
8618 EACH $535.00 8 $4,280.00 8.00 . $4,280.00
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY R-3290-A EACH $515.00 2 $1,030.00 2.00 $1,030.00
.506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY R-1642 EACH $425.00 16 $6,800.00 16.00 $6,800.00
'2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING
CASTING EACH $375.00 34 $12,750.00 30.00 $11,250.00
2506.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING
STORM SEWER EACH $650.00 5 $3,250.00 5.00 $3,250.00
2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP - CLASS III CU YD $100.00 8.2 $800.00 8.00 $800.00
2511.511 GRANULAR FILTER - CLASS V CU YD $100.00 4.2 $400.00
2521.501 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF $2.38 87309 $207,795.42 72662.00 $172,935.56
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
DESIGN 8618 LF $7.74 4842 $37,477.08 3056.00 $23,653.44
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
DESIGN 8624 LF $8.33 13725 $114,329.25 12820.00 $106,790.60
2531.503 CONCRETE MEDIAN SQ YD $18.96 3715 $70,436.40 1842.00 $34,924.32
2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
APRON SQ YD $35.67 654 $23,328.18 84.00 $2,996.28
2531.602 PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EACH $295.00 25 $7,375.00 41.00 $12,095.00
2531.603 CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER LF $32.67 75 $2,450.25 89.00 ~ $2,907.63
2545.511 LIGHTING UNIT TYPE 6-25 EACH $815.00 9 $7,335.00 9.00 $7,335.00
2545.511 LIGHTING UNIT TYPE 6-35 EACH $1,270.00 28 $35,560.00 28.00 $35,560.00
2545.513 LUMINAIRE (150W HPS) EACH $200.00 9 $1,800.00 9.00 $1,800.00
2545.513 LUMINAIRE (250W HPS) EACH $200.00 28 $5,600.00 28.00 $5,600.00
2545.515 LIGHT BASE DESIGN E EACH $390.00 40 $15,600.00 38.00 $14,820.00
2545.523 2" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LF $4.50 8070 $36,315.00 9154.00 $41,193.00
545.531 UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND
NO 6 LF $0.50 90 $45.00 80.00 $40.00
2545.531
~ i UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND
NO 4 LF $0.55 32280 $17,754.00 36301.00 $19,965.55
r
Item ~ ~ Unit , Contract
~ ~ Totals to Date
~
No. Contract Item ~ Unit ~ Price Quantity ~ Amount ~ Quantity Amount
-~ 2545.533 ARMORED CABLE 3 COND NO
4 LF $3.75 500 $1,875.00 ! 565.00
! 1 $2,118.75
2545.541 SERVICE CABINET
SECONDARY TYPE L1 EACH $4,270.00 ' 1 $4,270.OO i 1.OO i $4,270.00;
2545.545 EQUIPMENT PAD B EACH $450.00 1 $450.OO i 1.00 $450.00!
2545.553 PULL BOX- LIGHTING EACH $820.00 12 $9,840.OO i 14.OO i $11,480.00;
2545.602 INSTALL LIGHTING UNIT EACH $250.00 $0.00 1 ,
2545.602 INSTALL LUMINAIRE EACH $50.00 $0.00
2550.512 HAND HOLE -TYPE PRECAST
CONCRETE EACH $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00 1.00 $2,500.OOi
2550.523 3" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LF $5.00 3750 $18,750.00 3692.00 $18,460.00
2554.603 GUARDRAIL -PLATE BEAM LF $11.30 597 $6,746.10 372.00 $4,203.60
2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL STAGE 1 LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00
2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL STAGE 2 LS $34,000.00 1 $34,000.00 1.00 $34,000.00;
2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL STAGE 3 LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 1.0 0 $10,000.00
2563.613 TYPE III BARRICADES UDAY $2.50 100 $250.00 600.00 $1,500.00
2563.613 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH
INTENSITY UDAY $1.00 100 $100.00 254.00 $254.00
2563.613 REFLECTORIZED DRUM
W/DOWN ARROW UDAY $0.50 100 $50.00
2563.613 REFLECTORIZED DRUM UDAY $0.50 100 $50.00 566.00 $283.00
2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT $13.00 693.15 $9,009.00 701.15 $9,114.95
2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPED SQ FT $11.50 9.2 $103.50 9.00 $103.50
2564.537 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH $36.00 181 $6,516.00
2564.537 INSTALL SIGN TYPED EACH $90.00 17 $1,530.00 3.00 $270.00
2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT
ARROW EPOXY EACH $100.00 25 $2,500.00 17.00 $1,700.00
2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT
ARROW EPOXY EACH $100.00 13 $1,300.00 11.00 $1,100.00
2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY)
EPOXY EACH $100.00 27 $2,700.00 17.00 $1,700.00
2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT-
THRU ARROW PAINT EACH $112.50 20 $2,250.00
2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT
ARROW PAINT EACH $75.00 .20 $1,500.00 8.00 $600.00
2564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -PAINT LF $0.35 1000 $350.00 11297.00 $3,953.95
2564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-
PAINT LF $0.35 1000 $350.00 2556.00 $894.60
2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW -
PAINT LF $0.35 1000 $350.00 1701.00 $595.35
2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE
YELLOW -PAINT LF $0.70 1000 $700.00 10407.00 $7,284.90
2564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPOXY LF $0.18 3860 $694.80 1175.00 $211.50
2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW -
EPOXY LF $0.18 60 $10.80 642.00 $115.56
2564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-
EPOXY LF $0.18 8993 $1,618.74
2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE
YELLOW -EPOXY LF $0.36 1936 $696.96
2564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPOXY LF $0.36 984 $354.24
2564.603 24" SOLID LINE WHITE -POLY
PREFORMED LF $15.00 376 $5,640.00
2564.603 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW -
EPOXY LF
i $2.50 170 $425.00
~ Item I ; Unit Contract Totals to Date
I
No. ~ Contract Item ~ Unit I Price ~ Quantity , Amount j Quantity Amount
X2564.604 IZEBRA CROSSWALK WHITE -
POLY PREFORMED I SO FT
' j $7.50 3726 ~ $27,945.00
j !
2565.511 FULL T ACT T CONTROL
SIGNAL SYSTEM A SIGS $178,430.00 1 $178,430.00 1.OO i $178,430.00
2565.511 FULL T ACT T CONTROL
SIGNAL SYSTEM B SIGS $120,400.00 • 1
~ $120,400.00 1.00 $120,400.00,
~
2565.511 FULL T ACT T CONTROL
SIGNAL SYSTEM C SIGS $124,400.00 1 $124,400.00 1.00
I 1 $124,400.00
2565.511 FULL T ACT T CONTROL
SIGNAL SYSTEM D SIGS $64,000.00 1 $64,000.00 1.00 $64,000.00
2565.601 TEMPORARY INTERCONNECT
SYSTEM LS $38,000.00 1 $38,000.OO I 1.10 $41,800.00
2565.602 HANDHOLE -TYPE PVC EACH $820.00 22 $18,040.00 22.00 $18,040.00
2565.602 6' X 6' NMC LOOP DETECTOR EACH $625.00 6 $3,750.00 2.00 $1,250.00
2565.603 2" RIGID STEEL CONDUIT LF $5.60 4570 $25,592.00 4357.00 $24,399.20'
2565.603 3" RIGID STEEL CONDUIT LF $10.50 3850 $40,425.00 3737.00 $39,238.50
2565.603 6 PR #19 INTERCONNECT LF $1.30 17460 $22,932.00• 20170.00 $26,221.00
2565.603 F.O. CABLE, 6 CONDUCTOR LF $15.00 3010 $45,150.00 2902.00 $43,530.00
2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM SYSTEM $14,000.00 1 $14,000.00
2573.501 BALE CHECK EACH $10.00 30 $300.00 180.00 $1,800.00
2573.502 SILT FENCE,HEAVY DUTY LF $2.30 829 $1,906.70 2346.00 $5,395.80
2575.501 SEEDING MIXTURE 506 ACRE $440.00 1 $440.00 1.26 $554.40
2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD $2.15 8173 $17,571.95 9638.00 $20,721.70
2575.511 MULCH TYPE 1-4 TON $300.00 2.1 $600.00
2575.519 DISC ANCHORING ACRE $200.00 i.05 $200.00
2575.523 WOOD FIBER BLANKET TYPE
REGULAR SQ YD $1.30 6285 $8,170.50 6090.00 $7,917.00
2575.532 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER LBS $0.30 1223 $366.90 550.00 $165.00
TOTALS: $3,592,882.77
Change Order 1
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76th Street (Roadwavl
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
2104.501 REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB LF $1.00 150 $150.00
2104.501 REMOVE INTERCONNECT
CONDUIT LF $2.50 2500 $6,250.00
2104.509 REMOVE GATE VALVE EACH $350.00 12 $4,200.00
2130.501 WATER (TRUCK) MGAL $15.00 97.10 $1,456.50
2451.501 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION CL
E LS $23,500.00 1 $23,500.00
2451.503 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
MODIFIED 10% LV CY $11.50 2060 $23,690.00
2503.511 8" PVC SDR 35 TEMP. LF $16.50 91 $1,501.50
2504.502 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $850.00 12 $10,200.00
2504.502 RAISE HYDRANT EACH $650.00 3 $1,950.00
2504.602 3/an THREADED TIE ROD LF $3.50 675 $2,362.50
2533.603 PORTABLE CONCRETE
MEDIAN BARRIER LF $12.00 50 $600.00
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
- 545.601 TEMPORARY LIGHTING
SYSTEM LS $2,200.00 1 $2,200.OOi
2565.603 12 PAIR #19 INTERCONNECT LF $2.17 3512.12 $7,621.30
2550.062 ADJUST HANDHOLE EACH $500.00 1 $500.00
2563.613 TRAFFIC CONTROL (SPECIAL)
WINTER UDAY $186.50 130 $24,245.00
TOTAL
$110,426.80
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76 STREET (STORM SEWER)
84% STATE AID PARTICIPATION
2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE DES. 78"-4020 EACH $4,150.00 1 $4,150.00
S.A.P. 157-020-21 PENN AVENUE
2533.603 PORTABLE CONCRETE
MEDIAN BARRIER LF $12.00 50 $600.00
S.A.P. 157-010-21 135W RAMP
2301.511 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CY $92.00 265 $24,380.00
2301.513 H.E. STRENGTH STRUCTURAL
CONCRETE CY $102.00 80 $8,160.00
2301.608 DRILL & GROUT REINF. BARS
EPOXY EACH $4.75 300 $1,425.00
2545.601 RELOCATE SERVICE LS $2,340.80 1 $2,340.80
TOTAL
$36,305.80
CITY PROJECT N0.401-30-513
2533.603 PORTABLE CONCRETE
MEDIAN BARRIER LF $12.00 500 $6,000.00
ADDITION TOTAL $157,482.60
GRAND TOTAL WITH CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $3,750,365.37
Change Order 2
Citv Project No. 401-30-513
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
IMPACTED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL CHARGES LS $20,063.18 1 $20,063.18
GRAND TOTAL WITH CHANGE ORDER N0.2 $3,770,428.55
CHANGE ORDER N0.3
S.A.P. 157-361-23 76th Street (Roadway)
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantit Amount Quantit Amount
2100.601 Construct Stiarway $6,580.0
0 LS 1 $6,580.0
2105.523 Common Borrow (LV) $6.50 CY 71 $4,628.0
2350.604 ype HV3 Non-Wear Mix 3" Thick $14.25 SY 3339. $47,585.0
2350.609 ype MV3 Bit Mixture for Patching $140.00 TON 17.7 $2,483.6
2506.603 Reconstruct Sanitary Manhole $350.00 LF 1 $4,550.0
31.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design
8612 S ecial $22.00 LF 3 $748.0
2531.507 7" Concrete Driveway Apron $46.20 SY 10 $4,943.4
7
Item Unit Contract Totals to Date
No. Contract Item Unit Price Quantit Amount Ouantit Amount
2531.507
~, "Concrete Driveway Apron (High
Earl $59.40 SY 14 $8,316.0
'531.602 Concrete Median Nose -Special $275.00 EA 1 $3,575.0
2564.602 Pavement Message (ONLY) Paint $100.00 EA $700.0
2564.603 4" Solid Line Yellow -Paint $2.75 LF 33 $907.5
2564.603 4" Solid Line White -Paint $2.75 LF 6 $165.0
2564.603 6" Solid Line White -Paint $0.39 LF 42 $163.6
2564.603 4" Solid Line White -Epoxy $13.18 LF 11 $1,475.9
2564.618 ebra Crosswalk White -Epoxy $6.59 SF 135 $8,895.1
2564.618 ebra Crosswalk White -Paint $1.40 SF 72 $1,005.8
