The URL can be used to link to this page

09-23-03 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 ` _ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY HALL EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1... _Interview-of.persons.interesting in-seraiing.as yoUt_ii..members-on-.City's advisory commissions Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call Discussion regarding enforcement of parking in front yards and parking coverage areas Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others.. Comments are fo be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of September 9, 2003; and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of September 9, 2003 PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of Tamara Doolittle, Hennepin County Principal Appraiser for Richfield 2. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition commemorating 50th anniversary of Richfield League of Women Voters 3. Presentation of proclamation designating September 2003 National Child Identification Month in Richfield 4. Consideration of acceptance of 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report Staff Report No. 208 Notes: COUNCIL DISCUSSION 5. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits - Introduction of Arts Commission • Bloomington Avenue bus route change to 12th Avenue Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 6. City Manager's Report Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar arerecommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement and weed destruction S.R. No. 209 B. Consideration of approval of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility ~- ~ accounts to County Auditor S.R. No. 210 C. Consideration of approval of resolution securing City of Richfield participation in contract with PSC Alliance for Public Safety dispatch consolidation study S.R. No. ~; 211 ~'~-~ D. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Diamond Surface, Inc. for 76th Street diamond grinding (micro-planing) project in amount of $29,967.84 S.R. No. 212 E. Consideration of approval of leasing City-owned property at 1710 East 78th Street (Normark building) to Metro Sales Incorporated S.R. No. 213 F. Consideration of approval of bid minutes and tabulation and award of contract to Alltech Engineering Corp. for replacement of two lime slaker units in Water Treatment Plant lime softening system in amount of $341,700 S.R. No. 214 G. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses .... _ #or Church-of.St.-P-eter.,.-673D..Nicollet.Auenue,-anntaal-.Fall.-~estival.on.October 4 and 5, 2003 S.R. No. 215 Notes: 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: RESOLUTIONS ,~ 10. Consideration of resolution calling for sale of $710,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20036 Staff Report No. 216 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 11. Consideration of proposed design for crosswalk on Lake Shore Drive as part of City Bella project Staff Report No. 217 Notes: 12. Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions (deferred from September 9, 2003) Staff Report No. 218 Notes: n 13. Consideration of Request for Proposals to establish baseline for low frequency noise study Staff Report No. 219 Notes: HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14. HRA Executive Director's report Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 15.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 219 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached draft Request for Proposal to conduct Low Frequency Noise monitoring. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct Low Frequency Noise monitoring along the eastern border of Richfield. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently building a new runway (hereafter reviewed to as the North/South Runway) along the eastern border of Richfield - only 1200 feet from some Richfield homes. Its expected completion date is now late 2005 after being delayed as a result of the repercussions of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In 2000, the City and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) co-sponsored a comprehensive study to determine the low frequency noise impacts of the North/South Runway on homes near the runway. A three member noise expert panel conducted the study and concluded that some portions of east Richfield would be very severely impacted by LFN. However, upon submission of the LFN Study to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its review and comment, a letter was received by the City in August 2002 from the FAA dismissing the conclusions of the report saying that "it failed to demonstrate increased annoyance to residents of Richfield due to low frequency aircraft noise." LFN Monitoring & Analysis Despite the FAA's findings, the City of Richfield continues to remain concerned about the potential impacts on its residents from the eventual operation of the ~~ North/South Runway and unconvinced that there will be no negative impacts. At the City Council/Staff 2003 goal-setting session, the Council adopted as one of its goals "to pursue actions/funding to put in place low frequency noise monitoring equipment prior to the operation of the new runway." The RFP included with this report is the first step in moving forward with this Council goal to gather new criteria from which to establish a more solid position for arguing the existence of LFN. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has contended that the operation of the new North/South Runway will have negative impacts on Richfield residents and is committed to finding ways to mitigate those impacts. Establishing a direct correlation between the operation of the North/South Runway and the noise experienced by residents on the east side will provide a much stronger case for the funding of mitigation options. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is imperative that the noise monitoring be conducted now, before the (~'; operation of the North/South Runway, in order to establish baseline -~ noise data from which to use for comparison purposes once the runway becomes operational. • It is critical that noise monitoring be done in the fall, prior to the extreme cold temperatures and snow of winter, which are hard on the instrumentation and other necessary equipment used and affect. the precision of the monitoring. • The FAA's review of the Richfield/MAC LFN Study recommended that further low frequency noise study be conducted. Gathering hard data will provide a more convincing argument for the existence of LFN. C. FINANCIAL • Preliminary estimates to conduct the noise monitoring and analysis are in the range of $25,000-$30,000, which would be financed through the General Fund fund balance. However, the final cost will not be known until the proposals have been received and the preliminary estimates are considered low. D. LEGAL • None ~_ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not conduct the noise study. However, no baseline noise data will then be available to compare actual noise data to once the North/South Runway becomes operational. Establishing a noise comparison and acquiring the data to demonstrate a significant noise impact is critical to receiving any future FAA support for mitigation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Request for Proposal VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD ORA/C 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE RICHFIELD MN 55423 612-861-9700 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR MEASUREMENT OF BASELINE LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE LEVELS IN EASTERN RICHFIELD INTRODUCTION Acco"rding to the "Findings of the Low-Frequency Noise Expert Panel of the Richfield-MAC Noise Mitigation Agreement of 17 December 1998", aircraft operations on MSP's new Runway 17/35 are expected to expose some residences along Cedar Avenue in eastern Richfield to low frequency sound levels in excess of LFSL = 85 dB. Daytime ambient sound levels in the one-third octave bands with center frequencies between 25 and 80 Hz are currently estimated to be roughly 30 dB lower than levels associated with anticipated runway operations, while nighttime ambient levels in the same low frequency bands may be as much as 40 dB lower. At some locations along Cedar Avenue, low-frequency noise generated by aircraft takeoff roll and thrust reverser deployment will reach residences by over-ground propagation paths. At other locations, noise produced by aircraft engines operating at high thrust levels will propagate over unobstructed (air-to-ground) paths. A thorough assessment of the effects of this noise on residential properties will require documentation prior to the opening of the runway of ambient levels of low-frequency energy in the six one-third octave bands centered at 25 through 80 Hz. This RFP seeks field measurements to characterize the existing low frequency noise environment along Cedar Avenue in terms consistent with the Expert Panel report, so that comprehensive analyses can be conducted of noise effects caused by aircraft operations on the future. Runway 17/35. Bidders shall prepare a technical proposal that includes a complete and detailed test plan describing how the field measurements will be made, the instrumentation to be used, a discussion of proposed quality assurance measures (such as rejection of low frequency wind noise artifact), the algorithms to be used to calculate LFSL values from the field measurements, and the qualifications of personnel who will perform the work. STATEMENT OF WORK Low frequency ambient noise measurements traceable to NIST primary standards shall be made at a minimum of three outdoor locations along Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue, subject to the approval of the City of Richfield. Measurements shall be made CRAFT contemporaneously at a minimum of two of these three sites. Wind speed and direction at each measurement site shall be measured and recorded continuously throughout the data ~ collection period to permit discrimination of low frequency wind noise artifact. Noise -J measurements shall be made as continuously as is cost-effective over a period of at least two weeks, and at a minimum shall include the following information: • Rapidly and continuously sampled sound levels in the one-third octave bands with center frequencies between 25 Hz and 80 Hz; • A-weighted and C-weighted levels in the same temporal intervals; and • Hourly and daily average noise levels. Contractor shall calculate LSFL values from the field measurements, and deliver to the City of Richfield a draft technical report summarizing the measurement procedures and monitored low frequency ambient noise levels at each site for daytime and nighttime periods, and for weekday and weekend measurement periods. Upon revision and approval of the draft technical report, Contractor shall prepare and submit a final technical report. Contractor shall also deliver a set of compact disks containing a digital database in .dbf format of wind information and time-stamped one-third octave band levels in all measured frequency bands and spectral weightings. All field measurements shall be completed within 60 days of authorization to proceed. Bidders must propose a schedule for completion of other contractual deliverables. QUALIFICATIONS Bidders must provide the following information: 1. Background information on the contractor and experts employed to conduct the study and analysis. 