The URL can be used to link to this page

06-11-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of May 28, 2002 PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Miss Richfield Ambassadors 2. Presentation of 29th Annual Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen Award to Virginia Morris and Certificates of Recognition to Sally Parsons and Calvin Millmann 3. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission 4. Acknowledgement of Minnesota Chapter of National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 2002 Allen Anderson Award of Merit presentation to Bruce ~~ Nordquist, HRA Manager in Community Development Department COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance at community meetings • Schedule City Council Worksession regarding property maintenance issues 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 first reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describing bereavement leave ' and scheduling second reading for July 9, 2002 S.R. No. 139 B. Consideration of approval. of agreement between City of Richfield and Richfield Foundation for disbursement of Healthy Youth mini-grant funding received from Minnesota Department of Health in amount of $5,000 S.R. No. 140 C. Consideration of approval of resolution requesting League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to accept participation of Richfield Tourism Promotion Board in insurance trust program S.R. No. 141 D. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2001 removal of diseased trees from private property and setting date of hearing for July 23, 2002 S.R. No. 142 E. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2001 77th Street maintenance and setting date of hearing for July 23, 2002 S.R. No. 143 F. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2001 Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Maintenance and setting date of hearing for July 23, 2002 S.R. No. 144 G. Consideration of approval of resolution proposing to specially assess costs of current services provided within 77th Street project area for January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and setting public hearing for July 23, 2002 S.R. No. 145 ~ H. Consideration of approval of resolution proposing to specially assess costs of current services provided within Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet project area for January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and setting public hearing for July 23, 2002 S.R. No. 146 I. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for public health services for City of Richfield for 2002 S.R. No. 147 J. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Joint Cooperative Agreement between City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs in 2003-2005 S.R. No. 148 K. Consideration of approval of amendment to contract with Gremmer and Associates for planning, architectural and engineering consulting services for Phase Two of Outdoor Pool Renovation Project for design fee equal to 8% of actual construction cost (design fee estimate $104,126) S.R. No. 149 L. Consideration of approval of new multi-animal residential license for 7609 Colfax Avenue, three dogs S.R. No. 150 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Chapter IX of City Code by adding Section 911, Phosphorus Fertilizer Control, and consideration of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 151 Notes: 9. Public hearing regarding modified policies and criteria for awarding business subsidies Staff Report No. 152 Notes: ~~ 10. Public hearing regarding resolutions approving modifications to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, establishing City Bella tax increment financing district within Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and adopting tax increment financing plan Staff Report No. 153 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 11. City Manager's report Notes: 12. 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: 13.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861- 9702. STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 Public Hearings 10 153 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for the City Bella Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan, including related modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution 1) approving modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and, 2) establishing. the City Bella tax increment financing district (a redevelopment district) within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefor. ~ IL BACKGROUND The "City Bella" project completes the comprehensive redevelopment of the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and Gramercy Park Cooperative are the completed elements to date. The proposed City Bella Tax Increment Financing District facilitates the removal of the Lyndale Hardware, Trestman Music, and Checker Auto uses based on a determination of blight, a measurement of the percentage of existing improved lot coverage, and conditions of buildings in accordance with State Statute. The 061102CityBeIITIF engineering firm of SEH and their community planning staff was selected to evaluate the project area. SEH inspected each parcel in the project area, drawing conclusions on the evidence of dilapidation, obsolescence, faulty arrangement and design, excessive land coverage and obsolete layout of uses and buildings and concluded the area is blighted. SEH also evaluated the condition of the buildings with both on-site inspections and a review of City permits and building records to determine defects or a combination of deficiencies in structural elements, light and ventilation, fire protection, ingress, egress, layout and condition of partition walls, that would justify substantial renovation or clearance or have a cost to correct exceeding-an-amount-determined by statute. This evaluation concluded that all buildings are substandard. The new City Bella proposed development will be an integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space elements with pedestrian paths to adjacent existing uses. The housing element contains approximately 169 units, 117 cooperative ownership units, 33 rental apartments, and 14 ownership townhouses. The commercial element has continued to be modified and now consists of approximately 18,000 spare feet on the ground floor of the housing building with the cooperative and apartment units placed directly above them. Surface parking (94 spaces) and structured underground parking (338 spaces) will be provided to maximize green space, yet serve the housing units and commercial customers. Because of the increased retailing, additional parking is also being added. The centralized green space "plaza".with both landscaped and hard surfaced features connects the existing Gramercy Park Cooperative and Lake Shore Drive Condominiums to the finished plaza and City Bella elements. Integral to the plaza is the pedestrian corridor that allows access to Wood Lake Nature Center and to a proposed skyway system to adjacent mixed-use quadrants of the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection. Presently, the City Bella project is part of the Gramercy Tax Increment District. The Gramercy Tax Increment District was formed in 1998 to facilitate the Gramercy-.Park Cooperative and VFW redevelopment project. The seven parcels needed for the. City Bella District and project would be decertified from the Gramercy District to allow the City Bella District to be created. Although these seven parcels are being removed from the Gramercy District, it will not affect the financial obligations in the Gramercy District. The developer, Gramercy Corporation, has already acquired the. largest parcel, Lyndale Hardware, and is negotiating the purchase of the remaining parcels in accordance with the Contract for Private Redevelopment with the HRA. Gramercy has requested public assistance to help offset the cost of the acquisition of the property and related expenses. Other eligible public costs include, but are not limited to, the proposed structured parking. Although there are other eligible public costs, the amount of available tax increment limits the ability to add other costs. The exact amount of TIF and the supporting but-for finding will be considered by the HRA in June. In the attached plan documents, the current assessor's market value for the properties is $2,678,000. The estimated market value of the project upon completion is $55,710,000. The gross tax increment over 25 years is $26.5 million with a present value of $6.9 million. ~~ Appendix D of the attached Tax Increment Plan provides additional detailed cash flow information. In addition, it is recommended that the following sections of the plans be reviewed: Pa a Section Summa 1-1 Subsection J Develo ment Activities in Pro~ect Area 2-1 Subsection 2-3 Statement of Ob~ectives 2-2 Subsection 2-5 Pro a in the Redevelo ment TIF District 2-2 Section 2-6 Classification of the Redevelo ment TIF District 2-5 Subsection 2-9 Sources of Revenue 2-6 Subsection 2-10 Uses of Funds III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The integrated development within_the_City_.Bella Tax.lncrement Financing District furthers the "Lake at Lyndale" downtown master plan with the emphasis on the following key themes: connection to nature; new housing choices; pedestrian pathways; transit access; distinctive and attractive appearance; and commercial opportunity. • The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and Gramercy Corporation requires the consideration of Tax Increment Financing as part of the project approval process. • The City Bella Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan has been prepared and is following a process outlined by law. Attached to the HRA resolution is exhibit A, the Report on Blight Assessment prepared by Michael A. Wozniak of the engineering firm SEH. The report concludes that the City Bella project area is "blighted" in accordance with state law. • Also included is Exhibit B, the Report on Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment by Jason Zemke of SEH. The report concludes that the buildings in the City Bella project area are substandard in accordance with state law. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed City Bella project has been reviewed, approved and then modified over atwo-year period. Is it reasonable to conclude that the project is ready to proceed? Three items of significance have occurred that make a difference: 1) Gramercy Corporation, in cooperation with M&I Bank, purchased Lyndale Hardware in April 2002. A large financial commitment has been made. 2) The 117 unit tower has 80 percent (93 units) reserved. Retail/restaurant interest is also strong. 3) The extent of plan development and level of detail has been elevated to apre-construction level. On this basis, the Planning Commission (in June)-and then City Council (in July) are able to consider the amended Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Final Development Plan. • In addition to Lyndale Hardware, Gramercy has purchase agreements with the Lynch property and Lake Shore Drive Condominium for property within the project area. The agreement with Lake Shore Drive Condominium also includes the understandings related to improvements along the lot line the condominium shares with the project. • Surface and below grade parking has been sized to meet the needs of the proposed uses and will include a parking management agreement to deal with high demand events. A shared parking arrangement with Woodlake Centre and valet parking are two elements of a response to intermittent higher than normal parking volume. • Recent court decisions require the repeating of a statement of fact: Proper, thorough and professional evaluation has occurred in making the findings contained herein. C. FINANCIAL • Ehlers Inc., the HRA's financial consultant, has prepared the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the district. D. LEGAL • The resolutions were prepared by legal counsel and legal counsel has also reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. • The redevelopment and tax increment plans meet the requirements of State law and established procedures within Richfield. • The approval of the plan documents is consistent with the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Gramercy. • An assessment of blight and a determination of building substandardness have been made and the City Bella project area has been determined to be blighted with substandard buildings. This finding has been reviewed by legal counsel. I l V. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S 1 I • Do not approve the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; establishment of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing Plan. • Delay approval of the Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; establishment of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing Plan. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Resolution approving modifications to the redevelopment plan. • Resolution establishing the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District. • City Bella TIF District overview. • Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. • Letter from Hennepin County for the public record. (Hennepin County will be contacted to clarify and report on HRA and City findings and progress concerning affordability, findings of blight and substandardness and but-for determinations for the City Bella project.) PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. • Michael A. Wozniak and Jason Zemke, SEH RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ~~ WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "Authority")did on or about June 14, 1993 originally adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Project Area, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"), and has subsequently modified the same thereafter, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the HRA Act the Authority proposes to modify the Redevelopment Plan, and WHEREAS, the Authority has caused to be prepared a modification to the Redevelopment Plan, and has received the written opinion of the Planning Commission of the City, and WHEREAS, the Authority did, on or about May 20, 2002, following a public hearing on the proposed modifications to the Redevelopment Plan, approve the modifications and make a request that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed modification, all in .accordance with the HRA Act, and WHEREAS, the City Council did on June 11, 2002 based on such reference and following notice as required by law, hold its hearing on the approval of the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: L The City makes the following findings: 1. the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; 2. the modifications to the. redevelopment plan for the redevelopment areas in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of the areas by private enterprise; and 3. the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the .locality as a whole; and 4. `- based on the information contained in Exhibit A and information ..presented. at the hearing .and otherwise known to the council, the portion of the Project Area comprising the proposed City Bella Tax Increment Financing District is blighted within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028. JBD-214426v1 RC 125-209 I1. The City Council hereby approves the proposed modifications to the Redevelopment Plan, and makes all of the findings stated therein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk JBD-214426v1 RC 125-209 EXHIBIT A Report on Blight Assessment City Bella Planning Area Prepared by: Michael A. Wozniak, AICP -SEH Project Manager/Senior Planner -May 14, 2002 The City Bella Planning Area is comprised of seven properties bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 66~' Street and Lake Shore Drive. This report examines whether the City Bella Planning Area meets the following defmition for "Blighted Area" according to Chapter 469 of Minnesota Statutes: "Blighted area (contains) buildings or improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community" TABLE A. __~_ _ _~ ,. ,.,~a-,.....e....Prho!`;t., Rolf Alannino Araa F1'Al1P.l"r1P.S 1 ILTT J, V Ci Bella Site PID #'s . - -_ ___~ ~__ Owner Site Address 2702824320115 S&M Com an 6620 L ndale Avenue S 2702824320005 Sharon Trestman 6630 L ndale Avenue S 2702824320006 Tri le S Investments 6700 L dale Avenue S 2702824320 1 1 7 Richfield HRA 709 Graham Avenue 2802824410017 Richfield HRA 6639 Lake Shore Drive 2802824410015 DW L nch ET AL 6617 Lake Shore Drive 2802824410016 Lake Shore Condo Association 6633 Lake Shore Drive The above referenced properties have also been reviewed by SEH to determine if building(s) situated on four parcels within the study area are structurally substandard under tax increment law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10). Assessment for structural substandard conditions has resulted in fmdings that buildings situated at 6620, 6630 and 6700 Lyndale Avenue S and 6617 Lake Shore Drive meet the statutory defmition. The presence of these structural substandard conditions on all four buildings located within the planning area provide in conjunction with conditions of "blight" described below, a strong basis for fmding that the City Bella Planning Area conforms to the statutory definition fora "blighted area". SEH Project Staff have ranked the presence of the various criteria that are included under the defmition of blight (see Table B) for each of the properties within the City Bella Planning Area. Judgements have been made by the project consultant as to whether "strong", "moderate", or "slight or no" evidence of each criteria are present on the subject properties. The context for this evaluation also acknowledges that the City went through a downtown planning process that in 1999 yielded the "Lakes of Lyndale" Master Plan as a guide for downtown development planning that has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Narrative Analysis of Conditions of Blight for Individual City Bella Planning Area Properties: 6620 Lyndale Avenue S: Current Use: This property includes the former Lyndale Hardware building (currently vacant) and associated parking. Zonin : C-2 (General Commercial) Comprehensive Plan:. Community Commercial ~~ 1 EXHIBIT A Presence of B1iQht Several of the criteria identified in the statutory defmition for "blighted area" are evident on this property. These include dilapidation, obsolescence, faulty arrangement or design, excessive land coverage, and obsolete layout. The location of the entrance to the building and adjacent pazking aze turned away from the intersection. The doorway placement to the northwest and south causes dysfunctional retailing. In the eazly 1980's this pazking and entrance configuration was implemented to retain the business and building. The improvements did not overcome the dysfunction. Both the exterior and interior of the building on this property reflect conditions in need of renovation and repair. Exterior problems or issues include poor roof drainage and need for repair or replacement of exterior materials (i.e. wood siding/fencing). Interior issues more obviously reflect dilapidation, obsolescence and faulty arrangement or design as a retailing building. Issues include the peculiaz configuration of interior space including various mezzanine level spaces and second floor office spaces. Over time the building has been divided up in an unusual manner to satisfy various tenants resulting in a hodge-podge assortment of office, showroom and storage spaces that would be difficult to renovate for contemporary business uses. The general condition of interior spaces suggests that extensive renovation would be necessary to make interior spaces habitable and desirable for new business uses. 6630 Lyndale Aveuue S: Current Use: This property includes a building that houses Trestman Music and New Millennium Comic Books. Zonin C-2 (General Commercial) Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial Presence of Blieht Several of the criteria identified in the statutory definition for "blighted azea" are evident on this property. These include dilapidation, obsolescence, faulty arrangement or design, excessive land coverage, and obsolete layout. The most obvious criteria resulting in conditions of blight related to this property relates to site pazking and access/egress issues. This triangulaz shaped property is bordered by poorly defined public right-of--way on its north and south sides. Currently site parking for Trestman Music and New Millennium Comic Books occurs along the sides of the building encroaching into the respective public right-of--ways. In addition diagonal site parking is present in front of the building abutting the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way. The diagonal parking does not work as designed to provide both a pedestrian pathway and a parking area. The . attempt in the eazly 1980's, to retool businesses and buildings with improved sidewalks did not overcome the dysfunction. This results in functional, safety and aesthetic problems. This pazking arrangement allows vehicles to overhang onto a narrow sidewalk, leaves virtually no room for snow storage and makes for awkwazd turning movement for lazger passenger vehicles. The poorly. defined parking and pedestrian walks serving the site reflect blight in respect to appeazance, safety and functioning of site for vehicular and pedestrian movement. These pazking and pedestrian walk deficiencies reflect "faulty arrangement or design" and "obsolete layout" criteria in the statutory definition for "blighted areas". Another issue of concern regazding future use and redevelopment potential for this property relates to the presence of a skewed intersection at both Circle Place and Graham Avenue. A major site access point is .- ~ provided at a signalized intersection that aligns with a segment of 6T" Street situated east of Lyndale. The public right-of--way Graham Avenue that provides access for 6630 Lyndale and 6700 Lyndale is skewed creating a somewhat awkward intersection. Removal of the building situated at 6700 Lyndale would be 2 EXHIBIT A required to align the intersection to create a more functionally efficient alignment that would facilitate safer turning movements. Circle Place, a skewed connection north of the building is not signalized and leads into the dysfunctional parking spaces near the building. 6700 Lyndale Avenue S: Current Use: This property includes a building that houses Checker Auto Parts and a Cellulaz/PCS Phone Shop. Zonin : C-1 (General Commercial) Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial Presence of Blisht: Several of the criteria identified in the statutory definition for "blighted area" aze evident on this property. These include dilapidation, obsolescence, faulty arrangement or design, excessive land coverage, and obsolete layout. The most obvious criteria resulting in conditions of blight related to this property relates to site parking and access/egress issues. This property is bordered by poorly defined public right-of--way on its north and east sides. Currently site parking for Checker Auto occurs along the sides of the building encroaching into the respective public right-of--ways. In addition diagonal site parking is present in front of the building abutting the Lyndale Avenue right-of--way. The diagonal parking results in functional, safety and aesthetic problems. Again, the attempt in the 1980's to retain existing businesses and the building and improve the pedestrian pathways and pazking patterns did not overcome the dysfunction. This pazking arrangement allows vehicles to overhang onto a narrow sidewalk, leaves virtually no room for snow storage and makes for awkwazd turning movement for larger passenger vehicles. The poorly defined parking and pedestrian walks serving the site reflect blight in respect to appearance, safety and functioning of site for vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. These parking and pedestrian walk deficiencies reflect "faulty arrangement or design" and "obsolete layout" criteria in the statutory definition for "blighted azeas". Another issue of concern regarding future use and redevelopment potential for this property relates to the presence of a skewed intersection. A major site access point is provided at a signalized intersection that aligns with a segment of 67s' Street situated east of Lyndale. The public right-of--way Graham Avenue that provides access for 6630. Lyndale and 6700 Lyndale is skewed creating a somewhat awkwazd intersection. Removal of the building situated at 6700 Lyndale would be required to align the intersection and to create a more functionally efficient alignment that would facilitate safer turning movements. This intersection in the context of blight assessment reflects "faulty arrangement or design" and obsolete layout. 709 Graham Avenue: Current Use: This property includes. a pazking lot that serves the Grammercy Pazk Cooperative Housing Project. Zonins: R (Single Family Residential) -- Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial Presence of Blieht: This property would generally not represent a blighting influence on the study azea or surrounding neighborhood. Excess black dirt has been stockpile on a portion of the site and the stockpiled material is somewhat overgrown with weeds. These aze temporary conditions and aze anticipated to be remedied upon completion of the pazking lot construction. 3 EXHIBIT A 6617 Lake Shore Drive: Current Use: This property is occupied by a single family home. Zonin : R (Single Family Residential) Comprehensive Plan: Multi Residential -High Density Presence of Bliel-t: The current use of this property as a single family home is inconsistent with abutting high-density residential development. The convoluted vehicular access to the property by means of an alley that extends from Graham Avenue (the parking area behind the Grammercy Park Cooperative Housing Development meets the blight criteria of "faulty arrangement or design" and/or "obsolete layout". The exterior of the 1950 Cape Code Style Home reflects a need for normal ongoing maintenance however; no major structural or aesthetic problems with the home are obvious as viewed from the perimeter of the property. A variety of code deficiencies were observed in conjunction with the "structural substandard" assessment conducted on the property. This property was found to meet the statutory defmition of a "structurally substandard" building. 6633 Lake Shore Drive: Current Use: This property is currently vacant Zonin : R (Single Family Residential) Comprehensive Plan: Multi Residential -High Density Presence of Blight: This property does not represent a blighting influence on the study area or neighborhood since it is currently vacant. 6639 Lake Shore Drive: Current Use: This property is currently vacant Zonin : R (Single Family Residential) Comprehensive Plan: Multi Residential -High Density Presence of Blight: This property does not represent a blighting influence on the study area or neighborhood since it is currently vacant. Summary Findings -City Bella Study Area -Blight Assessment: Assessment of the City Bella Study Area to evaluate the presence of "blight" as defined under Minnesota Statutes requires an in-depth examination of each property as detailed above as well as consideration of the context of the surrounding area. The Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan to redevelop the 66`~ and Lyndale Area to create a "Downtown" Richfield and associated redevelopment that has occurred to date is transforming this area into ahigh-intensity mixed use district. Extraordinary redevelopment opportunities with commensurately high redevelopment costs for site preparation and infrastructure needs result directly from current public policy and community expectations for the area. In this context properties within the City Bella Planning Area are not consistent with current land use and aesthetic standards for redevelopment of the area. Conclusion: Numerous criteria for blight are evident in varying degrees on several of the parcels of property within the '~ City Bella Planning Area. These include dilapidation, obsolescence, faulty arrangement or design, excessive land coverage, and obsolete layout. Presence of these various blight criteria in addition to 4 EXHIBIT A - structural substandazd conditions identified on all four buildings located within the planning azea provide a strong basis for fmding that the City Bella Planning Area conforms to the statutory defmition for a "blighted azea". The most evident criteria included in the statutory defmition for "blighted azea" within the City Bella Planning Area aze faulty arrangement or design and obsolete layout. Inadequate parking and awkward or unsafe access driveways represent the most obvious blighting influence within the City Bella Planning Area. Outdated interior and exterior conditions of site structures combined with legitimate health and safety issues and code deficiencies resulting in a fmding of structural substandazd conditions for several buildings strengthen the case for the fmding that the City Bella Planning Area conforms to the statutory definition fora "blighted area". 5 ;no~(e! a;alospo asn pue! snol~a;alap a6eaanoa pue! anlssaaxa sal;!Ilse; tie;lues;o tae! 346iI bo ~loel uol;ell;uan;o tae! 6lsap~s;uawa6ue~e dine; 6uipnnaa~ano a~uasaiospo uol~epldel!p d `~ ~ ~ ` m ` m `° m o d ~ ~ ~ c c c u> ~ ~ O E E E ~ p U ~ p U ' ° E L Q V Q V Q V > > ~ Q V 0 > Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ _d ~ _~ R d ~ C G -p C '~ C 'p C l6 L N Y N Y N Y ~ ~' J J J ~ ~ J J ~ J M ~ a O N ~ O M o O O o O ° O M ~ I r- o M ~ ~ J :? M W Y O N O Z l6 3 m ~ ~ a N E _0 y ~ ~ y O ~ F- Q w d i m ci ci o n •~ 0 N Z C ~ ~ ~ r C C 7 ~ N Li m J C Q ~ C N !6 ijJ C ~ E ,~ c c c c c c c ~ Q V ° H U °c °c °c °c o ~ o ~ ~ Q ~ N c U U o - 0 C ~ w c w Q o G O "- o ~ c •c ~ •= Q ~ ~ ~ ~ c a i ~ ~ m y aNi ~ ~ ¢ w V v ~ ' W W cn W ~, ~ = = t m •> w o o z o Y ~ ~ J ~ C ~ ~ ~ L U L U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ _~ > > m O O fA fn 1- _ ~ _ ~ O J fn ~ fn ~ f/l ~A ~ CO t~ I~ ~ <O O O O O O V 0 ~ a O N M N N O N ~ ~ ~ -o p~ ~ ~ ' V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N m Q y N N N N N N N ~ n W = 1p 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ti 0 h 0 O 0 O 0 O - y d N N N N N N N • N m Q m f a W ~ 0 4 - v a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed by the HRA that the City establish the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the "Plan"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, 469.174 to 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The HRA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plan and have caused the Plan to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plan, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plan, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plan and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff or by consultants retained by the City or the HRA and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plan. Included among the Reports is a report prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. ("SEH"), entitled "City of Richfield, Redevelopment Assessment Proposed `City Bella' Redevelopment Area" attached hereto as Exhibit B, which report was further supplemented by testimony at the public hearing by Jason P. Zemke of SEH. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plan. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plan, as is intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to .provide an impetus for development, serve a ~~~ public purpose and. accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of City Bella Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1). 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, .attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.04. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. 3.05. The Council finds that the Plan contains the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, § 469.175 subdivision 1. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The adoption of the Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to redevelop an area of the City that qualifies for treatment as a Redevelopment District under the Act, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plan. 5.01. The Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Community. Development. Director. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation. of the Plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. ~~ 5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin. County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the _ amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Community Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ,~ EXHIBIT A ` The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for City Bella Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that City Bella Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of seven parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for mixed-use housing and retail purposes. Parcels that make up at least 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures, and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF plan, and Exhibit B to this Resolution). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of City Bella Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The area to be included in the district has not been significantly upgraded or renovated for many years. The only significant new construction activity in the area within the past quarter century was accomplished only because public assistance was made available. The proposed development, which includes retail, commercial and housing calls for the acquisition of all of the land in the District, the demolition of all improvements, and the comprehensive redevelopment of the entire area. Site assembly costs, including the need to purchase buildings and other improvements only to demolish them before redevelopment can take place, and to remediate pollution that has been found on the site, would understandably seem to prevent the proposed development to take place through private investment. Because the parcels within the proposed district are in multiple ownerships, it is unlikely that assembly could take place without the ability to compel sale, unless a premium were paid for the land. The developer is also being asked to provide an affordable housing component to the development. Absent public assistance, private investors would likely not elect to participate in such a program. These conclusions are reinforced by the analysis prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., and by a letter provided by the developer and a pro forma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see Appendix G). The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present __ value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: On the basis of what has been stated above, the City finds it unlikely that any new development impacting market values will take place in the district. The only significant potential for new development in the area would be on the two completely vacant parcels, in any event, it is the Council's finding that no development or combination of developments with a market value of greater than $43,757,412 (based on Appendix D to the TIF Plan) would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for City Bella Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The. Planning Commission reviewed the Plan and found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for City Bella Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. No significant redevelopment has occurred within the area of the district within the past 25 years without public assistance. Consequently, it is the determination of the City that absent the assistance authorized by the Plan, no development or redevelopment of the area by private enterprise can be reasonably anticipated. The Council, also finds that the implementation of the Plan through the construction of the proposed development will increase the availability of safe and decent life-cycle housing in the City, will increase the tax base, will add a high quality mixed-use development to the City, will eliminate or prevent the spread of blight, and will remove and replace substandard structures and other conditions in furtherance of the objectives for which the District is being created EXHIBIT B Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment Proposed "City Bella" Redevelopment Area Richfield, MN Apri118, 2002 Prepared by: Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) Butler Square Building, Suite 710C 100 North 6t" Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 '~. SEH No. A-RICHF0103.00 City of Richfield City Bella Redevelopment Eligibility Assessments April 18, 2002 PURPOSE Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) was hired by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA}, Richfield, Minnesota., to survey and evaluate the properties within the proposed "City Bella" Tax Increment Financing District. The proposed district is generally bounded by East 66~` St., Lyndale Ave. South, and Lake Shore Drive. The purpose of our work was to independently ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, as required under Minnesota Statute, could be met. The findings and conclusions drawn herein aze solely for the purpose of tax increment eligibility and are not intended to be used outside the scope of this assessment. SCOPE OF WORK The proposed district consists of 7 property pazcels comprised of the following types of improvements: 1 single family dwelling, 3 commercial structures, 1 parcel with only parking improvements and 2 vacant pazcels without any improvements. EVALUATIONS Of the four (4) buildings in the proposed district, the interior public spaces of two (2) buildings and the entire interior of a third building were evaluated. One (1) building, the single family residential building, was available for exterior evaluation only. See attached "Documentation of Contacts/Evaluations". FINDINGS Coverage Test -Five (5) of the seven (7) properties met the coverage test with a 78% area coverage. This exceeds the 70% area coverage requirement. Condition of Buildings Test -One hundred (100) percent of the buildings - 4 of the 4 buildings -were found to be "structurally substandard" when considering code deficiencies and other deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance (see definition of "structurally substandard" as follows). This exceeds the Condition of Buildings Test whereby over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard." CONCLUSION Our surveying and evaluating of the properties within thisproposed Redevelopment District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eligible under the statutory criteria and formulas for Tax Increment Financing District Funding. 