otal $96,722.0
S.A.P. 157-020-21 Penn Avenue
2104.603 bandon Sanitary Sewer Pipe $6.50 LF 35 $2,275.0
2130.501 ater (Truck) $15.00 MGAL 40. $613.5
2504.602 Raise Hydrant $650.00 EA $1,300.0
2504.602 /4" Threaded Tie Rod $3.50 LF 11
$413.0
2531.602 Concrete Median Nose-Special $275.00 . EA $1,100.0
2564.603 " Solid Line White -Paint $0.39 LF 51 $199.8
2564.603 4" Solid Line White- Epoxy $13.18 LF 14 $1,950.3
2564.618 ebra Crosswalk White -Epoxy $6.59 SF 66 $4,388.2
2564.618 ebra Crosswalk White -Paint $1.40 SF 27 $377,1
otal $12,617.1
City Projec t No. 401-30-513
2105.521 Granular Borrow (LV) $9.50 CY 57 $5,415.0
2130.501 ater (Truck) $15.00 MGAL 40. $613.5
`:504.602 Raise Hydrant $650.00 EA 1 $650.0
2531.502 Concrete Curb Design Special $27.50 LF 8 $2,200.0
2531.507 8" Concrete Driveway Apron $62.94 SY 45 $28,889.4
2531.507 8" Concrete Driveway Apron
24hr.Hi h Earl $71.50 SY 6 $4,433.0
2531.507 "Concrete Tri-Sections $63.80 SY 2 $1,531.2
2531.602 Concrete Median Nose -Special $275.00 EA $1,100.0
2554.602 I mpact Attenuator Barrels $275.00 EA $550.0
2563.610 Flag Person $30.00 HR 3 $900.0
otal $46,282.1
DDITION TOTAL $155,621.3
GRAND TOTAL WITH CHANGE ORDER N0.3 $3,926,049.91
CERTIFIED CORRECT BY: Progressive Contractors Inc.
//
~~~-~-!~ ~ C.t~i~=~"' Date: `~~~.~ ~~ _;
l
~~
~ _
NAME: ~-,~, ~~" r' ~~ f/>
(Please ty e orprint)
~ITLE: `~ ~~ c -~ ~~~: in
- ~
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT BY: City of Richfield
~~ !!~ Date:
Proje,~t ngineer/Engineering Supervisor
Date:
Michael Eastling, Public Works Director
8
This is Exhibit A, consisting of _ pages, referred to
'~ in the Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for
Professional Services.
Initials:
OWNER
ENGINEER
Work Order Form
WORK ORDER N0.32
Authorization to proceed and site-specific scope of services
Project: 76th Street Widening I-35 W to west of Penn Ave Location: Citv of Richfield
We transmit the following information for your use:
We hereby authorize you to proceed with the following phases of services for the above-referenced Project and
location in accordance with the agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER dated December 28.1999
Continued construction observation inspection field en ineering, surveying and contract administration to close out
the construction contract.
Payment shall be on the basis of (select from the following):
^ Cost Plus Fee: Direct Salary Cost times audited overhead. plus fee of _ percent and reimbursable
expenses.
^ Cost Plus Fixed Fee: As for Cost plus Fee, however total Fee shall not exceed
^ Lump Sum: One sum payable by percent of completion of the Services (plus reimbursable expenses).
^ Cost Times a Factor: Direct Salary Cost times a factor of ,plus reimbursable expenses.
Standard Hourly Billing Rates: Hourly rates plus reimbursable expenses.
The Not to Exceed Limit for this Work Order is: $89,763.00
A Construction Cost Limit of is agreed upon between OWNER and ENGINEER for this Project.
ENGINEER: OWNER:
SEH, Inc. CITY OF RICHFIELD
Signed: Signed: Mike Eastling
Its: Its: Public Works Director
Signed: Signed:
Its: Dated:
Dated:
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ] I
REPORT # 112
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT MANAGER
NAME. TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
,TQ~ J ~.o~
SIGNATURE
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 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 development of a response svstem.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached contract with the City of
Bloomington, using. grant funds, to provide services in the area of
public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the
development of a response svstem.
n
II. BACKGROUND
The State of Minnesota has received $16 million from the federal government
(Centers for. Disease Control) to be used in developing Richfield's 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.
051361oom ington PH EPContract-2003
The grant is distributed to Community Health Services agencies on a per capita
formula of $1. Richfield is receiving $34,439 with an additional $5,307 coming for
~ activities related to planning for and implementing smallpox clinics.
The City currently anticipates receiving the same level of funding for 2004 and will
have that confirmed in May 2003.
With a portion of these funds, Richfield has pooled their resources with Bloomington
and Edina 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 the 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.
TERNATIVE
i ne Lity c;ouncn 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.
ATTACHMENTS
• City of Richfield contract with City of Bloomington.
• List of grant responsibilities.
V1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• r~etsy c;nristensen, Health Administrator -Richfield
• Karen Zeleznak, Health Administrator- Bloomington
• Denise Dunn, Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for
Bloomington, Edina and Richfield.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TO BIOTERRORISM
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this thirteenth (13t") day of May,
2003, 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, training, and
implementation of the National Smallpox Vaccination Program (hereinafter referred to
as "PH Emergency Services"); and
WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its
residents by providing public health emergency preparedness services, and to contract
with Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to
residents of Richfield; and
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 July 6, 2002, through August 31,
2003, 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 Emergency Services:
a. Coordination
(1) Liaison with the Minnesota Department of Health (hereinafter referred to
as "MDH").
(2) Update the Richfield Community Health Services Administrator on a
regular basis.
(3) Assist in completing quarterly reports, as requested.
(4) Meet with local bioterrorism advisory committee and/or elected officials,
as requested.
b. Assessment
Assess capacity of local public health.
c. Planning and Exercise
(1) Develop mass clinic/biologics delivery plan.
(2) Coordinate local exercise.
(3) Coordinate with regional partners.
(4) Assist, as needed, in completing public health emergency preparedness
plan.
d. Res onse
Assist in responding to bioterrorism, other infectious disease outbreaks, and
other public health threats and emergencies.
e. Surveillance
(1) Promote local reporting among providers.
(2) Implement disease-reporting protocols.
f. Health Alert Network
(1) Transmit the State's message within two (2) hours (on a 24/7 basis by
August 2003).
(2) Maintain local health alert network contacts on shareable directory
managed by MDH.
(3) Verify local health alert network contact information quarterly.
(4) Test local redundancy system.
(5) Change over to electronic mail alert system.
g. Risk Communication
Assist in developing a risk communication plan for vulnerable populations in
Richfield.
h. Training
(1) Sponsor or coordinate regional meetings, workshops, and/or conferences
to meet local needs.
(2) Coordinate with Bloomington Environmental Health Services on Richfield
issues.
(3) Develop and begin implementing a training plan for staff that would
address the needs in Richfield.
(4) Designate local distance training coordinator.
i. National Smallpox Vaccination Program Implementation
(1) Develop regional plans for implementation of Phase I of the National
Smallpox Vaccination Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Program")
t ~,
in the west metro.
(2) Coordinate with Fairview Southdale Hospital regarding their participation
in the Program.
(3) Educate potential Program volunteers (hospital and public health) about
smallpox disease and the vaccine.
(4) Train public health nurses to work at the regional vaccination clinic (i.e.,
vaccinating, screening).
(5) Provide staffing for regional vaccination clinic.
(6) Provide daily vaccination site checks and "take" checks for hospital and
public health staff participating in the Program.
3. Bloomington shall provide the PH Emergency Services pursuant hereto on a
confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals.
4. All PH Emergency 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 Emergency 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 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 by Bloomington to residents of
Richfield pursuant hereto.
5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of Emergency Services
pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows:
a. $22,853 for the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator salary
and benefits, training of Public Health staff; and other programmatic costs
including the costs for direct services to Richfield, such as meetings,
presentations, clinical services held in city of Richfield, or for Richfield
personnel (at another location).
b. On March 15, June 15, and September 15, 2003, Bloomington shall bill
Richfield for PH Emergency Services rendered. Payment shall be made within
fifteen (15) days of receipt by Richfield of Bloomington's invoice.
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.
6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of
Bloomington related to the providing of PH Emergency 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.
7. 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. under this Agreement; provided, however, that
Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals.
8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to
PH Emergency 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.
9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield quarterly reports describing the
activities performed and PH Emergency Services 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
Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further
information relative to the activities performed and PH Emergency Services
rendered under this Agreement.
10. 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.
11. 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
n 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, 2215 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington,
Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740.
b. Human Rights. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human
Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.
12. Non-Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written
consent of Bloomington.
13. 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.
14. Data Practices. Richfield will comply with all applicable provisions of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes.
