The URL can be used to link to this page

05-14-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 t~ -*******************************~**~*************************~~***************************************** ```~`JJ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call Discussion of 2000 Report of Pavement Management Survey and tour on street maintenance Adjournment 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) Special Joint City Council/Richfield School Board Meeting of April 15, 2002; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of April 23, 2002; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of May 2, 2002 PRESENTATIONS Annual meeting with Civil Service Commission 2. Presentation of proclamation designating May 2002, Mental Health Month in Richfield ~ 3. Presentation of proclamation designating May 13-16, 2002, National Police Week in ~`~.-~ Richfield 4. Presentation of proclamation designating May 15 and 16,.2002, City of Richfield Employee Health and Fitness Days COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance at community meetings Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution regarding composition of Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council S.R. No. 122 B. Consideration of approval of resolution recertifying delinquent sewer and water utility assessment to County Auditor due to hardship consideration for 6237 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 123 C. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Creative Curb Contractors for 2002 annual curb and gutter, sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete repair in amount of $51,479 S.R. No. 124 D. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract, Alternate C, to Berwald Roofing, Co. for Water Treatment Plant roof replacement in amount of $206,189 S.R. No. 125 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar ~'` J Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public hearing for consideration of resolution declining improvement project of alley construction in 6300 block between Dupont and Colfax Avenues ,Staff Report No. 126 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Section 805 of City Code to regulate installation and maintenance of bus shelters, benches and telephone booths and consideration of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment n Staff Report No. 127 ,~ Notes: 10. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Chapter IV of City Code adding Section 428, Sediment and Erosion Control ordinance, and consideration of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 128 Notes: 11. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Chapter IX of City Code adding Section 911, Phosphorus Fertilizer Control ordinance, and consideration of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 129 Notes: 12. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Zoning Code adding Section 538, Floodplain Management ordinance, and consideration of resolution approving summary. publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 130 Notes: 13. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Chapter IV of City Code,adding Section 429, Stormwater Management ordinance, and consideration of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 131 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 14. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment relating to City Council ~ salaries '\~l Staff Report No. 132 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 15. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 6654 Newton Avenue, three dogs and two cats Staff Report No. 133 Notes: 16. City Manager's report Notes: 17. 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 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: 18.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: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 15 REPORT # 133 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMII~TISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, ~~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNA REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for a new residential kennel license for Jay and Karin Anderson, 6654 Newton Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new residential kennel license for Jay and Karin Anderson, 6654 Newton Avenue South. III. BACKGROUND ~ On April 12, 2002, Jay and Karin Anderson submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. They own three dogs and two cats. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on May 1, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The interior of the home was found to be very clean and free of any feces and odors. The Public Safety Department responded to five calls/complaints at this address during the past year. Four of the five calls were regarding an animal at large. Two of the four calls resulted in the officer not finding an animal at large upon arrival. 0514Anderson New Kennel License The other two animal at large calls were considered "assist and advise," meaning the animals were captured and the owner was advised of the need to keep their animals contained in the yard area of their home. All calls regarding animals were `-- received between April 12 and May 1, 2002. The last animal at large call was received on May 1, 2002. The remaining call received by Environmental Health staff was a complaint regarding debris in the yard and two old vehicles with flat tires. It should be noted that staff was not aware of the number of animals until Public Safety received the first call on April 12, 2002. At that time, the owners made application for the kennel license. No animal calls regarding this address were received prior to April 12, 2002. The yard area is enclosed with a fence that is reported to be in good repair and does not exceed the 6' height that is the maximum allowed by ordinance. Although this application is for three dogs and two cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff did not receive any letters or phone calls regarding this residential kennel .license request. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ~ Kennel licenses such as this one have come before the Council numerous times. In many situations, the owners had a number of animals for some time. While many animal owners are responsible and considerate of their neighbors, others are not and act on the kennel license requirement only after Public Safety learns of the number of animals on site. It may be worthwhile for the Council to discuss what action, if any, they wish staff to take in the future .regarding this issue - it is important that the discussion take place now, as staff is in the process of revising license and permit fees. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Deny the request by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson for a new residential kennel license. This would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of animals they have from five to two. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial.. ~ V . ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT • Jav and Karin Anderson -, AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT PROP. ORDINANCE 132 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: +~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of second reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendment relatin to Cit Council salaries. II. BACKGROUND At the March 26 Worksession, the City Council requested that a proposed ordinance amendment to increase the Council salaries by 3.5%, effective January 1, 2003, be prepared for first reading consideration at the April 9, 2002 City Council meeting. The Council also requested that the proposed ordinance include an increase to the 2003 salary of the Mayor and Council Members, effective January 1, 2004, equal to the percentage increase granted on January 1, 2003 for Management and General Services pay plans. The 2003 increase would adjust the Mayor's salary to $8,523 per year and Council Member salaries to $6,616 per year. n 0514salary III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed by December 1 of each year in which an election is held. • The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council adopted Policy Statement. No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The policy. statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would be used as a guideline. The salary increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3% in 2000 and 2001; and 3.5% in 2002. • Including a City Council salary increase effective January 1, 2004 equal to the pay structure increase granted on January 1, 2003 to Management and General Services pay plans will keep the Council salaries comparable with other cities. • A public hearing is not required per State Statute or City Charter. ~ • First reading of the proposed ordinance was on April 23, 2002 and second reading was scheduled for May 14, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • Preparation of the 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed budget will begin in a few months. The Council's decision on a salary adjustment will be necessary to provide adequate funding, should an adjustment be approved. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. However, budget preparation timelines should be considered. • Do not approve second reading of the ordinance and take no further action. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subsection 210.01 to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Mayor. Effective January 1, 2003, Tthe salary of the mayor is $~,-~35 8 523 per year. Subdivision 2. Council. Effective January_1, 2003, Tthe salary of a member of the council is $5-,-3~~ 6 616 per year. Subdivision 3. ERec-fi~~° n.,+o Thies r+rrlir~~+r+no hon~mc~ cffcn±i,~o n~ vLnnN~Mn. 'I 'Z~~~. Effective January 1 2004 the annual salary of the mayor and a member of the council as provided in Subdivision 1 and 2 above shall be increased by a percentage equal to the annual aav structure increase granted on January 1,_2003 to Management and General Services pay Ip ans. Subdivision 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on January 1, 2003. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of May, n 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk `~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~1 MAY 14, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING 131 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to Chapter 4 of the Richfield City Code by adding section 429 for Stormwater Management regulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached amendment to Chapter IV of the City Code by adding Section 429, a Stormwater Management Ordinance, and adopt the attached resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment. III. BACKGROUND -- As with the previously proposed ordinances, the proposed Stormwater Management Regulations Ordinance has been drafted in response to requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The District has agreed in principal to allow Richfield to control stormwater management and floodplain protection within the City. However, before that control is totally placed with the City, the District is requiring that certain amendments be made to Richfield's City Code. The required amendments will set acceptable minimum standards and grant to staff the authority to enforce those standards. . 051402StrmwtrMg mtOrd The proposed ordinance provides the necessary tools for implementation of policies described in Richfield's Surface Water Management Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield long supported stormwater management projects, including both rate and quality control. Most of Richfield's previous storm water related projects have dealt with flood relief and storage. This proposed ordinance sets minimum standards for stormwater management based on project type and size. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of this proposed ordinance are directed at land development activities that take place away from wetlands. Said requirements are intended to protect wetlands from pollution and nearby properties from flooding by controlling the rate and the quality of water that is discharged into those wetlands. FINANCIAL • Staff has for many years, required stormwater Management Plans and Sediment and Erosion Control Plans from contractors and developers seeking to build in the City. So, as a practical matter, the financial impact to developers and builders caused by adopting this ordinance should be very minor. D. LEGAL • Before the Minnehaha Creek Watershed .District allows the City to manage its own stormwater facilities as well as development around the City, the District is requiring that the City adopt five modifications to Ci#y ordinances.. • A first reading of this ordinance amendment has been held and a legal notice of this public hearing has been duly published. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council could decline to approve the attached ordinance; however, the Watershed District would then. decline to approve Richfield's role in managing stormwater within the. City. • The attached will establish specific standards to enforce and grant to staff the authority to enforce them. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Proposed ordinance for stormwater Management Regulations • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment to Chapter IV by adding Section 429 related to stormwater management regulations. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. n CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 429 -Water Resource Management Regulations 429.01. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve the policies described in the city's surface water management plan relating to wetland management, shoreline and streambank improvements, stream and lake crossings, dredging, and stormwater. management. 429.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. Subd. 2. Best Management Practices fBMPs~: Guidance and design criteria for stormwater management facilities contained within the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's publication entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", dated October 1989 and as amended. 429.05. stormwater Management for Land Altering Activities. Subdivision 1. Administration. The city council hereby designates the Director of Public Works as the administrator of this section. Subd. 2. Application. stormwater management plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit review process. The applicant must include the requirements of this section in the plans submitted as part of the building permit review. Subd. 3. Activities Subject to stormwater Management Regulations. The following table I outlines those activities that require no permit and those activities that require .permits for stormwater management as outlined in the city's comprehensive surface water management plan for various development and redevelopment activities: Table I Requir ements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control a) Single- family home X construction b) Construction on less X than 2 acres w/ density of less than or equal to 2 acres c) Residential X subdivision between 2 and 8 acres d) Residential X X subdivision between 8 and 20 acres e) Residential X X X subdivision greater than or equal to 20 acres f) Multi-unit residential X development w/ less than 8 units/acre g) Multi-unit residential X development greater than 2 acres and less than 5 acres h) Multi-unit residential X X development greater than or equal to 5 acres and less than 8 acres i) Multi-unit residential X X X development greater than 8 acres j) Commercial, X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of less than '/z acre k) Commercial, X X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of greater than '/z acre and less than 8 acres Requir ements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control I) Commercial, X X X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of greater than 8 acres m) Maintenance, X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that does not result in net increase in impervious surface n) Maintenance, X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of less than 1 acre o) Maintenance, X X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of greater than 1 acre and the project area is less than 5 acres p) Maintenance, X X X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or ~i ~' Requirements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of greater than 1 acre and the project area is more than 5 acres a. Stormwater runoff discharge rates may not exceed the existing conditions for the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. If the increase in imperviousness is 50% or greater, the discharge. rate requirements must be based on pre- development conditions. b. Stormwater runoff to a landlocked area that cannot handle the increased runoff must maintain runoff volumes to the existing conditions. c. Water quality control facilities must remove 50% of the n phosphorous on an annual average removal basis. d. Stormwater ponds must have a 10-foot, 10:1 bench, two feet of freeboard, and must remove floatables from a 1-year event. e. Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed 10 feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least 5 feet on each side are not included in calculations for net increase in impervious surface. f. Water quality and quantity provision requirements may be waived by the administrator if a downstream facility is in place or will be constructed and the facility is designed to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the project. g. The requirements of this ordinance may be waived by the administrator or board of adjustments and appeals if it is determined that meeting the requirements of this subsection on site is not feasible. Subd. 4. Construction Standards. The design and construction criteria for stormwater management plans outlined in the city's surface water management plan and the MPCA "Protection Water Quality in Urban Areas" shall be utilized as the construction standards for these regulations. These criteria are on file in the city engineering office. 429.07. Penalties for Violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of these regulations or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the administrator and/or building official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to the guilty party. b. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the administrator or building official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and, extent of the violation of the official control must be provided. c. The administrator must notify the suspected party of the n requirements of this ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the city. If the construction or development is already completed, then the administrator may either: a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. d. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the administrator or building official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses constitutes an additional violation of this regulation and may be prosecuted accordingly. The administrator must also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. ~ 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 n RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 429 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2002 - AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 429 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. ~_~' This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to set minimum standards for stormwater management based on project type and size. The requirements of this ordinance are directed at land development activities that take place away from wetlands. Said requirements are intended to protect wetlands from pollution and nearby properties from flooding by controlling the rate and the quality of water that is discharged ,into those wetlands. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Engineering Supervisor George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk d~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 12 130 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance amendment that would add Section 538_ to the Zoning Code for the purpose of regulating development within floodplains within the City of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached amendment to the Zoning Code by adding Section 538, a Floodplain Management Ordinance, and adopt the attached resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield make certain changes/additions to its City Code. The subject of this City Council Staff Report is a proposed ordinance that would protect the floodplains and set minimum building standards for the protection of structures constructed within a floodplain within the City of Richfield by establishing a floodplain, overlay, zoning district and establishing more stringent building standards. 051402FIdPIainMgmt In addition to more restrictive building standards; e.g., service facilities such as electrical boxes and heating equipment in structures constructed within a floodplain must be mounted higher than the floodplain elevation and structures built within floodplains must be so constructed as to not float if submerged, the proposed ordinance also sets forth a process for issuing permits for land uses within a floodplain. This proposed ordinance amendment is intended to promote uniform floodplain management consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Planning Commission on May 22, 2001 reviewed the draft floodplain management ordinance. On April 9, 2002 The Richfield City Council approved first reading of this proposed ordinance and ordered a Public Hearing to be held at this meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Because of the small number of wetlands in Richfield and the fact that most floodplain areas are contained within City owned .parks, (and, ~ therefore, not on private property) staff has had very little need for -` involvement in regulating activities within floodplains. The property around Milner's Pond at 66th Street and Fourth Avenue, Norby's Pond at 69th Street and Second Avenue and Sheridan Pond at 67th and Thomas Avenue could be affected. The homes are not now in the floodplain but possible additions to the homes could be in the floodplain. • The proposed ordinance, by establishing building standards and a permit process for proposals within floodplains, will make it easier for staff to regulate such activities in the future. • The proposed ordinance does not prohibit building within a floodplain but, rather, sets increased standards for constructing a use within the floodplain. Said increased standards are designed to protect both the floodplain and the proposed building. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed ordinance allows any use that is allowed in the underlying zoning district provided that the use does not cause a net decrease in storage capacity. If the allowed use does create a net loss in storage capacity, compensatory mitigation for the flood plain loss will have to be provided. Increased flood proofing standards and a permit are required for allowed projects within the floodplain and therefor an increase in the cost of construction can be anticipated for those projects that lie within a floodplain. The instances in which a resident or developer will need to apply for a permit and apply the increased standards should be very rare as most of the floodplain within Richfield lies within City owned land and is therefore not developable. n C. FINANCIAL ~~'! • Projects that involve construction activities within a floodplain will see increased cost because of the need to apply for a permit and the increased flood proofing requirements. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has been a member of the team that has drafted the attached ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance amendment has been held and a legal notice of this public hearing has been duly published. If Council adopts the attached ordinance, staff will prepare a Floodplain Construction Permit Application form and will ask Council to approve a Permit Fee in Appendix D as part of the 2003 budget process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose not to approve this ordinance; however, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will decline to allow Richfield staff to fully monitor development within the City until the necessary ordinances are adopted. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the proposed "Floodplain Management Regulations Ordinance." • Graphic depicting a typical lot in relation to adjoining wetland. • Map showing ponds with potential problems • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code by adding Section 538 related to regulating development within floodplains. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD ~_ i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 538 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 538 - floodplain Management Regulations 538.01. Pur ose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the city of Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare. Subd. 2. It is the intent of this section to promote a uniform flooplain management program consistent with the surface water management plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 538.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Public Works as the administrator of this section with the building official having authority to evaluate construction standards (section 538.15) and enforce violations (section 538.31). 538.05. Application and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1. Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the 100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of adjustments and appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03. Subd. 2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result of reliance on this section. 538.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. For floodplain management purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base sub-grade below ground level. Subd. 2. Development. Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to, buildings and other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. Subd. 3. Flood. A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake. Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Subd. 5. Floodplain. Floodplain is the 100 year floodplain elevation defined as that area adjoining the bed of a wetland, lake, or the channel of a water course that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Subd. 6. Flood proofing. Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures- and their contents. Flood proofing requirements are contained in the state building code. Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given return frequency event. Subd. 8. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a flood. Subd. 9. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or regulatory floodplain that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. J Subd. 10. Reach. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man- made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a drainage system between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically constitute a reach. Subd. 11. Regulator~r flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. 