Loading...
05-28-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked 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. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Local Board of Equalization of May 7, 2002; (2) Special City Council Worksession of May 14, 2002; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of May 14, 2002; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of May 21, 2002 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation from Richfield Intermediate School recognizing City staff reading program volunteers COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance. at community meetings Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for-Council discussion-and-action "All'items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of establishing June 11, 2002 for public hearing on business subsidy criteria and redevelopment and tax increment financing plan for City Bella S.R. No. 134 B. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Oertel Architects for architectural, planning and design services for remodeling of Richfield Community Center in amount of $6,800 S.R. No. 135 C. Consideration of approval of itinerant food license for July 4 celebration for B&D's Convenience Plus, 813 East 66th Street S.R. No. 136 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar RESOLUTION 5. Consideration of resolution authorizing grant application through Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Program to assist in preparing design and land use standards for 87db area Staff Report No. 137 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 6. Consideration of setting June 11, 2002 for public hearing and second reading on proposed amendment to Chapter IX of Richfield City Code for phosphorus fertilizer use regulations Staff Report No. 138 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 7. City Manager's report Notes: 8. Claims and payrolls n Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member, Speakers are also asked 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. Notes: 9. 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. n AGENDA SECTION: proposed Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 1 "i S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 2002 GEORGE L. ATKINSON, REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR REVIEW: ~" SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ <~ ~„ _~~ e ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of setting public hearing and second reading on proposed amendment to Cha ter IX of the Richfield Cit Code for Phos horous Fertilizer Use Re ulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Set a public hearing. and second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment regarding Phosphorous Fertilizer Use Reaulations for June 11, 2002. II. BACKGROUND The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield revise its City Code concerning phosphorous in fertilizer. Council held and closed a public hearing on May 14, 2002 on a proposed amendment that incorrectly listed the phosphorous content of fertilizer. Council Member Enger noted the error and asked that the proposed amendment be corrected before Council acted on the proposal. A corrected amendment to the City Code prohibiting fertilizer from containing any (~ phosphorous is attached. The City Attorney has recommended that the City hold a -J new second reading and public hearing on the ordinance, because there are significant changes in the format and organization of the ordinance. 052802FertalizerOrd The proposed ordinance would protect the quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield by limiting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorous. This proposed '~ .J ordinance affects both commercial and non-commercial applicators and prohibits the use of phosphorus containing turf fertilizers. The proposed ordinance allows the use of phosphorus containing fertilizers only on soil that by testing proves to contain insufficient phosphorus, new turf established by seed or sod and on golf courses if used under the direction of a licensed or certified expert. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has historically been on the leading edge in storm water rate and quality control. This ordinance is but another step in a process to maintain quality wetlands by cleaning storm water runoff. Other measures taken include the installation of grit chambers, sumps and skimmers to remove solid waste from runoff. The City also requires that property owners mow in such a way as to keep grass cuttings off the streets and alleys and out of the storm sewer system. Also, vehicles may not leak oil or other pollutants in such a way as to pollute storm water runoff. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In the near future, Richfield will have no direct way of enforcing this ordinance as no "fertilizer cops" are on staff. However, the city will conduct a public information campaign that we hope will bring about public acceptance, and compliance. • This proposed ordinance would limit the use of fertilizers containing phosphorous beginning July 31, 2002. According to a new state law that restricts the sale of phosphorous fertilizer, local ordinances on phosphorous content are prohibited except for those ordinances in effect as of August 1, 2002. To meet that deadline, this ordinance must be finally adopted and published no later than July 1, 2002. The state regulations do not go into effect until 2004. • Garden centers in and around Richfield are planning to "feature" no phosphorus fertilizers, but will carry low phosphorus, wholly organic fertilizers for those homeowners whose lawns may not have sufficient phosphorus. Stores will also carry high phosphorus "starter fertilizers" that contain up to 20% manmade phosphorus. These should only be used for newly seeded or sodded yards. The difference between manmade and organic phosphorus is the rate at which the phosphorus is dissolved. Manmade phosphorus dissolves more quickly and is therefor more prone to being carried into wetlands by runoff. C. FINANCIAL There will be no financial impact to the City beyond the cost of drafting and enacting this ordinance. • The impact on residents will be very little,. if any, as the cost of low phosphorous or no phosphorous fertilizers are only about 2 or 3 cents more expensive for 20 pounds (1,000 square feet of yard). The Lyndale Garden Center in Richfield will sell both products for the same price. D. LEGAL • The staff of Kennedy and Graven has been active in drafting and reviewing the proposed ordinance. There are no legal concerns known at this time that would affect the adoption of this ordinance. • The City Attorney has recommended that an additional second reading and public hearing be held on the proposed ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to enact this ordinance; however, the City is being required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to enact this or a similar ordinance. Failure to enact Phosphorous Fertilizer Use Regulations will cause MCWD to withhold final approval of Richfield's Local Water Management Plan which will, in turn, give back to the District the authority to review and issue permits for construction activities within the City, including proposed City projects. Staff feels that this would lead to higher project/developercnsts and delays. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the proposed ordinance relating to public safety and water quality, regulating the use of lawn fertilizers, and amending Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code. • Articles from Opinion page of February 12, 2002 St. Paul Pioneer Press and from the local news section of the April 2, 2002 St: Paul Pioneer Press. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY; REGULATING THE USE OF LAWN FERTILIZERS; AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 911 -Lawn Fertilizer Use 911.