Loading...
07-09-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD 6335 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Open house with the public Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD 6335 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. • AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Roll call Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of June 25, 2001 PRESENTATION • 1. Presentation of proclamation designating National Therapeutic Recreation Week in Richfield, July 8-14, 2001 2. Council discussion items Notes: 3. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to • three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 scheduling Special City Council meeting on September 5, 2001 and September 6, 2001 (if necessary) to review and discuss 2001 Revised/2002 Proposed budget and preliminary tax levy S.R. No. 161 B. Consideration of approval of two year lease between City of Richfield and Tom Price for rental of 4,690 square foot strip of land along edge of Lincoln Field S.R. No. 162. Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing to consider request by URS/BRW, Inc., consulting company designing . Penn Avenue bridge over I-494, for exemption to Richfield's noise ordinance from January 2002 to October 2002, 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays Staff Report No. 163 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding Xcel Energy agreement to bury overhead utility lines adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield and requesting collection of unfunded costs from Richfield ratepayers; approving plans, ordering project and authorizing ad for bids for moving sidewalks away from County roadways adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield Staff Report No. 164 Notes: RESOLUTION 8. Consideration of resolution authorizing condemnation of 1601 West 75th Street for widening of 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue project • Staff Report No. 165 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of parking, building improvements and land uses at Gramercy Park Staff Report No. 166 Notes: 10. Consideration of approving plans, ordering project and authorizing ad for bids for demolition of building needed for Penn Avenue bridge over I-494 Staff Report No. 167 • Notes: . 11. Consideration of amendment to design consultant agreement with URS/BRW, Inc. for Penn Avenue bridge project Staff Report No. 168 Notes: AIRPORT AND LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 12. Airport and legislative status report Notes: COUNCIL CHOICE Notes: C, 13. Claims and payrolls 14. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. • • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 1 h R STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING C] JULY 9, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NA/M~E,~TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ G' v REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of an amendment to the design consultant agreement with URS/BRW, Inc. for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amendment to the existing consultant agreement with URS/BRW, Inc. for. several design changes made to the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project. Also, approve an amendment to the consultant agreement to perform remaining tasks or to award of construction contract. n ~J III. BACKGROUND -- Council .approved a consultant agreement with URS/BRW, Inc. on July 10, 2 or $1,071,359 to design the Perin Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project. The agreement with URS/BRW requires prior approval by Council of major increases in the scope of work. The project has increased in scope since then and the City of Richfield has requested that additional work be performed as part of the design. The engineering consultant, URS/BRW, has asked for two amendments to the agreement, (1) for work already performed and (2) for remaining work needed prior to awarding the construction contract in August. 0709ConsultAgmtAmend URS/BRW has performed admirably under an unprecedented time frame and successfully delivered the design documents on time. Significant changes in the scope of the project were necessary and URS/BRW quickly made the changes to maintain the tight time schedule. However, the work exceeded the original contract amount approved by Council without obtaining prior authorization by Council. The following major tasks were performed by URS/BRW, Inc. but were not in the original scope of work (attached letter from Gary Ehret of URS/BRW provides a detailed explanation of increased costs): • 1-494 Mainline Improvements and Related Impacts This work increased the design costs by $400,000. • Penn Avenue. Bridge Closure Options and Evaluation of Public Impacts This resulted in increased design costs of $100,000. • Relocation of Public and Private Utilities This item resulted in an extra $100,000 in design costs. • Right of way Acquisition Services An additional cost of $75,000 was incurred by URS/BRW. • MnDOT Related Design Additions and Modifications These changes increased design costs by $300,000. • Other Items Miscellaneous tasks such as building a bridge model, writing articles for City newsletters, conducting open houses resulted in additional costs of $150,000. The delay in making this request is due to consultant error. City staff is recommending that the Council approve payment for the above work already performed. The total amount recommended by City staff is $200,000 less than the actual costs URS/BRW incurred and reflects the City's need for advance notice for any major cost increases. At the same time City staff recognize that URS/BRW successfully completed the design on time even though they were under severe time constraints. Therefore, the amount submitted for Council approval is $925,000. URS/BRW has requested an additional $90,000 for remaining work needed to be performed prior to awarding the construction contract. Staff is recommending approval for this additional work. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The plans for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project have been kept on a tight schedule to meet the city's obligation to the Best Buy Company. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • URS/BRW failed to notify the City in a timely manner that an increase in their design budget was needed as described in the City's agreement with URS/BRW. • URS/BRW could have waited for City approval before spending funds in excess of approved amounts; however, this would have delayed completion of the bridge design that was on a very tight time schedule. • The design was complex, involved revisions to many technical comments provided by several agencies,. and the scope of the project increased over time. C. FINANCIAL • The Penn Avenue Bridge Project has budgeted a 10% contingency of $2.0 million for unexpected increases in cost. This contingency should be used to pay for some or all of the increased design costs. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to discuss legal aspects of the City's agreement with URS/BRW. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council. may choose to request additional information before resolving this issue or reduce the amount of compensation for work already performed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter dated June 29, 2001 from Gary Ehret of URS/BRW. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gary Ehret of URS/BRW. • June 29, 2001 Mr. Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 RE: Contract Amendment(s) for Design at Penn Avenue Bridge Over I-494 City Project: 401-30-521 URS Project No: 33897-036 Dear Mr. Foley: This is a long overdue written request to amend our original design contract for the Penn Avenue project to more accurately reflect the required URS effort to complete this project as directed and guided by City staff. It is our belief and our understanding that City staff concurs, that URS staff have made every effort to provide high-quality service, expertise and guidance on this project. This project has taken twists and turns like few others over the last 12 months since our original contract was approved. It is extremely complex and has required an intense labor effort to keep the project on schedule. The original contract scope and budget did not and does not accurately reflect the required fees to design the project and provide the City of Richfield the services that have been requested since the inception of the project. Based upon the effort requested, and required to date to keep the project on schedule, URS has significantly exceeded the original design budget. We have made every effort to contain and control costs to the highest degree and hope that you concur that URS staff effort to make this project a reality has met your expectations. We are requesting staff and City Council consideration of a fair contract amendment(s) for this project. Further description and justification of tasks completed as requested and changes in scope which have significantly impacted our original contract are described below: COMPLETED WORK Scope Changes: I-494 Mainline Improvements and Related Impacts, Analysis and Design As the project design proceeded, the involved agencies (Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, Bloomington and Richfield) made some design and implementation decisions that resulted in a number of mainline I-494 construction impacts. Key objectives of these decisions were: Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 2 • Implementation of final construction of the center median bridge pier for the Penn Avenue Bridge to avoid temporary pier construction. • Minimize total time frames for construction to meet the project schedule. • Reduce construction phasing complications due to temporary construction. • Provide alternative access for the public to Southtown businesses. URS staff proceeded with the planning, analysis and/or design of the following items related to the I-494 mainline: A. Xerxes Off Ramp (Eastbound). The project now includes an interim ramp at Xerxes Avenue off of I-494 eastbound to facilitate the project planning and public acceptance of full closure of the bridge at Penn Avenue. A westbound off ramp to Xerxes Avenue was also studied, discussed and eliminated from consideration. B. Traffic bypasses were designed to allow construction of the final bridge pier in the median of I-494. C. Permanent improvements to I-494 were designed for future I-494 expansion and to work with the new center median bridge pier. This required extensive design, soils analysis for I-494 construction, geotechnical exploration, surveying and very complicated traffic control, signing and construction phasing documents. We estimate that these items account for about $400,000 in additional fees. 2. Penn Avenue Bridge Closure Options and Evaluation of Public Impacts URS staff worked with the involved agencies to design and evaluate the alternative methods of construction to reduce short- and long-term public cost, maximize public safety during construction, and create the construction process most capable of completing the construction in the shortest possible timeframe. The result of this analysis was a decision to proceed with full closure of Penn Avenue. In order to facilitate public acceptance of this decision, URS staff prepared exhibits and were active participants in numerous public meetings in Richfield and Bloomington to explain and justify the logic of this decision. URS staff completed over 100 plan sheets identifying the phasing, staging, traffic control and traffic signage for the project so as to minimize impacts to the public, maximize the contractor work zones, and tighten the schedule to meet the City's criteria for the project schedule. Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 3 URS staff with the approval of Richfield staff, and at the request of Bloomington staff, conducted traffic impact analyses at several roadway intersections in Bloomington to assess the full effects of a Penn Avenue closure during construction and respond to the concerns of the public (particularly Southtown businesses). We estimate that these items account for about $100,000 in additional fees. Relocation of Public and Private Utilities Mn/DOT's policy for Interstate and Trunk Highways requires elimination, wherever possible, of public and private utilities within the mainline corridor and substantial rerouting of utility lines to meet Mn/DOT's requirements and avoid the future construction of the bridge resulted in the design, coordination and negotiation of numerous unanticipated utility conflicts. Right- of-way requirements changed several times because of the utility issues. We estimate that these items account for about $100,000 in additional fees. 4. Right-of--Way Acquisition Services • URS staff have spent numerous hours providing documents, legal descriptions, right-of--way definition, field surveying and other right-of--way services to assist the City of Bloomington, City of Richfield and Mn/DOT in the acquisition of all properties necessary for the project. Services beyond our original scope have included: • Multiple revisions to official right-of--way maps for preservation of right of way. • Numerous meetings with Dominium for acquisition of their property including afour- legged intersection scenario (Racquet Court Acquisition) and athree-legged intersection scenario (Racquet Court remains). • Coordination of right of way with Opus/Mn/DOT for the Best Buy site. • Numerous permanent and temporary easements for utilities, retaining walls, sidewalks, etc. • Several alternatives for the TCF parcel in Bloomington. We estimate that these items account for about $75,000 in additional fees. 5. Mn/DOT Related Design Additions/Modifications Coordination with Mn/DOT staff and assignment of design responsibilities changed during the course of final design. Additional study and design services were assigned to URS that originally were believed to be unnecessary or Mn/DOT's responsibility when our contract first was approved. These are summarized as follows: • Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 4 Signal Justification Report The original assumptions presumed that a signal traffic justification report would not be required (signals already in place). Both Hennepin County and Mn/DOT required SJRs which URS staff prepared. Signal Plan and Specifications The original contract did not include traffic signal design plan preparation or specifications. URS completed design of a very complex signal system. As you are aware, the entire process of planning and developing the signal system structural system was also very complex, time consuming and difficult. URS completed this project as requested and required. Aesthetic Design Mn/DOT made the decision that this structure should "set the tone" for the I-494 Corridor. URS staff spent months participating in design review meetings to determine aesthetic treatments for the bridge abutments, walls, railings and deck. Final decisions were then incorporated into the project plans and specifications. ~hting Design URS completed design for street lighting along Penn Avenue (Mn/DOT did I-494 lighting). • Retaining Wall Design URS designed retaining walls with specialty treatments exceeding the typical design requirements associated with Mn/DOT standard plates, as requested by the Aesthetics Design Committee. Si~nin Pg lans URS completed signing plans including overhead structures after Mn/DOT decided that they could not complete the work. T.M.S. Coordination URS staff worked closely with Mn/DOT traffic management staff to coordinate installation of traffic management systems into the design of the on-ramps to I-494. Design changes resulting from multiple reviews and conflicting design criteria and opinions from Hennepin County and Mn/DOT after design was underway or complete required substantial negotiations or changed design. Most significant to note are: Mn/DOT and Henn~in County Coordination The magnitude and complexity of the coordination with these agencies was immense. As you are aware, the normal Mn/DOT process to bring a project to completion takes several years. This project did not have the luxury of that time frame so we created the technical design group to facilitate timely decision making. URS staff attended, Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 5 conducted and presented at these meetings as well as preparing review materials, presentation materials and meeting minutes. Ramp Layout and Alig~ents Numerous design revisions were made to the ramp layouts (particularly Ramp D) trying to meet changing Mn/DOT and Hennepin County design criteria and trying to complete the staff approved layout. These changes required multiple horizontal and vertical alignment submittals and utilities revisions. We estimate that these items account for about $300,000 in additional fees. 6. Other Items Other smaller scope tasks were requested of URS staff as the project proceeded. These tasks were critical to informing the public, listening to their concerns, and evaluating design options to minimize cost, maximize safety, and meet the project schedule. These, are. summarized below: Open Houses(s) and Tenant Meetings URS staff played a key role in preparing materials and attending numerous meetings with the • public including several open houses, and property owner meetings as well as preparation of meeting notices, minutes and presentation materials. Bridge Model URS' prepared a model at the request of staff for the open houses and for use with the public and council. Newsletters URS staff reviewed and assisted in preparation of newsletters and other pieces of communication to the public. An additional factor which has resulted in the escalation of our design fees above our original contract was the change in construction cost of the project. The original fee estimate was based upon a construction budget of about $15 million. The project as completed is estimated to have a construction cost value of about $20 million. This has affected our fees for plan and profile production, and quantity take-offs and schedules (more plan sheets, etc.). A final factor which played a significant role in our required fee efforts was the tight time frame. URS staff worked extensive amounts of overtime (time and a half) and even some holiday time (Christmas/New Years at double time) to meet the project schedule. In particular this occurred between mid December and mid March. This was a result of delayed design decisions and design changes well into the project. We estimate that these items account for about $150,000 in additional fees. Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 6 REMAINING TASKS Scope Changes: As noted in our previous letter of May 25, 2001 we are requesting a Contract Amendment for work not yet performed. The remaining tasks are necessary to be completed through the August bid letting period prior to construction. A restatement and summary of these is offered below. In order to assist the City and continue the project through the bidding of the project, additional supplemental tasks are required. We are requesting an amendment to our contract for these tasks yet to be completed: 1. Central Office Changes Final agreement and plan and specification comments need to be completed when received from Mn/DOT. Most notable of these anticipated changes is a change to the Mn/DOT 2000 specification which is a change made by Mn/DOT from the 1988 specification AFTER completion of the plans and specifications. 2. Environmental Assessment and Building Demolition • URS staff need to complete final environmental assessment (Phase I, II and Hazmat) and plans and specifications for the Demolition of the Citgo Gas station, Century Court Racquet Club, and Hyundai (Demolition Only). Environmental remediation and demolition is being completed through a separate construction bid package. 3. Ongoing Right-of-Way_Acquisition Services URS staff have been asked (but have not performed) supplemental services for the acquisition of right of way. An example of this is the City of Bloomington request for field staking of the new right of way for TCF for condemnation commissioner field viewing. 4. Bidding Period Services URS will assist the city through the bidding period issuing addenda, assisting with conducting the prebid conference, bid analysis and other required tasks. 5. Final Permits URS Staff will assist others to complete required permit applications. 6. Private Utility Relocations Close coordination and continued pursuit of Reliant, Qwest and the other private utilities will be critical to keeping the project on schedule. Mr. Thomas Foley • June 29, 2001 Page 7 We estimate that these items will require about $90,000 to complete this work. LJ • FEE REQUEST SUMMARY It is very difficult to establish a task by task budget for the "extra" work completed to date. However we do have accurate records of all total personnel hours, and subconsultants expended to date. We used our record to estimate the cost of the tasks identified in the previous section. In addition we have attempted to estimate remaining hours to complete the project through award of the contract expected in mid August including direct expenses which we expect to be significant for printing and issuance of plan sets to bidders given the size of the plan and specification documents (800+ plan sheets). The following summary describes our original contract amounts, our fees by task described above, and our estimated fees to complete the project through award of bid. Please note that this does not include URS services of any kind in the construction phase. We should begin discussions regarding construction phase services soon so that we can coordinate your expectations of us with those services to be provided by MnDOT. Fee Summary Estimated Cost Original Contract Amount Completed Work-.Scope Changes $1,071,359 1. I-494 Mainline Improvements $400,000 2. Penn Bridge Closure Options $100,000 3. Relocation of Public and Private Utilities $100,000 4. Right of Way Acquisition Services $75,000 5. MnDOT Related Design Additions/Modifications $300,000 6. Other Items $150,000 Subtotal Completed Work $1,125,000 URS Fee Reduction $150,000 Actual Request $975,000 Remaining Tasks 1. Central Office. Changes 2. Environmental Assessment and Building Demolition 3. Ongoing Right-of--Way Acquisition Services 4. Bidding Period Services 5. Final Permits 6. Private Utility Relocations Subtotal Remaining Tasks $90,000 Fee Request $90,000 Total Amended Contract Amount $2,136,359 Mr. Thomas Foley June 29, 2001 Page 8 As always, we have appreciated the tremendous faith you and the City of Richfield have had in the URS staff and look forward to a mutually acceptable resolution to this issue. Please let me know your schedule and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further. Thank you. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Gary A. Ehret, PE Vice President cc: Penny Lohse -URS Kim Schaffer -URS • Sabri Ayaz -URS Nancy Hanzlik -URS • ,] STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 16 ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, T/TLE • REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ 6/~ SIGNA !Rli REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~--~-~'- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to .approve plans, order project and authorize ad for bids for demolition needed for the Penn Avenue Bridge. _ I. RECOMMENDED. ACTION: By Motion: Approve plans for demolition of a building needed for the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 and authorize staff to advertise for bids. III. BACKGROUND ~ Council approved plans for the Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 on June 11, 2001. In order to begin the bridge work as early as September 1, 2001, the City's design consultant for the Bridge Project has recommended issuing a separate contract for demolition of one building in Bloomington. The building is the Metro Hyundai Service Center, 2115 Southtown Drive, in Bloomington. The City of Bloomington has already purchased the property for the Bridge Project. C7 The site needs to be cleared so the contractor for the Bridge Project can begin immediately in September, 2001 on the Metro Hyundai site. Advertising for Bids The City's consultant, URS/BRW, believes the cost of the work may require the City to advertise for bids. Therefore, City staff is requesting authority to approve the proposed 0611 PennBridgePlan demolition work and authorize staff to advertise for bids. The advertisements will be published in early to mid-July 2001 with bids opening on July 23, 2001. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 is consistent with the proposed reconstruction of I-494 and has been identified as a high priority capital improvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan. • The Developer's Agreement between Richfield and Best Buy contains language that commits the City to replace Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494. • The Best Buy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies the existing Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 as deficient and in need of replacement. The work contained in this plan mitigates the negative traffic impacts identified in the Best Buy EIS. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary right of way property and easements have already been acquired. • To maintain the schedule for the redevelopment in the area formerly known as Interchange West, the timing of the construction of the Replacement of Penn Avenue Bridge Project is critical. C. FINANCIAL • The project is contained in the adopted 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. Funding comes from three principal sources: $14 million from the Best Buy Company ($7 million of tax increment financing bonds and a grant of $7 million); $8.5 million ($6.7 million in a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) loan; $148,000 in State Trunk Highway funds, and in-kind staff contribution for construction administration valued at $1.52 million; and, (3) $7.4 million of Federal High Priority Project funds. Total project costs are $29.9 million of which construction costs are estimated to be $2.1.5 million. D. LEGAL • The City Attorneys have reviewed the funding agreements needed to finance this project and have been engaged in the negotiations for acquiring the property needed to build the project. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could direct staff to not separate the demolition work from the rest of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. However, this will delay work on the Penn Avenue Bridge. The City has obligated to make the improvements in support of the Best Buy development. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known of at this time. • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 16 6 -' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING L' JULY 9, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r~' BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NaME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of parking, building improvements, and land uses at Gramercy Park. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm that additional parking and building improvements proposed for Gramercy Park are consistent with the previously approved Planned Unit Development Plan and the Conditional Use Permit, including the incidental hair styling services for Gramercy Park visitors. III. BACKGROUND ~ The City Council is being requested to review, discuss, and make a recommendation about the existing Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Gramercy Park given the following additional background information about off-street parking, building improvements and on-site hair styling. Gramercy Park, located at 6711 Lake Shore Drive, opened in Fall 2000. There have been numerous reported parking concerns: 0709GramercyPark BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME. TITLE • High attendance special events have crowded the Nature Center parking (Gramercy Park, VFW, and Nature Center events). • Daily visitors park at the Nature Center and cross Lake Shore Drive to their intended destination. • Parking signage is poor, causing misdirection. • There is no established cross walk at Gramercy Park to assist pedestrian movements across Lake Shore Drive. • Hair stylists at Gramercy Park, in receiving outside clients by appointment, have appeared to add more parking demand. • More parking by handicapped permit only is being requested. • There is a continual perception of poor project planning and inadequate parking. These concerns were the basis this spring for a detailed parking analysis with an independent consultant. Walker Parking Consultants of Minneapolis and Indianapolis are the largest planners, designers and builders of structured parking in the United States. They were responsible for the parking structure at Mall of America. Our report (demand and supply analysis, hourly and seasonal presence, and quadrant by quadrant analysis of downtown patterns) has established a basis for present and future parking considerations. As it relates to Gramercy Park and adjacent areas: • • Higher density development parking options (structured and shared parking) are being introduced where surface parking habits and preferences remain strong. • There is plenty of parking. Parking issues relate to quality of parking spaces (parking convenience) rather than quantity of spaces. • "Way finding"; access, signage, and ease of identifying parking options are the primary reason for conflict. • Gramercy and VFW visitors need identifiable entrances at the rear of the present buildings to better connect to parking which is most directly adjacent. • "Wood Lake Visitors Only" signage will improve usage and reduce conflict at the Nature Center. Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation staff have collaborated with F.O.W.L., the Community Services Commission, Gramercy Park, Gramercy Corporation, Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to determine the following responses. Exhibit A and B provide additional detail. To summarize: • Corrective signage has already been installed at the Nature Center. • The HRA has authorized the temporary leasing of property at 709 Graham Avenue (directly behind and north of Gramercy Park) to provide approximately 16 additional surface parking spaces. Gramercy Corporation, on behalf of Gramercy Park, would install and pay for: providing a paved, stripped parking surface; adding an entrance door with security features, canopy, sidewalk and lighting at the northwest corner of Gramercy Park; making similar improvements to the rear entrance to the VFW; improving signage and security at the rear of thebuilding;. and ensuring no new signage promoting hair styling or other internal services would be added. • • The improvements would be made in early Fall 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council regulates parking and building improvements and uses though the PUD/CUP process. Exhibit C provides the list of PUD/CUP stipulations. Parking and building entrance changes and hairstyling for non-residents is not covered in the stipulations. Proposed changes require review. • Installing the parking and building improvements does not harm the redevelopment potential. • The interim parking facilities (until City Bella is completed) would not be in compliance with all ordinances regulating parking facilities. The paved, well drained spaces would not include perimeter curb. and gutter improvements. Permanent curbing would be installed with the proposed City Bella plans. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Confirmation that sufficient parking spaces are available is not enough if parking is an ongoing concern. • Gramercy Park has requested the proposed improvements to increase visitor parking options and allow continued viability of hair styling services. The HRA supports the improvement. • Parking has been suggested at the adjacent residential vacant lots on Lake Shore Drive. However, the 26 degree slope makes surface parking accessibility and cost prohibitive. This area is designated for housing in the City Bella plan. • A change in parking habits requires more than improvement. If the City Council concurs in the changes, letters would be sent to Gramercy Park residents and VFW patrons would be notified to reinforce new parking behaviors. • Gramercy Park needs to partner with their tenant, VFW, so that parking solutions are implemented cooperatively. Present signage suggests only VFW may use the available parking. • City Bella plans will continue to provide surface parking in the same location presently proposed for additional surface parking. Revised plans for City Bella will prioritize the need for adequate parking. • The proposed plan does not specifically address increasing handicapped permit parking. The loop drive in front of Gramercy Park does not provide sufficient space. Excess underground parking in the Gramercy Park building, adjacent to the front door, could be • considered if security and access were addressed by the Cooperative Board. Gramercy Park has requested the City consider allowing parking on Lake Shore Drive. This will be evaluated further as part of the City Bella plan review. • An additional crosswalk to the Nature. Center should be added as soon as possible for Gramercy Park residents and guests. • • Should the expanded hairstyling to non-residents of Gramercy Park be a concern? Is it a major change in usage? Or is it only an incidental increase to an existing approved hairstyling service? If Gramercy Park was connected to additional new housing and retail development, it would not. be unusual for downtown residents to walk or others to park somewhere downtown and walk to receive hair styling. Resident hair styling is the only approved use in the PUD/CUP at this time. C. FINANCIAL • The costs of improvements are covered by Gramercy Corporation and Gramercy Park without City/HRA expense. • The HRA is leasing the property to be used for parking to Gramercy Park fora $350 monthly fee. The monthly fee covers payment of property taxes prorated to the amount of leased. space that is paved and the market rate value of the land being leased. BCL Appraisal determined the lease amount. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has recommended two acceptable courses of action for the City Council to consider: • 1. Find the changes to be incidental to the approvals previously given for parking, building improvements, and hair styling by appointment. 2. Find the changes to be significant and, therefore, require Gramercy Park to pursue a formal amendment to the previously approved PUD and CUP. • The recommended action is the first option. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Select option 2, above, and request a formal amendment. • Authorize parking on Lake Shore Drive. The engineering firm, SEH, has evaluated traffic quieting measures for Lake Shore Drive and one option is parallel parking pockets along the curb line. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Exhibit A (A-1 to A-6): discussing data, findings, and recommendations concerning parking. • Exhibit B: site plan with new entrance and surface parking additions. • Exhibit C: PUD/CUP stipulations, December 1998. • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mike Conlan, Gramercy Corporation. LJ Gramercy Park Walker Parkinq Study Conclusions 3 Issues are of QUALITY rather than QUANTITY in parking. There is plenty of parking spaces. Quality relates to parking convenience. Users require ease of identification and access to find their way: "Wayfinding" ~ and VFW visitors need to see a Gramercy building entrance from their parking space, both front and back. Wood Lake Nature Center needs their supply "respected"; parking habits were established before the new development with the VFW. All users need greater information and directions to find their way Exhibit A-1 • • • .~L L a V L ,Ln V V .~ Q L a L a .a as as .~ O C ~ 7 '~ ,c c ~ LI ~ 0 0 ` I. o, c o ~ o I - ~ ~~ ~ ! ~. ~ ~ ml~ ~ ~ ~ Q' ~~ > C7 2' ® ^ O', t9 V O d 7 C a O M 00 a O O Q. O O V d O O M d O O N a 0 0 Q 0 O (0 O O O 0 0 0 M p c6 O O N Q ~_ L X W ~ p ~ p u~ v N N ~ ~ • Gramercy Park Review of Parking Requirements p Concept of Planned Unit Development- Shared Parking with multiple users ~ PUD approved in December, 1998 1 underground parking stall per 1 unit a. K ~~ Gramercy has 160 units 1 parking stall per 2 seats VFW has122 seats = 61 parking stalls required. Number of Parking Stalls ^ VFW, lot in front of building 26 Gramercy/VFW rear lot 33 (2 temporarily used for dumpster storage) Gramercy Underground Parking 160 . Proposed HRA lot addition 16 Total Stalls 235 Exhibit A-3 • Gramercy Park ~~.. Parkinq Distances from front door To Woodlake Center parking lot, (including need for traffic crossing) 450'-670' To parking lot at rear of building, 450'-770' ~ , Distance to Lake Shore Drive lot 870 - 1,150' Parkinq Distances from front door To parking lot at rear of building, 70'-240' ^ To proposed H RA lot, 120'-250' • Exhibit A-4 Gramercy Park HRA parking lot addition A 150x20 strip of the HRA property running SE to NW along the edge of the alley would be improved with 2" of asphalt and striped. ~J Gramercy Corporation would pay for installation. The coop will pay a monthly lease. These spaces would remain with City Bella. Since this is interim/temporary improved parking, the paved surface will not include a perimeter permanent curb and gutter until City Bella is completed. • Exhibit A-5 • Gramercy Park HRA parking lot provisions Gramercy Park will be responsible for maintaining the parking area, liability, security and property taxes. An additional pedestrian entrance to Gramercy Park will be installed at the ~ northwest corner of the building. The VFW entrance will be improved. Gramercy Park and VFW parking and directional signs will be added at the alley entrance. No building signage promoting hair styling or other internal services will be added. ~ Exhibit A-6 R~ +..'~"~ c 0 a c U i O O "a (O LL • Q 0 cn m U U Y c ~ R' U ~~ a. ~ ~'; •~ I fi'r' ~ i to v, ~ LO r C O ~ "~ :"~ -~. ~ '~_ '~ O ~°' a'i .~~,~. ~.. ~ j. ~ ~~ Q ~~ LL T .. ~ ~.... ,.. ~~J ~ ~ ~1 {!1 ~~ ~ ;1 ~J Q ~ K ~~ n ~ ~ O rR 5=t iY ~7 C ._ (~ a h i OJ (7S V 0 0 -a c 0 -~- ~ ++~J iL ~ U O 41 O C ~ r I ~ r ca Q ' r 1 ~ o L 1 J ~ - _ -__.. ._.. ~ .. ~ ...~ ,,.~, _.., ~~ r____,~____.______._.__._._._...~ i t ~ , a a Cf] ay W tv J ,-, ti uw C ~---~ EXHIBIT : C t ~ a Community Development ~ '- . 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes Michael Sandahl Russ Susag December 22, 1998 Lou Stocco Gramercy Corporation 7900 International Drive, Suite 210 Bloomington, MN 55425 SusaECT: .Amended Planned Unit Development Plan, Final Development Plan and Conditional'Use Permit for Gramercy Pazk Cooperative, 710 Lake Shore Drive. CASE No. 98-APUD-1; 98-AFDP-i; 98-ACUP-1 You are hereby notified that your application requesting an amendment to the approvals for the Gramercy Park Cooperative to allow a decrease in the building square footage has been APPROVED subject to the following stipulations: . 1. That a final landscape plan, including tree replacement both on and off site, be approved by the ` Community Development Director and a cash escrow subnutted for the cost of the landscaping. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That appropriate measures be taken to ensure that cooking odors from the VFW will not negatively impact future. cooperative residents or other surrounding properties. 5. That the property be replatted. 6. .That final design of the VFW portion of the structure be consistent with .that of the housing portion and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to .,Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. APPROVED by the City Council on December 14, 1998. ~/ _ Bruce.C. Palmborg ~(~ ;~~~~ Community Development Director Copy: Building Official Engineering Supervisor The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9760 • Fax (812) 861-8974 .General City Matters: 861-9700 An Equal Opportunity Employer • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE JULY 9, 2001 RESOLUTION 8 165 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing condemnation of one property on West 76th Street for the widenin of 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue Pro'ect. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing condemnation of 1601 West 75th Street for the Widening of 76th Street from 1-35W to Penn Avenue Prolect• • II. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2001 Council condemned the property at 1601 West 75th Street, known as the Colony Apartments, fora partial acquisition for permanent and temporary easements. The attorney for Colony Apartments noted a discrepancy in the amount of land to be acquired from the Colony Apartments property between the Council's resolution of March 12, 2001 and the parcel's legal description. The Hennepin. County District Court granted a delay in the condemnation to either reach agreement with the property owner or to correct the discrepancy in the condemnation resolution. A Court hearing on the City's petition to condemn the property has been set for July 12, 2001. 0709 Condemnation • Upon the City Attorney's advice, City staff is requesting Council to reaffirm a resolution to condemn the Colony Apartment's parcel. There is no change in the amount of land needed for right of way to widen 76th Street. City staff will continue to work with the owner of Colony Apartments to achieve a voluntary acquisition of the necessary right of way in an effort to avoid condemnation if at all possible. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has the legal authority to acquire private property by eminent domain for a public purpose. • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the 76th Street Widening Project. • Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Condemnation proceedings must be completed soon to maintain the construction schedule for the 76th Street Widening Project from west • of Penn Avenue to I-35W. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for the purchase of the identified parcel needed for the Widening of 76th Street will be provided by the City of Richfield using its Municipal State Aid (gas tax) funds. D. LEGAL • The City's legal counsel, Robert Lindall, has recommended the attached resolution to correct the error made in the previous condemnation resolution of March 12, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve condemnation resolution and property acquisition. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain property for street purposes. • Legal description and map for 1601 West 75th Street. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR STREET PURPOSES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire land needed for public use or purpose; and WHEREAS, the widening of 76th. Street and Penn Avenue and the construction of a .new bridge over Interstate Highway No. I-494 on Penn Avenue ("Project") require that the real estate described herein be acquired to implement the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonable, necessary, proper and convenient, for a public purpose, and in the interest of the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the real estate interests described in Exhibit A attached hereto be acquired in furtherance of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to correct an error in Council Resolution No. 9018 in reference to said real estate property described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the funding and construction schedule for the • Project make it necessary to acquire title and possession of said real estate prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that it is the considered judgment of the Council that the real estate interests described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, be acquired for the stated public purposes and that they be acquired, if necessary, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the City Manager determines that voluntary acquisition is not likely to be achieved upon terms substantially consistent with the City's determination of just compensation after the owner has had reasonable opportunity to consider the City's offer of just compensation, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire said real estate interests by use of eminent domain proceedings, negotiation of early entry authorizations, and the use of the quick take procedure as provided by Minn. Stat. § 117.042, pursuant to the City's approved appraisal of value for said real estate interests as determined in the City Council's resolution establishing just compensation for said property or pursuant to said resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of July 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk . EXHIBIT A Description of Real Property Interests to be Acquired Property Address City and Parcel PID Number Le al Descri tion 4Ra 1601 West 75th Street Legal Description of Property Interests to be Acquired: Fee taking of 2,334 square feet and temporary easements over 8,527 square feet for 17 months. Permanent si n to be removed. Attached • V7/UL/V1 3U: Gti ~bJL Hlt toVl ~~n noow era....... ~~~ • PARCEL NO. 4Ra CITY OF RICHFIELD SEH PROJECT NO. RICHF0007.00 .Taly 2, 2aos. OWNER: ItOP zatuestment Co., LLP 52-QO- .Wi.lsoa Road, #205 Edina, 1~N 5.5424 P.Z.N.: 3302824310002 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1601 7Sth Street West PiOTL: Owaer and_. Proper-ty- Description According to Hennepin County Auditor Records. DESCRIPTIQN OF PROPER~'Y: The South Ralf of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except Highway_ a~zd_ &oads DESCRIPTION Off' EASEMENT: A perpetual easement f.or.roadway and utility purposes ovex', . under, and across that part of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter which lies northerly of the South 33 feet thereof, which lies westerly of the highway r~.ght- of-way Quit Claxm-.Deeded to the City of Richfield as described in Hennepin County Document No. 540982; and which lies southerly of Line A described as•commencing at the southwest corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees-I2 minutes 08 seconds East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South $9 degrees 58 minutes 56 seconds East, parallel with the south line thereof, a distance of 146.b6 feet to the point of beginning of Line A to he described; thence easterly 57.38 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 1,473.33 feet and a central angle o€ Q2 degrees 13 minutes 53 seconds; thence North 87 degrees 47 minutes I1 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 79.04 feet;- thence easterly 39.59 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 2526.66-feet and a central angle of O1 degrees 17 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 secands East, tangent to said'curve, a distance of 40:3 T feet thence North 24 degrees 34 minutes 58 seconds East-27.70 feet; thence North 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds East 65.00 feet, thence South OQ degrees 55 minutes ~l seconds East 16.8 feet more or less to a point an the westerly litre-of said highway right of way • • 07/02/01 10:'L7 0852 81Z Ltlui stn e~aw ~1JVVO, ~~~ and said Line A there terminat~.ng. Together with a temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, and across that part of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter which lies easterly of Logan Avenue, which lies westerly of said-highway right of way, and which lies northerly of Line A and southerly and. southeasterly of Line B. Line ~ is described as commencing at the southwest corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 08 seconds East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 38.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 56 seconds East, parallel with the south line thereof, a distance of 30.00 feet to the paint of begnning.ot Lime B to be described; thence continuing South 89 degrees 58 minutes Sb seconds East, parallel with said south line, a distance of 116.65 feet; thence easterly 57.19 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 1,4683.33 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 13 minutes 53 seconds; thence North 87 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds East, tangent to said curve., a dis-tance of ?9.a4 feet; thence easterly 34.4$ feet along a tangential curve:, concave to the south, having a radius of 1531.56 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 17 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds €ast, tangent to said curve, a distance of 43.24 feet; thence North 24 degrees 34 minutes 58 seconds East 58.22 feet; thence South 89 degrees S$ minutes 56 second$ East 207.00 feet to a point in the westerly-line of said highway right of-way and said Line 8 there-terminating. Except that part of said South Ralf of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quar-ter which lies northerly of the- South 33 .feet ther-eof, which lies westerly of the highway right-of-way Quit Claim Deeded to the City of Richfielc,as described in Hennepin CQUnty Document.No. 540982; and which lies southerly of Line A described as commencing at the southwest corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 08 seconds Eas-t, along the west line thereof-, a_diStance of 33.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 56 seconds East, parallel with the south line thereof, a distance of 146.66 feet to the point of beginning of Line A to be described; thence easterly 57.38 €eet along a tangential. curve,- concave-to the north, having a radius of 1,473.33 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 13 minutc~s~53 seconds; thence Nor-th B7 degrees 4? minutes 11 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 79.04 feet; thence easterly 34.59 feet along a~tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 1526_b6 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 17 minutes 38 seconds; thence North-89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 40.37 feet t2rence ~c~rth~ 24 degz-ses -3~ nsinutes 58 seconds East 27.70 feet; thence North 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds East 65.Qg feet, thence South 00-degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds East • 07102/01 10:27 ZS85[ 81L ZSU1 ann a„uV ~ uv~iuvW . 16.6: €eet more ox less to a point on the westerly Fine of said highway right of way and said Line ~ there terminating. Subject to the rights of the City of Bloomington for utility easement over, under, and across that pax't of said temporary easement which lies within 45.50 feet easterly of the point of beginning of said Line B. For. purpose of this description, bearings are oriented to the Hennepin County Coordinate .System in which the west line of the Southwest Quarter of Sectioxx 33, Township 28, range 24, bears North OQ degrees ~.3 minutes 20 seconds i++Iest. Said perpetual easement: contains 2,334 square feet more or less Said- temFso~ary easements contain 8, 527 ._st~uare feet more or Iess Said temporary easements expiry December 31, 2002. • cn > a r--+ L1J Z > ~ ~ ° ~ _J ~- z ~ oa D w z U ~ Z O NW 07 I..L W Q. w W I- °e ~ O W Z •- ~ OOcn Z LL ~--~ S 0 0 m t ~ ° Q O ~ I Z LL ° >- O U Q I O N , ~ I-- ~ c0 ' = 2 d~ C~ C~ ~ O H H W ~ I I ~_ I --- --- -- ;~1 I _~__J 1 ;i ~ O ~ 1 ~ ° O~ O O~ °r-~ 'c ° ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~.< [] C.~ W ~ z cn ~ i '-' ° I o l ° ~' ~ C W c/') O ~ ~ r CD U W O U a m ,W V ! 0 W O I r--- ~ I I I ,-i I I ~ i I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ `I .--I _~ -_J l..-_ ~ W z I N ~ ~ O ~ O ~ W U z z H H J ~ f ~ X W Lit O M ° W ~ ~ G r--~-- - ---~yl , ~ M ~ I ~ I ' O I N~ I I ~ ' ~- _ _ I ° t ~ ~ I ~T V' I ~ 9 ~ N I ~ ~=--:k;~ ~ I d ~NI~"' _ r~ ~~ --- ------------ I o~ I °IQ °~ ~ O ~ m~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~~ i o~ ° ~ i ~1 I L.C) , ~ ~ ~ ~ C9~' I °IW ~ ------- ~----~z , ~ o ~'~ °f ~~ I , .--~ ~, - --- 0 m s ~~ ~~ w Q ~ ~ V ~ \ ° ~ c a ~ ~- _ a W N -- ° Z ~ w W ~ -- zN z C~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 J N r i W N J ~ _ a w -i r ~m ~w M N = ly.~ = o ° n In F. L~ f ~ Q ~ N m W n. m / ~ ~L.J ~ 7 r U~ Z Z p.~. y~j% OW Z W y=W ~~ W N 0 W i= ~ 2 r a ~ . . o ~- x i~w.o 3 ~ c ¢¢ a ¢ w J~ U K m o0 w LL w ..ppr' . y ~ H Ct2„ „ . x w ¢ owa w w cab `~ w I- a a o. w a I- u z rn Z` 1: II ~ W ~ ~ tD W ~ o ~ W ' I W I I a o ~` , o __ M i ~~ ~ N ° end Nd~o ~_,_ O `~~~-; - -- --- --- --- --- ...- ---•----- •- -°--r- '~0~ a 81.~~,~ ~ ~~ r~ V / ° iwi ~~~/~ z ~ `ti/ H Imo- Q ~ ~ N ~ to O ~ a O _ ~ O W I- J ~--1 f- °° Ln W M Q ~ ~ t-+ v ~ cn li. N w ~ = ao ~ O U N _ ~ c9 I-+ O ~~ ~ Q ~ Q \ ~ J r-I F- ° e ~ ~ o ~ W Z I p F--+ ~ V' ~ ° ~ ~ a. °W ~z of U N ~~ (n (n oR ~~ • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2001 GEORGE L. ATKINSON, REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME; TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: ~~ EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ' N// l J ~ ~- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 16 4 TION: Public hearing regarding Xcel Energy agreement to bury overhead utility lines adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield and request collection of unfunded costs from Richfield ratepayers and consideration to approve plans, order City Project 401-30-518, and authorize ad for-bids for moving sidewalks away from County roadways adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: 1) Approve plans and specifications and authorize staff to advertise for bids for moving sidewalks away from County roads of 66th Street and Portland Avenue adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, 2) approve the agreement with Xcel Energy/Northern States Power Company (Xcel) to bury the overhead utility lines along Portland Avenue from the Water Treatment Plant to the American Legion Club and along 66th Street from 11th Avenue to the Municipal Swimming Pool, 3) authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute said agreement and 4) agree not to object to Xcel's request to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to collect from Richfield rate payers the unfunded cost of burying utilities, estimated at $102,200. 0709underground • II. BACKGROUND The Hennepin County Department of Public Works has created a program that financially assists inner ring suburbs with projects to enhance the beauty and/or safety of County roads. The City of Richfield has proposed using this program to remove the power poles along 66th Street from 11th Avenue to the Municipal Swimming Pool, and along Portland Avenue from the Water Treatment Plant to the American Legion Club. The existing overhead utilities would be buried. The City further proposes using the Hennepin County program to remove the existing sidewalks from the back of curb and replace them with wider, path like sidewalks nine and ten feet back of the curbs. The cost of removing and replacing sidewalks will be funded using a combination of County (20%) and Municipal State Aid (80%) funds. However Hennepin County has stipulated that its portion of the sidewalk costs, estimated at $28,500, will only be paid if the power poles are removed and the utilities are buried. The City may direct Xcel Energy/Northern States Power Company (Xcel) to bury its overhead lines but Xcel has the right to be reimbursed for its costs according to law. Although Hennepin County will pay $69,100 of the estimated $171,300 cost, the remainder in the amount of $102,200 remains unfunded. Xcel would be responsible for the cost, but it might seek to recover the cost from City ratepayers. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, not the City, will decide whether to allow a • surcharge against ratepayers. However, when other cities have requested utilities to be undergrounded along county roads, Xcel has requested .that the cities agree not to object to a surcharge against city ratepayers. It is estimated that an additional $1.95 per month for homes, $5.84 per month for small commercial users and $7.78 per month for large commercial users would retire this debt in three months. This method is legal and is being used, or under consideration to be used, by other cities in the Xcel service area such as Roseville, New Brighton, Maple Grove, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Mound. Brooklyn Park, for example, has completed a project to bury about a mile of utility lines for about $300,000 that Xcel is now collecting from Brooklyn Park ratepayers. The Brooklyn Center City Council, for example, approved City-wide undergrounding in 1990 and recently approved an agreement with Xcel under which the work to underground utilities will start soon and Xcel will collect the reimbursement from Brooklyn Center ratepayers. In New Brighton, the City has ordered undergrounding along a County road but has reserved its right to object to a surcharge against ratepayers, in order to get some financial participation from the county. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Community Services Commission took action on April 11, 2000 • recommending the proposed sidewalk improvements and undergrounding of utilities including using Xcel to collect the unfunded portion of the cost. Staff went to the Planning Commission with this proposal on June 27, 2000. The Commission held a public hearing and then voted unanimously to support the project. However, the Commission unanimously withheld comment on the method of funding the unpaid portion of the cost. One resident and two commissioners voiced the concern that using Xcel bills to assist in funding the burying of utilities could appear to be an additional and hidden City tax. • Staff also asked all adult Richfield residents at the Public Works Open House on May 6, 2000 if they would be willing to add $1 per month to their electric bill for up to nine months for burying overhead utilities near Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Residents voted 76 to 6 in favor of the project and Xcel funding. On April 9, 2001 Council conducted \and closed a public hearing on the funding for burying overhead lines. Council further took action to table action regarding. burying of overhead utility lines and moving sidewalks away from County roads of 66th Street and Portland Avenue adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield and to call for a public hearing when this item is presented to the City Council again. An agreement with Hennepin County is in place so the project can proceed. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has been asked to rule on whether the cost of burying overhead utility lines along County Roads should be collected from rate payers County wide or only from the city • which requests the burying. Since Hennepin County has agreed to fund $69,100 of the estimated $171,300 cost of burying overhead utilities, it is unlikely that Hennepin County would agree to such a countywide collection of costs. The City's agreement not to object to a surcharge does not prevent individual ratepayers from presenting objections to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). • Staff views this decision as an important policy issue. If it approves using Xcel as a funding mechanism for this project, Council will be asked to approve placing overhead utilities underground on other arterial streets in the future. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Although legal and in use elsewhere, allowing Xcel to collect the unfunded portion of undergrounding costs by assessing rate payers could be criticized as being a "hidden" tax on the residents of Richfield. C. FINANCIAL The Hennepin County program was announced in February of 2000. The 2001 adopted Capital Budget includes $300,000 for the project. The revised 2001 Capital Budget will be adjusted to be inclusive for the • following cost estimates: Sidewalk cost: Hennepin County $ 28,500 State Aid $114,000 Utility cost: • Hennepin County $ 69,100 City of Richfield $102,200 D. LEGAL • Xcel Energy/Northern States Power Company (Excel) has the right according to law to be reimbursed for its costs to bury its overhead lines. To date local community ratepayers have funded the reimbursement to Xcel in communities where the work has been done. However, there is a possibility the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) may decide the ratepayers of a county rather than an individual community will be responsible for the reimbursement. Should the PUC make such a decision prior to agreements for the work being finalized, the cost to Richfield ratepayers would be reduced. • The City Attorney will be available for discussion at the meeting. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could request changes to the Xcel agreement and/or request changes to the plans for relocating sidewalks. • Council could consider an alternative source, such as the general fund rather than City ratepayers, for funding the balance of cost for burying utilities. The general fund was used by City Council for funding the removal of overhead lines during the reconstruction of 77th Street • The City Council could order undergrounding and reserve its right to object to a surcharge. In other cities, however, Xcel has taken the position that a city cannot order undergrounding along a county road and has refused to underground absent the city's agreement not to object to a surcharge. The City Attorney believes that cities may order undergrounding along county roads, but also believes that it may require litigation to resolve the issue. V. ATTACHMENTS • June 2000 Your City article regarding placement of utilities underground adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. • Photograph illustrating what the Portland Avenue side of Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield will look like with sidewalks moved and power poles removed. • A photograph of a board that shows the public vote on the question of increasing Xcel ratepayer fees contribute toward funding the placement of utilities underground adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. • Xcel Energy statement of work requested to bury overhead utility lines adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. VI. PxINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. Wouid,you support a Veterans Memorial Parkfree of overhead utility wires if it cost you $9 in one year? The Planning`Commission vvili hold a public hearing at 7 p.m., June 27, in the City Council Chambers in City :Hall, to consider: a plan to bury overhead utility wires in two locations around the park. Utilities vvouid be buried along Portland Avenue between the Crosstovvn to-near 65th Street, and on 66th Street betvveen Oakland and 11th Avenues. Because of available funding sources, the only additional costs to. NSP residential customers in Richfield would be $ T permonth for nine months. That extra charge ors monthly electric bills vvoufd help reimburse NSI' for relocation costs. Richfield's NSP commercial customers would pay an extra $3 to $4 per month for nine months. Anyone with comments is encouraged to attend the public .hearing, or if you have questions, contact George Atkinson at 612-861-9191. n U Current:Partland Avenue ~'roposed Portland Avenue c~ _ zz w ~ ..~ ~ w ~o ?>= c~ o z W i~---1 ~ ~~ "'~, ~''*r~. '~ ~._ ¢ f`x ~ ~~ ~, 2 m ~ ~ ~ ` J ~ ^ S ~T ~1 p.I i~l r ,..~ a ~ ~ AS a rr„~~ d~,. ~t~„ ~ E- Z Z O ~~ ~:r :# a, ~ ~ ~~~ a ~ ~ W O = W ~ i.-I ~ e „~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ LL Q ~ m U y~n wJ ' ' ~~ ,a~ ,{w r~,. ~` ~ ~ ~ H W `"'~'~ ~-1 0~ ~'~° ;k~~~ ~~ r mom, Z Z W "'~ ~ i ~ '~ ~V 4. ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ `~ r ~^,~~,T~~r~= t ~ W r~TT Fyl ~ O > n. 0 ~ Y O f5~~, ~ C ~ L ~~ ~ W > ~ . ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~r9 ~ J ~~l/1~ vJ O M• ~„~ ~ ~ ; Irv ~ ~ ~ w Z ~~r 4 ~~ q ~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ o Y J ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ IL^L ~y * ~ 4 '~i LL m ~ • T~ u ^ ~, [~~// U ~. _ ., ~ F. y~~zn ~ ~ ~ ~.prtYYp a 1~ O a ~A ~ , `~~ .' ~ t ~ ~ i.` `s W - ~Y- s. r *r -/ ~ ~` yy nh~ . r ~e W W x a ~' J ~ °+ ~,f fs iq, ~ ~ ~ Z W ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~ t ~ . (•.e~ ~ i ! Q ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J }'~ ~/ < ~ - E - Yo ~i~ i ~ ~ . e'1 ~ ~~ , ~,. , O M '~ 1 ~. n n LL „~ ~ ev.+V~.x"y ~~ ~ 3 ~j C.~ - _ W_ tt 3 ~ ~ #~ ~ /~/~~ , t g'~ .~ ~ V.l ', n ~{~ rt 'na ":. .~ P }9~''' y,. • ~. ~ ~ "'~ ~ ~ • ~..s r..w ...ri ~.. :1: ~ f ~, t rid /'1, Yrrt 1++~~ -~M r ~ ~~ Iii ~ ~'' v a.^w w.~ w•• '..r r...~ ,~...~ f~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~1 l~~ M~1 ~ M~1 "j ~!"'~ :J: .,. r :~+ N 1. .. :..' .., ... ,~ .~- ,... av :• .,. ;. s r ~ ~' N ~ ~. :+. v wr w .r. ,~ ..-+ l ': ~.. r. ~. ~, ~ ~ :!: • ~,i ^ ;'~ ._.. ..,, ~.,~ .r. ;. ... .+.. v ~ i .` ~J ~' ~ ~"1 rr .~... ...r .~... ~. ~` W ~N ~ ~.. Ywf r~ ~~ `^-. ~r Vy ~ r~~ ~, ~ ~~ W ~ •~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i~~ `-~' ~J J ~y y /r ;?: STATEMENT OF WORK REQUESTED Fom, ~~ao,~ ~i~.oo) • NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DATE: May 16 2001 WORK REQUESTED BY City of Richfield WORK TO BE AT 66th Street and Portland Avenue ADDRESS 6700 Portland Avenue Attn: George Atkinson Richfield, MN 55423 CONSISTING OF: Replacing overhead electric distribution lines with underground cable adjacent to Vetems Memorial Park along Portland Avenue and East 66th Street. ~J The faalities installed or removed by the Company shall be the property of the Company and any payment by customer shall not entitle customer to any ownership interest or right therein. The undersigned hereby requests and authorizes Northern States Power Company to do the work described above, and in consideration thereof, agrees to pay One hundred seventy one thousand three hundred dollars and 00/100 ($ 171,300.00 ), in accordance with the following terms: $69,100 at beginning of construction. and $102,200 surcharged to Xcel customers in Richfield Credit Approval Receipt of the above amount hereby acknowledged on behalf of NSP by NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Customer City of Richfield BY BY NSP Representative Roger Johnson Division 17 IR# NSP Proj. No. PORTRCFCA9 Const $ 171,300.00 Rem. $ Maint $ Qper. $ Transf. $ Total $ t7t,3~.o0 ORIGINAL -DIVISION ACCOUNTING COPY -CUSTOMER COPY -DIVISION DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING • AGENDA SECTION: public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 16 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • ' .TULY 9, 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 NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing to consider a request by URS/BRW. Inc. (a consulting company which is designing the Penn Avenue bridge over I-494) for an exemption to Richfield's noise ordinance from January, 2002 to October, 2002 and from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the request. by URS/BRW, Inc. for an exemption to Richfield's Noise Ordinance allowing work on the Penn Avenue bridge between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays from January, 2002 until October, 2002. • III. BACKGROUND ~ As part of the agreement with Best Buy, Inc.,, the City agreed to reconstruct the Penn Avenue bridge over I-494. The City has further agreed (with the South Town. business owners) to limit the time the Penn Avenue intersection is out of service to the months from January, 2002 to October, 2002. In order to construct the new Penn Avenue/I-494 interchange, including some minor work at Xerxes Avenue and I-494, within the agreed upon time constraints, it is 0709PennNoiseEx anticipated that the contractor will utilize double shifts. Double shifting will, in turn, require more working hours than are allowed by Richfield's Noise Ordinance unless • an exemption is granted. Tight time constraints and the resulting double shifting are the basis for this ordinance exemption request. In addition to the above obligations, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has placed the following limits on the project: • Temporary lane closures (on I-494) will not be permitted between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. • Work that will restrict or interfere with traffic shall not be performed between 12:00 noon the day preceding and 9:00 a.m. on the day following any consecutive combination of a Saturday, Sunday .and legal holiday. It is expected there will be occasions when the contractor will need to restrict lanes on I-494 for hauling, unloading, milling, placing the pavement surface, and occasionally for work on the bridge. These operations will require the use of heavy equipment that will include back-up bells and will have to be done after 8:00 p.m. and before 5:00 a.m. Because a contract for this work has not been awarded, it is impossible to grant an exemption now for nighttime I-494 lane closures. Noise exemptions for the more infrequent and intermittent nighttime I-494 lane closures will be handled administratively by staff as they are requested. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has agreed to construct the Penn Avenue bridge over I-494 within tight time constraints, MnDOT has further tightened the schedule by placing daytime restrictions on lane closures. It is, therefore, anticipated that the contractor will require this noise exemption to complete the work in the time allotted. The City of Bloomington is proposing to grant a temporary exception to the City of Bloomington Noise Code for the Penn Avenue/I-494 interchange improvements as outlined above. Persons interested in commenting on the proposed Bloomington exception should direct comments to Larry Lee, Director of Community Development, by Friday, June 29, 2001. Section 930.35 of the City Code indicates that if the requested variance will last for a period of more than 15 days, it shall be granted or denied by the Council after hearing. To that end, a notice of the July 9, 2001 public hearing was published by the Richfield Sun- Current on June 27, 2001 and mailed notice of the Council hearing was provided to property owners and property occupants within 500_ feet of the noise source. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Noise could become a nuisance to residents living near the project. • If the requested noise ordinance exemption is not granted, it is highly- questionable whether the contractor can finish the project at all, much • less, finish on time. • In the past, Noise Ordinance Exemptions have been granted; on a task by task basis, only for one to a few nights at a time and have been issued administratively. Because of the long duration of the requested exemption, Council is being asked to consider this request. C. FINANCIAL Without an exemption to the ordinance, it is a certainty that the contractor's bids will rise. D. LEGAL There are no legal issues known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to grant this request; however, it is questionable whether the contractor can complete the project on time. • A decision to not grant this exemption will lead to higher bid prices. • Council could refer this issue back to staff and require that Noise Ordinance Exemptions be issued on a task by task basis; however, this would greatly increase the time staff spends on these issues and, thereby, increase project cost and take time away from other tasks. V. ATTACHMENTS Letter of request from URS/BRW, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. • ~~~~ • • °.'`, ~ ~. Ms. Samantha Orduno City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Ricl~u eld; ~: 55423-2599 May 29, 2001 RE: Noise Ordinance Variance Request Penn Avenue Bridge Reconstruction Project Richfield, MN Dear Ms. Orduno, ~. ^^,~„ This letter is to request a variance to-the City of Richfield Noise Code for the above referenced project. The project location is at the interchange of I-494 and Penn Avenue with additional minor work at Xerxes and I-494. The project is scheduled to begin construction in September 2001 and complete in July 2003. This schedule includes closing the Penn Avenue interchange from January 2002 to October 2002, and having the Xerxes temporary off ramp from EB I-494 to Xerxes Avenue open to traffic while Penn Avenue is closed. In order to accomplish the aggressive construction schedule, it is anticipated that the contractor will be utilizing double shifts between the months of January 2002 through October 2002. The work includes grading, drainage, aggregate base, bituminous pavement, concrete pavement, bridge, retaining walls, signing and striping, T.M.S., lighting and signal systems. Based on the current Richfield noise ordinance, the construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM on Saturdays. I am requesting these hours of operation be increased to include 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue .Interchange. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has placed the following limits on the project. "Temporary lane closures will not be permitted between the hours of 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Work which will restrict or interfere with traffic shall not be performed between 12:00 noon on the day preceding and 9:00 AM on the day following any consecutive combination of a Saturday, Sunday and legal holiday." It is anticipated that the Contractor will occasionally restrict the traffic lanes on I-494 for hauling, unloading, milling operations, placing the pavement surfaces, etc. These operations will require- the use of heavy equipment that will include back-up bells. Therefore, I am requesting a variance to allow for this work also. Please contact me at 612 373-6322 with any questions you have regarding this request and to notify me when these variances are granted. Sincerely, URS/BRW, INC. Nanc~y~Hanzlik, PE Project Manager cc: Tom Foley, Richfield; George Atkinson, Richfield, file 33897-036 Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone:.. (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 • STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # SB REPORT # 16 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ --~~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~ _ ~; ~!~ 0 ~ q ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the attached two-year lease between the City of Richfield and Tom Price for the rental of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached two-year lease between the City of Richfield and Tom Price for the rental of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field. II. BACKGROUND Mr. Price, owner of the Woodlawn Terrace trailer court, has leased the northern ten feet of Lincoln Fields for many years. The lease is for atwo-year term, however, it also indicates that the City may cancel the lease by written notice (90-day notice if the City determines a need to use or modify the land and 180-day notice for any reason). 0709 tom price lease • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has had this arrangement with Mr. Price for many years and it has never created a problem. • The arrangement is revisited every two years. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City does not_have an immediate need.for the land, although that may change with the commencement of Phase II of the Ballfield Replacement Plan at Lincoln Field. C. FINANCIAL • Mr. Price and City staff have agreed upon an amount of $1,400 for the two-year lease. D. LEGAL • The attached lease agreement is identical to the one approved two years ago, which was reviewed by the City Attorney. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the two-year lease with Tom Price for the strip of land at Lincoln Field. V. ATTACHMENTS • Two-year lease between the City and Tom Price. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD .HARMLESS AGREEMENT • THIS INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of July 26, 1999 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and THOMAS PRICE, an individual residing at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423.("Price"). RECITALS A. Price is the owner of a tract of land which is legally described in the Property ID number 34 028 24 32 0015. ADN UNPLATTED 34 028 24. METES/BOUNDS DESCRIPTION: THE S 5 ACRES OF THEN 10 ACRES OF NW 1&4 OF SW 1&4 AND THEN 4 FT THAT PART OF THE NW 1&4 OF SW 1&4 LYING S OF THE N 10 ACRES THEREOF EXR R R&W ANDTHE ROAD ("Price Property"). B. The City is the owner of a parcel of land which is legally described in the Property ID number 34 028 24 32 0025. ADN UNPLATTED 34 028 24. METES/BOUNDS DESCRIPTION: W 468 68/100 FT OF E 493 68/100 FT OF THAT PART OF THE S 20 ACRES OF N 30 ACRES OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF THEN 4 FT THEREOF ("City Property"). C. Price is desirous of obtaining permission from the City to utilize a portion of the City Property in conjunction with the mobile home park which Price operates on the Price Property.. This portion consists of the northern ten feet of the City property from the east to west boundaries, approximately 4,690 square feet. • D. The City is willing to permit such use in return for Price's agreement to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City and to fulfill the other obligations contained herein pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENT 1. Offer and Acceptance of Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of This Agreement, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the City and Price agree that Price may use the City Property for the period commencing on August 1, 2001, and terminating July 31, 2003 for a fee of $1,400.00 payable in two installments of $700. Payment one is due immediately and payment two is due August 1, 2002. 2. Maintenance and Repair. Price shall, at his own cost and expense maintain and repair City the Property and shall at all times keep it in compliance with regulations of the City. The City shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the City Property. 3. Indemnification and Insurance. (a) Price shall at all times defend, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, servants, and employees from any and all claims for damages and other remedy, • including but not limited to costs and attorney fees, arising from or by reason of the maintenance, use, and repair of the City Property. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. (b) -Price, at his sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of $1,000,000 bodily . injury, including death, per person; $1,000,000 bodily injury, including death, per occurrence; and $500,000 property damage per occurrence. A certificate of insurance evidencing compliance with this Agreement shall be provided to the City by Price. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy described herein, and such policy shall contain a stipulation that Price's insurer will provide thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of such insurance to the City. The insurance shall be carried by solvent and responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. 4. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) Any titles of the several Paragraphs of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. (b) Any notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (i) in the case of Price, is addressed to or delivered personally to Price at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, and (ii) in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at the Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing • and forward to the other as provided in this Paragraph. (c) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. (d) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Price and the City with respect to the City. Property and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties on that subject. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing signed by the parties. (e) The City may terminate this Agreement: (i) if the termination is based upon health, safety or the need to make modifications within the City Property or by Price's transfer or sale of the Price Property, by the giving of 90 days written notice to Price; or (ii) otherwise by the giving of 180 days written notice to Price. The termination shall be effective at the end of such notice period, at which point neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder, except that Price's obligations under paragraph 3 shall survive. Price shall remove all structures from the City Property and restore the City Property to its previous condition not later than the effective date of the notice. (f) Price agrees to make no claim against the City for damages which Price may suffer as a result of the City's termination of this Agreement. (g) Except as specifically set forth herein, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt Price from or waive the application of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation. (h) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as abandonment of the City Property by the City or as any relinquishment of any right the City may have with regard to the Property. Price • specifically acknowledges and agrees that its construction and maintenance of the Property is at the sufferance of the City and subject to the City's right to terminate such use in accordance with the provisions in paragraph 4(e) hereof. (i) In the event that the use of the City Property under this Agreement renders the City Property taxable, Price agrees to pay, .before penalty attaches, all ad valorem property taxes or other similar taxes levied against the City Property. (j) This Agreement may be extended by the parties from time-to-time and upon such terms as they shall mutually agree to. (k) No new structure shall be erected on the City Property without the prior written consent of the City; and, Price shall not use the City Property for any purpose other than in connection with the mobile home park without the prior written consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Price and the City have executed this Agreement this 9th day of July, 2001. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch Its Mayor And Samantha Orduno Its City Manager • Thomas Price • AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # • REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2001 CONSENT CALENDAR 5A 161 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER ,SIGNATURE n U REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of scheduling Special City Council meetings for review and discussion of the 2001 Revised/2002 Proposed Budget and setting the preliminary tax levy. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the dates of September 5, 2001 and September 6, 2001 (if necessary) as Special City Council meetings to review and discuss the 2001 Revised/2002 Proposed Budget and preliminary tax levy prior to certification to the County on September 15, 2001. U II. BACKGROUND Each year the City has held a Special City Council meeting to discuss. the upcoming budget and tax levy before adopting the preliminary levy. The meeting provides an opportunity to present the key initiatives, issues and financial impact of the Proposed Budget and Tax Levy. These meetings are televised to the public. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION r 0710Budget • A. POLICY • City staff is now in the .process of preparing the draft 2001 Revised/2002 Proposed. budget. Included in that draft document is the proposed preliminary property tax levy for the City. and for the Richfield HRA. The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be adopted by the local units of government and certified to the County Auditor on or before September 15 each year. • In order to review the draft budget document with the City Council prior to the September 15 deadline, it is necessary to establish at least -one special meeting. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Because of the strict timeframe associated with the Truth in Taxation process, this issue should be considered at the July 9, 2001 Council meeting so a date for special meetings may be established if the City Council wishes to use that process. C. FINANCIAL • Draft budget documents will be available to Council Members on or before August 17. This will allow some time for Council Members to review the draft budget before the scheduled meetings. D. LEGAL • The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be adopted by local units of government and certified to the County Auditor on or before September 15 of each year. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could schedule meetings on different dates than those suggested. • The City Council could schedule additional meetings than those suggested. • The City Council could decide not to schedule any budget meetings and proceed with the preliminary levy at a regular City Council meeting before September 15, 2001. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. •