2 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Summary report detailing the above findings, including proposed redevelopment area map(s) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) which states: Interior Inspection - "The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." Exterior Inspection and Other Means - "An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality fmds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property; and after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." Documentation - "Written documentation of the building findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3, clause (1)." Refer to Exhibit A -Documentation of Contacts/Evaluations, immediately following page 9 of this report. PROCEDURES. FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS The Richfield HRA sent letters to all property owners located in the district requesting that an inspection and evaluation be made of their property. SEH conducted assessments on February 14, 2002. See attached "Documentation of ContactslEvaluations". Requests for evaluation appointments-were made with the building owner or building tenants. An interior inspection and evaluation was completed at 6620 Lyndale Ave. S. after consented to by the owner. At 6700 and 6630 Lyndale Ave. S., interior evaluations were limited to public areas where interior access was denied or not made available. An exterior inspection and evaluation was made at 6617 Lake Shore Drive, where the owner refused interior access to their property. In all cases, an exterior evaluation was completed. For all subject buildings, Richfield HRA provided copies of all available building permits on record for review by SEH. These permits provide a basic description of type of work completed for each permit (Building, Electrical, or Plumbing, scope of work) and; in some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Copies of recent Fire Inspection Reports were also provided for 6620 and 6630 Lyndale Ave. S. These reports identify Fire Code violations and deficiencies in the building, as observed at the time of the report. In some cases, completed and approved corrections are noted on the reports. ,,,.~ Additional building data was collected from public taxpayer information available from Hennepin County. Building data from these public records was combined with and reviewed against information gathered in the field. 3 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The properties were surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, required under the following Minnesota Statutes, could be met. Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied pazcels: 1. Coverage Test - "pazcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district aze occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel pazking lots or similaz structures ..." Note: The coverage required by the pazcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (e) which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similaz structures unless 15% of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similaz structures." 2. Condition of Buildings Test - " ...and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or cleazance;" The term `structurally substandazd', as used in the preceding pazagraph, is defined by a two-step test: Step One: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), a building is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities; light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress; layout and condition of interior partitions, or similaz factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Step Two: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) .also provides that a building may not be considered structurally substandard if it: "... is in compliance with .building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site." Based on the above requirements, the substandard determination of a particulaz building is a two-step process; therefore, the findings of each step aze independent of each other and both steps must be satisfied in order for a building to be found structurally substandazd. It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally ~, substandazd solely because Step 2 is satisfied. It is theoretically possible for a 4 building to require extensive renovation in order to meet current building codes but still not meet the main test of Step 1. Furthermore, deficiencies included in Step 1 may or may not include specific code deficiencies as listed in Step 2. In many cases, specific building code deficiencies may well contribute to the data which supports satisfying Step 1; conversely, it is certainly possible that identified hazards or other deficiencies which could be included in Step 1 do not necessarily constitute current building code deficiencies. By definition, the nature of the two steps. is slightly different. Step 1 is more subjective, whereas Step 2 is an objective test. Step 1 deficiencies aze less technical and not necessarily measurable to the same extent of the code deficiencies in Step 2. To the end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the satisfaction of the less technical Step 1, the following code requirements aze defined in terms that go beyond the technical requirements of the code and demonstrate their relevance in terms of " ...deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, etc. Uniform Building Code (UBC): The purpose of the UBC is to provide minimum standazds to safeguazd life or limb, health, property and.public welfaze by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures (UBC 101.2). A deficiency in the building code (insufficient number of building exits, insufficient door landing area, etc.) adversely affects one or more of the above standards to safeguard `life or limb ...and public welfaze'; therefore, a deficiency in the building code is considered a deficiency. in one or more ".essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, etc.". Minnesota Accessibility Code. Chanter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements for accessibility all building occupancies. The Minnesota Accessibility Code closely follows the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which sets the guidelines for accessibility to places of public accommodations and commercial facilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a federal anti-discrimination statute designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same opportunities that aze available to persons without disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essentially, a deficiency in the accessibility code (lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of cleazance at a toilet fixture, etc.) results in a discrimination against disabled individuals; therefore, a deficiency in the accessibility code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". Minnesota Food Code Chapter 4626: This chapter is enforced by the Minnesota Department of Health and is similaz to the UBC in that it provides minimum standazds to safeguazd public health in areas of public/commercial food prepazation. A deficiency in the food code (lack ofnon-absorbent wall or ceiling finishes, lack of hand sink, etc.) causes a condition for potential contamination of s food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". National Electric Code (NECI: The purpose of the NEC is the practical safeguazding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. The NEC contains provisions that aze considered necessary for safety (NEC 90-1 (a) and (b)). A deficiency in the electric code (insufficient electrical service capacity, improper wiring, etc.) causes a hazard from the use of electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". Uniform Mechanical Code (UMCI: The purpose of the UMC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfaze by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of materials, location,, operation, and maintenance or use of heating, ventilating, cooling, and other appliances (UMC 102). The UMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation, exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number of complete clean air exchanges for a building based on its occupancy type and occupant load. A deficiency in the mechanical code adversely affects the `health ...and public welfaze' of a building's occupants; therefore, a deficiency in the mechanical code is considered a deficiency in "light and ventilation". Note: The above list represents some of the more common potential code deficiencies considered in the assessment of the buildings in the proposed district. This list does not necessarily include every factor included in the data used to satisfy Step l .for a particulaz building. Refer to individual building reports for specific findings. Finally, the tax increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under Step 2 on the basis of "reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of . plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similaz reliable evidence. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence." MEASUREMENTS. AGAINST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS .Coverage Test SEH utilized a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) database, available through Hennepin County, to obtain individual parcel information. The GIS database contains both graphic information (pazcel shapes) and numerical data based on county tax records. `> ` This information was used by SEH for the purposes of this assessment. 6 The total square foot area of each property pazcel was obtained from county records (GIS) and general site verification. The total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recent aerial photography (Spring, 2000). The total squaze footage of site improvements was then digitally measured and confirmed by general site verification. The total percentage of coverage of each property parcel was computed to determine if the 15% requirement was met. Refer to attached maps: Impervious Surfaces map and Percent Impervious by Parcel map. The total azea of all qualifying property pazcels was compazed to the total azea of all _ parcels to determine if the 70% requirement was met. The azea occupied by public rights-of--way has not been considered in the coverage test calculations. All of the public rights-of--way are improved with the exception of Lake View Walk (directly east of pazcel #5). If all of the public rights-of--way were treated as a pazcel for the purpose of coverage test calculations, the 70% requirement of the .coverage test would still be met. Condition of Building Test Replacement Cost -the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on site: R. S. Means Square Foot Costs (2002) was used as the industry standazd for base cost calculations. R. S. Means is a nationally published reference tool for construction cost data: The book is updated yeazly and establishes a "national ' average" for materials and labor prices for all types of building construction. The base costs derived from R. S. Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable, against our professional judgement and experience. A base cost was calculated by first establishing building type, building construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to obtain the appropriate Means cost per square foot. This cost was multiplied times the building square footage to obtain the total replacement cost for an individual building. Using R. S. Means, consideration is made for building occupancy, building size, and construction type; therefore, the cost per square foot used to construct a new structure will vary accordingly. Building Deficiencies• Step 1 (Systems Condition Deficiencies) -determining the combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or cleazance. On-Site evaluations -Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. Deficiencies in structural elements, essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similaz factors, were noted by .the evaluator. Systems Condition Deficiencies may or may not include Code Deficiencies as defined below. Energy code compliance was not considered for the purposes of determining Systems Condition Deficiencies. Deficiencies were combined and summarized for each building in order to determine their total significance. Building Deficiencies• Sten_(Code Deficiencies) -determining technical conditions that are not in compliance with current building code applicable to new buildings and the cost to correct the deficiencies: On-Site evaluations -Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. On-site evaluations were completed using a standard checklist format. The standazd checklist was derived from several standard building code plan review checklists and was intended to address the most common, easily identifiable code deficiencies. Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and Building Code Officials were also consulted in the development of the checklist. Deficiencies were generally grouped into the following categories (category names are followed by its applicable building code):. Building accessibility -Minnesota Accessibility Code Building egress, building construction -Uniform Building Code .Fire protection systems -Uniform Building Code Food service -Minnesota Food Code HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) -Uniform Mechanical Code Electrical systems -National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy Code Energy code compliance -Minnesota Energy Code Energy code compliance is relevant in determining Step 2 (Code Deficiencies) because its criteria affect the design of integral parts of a majority of a building's systems. The intent of these criteria is to provide a means for assuring building durability, and permitting energy efficient operation (7676.0100). The energy code addresses general building construction (all forms of energy transmission in an exterior building envelope -walls, roofs, doors and windows, etc.) and energy usage by lighting and mechanical systems. A deficiency in the energy code (inadequate insulation, non-insulated window systems, improper air infiltration protection, etc.) reduces energy efficient operation and adversely affects building system durability; therefore, a deficiency in the energy code is considered to contribute to a condition requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Office evaluations -Following the on-site evaluation, each building was then reviewed, based on on-site data, age of construction, building usage and occupancy, square footage, and known improvements (from building permit data), and an assessment was made regarding compliance with current mechanical, a electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also completed regarding the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways, for example), sprinkler systems, or elevators. Deficiency Cost -Costs to correct identified deficiencies were determined by using R. S. Means Cost Data and our professional judgement and experience. In general, where several items of varying quality were available for selection to correct a deficiency, an item of average cost was used, as appropriate for typical commercial or residential applications. Actual construction costs are affected by many factors (bidding climate, size of project, etc.). Due to the nature of this assessment, we were only able to generalize the scope of work for each correction; that is to say that detailed plans, quantities, and qualities of materials were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to determine a preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that is known. This process was similar to our typical approach for a cost projection that may be given to an owner during a schematic design stage of a project. Costs to correct deficiencies were computed for each building and compared to the building replacement cost to determine if the 15% requirement was met. The total number of buildings determined to be "structurally substandard" by satisfying both Step 1 and Step 2 in this manner was compared to the total number of buildings in the district to determine if the 50% requirement was met. Reports on Structurally Substandard Buildings and Individual Building Summary Reports are available for review at the offices of SEH, City of Richfield,. and Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Technical Conditions Resources -the following list represents the current building codes applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency review. The following have been adopted by Richfield. City Code 400.01 (Rev. 1999): 1998 Minnesota State Building Code 1997 Uniform Building Code 1997 Uniform Housing Code MN 1341 -Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341 (1999) 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676 1999 National Electric Code 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code PROJECT TEAM: Jason P. Zemke, AIA, Project Architect Nancy G. Schultz, AIA, Principal ~, ~1 a oz m oO _ x w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W m F' ~ w ~ 0 N C O U N C ^ ~ N O f6 U O O O O O O H O ~ U LL to O ~ C 6 ~ L .O a' N C U ~ N ~+ to C r Q O N CE O ' ' U ' ~ E ~, O ' C ~ ~ ~ v- 0 cII cC ' ° O T U C = C <n ~ N O o ~ L > o ~ W p N o ~ to E L c . : N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v C 3 2 7 s- N 7 c6 L t 'O O y 0 ' ~ W ~~ N> y O C ~ Y N~ V~ to j~ ~ ~ o N ~~ ~ L ~ N~ ~~ ~ N p V N 0 U N a> Q ~~ ~ ~ ..., > ~ p W :t. ~i °~ N L O p C 4-- O O= ~ ~~ ~ fn ~ ~ ~ L .L O L N U cC y-' N N O L V Q~ L L W Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~"~ N--~ (Q 0 M ~ ~ W W c a O ~ ~ ~ U L ~ ~ Q~ 1 V > ~ ~ ~ L ~ T ON N QN O C ~'L~N ~~ U ~ ~ O O o o~ 0 3 a~ a> w v o o °~ a`~i o a~i .° ~ L '~= C N "- N to ~= C O N "'' ~ N ~ ~ .""-.~ =' V W U o -a Q U~ O~ U N~ N C~6 co -p t 6 U - '~ J ~ ' E~ ~ -Q C° 1 ~ 1 C C 7 N Q ~ N N~ N N C p U N N~ N~ ~? ~ N N O V~ N o y U O ~n Q ~ a ~ ~ 2 c n Q~ °' o ~ ~ in Q ~ ~ ~ F- Z O ~ Q O N ci3 U ~ ~ W ~ N N U cII ~ a ~ N O . cn O N N N U~ cC U ~ >+ O ~ N .Q U S N W W ~ y Z o ~ Q U U a ~ ~ -~ Z o ~ a m O o, c n o w = ~ J F- a Z Z ~ o ~ s ~ o o= ° E- w O ~ cn ~ Q - z ~ a a U y c l - a~ Q c ~, Z W w d Q. N N W ~ ~ o ~ W Z ~ U Q ~ ~ W U ~ fn >, Z Q J C ( nom ~ L J w w c 6 Q g _ m z cn t~ ~- o ~ m LL ~ ~ ~ N M 1~ Q U A N O O Z O H Z W O ~ ~ CWC Q C W V~f Q m ~„~ Z N W (~ ~ ~ O m W W Q ~ W Q ~ 0 W W Um~Z }x FW-F=U Vf U ~ Z 0 ~a J W O Q Z ~k Q F- N m N ~ C9 J Z H ~ O~ ~m ~~ ~z >a O ~ V~ W C7 W ~+ ' w 0 v V W ~"' W W ~ V Q W W _H N F- Z W OW w~ a0 ~~ a W Q Z J LL a W ~ ~` ;il' (; 0 7 ri ~. ` ~!;' o' TM;; „r;i ~+,; itl ,,,i u 1., ~',~IP;I'~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD Hennepin County REDEVELOPED ELIGIBILITY Coordinate System (ft) A55E55MENT 125 Feet BUILDING A55ESSMENT Legend O Parcel Boundaries Project Boundary Building Assessment Category oCategory 1 -Substandard Building OCategory 2 -Non-substandard Building Source: Hennepin County, LOGIS, and SEH. REDEVELOPED ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES `i/ Hennepin County Coordinate System (ft) 125 Feet Legend D Parcel Boundaries Project Boundary Impervious Class I~res No Yes Source: Hennepin County, LOGIS, and SEH. 06/05/2002 bd 1 ,. _,i° e~ ., - ~ ~I A ~.. 4rV:: .f ~• ~ ~~ , ' i ~ r •~ • .R i ~ ' V ` ~'h~. kb .. S `8k {~ ~. ~x ~~ w~s' .4a~"1~;j ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ V ~~ ~. ~~~•: M ,~ ~~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPED ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS BY PARCEL e Hennepin County Coordinate System (ft) 125 Feet Legend O Parcel Boundaries -Project Boundary Impervious Land by Parcel ®0% Developed O 1 - 15% Developed ~> 15% Developed IA Source: Hennepin County, LOGIS, and SEH. 06/05/2002 bd ~~ 1 EXAMPLE OF ONE COMPLETE INSPECTION (others on file andavailable) Report on Structurally Substandard Building Building IDBusiness Name/Address: S & M Comaanv 1-1•l Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N): 1' Step One Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fine protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance" The above building, based upon actual exterior and interior inspection and review of building permit records, meets the above-referenced definition of structurally substandard for the following reasons: Structural Elements • Severe moisture penetration and deterioration to basement (concrete masonry unit) walls Essential Utilities & Facilities • New elevator required for second floor office area due to occupant load Deficient in facilities for disabled: no van accessible parking available; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible hardware at interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet rooms New drinking fountain required due to occupant load Toilet fixtures without adjacent non-absorbent wall surfaces Light & Ventilation • Deficient in meeting Mechanical Code: for building construction prior.to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges Fire Protection/Egress • Sprinkler head modification required in several areas • New egress stairway required for salon/tanning store basement • Building has dead-end corridor exceeding 20' length Inadequate headroom (less than 7'-0") at mezzanine • Deficient exterior stairway: additional handrails required; deficient handrail extensions; • Deficient exterior door: deficient landing (short) • Deficient interior stairway: insufficient stairway width; deficient rise/run; deficient landing (short); additional handrails required; deficient handrail height, grip, terminations, and extensions; deficient guardrail construction Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions • Approximately 50% of interior finishes (lights, floor tile, carpet, ceiling tile) in need of replacement • Inefficient office/administration area on second floor; large area on main floor, but is inefficient and unappealing compared to new, modern retail layout; `front' door not clearly defined; backroom/storage area is relatively small and divided into several areas Similar Factors • Exterior wood fascia needs repair and paint in several areas -. Step Two Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than I S% of the cost of constructing a new building of the same square footage and type on the same site. Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $1,495,018.95 Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $307,106.36 Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 20.88% Refer to Individual Building Summary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies. H LU Y _ Qc cC Z H H m J Q ---~ H Z H Z Q •-~ C g ~ a M ~ p N ^ ~ C O '= ~ N m : w ~ Q9 .~i ~ O~ ~ ~ N ~ T $ p O p S N .-i O O N N N ~ O O IC) M O ~ ~ U04 N _ ~ } ~ ~ - o v d o 0 } _ o Z L ~ ~ v ~' v ~ y ~ m ~ y rn L ~ Q O - N V U ' y ~ v ~ a ~ v ~~ m 3 Q ~ o ~ o ~ ~ 'L ~ O O O ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ O UJ N W L 4 ~ d O v in ~~ L q .~ - `~- j' °' 8 s ~ Ol L ~ ~ ~ t _ O V .~ T V O LO ~ } ~, o to •a. ~ ~ ~ o NQp l7 w- } ~~ V y ~ v ~ yy v C L p d p d } O ~ 7 y .-. ~D ~ + ~p V F- N a ~ ~ _ d y 6 A~ N S ~. J N a~ 00 `~ N~ 7 °o o ~ °o ° ° in o ~ o ° ° O ~ ~ r N ~ H M ~ K ~ y ~ vi "ZS m C O N C O U C '~ .' ' m ~ ^ r N Q ~ i w _ a ~ N C ~ ~ ~3 N m T ~ O N = C N d C ~ •~ U ,~c°c~ v p~6Ec~o c~a ~ ,_ 'O '~ N G ~ C N X O O ~ ~ UW ~UQ =w? c ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ T~ C N ~ ~ ~ 0 y ~ ~QtLWtl2W rn C o ~ °- O DC W ... pNp O ~ 'd MO U ~' ~ Z O ~ O~ N N -~ '~ m ~ ~ .~ O ~ H ~. ~ .=~ N ~ - 7 C O ~ O N ~ U } } V z O O U C ~ N a' } ~' .~ O L d N Q N } ~ ~ O . ~ ~ a U T ~ O C O N .L C ~_¢ ~ ~ L m Y O H V V T O H v v o ~ >. C.. U Q ~ L a ~ a v, L ~ 01 ~~ - o O In to O O~ }° '~ O L ~ y a o~ a a H H ~ In CO CD ~ o Q' 'N. v m ~ LL CD T In W ~~ ° ~ ° o $ o O tf) O U N N M V! C m .~ w O U 'c N ~ m E E z7°> ~ `o E U N w $ °o o° o °o, 0 0 0 $ $ $ °o, $ p O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ K K V! N N W h N. N h H O N H N f9 ° ~ ° ° $ o o o O N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O G ~ O N C O O G O V- C V! C W O N C O h N 19 G 1n (V IA r H K K V! $ C y N ~ N N O ~ N w N Z r l7 CO < C7 N et lh h A P O n ~ N N ~ ' O O O O O O ~ ~ O N N N N W a U O C > p j > ~ p ~ C .~ C 'C O LO ~ $ ~ = p " ~ TC ~• U y i6 m ~. m ~ m ~y~~m w m N~ ZQ ti g ~ c ~ L~' m m E ~ ~~ ~ t m t o ° ~ mE ~ ° N gNg ~ 'E O C ~ °v O ~ i0 ~ ~ ° C £ ~ c o ~p L~ d $ ~ a ~ H a m mE 'o ~ {vmp 8E W $ ~ ~, W A ~ G U pI Z > d ~ « G O O$- ~ N lh w a n ~ c ~ o g $ a m do c~ d v d $ :o ~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ m ° o c~ d Q t m~ ~ ~ ~ m m W e a i m ~ ~ m > Q co n ~ ~ ~ $ ~ '= m c _ o o ia.k O a ~ z ~ ~ a~ S'c 3 ° m m 3 c E dd ~ is ' is W m i ~ ~ o r < 'v Z o ~i ~ a W ~ ° ~ c~' .~ w ~ ~ ~ g d _ m _ ~ V ~ d g' $ z W $ ~ o Z' d ~ , ~ q~ ., c m W ~ ~' ~ $ ~ $' N c 3 b ~ _ ~ ~ W g~~ e m gm Emc~ ~ ~ °~ a i L` ~ c ~ m'o r $ y ~ v a ,0 2' a 3 « ~ '~ c °~ $ ° °' m g ~ m ° ~ .0 7~ 9E ; ~ c'3 'cm m o ~ ~Om~y a E °cEc $E~ ~ ~• ~y~ m O$ ~~' ~ c'S c rn o c 'c ~''o a ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~' pj m m ~a v'S ~ ~ tgt°, _E y 3 ~ 3 $ ~ o ~ X ~ Via, ~ ~ ~$ c w~ m ~ ~ $ ~•E a ' ~ ~ m ~ '~ ~ W ~ c ~ m w m c Sc • g av c mEto; cE0 9 m O.... C 1 N r s~~ 7 ~ E g iA ~ N C ~~ ~. m .° ~~ O E m E_ C 'X y ~~ ~c ~L w Sv ~iE NE ao°,n' o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ c EEv EEo € mE mm W c _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8g ~ ; ~~ X ~' c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ g 3 ; ~ _i°n:~Oz' m -'a '~~ ~ ~ S ~< ~ ',y31~ po~.VaJ~~ ~ ~ ~M pg'° ~ •• ~ r d ~O '~ O 'j '~k O ~ •~ p O ~ ~p C a~ ~ ~p ~p ~~ ~O a N C pNp~~ w p a c c+i C '- ° mz•~15 'gym gQ 5~~~~E t'~ ~' ~cc ~ _rE ~~~ 25~~° ~~ t$ m :: a ~ c i~ c = a mo > ip z '~ m ~ '~ io ~$ 3 m m S2 cn v~v•E~3m•~~~~ ~ a Z2S zd at v~ cc ~c$ Ec Epm E~ Ec pE E$ E~ EQ$',EQ E 'RED E~~ EEO ~ ~m ~'~ i ~+ C> C« CO C O C O C ~ Cl $ W 8 $ O$ p C Epp C ~~ C W ~~ a ~~ O W ~ ,g ? C a y ~ •N d 'cp~ d 'y d 'E a~ ~- m d~ m e m •_c d~ .o m ~ ~ 5 E m° m a m m yy m$ m O C cg pp X O O. O 'x 0 l6 0 W 0 O y O m O ~0 O O W O 'C O~$ O }~ C C~~ N ~ fL m O !1 G7 m H O H m !- .b F- 3 i- 1- ~ F-L.. F 3 F- H a !- 7 H ~F ~. F- ~F O 9 c h V 7 Q m O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O ~ <O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O Oo O O O O O O O M O C C G C O O O G C C O C C C lM Y h aD C 00 K H N O O O O O O O O 10 O O 1~ nD O~ EO O N W N 10 ~f 41 O O O 01 10 M i0 t~Op~~ ~ 1~p{ O _ ~ H N N ~ IH ~ h ~ ~ K ~ ~ h Vl f~9 H ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M f~ N O N 00 t9 f9 K ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O_ 19 W ~ ~ h q N ~ to ~ W M ~ - Z ~ M r ~ t0 ' O N M N r r 00 t0 N m p m W ~ r N O p~p N U ~ b N W U N ~ m W C ~ T m ~ X$ W ~ E m c ~ •` a ~Q - ~ g~~ x Q •c .y ~ N ~ x c •~ c ~ E t o 3 a 3 ~~ o a~ xy y ~ °o o m •~ ~ c W .x E •c o° EE .~ ~ ~ ; ,.: g ~ N W ~ •W g ~ '° ~ pop L-. ~ N M p~ y > m x O L ~ W C a O Q f0 ; v '~ C~ ~ C 'O $ S d O $ ~ 'O W •p O (V r w O v a c m ~ m E '~ m E c c '> ~ N r. o a c ~ •~ m .~ O7 H ~ c ° ~ L $ m ~ > > W ~° E 'S W ^t Z~.o m x 'y ~ $ ~ E v c a.~ ~y cui a ~ ~m ~vq Ec c~ ao •x _ri U g E ~"> m e 'O ~ E 'v W ~ ~ ,ii ~ ~ « o an c c ~° ~ ~ o~p N `` M ~ Ca ~ O M ~ N C~ W C W 3 N '~ A O~ ~ G~ .~ y C D N O• d o v o ~ E d ° °o ~ ~ ~ v E $ ~ $ U ~ ~ n ~ -a°i ~ 3 g' a ~ 'm '~ ~ O $ c '..m a U y E c ~ $ W 'a m m o~ m a c ~ m a$ !E v ~~ W E U rn .NW..ic m U m ~ W$ v W d~ ~ U~+O cv X3,2 c a~+ w aW d ~' m `o of ~ m c RE dv•g« c min 'r u'~ ~,Xa~O ~ ~y v~' C}°y~' E N .-. = 8 ~ M $ ? N G g N L W ~ C ~ ' m A~ C N 3 O ° g d ` °o c c •° ° ~a r ~ 'v Ci 'c 3 t a y ~ p W E ~ rN ~ m ~ ~ •~ ~ W ' a~ $ ~ ° t a n . li $ v ~ L' ~ ,o $ ~ ~ ~ a is .g v o a a a ~ rn d m cm ~a x w ~ Lcc `vm a.- a ~ rNi E is c? a ~ o LiQ 2W 2y~a _C v V ~°^~ $ m ~Q 8'tc a~ ~' M :- y m .o a c cen m ~odg V v ~a ~~.~§ ~~ E do via -~' E d1 m M ~' ~ o~ ~~ c '~ E~ c W •c ~ w~ ~~ ~ c m-~ ~ LL c. T$ ~ o c ~ ~ o c c c ~o - -_ .~ ~ U ~ ~ ci w ~° ~ d .ya.. a ~~ °•~'"~ p~ ~i ~~~ m yx 3 $'Q V~$ .~° m d m E E m E ~ ~"~ ~ ~ € ~ L E 'v E$ t E U a a_ m '~ m+ cci $ ~~ c g c ~ _ ~ ci $ $:.' v E'm $~$ $E o~ ~ o c~ W ccc~ •m~~ ~tu~~ ~r~ ~_W $_ O) N L ... ~ ~ W ' O O ~. ~~ C H C~ N W 'O p C O G ... rC 7 m ~+ N O C 7 r 7~ 'C c c - ~ _h m rn~ .c 9 .8 W m r+E a ELO $ o a~ ~q "v L 2 ~ m~ c °~ ~ c c rn -°• S E ~ y g~ ~ io c~ yOy~ ~ _m a~i m W vi E o~~ N a m c+ r~ N "' N N ~ N N~ r~ G ~j 7 •~ ~ 7$ a d m «~ $ 'C 6 r v. ~ .. a ~ O W~ O 'h f9 O eo • e g g m c m a~ x~ c a+ E ~am ~ chi ~H Q ~m Ecv~,W v~ o € c vL c 3eo gym.. >, ~+.., mx m ° c c~ .'-" io ~ c~ ~ c a c o O' m Q cN Q E D N °'~~i Q c~ $~ °° o c c f6 a> m •$- ~ m ~ ~ v ~g m ~ ~ d W ~ a o $ ~ .Q of m d o+ •~ E E W c ~ d o 'v~ ~ '~ a L o c ~ m - E y ~ $ m ~ >~ ~ m g ~ L L g ~c ~'ii~i c ~ c o L°g a~ x ~a~~ O •a ,n ~i •nv.~ ~~ R cg'-fO ~m cvL ~ o.t ~ ~y~n~ E ad~~ ~ ~?~~.$ N ~~q ~Ea V ~dc~E E •~~i~~ `v' M Ti ~i ~;m °c~~Wr~ odv° v°OaxirnMaciaEd~>O.g ~~c~~c2mx~c~ c2cm2~~2 ~p r "' ~ •O ~ •~ d O C a 'p `Z` C M d W W N C O O 7 W C'~ di > m h W W H~ C N ~ N W O ~„°, N '; m ~E W vy agi d~ W° >aE > «°E dm c cam ~m ~ c c° ~c y ~ v~ °-' ~~v~ ~ N y•> E ° ~~' - Qg $.Uy v '~ ~ E ~xE ~ O $m c$$o ~~ ~ N' ~ c ~ W m o v a H am m ` o c O y.c L E « Ly W ~ x = g •~ •N ~ m d rn .° v g~ ~ ~~ °m E ~o$ E E ~~ ~ q ~~ ~ ate cg $ ~g ~ g'•W W g'd CW g°$v a L h N T 3 p C C - C- C M Ol ~ 2T _ 2T M p T C C /lCpp p O 'pd •O_ !~ .r ~ h C V W II ~ O~ 'C O j Cl j `O O N C~ N L L L L~ L M ~ 2~~ C M C 2 W2 W o n C ~$ O O O_ 7 O ' Q m 7 'O ~ ~~~ 7 l6 E m U O L C C L~ ~ M M~ C L V~ Y W W () L O ... L p N~ ~ L L~ L ,C ~ L ~j N W .gyp E •m rn- ~~ rn m m e c 'm O '~ ~' 'm E E o •yv rn c w t r ~ ~~ .. a m' ~' ~ ii ~~ to ~ li (A (q t h t N° m W m ~' d N° m a cm c Ov ~~ ~ ti n g ti ~ w x c ~i ~E li d u ~ E a m~ ~ c apl a m W 5 ~ O O O O O IA Yf N N l0 P'1 !7 ~ f0 O d d 'O C N j ~ _U C ~ ~ U N l0 d O1 C C O C C 3 0 v rn c ,U R ~ ~ _,t0 ~ Y C ,C a a N O C ,N ')( d ._ a d c O . ~ k. l7 L N ~ C ~ N C Y ~ C N to E f0 N 10 V f0 CO O n c E x ~I '. ~~ d' N N C 7 - C ~ LL U ~ Ol op C L ~ ~ LL LL C ~ W ~ m H ~ F~ O m _ _ _ X X W _75 W U W U it ~ ~ # it ~ Ehlers and Associates Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Richfield, Minnesota City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Proposed action: The establishment of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District, located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Type of TIF District: A Redevelopment District Parcel Numbers: 28-028-24-41-0015 28-028-24-41-0016 28-028-24-41-001.7 27-028-24-32-0006 27-028-24-32-0117 27-028-24-32-0005 27-028-24-32-0115 Location: 28-028-24-41-0015 - 6617 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, MN 28-028-24-41-0016 - 6633 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, MN 28-028-24-41-0017 - 6639 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, MN 27-028-24-32-0006 - 6700 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 27-028-24-32-0117 - 709 Graham Avenue, Richfield, MN 27-028-24-32-0005 - 6630 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 27-028-24-32-0115 - 6620 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN Proposed The City Bella Tax Increment. Financing District is being created to facilitate development: the integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space elements with pedestrian paths to adjacent existing uses. The housing element contains approximately 169 units: 117 cooperative ownership units, 38 rental apartments, and I4 ownership townhouses. The commercial element consists of approximately 10,000 square feet on the ground floor of-the housing building with the cooperative and apartment units placed directly above them. Parking is provided at grade. level (94 spaces); structured underground (338 spaces) will also be provided to maximize green space, yet serve the housing units and commercial customers. Estimated annual tax The estimated annual tax increment is $692,087. The actual tax increment will increment: be based on property values and tax rates beginning in taxes payable 2002. Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget: LandBuilding Acquisition , .........:.....:....:...:... .$5,500,000 Parking Facilities - .:.....:..:...:..` ...:.............::.:6,000,000 Other Public Improvements/Skyway System ............:.:. 2,500,000 . ..Interest .: ...................................... 9,850,000 ..... Administrative Costs. (up to 10%) ..:.....:.......:....... 2,650,000 Total ....................:......:................ $26,500,000 Form of financing: Pay-as-you-go note T/F District Overview Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2005. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2030, or when the Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment for eligible costs. LGA/HACA penalty: The 2001 Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) or the alternative qualifying local contribution. T/F District Overview 3 Year Activity Rule At least one of the following activities must take place in the District within 3 (§469.176 Subd. la) years from the date of certification: ^ bonds have been issued ^ the authority has acquired property within the district ^ the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is June 2005. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (~ 469.176 Subd 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: ^ demolition ^ rehabilitation ^ renovation ^ other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by the approximately June 2006, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be (§ 469.1763 Subd 3) expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following occurs: ^ the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity ^ bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds,. ' and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under §. 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund ^ binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation ^ costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest on unreimbursed costs. Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately June 2007, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The previous summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District, located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. More detailed information on each of these topics .can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Page 3 ~- _, T/F District Overview Map of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Richfield Redevelopment Project Area City of Richfield, Minnesota ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ffi 2fd43~ 4181 41L L UY9 L NOl`JNNVOOlB U1S t 41b1 U1£ t 41ZL 41LL 410E • 1 lOfT73 i~ V OJb'JIH~ Sf1ffNf110~ )faVd ~~'y///~,~ aNVDNO ONVl1a0d ~ U 419 ~ 414 W Z NO1NIl~ U P~ a~z SN3/~31S 151 I ~ L 13"f10~IN 1134SM78 L HLa(a1A1N3M ZC laflBSllld Q ~ 17JVSF~Id O C aN~ J ~ ~IaavH 4131jLfd~J U 3TVdNll Z H~IaUM 0 ~ 1NO~~,as xv~loo irlodno Q ~ Nosa~ J Q 1N01N~~ W ~I aaval~ lOIO~Nf1H ` 2 ~ JNl~al S3NNf M ^ ^ ^ U XONN NvJOI Nvoaow U NO1M3N a3N10 NN3d N33(10 ll3SSf1a NVOIa3HS SbYVOHl Noidn ~IJ3~Nl~ Naf18HSVM _ S3Xa3X ~Z o N ~~ CV 418 t ~ 41LL 419E NOL9NVJOOlB U5l 41b1 41EL ~ 41ZL ~ -}~ 4111 ~ V UIOI ~ •L• lO1Tl3 ~ Q OJVJB-1~ ~ sna~n,~ ~ , U ONH11NOd 0 ~ 45 ~ IL ~ ~ ~ N01NfYJ a2 O U sN3n~s ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 13)l0'JIN NN TBaSib78 1.l. ~ HLaGMW31A ~ n-_' .lall9Sllld ~ ~ ~,~ V -+~ ~ ~ U ~~ Q731d~J 3MONJ.I ~~ ~xae ~~ Ulodna Nosa3N3 ~~ lU7pgwlH JNV@II N S3Mlf V" XOrbl o Nb`JOl ~ NbJaOW NO11V~~1 ~ 2l3N10 ~ NN3d N33fll? O ~ ll3SSfla ON NbL112f3iS ~ f0 '_$A SWY01-LL O j'~ ~; ~~ O , .w~aN1n Naf18HSHM S3X213X O O 1~ O ub~i r a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L5 L L L L L L N n ~ ~ CITY BELLA PROJECT AREA c` ~~9~F~ /. 66TH ST. 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Feet 6~rH ST 1-30-02 Q h/cdad i ~ MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the .establishment of THE CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) within .THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing:. June 10, 2002 Adopted: This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District.. The Plan contains the estimated frscal and economic implications of the proposed TIFDistrict. The City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing. ~~. C u ~ C ~ ~ Prepared by: FREERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. G fl G 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105. a ASS 0 C 1 A T E S i N c 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 wWW.ehlers-inc.com -- TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I -MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA .................... 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 Statement of Public Purpose ..: ........................................... 1-1 Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ........................ 1-1 Parcels in Acquisition .................:................................. 1-1 Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area ............................ 1-1 SECTION ll -TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ...:........... . 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword ......................................:...... . 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ................:..................... . 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives .................................. . 2-1 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .......................... , .. . 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ....:................:...:..... . 2-2 Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District .........:..... ....... • . 2-4 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity,. Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax .Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ..:.... . 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ...........:....... . 2-5 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ..........::....:...::: ..............:.. . 2-6 Subsection 2-11. State Tax Increment.Financing Aid (Local Contribution) .......... : 2-6 Subsection 2-12. Fiscal Disparities Election ........: ........................ . 2-6 Subsection 2-13. Business Subsidies ... _ ...............:...........:..... . 2-7 Subsection 2-14. County Road Costs ..........:...................:.::... . 2-8 Subsection 2-15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .............:.. . 2-8 Subsection 2-16. Supporting Documentation . ; ..:: .......................... . 2-9 Subsection 2-17. .Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............:.:.....:.. . 2-9 Subsection 2-18. Modifications to the District ...:...:.........: .......:...... 2-10 Subsection 2-19. Administrative Expenses .:......:......:....::........... 2-10 Subsection 2-20. Limitation of Increment ......:..........:.......:.:......: 2-11 Subsection 2-21. Use of Tax Increment .:.: `........:: ....................:. Z-12 Subsection 2-22. Excess Tax Increments :..:...:....:..........::.:....... 2-12 Subsection 2-23. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13 Subsection 2-24. Assessment Agreements : ........................::...... 2-13 Subsection 2-25. Administration of the District ....:...:.......:.:...........: 2-13 .Subsection 2-26. Annual Disclosure Requirements ; ....::.:.:.......:..::..... 2-13 Subsection 2-27. Reasonable Expectations ....................."....:....... 2-14 Subsection 2-28. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ...::........ , .. 2-14 Subsection 2-29. Summary .:....::.....:.::..:.:..: :..:.....:.......... 2-15 APPENDIX A -PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION ........:....:...:..........::........ A-1 APPENDIX B -MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD.REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND .THE CITY BELLA TIF DISTRICT .::..:.:...:....:.:...::..:...... B-1 .~ APPENDIX C -DESC RIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ... C-1 APPENDIX D -ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT ..................... D-1 APPENDIX E -MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ...................... E-1 APPENDIX F -REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT ........... F-1 APPENDIX G -BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS .................................... G-1 ~~ SECTION I - MODI~ICATIaN TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to establishing the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District as specified below. For further information, a review ofthe Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, originally adopted June 14, 1993, and subsequently modified thereafter, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department of the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Statement of Public Purpose A comprehensive review on the portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area comprising the City Bella TIF District discloses that such portion is blighted within the meaning ofM.S. Sections 469.002 Subd. I1 and 469.028 Subd. 3. See also the Statement of Public Purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993. _ Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area The boundaries for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area are not being modified. See Appendix A of the Tax Increment. Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Parcels in Acquisition The HRA or City may acquire the parcels in the Tax Increment. Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax. Increment Financing District. However, it is anticipated that the developers will be responsible for acquisition. Development Activities in the Richfield. Project Area The Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project .Area is hereby modified to include redevelopment and development activities to facilitate the construction of the following projects: a. Parking facility b. Ownership townhomes c. Rental apartments d. Cooperative units e. Commercial space Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area 1-1 t -. f. Public facilities g. Public utilities h. Public roadways, sidewalks and skyways SECTION /l - ~'AX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. Foreword The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA"), the City of Richfield (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.'), 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the District.. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redeve}opment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of seven (7) parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way.'-The District is being created to facilitate the integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space elements with pedestrian paths to adjacent existing uses in the City of Richfield. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this Plan. Development may occur as early as fall 2002 or as late as Spring 2003. This Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined irr the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the .Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview l . Property to be Acquired -Selected property. located within the District may be acquired by the developer, the. HRA or City and is further described in this Plan. 2. Relocation -Relocation services, to .the extent required by law, are available,pursuant to Nf.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected. properties that they may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. r=-~, 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation,demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 District. Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. Parcel Numbers 28-028-24-41-0015 28-028-24-41-0016 28-028-24-41-0017 27-028-24-32-0006 27-028-24-32-0117 27-028-24-32-0005 27-028-24-32-0115 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District -- The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that-the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 1 D(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopmentdistrict"meansatypeoftaxincrementfinancingdistrictconsistingofaproject, or portions of a project, within which the authority frnds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) Parcels consisting of 70percent ofthe area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than SO percent of the buildings, not. including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of--way; or (3) Tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 11 ~C, Subd. I S, if the tank facility: (i) Have or had a capacity of moreThan one milliongallons; (ii) Are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (iii) Have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used.. ~, (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 structural elements or a combination ofdefrciencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and. ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interiorpartitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is incompliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualifted as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard... (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) The substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) The authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the azrthority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) Upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part ofa district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by ~ 469.177, subdivision I, paragraph (h). (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structzres unless IS percent of the area of theparcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (fl For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must quay as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a} to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: ^ The District. is a redevelopment district consisting of seven (7) parcels. ^ An inventory shows that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 d--~ buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. ^ An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Pursuant to M.S.469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of § 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473Hfor taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 b, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2005. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2030, or when the Plan is satisfied. If increment. is received in 2004, the term of the District will be 2027. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2001 for taxes payable 2002. Pursuant to M.S, Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor. shall certify in each year (beginning in the. payment year 2003) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the. geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;. 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax incrementwill be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2002, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2002.. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Locale Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated_ Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within theRichfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request '100 percent of the available, increase in tax. capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2003. The Project Tax Capacity ~ (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) 570,280 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity(ONTC) 52,030 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 518,250 Original Local Tax Rate 1.33543 Pay 2002 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) 692,087 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175; Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The HRA is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets_and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA orCity reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap- plicable to the HRA or City and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed' by apay-as-you-go note and interfund loan. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $14,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The HRA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the H1LA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-ns-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $26,500,000 PROJECT REVENUES $26,500,000 Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space elements with pedestrian paths to adjacent existing uses. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF FUNDS TOTAL LandBuilding Acquisition $5,500,000 Parking Facilities $6,000,000 Other Public Improvements/Skyway System $2,500,000 Interest $9,850,000. Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $2,650,000 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $26,500,000 -_~ - The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor(OSA) reporting forms. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements., Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment. outside of the District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2-11. State Tax Increment Financing .Aid (Local Contribution) M.S., Section 273.1399 (LGA/HACA penalty) wasxepealed by the 2001 Legislature and does not apply to the District. Subsection 2-12. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3,. clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. .The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-.industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax f~ capacity is equal to or greater than the current net taxcapacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 ~~ current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment frnancing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authorityfrom the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The HRA or City shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method of computation of fiscal disparities the HRA or City elected. The HRA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. Accord ing to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the. method of computation in paragraph (a) 7o the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-13. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and. do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) .Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in section 116J.552, subdivision 3; (5) Assistance provided for the so}e purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided. for designated historic preservation. districts, provided that .the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the. total cost; (6) ..Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services, (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under 469.174, subdivision 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from'conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers'. compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; Richfield Housins and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 ~-~ (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section SOl (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under section 469.174, subdivision 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. To the extent applicable, the HRA or City agrees to comply with the provisions of M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J.994, which states that a local, unit of government granting financial. assistance to a business for economic development or job growth purposes, including tax increment financing, must establish business subsidy criteria and approve a business subsidy agreement with the business receiving the assistance. Subsection 2-14. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the HRA orCity to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.- Subsection 2-15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing. Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact. of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: ~ IMPACT ON TAX BASE Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax increment Financing District 2-8 ,~ -~ Hennepin County City of Richfield Richfield ISD No. 280 200/2002T'otal Net Tax Capacity 836,803,010 17,175,522 21,713,385 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion 518,250 518,250 518,250 Percent of CTC to Entity Total 0.0619% 3.0174% 2.3868% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 2001/2002 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.504090 37.75% 518,250 261,245 City of Richfield 0.517220 38.73% 518,250 268,049 Richfield ISD No. 280 0.226780 16.98% 518,250 117,529 Other 0.087340 6.54% 518.250 45.264 Total 1.335430 -100.00% 692,087 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actua12001 /Pay 2002 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2002 figures. The District wilTbe certified under the actua12001/Pay 2002 rates. ~_ Subsection 2-16. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd la, clause 7 the Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (l)and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the authority's findings: • Tax Increment Financing Application Other documentation will be available prior to the public hearing. Subsection 2-17. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues. Pursuant to M.S.,_ Section 469..174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxespaid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed underM.S., Section 469.177; ,2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the authority :with tax increments; 3. Repayments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments, and 4. "Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. Subsection 2-18. Modifications to the District Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, ~'ubd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the District; 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not apart of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 3. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 4. Increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or 5. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval. of the original Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(b), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall -not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts forthe determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements ofthis paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B}the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacitywill be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s)-eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan. Subsection 2-19. Administrative Expenses. In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in sections 1 to 3. For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, ~ and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment maybe used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses forthe District up to but not to exceed. IO percent of the total tax Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 -~~, increment expenditures authorized by the Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.36 percent of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the county treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-20. Limitation of Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. la, no tax increment shall be paid to the HRA or City for the District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the District. by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or (2) The HRA or City has acquiredproperty within the District, or , (3) The HRA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the District. The bonds must be issued, or the HRA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2005 and report such actions to the County Auditor. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and intet-est thereon maybe discharged and the District.. may be terminated if sufficient funds have been .irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or .other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S, Section 469.176, Subd.. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax. increment financing: district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment maybe taken from that parcel and the original nef tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall cert~ to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall cert~ the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fofth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualifred improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of anew street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June, 2006 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-21. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: I . To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.-176, Subd.. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal :and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 .through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to-the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse. the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds " will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-22. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to M.S., Section. 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year,in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax .levy as provided in M.S., Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the HRA or City shat] use the excess amount to do any of the following: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Subsection 2-23. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. S, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued purstaant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-24. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd.. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long asthe minimum marketvalue contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable. estimate, the county assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-25. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Community.Development Director for the. City of Richfield. Subsection 2-26. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6 and 6a the HRA orCity must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and ..School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. S also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 .-- If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-27. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staffawareness ofthe feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis ofestimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-28.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield `. Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parkingstructure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,. on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. It is the intent of the City of Richfield and the HRA to spend 15% of the tax increment xevenues on related costs for housing projects. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section .469..1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; andbeginning with the "sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1.763, Subd. S. Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax increment Financing District 2-14 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation ofredevelopmentavd renewal and renovation districts underM.S., Section 469.176Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements orhazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses ofthe HRA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-29. Summary The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, provide new housing choices, provide new commercial opportunities and improve pedestrian and land use connections in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District 2-I S -. APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City Bella Tax Increment Financing District is being created to facilitate the integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space elements with pedestrian paths to adjacent existing uses. The housing element contains approximately 169 units: 117 cooperative ownership units, 38 rental apartments, and 14 ownership townhouses. The commercial element consists of approximately 10,000 square feet on the ground floor of the housing building with the cooperative and apartment units placed directly above them. Parking is provided at grade level (94 spaces); structured underground (338 spaces) will also be provided to maximize green space, yet serve the housing units and commercial customers. The centralized green space "plaza" with both landscaped and hard surfaced features connects the existing Gramercy Park Cooperative and Lake Shore Drive Condominiums to the finished plaza and City Bella elements. Integral to the plaza is the pedestrian corridors that take people to Woodlake Nature Center and to a proposed skyway system to adjacent mixed-use quadrants of the 66"' Street and Lyndale intersection. The integrated development within the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District furthers the "Lakes at Lyndale" downtown Richfield master plan with the emphasis on the key themes of the following: connection. to nature; new housing choices; pedestrian pathways; transit access; distinctive and attractive appearance; and commercial opportunity. APPENDIX q_ ~ ~-~, APPENDIX B MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY BELLA TIF DISTRICT APPENDIX g_~ ift~3O 418 L U1L L 419E NOlJNWWOl9 41SL 416E 4!£L 41ZL 41LL 4101 V lOITl3 OJtlOW0 SnffNnlOO N2fdd ~ ONVllaOd Q U ~~ , w V 416 W ~J NO1NfYJ V ~ SN3/~31S /'~ ~+^ is L 13T1O01N _ ~ 1130.SM18 C G ~ Q~ ~ / na d 1NHS"d3ld , O orrva~ J ~ 131aavH Ol3ldavJ U ~aN,., ' Z HORIQ fd Q ~ iNV,~ae Xt1d1O0 wodna Q ~ Nosa~ J 1NOW3ad W ~ ~'~ ' ; 1 lOlO~Y1H W ONI/~al 2 m s~rdr U XONN Nb~JOI Nv~aow U NO1M3N a3nno NN3d Nino ll3SSna M101a3HS SbWOHl NOldn 1N30NIA NanBHSbM S3Xa3X 'O L_ L i6 O ~z ° abT13~ N J 418t ~ 41LL 439E NOl`JNWOOlB 41St 41bt 41£L 41ZL ~ }! 41LL ~ V 410E m •~ lOffl3 OJtIJIFp ~ snann~ ~ , U NaVd ~ ~ 06NDIb'O ~ ~ IXJVlIaOd L... ~_ 41S 416 NO1Nf1O PEE Q °`rz ~ U SN3A31S ~ ~ !Sl 1311O01N ~cu ll3aSIV18 N I-uaoMw~n ~ -_ ,ianes-nld ~xvsvald U .~' ~ ~ U .L~IaavH ordldav~ 3MONAl L-r~lamv 1M1Aa9 xv~ iriodna NOSa3N3 irrow3ad ~~ 1Q7O8NnH JNV1al N S3Nt1f Ll xowl °o NVJOI ~ i NVJ2KJYV No~nn3N g a~vio ° NN3d N33nD T13SSfkl N I I~ NVOIa~-IS i StYNpHl O ~ ~f ~~ ~ O 1N30NIA ' i ~ NanBHSHM S3Xa3X O fD co r =~ h ~ n n n n n- 0 ~>j ~ n Q Uj ~ v U L_ L L L L L ~ N ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY BELLA PROJECT AREA ~ 66TH ST. ~.........1--..+....~............, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 28-028-24-41-0015 6617 Lake Shore Drive Donald Lynch, etal. 28-028-24-41-0016 6633 Lake Shore Drive Lake Shore Drive Condo Assn. 28-028-24-41-0017 6639 Lake Shore Drive City of Richfield HRA 27-028-24-32-0006 6700 Lyndale Avenue South Triple S Investments 27-028-24-32-0117 709 Graham Avenue City of Richfield HRA 27-028-24-32-0005 6630 Lyndale Avenue South Sharon Trestman 17 /x"'10 1 A ?1 /11 1 C - LL^fA T _.v ..1 ..1~ A _...~__._ C~._. _aL !"~:a_. T)~il_ T 7 /'~ _~ APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT N 0 m '~ A a N° N N N N N t0 N a aaa e e e~ 0 0 N 0 0 0 o~n o~rooonro o~c`~oo~ m°OV~°n V O A N N N J n m 0 -~ O lL Q N N C) w Ci t~ ~.-O~~ O N aci E d U C F ~ 3 ` d Z ~ w d m V N Q ~ ^~ J ~ ~ ~ W U Q " o z !°. m d j O m > C V = C ~ _ N fn E F W~ J JQ °' ¢aE> LU - Wa' c d N x _O ~- n s Qm r 3~o,E Y `o Q J c c d ~ ~ ~ d c E o Q ~ ~ _° o u~ m m D A T C ~ E m > ~ ~ > a } N ~J C O p N C C C J f0 ~ X N T y m N N 'O ~ W O O~} LL B W W m V N ? U m U U N m m `o ?~ ~ c c m ~ ~ a LL J J Z J ~U ~U .` O O . c} o d m d d D n n° 'u ~ _u .4 Q m .'n .'n 'w ~ °' U cJ o ~ c° •• N N !!~ u~ y O N (0 E C C OSaLLQQ QQfnHHQ U U ~\ N O O N h iD E E E W LLti ti EEEE ~ ~ ~'U CpJUU N N m m 0 0 0 N 0 0 ~n n ~n ~n ~n u~ 0 r~ ~ m co cnoNn 1~ t0 M m o N W V ~ Qa m Q U F- Q °o°OO°o°o°o°oo Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 U W t j W~ t^+I N~ N n n X N Y J~ V ~ M N W m ~ ~ O V O ~ ~ ~ m o = _ ~ c o r mmN~a~i3E ~ '- m ~ ~ N Y V a V~ y J~M-~ 21- m n o ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N O O f h (h M M Q Q C C C Q N N N N N N W ~ ~ W W W N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ W n ~ n ~ N N N N N N °o°o oo°OO g °o O ~O o~ ON ° M 0 ° 0 ~ y~ om c ~ vc v o r t0; V M ~ N N m e e ° o e ° e N O fV NcV O U~ O e r ~ N e e- ~ O `0 ~. ~ U ON ~O R t~0 Y U VI d j O O 0Of O N ~ ~ R ~ M I s m V ~ O R 11[1 °N N ~ N ~ C U ~ LL Z m O F,. Q Z_ _ ~ LL.~ ~ O m O W o c J ~ fn = m ~ m M ~ M U W O d ~ a a _ o ~LL'C ~N O N. 00 I s N = ~ ~ ~ ~ N t0 > d 10 N m m p U dl- o mU ' c 3 m ~ Um Q m F o- ~ ~ ~ d m 00 o o HH m m H ~ p 0 0 O O O N O N N N N N N m Q C m A E m NN O O NN 0 0 ~1] O w m> m 0 0 (`! N O O N N O N LL C m 1 ~ ~~ r- m aD aD m m m o E ` 0 0 ~ o 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 d~'lp n N` NN N Q c ~ V m ~ O O N O O O N d A U N N N p o o ~M m<n ih U U Q 0 LL C Z m t t £ ~ E '~- X 0 0 O O O ~ B O O th ' O ~ U F U w c 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 X a A N roO; N N N N , p r, ~ m N N < U U m t0 > 0 N ~~ w O ~ = mr O p oU p mU c ~ U~m Q~m Fo d' ~ c c U U 3 3 F F- m s !- H C O c E h A 3 m tll ~ m a L W n m R d a N N M M 7 7 t 0 u 1 m (g n r m m W 0 0 0« N N M M Q 7 t n N m m n n m m 0 0 0 0 N N M M 7 Q 1 n t n m m n n m m W to 0 0 ' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N'N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v O m D O)D OfD O)D OD OfD O)D OID O1D O)D OID O1D OlD OID mD O)D OD OID ODD mD mD WD D7D OD O1D !TD ODD OID mD d L m J m J 0 J tD J 0 J m 7 m J m J m 7 m J N J tD 7 tD J 0 7 N J m J N 7 N 7 m 7 m 7 N 7 01 7 tD J tU 7 tb J N 7 m 7 tD 7 m O) ~ WQIl. Q IL QIL Ql1 QtL QLL QLL QIL QIL Q ll. QtL QILQLL QlL Q LLQ LL Q W QtL QLL QlL Q1L QtL Q{L QIi QlL Q11 QlL Ql1 V C W ~OOOOOtn OtnOmOtn Otn OtnOmOtn Otn OU'1OOONOmO~ O~ONONONONONONOU)O~f1ONObODO T 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N N M M 7 7 t n t n (O m r r m m m rn o° ~ ~ N t V (h M Q 7 m t n m m r n m m to 0 0 0 ~ l V N M M 7 7 t N t () m ~ r~-.-.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •- •-~ ~ NNNNNNN NNNN N N O O O O O m m m m 1n N m m 7 7 r n m m m m N~ O O m m 7 7 m rn m m n n u) h M M N m M M 717 to m m W to m m~ M M m m O O N N M M N m m m N U') Q Q m m m m 7 7 r n O O N N m m N N N N r r m m n n N m Q QN~.-gym OOMM000f OI ~.-(0 mQQfOm~~mQf ~ inn (DmOOnnmmQQQ lmmrn ~~00 j C t~ n m m t~ 1~ t n 1 n t N t n 7 7 7 7 M t' i Q 7 7' V t n t n m m m m m lA N N 7 Q n n Q Q m m M t 7 m m M M O i M m m t 7 M C a m m m t n t n m m r n m m m O l 0 0 N N M M 7 Q t n t n m m r n m 0) 0 0 M M 7 t n t n r n m m 0 0 ~ M Mtn O QC ~~ ~- ~- N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Q Q Q Q 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Q N N m h N N N N m Z C y OOOOONNOOOONN1~~t0 (ON NtgNn r~~mmOOT 0lnnmmmmmm~~mmM Mtn to Dtn tnOrr to tn~~ O Q) N N M M M m O O r r O O m m N N M M O M M M N N M M M M 7 7 M M O O Q 7 n n m m m m n n M m M M Q 7nr77~~ OOmmmmnrm mO0100Mth t0 mlA lAC 7m01 O tnNN W 0>f~l~(Om(O (pnn01 ONNmm n n C'i tMNN nrmmOONN77 mmoi oi-= c7 Mt(i tri mtOOOMMmmmm 771~n00f7Mni~00 - D c M Mtn N to to to N VN.. ` ` fD (D m (O (O tD (O t0 t0 (D r r'... V v v ~ ~ ~ aD co co co co av m m ~ ~ m ~ W m o O O O O O .-.... ~~o Jo F- LL to 00000 V V OOOOtn In tnN~"V O(O (Om ~~"in to M(h (O CO tnN~~NtgOOI~1~nnNN7 C[7 (OMIh 1A 1(100.... m m m m N N O m 0 0 t n O M M O t o N N~~ pp{{ n0 1 n 1 n m m m m W to m m m m m m M O f m m N_ ` N N _m M O O T 01 7 m M Q Q m m n n O O N N O to m m N N m m 0 0 O 1n-0 0 (p m N N m rn tD m 7 7 N N ~_ ~ ~ ~ M M Q 7 n v v v e tri tri co cri <o ni m m o o c+i ri v e <o m n of ai o o ~i ni ri c+i ui vi r n mm ~ ci to vi tri r ~ ai ai ~ 1+i C do n1 NC]M.. .M. .M.. M.. M.. .M.. .M.. v.M.. QQ QQ.Q..~~Q Q QQ Q.Q Q1~..N..t~.1n..1[1...N.. 1v 1V 1`. `N..v `m(O l0 (D m(D (O fD tO (O ~n 1~ EE°o Q TO - a 000007 Q mmNNm mnnOJm77 to tnNNmm77 Q 7 n nnn Q77.7 ~.-NN.- mmQQ mmmmu) 7 Q M m 0 0 7 Q 7 7 0 0 7 7 m m m m O O N O M M m m 7 7 0 0 N N O O n n n n. N N M M M M M M Q Q m T 0 ~ 0101nnNNOI 1A00tnNMMln to .-~-NN(0 m1nN mmt0 t0 m W m(OMmtOmmO)mmNNNNmmO Om m7 7 C T m vcmmnrOONNtn to ttOmN Nm000~~ 00m(DNNOJ Qi tDmv7NN~ ~ (7 t7^~n Q~ ~ - N c7V mMMMMMCm')cm')~tM') VO' Q Q Q CO C V Q V C V V.CN 10n t/Ni uNi vMi uMi uO-~~~tnn lnnl tp tD to tMO tMO tNO t~O tnO Cno mfOOn nr. m d Z m OOOOOM MmmrnrnmMM m~mtnti')NN~~NN7 Q mm m.~c%I~~ma1 OONNmmNN~~^~Mf7 t~.I~77MM O 0 0 7 7 m m N N n n m m m m m t0 ~ ~ n n M P'1 m m t n u l n n 7~ a 0 m to t n N N O O m m m ~ m N_ N N N M M M M 7 7 Q Q~ t n t n N (0 t 0 t 0 m r n n r- m m m m m lA 0 0 0 0 N N N N M M 7 7 t 17 NON m ~ C ...........~..~~..~~~.N..~~~~~tVNN~~N..~~NNN~~ m d ~,M t0 ~ O ~ a 0 0 0 0 o n n M M m m m m o o r n m rn r n Q 7 0 o rn rn N N 7 7 rn m m 7 7 m m m m v 7 N N n n n n m m o o m Q 777mmnrN NNNOOn n 77 NNE tnmMMn nmmOO.~~QQ ~ MM~.~mmNNtnN mmfD m m 0 0 7 Q N N 7 7 M N m m O O n n m tD M M N N m m Q Qr r m l0 M M n r ~ ~ 0 0 m N N N N N N N Q Q 3 ~ C OOID mnn W W ~~MM mm'OO MMrn NNn n NNmm77~ mdDm mtn to V 7MMMM V 7Ntnnn 0~ ~ m to tnQQtn tnmmmmmmooNNMMQ7iomnrrnrnooNN7vtn tnrnmm~.-M Mtn tnrnmm«7~ ¢C ~ E N N M M M M M M M M M M 7 7 7 7 7 Q 7 7 Q 7 7 7 Q 7 N m N m N N O N N m N 1n m m m m m m m m m m n n n l N ~ ' ~ ~ d (~ C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n NNNN N to m m Q 7 to 1n 0 0 1n N OI a).m m O O m m M M O O N NM M O O n n N N m m N N M m 7 Q M M m m N N N N O O n n m m to N m m to to"M M to N m m n r O O m m 7 7 0 0 m m M M m~ m.(p N N M M O O N N M T N N ~ ~ N m m t0 M M r n n n O N Qf M ~- ~ O O n n N.N m m n r m m w m (p t0 N M M i ~ N N m m N O M M O M O O O O O m O O N N 7 7 n n to N ~ ~n n M M O1 m m m m W m df 7 7 m l d -- r r M M to to n n m m o o N N 7 7 n n O M ~ ~- M M m m m m ~ M M m m lA lT Q 7 n n 0 0 7 Q n 1~ O 1 j ~U MMtn Ntn Ntn to to to tnNmmmm m mmm m mnn rnrr rn mm m(pmmmmmOMO10)M000000" ~. f0 N W ~ ~ U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- r n N N N N t n N m m 7 7 1 n N M tT t 0 t a7 Q I M m m O O m' m M M O O N N M M ~ O O n r N N M M M M M •- m m N N n r m m m m m m N to N N O O m m N N 7 Q m m m m m m m 47 0 0 M M n r M M m m O 1 O O O O O' n, n N N Q V' O O N N O O N N ~_ •-_ m m n n Q Q r n m m N 1n W O1 ~ ~ O O n n M M m m m m m m m m n r to N M N N N N N n n O O n n to N M M N N 7 Q m m O M M M n n M M O /n N to M M 0 0 0 0 M M m m 0< U -tn tnhtnNNNI~ nm m O.O NN Q Q m m mm00 NN7 Q mmmm MMm mmm 77 nn00 MMmm010N' m1 'u 77tntntntnmmmmmmmcommnnnnnnrnrnmmmmmmmmmmmmmrnoooooooo.- m " m r~ a c m 0. R m D r M 'v Vi O •~ N R 3 m m m N 0 'a N d L w T a m' a a` o00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M M M M M'M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O.O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X (V N N N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t (0-NNto N to to to to tnh Nto Ntn t!'iu]toNNtn to to to Ntn tnNmtnto tnO Ntn mtnNmNtn Nto In to toNNNNmNNNtn in tnN j F- .U C N ~ 1 C ~ ~ - 1 Q m V N M M 7 7 N to m m n n m m Q~ lA OO ~ ~ N N M M 7 Q N N (O m n nm m m O>.O O N N M M 7 7 to 1n m m r r m' m O W O O ' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MM } N N N N N N N ON N N N N N ON N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '0 01 D W D !T D Ol D to D W D 01 D 01 D Ol D Ol D O) D Ol D m D O D O D O D 01 D O D 01.0 O D 01 D Ol D Oi D Ol D m D !a D O D O) D N L J N 7 N J N 7 N 7 N J m 7 m J N J aD 7 m 7 N J N J N J N J N J m J N J m O W J N J m J m J m J N J N 7 dl J N J N J a ~ Q ll Q LL Q lL Q LL Q lL Q lL Q lL Q IL Q ll. Q lL Q lL Q ll. Q LL. Q lL Q lL Q. LL Q lL Q tL Q ti. Q LL Q 1L Q LL Q !L Q lL Q LL. Q IL Q LL Q lL Q C C C O N O t n O t n O t n O t n O t n 0 1 n O t n O t n O t n O m O N O t n O N O t n O t n '~ O O O O O O t n O t n O t n O m 0 1 n O t n O N O t n O t n O t n N } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N N t") M 7 7 to N m m n n m m m W O O~ ~ N N M M 7 7tn N m m n r m m m m O O ~ ~ N N M M 7 7 to N r .-- .- r ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ •- ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N ~_T APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) C`~p NESp~9 _v Trade &- 2002 Minnesota Business Assistance Form Economic Development ^ The 2002 Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) is used to report each business subsidy and financial assistance agreement signed from Jat:uary 12001 through December 31. 2001 per Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 to § 116J.995. Please use forms from prior years to report agreements signed before 2001. ^ The following government agencies must submit a 2002 MBAF even if an agreement vas not signed during the period January 1 2001 through December 31. 2001: 1) any local govetnment/agency that signed a business subsidy agreement since January 1, 1997, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government agencies authorized to provide business subsidies. If the local/state government agency does not have any subsidies or assistance to report, please answer questions 1 through 13 and questions 33 and 34. ^ If a local or state government agency that is required to report has not done so by April 1, DTED will mail a warning. If it fails to report by June I, it may not award any business subsidies until a report has been filed. ^ Questions? Call (651) 296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 4. ,~. 1. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this form 3. Street address 4. City 5. ZIP code 6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address ] 0. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the 2002 MBAF if different from the person in Question 2. Name/Title Phone number Street address City ZIP code 11. Classification of grantor (Mark one. 7fgranror is entih~ 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and created by gott't agency; please indicate affrliation. For adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in example, a city EDA would clseck "City government.) comp]iance with Minn. Stat. ~ 1 16J.994? (Mark one.) O City government ~ Yes, in 2002 (attach crrteria) O Yes, in 2002 but have not yet adopted criteria O County government O Yes, prior to 2002 rJ Regional govemmertt If Yes: Hearing Date: Year Criteria Submided: ^ State eovetnment ^ No O Other (Please specify.) ^ Other (Please attach explanation.) I3. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 that is required to be reported under )/tinn. Stat. § 1 I6J.993 and § 116J:994? (Mark one) O Yes (Complete the remainder Mahe form.) ^ No (Stop here, go to section :i on page 4.) Section 2 Kecipient Information 14. Name of business or organization l 5. Address where business subsidy or financial. assistance receiving subsidy or financial assistance will be used Street address City. State ZIP code. 16. Does the recipient have a parent. corporation? (Mark one.) D Yes Qndicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate ox~ner.) O No Name of parent corporation Street address Ciry State Z1P code 2002 7,linnesota Business Assistance Form (1/23/02) Page 1 of 4 Dept. of Trade & Economic Development ] 7. Industry of recipient's facility (Mark one.): ^ Manufacturing ^ Services O Finance, Insurance, Real Estate O Retail Trade O Wholesale Trade O Construction O Other (please specif}) 18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.) ^ No (Go to Question 19.) '~I City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address 19. Would the recipient have remained in previous location or relocated elsewhere if not awarded this business subsidy or financial assistance? (Mark one.) O Remained at previous location O Relocated to different Minnesota location O Relocated outside Minnesota Section 3 Agreement Information 20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or financial 21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24 date, indicate any dates the agreement was amended) and 25.) 22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipiem rill benefit from the business subsidy orfinancial assistance. For example, indicate the date improvements. were frnished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the property, whichever is enrlier.) 23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see.Question 25) required to be reported? (Mm•k one.) O business subsidy O financial assistance 24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please 25. if the assistance was one of the four types of financial indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type.. assistance. please indicate the. type(s). ^ not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance O not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy O loan (only principal) $ D assistance for property polluted $ O grant (i.e., forgivable loan) $ by contaminants O tax abatement $ O assistance for renovating building $ O TIF or other tax reduction. or deferral $ stock or bringing it up to code, and O guarantee of payment $ assistance provided for designated O contribution of property or infrastructure $ historic preservation districts, when O preferential use of governmental facilities $ 50% or less of total cost ^ land contribution $ O assistance for pollution control or $ O other (Specify subsidy type.) $ abatement O assistance fora TIF soils condition district $ 26. Ifthe-assistance included tax increment financing,please 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or indicate the type of TIF district? (Mark one:) financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one.) O Yes (Specifueach gramor and the vahre of their O not applicable, assistance. was not in the form of TIF assistance below; attach crn additional sheet if necessary.) O No O redevelopment O renewal and renovation Grantor(s) and value of the agreement(s): O soils condition O economic development . O mined underground space Grantor Value ($) 0 hazardous substance subdistrict Grantor Value ($) 2002 T~linnesota Business Assistance Form (IiZ.i~'02) Paee 2 of 4 Dept. of Trade & Economic Development i-.__~...._a n.s.r.. D,.,.....~~ T.ao.,t;fivrl in tho AaroPrnPnt ~1 -r- 28. Minn. Stat. § 116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Mark a/1 that apply.) O Enhancing economic diversity O Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose) O Creating high-quality job growth O Other (please specify) O Job retention O Stabilizing the community 29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.) Goals Target attainment All goals established? dates (month & year) attained? A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years ^ Yes O No ^ Yes O No B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals O Yes O No O Yes O No C) Other wage goals ^ Yes O No O Yes O No D) Other goals other than wage and job goals O Yes ^ No O Yes O No (Please attach descriptions of goals and progress toward attainment if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.) 30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retentiongoals stated in the agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurancegoais for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full-,and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time! FTE (only if goals not Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FTlPT) Job Retention Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance no hourly wage-level goal s less than $7.00 $7.00 to $8.99 - s $9.00 to $10.99 s $i ] .00 to $12.99 s 513.00 to $14.99 5 $15.00 and higher S 31. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number ofacttial jobs created and/or retained since the benefit date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation in full-time equivalents if yozr are unable to separate job creation into full-and part-time positions.) Full-time Part=time! FTE (only if unable to Hourh~ ~Yage Job Seasonal/Temp. separate FT/PT) Job Retention HourW Value of (excluding benefits).. Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance c less than $7.00 $7.00 to 58.99 s $9.00 to 510.99 s $1 1.00 to 512.99 s $13.00 to $14.99 c $15.00 and higher s 32. Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Questions 29, 30 and 31) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the agreement? (d-lark one.) ^ Yes O No 2002 I`1innesota Business Assistance Form (1123!02) Page 3 of 4 Dept. of Trade & Economic Development Section 5 Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations - -~ •~ _ _~r_..~.,.t a :;,. ,.,,..~b,>« ~nn~ 1tifRd F coLhmitfn/1 in nTFn 1 (LV /lVC (.V//L lG LG L/LLJ JGI.cLVic / yv -' -- -- - - - 33. During the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, did your organization have any recipients who failed to report as required by Minn. Stat. § 116).993 and § 116).994? (Mark one.) O Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that recipient. Attach additional pages if necessary.) O No Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 and 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance 34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an agreement signed on or after January 1, 2001, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report?(Mark one.) O Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) O No' (Stop here and submit form to DTED .) 35. - 39. Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additional pages if necessary.) 35. Information on recipient and agreement.. Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance Initial value of subsidy or assistance Street address of recipient City/ZIP code of recipient Outstanding value of subsidy orassistance 36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply.): O recipient ceased operation q recipient relocated to a different community O recipient was unable to fill vacant positions O other (Specify reason.) 37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.) O Yes O No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance. O No, recipient has not begun to repay the assistance. 38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations?(Mark one.) O Yes O No 39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy. Return your completed l\~IBAF(s) by ~ri1 1, 2002, to: 2002 Minnesota Business Assistance Fotm Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development - AEO .500 Metro Square, ] 21 East Th Place St Paul, MN 55101-2146 .~~, Or fax to; (65]) 215-3841 2002 R1innesota Business Assistance Form (1;23/02) Paee A of 4 Dept. of Trade & Economic Development APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT N Z ° o O ~ Q W ` ' t 0 - -- . O J ~ W W W . > W a 0 z H m N ,, v/ J Z ~G ~ r- r-~-oao~ O ' ~ ~ 00 W ~ r- M O ~ ~ CO ~ N O 00 N ~ ~ ~ CO 00 CO ~ 11J Q ~ rn o O = r (p OD M 00 ~- r N U ~ ~ ~ r O CO f~ <D W ~ M ~ ~ v o~ 0 w O V~ V ~ W N W , V O O ~ p ~ ~ p ° ° e W N rn N ~- ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U W o~~ v rn v rn Q .-. N O N N V t~ c0 4. CJ CO 00 ~i' ~ V OJ W VJ X 0 0 ~- N t`") O *- c0 cp ri ch c~ N ~ ~ N r ~ Z O Q _Z w w cn ~ Z ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ Z U Q W H U ~ ~ Q m U W zaQ 000 ~ ~ ~ W p Z ~Wz ~~ wgo O W W UoO~ H } U cn U ~ 0 .~ O I o O O T M ~'. o M n C`! ~ M ~ ~ M i` M t` 'tit C7 M N T cD O :D a p 0 0 0 ~ O F W ~ 0 ~ "J Q O W a> Q Q Q~ Q a a a Q a ~~ c~~~a a zzzzzzZ _~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q ~ m m m > > > m U O Q ~ F- _ Q Z Z O z } Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢wo ~ Q c n W W~ U J Q 2 W W O I-~p~WU Z ~ ~ ww~z ~ Wt~00~' U Qa= _ Cn Cn~R'UJ~ J a W ~ ~ M~ N CO 1~ Q= ~ w U W, ~' F -( ,a 3 _O cv N N 3 ca f6 U a c 0 c C m N m N ca U .Q Q O _~ N c 0 .~ N o` ~L .O-. c N m c6 ~ O N ~ N U_ ~ O ~ U C N (6 L_ Q. Q N '4', .C ~ .-. N .~ ~ O a~ m ~ C +~'~ O '~ '3 ~ ~ ~ ~U c t O O >+ U U o a~ ~, w~ c ~ C C 3 O O .~ c m ~ ~ c O ~ U U O N '~ a~ ~ Q. 00 .~ U N N a~ ~ a~ o Q. ~' ~~ o ~° U O N ~ ~ ~3 APPENDIX G F ~ BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ~, A-600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060 May 31, 2002 Bruce Nordquist City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Richfield City Bella Redevelopment TIF District Dear Mr. Nordquist: Enclosed is a report from Richard P. Johnson, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator, to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, concerning the proposed Richfield City Bella RedevelopmentTlFbistrict. Please arrange to have the report entered into the record of the public hearing of the Richfield City Council on Tuesday, June 11,.2002, to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. If you have any questions about this information, please call me at 612-348-5076. Sincerely, __ ~ Jean M. Bierbaum, Senior Administrative Assistant Financial Analysis Gnd Support. Division Cc: Katia Medvetski and Bruce Palmborg, City of Richfield Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105 RevuRichfieldCityBella6112002JTransmittalLetter I I An EqualOpportunrty Employer Recycled Paper i ~~fiM DATE: May 31, 2002 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Richard P. Johnson, Deputy County Administrator SUBJECT: Proposed Richfield City Bella Redevelopment TIF Distri Public Hearing Date scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at the Richfield City Hall. Proposal: Richfield is proposing the creation of a new 7-parcel TIF District to facilitate the integrated development of housing, commercial, parking and green space. The site slated for redevelopment is at the southwest corner of 66~' Street and Lyndale Avenue South, the long-time home of the Lyndale Hardware store. Other quadrants of the intersection have been developed with commercial and senior high rise housing. The new housing will be comprised of 117 cooperative ownership units, 38 rental apartments and 14 ownership townhomes. The commercial element consists of 10,000 square feet on the ground floor of the housing building `~ with the cooperative and apartment units placed directly above them. There will be 94 grade level parking spaces ,end 338 underground spaces. The development will have a plaza with both landscaped and hard surfaced features that will connect the City Bella development to the Gramercy Park Cooperative and the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums. There will also be a pedestrian corridor to the Woodlake Nature Center and a proposed skyway to other quadrants of the intersection. Development is expected to begin in the fall of 2002 or spring of 2003. All of the parcels in the proposed City Bella TIF District are currently part of the Gramercy TIF District that was created by Richfield in 1998. Fiscal Impact: Tax increment assistance will be provided through the issuance of Pay-As-You-Go TIF notes. However, if bonds are issued, they will not exceed $14,000,000. The Redevelopment TIF District will have a duration of 25 years from receipt of the first tax increment. Sources of Funais Total Tax Increment SZ6.500 000 Total Sources $26,500,000 Public Development Cost Land & Building Acquisition* $5,500,000 Parking Facilities 6,000,000 Public Improvements/Skyway 2,500,000 Interest 9,850,000 Administrative costs 2.650 000 Total Project Costs: $26,500,000 * Page 1-1: "The HRA or City may acquire the parcels in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District. However, it is anticipated that the developers will be responsible for acquisition." -'Continued... May 31, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Proposed Richfield City Bella Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 SUMMARY: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for use of tax increment financing, as identified in Resolution 92-10-917R1; adopted 10/27/92, is that TIF be used as a financing tool of last resort, targetingpublic assistance to renewal and redevelopment projects of greatest need and lower income housing projects of demonstrated need and that the TIF District be terminated in the shortest time possible. Other than inclusion of the mandatory "but for" clause, the TIF Proposal for the Richfield City Bella Redevelopment TIF District provides no explanation why TIF is a funding tool of last resort. The TIF Plan does not identify the redevelopment as a project of greatest need. None of the proposed housing is identified as lower income housing, and the TIF .District is projected to have a maximum duration of 26 years. Therefore, it appears that this TIF. proposal does not satisfy the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for use of Tax Increment Financing. A copy of this report will be sent to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority with a request that it be entered into the record of the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2002, to reflect the County's position on this proposal (w: Revu RichfieldCity BeI 1a6112002J ) f AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 15 2 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE ~sf /~s~/ia A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: '~ Public hearing to consider modifying the general criteria for business subsidies to match changes in Minnesota law enacted in the 2001 Legislative Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt the attached modified policies and criteria for awarding business subsidies. -~ III. BACKGROUND ~ In 1999 the City Council approved general criteria for business subsidies in response to a new law regulating business subsidies. In the 2001 Minnesota Legislative Session the law regarding business subsidies was amended. It is proposed that the general criteria for business subsidies be made to again match state law. The criteria are necessary for both the City of Richfield and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) whenever considering the use of funds to support a redevelopment project, for example. The City Bella project is the next project where the City and HRA will consider business subsidies. The HRA modified its general criteria in May 2002. The City Council is also being asked to consider modifying their general criteria for business subsidy to remain 0611026usiness subsidies consistent with state law and the HRA action. From an administrative perspective, the criteria for the HRA and City should match. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed modifications are beneficial to the City because the basis for assistance has been broadened and provides more options. The City's present subsidy criteria do not match State law. B. CRITICAL ISSUES A public hearing is needed to modify the criteria for business subsidy. The modified general criteria for business subsidy will allow the City to better accomplish desired goals and objectives. Business subsidy for City Bella will be considered by the HRA in June. The HRA's determination will then be forwarded to the City. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL. Legal counsel has drafted the modifications to match Minnesota law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Do not further modify the general criteria for business subsidy. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ Amended draft of the general criteria for business subsidy. (The underlined and bolded portions are the changes.) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A ~~ City Council DRAFT 5/01 /02 Business Subsidy Criteria I. Purpose 1.01 This document includes the criteria to be considered by the City Council (the "City") in and for the City of Richfield to evaluate requests for business subsidies. 3.01 It is the City's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: a. All projects, by not later than the benefit date, must be consistent with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan and any other plan or guide for development of the community or a sub-area of the community. b. Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. Potential grantees shall financing is used to grant a subsidy, the grantee must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test. The potential grantee will be required to provide all documentation necessary to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. ~~ It is the intent of the City in adopting these criteria to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993-116J.995 (the "Act"). The City hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Act for application in the criteria. Statutory Limitations Goals and Objectives c. Grantees will be required to enter into an agreement with the City that is consistent with statutory requirements, it~slad+eg and which contains measurable, specific and tangible goals. The Aareement shall include a commitment to continue ~n operation within the City for a minimum of five years after the benefit date a~ ser~Ga+~se, unless waived by the City and shall comply with the specific jabs 'lob and wages wage goals established for the project, if an . IV. Business Subsidy Criteria 4.01 The Authority recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or shall these criteria establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The City reserves the right to modify these criteria from time to time and to evaluate each project as a whole. 4.02 A business subsidy must meet a public purpose. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: a. Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole grounds for granting a subsidy, the City believes it is a preferred condition for any subsidy. b. Jobs aed-~Fages. It is the City's intent that the grantee s~°~+°~abla wage maximize the number of jobs at the site. This may include jobs to be retained but only if job loss is ;w,.~~~ specific and ~iPmonstrable. c. 4.03 Economic Development. ~R~e}est-s. In additional to the criteria in Section 4.02, projects should promote one or more of the following: 1. Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; 2. Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development within an area; 3. Provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast-growing b~+si~-e~sses or hi h technology business location or expansion; ,. -~ 4. Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; 5. Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; 6. Promote additional or spin-off development within the community; or 7. Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. V. Compliance and Reporting Requirements a} 5.01 Any subsidy granted by the City will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the City. ~} 5.02 It will be necessary for both .the grantee and the City to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite(T M) -The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - Original document: J:\DMS/JBD/3MPR02!.DOC And revised document: J:\DMS\JBD\3MPR03!:DOC CompareRite found 26 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text ~~ ~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING 8 151 GEORGE L. ATKINSON, REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ f , J~~ ~, n 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 publication of the ordinance amendment. II. BACKGROUND The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield make certain changes/additions to its City Code. One of these changes has been incorporated into 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 season. The proposed ordinance also limits where and when phosphorous fertilizers can be applied. 061102FertilizerOrd On May 28, 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 ISSUES • 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 additional cost of phosphorus-free fertilizer is within 2 or 3 cents per 1000 square feet of lawn. 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 May 28, 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. I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • NOne CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY; REGULATING THE USE OF LAWN FERTILIZERS; AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 911 -Lawn Fertilizer Use 911.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to achieve the policies outlined in the City's Surface Water Management Plan and protect the water quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield. 911.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Public Works Director as the administrator of this section. 911.05. Fertilizer Use Regulations. Subdivision 1. Prohibition Regarding Application of Phosphorous Fertilizers on Turf. A person may not apply a fertilizer containing the plant nutrient phosphorus to turf, including, but not limited to, residential and commercial residential property, private golf courses, and property owned by federal, state, or local units of government, including parks, recreation areas, and public golf courses. Subd. 2. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply to the fertilizer use ordinance on turf, provided that the application of phosphorus fertilizer does not exceed rates recommended by the University of Minnesota and approved by the commissioner of agriculture: a. A tissue, soil, or other test by a laboratory or method approved by the commissioner and performed within the last three years indicates that the levels of available phosphorus in the soil are insufficient to support healthy turf growth. b. The property owner or an agent of the property owner is first establishing turf via seed or sod procedures, and only during the first growing season. c. The fertilizer containing the plant food phosphorus is used on a golf course under the direction of a person licensed, CLL-214940v1 RC145-364 certified, or approved by an organization with an ongoing training program approved by the commissioner of agriculture. Subd. 3. Prohibition Regarding Application of Phosphorous Fertilizers on Impervious Surfaces. A person may not apply a fertilizer to an impervious surface. Fertilizer released on an impervious surface must be immediately contained and either legally applied to turf or any other legal site, or returned to the original or other appropriate container. 911.07. Penalty. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CLL-214940v1 RC145-364 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. 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. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6L REPORT # 15 0 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ ~~~~ , L SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ~~!'~~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new multi-animal residential license (previously called residential kennel license for Karol n Thom son, 7609 Colfax Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new multi-animal residential license (previously called residential kennel license) for Karolyn Thompson, 7609 Colfax Avenue. ~~ i II. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2002, Karolyn Thompson submitted an application for a new multi-animal residential license. She currently owns three dogs. Ms. Thompson's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on May 21, 2002. The Community Service Officer indicated that there was no evidence of feces on the property and that the entire residence was very clean and well kept. In addition, the interior of the home was found to be very clean and free of any feces odors. 0611Thompson New Animal License The Public Safety Department has no history of environmental health complaints on this property, and there is no history of receiving any police calls regarding this address. Although this application is for three dogs, 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 multi-animal residential license. Staff received one phone call regarding this application. The caller indicated that they have no problem with the issuance of the requested license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request by Ms. Thompson for a new multi-animal residential. license. This would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of animals she has from three to two. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Karolyn Thompson AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 CONSENT 149 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIIZECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ '~~ ~ SIGN RE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ,~ p__r~ p , ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an amendment to the contract with Gremmer and Associates for planning, architectural and engineering consulting services for Phase Two of the Outdoor Pool Renovation Project for a design fee equal to 8% of the actual construction cost (design fee estimated at $104,126). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached amendment to the contract with Gremmer and Associates for planning, architectural and engineering consulting services for Phase Two of the Outdoor Pool Renovation Project, for a design fee equal to 8% of the actual construction cost (design fee estimated at $104,126). __ II. BACKGROUND Phase Two includes. the following improvements: • Replace existing bathhouse (4,000 square-foot) with new, 6,510 square-foot ~ ~ bathhouse. New bathhouse to comply with ADA and State codes. • Relocate pool mechanical to bathhouse. • Replace main pool filter with new sand filters. 0611 gremmer2 - Redesign front. driveway for handicapped parking and drop-off area. • Replace perimeter fence. A chronology of the planning process for the pool project follows: Outdoor Pool Task Force assembles from names gathered during the Multi Purpose 10/27/99 , Recreation Facilit rocess _ 6/13/00 OPTF and CSC meet 'ointl to discuss the recommendations of the OPTF . Joint meeting with the OPTF, CSC and the City Council to discuss recommendations 7/10/00 of the OPTF 11/28/00 Task Force meets with Gremmer and Associates to discuss ideas Selection Committee holds interviews with pool designers and engineers; selects 9127101 Gremmer __ Gremmer and Associates presents a draft preliminary plan to the Task Force and the 11/13/01 CSC __ Gremmer and Associates presents revised plan to the Task Force and the CSC. 11 /29/01 CSC took action to recommend roceedin with finalizin lans and seekin bids. 2112/02 ' Public hearin and second readin of ordinance a rovin Phase One of the ro'ect CSC/Planning Commission meet jointly to discuss the 2002-2008 Capital 3/25/02 Im rovement Plan/Bud et 3/26/02 , Public hearin and second readin of ordinance a rovin Phase Two of the ro'ect 4116/02 'CSC approves 2002-2008 Capital Improvement Plan/Budget (including eight-year internal loan for Phase Two III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Council approved a transitory ordinance approving Phase Two pool improvements and conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2002. More than 30 days have commenced since the approval of the transitory ordinance. Therefore, pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the contract with Gremmer and Associates can be amended to include Phase Two. The City Council approved the contract for Phase One with Gremmer and Associates on April 23. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • As with any pool improvement project, the time schedule needed to complete the project is a critical issue so that the new facility can open at the start of the next pool season. So far, the project remains on schedule to open during the regular pool season in 2003. A delay in the approval of this contract amendment may contribute to a delay in the opening of the pool C. FINANCIAL • The design fee for Gremmer and Associates included in the contract is an amount equal to 8% of the actual construction cost. The estimated construction cost of Phase Two is estimated at $1,301,577. The estimated design fee is $104,126. The remaining items in the project include testing, government fees, a 10% contingency, other City costs. Phase Two Construction Cost Estimate $1,301,577 Design Fee Estimate $104,126 Testing, Government Fees, 10% Contingency, Other City Costs $144,158 Total Project Cost $1,549,861 • Phase Two will be funded with an internal loan from the special revenue fund and repaid over eight years. • A design fee in the amount 8% of total project cost is an acceptable payment for services provided by Gremmer and Associates. When receiving proposals from other pool engineers last fall, fees ranged from 6.5% to 10.4% of total construction cost. D. LEGAL • Attorney Paula Callies of Kennedy & Graven reviewed the attached original contract. Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director, concerning insurance components, reviewed section 6.05. Recommendations on behalf of the City were incorporated into the agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Sketch of Outdoor Pool Renovation Project with Cost Estimates (Exhibit 1) • Contract Amendment (Exhibit 2) • Copy of signed/approved original contract with Gremmer and Associates (Exhibit 3) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None EXHIBIT 1 ~~ o ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ „IBII n O ~ ~ U cn z 4S - ~~ ~ (] 4 4 ~ ~ "~1 ~ V V `~ ~ ~~ IL D ~ ~ _ J ~ ~ LL ~ I- C Q LL _U Z 2 Z ~ ~- ~WU, ~JL ~ Q Z .1 ' (1~ W W Q ~ ~2 _ ~ ~ U_ Z °o ~o LL a-e ~ a. e ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O Q' vu~ ~ i~ ~~~ ~ ~~ NwN ° U o ~ wu ~ p Q U .~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Q (L tQ......... J~ C u i i~ RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RENOVATION OF RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL POOL COST ESTIMATE-ALTERNATE #4 PREPARED BY TiM GREMMER OF GREMMER 8~ ASSOCIATES -NOVEMBER 29, 2001 FOR BID OPENING NO LATER THAN MAY 2002 EXISTING 50 METER POOL AREA = 13,895 PROPOSED ADVENTURE POOL AREA = 4,500 SQUARE FEET FUTURE SPRAY POOL AREA = 1,300 SQUARE FEET TOTAL PATRON CAPACITY ALL POOLS = 1,164 PATRONS -';P_HASE 1:__-50.11 1.1 GENERAL CONDITIONS/BOND/MOBILIZATION BOND @ 1.5% LS $ 10,200 GENERAL CONDITIONS @ 4.0% LS $ 27,200 MOBILIZATION @ 2% LS $ 13,600 $ 680,000.00 TOTAL $ 51,000 1.2 SITE WORK SAWCUT CONCRETE DECK LF 575 $ 2.00 $ 1,150 DEMOLISH EXISTING DECK LS 7,145 $ 1.25 $ 8,931 EXCAVATION CY 2,550 $ 6.00 $ 15,300 SITE ELECTRICAL SF 13,895 $ 0.75 $ 10,421 SITE MECHANICAL SF 13,895 $ 0.75 $ 10,421 MASTER MANHOLE LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 12 INCH DIAMETER STORM SEWER LF 100 $ 25.00 $ 2,500 CONCRETE DECK AND DECK DRAINS SF 14,819 $ 5.00 $ 74,095 REMOVE TAR FROM JOINTS, SANDBLAST DECK LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 STONE FILL TN 2,000 $ 12.00 $ 24,000 SITE ELECTRICAL -ADVENTURE POOL LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 SITE MECHANICAL -ADVENTURE POOL LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 TOPSOIL SY 1,200 $ 1.50 $ 1,800 SOD SY 1,200 $ 2.00 $ 2,400 TOTAL $ 185,019 WORK ITEM UNITS QUAN. PRICE TOTAL 1.3 SWIMMING POOL POOL PERIMETER PIPING LF 1,300 $ 20.00 $ 26,000 CORE OPENINGS EA 50 $ 200.00 $ 10,000 GUTTER GRATING LF 580 $ 35.00 $ 20,300 SEAL GUTTER LF 580 $ 5.00 $ 2,900 WATERSLIDE SUCTION CHAMBER LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 SANDBLAST, CAULK AND PAINT POOL SF 16,154 $ 4.50 $ 72,693 REPLACE POOL RECIRCULATION PUMP LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000. HANDICAP RAMP LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 1.4 ADVENTURE POOL TOTAL $ 164,893 ADVENTURE POOL PLAY STRUCTURE MATERIALS LS 1 $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000 INSTALLATION LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 ADVENTURE POOL SF 4,500 $ 12.00 $ 54,000 ADVENTURE POOL GUTTER LF 270 $ 50.00 $ 13,500 PAINT SPRAY POOL SF 4,500 $ 2.50 $ 11,250 POOL WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND PIPING SF 4,50.0 $ 9.00 $ 40,500 SURGE TANK LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 POOL WATER HEATER LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 TOTAL $ 287,250 TOTAL ITEMS 1.1 THROUGH 1.4 $ 688,162 1.5 PROFESSIONAL FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY COSTS LS PRINTING OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR BIDDING LS $ 2,000 GOVERNMENT REVIEW FEES LS $ 1,000 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING LS $ 5,500 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES @ 8.0% LS $ 55,053 CONTINGENCY @ 10% LS $ 68,816 TOTAL $ 132,369 ~TGTAL PHASE 1 ~ , ~ ~$ _-.820,5~3~~'L; .. ~..._ ._ ... . _....,.,.....-,-.. ...,-~.. ... <-. ._ ,. ~ ...._._ ,_---..--....:...~-- .--,-..... R,.,..-ew..«- tea.,„--.-....~.....-. -PHASE 2. UPGRADE 50 METER P04L, NEWBATHHOUSE_ .. ~~ t ~~,~.- ~ ~ ~: 2.1 GENERAL CONDITIONS/BOND/M081L12ATION BOND @ 1.5% GENERAL CONDITIONS @ 4.0% MOBILIZATION @ 0.5% 1,200,000 LS $ 18,000 LS $ 48,000 LS $ 24,000 `'TOTAL 2.2 SITE WORK S 90,000 SAWCUT EXISTING DECK LF 170 $ 2.00 $ 340 DEMOLISH EXISTING WADING POOL SF 2,021 $ 2.00 $ 4,041 DEMOLITION EXISTING DECK AND SIDEWALK SF 33,580 $ 1.25 $ 41,975 DEMOLISH EXISTING BATH HOUSE SF 4,050 $ 4.00 $ 16,200 PARTIALLY DEMOLISH ENTRANCE CURB LF 354 $ 3.00 $ 1,061 PARTIALLY DEMOLISH EXISTING BITUMINOUS SY 1,354 $ 2.50 $ 3,384 REMOVE EXISTING FENCE LF 2,064 $ 1.50 $ 3,096 FILL CY. 1,000 $ 5.00 $ 5,000 EXCAVATION CY 1,000 $ 5.00 $ 5,000 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 GAS SERVICE LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 WATER BUILDING SERVICE LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 SANITARY BUILDING SERVICE LF 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 TELEPHONE LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 SITE ELECTRICAL LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 SITE MECHANICAL SF 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 289 $ 12.00 $ 3,463 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE TN 115 $ 13.00 $ 1,495 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE TN 50 $ 45.00 $ 2,268 MARKING HANDICAP AREA LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 SIDEWALK SF 10,324 $ 4.50 $ 46,458 CONCRETE DECK AND DECK DRAINS SF 24,505 $ 5.00 $ 122,527 TOPSOIL SY 2,500 $ 1.50 $ 3,750 SOD SY 2,500 $ 2.00 $ 5,000 EXIT TURNSTILE EA h $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 8'-0" VINYL COATED FENCE LF 1,195 $ 30.00 $ 35,844 ORNAMENTAL FENCE LF 165 $ 50.00 $ 8,225 TOTAL 2.3 BATHHOUSE $ 382,627 BATHHOUSE FIRST FLOOR ARCHITECTURAL SF 5,230 $ 75.00 $ 392,250 BASEMENT-ROOM SF 1,280 $ 40.00 $ 51,200 BATHHOUSE MECHANICAL SF 6,510 $ 30.00 $ 195,300 BATHHOUSE ELECTRICAL SF 6,510 $ 20.00 $ 130,200 BATHHOUSE FURNISHINGSILOCKERS LS 1 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000 CONCESSION EQUIPMENT LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 TOTAL $ 828,950 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 2.1 THROUGH 2.3 $ 1,301,577 2.5 PROFESSIONAL FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY COSTS LS PRINTING OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR BIDDING LS $ .2,500 GOVERNMENT REVIEW FEES LS $ 1,500 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING LS $ 10,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES @ 8.0% LS $ 104,126 CONTINGENCY @ 10% LS $ 130,158 ?OTAL $ 248,284 .~ t.-~,-.N.-~_. .- ,., ___~... ~. _ ~_,~ r...., _.,... _.. _.y TOTA1, PHASE 2 ,- , _ ~ :$ ,549,861= . ..._ .r ~Y~.. _ro_ - . __..,_~.,,. .-~..~ -- 7 2, -TC?TAL PHASE ~ AN© 2 ~ ~ .v$ ~,`3 ,U,39_._ ~~ . ~__ _. _ ~___ _-_. ___ -_~_~__ __~.~_ ~__.----.~.....d__~._.. ___...._.__ _ _ ~. ~.~ _ ~ FUTURE. SPRAY P+OaL 3.1 GENERAL CONDITIONS/BONDIMOBILIZATION BOND @ 1.5% LS $ 1,500 GENERAL CONDITIONS @ 4.0% LS $ 4,000 MOBILIZATION @ 0.5% LS $ 2,000 $ 100, 000.00 TOTAL $ 7,500 3.2. SITE WORK STONE FILL TN 500 $ 12.00 $ 6,000 EXCAVATION CY 500- $ 6.00 $ 3,000 SITE ELECTRICAL SF 1,300 $ 3.00 $ 3,900 SITE MECHANICAL - SF 1,300 $ 3.00 $ 3,900 CONCRETE DECK AND DECK DRAINS SF 3,623 $ 5.50 $ 19,924 TOPSOIL SY 300 $ ~ 1.50 $ 450 SOD SY 300 $ 2.00 $ 600 TOTAL $ 37,774 3.3 SPRAY POOL SPRAY POOL PLAY STRUCTURE LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 SPRAY POOL SF 1,300 $ 12.00 $ 15,600 PAINT SPRAY POOL SF 1,300 $ 2.50 $ 3,250 POOL WATER TREATMENT/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LS 1,300 $ 9.00 $ 11,700 POOL HEATER EA 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 SURGE TANK LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 POOL WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 TOTAL TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 3.1 THROUGH 3.3 3.4 PROFESSIONAL FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS $ 94,550 $ 139,824 CITY COSTS LS 1 $ - PRINTING OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR BIDDING LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 GOVERNMENT REVIEW FEES LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES @ 8.0% LS 1 $ 11,186 CONTINGENCY @ 10% LS 1 $ 13,982 TOTAL $ 28,668 ~- •TflTAt FIITURE.~PRAY POOL . ~_~ _u_., ~, ~~~,,...~..~.s..~.-..~ ,~~. , ~ ... ,~.~n,.~.,, -'$_ -~.~8~= ,... _ __ _ - --- ~,~,.~._.,~~ ~_ ...,.-~-~.-.----_ _._ __-_ T TOTAL PHASES 1,2-AND FUTt1RE-.SPR,AY PAL .. ~ ~ - 2;538,884`:'.- --, EXHIBIT 2 June 3, 2002 City of Richfield Park and Recreation Department 7000 Nicollet Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Attention: Jim Topitzhofer Director of Recreational Services Subject: Richfield Municipal Swimming Pool Renovation Project Amendment to Add Phase II to Agreement Between City of Richfield, Minnesota and Gremmer & Associates, Inc. Dear Mr. Topitzhofer: This letter is an Amendment to the Standard Form of Agreement Between the City of Richfield, Minnesota and Gremmer & Associates, Inc., effective date March 26, 2002, for professional services for the renovation of the City of Richfield outdoor municipal pool. The Amendment adds Phase II to the design and construction services agreement. This amendment includes demolition of the existing bathhouse and replacement of the new bathhouse; the food court; additional fencing; modification of the entrance road; and additional concrete deck in front of the bathhouse. See the attached Exhibit 1, Richfield Municipal Pool Site Alternate No. 4 Phasing Schedule, for a sketch of Phase II and cost estimates. If this Amendment is acceptable, please have an authorized person sign and date the Amendment where indicated and return one copy to us for our files. Very truly yours, Jody A. Dahms, PE Project Engineer JAD/jlc Enclosure: Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 2 Richfield Contract Amendment ~- FOR GREMMER & ASSOCIATES, INC.: David L. Glodowski, PE Secretary/Treasurer FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, OWNER: Martin Kirsch, Mayor Date Signed Date Signed Page 2 of 2 Richfield Contract Amendment EXHIBIT3 This document has imporant legal consequences; consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect [o its use or modification. This document should be adapted to the particular circumstances of the contemplated Project and the Controlling Law. _ STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Prepared by ENGINEERS JOINT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS COMMITTEE and Issued and Published Jointly By ~~~ ~~ National Society of Professional Engineers AMERICAN CONSULTING ProtessloaalFngfaeersla Pnrdte Practice ENGINEERS COUNCIL AMERICANSOCfETYOF CNIL ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN PRIVA'T'E PRACTICE a practice division of the NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL AI~fERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Ttus Agreement has been prepared for use with the Standard Genera] Conditions of the Constn;ction Contract (tio. 1910-8, 1996 Edition) of the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee. Their provisions are interrelated, and a change in one may necessitate a change in the other. For guidance is the preparation of Su ~onditioas, see Guide to the Preparation of Su Icmen PP~ementary on the cotnpletion and tue of this Agreement, sP EJCDCyUsersdGuide(No. Ii9I10 50. (I9o5 Edition). For guidance EJCDC Ivo. 1910-I (1996 F~iaoaj TABLE OF CONTENTS I~J~ ~ ARTICLE l - SERv[CES OF ENGINEER ........ . .. .. I. I Scope ................... ................... .... 2 .. ............-....... ARTICLE Z - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES ... . ... ... _. l General .... . . . . ...... ..... ........... 2 ..... .. .............. 2 -- ART[CLE 3 - TItitES FOR RENDERING SERVICES .... .... 3.01 General ........ ......... • ................ 2 02 Suspension ................... .. ............ ... 2 ... . ... ............ 2 .... ARTICLE 4 - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER ..... . 4.01 Methods of Payment for Services and Reimb ursable Expenses of ENGINEER 2 4:02 - .Other Provisions Concerning Payments ... _ _ _ ........ • . • . ~ ~ • " • 2 ..... ..................... 2 ARTICLE 5 - OPINIONS OF COST ....... 5.01 Opinions of Probable Construction Cost ... _ ....--- 3 ... . 2 Designing to Construction Cost Limit ..... ......... ......................... 3 . 5.03 Opinions of Total Project Costs ........ .......... • . • ... - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' 3 ....... ...... 3 .... ARTICLE 6 -GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ........ 6.01 . Standards of Rerformance ........ . .. ... ................................. 3 6.02 . Authorized Project Representatives ..... ................... • ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' 3 .03 Design without Construction Phase Services ...................... 4 .. 6.04 Use of Documents ........... ........... . ....................... 4 6.05 Insurance ......... • - ..... • ......... 5 6'.06 ...... ........ Termination ...... . .........•........................... 5 6.07 Controlling Law ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - • - 6 6.08 Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries ..... .. ~ • ' ' ' • ' ' 6 .. 6.09 Dispute Resolution ............... .. ................................ 6 6.10 ... Hazardous Environruental Condition ..... . . .................................. 7 .11 . Allocation of Risks ........... . ....... . ............................ 7 6.12 . .... Notices ............... . .................... 7 .13 Survival ................ .. 8 ........ • I4 Severabiliry ..................... ................................. 8 6.15 . Waiver ............................. - - 8 .16 Headings .... , . ............ ................................. 8 ...... .............•. 8 ..................... •- ARTICLE 7 - DEFINITIONS ............. 7.01 . . ...... Defined Terms ................... .................... .. 8 ......... .. .. . . ... . . . ........... ................... 8 ARTICLE 8 - E;CHIBITS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS .... .01 E:,hibits Included ............. .... . ............... - 11 ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ - .02 Totes] Agreement ............... ..... .. .. . . .. . . - - ..... ........ 11 ~' STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS IS AN AGREEMENT effective as of Mdreh 26 ,.2002 (4 Effective Date") between This City of Richfield, a municipal corporation Gremmer & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers (`OWI~~ER") and ("ENGINEER°). OWNER intends to Community Swimming Pool Renovation Project -Phase I _ This shall include repairs to existing 50 meter pool which includes new recirculation piping to pool and from gutters, repair of deck, and added HC ramp Project shall also include a new wadin ool to the west of the existing pool. ("Project"). OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants as set forth herein agree as follows: Standard Form of Agreement &:tween Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 1 of 12 ~~TICLE I -SERVICES OF ENGINEER L.01 Scope .A. ENGINEER shall provide the Basic and Additional Services set forth herein and in Exhibit A. B. Upon this Agreement becoming effective, ENGINEER is authorized to begin Basic Services as set forth in Exhibit A. . C. [f authorized by OWNER, ENGINEER shall furnish Resident Project Representative(s) with duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority as set forth in Exhibit D. ARTICLE 2 -OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 2.01 General A. OWNER shall have the responsibi]ities-set forth herein and in Exhibit B. ARTICLE 3 - TIi1•LES FOR RENDERING SERVICES 3.01 General A. ENGINEER'S services and compensation under this Agreement have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the Project through cotupletion. Unless specific periods of time or specific dates for providing services are specified in this Agreement, ENGINEER'S obligation to render services hereunder will be for a period which may reasonably be required for the completion of said services. B. If in this Agreement specific periods of time for rendering services are set forth or specific dates by which services are to be completed are provided, and if such periods of time or dates are changed through no fault of ENGINEER, the rates and amounts o'f compensation provided for herein shall be subject to equitable adjustment. If OWNER has requested changes in the scope, extent, or character of the Project, the time of performance of ENGINEER'S services shall be adjusted equitably. C. For purposes of this Agreement the term "day" means a calendar day of 24 hours. 3.02 Stupcnsion A. 1f OWNER fails to give prompt written authorization to proceed with any phase of services after completion of the immediately preceding phase, or if ENGINEER'S services arc delayed through no fault of ENGINEER, ENGINEER may, after giving seven days written notice to OWI`IER, suspend services under this Agreement. B. If ENGINEER'S services arc delayed or suspended in whole or in pan by OWNER, or if ENGINEER'S services are extended by Contractor's actions or inactions for more than 90 days through no fault of ENGINEER, ENGINEER shall be entitled to equitable adjustment of rates and amounts of compensation provided for elsewhere in this Agreement to reflect, reasonable costs incurred by ENGINEER in connection with, among other things, such delay or suspension and reactivation and the fact that [he time for performance under this Agreement has been revised. ARTICLE 4 -PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER 4.01 Methods of Payment for Services and Reimbursable Expenses of ENGINEER A. For Basic Services. OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Basic Services performed or furnished under Exhibit A, Part 1, as set forth in Exhibit C. B. For Additional Services. OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Additional Services performed or furnished under Exhibit A, Pan 2, as set forth in Exhibit C. C. For Reimbursable Expenses. In addition to payments provided for in paragraphs 4.O1.A and 4.O1.B, OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Reimbursable Expenses incurred by ENGINEER and ENGINEER'S ConsuItanu as set forth in Exhibit C. 4.02 Other Provisions Concerning Payments A. Preparation of Invoices. Invoices will be prepared in accordance with ENGINEER'S standard invoicing practices and will be submitted to OWNER by ENGINEER, unless otherwise agreed. Zhe amount billed in each invoice will be calculated as set forth in E.~ltibit C. B. Payment of Invoices- Invoices are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. If OWNER fails to make an}' payment due ENGINEER for services and expenses-within 30 days after receipt of ENGINEER'S invoice therefor, the amounts due ENGINEER will be increased at the rate of 1.0°~ per month (or the maximum rate of interest permitted Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 2 of 12 by law, if less) from said thinicth day. In addition, ENGINEER may, after giving seven days written notice to OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement un[il ENGINEER has been paid in full all amounts due foe services, expenses, and other related charges. Paymenu will be credited first to interest and then to principal. C. Disputed Invoices. In .the event of a disputed or contested invoice, only that portion so contested may be withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion will be paid. D. Payments G'pon Termination. 1. In the event of any termination under paragraph 6.06, ENGINEER will be entitled to invoice OWNER and will be paid in accordance with Exhibit C for all services performed or furnished and all Reimbursable Expenses incurred through the effective date of termination. 2. In the event of terminatio^ by OWNER for convenience or by ENGWEER for cause, ENGINEER, in addition to invoicing for those items identified in subparagraph 4.02.D.1, shall be entitled to invoice OWNER and shall be paid a reasonable amount for services and expenses directly attributable to termination, both before and afrer the effective date of termination, such as reassignment of personnel, costs of terminating contracts with ENGINEER'S Consultants, and other related close-out costs, using methods and rates for Additional Services as set forth in Exhibit C. E. Records of ENGINEBR's Costs. Records of ENGINEER'S cosu pertinent to ENGINEER'S compensation under this Agreement shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. To the extent necessary to verify ENGINEER'S charges and upon OWNER'S timely request, copies of such records will be made available to OWNER at cost. F. Legislative Actions. In the evem of legislative actions afrer the Effective Date of the Agreement by any Ieve1 of government that impose fazes, fees, or costs on ENGINEER'S services or other costs in connection with this Project or compensation therefor, such new fazes, fees, or costs shall be invoiced to and paid by OWNER as a Reimbursable Expense to which a Factor of 1.0 shall be applied. Should such razes, fees, or costs be imposed, they shall be in addition to ENGINEER'S estimated total compensation. ARTICLE S - OPIlYIONS OF COST 5.01 Opinions of Probable Construction Cost A. ENGINEER'S opinions of probable Construction Cost provided for herein are to be made on the basis of ENGINEER'S experience and.:.qualifications and represent ENGINEER'S best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional generally familiar with the industry. However, since ENGINEER has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual Construction Cost will not vary from opinions of probable Construction Cost prepared by ENGINEER. [f OWNER wishes greater assurance as to probable Construction Cost, OWNER shall employ an independent cost estimator as provided in Exhibit B. 5.02 Designing to Construction Cost Limit A. If a Construction Cost limit is established between OWNER and ENGINEER, such Construction Cost limit and a statement of ENGINEER'S rights and responsibilities with respect thereto will be specifically set forth in Exhibit F, "Construction Cost Limit, ° to this Agreement. 5.03 Opinions of Total Project Cosfs A. ENGINEER assumes no responsibiliry for the accuracy of opinions of Total Project Costs. ARTICLE 6 -GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.01 Standards of Performance A. The standard of care for all professional engineering and related services performed or furnished by ENGINEER under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of ENGINEER'S profession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. ENGINEER makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with ENGINEER'S services. B. ENGINEER shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services and documents resulting therefrom, and OWNER shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. ENGINEER shall correct such deficiencies without additional compensation except to tllc Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 3 of 12 extent such action is directly attributable to deficiencies in OWNER-furnished information. ~_. C. ENGINEER shall perform or furnish professional engineering and related services in all phases of the Project to which this Agreemen[ applies. ENGINEER shalt serve as OWNER's prime professional for the Project. ENGINEER may employ such ENGINEER'S Consultants as ENGINEER decors necessary to assist in the performance or famishing of the services. ENGINEER shall not be required to employ any ENG[NEER's Consultant unacceptable to ENGINEER. D. ENG[NEER and OWNER shall comply with applicable Lau-s or Regulations and OWNER-mandated standards. This Agreement is based on these requirements as of its Effective Date. Changes to these requirements after the Effective Dace of this Agreement may be the basis for modifications to OGVNER's responsibilities or to ENGII`IEER's scope of services, times of performance, or compensation. E. OWNER shall be responsible for, and ENGINEER may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all requiremenu, programs, instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by OWNER to ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement. ENGINEER may use such requiremenu, reports, data, and information in performing or furnishing services under this Agreement. ' F• OWNER shall make decisions and carry out its other responsibilities in a timely manner and shall bear all costs incident thereto so as not to delay the services of ENGINEER. G. Prior to the commencement of the Construction Phase, OWNER shall notify ENGINEER of any variations from the language indicated in Exhibit E. "Notice of Acceptability of Work, ° or of any other notice or certification that ENGINEER will be requested to provide to OWNER or third parties in connection with the Project. OWNER and ENGINEER shall reach agreement on the terms of any such requested notice or certification. and OWNER shall authorize such Additional Services as are necessary to enable ENGINEER to provide the notices or certifications requested. H. ENGINEER shall not be required to sign any documents, no matter by whom requested, that would result in the ENGINEER'S having to certify, guarantee or warrant the existence of conditions whose existence the ENGINEER cannot ascertain. OWNER agrees not to make resolution of any dispute with the ENGINEER or payment of any amount due to the ENGINEER in any. way contingent upon the ENGINEER'S signing any such certification. I. During the Construction Phase, ENGINEER shall not supervise, direct, or have control over Contractor's work, nor shah ENGINEER, have authority over or responsibility f°r the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or PrOCedures of corutruccion selected by Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident to the Contractor's work m Progress. nor for any failure of Contractor to comply with Laws and Regulations applicable to Contractor's furnishing and performing the Work. J. ENGINEER neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for .any Contractor's failure to furnish and perform the ~3/ork in accordance with the Contract Documents. K. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissiotu of any Contractor(s), subcontractor or supplier, or of any of the Contractor's agents or employees or any ocher persons (except ENGINEER'S own employees) at the Site or otherwise furnishing or performing any of the Contractor's work; or for any decision made on interpretations or clarifications of the Contract Documents given by OWNER without consultation and advice of ENGINEER. L. 'The. Genera! Conditions for any construction contract documenu prepared hereunder are to be the "Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract" as prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (Document No. I910-8, 1996 Edition) unless both parties mutually agree to use other General Conditions as specifically referenced in Exhibit J. 6.02 Authorized Project Representatives A. Contemporaneous with the execution of this Agreement, ENGINEER and OWNER shall designate specific individuals to act as ENGINEER'S and OWNER'S representatives with respect to the services to be performed or fiu~nished by ENGINEER and responsibilities of OWNER under this Agreement. Such individuals shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive information, and render decisions relative to the Project on behalf of each respective PanY• 6.03 Design without Construction PhAse Services A. Should OWNER provide Construction Phase services with either OWNER'S representatives or a third parry, ENGINEER'S Basic Services under this Agreement will be considered to be completed upon completion of the Final Design Phase or Bidding or Negotiating Phase as outlined in Exhibit A. Standard Form of Agreement Bet,Neen Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 4 of l2 B. It is understood and agreed that if ENGINEER'S Basic Services under this Agreement do not include Project observation, or review o(the Con[ractor's performance, or any other Construction Phase services, and that such services wilt be provided by OWNER, then OWNER assumes all responsibility for interpretation of the Contract Documents and for construction observation or review and waives any claims against the ENGINEER that may be in any way connected thereto. 6.0=i Use of Documents A. All Documents are instruments of service in respect to this Project, and ENGINEER shall retain an ownership and property interest therein (including the right of reuse at the discretion of the ENGINEER) whether or not the Project is completed. B. Copies of OWNER-furnished data tha[ may be retied upon by ENGINEER are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are delivered to the ENGINEER pursuant to Exhibit B. Files in electronic media format of tent, data, graphics, or of other types that are furnished by OWNER to ENGINEER are only for convenience of ENGINEER. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the user's sole risk. C. Copies of Documents that may be relied upon by OWNER are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by the ENGINEER. Files in electronic media format of tent, data, graphics, or of other types that are furnished by ENGINEER to OWNER are only for convenience of OWNER. tiny conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the user's sole risk. D. Because data stored in electrotic media format can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of the data's creator, the parry receiving electronic files agrees that it will perform acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days, after which the receiving parry shall be deemed to have accepted the data thus transferred. Any errors detected within the 60-day acceptance period will be corrected by the party delivering the electronic files. ENGINEER shall not be responsible to maintain documents stored in electronic media format after acceptance by OWNER. E. When transferring documents in electronic media format, ENGINEER makes no representations as to long term compatibility, usability, or readability of documents resulting from the use of software application packages, opcrattng rystertu, or computer hardware differing from those rued by ENGINEER arthe beginning of this Project. F. OWNER may make and retain copies of Documents for information and reference in connection with use on the Project by OWNER. Such Documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by OWNER or others on extensions of the Project or on any other project. Any such reuse or modification without written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER, as appropriate for the specific purpose intended, will be at OWNER'S sole risk and without liabiliry or legal exposure to ENGINEER or to ENGINEER'S Consultants. OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER and ENGINEER'S Consultants from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. G. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern. H. Any verification or adaptation of the Documents for extensions of the Project or for any other project will entitle ENGINEER to further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by OWNER and ENGINEER. 6.05 Insurance A. ENGINEER shall procure and maintain insurance as set forth in Exhibit G, "Insurance. " B. OWNER shall procure and maintain insurance as set forth in Exhibit G, "Insurance." OWNER shall cause ENGINEER and ENGINEER'S Consultants to be listed as additional insureds on any general liability or property insurance policies carried by OWNER which are applicable to the Project. C. OWNER shall require Contractor to purchase and maintain general liabiliry and other insurance as specified in the Contact Documents and to cause ENGINEER and ENGIIVEER's Consultants to be listed as additional insureds with respect to such liability and other insurance purchased and maintained by Contractor for the Project. D. OWNER and ENGINEER shall each deliver to the other certificates of insurance evidencing the coverages indicated in Exhibit G. Such certificates shall be furnished prior to comtnencement of ENGINEER'S services and at renewals thereafter during the life of the Agreement_ E. All policies of property insurance shall contain provisions to the effect that ENGINEER'S and ENGINEER'S Consultants' interests are covered and that in the event of payment of any loss or damage the insurers will have no Stutdard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 5 of 12 rights of recovery against any of the insureds or additional insureds thereunder. F. At any time, OWNER may request that ENGINEER, at OWNER's sole ezpertse, provide additional irrntrancc coverage, increased limier, or revised deductibles that arc more protective than those specified in Exhibit G. [f so requested by OWNER, with the cortutrrencc of ENGWEER, and if commercially availabic, ENGINEER shall obtain and shall require ENGINEER'S Consultants to obtain such additional insurance coverage, different limits, or revised deductibles for such periods of time as requested by OWNER, and Exhibit G will be supplemented to incorporate these requirements. 6.06 Termination A. The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement maybe terminated: 1. For cause, a. By either parry upon 30 days written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating parry. b. By ENGINEER: _ 1) upon seven days written notice if ENGINEER believes that ENGINEER is being requested by OWNER to furnish or perform services contrary to ENGIIVEER's responsibilities as a licensed professional; or 2) upon seven days written notice if the ENGINEER's services for the Project are delayed or suspended for more than 90 days for reasons beyond ENGINEER'S control. 3) ENGINEER shall have no IiabtTity. to OWNER on account of such termination. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement will not terminate as a result of such substantial failure if the parry receiving such notice begins, within seven days of receipt of such notice, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 days of receipt thereof; provided, however, that if and to the extent such substantial failure cannot be reasonably cured within such 30 day period, and if such parry has diligently attempted to cure the same and thereafter continues diligently to cure tltc same, then the curt period provided for herein shall extend up to, but in no case more than, GO days after tltc dart of receipt of ttic notice. 2. For canvenierce, a. By OWNER cffcctivc upon the rccCipt of notice by ENGINEER. B. Thc terminating party under paragraphs 6.OG.A. 1 or 6.O6.A.2 may set the cffcctivc date of termination at a time up to 30 days later than otherwise provided to ailo~v ENGINEER to demobilize personnel and equipment from the Site, to complete tasks whose value would otherwise be lost, to prepare notes as to the status of completed and uncompleted tasks, and to assemble Project materials in orderly files. 6.07 Controlling Law A. This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the state in which the Project is located. 6.08 Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries A. OWNER and ENGINEER each is hereby bound and the parmets, successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives of OWNER and ENGINEER (and to the extent permitted by paragraph 6.08.B the assigns of OWNER and ENGINEER) are hereby bound to the other parry to this Agreement and to the patttters, successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives (and said assigns) of such other parry, in respect of all covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement. B. Neither OWNER nor ENGINEER may assign, sublet, or transfer any righu under or interest (including, but without limitation, moneys that are due or may become due) in this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting, or transfer is mandated or restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibiIiry under this Agreement. C. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement: 1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, unpose, or give rise to any duty owed by OWNER or ENGINEER to any Contractor, Contractor's subcontractor, supplier, other individual or entity, or to any surety for or employee of any of them. Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 6 of 12 ?. All duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to Qris Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive `` benefit of OWNER and ENGINEER and not for the benefit of any other party. The OWNER agrees that the substance of the provisions of this paragraph 6.08.C shall appear in the Contract Documents. 6.09 Dispute Resolution A. OWNER and ENGINEER agree to negotiate all disputes between [`rem in good faith for a period of 30 days from the date of notice prior to exercising their rights under Exhibit H or other provisions of this Agreement, or under la~v. In the absence of such an agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under law. B. If and to the extent that OWNER and ENGINEER have agreed on a method and procedure for resolving disputes benveen them arising out of or relating to this Agreement, such dispute resolution method and procedure is set forth in Exhibit H, "Dispute Resolution." 6.10 Hazardous Environmental Condition A. OWNER represents to Engineer that to the best of its knowledge a Hazardous Environmental Condition does not exist. B. OWNER has disclosed to the best of its knowledge to ENGINEER the existence of all Asbestos, PCB's, Petroleum, Hazardous Waste, or Radioactive Material located at or near the Site, including type, quantity and location. C. tf a Hazardous Environmental Condition is encountered or alleged, ENGINEER shall have the obligation to notify OWNER and, to the extent of applicable Laws and Regulations, appropriate governmental officials. D. tt is acknowledged by both parries that ENGINEER'S scope of services does not include air services related to a Hazardous Environmental Condition. In the event ENGINEER or any other party encounters a Hazardous Environmental Condition, ENGINEER may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of services on the portion of the Project affected thereby until OWNER: (i) retains appropriate specialist consultant(s) or contractor(s) to identify and, as appropriate, abate, remediate, or remove the Hazardous Environmental Condition; and (ii) warrants that the Site is in full compliance with applicable Laws and Regulations. E. OWNER acknowledges that ENGINEER is performing professional services for OWNER and that %~ ENGINEER is not and shall no[ be required to become an "arranger." "operator," "generator," or "transporter" of haiardoas substances, as dcGncd in the Comprehensive Environmental Resporue, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990 (CERCLA), which arc or may be encountered at or near the Site in connection with ENGINEER'S activities under this Agreement. F. If ENGINEER'S services under this Agreement cannot be performed because of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, the existence of the condition shall justify ENGINEER'S terminating this Agreement for cause on 30 days notice. 6. I1 Allocation of Rills A. Indemniftcation 1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless OWNER, OWNER'S officers, directors, partners, and employees from and against any and ail costs, losses, and damages (including but not limited to ail fees and charges of engineers, architecu, attorneys, and other professionals, and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) caused solely by the negligent acts or omissions of ENGINEER or ENGINEER'S officers, directors, partners, employees; and ENGINEER'S Consultants in the Performance and furnishing of ENGINEER'S services under this Agreement. 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER, ENGINEER'S officers, directors, partners, employees, and ENGINEER'S Consultants from and against any and alI cola, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals, and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) caused solely by the negligent acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER'S officers, directors, partners, employees, and OWNER'S consultants with respect to this Agreement or the Project. 3. To 'the fullest extent permitted by law, ENGINEER'S total' liability to OWNER and anyone claiming by, through, or under OWNER for any cost, loss, or damages caused in part by the negligence of ENGII~BER and in part by the negligence of OWNER or any other negligent entity or individual, shall not exceed the percentage share that ENGINEER'S negligence bears to the total negligence of OWNER, ENGINEER, and all other negligent entities and individuals. 4. In addition to the indemnity provided under paragraph b.11.A.2 of this Agreement, and to the fullest Standard Form of Agreement Be^Neen Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 7 of l2 extent permitted by la~v, OWNER shall indcmnifyand hold harmless ENGINEER and its officers, directors, partners, employees, and ENGINEER'S Consultants from and against all costs, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, nerd ocher professionals, and all coup or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) caused by, arising ou[ of or resulting from a Hazardous Environmental Condition, provided than r) any such cost, loss, or damage is attributable to bodily injur}•, sickness, disease, or death, or to injury to or destrttetion of tangible property (other than completed Work), incittding the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (ii) nothing in this paragraph 6. ! i .A.4. shall obliga[e OWNER to indemnify any individual or entity from and agairut the consequences of drat individual's or enciry's own negligence or willful misaortduct. 5. The indemnification provision of paragraph 6.11.A.1 is subject to and limited by the pro+risions agreed to by OWNER and ENGINEER in Et~bit I, "Allocation of Risks," if any. 6.12 l\'otices A. Any notice required under this Agreement wiIl be in writing, addressed to the appropriate parry at its address on the signature page and given personally, or by registered or certified mail postage prepaid, or by a commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the daze of receipt. 6.13 Survirai A. All express representations, indemnifications, or Iitnitations of liability included in this Agreement will stitvive its completion or termination for any reason. 6.14 Severability A. Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any Laws or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon OWNEg and ENGINEER, who agree that the Agreement shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part t6creof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as ckse as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. 6.15 Waiver A. Non-enforcement of any provision by either parry shall not constitute a waiver of that provision, nor shall it affect the enforceabiIiry of that provision or of the remainder of this Agreement. ~~~ 6.16 Ilcadings A. The headings used in this ~figrccment arc for general reference only and do not have special significance. ARTICLE 7 - DEFINITIONS 7.0 i Defined Terms A. Wherever used in [leis Agreement (including the Exhibits hereto) and printed with initial or all capital letters, the terms listed below have the. meanings indicated, which are applicable to bo[h the singular and plural thereof: 1. Addenda--Written or graphic instruments issued prior to the opening of Bids which clarify, correct, or change the Bidding Documents. Z. Additional Services--The services to be performed for or furnished to OWNER by ENGINEER in accordance with Exhibit A, Pan 2 of this Agreement. 3. Agreement--This "Standard Form of Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services," including those Exhibits listed in Article 8 hereof. 4. Application for Payment--The form acceptable to ENGINEER which is to be used by Contractor in requesting progress or fmal payments for the completion of its Work and which is to be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is required by the Contract Documents. 5. Asbestos--Any material that contains more than one percent asbestos and is friable or is releasing asbestos fibers into the air above current action levels established by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Admittistration. 6. Basic Services--The services to be performed for or furnished to OWNER by ENGINEER in accordance with Exhibit A, Part 1, of this Agreement. 7. Bid--The offer or proposal of the bidder submitted on the prescribed form setting forth the prices for the Work to be performed. 8. Bidding Documents--The advertisement or invitation to Bid, instructions to bidders, the Bid form and attachments, the Bid bond, if any, the prooosed Contract Documents, and ail Addenda, if anv. Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 8 of 1Z 9. Charge Order--A document recommended by ENGINEER, which is signed by Contractor and OWNER to authorize an addition, deletion or revision in the Work, or an adjustment in the Contract Price or the Contract Times, issued on or after the Effective Date of the Construction Agreement. 10. Coiutntction Agreement--The written instrument which is evidence of the agreement, contained in the Contract Documents, between OWNER and Contractor covering the Work. I I . Corzsrructio~t Corurau--The entire and integrated written agreement benveen the OWNER and Contractor concerning the Work. 12. Conutruction Cost--The cost to OWNER of those portions of the entire Project designed or specified by ENGINEER. Construction Cost does not include ccsu of services of ENGINEER or other design professionals and consultants, cost of land, rights-of--way, or compensation for damages to properties, or OWNER's costs for legal, accounting, insurance counseling or auditing services, or interest and financing charges incurred in connection with the Project, or the cost of other services to be provided by others to OWNER pursuant to Exhibit B of this Agreement. Construction Cost is one of the items comprising Total Project Cosu. 13. Coturact Documents--Documents that establish the righu and obligations of the parties engaged in construction and include the Construction Agreement between OWNER and Contractor, Addenda (which pertain to the Contract Documents), Contractor's Bid (including documentation accompanying the Bid and any post-Bid documentation submitted prior to the notice of award) when attached as an exhibit to the Construction Agreement, the notice to proceed, the bonds, appropriate cenifications, the General Conditions, the Supplementary Conditions, the Specifications and the Drawings as the same are more specificaliy identified in the Construction Agreement, together with alI Written Amendments, Change Orders, Work Change Directives, Field Orders, and ENGINEER'S written interpretations and clarifications issued on or after the Effective Date of the Construction Agreement. Approved Shop Drawings and the reports and drawings of subsurface and physical conditions are not Contract Documents. 14. Contract Price--The moneys payable by OWNER to Contractor for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents and as stated in the Construction A~reemcnt. 15. Contract Times--The numbers of days or the dates stated in tltc Construction Agrccmcnt to: (i) achieve Substantial Completion, and (ii) complete tltc Work so that it is ready for final payment as evidenced by ENG[NEER's ~vrittcn recommendation of final payment. 16. Contractor--An individual or entity with whom OWNER enters into a Construction Agrccmcnt. 17. Correction Period--The time after Substantial Completion during which Contractor must correct, at no cost to OWNER, an}• Defective Work, normally one year after the date of Substantial Completion or such longer period of time as may be prescribed by Laws or Regulations or by the terms of any applicable special guarantee or specific provision of the Contract Documents. 18. Defective-An adjective which, when modifying the word Work, refers to Work that is unsatisfactory, faulty, or deficient, in that it does not conform to the Contract Documents, or does not meet the requirements of any inspection, reference standard, test, or approval referred to in the Contract Documents, or has been damaged prior to ENGINEER'S recommendation of final payment. 19. Documents--Data, reporu, Drawings, Specifications, Record Drawings, and other deliverables, whether in printed or electronic media format, provided or furnished in appropriate phases by ENGINEER to OWNER pursuant to this Agreement. 20. Drawings-That part of the Contract Documents prepazed or approved by ENGINEER which graphically shows the scope, extent, and chazacter of the Work to be performed by Contractor. Shop Drawings are not Drawings as so defined. 21. Effective Dare of the Construction Agreement-- The date indicated in the Construction Agreement on which it becomes effective, but if no such date is indicated, it means the date on which the Construction Agreement is signed and delivered by the last of the two parties to sign and deliver. 22. Effective Date of the Agreement--The date indicated in this Agreement on which it becomes effective, but if no such date is indicated, it means the date on which the Agreement is signed and delivered by the last of the two parties to sign and deliver. 23. ENGINEER'S Consulrants--Individuals or entities having a contract with ENGINEER to titrnish services Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 9 of l2 with respect to this Project as ENGINEER'S independent 33. Reinrbursoble Ezpe>Lres--The ctpenses incurred professional associates, consultants, subcontractors, or directly by ENGINEER in conncxtion witfr the performing vendors. The term ENGINEER includes ENGINEER'S or furnishing of Basic and Additional Services for the Consultants. Project for whictr OWNER shalt pay ENGINEER as indicated in Etltibit C. !`~ 24. Field Order--A written order issued by ENGINEER which direcu minor changes in the Work but which dais not involve a change in the Contract Price or the Contract Times. 2~. General Conditions-That• pan of the Contract Documents which sets forth terms, conditions, and procedures that govern the Work to be performed or furnished by Contractor with respect to the Project. 26. Hazardous Environmental Condition--The presence at the Site of Asbestos, PCB's, Petroleum, Hazardous Waste, or Radioactive Materials in such quantities or circtunstant;es that may present a substantial danger to persons or property exposed thereto in connection with the Work. 27. Hazardous Waste-The term Hazazdotrs Waste shall have the meaning provided in Section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act_ (42 USC Section 6903) as amended from time to time. 28. Lmvs and Regulations,• Laws or Regulations-Any and all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, standards, and orders of any and all governmental bodies, agencies, authorities, and coups having jurisdiction. 29. PCB's--Polychlorinated biphenyls. 30. Petroleum-Petroleum; including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute), such as oil, petroleum, fuel oil, oil sludge, oil refuse, gasoline, kerosene, and oil mined with other non-Hazardous Waste and crude oils. 31. Radioactive Materials-Source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC Section 2011 et seq.) as amended from time to time. 32. Record Drmvings-The Drawings as issued for constructioa:on which the ENGINEER, upon completion of the Work, has shown changes due to Addenda or Change Orders and other information which ENGINEER considers sigzuficant based on record documents furnished by Contractor to ENGINEER and which were annotated by Contractor to show changes made during construction. 34. Resideru Project Representative--The authorized representative of ENGINEER, if any, assigned to assist ENGINEER at the Site during the Construction Please. The Resident Project Representative will be ENG[NEER's agent or employee and under ENGINEER'S supervision. As used herein, the term Resident Project Representative includes any assistants of Resident Project Representative agreed to by OWNER_ The duties and responsibilities of the Resident Project Representative are as set forth in E.=lribit D. 35. Samples--Physical examples of materials, equipment, or workmanship that are representative of some portion of the Work and which establish the standards by which such portion of [he Work will be judged. 36. Shop Drawings--All drawings, diagrams, illustrations, schedules, and other data or information which are specifically prepared or assembled by or for Contractor and submitted by Contractor to ENGINEER to illustrate some portion of the Work. 37. Site--Lands or areas indicated in the Contract Documents as being furnished by OWNER upon which the Work is to be performed, rights-of--way and easements for access thereto, and such other Lands furnished by OWNER which are designated for use of Contractor. 38. Specifications--That part of the Contract Documenu consisting of written technical descriptions of materials, equipment, systems, standazds, and workmanship as applied to the Work and certain administrative details applicable thereto. 39. Substantial Completion-The time at which the Work (or a specified part thereof) has progressed to the point where, in the opinion of ENGINEER, the Work (or a specified part thereof) is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so that the Work (or a specified pan thereof) can be utilized for the purposes for which it is intended. The terms "substantially complete" and "substantially completed" as applied to all or part of the Work refer to Substantial Completion thereof. Standard Form of Agreement Be^Necn Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 10 of 12 40. Supnl~ntcnrarp Conditions--That part of the Contract Decumcnts whidt amends or suppicmeats [hc General Conditions. 41 . Tora! 1'rojecr Cosrs--The sum of the Construction Cost, allo~vanccs for contingcncics, the to[al cosu of services of ENGINEER or other design professionals and corLSUltanu, cos[ of Iand, rights-of-way, or compauation for damages [o properties, or O~VNER's costs for legal, accounting, insurance counseling or auditing services, or interest and financing charges incurred in connection with she Projec[, or the cost of ocher services to be provided by others to OWNER pursuant to Exhibit B of this Agreement. 42. tt'or~--The entire completed construcioa or the various separately identitiabie parts thereof required to be provided under the Contract Documenu with respect to this Project. 1Vork includes and is .the result of perfot7rting or furnishing tabor, services, and documentation necessary to produce such comrruction and furnishing. installing, and incorporating ail materials and all equipment into such construction, all as required by the Contract Documenu. 43. iVork Citan~e Directive-A written directive to Contractor issued on or after the Effective Date of the Construction Agreement and signed by OWNER upon recommendation of the ENGINEER, ordering an addition, deletion, or revision in the Work, or responding to differing or unforeseen subsurface or physical conditions under which the Work is to be perfatrnxd or to emergencies. A Work Change Directive will not dtange the Contract Price or the Contract Times but is evidence that the parties expect that the change directed or documented by a Work Change Directive grill be incorporated in a subsequently issued Change Order following negotiations by the parties as io iu effect, if any, on the Contract Price or Contract Times. 44 - Written Amendment-A written amendment of the Contract Documents signed by OWNER and Co~ractor on or afrer the Effective Date of the Construction Agreement and normally dealing with the non-cngnxering or non-technical rather than strictly construction-related aspects of the Contract Documenu. ARTICLE 8 - EXIiI11i"I'S AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS 3.0I Exltit~its Included A. E-.tltibic A, °ENG[NEER's Services," consisting of pages. B. Exhibit B, "OWI~IGR's Rcsponsibilitics," consisting of pages. C. Exhibit C, "Payments to Engineer for Services and Reimbursable Expenses," consisting of pages. D- E.tltibit D, "Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations of Authority of Resident Project Representative," consisting of pages. E. Exhibit E, "Notice of Acceptability of Work," consisting of pages. F. Exhibit F, "Construction Cost Limit," consisting of pages. G. Exhibit G, "Insurance," consisting of pages. H. Exhibit H, "Dispute Resolution," consisting of pages. I. Exhibit I, "Allocation of Risks," consisting of pages. J. Exhibit J, "Special Provisions," consisting of Pag~- 8.02 Total Agreement A. This Agreement (consisting of pages 1 to inclusive, together with the Exhibits identifed above) constitutes the entire agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented, modified, or canceled by a duly executed written instrument. Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 11 of I2 (N' WIT,'`'ESS WHEREOF, the panics hcrcto have czcc~tcd this Aerccmcnt, tttc Effcctivc Datc of which is indicated on page 1. ,~_~ O W,'YER: / // C°~1N1 f r / By: Martin Kirsch Tile: Pod y0 r Dale Signed: ENGINEER: i ~~ ~~_ ay: David Glodo~vski PE Titte: Secretary/Treasurer Date Signed: q- - 2(p - ~ Z Address for giving notices: City of Richfield Park & Recreation Department 7000 Nicollet Avenue Richfield MN 55423 Designated Representative (paragraph 6.02.A): Jim Topitzhofer Recreation Services Director Ticte: Recreation Servi P i r for _ione IVumber:_ (612) 861-994 Facsimile Number:_ (612 ~ $61-9~RR E-Mail Address: JTopitzhoi'er@ci.richfield.mn.us Address for giving notices: Gremmer & Associates 9202 202nd Street WPSt ~,,; t~ '0~2 Lakeville MN 5504 Designated Representative (paragraph 6.02.A): Jod Dahms Pro'ect Mana e Tide: Prp_iect Manav r PhoneNtunber:__ (952) 9R5- f1~7n Facsimile Number: _(_,952) 85-0648 E-IvtailAddress:J dahms(~aremmPras~ocia P~.com Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner anti Engineer for Professional Services Pa,gc 12 of 12 This is E`CHIBIT .-~, consisting of 10 pages, referred to in and part of the A_reement between OVVivER and ENGINEER for Professional Services dated Februan• 1, 2002. Initial O~b'NER~ ENGINEER pt(_,- ENGINEER's Services The Standard Fotm of Agreement benveen Owner and Engineer for Professional Services is amended and supplemented to include the follo~vins agreement of the parties. ENGINEER shall provide Basic and Additional Services as set fork below. PART 1 -- BASIC SERVICES A I.01 Studv and Report Phase A. Complete A 1.02 Preliminary Design Phase A. After acceptance by OWNER of the Report, selection by OWNER of a recommended solution and indication of any specific modifications or changes in the scope, extent, character, or design requirements of the Project desired by OWNER, and upon written authorization from OWNER, ENGINEER shall: On the basis of the above acceptance, selection, and authorization, prepaze Preliminary Design Phase documents consisting of fmal design criteria, preliminary drawings, outline specifications and written descriptions of the Project. 2. Advise OWNER if additional reports, data, information, or services of the types described in Exhibit B are necessary and assist OWNER in obtaining such reports, data, information, or services. 3. Based on the information contained in the Preliminary Design Phase documenu, submit a revised opinion of probable Construction Cost and any adjustments to Total Project Costs known to ENGMEER. a. Perform or provide the following additional Preliminary Design Phase tasks or deliverables: None ~. Furnish the Preliminary Design Phase documents and review them with OWNER. 6. Submit to OWNER five (~) final copies of the Preliminary Desiart Phase documents and revised opinion of probable Construction Cost within thim (301 days after authorization to proceed with this phase. Pa~~e 1 of l0 Pa~~es (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) B. E\GINEER's services under the Preliminan• Design Phase will be considered complete on the date when final copies of the Preliminary Design Phase documents have been delivered to OWNER. A 1.03 Final Design Phase .A. After acceptance b}• OWNER of the Preliminary Design Phase documents and revised opinion of probable Construction Cost as. determined in the Preliminan• Design Phase, but subject to anv OWNER-directed modifications or changes in the scope, extent, character, or design requirements of or for the Project, and upon written authorization from OWNER, ENGINEER shall: 1. On the basis of the above acceptance, direction, and authorization, prepare final Drawings indicating the scope, extent, and character of the Work to be performed and furnished by Contractor. Specifications will be prepared, where appropriate, in general conformance with the 16-division format of the Construction Specifications Institute. 2. Provide technical criteria, written descriptions, and design data for OWNER's use in filing applications for permits from or approvals of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to review or approve the fmal design of the Project and assist OWNER in consultations with appropriate authorities. 3. Advise OWNER of any adjustments to the opinion of probable Construction Cost and any adjustments to Total Project Costs known to ENGINEER. 4. Perform or provide the following additional Final Design Phase tasks or deliverables: None ~. Prepaze and furnish Bidding Documents for review and approval by OWNER, its legal counsel, and other advisors, as appropriate, and assist OWNER in the preparation of other related documents. 6. Submit five (5) final copies of the Bidding Documents and a revised opinion of probable Construction Cost to OWNER within sixty (60) days after authorization to proceed with this phase. B. The number of prime contracts for Work designed or specified by ENGINEER upon which the ENGINEER's compensation has been established under this Agreement is two (2). C. ENGINEER'S services under the Final Design Phase will be considered complete on the date when the submittals required by paragraph A 1.03.A.6 have been delivered to OWNER. ,A 1.01 Bidding or !Negotiating Phase .A: ,After acceptance by OWNER of the Bidding Documents and the most recent opinion of probable Construction Cost as determined in the Final Design Phase. and upon written authorization by OWNER to proceed, ENGINEER shall: Assist OWNER in advertising for and obtainin, bids or negotiating proposals for the Work and, where applicable, maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom Biddin; Page 3 of l0 Pages (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) Documenu have been issued, attend pre-Bid conferences. if anv, and receive and process Contractor deposits or charges for the Bidding Documents. ~. Issue .-addenda as appropriate to clarify, correct, or change the Bidding Documents. 3. Consult with OWWER as to the acceptabilin• of subcontractors, suppliers, and other individuals and entities proposed by Contractor for those portions of the Work as to which such acceptability is required b}~ the Bidding Documents. -t. Perform or provide the following additional Bidding or Negotiating Phase tasks or deliverables: None. ~. Attend the Bid opening, prepare Bid tabulation sheets, and assist OWNER in evaluation of Bids. or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for the Work. B. The Bidding or Negotiating Phase will be considered complete upon commencement of the Construction Phase or upon cessation of negotiations with prospective Contractors (except as may be required if E.~chibit F is a part of this Agreement). A 1.05 Construction Phase A. Upon successful completion of the Bidding and Negotiating Phase, and upon written authorization from OWNER, ENGINEER shall: General Administration of Construction Contract. Consult with OWNER and act, as OWNER's representative as provided in the General Conditions. The extent and limitations of the duties, responsibilities and authority of ENGINEER as assigned in said General Conditions shall not be modified, except as ENGINEER may otherwise agree in writing. All of OWNER's instructions to Contractor will be issued through ENGINEER, who shall have authority to act on behalf of OWNER in dealings with Contractor to the extent provided in this Agreement and said General Conditions except as otherwise provided in writing. 2. Selecting Independent Testing Laboratory. Assist OWNER in the selection of an independent testing laboratory. 3. Pre-Construction Conference. Participate in aPre-Construction Conference prior to commencement of Work at the Site. . =3. Visits to Site and Observation of Construction. In connection with observations of CONTRACTOR'S wort: in progress while it is in progress: a. iViake visits to the Site at intervals appropriate to the various stages of construction, as ENGINEER deems necessary, in order to observe as an experienced and qualified design professional the progress and quality of the Work. Such visits and observations by ENGINEER are not intended to be zxhaustive or to extend to every aspect of CONTRACTOR'S work in progress or to involve detailed inspections of CONTRACTOR'S work in progress beyond the responsibilities Pa~~e 3 of 10 Pages (Exhibit :l - ENGINEER'S Services) ,F~ specifically assigned to ENGINEER in this Agreement and the .Contract Documents. but rather are to be limited to spot checking. selective sampling, and similar methods of General observations of the Work based on ENGINEER'S exercise of professional judgment as assisted by the Resident Project Representative, if any. Based on information obtained durinG such visits and such observations, ENGINEER will determine in General if CONTRACTOR'S work is proceedinG in accordance with the Contract Documents, and ENGINEER shall keep OWNER informed of the progress of the Work. b. The purpose of ENGINEER'S visits to the Site will be to enable ENGINEER to better cam• out the duties and responsibilities assigned to and undertaken by ENGINEER during the Construction Phase, and, in addition, by the exercise of ENGINEER'S efforts as an experienced and qualified design professional, to provide for OWNER a greater degree of confidence that the completed Work will conform in general to the Contract Documents and that the integrity of the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated in Contract Documents has been implemented and preserved by Contractor. ENGINEER shall not, during such visits or as a result of such observations of CONTRACTOR'S work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over CONTRACTOR'S work, nor shall ENGINEER have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected by Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident to CONTRACTOR'S work, or for any failure of Contractor to comply with Laws and Regulations applicable to CONTRACTOR'S furnishing and performing the Work. Accordingly, ENGINEER neither guarantees the performance of any _ Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any CONTRACTOR'S failure to famish and perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 5. Defective Work Recommend to OWNER that CONTRACTOR'S work be disapproved and rejected while it is in progress if, on the basis of such observations, ENGINEER believes that such work will not produces a completed Project that conforms generally to the Contract Documents or that it will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated in the Contract Documents. 6. Clarifications and lnterpretations; Field Orders. Issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents as appropriate to the orderly completion of CONTRACTOR'S work. Such clarifications and interpretations will be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents. ENGINEER may issue Field Orders authorizing minor variations from the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7. Change Orders and Work Change Directives. Recommend Change Orders and Work Change Directives to OWNER, as appropriate, and prepare Change Orders and Work Chance Directives as required. 8. Shop Drmvings and Samples. Review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data tivhich Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the information Given in the Contract Documents and compatibility with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioninG whole as indicated in the Contract Documents. Such reviews and approvals or other action will not extend to means, methods. techniques. sequences or procedures of construction or to Page =1 of (0 Pages (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) safety precautions and programs incident thereto. ENGINEER has an obligation to meet any COi`'TRACTOR's submittal scheduled that has earlier been acceptable to ENGINEER. St~bstit:~tes and "or-equal" Evaluate and determine the acceptability of substitute or "or- equal" materials and equipment proposed by Contractor, but subject to the provisions of paragraph A2.02.A2 of this Exhibit A. 10. Inspections and Tests. Require such special inspections or tests of CONTRACTOR's work as deemed reasonably necessary, and receive and review all certificates of inspections, test and approvals required by Laws and Regulations or the Contract Documents. ENGINEER'S review of such certificates will be for the purpose of determining that the results certified indicate compliance with the Contract Documents and will not constitute an independent evaluation that the content or procedures of such inspections, tests, or approvals compiy with the requirements of the Contract Documenu. ENGINEER shall be entitled to rely on the results of such tests. 11. Disagreements benveen 06i'N6R and Contractor. Render normal written decisions on all claims of OWNER and Contractor relating to the acceptability of CONTRACTOR'S work or the interpretafion of the requirertients of the Contract Documents pertaining to the execution and progress of CONTRACTOR'S work. In rendering such decisions, ENGMEER shall be fair and not show partiality to OWNER or Contractor and shall not be liable in connection with any decision rendered in good faith in such capacity. 12. Applications jor Payment. Based on ENGINEER'S observations as an experienced and qualified design professional and on review of Applications for Payment and accompanying supporting documentation: a. Determine the amounts that ENGINEER recommends.Contractor be paid. Such recommendations of payment will be in writing and will constitute ENGNEER's representation to OWNER, based on such observations and review, that, to the best of ENGINEER'S knowledge, information and belief, CONTRACTOR's work has progressed to the point indicated, the quality of such work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of the Work as a functioning whole prior to or upon Substantial Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests called for in the contract Documents and to any other qualifications stated in the recommendation), and the conditions precedent to CONTRACTOR'S being entitled to such payment appear to have been fulfilled in so far as it is ENGINEER's responsibility to observe CONTRACTOR'S .work. In the case of unit price work, ENGINEER'S recommendations of payment will include final determinations of quantities and classifications of CONTRACTOR'S work (subject to any subsequent adjustments allowed by the Contract Documents). b. By recommending any payment, ENGINEER shall not thereby be deemed to have represented that observations made by ENGINEER to check the quality or quantity of CONTRACTOR'S work as it is performed and furnished have been exhaustive, extended to every aspect of CONTRACTOR'S work in progress, or involved detailed inspections of the Work beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to ENGINEER in the Agreement and the Contract Documents. Neither ENGINEER'S review of CONTRACTOR'S work for the purposes of recommending payments nor ENG[NEER's recommendation of any payment includim~ final payment will impose on ENGPvEER responsibility to supervise. Pa~~e ~ of 10 Pages (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) ~~ direct, or control CONTRACTOR's work in prowess or for the means, methods, techniques, sequences. or procedures of construction or safety precautions or programs incident thereto, or CONTR.~CTOR's compliance with La~v and Regulations applicable to CONTRACTOR'S furnishing and performing the ~b'ork. [t will also not impose responsibility on ENGINEER to make anv examination to ascertain how or for what purposes Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the Contract Price, or to determine that title to anv portion of the work in progress, materials, or equipment has passed to OWNER free and clear of any liens, claims, security interest, or encumbrances, or that there may not be other matters at issue between OWNER and Contractor that might affect the amount that should be paid. 13. CO.VTR-ICTOR's Completion Documents. a. Receive and review maintenance and operating instructions, schedules, and guarantees. b. Receive bonds, certificates, or other evidence of insurance not previously submitted and required by the Contract Documenu, certificates of inspection, tests and approvals, Shop Drawings, Samples and other data approved as provided under paragraph A l .O5.A.8, and the annotated record documents which are to be assembled by Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents to obtain fmal payment. 'The extent of such ENGINEER'S review will 'be limi*.ed as provided in paragraph A l .O5.A.8. -, c. ENGINEER shall transmit these documents to OWNER. 14. Substantial Completion. Promptly after notice from Contractor that Contract considers the entire Work ready for its intended use, in company with OWNER and Contractor, conduct an inspection to determine if the Work is Substantially Complete. If after considering any objections of OWNER, ENGINEER considers the Work Substantially Complete, ENGINEER. shall deliver a certificate of Substantial Completion to OWNER and Contractor. 1 ~. Additional Tasks. Perform or provide the following additional Construction Phase tasks or deliverables: None. 16. Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work Conduct a fmal inspection to determine if the completed Work of Contractor is acceptable so that ENGINEER may recommend, in writing, final payment to Contractor. Accompanying the recommendation for final payment, ENGINEER shall also provide a notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E (the "Notice of Acceptability of Work") that the Work is acceptable (subject to the provisions of paragraph A I.O.A. l?.b) to the best of ENGNEER's knowledge, information, and belief and based on the extent of the services provided by ENGINEER under this .4weement. B. Duration of Construction Phase. The Construction Phase will commence with the execution of the first Construction Agreement for the Project or any part thereof and will terminate upon written Page 6 of 10 Pages (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) recommendation by ENGINEER for tirial payment to Contractors. If the Project involves more than one prime contract as indicated in paragraph .-~ 1.03.B. Construction Phase services ma_v be rendered at different times in respect to the separate contracts. C. Limitation ojResponsibilities. EtiGfNEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, or of any of their subcontractors, suppliers, or of any other individual or entity performing or furnishing any of the ~.Vork. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for failure of any Contractor to perform or furnish the ~L'ork in accordance .vith the Contract Documents. Pa~,e ? of 10 Pa~~es (Exhibit .-~ - ENGINEER'S Services) A 1.06 Post-Consrnrctron Phase A. Upon written authorization from OWTIER. ENGINEER. during the Post-Construction Phase, shall: Together with OWNER visit the Project to observe any apparent defects in the Work, assist OWNER in consultations and discussions with Contractor concerning correction of any such defects. and make recommendations as to replacement or correction of Defective Work, if present. '. Perform or provide the following additional Post-Construction Phase tasks or deliverables: None. In company with OWNER or OWNER's representative, provide an inspection of the Project within one month before the end of the Correction Period to ascertain whether any portion of the Work is subject to correction. B. The Post-Construction Phase services may commence during the Construction Phase and, if not otherwise modified in this Exhibit A, will terminate at the end of the Correction Period. PART 2 -- ADDITIONAL SERVICES A2.0 l Additional Services Requiring OWNER's Authori=anon in Advance A. If authorized in writing by OWNER, ENGINEER shall famish from others Additional Services of the types listed below. These services will be paid for by OWNER as indicated in Article 4 of this Agreement. Preparation of applications and supporting documents (in addition to those famished under Basic Services) for private or governmental gr•artts, loans or advances in connection with the Project; preparation or review of environmental assessments and impact statements; review and evaluation of the effects on the design requirements for the Project of any such statements and documents prepared by others; and assistance in obtaining approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the anticipated environmental impact of the Project. 2. Services to make measured drawings of or to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by O WNER. Services resulting from significant changes in the scope, extent, or character of the portions of the Project designed or specified by ENGINEER or its design requirements including, but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, OWNER's schedule, character of construction, or method of financing; and revising previously accepted studies, reports. Drawings, Specifications, or Contract Documents when such revisions are required by chances in Laws and Regulations enacted subsequent to the Effective date of this Agreement or are due to any other causes beyond ENGINEER'S control. Services resulting from O~Wi ER's request to evaluate additional Study and Report Phase alternative solutions beyond those identified in Exhibit J. ~~~ Pa,e S of 10 Pages (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) ~. Services required as a result of O~i~'ER's providing incomplete or incorrect Project information with respect to Exhibit B. 6. Providing renderings or models for OWNER's use. %. Undertaking investigations and studies including, but not limited to. detailed consideration of operations, maintenance, and overhead expenses: the preparation of feasibility studies, cash flow and economic evaluations, rate schedules, and appraisals; assistance in obtaining financing for the Project; evaluating processes available for licensing, and assisting O~V'NER in obtaining process licensing; detailed quantity surveys of materials, equipment, and labor; and audio or inventories required in connection with construction, performed by O~V i~1ER. 3. Furnishing services of ENGINEER'S Consultants for other than Basic Services. 9. Services attributable to more prime construction contracts than specified in paragraph A 1.03. B. ' 10. Services during out-of--town travel required of ENGNEER other than for visits to the Site or OWNER'S office. l t . Preparing for, coordinating with, participating in and responding to structured independent review processes, including, but not limited to, construction management, cost estimating, project peer review, value engineering, and constructibility review requested by OWNER; and performing or famishing services required to revise studies, reports, Drawings, Specifications, or other Bidding Documents as a result of such review processes. 12. Preparing additional Bidding Documents or Contract Documents for alternate bids or prices requested by OWNER for the Work or a portion thereof. 13. Determining the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed during the Bidding or Negotiating Phase when substitution prior to the award of the contracts is allowed by the Bidding Documents. 14. Assistance in connection with Bid protests, rebidding, or renegotiating contracts for construction, materials, equipment, or services, except when such assistance is required by Exhibit F. 15. Providing construction surveys and staking to enable Contractor to perform its work and any type of property surveys or related engineering services needed for the transfer of interests in real property; and providing other special field surveys. y l6. Providing Construction Phase services beyond the Contract Times set forth in Exhibit C. 17. Providing assistance in resolving any Hazardous Environmental Condition in compliance with current Laws and Regulations. l3. Preparing and tarnishing to OWNER Record Drawings showing appropriate record information based on Project annotated record documents received from Contractor. (9. Preparation ~f operation and maintenance manuals. Page 9 of 10 Pages (Exhibit :~ - ENGINEER'S Services) 20. Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for O~~-'NER in any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process related to the Project. 21. Providing more extensive services required to enable ENGINEER to issue notices or certifications requested by O«'~IER under paragraph 6.O I .G of the Agreement. ~?. Other services performed or furnished by ENGINEER not otherlvise provided for in this Agreement. ?3. Additional visits not specified in Pan 1. Additional visits shall only be made if requested by the OWNER in writing and shall be billed according to Exhibit C. A2.02 Required ,4dditional Services A. ENGINEER shall perform or furnish, without requesting or receiving specific advance authorization from OWNER, the Additional Services of the types listed below. ENGINEER shall advise OWNER in writing promptly after starting any such Additional Services. 1. Services in connection ~4vith Work Change Directives and Change Orders to reflect changes requested by OWNER so as to make the compensation commensurate with the extent of the Additional Services rendered. 2. Services in making revisions to Drawings and Specifications occasioned by the acceptance of substitute materials or equipment other than "or-equal" items; and services afrer the _ award of the Construction Agreement in evaluating and determining the acceptability of a substitution which is found to be inappropriate for the Project or an excessive number of substitutions. 3. Services resulting from significant delays, changes, or price increases occurring as a direct or indirect result of materials, equipment, or energy shortages. 4. Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) emergencies or acts of God endangering the Work, (2) an occurrence of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, (3) Work damaged by fire or other cause during construction, (4) a significant amounts of defective, neglected, or delayed work by Contractor, (5) acceleration of the progress schedule involving services beyond normal working hours, or (6) default by Contractor. ~. Services (other than Basic Services during the Post-Construction Phase) in connection with any partial utilization of any part of the Work by O WNER prior to Substantial Completion. 6. Evaluating an unreasonable claim or an excessive number of claims submitted by Contractor or others in connection with the Work. Pa~ze l0 of IU Pa~,es (Exhibit A - ENGINEER'S Services) This is EXHIBIT B, consisting of 3 pages, referred to in and pan of the A_reement between OW~iER and ENGINEER for Professional Services dated February 1, 2002. Initi OWNER Y~I ~`7 ENGINEER p~U OWNER's Responsibilities Article 2 of the .4greement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties. B2.01 In addition to other responsibilities of OWNER as set forth in the Agreement, OWNER shall: A. Provide ENGINEER with all criteria and full information as to OWNER's requirements for the Project, including design objectives and constrainu, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility, and expendability, and any budgetary limitations; and furnish copies of all design and construction standards which OWNER will require to be included in file Drawings and Specifications; and furnish copies of OWNER's standard forms, conditions, and related documents for ENGINEER to include in the Bidding Documents, when applicable. ' B. Furnish to ENGINEER any other available information pertinent to the Project including reports and data relative to previous designs, or investigation at or adjacent to the Site. C. Following ENGINEER'S assessment of initially-available Project information and data and upon ENGINEER'S request, furnish or otherwise make available such additional Project related information and data as is reasonably required to enable ENGINEER to complete its Basic and Additional Services. Such additional information or data would generally include the following: 1. Property descriptions. 2. Zoning, deed, and other land use restrictions. 3. Property, boundary, easement, right-of--way, site topographic map and other special surveys or data, including establishing relevant reference points. 4. Explorations and test of subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the Site, drawings of physical conditions in or relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the Site, or hydrographic surveys, with appropriate professional interpretation thereof. ~. Environmental assessments, audits, investigations and impact statements, and other relevant environmental or cultural studies as to the Project, the Site, and adjacent areas. . 6. Data or consultations as required for the Project but not otherwise identified in the Agreement or the Exhibits thereto. D. Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER whenever OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of a Hazardous Environmental Condition or of any other development that affects the scope or time of performance of ENGINEER'S services. or any defect or nonconformance in ENGNEER's services or in the tivork of any Contractor. Page 1 of 3 Pages (Exhibit B - O~b~IER's Responsibilities) E. Audtorize ENGINEER to provide Additional Services as set forth in Pan ? of Exhibit A of the Agreement as required. F. Arrange for safe access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER to perform services under the Agreement. G. Examine all alternate solutions. studies, reports, sketches, Dra~i~ings, Specifications. proposals, and other documents presented by ENGINEER (including obtaining advice of an attorney, insurance counselor, and other advisors or consultanu as OWNER deems appropriate with respect to such examination) and render in writing timely decisions pertaining thereto. H. Provide review, approvals, and permiu from all governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve all phases of the Project design or specified by ENGINEER and such reviews, approvals, and consents from others as may be necessary for completion of each phase of the Project. Provide, as required for the Project: Accounting, bond and fmancial advisory, independent cost estimating, and insurance services. 2. Legal services with regard to issues pertaining to the Project as OWNER requires, Contractor raises, or ENGINEER reasonably requests. 3. Such auditing services as OWNER requires to ascertain how or for what purpose Contractor has used the moneys paid. 4. Placement and payment for advertisement for Bids in appropriate publications. J. Advise ENGINEER of the identity and scope of services of any independent consultants employed by OWNER to perform or furnish services in regard to the Project, including, but not limited to, cost estimating, project peer review, value engineering, and constructability review. K. Furnish to ENGINEER data as to OWNER's anticipated costs for services to be provided by others for OWNER so that ENGINEER may make the necessary calculations to develop and periodically adjust ENGINEER'S opinion of Total Project Costs. L. If OWNER designates a construction manager or an individual or entity other than, or in addition to, ENGINEER to represent OWNER at the Site, define and set forth as an attachment to this Exhibit B the duties, responsibilities, and limitations of authority of such other party and the relation thereof to the duties, responsibilities, and authority of ENGINEER. M. If more than one prime contractor is to be awarded for the Work designed or specified by ENGINEER, designate a person or entity to have authority and responsibility for coordinating the activities among the various prime Contractors, and define and set forth the duties, responsibilities, and (imitations of authority of such individual or entity and the relation thereof to the duties, responsibilities, and authority of ENGINEER as an attachment to this Exhibit B that is to be mutually agreed upon and made a part of this Agreement before such services begin. N. Attend the pre-bid conference, bid opening, pre-construction conferences, consmtction progress and other job related meetin.s, and Substantial Completion and final payment inspections. Pa,e ? of 3 Pa,es (Exhibit B - OWNER'S Responsibilities) O. Provide the services of an independent testing laboratory to perform al} inspections, tesu, and approvals of Samples, materials. and equipment required b}' the Contract Documenu, or to evaluate the performance of materials, equipment, and facilities of O\l~~iER, prior to their incorporation into the Work with appropriate professional interpretation thereof. P. Provide inspection or monitoring services by an individual or entin• other than ENGIi`1EER (and disclose the identity of such individual or entin• to E~iGP~IEER) as O\WER determines necessan• to identify: 1. That Contractor is complying with any Laws and Regulations applicable to CONTRACTOR'S performing and furnishing the Work. 2. That Contractor is taking all necessary precautions for safety of persons or property and complying with any special provisions of the Contract Documents applicable to safety. Q. Provide ENGINEER with the findings and reports generated by the entities providing services pursuant to paragraphs B2.01.O and P. P•tee ~ of 3 Pa<,es (Exhibi[ [3 - O\~"NER's Responsibilities) This is EXHIBIT C, consisting of 3 pages, referred to in and part of the Agreement bet•veen OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services dated Februan• I. 2002. Initial: O\V~IER ~ 15 ENGMEER DEC; Pavmenu to ENGINEER for Sen•ices and Reimbursable Expenses Article ~ of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parries: ARTICLE =1 -- PAYMENTS TO THE ENGINEER- Cd.01 For Basic Services Having a Determined Scope -Percentage ojConstruction Cost :1'fethod ojPavment A. OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Basic Services set forth in E,rlribit A, except for services of ENGINEER'S Resident Project Representative and Post-Construction Phase services, if anv, as follows: General. a. An amount equal to 3 percent of the Construction Cost. This amount includes compensation for ENGINEER'S Services and services of ENGINEER'S Consuitanu, if any. The percentage of Construction Cost noted herein accounu for labor, overhead, profit, and Reimbursable Expenses. 2. Basis of Payment. a. As a basis for payment to ENGINEER, Construction Cost will be based on one or more of the following determinations with precedence in the order listed for Work designed or specified by ENGINEER: a. For Work designed or specified and incorporated in the completed Project, the actual final cost of the work performed by Contractor and paid by OWNER. b. For Work designed or specified but not constructed, the lowest bona fide Bid received from a qualified bidder for such Work: or, if the Work is not Bid, the lowest bona fide negotiated proposal for such Work. c. For Work designed or specified but not constructed upon which not such Bid or proposal is received, ENGIj;IEER's most recent opinion of probably Construction Cost: d. Labor famished by OWNER for the Project will be included in the Construction Cost at current market rates including a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit. iVtaterials and equipment furnished by OWNER will be included at current market prices. Page (of ~ Pages (Exhibit C -Payments to Engineer for Services and Reimbursable Expenses) No deduction is to be made from ENGINEER'S compensation on account of any penalty, liquidated dama`es, or other amounu ~vithhe!d form pa}•ments to Contractor(s). Prowess pavmen~s. a. The portion of the amounts billed for ENGINEER'S services, which is on account of the Percentage of Construction Cost will be based upon ENGINEER'S estimate of the proportion of the total services actually completed during the billing period to the Percentage of Construction Cost. b. Upon conclusion of each phase of Basic Services, OWNER shall pay such additional amount, if any, as may be necessary to bring total compensation paid during such phase on account of the percentage of Construction Cost to the following estimated percentages of total compensation payable on account of the percentage of Conswction Cost for all phases of Basic Services: Preliminary Design Phase 2~% Final Design Phase 45°'° Bidding or Negotiating Phase 5% Construction Phase/Post Construction Phase 25% 100% c. ENGINEER may alter the distribution of compensation bettveen individual phases of the work noted herein but shall not exceed the total percent fee unless approved in writing by the OWNER. 