15. Indemnification. 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 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.
16. 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.
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
By:
Its Mayor
Dated:
CITY OF RICHFIELD:
t
Dated:
By:
Its Manager
Attachment : 0513 131oomingtonPH E'PContract-2003
Public Health Preparedness and Response to Bioterrorism
MDH Grant Project Agreement for Community Health Boards
For detail on CHB duties, go to: http://www.health.state.mn.us/oep/funding/publichealthgrant.htm
Coordination -The CHB must designate leadership for the coordination and management of public
health planning for bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats
and emergencies. The project leadership will coordinate all activities outlined in this project agreement,
including overall project management and financial management activities.
• Designate a bioterrorism preparedness coordinator.
• Maintainprogress and financial records.
• Maintain or participate in a local bioterrorism advisory committee..
• Make quarterly reports on preparedness activities to local elected officials.
• Assure competency of local public health leadership.
Assessment -The CHB must assure the completion of an integrated assessment of local public health
capacity for bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and
emergencies. The assessment format will be established by the STATE with local public health input,
and must be completed by the date specified by the STATE.
• Complete an assessment of local public health department capacity.
Planning and Exercise -The CHB must assure the development and exercise of a comprehensive
public health emergency preparedness and response plan.
• Designate a planning coordinator.
~, Develop a public health emergency preparedness plan.
• Conduct or participate in exercises (both table top and real-time) of local preparedness plans.
• Coordinate or participate in planning. and exercise activities with regional partners.
Response -The CHB must lead or participate in the response to any event of bioterrorism, other
outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and emergencies within the jurisdiction.
Designate a response coordinator.
Respond to events of bioterrorism, other infectious disease outbreaks, and other public health
• threats and emergencies according to the established emergency preparedness plan.
Surveillance -The CHB must promote provider compliance of infectious disease reporting, especially
of illnesses and conditions possibly resulting from bioterrorism, other infectious disease outbreaks, and
other public health threats and emergencies as outlined in the DP&C Common Activities Framework.
• Strive to implement disease-reporting protocols as outlined in the DP&C Common Activities
Framework.
• Make staff available to participate in specimen collection.
Health Alert Network -The CHB will establish and maintain a network that will: (a) support exchange
of key information and training over the Internet by linking public health and private partners on a 24/7
basis; (b) provide for rapid dissemination of public health alerts to the response community; (c) ensure
secure electronic data exchange between public health partners' computer systems; and (d) ensure
protection of data, information, and systems, with adequate backup, organizational, and surge capacity
to respond to bioterrorism, other infectious disease outbreaks, and other public health threats and
emergencies.
• Reply to all health alert messages within two hours of receipt.
• Transmit the health alert messages to local health alert networks within two hours of receipt.
• Develop the capacity to receive health alerts on a 24/7 basis.
• Assure that accurate contact information for the following individuals or agencies is included in
~ the local health alert network: internal department staff; all clinics; all hospitals; all clinical
laboratories; all veterinarians; all tribal health directors; environmental health if separate from
public health; county and city emergency managers; and law enforcement.
• Verify local health alert network contact information for accuracy by testing and/or use of the
network.
• Assure that that continuous, high-speed Internet connections with access to email and a current
Web browser are maintained and staff is trained to use the system.
• Initiate discussions with hospitals in their jurisdiction to develop a process for 24/7 receipt of
health alerts by the hospitals via the Internet.
• Actively acquire a-mail addresses from local health alert contacts in order to move away from
..fax alert. Continue to maintain .fax numbers as a backup system.
• Participate in the testing of local health alert systems to identify vulnerabilities.
• -Test communication system to ensure that the link to local emergency response partners is
functioning.
• Test local health alert network system redundancy system.
• Participate in the assessment of current status and needs relating to protecting data and
Internet security within the CHB.
Risk Communication -The CHB must develop a written protocol that describes roles and
responsibilities regarding the provision of information to the media and the public during an event of
bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and emergencies.
This protocol must be consistent with the STATE's protocol
• Designate an emergency spokesperson.
• Develop a local risk communication plan.
• Develop or modify messages to assure that risk messages are community-specific.
Training -The CHB must assure a basic level of knowledge in key staff, including but not limited to
knowledge in the following areas: MIMS; the state public health emergency preparedness plan and the
local role in it; the local public health emergency preparedness plan; and bioterrorism agents, including
their transmission, control and treatment; other outbreaks of infectious disease; and other public health
threats and emergencies.
• Sponsor and/or coordinate regional meetings, workshops and conferences designed to meet
local needs..
• , Respond to local requests for bioterrorism training and information or assist the requestor in
finding appropriate training.
• Attend appropriate trainings as needed.
• Designate a local distance learning coordinator.
• Develop a training plan that addresses identified training needs.
,'~
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ~ H
REPORT # , , ,
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMII~TISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR
Nance Tirc,E
r
[~1 (IN-
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to authorize the Mayor to sign a consent to mutual representation for Kennedy &
Graven regarding representation of the International Design Center.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the Mayor to sign a consent to mutual.
representation for Kennedy & Graven regarding representation of the
International Design Center, 1550 West 78th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
• Kennedy & Graven, the law firm providing legal services for the City of Richfield,
has represented the International Design Center (IDC), 1550 East 78th Street,
Richfield, for approximately one year on various business matters.
• IDC has experienced significant flooding of its leasehold space and has
engaged an engineer to determine the source of the flooding and one of the
potential sources that will be investigated is the City's storm sewer line.
• Kennedy & Graven has discussed with IDC the firm's representation of the City
and informed IDC that the firm will not represent IDC if the investigation results
suggest that the City may be responsible, in whole or in part, for the flooding
damage that IDC has suffered.
0513consentrepresentation
• No direct conflict exists between IDC and the City at this time, but the potential
~ for a conflict exists and Kennedy & Graven believe that further representation of
either the IDC or the City regarding this matter requires mutual informed consent
of both clients.
• Kennedy & Graven commits to terminate their representation of IDC at any point
that it becomes apparent that tDC has a claim against the City.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is appropriate in cases like this for the attorney to seek a consent to
mutual representation. The consent request has been discussed with
the City Attorney.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Kennedy & Graven commits to terminate their representation of IDC at
any point that it becomes apparent that IDC has a claim against the
City.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
~\ D. LEGAL
• Kennedy & Graven is the law firm providing legal services to the City
and the potential for a conflict exists related to the current flooding
investigation undertaken by IDC.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may decide not to authorize the consent to mutual
representation. If this would occur, Kennedy & Graven would need to
consider resigning representation of either the City of Richfield or the IDC.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Letter regarding the consent to mutual representation from Kennedy &
Graven.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
Kennedy
Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-93 t 0 fax
http://www, kennedy-graven.com
._ -,1_
'., '•1
"` j
1
i
April 21, 2003
BY FAX AND MAIL
Steve Devich
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423 ,
RE: Consent to Mutual Representation
Dear Steve:
~-`+~'~$~tRINE H. THOMSON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9217
Email: cthomson@kennedy-graven.com
Real Property Law Specialist, Certified by Minnesota State Bar Assn.
This follows the telephone conversation we had earlier this week. I am writing to request the City's
~ consent to our firm's limited .representation of another client, the International Design Center
("IDC"). IDC is located at 1550 East 78~' Street in Richfield, and our firm has represented IDC for
approximately one year on various business matters.
Recently, IDC has experienced significant flooding of its leasehold space. IDC has engaged an
engineer to determine the source of the flooding, and one of the potential sources that will be
investigated is the City's storm sewer line. We have discussed with IDC the firm's representation
of the City, and we have informed IDC that the firm will not represent IDC if the investigation
results suggest that the City may be responsible, in whole or in part, for the flooding damage that
IDC has suffered. No direct conflict exists between IDC and the City at this time, but the potential
for a conflict exists, and we believe that further representation of either the IDC or the City
regarding this matter requires mutual informed consent of both clients.
Therefore, I am writing to request the City's permission for our firm to continue to represent IDC in
its dealings with its landlord and insurance company regarding the flooding of its leasehold
premises. We commit to terminate our representation of IDC at any point that it becomes apparent
that IDC has a claim against the City. Likewise, we would not represent the City regarding any
such. claim (although, as we discussed, such a claim would normally be handled by the LMCIT). In
addition, the attorneys handling the matter on behalf of IDC will not share any file information or
other client confidences with the following attorneys who handle City matters: Corrine Thomson;
John Dean; Robert Lindall; Mary Tietjen. Likewise, none of the attorneys handling Richfield
matters will share with any of IDC's attorneys any City confidences that are directly or indirectly
related to the City's storm water system design or operation.
CAH-230473v 1
RC160-1
Steve Devich
Apri121, 2003
Page 2 of 2
If the City consents to our continued representation of IDC, please indicate that consent below and
return a signed copy of this letter to me.
Sincerely,
,~. ~-~
Conine H. Thomson
CHTjms
Enclosure
The City of Richfield consents to Kennedy & Craven's representation of International Design
Center according to the limitations expressed in the above letter.
Samantha Orduno, City Manager
CAH-230473v1
RC160-1
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
CONSENT CALENDAR
7G
110
REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASST. TO CITY
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution supporting the completion of the 1996 Sound
Insulation Program.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached Council resolution supporting the
completion of the 1996 Sound Insulation Program.
III. BACKGROUND
At its upcoming May 19, 2003 meeting, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) will be voting on whether or not to complete the 1996 sound insulation
program. This vote was prompted by extreme pressure from Northwest Airlines
(NWA) to indefinitely defer or postpone the completion of the 1996 Part 150 Sound
Insulation Program. In fact, MAC staff have indicated that NWA's agenda is to get
the insulation program permanently shutdown. The completion of the 1996 program
is critical to any future expansion of the program to homes out to the 60 DNL
contour and puts many eligible Minneapolis homes in jeopardy of not receiving any
mitigation, after having waited since 1992 to be insulated.
The pressure being put upon the MAC by NWA to severely trim its budget is
considerable. Governor Pawlenty and the new MAC chair, Vicki Grunseth, are both
0513airport
staunch NWA supporters and have encouraged the MAC to be responsive to their
-~ financial situation. NWA has criticized the MAC for its spending on the sound
insulation program and its spokesperson has described the Part 150 program as an
"entitlement program." The Governor has appointed three new members to the
commission who have no personal investment in the 1996 program and who are
likely to vote against any continuance of the program.
At the upcoming May 19 MAC meeting, the commission will be considering whether
to complete the 1996 program, based on the 1996 noise contour, or to wait until a
new, updated contour is completed before proceeding with any further mitigation. A
new contour appears to be over a year away from being developed and,
subsequently, approved by the Federal AViatiori Administration (FAA). In the
meantime, the final homeowners waiting to be insulated and who, in some cases,
have invested money in their homes in preparation for the program, would be forced
to wait longer and, even possibly, pushed out of the contour altogether.
NWA has also argued against the block intersection method used by the MAC,
which has allowed all the homes on any block that is touched by the 65 DNL
contour line to be eligible for the insulation program. With the development of a
new contour map that will inevitably shrink the DNL lines and the pressure from
NWA to throw out the block intersection method, the likelihood of more impacted
Richfield homeowners receiving any type of mitigation is significantly diminished..
643 single family homes and duplexes in Richfield have been insulated since the
'~ initiation of the sound insulation program in 1996. Residents have benefited
significantly from this program, which has positively impacted their quality of life and
their enjoyment of their homes. Approximately 12 homes in Richfield within the
1996 - 65 DNL noise contour or on a block touched by the contour, have not been
insulated because the homeowners initially asked to be deferred. In February 2001,
the MAC sent out letters to all the homes that had requested deferment to invite
them to reconsider. At least six homeowners have indicated they would like to
participate in the program. The MAC was planning on sending out a final letter to
participate yet this spring before closing the books on the 1996 program. This
invitation to deferred property owners is one of the areas of contention between the
MAC and Northwest Airlines.
Affected multi-family buildings are also impacted by the May 19 vote. There are
eight apartment buildings in Richfield, along Cedar Avenue, that qualify for sound
insulation under the 1996 program. Some of those buildings are being acquired this
year as part of Richfield's Airport Noise Acquisition Program. However, at least one
building, south of 66th Street, is not due to be acquired at any time in the near
future and its residents would greatly benefit from getting the building insulated
against airport noise.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Although Richfield has had most of its eligible homes insulated, Minneapolis still has
approximately 1,000 homes left under the 1996 program. As members of the new
MSP Noise Oversight Committee, as prior members of MASAC, and as good
~ neighbors and colleagues to all airport affected communities, it is critical that the
City of Richfield join with those communities to insist that MAC complete the 1996
program in its entirety, without changing the rules or implementation guidelines at
this late phase of the program.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A vote on May 19 by the MAC to discontinue or indefinitely postpone
the 1996 sound insulation program jeopardizes the completion of the
program and any expansion of the program to homes in the 64-60
DNL noise contours.
There are still approximately 12 single-family homeowners and 8
multi-family buildings in Richfield under the 1996 program that are
eligible for sound insulation.
C. FINANCIAL
• None
D. LEGAL
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not pass the resolution, which would not give the City an opportunity to
- voice its concerns formally to the MAC.
• Pass an amended version of the resolution.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution supporting the completion of the 1996 Sound Insulation Program.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
( l
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMPLETION OF THE 1996 SOUND INSULATION
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield appreciates the positive, productive and
cooperative working relationship it has developed with the staff and commission members
of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to find solutions to the airport noise
impacts experienced by Richfield; and
WHEREAS, continuing that cooperative relationship and maintaining a critical level
of trust is important to the City of Richfield and its residents as a neighbor of the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP); and
WHEREAS, in 1996, the Minnesota Legislature made the final decision to expand
the MSP at its current location and directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
to implement the MSP 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, with this decision, the Legislature also directed the MAC to develop a
noise mitigation plan which includes steps and procedures to mitigate aircraft noise and
aid community stabilization for the affected communities, and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the MAC approved the MSP Noise Mitigation
-~ Committee recommendation, including completion of the residential sound insulation
program for the area encompassed by the 1996 DNL 65 contour, on the currently
`" approved schedule, and
WHEREAS, the schedule contained within the Noise Mitigation Program was based
on completion of the 1996 program by 2000 and the current program, including single
family and multi-family residences, should have already been completed; and
WHEREAS, the MAC incorporated the Noise Mitigation Program into the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process as a specific
mitigation measure addressing airport noise and FAA incorporated the program as a
condition of approval in their Record of Decision approving the current airport expansion;
and,
WHEREAS, recognizing the fallibility of a projected noise contour and that noise
may be significantly annoying to the population beyond the 65 DNL, MAC adopted the
block intersect method in 1995 and FAA concurred; and
WHEREAS, no new noise exposure map or noise compatibility program has been
developed and no public participation has occurred in the development of a new program,
nor is their any guarantee that FAA will approve a new noise exposure map in 2003; and
WHEREAS, the current sound insulation program is entirely user funded through
passenger facility fees and airport improvement program funds, neither of which are costs
borne by Northwest Airlines and the MAC's bond rating remains higher than "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has had 643 single family homes and duplexes
,~ within the 1996 - 65 DNL noise exposure map successfully insulated for aircraft noise and
is hopeful that homes within the 60-64 DNL will also benefit from some type of mitigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, the following comments are hereby adopted:
1. The City of Richfield has relied upon the commitments made by the MAC
through the environmental process for the construction of Runway 17/35 and views further
deferment or indefinite postponement of the current sound insulation program as an
abrogation of MAC's commitments to all affected communities and residents.
2. The City of Richfield urges the MAC to complete all the 1996 eligible homes and
multi-family residences without further delay under the same policies that have been in
place throughout the program.
3. The City of Richfield requests that a last and final offer to enter the current
program be made to deferred residents no later than August 1, 2003.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ~ F
REPORT # 109
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITC,r_•
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached subdivision waiver for the Church of the Assumption located at
305 East 77th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution, approving the subdivision
waiver for the Church of the Assumption located at 305 East 77th
Street.
~ II. BACKGROUND
In early 2002, Mr. Bob Lurtsema purchased 220 East 78th Street (parcel `A' on the
attached survey.) This property was surrounded on the west and on the north by
property owned by Church of the Assumption. In July of 2002, the Richfield City
Council approved a request from the Church of the Assumption to subdivide the
property that was adjacent to Mr. Lurtsema's property (parcel `B' on the attached
survey.) Mr. Lurtsema then purchased parcel `B' and combined it with parcel 'A'.
In early 2003, Mr. Bob Lurtsema purchased 224 East 78th Street (parcel `C' on the
attached survey), which is adjacent to and east of Mr. Lurtsema's property at 22q
East 78th Street. Because parcel `C' does not extend as far to the north as Mr.
Lurtsema's adjoining parcels `A' and `B', Mr: Lurtsema is seeking to purchase a
0513-SubWaiver.doc
1,638 square feet parcel of land from the Church of the Assumption (parcel `D' on
--~ the attached survey). Therefore, the Church of the Assumption is seeking to split
off this 1,638 square foot parcel from their property at 305 East 77th Street and sell
it to Mr. Lurtsema. Mr. Lurtsema would then combine the 1,638 sq. ft. Parcel `D'
property with his existing property at 224 East 78th Street (Parcel `C' on the
attached survey).
Mr. Lurtsema plans to build an office building on the resulting combination of
parcels `A', `B', `C', and `D'. This new building will replace Mr. Lurtsema's current
office building at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue when the final phase of Lyndale
Gateway progresses. Mr. Lurtsema requires Parcel `D' so that his final parcel is a
regular rectangular shape and the proposed new office building will meet all city set-
back requirements.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interFere with the
purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05.
• Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05,
Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code would result in an unnecessary
hardship.
rte, B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will not create an unusable parcel,
because the resulting 1,638 sq. ft. parcel that will be split from 305 East
77th Street will be joined to the adjacent parcel to the south at 224 East
78th Street providing a parcel containing 12,194 square feet.
• Minnesota Statute 505.03 subdivision 2, Plats requires Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to review all property
subdivisions abutting MnDOT right-of-way. MnDOT has reviewed this
proposed lot-split and informed the property owners of information
regarding drainage rates that must be provided to MnDOT before any
new construction can occur on the parcel at 220 East 78th Street.
• The properties at 220 and 224 East 78th Street are both currently
vacant.
• By combining all parcels (`A', `B', `C', and `D' on the attached survey),
the resulting parcel will meet minimum lot size requirements for lots in
the C-2 district.
• City staff have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed office
building to be constructed at 220-224 East 78th Street and found that
the proposed building and site improvements will meet City
requirements.
• 220 and 224 East 78th Street and 305 East 77th Street are zoned C-2.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached resolution
approving the requested Subdivision Waiver.
~, IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council Resolution
• Survey
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Michael Dols, applicant, Church of the Assumption
.---~ RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
FOR THE CHURCH OF ASSUMPTION LOCATED AT 305 EAST 77TH STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 305
East 77th Street, legally described as:
Parcel A: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 28, Range 24, West
of the 4th Principal Meridian described as follows: The South 156 feet of the East
125 feet of the Southwest % of the Southeast'/a of Section 34, Township 28, Range
24, EXCEPT that part taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South
40 feet thereof,
ALSO: that part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24
corresponding to that part of the East 1/8 of the South'/z of the Southwest'/ of the
Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156
feet thereof, EXCEPT the Northerly 30 feet thereof.
ALSO: That part of the South '/2 of the Southeast '/4 of the Southeast '/a, of Section
34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of 77th Street and lying Westerly of a
line drawn at right angles from a point on the North line of the South 590 feet
thereof distant 425.65 feet West of the West line of Ranft's Addition, EXCEPT
.~ therefrom that part described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point which is
408.65 feet West of the. Southwest corner of Ranft°s Addition and 462.00 feet North
of the South line of said Lot 1, which is the point of beginning; thence West along a
line parallel to the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 17.4 feet; thence North at
right angles to said parallel line, a distance of 128.00 feet; thence East at right
angles a distance of 17.4 feet; thence South to the point of beginning.
ALSO: That part of the West %2 of the East'/4 of the South'/z of the Southwest'/4 of
the Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South
156 feet thereof, EXCEPT the North 30 feet thereof and EXCEPT that part of
Government Lot 1 in Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 described as follows:
beginning at the Northwest corner of the East 216 feet of the South 156 feet of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24;
thence West a distance of 82.65 feet to the East line of Second Avenue South;
thence North along said East line a distance of 18 feet; thence East a distance of
82.65 feet to the west line of the. East 216 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast quarter, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; thence South along said
West line, a distance of 18 feet to the point of beginning; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two
parcels, legally described as:
Parcel B: That part of Government Lot 1 described as follows: The North 18 feet of
the South 174 feet of the West 91 feet of the East 216 feet of the Southwest'! of
the Southeast "/ of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th
Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
Parcel C: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 28, Range 24,
described as follows: The South 156 feet of the East 125 feet of the Southwest'/
~~` of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT that part taken
for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof,
ALSO: that part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24
corresponding to that part of the East 1/8 of the South'/z of the Southwest'/a of the
Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156
feet thereof, EXCEPT the Northerly 30 feet thereof.