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to achieve the policies outlined in the City's Surface Water Management Plan and protect the water quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield. 911.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Public Works Director as the administrator of this section. 911.05. Fertilizer Use Regulations. Subdivision 1. Prohibition Regarding Application of Phosphorous Fertilizers on Turf. A person may not apply a fertilizer containing the plant nutrient phosphorus to turf, including, but not limited to, residential and commercial residential property, private golf courses, and property owned by federal, state, or local units of government, including parks, recreation areas, and public golf. courses. Subd. 2. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply to the fertilizer use ordinance on turf, provided that the application of phosphorus fertilizer does not exceed rates recommended by the University of Minnesota and approved by the commissioner of agriculture: a. A tissue, soil, or other -test by a laboratory or method approved by the commissioner and performed within the last three years indicates that the levels of available phosphorus in the soil are insufficient to support healthy turf growth. b. The property owner or an agent of the property owner is first establishing turf via seed or sod procedures, and only during the first growing season. ^ c. The fertilizer containing the plant food phosphorus is used () on a golf course under the direction of a person licensed, CLL-214940v1 RC145-364 certified, or approved by an organization with an ongoing training program approved by the commissioner of agriculture. Subd. 3. Prohibition Regarding Application of Phosphorous Fertilizers on Impervious Surfaces. A person may not apply a fertilizer to an impervious surface. Fertilizer released on an impervious surface must be immediately contained and either legally applied to turf or any other legal site, or returned to the original or other appropriate container. 911.07. Penalty. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of .2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CLL-214940v1 RC145-364 ,~~~~~ 7ARY 1 WWW:TWINCITIES.COM ^ ST. PAUL P~_ ~ i R PRESS Should state legislators pass a law to restrict the sale and use of phosphorus lawn fertilizers? Cleaner lake r 1 s o usher lawns. Most lawns don't need phosphorus BY WOODY LOVE pet feces, soil runoff at construction Guest Columnist sites, and leaves in the streets as things -nobody seems to be doing much about. n a move to rotect the water p quality But local governments in Minnesota f our lakes and streams, the Minneso- are doing something about them. They to Legislature is considering bi71s to have worked with the University of NIm- restrict the sale and use of phosphorus nesota . to control geese. They have lawn fertilizers. Why restrict phospho- raised public awareness and enacted rus? The simple answer is it turns our ordinances regarding the need for peo- blue lakes, streams and wetlands green plc to clean up after their pets. Cities by promoting algae and weed growth. and watershed districts require develop- This, in turn, reduces everyone's egjoy- ers and builders to install silt fences or went of our waters and decreases prop- provide hay bales at construction sites arty values. ~ to minimize sediment runoff: The state Phosphorus is generally an unneed- requires that yard waste be collected ed additive to soil The last retreat of separately in the metropolitan area, and . glaciers left much of our soils rich with ma~p- residents take their leaves to com- phosphorus. A bag of lawn fertilizer will post sites. Cities sweep leaves from show three numbers indicating the ratio streets at least twice a year. of its ingredients. The percent of phos- Farmers have been aware of the need photos is indicated by the middle Hum- not to use excess phosphorus in crop fer- ber. Phosphorus-free fertilizers wiIl tilizers. Their decisions have been based have a "0" for the middle number. on good science and sound econom- Using phosphorus in lawn fertilizer ics...Their decisions reflect acommit- cx-sts money. 1b save unnecessary went to good stewardship of land and expense, for example, most golf courses water resources. It is time Minnesotans use phosphorus only on high-mainte- in urban areas do the same. nonce areas like tees and greens. Com- A law restricting the sale as well as martial lawn services generally do not the use of lawn fertilizer that contains put phosphorus in their residential for- phosphorus is not a silver bullet, but it is minas. There are marry "zero-phospho- an important component in an overall ruS" lawn fertilizers distributed in Min- strategy to improve water quality while nesota. Scotts, the household name in mim_ 'mi~in~g public expense. The most the ~ industry, has chosen not to batch cost-effective approach would have the and distribute azero-phosphorus prod- state be~ responsible for the administra- uct for our phosphorus-rich Minnesota tion and enforcement of such a restric- soils. Instead, Scotts has engaged abat- tion. Local governments would welcome talion of lobbyists to convince our elect- such action. They do not have the ed offidals we need phosphorus lawn resources to be fertilizer police. fertilizers in Minnesota. As state officials look to curb costs in There are ~ also significant public light of the budget shortfall, this is one costs in removing phosphorus and program that should not be delayed addressing its effects on storm water since h wID reduce public cysts overall management systems and bodies of water. Six million pounds of phosphorus Love (e-mail: cityhall@ci.shorewood. lawn fertilizer are used in the metropoli- mn.us) is the mapor of Shorewood, one of tan area each year. One pound of phos- 50 cities that have endorsed legislation to Photos can Produce 300 to 500 pounds of restrict the use of lawn fertilizers algae. Public expenditures to remove containing phosphorus. phospho.~us from our lakes and storm water systems have been running $300 to #500 per pound and more. The runoff from residential lawn fertilizer repre- sents 15 to 30 percent of the phospho- rus load that ends up in storm water management systems built and main- tamed by local. governments. According to industry representa- tives, more appropriate local govern- mental action than a ban on phospho- rus would be more frequent street sweeping and public education. Both of these approaches mean spending more public money, and public education has resulted in little change in the demand for or availability of phosphorus-free lawn fertilizers. This is why regulating the sale of these lawn fertilizers would be more effective and economical Turf fertilizer industry representa- Critics exaggerate fertilizer problems ~ ~ _ _ f. e BY• WAYNE R. FCUSSOW~ ` a~H SIIrfaceS dtaing the growing season OOII-:• ~ ~. Guest Columnist :. ' tribute phosphorus that enters water-;: ways directly through storm sewers. . /tl lot has been written recentkv about Pet and waterfowl wastes also care-,l. ow phosphorus in soil and lawn far- - tribute to the problem - . - ; ii-,; t~7izers affects our lakes, streams. and It is well established that there are two : rivers. Minneapolis and St. Paul, in' fact, 1 Peaks in Phosphorus ooncentratlons is ~ recently opted to restrict the use of lawn , urban storm water - in fall whey trees ." fertilizers that contain phosphorus, ' a' are dropping thefr leaves and during ; ;Q vital plant nutrient. Now the issue is ' ,spring snowmelt when phosphorus is ,~` again being considered at the state level .leached from frozen leaves and grass Ia tt~. But is this the answer to keeping our ~fact,.spring snowmelt can cony with it as'=~i ~ waterways clear of algae? ; much as 80 percent of all phosphorus,t-z We all agree that the phosphorus that entering urban storm water for an entire: ends up in waterways can promote algae year. .'ro> growth. In turn, this can deplete the mq-- While some believe that organic fertll- ; gen supply in the water. But the phospho- izers are better for our waterways, that is; ~ - rus in modern,lawn fertilizers is not rim- simply not true. .i: Wing off the grass and into our R~ Organic fertilizers, because of thetr;l= in nearly the amounts that some people low nitrogen contents, result in aPPh~i`: are claiming. tion of 5 to 10 'times more phosphorus ~x First, let me address the notion that than modern lawn fertilizers -- and in a F aPP1Y~g Phosphorus . aver-saturates form that doesn't quickly bind to the soft. ~~~_, - Phosphorus-rich soil. That simply isn't The use of these products can acpially . - true at the rates being applied to lawns. ~ increase phosphorus runoff and make the ~, Years of agronomic research have shown _ problem worse. - that phosphorus quickly binds to the soil We must also realize that urbanization ~;= and remains there until plants use it is a great contributor to the problem At .- Inthe case of turf grass, phosphorus is one time, when natural woodlands and' :: needed to help develop a dense, healthy prairies dominated the landscape, the =~; sod that restricts soil sediment, water and vegetation greatly reduced the erosive ;;r nutrients from running off the lawn. Asa force of rainfall, allowed the water to ;: homeowner mows the lawn and mulched slowly percolate into the soil, and nntri- "` clippings are left to decay, some phospho- ants from decaying plant .materlal'were ~ ~~ rus is returned to the soil; but not eno ~a simply retusated *a ~ +e soL. .'~s ~s~ro ~= to provide the plants with what they houses, office buildings and shopping need A minimum amount of phosphorus areas replace the natural vegetatioti with :;= must be applied periodically in order to hard, impermeable surfaces such . as ~> maintain that healthy lawn. . rooftops, driveways and parking ~, ~ t~' Separate studies conducted at the Uri- , more and more of the nutrients from • •_ varsity of Minnesota, the University of plants in the landscape enter storm . ; Wisconsin, Michigan State University and drains. - Pennsylvania State University show that This doesn't mean, of oom-se, that=jY~ lawns and lawn fertilizers are not causing homeowners can't help. Growing "thick, . ;' phosphorus to build up in waterways, , healthy lawns will, indeed, reduce soil:.f Truth be told, the mainsource of phos- runoff The key is to have your. soli tested;.z photos in storm water is vegetation - liv- and carefully follow the ~ recommeada-_;i ing and dead - in the landscape. Leaves tions of university and extension person- .;: and grass clippings left on impervious reel for maintaining a quality lawn. We all need to become more diligeat~: when it comes to~following properfertiliz- - i' er application guidelines and not allowing:, r fertilizer, 1P~ ~PP~, yard and gars. ~ . den refuse and leaves to remain on imper- vious surfaces. Before enacting legislation that oould~+ potentially add to the problem, let's lookz~ more closely at what <contributes to it and,-, determine what is the lower limit below f which phosphorus loading of urban 1 runoff cannot be reduced due to natural. ,i sources. Our lawmakers simply need to base their decisions on sound silence and then ensure that storm water is morel-, 3 toted throughout the year to confirm that any leglslsU~n enacted it ts~31y accom-..; Pushing its intended Purpose. • . ? :•~ Kussow (e-mail: wrkussow@facstaff wisc.edu) fives have su ested that th ' . ~ gg ere are greater sources of phosphorus to elimi- is a professor of soil science at the ~ ' ~ Hate. They point to goose droppings, A lawn care professional applies a~treatment. flu= w+oTO University of Wisconsin-Madison. ,, ~ >,. _ _ _ - ~ ---- _ :. _. __-, _ . - j ...: ,. . ~.. .:.. W - ' •,r ., • ... ,, ,. ..' ~ < ~- ~ ~ ~ `s'Aj - - ~ _ ~ ..- ..2E . - V i, ; ~. .~ ' r _ ,_~ - 1 _ ~ _ ~. _ - ~ .=. _ ::., L. - - _ _ - _ 1 ~ -{% _ sc` ~~ n ~" N ~- d o ~ ~ N E z O E U -uJ z J Q V O ~~ -i~•~ • ~r ~~ C a O U W ~ ~ i~ ~ ~F ~ U z ~ 3 ~ F t 3 ~ 3 N 3 i . z z ~ o_ _F O z m m S F 0 ..a ~~OGi COya °~ G ~w LpI t ~ w~ '0~=~.0 ~•~ ~ ~7°~ gv v d ~~ ~ a~ ~'v m ~ ~ ~ o~ = mw Ef ' ~C= ~3 2a~ ~_am~~ 2m5 a~ J~gQ~~~e 8-ti~°°a3~~~ •~3~~~ ~~~~~cs~~a(y~~ 5$~g3$m°w~ has °m'qq~~°~°~°~~~'~'~~5°,~T°'3a^p,~'°o~~~oo -a'~a:d~c3~~~~`~v `~~~'$~2e~`om .~°..~atE $ac°~3~o 5maa'. -sa~~m~o~o°~ $~Fe~m .a_' __g~ ww aidoaa g b~~+ .ode tvb:+t3b°.2b`'1° eo0ne~~1c~~'.~•f 4~yR3c~~a'~ 5m~o =~yO°'goe~i'o88$°mT3~'~erd t.~~BQ~, ca O> q ~ E 0055° .. ego $~ 5'°0 ~"mm~~33~°'oe=of~~ ~~ t `_ ~~°~°~ y~5m°,~_aaC~a.~~d g~,r- „°~a a~-8 E ~~~ca 6°8=c~a ~~`°'$°s~~°'~'$°>,~e~~~f3~5a98'$',,E~Eaob~$'.d •~'~~ a °g o= ~+_ `o a .. deed °5 d e ,q .`"w~. > p O o „~, C'~S tom. y~~~~ ~' ~ ~ O ~~ $ ~ ~~ ~1'. ~ t ~3~~g~~~~ ~m=a ~07~$aci~~oo ~osg m m8~°~.e ew.~ 'e'er ,o° t~$2fl°5S~' r.1" a .o~ ~-°' S'~$~ •~e°~'~i.53'e~~ o~ a•6eoa~i3y°~~=~~5g°~~a~~~ '°~a o9~ `°'$°'~g~i ~ c ~•~ S~ o$ a e~o~.5 E ^ ~a~ $ °.2~v a 3~s oe° ,off m~~a,,° naiy.~°'p'r7r a °' 3 e~~ a ~3 ~T~,~.d5~~ Ea.w g a~~~ °~ ~O~g °54~,°°~~5 t~~ $,~ ~~ m5 ~~ .. w~ a ~~ ~ ~6~~t3~d`' og ~5~$ c~~C~c~"~o~8 ~~ Q~5~828Pi. obi e$ ~ ~~~~.~~~pb~b~w G ~a5 ~5~~~~ ~~ g~ 2 •~~' +4 '~ Ef a ~ a ~ ~ ee'~'e~~~o5oag~ ~w9~°b°°~s°$°5d e~i~°7~~ 8~ a ~ m ~' ~P3P:8 0 8~ s ~~ d~e~a5,~~'~O~-ge`ose~~ ~QyQa ~oyo 8 am: ~d ~~ 3~~~ s egg, °'.~= jPSdey3 ~o~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~x- e ~ ~ ~ 6 c~~~°o~~ ~, ~s5 $.o m°7~ggg m a~~5~r~~~m~S1 cC~ ~ ~ ~~ °~ ~~~ Q~ $ ~ ~ ~3~~e,,~bs~ e a'9~i $a5 88 ~~ ~ ~° ~~ b ~~~ ~ 9 e :9 ~~~~ ~ a ~ . ~° AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 2002 Resolution 5 137 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ©/ ~'~`~ S/GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: © ~~~, 1 _ ~ ~ ",_.. ~" ~ /, _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Resolution authorizing application for an opportunity grant through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Pro ram. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application to the Metropolitan Council for a grant to assist in preparing design and land use standards for the 87 db area. II. BACKGROUND Pre-development funding is available from the Metropolitan Council for projects relating to the Council's Livable Communities goals. Staff has submitted an application for funding to hire an acoustical consultant who would assist the City in developing land use and design standards for structures within the 87 db low frequency noise area. A group of staff, consultants, developers and Planning Commission members would work with the acoustical consultant to integrate the ~ standards with Comprehensive Plan goals, market and financial realities, housing `_ J needs and community standards. A resolution indicating Council support of the application is required with the application. 0528grantapp I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Land is being cleared within the 87 db area. Any new development constructed in the area needs to be built to withstand low frequency noise. An acoustical consultant can assist the City in developing appropriate building standards relating to placement, use,. type of construction, materials, etc. These standards would be used by developers when formulating their development plans. Staff would utilize them in the plan review process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • An application was submitted to the Metropolitan Council on May 15. Due to a tight application schedule, staff was unable to bring the resolution to the Council before the grant application was due. Metropolitan Council staff will allow for late submission of the resolution. ,~ ,~ C. FINANCIAL • The City has requested $21,972 in grant funds. • A one-to-one match is required by the grant program guidelines. In kind City staff costs ($4,444), a portion of the consultant fees ($15,128), and in kind contributions from developers make up the required local match. • The consultant fees not covered by the grant ($15,128) would be funded out of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area budget. • Ryan Companies and Ron Clark