538.09. Flood insurance study. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was completed for areas within the city. The city is a participating member in FEMA. The city's FEMA Study Record Number 474 is a special conversion study without a map. This report identified the boundaries of the flood way and floodplain. All areas within the city of Richfield are classified as Zone C coverage. 538.11. Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any use of land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, an obstruction, or the storage of materials, supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted (~} within the floodplain. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year flood, cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected, or reduce the existing storage capacity of the floodplain. 538.13. Floodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any permitted, accessory, or conditional use or structure allowed in the underlying zoning district may be allowed as a floodplain use in the floodplain upon the issuance of a special permit in accordance with the provisions of this section. Subdivision 1. The use or structure will not cause a net decrease in storage capacity of the floodplain. Compensatory storage will be required if the use or structure decreases the floodplain capacity, and Subd. 2. The use or structure will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties, and Subd. 3. The use or structure will not restrict flood flows; or Subd. 4. The use is for railroads, essential government facilities, accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential utilities, marinas, docks, other water oriented accessory structures, or reasonable plan to reduce flooding. 538.15. Applications for floodplain use permits. Applications for floodplain use permits shall be made to the administrator. A fee as specified in appendix D shall be charged for floodplain use permits. The application shall be prepared by a registered engineer and shall include the following. Subdivision 1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the impact of the proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain, and Subd. 2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and proposed contours of the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain elevations, and Subd. 3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity resulting from the project. 538.17. Application review. The administrator shall review applications for floodplain use permits and make a determination. 538.19. Variance. A variance to the standards outlined in this section may be requested under city zoning code section 546.09. 538.21. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district. The building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply. C~ Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low building opening elevation shall be at least two feet above the floodplain elevation Subd. 2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500 square feet may be internally flood .proofed in accordance with FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the state building code. Subd. 3. Structures shall be constructed to prevent floatation that may result in damage to it or other structures and/or restrictions of bridge opening or other narrow sections of water-courses. Subd. 4. Service facilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, whether inside or outside of a structure, shall be installed at or above the floodplain, or be adequately flood-proofed to avoid the facility's damage during periods of flood. . Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be allowed to encroach on a floodway, and are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105. Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be used infrequently and/or vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time. 538.23. Utility standards. Subdivision 1. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer and water supply systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage. Subd. 2. Sewer and water supply systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage and shall be designed to minimize infiltration by flood waters. 538.25. Amendments. The floodplain overlay designation shall not be removed from a floodplain area unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been lawfully filled to or above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. 538.27. Building elevation information. The applicant shall provide to the building official the elevation of the first floor and basement of all new structures or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The building official shall maintain a record of these elevations. 538.29. Certificate of compliance. No structure in the floodplain that is hereafter erected, altered or moved shall be occupied until the applicant submits a certification by a registered engineer, surveyor, or architect to the city engineer that the finished fill elevations or other flood-proofing measures are in compliance with this section. 538.31. Penalties for violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of this section or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: (a) In responding to a suspected violation, the administrator and/or building official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available. Richfield .must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct violations to the extent possible so as .not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (b) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the administrator or building official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of the violation shall be provided. (c) The administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this section and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, then the administrator may either: a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. (d) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the administrator or building official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this section and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the O specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. Sec. 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 n • N O -_ N C O .N .~ .~ v C . ~ ~ ~ n , W w ~ .\ - ... .... r. Y3 d~C~ r ~ Lti ' ^ ~ ~ .{~~ 2 _ ~~, ~ y~ , K'2k °1: z.~ ~.'' ~ ] n y* i` O ~~ ~~~ ~ , ~ ~+ ~ e~' ~ ~" ~ *: 7 ~ ~~~, r ,~"~' er:, ~ ~ , + ~'~ ~ ~~a . r- O ~ ~ < ~ ~~ ~ . ~~ ~; ~ ` ,. ~ ~: O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ' +zt, . .. •~ N ~ p Q ~ \ - - - - ~ ^ ~ O ~~ 4 _ . v ~ ~zr~ ~ ~ . ~~ v) ( ~ .': Y 1+,5' `"7~ i xfP tI 1P aP~1 i`Ti~ ~ \ ~ 8 ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~~ ~ L Q T _~ T L.L ~ C ~ C ~ Q O Z ~D w z~ 0 ~a X09 Z~U O Q ZOO C'3m~ ~~ A 0 ~L AL• W .~ `~ L~ O L ~ waV ti a e e~ d 6 b ~ i $ 1 o E ~ ~ .~. - ~n ~t __-~~ __ __ '~ ! --dui ~ ~ V ~ IC d ~ ~ d ~ =lfr 1 ~ _ ,g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .: ~fI ~`~1 ~~ ~ 7, SF F F F 'SAY tIY0Y.7 '~ p~T ~, ..T °' xat~am[ooze xoa~am~ooze ,~, ~ AZT q'7ET oTT n~ m vn ~ ram ae® °~~ ~s '~` °°°° 'SAY axrraxoa •srev antvtTaoa ~. 9 ~G ~" w ~ ~a o~ ~ ' 'QAY dSrIO~IDI •SAY aa7to~at .,,~.. ~..,.. ~.>a ~.~, ~. ,~ `.~+. •SAY azvoauz •sAV StYaKA~ ,~. o~ ~, +..~ ..o .~ s..~ .~ ~...~ .~ m y wwc ~ w~ "'~ ~a~ au om ~a 'SAY NNSd 'SAY IdNSd !~ s~ ~ ~ w® ~~ gem "'° ~oTo ~ ~ ~ ms ~v ~ ~ ~ e ~ o 0 0 o F r m 0 ~i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 538 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2002 - AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 538 This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the floodplains and set minimum building standards for the protection of structures constructed within a floodplain within the City of Richfield by establishing a floodplain, overlay, zoning district and establishing more stringent building standards. The ordinance also sets forth a process for issuing permits for land uses within a floodplain. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Engineering Supervisor George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~' STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 11 129 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 r REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~P. GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE '~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance amendment to add Section 911 for the purpose of limiting use of yard fertilizers that contain phosphorus. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached amendment to Chapter IX of the City Code by adding Section 911, a Phosphorus Fertilizer Control Ordinance, and adopt the attached resolution approving summary blication of the ordinance amendment. n III. BACKGROUND ~ The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield make certain changes/additions to its City Code. These changes have been incorporated into five new, proposed ordinances (four of the proposed ordinance amendments are on tonight's agenda). The subject of this City Council Staff Report is a proposed ordinance that would protect the quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield by limiting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorous. This proposed ordinance affects both commercial and non-commercial applicators and sets limits on the amount of fertilizer that can be applied per application and per 051402FertilizerOrd season. The proposed ordinance also limits where and when phosphorous fertilizers can be applied. On April 9, 2002 the Richfield City Council approved the first reading of this proposed ordinance and ordered a Public Hearing to be held at this meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has been a leader in Minnesota regarding storm water management and pollution elimination. The proposed ordinance amendment, regulation of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous, is another step in a long process intended to control both the volume of runoff and the quality or cleanliness of that runoff. B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • The State of Minnesota has recently enacted legislation to eliminate most phosphorus containing fertilizers on January 1, 2004. At the suggestion of Richfield's Community Services Commission, the proposed ordinance will take effect on January 1, 2003. Other cities including Minneapolis and Crystal have banned phosphorus. This change in the effective date was made after the City Council meeting of April 9. Should Council wish to change the effective date from the year 2003 to 2002 or 2004, staff will make the change before the proposed ordinance is published. • Like state law, this proposed ordinance allows only phosphorus free fertilizer in most circumstances (exceptions include starter fertilizer for sod or seed). C. FINANCIAL • Adoption of this ordinance should cost the residents of Richfield .little or nothing as the cost of phosphorus-free fertilizer is within 2 or 3 cents per 1000 square feet of yard. D. LEGAL • A first reading of this ordinance amendment has been held and a legal notice of this public hearing has been duly published. • There are no legal issues known at this time. The office of the City Attorney has been involved in drafting all five proposed ordinances. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Council could decline to approve this proposed ordinance; however, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will not allow Richfield full control of stormwater management or development issues in its portion of Richfield if this and the other proposed ordinances are not approved. ATTACHMENTS ~ • A copy of the proposed Ordinance presented to the Council on April 9, 2002, except for the addition of the 2003 "effective date." • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment to Chapter IX by adding Section 911 related to lawn fertilizer use. VI. PRINCIPAL 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 these regulations 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 these regulations. 911.05. Fertilizer Use Regulations. Subdivision 1. Time of Application. Neither (~ commercial applicators nor noncommercial applicators may apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen or when conditions exist which will promote or create runoff. Subd. 2. Prohibition Regarding Phosphorous Content Fertilizers. No person shall apply liquid fertilizer which contains more than one-half percent by weight of phosphorous, or granular fertilizer which contains more than three percent by weight of phosphorous (i.e. "NPK" rating of >3 for the phosphorous), unless the single application is less than or equal to the one-tenth pound of phosphorous per one thousand square feet. Annual application amount shall not exceed one-half pound of phosphorous per one thousand square feet of lawn area. Subd. 3. Impervious Surfaces, Drainage Ways, and Buffers. No person shall apply fertilizer to impervious surfaces, drainage ditches, waterways, or buffer areas. Subd. 4. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply to the fertilizer use ordinance: a. Newly established turf and lawnareas during the growing season. b. Turf areas that have been confirmed by soil testing to be below phosphorous levels established by the University of Minnesota ' Extension Services. The lawn fertilizer application shall not contain an amount of phosphorous in excess of that which is recommended in the soil test evaluation. 911.06. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2003 ~ 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 l` RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 911 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO LAWN FERTILIZER USE WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2002 - AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY; REGULATING THE USE OF LAWN FERTILIZERS; AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 911 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. ~l This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to limit use of lawn fertilizers that contain phosphorous. This ordinance affects both commercial and non-commercial applicators and sets limits on the amount of fertilizer that can be applied per application and per season. The ordinance also limits where and when phosphorous fertilizers can be applied. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Engineering Supervisor George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J ~J STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 128 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 l~ l REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORTPRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing and second reading of amendment to Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code regarding the proposed Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance Amendment. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached amendment to Chapter IV of the City Code by adding Section 428, a Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance, and adopt the attached resolution approving summary aublication of the ordinance amendment. II. BACKGROUND In 1997 the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) revised its Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan to regulate water resource use, protect water resources, improve water quality and prevent flooding. In 2000 the MCWD adopted revised rules. The City of Richfield has developed a Local Water Management Plan that sets forth an implementation strategy for bringing local water management into conformance with MCWD's Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. 05142ndread-sedimentanderosion On April 26, 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved Richfield's Local Water Management Plan. Said approval was conditioned upon Richfield's adoption of several ordinance modifications. City staff and consultants have worked with the staff of MCWD to create five ordinances that meet the requirements of MCWD's approval. Richfield's Planning Commission reviewed all of the proposed ordinances on May 22, 2001. The attached Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance sets minimum standards for when erosion control measures must be installed, which erosion control measures are acceptable, how such measures must be maintained, who is responsible for installation and maintenance, and establishes penalties for non- compliance. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Richfield has long desired to control storm water management and development within the City. MCWD will not grant to the City total control of these items until the City has modified its ordinances to ensure compliance with MCWD's Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. • Compliance with Richfield City Charter requires ordinance amendments to go through a specific legal process which requires first reading, public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance or ordinance amendment. • On April 9, 2002 Council conducted a first reading of this ordinance and ordered this public hearing. • A notice of this public hearing and second reading was published in the official newspaper on May 1, 2002 in conformance with City Charter and State of Minnesota requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES It does not appear that any specific provisions of this Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance would be considered critical. The ordinance is based on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's manual called Protecting Water Quality In Urban Areas. That same publication has been used as a basis for controlling Sediment and Erosion in Richfield for the last decade. FINANCIAL • Since most of the requirements of this ordinance have been in force for the last decade, little if any increase in cost will be noted by either the City or developers/contractors C. LEGAL • A first reading of this ordinance amendment has been held and a legal notice of this meeting has been duly published. There are no additional legal issues known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to approve this ordinance amendment. However, Richfield's Local Water Management Plan will not receive final approval and the City could lose some of the control it now has over stormwater management and re-development issues throughout the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the ordinance as presented at the Council meeting of April 9, 2002. • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment to Chapter IV by adding Section 428 related to sediment and erosion control. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. n CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section:. Section 428 -Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations 428.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the public health, safety, property and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to regulate land disturbing activities to preserve and enhance the natural environment by reducing sedimentation in streams, lakes, ponds, storm sewer systems, and other water ways, protect the quality of surface water resources, preserve and protect wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of construction activities, and provide uniform techniques and methods for erosion and sedimentation control. n 428.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Building Official as the Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit process. A fee in addition to the building permit fee is not required for erosion control plan review. 428.05. Performance Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The design, testing, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment control operations and facilities shall adhere to the standards and specifications contained in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's handbook of best management practices entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" dated 1989, as amended. 428.07. Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measure. Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities shall be subject to erosion control measures, except those activities described in section 428.09: a. An area of 5,000 square feet or greater that will be disturbed by excavation, grading, filling or other earth moving activities resulting in the loss of protective vegetation; or, b. Excavation or fill exceeding 50 cubic yards; or, c. The installation of underground utilities, either public or private, resulting in more than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance. Subd. 2. Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to have the potential for substantial erosion. ~ 428.09. General Exemptions. Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities that meet all of the requirements of this subdivision are exempt from this section. The disturbed or fill area is less than five thousand (<5,000) square feet in area, and a. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is fifty (50) cubic yards or less, and b. Impervious surface of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet is created, and c. No drainage way is blocked or has its storm water carrying capacities or characteristics modified, and d. The activity does not take place within one hundred (100) feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of the water course, the ordinary high water mark of the water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a water course or water body. Subd. 2. Agricultural lands, including gardens, used mainly for the production of food, general farming, nurseries, etc. are exempt from this regulation. 428.11. Erosion Control Plans. Subdivision 1. Land disturbing activities not exempt from this Section shall be required to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to commencement of construction. Subd. 2. The erosion control plan shall contain all information necessary for the City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed. At a minimum, a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of any natural water courses, storm sewers, and drainage ways shall be provided. The extent of the land disturbing activity and any erosion control measures should be shown on the submitted erosion control plan. The following information should be submitted with the site map and grading plan: a. Existing and proposed topography of the site taken at a contour interval of no less than two (2) feet. b. Contour lines extending beyond the property boundaries for a distance sufficient to show the relationship between on-site and off-site drainage, but in no case less than 100 feet. c. Property lines shown in true location with respect to topographic information on the plan. d. Location and graphic representation of all existing and proposed natural ^ and man-made drainage facilities. (~ ) e. Detailed plans of any surface and sub-surface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams, and other devices to be constructed with or as part of the proposed work and a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drain. f. Location and graphic representation of proposed excavation, fill, on-site storage of soil and other earth material, and on-site disposal of earth material. g. Location of proposed final surface runoff, erosion and sediment control measures. h. Quantity, in cubic yards, of soil or earth material to be excavated, filled, stored or otherwise utilized on-site. i. Outline of the methods to be used in clearing vegetation and in storing and disposing of cleared vegetative matter. j. Proposed sequence and schedule of excavation, filling, and other land disturbing and filling activities, and soil or earth material storage or disposal. k. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within fifteen (15) feet of the property line of the subject property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. I. In addition to the plans, a narrative report summarizing the proposed erosion control measures should be submitted. This report should include language discussing the timing of the installation, phasing, stabilization of all erosion control structures, maintenance and eventual removal of all erosion control structures. 428.13. Maintenance of Erosion Control Measures. Subdivision 1. It shall be responsibility of the owner/developer to maintain all erosion control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. If, after the installation of the erosion control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be installed at the expense of the owner. Subd. 2. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining properties, City streets, storm sewer, etc. shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for clean-up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up ~--' or restore all areas affected by erosion, the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses associated with the clean-up. Failure to maintain these measures shall be a violation of this Ordinance. 428.15. Penalties for Violation. The following penalty options are available for violation of ~ this ordinance: Subd. 1. "Stop Work" Order. It is unlawful for any person, either by the owner or the occupant of premises, to violate, neglect or refuse to comply with the requirements of this section. In addition, if the City Engineer determines that adequate erosion control measures are not being followed and there is little cooperation on the part of the owner to do so, a "stop work" order may be issued to the land disturbing activity until such times as adequate measures are implemented. Subd. 2. Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The City may suspend or revoke the permit and permittee shall cease work on the site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended or revoked permit upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the Permit have been complied with in full, the City shall reinstate the permit. Subd. 3. Issue Violation as a Misdemeanor. Any person violating a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Ordinance when that person performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a petty misdemeanor, except as otherwise stated in specific provisions hereof. Sec. 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 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 428 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO.2002 - AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 428 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to set minimum standards for when erosion control measures must be installed, which erosion control measures are acceptable, how such measures must be maintained, who is responsible for installation and maintenance, and establishes penalties for non-compliance. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Engineering Supervisor George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk n \~; AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # j 2 7 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~` ~^~~~~ / _ SIG ATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~!