ALSO: That part of the South % of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4, of Section
34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of 77th Street and lying Westerly of a
line drawn at right angles from a point on the North line of the South 590 feet
thereof distant 425.65 feet West of the West line of Ranft's Addition, EXCEPT
therefrom that part described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point which is
408.65 feet West of the Southwest corner of Ranft's Addition and 462.00 feet North
of the South line of said Lot 1, which is the point of beginning; thence West along a
line parallel to the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 17.4 feet; thence North at
right angles to said parallel line, a distance of 128.00 feet; thence East at right
angles a distance of 17.4 feet; thence South to the point of beginning.
ALSO: That part of the West'/ of the East'/ of the South %2 of the Southwest'/ of
the Southeast-'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South
156 feet thereof, EXCEPT the North 30 feet thereof and. EXCEPT that part of
Government Lot 1 in Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 described as follows:
beginning at the Northwest corner of the East 216 feet of the South 156 feet of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24;
thence West a distance of 82.65 feet to the East line of Second Avenue South;
thence North along said East line a distance of 18 feet; thence East a distance of
82.65 feet to the west line of the East 216 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast quarter, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; thence South along said
West line, a distance of 18 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT that part of
Government Lot 1 described as follows: The North 18 feet of the South 174 feet of
the West 91 feet of the East 216 feet of the Southwest'/ of the Southeast'/ of
Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian,
Flennepin County, Minnesota,
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convey the proposed Parcel B to the owner
of the adjoining property located at 224 East 78th Street, which is legally described as:
Parcel D: That part of Government Lot 1 lying within the following described tract of
land: The South 156 feet of the West 91 feet of the East 216 feet of the Southwest
'/4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B does not comply with Subsection 521.09 of the
City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the combination. of Parcels B-and D results in the creation of a -new
parcel legally described as:
Parcel E: That part of Government Lot 1 described as follows: The South 174 feet
of the West 91 feet of the East 216 feet of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of
~~ \ Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Subsection
500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above as
Parcel A into Parcels B and C is hereby granted; and
2. The conveyance of Parcel B to the owner of Parcel D is hereby approved, on
the condition that the owner of Parcel D combine Parcels B and D as a single
parcel; and
3. Future transfers may be by parcel as described above as Parcel C or Parcel
E; and
4. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate
this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with
~ the terms of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
t LQI L01NKi100 NNl~1 131 IdM 1Z 39MYN ~ SBNMpI YC MgL035 !0
iG1i1V11D iS/3M11105 7LL Lp XIltl1RID LSlYLLIIDS 3LL !D 3M1 1SY3 31LL
T ~
M .w.sLOO s ~
00'Bl ~ .
W a I
al Cd
N I
.n g ' R n ~.
I :•~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~~
W '; ~~ s 'y ~k; I
,~~~ ~~
ly .;'
oW ~ ha~ I ~
_' w~ F ~ ~ g
~ ; ~ 8 ~~ ;~
~~ ~ I
~ ~~ I
~ M ,l0.SL00 S
Y 6 1 _-00.95!__
~ OOBI ; ~ I 00'9ll
~ ~
_ _ __
w i
r7 l .. ..... .Y ~....... _ ALl ........................... ...... a.........~
_._-___-__.... Qii ~ \ ...
V = ~ ~ W NO i i 6` I ~~! _
v~ I ~~ ~ a 11 gin« O I
a NlA N~ O !r~~_ ON;; F
a ~ ~~ Q\ m I C, ~ ~ ~!c8~ a I
~ Z ; ~ ~ \\\~ 111 ~ ~ =~M W I
{~+ U
W
t ~ ~ ~ i I
~~ ~~ --00'911-- _: ~
^`I' M ,l0,S L00 S m
r
~\ - - - ~ --00'i£t--
3 .BS,~I.00 N 3~ Ny ~ ~ ~~
S 31Y 01(LJD 7f11SYJ
., ~i
-- - _ _ I
3+r'+sv~ - - --~
O __ ~ v _ - _ .~ -
CC _ C" ~ _ _ ~ ~ 4 . V L
L L L v ~ ,u G ^U j=~ v '~ = V: ~ y Q-' .F J~ u O' V T ~-'
C C O ~ r LL 3
~" __ ~ t j U ~ m Li '~ = O ~ _ 7 Tom. 4~ p= 'O s V s a p
r ~ ~ z _ _ _ - _ - - _J _ _ _L _ _ -
l ~ _ ~ ~ 1. ~ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ ` ~ J - - _ - - ~ _ _
~ - _ ~ - __ _ r [ - -
_ ^M _ _ - _ _ _ = 1. _ _ _ _ _ - i ~ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ 7
/; ~~r~` G. M'~y`i - _ ~ - _ - _ _ J J _ _ _ ~ 1, J, '~' G ~ _ _ _ ~ - __ ~ _~
__ '1 ~ Z _ _ _~ __ _ _ _ ~ .. - - _' _ _ ' - Y - -_ -_ _ _ Z - _
0
O
D
I W
O N
on
m ~'
I ~
'_
r ~
2
A
~ •'
~`
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
Consent
7E
108
JULIE URBAN,
REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution, authorizing application to Hennepin County for a Transit
Oriented Develo ment Grant for the Air ort Noise Miti ative Area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application
to Henne in Count fora rant for the Air ort Noise Miti ative 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 a grant program available for transit-oriented developments.
Staff has prepared an application that would access some of these funds in order to
plan for transit and transportation improvements in the mitigative area, specifically
as they relate to the proposed redevelopment north of 66th Street.
A resolution indicating City Council support of the application is required with the
application.
0513TODapp
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is appropriate to seek outside funding for City/Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) projects whenever possible.
• The City has identified the 87db low frequency noise area for
acquisition of existing property and redevelopment with noise-
compatible uses and structures.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The application requests $550,000 to cover transportation/transit
planning and acquisition costs.
• 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
area to transit opportunities at the Mall of America and I-35W.
• The grant proposal also seeks funding to assist the City and the
developer in locating the appropriate entrance to the development.
• At this time, County staff anticipate having funding available through
this program over the next five years. If this year's application is
successful, there may be opportunities in the future to apply for
funding to assist in the implementation of the mitigative plan.
C. FINANCIAL
• Financing for the development is tight; funding from outside sources
will increase the chances of a successful development.
• If a grant is not received, staff and the developer will continue to
pursue all avenues for financing the redevelopment of the area.
• No local match is required for the grant.
D. LEGAL
• The program guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in
support of the application.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny authorization and direct staff to withdraw the application.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
~~' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
FOR THE AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATIVE AREA
WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within Hennepin County
and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Transit Oriented
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City"), in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
§ 3836.77, subd. 3., supports the transit oriented development loan/grant application
submitted to the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority on May 1,
2003 for atransportation/transit study and acquisition costs for the airport noise
mitigative area; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized
"-` to apply to Hennepin County for this funding on behalf of the City of Richfield and to
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the
applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ] C -
REPORT # 10 6
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
SALLY MORTON, IT MANAGER
NAA~ TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution regarding a request to donate used City computer
equipment to the Richfield School District.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the donation
of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280.
III. BACKGROUND
The City has 30 old computers that have been replaced with new equipment. The.
retired equipment is still in good operating condition, but the technology no longer
performs adequately in the City's environment. The Richfield. School District accepts
donations of used computer equipment and is interested in receiving 13 of the
retired PCs and 3 of the retired laptops. The City made similar donations in 1999,
2000 and 2001.
The remaining 14 computers are older than the school district can use and staff is
looking into other options for disposing of that equipment.
0513PCDonation
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The retired equipment was purchased with tax dollars from the same
taxpayers that fund the school district.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost to the City to recycle a personal computer is about $8.50.
• A quick survey by City staff revealed that similar used PCs are selling
for $50 - $200. Ours would be worth less as these prices are for
complete systems and ours do not include monitors.
• If the City were to sell this equipment there would be costs associated
with that effort and staff time would be diverted from other important
projects.
D. LEGAL
• The donation to the school district is authorized by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.85 which provides: "Any county, city, town, or
school district may transfer its personal property for a nominal or
without consideration to another public corporation for public use
when duly authorized by its governing body."
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Direct staff to research options for selling the equipment.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
_ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF USED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #280
WHEREAS, the City owns some computer equipment for which it no longer has any
use; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85 permits the City to transfer this
property to the School District for public use; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Independent School District #281 have indicated
that they will accept the donation and use it in a manner permitted by Minnesota Statutes
Section 471.85.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that 13 personal computers and 3 laptop computers owned by the
City be transferred to Independent School District #280.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
/~
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ~ B
REPORT # 1 ~ 5
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
n
[~ ~J--
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits
on statutory municipality tort liability.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Council not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability
established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The City purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating
municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This
action must be taken before July 1 of each year.
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
('1 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.
0513Tort Liability
~ Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is historically true of
' slightly more than half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to
purchase excess liability coverage for the past several years.
The cost of excess liability insurance has been, and continues to be very expensive.
An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost in excess of $55,000 annually.
Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess
of the statutory $1, 000, 000 cap.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities has been raised
two times in the last few years to the current $1,000,000 level. The
legislature felt that the $1,000,000 limit was more reasonable than the
previous lower limits.
• 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, 2003. 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. ATTACPIMENTS
• 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 13th day of May
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
-~
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
CONSENT
7A
104
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST
NAME TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ „ n
(~ SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of parcels located at 7645 Aldrich
and 7646 Lyndale Avenues to The Cornerstone Group.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct first reading of a transitory ordinance
authorizing the sale of parcels located. at 7645 Aldrich and 7646
ndale Avenues to The Cornerstone Grou
III. BACKGROUND ~
On December 11, 2002, the City Council approved a planned unit development and
final development plan for a proposed redevelopment of the west side of Lyndale
Gateway West by The Cornerstone Group. The redevelopment project
encompasses the area from 76th to 77th Streets, Aldrich to Lyndale Avenues.
In 1993, the City purchased four parcels at the south end of this block for the 77th
Street road project. A portion of the parcels is being used for 77th Street right-of-
way. The remainder is not needed for right-of--way but is needed for the
redevelopment project.
0513LGWparcels
Cornerstone needs 1,987 square feet of 7645 Aldrich Avenue and 837 square feet
~ of 7646 Lyndale Avenue for the redevelopment project. Staff propose selling the
property to The Cornerstone Group for $18,311.70.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The property to be purchased by The Cornerstone Group is not
needed for right-of--way purposes.
• Sufficient land will remain for the 77th Street right-of-wav.
It is appropriate to charge The Cornerstone Group fair market value
for the property and reimburse the 77th Street account, which
originally purchased the property.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The redevelopment project needs the land for the development.