2. Listing of qualifications, including relevant previous studies and experience. 3. Names of personnel who will perform the study and analysis. 4. Three references from cities (please provide names, addresses, and phone numbers). COSTS Bidder must provide the cost of the measurement, the cost of the analysis and delineate all ancillary costs related to the study. DISCLOSURE Bidder must disclose whether or not they have ever performed work for the Metropolitan Airports Commission,.the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, or any specific airline. DEADLINE FOR PROPOSAL Proposals must be received no later than October 17, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. COMMENCEMENT Of MONITORING Noise monitoring must be commenced by the week of November 3, 2003. DEADLINE FOR STUDY ANALYSIS Study analysis must be completed and received by the City of Richfield no later than February 1, 2004 by 5:00 p.m. unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by both parties. l i AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # j2 REPORT # 2 j$ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NaA~ TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions (deferred from September 9, 2003). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appointment persons to fill the youth terms on the City's advisory commissions (deferred from September 9, 2003). ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ The Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission and Friendship City Commission have youth term vacancies. Advertisements were placed in the Richfield Sun, on the Cable TV Community Bulletin Board, message boards outside City Hall and the Water Plant, and the City's web page. Notices were also sent to Richfield High School and the Academy of Holy Angels. Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2004. Applicants were interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on September 9, 2003. Appointments were deferred to allow time for additional interviews. Additional interviews were conducted at a Special City Council meeting on September 23, 2003. Appointments are scheduled for the September 23 Council meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0923appointments A. POLICY ~_; • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. • The Mayor directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill expiring terms. • Interviews of the applicants were conducted at Special City Council meetings. The meetings were posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. $. CRITICAL ISSUES • Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings on September 9 and 23, 2003. • Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2004. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Defer appointments to another Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Vacancy list. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ ~~ None. n ~~ YOUTH COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS ~" ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH - 1 vacancy HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 2 vacancies FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION - 2 vacancies August 31, 2004 August 31, 2004 August 31, 2004 August 31, 2004 August 31, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Qther Business AGENDA ITEM # j j REPORT # Z 17 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~/I e [ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:. Consideration of approval of proposed design for the crosswalk on Lake Shore Drive as part of the Cit Bella Pro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approval of proposed layout of the Crosswalk on Lake Shore Drive as part of the Cit Bella Pro'ect II. BACKGROUND In June 2003 Council discussed two alternative designs for the proposed pedestrian crosswalk on Lake .Shore Drive by the Gramercy Park Cooperative to enter the Wood Lake Nature Center. Both alternatives reduce the number of vehicular traffic lanes from four to two The alternatives differed in providing or not providing 12 on- street parking stalls on the north side of Lake Shore. Drive. Based on Council direction the attached layout shows Lake Shore Drive reduced to one lane in each direction and a raised median through which a pedestrian ~ crosswalk passes. The design includes a flashing yellow signal that is shown on an ~~-% attached photo of one located on 71St Street in Edina. The proposed layout allows bicycles to travel on the shoulder. The layout. also includes, two on-street handicap parking stalls. THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 0923 Lake Shore Drive III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed pedestrian crosswalk combined with reducing the number of traffic lanes on Lake Shore Drive is designed to improve safety for pedestrians trying to gain access to the Wood Lake Nature Center. • The proposed design provides for a bike lane placed on the shoulder of Lake Shore Drive as a way to promote bicycle travel. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Pedestrian safety crossing Lake Shore Drive has been a concern with redevelopment occurring in the vicinity of 66t" Street and Lyndale Avenue. • Adequacy of off-street parking for the Gramercy Park Cooperative has also been a concern. C. FINANCIAL • The developer of the City Bella Project will finance the costs for the roadwork on Lake Shore Drive. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may consider providing an additional 12 on-street parking stalls on the north side of Lake Shore Drive and removing the on-street bikeway. The proposed layout for Lake Shore Drive would have to be revised. V. ATTACHMENTS • Two plan sheets showing: (1) the pavement markings and traffic control. signing of Lake Shore Drive; and, (2) the proposed pedestrian flasher signal. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. n~\R\Riehf\040100\5-dsgn\51-ca a n o v x m v m :n a n o ~ n ~ m = m o m O a ~ .. 7 ~ K T < A 9 ~ i 2 ~ ~' '0 '0 ti n s C 2 O O s m ~~ 12:39:11 PM 1 I '~' A m <_ N O Z IA a zr dim ~~ ~~N~2~ m~==a :n s• Paz c o> a-.-air mx~na-r ~~'z-~Z ~m~czii- czi°mm°~ N~Ir x~ Ix~1m0Nma m~~ _~i aaN-.a`c om m_xm7 N C ~ /. m=~ ~ O D ~ 4 rrx..• r mzi H ~ rNn~n°c v ~mumic~ N H mm A~ A 9 ~ > ] >o-~-n r z-~o~ VIN=O~ °amg $ om ~ a Z Y =>C m f Q}p, >'<a' N r O=~ -gym L ~o< yAA 1 +~IA mNti N ~OZ~ a ~~z iO O~ZVI a o~gZ s PAZ Zc V mD a~ Jb~o'' r~ s ~oz~ ~oNm ~ N O yu X4~ m .o NOS d N m 0 Cann ~~a o~<_ ~~n a zc~~ mcn- 0=~ DWo ~~ ~z ~~ r Z ~ ~ ~ ~ °m a n T x o m u m a ° o °o 0 s 0 ~z 0 ,- o N 0 r N D Z D m D r N r m m z 0 tai ~ > x z m m ~~ ~ 10' MIN. w z ~ ~ ~ m S y ~~~~~V ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ N 2 ~~~~ ~~~{ A y ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ti P S = R IV I Z ~>~ m~~ ~~ ~ ~~ N 20y j~m r m O 0 2 6~~0m~m0 m A O ~ r o~~A;z ~~~8oz ~~~~~ $~~~ mm~ F ~ N ~~ ~~ ~ Z~.~ _ \W ~Z > mm D~~ ~y ~A Xg O\ N fin' ~\ 8n' ~+~~C AmrnN ZA ND A C y A~N ;~ ~~ '~ ~~ x ~'~ t~~m~ ~~ c ~~c ~~ x ro o ~ ro : rn n ?LV ~~ y z m ~,~ ' ~$ m ~~ m ~~ ~ ~c~ > ~ Z ~y> gm ~ ^~z ~m~ gmy ti am~ ~Aro ~~~i cy F ~u~i c~' a~nx ~ c~~m m w ~ ~mz .. ~.N~ v ~~2 N Dm ~~ ~ ~A 30' LUMINAIRE MOUNTING HEIGHT ~ ;~ p N~ J N O ~ pD D m ~~ ~Q Fn c Z o .,,~ m m 1 ~ D ~ NO ~ Z ~ y ~ZfDgoCN Z 0 D ~ Am¢ Zpg(N~n p Z oA ~~7CV~m m 1 ... ~ Nim ~m o~ Q ~,. rAm 9'-9" f 1' C~ZZ> y m -a ~ 17'-6' MAX. g z ~ ~ 16' MIN. omyyg *~+ g ADO Q~zm n a v ~~~. ~~ ~~a ~m~ A N ~-~ 0 C awe w ~'N ~~ $ ~~ \; ~ ~~ ~ o 4 Y .e'° '. ' '~ •s. '. i . >: .. 4. n -' •. .. mcm v Novmi Z ooz -o c ~ZS I ~ D ~ O r DZ~m Ny~O N '' D (nNC I ^s r=T1 NZ~ N r C A rn p~ N n ~ r ~ ~~ r' m ~% ~ z v °z ~~ ~~ t~i N D i. w OO x 0 n D D D N --I D N Z D r "~ 0 r m ~'I O C Z D O Z N =I O D ...I r mD ~ ~ m C fTl f/1 A o nZ'O ~Amm vs~p m gDD v~ r m~ X m z 0 Z D S m cn ~ ^~ D v,zm o~N~ v'gC~O D ~~~m ...~mo o~.m~ ~c~ c O Z u ~, ~_,~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Resolutions 10 216 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE !'~ ~_. COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TI E DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~ SIGNATURE ,~/~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution calling for the sale of $710,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20036. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution calling for the sale of $710,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20038. II. BACKGROUND • The City first issued G.O. Capital Notes in February 2002 in a response to the new Omnibus tax laws and state imposed levy limits. Accordingly, the City is issuing G.O. Capital Notes again in 2003 for equipment purchases in 2004 and 2005. • With substantial reductions in Local Government Aid (LGA) and continued, stricter levy limits, G.O. Capital Notes represent an alternative to fund necessary equipment purchases. Therefore, the use of capital notes is again part of the current budget process. • These capital notes are short-term borrowing supported by a separate tax levy above imposed levy limits. The use of capital notes will have the effect of eliminating fixed charges from Internal Service Funds to General Fund departments. 09232003Capital NoteCallForSale III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The issuance of the Series 20036 Capital Notes is the second instance of capital notes for the City of Richfield. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The Capital Notes will be financed by tax levies in 2004 and 2005. • The tax levy amounts will be an estimated $386,218 in 2004 and $386,694 in 2005. • The Capital Notes are proposed to be sold as non-rated and non- callable. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Note Sale Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $710,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL NOTES, SERIES 2003 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $710,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2003 (the "Notes"), to finance the acquisition of various capital equipment for the City; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Notes and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Notes. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 6:30 p.m. on October 21, 2003, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Certificates. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Notes and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report September 23, 2003 Proposed Issue: $710,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates, Series 2003 Purpose: To finance the acquisition of various capital equipment for the City. The equipment will have an expected useful life at least as long as the term of the Notes. Description: The $710,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates are being issued under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 410.32 and 412.301 and Chapter 475. Rating: The City currently has a Moody's "Aa3" rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds. We recommend these Notes can be sold non-rated because the size of the issue is not sufficient for the rating fee to be cost effective. Term/Call Feature: Principal on the Certificates will be due on February 1 in the years. 2005 ~~ through 2006. The Certificates will not be subject to prepayment prior to ~ their maturity. Funding Sources: The Certificates are general obligations of the City and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301, the City will levy a tax for the payment of the Certificates. Discussion Issues: The first interest payment on the Certificates will be August 1, 2004, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1. The projected debt service and flow of funds are attached to this Report. Bank Qualified: We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt issued in the City's name by 501(c)3 corporations) will • not issue more than a total of $10,000 in tax-exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Notes to be designated as bank qualified. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates. Schedule: Pre-Sale Review: Distribute Official Statement Bond Sale: Estimated Closing Date: Attachments: September 23, 2003 October 9, 2003 October 21, 2003 November 24, 2003 Sources and Uses of Funds Proposed Debt Service Schedule Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with Certificate Sale Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors Certificate Analysts: Certificate Sale Coordinator: Sid Inman(651) 697-8507 . Rebecca Kurtz (651) 697-8516 Diana Lockard (65I) 697-8534 Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536 Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527 The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review prior to the sale date. City of Richfield $710, 000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2003 SOURCES & USES Dated 12/01/2003 Delivered 12/01/2003 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ......................................................................... $710,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................... $710,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Deposit to Project Construction Fund .................................................. 688,300.00 Costs of Issuance .............................................................................. 16,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.600%) .............................................. 4,260.00 Rounding Amount .............................................................................. 1,440.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................... $710,000.00 Ehlers & Associates File = RICHFIELD.SF-GO Capital Notes, Series 2003- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 9/ 9/2003 2:26 PM Page 1 City of Richfield $710, 000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2003 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 12/01/2003 - - - - - 8/01/2004 - - 10,186.67 10,186.67 - 2/O1/2005 .350,000.00 2.000% 7,640.00 357,640.00 367,826.67 8/01/2005 - - 4,140.00 4,140.00 - 2/O1/2006 360,000.00 2.300% 4,140.00 364,140.00 368,280.00 Total 710,000.00 - 26,106.67 736,106.67 - YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................. $1,188.33 Average Life ..................................................................................................................... 1.674 Years Average Coupon ............................................................................................................... 2.1969147% Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................... 2.5554000% True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................... 2.5634185% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................... 2.1945988% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ...................................................................................................... 3.9769552% IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ...........................................:.................................................................. 2.1969147% Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................... 1.674 Years Ehlers & Associates File = RICHFIELD.SF-GO Capital Notes, Series 2003- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 9/ 9/2003 2:26 PM Page 2 J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Consent 8G 215 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held October 4 and 5, 2003. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter's annual Fall Festival to be held October 4 and 5, 2003. II. BACKGROUND On September 17, 2003 the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for their Fall Festival to be held October 5 and 6, 2003. All fees have been received. The City has previously granted this licensed to the Church of St. Peter for the Fall Festival. They plan to serve chicken, spaghetti and snacks. 0923 StPeterFallFestival The Church of St. Peter has contacted food sanitarians from the City of ~ Bloomington to ensure that. proper food handling practices are followed. In addition, _ Herr Concessions has been in contact with City of Bloomington regarding food preparation and handling practices. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D, LEGAL • N/A ~., IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Church of St. Peter. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with St. Peter's Fall Festival. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • No one expected. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Consent 8F REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:. SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ Cj~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider acceptance of bids for the replacement of the two lime slaker units in the Water Treatment Plant Lime Softenin S stem. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award the bid to the low bidder, Alltech Engineering Corp. in the amount of $341,700.00. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Water Treatment Plant provides softened water to the community. Softened water provides many benefits to its users and to the water distributions system including convenient soft water to the users and extended life to the piping system. Richfield's Water Treatment Plant uses a lime softening system. As part of this system, there is a mechanical device called a lime slaker. The lime slaker mixes solid lime with water to make a lime slurry. The lime slurry is added in controlled amounts during the water treatment process to remove the hardness of the water. ._ ; Lime slakers operate in a harsh environment and have a working life of about 8 to 10 years. The two lime slakers at the water treatment plant have now reached this 0923Limeslaker age. The units are beginning to deteriorate and have increasing mechanical problems. They have now become a safety concern for the staff. The City hired a consultant, Bolten & Menk, Inc., to prepare plans and specification for the replacement of the lime slakers. The Engineer's estimate for the lime slaker replacement project is $336,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Alltech Engineering Corp. was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This project will require temporary shutdown of the water plant production. As a result, the project needs to be scheduled during the time when the demand for water is low. This period begins in late fall and into winter. The change to the new lime slakers will be done at night and no hard water will. be pumped into the system. C. FINANCIAL • Last year the Water Utility budgeted $220,00 for the replacement of !~ the two lime slakers in 2003. The Water Utility 2003 Revised Budget - will need to be adjusted to reflect the actual costs for this project. D. LEGAL • The bid opening, held on September 16, 2003, was in accordance with legal requirements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could select any of the other bidders or reject all bids and instruct staff tore-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the bids submitted by Rust Corp. is reasonable and responsible. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes and tabulation. • Bid evaluation from the City's Consultant. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening September 16, 2003 2:00 p.m. Lime Slaker Replacement City Bid No. 03-07 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for lime slaker replacement, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 28, 2003 and the Construction Bulletin on August 29 and September 5, 2003. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Jim Olson, Public Works Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bid Bond Total Base Bid Alltech Engineering Corp. Provided $ 341,700.00 Magney Construction Inc. Provided $ 366,600.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 23, 2003 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk BOLTON 8•. MINK, INC. ~, Consulting Engineers & Surveyors ~- 1960 Premier Drive • Mankato, MN 56001-5900 Phone (507) 625-4171 • FAX (507} 625-4177 September 16, 2003 Jim Olson Public Works Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2560 RE: Bid Evaluation for the Water Treatment Lime Slaker Replacement City of Richfield, Minnesota - CP #51001, City Bid No. 03-07 Dear Jim: Two (2) bids were received for the Water Treatment Plant -Lime Slaker Replacement. The apparent low, responsive and responsible bidder was Alltech Engineering Corp. from Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The bid documents did not contain any wording or ambiguities so as to force the Contractors to build in additional contingencies. The attached bid tabulation shows a range of $341,700.00 to $366,600.00, as well as the Engineer's Estimate. We feel that the bids received were competitive and responsive and re-bidding of the project would not provide any cost savings. In our opinion, Alltech Engineering Corp. is experienced in the type of work required for this project. The company has fulfilled the bidding and contract requirements. We recommend that their bid be accepted. Respectfully submitted, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Jon D. Peterson, P.E. Project Manager JDP:jp c: Judy Disrud, City of Richfield, Water Department BID TABULATION BOLTON & MENK, INC. -ENGINEERS MANKATO - FAIRMONT -SLEEPY EYE - BURNSVILLE - WILLMAR - CHASKA, MN AMES, IA -LIBERTY, MO Project Location: Project Title: Project No.: Engineer's Estimate: Richfield, Minnesota Bid Date: September 16, 2003 Water Treatment Plant -Lime Slaker Bid Time: 2:00 p.m. Replacement M23.34977 $336,000 Bidder Total Amount Bid 1. Alltech En ineerin Cor $341,700.00 2. Ma e Construction $366,600.00 C:\DOCUME~I \Jolson\LOCALS-1\Temp\34977BidTab.doc AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # gg REPORT # 213 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorization to lease a city owned property located at 1710 East 78th Street (Normark building) to Metro Sales Incorporated. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a lease with Metro Sales Incorporated for the use of 1710 East 78th Street. III. BACKGROUND ~ Approximately four years ago the City purchased the property at 1710 East 78th Street also known as the Normark building. At the time the building was for sale and underutilized. The purchase was made because of the impact that the 77th Street tunnel under Trunk Highway 77 will have on this property. (Funds from the 77th Street project were utilized for the purchase.) There will be a grade differential to accommodate the tunnel where now there is no grade differential. The loading dock will be rendered unusable. Various City departments have been using the building for storage in more recent time. n Metro Sales Incorporated (Metro Sales) is located immediately adjacent to this property on the west (1620 and 1640 East 78th Street). They market copy equipment and related services. Representatives of Metro Sales approached staff regarding renting space in Normark. For Metro Sales, it would increase their 092303 1710 East 78th St operating efficiency, making them more competitive in the market place. For the City the 77th Street project would realize revenues in the approximate amount of ~~, $25,000 per year. This is $4.25 per square foot based on current market conditions. The building consists of warehouse space with a loading dock and office space. Metro Sales would be leasing only the warehouse space. The office space would continue to be used by city departments for storage. The warehouse space is utilized primarily by public works and public safety. They would move their inventory to the former Gleason Mortuary on 78th Street near the railroad track. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority which is the owner of this property recently gave its approval to the City using the interior of the building for storage (public works has been using the parking lot for storage of equipment). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Renting this property to the adjoining property owner helps Metro Sales improve their operating efficiency and brings revenue to a City project. It does not impair the City operations. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Metro Sales would like to occupy the space in October 2003. C. FINANCIAL The rent will approximate $25,000 per year. Metro Sales will pay virtually all costs incurred due to operating in this space. For example utilities, snow removal, heat, and taxes. A preliminary estimate of the taxes is about $7,500 (this is the full tax rate). This payment would be made to Hennepin County for distribution to taxing districts. The "start up" costs to the City will appropriate $3,000-$4,000. These costs will be covered by the rent. D. LEGAL • Staff has worked with legal counsel on the lease, which is being negotiated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • ueiay c~i isiuCi a~lvl I vl a IG IGQJG. • Reject the lease. ATTACHMENTS • Salient points of proposed lease between the City. of Richfield and Metro Sales Incorporated VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Attachment 1 Salient points of proposed lease between the City of Richfield and Metro Sales Incorporated. • The lease agreement is for the warehouse portion of the building and consists of 5,900 sq. ft. of space. • The lease will commence in October 2003 and continue for one year with the option to -renew for additional years. However, either party has the option to cancel the lease upon servicing of proper notice. The City must provide 120 days notice to vacate and Metro Sales 60 days should they wish to vacate. • The City is responsible for mold remediation including the cost. Metro Sales may vacate under certain circumstances due to mold.' • The rent is $2,089 monthly and may be increased after first year of occupancy if market conditions justify. • Metro Sales will pay operating costs associated with its occupancy of property. • No relocation benefits may accrue to Metro Sales because of this occupancy. • Metro sales indemnifies the City under a variety of circumstances. • No signs may be placed on the building exterior or lot other than the building address. Other Considerations • The use is in conformance with zoning ordinance. • The separation between the city use and Metro Sales use will be secure. • Metro Sales will have an enclosed semi trailer backed into the loading dock into which will be placed used equipment to be sold in other markets. The trailer will not project over the sidewalk. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Consent SD _212 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ /~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for 76th Street Diamond Grinding. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award contract to Diamond Surface, Inc. for 76th Street Diamond Grinding (Micro-planing) in the amount. of $29,967.84 as part of the 76th Street Diamond Grinding and Trail Striping. Project. II. BACKGROUND 76th Street has been designated as part of Hennepin County's Bicycle Trans- portation System Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has also designated this. stretch of street as part of its trail system. This stretch. of 76th Street is quite old and most of the concrete panels have become offset at each panel joint resulting in a bumpy and an uncomfortable ride for motorist and bicyclists. Residents abutting the street also complain of an annoying "thump -thump" sound and vibration from the traffic. ~ The Community Services Commission directed staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting with the "Answer Van" and then the Commission conducted an Open House on this issue. Citizen comments are attached. The Commission recommended approval of the project. Staff wishes to use diamond grinding and striping to smooth out the surface and create a test section of the proposed new trail at a low cost. If the new trail is found ~~ to be acceptable, the trails can be extended east of Lyndale Avenue and/or the City could consider reconstructing 76th Street with both bicycle and motorized vehicle lanes. If it is not acceptable and the City Council decides to remove it, restriping is all that would be necessary. The proposed design will allow for a traffic lane in each direction and bike lanes in each direction outside the travel lanes. Staff solicited bids from the two contractors in the metropolitan area that staff knows are capable of performing this type of work. Those firms are Diamond Surface, Inc. and Highway Service, a division of Penhall. Despite phone calls from staff requesting a quote, Highway Service did not submit a quote. The $29,967.84 quote from Diamond Surface, Inc. that was received, was less than either of two quotes received last year when this project was first considered. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. • Community Service Commission recommends that Council proceed with this project. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Some residents had raised questions about spending money on bikeway projects during budget cutbacks. The County grant of $6,000 will more than cover the cost of the bikeway portion of the project. • Request for estimates were sent to the only two companies in the state that can perform this type of work, only one came back with an estimate. • This project was bid last year by the same two companies, the cost estimate this year is lower than the cost estimates submitted last year by either company. C. FINANCIAL • The engineer's estimate for the diamond grinding and slurry disposal portion only was estimated at $35,575. • On June 10, 2003, Richfield City Council approved Agreement PW 20- 19-03 between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield authorizing the City to perform the work on the 76th Street Diamond Grinding and Trail Striping Project. The agreement will allow Hennepin County to participate in partial funding of this project through a $6000 grant. • Richfield City Council approved a transitory ordinance reallocating $14,342.61 from the Pleasant Avenue Bike Trail Segments project to the Micro-plane 76th Street project. The second reading and public hearing occurred on April 22, 2003. the City to perform the work on the 76th Street Diamond Grinding and ~, Trail Striping Project. The agreement will allow Hennepin County to _ participate in partial funding of this project through a $6000 grant. • Richfield City Council approved a transitory ordinance reallocating $14,342.61 from the Pleasant Avenue Bike Trail Segments project to the Micro-plane 76th Street project. The second reading and public hearing occurred on April 22, 2003. • The remainder, in an amount estimated at $15,000, will be funded using Municipal State Aid (gas tax dollars) construction funds. D. LEGAL • Purchases of $10,000 to $50,000 may be made by obtaining two or more quotations when possible. Although the City made every attempt to receive more than one quote, only one quote was received but it met all requirements for this project. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council can choose to deny approval and direct staff to obtain new bids for this project. However, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. • The City Council can choose to abandon the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • Public comments VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: June 16, 2003 TO: Community Services Commission FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed 76th Street Bike Lanes Comments Received on June 11, 2003 by Answer Van George Atkinson and Tom Foley of the City's Engineering Division used the Division's van as a mobile field office, called the "Answer Van," to visit the five north-south streets intersecting the proposed five-block long bike lanes on 76th Street between Lyndale Avenue and- Emerson Avenue. Here is a brief summary of comments received from about 20-25 people. Issue: Two couples residing south of 76th Street were concerned that only two lanes for vehicular traffic would make it difficult to access 76th Streeet for them. One couple reminded us that the 77th Street noisewall made 76th Street the only access out of their neighborhood. Access is only a problem .during rush hour. Tom Foley explained that city staff could observe traffic during rush hour to see if gaps are sufficient to provide access. He also said allowing the test to proceed would be the best way to see if access became a problem. Only residents who use the road frequently would be able to evaluate its operations under the two-lane design. Issue: Reduction of traffic lanes on 76th Street may reduce through traffic on 76th Street. This was considered a good thing. Issue: Several people expressed concern that 76th Street would carry increased traffic because of the new developement in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. City staff explained that the new development would have no access to Aldrich Avenue. It would have access to 77th Street, 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Issue: Several people were concerned that 76th Street would be needed to carry additional traffic when I-494 is rebuilt. City staff explained that 77th Street was designed to carry that traffic. The City of Bloomington is about to build a new bridge across I-35W creating a parallel arterial to I-494 that would relieve it of traffic. Also, project staging for I-494 will provide for traffic to be maintained on 494 during construction. Issue: One resident living north of 76th Street on Emerson Avenue said lots of residents turn onto 76th Street from 77th Street. These people then turn left at Emerson Avenue. She believed motorists following these cars are surprised by the left-turn move so close to 77th Street. She fears that cars will be involved in rear-end crashes at 76th Street and Emerson Avenue. Tom Foley explained that the proposed design would not change the traffic operations at Emerson Avenue. Cars could still use the right lane to get around left-turning vehicles. She became very angry and frustrated, and left without talking further with city staff. Follow Up: City staff will check crash history at this location to see if rear-end crashes have been a problem. June 11, 2003 Page 2 Issue: Several people questioned having a bike lane for such a short distance. City staff mentioned that 76th Street was part of a trail identified in the Three Rivers First Tier Suburb Park and Trail study. Some of them wanted the trail extended as far as Cedar Avenue. Issue: Some people thought that no one bikes on 76th Street and so there was no need for bike lanes. Others asked why wasn't another street, like 74th Street or 75th Street, viewed as a possible bike trail. City staff explained that other east-west streets may not have the continuity of 76th Street although 73rd Street did have the pedestrian bridge over I-35W but it was not well suited to handle bikes. Bikers need to carry their bike up and twenty feet of stairs. Issue: Some people thought that 76th Street was not a good route for a bike lane because the 76th Street bridge over I-35W did not provide for bikes. City staff explained that plans for rebuilding the 35W/494 interchange would require replacing the 76th Street bridge. The City would insist that the new bridge provide for pedestrians and bicyclists. Best Buy officials have indicated that a number of their employees bike to work. Issue: One resident, who worked in concrete construction, wanted to discuss with someone about the effectiveness of micro-planing the concrete panels. He was convinced that frost heave is the cause of panels being warped. He was not convinced that microplaning would cure the problem, even in the short-term. City staff will arrange to have someone call him to discuss microplaning. Summary: George Atkinson tallied resident comments as 11 in favor and 4 opposed to the proposed bike lane. The low-cost of painting the bike lanes and the ease of reversing the trial (~~ made some people less opposed to the idea. It would be good to specify the length of time for the demonstration project if it is approved. Subsequent Comments Received: Elsie Dahnert 7209 Bryant 861-2109 Mrs. Dahnert is concerned about spending money on the bikeway when the city is apparently in lean financial times (given the need for service fees). She thinks the expenditure on the bikeway is not needed. TFFatf AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 8C REPORT # 211 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approving a resolution securing the City of Richfield participation in a contract with PSC Alliance for a dispatch consolidation study. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to participate in a feasibility study of the consolidation of public safety dispatching services, and committing to an equal share of the cost involved in a contract with PSC Alliance and nine other cities. II. BACKGROUND The City of St. Louis Park has signed a contract with PSC Alliance for a dispatch consolidation feasibility study. A copy of the contract is attached. The following cities and law enforcement agencies have agreed to participate in the study to determine the feasibility of consolidating public safety answering points (PSAPs) serving: Richfield, Brooklyn Center, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St, Louis Park. Also, Hennepin Radio and Minneapolis-will be examined as possible providers of service. 0923 Dispatch Feasibility'Study It is necessary that the cities submit a resolution committing to participation and sharing equally in the cost of the study. Each participant further agrees to make ~' their city's dispatching areas accessible to the corporation (PSC) to perform such work as necessary and authorized by the City. The City will designate a representative with respect to the work to be performed under the agreement, which shall be in effect through October 10, 2003. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield must provide a resolution authorizing their participation in the study. • In order to participate, the City must agree to equally share in the cost of the study. • Staff feels that participation is necessary to stay compatible with the other cities and possibly reduce future costs and improve service. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The study will identify the effect that consolidation may have on service levels to existing constituents and the opportunities for improved service that consolidation may offer; and, if consolidation will be feasible with all or some of the constituents. ~ C. FINANCIAL ,,, J; • Each participant agrees to pay the City of St. Louis Park an amount estimated to fall between $3,700 and $5,500 as an equal share of the cost of the study. D. LEGAL • City must agree by resolution to the terms of the contract between St. Louis Park and PSC Alliance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • To not participate in the study would leave the City of Richfield out of any report that would benefit the City by giving facts to consider in future determinations as to the direction of Richfield's 911 Dispatch Center. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Copy of Agreement for Professional Services between St. Louis Park (the contracting city) and PSC Alliance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED. AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. ~~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO PARTICIPATE WITH NINE \ ~ OTHER CITIES, EQUALLY SHARING THE COST, IN A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Richfield have stated their intent to participate in the preliminary feasibility study for the consolidation of public safety dispatching services for which the City of St. Louis Park has conducted a request for proposals (RFP); and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has completed the RFP process and plans to enter into an agreement with the selected consultant for the purpose of conducting the study; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Richfield's intent to concurrently enter an agreement with St. Louis Park to participate in the study and pay our city's proportionate share of said study; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the cost of the study has been estimated to range between $3,700 to $5,500, based on the number of participants being between seven and ten. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield agrees to pay the '~ City of St. Louis Park an amount estimated to fall between $3,700 to $5,500 as the City's - share of the cost of the study. It is further resolved that the City of Richfield will provide a contact person to represent Richfield in the business issues. related to participating in the study and coordinate the efforts for the study process. The City also agrees to provide access to premises and give full cooperation to PSA in conducting the study. The contract between St. Louis Park and PSC is attached and made part of this agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CITY OF ST Lours PARK August 20, 2003 Ms. Samantha Orduno City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Av S Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Orduno, The City of St. Louis Park has signed the contract with PSC Alliance for the dispatch consolidation feasibility study. A copy of the signed contract, along with a resolution for each participant securing your participation in the study and committing to an equal ~' share the study cost is enclosed. Please forward a copy of the signed resolution to me as soon as possible. PSC would like to visit with each of you as part of their initial project approach. You can expect a call from Russ Sinkler or Tom Nelson soon. They will also be contacting the person you designated as the primary point person for the study. Thank you for your assistance and please let me or Charlie Meyer know if you have questions. We are on schedule thus far. Sincerely, ~~ ` „-~ 7 Heather M. Alex, Project Manager 952-924-2122 haiex@stlouispark.org 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290 Phone:612-9242500 Fax:612-924-2170 CONTR~ICT N0. 9 Q - 0.~' AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF S7. LOUIS PARK THIS AGREEMENT is made on the ~ h day of ~ 2003 by and be i of St. Louis Park, a unit of Minnesota government, her ~ after referred to as "City" and PSC Alliance Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, with principal business address of 4921 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55409 hereinafter referred to as "PSC'. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms, or corporations providing such services enter into written contracts with the City. The purpose of this contract is to set forth terms and conditions for the Public Safety Answering Point Consolidation Analysis. The City and PSC agree as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. In response to City's request, PSC has submitted a written proposal dated July 7, 2003 and agrees to provide professional services as described in Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement. 2. Time for Performance of Services. -PSC shall perform the services outlined in Exhibit A according to the schedule in Exhibit C. _ 3. Compensation for Services. The City agrees to pay PSC for services as described in Exhibit A. Compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, attached and made a part of this Agreement. A. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude PSC and City from negotiating additional work for services and at fees established in writing. B. Abandoned or Suspended Work. If any work performed by PSC is abandoned or suspended in whole or in part by the City, the PSC shall be paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written notice from the •City of such abandonment or suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The City agrees to provide PSC with complete information concerning the scope of the Project and to perform the following Services: A. Access to the Area: The City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for PSC to enter upon public and private lands as required for PSC to perform such work as necessary and authorized by the City. B. The City further agrees to fulfill its liaison role as set forth in the proposal with other participating communities. 5. Accuracy of Work. PSC shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work and the utilization of all determinant data, and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors or omissions on the part of PSC without additional compensation. ~-' If the data or materials furnished by City, and used in the conduct of this work are found to be in error, incorrect, or inappropriate, City shall direct PSC to modify, update, and/or correct the affected work product. All such corrective work performed by PSC shall be considered to be additional services for which additional compensation shall be paid to PSC on the basis of PSC's standard fees or actual costs incurred. 6. Project Manager and Staffing. PSC has designated Jeff Nelson, Russ Sinkler, and Tom Nelson to serve on the Project. Jeff Nelson shall be the Project Manager. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the terms established herein. PSC may not remove or replace these staff from the Project without the approval of City. 7. City's Representative: Aperson shall be appointed to act as City's representative with respect to the work to be preformed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define City's policy and decisions, with respect to the materials, equipment, elements, and systems _ _ pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 8. Audit Disclosure: PSC shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents reasonable access to such of PSC's books and records as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by PSC under this Agreement which the client explicitly requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, photographs and reports prepared by PSC shall become the property of City upon termination of this Agreement, but PSC may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. 9. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from August 18, 2003 through October 10, 2003, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period, as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 10. Termination. The City reserves the right to cancel this agreement at any time it deems to be in the best interest of the project upon giving fifteen (15) days written notice of such cancellation to PSC. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of PSC, PSC shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because PSC has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to PSC, and the City may retain another contractor to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. If as a result of City's termination for PSC's failure to perform, the City incurs total costs for the work (including payments to both the present PSC and reasonable costs to a future contractor which exceed a maximum Agreement amount, if any, specified under Paragraph 3, then PSC shall be responsible for the difference between the cost actually incurred and the Agreement amount. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, photographs and reports prepared by PSC shall be delivered to the City within 10 days of any termination of this Agreement 11. Subcontractor: PSC shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the scope of services, without the express written consent of the City. The PSC shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of PSC's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the PSC fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which PSC has received payment by the City, PSC shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the PSC shall pay the actual interest penalty due the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from PSC shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 12. Independent Contractor. PSC is not an employee of City, but is a contractor who may contract with individuals and/or corporations for specific services. It is agreed that PSC _ _ shall, to the best of its knowledge, contract only with parties that: a) withhold taxes as provided by law, and b) do not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, sex, color, religion, age, or national origin. 13. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by PSC not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by City. 15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, PSC shall abide by all statues, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 18. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19. Indemnification. PSC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgement, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from n act or omission (including without limitation professional errors of omissions} of PSC, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said contractor fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK GENERAL We understand the purpose of this project is to determine the feasibility of consolidating the now separate public safety answering points (PSAPs) serving St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Edina, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center, Richfield and Hopkins. Also, the examination of Minneapolis and Hennepin Radio as possible providers of service. A key component of any consolidation analysis should be to identify the effect that consolidation may have service levels to existing constituents and the opportunities for improved service which consolidation offers. Questions we intend to address include: o Essential minimum service delivery expectations; o Value-added local services now provided by autonomous PSAPs; Candidate location(s) for a consolidated facility; o Space required for amulti-agency PSAP; o Cost of operating existing vs. consolidated systems; o Estimated staff required to operate the consolidated ~_ center(s); o Suggested management strategy for the consolidated center(s); o Possible governance models for the center(s) o Integration with local Records Management Systems (RMS); o Role of Mobile Data in a consolidated facility; o General overview of technical interconnection issues o How possible joining of Metro/Regional 800 MHz Radio System may affect; o Recommended action steps. In addition to specific tasks listed below, we will meet with a steering committee which should be formed to review our work and provide directions to clarify, emphasize, or temporarily pass over issues which are the focus of our current tasks. Done properly, this project holds promise to realize reduced cost and offer the same or better service than now provided to citizens and field personnel. To reach these goals, we propose to investigate these domains: Operations, Site, Technical Considerations, Staff, and Budget. OPERATIONS Day to day operational matters that are now taken for granted will become important considerations in any consolidation. Procedures that are now unique to local departments may need to be changed and, if so, consideration of new procedures should anticipate impact upon service delivery efforts. We propose to: o Explore cost of new construction or commercial space if no municipally owned space appears to be available or its use is impractical. o Compare and rank environmental, security, and electrical accommodations at potential dispatch sites. o Estimate leased lines and other site dependent costs. o Develop choices for an alternate communications center or reduced service substitute to a backup center in case of service difficulty at the consolidated site. o Include any needed connections to Golden Valley for the Metro/Regional 800 MHz Radio System. GOVERNANCE In order for consolidation of dispatching to succeed, a structure needs to be in place for governance of the operation. There are differing models that can be used. Whether a Joint Powers arrangement, Vendor/Client, or other arrangements govern the operation of a consolidated PSAP; users will expect assurance that their needs are addressed and any issues resolved. Capital and operational budget approval, fund allocations as well as fees for service require some form of governance. We propose to: o Identify critical elements of governance needed to meet local user's expectations. o Identify several governance options. o Generate possible organizational charts for review. o Provide examples of successful model intergovernmental agreements. o Provide demographic and operational information about consolidated PSAPs, which have been successfully created to permit further, in depth, comparisons and analysis by local officials. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Establishing "connectivity" and operational access to telephone, radio, data, and other systems will be essential elements for successful consolidation. Your ability to communicate with the public in the fashion to which they have become accustomed is fundamental to success of your consolidation effort. Your initiative has the best chance for success if the public (a) doesn't notice the transition to consolidated facilities or (b) recognizes an improvement in the level of service provided. For example, we propose to: o Investigate system architectures for dispatch from a common communications center while maintaining easy contact between field personnel and each/all local departments. o Investigate the role that a mobile data system might have to improve officer safety and effectiveness, and reduce staff at the consolidated communications center. ~i o Determine what equipment should be used to answer 9- 1-1 and administrative calls. o Meet with local representatives of each current agency to obtain their input on the process. o Interview agency heads for needs and problems with their own dispatch capability plus anticipated problems if a consolidated communications center is implemented. o Evaluate existing call receipt and dispatch processes to identify records requirements, similarities, differences, and procedural concerns. o Identify current communications procedures, training, and equipment which must be modified or upgraded to maintain any law enforcement (CALEA) accreditation status and optimal NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) dispatch facility conformance. o Examine options for RMS access for inquiries and record entries at both the departmental and dispatch center levels. o Explore influence which existing or planned computer systems may have on successful consolidation. o Assess how dispatch records can be promptly and conveniently obtained at the department level. o Analyze current alarm monitoring equipment and protocols. o Explore options to handle "walk-in" traffic at each of the communities. o Analyze any current building access control or inmate monitoring tasks being performed at any of the current PSAPs. o Determine if any of the proposed communities should be eliminated from the study due to major roadblocks to consolidation. Examples could be extremely strong opinions of agency heads or local elected officials against consolidation, recent major capital improvements in a local PSAP, or a major technical issue uncovered that would prevent relocation to a consolidated site. SITE Because expense is one driving force for consolidation of dispatch facilities, low cost space which can be made available for this purpose may play a determining role in any local decision of where to locate the consolidated facility. Existing space may need to be renovated or adapted to optimize its use for a consolidated dispatch center. Issues of rent, leases, and possibly property ownership will need to be considered. Closely related to cost of space is the continuing cost of leased lines for telephone, radio, and alarms. To assist you to make a carefully reasoned decision on site(s) for the proposed facility, we propose to: o Establish space requirements for the consolidated dispatch center(s). o Compare required space with potentially available space in municipally owned buildings. o Explore cost of new construction or commercial space if no municipally owned space appears to be available or its use is impractical. o Compare and rank environmental, security, and electrical accommodations at potential dispatch sites. o Estimate leased lines and other site dependent costs. o Develop choices for an alternate communications center or reduced service substitute to a backup center in case of service difficulty at the consolidated site. o Include any needed connections to Golden Valley for the Metro/Regional 800 MHz Radio System. GOVERNANCE In order for consolidation of dispatching to succeed, a structure needs to be in place for governance of the operation. There are differing models that can be used. Whether a Joint Powers arrangement, Vendor/Client, or other arrangements govern the operation of a consolidated PSAP; users will expect assurance that their needs are addressed and any issues resolved. Capital and operational budget approval, fund allocations as well as fees for service require some form of governance. We propose to: o Identify critical elements of governance needed to meet local user's expectations. o Identify several governance options. o Generate possible organizational charts for review. o Provide examples of successful model intergovernmental agreements. o Provide demographic and operational information about consolidated PSAPs, which have been successfully created to permit further, in depth, comparisons and analysis by local officials. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Establishing "connectivity" and operational access to telephone, radio, data, and other systems will be essential elements for successful consolidation. Your ability to communicate with the public in the fashion to which they have become accustomed is fundamental to success of your consolidation effort. Your initiative has the best chance for success if the public (a) doesn't notice the transition to consolidated facilities or (b) recognizes an improvement in the level of service provided. For example, we propose to: o Investigate system architectures for dispatch from a common communications center while maintaining easy contact between field personnel and each/all local departments. o Investigate the role that a mobile data system might have to improve officer safety and effectiveness, and reduce staff at the consolidated communications center. o Determine what equipment should be used to answer 9- 1-1 and administrative calls. o Establish the communications equipment necessary to outfit a backup (alternate) PSAP in the event the primary facility (ies) is crippled. o Forecast the changes that must be made to existing administrative and other telephone-related circuits and facilities to include lines to the new communications center(s). o Explore how administrative calls should be answered and transferred which are now routed to the individual PSAPs. o Identify and review options for monitoring and alarming performance of telephone circuits including line outages, and automatic switching to diverse routes. STAFF Satisfactory resolution of staffing and personnel issues is critical to successful consolidation of existing PSAPs. The best equipment and most thoughtfully prepared transition plan will not succeed without committed employees. If existing employees from the existing PSAPs are brought together at one site there will be issues of pay equity, seniority, and personality. We propose to: o Identify activity levels for police, fire, and medical calls. o Compare current staffing levels with workloads; estimate staffing required for a consolidated communications center by hours of the day and day of the week. o Identify number of required workstations in the consolidated dispatch center(s). o Compare existing pay, benefits, and job descriptions of existing communications personnel. Document areas of consistency and discrepancy and suggest how differences can be reconciled. o Compare existing work rules, schedules, labor considerations, and other factors governirTg existing staff and make recommendations for transition. o Identify any non-dispatch tasks are currently being performed at each PSAP and raise possible residual staffing issues. o Assess if all existing communications personnel can or should be used in the consolidated environment. o Suggest how new employees can be recruited, trained, evaluated, and supervised. BUDGET 8~ FISCAL IMPACTS One of the earliest questions .local officials will confront in deciding the feasibility of consolidating your communications will be cost. To be practical, a consolidated PSAP will need to cost less than your existing operations or if the cost is the same, offer a higher level of service. Every aspect of our investigations will have financial implications. We will address how each decision ~, communities are asked to make will influence initial and continuing cost. ~- We propose to: o Estimate capital investment required for each recommendation or combination of recommendations. o Estimate recurring and/or maintenance cost for each recommended improvement. o Estimate savings in initial and recurring cost for each recommended change. o Describe options for participating agencies to pay for system capital investment and operating cost. o Estimate impact which joint purchase of equipment, maintenance, and consumables might have on cost versus continued independent purchases. OTHER TASKS Additional tasks may be added by mutual agreement, subject to negotiation. EXHIBIT B FEES Pursuant to the RFP, the fee for this project is quoted at $36,975. This fee is based upon the following investments of our time and expertise: Task Name Allocation Operations .................................... $5,850 Site ............................................. .. $5,200 Governance ................................ .. $3,800 Technical .................................... .. $7,150 Staff ............................................ .. $4,300 Budget ........................................ .. $3,750 Reporting .................................... .. $4,600 Expenses ................................... .. $2,325 TOTAL ....................................... $36,975 Many of these tasks will be worked concurrently and will entail both on-site and off-site efforts. Consequently, we submit the following objective based payment schedule: OBJECTIVE PERCENTAGE VALUE Status Report 20% $7,395 Operations & Siting Status Report 30% $11,093 Governance 8~ Technical Considerations Preliminary Draft 20% $7,395 Ops, Site, Staff & Budget Final Report 30% $11,192 TOTAL 100% $36,975 A rate schedule which describes our hourly rates, expenses, and terms-of-payment is included in Section 5. This project is quoted as a fixed-fee engagement. Terms-of-payment shown on the rate schedule apply to this project. Hourly rates and expenses apply only to the extent that additional services are contracted which are beyond the scope of the Statement of Work described in Section 3. F` l EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OBJECTIVE SCHEDULE FORECAST Contract Execution August 18, 2003 Status Report September 8, 2003 Operations & Siting Status Report September 22, 2003 Govemance & Technical Interfaces Preliminary Draft October 3, 2003 Ops, Site, Governance, Interfaces, Staff & Budget Final Report October 10, 2003 n 20. Insurance: A. General Liability. During the term of this Agreement, PSC shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $ dao a0 of This polcy shall name the occurrence, for both personal injury and property g City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that PSC's coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss. A certificate of insurance on the City's approved form, which verifies the existence of this insurance coverage must be provided to the City before work under this Agreement is begun. B. Worker's Compensation. PSC shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect PSC from claims under the Worker's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of PSC's services under this Agreement. C. Professional Liability Insurance. PSC certifies they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured's capacity as the Contractor, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $1,000,000. 21. Records Access. PSC shall provide the City access to any books, documents, papers and ~•, records which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of making audit, _ examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after the final payments and all other pending matters related to this contract are closed. 22. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ~Tr~~anas ~H~arnrDep. City Manager Attest: ~ 5~. ~oU/s n ~---~, A . •.,. PSC Alliance Inc. gy t v~- Its ~~'' ~~ By Its is D. Reic ; ~,-tt~leri s~. SEAL . F,y NFPIN ~+~, STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 CONSENT $B 210 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITIES SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATL/2E REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said ro erties. II. BACKGROUND Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges maybe certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also authorizes a certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 2002 the City Council certified $134,914.21 of delinquent charges for 302 properties, an average cost of $446.74 per account. The 2003 certification currently under consideration totals $208,804.22 for 839 properties, an average of $248.87 0923delinquent per account. Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent ~ accounts will be paid before certification. l ,' III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State Statute and Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provide that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Property owners owing utility charges will be notified in August and September that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners' taxes. C. FINANCIAL • Throughout the year, the Division bills and collects charges for water, wastewater and storm water from accounts within the City. The charges include a 6.5% penalty on unpaid balances. This penalty is paid quarterly against the accrued unpaid balance. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. A $25 certification is charged to each account assessed to taxes. The assessment is spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent accounts. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing certification of unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. n RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such properly; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid with 15 days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 established rules, rates and charges for storm water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all storm water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such properties, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and ~` WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount, which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary sewer and storm service of $208,824.22 2. That a $25 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account, such charges totaling $20,975.00 3. That the above-described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of September 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SEPTEMBER 23, 2UU3 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: IGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ', ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Considerations of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement, and weed destruction. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement and weed destruction against listed property owners. II. BACKGROUND • The special .assessment for nuisance abatement is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain properties in the City, which are not properly maintained. • The owners of the subject properties are notified by the City to correct the nuisance and have failed to do so within a timely limit. • The property owners were notified that if the nuisance were not abated within the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. • Finally, each year the City hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a 0923specia I assessme nt timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and bills the property owner for the service. • In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid charges of fees may be assessed against the property. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The nuisance properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one- year assessment for these costs. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A ~ C. FINANCIAL • The proposed special assessment for nuisance abatement is $228.39. • The proposed special assessment for weed destruction is $203.90 with an additional 8% interest penalty. • Costs incurred for City staff time in the clean up of the properties is included in the special assessment amount. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution levying special assessments for nuisance abatement for one year at no interest. • Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction for one year with 8% interest. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT NUISANCE ABATEMENT: 26-028-24-14-0029 45620 6521 17t" Avenue So. $158.39 38-028-24-31-0019 46690 7438 Elliot Avenue So. $70.00 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT WEED DESTRUCTION: 34-028-24-23-0053 45590 32-028-24-43-011.0 45830 7245 Harriet Ave. So. $84.00 7720 Thomas Ave. So. $119.00 2. The above listed special assessment will be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Presentations STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # 2OH ~, `, ,' REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~' J~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ v~ ITEM F R UN IL N IDERATI N: Consideration of acceptance of 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report I. RECOMMENDED CTION: B Motion: Acce t the 70th Street Area Traffic Calmin Re ort. In the fall of 2000 the City began a traffic calming study using a mediation process for the neighborhood west of Penn Avenue from 69th Street to 72nd Street in west Richfield. The mediator formed a Focus Group consisting of residents from different streets to meet regularly to discuss various options for traffic calming. The results of this planning exercise are documented in the 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Study that was submitted to Council in August 2003. The report contains a detailed history of efforts to date to address neighbors' traffic concerns on 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street west of Penn Avenue. A history of traffic calming in the neighborhood is attached. Highlights of the report describe efforts to divert traffic from 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street, the testing of speed humps on 70th Street and an evaluation of origin and destination patterns of motorists who use 70th Street. The report will serve as a reference guide for monitoring any changes in future traffic patterns. Recent traffic counts on 70th Street showed daily traffic volumes of 3,050 vehicles just east of Xerxes Avenue and 2,300 vehicles on 70th Street just west of Penn 0923-70th St Calming Avenue. While these counts are higher than previous figures, major freeway reconstruction on I-494 west of Highway 100 may be influencing these figures. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Comprehensive Plan supports traffic calming on residential streets. • The City has a policy that limits the installation of stop signs on residential streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The traffic calming measures that shifted traffic from one street to another generated opposition by residents on the streets where traffic would increase. Some residents also opposed it if access to their homes was made increasingly difficult. • Experience in traffic calming has shown that success depends on community support. C. FINANCIAL • A pair of speed humps may cost $4,500 or more to install. Before a final decision is made on installing speed humps, liability issues and identifying financing for them must be resolved, especially if a special assessment of benefiting property owners is considered. The cost of installing traffic control signs is approximately $75 per sign. D. LEGAL ~! • The City Attorney will be available to comment on the ~- recommendations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Based on the recent traffic calming study completed east of Penn Avenue, several members of the Neighborhood Focus Group still advocate the installation of additional stop signs on 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street to reduce traffic speeds. City staff is not opposed to stop signs on residential streets if community support for them can be demonstrated. Also, stop signs still can be considered on a case-by-case basis according to the City's Stop Sign Policy, although their impact on speed is limited. • Two alternatives required traffic diversion at 70th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Diversion proposals generated some opposition and were not supported by the focus group. If traffic monitoring reveals that problems are getting worse, diversion measures may be reconsidered. • The installation of speed humps can still be considered when agreement on a source of funding for them has been reached with residents and the City has researched any liability issues. V. ATTACHMENTS • History of Traffic Calming in the 70th Street Area PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Members of 70th Street Neighborhood Focus Group History of Traffic Calming in the 70th Street Area • Long-standing resident concern about traffic on 70t" Street west Of Penn Ave. • In 1999 a trace survey of cars using 70t" Street was performed to determine their origins and destinations. • In 2000 a mediator was hired and a Neighborhood Focus Group formed to evaluate traffic calming alternatives. • In 2001 City of Edina staff agreed to consider closing eastbound 70th Street at Xerxes Ave. • In 2001 a neighborhood survey indicated objections to all three traffic diversion alternatives proposed. • In 2001 speed humps were tested on 70th Street west Of Penn Ave. • In 2003 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report completed. (~ 0923-70th St Calming Traffic Calming Alternatives in the 70th Street Area Traffic Diversion Alternatives (Not implemented • Intersection blocker on 70th Street west of Xerxes Avenue to prevent eastbound traffic on 70th Street to enter Richfield. • Intersection blockers on Xerxes Avenue at 70th Street to prevent southbound traffic on Xerxes Avenue south of 70th Street, and on 70th Street east of Xerxes Avenue•to prevent westbound traffic on 70th Street to enter Edina. • Left Turn Only Weekdays 3-6 p.m. sign on eastbound 70th Street at Xerxes Avenue. • New alternative recently discussed by Neighborhood Focus Group- No Left turn 3-6 p.m. sign on westbound 70th Street at Penn Avenue. Other Traffic Calming Alternatives (Implemented • In 1996 two-way stop signs were installed on 70th Street at Thomas Avenue. • In 1998 a leading left-turn arrow was added to the traffic signal for eastbound traffic on 70th Street and York Avenue. • In 2001 all-way stop signs were installed at 70th 'h Street and Xerxes Avenue. 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report completed. • In 2001 two speed humps were tested on 70t" Street west Of Penn Ave. Other Traffic Calming Alternatives (Not Implemented • In fall 2001 residents on 70th % Street submitted a petition for stop signs on 70th'/ Street and Thomas Avenue. • A member of the Neighborhood Focus Group suggested speed limit signs to be posted on 69th Street. • Members of the Neighborhood Focus Group and other residents have supported additional stop signs on 70th Street. • State law now permits cities to post short residential streets at 25 miles per hour. This occurred after most of the 70th Street Traffic Calming study was done.