~ L~~ ~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance that will regulate the installation and maintenance of bus shelters, benches and telephone booths I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and By Motion: Approve second reading of the Proposed modification to section 805 of City Code and adopt the attached resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment. III. BACKGROUND I Until recently, the only amenities available to transit riders were courtesy benches and a few shelters provided by Metro Transit (a sub-division of the Metropolitan Council). In the year 2000, staff was approached by a company that wishes to install bus shelters in Richfield. According to the proposal, these shelters would be funded, as courtesy benches are, by advertising (Chapter 805). The City code references to busses and shelters have not been updated for some time. In order to install a shelter and a bench at the same corner, City staff has drafted this update to address issues of shelters, benches, advertising content and maintenance for City Council consideration. 05146enchshelterOrd The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Community Services Commission (CSC), and was considered by Council on October 8, 2001 and December 10, 2001. The CSC recommended that benches have trash receptacles also. The new ordinance does not require trash receptacles due to the high cost to the bench providers. Benches and shelters are allowed on the same corner. Advertising content language has also been updated to be consistent with state law. On April 9, 2002, Council approved the first reading of the ordinance and ordered a public hearing to be conducted at this meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Existing ordinances as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision 2020 encourage the use of mass transit. Council has strongly supported efforts to encourage mass transit. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The placement of both a bench and a shelter at the same corner, inclusion of a garbage container with bi-weekly collection and advertising content have been considered critical by the CSC, City Council and the bench and .shelter vendors. All of these issues have been addressed in the proposed ordinance. C. FINANCIAL • The current fee schedule, which will not change under the proposed ordinance, provides for a bench or shelter application fee of $50 for .the. first year of a permit and $25 for each annual renewal. These fees are large enough to cover staff expenses incurred in managing the benches and shelters around the City. D. LEGAL • None known at this time. The City Attorney will be present to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Council could decline to approve second reading of this ordinance. However, doing so would in effect, amount to approving the do-nothing alternative. Council rejected the do-nothing alternative at its meeting of April 9, 2002. ATTACHMENTS . ~ • A copy of the proposed amendment to Section 805 of City Code. • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance amendment to Section 805 of the Richfield City Code; relating to benches, shelters and telephone booths. • Courtesy bench and shelter location maps. • Standard detail of acceptable bus shelter. • Metro Transit letter recommending use of private shelter providers. • Report summarizing references of Outdoor Promotions, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives of U. S. Bench Corporation and Outdoor Promotions, Inc. were notified of this meeting. BILL NO. O AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 805 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO BENCHES, SHELTERS AND TELEPHONE BOOTHS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 805.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. "Courtesy bench" means a bench placed upon a public street by a person other than the city, designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed and used as an advertising device. Subd. 2. "Director" means the director of ,public works. Subd 3 "Shelter" means a shelter placed upon a public street by a person other than the city designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed and used as an advertising device. Section 2. Subsection 805.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.07. Permits and Applications. Subdivision 1. Requirements. Application for permits e#atl must be made to the director. The application s~ must contain the following information: (a) location of the bench, shelter or outdoor telephone booth; (b) name telephone number and address of the applicant; (c) detailed plans and specifications of each proposed bench, shelter or booth including the general nature of advertising matter to be posted thereon; and (d) such other information the director may reasonably require. Subd 2 Changed Information A permit holder shall notify the director of changes in any of the information required for a permit within a reasonable time. Section 3. Subsection 805.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.11. Conditions governing issuance of permits. Subdivision 1. ,Application. This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a courtesy bench, shelter or booth. Subd. 2. Permit for each bench. A separate permit is required for each bench, shelter or booth to be constructed, but permits may be granted for more than 0514BenchshelterOrd one location on the basis of a single application provided the director is satisfied ,~ that all the information required by subsection 805.07 has been obtained for each ~._J proposed bench, shelter or booth. Subd. 3. Transfer: If a bench, shelter or booth for which a permit has been issued is sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assigned, a new one-dear permit shape is required for its maintenance. Permits expire, unless renewed, on the first day of January next following the date of issuance. Subd. 4. Location. No new permit may be issued for the installation of benches, shelters or booths in the following places: (a) in an alley; , or (b) at any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the inside sidewalk line is less than eight feet; e~ Subd. 5. Permit fees. The permit fee and renewal fee shall be as provided in appendix D. O Section 4. Subsection 805.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.15. Permits. Subdivision 1. Approval and issuance. If the director is satisfied that all of the conditions enumerated in this section have been met and that the erection and maintenance of the bench, shelter or booth at the proposed location will not restrict pedestrian traffic, ^vrvtr~r~^"~~-rvrr~c^ n~c°~cm~~°cr"rcaizcp~~ns °°f°+~, endanger the health, safety order convenience or general welfare of the City, t-ie the Director s~a~4 will approve the application. ^^^' {^^^~^~~' ~++^ +~^ .~,.,,,^^^r. Subd 2 Competing applications. In the case of competing applications for one location that otherwise satis~f r the conditions enumerated in this section, the director shall approve the applicant who will provide a greater public service based on the needs of the particular location Based on public need the director may permit both one shelter and one bench at the same location. In determinina the needs of a given location the director may consider the following factors: (a) nearby traffic density; (b) effect on~edestrian safety; (c) effect on pedestrian traffic; (d) effect on lines of sight; and fie) beneficial effect for users of the proposed bench, shelter or booth. Subd 3 Application Competing applications will not be accepted during the first nine renewals after installation of a shelter. Section 5. Subsection 805 of the Richfield City Code is amended by repealing subsection 805.17. Section 6. Subsection 805.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.19. Renewal of Permits. At least 30 days prior to the expiration of a permit, the permittee may apply for renewal of the permit. If there is no change in the construction, location or advertising content and if consent of abutting owners or lessees has not been withdrawn, the applicant must so certify and the permit may be reissued by the director upon payment of the required renewal fee. '{ +"°r° ;~ " ^"-+r+n° ;,, °.,,, °f +he . The director will promptly notify the permittee of a withdrawal of consent filed with him by any abutting owner or lessee. Section 7. Subsection 805.23 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.23. Installation and maintenance of benches, shelters and booths. Subdivision 1. Size and location. Courtesy benches must be installed parallel with the curb and ~. set back at least 18 inches from the face of the curb. Subd 2 Size limitations -courtesy benches. No courtesy bench shall exceed: (a) height - 42 inches ~; (b) width - 30 inches ~; and (c) length -Seven feet t~~. Subd. 3. Size limitations -shelters No shelter shall exceed 100 square feet. Subd. 4. Exception A shelter may exceed the 100 square foot limit if approved the director The director may approve an exception to the shelter size limitation if the level of use at a particular shelter location warrants a larger structure. Subd. 5. Permit display. Each bench, shelter or booth e#a~ must display the permit number in a conspicuous place. Subd. 6. Conditions. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain each bench, shelter or booth in a safe condition and to keep benches, shelters and booths in a neat, clean and usable condition. The permittee s must insure that the bench, shelter or booth is kept free of ice and snow and is kept accessible at all times. Eve shelter permittee must install a garbage receptacle of a size sufficient to handle the location's use The receptacle must have a cover and must be attached to the bench or shelter The permittee must service the receptacle twice per week. Subd. 7. Advertising Matter. Advertising matter may be displayed only on the front and rear surfaces of the backrest of a bench. Advertisements for er-e~ ~~ obscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is prohibited on all benches, shelters or booths. ^-~d~°;*,?c:^^ ~^~++er c~ ~, .hco,.+ +„ +~o y ..._....~..- -_-,--- -- -~-- . No advertising matter on any bench, shelter or booth may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive In", "Danger" or any other word, phrase e# or symbol which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 805 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO BENCHES, SHELTERS AND TELEPHONE BOOTHS WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2002 - AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COURTESY BENCHES, BUS SHELTERS AND TELEPHONE BOOTHS, AMENDING SECTION 805 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate and permit the placement of Courtesy benches, bus shelters and telephone booths. The Amended ordinance also sets certain size, location and maintenance standards for said benches, shelters and booths. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Engineering Supervisor George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. Adopted by the City Council of the, City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1 ~, O N fTl r ~ N D ^~ O z ~ m o A A Q N ~ INS ~~-t' o~ m rn ~ ~ ~ ~~ cfl I z F O ~D ~D C1 ~D ~D r 0 n ~~~~ ~, ® o CD ''. ~ ~ ~ ''~, m -~ ~ ~ ~ ''~ ~ ° Q ~II n A A ~,~ ~~ A ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ', C. P,. R y N~ N N~ ~~= ~~~ '(C li ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ rn rn rn Q ~, ~~ cQ i- N m ~ ~ N m v _~ O N O D 1 A Z m ~ O A m II ~ YORK _ - C. P_ R. Sys. a ~~ mA ~N s ~. 0 .a 0 O ~^ ~ ~ ~~ ~, r 0 ~. ~ I~I v ~n -ml D D_Z rD Z ~ ov C m r m m c~ ~~ z0 m -n m ~n z= ~T v rn ~r ~v 0 z T %„ T .,; n o D Q ~D ~--I- ~__ 0 --~-~ ~A~ ..:~ Metro '- ~ , ~~ ~~~ + ~~ _ . _ March 20, 2002 Craig Piernot Outdoor Promotions, Inc. 5724 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: New Transit Shelters in Suburban Cities Dear Mr. Piernot: Over the past 2 years, Metro Transit has worked hard to improve the quality of bus services and bus stops for citizen riders in suburban cities. To improve these services across our system, we have made tough budget decisions to allocate funding for high ridership shelters, transit centers, buses, route services and maintenance. Today, we maintain nearly 900 shelters at over 19,000 bus stops. It is expensive to both equip bus stops with shelters and to provide regular maintenance yeaz-round. Budget limitations will continue to constrain the number of new shelters we plan to build and maintain. We will need to prioritize our installation based on ridership at these locations. You have indicated that a number of cities are .interested in working with you to contribute directly to improvements and use of public transit by contracting with your organization to build and maintain shelters at bus stops. Metro Transit encourages these cities to work with private enterprises such as Outdoor Promotions, Inc. as they consider the optimum manner to acquire and maintain additional transit shelters for their residents. Sincerely, ~c`~~a i~~~ova~ Richard M. Rovang O Director Engineering and Facilities Cc: file 02-0016 560 Sixth Av=_nue North ~'.: a:1/wv~ •r. m e:r tra n si t.cr9 A service of the Metropolitan Council Minneapolis, Minnesota 55311-4393 (612) 349-7300 Transt Info 373-3333 iiY 341-0140 An Equal Opporunibl Employe TO: George Atkinson FROM: Kiet Ly DATE: May 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Outdoor Promotions, Inc. Courtesy Shelters Survey The following is the summary of my interview with Outdoor Promotions references: 1). City of Thorton, CO (Gene Putnam) -City of Thorton has been using Outdoor Promotions services since 1996. They are very happy with the services provided by Outdoor Promotions. Outdoor Promotions kept the shelters very clean. They responded to graffiti and vandalism within the next day. They have a crew with high water pressure cleaning the shelters once a week. They would also pick up the trashes. Yes, the city does have the right to input in the color, location, advertisement, etc... According to Gene, there are a lot of options in the contract. We just need to tell them what we want. We could also put the city's logo on the shelters. There are no complaints from the surrounding residents regarding the cleanliness of the shelters. 2). City of Ft. Collins, CO (Linda Dowlan) -City of Ft. Collins has been using Outdoor Promotions services since 1995.. They are very happy with the services provided by Outdoor Promotions. The shelters are kept very clean. Outdoor Promotions is very responsive to vandalism and graffiti. As far as the city's input, Outdoor Promotions is very helpful with the advertisement. 3). Arapahoe County, CO (Tami King) -Arapahoe County has been using Outdoor Promotions services since 1996. They are very happy with Outdoor Promotions. Outdoor Promotions kept the shelters very clean. They responded to vandalism and graffiti with half-hour to forty-five minutes. As far as the county's input, the county can choose the shelter colors and add its logo at no additional cost. Outdoor Promotions are very sensitive about their advertisement at each location of the shelter (i.e. they would not put an alcohol ad in schools area). They have a routine truck driving around the city to police the shelters. They would clean the shelters once a week. 4). City of Cheyenne, WY (Rich Davis) -City of Cheyenne has been using Outdoor Promotions services for approximately 10 years. They are very happy with Outdoor's services. Outdoor Promotions responded to graffiti and vandalism immediately. They kept the shelters very clean. The city has to approve the shelter locations. 5). City of Grand Junction, CO (Ralph Power) -City of Grand Junction has been using Outdoor Promotions services since 1997. They are extremely happy with Outdoor's services. Outdoor Promotions~kept the shelters very clean. They responded to graffiti and vandalism within the calling day. Outdoor Promotions is very open regarding to the color, locations and advertisements. They are willing to work with the city. They have a crew cleaning the shelters twice a week. Ralph recommended us putting this in the contract. 6). Transportation Solutions (Seth Rubin) -Transportation Solutions is very happy with Outdoor Promotions services. They've been using Outdoor's services over a year now. Outdoor Promotions kept the shelters very clean. They responded to graffiti and vandalism very quickly. They have a crew cleaning the shelters twice a week. As far as the city's input, they used Colorado's standard color (green). -They are very flexible regarding the advertisement and locations. 7). City of Loveland, CO (Linda Meyer) -not available. I left a voice mail 8). City of Lakewood, CO (Kate Erickson) -not available. I left a voice mail 9). City of Denver, CO (Mark Negerian) -According to Mark, the shelter program is not in operation at this time but the city is working on a contract with Outdoor Promotions regarding the concepts and type of shelters. They also need to have council's approval. Outdoor Promotions is required for shelter maintenance (i.e. cleaning and repair). As far as the shelters concerned, Outdoor Promotions owns these shelters and the city permits Outdoor Promotions the right of way. 10). City of Arvada, CO (Gordon Reusink) -not available. I left a voice mail. ~~ 1 _~ AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 126 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: ALANA T. GETTY, E.I.T. REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of a petition requesting an alley construction improvement project, reviewing the request to withdraw the petition, and decline to order the improvement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by Motion: Adopt the attached resolution to decline the Improvement Project. III. BACKGROUND During 2001, Mr. George Hotter, owner of real property identified as 6305 Dupont Avenue South, contacted City staff expressing his interest in paving a portion of the alley at the rear of his home (please see attached graphics). Mr. Hotter also indicated his willingness to pay the associated costs. On July 20, 2001 a letter was sent from City staff to Mr. and Mrs. Hotter outlining the procedures and timeline to be followed regarding the alley paving. Because of the lateness of the season and the legal requirements pertaining to assessing public improvements, the project was delayed until 2002. On March 26, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Hotter signed a 100% Petition and Waiver Agreement requesting the City Council to order the alley paved and the cost of the improvement to be assessed against their property. A copy of the petition is 0514AI IeyS pecialAssessmentP H attached. The petition submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Holter states they are owners of __ adjacent property and wish to be assessed for 100 percent of the project cost. In the petition the Holters also waive their rights to appeal the assessment of said alley costs. In April 2002, a separate petition was received from neighbors with property adjoining this alley. This second petition from neighbors has asked that the City Council vacate the alley. Staff has proceeded with the Holter's application but advises the City Council to consider the desires represented in both petitions when it makes a decision regarding the Holter's request. In response to the Holter's petition, staff conducted preliminary surveys, arranged for underground exploration, completed a cost estimate, and prepared construction plans and specifications. At the April 9, 2002 Council meeting, the City Council discussed the improvement project, and ordered a public hearing to gather public input. Notice of a May 14 public hearing was published twice in the Richfield Sun-Current newspaper, and notice was mailed to adjacent residents of the alley. On April 30, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Holter submitted a letter to City staff requesting to withdraw their Petition and Waiver Agreement for alley construction. A copy of the letter is attached. Council ordered a public hearing on the project, and the hearing \ will occur on May 14. Since the Holters have requested to withdraw their petition, the only funding source for the alley construction is eliminated. The vacation petition still requires Council consideration. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City .Council took action on April 9, 2002 to declare the adequacy of the Petition and Waiver Agreement, accept the feasibility report prepared by staff, and called for a public hearing on May 14, 2002. • In the 1980's Richfield paved most of the alleys within the City. The alleys that were not paved were exempted because of lack of support by the adjoining neighbors. This alley was probably exempted because no .one on the block has needed this alley to access a garage or parking area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Two separate and opposed petitions have been submitted regarding this alley. The first petition received was from the Holters and requested the alley be paved; a subsequent petition was received to vacate the alley. The Council should take into consideration the issues involved in the second petition when it holds the public hearing on May 14. If the Council denies the first petition to improve the alley, staff will prepare the necessary materials for the Council to consider vacating the alley at a future meeting. • The funding source identified for the alley construction has been ,~, eliminated with the Holter's request to withdraw their petition. • While surveying for this proposed project, staff observed the site and spoke with neighbors regarding the project. Staff has learned that some of the neighbors may ask the Council to not order the project because they, the neighbors, will not benefit from the alley improvement and they currently use the alley for storage and a garden. • Some neighbors are also considering requesting that the Council order the project to be extended to 63rd Street. Mr. and Mrs. Holter cannot be assessed for the remainder of the alley, and it is unlikely that the neighbors can be assessed, because they can argue that they do not benefit. Staff sees no way at this time to fund the alley extension, except for the possibility of using General Fund monies. • Snow plowing has been a concern of staff; however, Richfield's Operations Coordinator has assured staff the alley can be plowed and has no reservations about the project. C. FINANCIAL • Mr. and Mrs. Holter originally requested to pay 100 percent of the costs of the alley improvements, to a maximum dollar amount of $12,758.39 (see attached Petition and Waiver Agreement). • Mr. and Mrs. Holter have since requested to withdraw their petition. • The Holters will be billed for the costs to date. D. LEGAL • Chapter 429 of State Code (the Public Improvement Code) spells out the procedures that the City must follow to accept. a petition, construct the project and assess the costs. Staff has been in frequent contact with the City Attorney to .assure that all legal requirements are being met. • The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ ,t Graphics showing the location of the improvement project. Photographs of the alley right-of-way as it looks today. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • City staff has spoken with adjacent property owners, the landowners of the vacation petition, regarding the Holter-'s request to withdraw the alley construction petition, and expect the owners to voice their concerns related to both petitions at the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLINING THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City received a petition for an Improvement Project consisting of alley construction on approximately 80 feet of 120 feet of platted alley, in the 6300 block between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South, in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, by Council Resolution No. 9165, adopted on April 9, 2002, the City Council accepted the petition and set a public hearing for this date for consideration of the proposed Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, mailed notice was sent to neighbor's three weeks in advance and two notices were published in the Official Newspaper in advance of the hearing. The hearing was held on this date, and all persons wishing to be heard on the Improvement Project were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that the Improvement Project is cost effective and feasible; and WHEREAS, the City has additionally received a petition for the vacation. of the alley from property owners who abut the alley that is proposed to be improved; and WHEREAS, the petitioners for the Improvement Project have withdrawn their petition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Improvement Project for Alley Construction, as described in the feasibility report, is determined not to be necessary and. is hereby declined. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of May, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk FEASIBILITY REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ALLEY CONSTRUCTION Description of proposed improvement project: The project consists of alley construction in the 6300 block between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South in the City of Richfield. The proposed alley improvement would be constructed perpendicular to and north of the existing alley. The City has prepared the plans and specifications for this project. Need for the proposed improvement: Mr. George C. Holter and Mrs. Marilyn S. Holter have requested the proposed improvement by petition. The improvement will provide public access to their property at 6305 Dupont Avenue South. The cost and feasibility of the proposed improvement: The estimated contract cost for the proposed alley improvement is $12,758.39 based on an engineer's estimate. The City of Richfield will assess 100 percent of these charges to the adjacent property owned by petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Holter. The project is necessary, cost effective and feasible and should be constructed as proposed and not in connection with some other improvement. Assessment amount and methodology The amount to be specially assessed is a maximum of $12,758.39, which is 100 percent of the estimated cost. It is proposed that the special assessment be levied for collection with the Holter's real estate taxes beginning in the year 2004. ~'Y PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT . '- _,~f ~~ ~ ° ` ~~~ We are the owners of property located at 6305 Dupont Avenue South in the City of ,:~ ~ Richfield, Minnesota, legally described as: LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 4, RAYS LYNNHURST 2ND ADDN ~-a ~ Our property abuts a platted but unconstructed alley (see attached Exhibit 1). We are proposing that this alley be improved in order to provide access to one of the two lots that we own. The alley we are proposing be improved is identified as "B" in the attached Exhibit 1. Our property is identified as "C" in Efchibit 1. We hereby petition the City of Richfield to assess 100 percent of the cost of the alley improvements to our property. We understand that the costs which we request to be assessed included the following: 35 CUYD COMMON EXCAVATION 127 SQYD SUBGRADE PREPARATION 26 TON AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 108 SQ YD 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 EACH SIGN TYPE SPECIAL 352 SQYD SODDING 1 EACH SOIL BORING for a total amount of $12,758.39. These costs are referred to as "Chazges". We acknowledge and agree that these Charges are valid and legal chazges and that we will be obligated to the City in the amount of .