C. FINANCIAL
• In 2000, appraisals were conducted on 77th Street remnant parcels
located to the east of Lyndale Avenue. The residential portion of the
land was appraised at $4.15 a square foot. The commercial portion
-~ was appraised at $10.60 a square foot. In the case of the property on
the west side of Lyndale Avenue, an inflation factor was applied to
arrive at $4.44 a square foot for the residential property and $11.34 for
the commercial property.
• 7645 Aldrich Avenue is valued at $8,820.69 and 7646 Lyndale Avenue
is valued at $9,491.01 for a total of $18,311.70.
• The 77th Street account would be reimbursed with the sale proceeds.
D. LEGAL
• Cornerstone will be platting the redevelopment area, which will legally
establish the new right-of--way line.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Decide not to sell the excess right-of--way to The Cornerstone Group.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance
• Description Sketch of Parcels
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
^ N/A
~~ BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER
OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1:
The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of,
and conveyed by the City as herein provided:
Parcel A
That part of Lot 8, Glenn's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 51.35 feet of said Lot 8.
Parcel B
That part of Lot 7, Glenn's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
~ Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 28.30 feet of said Lot 7, lying
north of the south 45.30 feet of said Lot 7, and lying westerly of a curve concave to
the east having a radius of 17.01 feet. Said curve passes through a point on the
south line of said north 28.30 feet of Lot 7 distant 108.99 feet easterly of the west
line of said Lot 7, and passes through a point on the north line of said south 45.30
feet of Lot 7 distant 105.76 feet easterly of said west line of Lot 7.
Section 2:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing
Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not, limitation, the execution of all
documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments
connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Ci
--.~ ~I
t~ J
~~
~~
~~
UQ
~ Q
OZ
J
~ ~,
~ e, a
c ca
•
_ a
•S, a
O ul
o r~
d ~,._ o
~_
N
d N ~aJ T
C d .
C O
c ca
~ctyo
o rn u
~: ~^ p o ~
C
0
O C t Lw
oa-~c
-
(
j {D
UJ VI
W ... I~
C
.~ C a in y ~
,~ N a 3 O
Ol C O i « ..
y C
= O
xy~
_~ U O y
0 o a >. a
v
`w wo•6 ~n
`w'~ to ~?
« «a o 0
d 41
d O ~ N
'
O Otnm
O r - ~ O
~
M
O
~ O O - N
a
d
« N L V1 +-'
«"'JCt
`ob m"
o Oco_
0
rn v y
o'~o
C na
C'T~ O
-
o
c o m
~a0
u
0 0 O1~ pJ~
°
0 o s o m
Q J
Za
O
m J ~-' C
ZaOV-
~ O N
w w ~
U o..-
0 0
U o,.-«
M
c
0
a a r
V) y Q
d 0~ d
a
N~ r N t
LL Z` ~- Z` i« c
O w~ U Z O U C O
Z
O h
CAN Z
O ~ M c ..
O~ ~a.
a o
N
a ~Y r`«>
a .
O n
U
N JO O
y N
U ~ c J O
U t 0
w d
O D N O C~ J
p
_
r
r
p t`
O O
`."o««
of
«
a v
t a~mw
L o r, ~ -~
~~~
3_
roo
d« y
v3
a ~
oov
r
c c r
O
°uv
2 ri
t w ~ O
U ~
d ~ T N
H TN _ J
yE2
a
«~N
a c s a Z
« J O T }
p J 0 a J
E ~ ~ « N
d c e
U T_ C p
,,a rn~ y z
u ~ ~ a $
t a~_°: °v o~
~ m a o ... z
3 d O UI p 1=/1
~; -
{Z
I
I
Iv
I~
Ic
~~
I~
I
N
I~
.I m
c
11m
~IY
m
a~~
_ N
N
~_ ~
J N ~
N M ~
~~ • M
'J/.1 _ I c~
~' N O)
'~ a
;~~ a
O O w
y N ~
~ c 'n
~
~` O ~ N
I
°'
c
• om
m
'
o ~
I
_O •-N
m O 0)
O m y
W y
I _ C
4Z '3921 '8Z 'dMl '£f '035 30 b/i 3S 3H1 0 ~'~
j0 4/I 3S 3Hl j0 Z/I N 3H1 30 3NIl 1Stl I ~ rn m
o
N
L lOl ~0 3NIl 1Stl3
<' ~ .28 k3,p~ ,,,~ I
f'8Z ~' 110822 9 5 Of
RBR~'~ I
~S) C ~ ~ ` of'sb
:- ~ I
0
~~ ~ a
b y O
~ F ~ ~ ~ w I
b ~
~' , O ~
_Z ~ h°Qo
S o1 Q I
~ ~ a ~. 3 ~~
o
Z ~ mh
C ~"
~ ~~
Q
L C~
a / ~ ~ ~ ~.~/ L lOl d0 3NIl
C ,
~~
~)aaj p£ 4~u1 I ~3ltlOS
N _
F-
O
0
J
- Of'Sb~
3„F1,90,ON a
J_ `I
y
IS~ ~
O
J I
4
O
w
C~~ _
~ ~ O Z ~ O _ ~ U
h ll h ~ I O fwil
~, ~ ~ ON N40
W Q h ~ ~ \v
I ~~ ~ v ^ ~ ~~ ~ II~I"II~h Z.\
ll~ o V ~ o ~~ I '"~
C~ 2 ~ II ti ~ o~
J ~
\J J ~ J I ~ Za
\ ^ \- ~
S£'IS~ I ~
0£--yow
II~~~JVI V1
I
' /Z S/-'
3„ F/, 90,ON
£f 03S .~0 b/I 3S 3Hl ~0 4/I 3S 3H1 30 Z/I N ~ ~
3H1 30 133j 096 1S3M 3H1 l0 3NIl 1Stl3
m
3
Q
O
O
h
N
~~
~i
N
N
ti
m
h
i
O
O
AGENDA SECTION: Public Aearines
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 116
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2003
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Conduct and close three, separate public hearings and consider three, separate resolutions on
the Modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan, Modification #11 to the
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing Plan, and Modification #1 to the
Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing Plan; all related to The Cornerstone Group
redevelo ment ro'ect.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt the
attached resolution approving the Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, related to The
Cornerstone Group redevelopment project.
2. Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt the
attached resolution approving the Modification #11 to the Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing Plan, related to The
Cornerstone Group redevelopment project.
3. Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt the
attached resolution approving the Modification #1 to the Lyndale
Gateway West Tax Increment Financing Plan; related to The
Cornerstone Groua redevelopment proiect.
0513LGWTIF.doc
-~ II. BACKGROUND
~_
• On February 26, 2003, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
approved providing the developer of the Cornerstone project with additional
gap funding in the amount of $1.1 million for property acquisitions in the
Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The Bonds of 1996 were
identified as the source of the additional funds, provided as a loan, and
repaid by the developer and tax increment generated by the project.
• In order to use this revenue source, the HRA needed to undertake the
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area, Modification No. 11 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District and
Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale
Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District (collectively, the "Modified
Plans").
• On March 20, 2003, HRA Executive Director, Samantha Orduno, made an
application by letter to the City Council requesting it to call a public hearing
on the Modified Plans.
• On March 24, 2003, the Planning Commission made a finding that the
Modified Plans conform with the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the City as a whole.
• On March 25, 2003, the City Council called a public hearing on the Modified
Plans for May 13, 2003.
• On March 27, 2003, project information was sent to the County Board for
review of any potential county road impacts.
• On March 31, 2003, the County Commissioner was notified of the proposed
Modified Plans and scheduled public hearing date.
• On April 11, 2003, the School Board and County were notified of potential
fiscal/economic implications contained within the Modified Plans.
• On April 21, 2003, the HRA approved the Modified Plans.
• On May 1, 2003, legal notices of public hearings and maps of the project
area and of districts were published in the Sun Current newspaper.
• A short summary of the Modified Plans is provided below.
Modification to the Redeveloament Plan for the Richfield
Redeveloament Proiect Area:
/ Authorizes the expenditure of one tax increment district's increment
revenue in another tax increment district within the defined boundaries of
the project area. Specifically, authorizes the HRA to loan tax increment
from the ILN TIF District to the Lyndale Gateway West TIF District for the
acquisition of parcels.
/ Indicates that the boundary of the Richfield Redevelopment Project area
is not being changed.
/ Indicates that the ILN TIF District budget is not being changed.
Modification No. 11 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District:
/ The substantive change includes the authority to loan tax increments
generated by the ILN TIF District to the Lyndale Gateway West TIF
District for the acquisition of certain properties related to the Cornerstone
Group project.
/ Lists the properties identified for acquisition within the Lyndale Gateway
TIF District.
/ Indicates that the geographic area of the ILN TIF District area is not being
changed.
/ Indicates that the ILN TIF District budget is not being changed.
Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale
Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District:
/ The substantive change includes the authority to borrow tax increments
generated by the ILN TIF District to the Lyndale Gateway West TIF
District for the acquisition of certain properties related to the Cornerstone
Group project.
/ Identifies a loan from the HRA in addition to the Pay-As-You-Go Note or
General Obligation TIF bond issue for project financing.
/ Identifies an additional $1.1 loan in the Sources of Fund, thereby
increasing the revenue budget to $8,576,636.
/ Identifies an additional expenditure of a $1.1 loan in the Uses of Funds,
thereby increasing the expense budget to $8,576,636.
/ Indicates that the geographic area of the Lyndale Gateway West TIF
District area is not being changed.
/ Provides an updated description of the project in Appendix A.
/ Provides the current map of the Lyndale Gateway West TIF District in
Appendix B.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Modifications to a redevelopment project area plan and tax increment
financing plans require certain notifications and public hearings as
prescribed in the Minnesota Statutes.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The project developer cannot receive any additional gap financing
without the necessary reviews and approvals to the Modified Plans.
C. FINANCIAL
• Ehlers and Associates, Inc. prepared the Modified Plans, resolutions,
notices and other documentation required in the context of providing
the developer with additional gap financing for the Cornerstone
project.
D. LEGAL
t _ 1 • Legal counsel has reviewed the materials prepared by Ehlers and
Associates, Inc.
• Legal counsel has recommended separate public hearings on the
Modified Plans.
,-~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
~ Do not approve the Modified Plans or delay approval of the Modified Plans
and provide further direction to staff.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
• Resolution adopting Modification No. 11 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District
• Resolution adopting Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District
• The Modified Plans (Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area; and Modification No. 11 to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment
Financing District; and Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District)
• County comments concerning the- modification
• Clarification to County comments, prepared by staff
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield (the "Authority") did, on or about June 14, 1993, originally adopt the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Project Area, pursuant to the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"), and has subsequently
modified the same thereafter, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the HRA Act, the Authority proposes to modify the
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has caused to be prepared a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan, and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority did, on or about March 20, 2003, submit a letter of
application requesting approval of the modification and made a request that the City
Council hold a public hearing on the proposed modification, all in accordance with the HRA
'^ Act; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has included in its application to the City Council the
materials required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028 subdivision 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on May 13, 2003, based on such reference and
following notice as required by law, hold its hearing on the approval of the modifications to
the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City as follows:
The City makes the following findings:
1. the land in the project area would not be made available for
redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought;
2. the modifications to the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment
areas in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of the
areas by private enterprise; and
3. the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the
development of the locality as a whole; and
4. the modifications are contained in Exhibit A
5. the council hereby ratifies and reaffirms all of the findings previously
made with respect to the Redevelopment Plan.
II. The City Council hereby approves the proposed modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan, and makes all of the findings stated therein.
2003.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Exhibit A
SECTION I -MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, is recommended. It is available in
the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. Other relevant
information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
The boundaries for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area are not being modified.
Parcels in Acquisition
The HRA or City may acquire the parcels either by direct purchase or through eminent
domain proceedings in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway West
Tax Increment Financing District. However, it is anticipated that the developers will be
responsible for a majority of acquisitions by direct purchase.
Estimated Public Costs
This modification authorizes the HRA to loan tax increment from the Interstate-Lyndale-
Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District for qualified activities identified in the
budget of the Modification to the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing
Plan, and to authorize the HRA to use funds loaned from the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet
(ILN) TIF District to acquire parcels in the Lyndale Gateway West TIF District.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed by the HRA that the City adopt a Modification to the
Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Modification") for the ILN Tax Increment Financing
District (the "District"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including
Minnesota Statutes, 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as
reflected in the Modification, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Modification and has
caused the Modification to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification, including, but not limited to,
~- notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property in the District, a review of and written comment on the
Modification, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. The Council hereby ratifies and reaffirms all of the findings previously made
with respect to the District.
Section 2. Fndings for the Adoption and Approval of the Modification.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Modification, is intended and, in the
judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for
development, serve a public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the
Modification, which are hereby incorporated herein.
2.02. The Modification includes the authority to loan tax increments generated from
the ILN District to the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District in order to
acquire land.
Section 3. Public Purpose
3.01 The adoption of the Modification conforms in all respects to the requirements
of the Act and will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise
t _ ~J in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private
developments financially feasible, and thereby primarily serves a public purpose.
Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Modification.
--~
4.01. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the Council following its public
hearing thereon, the Modification, as presented to the Council on this date, is hereby
approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
4.02. Upon approval of the Modification by the Council, the staff, the City's
advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation
of the Modification and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this
Council for its consideration all further Modifications, resolutions, documents and contracts
necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Modification does not constitute approval of
any project or a Development Agreement with any developer.
4.03 Upon approval of the Modification by the Council, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to forward a copy of the Modification to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
4.04. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Modification to the Hennepin County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of
May, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed by the HRA that the City adopt a Modification to the
Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Modification") for the Lyndale Gateway West Tax
Increment Financing District (the "District"); all pursuant to and in conformity with
applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as
amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Modification, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Modification and has
caused the Modification to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
~'~ the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification, including, but not limited to,
notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property in the District, a review of and written comment on the
Modification, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. The Council hereby ratifies and reaffirms all of the findings previously made
with respect to the District.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Modification.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Modification, is intended and, in the
judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for
development, serve a public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the
Modification, which are hereby incorporated herein.
2.02. The Modification includes the authority to loan tax increments generated from
the ILN District to the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District in order to
acquire land.
Section 3. Public Purpose
3.01 The adoption of the Modification conforms in all respects to the requirements
of the Act and will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise
in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private
developments financially feasible, and thereby primarily serves a public purpose.
Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Modification.
4.01. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the Council following its public
hearing thereon, the Modification, as presented to the Council on this date, is hereby
approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
4.02. Upon approval of the Modification by the Council, the staff, the City's
advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation
of the Modification and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this
Council for its consideration all further Modifications, resolutions, documents and contracts
necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Modification does not constitute approval of
any project or a Development Agreement with any developer.
'^'~ 4.03 Upon approval of the Modification by the Council, the City Clerk is authorized
-- and directed to forward a copy of the Modification to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
4.05. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Modification to the Hennepin County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of
May, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
As ofMctt~ 6. 100
Copy for City Council Review
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
and
MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) Z4X INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT
and
MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
within
THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing on Modifications: Ma~~ 13, 2003
Modifications Adopted:
E u L E R ~+ Prepared by: FREERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
fl ~7 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 551 1 3-1 1 05
b A$$ O ~ I A- E 5 i v c 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 WWW.ehlers-inacom
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I -MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA .................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ....................... 1-1
Parcels in Acquisition ................................................... 1-1
Estimated Public Costs .................................................. 1-1
SECTION ll - MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 2-1
Introduction ........................................................... 2-1
Boundaries of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District ......................... 2-1
Description of Property in the District and Property That May Be Acquired .......... 2-1
SECTION 111 -MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .. 3-1
Subsection 3-1. Foreword .............................................. 3-1
Subsection 3-2. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 3-1
Subsection 3-3. Uses of Funds .......................................... 3-1
Subsection 3-4. Summary .............................................. 3-2
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................:................. A-1
APPENDIX B
MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TIF DISTRICT ......................... B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C-1
~ SECTION I -MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Foreword
The follo«°ing text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area_
adopted June 14, 1993. is recommended. It is available in the Communit}~ Development Department at the
City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax
Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
The boundaries for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area are not being modified
Parcels in Acquisition
The HRA or City may acquire the parcels either by direct purchase or through eminent domain proceedings
in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the L}mdale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District.
~, However, it is anticipated that the .developers will be responsible for a majority of acquisitions b_y direct
purchase.
Estimated Public Costs
This modification authorizes the HRA to loan tat increment from the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax
Increment Financing District for qualified activities identified in the budget of the Modification to the
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing Plan, and to authorize the HRA to use funds
loaned from the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) TIF District to acquire parcels in the L~mdale Gateway
West TIF District.
Richfield HR:1 Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Rede~~alopment Project :Area 1-1
~ SECTION ll -MODIFICATION NO. 11 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT
Introduction
(AS MODIFIED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING ON MAY 13, 2003)
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA")_ the City of
Richfield (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to etpedite a
modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the Interstate-L}'ndale-Nicollet (the
"ILN") Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district.
located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
These modifications do not add any geographic area to the District, nor do the}~ increase the amount of
spending.
Generally, the substantive changes to the current Modification include the authority to loan tax increments
generated from the ILN District in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to the Lvndale Gateway West
Tax Increment Financing District (the "Lvndale Gateway West TIF District") to acquire land.
For further information. a review ofthe Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area dated
June 14. 1993 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District is
recommended.
Boundaries of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
The boundan~ for the ILN District is not being modified.
Description of Property in the District and Property That May Be Acquired
(AS MODIFIED ON MAY 13, 2003)
The following are additional parcels located in the Lvndale Gateway West TIF District that are being
identified for acquisition:
Parcel Numbers
33-028-24-44-0044
33-028-24-44-0045
33-028-24-44-0046
33-028-24-44-0056
33-028-24-44-0055
33-028-24-44-0054
33-028-24-44-0053
33-028-24-44-0052
33-028-24-44-0051
33-028-24-44-0050
33-028-24-44-0047
33-028-24-44-0048.
33-028-24-44-0049
33-028-24-44-0036
33-028-24-44-0037
33-028-24-44-0038
33-028-24-44-0039
33-028-24-44-0040
33-028-24-44-0041
33-028-24-44-0042
33-028-24-44-0043
The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the Lvndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing
District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will
be acquired by the HRA, City or developer in order to accomplish one or more of the following: provide land
for needed public streets; utilities and facilities: carry out land acquisition. site improvements, storm sewer
and/or storm water retention improvements: clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and
Richfield HRA Modification to the TIF Plan Y'or the ILN TIF District
2-1
,--~ objectives set forth in this plan. "I'he HRA or City may acquire property by gift. dedication_ condemnation
_ ' or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this Plan. Such acquisitions will
be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
,--~
Richfizld HRA 'Modification to thz TIF Plan for thz ILN TIF District 2-2
SECTION 111 -MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Subsection 3-1. Foreword
(AS MODIFIED ON MAY 13, 2003)
The Housing and Redevelopment Authorih~ in and for the Cit}~ of Richfield (the "HRA"), the Cit.' of
Richfield (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the
modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lvndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing
District (the "District"). a redevelopment tax increment financing district. located in the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area.
These modifications do not add am' geographic area to the District. but they do, however: increase the
amount of spending.
Generally, the substantive changes to the current Modification include the authority to borrow tax increments
generated from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to
the Lvndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District to acquire land.
Subsection 3-2. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
(AS MODIFIED ONMAY 13, 2003)
The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed. the project will be financed by apay-as-you-go note or a G.O. TIF bond issue
and a loan from the HRA. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities.
The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment
financing will not exceed $8.576.000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory
requirements. This additional loan does not increase the overall budget.
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
AS AS
SOURCES OF FUNDS ADOPTED MODIFIED
12/10/2002 5/13/2003
Tax Increment $7,476,636 $7,476,636
i .nan -0- $1,100,000
PROJECT REVENUES $7,476,636 $8,576,636
Subsection 3-3. Uses of Funds
(AS MODIFIED ON MA Y 13, 2003)
Under the proposed modification, an additional $1,100,000 will be provided to the developer as a loan in
order to undertake necessary qualified activities. The loan is proposed to be paid back with project increment
and developer payments. The table on the next page reflects the revised uses of funds.
'~4odification to the TIF Plan for the Lyndale Gateway VI'est TIF District 3-1
Richfield HR:1
' ~ USES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
AS
ADOPTED
12/10/2002
TOTAL
AS
MODIFIED
5/13/2003
Land/Building Acquisition $3,300,000 $3,300,000
Interest $3,458,879 $3,458,879
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $717,757 $717,757
Loan -0- $1,100,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $7,476,636 $8,576,636
Subsection 3-4. Summary
(AS MODIFIED ON MAY 13, 2003)
The HRA is modifying this Plan to provided additional gap financing to the developer in order to preserve
and enhance the tai: base, redevelop substandard areas, provide housing opportunities and new neighborhood
commercial and retail space, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District
vas prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville. Minnesota 55113, telephone
(651) 697-8500.
