Loading...
08-13-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JEFFERSON PARK 6700 THOMAS AVENUE 6:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call Open house with the public Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JEFFERSON PARK 6700 THOMAS AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (7-7:15 p.m.) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. lndividua/s who wish to address the Council must register prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) City Council Special Worksession of July 23, 2001; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of July 23, 2001; (3) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of July 23, 2001; (4) Special Concurrent City Council and HRA Meeting of July 25, 2001; (5) Special City Council Meeting of July 25, 2001; (6) Special City Council Meeting of July 26, 2001; and (7) Special Concurrent City Council and HRA Meeting of August 1, 2001 PRESENTATION • Notes: COUNCIL DISCUSSION AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 2. 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 purchase of Novell computer software licenses and maintenance from Software House International in amount of $19,173.64 S.R. No. 190 B. Consideration of approval of canceling regular City Council meeting on Monday, August 27, 2001 S.R. No. 191 C. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and authorizing purchase and installation of Demand Control Generation System for Public Safety/City Hall from Ziegler Power Systems in amount of $220,000 S.R. No. 192 D. Consideration of approval of final settlement stipulation for acquisition of 6341 Cedar Avenue S.R. No. 193 E. Consideration of approval of community event celebration license with fee waiver and waiver of City sign ordinance to allow banner for Richfield Visions, Inc. Richfield Cattail. Days, September 8, 2001, at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, 6400 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 194 F. Consideration of approval of residential kennel license renewal: • 6428 Knox Avenue, three dogs S.R. No. 195 • .7232-11th Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 196 • 7201 Logan Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 197 • 7308 Sheridan Avenue; three dogs and three cats S.R. No. 198 G. Consideration of approval of commercial kennel license renewal: • Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue S.R. No. 199 • Animal Care Clinic, 1208 East 66th Street S.R. No. 200 H. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewal to operate veterinary clinic at • Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 201 I. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewal for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc., 1208 East 66th Street S.R. No. 202 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Public hearing and consideration of-new 2001 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Capital Cash LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue Staff Report No. 203 Notes: 4. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning parcel at 6937 Penn Avenue and 14 southerly feet of parcel at 6933 Penn Avenue from single family residential to neighborhood commercial • Staff Report No. 204 Notes: RESOLUTION 5. Consideration of resolution regarding subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 205 Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 6. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of 6933-37 Penn Avenue to Dr. Donald Johnson for creation of parking lot adjacent to 6945 Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 206 Notes: • OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of right of entry agreement between Dr. Donald Johnson, 6945 Penn Avenue, and City of Richfield Staff Report No. 207 Notes: RESOLUTION 8. Consideration of resolution for off-street parking permit at 6945 Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 208 Notes: • PUBLIC HEARING 9. Public hearing and consideration of: • Creation of special assessment district for financing loan from Transportation Revolving Loan Fund for partial financing of Penn Avenue bridge project • Resolution ordering replacement of Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494 improvement project and preparing plans and specifications Staff Report No. 209 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 10. Consideration of resolution authorizing Agency Agreement No. 82237 which allows for MnDOT to reimburse City of Richfield for Transportation Revolving Loan using federal funds in connection with Penn Bridge over 1-494 Project Staff Report No. 210 • Notes: 11. Consideration of resolution requesting variance from Municipal State Aid rules to reimburse construction costs of Penn Avenue Bridge Project using Transportation • Revolving Loan funds Staff Report No. 211 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of Work Order No. 14 with SEH, consulting engineering company, to provide field engineering and inspection services in amount of $499,757 to widen 76th Street between I-35W and Sheridan Avenue, reconstructing Knox Avenue south of 76th Street, Penn Avenue between 75th Street and new Best Buy entrance and widening I- 35W off-ramp to 76th Street Staff Report No. 212 Notes: • 13. Consideration of removal of stop sign at 78th Street and Knox Avenue Staff Report No. 213 Notes: 14. Consideration of submitting federal transportation grant application under TEA-21 program for replacement of Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-494 Staff Report No. 214 Notes: ORDINANCES 15. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment relating to regular meetings of • City Council; amending Subsection 205.01 of Richfield City Code Staff Report No. 215 Notes: • 16. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave and 310.37 describing personal leave Staff Report No. 216 Notes: RESOLUTION 17. Consideration of resolution approving provisions of 2001-2002 labor agreement with Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local #162 Staff Report No. 217 Notes: • OTHER BUSINESS 18. Consideration of recommendations on 70th Street Traffic Calming Study Staff Report No. 218 Notes: 19. Consideration of award of contract to DMJ Corporation for construction of new blacktopped sidewalks on Portland Avenue and 66th Street adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield in amount of $108,099.75 Staff Report No. 219 Notes: • 20. Consideration of lease between MnDOT and City of Richfield for development of parking lot at Diagonal Boulevard and Cedar Avenue and license agreement between City of Richfield and Transmission Shop, Inc., 6958 Cedar Avenue Staff Report No. 220 • Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT • Notes: Open Forum (additional 15 minutes, if necessary) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must register prior to the meeting. Notes: 21. Claims and payrolls 22.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. C7 r ~J CJ AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 20 REPORT # 220 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached lease between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield for development of a parking lot at Diagonal Boulevard and Cedar Avenue and approval of the attached license agreement between the City of Richfield and the Transmission Shop, Inc. at 6958 Cedar Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider whether to accept, reject or modify the attached lease between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield for development of a parking lot at Diagonal Boulevard and Cedar Avenue and the attached license agreement between the City of Richfield and the Transmission Shop at 6958 Cedar Avenue. II. BACKGROUND Mr. Steve Jensen owner of the Transmission Shop at 6958 Cedar Avenue has • operated at that address for several years. Mr. Jensen also owned the Smith- Nielsen business at 6409 Cedar Avenue prior to it being purchased for the rebuilding of the freeway interchange at 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77. Mr. Jensen then moved the Smith Nielsen operation to the 6958 Cedar Avenue 0813mndotlease /.I address. Since the building at 6958 Cedar Avenue did not increase in size, no additional parking was required. However, Mr. Jensen's two businesses in that one • location have exacerbated area parking ,problems. During business hours, up to 35 vehicles may regularly be parked on Cedar Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard. In September 2000, Mr. Jensen proposed to address some of his off-street parking needs by demolishing three homes that he owns on 18th Avenue and converting them to a parking lot. However, staff discouraged that concept because 18th Avenue is residential in character and already under stress from the new runway. Conversion to such a commercial use was deemed an inappropriate use. Lease with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). It was agreed at that time that staff would pursue a lease with MnDOT for a parking lot to occupy excess right-of--way land across the street from 6958 Cedar Avenue. This land will eventually be transferred to the City as excess right-of-way according to a recent letter from MnDOT. The attached lease is the result of negotiations with MnDOT. It allows the City to build a parking lot and then sub-lease the land to another party. There will be no rent paid to MnDOT for use of the land. MnDOT assigns the responsibility for maintenance and repairs on the property to the City. The lease runs for five years but MnDOT, in a separate letter, has declared its intent to lease the land for another five years if it has not yet been transferred to the City. The lease does have a 60- day cancellation period by MnDOT if they should need it for highway purposes. However, this is standard lease language and it is not expected that MnDOT will need the land for highway purposes. Staff is of the opinion that there is a very low risk that MnDOT would ever terminate the lease because the land would be needed for highway purposes. As noted above, they have already declared the land as excess. License Agreement with Mr Jensen and the Transmission Shop. It is proposed that the City enter into a license agreement with Mr. Jensen. With such an agreement in place, the 75-car parking lot will be constructed and paid for by Mr. Jensen. The license agreement runs for the same term as the MnDOT lease to the City. Mr. Jensen will be responsible for property maintenance and repairs, will be required to have liability and damage insurance, and will indemnify the City against any claims, expenses, or liability incurred during his use of the parking lot. He will also pay taxes every year. There is value to the community in providing this off-street parking facility. The homes on 18th Avenue would remain and help strengthen the neighborhood. Minimizing on-street parking would also be of benefit to the community. An April 12, 2001 memorandum from the City Manager informed the City Council of this concept for off-street parking. Mr. Jensen agreed to pay the design costs of . $10,000. Bids for construction were received on June 18, 2001 and were awarded on June 25, 2001. Mr. Jensen would be making a significant investment in the parking lot of approximately $91,000. He is requesting that the City not terminate the license for • a period of ten years. This would allow some time to amortize the cost. Without such assurance, Mr. Jensen is wary of the potential loss of that investment at any time in the future should the City choose to terminate the agreement for redevelopment purposes. The parking lot will be very significant to the successful operation of his businesses at 6958 Cedar Avenue. A redeveloper would not be prevented from negotiating directly with Mr. Jensen for the purchase of his property. Until 2011, however, the license agreement could. not be terminated. He has requested that his use of the parking lot not be denied without acquiring his 6958 Cedar Avenue property as well. These two provisions are included in the attached license agreement. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Businesses are encouraged to accommodate their parking needs in off-street parking facilities. The recommended action would help maintain an already fragile neighborhood by eliminating the need to remove housing to accommodate parking and reducing on-street parking demands. • The parking facilities would be constructed to City standards. • . The license could be terminated for the following reasons: - Parties cannot agree on license fee after ten years (Article 1.2); - After August 13, 2011, if needed for redevelopment or other public purpose (Article 1.2); and - Default by Grantee at any time (Article 12.1). B. CRITICAL ISSUES Approximately 35 vehicles are parked on the street. Complaints have been received from neighborhood residents that the on-street parking is a safety hazard because visibility is impeded. • The loss of housing on 18th Avenue is not desirable. • Mr. Jensen circulated a petition that was signed by six of the eight households across the street from the site. All those who signed supported the concept. (Occupants of two units did not respond.) • There are many trees in a line parallel to Cedar Avenue. The site plan envisions saving all but one or two trees. They will be transplanted by Mr. Jensen. Mr. Jensen has also agreed to replace any tree intended to be retained if it should die within one year of the construction of the facility with a similar type tree of 2'/z" caliper. The agreement requires that the City not terminate the license for a period of ten years. It is not likely that redevelopment in this area would proceed prior to 2011. Staff estimates that the redevelopment of the area north of 66th Street will take at least five years. Therefore, it could be as long as ten years before redevelopment would proceed in the 70th Street and Cedar area. It should also be noted that there has been no decision whether to acquire 6958 Cedar Avenue for • redevelopment in the long term. • It must be noted that approval of this License Agreement removes these two parcels from any redevelopment scenario for ten years. If redevelopment were to occur prior to the ten years, a developer and not the City, would be responsible for acquisition of both parcels. It should be further noted that a ten year license could preclude redevelopment in the area because of the cost of acquiring this business in order to acquire the parking lot parcel. • No payments will be made for use of the property for the term of the lease. Mr. Jensen's payment of the improvement costs benefitting his business are made in lieu of annual license payments. C. FINANCIAL • Mr. Jensen will pay for the parking lot improvements. Taxes will also be paid even though it is public property. • If 6958 Cedar Avenue is ever acquired for redevelopment purposes, no payments will be made to him for the parking lot. This prohibition is contained in the license agreement. (He is guaranteed ten years of use of the parking lot site.) D. LEGAL • The agreement and license have been reviewed by the City Attorney. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMNIENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the lease and license agreement. • Approve the license with modifications. V. ATTACHMENTS • Lease agreement between MnDOT and the City of Richfield • License agreement between the Transmission Shop and the City of Richfield VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Steve Jensen of the Transmission Shop. • Minnesota Department of Transportation • Offce of Land Management Transportation Building Mailstop 631 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 651.296.9744 S.P.: 2758 (36=279) LEASE NO.: H-06047 PARCEL: 9 ACCOUNT NO.: 27D078 COMMERCIAL.LEASE THIS LEASE is made between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation ("Landlord"), City of Richfield, a political subdivision of the State ("Tenant"). Mail Lease to: Mr. Peny J. Thorvig Community Development Specialist 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 IT IS AGREED: 1. In consideration of payment of the rent hereinafter specified to be paid by Tenant, and the covenants and agreements herein contained, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant that certain property ("Premises") in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows: • Address of Premises: adjacent to the intersection of Cedar Avenue and .Diagonal Boulevard, in the City of Richfield as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Type of Property: approximately 45,750 usable square feet of commercial vacant land This Lease includes improvements, if any, and is in effect for the term of five (5) years commencing on July 1, 2001 and continuing through June 30, 2006, with the right of termination in both Landlord and Tenant as hereinafter set forth. 2. RENT. The consideration for this Lease shall be the mutual benefits to both parties of this Lease. 3. USE OF PREMISES. Tenant shall use the Premises for the following purpose only: public parking and no other use whatsoever. It shall be the sole responsibility of Tenant to comply with all laws, regulations, or ordinances imposed by any ..jurisdiction governing the use of the Premises. Failure to comply will not relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay rent. Tenant's use of the Premises must not interfere with the public's use of any adjacent highway. Signs or displays will be restricted to those indicating proprietorship and type of activities conducted on the Premises, and will be subject to regulation by Landlord as to number, size, location, and design. • 4. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. Tenant snail keep the Premises in good condition at Tenant's own expense, and shall not call on Landlord to make any improvements or repairs. 5. CHARGES AND EXPENSES. Tenant shall pay when due all utility charges and any other charges or expenses connected with Tenant's use of the Premises. 6. NOTICES. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either .party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when served personally on Landlord or Tenant, or when made in writing and deposited in the United States Mail and addressed as follows: To,_T~enaot.at_tfie_.maiJingsaddressabove stated and to Landlord, Department of Transportation, Office of Land Management, .Transportation Building Mailstop 631, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155-1899. The address to which notices are mailed may be changed by written notice given by either party to the other. 7. CANCELLATION. This Lease shall be subject to cancellation by either party at any time during the term hereof by giving the other party notice in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to the date when the cancellation will become effective.. Furthermore, this Lease shall be subject to cancellation by Landlord if the Premises become needed for highway purposes (as determined solely by Landlord) by giving Tenant notice in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date when the cancellation wilt become effective. In the event of cancellation any unearned rent paid by Tenant will be returned. -- 8. INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE. Tenant shall defend, indemnify, save harmless, and release Landlord and Landlord's employees from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action for injury to or death of • persons or loss of or damage to property (including Tenant and Tenant's property) occurring on the Premises and connected ~.vith Tenant's use and occupancy of the ;=remises, regardless of ~.vhet"er sic;: injury, death, loss,. or damage is caused in part by: (i) the negligence of Landlord or (ii) is deemed to be the responsibility of Landlord, because of its failure to supervise, inspect, or control the operations of Tenant or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of Tenant giving rise to liability to any person. If any negligence. or responsibility of Landlord is unrelated to Tenant's occupancy or use of the Premises, Tenant will not be obligated to .indemnify and hold harmless as set forth above. 9. INSURANCE. Prior to execution of this Lease by Landlord, the Tenant shall provide Landlord with a properly executed certificate(s) of insurance which shall clearly evidence the insurance required below, and provide that such insurance will not be canceled, except on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Landlord. 9.1 Tenant shal4 maintain during the full term of this Lease commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form including Premises-Operations Liability, ProductslCompleted Operations Liability (if applicable), Contractual liability, and Fire Legal Liability with a limit of not less than 11,000,000 each occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it will apply separately to this Lease. 9.1.1 This insurance shall include State of Minnesota as an insured with respect to • 2 performance of Lease. 9.1.2 This insurance shall be primary with .respect. to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering Tenant, its officers and employees. 9.2 Tenant shall maintain during the full term of this Lease workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits. of not less than X500,000 each accident. 10. FIRE INSURANCE. Tenant shall not be required to keep the Premises insured against fire and extended coverage loss. Tenant shall make no claim against_Laradlocd arisingout.of:any- oss to. he Premises. 11. RIGHT TO ENTER. Tenant shall allow Landlord and Landlord's contractors and authorized licensees to enter upon the Premises for any of the following purposes: to survey the land, to take soil borings, to perform utility relocation or repair work, or to perform any other work which is preparatory to a highway construction ..project; also to make emergency repairs required `for highway safety. If there is a highway bridge above any part of the Premises, Tenant shall allow Landlord to enter upon. the Premises to inspect, maintain, and repair the bridge and its structural supports. If any of these operations substantially restrict the Tenant's use of the premises, rent will be reduced proportional to the restricted use of the Premises during the period of the- restricted use. The reduction (or abatement) of rent will be Tenant's only claim against Landlord based on such restriction (or abatement) of use. Tenant shall allow Landlord to inspect the premises'and to show the premises by appointment to prospective buyers or renters. Before entering the Premises for any of the purposes under this paragraph, Landlord will make a reasonable effort to notify Tenant, provided, however, that in case of an emergency affecting highway safety (the existence of which will be determined solely by Landlord), if Tenant is not present to permit entry onto the Premises, Landlord or its representatives may enter without notice to • Tenant, and for such entry Landlord or its representatives will not be liable to Tenant. 12. ADJACENT HIGHWAY FACILITY. Tenant shall not permit the storage of any substance or material on the Premises which .may create a fire hazard to the adjacent highway facility (including any overhead bridge and its structural supports). If Landlord determines that Tenant is using the Premises in such a way as to create a danger to the adjacent highway facility or the traveling public thereon, and if, upon receiving notice, Tenant does not immediately remedy the danger to the satisfaction of Landlord, then Landlord may immediately cancel this Lease and take possession of the Premises. Any requirement for giving notice of cancellation set out elsewhere in this Lease will not apply to cancellation under this section. Unearned rent paid by Tenant will be returned. If a part of the Premises is situate under or adjacent to a highway bridge, Tenant acknowledges that Landlord's plowing and sweeping of the bridge may cause snow, ice, sand, or road sweepings to be pushed off the sides of the bridge or otherwise expelled off the bridge, falling onto the Premises. Tenant agrees that this risk is specifically included in the Tenant's indemnification and release of Landlord appearing elsewhere in this Lease. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet the Premises. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section 13, Tenant may sublet the Premises one time during the term, without the consent of Landlord, provided: a. the operation being conducted in the Premises shall remain unaffected; b. the sublessee shall assume in writing the terms and conditions set forth hereunder to be observed and performed by Tenant; c. .Within five (5) days after receipt by Tenant, Tenant shall pay to Landlord all revenue from any sublease; d. copy of such sublease shall be furnished ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the • 3 sublease; and • e. nothing contained herein shall release Tenant from any of its liabilities or obligations hereunder. 14. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. Tenant shall not discriminate on the ground of race, color, sex, or national origin against any person in access to and.use of the facilities and services operated or otherwise maintained on the Premises; and Tenant shall operate and maintain such facilities and services in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21. 15. DEFAULT BY TENANT -LANDLORD'S REMEDIES. The following occun'ences are "events of default": (a) Tenant defaults in the due and punctual payment of rent, and such default continues for five (5) days after notice from Landlord; however, Tenant will not be entitled to more than one notice for default in payment of rent during any twelve month period, and if, within twelve months after any such notice. any rent is not paid when due, an event of default shall have occurred without further notice. (b) Tenant breaches any of the other agreements, terms, covenants, or conditions which this Lease requires Tenant to perform, and such breach continues for a period of .thirty (30) days after. notice by Landlord to Tenant. At any time after the occurrence of either of the above events of default, Landlord may terminate this Lease upon giving written notice to Tenant and may then re-enter and take possession of the~Premises in such manner as allowed or provided by law. Tenant shall pay Landlord all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, in any successful action brought by Landlord to recover unpaid rent, or to recover damages for breach of any of the other covenants, agreements, terms, or conditions which this Lease requires Tenant to perform,.. or to recover possession of the Premises. • 16. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the end of this Lease with the consent of Landlord, express or implied, Tenant shall occupy the Premises as a Tenant from month to month, subject to all conditions, provisions, and obligations of this Lease in effect on the last day of the term. 17. MOVING OUT. At the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Tenant. shalt leave the Premises in as good. condition as when delivered to Tenant (except for ordinary wear and any loss covered by insurance payment to Landlord). 18. SALE OR TRANSFER OF PREMISES. If Landlord sells or transfers the Premises, Landlord's liability for the performance of its covenants under this Lease shall end on the date of the sale or transfer, and Tenant shall look solely to the purchaser or transferee for the•performance of those covenants. 19. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE: Persons, businesses, farms, non-profit organizations, and other entities (hereinafter. collectively referred to as Tenant) displaced by cancellation or termination of this .Lease, or by moving out prior to cancellation or termination of this Lease, are not classified as "displaced persons" and are. not eligible for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and its amendments. By signing this Lease, TENANT affirms that they are not a displaced person. • . 20. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Tenant shall not cause or permit any pollutant, contaminant, or hazardous • substance wastes, or material to be used, stored,. generated or disposed of on or in the Premises by Tenant, Tenant's agents, employees contractors, or invitees, other than those pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous substances, wastes,. or materials commonly associated with operation of Tenant's use. If pollutants contaminants, hazardous substances, wastes, or materials are used, stored, or generated in any manner, or if the Tenant has caused or allowed the Premises to become contaminated in any manner by pollutants,. contaminants, or hazardous substances, wastes, or materials during the term of this Lease, Tenant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Landlord in accordance with Section 8 of this Lease. This indemnification is intended to, and shall, survive the termination of this Lease.. Without limitation of the foregoing, if Tenant causes or permits the presence of any pollutant, contaminant, or hazardous substance, waste, or material on the Premises and that presence results in contamination, Tenant shall promptly, at its sole expense, take any and all necessary actions to return the.Premises,.to the_condition.existing-prior. o thecontaminataon. Tenant shall .first obtain Landlord's approval for any such remedial action. (a) As used herein, "hazardous substance(s)" means any substance, material, or waste that is toxic, ignitable, .reactive, or corrosive, and that is regulated by any local govemment, State of Minnesota, or the United States govemment. (b) Any pollutant, contaminant,' or hazardous substance, waste, or material permitted on the Premises as provided above, and all containers therefor, shall be used, kept, stored, and disposed of in a manner that complies with all. federal, state, and local laws or regulations applicable to those pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous substances, wastes, or materials. (c) Tenant shall not discharge. leak or emit, or permit to be discharges, leaked or emitted, any material .into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system,. or any body of water, if that material (as is reasonably determined by the Landlord or any governmental authority) does or may pollute the same, or may adversely affect (a) the health, welfare, or safety of persons, whether located . on the Premises or elsewhere, or (b) the condition, use, or enjoyment of the land.. 21. LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS. Tenant and Landlord acknowledge and agree, Tenant may make improvements to the Premises pursuant to the plans and specifications approved by Landlord's Metro Division Permits Office, which approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld or decayed. Such improvements shall be at Tenant's expense and may include a five foot (5') in height perimeter security fence, grading and bituminous paving on the Premises. At anytime during the term, if Landlord in its sole opinion determines the grading and the drainage is .adversely .affecting the surrounding property, Tenant shall make such reasonable changes/improvements to the grading as requested by Landlord. In addition, at the expiration or earlier termination of the term, Landlord has the option to require Tenant to remove any improvements (including the security fence and grading) and restore the Premises to its. condition at the commencement of the Lease. Landlord shall provide a thirty (30) day prior written notice to Tenant advising of the Landlord requirement to remove the Tenant-made improvements from the Premises. In the event Landlord does not require Tenant to remove such improvements from the Premises upon Tenant's surrender of the Premises the Tenant-made improvements shall become the property of Landlord. - 22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Lease contains the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant with respect to its subject matter and maybe amended only by subsequent written agreement between them. Except - for those which are set forth in this Lease, no representations, warranties, or agreements have been made by Landlord or Tenant to one another with respect to this Lease. FILENAME: H:~PROPMGNTIWPDATA~27 Hennepin127D078 Cily of Richfield lease.wpd • rJ TEIJANT ~ CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TENANT CITY OF RICHFIELD .STATE OF ) )ss. .COUNTY OF ) Signature Print Name ~ CORPORATE On this day of , 20 Title Date c-~t and t~~ ~ Personally known to me, did swear that they are respectively the Signature and (Lae) of Print Name tTn°~ tw~+eac«po~aon) ,a corporation under the laws of the State of ,.and did Title Date execute this instrument on behalf of the corporation by authority of its Board of Directors on behalf of the corporation. • NOTARY PUBLIC , , My Commission Expires: , LANDLORD, STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION By K.F. Rasmussen, Director Office of Land Management Date Approved as to form and execution FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By Title Date .•_~ ~r„~,,~Co7?Qa03.~e,;1.; es~l.~2oa1 :;.+,,~~ PM enr ~ 1 I I r ty,.. o ~- m I i I Il .., ` i~n ~~ ~ I 1 I ~ I r l 1f^- r v' ~ I 1 I / '~ u 1 ~ I f `` ( I I / ~- ',.....-~ I 1 I I .. x'11 I I I I ~ I I I 1 I I / I I' ~ I I I I I y..,Z r.. i I I I 1 ~ 1 `I. 1 L) I I I ~ ( i 1 I I I ,; / ,~ ZQ 1~-~~, N I ~ I I I / O~ ..., I I I I I / !- I I I I II ~ t~ rl ~ •~'~~ I 1 ~ ,.o f7l ~.., ~ I I I I I 1 I~ -D ~` `' I I ~ I I I 1 1 yf '` ~ ~ f `' ~ --~ --- 1 1 I ' I ~ n o~ Ib ~., i (f ~ ~ I I ~ Ir t~ ~ ~ ~ .;-r ~- =-t i 1 I x I ~ ~.1 _ I I 1 / ..• I III 3~~,~~ c,n C~ ~ ~ ~ I I I j 1 " 0D I ~ i __ j I I / I I I ~ N >> ~7 %~1 1 1 I I ~ '~ ~ r~-r ~ CD (D 1 i I 1 / I - p 0 1 al 1 ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ o I I / 1 ~ '~ 1 ~ I I I I •, > I O~ ~. C I 1 / x .. = a' './. I i ,--~~ I I I ~ ~ 1 I ; O; ~ ~ I D~ al I I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ I .: .. O I ' O LO i I ~ ~ I ~ I/ C _I ~ ~t ~ i ~ ~ ~ C- i I I 1 • 1x ~ ~.r ,C~. ~ ~. [D ~I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ i /1 ~ ~ ~ I I (D I I z I ` I n ' i I ~ ~ ~ Q I I v En ~ I 1 I I x 1 ~ I I = I I j I I I ~- I I I _~ 1 I 1 / I n I I I 1 r ,. I f'r1 I 1 I ~ I D 1 I I , ~ Ix ~ I I 1 1 x I _I I ) 1 I ._ < 1 .., I I I ~ ~ I~ m 1 I 1 I In I 1 I n L~ _ 1 1 I k --~- ~ uDi ~,,O,r ~ 1 i / _. 10 t~ 1 I1 // ' ~I ,OZ ,' o b N O j~ I I I 1 I ~ o I~ I I 1 / ~ I O I I I 1 ~ 1 W ~ Ij I I 1 O 1 I .O.r- ~ I n- 1 I 1 1 x ED s ,~ I j I I t~,i I I C ~ 1 j0 1 I ~ ~ W I ---- ~ ~ ~ (1~~I(p I II 1 i I O~~n x ~ {~ "`ih I 1 1 -~I 1 I ~ ~ ~ (Q ~1 I I I I I O Q ~.•~ ~ I i I I 1 - t2 ~/ 11 I I I _ x I ~7 '>p i 1 i ` 1 ~ I ~ C p ( ' ~ (D ~ I. < I 1 1 ~ ( ------ ^- CD I 0 p O 1 '1 I I I ~ " rt I C7 ~ 1 ~ ~~, 1 I x ---- ~ ~ O i I I r __ D i ~ r? 7 I ~- I --- `^ 1 m a I I 1 D t I: n I, i j ~ ~ CD I ~ ,~~ I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ 1 i I 1 I I I rn 1 I d ~ m N :: ~, i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ -P ...; .r _ _i- ~ i 1 t... .:~ •.7 I ~ I I a ~ I 1 ~ 1 I s ~. z i ~ I I o N ~ 1{~ r•'' ~ in I 1 I ~O I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ i Al 1 I ~ ' .-r ~ I I D I 1 ~ 1 1 \ ,. ~ N «1A I >. / Eo 1 G1 • rn x tn' I,Q -t (D 1,~ ~ -- -~ ~ ~ 2 O ~ N D m _~ n f AO mN-• N D ~ ~ ~ 1 0 o m ~u ~ Z C~-' n > m m " ' ~ .~ ~~~ m y o m c D "'`^z ~ ~ m ~ ~ rn m N _ Z ~ A A to n mo r ~ ~- :~, l/1 N ~ rt ~ WN-' Z rn O ~X ~~m 0 0 ~ o ~ m ~ 2 n _. Q I rt N ED ~ D X ~• O ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ,-. .D aNO Q ~- ~ EA N lD Q' .•r n. rt ~ U rt LD ~ a~ W v- s ur. ~c ~ a cD ~-~- ~ ~ coo ~n ~ -o tD '~ EO O r+ ~~ to m N A C m ~A o _, ~ n O~ oN ~~ o ~ '" ~ ~ RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 'u ) \ In ~~ Boneafroo s'~p••'~~`•= N..N..Iw ONN.: "101N~{)1'•u'~ Ynwy; Sp/gE).Elpp 1IIENLEfY CENIIiY INA( Las WAN, SPECrtICwtgN, oN NEp MSS YNEPANCD tlf YL ON ° ,~ 2001 PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS www111` ~_. ROaene H.:6)1•q{•UEI /..;w,.){))ilq MII..W«Okx•: - UkOEN uY O:NECI SWENV15iON AND 1NA( 1 Ax A IwIT t1CENpEO Yk0lFSTi1NNL E/N:MEFN LINDEN the i ., 1-nAO / Irucru ......,..... __ , i1 ONI SUN1Q1' oNAxN UMS W 111C SIAIE of IAAhESOIA. NRI i.._ PNWt .....r. tn.m... ..:_..._ ,........... --- • LICENSE AGREEMENT August 1, 2001 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this day of , 2001, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), and the TRANSMISSION SHOP, INC. , a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: BACKGROUND. Grantor currently holds an interest in the property that is the subject of this license agreement by virtue of a lease agreement between it, as tenant and the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (MnDOT), as Landlord. A copy of the lease agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.(hereafter referred to as the "Lease"). Grantee acknowledges that until such time as Grantor acquires title to the property, all of Grantor's rights to and in the property that is subject to this Agreement derive from the Lease, and are subject to the provisions and terms of the Lease. ARTICLE I -GRANT, TERM. • 1.1 LICENSED PREMISES. In consideration of the fees, covenants and agreements herein reserved and contained on the part of Grantee to be performed, Grantor does hereby license to Grantee the tract of land located at 6945 Cedar Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota and located on land legally described in the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensed Premises"). • 1.2 TERM AND EXTENSIONS. The term of this License shall commence on the Commencement Date, and, unless extended as hereinafter provided, will terminate June 30, 2006 or such earlier date as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. At the expiration of the term the Grantee agrees to vacate the Licensed Premises and deliver the same to the Grantor. Grantee acknowledges that as long as the MnDot Lease or its extension is in place1 Grantor's ability to extend this Agreement is dependent upon whether the Grantor's Lease is extended. Grantor agrees that so long as Grantee requests an extension, and is not in default of its obligations hereunder, and further assuming that the use of the Licensed Premises remains appropriate, that it will utilize its best efforts to obtain an extension of the Lease, and if successful, will extend this Agreement as well. Upon the acquisition of the property, Grantor shall be entitled to terminate this License at any time following the giving of 180 days written notice of such termination. Provided, however, that such termination must be based upon a failure of the parties to agree upon an appropriate license fee applicable beyond the period described in Section 4.1. Grantor may also terminate the License after August 13, 2011 based on a good faith determination by the Grantor that the property along with the property owned by Grantee located at 6958 Cedar Avenue is needed for redevelopment or other public purposes. JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 Page 2 ARTICLE li - USE OF LICENSED PREMISES 2.1 GRANTEE'S USE. During the term of this License, the Licensed Premises may be used only for the purpose of the temporary parking of passenger motor vehicles for continuous periods of not more that seven days. At Grantor's written direction, the Grantee shall immediately remove from the lot any vehicle, equipment or item that does not in Grantor's reasonable judgment comply with that purpose. ARTICLE III- IMPROVEMENTS 3.1 CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. The Grantor, acting through its City Council has previously approved the plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement for bids on construction of the parking lot. (City Project 917-25-957, the "Project"). Subject to its ability to award the contract, the Grantor will commence and prosecute to completion the construction of the parking lot and related site work all as described in the approved plans for the Project. It is anticipated that the work will be completed so that the parking lot will be available for use by September 15, 2001. 3.2 PAYMENT OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS. The Grantee shall be responsible to the Grantor for reimbursement of Grantor's expenses incurred in connection with • constructing the Project including the transplanting of any trees that need to be moved for construction. Following the tabulation of bids for construction of the Project, but prior to the award, the Grantor will confer with the Grantee as to the amount of the bids. Grantee shall deposit with the Grantor security in a form acceptable to the Grantor equal to 125% of the lowest responsible bid. The Grantor shall be entitled to draw upon the security to reimburse itself for payments made for construction of the Project. If the Grantee, for whatever reason, does not make such deposit, this Agreement shall become null and void, the parties shall be released from any further obligation hereunder, and the Grantor shall have no obligation to Grantee to construct the Project. However, the Grantee shall pay the project design and city administration costs incurred prior to the time that this agreement becomes null and void. 3.3 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION--COMMENCEMENT DATE. Provided that Grantee is not in default of any of its obligations hereunder, and has fully reimbursed the Grantor for the cost of the Project, the Grantor shall make the Licensed Premises available to the Grantee upon completion of construction of the Project. The date on which Grantor notifies Grantee that the Licensed Premises are available (or such later date as may be stated in the notice) shall be the Commencement Date. 3.4 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION. Any trees that need to be removed for the construction shall be transplanted elsewhere on the parking lot site at a location designated by the Grantor. Furthermore, any tree that dies within one year of the Commencement Date shall be replaced by the Grantee with a tree of similar variety and of two • and one-half inch caliper. JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • Page 3 ARTICLE IV -LICENSE FEE 4.1 LICENSE FEE. The parties have determined that the payments made by Grantee for the construction of the Project are equal to the. fair .value of the license for ten years. Consequently, the parties agree that for the term of the license; and for any extension thereof, not to exceed a total time of ten years from the Commencement Date, no license fee will be charged Grantee. ARTICLE V -TAXES 5.1. TAXES. The Grantee shall be responsible for all real estate taxes and installments on special assessments which are due and payable in any year following the Commencement Date and continuing until the termination of this Agreement or any extensions thereof. ARTICLE VI -UTILITIES 6.1 CHARGES. Grantee shall pay for all utility services furnished the Grantee for use on the Licensed Premises. ARTICLE VII - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS 7.1 ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSED PREMISES. The Grantee accepts the Licensed Premises AS IS, and WHERE IS with all faults and defects. Grantee shall be responsible, at its cost and expense to maintain and repair the Licensed Premises to the required standards of the City of Richfield, during the term of this Agreement. Grantee acknowledges that the Grantor shall have no obligation of any nature to maintain, preserve or repair the Licensed Premises. ARTICLE VIII -ALTERATIONS 8.1 NOTICE TO GRANTOR. Prior to the initiation of any alterations costing more than $5,000, Grantee shall give Grantor written notice thereof and specify the work to be performed in reasonable detail and include the names of the contractors and materialmen to be utilized. After receipt of said notice, Grantor shall have a reasonable period of time during which it shall make a determination, in its sole discretion, whether or not to permit the work. Grantee shall provide Grantor upon request with any further information reasonably necessary for such determination by Grantor and Grantee shall not commence work or accept materials prior to receiving written notice of Grantor's determination. • JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • Page 4 ARTICLE IX - DESTRUCTIONAND RESTORATION 9.1 DAMAGED. If a significant portion of the- Licensed Premises shall be damaged by any casualty whether insured or uninsured, the Grantor shall have no obligation to repair or rebuild the Licensed Premises. Grantee shall have the option to rebuild or repair or to terminate this License by exercise of notice to Grantor. ARTICLE X - PUBLIC LLABILITY, INDEMNITY 10.1 GRANTEE'S LIABILITY INSURANCE. Grantee shall during the entire term hereof keep in full force and effect a policy of liability and property damage insurance with respect to the Licensed Premises, and the business operated by Grantee, in which the limits of liability shall exceed the Policy limits which Grantee currently carries on the Licensed Premises to cover the automobiles that will be parked on the premises.. 10.2 INDEMNIFICATION. Except for claims arising out of the willful or negligent act of the other party or its representatives, each party shall indemnify and defend the other party against all claims, expenses and liabilities incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection. with loss of life, personal injury, or property damage arising out of any occurrence in, upon or at the Licensed Premises, or the occupancy or use thereof by said party, or occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of said party, its agents, employees, contractors. This provision shall not be deemed as a waiver of any statutory liability limits available to Grantor. ARTICLE XI - ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLICENSING 11 NO ASSIGNMENT BY GRANTEE. Grantee may not assign this License to a third party, including, without limitation, a purchaser of Grantee's business at 6958 Cedar Avenue, without the prior written consent of the Grantor. ARTICLE XII - GRANTEE'S DEFA ULT 12.1 EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The following events shall be deemed to be events of default by Grantee under this License: (a) Grantee shall fail to pay when due any payments or other charges provided herein, or any portion thereof and the same shall remain unpaid for a period often (10) days after the same has become due; or (b) Grantee shall do or permit to be done anything which creates a lien of record upon the Licensed Premises; and does not cause said lien to be released within ten (10) days after written notice from Grantor; or • JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 Page 5 . (c) Grantee has failed to comply with any other provision of this License and has not cured any failure within thirty (30) days, [five (5) days in the case of non- compliance with Section 2.1], or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required to cure such default, after Grantor, by written notice, has informed Grantee of such noncompliance. 12.2 GRANTOR'S REMEDIES. Upon the occurrence of any of the above events of default, Grantor may without providing a notice of termination, or without affording Grantee an opportunity to cure (except as to matters for which the right to cure is specifically given in this Agreement), immediately notify Grantee of such default and may, with such notice, retake possession of the Licensed Premises. 12.3 COSTS, EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. If one party is required to seek legal counsel for collection or to commence or defend litigation in order to enforce or enjoy the covenants and agreements in this License, the party prevailing in such collection, litigation shall have the right to reimbursement from the other party of all reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. ARTICLEXIII -- GRANTOR DEFAULT 13.1 DEFAULT NOTICE TO GRANTOR. Should Grantor default in the performance of any of the covenants on the part of the Grantor to be kept or performed and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after written notice to Grantor from Grantee specifying such default, Grantee shall have the same remedy as is available to the Grantor in section 12.2 above. ARTICLE XIV -MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 14.1 COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT. Grantee, subject to the terms and provisions of this License, on payment of the license fee and observing, keeping and performing all of the terms and provisions of this License on its part to be observed, kept and performed, shall lawfully, peaceably and quietly and exclusively have, hold occupy and enjoy the Licensed Premises during the term hereof without hindrance or objection by any persons lawfully claiming under Grantor. 14.2 ACCESS TO LICENSED PREMISES. Grantee shall allow Grantor and its officers, agents, assigns, contractors and employees access to the Licensed Premises during regular business hours, on 24 hours' prior notice for purposes of inspecting, surveying, testing and any other pre-demolition activities which are deemed necessary to the Grantor for purposes of reuse of the Licensed Premises. The Grantor will use reasonable efforts not to interrupt or disturb Grantee's business in the course of conducting said activities, and shall indemnify Grantee for any damage to inventory, stock, moveable trade fixtures and like items occasioned by such activities. • 14.3 SURRENDER OF LICENSED PREMISES. At the expiration or termination of JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • Page 6 this License, Grantee shall surrender the Licensed Premises in an "as is" condition, but may remove therefrom all advertising signs and devices and all other property placed on the Licensed Premises by Grantee. All such items not removed shall forfeit to and be deemed the exclusive property of Grantor. 14.4 LIENS. Grantee agrees not to suffer or allow any liens to be placed against the Licensed Premises as a result of Grantee's activities during the term of this Agreement; including, without limitation any .liens for labor or materials provided for any repair, maintenance, modification, alteration or construction of the Licensed Premises. 14.5 NO DAMAGES, NO RELOCATION BENEFITS.. Grantee understands and acknowledges that Grantor is willing to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder only because Grantee has agreed that it will make no claim for damages upon termination of this Agreement. Specifically, and .without limitation of the foregoing, Grantee understands that upon the expiration or other termination of this Agreement, Grantor has no obligation to provide it with other parking, to compensate it for the value of lost parking, to compensate it for the impact of the lost parking on the value of the business, or on the income or profitability of the business, to acquire the business or any part thereof, to pay or offer relocation benefits or relocation assistance. 14.6 NO PROPERTY INTEREST. This instrument is not a lease, creates no landlord- Tenant relationship, and nothing in this Agreement will be deemed to create any property interest • other than as expressed in this Agreement. 14.7 GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of Minnesota will govern the validity and interpretation of this Agreement. 14.8 NOTICES. Any notice which is required under this License shall be deemed "given" upon hand delivery or three (3) days after prepaid posting in the U. S. Mail whichever shall first occur. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Martin Kirsch Its: Mayor By: • Samantha Orduno JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • Page 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA } ss.. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Its: City Manager GRANTEE: TRANSMISSION SHOP, INC. By: Its: President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by Martin Kirsch, the Mayor of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota public corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • • JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • Page 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by Samantha Orduno, the City Manager of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota public corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by ,the President ofTransmission Shop, Inc., a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. • Notary Public • JBD-198267v3 RC160-4 • AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 19 REPORT # ~ 219 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: " ~ ~ _ _ ~,,~~ 0 ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to DMJ Corporation in the amount of $108,099.75 for replacing the existing sidewalk along Portland Avenue and 66th Street near Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award a contract to DMJ Corporation in the amount of $108,099.75 for the construction of new blacktopped sidewalks on Portland Avenue and on 66th Street adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. • II. BACKGROUND In February, 2000 the Hennepin County Department of Public Works announced a program to financially assist inner ring suburbs with the cost of aesthetic or safety improvements to County roads. The City of Richfield decided to use this program to assist in financing the burying of overhead utilities and moving the sidewalks away from the. curb line along Portland Avenue between the Water Treatment Plant and the American Legion and on 66th Street from 11th Avenue to the Swimming Pool. On August 14, 2000 Council approved an agreement with Hennepin County in which the County agreed to pay an estimated total of $97,800 of the estimated 0813VMPR-sidewalk $313,150 total cost for the project to move sidewalks and bury overhead utilities adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The County stipulated that payment • would be made for moving the sidewalks only if the City also had the existing overhead utilities buried and the utility poles removed. Xcel Energy has agreed to have the overhead utilities buried. Hennepin County has agreed to fund $69,100 of the estimated $171,300 total cost to bury the overhead utilities. On April 9, 2001 it was noted Hennepin County would be responsible for $28,500 for replacing the existing sidewalk. The remainder of the estimated $142,500 total cost of moving the sidewalks, an estimated $114,000, will be paid using Municipal State Aid funds. The $142,500 for the bituminous sidewalk improvements includes consultant and staff engineering fees in addition to contractor cost. Although the low bid of $108,099.75 for bituminous sidewalk improvements exceeds the $95,854.00 engineer's estimate for the work, the total project cost for the bituminous sidewalk improvements remains at $142,500. On Portland Avenue, the new sidewalk will be placed ten feet behind the curb and will extend from just north of the American Legion club northerly to the Water Treatment Plant driveway. The sidewalk between the water plant driveway and TH 62 will not be replaced. On August 6, 2001, bids for the sidewalk work were opened and read aloud. A bid • tabulation is attached for Council review. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield's Comprehensive Plan along with Council's annual list of priorities encourages both bicycle and hiking trails throughout the City and safety for the motoring public. This project will provide a nine or ten foot wide reaction zone between motor vehicles and pedestrians. In combination with Xcel Energy's removal of power poles, this project will create safer conditions for both pedestrians and the motoring public. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None known at this time. C. FINANCIAL • All costs related to the sidewalk replacement project will be paid for by Hennepin County and Municipal State Aid construction funds. • D. LEGAL • None known at this time. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to award this contract and direct staff to not construct this project; however, the City has already entered into agreements with Xcel Energy and Hennepin County to build this project. • Council could direct staff to re-advertise for bids, but it is unlikely that a lower bid will be received and the current low-bid contractor has worked with the City before and is accomplished and capable of completing this work. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • .Bid minutes/tabulation. • A graphic showing the before and after conditions along Portland Avenue. • A map showing the location of the new sidewalk/path. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. r~ LJ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Bid Opening August 6, 2001 10:00 a.m. 66th Street (CSAH 53) Bituminous Sidewalk Improvements City Project No. 401-30-518 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, -bids for 66th Street (CSAH 53) Bituminous Sidewalk Improvements, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 25, 2001 and the Construction Bulletin on July 20, 2001. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bond Total Base Bid Bituminous Roadways Inc. Yes $ 114,915.25 Minneapolis, MN DMJ Corporation Yes $ 108,099.75 Hamel, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the August 13 2001 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk • s AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • AUGUST 13, 2001 Other Business. 18 218 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC. WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ,~ _ . a ~/~„ . ~i ~ ~Q ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of recommendations on 70th Street Traffic Calming Study I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the recommendations of the Focus Group on Penn and Xerxes Avenues/69th, 70th & 70-1/2 Streets. • II. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000 the City began a traffic calming study using a mediation process for the neighborhood west of Penn Avenue from 69th Street to 72nd Street in west Richfield. The mediator formed a Focus Group consisting of residents from different streets to meet regularly to discuss various traffic calming options. The Focus Group recently decided, based on a survey of 580 residents of three alternatives, to recommend two speed humps on 70th Street, two speed humps on 70-1/2 Street, and three-way stop signs at the T-intersection of 70-1/2 Street and Xerxes Avenue (see attached map of Option 2). A sign encouraging motorists to drive slowly, possibly replacing the Welcome to Richfield sign, was recommended on 70th Street at the Edina border. The Focus Group wondered if truck traffic on 70th Street could be limited. 0813caIm70 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Comprehensive Plan supports traffic calming on residential streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The traffic calming measures that shifted traffic from one street to another generated opposition by residents on the streets where traffic would increase. Some residents also opposed it if access to their homes was made increasingly difficult. C. FINANCIAL • Speed humps may cost $2,000 or more each. The total project cost, including such items as the mediation process, postcards/postage, speed humps, and traffic signs, will be about $10,000. No funding source has been identified. Through-traffic is a concern; therefore, funding may be considered from Citywide sources rather than an assessment to adjacent property owners. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to comment on the recommendation(s). ~ 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECONIlVIENDATION(S) ~ There were three other alternatives considered. • Two alternatives required traffic diversion at 70th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Diversion proposals generated some opposition and were not supported by the focus group at this time. After experience is gained with Option 2, diversion measures may be reconsidered. • The "Do Nothing" alternative can be considered especially with the limited funds available in the City's budget and a source of funding has not been identified for this project. I V . ATTACFIMENTS I • Uption 1 map. • Postcard sent to neighborhood residents. • Speed Bumps/Humps from North Central Chapter of Institute of Transportation Engineers, Neighborhood Traffic Control, January 1994. • Resident comments on the Focus Group's recommendations. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • nnemaers or rocus croup • Aimee Gourlay, Mediation Center for Dispute Resolution • l0 L-00~-~L9 L0/~ OM4 OOL~ld2i s;~a;~y~~y g saaauisu3 sa~aioossy l~~~J1S Z/ ~ OL ~ 1~~?~1S H10L NO SdW~H a~~dS ~ ~~laapub' o - SNOIldO ONIW~bO Oi~~b~il auaso~ ooa~sauos Z ~ ~ n ~ I ~ N~IS 4~~11. - ~-.~ LAOIS dOlS - - LAOIS dOlS - - dW(1H a~~dS - { ~bNOIS Ol~~b~ll - ~O~IINOO Ol~~b'~Il a~SOdO~Id ~O~JINOO Ol~~b~ll ONIISIX~ • 1~NN & XERXES AVES./69TH, 70TH & 70 % STS. FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION 1 ~ The focus group recognizes aneighborhood- wide concern about speeding and safety on local streets. The input from neighbors shows that some households prefer more, and some prefer less restrictive traffic calming measures. The impact on the whole neighborhood needs to be considered. In the • spirit of respecting all voices on this issue, we recommend option 2 (installation of speed humps on 70th and 70 % Streets and all-way stop control at the intersection of Xerxes and 70 ~ St.) fora 6 month temporary trial. 2~ The focus group recommends a speed reduction reminder sign at the border of Richfield and Edina, perhaps replacing the welcome sign. The Richfield City Council will consider these recommendations at its August 13 meeting at ~ Jefferson Park Buildin Council's review can be made before August 6 e Call George Atkinson at 612-861-g 1 g 1. • SPEED BUMPS/HUMPS Speed bumps and speed humps .are raised areas in the roadway surface which extend across the roadway perpendicular to the traf- fic flow. Speed bumps are generally 3 to 6 inches high with a length of 1 to 3 feet (shorter than the wheel base of an automo- bile}. They are typically used in low speed parking lots and alley situations. Speed humps, on the other hand, are generally 3 to 4 inches high with a length of approximately 12 feet (longer than the wheel base of an automobile). Effects Volumes. Speed bumps and speed humps will often reduce traffic volumes on the streets where they are employed. The degree of traffic reduction is dependen# upon the number and the spacing of the bumps /humps, the amount of cut through traffic, and the availability of alternate routes. Speed bumps/humps have been used to deter trucks and larger vehicles from using a street. speed. A speed bump causes significant driver discomfort at residential traffic speeds Neighborhood Traffic Control January 1894 241 CHAPTER LJZ and generally results in vehicles slowing to 5 mph or less at the -bump. At high speeds, bumps tend to have less overall vehicle im- pactbecause the vehicle suspension quickly absorbs the impact before the body can react. At typical residential speeds, speed humps cause some driver discomfort and result in most vehicles slowing to 15 mph or less at each hump. At higher speeds, the hump tends to act as a bump and severely jolts .the vehicle suspension and its occupants or cargo. Speed bumps or speed humps should only be installed on streets where the prevailing speed limit is 30 mph or less. These devices generally have a continuous effect on vehicle speeds if spaced at less than 800 feet. Once spacing exceeds 800 feet, the effect on speed is only in the immediate vicinity of the bump/hump. Traffic Noise, Air Quality and Energy Con- sumption Traffic noise is generally reduced slightly between the bumps/humps on low volume local streets. At the speed bumps /humps, experience has shown Speed Hump Speed Bump Gi C~ anywhere from a slight reduction in noise level to an increase in noise level. The noise level at the bumps/humps is dependent upon the speed at which the vehicles traverse them. Because of their effect in slowing traffic, bumps/humps tend to have a negative im- pact on air quality and energy consumption. Traffic Safety. Traffic safety has not been found to be compromised with speed bumps and speed humps as long as proper design and installation procedures are followed when they are installed. Traffic safety benefits can be gained if speeding is involved. Community Reaction. The initial reaction of the people living in the area of the installation is generally positive, while negative reaction can occur from those people who produce through traffic trips in the area. The reaction of the people living in the area can change over time. Legal. As defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, speed bumps and speed ht.Imps are not traffic control devices. They are geometric design features and should be designed and installed accordingly using accepted engineering principles and judgement. Cost The cost of constructing a speed hump has been found to be in the range of $1,000 - $2,000. Speed bumps cost approximately $500- $1,000. Additional Considerations The impact on maintenance activities Such as snowplowing and street sweeping is mini mal. Speed bumps /humps can significantly im- pact large trucks, transit and school buses. If used on regular routes of these vehicle types, attention should be given to informing these drivers of proper operation necessary #o min- imize impacts. Case Study A series of three speed humps were installed on Homestead Drive in Appleton, Wisconsin From a technical standpoint,. the speed humps were effective in reducing the 85th percentile speed from 34 mph to 26-mph. One year and five months after the installation of the speed humps, they were removed. The removal was prompted by a survey of the neighborhood residents who directly abutted the street that the speed humps were on. This experience allowed for two winters of main- tenance and found that their presence did not create any unusual street maintenance problems. It is interesting to note that the vehicle speeds found to exist prior to the installation of the speed humps returned after the speed humps were removed. References Institute of Tranaportatian Engineer: Residential Street Design and Traffic Control A Proposed Recommended P-ac6ice of the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineer: Sy the Technical Council Speed Humps Task Force Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Hamps. Neighborhood Traffic Control January 1994 242 C] • Memorandum DATE: August 6, 2001 TO: FILE FROM: George Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor SUBJECT: Citizens' Log on 70th Street Area Speed Bumps NAME/ADDRESS .COMMENTS Joe Gileskey Afraid of traffic, very supportive of speed bumps on 2827 W. 70th Street 70th and 70 'h Streets Richfield, MN 55423 Jerome Freundschuh I support the idea of installing speed bumps on 70th 6937 Thomas Avenue and 701/2 Streets. Melina Hurley I would like to see speed bumps installed on 69th 68 25 Thomas Avenue Street as well as on 70th and 70 '/ Streets. because: 1) We have the same problems as those residents of 70th Street and have had several near accidents, some involving children. 2) If speed bumps are placed on 70th Street, I am afraid it will only increase traffic and safety concerns on 69th Street. Robert Hanson I have been involved with this subject for over ten 6944 Sheridan Avenue years now. This street is a very, very, busy street. I believe that something has got to be done, and I believe that the speed bumps will help to slow down traffic. Donald Walls The problem is people that do not obey stop signs. 6833 Thomas Avenue I don't think that speed bumps will change anyone's habits. I can't understand why a person in your position (referring to message recorder, George Atkinson) is not a Richfield resident. Robin Wienandt There is constant speeding on 69th Street 6900 Thomas Avenue especially near Thomas Avenue as that intersection is at the bottom of the hill. I have lost two cats to traffic and many squirrels have met their fate. I am concerned because many children cross 69th Street at the same location in order to go to the park. Hopefully something can be done about it (the speeding). If speed bumps work, please install them on 69th Street. as well Gerald Rose 6912 Queen 612-798-5387 Leave the streets alone, just the way they are. There is no problem there. Stop trying to shift traffic around. We don't need speed bumps in streets. Mary Dingman I think it is ridiculous what they are doing. The 6932 Washburn traffic is not that bad. I travel it everyday to and from work. The City is putting in a 7500 car parking lot at Best Buy. I think they (the City) are panicking because they need to find routes for these 7500 cars. Post card says asix-month trial. When the City puts them. in, they well not remove them. At the intersection of Thomas or Upton at 70th Street near the stop sign there are a lot of bumps. I like the "Welcome to Richfield" signs. Leave them in place. hope. they don't change it. Ed Frank I am obviously opposed and have been the last two 6924 Thomas Avenue times. If approved, it will set a precedent. There is .209-9843 traffic on all residential streets. Some people want to privatize a public street at public expense and should not be considered by the Council. Those that initiated the action should reimburse the money spent by Richfield on this survey to the City. What about snowplows and street sweeping? CJ • • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # I ] REPORT # ~ 1 7 J .STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADM~NISTI~.ATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TI ~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the 2001-2002 labor contract with the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local #162. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2001- 2002 labor agreement with the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local #162.. • II. BACKGROUND City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Law Enforcement Labor Services (EELS) Local 162 for the years 2001 and 2002 subject to Council approval. EELS Local 162 represents the positions of Police Supervisors. There are twelve employees represented in the unit including eight Sergeants, three Lieutenants and one Captain. The tentatively approved settlement includes the following changes: 1. Insurance A $40 increase from $435 per month to $475-per month for dependent coverage for 2001. A reopener for health insurance coverage for 2002. $1 increase from $24 per • • month to $25 per month for individual coverage of employees toward City's group dental insurance premium in 2001 and up to a maximum contribution or $26 in 2002. 2. Wages A 3.5% across-the-board increase effective January 1, 2001. A 3.5% across-the-board increase effective January 1, 2002. 3. Clothing Allowance A $20 increase from $580 per year to $600 per year for 2001. A $25 increase to $625 per year for 2002. 4. Equity Adjustment In order to bring this classification to metro averages cone-time lump sum payment will be made effective January 1, 2001 and aone-time lump sum payment effective January 1, 2002. 2001 Sergeant - $400 Lieutenant - $1,250 Captain - $1,500 2002 Sergeant - $400 Lieutenant - $1,250 Captain - $1,500 5. Personal Leave An increase of the personal leave accrual rate of 2.31 hours biweekly to 2.55 hours biweekly. in 2001., and an increase of personal leave accrual to 2.77 hours biweekly in 2001. The maximum accrual cap increases from 192 hours to 204 hours in 2001. 6. Vacation Leave Beginning 2002, employees may sell back 36 hours of vacation leave each year if they have an accumulated bank of leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell back vacation authorized under this section, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. 7. Car Allowance Elimination of Article 20 providing a car allowance for Captain and Lieutenants. 8. Letter of Agreement Stipulates that the normal shift schedule is continuous eight to twelve hour work period. 9. Duration Two year contract. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has met and negotiated with the Union and is bound under the Public Employers' Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. The proposed settlement is similar to other City employee groups and is well within the range for Police Supervisors' bargaining groups in similar cities. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2001 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on August 13, 2001 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • 3.5% wage increases in 2001 and in 2002 • Total equity adjustment: 2001 -Captain $1500; Lieutenants $3750; Sergeants $3200; 2002 -Captain $1500; Lieutenants $3750; Sergeants $3200. • Increases in health insurance contribution in 2001 and in 2002 ($40 increase in 2001 for dependent coverage will cost approximately $480 a month for twelve employees receiving dependent coverage.) The cost of the health insurance reopener is unknown at this time. Increase in dental contribution in 2001 and in 2002 ($288 for both years). • Increases in personal leave time accrual in 2001 and in 2002 (Increase of 6.24 hours per person in 2001, increase of 5.72 hours per person in 2002). • Clothing allowance increase in 2001 and in 2002 (total cost approximately $240 per year in 2001 and $300 per year in 2002.) D. LEGAL • If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation will need to take place and/or arbitration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the terms of this agreement. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTAC~IlVIENTS • No attachments VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. LOCAL #162 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Supervisors' Division employees (Police Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains) Local 162 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for the year 2001 through 2002; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 162 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall. be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 162 bargaining unit for the years 2001 through 2002, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented effective January 1, 2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • AGENDA SECTION: Ord ~ nan c e AGENDA ITEM # 1 h REPORT # 216 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING U "'~'''"~"""`~`"® AUGUST 13, 2001 DAWN WEITZEL, REPORT PREPARED BY: I~~~,rJ RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, Tilts STEVEN L. DEVICH, REPORT PRESENTER: ADM ST~ATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ~-~ NAn~, 7J~zE /1 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describin vacation leave and 310.37 describin ersonal leave. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave and 310.37 describing personal leave. II. BACKGROUND In an effort to remain competitive with other city governments and the benefits that they offer and provide non-Union employees benefits already offered to Union members, a recommendation is being made to amend Section 1, Subsection 310.33 to: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-back up to 24 36 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. This benefit change would be implemented beginning January 1, 2002. 0813 Vaca-PL ord • A recommendation is also being made to amend Subsection 310.37 (Personal Leave) from an accrual rate of 2.31 hours to 2.55 hours of personal leave biweekly for those employees compensated under the management or general services compensation pay plans. In addition, maximum accrual rates would also change from 192 hours yearly to 204 hours. These changes would affect those employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans and who are not represented by a Union. The amendments are requested so that the City of Richfield's benefit package remains competitive with those of other Stanton V cities and that non-Union employees are offered some of the same Vacation Leave sell back and Personal Leave accrual and maximum levels already given to most Union employees. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, and Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, aid in balancing some of the benefits offered to City employees. Those benefits offered to Union employees should not exceed those benefits offered to employees not represented by Unions. Furthermore, most employees represented by collective bargaining agreements are males while Unions do not represent the • majority of female employees. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In past years employees have either forfeited the accumulated leave time or taken time off at the last minute -which may have interfered with the operations of the department. While the City encourages employees to regularly use vacation leave, demands of the job and short-staffed divisions do not always allow employees to take leave when wanted or needed. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, approximately 155 regular and part-time General Services and Management employees would receive an additional 6.24 hours in 2001. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested additional vacation leave sell back and personal leave accrual enhancement, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. r ~ LJ • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the second reading of ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer discussion to another date. V . ATTACHMENTS • City Administrative Code changes VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING r~ U BILL NO. • AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 310.33 AND 310.37 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 8 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Sell-back of vacation" is hereby amended: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-back up to 24 hours of vacation time E~,^h in 2001 if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Beginning 2002, employees may sell-back up to 36 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, .may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. Section 2. Subsection 310.37, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Personal leave" is hereby amended: 310.37. Personal leave. Subdivision 1. Eligibility and accrual. A managerial employee, a regular full-time or full-time probationary employee, and a regular part-time or • part-time probationary employee, classified and compensated under the management compensation plan or general services pay plan, as those plans have been adopted and may be amended from time to time pursuant to subsection 310.17 of this code, is eligible to accrue and use personal leave. An eligible full-time employee shall accrue 2:31- 2.55 hours of personal leave biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a maximum of ~ 204 hours of personal leave, unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of -~ 204 hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compensation. Eligible part-time employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the full-time accrual based on hours worked per payroll. period and shall be limited to maximum accruals and extensions authorized for full-time employees. Section 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy. Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 1 S REPORT # 21 S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ', ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ', Consideration of second reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to regular '~ meetin s of the Cit Council; amendin Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield Cit Code. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to regular meetings of the City Council; amending Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield City Code. • II. BACKGROUND At the City Council Study Session of July 11, 2001 the Council discussed changing the meeting day and time of the regular City Council meetings, effective January 1, 2002. The Council meetings have, for as long as can be remembered, taken place on the second and fourth Mondays. While there is no magic to any one particular day of the week (except for Wednesdays that tend to be a night when many churches hold activities), Mondays are especially difficult for staff and the public. Agendas are generally prepared and distributed on Thursday evening or Friday morning. It is difficult for Council Members and the public to go through the agenda items that Friday and call with any questions, concerns or requests for 0813councilmeetings information. Most often, it is Monday before staff receives requests for • information. It is also difficult for individuals/groups with agenda items to receive information or clarification before Monday and too often it is just hours before the meeting. Staff has long believed that an additional day to prepare for meetings would be beneficial to Council Members, the public and staff. It would allow additional time for information sharing prior to the meeting, react appropriately to last minute issues and address questions from the public, agenda participants and the Council. Changing the meeting day to Tuesday would also. eliminate the conflict with the School District who also meets on Mondays. Several members of the public have complained that, especially during the spring and summer months, many people include Monday as a long weekend and are out of town on Mondays. The issue of the time of Council meetings has also been a item of discussion, especially in relation to the number of staff that attend Council meetings, the ever-increasing number of agenda items and the length of Council meetings. Again, there doesn't appear to be any magical time, but one thing is critically important: allowing sufficient time for people to return from work and attend the meeting. • Several cities in the metro area have changed their meeting times to 6 or 6:30 p.m. The rationale was that it allowed time to go home, if necessary, or go right to the meeting with the goal of getting home earlier. From a staff perspective, it involves fewer nighttime hours and frees up time during the day when it is needed on a more consistent basis. At the Council's request, staff prepared a proposed ordinance amendment changing the regular City Council meetings from the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. to the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:30 p.m. First reading of the ordinance was held on July 23, 2001. III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code requires that every ordinance receive two readings before the Council prior to final adoption. The code also states the procedure for adoption of ordinances and resolutions shall conform to the requirements of the City Charter. • Section 205, Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield City Code establishes regular meetings for the City Council. The current ordinance states regular Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Mondays • of each month at 7 p.m. at the City Hall. 0813councilmeetings . B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A second reading is required for ordinance amendments. • A public hearing is not required by State law or City Charter. • If approved at second reading, the ordinance will be published in the Richfield Sun Current. C. FINANCIAL • Better utilization of staff and consultant resources will result in cost savings overtime. D. LEGAL • N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONN;S~ • Defer action on the proposed ordinance to another Council meeting. • Do not approve second reading of the ordinance. • If action is not taken on this matter, the regular Council meetings will remain on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. C7 0813councilmeetings ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AMENDING SUBSECTION 205.01 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 205.01. Regular meetings. Regular meetings of the council are held on the second and fourth td4e~aysTuesdays of each month at ~AA6:30 p.m. at the city hall. If any such ayTuesday is a legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next following day at the same hour and place. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0813councilmeetings • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING LJ AUGUST 13, 2001 Other Business 14 214 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of submission of an application for federal TEA-21 funds to replace the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the submission of a federal transportation grant application under the TEA-21 program for replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. III. BACKGROUND ~ The City's 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program identifies the replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494 as a needed capital improvement. The existing bridge is inadequate to carry both existing and future traffic levels. Congestion on the bridge is a common occurrence, especially during workday rush hour periods and on Saturdays. • The Metropolitan Council is soliciting transportation proposals for the use of funds provided under the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 0813-TEA-21 Lyndale The project is estimated to cost $22.5 million but the City is trying to leverage $9.5 million of its 77th Street High Priority Project funds with state trunk highway funds • and the TEA-21 funds to build the new bridge. If funded, the Lyndale Bridge construction could begin in 2003 at the earliest and be completed by the end of 2004. The design work could begin this year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge is identified in the City's 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Improvements are needed on I-494. Completion of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge will hasten the construction of the I-494/1-35W interchange by providing the third of three critical bridges needed to stage construction of the new I-494/1-35W interchange. The other two critical bridges are the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 and the 79th/80th Street Bridge over I-35W in Bloomington. C. FINANCIAL • • The City will ask for the maximum $5.5 million in TEA-21 funds and $5 million in state trunk highway funds and $2 million in MnDOT's federal funds. Richfield will contribute $9.5 million of its federal High Priority Project funds that are reserved for the Lyndale Avenue Project. The cities of Bloomington and Richfield will contribute $250,000 each in Municipal State Aid funds. D. LEGAL • The .City Attorney will be available to answer questions at the meeting. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to reject submission of a TEA-21 application for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge. This may delay construction of the bridge until some time after 2011 according to the current MnDOT construction schedule for reconstructing I-494. V. ATTACHMENTS • Layout map of Lyndale Avenue Bridge. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. • • _. S ~ ~ '`. o ~, I , ii ,.------I~ ` c~ I `~ I ° ~~- I I ° I> I,:: '~ ~, ,- ~ , li -=~ ~_- ~1 -- \~ I1n-~i-/-----_I~ I c I lV x ~ J 0 8 ~ I I K L' J o ~ - i ~ Y }, ~ j ~' !'. r±_ _, J__~YNDA,Lh:AVE. BRIDGE `. -l ~ ,~~ OVER i-~9~ --- - -- - -- - I : I I (; ~ ~: l -- \ \\-_J I lY~ ` ~ '_...1 ~ ~. ,,\ ,,\ _ ' ~~ r i'~._ ' J u~'~ o i~ ~:~., i t I' I i / J ~ II /J J x~ ~~ J I I I / ~ ( ~ LI 111----=~ I~ ~ ~I~ , 9~ lil JJ f` I ~ ~ ~l i i; ~ JI-----o I "x "d J I ~) I j''--------- I'o ~ I ~ I JAI ! I I ~ I 1 ~I ~ I I I J~ J;t*I I o r, il~~ I J! I ` - IIJ--~ _L~,_ ~ _ ,_ ] r--- ~J 2.~ c~.c fK. tJ `, r 0? ~- C • AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 213 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER Nance, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~,,^ ~ ~~___~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of removal of stop sign at 78th Street and Knox Avenue L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the removal of the stop sign at 78th Street and Knox Avenue. III. BACKGROUND A stop sign is located on the northwest corner of Knox Avenue for the traffic heading south on 78th Street, the .frontage road. Traffic moving east on 78th Street and turning north on Knox Avenue does not have to stop. Due to the reconstruction of 76th Street, Knox Avenue and 78th Street will be used as a detour route. Traffic will increase on both roadways due to the construction. The City staff is recommending removal the stop sign as part of the Interchange West Redevelopment Plan. In the interim Knox Avenue and 78th Street will be carrying increased traffic volumes while they function as a detour route during the closure of 76th Street. In addition, the sharp corner will be modified so traffic can easily turn at the intersection of these two roads. Please refer to the attached map. a III. BASIS OE RECOMMENDATION 0813StopSign • A. POLICY According to the City's Stop Sign Policy, City Council must authorize the removal of stop signs on City streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The detour will go into effect on August 14, 2001. The stop sign on Knox Avenue at 78th Street is no longer warranted. The intersection will be modified to make it safer for vehicles to turn at this intersection. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of modifying the intersection will be included in the 76th Street Widening Project. D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • A location map of the stop sign showing proposed improvements to make the corner safer for vehicles to turn. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. • x j:\muni\richfield\0007\newbase\8-6-01widen.dgn - SANi S- - m j _sAN s ~ --i i ~ I 1 ~ I f 1 , I - I 1 I n I 1 ?, --~2 -- R - I ~ i-SAN 5 i' I I R-SAN S'-~ \ --- I I I i 1 n ~ ~~ I ~ P J I ~ I I j I I I 1 i I I I 1 b]~ I n ..SAN S --~---; ~ 50 0 50 1 I-_. SANS. ___ I j ~ ~ IM I j~ ~ scale feet 1~ ~ I \ ~. ~ 6= i 1 1 ~ h 1 ' 1 ~ I N __. • __ 1--SAN .SJ.._ --____ J 4.R O i 1 - W I I .N. I ' --SAN S -1----~ I I I i O O ' n I 1 I V 4~~ ' ~ ~ V 1 2 / ~ I p O ~'E ~ I U N ~ 2 ~ -TOUR T-RUIi ~ - I N 1 1 r -SAN 5 _~-_-- O-I ~v~ _ • I ~- I I ~ I 1 1 zt ~ ~ ~' ~ I ~- I I 2 ; I o i ~ I ~ I ~i T T ___ AN 15.---1 ~ INV=025.5 i~ I 1 f I --- S.~N __ _ INV~25.5 I ^ 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 w I e I ~ I AN 5 -J~_- i 1 p SANS r____ I ~ I 1 1 1 I o I I y I' 75' R 1 a I 1 I + 1 I 1 ¢ M -! j 1 1 i 1 - 1 I E 1 ~ I I ~----~• B•c/P w -b ~ ; I 1 I U I --SAN ,y' 1 2 m I ~}-_ ~ N i ~/~ 1 1 ~I 1 I ____-_.B'C/PW._____-______I____-____-___I___________~.._i_____--- I-_. B'C/P M.____ _ I_--___1 I I -____ ____ it I 1 _ I ' ---> -------b ---------- I ___ 3 W 7$ ~h- ~~ 1 ------ - ----- ~1 I -_-- I VCP a v .--. .~ -~-- 5 '-~ _GG---._----GG--____--GG________GG .___.___.__54575 _--___--GG-_-.~'__ .Si ~(- INV-823.7 • AGENDA SECTION: OtheY Business AGENDA ITEM # ], 2 REPORT # 2.12 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Nance, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Work Order No. 14 with SEH, Inc. a consulting engineering company, to provide field engineering and inspection services for City Project No. 401-30-513, Widening 76th Street between I-35W and Sheridan Avenue, reconstructing Knox Avenue south of 76th Street, Penn Avenue between 75th Street and the new Best Buy entrance and widening the I- 35W off-ramp to 76th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve Work Order No. 14 in the amount of $499,757 with SEH Inc. to provide field engineering and inspection services for City Project No. 401-30-513, widen 76th Street from west of Penn Avenue to I-35W. r~ III. BACKGROUND ~ In conjunction with the Interchange West (Best Buy campus) re-development, Richfield has committed to making certain improvements to the public infrastructure in the area of the re-development. The list of needed improvements includes all the work to be done under this proposed contract. Staff, City consultants, OPUS and Best Buy have worked closely during the last year designing the necessary improvements. A contractor, Progressive 081376St-inspection Consultants, Inc. (PCI) was awarded a City contract to do this work on July 23, 2001. Construction is scheduled to begin on or about August 15, 2001. Preparations for construction are already well under way. SEH has been involved in these preparations and has been working under a small (less than $25,000), administratively approved Work Order for construction services. Therefore, the requested Work Order will be in addition to the previously approved Work Order. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has gone to great expense attracting the Best Buy corporate campus and has committed to making these infrastructure improvements. • Agreements are in place with Best Buy, MnDOT, Bloomington and Hennepin County that require the work in this contract be completed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Because of traffic flow it is imperative that this work be completed this year because Penn Avenue and the Penn Avenue Bridge will be closed to traffic shortly after January 1, 2002 making 76th Street even more important to the travelling public. C. FINANCIAL • Engineering fees for this project will be funded primarily by Municipal State Aid (gas tax proceeds) construction funds with additional funding supplied by Best Buy, Inc. and Richfield utility funds. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose to not authorize this Work Order, but the City has committed to constructing the project and construction observation and project management is needed to assure a quality product with as little neighborhood discomfort as possible. • Council could direct staff to perform project management and construction observation; however, staff, is very busy with many other projects. Some of those other projects would be left uncompleted because of lack of staff to manage them. V. ATTACHMENTS • The proposed Work Order. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. This is Exhibit A, consisting of ~page'~, referred to • in the Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services. Initials: OWNER ENGINEER R$1Z Work Order Form WORK ORDER NO. 14 Authorization to proceed and site-speck scope of services Project: 76th Street Widening Location: City of Ri chf i el d west of Penn Avenue to I-35W We transmit the following information for your use: Attached letter proposal for Construction Services (dated August 6, 2001) We hereby authorize you to proceed with the following phases of services for the above-referenced Project and location in accordance with the agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER dated December E'8, 1999 . Field engineering and inspection _ Payment shall be on the basis of (select from the following): ^ Cost Plus Fee: Direct Salary Costtimes audited overhead plus fee of,_ percent and reimbursable , expenses. ^ Cost Plus Fixed Fee: As for Cost Plus Fee, however total Fee shall not exceed ^ Lump Sum: One sum payable by percent of completion of the Services (plus reimbursable expenses). ^ Cost Times a Factor: DirecfSalary Cost times a factor of ,plus reimbursable expenses. ^ Standard Hourly Billing Rates: Hourly rates plus reimbursable expenses. The Not to Exceed Limit for this Work Order is: $499 , 757.00 A Construction Cost Limit of is agreed upon between OWNER and ENGINEER for this ProjecK. ENGINEER: SEI Sig: Its: Sign Its: Dated: ~t~ . tUV , 204` _ _ i OWNER: RICHFIELD Signed: Its: Signed: Dated: Rev. December 1 S, 1999 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301 952.912.2600 952.912.2601 FAX architecture engineering environmental transportation • August 6, 2001. RE: Richfield, Minnesota Professional Services for 76`" Street Widening S.A.P. No.: 157-361-23, 157-020-21, 157-010-04 City Project No. 401-30-513 SEH No. A-RICHF0007.01 10.00 George Atkinson Engineering Supervisor City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota55423-2599 Dear George: r We are .pleased to present to you for consideration our proposal for professional services for contract administration and construction services for the 76`" Street Widening Project. Our involvement in the design of the project has given us the opportunity to become familiar with the major players associated with the development of this area. This background will allow us to more effectively. coordinate construction activities on the site on the City's behalf with Opus Construction as well as Mn/DOT and the contractor selected to complete the work for the interchange project. In developing the budget for the construction phase of the project, we have planned that SEH will: 1. Prepare the conformed contracts for the project, coordinate and lead the Preconstruction Conference and provide minutes to all attendees. We will also review shop drawings and coordinate pre-project surveys as necessary. 2. Coordinate and lead weekly construction progress meetings and provide meeting minutes to all attendees and other interested parties. 3. Monitor all construction activities. relating to the project for the City. This will include maintaining contact with Opus forces working within the project site as well as activities by the City's Contractor. This time will also include periodic meetings with residents and property owners adjacent to the project limits. 4. Coordinate required interaction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County and other agencies as needed for timely completion of the work. 5. Provide one full-time resident project representative onsite during the Contractor's working hours. It is . anticipated that the Contractor will be working a minimum of 50 hours per week during the fall Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest Equal Opportunity Employer We help you plan, design, and achieve. George Atkinson. City of Richfield August 6, 2001 Page 2 construction season of 2001 and a 40-hour work week during the 2002 construction season. 6. Provide a senior resident project representative at a minimum of/z time over the duration of the project to maintain City/Contractor/Developer relationships. 7. Provide construction staking required for the completion of the project. 8. Observe Opus construction activities within the public right-of--.way including the relocation of the 42" water main. As the 42" water main relocation is recognized as a cost attributable to the Best Buy Development, this time will be broken out separately for your accounting ease and subsequent reimbursement from Best Buy. 9. Prepare record drawings following the completion of the project. The detailed tasks and hourly estimates have been broken into calendar .time blocks based on the Contractor's schedule. Item Hours I. Construction staking July 1, (Opus start-up on construction) to November 30, 2001 (substantial completion for 76"' Street) by 3-person crew A. Horizontal and vertical control 32 B. Sanitary sewer forcemain 8 C. Storm sewer 120 D. Curb and gutter 280 E. Sidewalks 40 F. Water main 20 G. As-builts 40 Subtotal Estimated Survey Crew Hours 540 Hours II. Construction staking May 1, 2002 to November 30; 2002 (construction of Penn Avenue and final completion) by 3-person crew A. Storm sewer 80 B. Curb and gutter 300 C. Sidewalks 40 D. As-builts 40 Subtotal Estimated Survey Crew Hours 460 Hours TOTAL ESTIMATED SURVEY CREW SERVICE HOURS 1000 Hours George Atkinson i City of Richfield August 6, 2001 Page 3 III. Construction observation by resident project representatives (RPRs) - July 16, 2001 through November 1, 2002 A. July 16 to November 1, 2001 (20 weeks) construction start-up and 76"' Street Reconstruction TASKS: 1. Review plans and specs 2. Attend precon. 3. Set up records (i.e. quantity book, State Aid reports, sump service) 4. Obtain preliminary schedule from Contractor as to where first phase of work begins. to accomplish the following: a. Field locate, measure, and compute quantities for removals, sawcuts, and salvage items (note condition of items to be salvaged) b. Meet with and coordinate work to be done by private utility companies c. Coordinate staging, detour and signing d. Coordinate temporary and final signal construction e. Check storm and sanitary sewer and street grades f. Coordinate construction staking g. Compute grades and cut sheets h. Diary, meeting log, phone log 5. Daily inspection of a. Concrete removals b. Bituminous milling/removal c. Excavation d. Water main installation e. Storm sewer removal f. Sanitary sewer force main installation g. Sanitary sewer and water main service abandonment h. Storm sewer installation i. Subgrade preparation j. Class 5 k. Curb and gutter • L Bituminous pavement George Atkinson • City of Richfield August 6, 2001 Page 4 m. Concrete pavement (I-35W ramp widening) n. Concrete median o. Sidewalk 'system p. Tolerancing Class 5 q. Loop detectors for new signal. systems r. Coordination of signal construction s. Retaining wall t. Coordination of lighting system Justin Gese at 50 hours/week = 1000 hours Allen Horge at 25 hours/week = 500 hours Mike Kotila (Signal Construction Observation) = 120 hours Subtotal 1620 Hours B. May 1 -November 1, 2002 (12 weeks full-time construction, 2 months punch list and project closeout) Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue and surface restoration 1. Continuation of Item II. As shown above 2. Construction observation of: a. Bituminous milling/removal b. Excavation c. Storm sewer removal d. Storm sewer installation e. Subgrade preparation f. Class 5 g. Curb and gutter h. Concrete medians i. Wear course installation j. .Sidewalk system k. Tolerancing Class 5 1. Grading for topsoil m. Adjusting manholes and gate valves n. Topsoil o. Sod p. Signing q. Striping r. Traffic control George Atkinson • City of Richfield .August 6, 2001 Page 5 s. Erosion control t. Dust control/street sweeping 3. Answer residents' questions and concerns 4. Pay requests 5. Weekly meetings 6. Final inspections/punch lists 7. Punch list inspections 8. Construction field changes Justin Gese at 40 hours/week = 640 Allen Horge at 20 hours/week =.320 Mike Kotila 80 hours = 80 Subtotal 1040 Hours TOTAL ESTIMATED RPR SERVICE HOURS 2660 Hours IV. Construction Administration • A. TA SKS: 1. Conduct preconstruction conference 2. Conduct weekly site meetings and periodic site visits 3. Coordinate overall communications and produce newsletter 4. Monitor schedule and costs 5. Review changed field conditions and contractor claims 6. Monitor overall project quality control program 7. Review contractor progress payment applications B. Periods of Service 1. July 6 -November 30, 2001 Preconstruction period and 76`h Street Construction Kevin Kawlewski at 15 hours/week = 300 Mike Foertsch at 2 hours/week = 40 Subtotal 340 Hours 2. May 1 -November 1, 2002 Kevin Kawlewski at 15 hours/week = 240 Mike Foertsch at 2 hours/week = 32 Karen Anderson at 6 hours/week = 96 Subtotal 368 Hours • TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION .708 Hours George Atkinson City of Richfield August 6, 2001 Page 6 The development of hours as shown in the preceding table is'based on our estimate of the project construction schedule. Accordingly, we estimate our fee for the 76`" Street widening to be $524,257.00, including expenses. (See attached summary.) This represents 14.0% of the low bid amount submitted by Progressive Contractor's Inc. The following factors impact our fee: 1. Monitoring of overall contractor activities inrelation to other construction activities in this area will be a large component of our services as it will involve at least three separate construction operations occurring simultaneously within the same general site. 2. The project includes work on Mn/DOT and Hennepin County right-of--way, and a significant number of private properties including restoration of a parking lot and garage on the Fountainhead site. 3. In addition to construction within the right-of--ways, we will be modifying existing signal systems belonging to Mn/DOT and Hennepin County, as well as the installation of new signal systems belonging to the City. All signals will be interconnected with Mn/DOT's ICTM facilities in this corridor 4. The decision to relocate overhead electric utilities belonging to Xcel Energy has not been determined. It is estimated that these facilities will not be relocated prior to the beginning of September, which may increase the level of coordination required between the Contractor, City and Xcel Energy. • There are a significant number of issues involved in the construction of 76`" Street. Because of some these potential issues, we propose to evaluate our budget against the amount of work remaining to be completed at two points in the project. The first point will be at the close of the 2001 construction season. The second point will be as we reach the 90% level of the proposed fee. This will provide us the opportunity to measure the remaining fee against the amount of work to be completed on the project. Any identified adjustments to the proposed fee can be identified and presented to the City at that point. Additional time identified beyond limits of the proposed fee will commence only after your authorization. We will bill you monthly for services, expenses, and equipment based on our hourly rate schedule. We have begun the construction phase services per your verbal authorization. We understand the importance of staying within the total project costs as outlined at the time the project was awarded. This letter .proposal for Professional .Services represents the entire understanding between the City of Richfield and SEH. If it satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement, please complete and sign the- attached Work Order and return one signed copy to us. We have also included a completed work order for this work in accordance with the contract between the City of Richfield and SEH dated December 10, 1999. The attached Work Order is in the amount of $499,757.00. The City has authorized a previous Work Order in the amount of $24,500.00 for observation of construction activities already occurring on the site. The attached work order reflects the remainder of the proposed fee as included herein. • George Atkinson City of Richfield August 6, 2001 Page 7 If you-have .any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call. Sincerely,- Short Elliott Hendr' kso I ~• Kevin B. Kawlewski, P.E. Project Manager c: Mike Foertsch, SEH H:\CI V IL\Projects\richfield\richfll007\contract\contractadmin.doc • . 76~' Street Widening -Construction Services August 2, 2001 Summary of Professional Services Professional Labor Hours Rate Total Principal (Mike Foertsch) 72 $150.35 $10,825 Project Manager (Kevin Kawlewski) 540 $94.74 $51,160 Traffic Signal Engineer (Mike Kotila) 200 $130.00 $26,000 Sr. Resident Project Representative (Al Horge) 980 ' $100:40 $98,392 Resident Project Representative (Justin Gese) 1960 $66.26 $129,870 ', Word Processor (Karen Anderson) 96 $72.09 $6920 Survey Crew 1000 $180.00 $180,000 Party Chief (Chris Cotton) • Instrument Operator Survey Assistant Subtotal Labor $503,167 Reimbursable Expenses Mileage/Vehicle Allowance $7,000 Survey Equipment $13,720 Shipping $265 Miscellaneous: copies, film, supplies $105 Subtotal Expenses _ $21,090 Total $524,257 \\NTAUTOMP\clerical\CI VIL\Projects\Richfield\richfU07\Contract\contractadmin.doc • ~' STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING n f~ AUGUST 13, 2001 Resolution 11 211 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NanrE, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAi1~', TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ ,S~ („~ , REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a variance request to the Minnesota Department of Transportation on the Penn Avenue Bridge Project I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution to request a variance from Municipal State Aid rules to reimburse the construction costs of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project using Transportation Revolving Loan (TRLF1 funds. III. BACKGROUND I The City will be using $6.7 million in Transportation Revolving Loan funds to pay for a portion of the construction costs of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. Normally, the City is expected to deposit all of its local funds with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) at the time a construction contract, that is administered by MnDOT, is awarded. • According to the rules governing the TRLF loan program, funds from the loan program can only be issued to reimburse costs already incurred. The two rules conflict and a variance is needed to allow the City to request monthly 0813MSAVariance reimbursements from the TRLF program. This also lessens by $100,000 to $300,000 the interest the City would need to pay on the TRLF loan. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Penn Avenue Bridge Project is identified in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Budget and identifies using funds from the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The normal procedure used by MnDOT to have cities deposit local funds prior to awarding a construction contract would pose an unnecessary burden on the City. C. FINANCIAL If a variance is not granted, the City would pay an additional $100,000 to $300,000 in interest on the TRLF loan. D. LEGAL • City attorney will be available at the meeting to answer questions. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution requesting a variance to the Municipal State Aid rules. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None anticipated. • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL STATE AID RULES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield proposes a Federal Aid project to reconstruct the Penn Avenue interchange with Interstate 494, under SPs157-020-20, 27-632-22 and 2785- 328; and WHEREAS, the project cost is estimated at $21,500,000 with $6,700,000 in a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) loan; and WHEREAS, State Aid Rule 8820.1500 Subp. 3 requires that 100 percent of the local government share of the contract amounts must be deposited with the state-aid agency before the contract is awarded; and WHEREAS, this project cannot be let as a Delegated Contract Project because Interstate 494 is on the National Highway System; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund does not allow withdrawal of funds until costs have been incurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield requests that a variance to State Aid Rule 8820.1500 be granted allowing the local government share be deposited on an agreed upon payment schedule rather than deposited before time of award. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 210 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 82237 for Federal Partici ation in Advance Construction related to the Penn Brid a over 1-494 Pro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing Agency Agreement No. 82237 which allows for the Minnesota Department of Transportation to reimburse the City of Richfield for its Transportation Revolving Loan using federal funds in connection with the Penn Bridge over 1-494 Project. • II. BACKGROUND As part of the financing plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge, the City will repay the principal of the Transportation Revolving Loan loan using Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) funds. The MnDOT is proposing to use federal funds to repay the City for the loan principal. These funds will become available in two installments. The first installment will be in August 2005 for $4.7 million and the second in August 2006 for $2.0 million. To use federal funds to repay the City, a Federal Participation in Advance Construction agreement is needed between the City of Richfield and the MnDOT for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. 0813PennAgency82237 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY The Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project is identified in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The proposed agreement provides MnDOT with a method to repay the $6.7 million principal on the City's Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) loan. C. FINANCIAL It is permissible under Federal Highway Administration procedures to perform advance construction of eligible projects with non-federal funds (in this case using TRLF loan funds), with the intent to request federal funding for the federally eligible costs in a subsequent federal fiscal year. D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions on the agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute MnDOT Agency Agreement No. 82237 for federal participation in advance construction for the Penn Avenue Bridge project. MnDOT Agency Agreement No. 82237 for Federal Participation in Advance Construction for the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 Project, S.P. 2785-238, 27-632-22 and 157-020-20; M.P. ACIM-HPPMN 10(102) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. ~~eU~s,~~ ~~ ~ i~~ RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT) AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 82237 FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN ADANCE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PENN AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 401-30-521; S.P. 2785-328, 27-632-22 AND 157-020-20; M.P. ACIM-HPPMN 10(102) BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richfield to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 82237, a copy of which said agreement was. before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor and City Manager are further authorized to negotiate and execute an amendment to said agreement that modifies paragraphs I.C. and II.C. thereof by changing the October 1, 2005 date to a date no earlier than August 1, 2005. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 13th day of August, 2001 as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my. possession. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Notary Public My Commission expires RESOLUTION NO. '~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT) AGENCY AGREEMENT NO.82237 FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN ADANCE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PENN AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT CITY PROJECT N0.401-30-521; S.P. 2785-328, 27-632-22 AND 157-020-20; M.P. ACIM-HPPMN 10(102) BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richfield to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor. and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 82237, a copy of which said agreement was before the City Council and which is made, a part hereof by reference. Adopted by the City Council of the City. of Richfield, Minnesota this13th day of • August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 13th day of August, 2001 as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Notary Public My Commission expires Mn/DOT Agreement No. 82237 STATE. OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT. • BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION FOR S.P. 2785-328, 27-632-22 and 157-020-20; M.P. ACIM-HPPMN 10(102) This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield hereinafter referred. to as the "City" and the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Mn/DOT", Whereas, Agency Agreement No. 30774 has been executed between the City and Mn/DOT, which appoints Mn/DOT as agent for the City with. respect to the receipt of transportation related federal funds, and sets forth duties and responsibilities for letting, payment, and other procedures for a federally funded contract let by Mn/DOT for the City; and Whereas, the City is proposing a federal aid project to replace the Penn Avenue Bridge and related roadways adjacent to Interstate 494, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and • Whereas, the Project has been determined to be eligible for the expenditure of federal aid funds and is programmed in the approved STIP amendments for the fiscal year 2002; and Whereas, the Project is identified in Mn/DOT records as State Project 2785-328, 27-632-22 and 157-020-20, and in Federal Highway Administration records as Minnesota Project ACIM- HPPMN 10(102); and Whereas, the City. has developed the project documents, right-of--way acquisition and final plans in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations; and Whereas, the City desires to proceed with the construction of the project in advance of the year it is programmed for the federal funds; and Whereas, it is permissible under Federal Highway Administration procedures to perform advance construction of eligible projects with non-federal funds, with the intent to request federal funding for the federally eligible costs in a subsequent federal fiscal year, if sufficient funding and obligation authority are available; and .Whereas, the City desires to temporarily provide City State Aid and/or other local funds in lieu of the federal funds so that the project may proceed. • (MrJDOT Agreement No. 82237) Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: L DUTIES OF THE CITY. A. The City shall be in responsible charge of the Project in accordance with Agency Agreement No. 30774. Payment provisions for federally eligible costs shall be as stated herein. B. It is estimated that the total cost of the Project is $ 22.4 Million and that the anticipated federal funding will be $ 6.7 million (up to 80% of federally eligible costs).. The remaining share will be paid by the City. City funds to be used in lieu of the federal funds shall be deposited with Mn/DOT prior to the award of the construction contract. C. Request for reimbursement of the federal aid share of the federally eligible costs shall be made after October 1, 2005, or eazlier if funding and obligation authority aze available (subject to the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) policy). D. The City shall be responsible for any part of the cost or expense of the .Project that the Federal Highway Administration does not pay.. IL DUTIES OF Mn/DOT. r 1 ~J A. Mn/DOT shall request FHWA authorization of the Project, and designation as an Advance Construction project. B. Mn\DOT shall let a contract and administer the project in accordance with Agency Agreement No. 30774. C. Mn/DOT shall request the conversion of the Project to federal funding of eligible costs, between October 1, 2005 and January 31, 2006, or eazlier if funding and obligation authority aze available. D. At such time that the project is converted to federal funding and such funding is received by Mn/DOT, Mn/DOT shall reimburse to the City the federal aid share of the federally eligible costs, previously provided by the City. Reimbursement for City State Aid funds used in lieu of federal funds, shall be deposited in the City's State Aid Account. Reimbursement for other City funds used in lieu of federal funds will be forwarded to the City. III. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each authorized representative shall have responsibility to insure that all payments due to the other party aze paid pursuant to the terms of this agreement. A. The City's authorized representative for the purposes of administration of this agreement is Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, City of Richfield, 6700 Portland • Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423, phone (612) 861--9792, or his successor. (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 82237) - Page 2 • ,7 • B. Mn/DOT's authorized representative for the purposes of administration of this agreement is Lynnette Roshell. Project Development Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid for Local Transportation, Mail Stop 500, St Paul, MN 55155, phone 651.282.6479, or her successor. IV. ASSIGNMENT.. Neither the City nor Mn/DOT shall assign or transfer any rights. or obligations under this agreement without prior written approval of the other parry. V. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be effective upon execution by the City, Mn/DOT, and the appropriate State officials, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the effective date. or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments/supplements to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office. VII. CANCELLATION. A. This Agreement may be canceled by the City or Mn/DOT at any time, with or without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such termination shall not remove any unfulfilled financial obligations of the .City as set forth in this Agreement. B. In the event the State does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or funding cannot be continued at a sufficient level to allow for the processing ofthe Federal aid reimbursement requests, the City may continue the work with local funds only, until such time as Mn/DOT is able to process the Federal aid reimbursement requests. (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 82237) Page 3 • IN WITNESS WHEREOk', the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intend to be bound thereby. 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. BY~ By; Date: CFMS Contract No. A- 2. CITY City certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the City as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: City's Signature Acknowledgement Title: Director. State Aid for Local Transportation Date: 4. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By: Date: 5. ATTORNEY GENERAL As to form and execution By: Date: This instrument was acknowledged before me this day-~€ 2d -': ,.by (name) the and (title) (name) the of Citv of Richfield (title) [notary seal] NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 82237) Page 4 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 2 Q 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TLTLC' • REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAMC, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ G~/~ ~~~_ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding creation. of a special assessment district to finance a loan under the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund between the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority and the City of Richfield for partial financing of the Penn Avenue bridge project, Council closes the hearing; and, orders the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing. and by motion: 1) Approve the creation of a special assessment district for financing a loan from the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund for partial financing of the Penn Avenue bridge project, and 2) Approve the attached resolution ordering the Replacement of Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 improvement project and preparation of plans and specifications. ~II. BACKGROUND The Richfield City Council approved the submittal of a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) application for partial funding of the Penn Avenue Bridge project on March 12, 2001. The application was submitted to the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority .(PEA) which has reviewed and approved the application for $6.7 million. 0813-TRLFapproval As part of the financing plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge, the City will repay the principal of the loan using Minnesota Department of Transportation funds. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is proposing. to use federal funds to repay the City for the loan principal. These funds will become available in two installments. The first installment will be in 2005 for $4.7 million and the second in 2006 for $2.0 million. Under the terms of the Transportation Revolving. Loan Program, the .loan must be represented by a general obligation (G.O.) bond of the City. The City Attorney's office has recommended that the City issue a general obligation improvement bond payable wholly from special assessments against benefited property, a bond that may be issued without voter approval and outside debt limits. The interest cost is on interest rate of the loan, which may be about 3%, and the time when the City requests loan reimbursements for actual costs incurred. It is estimated that interest on the loan may cost approximately $700,000. It is proposed that the City create the replacement bridge as an assessable improvement project under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The entire cost of $6.7 million would be assessed against the owner of the redevelopment tracts, that is Best Buy Company, Inc. A simultaneous agreement has already been signed by the City and the HRA that those assessments would be paid by the HRA. Best Buy has agreed to this procedure and has already petitioned the City Council to construct and finance the Penn Avenue Bridge Project this way. The City will levy the special assessments to be collected at the times and the amounts so that, as paid and collected with property taxes, they will be available to make loan payments under the Bonds issued by the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. The only additional cost to the City will be interest on the TRLF loan, estimated to cost $700,000, on the TRLF loan until it is totally repaid from the MnDOT reimbursement in 2006. However, with a favorable interest rate of about 3% on the Bonds, this will cost less than if the City had to sell the Bonds on the open market. The interest amount will vary depending on the actual interest rate on the TRLF loan and the schedule of loan draws that is tied to actual construction costs. City staff is recommending the interest on the TRLF loan be paid using project- related sources. It is intended that no general funds of the City will be used to pay interest on the TRLF loan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's 2001 Capital Improvement Budget includes the Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 as a necessary public improvement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The TRLF is essential to complete the financing of the Penn Avenue bridge. The existing bridge is already inadequate and regularly . causes serious traffic congestion during rush hours. C. FINANCIAL The Minnesota Department of Transportation has agreed to repay the principal on the TRLF loan. The City will use Penn Avenue Bridge project related funds to pay the interest on the loan, which at about 3% is a favorable interest rate. D. LEGAL The City Attorney will review all agreements and loan documents needed to obtain a TRLF loan. Council action on the TRLF loan will be scheduled for the September 10, 2001 Council meeting. IV. ALTERNATNE RECONIMENDATION(S~ • Council may refuse to use special assessments as the funding method to pay the interest on the TRLF loan. This would seriously jeopardize attempts to build the Penn Avenue bridge as soon as 2001 and delay reconstruction for ten years. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution ordering improvements and preparation of plans and specifications • Map of Proposed Special Assessment District for Improvement Project. • Feasibility Report on Proposed Improvement: Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. n ~J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a petition from the Best Buy Company for an improvement project known as the Replacement of Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the Council that the Replacement of Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494, the improvement project, is feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Council Resolution No. 9066, adopted on July 23, 2001 set a public hearing for this date for consideration of an Improvement Project consisting of the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over Interstate 494 in the City. Section 2. Ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, the hearing was held on this date, and all persons wishing to be heard on the Improvement Project were heard. Section 3. The City Engineer has reported and the Council finds that the Improvement Project is necessary, cost effective and feasible. Section 4. The Improvement Project as described in the feasibility report and as proposed by the Council is ordered. Section 5. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications for the Improvement Project. Section 6. The Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement Project from proceeds of the tax-exempt bonds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~~ ~_ ^ O ^ L ^ ~r a ~- ~~ ~ L O ^ ~~ ..i.rr .~ V O O L~ i S 3ntl XONH oN as oo) S 3Atl NN3d O O O S 3nV Nd`JOl s anv r~aow S 3AV NO.1M3N H y s anv a~io ~ G Z W Q 3 Z c a rn a Z. g 0 0 0 N C9 Z W W Z V Z W W LL '_ V ~.I.. W ~~ N .--+ N LL O O ~- us r C a ~ Z Feasibility Report on Improvement Project REPLACEMENT OF THE PENN AVENUE BRIDGE OVER I-494 Description of proposed improvement project: The project consists of: replacing the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 with a new, single point diamond bridge; retaining walls, a stormwater lift station; four new ramps connecting Penn Avenue to I-494; and, new traffic signals on Penn Avenue at Southtown Drive in Bloomington, at the middle of the new bridge and at the entrance to the Best Buy Office Campus. In addition, there will be a temporary exit ramp built for eastbound traffic on 1- 494 at Xerxes Avenue including a temporary traffic signal on Xerxes Avenue_at Southtown Drive in Bloomington. As part of the project, private utilities will need to be relocated in order to build the new bridge. Plans and specifications for the Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project have already been prepared for the City. Need for the proposed improvement: The proposed improvement was analyzed as part of the Best Buy Campus Final Environmental Impact Statement. The analysis showed that the proposed Penn Avenue Bridge is needed to alleviate existing traffic congestion that occurs during weekday rush hour periods. and on weekends. The cost and feasibility of the proposed improvement: The construction cost of the proposed improvement is $21.5 million .based on an engineer's estimate. Funding for the project will include: FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT Federal Highway High Priority Project funds $ 7.40 million Tax Increment Financing funds $ 6.00 million Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan funds $ 6.70 million Minnesota Trunk Highway funds $ 0.15 million Best Buy Company funds $ 1.25 million Total $21.50 million The total cost of the project to the City is $7,400,000. Of this total, $6.7 million will be repaid to the City by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in the years 2005 and 2006. Temporary financing of that cost will be in the form of a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) loan from the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. Interest on that loan is estimated to be $700,000 which will be specially assessed against property owned by Best Buy Company but paid by the HRA pursuant to an agreement with the Company. The project is necessary, cost effective and feasible and should be made as proposed and not in connection with some other improvement. Assessment amount and methodology The amount to be specially assessed is $700,000 which is the interest on the TRLF loan. It is proposed that the special assessments be deferred as permitted by law until August 20, 2006, at which time the TRLF loan is expected to be repaid from the MnDOT Reimbursement. The special assessments will be levied later this year. • • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT Resolution 8 208 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NnuE, Tirr,E LJ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 6945 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 6945 Penn Avenue. III. BACKGROUND ~ The applicant, Dr. Don Johnson (Gentle Dental Care Clinic), is requesting an Off- Street Parking permit for his dental business at 6945 Penn Avenue. The dental clinic parking lot has 12 parking stalls. While the current parking lot meets off- street parking requirements for the dental clinic, additional off-street parking space would be desirable because some of the clinic's employees currently park along 70th Street in the adjoining residential neighborhood. The applicant plans to expand his parking lot by adding 12 new parking stalls for a total of 24 stalls. The applicant has passed site plan review with staff, where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site plan: The parking will be adequate relative to anticipated need. • Adequate traffic control devices and safety features have been incorporated into the design of the parking lot. 08130SPpermit.doc • Adequate traffic control devices and safety features have been incorporated into the design of the parking lot. . . Loading and unloading areas and dumpster enclosures are adequate. • Stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping are adequate. • Screening of the adjoining residential properties is adequate. • The impact on nearby streets and intersections will be negligible. Employee parking on 70th Street will be eliminated. • The impact on adjacent properties will be positive, especially since neighbors have requested that off-street parking for employees be provided. • The parking lot meets parking lot standards, including matters such as drive aisle width, stall dimensions, setbacks, and the provision of handicapped spaces. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION The proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare. Furthermore, in conjunction with the rezoning request related to this project, the Planning Commission voted to approve this proposed new parking after it held a public hearing and reviewed this proposal. A. POLICY • Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in City Code section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have an adverse effect .upon the public safety or general welfare of the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A ID. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. • V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council Resolution • Site Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. Don Johnson, applicant, Gentle Dental Care Clinic. n RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 6945 PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an Off-Street Parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6945 Penn Avenue, legally described as: Lot 10, Block 10 Woodlake Highlands and Lots 13, 14, and the south 14 feet of Lot 15, Block 10, Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the requested Off-Street Parking permit has been reviewed by staff and meets city requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the Off-Street Parking permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of . Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That an Off-Street Parking permit for 6945 Penn Avenue is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the site plan entitled "6945 Parking Expansion, Concept E", dated May 25, 2001, and drawn by the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • D.Johnson, DDS, Richfield, MN May 25, 2001 0 90 QOtt Hoisington Kaegler Group, Inc 6945 PARKING EXPANSION - CONCEPT E • ~ ~ *"•~` • STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # ] REPORT # 2 Q ] CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Right of Entry Agreement between Dr. Donald Johnson and the City of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize execution of the attached Right of Entry Agreement. III. BACKGROUND I Dr. Donald Johnson is in the process of seeking Council approval for his purchase of 64 feet of City-owned property north of his dental office at 6945 Penn Avenue for the purpose of building a new parking lot. He needs Council approval of the rezoning of the property, division of the lot, an off-street parking permit, and the land sale. Though all these matters will be on the Council agenda of August 13, it will be several more weeks before the rezoning is effective according to Richfield City Charter provisions. Mr. Johnson needs to begin the process of removing a very large tree before the contractor can begin parking lot construction. Mr. Johnson is seeking an early right of entry provision to begin work on the parking lot immediately after the August 13, 2001 Council meeting if the Council should approve all matters related to this parking lot. This will allow all the work to be completed this fall prior to freeze-up and the beginning of the snow season. If Mr. 0813rightofentry Johnson has to wait for the full waiting period, the completion of the lot this fall could be jeopardized. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is City policy for the parking needs of a business to be provided in an off-street parking lot. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There is always the chance that, for some unforeseen reason, the closing could be delayed or the sales transaction could fall through. In this case the prospective buyer may not pay the contractor for the work that has been done. Therefore, the City needs protection in the form of a Letter of Credit that could be used to pay for contract work done on the site. This Letter of Credit, in the amount of $30,000, is a condition contained in the agreement. C. FINANCIAL • The Letter of Credit will protect the City against any monetary claims of a contractor. D. LEGAL • The agreement and Letter of Credit follow the form used in similar past agreements and has been approved by the City Attorney. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the Right of Entry Agreement. • Modify the Right of Entry Agreement. • Delay consideration of the Right of Entry Agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Right of Entry Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. Johnson and his attorney. RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the day of , 2001 by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic ("City") and DR. DONALD JOHNSON d/b/a Gentle Dental. WHEREAS, Dr. Johnson has asked for and received approval from the Richfield City Council to rezone property at 6933 and 6939 Penn Avenue to C-1, and WHEREAS, the Council has-approved a lot division for 6933 and 6939 Penn-Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Council has approved an off-street parking permit; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to sell Lot 14 and the south 14 feet of Lot 15, Block 10 of Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve that objective, Dr. Johnson has requested that the City permit him to enter upon the above described property for the purpose of performing certain activities ("Site Work") as hereinafter described in advance of the closing on the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the request and is willing to permit Dr. Johnson to enter upon the Property to perform the Site Work prior to closing subject to and in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained. . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises hereinafter contained, the sufFiciency and adequacy of which the parties hereby acknowledge, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Contract. 2. Effect on Contract. This Agreement shall not be deemed or construed in any way to i) alter or modify any of the requirements, conditions or circumstances which must be satisfied or occur prior to closing; ii) suggest that such requirements have been satisfied or occurred; iii) create any obligation on the City or right to Dr. Johnson to any extension of time to close or waiver of any preconditions to closing under the Contract. The parties agree and understand that in carrying out the activities permitted hereby, Dr. Johnson proceeds at his own risk that he will not close on the purchase of the Property; and as a result lose the benefit of such activities. 3. Riaht of Entry. Subject to the limitations and preconditions hereinafter provided, the City hereby grants to Dr. Johnson the right to enter upon the property to perform the tree removal, grading and utility and related work and to do all things reasonably necessary and convenient in connection with carrying out such work. 4. Preconditions. The rights to be granted hereunder shall not be granted until all of the following preconditions have been met: • (a) The parties agree to follow the site plan included in the off-street parking permit approved on August 13, 2001. (b) Dr. Johnson provides the City with an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $30,000. 2 (c) Dr. Johnson furnishes the City with evidence of insurance policies in amounts and containing coverages reasonably acceptable to the City. • 5. Letter of Credit. (A) The Letter of Credit described in paragraph 4(b) shall be in a form acceptable to the City and shall serve as security for the following obligations: (a) Dr. Johnson shall pay and satisfy any claims by contractors or materialmen involved in the Site Work; (b) Dr. Johnson shall reimburse the City for any site protection work which is necessary as a result of the Site Work in the event that the sale of the Property does not close; (c) Dr. Johnson shall reimburse the City for the replacement cost of any trees which are removed in connection with. the. Site-Work. in the-event that the Property does not close; (d) Dr. Johnson shall reimburse the City for staff and consultant expenses and costs incurred in connection with allowing for the early start; (B) The City shall be entitled to draw upon the Letter of Credit in the event of Dr. Johnson's failure to perform any of the obligations described in paragraph 5A but only following 30 days prior written notice of such failure form the City to Dr. Johnson. (C) The Letter of Credit, or underdrawn portion shall be released upon the happening of the following: (a) closing on the Property between the City and Redeveloper; and (b) after September 20, 2001. • 6. Indemnity. Dr. Johnson hereby indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to defend the City of Richfield and their respective officers, agents and employees from any claim of whatever nature occasioned by or arising out of the Site Work. 7. ~ Term. The right of entry shall commence upon the date on which all of the preconditions have been satisfied and Dr. Johnson has obtained his permit and shall terminate on September 21, 2001 unless this agreement or the closing is extended by the mutual agreement of the parties. 8. Limitations. The right of entry shall be subject to the following limitations: 9. Value. In addition to the understandings contained in Paragraph 2, Dr. Johnson further acknowledges that in the event closing of the Property does not take place, he shall have no claim for any value, which the Site Work may add to the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its DR. DONALD JOHNSON By Its 3 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by Martin J. Kirsch and Samantha Orduno, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by Martin J. Kirsch and Samatha Orduno, the Mayor and City Manager of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota. • • • AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT Public Hearing 6 206 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of property to Dr. Donald Johnson for the creation of a parking lot adjacent to 6945 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of property at 6933-37 Penn Avenue to Dr. Donald Johnson for the creation of a parking lot adjacent to 6945 Penn Avenue. III. BACKGROUND ~ The properties at 6933-37 Penn Avenue, along with five others in the block, were purchased for the creation of a stormwater pond because they were subject to seasonal flooding. Not all of the property was needed for the stormwater pond. The City attempted to develop the north and south 84 feet of the property for residential uses. However, this proved to be infeasible. Subsequently, this issue was brought to the City Council, which directed staff to sell the southerly 64 feet of the site to Dr. Johnson who owns the dentist's office at 6945 Penn Avenue and reserve the rest of the site for increased stormwater storage in the future. 08131andsale6933penn Staff then began the process of negotiating a sale price with Dr. Johnson. The 8,544 square feet property was appraised by BCL Appraisers. The appraisal was reviewed by Donald Hennessey, review appraiser, and Larry Miller, Hennepin • County Assessor. It was determined that the value of the property was a little less than $5.00 per square foot if it was going to be used for a parking lot. A final selling price of $40,000 was negotiated with Dr. Johnson. This action is one of several approval actions needed to build the parking lot. Dr. Johnson is also requesting a subdivision waiver, rezoning, -and off-street parking permit. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is City policy to provide off-street parking for cars so that adequate plowing of snow can be done in the winter months. • The acquisition and disposition of the property does not conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the area. • On September 25, 2000, the City Council directed staff to negotiate with Dr. Johnson concerning the sale of the adjoining lots for parking purposes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The negotiated purchase price is fair according to the review appraiser and Hennepin County staff. The $40,000 purchase price is also more than was offered by the housing developer who was previously interested in the site. The land proceeds will be used to make landscaping and capacity improvements to the stormwater pond. D. LEGAL • A legal notice of public hearing was posted in the Sun-Current, August 1, 2001. • The sale to Dr. Johnson requires a public hearing and second reading of the attached transitory ordinance. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S) ~ • uo not to sell the proper ~y. • Direct staff to negotiate a higher sale price. V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS ~ • Transitory Ordinance VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • BILL NO. '~ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (6933-37 PENN AVENUE SOUTH) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized. to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lot 14 and the south 14 feet of Lot 15, Block 10 of Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 6933 and 6937 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this 13th day of August, 2001 by the Richfield City Council. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk .: AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # 205 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion:. Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue. III. BACKGROUND ~ The applicant, Don Johnson (Gentle Dental Care Clinic), is seeking to create a parking lot to the north of his business-the Gentle Dental Care Clinic-located at 6945 Penn Avenue. A parcel at least 64 feet wide is needed to accommodate a new parking lot. The applicant plans to purchase from the City the 50 foot parcel at 6937 Penn Avenue, and the 14 southerly feet of the parcel located at 6933 Penn. Because only 14 feet of the parcel at 6933 Penn is needed for the parking lot, the applicant is seeking to have this lot split into two parcels. The applicant will purchase the southerly 14-feet while the City will retain the remaining portion and use it for the storm water pond to the north. Because the lot split will create a parcel that is smaller than the minimum requirement, a subdivision waiver is required. If the subdivision waiver is approved, both the 14 feet from 6933 and all of 6937 will be joined with the applicant's existing lot (6945 Penn) to create one parcel. 0813Subdivision.doc This project entails four separate steps: a rezoning from `R' (single family residential) to `C-1' (neighborhood commercial); a subdivision waiver; a sale of land S from the City to the applicant; and an off-street parking permit. • The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and the required rezoning and voted to recommend approval of the rezoning. The City Council approved a first reading of the rezoning at its meeting. on July 9, 2001 and is scheduled to hold the public hearing and second reading on the rezoning at the August 13 meeting; • If the rezoning is approved, the City will then consider granting this subdivision waiver; • If the subdivision waiver is approved, the City will then consider the sale of all of 6937 Penn Avenue and the 14 southerly feet of 6933 Penn Avenue to the applicant; • Lastly, the City would then consider granting. an off-street parking permit to the applicant for the new parking lot. 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, because the. resulting 14-foot wide parcel will be joined to the adjacent parcels to the south and will be owned by the applicant. Similarly, the resulting 36 foot wide parcel will be joined to the parcel to the north and will be owned by the City of Richfield. • The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal at a public hearing and has voted to approve the related rezoning for this project. C. FINANCIAL • The City will realize land proceeds from the sale to Dr. Johnson. (Specific information related to the proceeds of this sale is included in a separate staff report for tonight's meeting.) D. LEGAL • N/A. 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. ATTACHMENTS • City Council Resolution • Site Plan • Survey of proposed parcel VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. Don Johnson, applicant, Gentle Dental Care Clinic. • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER 6933 PENN AVENUE 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 6933 Penn Avenue, legally described as: Lot 15, Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is legally described as: Parcel A: The southern 14 feet of Lot 15, Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. Parcel B: The northern 36 feet of Lot 15, Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel A will be joined with the adjoining property to the south so that the resulting Parcel A from the subdivision waiver will comply with Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B will be joined with the adjoining property to the north so that the resulting Parcel B from the subdivision waiver will comply with Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and 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 A and Parcel B; 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 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • 6945 PARKING EXPANSION -CONCEPT E ^. ^..~' D.Johnson DDS Richfiel MN d, May 25, 2001 0 90 60it Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc U) c- ~~ CJ .J idd IDip 7/t mr10! M .££.i0.0D S r ----~ rte---~ v v ~ < n ° a- ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~~ '~3 ~ 6 q § J W'UI N pp ~.d i T ~ Ltd ~ ~ 9 ~;8 ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 c~ ~1 V a v ~ s.5 y~ B ~:~ ~ ° 0~3 ~ .5 9 Z ~ p C y~~ Z W N < ~ V .~. D 7' O C '~! r ~ ~ ~ Sl G~ ', •JI ~ v o _ ~ ~ c _ C ~ gg '~ L '~ 3 C ~ ~y T! ~ ~ p ~ •S ~ ~ ~t ~ OC ~ ~ 3 °o e.~ eJ 9 y _ ~p O p C'S r` V ~ ~ ~ ~'E ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~, '~C '~ ~ p ' ~ ' ~3 ~ r. u Z ~ ~" ~ e j~ c ~ '~r_ c = .7.,G ~ ~ c L'II J C 4 - 5 ~ Z ~ 3 = ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ rj y,~' ~ ~ ~ ~ z Q ~ N ?~^ 4 _e~~ ~~ c~ , W ~j ~i Z ~ 33~~E5sa ^N ~ ~-' ,^ O ^ ' C O ~1 ` h V' 7=/J ~ ~~~ 'r E ~ ~_ Y~ K L C aNP' S v; S G ~ " 7 ^ ~ ~ ~ W ~ g$ U C~ ~~ CC'~', C'~i I I1 I 0 0 3 D ~ --00'rLL~ ~~ 3 .LL,1000 N ~l2H~! ~' N.t1 tSd • AGENDA SECTION: pt~hl i H ring AGENDA ITEM # 4 REPORT # ~ n /~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~~ BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of the attached ordinance amendment rezoning the parcel at 6937 Penn Avenue and the 14 southerly feet of the parcel at 6933 Penn Avenue from R (single family residential) to C-1 (neighborhood commercial). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance rezoning the parcel at 6937 Penn Avenue and the 14 southerly feet of the parcel at 6933 Penn Avenue from R to C-1. • III. BACKGROUND I The Gentle Dental Care clinic is located at 6945 Penn Avenue, on the northeast corner of Penn and 70th Street. The parcel on which the clinic is located is zoned C-1. While the facility meets off-street parking standards, additional off-street parking space would be desirable because some of the clinic's employees currently park along 70th Street in the adjoining residential neighborhood. North of the clinic, the City of Richfield owns seven parcels on the east side of Penn Avenue. The City is completing a stormwater pond on these parcels. All of these lots are zoned currently `R'. 0813-Rezoning NAME, TITLE • In order to accommodate a parking lot expansion for the dental clinic, city staff have worked with Dr. Don Johnson-the owner of the clinic-to sell one 50-foot lot (at 6937) and 14 feet of a second lot (at 6933) to Dr. Johnson. This additional 64 feet of land is the amount needed to expand the parking lot at the clinic. That portion of the parcel at 6933 which is not sold to Dr. Johnson will be retained by the City and used for the stormwater pond to the. north. In order to sell this land to Dr. Johnson for a parking lot expansion, several steps must be taken, including: rezoning the. land from `R' to `C-1', splitting the lot at 6933, selling the land, and granting an off-street parking permit. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Planning Commission recommended approval after holding a public hearing and reviewing this proposal at its June 26, 2001 meeting. No neighbors or property owners spoke against this request. • City Code requires that a petition be signed by "owners of at least 50 percent of the land within 350 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned". 24 of 41 property owners within 350 feet signed a petition stating that they support the rezoning to allow the expansion of the parking area for the dental clinic. • The Planning Commission found the rezoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to improve the quality of life on adjacent residential parcels and allow for adequate plowing of snow and street maintenance on 70th Street. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Gentle Dental Care clinic is an existing business. Neighbors in the vicinity of the clinic have voiced concerns about inadequate employee parking at the clinic and the consequent overflow parking that is occurring on the adjoining residential street (70th). The clinic owner is seeking to provide additional off-street parking to address these concerns. • The applicant has passed site plan review and has designed the parking lot expansion in conformance with City requirements for landscaping, parking, screening, storm water management, and other matters. • The applicant has also received signatures from over 50 percent. of property owners within 350 feet of the proposed rezoning, as required by City Code. • The City has sufficient land for both the stormwater pond it is installing along the east side of Penn Avenue between 69th and 70th Streets and for the proposed sale of land to Dr. Johnson to accommodate his business's need for additional off-street parking. r~ U C. FINANCIAL • The City will realize land proceeds from the sale to Dr. Johnson. (Specific information related to the sale of this property is available in another staff report for tonight's meeting.) D. LEGAL • The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. • Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval, after holding a public hearing with proper public and legal notification. • Legal notice was published on August 1, 2001 and mailed notices were sent to property owners and neighbors within 350 feet on July 31, 2001 announcing tonight's public hearing. • A `supermajority' vote is required to approve this request. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the ordinance to rezone the property. V. ATTACPIlVIENTS • Ordinance Amendment • Site Plan for expanded parking lot at 6933-6945 Penn Avenue VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. Don Johnson, applicant. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 2, Paragraph (14) is amended to read as follows: (14) M-8 (NE corner, 70th and Penn) Lots 13, 14, and the southerly 14 feet of lot 15, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition, and Lot 10, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands Addition. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk /~ 6945 PARKING EXPANSION- CONCEPT. E •••*"•~ D.3ohnson, DDS, Richfield, MN Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc May 25, 2001 p 90 dOtt • u AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT Public Hearing 203 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ©' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of a request for new 2001 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Ca ital Cash LLC, d/b/a H 's, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and By Motion: Approve the issuance of new pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Capital Cash LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I 1 U II. BACKGROUND On June 4, 2001, the City received an application and other required documents for new pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Capital Cash LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Hy's Loan Office, located on Washington Avenue in Minneapolis, was originally opened in 1934 by Hy Rosen. Hy's son, Marvin, worked for his father in the mid- 1950's. The business moved to Hennepin Avenue in 1965. In 1973, Harvey 0813Hy'sPawnLicenses Herman joined Marvin and. Hy Rosen retired. In 1987, the business moved to their current location on Currie Avenue in Minneapolis. Harvey Herman gained complete control of the business, even though it was owned by Marvin Rosen. In 1993, Harvey died. Marvin wanted out of the business and gave Harvey's sons, Andy and Jory, the opportunity to purchase the business. Andy and Jory bought the business in 1995. Andy then sold his half of the business to Michael Strauss, who is a long- time friend of Jory Herman. Michael Strauss and Jory Herman currently own Hy's Pawn & Jewelry, 1025 Currie Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN. Michael Strauss currently acts. as president and chief financial officer of the establishment. Jory Herman, Michael Strauss, Andy Strauss, and Dan Burdass are in the process of obtaining Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. This business is currently owned by Hal & Dorothy Krieger, although Mr. Krieger recently passed away and Mrs. Krieger wants to sell the business. Dan Burdass is currently the owner of Bermo Sheetmetal & Plastic Injection Molding, 4501 Ball Road, Circle Pines, Minnesota. Mr. Burdass also currently works at Hy's Pawn & Jewelry in Minneapolis. Andy Strauss is the brother-in-law of Dan Burdass. He also currently works at Hy's Pawn & Jewelry in Minneapolis. • Jory Herman will be 40% owner of the new business and will act as chief executive officer. Michael Strauss will also be 40% owner of the business and will be the acting chief financial officer. Andy Strauss and Daniel Berdass will each be 10% owners of the business. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. Mr. Herman is a member of the Minnesota Pawnbrokers Association and is actively involved in the Automated Pawn System. He also holds pawnbroker, secondhand goods dealer, and precious metals dealer licenses with the City of Minneapolis. He was given a note of appreciation from Lieutenant Phil Hafvenstein of the Minneapolis Police Department for finding an error in the APS Program. A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City. A $5000 bond has been submitted. There has only been one Public Safety contact with Plaza Pawn since May of 2000. This contact was regarding a false alarm. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints regarding this location in the past year. The most recent complaint received was in November of 1999 and was regarding graffitti. The new owners of the business agree to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on July 18, 2001. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for new pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of officers. VI. .PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jory Herman, Owner • Michael Strauss, Owner • Attorney for applicants 1'-'1 ~J • Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's Pawn Officers Jory Herman Owner/Chief Executive Officer Michael Strauss Owner/Chief Financial Officer Daniel Burdass Owner Andy Strauss Owner • • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2I REPORT # ZQ 2 s~,:::: ~„~ ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~•o SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a veterinary license for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc., 1208 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc., 1208 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On July 2, 2001, Ralph Weichselbaum submitted an application for the renewal of his veterinary license for providing radiation treatments on cats. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 12, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Public Safety Department has no police reports or contacts with this address in the past year. However, the Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding this address in the past year. The complaint was regarding broken chairs 0828VeterinaryRadiationTherapyClinic and cardboard boxes in the rear of the building. The applicant was notified and no • further complaints have been received. The veterinary service is located within the same building as Animal Care Clinic. The Public Safety Department has not received any complaints for this address in the past year. The applicant, Ralph Weichselbaum, is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Minnesota and has a history of no complaints with the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine. The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc. 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 Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ralph Weichselbaum • ~J AGENDA SECTION: COI1Serit AGENDA ITEM # 2H REPORT # 201 ~~`~ " .~. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxIUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ®~N ~~~ 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 Woodlake Veterina Hos ital, 6436 L ndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 L ndale Avenue. IL BACKGROUND On July 5, 2001, Woodlake Veterinary 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 July 12, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. n U The Public Safety Department has received no complaints and there were no police reports or contacts for this address during the past year. 0813Woodla keVeterin aryHospital The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Woodlake Veterinary 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 Woodlake • Veterinary Hospital; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Woodlake Veterinary Hospital staff. r~ U AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2G • REPORT # 200 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED. BY CITY MANAGER: 2~' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Animal Care Clinic, 1208 East 66th Street. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Animal Care Clinic, located at 1208 East 66t" Street. II. BACKGROUND On July 5, 2001, Animal Care Clinic submitted an application for the renewal of their commercial kennel license. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 12, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding this address in the past year. The complaint was regarding broken chairs and cardboard boxes in the rear of the building. The applicant was notified and no further complaints have been received. 0813AnimalCareClinicKennelLicense There were no police reports on or contact with Animal Care Clinic during the past • year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. The City has previously issued a commercial kennel license to Animal Care Clinic. 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 commercial kennel license for Animal .Clinic. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2 G REPORT # 19 9 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Lb SLGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a commercial kennel license for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a commercial kennel license for Elaine's Groomin , 7429 Humboldt Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On July 17, 2001, Elaine Berquist submitted an application for the renewal of her commercial kennel license. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 13, ? 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. • The Environmental Health staff has not received any complaints regarding this property in the past year. There were no police reports on or contacts with Elaine's Grooming during the past year. 0813EIainesCommlKennelLicense The City has previously issued a commercial kennel license to Elaine's Grooming. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel 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 commercial kennel license for Elaine's . Grooming.; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2F REPORT # 19 S ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ / .A W ~~ ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~ s - ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On July 2, 2001, Reeta Lincoln submitted an application for the renewal of her residential kennel license. She owns three dogs and three cats. Ms. Lincoln's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received two phone calls in reference to this residential kennel license request. Both calls were in agreement with the issuance of this license. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 2, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. In addition, the animals appear healthy and well cared for. 0813LincolnKennelLicense The Public Safety Department received one phone call regarding this address since 1999. The call was in reference to a fire/medical. The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this address. There have been no Public Safety contacts in the year 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received two phone calls regarding this application. Both calls were agreeable to the issuance of the requested license. Both callers also stated that they never see the animals outside and that they never seem to be any sort of nuisance. • Although this application is for three dogs and three cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council. as policy on July 22, 1991. 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 residential kennel license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Reeta Lincoln • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # ZF REPORT # 19 ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxxISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® n~f G'vy 1 Ge7D SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Brian and Jody Mesko, 7201 Lo an Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Brian and Jod Mesko, 7201 Lo an Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2001, Brian and Jody Mesko submitted an application for the renewal of their residential kennel license. They own three dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Mesko's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received one phone call in response to this residential kennel license request. The caller indicated that they did not have any problems with the applicant and were in agreement with the issuance of this license. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 3, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. 0813MeskoKennelLicense The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this address. The Public Safety Department received four calls to this address in the year 2000. All of the calls were in reference to false alarms. There have been no calls to this. address in 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application. 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 residential kennel license for Brian and Jody Mesko; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis .for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian and Jody Mesko • • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # Consent 2F 196 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Carol n Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2001, Carolyn Kretchmer submitted an application for the renewal of her residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Kretchmer's application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner did not sign the application. Reasons for not signing the application are unknown, as contact with that particular neighbor was unsuccessful. The applicant did state, however, that this neighbor has not signed this application in years. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 17, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. However, the Community Service Officer was not able to enter the home, therefore could not verify any possible odor or feces problems within the home. The applicant stated 0813KretchmerKennelLicense that no one had entered the home in previous years when conducting inspections; therefore, she did not believe there to be any reason to enter at the present time. The Environmental Health Division received two complaints for this address in the previous year. One complaint was regarding cars being left running and the other was regarding an inoperable vehicle. There have been no animal related complaints received regarding this property in the past year. Police received one call to this address in the past year. The call was regarding an animal at large. No police report was taken, therefore, it is uncertain whether the animal at large actually was one owned by Ms. Kretchmer. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify. neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license.. Staff has not received any calls regarding this application. • .Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991 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 residential kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Carolyn Kretchmer .. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT Consent 2F 195 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~.,,_..a ~~b SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahe , 6428 Knox Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Sarah Delon and Tim Fahe , 6428 Knox Avenue South. II. .BACKGROUND On July 8, 2001, Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey submitted an application for the renewal of their residential kennel license. They own three dogs. Their application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received one phone call in response to this residential kennel license request. The caller indicated that they did not have any problems with the applicant, but had concerns about barking. The caller said that barking was not presently a big issue but wanted assurance that it would not become a problem with the issuance of this kennel request. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 3, 2001., There were no apparent problems found at that time; however, the 0813DelongandFaheyKennelLicense Community Service Officer was unable to verify if any odor or feces problems existed inside the residence as they were unable to enter the home. Several attempts were made but they were never. able to make contact with the property owners. The exterior of the property was found to be m immaculate condition with no odors or feces present. The Environmental Health Division has no history of receiving complaints for this address. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received one call regarding this application indicating concern for future barking dog issues. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey l~ u AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY .COUNCIL MEETING • AUGUST 13.,.2001 Consent 2E 194 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: I' ~ U Consideration of a request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for a community event celebration license, with a request for a fee waiver, for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 8, 2001, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. Also requesting a waiver in the City sign ordinance to allow the display of a banner announcing the event. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a community event celebration license for Richfield Visions, Inc., with fee waived, for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 8, 2001, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. Additionally, approve a waiver of the City sign ordinance to allow the display of a banner at the park announcing the upcoming event. II. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2001, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for a community event celebration license for the activities scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park on September 8, 2001. They are requesting that the licensing fees be waived as they are anon-profit organization. 0813CattailDays NAME, TITLE Richfield Visions, Inc. has also asked for a waiver in the City sign ordinance so that they can display their banner at the park to announce the coming of the event up to the date of the event on September 8, 2001. The City's Chief Building Official has approved the issuance of a temporary sign. permit. The City has previously granted this license and fee waiver request to Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Cattail Days celebration. The committee 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. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets requirements for the fee to be waived. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for a community event celebration license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 8, 2001. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2D REPORT # 193 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached final settlement stipulation for 6341 Cedar Avenue. L RECOMMENDED ACTION:. By Motion: Approve the attached final settlement stipulation for acquisition of 6341 Cedar Avenue. IIL BACKGROUND ~ The property at 6341 Cedar owned by Gerald Henz is one of several properties being purchased for the reconstruction of the intersection, bridge, and ramps at E. 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77. The Quick-Take Date for this property was November 30, 2000. The just compensation amount for this project was originally set at $217,000 based on an appraisal by BCL Appraisals. The owner's appraiser was prepared to testify that the value of the real estate was $330,000. After negotiating the price of the property and relocation costs, the parties agreed to a settlement of $301,700. -The condemnation commissioners set a value of $301,700. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has now agreed to a settlement amount of $301,700. 0813henzstipulation Though this amount is more than the just compensation amount, it has been • recommended for approval by the City Attorney and accepted by MAC who is paying for the acquisition. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is the City's policy to accept the settlements on this project if they are accepted by MAC and recommended by the City Attorney. B. .CRITICAL ISSUES • Though the settlement is more than the just compensation amount, it is acceptable to MAC. C. FINANCIAL • The acquisition will be paid by MAC. • Settlement will avoid additional attorney fees and condemnation costs. D. LEGAL • The settlement has been recommended by the City Attorney at Kennedy and Graven. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the settlement and continue negotiating. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter from Robert Lindall regarding final stipulation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • Ke n n ed y G r av en 47u ~'illsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http: / /www. kennedy-graven. tom C~~i p~ ROBERT J. LINDALL Attorney at Law ' Direct Dial (612) 337-9219 *Certified Real Property Law Specialist June 7, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE AND U. S. MAIL Katia Medvetski City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield,. MN 55423 Fax: 861-8974 Perry Thorvig Redevelopment Specialist City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Fax: 861-9749 Allen Dye Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South . Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Fax: 794-4407 Re: City of Richfield v. American Veterinary Medical Foundation, et al. Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2607 Parcel 6 - Henz - 6341 Cedar Avenue Dear Katia, Perry and Allen: This will confirm my telephone conversations of June 6, 2001, with Allen Dye concerning-this matter. Commissioners' hearings were scheduled in this matter to be held all day on June 6 and 7, 2001. Before the hearings began, the owners' attorney, Larry Martin, told me that the owners' appraiser, Ellen Herman, was prepared to testify to a value for the real estate of $330,000. The City's appraiser, BCL Appraisals, was at $217,000. The City's fixture appraiser, Roger Ramberg, had expressed his opinion as of March, 2000 that the immovable fixtures present in the property had a total value of $15,550 (including the owners and tenants fixtures). His revised opinion as of December, 2000, was that the fixtures had a total value of $16,640, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117, the owners are entitled to be reimbursed not to exceed $500 of appraisal expenses actually incurred. They are also entitled to be paid interest at the judgment rate . on the amount by which the damages ultimately determined exceeded the quick take amount.. RJL-198595v1 RC 145-375 *Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association Ltr to Medvetski/Thorvig/Dye • June 7, 2001 Page 2 After substantial negotiations (and telephone conversations. between me and Ken Helvey and Sean Ingvalson of Conworth and between me and Allen Dye), I agreed to. recommend settlement upon the basis of the City paying the Henz Brothers a total. of $30.1,700, including land, building, immovable fixtures, appraisal fees reimbursement, interest and relocation benefits to which the owners maybe entitled. From the City's standpoint, my justification for the settlement amount is as follows: • It compromises the value of the real estate on a 50/50 basis so that it effectively assumes that the corrunissioners entered an amount for real estate half way. between the owners' real estate opinion and the City's real estate opinion. • It assumes the City pays for fixtures based upon the March 2000 fixture amount. • It assumes the City reimburses the owners for $500 of appraisal fees. • It includes $1,200 for interest (arguably slightly less than the amount to which they may be entitled). • It includes relocation benefits of $15,000. With respect to relocation benefits, Larry Martin would justify the owners' entitlement to benefits as follows: Moving expense $ 7,000 Searching expense $ 1,000 Interim storage $ 3,000 Re-establishment expense 10 000 Total $21.000 Conworth related that they have had difficulty from the beginning in obtaining documents confirming the existence of the owners' business in the premises. Larry Martin provided me evidence of the historic existence and operation of the company's business. Most of these documents are from the early 1990's. I called the Minnesota Secretary of State's office and they advised me that the company has not been dissolved. Conworth says that the lower amount of the _ moving estimates which were secured for the owners' equipment indicated an estimate of $4,281. Larry explained that this was because the owners brought back on site some equipment from another location which they also were entitled to relocate and which resulted in the higher moving costs. To date, it does not appear that the Henzs' have identified a replacement business location to which they intend to move. If they did (or when they do), they would be entitled to re- establishment expenses for .physical modifications required to provide the same utility as their previous location and other expenses. Ken Helvey estimated that it would not be difficult for them to establish an entitlement to $20,000 for re-establishment- expenses if they were to relocate. From RJL-198595v1 RC 145-375 Ltr to Medvetski/'Thorvig/Dye June 7, 2001 Page 3 the foregoing, it was apparent that if the owners were to submit a relocation claim and it was contested, there would likely be a dispute with the owners concerning the following: • Amount of moving expenses to which the owners were entitled; • Whether the owners were entitled to be reimbursed for moving-items:whichhad~.or-iginally been located at another location; • Whether the owners had a business which was operating at the subject property; • Whether the business was re-established; • The amount the owners had incurred at the re-establishment address so as to entitle the business to be reimbursed for re-establishment expenses. As alast-minute .condition of the deal, I required and Larry agreed that we exchange appraisal reports. I think this is a substantial benefit to the City because Ellen Herman has been identified by several other owners as their intended appraiser. Receiving her report: in advance will give me an opportunity to review comparables which she may very well use in those other appraisal reports. The commissioners entered their award in the amount of $301,700 consistent with the settlement, but with the understanding that I will hold the award until such time as City Council approval is obtained, if it is obtained. The settlement is subject to City Council approval which I recommend. The remaining hearings were canceled (thereby saving you additional fees of attorneys, appraisers and commissioners). I have prepared a proposed Stipulation Agreement which I have enclosed for your review. It is consistent with the above-described settlement. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, Robert J. Lindall RJL:peb Enclosure RJL-198595v1 RC145-375 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Condemnation City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under Minnesota law, Court File No. CD-2607 Petitioner, vs. STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT American Veterinary. Medical Foundation; William D. Blaine; Airport Pet Hospital & Pet PARCEL 6 Shop,. a Minnesota corporation; Mary Jane Scherling; Holger M. Scherling; Gerald H. HENZ Hagen; Jeannine A. Hagen aka Jeannie A. 6341 CEDAR AVENUE Hagen; Hagen. Floor Covering, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Stephen D. Jensen; Heirs and Devisees of Irene Smith, deceased; Larry Smith, aka Larry D. Smith; Mary Jane Anderson, Richfield Bank & Trust Co.; PEP . ENT,. Inc.; Thorpe Loan and Thrift Company dba ITT Financial Services; CCS Concrete & Masonry; Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Precision Auto Upholstery, Inc., a Minnesota ,corporation; S Jensen Enterprises, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; Robert R. Henz; Gerald J. Henz; Carolyn Casper individually and dba Carolyn Casper Typesetting & Printing; Harold O. Toupin; Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., fka Northwestern National Bank West; Affordable Car Rental, Inc., " a Minnesota corporation; Color Specialities, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, aka CSI; Eller Media Company, a Delaware corporation; Jory Rasmussen; Allison _ Rasmussen aka Alice M. Rasmussen; Century Bank, National Association; Latour Limousine, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Francis - Frederick Boyles, Jr., Trustee for the Boyles Family Trust; Elsie Elayne Boyles, Trustee for the Boyles Family Trust; Theresa McMillan; .Rolland L. Schnacky, dba Rollie's Barber . Shop; John Hagen; Terry Doyle; Bespina .Davis, dba Golden Beach Tanning; Michael Davis, dba Golden Beach Tanning; Adams RJL-198614v1 1 RC145-375 Outdoor Advertising, Inc., a Minnesota • corporation; City of Richfield; County of Hennepin; .all other parties unknown having any right, title or interest in the premises .herein, together with the unknown heirs or devisees, if any, of the parties that may be deceased, and including unknown spouses, if any, Respondents. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of June, 2001, by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, .located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423, Petitioner herein, ("CITY") and ROBERT R. HENZ, 8406 Bloomington Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55425 and GERALD J. HENZ, 8930 Bloomington Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55425 ("OWNERS"). I. RECITALS • 1.01. CITY commenced this proceeding to acquire the real estate located at 6341 Cedar \ Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423, which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property"). 1.02. The above Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Appointing Commissioners with respect to the Subject Property on November 21, 2000, and said Order was filed in the office of the District Court Administrator on November 22, 2000. 1.03. Said Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Transferring. Title and Possession with respect to the Subject Property on November 21, 2000 and said Order was filed in the office of the District Court Administrator on November 21, 2000. 1.04. On February 23, 2001, the City paid the OWNERS $223,640 ("Quick Take Amount") as the City's approved appraisal of value for the Subject Property thereby causing title • and possession of the Subject Property to pass to City, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042. RJL-198614v1 2 RC 145-375 1.05. The Court Appointed Comrnissioners issued their .award of damages due to the taking of the Subject Property on June 6, 2001, in the amount of $301,700. • 1.06. The CITY has reached agreement upon the: total amount of damages to be paid to OWNERS in final settlement of .all of OWNERS' claims as a result of the taking of the Subject Property by CITY and desire that this Agreement. describe the terms of said settlement. IL AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, their mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the. , parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 2.01. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are made a part of this Stipulation. 2.02. Total Damages. CITY and OWNERS agree that, if there is no appeal from the issuance of said Award, CITY shall pay OWNERS total damages due to the taking of the Subject Property and to extinguish all claims of OWNERS of $301,700 ("Settlement Amount"), including land, building, fixtures, interest, appraisal fees and relocation benefits, less the Quick Take Amount previously paid. CITY shall pay the remaining portion of the Settlement Amount ($78,060) to OWNERS within fifteen (15) days following expiration of the appeal period after filing of the Award. The Award shall be filed promptly following City Council approval of this Agreement. 2.03. Waiver of Claims. In consideration for the payment by CITY of the Settlement Amount, OWNERS waive any and all claims they may have against CITY in connection with CITY's taking of the Subject Property, including but not limited to damages, interest, attorneys fees, appraisal fees, relocation benefits, costs and disbursements to which OWNERS may otherwise be entitled or claim to be entitled. OWNERS agree to indemnify CITY for any damages awarded to Carolyn Casper pursuant to the appeal of the Award. RJL-198614v1 3 RC145-375 2.04. Right to Further Proceedings. CITY and OWNERS hereby waive all further • hearings, proceedings and appeals in this matter except as either may elect in order to enforce or carry out the provisions of this Agreement or to respond to any other party who appeals the Award. 2.05. Continency. This Agreement is contingent upon the approval of the City Council of the City of Richfield. - OWNERS CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Robert R. Henz Samantha Orduno, City Manager Patricia Henz Gerald J. Henz Marilyn Henz • LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. By: Larry D. Martin 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431-1194 (952) 835-3800 ATTORNEY FOR ROBERT R. HENZ AND GERALD J. HENZ STATE OF MINNESOTA } ss.: • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN J RJL-198614v1 RC145-375 4 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED By: Robert J. Lindall, #63277 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)337-9219 ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD On this day of June, 2001, before me, a Notary Public within for said County, • personally appeared Samantha Orduno to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, each did say that she is the City Manager of the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on its behalf. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss.: COUNTY OF The foregoing. instrument was acknowledged before me this day of June, 2001, by Robert R. Henz. and Patricia Henz, husband and wife, therein named. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA • ss.: COUNTY OF .The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ by Gerald J. Henz and Marilyn Henz, husband and wife, therein named. Notary Public day of June, 2001, RJL-198614v1 5 RC145-375 EXIiIBIT A • Parcel6 (P.LD. No. 25-028-24-22-0007) (Abstract) Property Address: 6341 Cedar Avenue, Richfield,. MN. Leal Description of Property and Description of Talon;;: - Lot 11, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps or gores, appurtenant thereto. Names and Description of Interests to be Acquired • • Name Nature of Interest Robert R. Henz Fee Owner Gerald J. Henz Fee Owner Carolyn Casper individually and dba Carolyn Cas er T esettin & Printin Tenant City of Richfield S ecial assessments Count of Henne in Real estate taxes All other parties unknown, together with unknown heirs or devisees ands ouses, if an Any right, title or interest in the Subject Pro ert Notwithstanding the foregoing attempt to identify all interests held by a party named herein, it is Petitioner's intention herein to acquire or encumber all interests owned by the named respondents in the above-described real estate. RJL-198614v1 RC145-37~ ~_ A-1 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2C REPORT # 19 2 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Nanrs, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase and installation of a Demand Control Generation System for Public Safety/City Hall from Ziegler Power Systems. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and authorize the purchase and installation of a Demand Control Generation System from Ziegler Power Systems for $220,000. III. BACKGROUND In recent years Public Safety/City Hall has experienced several power outages. It appears this trend will continue. The present back-up generator for Public Safety/City Hall is obsolete and undersized. After a preliminary study done in 1999 by Kaeding & Associates, an electrical engineering consultant, it was decided the best course of action would be to replace the existing system with a generator that could power the entire Public Safety/City Hall complex. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars was appropriated in the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget and the project was bid. Three bids were received. Ziegler Power Systems was the lowest responsible bidder at $220,000 base bid for equipment and installation and $240,000 for equipment, installation and afive-year guaranteed maintenance contract. Due to an irregularity in the alternate bid, staff recommends we accept the 0813CHgenerator $220,000 base bid and take quotes on a maintenance contract for the equipment . after it is installed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Ziegler Power Equipment was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The present generator is undersized, obsolete and hard to obtain parts for (it was built in 1963). It also does not meet current codes. C. FINANCIAL • Sufficient funds are in the Police and Fire Fund and Special Revenue Fund to cover this purchase which is in the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. D. LEGAL • The bid opening, held on July 31, 2001, was in accordance with legal requirements. Ziegler's alternate bid did not include all maintenance • costs for afive-year warranty due to some ambiguity in the language of the specification. After consultation with the City Attorney, it was decided the alternate bid could not be accepted; however, the base bid for equipment and installation was acceptable. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the base bid submitted by Ziegler Power Equipment is reasonable and responsible. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes and tabulation. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Bid Opening July 31, 2001 9:00 a.m. Demand Control Generation System City Project No. 457-30-649 Bid No. 01-09 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting. was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Demand Control Generation System, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 18, 2001 and the Construction Bulletin on July 13, 2001. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Alternate Bid Base Bid Ziegler Power Systems Yes $240,000.00 $220,000.00 Shakopee, MN Gopher Electric Contractors, Inc. Yes $295,645.00 $236,885.00 Coon Rapids, MN Vinco Inc. Yes $284,215.53 $234,823.53 Forest Lake, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the August 13, 2001 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk n • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING r AUGUST 13, 2001 CONSENT 2B 91 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: L._I CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATI N: Consideration of conducting a City Council meeting on Monday, August 27, 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel. the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, Au ust 27 2001. III. BACKGROUND ~ The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Monday evening of each month. Items for the August 27 Council meeting can be carried over to September 10, 2001. Therefore, it is suggested that the regular Council meeting scheduled for August 27 be canceled. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Council business can be carried over to September 10, 2001. • This item has been placed on the August 13 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the meeting is canceled. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl • Do not cancel the August 27 Council meeting. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0813cancel • ~J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 2A REPORT # 19 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: SALLY MORTON, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SER S DIRECTOR NAME, LE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ j- ~! ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Purchase of computer software licenses. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase of Novell software licenses and maintenance from Software House International in the amount of $19,173.64. II. BACKGROUND A portion of the City's computer network uses the NetWare operating system and ZENworks management software from Novell. The City must purchase licenses and pay an annual maintenance fee to use this software. At the present time the City is not current with payment for these items. This purchase will rectify this situation. Novell has a contract with the State of Minnesota that offers deeply discounted prices on these licenses and maintenance charges. The City of Richfield is eligible to purchase from this contract and has been for several years. In 1999 the terms of the contract were renegotiated and licensing procedures changed. The City filed the required new enrollment forms to continue its eligibility to purchase under this contract with Novell. The City continued to receive software updates and bulletins as expected but ceased receiving invoices for the license and maintenance fees. 0813Novell Despite repeated attempts to rectify this situation, no invoices were received for two years. Earlier this year the contract was renegotiated again and new resellers assigned to the contract. City staff was able to get the attention. of a Novell contract compliance representative and have agreed on a fair determination of the number of licenses and annual fees owed to Novell by the City since the mix-up occurred in mid-1999. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is the City's policy to comply with software copyright laws and licensing requirements. Because the City has used and plans to continue to use software from .Novell, payment of the license and maintenance fees owed is required under the terms of the software license. B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • Because staff was aware of the billing omissions, the Information • Technologies Fund budget includes funds to make this one-time catch-up payment. The City owes $11,998.62 for licenses used and maintenance during previous years; $6,004.80 for the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002; and $1,170.22 sales tax, for a total of $19,173.64. • This purchase can be made directly from Novell or from a designated reseller. Either way, the cost to the City is the same. Staff recommends that the purchase be made from one of the new designated resellers, Software House International. Their sales staff provided valuable assistance to City staff in resolving this matter. D. LEGAL • Copyright laws require that the City comply with the terms of the software license. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACFIlVIENTS • None. • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None.