$12,758.39 when the alley :improvements have been completed. We request that 100 percent of the Chazges be levied as a special .assessment against our property for collection with our real estate taxes beginning in the,.yeaz 2004. We understand that we may pay the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days after the council adopts the assessment rolls, without any charge of interest. If we elect not to pay the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days, we understand that we are obligated to make annual installments over the number of years allowed by the council. We also understand that these installments include interest at a rate to be determined by the city council We also understand that state law gives us the right to appeal the levy of special assessments against our property. We hereby waive our right to appeal the levy of special assessments that are levied in accordance with the terms of this Petition and Waiver Agreement.. This waiver is only to the extent of the. estimated costs noted above:in the amount of $12,758.39. We further agree that the payment of the Charges will continue to be our personal obligation until they aze paid and that we will pay any part of the Charges which the City is unable to collect through special assessments Dated: ~ "- .2002 i' ~-s-r - (.,~~ L George C. olter 1Vlarilyn S. H,olter c `~ -,:,:. tea.-..- _ ~.r _ ~,. a', ~~ ''~ _-~ (STATE HWY NO 62) ~~~ `"~~ `: ~. A >= Ezisting Paved Alley s~~.~ . .u: B =Proposed Alley, Subject of Petition C =Two Lots Owned By the Holter's 70 ~ ~ ° ~ s ~ it ' I ~ ! ~ ~, 1a..a. w~.a. A I ~ ~ "FAL EN'S i `^ >' p ~ ~ ~ w E ~ tb1.91 11.9 ~. 'i ~ w s a ~ s ~, (~) ~ ~ ~ Q ~ i ~ ~ 13A.95 YBt.W I ,a..n aaz a~.n ~ ; . •: ' ~3 a 8 ~ (f~ ~ . . 1~M ffi $ ~ '~ ~ , > ~ ~.3 ,aaa. (~~ . g ~ ~ A 19d.~ w . ', : ~:,~.r . ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ g ," ` . ~ :~ s 9 '~ ~ 1 .~ R ~~ - J R ~ s B 63xv sT w ~I ,~ ~~ 13 (~) ~ u r~ ,Z8 1 e (~) ~ X ¢ ~ ,~ ~ ~ s u p ~ ` 128 ~ 178 2 2 ~ o v~ V,~2° U ,78 $ o o~ r~ ~ , L YNNHURST ~ s "• ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ,2b ,~ • _ A ~ s . ao .o ro ro .o ~ , .1o ro ro O \" f ~ aI g : ~ ~ 3 \ o 9 ~ , a (~ e y' R ' a I $ 1013 ' (81) 4 (~ I R /o ff 9 9Z ^ ~~ 0 8 Q ~) a w I `7 ' ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~j . ; ~.'~ " pA IDA ~.~ .- ' / ~e ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~sf :.~ ~~ t..;i+ • ,fin- ,~.:~'~R~. ~~` PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS Y~ To: Richfield City Council • • , We, the undersigned owners of land abutting hereby petition that such public land be vacated by the City of Richfield. 7y, e ,~,~ ~ a, ~{-rug.}-e ~ N~ ~~L. - so„}I, a 11e y ~~ n ih e 6 30~ 6 (oc~ be+~'.ert D.,Pon ~- J ~I~x ~A~ccnue5. ycoa__..a__~_ A riAroec /nJnnm nr;»~ nlonrlvl va av -- ,~ ,~ -~ M ' K_~^_ ~ L~ ~ / ~ / ,.. -y ,` * Signatures may not be removed after the petition is suamntea to the c,try. t~4L4 GIi1C1JUli tiV J. Richfield, Mn. 55423 April 30, 2002 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Av. S. Richfield, Mn. 55423 re: ally improvement 6305-09 Dupont Av. 5. 7o Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned agree to withdraw our request for ally paving at this time because the adjacent property owners have petitioned to vacate the ally which we support on the condition any fence constructed dividing the Dupont property from the Colfax property could be placed on the property line be either property owner or jointly. Geor e~ter 9 Marilyn S. Holter ~,"' ~;. r `` ~' ~~ j i ~.w , ` y; ,~<' r ~4 Ott,: ,,~ ~~~~ yo Ft BDFT 2 a Q s3lto ar /28 ~ . _ ~;_~ ~~ PRo~osE D ~~LEY /28 ~r `ii' s3oo ySFT ~~' (GOL.E MAN s-wY~~4 y;~'>~ s3 p~; 7s~r - p~. 'aw.?i"r.;-~ . ~;. t~i%: 6. (AHRnd~7') ~ ~ ;Y' y"bz~ ' d! fi~ ~ Y~ ht~, y'^t t~~Y 9k , ~^ e+ {~, _ ~ v .., ~' , ~ a 6305 ~'~ i` ~ s ;:- .. ::~ ~F O EXlST!!~! G ALt..E.Y r-n \ - \ t r;~ A~1Y"" a. L c , ~ 'WW _ ~ ~ - ~` M`~REp OR ~s ~=~ - ~. :~. ~,~ _.~~ ~> - ~~ i _ ____._ ______. -- ~, ~ ~~. Figure 1 -Existing Alley -Looking East from Existing Alley -Arrow pointed at Proposed Alley '~ ~ -~;': ,- .. s ,.. ~~ ;w .~~~, f ._ d; ~ ~~~ ^ ~~ J ~ ~t{p ~. _ y yam,- , ..'1J Figure 2 -Proposed Alley -Looking North from Existing Alley -Arrow pointed at Proposed Alley '~' a~ Figure 3 -Proposed Alley -Looking South from 63rd Street West AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT_ AGENDA ITEM # 6D REPORT # 1 ~ 5 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MICHAEL EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIltECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ ~~ .SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~<~~~ , _ „„ ~~ ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider acceptance of bids for the replacement of the roof on the Water Treatment Plant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award bid alternate C to the low bidder, Berwald Roofing Co. in the amount of $206.189.00. II. BACKGROUND The Water Treatment Plant was built in the early 1960's. Since that time the roof has not been replaced except for a small portion that was replaced during the renovation in 1994-1995. The roof has begun to fail with leaks occurring in different areas of the Plant. Patching of the roof has occurred over the years by both staff and outsourcing to roof repair companies. In more recent years the roof has been leaking with more frequency posing possible safety concerns. Over the past two years the Water Department has budgeted $250,000 for the roof replacement. ~'~ The City hired a consultant, Bolten & Menk, Inc., to prepare plans and specification for the replacement of the Water Treatment Plant roof. Plans were prepared in such a manner that the roof could be completed in 3 phases. Each phase would replace about one third of the roof. 0514WTPReRoof The Engineer's estimate for Alternate A was $100,000; Alternate B was $160,000; and Alternate C was $260,000. The bidding requirement provides for three alternates. Alternate A includes Phase 1 or one-third replacement. Alternate B includes Phase 1 and 2 ortwo-thirds replacement. Alternate C includes Phase 1,2 and 3 or replacement of the entire roof. This bidding method allows the City to choose a bid alternate that will fit within its budget. Since the Water Department has budgeted sufficient funds for the replacement of the entire roof, the staff recommends choosing Alternate C. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Berwald Roofing Company, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The roof at the Water Treatment Plant is beginning to fail regularly in recent years and may create potential safety problems. C. FINANCIAL The Water department has budgeted $150,000 in 2001 and an additional $75,000 in 2002 for the replacement of the roof. D. LEGAL • The bid opening, held on April 30, 2002, was in accordance with legal requirements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the bids submitted by Berwald Roofing Company, Inc. is reasonable and responsible. • Council could select a different alternate from the low bidder. Since the Water Department has budgeted sufficient funds, staff recommends Alternate C, replacing the entire roof. 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 April 30, 2002 9:30 a.m. Water Treatment Plant Re-roofing City Project No. 501-30-652 Bid No. 02-05 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Water Treatment Plant Re-roofing, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 17, 2002 and the Construction Bulletin on April 19, 2002. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative George Atkinson, Public Works Representative ,~ The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Bond Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Total Bid Total Bid Total Bid Interstate Roofing & WTP, Inc. Provided $118,304.00 $184,868.00 $292,868.00 Onalaska, WI Industrial Roofing & Sheet Provided $106,050.00 $170,260.00 $273,080.00 Metal, Inc. Minneapolis, MN Nieman Roofing Co, Inc. Provided $96,000.00 $148,000.00 $237,000.00 New Prague, MN Berwald Roofing Co, Inc. Provided $82,831.00 $128,770.00 $206,189.00 N. St. Paul, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 14, 2002 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk BO1._TON 8~. M ~ N K , I NC_ Gonsutting Engineers & Surveyors ~~ 1960 Premier Drive • Mankato, MN .56001-5900 Phone (507) 625-4171 FAX (507) 625-4i 77 May 2, 2002 Jim Olson, P.E., Project Engineer City of Richfield: _ ,.: - 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield; MN 55423 RE; Bid Evaluation for the Water Treatment Plant Re-Rt~ofing Froject City of Richfield, Minnesota - Project No. 501-30-652 Dear Jim: Four (4) bids were received for the Water Treatment Plant Re-Roofing Project. Bids. were taken for three alternates. Alternate A included Phase l; replacement of approximately 9;000: square feet of roofing material.. AlternateB included Phase 1 and 2; replacement of approximately l 4,500 square ,feet of roofing material: Alternate C included Phase 1, 2, and 3; replacement of approximately 24,000 quare feet ofroofing material. The apparent low, responsive and responsible bidder for`each of the alternatives was Berwald Roofing Company, Inc. from North St. Paul, Minnesota. Berwald Roofing has been a roofing contractor for 66 years, and has an excellent reputation. In our opinion, Berwald Roofing has the experience and capabilities to perform the contract work. 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 the range of bids for each alternative, as well as-the Engineers Estimate. The low bid from Berwald Roofing was: below the engineering estimate for each ofthe alternates. We feel that the bids received were competitive andresponsiveand re-bidding ofthe project -would not provide any cost swings. In.our opinion, Berwald Roofing Company, Inc. is experienc.~d 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, for either Alternate A, B or C at the City's discretion. Respectfully submitted, BOLTON & MENK; INC. ~~ on D. Peterson, P:E. .... Project Engineer. ; ~; ,. MANKATO FAIRMONT SLEEPY EYE BURNSVILLE WILLMAR CHASKA a. J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 CONSENT 6C 124 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ALANA T. GETTY, E.LT. NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME; TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for 2002 concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter repair. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept bid minutes/tabulation and award acontract-for 2002 annual curb and gutter, sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete repair to Creative Curb Contractors in the amount of $51,479.00. ~~ III. BACKGROUND Each year the City awards a contract to replace broken and dangerous sidewalk, curb and gutter and other concrete as necessary. This year's contract includes removal, replacement and appurtenant work for concrete sidewalks, paths, curb and gutter, and boulevards at various locations, according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. Because the specifications were written early in the year, it is possible that not all 2002 concrete needs were identified at that time. Therefore, the contract provides for an increase in quantity should additional concrete work be needed. There were six plan holders for the April 30, 2002 bid opening. Three bids were received. 0514SideCurbGutter A map indicating the curb and gutter repair area is not prepared because the work. is performed on a complaint basis and the list of areas is not yet complete. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Each. year the City contracts to replace broken and dangerous sidewalk, curb and gutter and to construct other concrete work as necessary. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The annual street maintenance budget includes funding for replacement of miscellaneous broken and dangerous boulevard sidewalk, curb and gutter. • Funding for the 2002 concrete at park sites are included in the Park Maintenance budget. • Creative Curb submitted the lowest responsible bid. • This firm has previously completed acceptable concrete work for the City of Robbinsdale (reference Rob 763-537-4534) and Valley Paving (reference Ed 952-445-8615). • The engineer's estimate for the contract work was $55,000.00. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available for discussion if there are any questions. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not do the work. However, this contract is an important tool in protecting Richfield residents from injury caused by tripping on damaged sidewalk and slipping on ice built up in gutters. The contract also provides a tool for making minor improvements which benefit Richfield residents. • Award the contract to another bidder. However, staff is not aware of any reason to award a contract to other than the lowest responsible bid. • Direct staff to readvertise the project. However, the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's estimate and staff does not believe lower bids will be received. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation. ~~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 30, 2002 2:00 p.m. 2002 Concrete Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter Repair City Project No. 101-35-603 (Bid No. 02-04) 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 2002 concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter repair, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 3, 2002 and the Construction Bulletin on April 5, 2002. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works .Director Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Base Bid Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. Provided $ 58,692.00 Elko, MN Ti-Zack Concrete Inc. Provided $ 65,325.00 LeCenter, MN Creative Curb Provided $ 51,479.00 Watkins, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 14, 2002 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # ( $ REPORT # 12 3 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADM~INISTI2ATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution recertifying delinquent sewer and water utility assessment to Count Auditor due to hardshi consideration for 6237 L ndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution spreading previously assessed delinquent water utility charges of $10,949.78 over afive- vear aeriod due to hardship considerations for 6237 Lyndale Avenue. .~1 II. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2001 JBI & Associates purchased the former Bradley Extermination building located at 6237 Lyndale Avenue at a cost of $45,000. The building was vacant at the time of purchase, and according to James Schoffman of JBI & Associates, was owned by an individual from California. The owner had acquired the property as part of a court judgement. Apparently, when the property was vacated in late fall 2000 by the previous owner, the heat was shut off. Consequently, the water pipes froze, broke and approximately 1.7 million gallons of water passed through the meter and into the basement of the building before it was discovered by the Richfield Utilities personnel. The leak, coupled with wastewater and storm sewer charges for the property resulted in utility charges of nearly $11,000. That amount was 0514specialassessment subsequently certified to the property taxes in September 2001 along with .current interest due for a total assessment of $12,046.26. ~~ Mr: Schoffman indicates that when he purchased the building he checked with the county for any delinquent utility charges and assessments. He stated that•the delinquent utility charges did not show up. This may have been possible as the purchase of the property and the certification of the delinquent utility charges occurred at approximately the same time. When Mr. Schoffman received the 2002 tax bill for the property, he discovered that he had an assessment of $12,046 due in 2002 along with his current year taxes of $1,377. Mr. Schoffman then contacted Hennepin County and the City to inquire if the assessment could be spread over a period of-years. It is staff's recommendation that if the City Council considers spreading this assessment over a period of time longer than one year, that it be extended to a five year period. Any extension of the time. permitted to pay the assessment should also include additional interest charges for that period of time at a rate of 8%. The 8% is the same interest rate charged for other assessments payable to the City of Richfield. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City is in a position to grant a spread of the assessment of a period of time up to 10 years if the City Council choose to do so. • Delinquent utility bills are typically spread over just one year. • The property owner may submit a letter citing a hardship and request City Council consideration to spread the assessment over a period of several years. • Hennepin County will accommodate. any payment schedule that is submitted by the City Council if a change is approved to the assessment collect period. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The first half property taxes are due on May 15, 2002 so prompt action is needed if a change is approved. C. FINANCIAL • There is no real financial cost to the City since the extended payment schedule is balanced with additional interest charges. • Mr. Schoffman will be charged $150 for the additional work required by City staff to change the assessment. D. LEGAL !°~, • MN Statutes provide authority for the City to make such an assessment for a period not to extend beyond 10 years. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Keep the assessment due within the one-year period originally certified. • Certify the assessment for another period of time either more or less than five years. V. ATTAC~IlVIENTS • Resolution • Letter from James Schoffman, JBI & Associates VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • James Schoffman RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECERTIFICATION 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 property; 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 was prepared in 2001 specifying the amount and a one-year collection period, and was certified against each particular property, including Levy # 15162, Project # 2267 in the amount of $10,949.78 levied against: PID: 27 028 24 22 0070 Address: 6237 Lyndale Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the property owner of 6237 Lyndale Avenue South has. submitted a letter of hardship requesting said assessment be spread over a period of several years, and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that said assessment be respread over a period of five years commencing with payable 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That Levy # 15162, Project # 2267 in the amount of $10,949.78 assessed against PID: 27 028 24 22 0070, 6237 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN be certified to t e ounty u itor. 2. That the above-described assessment be spread over a period of five years at the rate of 8% per annum, commencing with taxes pa able in 2002. 3. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 4. 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 14th day of May, 2002. Martin J. irsch, Mayor ATTEST: ancy ib s, ity Jerk Apri122, 2002 Steve Devich Director of Administrative Services City of Richfeld RE: 6237 Lyndale Avc. So. Richfieed Mtt. Dear Mr. Devich: As per our conversation I am writing to you and the City of Richfield to request that my unusual situation he addrossed regi~,ding Flo prr~perYy tax a~5es~~tent. I purchased the 550 square foot, tiny, vacant building, some time in September 2001. At that time 1 thought I had done due diligence on checking a.ll the details before the closing. When I checked wills the city of Richfield nn the water bill it was only a few lmndred dollars. (Not a big deal) This was a foreclosure by Judgment, (and me, the buyer), nor, (the Judgment creditor) received ally notice of the almost $ 11,000A0 dollars that was beinb assessed to the property taxes. Nor did the city of Richfield water depat•tment ar Iiennepin County property tax could verify during the pending assessment period. I have tto cause to doubt the bill, but it seems very excessive f'or a vacant buildinb. The building is still vacant as of 4-22-02 and it is very hard to lease tier its size. I called the I~ennepitt County tax depattntent and talked with them, and they said only the city that issued the assessment can chan6e the structure of payments. As owner of this vacant, small, and hard to lease buildinb in your city, I plead with you to help me structure a payment plan over the next five years.-This unusual assessment and hardship is a financial burden. Sincerely, -7 ~_. • / ~'• ' ~ ~: - ,.::_- Ja es J. SchvCfintin AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT PREPARED BY: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER/COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: .- NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution at the recommendation of the Richfield Community Human Services Plannin Council RCHSPC re ardin com osition of the RCHSPC. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached resolution at the recommendation of the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) regarding composition, amending and restating Resolution No. 7825 by adding Section 3c., Community representatives may be added to the RCHSPC by a majority vote of the RCHSPC. II. BACKGROUND The RCHSPC was developed in 1991 as a result of the City's relationship to the regional human services planning agency for the purpose of advising the City Council on issues related to human services, acting as a local human service advisory group, and assessing human services issues and needs within the City of Richfield. The membership on the RCHSPC includes representatives from each City Commission and from the following institutions: Richfield Foundation, Richfield Public Schools, Richfield League of Women Voters, Richfield Ministerial Association and Richfield nonpublic schools. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 0514RCHSPC • The Chair of the RCHSPC formed a task force to examine member .-, composition and recommends that, since its inception over 10 years ago, the effectiveness of the RCHSPC would be enhanced with the addition of community representatives. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None. C. FINANCIAL • None. D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could reject the recommendations of the RCHSPC and let the 1991 resolution stand. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. `~ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL REGARDING COMPOSITION; AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION N0.7825 BY ADDING SECTION 3 C., COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES MAY BE ADDED TO THE RCHSPC BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE RCHSPC WHEREAS, the cities of Richfield, Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina have entered into a joint and cooperative agreement for the purpose of conducting regional human services planning efforts; and WHEREAS, the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency requires that a local advisory group be established for the purpose of providing local planning direction to a regional citizens advisory committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has not previously established a commission, committee or other organization which can provide comprehensive human service planning information and data. NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. The Richfield Community Human Services. Planning Council (RCHSPC) is hereby established. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the Council shall be to advise the City Council on issues related to human services. The Council shall serve as a local human service advisory group in specific relation to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency. The Council shall work with City staff, other Boards and Commissions, community organizations, schools and individuals to assess human service issues and needs within the City. Other specific responsibilities include: a. Work with human service liaisons on local planning issues and work plans. b. Serve as community resources to the regional office planning staff. c. Select two individuals from the Council to represent Richfield on the regional citizens advisory board. d. -Form subcommittees to work on specific issues bringing additional members from the community into the planning process as required. e. Serve as liaisons to City Council Section 3. Membership. The Commission shall consist of not less than 11 or more than 15 members. Membership shall be divided into two separate categories, Board and Commission membership and institutional membership. a. Board and Commission Membership. Board and Commission membership shall include one representative from each of the following organizations: the Advisory Board of Health, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Services Commission, the Community Services Commission, the Planning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. b. Institutional Membership. Institutional membership shall include representatives from the Richfield Foundation, the Richfield Public Schools, the Richfield League of Women Voters, the Richfield Ministerial Association and Richfield nonpublic schools. c. Community representatives may be added to the RCHSPC by a majority vote of the RCHSPC. Section 4. Ex-officio Members. Ex-officio members shall include a Richfield City ~ Council Member designated by the City Council, the Richfield City Manager or designate, the Richfield Director of Public Safety or designate and the senior planner from the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency. Section 5. Appointments. a. The City Council shall appoint the Board and Commission members for a three year term or until a replacement appointment is made.. However, a Board or Commission member who, for any reason, ceases to be a member of their corresponding Board or Commission, shall no longer be a member of the RCHSPC. b. Institutional members shall be appointed on an annual basis by the corresponding institution. Notice of appointment shall be provided to the City not later than January 31 of each year, except for appointments to fill vacancies which may be made at any time when an institutional vacancy occurs. Institutional members may serve until a replacement appointment is made. Section 6. Any of the following shall be cause for the office of a member to become vacated. a. Death. b. Failure to serve as demonstrated by failure to attend three regularly scheduled meetings within a calendar year. c. Resignation in writing. d. Removal by the City Council e. For Board and Commission members only, upon termination of appointment to their corresponding Board and Commission. Section 7. Officers. The RCHSPC shall appoint officers as necessary for the conduct of their business. Section 8. Rules of Order. The Council shall establish such rules or procedures necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of their business. . 2002. Passed by the. City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of May, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk