The URL can be used to link to this page

10-22-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call Discussion related to City of Richfield Administrative Code Enforcement Program 2. Discussion related to Academy of Holy Angels' Construction Financing Proposal 3. Discussion related to alternative street and crosswalk design for Lake Shore Drive Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. • AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are a/so asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance • Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of October 8, 2002; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of October 8, 2002; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of October 9, 2002 • PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting for fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 to City of Richfield Finance Manager Chris Regis COUNCIL DISCUSSION Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items • listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution calling for $2,495,000 refunding bond sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996, dated December 1, 1996 S.R. No. 239 B. Consideration of approval of resolution calling for $1,065,000 refunding bond sale of $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand General Obligation Bonds, Series 1999, dated November 1, 1999 S.R. No. 240 C. Consideration of approval of resolution calling for public hearing by City Council on proposed adoption of modification to redevelopment plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establishing Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District S.R. No. 241 D. Consideration of approval of resolution approving subdivision waiver for 6815 Humboldt Avenue S.R. No. 242 E. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for animal boarding and kennel services for City of Richfield for 2003 S.R. No. 243 F. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for food inspection services for City of Richfield for 2003 and 2004 S.R. No. 244 G. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for public health services for the City of Richfield for 2003 S.R. No. 245 H. Consideration of approval of purchase of engineering services from Wentz Associates, Inc., 7300 France Avenue, to prepare plans and specifications for HVAC improvements at City Hall in amount of $19,500 S.R. No. 246 I. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue; for annual Fall Festival on • November 23 and 24, 2002 S.R. No. 247 J. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewal to operate veterinary clinic for A Caring Doctor, Minnesota P.A. d/b/a Banfield Pet Hospital, 1100 West 78th Street S.R. No. 248 K. Consideration of approval of multi-animal residential license renewal for 7520 • Morgan Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 249 L. Consideration of approval of request from State of Minnesota to review renewal of currency exchange license for: • Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchange, 7620 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 250 • Community Money Centers, Inc. d/b/a Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 251 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar RESOLUTION • 5. Disciplinary hearing and consideration of resolution regarding civil enforcement for Champps Restaurant in Richfield for failure of alcohol compliance check in April 2002 Staff Report No. 252 OTHER BUSINESS 6. Consideration of issuance of new therapeutic massage license for 7515 Upton Avenue (Deferred from September 24, 2002) Staff Report No. 253 Notes: 7. Consideration of multi-animal residential license at 7412 Colfax Avenue; four dogs Staff Report No. 254 Notes: 8. Consideration .of appointing Springsted, Inc. to perform Cost Analysis Study for preparing City of Richfield Municipal Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expense Annual Report in amount not to exceed $15,000, exclusive of out-of- pocket costs Staff Report No. 255 Notes: 9. Consideration of Mayor's appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner. for five year term ending October'2007 Staff Report No. 256 Notes: 10. City Manager's report Notes: 11. 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 sufiFicient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: 12.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # OTHER BUSINESS 256 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MARTIN .1. KIRSCH, MAYOR • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Council confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authori Commissioner to fill an ex fired term. I. RECOIVIMENDED ACTION: By motion: Confirm the Mayor's appointment of an HRA Commissioner for a five ear term ex irin October 2007. II. BACKGROUND The term of HRA Commissioner Tom Harms expires October 2002. Commissioner Harms was appointed to the HRA in 1980. III. BASIS OF RECOMIVIENDATION A. POLICY • Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation of the City Council. The Mayor has indicated he will make an appointment to the HRA for a five year term at the October 22, 2002 Council meeting. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • To ensure a quorum at future meetings, the Council should take action on this item on October 22. • C. LEGAL • None. 1022HRAappt IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide not to confirm the Mayor's appointment. • • If the Council does not approve the Mayor's appointment, a quorum may not be present at future HRA meetings. V. ATTACPIMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. • • AGENDA SECTION: Qther Business AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 2 5 5 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE l~ U REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointment of Springsted, Inc., to perform a Cost Analysis Study for the purpose of preparing the Municipal Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Ex enses Annual Re ort. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appoint Springsted, Inc. to perform the Cost Analysis Study at a fee not to exceed $15,000, exclusive of out of pocket costs, for the purpose of preparing the Municipal Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expense Annual Report and authorize the City Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement for such services. • II. BACKGROUND During the 2002 legislative session a new reporting requirement for municipalities became law. Minnesota Statute 166.685 requires that municipalities annually must report by April 1, to the Department of Revenue, all construction and development- related fees collected by the municipality from developers, builders, and subcontractors. The report must include: 10222002CosWnalysis • • the number and valuation of units for which fees were paid; • the amount of building permit fees, plan review fees, administrative fees, engineering fees, infrastructure fees, and other construction and development-related fees; and • the expenses associated with the municipal activities for which fees were collected. An underlying context of this new report is that municipalities must now justify the fees that they charge. As such, the costs incurred to provide services, both direct and indirect, become very important. In an effort toprepare the report. responsibly and accurately, staff, as directed by the City Council, prepared a request for proposal to six auditing and financial services firms with the purpose to be the development of a Cost Analysis Study. Proposals were received from three firms; Maximus, Springsted, Inc., and HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. From this group staff is recommending the firm Springsted, Inc. to perform the Cost Analysis Study for the City of Richfield. The fee proposals from the three firms were as follows: • Maximus $ 7,300 • Springsted $15,000 • HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. $18,000 Springsted, Inc. was selected over the other firms due to the scope and level of detail encompassed in their planned study and the belief that their prepared study would be more comprehensive than the other firms. The study to be performed by Springsted, Inc. will provide the following: • A systematic and documented approach to recapture costs related to service demands and economic conditions, including identification of Citywide overhead charges and charges to non-General Fund funds. • Identify other services currently provided that may generate new fees. • Develop a user fee model that is defensible and establishes a direct relationship between payments made for services delivered. • A system that will allow the City of Richfield to complete the Municipal Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expense Report. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Proposals were received from three firms: Maximus, Springsted, Inc., • and HLB Taugtes Redpath, Ltd. • The proposals were reviewed separately by the Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager. • The Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager conducted interviews October 14, 2002 with the three firms. • The selection was based on experience, technical knowledge, and the . extent and detail to which the study would be prepared, and bid price. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The first report is due April 1, 2003, for the period ending December 31, 2002, to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. C. FINANCIAL • The cost to perform the study by the recommended firm is $15,000. • The requirement to prepare the report is yet another unfunded mandate from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, it is in the City's best interest to prepare an accurate and defensible report that will withstand careful review and scrutiny. • The cost of the study is not included in the Revised 2002 Budget, therefore, it will need to be covered with year-end General Fund fund balance. D. LEGAL • The report is required by M.S. 166.685. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~ • If the City Council does not wish to appoint this selected firm, another • selection could be made. In that event, staff would recommend the selection of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. to perform the study. V. ATTACPIMENTS • Fee proposals from the three firms. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • October 14, 2002 Mr. Chris Reis, -Finance Manager City of Richfield Finance Department 6700 Portland Avenue South ' Richfield; Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Regis: _: ,~° HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE® Once again, thank you for .the opportunity for MAXIMCIS, Inc. to respond to a request for proposals to assist the City of Richfield in conducting a cost analysis ` study. The cost analysis study will be used by the City to document the value central service functions (payroll, finance, administration, etc.) provide. to ..City departments that serve the taxpayers of Richfield. The purpose of this. study is to ` ensure the City appropriately documents the all costs-associated with construction and development fees charged by the City. • The RFP stated that a sealed fee proposal was to be presented at the time of an interview. The purpose of this letter is to provide that fee proposal. The fee for our services is based upon the information provided by the City in the RFP and from this writer's review of the .City's CAFR and Budget. The fee assumes that the services we provide will be limited to identifying and documenting construction and development fees imposed by the City and which are required to be reported in the Municipal .Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expenses Annual Report. Our deliverable products will include the documentation of overhead (indirect) costs for all City departments, the documentation of construction and development fees, five (5) copies of our final report (four bound and one clipped for ease of reproduction), and one (1) presentation before -City Council, if so requested. The professional fee for these services will be seven thousand three hundred dollars ($7,300.00), inclusive of all out of-pocket expenses. We look forward to working with the City of Richfield. Sincerely, MAXIMi.1S, lnc. cc~ , Thomas B. Carawan Vice President TBC:me 7300 HUDSON BLVD. NORTH, SUITE 270 I OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 1651.739.8086 1651.739.8087 FAX I WWW.MAXIMUS.COM 85 SEVENTH PLACE EAST, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2887 651.223.3000 FAX: 651.223.3002 E-MAIL: advisors@springsted.com SPRINGSTED Advisors to the Public Sector s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA C Cost Analysis Study Fee Proposal October, 2002 Compensation We propose to complete this study, in accordance with the scope of services, detailed within the proposal, on an hourly basis with a total fee not to exceed $15,000 exclusive of any out-of- pocket expenses such as travel and copying. The final cost will be determined by the number of fees and the extent of analysis and data City staff is able to provide. This amount would include up to three on-site meetings and presentations to City Council. The estimated time to complete the work is 10 - 12 weeks from the date we receive the information identified in the Expectations portion of the proposal. Our standard hourly fee schedule is shown below. 2002 Standard Hourly Fee Schedule Title Rate Principal & Senior Officer $180 Officer & Project Manager $150 Senior Associate $125 Associate $110 Support Staff $ 50 We have identified three separate work products based on our experience with similar cities projects as follows: • A legally defensible study that will allow the City of Richfield to complete the State of Minnesota's "Municipal Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expense Annual Report" • A computer program model (based in Microsoft® Excel) that will allow the City of Richfield to annually update the information needed for the report • A PowerPoint presentation that will enable City staff to review the results of the Springsted report with the public Should the City wish to add or delete work products, our fee would be adjusted accordingly. We • have bid this on an hourly basis because these types of projects are difficult to bid as they are dependent upon the ready availability of necessary information and availability of City staff time given work load levels. We would hope that a final decision would not be made based on fees without a more detailed discussion. CORPORATE OFFICE: SAINT PAUL, MN Visit our website at www.springsted.com IOWA e KANSAS a MINNESOTA ~ VIRGINIA WASHINGTON, DC m WISCONSIN . ~~ Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Fee Proposal ~~ Tautges Redpaths Ltd. I hereby certify that I am entitled to represent HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd, and am authorized to sign a contract with the City of Richfield. • Rober G. autges, Presi nt Fee proposal for the cost analysis study 1 QQ 4810 White Bear Parkway • White Bear Lake, MN 55110 • Telephone 651 426 7000 Fax 651 426 5004 • • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 22, 2002 Other Business 7 254 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~"~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Gary and Stac Berres, 7412 Colfax Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny a request for the renewal of a multi- animal residential license for Gary and Stacy Berres, 7412 Colfax Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On September 1, 2002, Gary and Stacy Berres submitted an application for the renewal of their multi-animal residential license. They own four dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Berres' application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner continues to be unwilling to sign the application. The concern this neighbor has is regarding the condition of the backyard. He feels the yard is not big enough for four animals. He also had concerns with feces and odor. • The original multi-animal residential license approved and issued to Mr. and Mrs. Berres on January 22, 2001 included a stipulation that the back yard be maintained in a sanitary condition that does not result in odors being present. It also stipulated 1022 Berres MultiAnimal Residential License that the review be brought back before Council if complaints were received. No • complaints were received in 2001. Staff received one phone call from the neighbor at 7416 Colfax Avenue in response to notification of the renewal of this multi-animal residential license. This is the same neighbor who did not sign as a contiguous property owner on Mr. and Mrs. Berres' renewal application. This is also the same neighbor who had concerns from the previous year. This neighbor indicated at that time that he was not in agreement with the issuance of this license. The concern he still has is regarding the condition of the backyard, stating that he thinks it is a disaster due to the number of animals restricted to the size of the yard. He also believes that there is a problem with feces and odor. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on September 24, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The condition of the backyard was found to be free of any feces or odor. Environmental health staff received one complaint for this address in 2002. The complaint was regarding odor. An inspection of the property was conducted and revealed no evidence of feces or odor. The Police received one complaint for this address in 2002. The call was regarding a barking dog. Upon inspection, no barking dog was present. The applicants were advised of the ordinance and no further calls have been received. III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. A response was received from one neighbor. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. • Staff has been unable to determine if Mr. and Mrs. Berres have proven that the keeping of two or more dogs would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~ • Council could issue amulti-animal residential kennel license renewal subject to conditions. One of the conditions could be quarterly inspections of the property by a Community Service Officer. V. ATTACHMENTS • • None ~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES ~;XPECTED AT MEETING • Gary and Stacy Berres ~J • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~i STAFF REPORT. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 ther Business 6 REPORT PREPARED BY: - BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISRATIVE SUPPORT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ , ^ i/ ~~ , ,, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration and approval of a license request for a therapeutic massage license for Anne Thurber, 7515 U ton Avenue. Deferred from Se tember 24, 2002 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider and approve an application for a new therapeutic massage license for Anne Thurber, 7515 Upton Avenue. (Deferred from September 24. 2002) II. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2002, Anne Thurber submitted an application fora new therapeutic massage license. She would like to operate the business in her home at 7515 Upton Avenue. License fees did not accompany the application request and proof of liability insurance was not included. The applicant has indicated that fees are being paid by Minnesota Work Force Center. Proof of liability insurance has been submitted. Ms. Thurber has applied for a therapeutic massage business to be based in her • home due to the fact that she has a disability that makes her unable to work outside the home. Her disability is agoraphobia, which prevents her from being comfortable in public places. As a result, she is requesting to be allowed to operate a therapeutic massage enterprise out of her residence. The current City ordinance 1022Thurber Massage License only allows therapeutic massage enterprise businesses in C-2 zoned districts. The . Minnesota Disability Law Center, who is acting as an advocate for Ms. Thurber, has advised staff that cities may not discriminate against a disabled person related to zoning issues. Staff was advised by the City Attorney to request additional information from Ms. Thurber and to ask the Minnesota Disability Law Center to provide proof of her disability. Staff has received letters from a licensed psychologist who has had Ms. Thurber for a client for several years. Ms. Thurber's disability has had an extremely adverse affect on her ability to function in a normal and regular manner. She has difficulties functioning independently, which has drastically limited her mobility. She has experienced severe panic attacks and the- fear of their recurrence, quite frequently. Staff has also been contacted by the Department of Economic Security. The Rehabilitation Services Branch has committed funding to assist Ann in the cost of a license for the start-up of her home business. It is their opinion that allowing Ann to utilize her home as an office in which to see small numbers of massage clients allows her a chance at self-sufficiency. It will be necessary for Ms. Thurber to contact a Bloomington health sanitarian to comply with all the requirements for this license. Ms. Thurber has no known criminal history. • At the September 24, 2002 Council meeting, the consideration and approval of Ms. Thurber's license was tabled when Council Member Rosenberg questioned whether neighbors of Ms. Thurber's had been notified of her intent to do business in the area of therapeutic massage in her home. Staff indicated that there were no notification requirements and that nothing had been sent to Ms. Thurber's neighbors. Council requested that a letter be drafted and sent to neighbors making them aware of Ms. Thurber's intent. A letter was sent to neighbors the week of October 7, 2002. A copy of that letter is attached. As of the writing of this Staff Report, there has been no response to the letter from the neighbors. III. BASIS OF RECOMA~NDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and has paid the license fees and provided proof of liability insurance. • Neighbors have been notified, by letter, of Ms. Thurber's intent to practice massage therapy in her home. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the . license request. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Due to the C-2 zoning requirements, a therapeutic massage • enterprise is not permitted in a residential neighborhood. However, federal law requires cities to make modifications in its zoning and licensing practices for disabled individuals if the individual otherwise meets all of the essential requirements and if the modifications do not cause undue hardship for the City. C. FINANCIAL • The license fees have been paid by the Minnesota Workforce Center. D. LEGAL • City Attorney staff has reviewed all of the documents and has given the opinion that the license should be granted to the applicant unless it can be shown that it would be extremely burdensome for the City to do so. Because staff does not believe it would be burdensome to accommodate Ms. Thurber, the City Attorney agrees that the license should be granted. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOIVIlVIENDATION(S~ • The City Council could deny the request for a new therapeutic massage license for Ms. Thurber at 7515 Upton Avenue; however, that would not be the recommendation of the City Attorney as it relates to discrimination . against disabled individuals. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Due to the sensitive and "private" nature of the information submitted by Ms. Thurber as part of the license application, and the fact that the state Data Practices Act does not appear to classify this type of information as anything other than public, the City Attorney has advised that staff request that the state Department of Administration temporarily classify the information as private. Under the Data Practices Act, a classification of data as "private" means that the data is not public, but is accessible to the subject of the data, in this case, Ms. Thurber. Accordingly, the attachments to Ms. Thurber's license application are available for Council review, if necessary. • A copy of the letter sent to Ms. Thurber's neighbors is attached. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Due to Ms. Thurber's condition, it is unknown at this time, whether she will be in attendance. n • October 11, 2002 Neighbor Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Home Occupation at 7515 Upton Avenue. Dear Neighbor: This letter is to notify you that the City of Richfield recently issued a home occupation permit for the operation of a therapeutic massage enterprise at 7515 Upton Avenue. Ann Thurber, your neighbor at 7515 Upton, has received her professional certification for therapeutic massage and will operate the business out of her home. She intends to serve approximately 10 clients weekly, and will be open for business between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. In addition to a home occupation permit, Ms. Thurber is required to apply for and obtain a therapeutic massage license from the City. The City Council is currently reviewing Ms. Thurber's application for a license. Upon completion of that process, Ms. Thurber will have met all requirements under the City's Code and she may proceed with opening her business. If you have any questions relating to this matter, you may contact Betsy Christensen at 612-861- 9881. • Sincerely, Dan Scott Director of Public Safety • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT# 252 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER . NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE C] DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: l/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for Champps Restaurant in Richfield that underwent an alcohol compliance check in April 2002, conducted by Richfield Public Safe staff, and failed b selling alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution suspending the license to sell alcohol for ten (10) consecutive days for Champps Restaurant for a third time alcohol violation; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1750 for the third violation; and proposing that the Public Safety Director select the ten consecutive days that the license will be suspended. • II. BACKGROUND On April 4, and 5, 2002, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by four underage youth that were 19-20 years of age. These compliance checks were the first checks conducted in 2002. 1022Champps License Suspension On April 4, and 5, 2002, the police division made arrangements for the minors to • enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In six instances, the underage youth were successful in being served alcohol. Five of these establishments pled guilty before the City Council on July 23, 2002 with the sixth, Champps, requesting additional time to conduct an internal investigation. This is a third offense for Champps. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal. age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The Champps' employee that sold alcohol pled guilty to the sale of alcohol to an underage youth and was penalized through the district court process. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against Champps that holds a license to sell alcohol within the City. The fine being recommended at this time is intended to recover 100% of the costs • for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the business punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur during 2002 at the rate of one or two a year. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. At the July 23, 2002, City Council meeting, David DeSmidt, an attorney representing Champps, stated denial of the alleged violation and requested an appearance before a hearing officer to contest the civil penalty. Mr. DeSmidt stated that they needed additional time to conduct further investigation into the matter. City Attorney Thomson asked Mr. DeSmidt how long the investigation would take because their conclusion may result in the violation not being contested and a hearing may not be necessary. Mr. DeSmidt said the investigation should be complete in two to three weeks and requested this time to conclude if a hearing is needed. City Attorney Thomson suggested the City Council defer to staff for follow-up on this matter and the two attorneys will confer with each other in two to three weeks. City Attorney Thomson contacted Mr. DeSmidt's office on several occasions, after weeks had passed, to inquire into the status of the case. Mr. DeSmidt did not return City Attorney Thomson's telephone calls but was assured that a message marked "important" would be left with him. In the meantime, staff became aware that the employee from Champps was charged in district court for the sale of alcohol to an underage youth and that the employee pled guilty to that charge and was fined. City Attorney Thomson drafted a letter dated October 8, 2002 to Mr. DeSmidt and • mailed it advising him that the matter had been placed on the October 22nd City Council agenda. As of the date of this writing, neither staff nor City Attorney Thomson has been contacted by Mr. DeSmidt or Champps. The letter to Mr. DeSmidt from City Attorney Thomson is attached. III. BASIS OF RECONIMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 9204 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell alcohol for ten (10) consecutive days for Champps for a the third time violation; levy a fine against Champps in the amount of $1750 for the third violation. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the ten (10) consecutive days that their license will be suspended. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of alcohol to a minor which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. • • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9204. V. ATTACPIMENTS • Resolution for Champps Discipline. • City Attorney Thomson's letter to Champps Attorney, David DeSmidt. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • It is unknown whether a representative from Champps will be in attendance at the meeting as they were notified in writing of the need for someone to be present. • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHAMPPS, 790 W. 66TH STREE, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR THIRD TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Champps ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2002, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and WHEREAS, this is their third failed alcohol compliance check as a result of the fact that it hasn't been within three years of the second offense. Their previous penalty was imposed by the Council at the December 13, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on July 23, 2002 and requested additional time to conduct an internal investigation which was to take approximately 2-3 weeks; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared again before the Richfield City Council on October 22, 2002 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of ten (10) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1750 is hereby imposed. On or before November 22, 2002, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1750. 3. The Licensee must schedule mandatory alcohol compliance sales awareness training for all employees who are responsible for the service of alcohol to customers. This will include all servers, bartenders and all managers and must be scheduled to occur no later than November 22, 2002. This training will be provided at a location to be determined by Public Safety staff and all costs associated with the training, to include staff time and materials, will be the responsibility of the Licensee. 4. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by November 22, 2002 to present an action plan to ensure future compliance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of October, .2002. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk K en n ed y G r av en 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) _337-93 ] 0 fax h ttp://www.lcen reedy-graven. com COR1i1NE H. T110MSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9217 Email: cthomson@kennedy-graven.com Real Property law Specialist, Certified by Minnesota State Bar Assn. October 8, 2002 BY FAX AND MAIL David G. DeSmidt Rapoport &DeSmidt 3001 Hennepin Avenue, Suite 309B Minneapolis, MN 55408 RE: Clzarnpp's Liquor License /Riclzfceld, Minnesota • Dear Mr. DeSmidt: This letter will notify you that the City of Richfield has scheduled the matter of Champp's alleged liquor violation for the regular meeting of the Richfield City Council on October 22, 2002. The regular meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THAT YOUR CLIENT WILL RECEIVE. Please inform your client of the meeting. Your client is expected to appear or to have an attorney appear on its behalf. The purpose of setting this matter before the council is to receive an update from Champp's. When you appeared on behalf of Chanlpp's at the July 23, 2002 city council meeting, you requested time to complete an investigation into the facts. All of the information has been provided to you, and, in addition, the server has pled guilty to the criminal offense of serving the minor. Despite my repeated phone calls and letters inquiring about this matter, I have not received any information from you concerning your client's intentions. For that reason, the matter has been rescheduled before the City Council for a formal report. At the meeting, your client may either admit the. violation and make its case to the city council regarding the penalty, or your client may reassert its request for a hearing on the issue of whether the violation occurred. In the alternative, if your client desires to proceed with a hearing, you may confirm that in writing to me. In that instance, the matter will be pulled from the city council agenda and scheduled for hearing. cAx-z2lssovl RC160-3 David DeSmidt October 8, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Again, I want to emphasize that this matter has been scheduled before the city council on October 22 solely because of your failure to respond to my prior inquiries. Your client's continuing failure to respond and to cooperate in liquor license disciplinary matters could have adverse consequences for your client. Please respond promptly. Sincerely, Ca-~~-- is! ~1~e.,v6~ Corrine H. Thomson cc: Dan Scott • C CAH-221580v1 RC 160-3 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3L REPORT # 251 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxIUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc., dba Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc. dba Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On October 11, 2002, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Community Money Centers, Inc., dba Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue. All of the information required by the State of Minnesota has been provided by • Community Money Centers, Inc., dba Money Centers. In addition, the background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Cary D. Geller and Richard P. Krietzman. 1022 Money Centers License There were five Public Safety contacts and one Fire contact for this address for the previous year. The contacts included two burglary alarms, one check forgery, one disturbance, one miscellaneous City ordinance violation, and one Fire -medical. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange license to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. • This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. • The State requires that the applicant submit the following when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $50. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders, or traveler's checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, director, stockholder owning 10% or more of the corporate stock, or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the • company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc., dba Money Centers. However, the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny the requested license. ~ V . ATTAC~IMENTS VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 1 • None • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3L REPORT # 25 ~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIltECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~C~~ ~_~ ~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchange, 7620 L ndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchan e, 7620 L ndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On October 11, 2002, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchange, 7620 Lyndale Avenue. All of the information required by the State of Minnesota has been provided by i Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchange. In addition, the background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Sherri Marzario and Mark Smith. 1022 Money Exchange License There were no Public Safety contacts for this address for the previous year. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange license to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. • This law also requires the governing. municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. • The State requires that the applicant submit the following when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $50. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders, or traveler's checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, director, stockholder owning 10% or more of the corporate stock, or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Exchange. However, the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny the requested license. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • NAnP_ • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3K REPORT # 2 4 9 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING r~ LJ OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ `~ _ W~ ,~ S/GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ©' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for a new multi-animal residential license for Sheila O'Brien, 7520 Morgan Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new multi-animal residential license for Sheila O'Brien, 7520 Mor an Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On August 20, 2002, Sheila O'Brien submitted an application for a new multi-animal residential license. She owns three dogs. Ms. O'Brien's application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner was not willing to sign the application. According to the applicant, this neighbor does not have a problem with the animals but feels that if the requested license is granted, it could cause the value of the neighborhood to be diminished therefore giving good reason for the City to condemn the neighborhood. Staff received no letters or phone calls in response to this multi-animal residential license. 1022 O'Brien Multi-Animal Residential License On September 24, 2002, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The animals appear healthy and well cared for. This property has no history of environmental health complaints. Police received two calls regarding this address in the past year on a suspicious person and a suspicious vehicle. Fire was called once to this property. 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 did not receive any phone calls regarding this application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request by Ms. O'Brien for amulti-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. ATTAC~IMENTS • None VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sheila O'Brien •~ • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 J REPORT # 248 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 22, 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: ~raA ~w SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for A Carin Doctor, Minnesota P.A. d/b/a Banfield Pet Hos ital, 1100 W. 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for A Caring Doctor, Minnesota P.A. d/b/a Banfield Pet Hospital. 1100 W. 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On July 29, 2002, Banfield Pet Hospital submitted an application for the renewal of their veterinary license. The application was complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on September 5, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. •, The Public Safety Department has received no complaints and there were no police reports or contacts with this address during the past year. 1022 Banfield Pet Hospital The City has previously issued a veterinary license to A Caring Doctor, Minnesota • P.A. d/b/a Banfield Pet Hospital. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a veterinary license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Banfield Pet Hospital; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • None VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 Consent 31 247 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, n f~J DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for the Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held November 23 and 24, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for the Church of St Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held November 23 and 24, 2002. II. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2002, the Church of St. Richard submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for November 23 and 24, 2002. The event will take place from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 2002 and 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Sunday, November 24, 2002. They plan to serve food • items such as roast beef sandwiches, pizza, hot dogs, ham sandwiches, Cole slaw, cake, and soft drinks. 1022 St. Richards Fall Festival The Church of St. Richard has contacted food sanitarians from the City of • Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Church of St. Richard's Fall Festival. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3H REPORT # 2 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: S NATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~ p _ /~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorizing staff to hire Wentz Associates, Inc. 7300 France Avenue, Edina, MN to re are lans ands ecs for HVAC im rovements at Ci Hall. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the purchase of engineering services from Wentz Associates, Inc. for a fee $19,500.00, plus related reimbursable exaenses. C7 II. BACKGROUND Staff experienced more problems than usual with the cooling system in City Hall this summer. The most severe problem involved an oil leak in one of the chillers. The leak began to contaminate the controls for the entire City Hall complex. After inquiring about costs to repair this problem it became apparent that even if parts could be found, it was questionable if the City should spend thousands of dollars to repair obsolete equipment. In September, staff hired Wentz Associates to investigate replacement of the systems. Wentz completed a preliminary analysis. Based on this preliminary analysis, the total estimated cost for replacing the chiller along with the old boiler and controls with engineering fees is $275,000.00. The attached report outlines four options for 1022HVACWENTZ the chiller only ranging in estimated cost from $126,000.00 to $143,000.00. Wentz • recommended that staff go with the $143,000.00 option, which in the long run would be the most energy efficient. They also recommended replacement of the old Kewanee Boiler (original equipment from the construction of City Hall) at the same time as the chiller is replaced in order to better accommodate the reconfiguration of the boiler room to meet new codes. This would add an estimated $45,000 to this project. If the pipes going under City Hall's parking lot from the boiler room to the cooling tower are bad this could add another $15,000.00 to the project and replacement of the air activated controls is estimated at $30,000.00. Staff would return to the Council for funding approval after bids are received. Summary of estimated costs: Chiller $143,000 Boiler $ 45,000 Pipes $ 15,000 Controls $ 30,000 Contingency $ 17,000 Engineering 25 000 TOTAL $275,000 City staff recommends that the bids be prepared with alternates that would allow the boiler replacement and the controls to be deleted if necessary. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The expenditure for engineering services is not included in the 2002 Budget. The cost will need to be covered with year-end fund balance. • Wentz Associates comes highly recommended. Staff obtained a quote from another mechanical engineering firm, Emanuelson-Podas Inc., for $20,000. It is not necessary to take the lowest bid because these are professional services. However, the Wentz quote was the lowest at $19,500. B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • In order for this work to be done by April 15, 2003, the process must be started now. The existing system will probably not make it through another season. The manufacturer of the chillers has been out of business for 20 years and if the old chiller fails, repair is probably not an option. C. FINANCIAL • The replacement of the heating/air conditioning system was not anticipated during the budget preparation. Funding for the study will • come from year-end fund balance. Options for funding for the system replacement will be presented with the bids. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue as is and hope to get through another cooling season. • Replace only the chillers and wait on replacing the boiler, the piping and the controls until they fail. V. ATTACHMENTS • Report from Wentz on Chiller Replacement (including schedule of bidding process on page 15). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ,7 i CHILLER REPLACEMENT FOR RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 for CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 September 30, 2002 By WENTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. 7300 France Avenue south Edina, Minnesota 55435 952/831-1180 INTRODUCTION WORK DIRECTIVE The City of Richfield retained the services of Wentz Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers to study the replacement of the existing water chiller which provides cooling for Richfield City Hall. REPORT Mr. Curtis Wentz, Retired Professional Engineer, conducted the study which consisted of analyzing the building cooling load, considering chiller replacement and alternatives, discussing chiller installation issues, developing estimated costs, estimating the time needed to accomplish the chiller replacement and other considerations. Mr. Dave Conrads, Assistant Building Maintenance Supervisor was quite helpful in acquainting Mr. Wentz with the building and in providing information requested by Mr. Wentz. This Report summarizes our observations, analysis and recommendations. I hereby certify that this report was prepared under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer /~ a law _ of the fate Mi esota. Thomas A. We -Reg. No. 1 609 -2- OVERVIEW BUILDING The original two-level building was constructed in 1965. The original building was heated and cooled by constant volume reheat systems. In 1981, atwo-level addition was constructed along the east wall ofthe original building. A variable air volume system was provided for the new addition and extended into part of the original building where the original constant volume reheat ductwork was retrofitted to variable air volume. The variable air volume system was subsequently remodeled in 1996 in conjunction with new heating piping distribution. Preliminary plans have been developed for a proposed 450 square feet, two-level motor vehicle licensing addition along the east side of the Council Chambers. CHILLER The building is currently being cooled by a nominal 80 ton Worthington water cooled chiller which was installed in 1965. This chiller has reciprocating compressors. Worthington has been out of business for approximately 20 years. At 38 years, the chiller is way past its median life of 20 years. The chiller capacity was compromised a few years ago when the refrigerant was converted from the phased out R-12 to R-22. The chiller is failing and parts are no longer available. Mr. Conrads has been nursing the chiller as best he can to keep it going. The water cooled chiller is located in the boiler room. Auxiliaries include original chilled water and condenser water pumps (one (1) each) and an indoor condenser water storage tank located in the boiler room and an original cross flow cooling tower located on the higher grade west of the parking lot along the lower level west side of the building. Condenser water piping to and from the cooling tower is routed under the parking lot. BOILER ROOM The boiler room contains two (2) gas fired hot water heating boilers; an original Kewanee boiler which is no longer reliable and a new high efficiency Fulton boiler which was installed in 2001 to replace a 5 year old A.O. Smith high efficiency boiler that did not pan out. The Fulton boiler is the primary source of heat and the Kewanee boiler is used only when the building heating load exceeds the capacity of the Fulton boiler. -3- The boiler room also contains heating hot water pumps, a domestic hot water storage-tank, gas fired water storage heater, the remains of an original ceiling hung air handling unit C and ductwork (which are no longer in use) and electrical switch gear and panels. • • -4- ESTIMATED COOLING LOAD UNIT A Air handling unit A serves the south half of the original building, supplying 2,105 CFM to the ground floor and 4,050 CFM to the first floor. The system has remained a zoned constant volume reheat system. The system was rebalanced in 1996 to the same 7,055 CFM total as it was originally. Exhaust air from the area totals 2,620 CFM. Cooling for unit A is estimated to be 23.9 tons. UNIT B Air handling unit B serves the Counsel Chambers with constant volume at 4,620 CFM. Exhaust from the area totals 1,500 CFM. Cooling for unit B is estimated to be 16.2 tons. UNIT C This unit is non-functional and no longer serves any purpose. UNIT S-5 Air handling unit S-5 is a variable air volume (VAV) unit installed in 1981. This unit serves the 1981 addition and the north half of the original office building. Unit S-5 supplies potentially 2,950 CFM to the ground level and 10,650 CFM to the first floor for a total of 13,510 CFM based upon the sum of the VAV control units. At any given time the.actual air flow would be less than the sum of the VAV control units. It appears 2,045 CFM is exhausted from the area served by unit S-5. Cooling for unit S-5 is estimated to be 31.6 tons. FUTURE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING ADDITION Cooling for the future motor vehicle licensing addition is estimated to be 8.9 tons. -5- SUMMARY ESTIMATED COOLING LOAD UNIT A UNIT B UNIT S-5 FUTURE ADDITION 23.9 TONS 16.2 31.6 8.9 80.6 TONS -6- • CHILLER CONSIDERATIONS For the required 80 plus cooling capacity, the chiller options are limited to the following: Option 1 - Indoor Water Cooled Rotary Chiller with Cooling Tower Option 2 - Indoor Air Cooled Rotary Chiller with Remote Air Cooled Condenser Option 3 - Outdoor Air Cooled Rotary Chiller with Integral Air Cooled Condenser Option 4 - Outdoor Air Cooled Rotary Chiller with Integral Air Cooled Condenser and Remote Indoor Evaporator OPTION 1-INDOOR WATER COOLED ROTARY CHII,LER This option is essentially the same as the existing chiller except instead of reciprocating compressors, the new chillers will have two (2) helical rotary screw compressors. Rotary compressors have few moving parts resulting in higher reliability and low maintenance. A rotary chiller having 85 tons cooling capacity is sized such that is can be brought into the building through a standard 36 inch wide doorway. Therefore, the new chiller can be located in the boiler room. The existing cooling tower should be replaced with a new cross flow cooling tower located in its place. OPTION 2 -INDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHII.LER Under Option 2, a rotary chiller similar to the water cooled chiller under Option 1, except without a water cooled condenser, would be brought into the boiler room through the rear doorway. Instead of a cooling tower, a physically larger air cooled condenser would be located in place of the existing cooling tower. Instead of utilizing the existing underground condenser water pipes, refrigerant liquid and hot gas piping would have to be installed under the parking lotto interconnect the chiller and condenser. OPTION 3 -OUTDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHII.LER Under Option 3, the chiller would be located outside where the existing cooling tower would be • considerably larger and noisier than the existing cooling tower. -7- ;~,`~ Chilled water could be piped into the building utilizing the existing underground condenser water pipes. Being outside, the chiller and underground chilled water pipes are susceptible to freezing. To preclude freezing, a glycol water solution could be utilized instead of water. However, if the percentage of glycol in the anti-freeze solution is 30 to 40 percent, the heat exchanger capacity of the chiller and existing chilled water cooling coils will be reduced by 20 to 30 percent. This would mean having to replace the existing chilled water coils and oversize the chiller. Moreover, cooling and pumping costs would increase appreciably. For these reasons, Option 3 is not being further considered. OPTION 4 -OUTDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except instead of the evaporator being integral with the outdoor chiller, the evaporator would be remote mounted in the chiller room. This has the advantage of confining the chilled water within the building. The condenser water pipes under the parking lot would have to be replaced with refrigerant suction and liquid piping necessary to interconnect the outdoor chiller and the indoor evaporator. • -8- . 1~. , Y ~. T ~ ^^/~ ` . ~ ~~ _ ~ ~. a..~t 1:.,., ~~.»~. ' . F rY sir r~ .~_ ~,nu T Ow~ ,~ I ~ spRv~Ce ~v..~ :, 1 ~ ~I ~_,: 4 s ~ / ... ..... , < .. w tom- .._ .. ~ -_ __ -_..~1.. T. _ _ _ . . _-_ '~ II i ~ l ~ ,•, c. ~ T P Illfl P ~. R Iltl ~ 7 / ~ -' ~ Ill I 1j5 i r 134 111 111 i ` ~ ~ f i I I 1'11, I i ~ .y:'~t y'.'.}+ ~--- ! ~. it E.PL: e ~O O G y -"„`~ f • ~ i .%t j i ' .. i t AI's t',~ 1 ~ i• :~ r t/t~i~l 'qa 1 ~.r t y. f,~, .>,~ :..r q d p ~ ' ..:.. ~ r c. ~ ~:..4 d' .d V i3/v'-.3* 17 T' . r _ .._. . e HMO i 1 ~; ~ 1, ~~ f11 ~T. :tc{r',:~,. , r ~' ~ ( ~t. ,~ N C~^ ~ A R E A .~.p M ~~ F,<1 _` 1 ~/v•~,~~{u_~,~ ~{Ns~n~ Ete t-'~-- ~ 194.2 f".,_~.~~-.t._...~ t_,..,,L~; :, ' GN.s! v E ~ 1 • ,/ T !: ~u-- ~ - I -~.-- ~M~. ~ .-~:. ~ of ~~ ' r T W ~~ ~` ~ ~- ~ G O K C S D 61 V A i K 1~ ~~o '; 7 Y`~ T 1 1 I r --_ E a t f j, • iMj j "J d. SS 1 ( - ~ ~ ,. ~ sa«c. -•>.t ~ ~ NYF-- -~ s"4/. 3"C ndv i' Stub I ~ L K lre.a.to c~ x ipl / ~ ioR !1 nC ~ ~ 3/4 .=. 1C ~ , \~ t ~ Y E <./.~G ion - rye-a_~m .:.Ii r > >, s .-~ i .'~:' ~ .' '.C . r~~ , ~ ' ~ . ~. s ~ ~ 1 '/"~ F/Ale/ <~.-' " ;% ,ZJ`" •~ ' '~'= ~ E ~/ I~ S I T Y' H A L L :, ~! I F I R T 1 J i 1 ;1 I~ 1 ~• . ,.. ~ '~ "' ~9.:y . 't'T . - ~__ 130.x' ~ ~. ~ '~ Tiv... rl 1 .~ .. _• ., h ,,. • n .. _ 1 : <• _ •.M. - ' , -~ ii4.r 1 1 1 •~ Ii1i•a 13Y.~ Y :,.,:~' li ,i 1I E r ' .. _._...~~ .. lli.. y ~ t.1i t. J .1 _.l _ .. ... - ,,,I - ~ -- - _. _ .. _ .. _~ 1 -~, .. ~ .. :, -~' .ate' ..•1 ~h' ~~ ~: AtR C~.~Ep A~Nf-..... ~ ,_ .... _,f , I, .. •~o- ~ c a... y t t: lr. f : 1 r G. N•.. • ~ ( 1' ~1:. ~ ~ I i., •.. 5:..48 .lay u C. fl a. -s _~~._-_ _ T~~ ,. N ~. ~~:..:-x-Mcc: r. __ r--a'' '-S =' _.~c; - .. _ _ . ~l4- _ , ! :~ _". - - ~-~C~.v _ -, r•- ~ f - I ~ ~i ~ •~' ! ti'~I TIME. ~ ~ t 3.. I r t-f'r r Tc• •e RE ov tto. ~ ~ ~+ " ~ 1 u. j ~ T t- --. - - f, , _ , ~' I Ili, : ~ r •-r/~ .: ~'' ~ ..~i07..•.Y i>iV..1i/Y~ ~ Ijid ri: C, Tai ~.....e.T ~.r .-, E1 .g "ly -FIYI ~.-.~_ M.H. I$) vi.'! .f--_•~.-_.Z... 7 T /t s ~ ~.... V __._.~_.~= ._ tj51 1 ~ 134 III ~ f I ~ ~~ ss GuT /`!~. ::.~s..1% Y~ /~ `-- ( I ~ I I, i ~ yr I`LL: Sy'h tY~Tir' .t:.'r,~ J ~~ ~ YJ i t~l' 1 I ~ GN~9 ~:: E f ~~ 3 .F:'.~~ -~:~>y I 1. n' E.P` a •,~,,, I 1 i i G l.~f lP.f r. MGI M3 fi A~ 1 ~,~~; ~ -~ v70 OG..v fv~ ~~. / To et ttitwovfCo I ! l.~i< ro ~ ...E ~ A' `l I 1 r~ w t: a-,c '~ s odvA~k ,f'a 'i Gr~ t_~~ I , 1 1-_J . ei7sT. •wj~'/'av..rs~ ~ ~ f L t i f ,• ~ - sa«t. µ~C ~~_ ~ s'~, '"C tldo f Stub 1 • iti te.ta.'to c~ •~ IW ~ .Foil !1 nC ' i 3J4 ' Z 70 •~ • ..... r i _-z.ra_--a =.,t s „ to .=> > ".'M . 1!:'; ti: ' S :: ~ . "~ I ! • ..vim-~-~~~•..,~p ~E CLHILL f~ , ~1 1 ~:: F I R S j' I, f e. ~ i er •~ i r14'. i J I I I fs R O u N;ID 11.. ~ ~L. i 3 Z ~ »~ W ~ - •~ I' ~ ~ - _ 7 I~ f i.' .'i ~^ -. '~Q s - 730.;. ~ - f~ 'p: ,'/ice ~:'..,.7N,'r.4 wf.E1 ~ ` 1 1 ./~ IN: "<. y~.. ' t I ' _ _ _ _ I -- - i _ I •.a. t f f:c.>- _. _._ ...__i .__. :. _. ~ _ f.. ~ _ ~ ~W t , sc~.t; s ! ~ : 2p ~ ,.r CNILLEIL ,r _~~~~ ,~,~, •a~ • ;: - _-- ss -~= ---r _~:. __:-sue. -- -~~-'=:_~c- -- - ~-.~Li..--- ~--~r_ GO~. 71M a. t'~ 1 $,~ ~ i ~ / ~ I ~ -__ j-~ 7 Tc. ~e RE ov Ep. ~~ ~ tZ ~. ~ - ~ ` U. ~ I ~ t i- -- - - - ~ il. - ---- _ ._:- --~ ~ ---_ .. _ _ ' ~ , ~ ~ III~I ___ ,~ C ..!-rte .: ~ ~ I : 8 ! 1...'%' ~-. C ~ ~' p 1 i li' P ^ R ! N G A R - rv , .,. ,~;:.v ., : is -- _ 11111 '_' .. E l IZE_Z ~ i L i 3 5 I ~ 1 ill ~ ~ Q ~. -•, -~_ _. 1 1 i t +3a 111 i 1 i ~~Y ~t~ sa GuT /`1~.^. 1.~~~..ti% J '~_ } ICJ + ~ I 1'+ ~ (/vR .X FGt: SS/ .Y/Tir' .t:~'vy J't '<~ :'.iz t C ir,~E.ec_ t e r ~ i ~` GN.! L:,E ~~ _1 .i l~f ~ lR.f ~. NGf MAR •~ ~ i ~ ~ e70 O Gild fc~ > ~ o ~ , as tiaOV! i ~. /t ( ~ T ~~ ~~ ~ ° !! ~--- -r-_ S _O bI V A L K - _ „o ~ 7 ~ (" t ~ rlesaS 7~ t- _ saMt. MBE m ,~ ~ IWE-- -~ s~~. 3"c ndo f Stab I Mi ~Rewa.ao ~ .{ ~ . FoR et nC ~ ' 3I4 -Z t0 ~ ~ I ,_~ 'rte=-,t • , ~ ro : it l ••.~~ ...N :!;•, aai?S ~~ ~ . ` ~ ~~i ' ~ '/~~ f/f~l~! <~.-~,; ;- ,7J''~ .:.' rte: f' f:°_ i. t ~ - _ ~h.T6.~! Qi: G . i•i/~'~,', '+,{ /jam " G 1 1 ~ - ~~ It y'FT-~ i/.nt~.,.E n vE-~ ."'1` t` I ,: 1 .t N E ~/ i~ ,..~ I T Y" K ~ t.. 1. ~ ~ ?! I 1 +~ .FIRST' ,fi i~• 1~1g'' I` 1 Cs R O u K;lp r ~. E ,t. I; Z~ ~ W ~ ' I t I~ ' + •1 1 ,: _ _ -.~S'....c.,~:•„ .... 133.1 w rr~) + - -- - J~'+-r 11,11 .94 , ~ ~• t ._ . - -- - .ta.l _ ~ r f - - -- ~ - --- ~ -- -- .. ... - ~ •.d. , , ~ ~ri.~ ~I ' E r t ~r . -' ---- _._I - ~ ~ _ - ,1 __ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ ._ •I + .. - ~ c . L.. ,'a ~ b.l '{ - R i. , ANNUAL ENERGY COST ANALYSES The energy cost for each option excluding Option 3, are based upon the following criteria: mid-April to mid-October 12 hours per day 5 days per week 1568 hours per year 1000 equivalent full load hours (EFLH) 0.05 KWH $ 10/KW (4 months) and $ 7lKW (3 months) OPTION 1-INDOOR WATER COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Chiller Performance: @ full load 0.833 KW/TON @ 50% load 0.571 KW/TON • @ 18.81 1PLV 0.638 KW/TON 1PLV =integrated part load performance electrical: demand = 0.833 x 85 = 70.8 KW usage = 0.638 x 85 x 1000 = 54,230 KWH Chilled water and condenser water pumps: electrical: demand = 6.0 KW usage = 6 x 1568 = 9,408 KWH Cooling tower: electrical: demand @ 7 'h H.P. = 5.6 KW usage = 5.6 x 1568 = 8,780 KWH • -9- Estimated Annual Energy Cost: ~s demand 81.6 KW x [(4 x $70) + (3 x $7)] _ $ 4,978 usage 72,418 KWH x $ 0.05/KWH = 3,621 Total = $ 8,500/YR. Estimated 20 Year Energy Cost: @ 3% annual cost escalation = $ 231,058 OPTION 2 -INDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Chiller Performance: @ full load 1.251 KW/TON @ 50% load 0.93 KW/TON @ 11.7 1PLV 1.026 KW/TON electrical: demand 1.251 x 85 = 106.3 KW usage 1.026 x 85 x 1000 = 87,210 KWH Chilled Water Pump: electrical: demand = 3.0 KW usage 3 x 1568 = 4,704 KWH Condenser fans: electrical: demand = 9.0 KW usage 9 x 50.6 x 1568 = 8,401 KWH 85 Estimated Annual Energy Cost: demand 118.3 KW x [(4 x $10) + (3 x $7)] _ $ 7,216 usage 100,315 KWH x $ 0.05 KWH = 5,016 Total = $ 12,232/YR. Estimated 20 Year Energy Cost: @ 3% annual cost escalation $ 328,678 -10- OPTION 3 -OUTDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Disregarded.. • OPTION 4 -OUTDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER WITH REMOTE EVAPORATOR Chiller Performance: @ full load 1.20 KW/TON @ 50% load 0.88 KW/TON @ 12.7 1PLV 0.94 KW/TON electrical: demand = 1.20 x 85 = usage = 0.94 x 85 x 1000 = Chilled water pump: electrical: demand = usage 3 x 1568 = Estimated Annual Energy Cost: demand 105 KW x $61 KW/I'R. _ usage 84,604 KWH x $ 0.05/KWH = Total = Estimated 20 Year Energy Cost: @ 3% annual cost escalation • 102.0 KW 79,900 KWH 3.0 KW 4,704 KWH $ 6,405 4,230 $ 10,635/YR. $ 285,766 -11- COOLING CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION 1-INDOOR WATER COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Mobilization $ 2,000 Demolition $ 3,500 Water Cooled Rotary Chiller $ 37,000 Chiller Installation $ 8,000 Cooling Tower $ 10,000 Cooling Tower Installation $ 750 Cooling Tower Pad $ 300 (2) Chilled Water Pumps $ 5,100 (2) Condenser Water Pumps $ 5,400 Pump Installations $ 1,650 Piping Alterations and Insulation $ 6,000 Rigging & Handling $ 2,000 Chiller Management System $ ~ 2,500 Chiller Room Ventilation $ 2,000 Refrigerant Monitoring System $ 1,000 Water Treatment $ 1,500 General Construction $ 3,000 Electrical Construction $ 11,600 Sub-Total $ 103,300 + 20% Contingency $ 20,660 Sub-Total $ 123,960 + 15% O.H. 8i P $ 18.594 Total $ 142,554 OPTION 2 -INDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Mobilization $ 2,000 Demolition $ 4,000 Air Cooled Rotary Chiller $ 29,800 Chiller Installation $ 4,500 Condenser $ 17,200 Condenser Installation $ 2,000 Condenser Pad $ 500 (2) Chilled Water Pumps $ 5,100 Pump Installations $ 800 Piping Alterations and Insulation $ 3,000 Refrigerant Piping $ 5,000 Rigging & Handling $ 2,500 -12- Chiller Management System ~ $ 2,500 ` Chiller Room Ventilation $ 2,000 Refrigerant Monitoring System $ 1,000 General Construction $ 6,500 Electrical Construction $ 9,600 Sub-Total $ 98,000 + 20% Contingency $ 19.600 Sub-Total $ 117,600 + 15% O.H. & P $ 17,640 Total $ 135,240 OPTION 4 -OUTDOOR AII2 COOLED ROTARY CHILLER WITH INDOOR EVAPORATOR Mobilization $ 2,000 Demolition $ 4,000 Outdoor Air Cooled Rotary Chiller and Remote Evaporator $ 44,200 Chiller Installations $ 5,500 Chiller Pad $ 1,000 (2) Chilled Water Pumps $ 5,100 Pump Installations $ 800 Piping Alterations & Insulation $ 3,000 Refrigerant Piping & Insulation $ 5,000 Chiller Management System $ 2,000 General Construction $ 6,500 Electrical Construction $ 12,200 Sub-Total $ 91,300 + 20% Contingency $ 18.260 Sub-Total $ 109,560 + 15% O.H. & P' $ 16,434 Total $ 125,994 -13- • 20 YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISONS OPTION 1 -INDOOR WATER COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Construction Cost $ 142,554 Energy Cost 231,058 $ 373,612 $ 18,681/YR. OPTION 2 -INDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER Construction Cost $ 135,240 Energy Cost 328,678 $ 463,918 $ 23,196/YR. OPTION 4 -OUTDOOR AIR COOLED ROTARY CHILLER WITH REMOTE INDOOR EVAPORATOR Construction Cost $ 125,994 Energy Cost 285.766 $ 411,760 $ 20,588/YR. -14- • RECOMMENDATIONS Option 1-Water Cooled Chiller is the most energy efficient and has the least 20 year life cycle cost of the three (3) options analyzed in this report. Moreover, the existing condenser water piping infrastructure can be utilized without disrupting the west side parking lot. Having the chiller indoors is more desirable from a maintenance standpoint than a chiller located outside where it is exposed to the weather. We recommend proceeding with construction documents to replace the existing water cooled chiller, cooling tower, chilled water pump and condenser water pump with a new 85 ton water cooled chiller, cooling tower, two (2) chilled water pumps with one (1) as standby and two (2) condenser water pumps with one (1) as standby. We recommend taking bids on the chiller from Trane, York and Carrier. Chiller deliveries currently can take up to eight (8) weeks after shop drawing approval. We recommend taking bids on the cooling tower from Marley and Baltimore Air Coil (BAC) We estimate installation can be completed 30 days after the chiller is delivered. If the new system is to be operational by mid-Apri12003, the chiller should be ordered the first week in January 2003 which means construction bids should be received mid-December 2002. Allowing three (3) weeks for bidding means bids should be let no later than November 25, 2002. Construction drawings should begin no later than October 28, 2002. -15- BOILER ROOM MODIFICATIONS The boiler room originally contained an emergency generator, an incinerator and air handling unit C. The emergency generator was recently removed when a new generator was installed outside south of the existing cooling tower. The incinerator has been removed and unit C was abandoned in place when unit S-5 was installed in 1981. , The majority of the heating is now provided by the new Fulton boiler. The original Kewanee boiler which formerly heated the entire building is now used only at outside air temperatures below approximately 10°F. The original chiller, chilled water pump and condenser water pump are about to be replaced. It would seem to be an appropriate time to replace the Kewanee boiler with another high efficiency Fulton boiler and reconfigure the boiler room to best utilize the space available. The current Fulton boiler was installed in 2001 at a cost of $ 27,000. A Fulton PHW 1000 boiler today would cost an estimated $ 16,000 according to the Ryan Company excluding taxes, markup and installation costs. Consideration should be given to removing the Kewanee boiler and what is left of unit C and its ductwork. Potentially these modifications would add an estimated $ 45,000 to cost of project to replace the existing chiller. • -16- APPENDIX ~, I o` ` • "~~~~ ~ r1:.7 t ~ , ' q I i ~ ~S(+ICV tCQ •:-•..f /•_•r 7."7i~ ice.. ^n- _ .-•1.+ G3`_J It ~ ~ 1 ~ I f..l E v. Io~~, ..,~ - q !l I I t ~ i 1 .. .- ~L.4 B .!S)' V .''.. , ~ 4-T. al ':1... ... ... .. <,.7.t•` .__ ~. ~ /'3/4•-w~lO ~v lt --T------, ~~ ~ ~'---- ~ ~ ''; i j ~ a0 71N ~. ~ 7~i~ ~T 7c. ~e Pe ovep. 'r~ 1 f iy -1 ~ u. 1 ~ ~T- ~.s'. ~ 1' r-~r 13.. ( ~ ~~-._ - - i --- 3/4 - n 8 1 1 1 I T --- - - ..'~1..•iY i>.S7J iiy / Ij171 /ri: ~,ti' rp ~•,...:t? :i .. ~ ~+ - --~ -_ 6 ~ _G K T P~i~l~ ~ .PAR ! N G .A. R ""~+-` "~1-'.~v..;~;` I ~ f- x _ llu ~~ ~'.Nd.S --E; ' __ Ills CW Q ,~A • 5 :V ~ /' ,g --t ~~ - '_ _ µ.w.6) .i.1 .r . . ~ 3Si ! i I t 134 I~~~i ! ~ ~ `~~' J'~ 9.~ Gt+'T /`1... :.•>>,a~ _-;~~~. ' tiCJ 1 I UI 1 I j G/~A vE ~ ~~ i ~ .~~~. yzjz I ~•r,E - .~,,f~. .NG7MfRA ._I r ~ i -~ ..90 o G..v fc•~ ~ ,. Te. er Rs~nov! ~. i ~ ~ Oi.: re ~ .E . A .f- Y 111 . ~ - ;_..~~ ~- c~;..c._ c • ter; 1 •~ t . --' _' tr'- =~ =~ ~-~~. --- :a. 1 ~ 1 ~° K~ S t1~(~~i p V A L K ~ 1~ ~o '; 7 't`> T I ~ T ~ __-~__._ _-_._-__~i...+'"E-~ ~ --~~--- ~. _ _ _"' 1 111 ~.. ~_ ~~~ -- • ` Eatfj,_•iMj a( i"Td'SJ` ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ; I ` ` bi tts`..to ~• ~•4 Nye--~ _! s•~, ' 3o C ed0 f'~ Ctub ~ i 3 •' • ( L ~_ IMI / F R ~4 ' Z IC ' ~/ ~ /`: /iG s~.~~.~.•' ~ Its o ' `~''I N E qtr/ f~ ...; I T Y" ' H -~ L L ~" 7 ! I F r tt s T l 144' _ ~ I~ ~ If 1 P ~ E ;, . ,~W i ~ _ "t. 1 i,~i 1 - - ' 1 ~~., I l 1 ' ~ .. L_'. ~. 1 ' - 1 '1..-« w11L Il_ Jt ._.~-1 ~.. ~ .l ~aa'~ ...-.. - ~.- ----. - -- - -, . _ . . ~ ._ _ , r*~... _... _ ~ ~ Tl A~. S ., ~ __ _ ' s :. - - Y+~. 'h, 1' . r. ;; ~ . ~ . :.~ r' i "~, .y . ~ " .' ~)~. i r a . u ~ j •~ ~` ` i 'f '~' t•^ ! 1 ~ '1 (- 3 ~ ' ~. V ~''` t ~I~~`~ a~ ~w~{-, a ~:,y ,~ ~,r~ '',.~ ~ ~ ~r ~` NN ~~~`~! ~,•~ i ~ O~~c .: ~ .dam .~ ~ ~~~~ -~ '' 1 i r ~ '~ ~ r i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ' .3 ~ ~. '. ' ~ ~, ~V I ~ I fl F ' ~ `` CX^.v:.L I i. . ~_ G 6 O dL~ / ~ ~~ 'yam y I , ± _ ~~~~-..'... _~. fA H OvL'R V~ VL ~~ `^~ ~j ~ ~ 1 ~ i I ,~ ~ ~ , ` ~ ,~i.vr 1 +:'~ ova CiNc - _ 1 r - - 1 ~ ~ ~ 4) +y... t ~ ~ .a O'~!'o f //~ ( .}.~ Z1~ON TA I ~ '~~ ~; r .~ ___._-J ~ .... _ _ ..... _ ~ i ..a v r3. J 4 ~~?.-- . Erl~..~.a cvc y ~t ~ c.+r.~ rb ft T J ~ - -- i u~c ~.~, 11J ` i .. ~ ~ 7 • , •TG • :: AM/t ~ ~ I tilQ ' FA ~/ !N _ assrcu+'~~/C3 `,~~ .. . .!. '.. :; ~, is ,,, , !~. ~': , TC' - _ ... O ~ e-i ri 8,• . ~ -- C ;,.~ ~ , i 1 ""`~ ~~~ 1 s - yrr~ }. ,, i ~ • •i ,_ ~n 4 ~ ~;t : : f'.~ n ~ `~' . ~~ ( ~~ .~. . ~ ~ S L ~' • -!+'_'.. .wi t :~ '~~MLCV{.fY~ . - - - OIZIGlNAL ' ' ~OIL'~ 1~Oc~M LG WER LC /CL ~L~~1N _ . , .. rl. .,`li!a,~. .` / r ~~ ~' 'rte.. *.. ~ S i ._ i ~} ~~ i ~ .:lY ~ I ~; ~ ~ ~ ! ' . , j -~ • a I I I ' ~ v i ~, r r4 W ~ ~ h ~:.,~' ~ f ~ . ~ ~t1 . • `.y ^- ',~ ~' I f~.~pp•~ ' • }'4a ~~p r ~• ..~ i I'. ~ • ~~ . ~~~ ~~ ;.~ ~• . ~~ / / i L.In/iT C ~ M~/~ sEC .xvsE r /e s • • 11F .~ ~1~ li O. 'i~• ..• ~ r ~ I1 •~ pp ~n ' ~ ~ ; 1 . ' .. ~ _- I ~• •~Jr.a. •• rn .N.~•. ..,, ~ .y~~•. ~ : ~~: ~ I xy ~.r I.i 3<< S~E~ , ,...3. ~~ ~f1 ,:. i' •~ •~ / ` ;tom, • ~sw•~v ~~ ~•.~~.^•ns ~.~. .,`. ~ .naval ~•!'~'-~ i'-''~YJ'••~~r~ J 01'ttl~tl~I,~L ScAtL f'~'./'o' i ,r.~ „:. `t~~:•; • I ,~ ~ • 2 3 i CHILLER r1 ~....~...................~•.+.~..~.~ 2 ~~z L ~ ~~~ C ~, ~...a ~ 5 i~ ~i 4 ~~~r~w~~w~w~ ' ~ ~ S-3 o ~ ~~~r~~~J ___._ 1 7 6 ~ ii ~ i I (~ ul 1 1 _ ~ 801LER ~ ~ ~~ $ 9 -~'~ I 1 iI 1 1 _...~ 11 212 1 I 11 L .1 11 ----~- . • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3G REPORT # 245 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER Nan[E T[TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NamrE T[TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .I I' ~ LJ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of ublic health services for the Ci of Richfield for the ear 2003. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the attached agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for the vear 2003. 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 providing public health nursing services in 2003 reflects a 3% increase over the 2002 adjusted contract amount. The 2003 contract is still, however, significantly less that the 2001 contract which resulted in the following decreases for budget reasons: (1) A $25,000 reduction in service due to budget 0611 Nursing Contract-2003 constraints, and; (2) An alternative accounting process of maternal child health • dollars in the amount of $28;119. The original 2001 contract amount of $232,714 was reduced to $179,595 in 2002 to account for these two reductions. The 2003 contract amount is, therefore, still approximately $47,000 less than the 2001 contract. 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. An annual evaluation of their services has 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 • None. C. FINANCIAL • None. • D. LEGAL • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(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 that would require designated reductions in services or programs. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • 2003 Bloomington Health contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22nd day of October, 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"). 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: 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 $184,984 shall be paid in quarterly payments of $46,246 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph 5.B hereof, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph 5.C hereof. b. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 2003 and on January 15, 2004, 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 books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington. to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service- personnel who render 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 5.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 fora period of from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003, 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.A11 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 may be 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 or 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-Assi nment. 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, or 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, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: • Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney: City Attorney Dated: Dated: • CITY OF RICHFIELD: By: Its Mayor By: Its Manager • • AGENDA SECTION: COriSerit AGENDA ITEM # 3F REPORT # 244 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: W ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food ins ection services for Richfield for the ears 2003 and 2004. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the attached agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food inspection services for Richfield for the nears 2003 and 2004. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of food service and plan check for food services for many years. The proposed contract for 2003 for food service inspections and plan check food services will be $72,200, compared to the 2002 contract amount of $69,905. The increase is as a result of an approximately 3% adjustment for salaries and benefits. The proposed contract for 2004 for food service inspections and plan check food services will be $75,070, compared to the 2003 contract amount of $72,200. This is primarily as a result of an increase for staff salaries and benefits as well. 1022Food Inspection Contract 03-04 It is also being proposed that Richfield continue to enter into atwo-year contract • with the City of Bloomington, therefore, eliminating the need to renew the agreement on an annual basis. The terms of the contract still provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice -upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate it before it expires December 31, 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing efficient services in a very cost-effective manner. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • None • D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own food services inspections and plan check food services. The cost of hiring the 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. ATTACI-IMENTS • 2003 - 2004 City of Bloomington Food Inspection Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FOOD INSPECTION SERVICES AND PLAN CHECK FOOD SERVICES This Agreement is made this 22nd day of October 2002, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington"). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide .for various types of environmental health inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will done of all restaurants and at least one • inspection will be done of all grocery stores). b. Plan Check for food services. c. Public swimming pool inspections as necessary. d. Lodging inspections as necessary. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. In 2003, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($72,200.00) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2003, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2003. 6. In 2004, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, SEVENTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($75,070.00) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2004, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2004. 7. This agreement shall terminate as follows: • a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or c. In any event on December 31, 2004. 8. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2004, a prorata reduction of • the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 9. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the 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 Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses,- immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 10. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the 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 Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 11. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per • individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry propertydamage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 (1997) and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to the Richfield. 12.Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 13. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Lead inspections and lab services; b. Housing and grossly unsanitary dwellings inspections and code enforcement services; c. Mold inspection and code enforcement services; and d. Noise inspection and code enforcement services. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $53.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the lead, housing, mold and noise inspection services being • provided. 14. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. -Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, shall have no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield , 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 of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its ofl=lcers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 15.The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5. 16.This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 17. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate. in all services, programs, and 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 Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 952/563-8700; TDD: 563-8740. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought 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 alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 18. The City of Bloomington and the City of 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, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether • • mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 19. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have sef forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this Agreement CITY OF BLOOMINGTON shalC be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington. By: Its Mayor By: .Its City Manager City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3E REPORT # 243 „~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIltECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE ® S~~ /~ SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of animal boardin and kennel services for the Ci of Richfield for the ear 2003. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached contract with the City of Bloomington for the continuation of animal boarding and kennel services for the City of Richfield for the near 2003. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided animal boarding and kennel services for the City of Richfield since 1982. This service has been very satisfactory for the City of Richfield and allows Richfield to collaboratively utilize a facility to hold and house lost and found domestic animals rather than having a City animal kennel facility. We have also found that the proximity of the kennel to Richfield is conveniently located for residents who are picking up animals, as well as continues to reduce travel time and costs for Community Service Officers who visit the facility frequently. Fees remain relatively the same, with only a very small increase in boarding and disposal fees. Boarding fees are $10 per day, per animal and disposal fees are $30 102261oomi ngton KennelContract-2003 per animal. Both of these fees are recovered whenever the owner of the animal is known. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of animal kennel services to Richfield and its residents. Evaluation of their services has shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner and that residents and staff are satisfied with the kennel operations. 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 animal kennel services. The cost of hiring staff and locating or constructing kennel space necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than current expenditures and would require a significant budget increase. V. ATTACFIMENTS • 2003 Bloomington Kennel contract. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICES • This agreement is between the undersigned parties, City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road (hereinafter the "City"), and the City of Richfield, (hereinafter the "Requestor"), a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, and is dated this 22nd day of October, 2002. WHEREAS, the City has the facilities for the impoundment of animals available for use by the Requestor under the control and direction of its Police Department; and WHEREAS, the Requestor desires to use the City's facilities for the boarding and release or disposal of those domestic animals it impounds; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on the type and manner of use of the City's facilities by the Requestor. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from November 2, 2002 to November 1, 2003, subject to termination as provided herein. II. DUTIES OF THE CITY • A. The City will receive from the Requestor domestic animals, excluding any mammal, amphibian, reptile or bird which is of a species not usually domesticated and of a species which, due to size, wild nature or other characteristic, is dangerous to humans, reserving the right to at any time refuse to accept any animal based upon the condition or nature of the animal or lack of staff or available space at its facility. B. The City will exercise reasonable care in feeding, boarding and caring for the animals received from the Requestor while they remain under its care, custody and control. C. The City will release animals received from the Requestor to their respective claimants in accordance with its or the Requestor's redemption criteria, if different therefrom and known to the City, upon the claimant's payment in full to the City of the total per diem Boarding Fee, Administrative Charge and any other costs incurred in boarding the animal, including the cost of any medical care provided. D. The City will exercise reasonable care in disposing of animals received from the Requestor in accordance with its disposal criteria, state law and local ordinances. Methods of disposal shall be determined by the City and will include without limitation, sale, adoption, destruction and donation. III. DUTIES OF THE REQUESTOR A. The Requestor will deliver animals to the City in apparent good health and in accordance with Bloomington City Code and the City's operating procedures, understanding that the City may at any time refuse to accept an animal based upon the condition or nature of the animal or the availability of space at its facility. B. .The Requestor authorizes the City to destroy in a humane and proper manner those animals it delivers to the City in accordance with Bloomington City Code §14.96(1) [seized dangerous dogs], and §14.137.09 [unlicensed dogs & cats, wild animals, unrestrained animals], each providing that animals unclaimed after seven (7) days may be destroyed; and Minn. Stat. §343.235 [disposition of seized animals that have been cruelly treated], Minn. Stat. §14.101 [dogs, cats and ferrets that are rabies suspects] each • providing that such animals unclaimed may be destroyed after ten days. C. The Requestor agrees to comply with all animal shelter operating procedures established by the City. It is understood and agreed that the City has authority to arrange for veterinary care of animals impounded by the Requestor that the City, in its sole discretion, determines to be sick or injured and in need of such care. The Requestor agrees to reimburse the City for the cost thereof, including all staff and administrative costs. D. The Requestor agrees to pay the City within thirty (30) days of the date of invoice for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assessed in accordance with the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A and understands that late payments will be assessed interest at the rate determined by the state court administrator under Minn. Stat. §549.09, Subd. 1(c) which shall start to accrue on the thirtieth- (30th) calendar day following the invoice date and will continue to accrue on any unpaid balance until paid in full. In addition, a late payment penalty of $30.00 shall be added to the amount due. E. The Requestor shall be responsible for checking for identification on those animals it delivers to the City and for prompt notification of identified owners of the location and impoundment of the animal by the most expedient means. IV. GENERAL TERMS A. Hold Harmless/Indemnification: The Requestor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes • of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from, in whole or in part, the City's performance of any of the duties set forth in this Agreement except where such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases, death, or injury to or destruction of property (including the loss of use resulting therefrom) caused by any grossly negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by the City. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent the City from participating in the defense of any litigation by its own legal counsel at its own sole expense. This agreement to indemnify and hold harmless does not constitute a waiver by either party of any statutory limitations on liability, statutory or common law immunities or any defenses that would otherwise be available to them in claims by third parties. B. Independent Contractor: 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 undersigned parties hereto or as constituting one party's employees, agents, ofFcials or staff as the agents, representatives, employees or staff of the other for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. C. Non-Assignment: The undersigned parties stipulate that this Agreement is not assignable. D. Compliance with Applicable Laws: The undersigned parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in force or hereafter enacted, in the performance of the duties under this Agreement, including but not limited to the applicable provisions of the Minn. Govt. Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Chap. 13. • E. Entire Agreement: The undersigned parties stipulate that this Agreement represents the entire Agreement between them 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 must be in writing and signed by both parties. F. Mediation: The undersigned 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. G. Governing Law: The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the undersigned parties and their performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction of any litigation hereunder will be those courts located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation in the federal courts will be in the appropriate federal court for the District of the State of Minnesota. H. Severabilitv: If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. I. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated for any reason, upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice. Upon termination, the City shall be compensated for all services performed prior to the notice of termination. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or violation by the Requestor of any provision herein. Failure to make timely payment for two consecutive billing periods shall be considered a material breach of the terms of this Agreement and adequate grounds for its termination without prior notice. • IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have executed this Agreement. Dated: REQUESTOR- CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney: City Attorney Dated: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its City Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attomey. • City Attorney Exhibit A. J Fees for the Boarding, Release and Disposal of Animals Received from Other Governmental Agencies Unclaimed Animals: Administrative charge Disposal Boarding $30.00 per animal $30.00 per animal $10.00 per day, per animal Claimed Animals: (To be collected from the claimant with the Requestor being ultimately responsible therefor.) Administrative charge Boarding $30.00 per animal $10.00 per day, per animal Adjustment of All Fees: These fees may be administratively adjusted from time-to-time without a formal amendment of the Agreement. Such adjustment shall be made in accordance with the following procedure: • Fee adjustments are automatic when the City has, by Council action, adjusted its boarding, impound, administrative, sale and disposal fees for its own residents. • The adjusted fees shall not exceed the amounts set for City residents. L' • Initiation of a fee adjustment shall be made by thirty (30) day's written notice thereof to the Requestor. • The adjusted fees shall become effective unless, within thirty (30) days of the notice of fee adjustment, the Requestor terminates this Agreement. • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3D REPORT # 242 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: l~ BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Nance, TTTLE BRUCE PALMBORG, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached subdivision waiver at 6815 Humboldt Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the attached resolution, approving the subdivision waiver for 6815 Humboldt Avenue. III. BACKGROUND ~ The applicant, Mr. Randy Gerdes, is seeking a minor lot-line correction for the line between his property at 6821 Humboldt and his neighbor to the north at 6815 Humboldt. Rather than being a completely rectangular lot, the east end of 6815 Humboldt follows old property lines that were platted to orient toward Wood Lake prior to the construction of I-35W. When I-35W was constructed, portions of the plots that were oriented to Wood Lake were taken for the highway and the remaining remnants were joined with properties along Humboldt. As a result, the eastern portion of 6815 Humboldt includes a `tail' that protrudes into what would normally be the back yard of Mr. Gerdes property at 6821 Humboldt. Mr. Gerdes is seeking a subdivision waiver so that the portion of 6815 Humboldt that protrudes south of the (extended) east-west property line can be combined with his property at 6821 Humboldt. Mr. Gerdes has obtained the cooperation and consent of Mr. and Mrs. Bauer, owners of 6815 Humboldt, for this lot-line correction. 1022-S ubWaiver-H u mboldt. doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05. Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 of the City Code would result in an unnecessary hardship. B. CRITICAL IssUEs • Approval of the subdivision waiver will not create an unusable parcel, but will cause both 6815 and 6821 Humboldt Avenue to be more standard, rectangular shaped lots. • Approval of the subdivision will be conditioned upon the portion that is split-off of 6815 Humboldt being combined with the property at 6821 Humboldt. • Because the parcels in question abut a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right-of--way (I-35V~, state law requires MnDOT to review and approve the proposed subdivision. MnDOT reviewed this proposal and approved it in a letter dated September 18, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • No legal or mailed notice is required; however, Community Development staff did send a mailed notice to neighbors within 100 feet to inform them of this requested subdivision waiver. • 60 DAY RULE: The 60 day `clock' started when a complete application was received on September 17, 2002. A decision must be given to the applicant by November 18, 2002 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • City Council Resolution • MnDOT Letter • Certificate of Survey • • Land-use and zoning maps for properties within 350 feet of the subject parcel VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Randy Gerdes, applicant and owner of 6821 Humboldt Avenue South. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER 6815 HUMBOLDT AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 6815 Humboldt Avenue South, legally described as: Parcel A: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION, subject to highway WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two parcels, legally described as: Parcel B: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION except that part of said Lot 2 lying southerly of the easterly extension of the south line of said Lot 3 and its intersection with the westerly right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W, subject to highway Parcel C: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION lying southerly of the easterly extension of the • south line of Lot 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION and its intersection with the westerly right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W, subject to highway WHEREAS, the owner of Parcel A proposes to convey the proposed Parcel C to the owner of the adjoining property located at 6821 Humboldt Avenue, which is legally described as: Parcel D: Lots 6 and 12, Block 1, WOOD LAKE HIGHLANDS, subject to highway WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel C does not comply with Subsection 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and WHEREAS, the combination of Parcels C and D results in the creation of a new parcel legally described as: Parcel E: Lot 6 and Lot 12, Block 1, WOOD LAKE HIGHLANDS lying westerly of the westerly right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W and also that part of Lot 2, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION lying southerly of the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION and its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W, subject to highway WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and • WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is hereby granted; and 2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels as described above as Parcel B and Parcel E; and 3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor n U ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~NNE~T7 90 ~s Minnesota Department of Transportation ~,oF~~,~ Metropolitan Division . Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 September 18, 2002 Bruce Sylvester City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: Randy Gerdes Lot Line Correction -- Mn/DOT Review # P02-101 West of Interstate 35W between 68~' and 69~' Streets Richfield, Hennepin County Control Section 2782 Dear Mr. Sylvester: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please note the following issue: • Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standazds established by the Minnesota ..Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities aze responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regazding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such azeas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to my attention. Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3.) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1771 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, ~~ • Paul Czech Principal Transportation Planner An equal opportunity employer • Copy: Rob Wied, Hennepin County Surveys Section Bob Byers, Hennepin County Planning Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council W. Brown Land Surveying, Inc. Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 4450 Mn/DOT LGL -Richfield • • W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. 8030 Cedar Avenue South Suite 228 Bloomin ton, MN 55425 ,~~vey For: Phone 0952) 854-4055 Fax (952} 854-42fi8 Randy Gerdes e Denotes Iron 30 Z I:iJ Q O 30 Monument Found ~ a Denotes Iron I Monument Set 1 241.1 plat vi v a°~ a ~ O M co ~ co -- vi v °m a ~ o ~ co ~ ~ WOODROW A. BROWN, R.LS. President NOTE: No Search Was Made For Any Easements. ~~ -rtn Irn n l r ~--)~^ I In Irnl n I ~ •n I ! 11 V\7LJf"~L_L ~~\V.:. L_II VVVL_I V f~I1L_L_v "~`.vl vLJ nvvl I Ivl v #6815 LOT 3 PARCEL- ONE 188.95 plat -~ I / n ~ ` ~` ~J .~ 188.08 meas. o~,~ ~^h r~ #6821 LOT 12 ~~Q%!^~\ '~`'~ "~'~/ PARCEL TWO ~ ~ ~ I~tr\nn I n I~ r r u/~I n n t`In^ rv vvu L_nr \L_ fUvf1L_r~l vv..; j ~ ~~ ~' 3 Q NORTH 136.8 plat I ~~ ~,, 3 r o 136.88 meas. ~ lat -= ~ 5 ., ~" - ~'~' y P 14.9 ~ 4.89 meas. ~ ~~ ~ -T--) ~ ~"- I {-\ I d' ~s M nv n ~ h.L_..:. 1 VV. v ~ ~ l0 os Legal Description for 6821 Humboldt: \ ~ Scale: 1 "=40' Lot 6 and 12, Block 1, WOOD LAKE HIGHLANDS, subject to highway. Legal Description for 6815 Humboldt: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS, SECOND ADDITION, subject to highway. Proposed .Legal Descriptions: Parcel One Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION except that part of said Lot 2 lying southerly of the easterly extension of the south line of said Lot 3 and its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W, subject to highway. Parcel Two Lot 6 and Lot 12, Block 1, WOOD LAKE HIGHLANDS lying westerly of the .westerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W and also that part .of Lot 2, Block 1, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION lying southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot 12 and its intersection with the westerly- right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35W, subject to highway. • I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURV tNG, .INC. ~-oz Woodrow A. Brown,. R.LS N0. 15230 Dated: ~'~ ~-~,~ 2002 iss , ~ , SUBDMSION WAIVER REQUEST OCTOBER 2002 FOR 6815 HUNBOLDT ~-VENUE LAND USES FOR PROPERTIES VIAiHIN 350 FEET RES RES RES RES ~ ~ RES a 6811.1 ST. RES RES RES RES S~ RES a ~ RES RES RES ~ 35~~ R' RES. RES RES RES RES 6815 REs RES RES ~ 8 a~ RES RES RES h ~ PRK RES ~~ RES RES ~~ RES RES `~ RES s RES ~ = s9TH sT. WOOD L~ PARK LAND USE SY'IV~OLS RES =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRK =PARK N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet X25-02 SUBDMSION WAIVER REQUEST, OCTOBER 2002 FOR 6815 HUMBOLDT AVENUE ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET R R R R R R 68TH ST. a ~ R R R R ~ R R ~ R R R 35~~ ~ R R R R R 6815 R R R = 6aa i h R R R w R R R R R ~~ R R ~ R 69TH ST. VU~OOD L.AI~ P~-RK zoNING s~nueo~s R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N ..100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 9-ZS-02 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 C REPORT # 241 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Nom. TITLE /. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Call a public hearing for the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establishment of the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on the proposed adoption of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establishment of the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District. • III. BACKGROUND ~ The HRA has entered into a contract for redevelopment with Cornerstone Group for the redevelopment of the area between Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues and 76th and 77th Streets. Since June of 1999 this block has been part of the Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Initially it was part of the ILN tax increment project established in 1985. To proceed with Cornerstone a public hearing must be scheduled. At this public hearing the City Council would consider the establishment of the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. 1022LGW The public hearing for this matter is proposed for December 10, 2002. The public hearing date needs to be set in advance in order to process the various notification requirements to the County Commissioner, County Board, and School Board and undertake other public body approvals (such as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required for this tax increment matter. • The City Council is the body that must hold a public hearing to consider approval of the proposed modifications to a redevelopment project area and establish a new tax increment financing district, including approving the respective plans. Because of the loss of time since 1999 and the need to maximize the TIF from this area, it is desirable to establish a new tax increment district for this project. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The public review process for the Cornerstone redevelopment project cannot proceed until a schedule is determined. • C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The resolution calling for a public hearing was prepared by Ehlers and Associates and reviewed by legal counsel. • The HRA will be considering this matter at its November 18 meeting. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council may direct staff to select another date for the public hearing. However, a schedule for processing the Cornerstone redevelopment project has been set and is tied to other matters related to moving the project along. V. ATTACFIMENTS • Resolution authorizing a public hearing by the City Council on the proposed adoption of a modification to the redevelopment plan. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THEREIN, AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on December 10, 2002, at approximately 6:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, the proposed establishment of the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing. Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to December 10, 2002, and to place a copy of the Plans on file in the Community Development Director's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2002. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk r~ ~~ AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT# 24~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE • • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution calling fora $1,065,000 refunding bond sale of the $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand G.O. Bonds, Series 1999, dated November 1, 1999. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution calling for the sale of $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand G.O. Bonds, Series 1999, dated November 1, 1999, with the $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 200X. II. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City issued the $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand G.O. Bonds, Series 1999, to fund the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction program. The goal of the program is to remove substandard and obsolete housing and develop new single homes that have desirable features that are current in today's market. A second function of the bond issue was to provide funds for the Transformation Loan Program. This program provides zero interest loans for large, value-added remodeling projects to qualified City of Richfield residents. The loans are recorded 03122001SSBondRefund as second mortgage liens against the property and are for 30-year terms. If the . property is sold prior to the expiration of the 30-year term, the loan amount is due and payable to the Richfield HRA. If the property is held for the entire 30-year term, then at the end of that term the loan is forgiven. The amount of planned funding for the program is $200,000. The bonds payment structure was such that interest. is paid on the bonds based on a weekly variable rate, payable on the. first business day of the month. Principal on the bonds was not scheduled to be paid until final maturity of the bonds in 2019. Consequently, with interest rates at historical lows, staff has requested Ehlers & Associates, Inc. to review this bond issue to determine if refunding and converting to a fixed rate and a conventional repayment schedule was feasible. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA considered this item at their meeting of October 21, 2002. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The two refunding bond issues will be offered for sale at the same time. • The sale of the refunding bonds at the same time as the $2,490,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds will allow efficiencies in the issuance. C. FINANCIAL • The Richfield Rediscovered II Program fund has approximately $750,000.00 of cash available to contribute towards the refunding of the bonds. • Staff is recommending a contribution of $550,000 towards the current refunding. This will provide $200,000 for the Transformation Loan Program. • The $200,000 will be the final funds provided for the program unless a new funding source can be found. There are presently about 40 households expressing interest in this program. • The lesser contribution will result in an additional $110,500 in interest cost over the life of the refunding issue. • On the basis of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. review, it appears that the current interest rate climate would make it feasible to refund the bond issue and convert to a fixed rate. • The current structure of the bonds is based on monthly interest payments based on a weekly variable rate. Refunding the bonds at a fixed rate would allow the City to take advantage of the record low rates. • Sources of principal and interest payments will be paid from the following 0 15% of annual tax increment from Pre-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Tax Increment Districts. 0 90% of annual tax increment from the Post-1999 • Richfield Rediscovered Tax Increment District. o If the two above sources are not sufficient for the annual debt service, Housing Trust funds will be used to satisfy any remaining annual debt service. • The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be the same as the current outstanding issue. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE. RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Make a $750,000 contribution to the bond refunding, and forgo funding the Transformation Loan Program. This will result in $110,500 less in interest .costs as compared to the lesser contribution. • Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as presently scheduled, and forego the projected savings. V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS • Resolution Providing for the Sale of $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 200X. • Bond Sale report is attached to Staff Report No. 239. • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. n LJ . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $1,065,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002C WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $1,065,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C (the "Series 2002C Bonds"), to provide funds for the current refunding of the November 1, 2019 maturity of $1,570,000 of the City's outstanding $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand General Obligation. Bonds (Richfield Rediscovered Project) Series 1999 dated date November 18, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: • 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Series 2002C Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at the time and place to be specified in the Terms of Proposal for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Series 2002C Bonds. The City Clerk, or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Bond Sale Report. The terms and conditions of the Series 2002C Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the "Bond Sale Report" attached hereto and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Series 2002C Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor C ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 239 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING n U OCTOBER 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~/~ ~ _~~ ~ ~ ~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution calling for the $2,495,000 refunding bond sale of the $5,075,000 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996, dated December 1, 1996. I. RECONIlVIENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution calling for the sale of the $5,075,000 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996, dated December 1, 1996, with the $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026. • II. BACKGROUND In 1996, the City issued the $5,075,000 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 for the purpose of financing various redevelopment and housing projects in the City. Tax increments from the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) and Interstate- Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) supported debt service on these bonds. With the decertification of the LHN District, tax increments collected from the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment District will service the refunded debt. With interest rates at historical lows, staff has requested Ehlers & Associates, Inc. to review this bond issue to determine if refunding was feasible at this time. Upon 10222002RefundingBonds2.4 review of this bond issue, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. recommends undertaking a bond refunding to take advantage of the low interest rates. III. BASIS OF RECONIlViENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA considered this item at their meeting on October 21, 2002. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The two refunding bond issues will be offered for sale at the same time. • The sale of the refunding bonds at the same time as the $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds will allow efficiencies in the issuance. C. FINANCIAL • On the basis of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. review, it appears that the current interest rate climate would make it feasible to refund the bond issue. • It is projected that at the current interest rates the refunding would save the City approximately $103,000 after fees are subtracted. • The True Interest Cost on the remaining principal of the current issue is approximately 6.8454%, while the True Interest Cost of the new refunding issue would be 5.4724%. • The principal and interest payments will be paid from tax increments collected from the ILN Tax Increment District. • The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be the same as the current outstanding issue. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMI~~NDATION(S~ • Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as presently scheduled, and forego the projected savings. V. ATTACPIMENTS • Resolution Providing for the Sale of $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026. • Bond Sale report for both refunding issues. VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $2,495,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 20026 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $2,495,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026 (the "Series 20026 Bonds"), to provide funds for the current refunding of the December 1, 2004 through December 1, 2012 maturities totaling $2,430,000 of the City's outstanding $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 dated date December 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit • proposals for the sale of the Series 20026 Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at the time and place to be specified in the Terms of Proposal for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Series 20026 Bonds. The City Clerk, or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Bond Sale Report. The terms and conditions of the Series 20026 Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the "Bond Sale Report" attached hereto and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Series 20026 Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • BOND SALE REPORT $2,495,000* Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026 and $1,065,000* Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C City of Richfield, Minnesota *(Amount Subject to Change on Sale Date) J October 22, 2002 FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC . LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE S OVERVIEW This report describes the proposed plan for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") to issue $2,495,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026 (the "Series 2002BBonds") and $1,065,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C (the "Series 2002C Bonds"), collectively referned as the "Obligations". This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in consultation with City Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with: • Purpose and components of the issues. • Structure. • Other considerations in issuing bonds. • Mazket conditions. • Issuing process. $2,495,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 20026 • PURPOSE The Series 20026 Bonds are being issued to refund the 1996 Bonds identified below pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475, to provide funds for the current refunding of the December 1, 2004 through December 1, 2012 maturities totaling $2,430,000 of the City's outstanding $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 dated December 1,1996 (the "Series 1996 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds"), as follows: Date of Maturities Principal Refunded Call Call Being Interest to be Issue Being Refuuded Issue Date Price Refunded Rates Refunded $5,075,000 General 12!01/96 02/01/03 Par 2004 6.40% $ 200,000 Obligation Taxable 2005 6.50% 215,000 Tax lncremem Boads 2006 6.50% 230,000 Series 1996 2007 6.50% 245,000 2008 6.60% 265,000 2009 6.75% 285,000 2010 7.00% 305,000 2011 7.00% 330,000 2012 7.00°10 355.000 Total $2,430,000 • Page 1 The City will pay the scheduled principal amount of $185,000 and the interest payment of $87,758.75 due on February 1, 2003 for the Series 1996 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds. The proposed refunding requires a bond issue in the amount of $2,495,000. The projected debt service and flow of funds can be found in Exhibit 1 and the Sources and Uses are detailed in the attached Exhibit 2. STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT The Series 20028 Bonds are general obligations of the City and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay principal and interest on the Series 20028 Bonds from tax increment revenues generated from the ILN Tax Increment District. If tax increment revenues are insufficient to meet principal and interest on the Series 20028 Bonds, the City is required to levy ad valorem taxes without limit as to rate or amount on all taxable property in the City to make up the deficiency. The Series 2002E Bonds would be sold November 12, 2002 and be dated December 5, 2002. The first interest payment will be August 1, 2003, and semiannually thereafter. Principal will be due on February 1 in the years 2004 through 2012. We recommend that Series ZOOZB Bonds maturing February 1, 2011 and thereafter be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2010. r1 LJ • Page 2 • $1,065,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002C PURPOSE The Series 2002C Bonds are being issued to refund the City's outstanding variable rate bonds of 1999 identified below pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475, to provide funds for the current refunding of the November 1, 2019 maturity of $1,5'70,000 of the City's outstanding $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand General Obligation Bonds (Richfield Rediscovered Project) Series 1999 dated date November 18,1999. It is the intent of the City to call these bonds on January 1, 2003. The proposed refunding requires a bond issue in the amount of $1,065,000. The projected debt service and flow of funds can be found in Exhibit 3 and the Sources and Uses are detailed in the attached Exhibit 4. STRUCTURE AND REPAYAAENT The Series 2002C Bonds are general obligations of the City and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay principal and interest on the Bonds from tax increment revenues generated from the Richfield Rediscovered Tax Increment Financing Districts and the Housing Fund. If tax increment revenues are insufficient to mgt principal and interest on the Series 2002C Bonds, the City is required to levy ad valorem taxes without limit as to rate or amount on all taxable property in the City to make up the deficiency. The Series 2002C Bonds would be sold November 12, 2002 and be dated December 5, 2002. The first interest payment will be February 1, 2003, and semiannually thereafter. Principal will be due on February 1 in the years 2003 through 2017. We recommend that Series 2002C Bonds maturing February 1, 2013 and thereafter be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2012. Page 3 • PR01lISIONS COMMON TO BOTH ISSUES Following is a summary of key factors in the finance plan: Both issues are taxable obligations and, therefore, not subject to arbitrage rebate and reporting requirements and will not be designated as bank qualified. The issuance of the Bonds will not affect the City's annual limit on bank qualified bonds or bonds eligible for the smaller issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate These Bonds are taxable and, therefore, not exempt from State or Federal income taxes. • Bidders on both issues may submit a bid which contains a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption. If il~c purchaser of the Bonds designates certain of the maturities as Term Bonds, subject to a mandatory call, the City will be responsible for providing a Notice of Call to holders of the Bonds at least 45 days prior to the call date. We can discuss with you the option of retaining a paying agent to provide the proper call notices to owners of the Bonds. Allowing potential purchasers the term bond option results in increased bidder interest in this issue and possible lower interest rates. • The Bonds will be global book entry with a bank designated as the paying agent. As "paperless"bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond printing and annual registrar chazges. The . Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semiannually and on an annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services provided by the bank. • Moody's Investors Service will be asked to rate both issues. The City currently has an "Aa3" rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds. New regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more. Because the aggregate amount of each issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data relating to the City annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events. The specific nature of the Undertaking, as well as the information to be contained in the notices of material events will be set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate that you will enter into at the time of closing for this issue. S Page 4 MARKET CONDITIONS The following graph shows the trends in the Bond Buyer's 20-Yeaz G.O. Index (BBI) since 1993. Interest rates remain at neaz historic tows. TEN-YEAR BOND BUYER INDEX ~~~ • 9 8.5 8 e 7.5 ~ ~• 7 m 6.5 L 6 d 5.5 5 4.5 4 93 ®September 2002 Bond Buyer Index 4.75% Page 5 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 1993-2002 ISSUING PROCESS Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process. October 22, 2002 City Council adopts resolutions calling for the sale of the Obligations Week of October 28, 2002 Submit draft Official Statement and rating materials to Moody's Investors Service for credit rating aleck of October 28, 2002 Distribute Official Statement Week of November 4, 2002 Conference call with Moody's Investors Service Week of November 4, 2002 Receive credit rating November 12, 2002 Bond sales December 5, 2002 (est} Bond closings • Your eontacts at Ehlers & Associates will be: Financial Advisor. Sid Inman Financial Advisor: Rebecca Kuirtz Analyst: Sandy Ludford Bond Sale Closing Coordinator: Connie Kuck Page 6 EXHIBIT 1 • r-~ ~J City of Richfield Proposed Current Refunding of $5,075,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series ?Z/?!?996 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+1 FISCAL TOTAL 12/05/2002 - - - - - 8/4V2003 - - 79,441.86 79,441.86 - 2/01/2004 210,000.00 3.200% 60,591.25 270,591.25 350,033-11 8/01/2004 - - 57,231.25 57,231.25 - 2/01/2005 235,000.00 3.950% 57,231.25 292,231.25 349,462.50 8101!2005 - - 52,590.00 52,590.00 - 2l01i2006 250,000.00 4.400% 52,590.00 302,590.00 355,180.OD 8/01/2006 - - 47,090.00 47,090.00 - 2/0112007 260,000.00 4.600% 47,090.00 307,090.00 354,180.00 8/01/2007 - - 41,110.00 41,110.00 - 2l01/2008 275,000.00 4.900% 41,110.00 316,110.00 357,220.00 8/01!2008 - - 34,372.50 34,372.50 - 2J01/2009 290,000.00 5.200% 34,372.50 324,372.50 358,745.00 8!01!2009 - - 26,832.50 26,832.50 - 2/0112010 305,000.00 5.400% 26,832.50 331,832.50 358,665.00 8/01/2010 - - 18,597.50 18,597.50 - 210112011 325,000.00 5.500% 18,597.50 343,597.50 362,195.00 8!01!2011 - - 9,660.00 9,660.00 - Z/01/2012 345,000.00 5.600% 9,660.00 354,660.00 364,320.00 Total 2,495,000.00 - 715,000.61 3,210,000.61 - YIELD STATISTICS Band Year Dollars ................................. .....•------.....-----........-------••--•--............-------•----.......... $f3,813.11 Average Lefe.....---•- - ----- -••----.-..--•--------•-• .......................................................................... 5.536 Years Average Coupon ...................................................................•--------......--------.....------.......------. 5.1762460°k Net Interest Cost (NIC)----•• ............................•-•--•---......-•-------••-•----............----....-------............. 5.4471842% True Interest Cost (T1C) ............................•-----•--...----------•-----------.....-----......-•-------•----........... 5.4723853°k Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ........................................................................................ 5.1474064% Ali Inclusive Cost (AIC)----------------- --------•--------..............-•------................................................ 5.7379468% IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost .................... Weighted Average Maturity.... -------•-• • .............. 5.1762460% ......................... 5.536 Years Ehlers & Associates Fite = RICHFIELD. SF-0i xover of Ser 96 $5, 075K GO Taxable Tax Incr- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 10/32002 4.29 PM C7 EXHIBIT 2 • City of Richfield Proposed Current Refunding of $5,075,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 12/1/9995 SOURCES 8 USES Dated 12!0512002 Delivered 12/05/2002 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ......................................---..-............................. $2,495,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................ $2,495,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underovriters Discount (1.500°k) .............................................. 37,425.00 Costs of Issuance .............................................................................. 30.000.00 Deposit to Currerrt Refunding Fund ......................••-•---------.......-......... 2,423,991.17 Round-mg Amount .............................................................................. 3,583.83 TOTAL USES.........-• .....................•------.... ----.-....................----•--....--- $2,495,000.00 • Ehlers & Associates File = RlCNF1Ei.D. SF-O1 xover of Ser 96 S5, 075K GO Taxable Tax lncr- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 10!32002 4:29 PM • EXHIBIT 3 City of Richfield $9,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 12/05/2002 - - - - - 2/0112003 95,000.00 3.900°~ 9,909.fi7 104,909.67 104,909.67 8/01/2003 - - 30,000.00 30,000.00 - 2/01/2004 45,000.00 4.400% 30,000.00 75,000.00 105,000.00 8/01/2004 - - 29,010.00 29,010.00 - 2/01/2005 50,000.00 4.900% 29,010.00 79,010.00 108,020.00 8101x1005 - - 27,785.00 27,785.00 - 2/01/2006 50,000.00 5.200% 27,785.00 77,785.00 105,570.00 8/01x1006 - - 26,485.00 26,485.00 - 2/01t2007 55,000.00 5.600°,6 26,485.00 81,485.00 107,970.00 8!01!2007 - - 24,945.00 24,945.00 - 2101/2008 60,000.00 5.600% 24,945.00 84,945.00 109,890.00 810112008 - - 23,265.00 23,265.00 - 2/01/2008 60,000.00 6.100SG 23,265.00 83,265.00 106,530.00 8!0112009 - - 21,435.00 21,435.00 - 2/Oi/2010 65,000.00 6.200°.6 21,435.00 86,435.00 107,870.00 8/01x1010 - - 19,420.00 19.420.00 - 2/0112011 70,000.00 6.300°.6 19,420.00 89,420.00 108,840.Q0 8/01!2011 - - 17,215.00 17,215.00 - 2/01/2012 75,000.00 6.400% 17,215.00 92,215.00 109,430.00 8/0112012 - - 14,815.00 14,815.00 - 2/0112013 75,000.00 6.600% 14,815.00 89,815.00 104,630.00 8/01/2013 - - 12,340.00 12,340.00 - 2101/2014 80,000.OD 6.600% 12,340.00 92,340.00 104,680.06 8101x1014 - - 9,700.00 9,700.00 - 2/01/2015 90,000.00 6.600% 9,700.00 99,700.00 109,400.00 8/01/2015 - - 6,730.00 6,730.00 - 2/01/2016 95,000.00 6.800% 5,730.00 101,730-00 108,460.00 8/0112016 - - 3,500.00 3,500.00 - 2l01/2017 100,000-~ 7.000% 3,500.00 103,500.00 107,000.00 Total 1,065,000.00 - 543,199.67 1,608,199.67 - YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars------------------•--------•-•-------•---.... Average Lite ..........................................•--------... Average Coupon ....................°----•---............---- Net Interest Cost (NIC) ........................................ True Interest Cost (TIC) ...................................... Bond Yreld for Arbitrage Purposes ...................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC}-•------------•-----•---•-•-------.---• IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ..................................... Weighted Average Maturity ..................... ...------• ............................. ..................... $8.375.67 .........--• ................................................. 7.864 Years ......................•-- -•--- --........................... 6.4854500% ............................................................ 6.6888964°/a ................................... ...•---................. 6.7249699% ............................................................. 6.4422776°k ............................................................ 7.1708212% ........................................................... ... 6.4854500% ...---...---•-• ... ........ ................................... 7.864 Years Ehlers & Assodates File =net t.6million.sf-Net $1065 for 15 years- S/NGLE PURPOSE Public Finance t 0/ 3/1002 4:32 PM • EXHIBIT 4 City of Richfield $?, 065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds SOURCES & USES Dated 12/05/2002 Delivered i2/05/2002 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds------........-•--.....-•..•.• ......................................... $1,065,000.OtI Other contributions ............................................................................ 550,00.00 TOTAL SOURCES----•--•-------° ........................................................... $1,615,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Undero+rciter's Discount (1.600%) .............................................. 17,048.00 Costs of Issuance .............................................................................. 26,000.00 Deposit to Current Refunding Fund .................................................... 1,570,000.00 Rounding Amount..- ...................................... •------•---------------•--•-•------ 1.960.00 TOTAL USES .................................................................................... $1,6t5,000.00 • Ehlers & Associates File =net J.6midron.sf-Met 31065 for 15 years- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 10/3/2002 4:32 PM •