Construction will be asked to provide feedback on the standards from a development perspective. Their participation does not constitute selection of either company as developers for the area. • The grant program is competitive. If the City does not receive funding, the City would scale back the project and seek funding from the HRA. D. LEGAL • The program guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the application. LIV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Deny authorization and direct staff to witl consideration. ~ V. ATTACFIMENTS ~ Grant Application draw the application from VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR AN OPPORTUNITY GRANT THROUGH THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2002 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the opportunity grant application submitted on May 15, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Richfield and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the-City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of May, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~ Livable Communities Demonstration Account ~' of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION - 2002 COVER SHEET Project Name Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land-Use Standards Applicant City of Richfield Project Location Richfield Address 63rd to 66th Streets, Cedar to 16th Avenues (potential replicability south of 66th Street) Project Size Contact Person - NAME ADDRESS PHONE FAX E-MAIL PROJECT SUMMARY 29.5 acres John Stark 6700 Portland Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 612-861-9779 612-861-9758 istarkna ci. richfield. mn.us Richfield has identified an area that will be largely uninhabitable due to high noise levels associated with the new "north-south runway" at the MSP airport. The City is seeking grant funds to establish design and land use standards for the re-creation of this area as a livable neighborhood. 1 THE SITE a. Current land uses The site is currently occupied by apartments, single family homes and two commercial uses. b. Adjacent land uses, development and transit services The area is bordered on the east by Trunk Highway 77 and the St. Paul/Minneapolis International Airport, to the north by Taft Park and to the west and south by single family residential and some commercial uses. The site has full access to transit services on 66th Street and TH 77/Cedar Avenue with connections to transit hubs at the Mall of America, 66th Street/35W and Southdale. c. Changes to the land uses Large, substantially built, structures are needed to withstand the impacts of low frequency noise from the new "north-south" runway being constructed at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). A mix of commercial and residential land uses would best meet the overall goals of the City; however, these uses will not be successful if noise impacts are not mitigated. The Design and Land Use Standards for which funding is being sought will help determine appropriate land uses and structural design of buildings in the impacted area. An important aspect of these standards will be the identification of uses which compliment the surrounding urban and natural environment. 2. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT a. Project goals The City of Richfield has identified an area that will be negatively affected by operations. at the MSP upon completion of its "north-south" runway. This determination was based on a study conducted by airport noise experts. According to the study, low frequency noise characteristics that exceed 87 decibels are incompatible with. residential uses and with most commercial uses as the facilities are currently constructed. This study led to the City's decision to acquire and clear uses that cannot tolerate these negative effects. The study, however, does not provide guidance for the area's proper re-use. Therefore, the City of Richfield is seeking grant funds to create Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land-Use Standards. These standards would assist City staff and potential developers in determining the best re-use principals for the affected area. Large structures will likely be required to withstand low frequency noise. These structures need to be designed and used in ways that not only protect the community from low frequency noise impacts but that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The primary goals of the project are to determine the following in the Low Frequency Noise Impact Area: • Appropriate Land Uses • Appropriate Massing and Height of Buildings ~_ ; • Appropriate Construction Methods 2 ~`, • Appropriate Building and Finish Materials - • Appropriate Types of Residential Uses • Potential Effects of Redevelopment in Mitigating the Low Frequency Noise Impacts on Adjacent Properties • Ways to Create a Livable Neighborhood Given the Impacts of Low Frequency Noise and to Integrate that Neighborhood with the Community • Ways to Create Development that Meets Noise Standards While Still Meeting the Goals of the City to Diversify the Housing Stock, Maintain the City's Population, Integrate Land Uses, Connect with Transit Opportunities, Be Accessible to Pedestrians, and Create Attractive Gateways to the Community • Other Criteria Which Should Be Considered in the Redevelopment of Land in the Low Frequency Noise Impact Area b. Tasks and Outcomes The primary tasks of the project are the drafting of Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land Use Standards by a qualified airport noise expert, review of the standards by a feedback team, formal approval of the standards by the Richfield Planning Commission and the application of these standards to the review process of development proposals in the area. The feedback team would consist of the following people and roles: • architect representing aesthetic design interests • planning consultant representing land use principals • developers representing market interest and feasibility • financial consultant representing financing feasibility • two community members representing community perspectives • City staff representing Community Development, Public Works and Building Inspections perspectives The most important outcome of this project will be the construction of new development that can withstand the physical impacts of low frequency noise and still be a livable neighborhood and commercial area within the community that provides a variety of living, working and shopping alternatives. The extraordinary construction methods and materials may have associated costs which would inhibit development. If this is the case, Richfield may pursue Livable Communities Development Grant funds in the future. c. Timeline Task Start Date End Date Com leted b Whom? Distribution of a Request for Proposal to Done Richfield Staff Qualified Air ort Noise Ex erts 4/25/02 Selection of Preferred Airport Noise Expert to Done Richfield Staff Draft Standards 5/13/02 Awarding of Contract to Selected Airport Noise 7/25/02 Richfield Staff Ex ert Consultant ascertains the desired land-uses and 7/26/02 8/25/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. densities. This will help determine the extent (Airport Noise and height of the barrier available, the potential Consultant) shieldin of LF noise to new and existin ma be com romised b site desi n attributes. Develop 3 alternative configurations for new 8/1/02 9/15/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. commercial and residential buildin ro rams. Consultant submits interim re ort. 9/15/02 9/15/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. Review of interim re ort b feedback team 9/15/02 10/1/02 Feedback team Comparison of estimates of noise shielding 9/1/02 10/1/02 Glenn Sweitze~, Ph.D. rovided b the 3 alternative confi urations. Estimate Noise Reduction for commercial and 9/15/02 10/15/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. residential building configurations utilizing different construction methods. Develop detailed architectural recommendations 10/1/02 11/1/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. for the selected commercial and residential o tions. Consultant submits interim re ort. 11/1/02 11/1/02 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. Determination of the market value and tax 10/15/02 11/12/02 Sid Inman increment implication of the recommended land- (Public Finance uses, densities and design standards. Consultant) Bill McHale (Ryan Companies) and Ron Clark (Ron Clark Construction Architectural, planning and citizen feedback on 10/15/02 11/12/02 David Graham the recommended design standards. (Architectural Consultant), Steve Schwanke (RLK- Kuusisto), Planning Commission re resentatives Adoption of Design & Land Use Standards. 11/12/02 11/12/02 Richfield Planning Commission Presentation to the Richfield City Council. 11/27/02 11/27/02 Consultant, staff and select members of the feedback team Evaluation of structures and field testing of noise Spring `03 Fall `03 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D: characteristics as buildin s are constructed. Survey occupants of both commercial and 2004 2004 Glenn Sweitzer, Ph.D. residential buildings, to confirm findings reported. n 3. PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIPS a. Local involvement Community officials and staff: Samantha Orduno, Richfield City Manager John Stark, Julie Urban & Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Staff Richfield Public Works and Building Official Staff Richfield Planning Commission Richfield City Council • Public involvement: Public representation on the feedback team by Planning Commission (citizens) members Opportunities for public participation at the meetings of the Richfield Planning Commission and City Council b. Project Team Staff/Consultant Name of Firm Qualifications Role or Tasks to be Undertaken Name if a licable John Stark Staff Certified Urban Planner Project Mana ement Julie Urban Staff Certified Urban Planner Assistant Project Mana er Glenn Sweitzer Independent Nationally recognized Consultant: Drafting the land-use & Consultant ex ert in air ort noise desi n standards Sid Inman Ehlers & Public Finance Consultant: Determining the market Associates Professional value and tax increment implication of the recommended land uses, densities and desi n standards. David Graham ESG Professional Architect Consultant: providing feedback on Associates recommended desi n standards. Steve Schwanke RLK Planning Firm Consultant: providing feedback on the recommended land uses, densities and desi n standards. Bill McHale Ryan Commercial Developer Consultant: Determining the market Companies value and tax increment implication of the recommended land uses, densities and desi n standards. Ron Clark Ron Clark Housing Developer Consultant: Determining the market Construction value and tax increment implication of the recommended land uses, densities and desi n standards. c. Partnerships The feedback process is a partnership of public and private entities representing a variety of professional disciplines. All findings of this project as well as the Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land- Use Standards will be made available to other local municipalities experiencing negative effects of airport noise, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Ft. Snelling and Mendota Heights. 4. FUNDING REQUEST a. Total Amount Requested: $21,972.00 b. Use of the airport noise consultant would be the priority for use of funds. Local matching funds (currently identified as funding staff time and the feedback group) would be reduced to make up the difference for that item. c. A smaller grant fund component would limit the participants, and their roles, in the feedback team; thereby reducing the amount of resources used to determine "community fit", connections to transit, pedestrian friendliness, etc. d. We would not be able to incorporate aesthetic design and planning principals into the process. We would limit the project to developing basic code standards for commercial structures located within the 87 db. We would forgo residential standards. ATTACHMENT A OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION FINANCIAL SUMMARY -SOURCES AND USES Total Amount Requested: $21,972 Task or Activity Opp. Grant Amount of Source Funds Local Funds Re uested Consultant Costs for Drafting of $21,972 $10,628 City/HRA create Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land-Use Standards Staff time for Community $3,144 City/HRA Development Manager John Stark to coordinate the project and assist the consultant in completion of the project (80 hours @ $39.30/hr) Staff time for Community $1,300 City/HRA Development Specialist Julie Urban to assist in the management of the project (50 hours @ $26/hr) Costs for Public Finance Consultant $2,100 City/HRA to Determine the market value and tax increment implication of the recommended land uses,. densities and design standards. (14 hours @ $150/hr Costs for Architectural Consultant to $1,200 City/HRA provide feedback on the recommended land uses, densities and design standards (8 hours @ $150/hr) Costs for Land Use Planning $1,200 City/HRA consultant to provide feedback on recommended land uses, densities and design standards (8 hours @ $150/hr) Costs for development consultants to $2,400 In-kind contribution provide feedback on recommended from developers land uses, densities and design standards (8 hours/per developer @ $150/hr) TOTAL $21,972.00 $21,972.00 ATTACHMENT B CURRENT LAND USES ~ ~ -1 ~ ~~ oom ac i ---r--i ~--~ m m 1 N w~E s z 0 N 0 ~- c c. m 0 ., c O ~i .Development Area /~/ 87 db zone ~/ Proposed ROW ~ Commercial ~ Industrial Mixed Land Use ~ Multiple Family Duplex i ~ Residential ~ Public ', ~ School ~ Quasi-Public ® Church ® Park ~ Railroad Vacant 0 1000 Feet co May 2002 ~-- U ~- I ~ m I' QZ Z --`. ~y i ~? _ ~ i ~ • . ~ Z Z ~ i, Q 'V ~o ~~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ - ~ x ~ ~ ~ Q M- ~ m ~- /~ J Y is Q nV PuLY Y. Q~ i O X~ ~_., N ow ~ xF_ L~ .. ~ I ~ i Z U s ~ ~~~~~ ~ W vn _ wre s-~, .~. ^ - Lu t_. ~ ~ ~ J a ~~ ~ -_ an~~ ~ a W U ~ O sWU` Nm+aY °b w, ~ ~ rLe U~ 5.: -- ~S,qb Y oC C _ O~ f~ "f h ^ 7 T Yny1aDM~ YA'~/IaDB'J !u•og8 'anV uol uMUOO18 v', .. W ~ V ~ y ~ anV YIZL anV WZL d ~ ,~~Y Q v ~~~ r, ,n ,n'any eWOd 'aM/PUgl+od ~, ~ ~ N ~ o F- H ~ ~ ~ ~' c ~ ~ ., a) r•i :..~.. .~ ~~ //~~ ~. VJ Wes. ~ 'anV Wa , ~. .M Wa ~~~ N ,L LL u1 ~ U . ~ __ W ~ ~ Z ~` 'any uwd 'anV uuad 'anV uuad J - _ FN J _ EF ~ ~ N r aKy saws( anV wxiaX _ id- 'anV aou ! 'sny auNj 1 ATTACHMENT D CONCEPT PLAN ~~~w _~ 64th St ~ f~ ~ I ~ l ~ ~ ~ °' S. o a` I ~r ~ l E fr~~{ ~f.~ ~~ Z ~ ~~~ l} 1 f~ff ~ ! f~ ~'~ ill ~ yam! ~ ~f l?~~. ~T r r f r 1 r~.f '~ ~ ~s ~ 87 db r rt^`rgry~Sr ~ I I ~ ;f~. 66th St _ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I I N W~E S F Z C a. N c \ ~i 0 1000 Feet ~~ COM DEVEL May 2002 ATTACHMENT E Consideration of a resolution in support of the Livable Communities Demonstration Program application is scheduled for the City Council meeting on May 28, 2002. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 C REPORT # 13 6 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~ ~ _ _ , _ ~ ~e , n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant food license for July 4, 2002 for B&D's Convenience Plus, 813 East 66th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for an itinerant food license for B&D's Convenience Plus, 813 East 66th Street, that would allow them to serve hot dogs, chips and soda for the Fourth of July celebration. II. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2002, B&D's Convenience Plus submitted a request for an itinerant food license for July 4, 2002. The licensing fees have been received. They plan on serving hot dogs, chips and soda in connection with the Richfield Fourth of July celebration. B&D's Convenience Plus has contacted food sanitarians from the City of (~ Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. 05286&D Itinerant Food License The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the Fourth of July celebration. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • B&D Convenience Plus will not be allowed to serve food during the Fourth of July celebration if the request is denied. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • B&D's staff t~ _~ AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT # 135 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Nags, Tires REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR / Nanrc, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ "~f~ A ,', REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:. ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Oertel Architects for architectural, planning and design services for the remodeling of the Richfield Community Center in the amount of $6,800.00. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award the. attached contract to Oertel Architects for architectural, planning and design. services for the remodeling of the Richfield Community Center, in the amount of $6,800.00. III. BACKGROUND ~ The 41 year-old Richfield Community Center is long overdue for improvements. The building is in dire need of mechanical upgrades, new surface materials, paint and wall repair, light fixture replacement and other general remodeling. The building also has some code issues relating to accessibility and food handling. A task force was formed from members of the Community Services Commission to study the project and concluded that services currently provided at the Center could be accommodated without a major renovation or addition to the building. 0528 oertel A Request for Proposal was advertised in October 2001 for architectural services to prepare a preliminary plan for the remodeling of the Community Center (see Exhibit A). - Four proposals were received and Oertel Architects was selected based upon their experience and reasonable fee of $6,800. The project was put on hold temporarily until recent actions by City Council to approve Community Center remodeling in the 2002 Capital Improvement Budget. Capital improvement funds in the amount of $376,000, which include donations in excess of $36,000, have now been targeted for the project. A contract for preliminary plans can now be executed to proceed with planning the improvements. The scope of services provided by Oertel Architects includes an evaluation of the building's mechanical and electrical systems, three to five programming sessions with staff and various user groups, preliminary plans, and cost estimates. The Inter-Council, the Community Center's advisory group, will play a key role in providing valuable input to the Architect. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY ~ • A public hearing was conducted and the project was approved by City Council on April 23, 2002 as part of the 2002 Capital Improvement Budget in the amount of $340,000, with an additional $36,000 in donated funds. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ~ • Remodeling is necessary to retain customers and provide a stimulus for program ,, ,~ growth. C. FINANCIAL • Donations received in the amount $36,000 were earmarked for this project at the time of collection. • The charge for services by Oertel Architects will not exceed $6,800. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the recommendations have been incorporated in the document. Steven Devich has reviewed the insurance requirements within the contract. • The contract can be terminated by either party upon seven days written notice. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • None ATTACHMENTS • Contract between the City of Richfield and Oertel Architects. • Richfield Community Center Remodeling Request for Proposal (Exhibit A). • Oertel Architects Proposal (Exhibit B). • Oertel Architects Hourly Rates (Exhibit C). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None ~-_~ CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND OERTEL ARCHITECTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THE REMODELING OF THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER Hereinafter, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be referred to as the OWNER and Oertel Architects, as the ARCHITECT. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. The evaluation will conform to the OWNER's Request for Proposal (Exhibit A) and the ARCHITECT's proposal (Exhibit B). 2. ARCHITECT will attend and coordinate three to five programming sessions with staff and various user groups to develop a program needs analysis of the facility. ARCHITECT will conduct analysis of HVAC and mechanical systems. Based on the program needs analysis and mechanical analysis results, ARCHITECT will prepare preliminary plans of recommended internal refurbishing including floor plan, materials, and outline specifications. 3. ARCHITECT will provide estimates of total project cost. ~ 4. ARCHITECT will provide recommendations for future improvements. \ J PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ARCHITECT will submit a monthly invoice for payment based upon work performed and fees listed in Exhibit C. The total payment for services shall not exceed $6,800.00. If the contract is terminated, the ARCHITECT shall submit a final invoice for all charges incurred until the date of termination. OWNERSHIP OF PRELIMINARY PLAN AFTER COMPLETION The OWNER and the ARCHITECT shall jointly own the preliminary plan and all documents, schematics, drawings, specifications, estimates and other work submitted by ARCHITECT after completion of the preliminary plan and payment is submitted by OWNER to ARCHITECT for the preliminary planning phase of the project. OWNER has the right to use preliminary plan and documents, schematics, drawings, specifications, estimates, and other work submitted by ARCHITECT without permission of ARCHITECT. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services, if requested by the OWNER in writing, shall be billed according to the attached Exhibit C. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This agreement, upon execution by both parties hereto, can be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties. As the project progresses, facts uncovered may reveal a change in direction, ~`~ ~~ which may alter the scope. ARCHITECT will promptly inform the OWNER in writing of such situations so that changes in this agreement can be negotiated as required. 2. Costs and schedule commitments shall be subject to re-negotiation for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences, including without limitation, fires, floods, riots, strikes, unavailability of labor or materials, delays or defaults by suppliers or materials or services, shutdowns, acts of God or the public enemy, or acts or regulations of any governmental agency. Temporary delay of services caused by any of the above which results in additional costs beyond those outlined may require re- negotiation of this agreement. 3. ARCHITECT will maintain insurance coverage in the following amounts: Worker's Compensation Statutory General Liability Bodily Injury $1,000,000 Property Damage $500,000 Automobile Liability Bodily Injury $1,000,000 Property Damage $1,000,000 Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000 4. Termination of the agreement by the OWNER or ARCHITECT shall be effective upon seven (7) days written notice to the other party. The written notice shall include the reasons and details for termination. ARCHITECT will prepare a final invoice showing all charges incurred through the date of termination. 5. ARCHITECT intends to serve as the OWNER's professional representative for those services as defined in this agreement and to provide advice and consultation to the OWNER as professional. Any opinions of probable project costs, approvals and other decisions made by ARCHITECT for the '~ OWNER are rendered on the basis of experience and qualifications and represent ARCHITECT's professional judgment. 6. This agreement shall not be construed as giving ARCHITECT the responsibility or authority to direct or supervise construction means, methods, techniques, sequence or procedures of construction selected by contractor or subcontractor, or the safety precautions and programs incident to the work of the contractors or subcontractors. Oertel Architects Date City of Richfield, Minnesota Martin Kirsch Mayor Samantha Orduno Manager Date CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN 55423 RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~_ REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER REMODELING DESIGN SERVICES (CP #414-40-731) (7000 NICOLLET AVE S) I. GENERAL GUIDELINES. EXHIBIT A A. Requests For Competitive Proposals. The City of Richfield is seeking competitive proposals from interested and qualified companies for consulting services to prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for the remodeling of the Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423. B. Owner and Submission Information. .Interested companies should submit ONE COPY of their competitive proposal to: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director ;~ City of Richfield 7000 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Community Center Proposal Competitive proposals shall include all of the items set forth in Section II below. Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals should be directed to Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director at 612-861-9394. All proposals must be sealed and submitted to the Recreation Services Department at the above address by 10:00 a.m. on November 7, 2001. Late submissions will not be considered. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE. A. Consultant Services Proposal The City of Richfield Recreation Services Department is seeking competitive proposals for consulting services to prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for the remodeling of the Richfield Community Center as defined in Section II B and C. The Proposer shall provide an estimate of the cost of services for the following categories: 1) Three to five programming sessions with staff and various user-groups to develop aprogram-needs analysis of the building. 2) Preliminary plans of recommended internal refurbishing including floor plan, color coordination plan, materials, and specifications. 3) Analysis of HVAC, mechanical and electrical systems, and recommendations for necessary modifications. 4) Estimates of total project costs. B. Total Remodeling Budget The total project cost is not to exceed $376,000.00 including design costs, building materials and labor, and all other costs associated with the project. C. General Remodeling Scope Although aprogram-needs analysis will fully determine the general project scope, it is anticipated that the building requires the following improvements: • New surface materials for the floors and ceilings. • New paint on walls and necessary repairs. • Windows should be evaluated and replaced if allowed by budget. • Some electronic improvements such as audio-visual upgrades and computer instructional area. • Modification of office space. • Modification of reception area and main entrance. • Light fixture replacement. • Color coordination. • Necessary modifications and improvements to HVAC, mechanical and t~ electrical systems. ~_ • Analysis of storage area and recommendation for modification. D. Qualifications Each Proposor should provide a list of professional qualifications, licenses, and certifications. E . References Each Proposer shall provide a list of five references of previous remodeling projects, preferable similar in scope to the Richfield Community Center project. Each reference must include the name and address of the jurisdiction where the Proposer has performed similar design and engineering services, and the name and daytime telephone number of an individual, who still works for the jurisdiction, which the City can contact. III. EVALUATION AND SELECTION. A. Evaluation Criteria. The Selection Committee will evaluate and rank each proposal against the following criteria: 1. Cost/value. 2. Review of professional qualifications. 3. Review/Inspection of previous remodeling projects and/or references. 2 4. Interviews (scheduled during the week of 11/19/01) The Selection Committee will submit a recommended proposal to the Community Services Commission and to the City Council. The City Council will award the contract to the successful Proposer. B. Reservations and Other Considerations. 1. Proposers are invited to inspect the facility in advance of proposal submittal. Please contact Lil Hipp, Community Center Manager, at 612-861-9364 to arrange an appointment. 2. Proposals are to be submitted on or before 10:00 a.m., November 7, 2001, to Richfield Recreation Services Department, 7000 Nicollet Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423, RE: Community Center Proposal. For additional information contact Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director, 612-861- 9394. Proposal amounts will need to be effective for 60 days after the above deadline. 3. The City reserves the right to accept proposals based upon factors other than the lowest price as set forth in the evaluation criteria. 4. The City will not be responsible for any costs incurred by those submitting or preparing competitive proposals. At the request of the Proposer, proposals will be returned after the selection process has been completed and a Proposer selected. 5. The City reserves the right to revise the scope of the project based on budget limitations and other relevant considerations. 3 ~~ EXHIBIT B OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55 I05 TEL.: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188 November 5, 2001 ~~-= ~ ~ ~ ~~ ``~ S Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director ' City of Richfield 7000 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: COMMUNITY CENTER PROPOSAL Dear Mr. To itzhofer P I It is with great interest that we present this proposal to provide. design and planning services for the proposed renovation of your community center.. Although Oertel - Architects-has experience in community center and pazk building design, we would prefer to emphasis our project approach and overall philosophy toward recreation. ' ~ Recreation projects are so important as they. offer the tools and the structure within which children; adolescents and seniors can communicate, play and socialize on an egalitarian basis.. We have been a. witness to this; first hand, over the past several decades; Park and Rec programs do have a positive influence on impressionable youth. After years of participating in park: and rec programs, the principal of the firm was hired by the City of Racine,-Wisconsin, to serve as playground leader; ice rink operator and parks supervisor. While earning his Master's degree Jeff performed research into child and handicapped-related activities; and later organized an "adventure I playground" for the City of Racine in-1977. Other people in the office have had similar. positive experiences in recreational and educational activities. Consequently,. this type of project is special to us. If renovation experience is an important component of this project, please note that you will be hard pressed to find a smaller firm with more renovation experience. Renovations, additions, remodelings and historic restorations have been a specialty for over twenty years. In general, it is a common goal of the firm to meet-our clients' needs while using innovative ideas to save money, improve durability and reduce maintenance of a building. jNe have been fortunate to be able to incorporate. innovative ideas on similar projects, and hope to be a able to share some of these ideas and other design ,_ , suggestions with you on your project. i Finally, if awazded this project, we will embrace the tasks at hand with enthusiasm and `- a determined desire to make this community center the best it can possibly be. I Related Park and Rec Experience Attached is a list that includes park and recreation projects, with references, and a resume of the lead architects. Also attached are selected project sheets. Please note that ' the recently completed Van Cleve Community Center renovation project- for the Minneapolis Park Board has many similarities. to your. proposed project. This project included providing a new interior image {with replacement of the lobby and main ' control area), improvements to the gym, improvements to lighting, exterior improvements, upgrades to restrooms, renovation to program areas, new finishes throughout, kitchen upgrades and office modifications. Upon request, additional I detailed information, photos or copies of the previous studies can be forwarded to you.- ' Related Renovation Experience Renovation experience at the firm runs the gamut fromhouses to warehouses, historic ' buildings to major adaptive re-use projects, park. buildings to public works buildings. Project budgets have ranged from $20,000.00 to $72,000,000.00. In all, members of our `firm have worked on dozens of renovations. A list of projects-can be provided upon ' ~ request. ~~ Statement of Project Tasks and Scope As we understand it, the project is divided .into two.. or more phases, The phase of services under this RFP is the study -phase which .includes the following: . Perform interviews as itemized in the RFP and as needed I Review colors and materials, and propose new options Prepare and develop a program Prepare preliminary floor plans fox reziiew and discussion ' Analyze mechanical and elecfr7cal systems - Prepare cost estimates I In addition, we propose to also provide the following as a part of this phase one scope: Evaluate physical conditions of the existing facilities, top to bottom (roof, walls, etc.) Evaluate ADA compliance and general assessable layout Review space needs, both current and projected. beyond the current need and program Reviezv site ti .site feahcres (_ Review maintenance and operational issues Propose state-of-the-art equipment and potentials `~ ' Make a final presentation to the supervisors/staff/board 2 ~: After the study phase, we can develop the design, prepare construction documents and assist with the construction activities. These services and associated costs are not ' included in this proposal. Qualifications, licenses and certifications As previously noted, we have considerable experience with this type of study, with ' renovations and with community centers. As the principal architect, Jeff Oertel is licensed to .practice as an architect in the f following states: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. He is also NCARB certified nationally. Approach '~ i We will approach this project with ahands-on, roll-up-your-sleeves attitude.. This is important since understanding the staff needs, building possibilities, hidden building conditions and potentials requires involvement on site and first-hand communication with those who run the programs. It is our experience that staff input and, supervisor-involvement will be key to the ' success of the final program and building renovation. •The Park and Rec staff are the real.experts here: We need this involvement from the onset. We will meet with the user groups and gather advice.- We will collectively incorporate these ideas, needs and directives, and incorporate them into a cohesive master plan. The preliminary plan will. include these ideas as well as ideas for new image, color and materials.. To the extent possible we will use our computer m~ode_ ling programs to convey: what is possible using before and afterimages. Mechanical and electrical systems will be reviewed in order to incorporate any .necessary improvements into the master plan and budget. Finally, we will prepare-a"bud et th orporates the proposed preferred plan, technical concerns and- ~E requiremen This will be prioritized as needed. Trends in Park. and Recreation Design and Construction As a part of our service we hope to share some of the current trends in designing and building community centers. These include: Computer modeling Technical advancements in automation ADA compliance and access 3 i~ f i i i~ i i i i i i i Materials and finishes . Security and control ''- Flexibility and multi-use design Energy saving ideas _/~ .~~-~ 'v~'~'~'~~ Bidding and building contractors , L-c~,~~~ `~~ Construction schedules and pitfa `~ Operating park & rec programs wring construction .~- Proposed Fee ~ ~ ~~~• ~- ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ Based on the list of requirements in the RFP, and our experience, we propose a fee of $6,800.00 for this phase, including all expenses,. reports and-time involvement by staff. If this fee is outside of your budget we can negociate as necessary. Otherwise, the fee for the development of the design, the construction documents and field administration can be provided upon request or at a Later date. Conclusion We hope to -have the opportunity to meet with you, to share ideas for your project, to further emphasize our interest, and to demonstrate our ability to work with you to make this a success. Again, please. contact us-with any questions. We hope to hear from: you soon. Sincerely, 4 EXHIBIT C OERTEL ARCH)iTECTS ~~_ 1795 Saint CIair Avenue - St. Paul, MN 65105. HOURLY RATES _ RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT Rates effective .through fall of 2002 Person./title Rate Jeff Oertel, Principal $98:00 /hour Diane H. Trout, Architect $75.04 /:hour Stacy Scharch, .Job Captain $60.00 /hour Architectural Designer. /CAD: $48.00 /hour Shane Albertson, Lead Mechanical Engineer $95.00 /hour , Senior Mechanical Designer $65.00 /hour Dan Paulson, Lead Electrical:Engineer $125.00 / hour 5r. Project Elec. Designer $90.00 / .hour Electrical CAD Operator '$65.00 /hour _ ( ) AGENDA SECTION: (;onsent AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 13 4 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE n ,~ REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~t~ y(J REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, T/TLE ~, ~. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Establishing the date of June 11, 2002 for a public hearing on business subsidy criteria and the Redevelo ment and Tax Increment Financin Plan for Cit Bella. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: June 11, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. is the correct date of the public hearing for consideration of the Business Subsidy Criteria and Policies and the proposed consideration of adoption of a modified Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed establishment of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District. II. BACKGROUND On April 23 the City Council authorized the scheduling of a public hearing to consider business subsidy criteria. ~ A public hearing is also being scheduled to consider the establishment of a City ~, ,~ Bella Tax Increment District. The proposed City Bella development is presently being reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Planning Commission. 052802CityBella The date cited in the resolutions is Monday, June 10, 2002. This would require a special meeting of the City Council. l`~ /J Tuesday, June 11 at 6:30 p.m. is the correct date of the hearing. Affected ersons p and organizations have been notified and the Sun Current newspaper public hearing notice to be published, May 29, 2002, correctly states the June 11 date of the hearing. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The date for the public hearing has been incorrectly stated. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A special City Council meeting would be required. However, there is time to make the correction before the date of public notice publication. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Legal counsel requested that the corrected date be affirmed by the City Council. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A n