Richfield HRH Modification to the TIF Plan for the Lyndale Gateway West TIF District 3-2
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(AS MODIFIED ON MA Y 13, 2003)
The Lvndale Gate~vaS~ West Tal Increment Financing District is being facilitated to create an integrated
mined-use development of housing. commercial, parking and ne« public facilities, utilities. streetscape, and
other improvements. The project components include the following:
• 92 to 94 loft-style condominium units in 2 four story- buildings with 117 underground parking
spaces and additional surface parking of approlimately~ 10 stalls
• 14 rivo-story townhomes in three separate buildings with rivo-car. attached garages
• 27.000-33.000 square feet of retail and office space in three buildings with approtimately 12~-
13~ parking stalls located behind the buildings
• Reconstructed Lvndale Avenue with landscaped median. boulevard plantings. decorative
sidewalk, street furniture; pedestrian-scale lighting, and entry monuments
APPENDIX A-~
APPENDIX B
MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TIF DISTRICT
APPENDIX B-~
Z~
0
Q `~
(V
/ r~
_,\
aV43~
Ypl
YILI
1
/ Yil
~ OL9NNOOl9
/~/
iii Y5l
Yen
V7C1
Q V¢t
au
a e~ Yne
W
Q ~
Uy
Ii Z
Z lan3
s~ mare
uri~'frv'
./ •
W ~ ~ G1MiaOd
~
O ~
az
/11
..vL
W ~
!'~~~ ~
' '"~
W
~
~
~ _
~ ~~
o~
s-nnsu
esl
n3aslrle
IlaONLL1i~M
Aa(RSllld
O
J . •
Z ~ OM/a'J
131aarN
W W m3ldaro
3lrUNAI
W W ~ N~laar
Q ~ ~ 1NYAa8
W V W lradna
Z ~ rosa3er3
Q - }. uan3a~
,J xJ Q aarte~
W `
i ~~N
~ ~
f•~ ~ ~
W
` 'JNIALI
S311Y~
XeJNY
V ~ Q NYJO,
N1fJtl011
NOJM3N
W
J a3Mo
NN3d
Q N33f1O
TI3SSfla
Z Nr01a3N5
SVNIOHl
J Noidn
1N3~NN
Naf18HSYM
S3Xa3X
n
}
Q
ar113~
~t
YtLI
Vbl
IQl~JNl~001
YiSt
Yen U
v[t N
vQ/ p
au ~
U ~
""` 'v
lOlll3 ~ C
~~ p C_
snewmo~ ~' _~ ~
Aare ~ .U ~
nv!}71r0 ~ C i
CNVII]IOd ~ ~
~ m I.L V
~ ~ C
YI- ~ ~
NOWI~ Q ~
~ ~ L
a~ ~ z
J
sN3n~s ~
e=t a ~ -..
.~ ~ a~
13llp~IN ~ ,~ d
~ U
T3~SM9
eueeawx3M ~
Aarresllld ~ ~ ~
1NrSY3ld ~ 3 ~
aNVao ~ ~ J
131aarN ~ ~
al3ldarJ ~ ~ ~
3lrONAI ~ ~ ~
L ~ L
Naaar V T ~
unAae ~ J ~
xrdlo~
ueodno
Nosa3n3
ueon3ad
aarao
~,~~N
>~~
531M'
XON71
VeFJpI ' uV
~aa~
p1NLaN 0
O
a3N70 d'
NKid
!Li3fA ~
O
Il3SS(la ~
M
Ir0ia31i5
O
;tiNON1 O
+oldn N
tt3~n
MfY6V6~/M ~
S3Xa3X ~
r
e
1~
O ~
s
O o
O E
a
;' ~,
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-wa~~ identified b~~ the parcels listed belo~~~.
Parcel Numbers Address O«-ner
33-028-24-44-0036 7600 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH TOP VALUE AUTO SUPPLY INC
33-028-24-44-0037 7608-12 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH RAYMOND F SAWITZKE
33-028-24-44-0038 7614-18 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH PATRICK L OBRIEN
33-028-24-44-0039 7620-26 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ELLIOT I WOLSON ETAL
33-028-24-44-0040 7632 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH SEASONAL CONTROL INC
33-028-24-44-0041 7628 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ACTION EMPLOYMENT INC
33-028-24-44-0042 7630 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH D N ERICKSON ET AL TRUSTEES
33-028-24-44-0043 7634-36 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ROBERT EHRMAN ~ WIFE
33-028-24-44-0044 7638-40 LYNDALE AVENUE-SOUTH ROBERT EHRMAN 8i WIFE -
33-028-24-44-0045 7642 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH GEORGE A ROONEY ETAL
33-028-24-44-0046 7644 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ROBERT R LURTSEMA
33-028-24-44-006 7601 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH J C ULRICH ETAL
33-028-24-44-00~~ 7609 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH BOUNVIEN VONGSOUVAN ET AL
33-028-24-44-004 7615 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH M & D NORLING
33-028-24-44-003 7621 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH CONSTANCE M JOHNSON
33-028-24-44-002 7627 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH KENNETH S WREN
33-028-24-44-00~ 1 7633 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH ALAN P KRAEMER
33-028-24-44-000 7639 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH KRISTEN A LAMONT
33-028-24-44-0047 7648 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD
33-028-24-44-0048 7646 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD
33-028-24-44-0049 7645 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD
APPENDIX
C-1
.~~
_== Memo
-_
`--_--_-
DATE: May 2, 2003
TO: Board of County Commissioners
n
FROM: Richard P. Johnson, Deputy County Administrator
SUBJECT: Modification 1 to Richfield Lyndale Gateway West Redetelopment TIF District and
Modification 11 to Richfield Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet TIF District
Public Hearing Date scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at the Richfield City Hall.
_Modification 11 to interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment TIF District (County 1251) was created in 11/12/1985 and
received its first tax increment in 1987. This TIF District, with 43 current parcels, has a current property value of $88,935,000
and a captured tax capacity of 1,099,800. The TIF District has generated tax increment of $13,745,339 from 1987 through
2002 and will generate $1,293,278 in 2003. The TIF District will be decertified after 26 increment-generating years on
12/31/2012. Modification 11 to this TIF District will authorize it to loan $1,100,000 of tax increment to the Lyndale Gateway
West TIF District for land acquisition.
Modification 1 to Lyndale Gateway West Redevelopment TIF District (County 1286) was created on 12/10/2002 and is
~ scheduled for certification in the spring of2003 for tax payable year 2004. This TIF District, with 21 parcels and a projected
26-year duration tax increment of $7,476,636, is being modified to authorize it to borrow $1,100,000 of tax increment from the
ILN TIF District. Modification 1 does not geographically enlarge the TIF District but it does increase the amount of spending to
$8,576,636. The $1,100,000 will be provided to the developer as a loan in order to undertake qualified activities, including
land acquisition. Richfield expects the loan to be paid back with project increment and developer payments. As presently
proposed, this TIF District project will be financed by apay-as-you-go note or a G.O. TIF bond issue and a loan from the HRA.
The project description, as proposed by Modification 1 will ~clude 1) 92 - 94 loft-style condominium units in two four-story
buildings with 117 underground parking spaces and additional surtace parking of approximately 10 stalls; 2) 14 two-story
townhomes in three separate buildings with two-car, attached garages; 3) 27,000-33,000 square feet of retail and office space
in three buildings with approximately 125-135 parking stalls located behind the buildings; 4) Reconstructed Lyndale Avenue
with landscaped median, boulevard plantings, decorative sidewalk, street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting and entry
monuments.
SUMMARY: Hennepin County's comments on the original TIF Plan, submitted to Richfield on 11/22/2002 for the Richfield
City Council public hearing on 12/10/2002, stated that "...the TIF Proposal for the Richfield Lyndale Gateway West
Redevelopment TIF District provides no explanation why TIF is a funding tool of fast resort. The TIF Plan does not identify the
redevelopment as a project of greatest need. None of the proposed housing is identified as lower income housing, and the
TIF District is projected to have a maximum duration of 26 years. Therefore, it appears that this TIF proposal does not satisfy
the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for use of Tax Increment Financing." Modification 1 does not
change that assessment.
A copy of this report will be sent to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority with a request that it be entered into
the record of the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 13, 2003, to reflect the County's position on this proposal.
(w: RevuRichfield LyndaleGateway WestMod 15132003) )
Clarifications to County's Comments of 5/2/03 on Modified Plans
The Cornerstone Group Redevelopment Project
Modification #1 to Lyndale Gateway West Tif Plan
city
County Review of
Item Comment Comments Data Source /Notes
Creation date 12/10/02 Same - - -
Count of of district parcels 21 Same - - -
Projected increment over 26 $7,476,636 Same As listed in sources statement in TIF
years Plan.
Loan from ILN TIF District $1,100,000 Same ---
Geographicenlargement of of No Same - - -
district
Increase in spending Yes No Overall project budget will not increase as
loan will be paid back. Sources and uses
statement does increase.
Project components: All Same - - -
^ Loft-style condominiums in 92-94 units
two four-story bldgs.
^ Underground parking 117 stalls
spaces
^ Additional surface parking 10 stalls
^ Two-story townhomes in 14 units
three separate bldgs.
^ Square feet of retail/office 27,000-33,000
space in three buildings square feet
^ Parking stalls behind 125-135 stalls
buildings (commercial;
visitors)
^ Reconstructed Lyndale
Avenue with landscaped
median
^ Boulevard plantings;
decorative sidewalk; street
furniture; pedestrian-scale
lighting; entry monuments
TIF as funding of last resort City/HRA has Explanation "But For" findings already made by
not explained. provided under Council and HRA based on financial
original TIF analyses and approved as part of original
Plan. TIF Plan. This project can not proceed
but for TIF. Analyses were prepared by
Ehlers & Associates, Kennedy & Graven,
and staff.
Housing component of project There is no Affordable Up to 49 units are affordable. A TIF Plan,
affordable housing is by statute, does not have to report on
housing in provided for in housing affordability.
project. project.
Modification #11 to ILN Tif Plan
City
County Review of
Item
-~-
Comment
Comments
Data Source /Notes
,reation date 11/12/85 10/21/85 Council resolution approving ILN TIF
District.
First increment receipt 1987 Same Verified through Office of State Auditor
(OSA) Tax Increment Financing District
Report for period ending 12/31/01.
Count of of district parcels 43 43 taxable County's report on frozen base values.
5 exempt
Current property value $88,935,000 $89,629,000 County's report on new increment values.
Captured tax capacity 1,099,800 1,629,893 County's reports on frozen base values
and new increment values.
TIF generated from 1987- $13,745,339 $13,720,612 OSA Tax Increment Financing District
2002 report for 2000 $9,866,864;
Pay 2001 receipts $2,389,322;
Pay 2002 receipts $1,464,426.
TIF generated in 2003 $1,293,278 $1,294,278 County report on tax increment
percentages.
Decertification date 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 Cashflows and Annual TIF Status report
prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.