4. ENGINEER'S estimated total compensation is conditioned on Contract Times to complete the Work not exceeding eighteen (18) months. Should the Contract Times to complete the Work be extended beyond this period, the total compensation to ENGINEER shall be appropriately adjusted. ~. If more prime contracts are awarded for Work designed or specified by ENGINEER for the Project than identified in Exhibit A, ENGINEER shall be compensated an additional amount equal to one (t) percent of the Construction Cost for all Basic Services for each prime contract added. 6. Additional Services, if requested in writing by the OWNER will be billed according to the Standard Hourly Rates Schedule included with this Exhibit. Page ' of 3 Pages (Exhibit C -Payments to Engineer for Services and Reimbursable Expenses) ,. Reimbursable expenses shall be billed according to the folfowin~ schedule: Ltilease ............................................................................................... .........SO.-l0,'m ile ivteals, Lodging, Telephone. Supplies. Postage ............................................................ ..............At Cost Printing Services ............................................... .............................. ...............fit Cost Photographs ........................................................................................ .......... 0. ~ 0/each Expert Wimess ................................................................................... ........ 5200/hour or S t ,000/day plus expenses 8. Standard Hourly Rates Schedule Principal ...............:.................................................................................. 59~.00/hour Project Engineer (Registered) .................................................................. 58.00/hour Senior Designer ........................................................................................ 57~.OOihour Civil Engineer ..........................................................................................5».00/hour Civil Engineering Technician 2 ............................................................... 542.00/hour Office Services .........................................................................................53~.00/hour Pa~~e . of 3 Pa~,es (Exhibit C - Payments to Engineer for Services and Reimbursable Expenses) This is EXHIBIT E. consisting of? pages, referred to in and part of the Agreement between O~WER and ENGNEER for Professional Services dated Februan• 1, ?00?. Initia O~~TIER ~ E\GNEER p L CU PROJECT: OWNER: NOTICE OF ACCEPTABILITY OF WORK OWNER's Construction Contract Identification: EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DATE: ENGINEER: To And To: The undersigned hereby gives notice to the above OWNER and CONTRACTOR that the completed Work famished and performed by CONTRACTOR under the above Contract is acceptable, expressly subject to the provisions of the related Contract Documents and the terms and conditions set forth on the reverse side hereof. i BV: Title: Dated: Page ! of 3 Pages (Exhibit E -Notice of Acceptability of Work) CONDITIONS OF NOTICE OF ACCEPTABILITY OF WORK The Notice of Acceptability of ~l~'ork ("Notice") on the front side of this sheet is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons who receive said Notice and rely thereon agree: Said Notice is given with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality. ?. Said Notice reflects and is an expression of the professional judgment of ENGINEER. ~. Said Notice is given to the best of ENGINEER'S knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof. 4. Said Notice is based entirely on and expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by OWNER to perform or furnish during construction of the Project (including observation of the CONTRACTOR'S work) under ENGINEER'S Agreement with OWNER and under the Construction Contract referenced on the reverse hereof, and applies only to facts that are within ENGINEER'S knowledge or could reasonably have been ascertained by ENGINEER as a result of carrying out the responsibilities specifically assigned to ENGINEER under ENGINEER'S Agreement with OWNER and the Construction Contract referenced on the reverse hereof. 5. Said Notice is not a guarantee or warranty of CONTRACTOR'S performance under the Construction Contract referenced on the reverse hereof nor an assumption of responsibility for any failure of CONTRACTOR to famish and perform the Work thereunder in accordance with the Contract Documents. Pa~,e ? of ? Pages (Exhibit E -.Notice of Acceptability of «~ork) This is EXHIBIT. G, consisting of 1 page, referred to in and part of the Agreement between O~WER and ENGINEER for Professional Services dated February 1, 200?. Initial: O~~'NER ~1 /~j ENGINEER U~ (.~ Insurance Paragraph 6.05 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties. C6.05 Insurance A. The limits of liability for the insurance required by paragraph 6.OS.A and 6.OS.B of the Agreement are as follows: 1. By ENGINEER: a. Workers' Compensation Statutory b. General Liability 1. Genera] Aggregate 52,000,000 2. 'Products 52,000,000 3. Personal and Adv. Injury $1,000,000 4. Each Occurrence 5100,000 5. Medical Expenses 55,000 c. Automobile Liability 1. Combined Single Limit 5500,000 d. Excess Liability 1. Each Occurrence 52,000,000 2. Aggregate 52,000,000 e. Professional Liability 1. Per Occurrence 51,000,000 2. Aggregate 51,000,000 B. OWNER shall provide insurance for property and liability per attachment. a '~ Page l of 2 Pages (Exhibit G - lnsurancej -._ _ _ A~[kRSH USA INC _ - - _ . _ _. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE _ .-. CERTIFIGITE NUMBER . . _. _ __ _ . _ _ .: _. ._-- . __ .:___ _ _._.- ' --_-._ ... ._ _ _... CNI-CCC8077 85-00 PRCCUCER THIS CERTFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION CNIY AND CONFERS Ntarsh USA InC NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED N THE 333 $ouih 7ih $l . $Ulie 1600 - POl1CY. TH75 CFRTFICATE OCES NOT AMEND, EXTEYD CR AL 7ER TH£ COVERAGE Mmneapols. ~1N SE-.O2 ~4C0 AFFCRDE03Y THE POLICES DE SCRIBED HEREIN. ~~ Attn (612) c"92-T~-00 ~ COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAG'e ' ~ C'JJ=A\" 'W7titiAS- i A Tr.E LEAGUE OF L1N CITIES NSUREC ~ ra~:.q\v CI'Y OF R!CtiFIEL~ ~ B 6700 PORTLAND AVM RICHFIELD. !dN Eti23 cw=.n\~ I C CCA'=A\~ D COVERAGES _ This certifirafe supersedes and replaces 2ny previws€y issued ~rti~iCafe ~r ETe po€iq~periad sated t~elow. _ t T-S S TO C°_47=`~ T-.AT =l1 CES C= \S,<A\C Jc9Ci 3=] -O_<=\ -AVM 3E°_\ SS,EJ TOT-_ \S,4°] \,4V5] -_49\ =Ci T-^E =0_C'~ =°40J •J CATc] •GT1M T-yTA\7 \G A\`~ RSO,. 4?YE\T T?4Y ~'~^ CO\] T T C= .{\`~ CC\TRAC' C~ CT-5z ]CG.Y?\T WT- 4ESrECT TO'AA- C- T-E CST= CAT= YA`~ ?° SS,27 O-i V A`~ z<TA \ 7-= \S,iA\C= .4==~;~]=J 3~ T-= =0_ C=S iE~ 3=] -_-4c \ S S.-3..cCT TO A _ T-= T=4YS CO\] TG\S P.\] =XC_..SO\S CF S.,C- =0_ C=S _. V~TS 9-CW\ V A" -AVE °~ 1 4E]..C] 9v =A J G AYS CO LTR rypE OF MSURANCE I POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE I Y POLICY EXPIRATION I LIMITS GATE (MMIDO!Y ) DATE (M M!DO!YY) A GE NERAL LIABILITY C1!1C2T 721 Q7iQ1i01 07'01!02 ' $ ~\~~ AGG 2=CAT= )( I cav V_sC:h GE\=<,~ _ ti.'_ r ~ =40J:: CTS-CCN?fG%AGG $ 1.000.OGO ~~~ X CA.YSY.AD= CCG.4 x4SOVAL 3AOV'.\..;,;4V $ CYV\Ei58 C(TTiACTC~S=40T =AC~aCC;4n-c\C $ ~,000,OOO R_7ANAGc ~A~y met.~e) $ 50,000 YE]~ir^-~A~ymeoasa+: $ 1,000 A Al1T OMOBtEUABILITY CUIC21721 07i01i01 O7i01102 COY31Ac09VGLE_:YiT $ 1,000,000 A\Y Ai TO A- CN6\E7 0.:TOS 30]~LV:~.::Rv $ X SIC==JL:_E] ALTOS ,-er :asm) X :RED nuras ao]ILY:~,;,;RY X ;=eraoceern) $ ~40?ERTY JAYAGc $ GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO O\:!-cA ACCDEVT $ ~ ANV A;iTO Oi~ER T-!AN JLL;TOOVLY• EAG1 ACC]EVT $ AGG4=GAT'c ` $ EX LESS LIABILITY EAG*! OCG:RRE~C $ .;:Y?4ci~A POZYi AGGReGATE $ QTHERTTti0.NL:N3.4c__A=Gi.Y. $ NIORKERS COMP ENSATICN ANO ~ WC STAT - i OT :-~ EMPLOYERS'LYiBILtTY .' TCR`~UY'.ITS ~ E4 '. T:c .=.40?R:=TOR/ .`~ ci 0:5EA~?CL:C!~!y11T $ ff=~C-c4SARE: ~~ E. JiSEASEcAC: ~Y?! GY_c $ DESORPTION CF CP ERATIONS!LOCATICNS!VEHK:LE S!SPEGAL ITEMS iL1M1T5 MAYBE SUBJE CT TO DEDUCTIBLES OR RETENTIONS) CEs2F€F€C/lTE HOLDER CAIVCELLAT€L~N 9+OtI-O ANY OF TFE 'O'_CES JESCa??J IE.a? N ?? UNC_ _?J ??O04? TFIE ?X~ 9AT'ON ]AT= TtEa°CF T1f N:AAEa •_=:OaO NG COVEaAF '.Y.:, ESpEAVOa TO 151: _ ~Q JAYS Wa:TT?N NOT'G: TO iFi_ ~_47~UTE F10. J2a whfJ F+EaE-N dUT 'A _UtE TO 151", SUCFI NOT CE ,ryV;_ 1>POSE NO G!_ GTUJ CR _Aa-,TY GL'A.NY('b IRON TFK .NSIREa A==67 J.NG COY=iAG'c, TS AGc NiS GR 4E-Ge5?MAT V?S ARSH USA NC. 9Y' CI20fa RObInSOn ~R- ~~^'~ 1 ( a€dW1{sr9s} - VAL€D AsDF:.~19fQ`' ~ This is EXHIBIT J. consisting of 1 page, referred to in and part of the Agreement ben~een OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Sen, ices dated Februan 1. 2002. Initial: O~~vER ENGINEER U~~ Special Provisions The Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties: A. Agreement Article 4.02. Paragraph D: Add the following subparagraph. 3. In the event that either 4.02.D. l or 4.02.D.2 occur, the maximum the OWNER shall have to pay the ENGINEER shalt be as follows: a. Before receiving bids for the project, the amount shall be based on S°'° of the project estimate plus reimbursables. 6. After receiving bids for the project, the amount shall be based on 8% of the lowest bid plus reimbursables. B- Agreement Article 6.OS Insurance, Paragraph B, Delete and Replace with the following: b. OWNER shall procure and maintain insurance as set fourth in E,rltibit G, "Insurance" C• Agreement Article 6.OS Insurance: Delete 6.OS.E. i` ~- - D• Agreement Article 6.06 Termination, Delete 6.06.A. I.b.3 and Replace with the following: 3. ENGINEER shall have no liability to OWNER on account of such termination, if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that there was a reasonable basis for ENGINNERS belief or determination that criteria identified above in subdivision A. l.b. l or A. I.b.2 exist. E• Agreement Article 6.11 Allocation of Risks, Delete 6.11.A.3 and Replace with the following: 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, ENGINEERS total liability to OWNER and anyone claiming by, through, or under OWNER for any cost, loss, or damages caused in part by the negligence of ENGMEER and in part by the negligence of OWNER, shall not exceed the percentage share that the ENGINEERS negligence bears to the total negligence of OWNER and ENGINEER. F. Attached Study and Report including site layout and cost estimate. s . Pa~~e 1 of 1 Pa~,es AGENDA SECTION: C:~nGPnt AGENDA ITEM # 6 J REPORT # 1 fi R ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM BOOKHOUT, REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ~~r DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ <~ ~ ~ ~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL TION: Consideration of resolution authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership programs in 2003-2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs in Fiscal Year 2003-2005. III. BACKGROUND I Richfield has benefited from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs for 28 years. For example,. in 2001 rehabilitation loans administered by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) assisted 15 homeowners that needed. affordable financing for repairs and improvements. Approximately 450 households have been assisted over the 28 years. Also, last year one substandard property was purchased. A total of 44 new or rehabilitated homes have been built through the HRA's New Home Program which utilizes CDBG 061102CDBG funds to acquire substandard property. With CDBG funds, the City also is able to ~_,, support accessibility improvements, daycare programs, homebuyer education and home maintenance opportunities for seniors. While the use of CDBG funds is ongoing, HOME funds are available annually through requests for proposals. HOME funds have been used in Richfield for special rehabilitation projects, such as for accessibility. The City cannot secure either CDBG or HOME funds directly from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because it does not have a population of 50,000 or more. As an alternative for smaller communities, Hennepin County receives an allocation from HUD, and then based on a formula, each participating community in the County receives a fair share of this allocation. This formula provides Richfield approximately $240,000 annually for CDBG-eligible activities. Every three years a Joint Cooperation Agreement is required for the City to continue to access CDBG funds via Hennepin County. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The CDBG program provides needed resources to Richfield. • The City and County have sustained this cooperative working relationship for 28 years. • The period within which the City must expend its funds has been reduced from 24 months to 18 months. This shortened time period will not present a problem. • The County has increased its administrative fee from 10% to 13%. • There are no other substantive changes to the proposed Joint Cooperation Agreement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The continued availability of funds through this program is critical to the well being of the community. C. FINANCIAL • Action is required now to make available funds beginning in 2003. D. LEGAL • The agreement is a standard form similar to those used in the past and is used by the County with several other suburban communities. TERNATIVE • Discontinue participation. I V . ATTACHMENTS I • Joint Cooperation Agreement ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2003-2005 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the CDBG and HOME programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2002, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of ,~ June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Cferk 061102CDBG Contract No. A04232 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: 1. May not also apply for grants. under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal. years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium- except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570..3 ofthe Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not. limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is 1 developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole. or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY .and COOPERATING UNIT to .cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2003, 2004 and 2005 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. III. AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2002 and terminating no sooner than. the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2005, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. COUNTY may notify COOPERATING UNIT prior to the end of the Urban. County qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be renewed unless it is terminated in writing by either party. Either COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the end of the Urban County qualification period. If COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that option, it will not have the opportunity to exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County qualification period. COUNTY will notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be excluded by the date specified by HUD. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County QualificationNotice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all GDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provision. of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdrawsits designation of COUNTY as an Urban County-under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and .executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2002. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY .shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws. 2 <',IV. ;-ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the terms of this Agreement, certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY'S responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development ofthe Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with aCOUNTY-established schedule, prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR§570.501(b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY.. C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subj ect to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT.. In such instances, a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING. UNIT. in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. 1. Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen (18) months shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis. 2. Limited extensions to the implementation period may be granted upon request only in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or subject of a binding contract to proceed. 3. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely: expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY•entitlement grant is reduced by HUD, according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced in a manner ...proportionate to the reduction in the COUNTY grant. E. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community ~ development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. 3 F. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. G. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. H. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by COUNTY, incompliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or .COUNTY to be ineligible. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as maybe designated by the COUNTY. K. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance. and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding:... C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. ` D. COUNTY shall, upon official requestby COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. -~ E. COUNTY may, at its discretrn and.. upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other programs and/or activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain thirteen percent (13%) of the annual basic grant amount for the administration of the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding for annual county-wide Fair Housing activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to submit funding requests. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. The COUNTY will calculate, for each COOPERATING UNIT, an amount that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population ofall COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowdedhousing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: 1. COOPERATING UNIT qualifying as a Metropolitan City (having populations of at least 50,000) will receive annual funding allocations equal to the HUD formula entitlement or the COUNTY formula allocation, whichever is greater. 2. Other COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of $75,000 or more will receive funding allocations in accordance with the formula allocations. 3. COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of less than $75,000 will have ,~ their funds consolidated in a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY. Only the COOPERATING UNITS, whose funding has been pooled, will be eligible to compete for these funds. 5 E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re- qualification process for fiscal years 2003-2005, that it is eligible to become. a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 13, 2002, the COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part bf the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney 6 -~ VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 2002, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board And: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works and County Engineer ~~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL , , Assistant County Attorney Director, Housing, Community Works and Transit Department Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Date: ~`~.. IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT; having signed this Agreement,. and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on , 2002, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A CITY OF By: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager ATTEST: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter May 20, 2002 8 ~i STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 Consent 6I 147 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~, ~ 1~ '~ '~( SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~i~ ~ ~~~ ~, n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of ublic health services for the Cit of Richfield for the ear 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for the year 2002. II. BACKGROUND In 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act, which transferred the responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions. The state also provided funds for the programs and encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of their programs by grouping together. Richfield and Edina entered into a joint powers agreement with Bloomington and the program has been administered under that agreement since that time. ~` The contract amount for 2002 reflects a decrease from the 2001 contract amount. This decrease is due to: 1) a $25,000 reduction in service due to budget constraints; and, 2) an alternative accounting process of maternal child health dollars in the 0611 2002 Bloomington Health Contract amount of $28,119. The original 2001 contract amount of $232,714 is therefore being reduced to $179,595 to account for these two reductions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of public health services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner and that Richfield residents receiving their services are very satisfied. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own public health nursing services. The cost of hiring the nursing staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures, and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate which would require designated reduction in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2002 Bloomington Health contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE COI~IlVIIJNITY HEALTH SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2002 by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community health services, including, but not limited to home health services, well adult clinics, well child clinics, health education, school health services, health promotion services, prevention and control, and program administration; and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing community health services such as health education, communicable disease programs, nursing services, health assessment, counseling, teaching, and evaluation in the community, home and clinic setting at a nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.04, Subdivision 5, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, Subdivision 10, to provide community health services and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by Bloomington of community health services to residents of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with those community health services (hereinafter called "Health Services"), that Richfield has outlined in its 2000-2003 Community Health Services Plan, which includes home health, family health, disease prevention and control, and health promotion. Richfield agrees not to amend said Plan in any manner that would impact the service Bloomington provides without first contacting Bloomington. 2. Bloomington agrees to provide to the residents of Richfield health services in the same manner and the same extent including the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment and facilities as health services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington, it being the intent and purpose of this agreement to provide and render the Health Services equally to residents of Bloomington and Richfield, without discrimination in any way. 3. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 4. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in .full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way. affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield, Bloomington, or any other municipality. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of Health Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto. 5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows: a. The annual sum of $179,595 shall be paid in quarterly payments of $44,898.75 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph S.B hereof, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph S.C hereof. b. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 2002 and on January 15, 2003, Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certified by the person in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct, and covering the period of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield .shall reasonably require, the numbers of persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations where such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield shall reasonably request. c. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions hereof. 6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial boolcs and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. 8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments shall request. All reports relating to the providing of Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield. 9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. The annual report shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report acquired by Paragraph S.B hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement. 10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. A copy of the policies shall be furnished to Richfield. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. 11. Bloomington shall further require personal medical malpractice insurance coverage by its physicians and other health professionals with whom Bloomington has a contract for professional services. 12. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, provided that either party may terminate the same by one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the provisions of Paragraph 12 hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such termination, a report in the form of, and in lieu of, the annual report required by Paragraph 9 hereto, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of both such reports. 13. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants, matching funds, and payment of all kinds from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall belong to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement. 14. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to an officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Attention: City Manager To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: City Manager Such addresses maybe changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as herein provided. 15. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations; and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 2215 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563- 8740. b. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. 16. Non-Assig~ent. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of Bloomington. 17. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, oz modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 18. Richfield will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 19. Both parties shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless. the other party, its officials, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from either party's (including its officials, employees, volunteers or agents) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of either party including its officials, agents, volunteers or employees. Liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 20. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall benon-binding. Iri the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney City Attorney Dated CITY OF RICHFIELD: By: Its Mayor ~~ Dated: By: Its Manager AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # C H REPORT # 14 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution relating to the 2003 maintenance assessments, LHN (Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet) redevelopment area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the LHN project area for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, and to set the public hearing date for July 23, 2002. III. BACKGROUND I On January 26, 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6372, which established a service in the LHN area (approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) which would be specially assessed. The special assessment to commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family, two family and multiple family residential property within this area were eliminated from the special assessment levy. 0611 LHN03assess In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the LHN area related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb _ while the City is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the City does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. These items are extra services provided directly to the LHN Redevelopment Area and do not include services provided to the entire City. For example, all City streets are swept twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the LHN maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the LHN area would be an assessable item. Estimated and actual costs for LHN maintenance services 1989-2003 are: Year Estimated Actual 1 ggg $43,151.19 1990 $44,560 $43,539.10 1991 $44,153 $43,825.22 1992 $46,484 $47,005.26 1993 $45,050 $34,866.01 1994 $45,115 $44,635.70 1995 $45,516 $36,105.50 1996 $46,080 $48,118.39 1997 $47,730 $31,208.46 1998 $49,165 $39,127.73 1999 $50,640 $47,480.80 2000 $45,000 $31,273.61 2001 $50,000 $52,566.06 2002 $50,000 2003 $52,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established policy for assessing the costs. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the LHN Redevelopment Area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Council could consider expanding the LHN Maintenance District to include the landscaping around the new 35W/66th Street bridge. Council could also consider assessing new developments in the area for their total square footage (both commercial and residential) since these developments take advantage of the extra amenities in the district and sell or lease both commercial and residential property but do not help pay for the cost of maintaining these amenities on the residential square footage of their properties. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the maintenance assessments for the LHN Redevelopment area in 2003 is $52,000. D. LEGAL • Section 825, Subd. 2. states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and the levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof." IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. V. ATTACPIMENTS • Resolution proposing to specially assess the costs of current services provided within the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) project area for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. --~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the district, with the costs of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: • Snow, ice or rubbish removal; • Weed elimination; • Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private. property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; • Installation or repair of water service lines; • Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; • Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; • Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; • Operation of the street lighting system; • Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; • Maintenance of Civic Plaza; • Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; • Painting and repair of wood furniture; • General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial propeYtybe made on the basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common are. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two-family, multiple family residential property within the LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The City Clerk shall also give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, commencing at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The estimated cost of providing all the aforementioned current services during that period is $52,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 h day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent. AGENDA ITEM # 6 G REPORT # 1 /~ S J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ©' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution relating to 2003 maintenance assessments for the 77th Street redevelopment area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided with the 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and to set the public hearing date for Tuesday, July 23, 2002. ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs to the special assessment district for the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) project area, an approximate two-block area. The district included properties east of Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed for current services required to maintain special landscape features and other public amenities on or adjacent to the right-of--way. ~~. On June 12, 1994, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing a redefined ILN expanded 77th Street Project Area (from I-35W to Portland Avenue) for the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. 061177th03assess __ On November 25, 1996, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing another redefined expanded (from I-35W to Cedar Avenue) 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. For the most part, each owner is to be responsible for property to the curb while the City is responsible for common areas such as street islands, the north boulevard and sound wall. Although the City does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, common areas continue to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging. 2. Irrigation maintenance. 3. General. maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, signs, curbs and plantings. These items are extra services provided directly to the 77th Street Project Area, and do not include services provided to the entire City. Most of the routine maintenance (mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) has been and will continue to be contracted; leaving City crews to perform repairs on irrigation, lights and signs. Estim ated costs for the ILN/77th Street maintenance services from 1988 - 2003 were/are: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $ 7,001.47 1989 $ 7,254 $ 6,135.54 1990 $ 7,514 $ 7,762.52 1991 $ 7,780 $ 8,855.46 1992 $ 8,894 $ 7,031.70 1993 -0 1995 $18,000 $10,569.06 1996 $33,795 $36,850.31 1997 $58,973 $44,729.90 1998 $74,765 $54,629.54 1999 $80,000 $76,674.70 2000 $75,000 $70,594.20 2001 $85,000 $78,884.49 2002 $80,000 2003 $83,700 ~` The 0$ estimate was provided to the Council in a 12/28/93 memorandum. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. • Commercial property owners will be assessed on aper-square-foot basis. However, all single family and multi-family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • New developments on 77th Street take advantage of the extra amenities along 77th and sell or lease both commercial and residential property but do not help pay the cost of maintaining these amenities on the residential square footage of their properties. Council could consider changing that policy in this resolution for future developments. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the maintenance assessments for the 77th Street area in 2003 is $83,700. D. LEGAL • Section 825, Subd. 2. states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and the levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof." IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services provided to the 77th Street project area for the period January 1 through December 31, 2003. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District; • The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees from any street; • The repair of sidewalks; • The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of--way; • Trash and litter removal. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of each and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be made on the basis of area. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. The City Clerk shall also-give mailed notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held Tuesday, July 23, 2002, commencing at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $83,700. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6 F REPORT # 1 ~b STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 LHN Maintenance, and consideration of resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 LHN Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment was established to recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN (66th Street/Lyndale/Nicollet) area. The extraordinary services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of landscaped areas. The Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue. City staff has determined costs of current services to be assessed for the 2000 maintenance of the LHN redevelopment area. 06111hn01assess III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following: (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding and structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26; (d) installation or repair of water service lines; (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (i) the operation of a street lighting system; Q) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of--way; and (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Council ordered the work, and the work is done. B. CxITICAL ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under Section 825 of the City Code. C. FINANCIAL • Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services 1989- 2002 were/are: Year Estimated Actual 1989 $43,151.19 1990 $44,560 $43,539.10 1991 $44,153 $43,825.22 1992 $46,484 $47,005.26 1993 $45,050 $34,866.01 1994 $45,115 $44,635.70 1995 $45,516 $36,105.50 1996 $46,080 $48,118.39 1997 $47,730 $31,208.46 1998 $49,165 $39,127.73 1999 $50,640 $47,470.80 2000 $45,000 $31,273.61 2001 $50,000 $52,556.06 2002 $50,000 0611 Ihn01 assess Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of LHN are caused by a number of factors. Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs; street light knockdowns are never foreseeable and very expensive; and the need to paint streetlights and repair concrete varies from year to year. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2000 LHN Maintenance. • Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 06111hn01assess RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $52,556.06 for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $52,556.06. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 11, 2001, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: A hearing shall be held on the 23rd day of July, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 06111hn01assess AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6E _ REPORT # 1 4 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: LJ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 77th Street Maintenance, and consideration of resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 77th Street Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. III. BACKGROUND I Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street around the Hampton Inn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th Street. The special maintenance services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services,-are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses. City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the 77th Street redevelopment area between I- 35W and Cedar Avenue. 061177th01 assess III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following: (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding and structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26; (d) installation or repair of water service lines; (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (i) the operation of a street lighting system; (j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Council ordered the work, and the work is done. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under Section 825 of the City Code. C. FINANCIAL • Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services 1988-2002 were/are: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780. $8,855.46 1992 $8,894 $7,031.70 1993 $9,200 $3,614.94 1994 $0 estimate in a 12/28/93 Council memorandum 1995 $18,000 $10,569.06 1996 $33,795 $36,850.31 1997 $58,973 $44,729.90 1998 $74,765 $54,629.54 1999 $80,000 $76,674.70 2000 $80,000 $70,594.20 2001 $85,000 $78,884.49 2002 $80,000 D. LEGAL ~~ No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 77th Street Maintenance. • Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Area the boundaries of which are approximately east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $78,884.49 for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $78,884.49. 1. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 2. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 11, 2002, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the 77th Street redevelopment area, the boundaries of which are east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on.the 23rd day of July, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning. property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # Consent 6D STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 `~ REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~" RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR N,anac, TirGc MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, and consideration of a resolution setting date of hearing. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll for the removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2001, and adopt~the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. III. BACKGROUND ~ Property owners of diseased trees have four options available: 1. Remove the tree themselves. 2. Hire and pay their own contractor. 3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 days. 4. Use the City's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. 0611TreeAssess N~rc, Tirrc In the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, 24 property owners chose the fourth option. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. • Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for work ordered during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 have been determined to be $24,103.42. • The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The property owner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before October 10, 2002, for the 2003 taxes, the interest rate is eight percent with the payment spread. over three years. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2001 .removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2001. • Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 23, 2002. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2001 TO DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work ordered during the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 amount to $24,103.42. Property Address Property Identification Number 1308 W. 73rd Street 33-028-24-13-0017 6639 Morgan Avenue 28-028-24-32-0008 6620-17th Avenue 26-028-24-41-0008 6844 Upton Avenue 29-028-24-43-0036 6721 Lakeview Avenue 28-028-24-31-0073 6717 Lakeview Avenue 28-028-24-31-0074 7617 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-43-0003 7544 Thomas Avenue 32-028-24-42-0024 7516 Dupont Avenue 33-028-24-42-0122 7212 Humboldt Avenue 33-028-24-24-0001 6444-15th Avenue 26-028-24-13-0062 6501 Humboldt Avenue 28-028-24-13-0051 7209 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-24-0047 6431 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-23-0038 6704 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-32-0069 6708 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-32-0070 7001 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-22-0052 7201 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-23-0046 7315 Colfax Avenue 33-028-24-14-0053 6514 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-24-0115 6845 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0088 6220 Stevens Avenue 27-028-24-12-0045 6721 Oakland Avenue 26-028-24-32-0120 7046-5th Avenue 34-028-24-11-0096 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $24,103.42. ;~ ~_ 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2001 TO DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 11, 2002, the City Clerk was directed to prepare the assessment of the cost of removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for work ordered during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. Property Address Property Identification Number 1308 W 73rd Street 33-028-24-13-0017 6639 Morgan Avenue 28-028-24-32-0008 6620 -17th Avenue 26-028-24-41-0008 6844 Upton Avenue 29-028-24-43-0036 6721 Lakeview Avenue 28-028-24-31-0073 6717 Lakeview Avenue 28-028-24-31-0074 7617 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-43-0003 7544 Thomas Avenue 32-028-24-42-0024 7516 Dupont Avenue 33-028-24-42-0122 7212 Humboldt Avenue 33-028-24-24-0001 6444-15th Avenue 26-028-24-13-0062 6501 Humboldt Avenue 28-028-24-13-0051 7209 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-24-0047 6431 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-23-0038 6704 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-32-0069 6708 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-32-0070 7001 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-22-0052 7201 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-23-0046 7315 Colfax Avenue 33-028-24-14-0053 6514 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-24-0115 6845 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0088 6220 Stevens Avenue 27-028-24-12-0045 6721 Oakland Avenue 26-028-24-32-0120 7046-5th Avenue 34-028-24-11-0096 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 23rd day of July, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7 p:m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. By order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 Consent 6C 141 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVE .DEVICH ADM IVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITL~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution requesting the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to accept the participation of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board in its insurance trust ro ram. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution requesting the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to accept the participation of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board in its Insurance Trust Program. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Tourism Promotion. Board, Inc. (RTPB) was created by City ordinance in 1990. The RTPB has operated continuously since that time collecting a 3% lodging tax and distributing the revenues back to the community for the promotion of tourism visits to Richfield. This is done primarily through Richfield's four hotel/motel properties. While the City does not have a seat on the RTPB and therefore does not vote on the expenditures of the organization, the City does appoint the members of the RTPB through City Council resolution. In the initial years of the RTPB, the Hampton Inn was the primary source of lodging tax revenues to the Board and for several years, the lodging tax generated around $100,000 annually. Much of the revenue went directly back to the properties for approved tourism promotion activities. In more recent years, with four properties _ generating revenues, the annual tax receipts have been approximately $200,000. In consideration of the greater financial responsibilities of the Board and the increased activities funded for tourism promotion, Board Members decided that purchasing a package insurance policy for its activities would be a prudent business decision. City staff contacted the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) to inquire if a package policy could be purchased through the insurance trust. The LMCIT responded that because the RTPB was anon-profit private organization which provides government type services, it would qualify for coverage providing that the City of Richfield would assume secondary liability for any assessments for which the RTPB may become liable as a member. Staff believes that this risk of an assessment is minimal and that it is important that the RTPB acquire insurance coverage. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has no vote on the RTPB, but staff believes that the RTPB should have at least liability insurance to cover its operations. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • While there is no critical timeline to obtain the coverage, it makes good business sense to acquire the coverage in the near future. C. FINANCIAL • The premium for the Insurance policy will cost the RTPB between $1,000 and $1,500 annually. There is no premium cost to the City. • The LMCIT provides excellent coverage at a very low cost. • An assessment would be levied against LMCIT members only if the Trust was virtually bankrupt. The assessment would be levied based upon the proportional member risk exposure. There has never been an assessment in the history of the LMCIT, which was initiated in 1980. Even if there were to be an assessment, the RTPB would have a relatively small exposure and has considerable cash assets to pay an assessment. D. LEGAL • The LMCIT will. extend coverage to non-profit private organizations as defined by Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes providing the municipality involved will accept secondary liability for any potential assessments levied in the future. ALTERNATNE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The City Council could decide not to assume the secondary ,liability for potential assessments to the RTPB. I V. ATTACHMENTS I • KeSOIUiIOn. • LMCIT's Financial Stability ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST TO ACCEPT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD IN ITS INSURANCE TRUST PROGRAM WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities provides property, liability, automobile and workers compensation insurance coverages to member cities through Minnesota Statute 471.59 (Joint Powers Act); and WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities (Insurance Trust) will extend insurance coverages to Chapter 317A non-profit private organizations which provide government type services to governmental units upon authorization by a participating unit; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a current member and participant of the League of Minnesota Cities Trust program; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board is a Chapter 317A non-profit organization providing tourism promotion services to the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Richfield Tourism Promotion Board has indicated a desire to participate in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the City of Richfield authorizes the participation of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield agrees to be secondarily liable for any payments or assessments for which the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board would become liable as a member. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk r. ~.~~~+ aay.~~ LMCIT Risk Management Information 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55.103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200• (800)925-1122 Fax: (651} 281-1298 • TDD (651) 2$1-1290 www.lmcit.hnnc.org` LMCIT'S FINAl~tCIAL STABILITY Should w~ wex^ry because LMCIT is assessable? Agents representing private insurance companies have occasionally suggested that cities should be concerned because LMCIT's coverage. is assessable. That is, the LMCIT coverage document gives LMCIT the authority to make an addztionarcharge against the member city in the future, if LMCIT should need those additional fluids in order to cover losses and expenses. Therefor, the argument goes, even though LMCIT` has retumed"substantial dividends to its members for fitleen straight years, cities should be wary of LMCIT because they might some time in the future have to pay an additional assessment. It`s further argued that the et`ty would therefor be better off dealing with a licensed insurance company that's protected by the state guaranty fund. Solvency and f nancial stability are critically important considerations, whether you"re dealing with LMCIT or with an insurance company. Whether an LMCIT member city should be concerned about future assessments is certainly a valid. question. Here`s the short answer to that question: LMCIT's financiat streugt$, financial managemen#practices, and"reinsurance protection make it extremely unlikely that LMCIT would ever need to make an assessment. Has LMCIT ever. made. an.assessment?- No. LMCIT has operated since 1984, and has never even come close to needing to call on its members for additionalcantrihutions An assessment would anIy become necessary if LMCIT were virtually bankrupt: LMCIT's fmancial strength and stability are an extremely high .priority for the LMCIT~13oard afTrustees. The Trustees`poIieiesand deeisions on rates, reserves, fund balances, dividends, etc.. are extremely conservative, designed to minimize the risk of financial prablems. Here are she a€ those key.€inancraF~olicies: • LMGTl' fully. funds all-projected liabilities, undiscounted, at their full actuarially projected ultimate cost. Actuarial reviews are conducted annually. • -LMCIT maintains a very strong fund balance in addition to fully funding losses. • LMCIT's rates. ace designed. so that-when combined with investment income they fully cover projected losses and expenses plus a substantial margin of safety. Ua7/G6/LUUL 11: U1 C11:i D1G V.7G f.7 J:] mru~vu iiiv. ~~~~ How strong financially is LMCIT? LMCIT is extremely strong -stronger in fast than most insurance companies. The LMCIT Board of Trustees has always taken a very conservative approach in setting premiums, establishing loss reserves, and maintaining frard balances. These conservative financial practices translate into an extraordinarily solid financial condition. It may be helpful to look at some figures to see just how strong LMCIT really is. IRIS ratios Insurance regulators use a series of financial ratios called the "IRIS" (Insurance Regulatory Information System) ratios as a tool to evaluate the solvency of insurance companies -that is, to identify insurance companies that may be at risk of becoming insolvent. By looking at these same financial ratios for LMCIT, we can get, an indication of how likely it is that LMCIT might develop the kind of financial problems that would make an assessment necessary. The following. table shows the IRIS financial ratios for the LMCIT propertylcasualtyanti workers compensation programs. The table also shows what the insurance regulators wauId consider an "unusual" figure for each ratio; i.e., a figure that might indicate possible future financial problems: l;or cotnparison, we've shown the same ratios for a couple of commercial insurers that are in the municipal insurance business,. along with the average and median figures for commercial insurance companies generally for ~00(f: - An. LMCIT LMCIT St. Paul State Average-for Median for IRIS Ratio "unasna}" Property- Work " Fire & Fnnd . insurance insnrance. Value is lcasualt com Marine .Mutual com anies com anies 1. Gross premium t6 sur lus Over 900 55 34 91 220 209 I51 lA. Net premium to su lus Over 300 4$ 33 6i 234 108 $6 2: Change in net Over +33 or writin s under -33 24 3.4 11 35* 18 6 3. Surplus aid to sur ius Over }~ .5 0 Y 0 12 3 4. Two-year overall o erati ratio Over 10II 6I 52 70 110 94 93 Over i 0 or S. Investment 'eld- under4.5 - 6.2 6 14.5- 5.4 5.5 5.6 Over 50 or b~Chac -in lus. under.-10.: 21- 23 14- -12* 4.7 4 7. Liabilities to liquid assets.. Over 105 ~ _ 43 b8 1f10 93 65 66 8. Agents' balances to su lus .Over 40 13 3 12 12 21 10 9. One-year reserve develo ment to s lus Over 20 -4.4 5.2 -7 8 -,7 -2 10. Two-year reserve develo meat to su lus Over 20 -7.1 7:7 -20 -5 -2.1 -3 11.-Est. current reserve - deficienc to sur lus Over 25 -1.0 4.8 I 1 b5* 3.4 2 2 /°', Vi7/ LO/ LVVG 11. VG 1'AA u1L UVL ~ UVU aua u~vaa aa.v. As you can see, none of LMCIT`s IRIS ratios come anywhere near the point that insurance regulators would consider "unusual" or indicative of possible financial problems. In fact, LMCIT's IRIS ratios overall are stronger than the average or the median for the insurance industry. And LMCIT's ratios also compare very well with those of companies that most people would think ofas being strong and solid. In short, the IRIS ratios are designed to predict future financial problems. LMCIT's IRIS ratios show no sign of the kinds of financial problems that might result in a need for an assessment in the future. In fact, the figures suggest that LMCIT is a better bet than most insurance companies. The "risk based capital'' formula Another tool that insurance regulators use to evaluate. an insurance company's financial condition is to calculate the company's "risk-based capital" (RBC) requirement. The formula for the RBC calculation is designed to quantify various kinds of risk that an insurer is exposed to. These include not just the risk of losses on the insurance the company writes, but also other risks like investment risk, credit risk, etc. The RBC formula then calculates a minimum fund balance (or "surplus' or "capital ;for this purpose the terms are interchangeable) the insurer should maintain in order to 6e reasonably assured that they're adequately funded: If an insurance cotpany's surplus fails below half of that amount, the insurance regulators are authorized to take control of the company.. The charts show the recommended minimum surplus under the IrBC calculation for LMCIT's property/casualty and work comp programs, compared to LMCIT's actual fund balances. We've also- shown the amount of fixnd balance that would be indicated by several other common axles of thumb used in the insurance industry. - As you can see, LMCIT's fund balance far exceeds the amounts suggesteel by any of these guidelines. These fund balances are in addition to the reserves set aside for actual and.. projected losses. In short, we believe that LMCIT's funding-is more than.adequate- by awide margin to handle nearly any conceivable risk, without izeediixg to ga back to member cities for an additional assessment. - Property/casuatiyProgarn fund Balance Compared to Guidelines 213: t surokts fD rolertDon 6:T Net leverage 6:1 Resentes 1o Surplus - . 3:t t°remk.n to suplus Risk eases capta~ ron,s,la Cunenl fund balance SO SlD.D00.DOD S2D,000,06D 530,000,000 A90.000,000 350.OOD,ODO EBO.OOD,D00 Worts Comp Progam Fund Balance Compared to Guidelines Current Fund Balance Current, w! IiabG(tiesdiscounted. 20:1 surplus to retenta}t - 6:1 Net leverage 4:9 Reserves to surplus 3:T Premium to surplus Risk Based Capital formula sea $to,o szo.a sao.v soo.o sso.o sso.o s~ao Millions 3 ~~ .,.,, _.., ~,,.._ ~~..,- ..~...~_ ...._ ..,.,., ........... _...,. z,....., / So what would happen to LIVICiT's finances if LMCIT had acatastrophic-loss - or a series of catastrophic losses? There wauIdn't be much effect at all - as the catastrophic tornado losses in 1998 demonstrated. LMCIT anticipates that such losses will occasionally occur, and purchases reinsurance to deal with those risks. Several different reinsurance agreements or 'treaties" protect LMCTI' and member cities against various kinds of risks: • The first propertylcasualty treaty covers liability and property losses over $500,000 up to $1,000,000. • The second casualty excess or "clash" treaty protects against the possibility that our liability costs could exceed $1,000,400 on a single occurrence. • The excess liability treaty reinsures 84% of losses in the optional excess liability coverage. LMCIT retains responsibility for 20% of losses in this layer. • The excess property treaties cover up to $65 million per occurrence of property losses in excess of $1,000,000 per occurrence. • The boiler and machinery coverage is separately reinsured witli Hartford Steam. This treaty provides $65,000,000 of protection, over a minor $35,004 retention. • The Minnesota Workers. Compensation Reinsurance Association (WCRA) reinsures LMCIT's .work comp risks above a $704,000 retention. LMCIT's reinsurers are among the largest and strongest in the world. Together, these reinsurance treaties help assure that regardless of how large a. loss occurrence LMCIT might experience, no single occurrenceor series. of occurrenceswould-. pose a serious financial threat to LMCIT. Reinsurer Best rating S't+"OR Re A+ XIV Gen Re A++ XV 11lunich flmerican Re A++ XV IfiSB Re A,+ IX Berlr Re A X N'CRA-' NR~3 IX So can you unequivocally guarantee that LMCIT will never make an assessment? Of course nat. Nor can any insurance company unequivocally guarantee that they won`t go , broke and be unable to pay your Maims. No one can predict.the .future,. and. it's always. possible to imagine a conceivable scenario in-which LMCIT would run out of funds and have to come back ro the cities for an additional: assessment. But we can say this: It would take a very unlikely combination of a number of different kinds of problems before LMCITwould need to make an assessment. Essentiatly, we're talking about a combination of an unprecedentedly large number of very large claims, combined with the 4 ~~ simultaneous bankruptcy of some of the largest reinsurers in the world That's not to say it can't happen. But that combination of circumstances would also probably mean that the entire insurance industry would be essentially broke. For a city that is seriously coneemed about that very small risk of having to pay a future assessment, here's a simple solution: Take part of the dividends you've received from LMCIT and syt those funds aside as a reserve to pay that assessment if you ever had to do so. But doesn't-the state- guarantyfund mean that in the case of a tiantq~uptcy we'd be better off with an insurance company than with LMCIT? Not necessarily: If a licensed insurance company becomes insolvent and doesn't have enough money to pay your claims, the state guaranty association will step in and pay some of the claims against thatcompany. But-that guarantyassociationprotection is limitedto $300,000per claim. That would leave a big hole if a $3,000,000 building burned down, or you got stuck with a . $1,000,000 lia6~7ity jadgment. On the other hand, in the very. unlikely event that LMCIT .would ever find_itself without enough money to pay the city`s claims, LMCIT would make an assessmen#. That assessment would produce the funds to assure that the city's- claarims..are'paid_= in fulL.:l~Vith over 800 member cities and combined propertylcasualty and work comp amiual premiums of over $50,000,000, even a small percentage assessment raises a very substantiafamount ofinoney: In short, LMCIT's assessability feature really means that in return for an extremely small risk of having to pay a small assessment in-the future, the city gets an extremely High degree of assurance that the city's claims will be paid. PST-11128/2001 5 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6B REPORT # 14 ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: '~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of an agreement between the City of Richfield and the Richfield Foundation for the disbursement of Healthy Youth mini-grant funding received from the Minnesota Department of Health on behalf of the Cit of Richfield in the amount of $5,000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an agreement between the City of Richfield and The Richfield Foundation for the disbursement of Healthy Youth mini- grantfunding received from the Minnesota Department of Health on behalf of the City of Richfield in the amount of $5,000. II. BACKGROUND The City, as a Community Health Services (CHS) agency, has received grant funding from the Minnesota Department of Health to address adolescent risk behavior in the community. Most of this grant funding will support many of the activities in process through the Tri-City Healthy Partners for Youth organization, of which Richfield is an actively involved member. These activities focus on alcohol and tobacco, violence, and physical activity and nutrition issues. Health staff, however, also thought it was important to designate a portion of Richfield's grant funds ($5,000) to be used in the community for specific needs in 0611 Richfield Foundation Agreement the area of youth risk behavior. City staff has partnered with The Richfield '~` Foundation to be the vehicle that disburses the funds through an already determined process using their existing grants committee. For the purpose of disbursing these funds, health staff will sit on the Foundation's grants committee to guide them in meeting the State's criteria for funding uses. They will administer the process for an administrative fee of $50.00, which is much less than it would cost the City in staff time to do they same thing. They are not only currently administering the disbursement of grant funds for other agencies, but they are already set up to do this in a timely and efficient manner. Funds may be distributed to a number of agencies within the community (schools, athletic organizations, churches, City-run programs, etc.), depending on who applies. Having an independent group such as the Foundation disburse the funds also provides for an objective, non-competitive decision-making group. City Health staff has met with the board of the Richfield Foundation to explain the process and the criteria for the grant funds and has received approval from the Foundation to proceed in this effort. It is being presented at this time for City Council approval. It is anticipated that the agreement will be submitted to the Foundation at their June 18, 2002 board meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • By approving the agreement, the City will be in a position to disburse funds to other community organizations for youth risk behavior activities, specific to the Richfield community, through an already existing vehicle in a more efficient, timely and objective way. This will also result in reducing the funds needed to support administrative activities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • Grant funds do not include the use of any City expenditure. Only dollars received from the Minnesota Department of Health for use in this specific way will be used. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and has approved of its contents. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ The City could decide to not approve the agreement with the Richfield Foundation. This would mean that City staff would have to undertake the grants funding process themselves. This would result in a larger amount of the grant money being used for administrative purposes than helping the children in the community. It would also require more staff time in developing a grant distribution process that is currently not in place. V. ATTACHMENTS Agreement between the City of Richfield and the Richfield Foundation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~= AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD FOUNDATION THIS AGREEMENT is made this 11th day of June, 2002, between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland, Richfield, MN 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and The Richfield Foundation, a Minnesota Corporation, located at 6715 Elliot Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "Foundation"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has received grant funding from the Minnesota Department of Health to address adolescent risk behavior; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote healthy youth by awarding up to $5,000 of those funds to Healthy Youth mini-grants submitted by organizations that provide youth programs in Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City wishes the Richfield Foundation, to administer said mini- grants, as described on Appendix A; and WHEREAS, the Foundation represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide said services; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from June 18, 2002, through August 31, 2003, subject to termination as provided in Subdivision V. ~~ 11. DUTIES OF FOUNDATION A. The Foundation agrees to perform the duties as described on Appendix A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. B. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Foundation as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The Foundation shall remain an independent entity with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The Foundation represents it has, or will secure at it's own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Foundation or it's members, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Foundation under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims or discrimination against the Foundation, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in noway be the responsibility of the City; and the Foundation shall defend, indemnify to the extent allowed by law, and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any acid all such claims. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitations, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. C. The Foundation shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless to the extent allowed by law the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Foundations (including its officials, agents, or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the Foundation. D. The Foundation agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. The Foundation agrees to hold harmless and indemnify to extent allowed by law the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or preceding brought alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the Foundation. Upon request accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. E. The parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. F. This agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. G. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the ~~ Foundation, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subdivision 5. H. This contract is subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Secs. 13.01 et. seq. (the "MGDPA"), including without limitation, sec. 13.05, subdivision 11. All data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Foundation in performing this contract is subject to the requirements of the MGDPA. The Foundation is obligated to comply with the requirements of MGDPA, except that the Foundation is not required to provide direct access to its records if the same records are available from the City. The Foundation is subject to penalties as provided in Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.08 for violations of the MGDPA. I. Both parties agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation 'is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. III. PAYMENT Upon execution of this Agreement, the City agrees to pay the Foundation $5,000 to promote and administer Healthy Youth mini-grants, as described in Appendix A. IV. MISCELLANEOUS This agreement represents the entire Agreement between the Foundation and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement, for any reason, upon giving thirty (30) days' advanced written notice to the other party. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately if the Foundation fails to comply with any one of the terms and conditions of the Agreement therein set out. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the dates written below. Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney Dated: RICHFIELD FOUNDATION Bv: Its: Appendix A Specific Duties of the Foundation Utilizing funding criteria developed by the City's Public Health Division (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield Health"), the Foundation shall promote and administer Healthy Youth mini- grants. Healthy Youth funding is for activities completed between August 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003. The Richfield Foundation shall: • Notify and solicit Healthy Youth grant applications from schools, City departments and community organizations who provide youth programs in Richfield. • Answer questions from potential applicants. • Review grant applications, including representation from Richfield Health. Applications must meet criteria developed by Richfield Health and the Minnesota Department of Health. Grant award decisions must be announced by August 31, 2003. • Disburse funding and follow up with grantees to ensure grant programming is being carried out. Provide a list of all funded grantees to Richfield Health. • Communicate concerns or problems with Richfield Health staff. • Require all funded grantees to complete a final report using the Healthy Youth grant report form. Follow up with grantees if report form is not submitted on time. Grantees completing school year programs must submit reports by June 30, 2003. Grantees completing summer 2003 programs must submit reports by August 31, 2003. • Grantees and Richfield Foundation must acknowledge that funding for Healthy Youth Grants was provided by the Minnesota Department of Health. If materials are developed, this acknowledgement should be included. The Richfield Foundation may use $50.00 of the contact amount to cover administrative expenses. All other funds must be distributed to mini-grantees. In the event all of the funds are not expanded, the remaining funds will be returned to the City. Financial reports are due June 30, 2003 and August 31, 2003. Funding is not to exceed $5,000.. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2002 CONSENT 139 REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TircE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading consideration of an amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describin bereavement leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describing bereavement leave, and schedule the second readin for Jul 9, 2002. II. BACKGROUND Within the last few years, there has been an increase in the number of employee and Union requests for changes regarding the City`s bereavement leave policy. In comparison with other metro cities, Richfield's policy is more restrictive in the areas of length of leave available and for which family members the leave is available at the time of their death. The proposed ordinance amendment is meant to address those concerns. A recommendation is being made to amend Subsection 310.39 (Bereavement Leave) in two parts. The first change is to increase the bereavement leave granted to eligible employees for each allowable occurrence from 16 to 24 hours. 0611 bereavement The second change is to expand the definition of family member covered by the section to include son-in-law; daughter-in-law, stepparents, and legal guardians and stepchild/foster child. It also provides authority for the City Manager to approve exceptions to the list. These changes would affect those employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans, who are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The proposed amendment to, Subsection 310.39, Subdivision 6 Bereavement Leave, will enable the City to become less restrictive and equitable to other cities in its granting of bereavement leave. • The proposed amendment to Subsection 310.39, Subdivision 6 Bereavement Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits already offered to some Union employees. • Making this leave policy less restrictive will not compromise the integrity of City services. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is recommended that the second reading be scheduled for July 9, 2002. • A public hearing is not required per State law and the City Charter. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Subsection 310.39, Bereavement Leave, approximately 155 regular and part-time General Services and Management employees would be eligible to receive an additional eight hours of bereavement leave for each allowable occurrence. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested bereavement leave rate increase and definitional change, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl • uo not amend the ordinance. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • NOne. BILL NO. ~~ AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.39 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.39 Subd. 6 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Bereavement leave" is hereby amended: Subd. 6. Bereavement leave. Employees eligible for personal leave shall also be eligible for bereavement leave. Eligible employees may be granted up to a maximum of ~ twenty-four hours of bereavement leave for the death of a~ i^^^,~~ the following employee or spouse family members:- ~^r +ho .,, ,r,,,,~o~ r,f +hi~ c.~ ~h.,~+r.+..r~+.,h i.Y,.Y,~/'~ir.+e f„~,~i...~„ev„her ~.h.+ll ho .~e~;.,e.~ .,~ spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, steeparents and/or legal guardians, and stepchild/foster child. The Ci Manager may approve exceptions to this list. 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 9th day of July, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk