The URL can be used to link to this page

11-27-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Study Session of November 13, 2000; 4p (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 2000; and (3) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of November 13, 2000 PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition of elementary school participants in Look into Richfield's Future art contest Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. 2. 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. Additional opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda will be at the end of this meeting. Notes: • 3. Council approval of agenda AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT CALENDAR 4. 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. HowgVpri.a,ny,,Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution re- appointing Erika Hiestand to Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for three -year term S.R. No. 292 B. Consideration of approval of resolution in opposition to proposal before Minnesota State Legislature that would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and other similar outlets to sell wine, wine coolers and associated products for off- premise consumption S.R .No. 293 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for 6856 Park Avenue to allow property to be divided into two lots S.R No. 294 D. Consideration of approval of ratification of publication of November 22, 2000 public hearing notice regarding resolution and joint powers agreement relating to multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc. and issuance of revenue bonds therefor under municipal housing programs act S.R. No. 295 E. Consideration of approval of new contract for Public Safety towing services between City of Richfield and Chief's Towing Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue, effective December 1, 2000 S.R. No. 296 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Continue to December 11, 2000, public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance to adopt City's Comprehensive Plan with amendment to Guide Plan and change designation of property in Interchange West area from high density single family residential and neighborhood commercial to regional commercial /office 0 Staff Report No. 297 Notes: 9 6. Continue to December 11, 2000, public hearing on planned unit development plan for Best Buy Campus project and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues to planned general commercial Staff Report No. 298 Notes: 7. Continue to December 11, 2000, public hearing on final development plan and conditional use permit for Best Buy Campus project Staff Report No. 299 Notes: 8. Public hearing and consideration of resolution modifying Redevelopment Plan for • Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifying Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan, Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan, A -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan Staff Report No. 300 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Presentation of Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts for LHN, ILN and CABA prepared by HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. and consideration of resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts Notes: 0 Staff Report No. 301 �11 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 10. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to Section 1200 of City Code allowing sale and consumption of liquor at Richfield Community Center Notes: Staff Report No. 302 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 11. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 7312 Harriet Avenue; three dogs Staff Report No. 303 Notes: 12. Consideration of request that Minnesota Department of Transportation retain approximately 100 feet of noise wall on Nicollet Avenue bridge in construction plans Staff Report No. 304 Notes: 13. Consideration of agreement with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. for design of 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, Penn Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street and other roadway improvements necessary for construction of Best Buy Campus Notes: 14. Airport status report Notes: Staff Report No. 305 AIRPORT BUSINESS HRA BUSINESS 15. Housing and Redevelopment Authority report Notes: 16. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 Minutes.) COUNCIL CHOICE 17. Council discussion items Notes: 18. Claims and payrolls COUNCIL RETIRES TO SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 19. To conduct City Manager annual performance evaluation (deferred from November 13, 2000) 20. 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 # 13 REPORT # 305 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ) ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an agreement with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) for design services on 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue and other pertinent areas near the proposed Best Buy campus. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with SEH, Inc. for the design of 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, Penn Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street and other roadway improvements necessary for the construction of the Best Buv campus. III. BACKGROUND Because of Best Buy Company's move to Richfield, it will be necessary for the City to change and improve certain components of City infrastructure near the Best Buy campus. Included among these changes and improvements are: 1. Widen 76th Street (to the south) between the westerly end of the 76th Street bridge over 1 -35W and the west leg of the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. 2. Upgrade and widen Penn Avenue between the northerly leg of the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection and the northerly terminus of the Penn Avenue and 77th Street intersection (the new Best Buy entrance on Penn Avenue). 3. Reconstruct Knox Avenue between 76th Street and the new southern terminus of Knox Avenue at about 78th Street. 4. Reconstruct portions of the 1 -35W off ramp at 76th Street. 1127SEHagrmt 5. Add two new signalized intersections on 76th Street at Logan and Knox Avenues and modify the signal at 76th and Penn. 6. Modify existing sewer, water and storm sewer systems in 76th Street, Knox Avenue and Penn Avenue. 7. Modify access to the Fountainhead Apartments and possibly the Colony apartments. SEH, Inc. has submitted a proposal for designing these improvements and creating construction plans and specifications. The SEH proposal includes all necessary work up to and including preparation for City Council consideration of an award of contract, but does not include construction administration and inspection. The contract includes neighborhood meetings to determine the need for a loop street and privacy fence between Logan Avenue and Newton Avenue. The fee for this work, an estimated $347,000, will be paid on a time and materials basis. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and Best Buy have entered into a Developers Agreement that stipulates that most of these improvements will be made. • The City Council and Richfield HRA have worked to bring Best Buy to the Interchange West area. If the project is to go on to completion these modifications to City, County and State infrastructure must be completed. • The proposed improvements are consistent with the findings of the Best Buy draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Timing is critical. In order to complete this project by September 2001 when the Penn Avenue bridge replacement project begins, this project must begin in the spring of 2001 as soon as weather and frost conditions will allow. • Other issues to be determined during the design studies for this project include, but are not limited to, the exact configuration of the new driveway into The Colony Apartments, the need for right of way taking from The Fountainhead Apartments (if any), the need for a loop street to connect Logan Avenue to Morgan Avenue north of 76th Street and the possible need for a privacy fence between Logan and Newton Avenues. C. FINANCIAL • The consultant fee for this project, $347,000, is State Aid eligible and will be reimbursed out of Richfield's Municipal State Aid (gas tax) construction account. D. LEGAL • No issues known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council could decline to enter into this agreement. However, previous commitments made to Best Buy would be left unfulfilled and the Best Buy campus project could be endangered. V. ATTACHMENTS • Aerial photo showing project limits. • Proposed work order /agreement with SEH. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. t \ 1 • , ! se P ,n « This is Exhibit A, consisting of 8 pages, referred to in the Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services. Initials: OWNER _ ENGINEER Work Order Form WORK ORDER NO. 10 Authorization to proceed and site - specific scope of services Project: design services for the 76th/Penn proiect Location: 76th Street between I -35W and Penn Avenue, Penn Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street and other roadway improvements necessary for the construction of the Best Buy campus We transmit the following information for your use: SEH proposal dated October 2 2000 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 28, 1999 Preliminary Design Detailed Design and Construction Plans including bidding services Payment shall be on the basis of (select from the following): ❑ Cost Plus Fee: Direct Salary Cost times 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: Direct Salary 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: $347,000 less preliminary scoving, scheduling and identification of right of way and easement acquisition limits performed under the direction of Work Order No. 11. A Construction Cost Limit of is agreed upon between OWNER and ENGINEER for this Project. ENGINEER: SEH, INC. Signed: Its: Signed: Its: 10 Dated: OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD Signed: Its: Signed: Its: Dated: 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9301 952.912.2600 952.912.2601 FAX architecture engineering o environmental transportation October 2, 2000 RE: City of Richfield Penn Avenue and 76`h Street SEH No. P- RICHF0007.00 10.00 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2599 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: We respectfully submit for your consideration our proposal to provide the City design services for the 76`h Street and Penn Avenue project. The proposal is organized into the categories of Project Description, Scope of Work, Scope of Work Exclusions, Proposed Fee, and Schedule. Project Description the project limits start at the west leg of the intersection at 76`x` Street and Penn Avenue and end just east of the. I -35W ramp on 76`h Street. The limits also include the north and south leg of Penn Avenue at the 76`h Street intersection. The project consists of the following components: 1750 lineal feet of total reconstruction on 76`h Street Pavement widening for turning lanes at 76`h Street & Penn Avenue Pavement widening for turning lanes along the south side of 76`h Street to accommodate Best Buy driveways At intersection of Penn and 76`h Avenue, 1200 lineal feet of mill and overlay on Penn Avenue and 1500 lineal feet on 76`h Street Improvement of Knox Avenue approximately 800 feet south of 76`h Street Storm sewer collection system Two new traffic signals at Newton Avenue and Knox Avenue Modification to traffic signals at Penn and 76`h Street and at I -35W Utility company coordination for overhead utilities proposed to be buried Signage and striping 76`h Street is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) system Penn Avenue is a County State Aid (CSA) system 1 -35W ramp is Mn/DOT jurisdiction Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest We help you plan, design, and achieve. Equal Opportunity Employer • • Honorable Mayor and City Council October 2, 2000 Page 2 We can provide the City with a detailed- scope of work as new components are added: Additional decorative streetscape features Addition of a turning lane on the I -35W exit ramp The design of the 76`x' Street alignment will be based off holding the north curb line. Scope of Work Our scope of work for design services may be reviewed in detail on the attached Task Hour Budget. A general summary of the proposed work items are listed in the following: Design Services 1. Preliminary street design 2. Evaluate existing roadway system conditions 3. Conduct deficiency study 4. Topographic survey 5. Traffic signing inventory 6. Coordination with utility companies 7. Coordination with soil borings firm and geotechnical evaluation 8. Coordination with Best Buy on driveway locations 9. Prepare construction plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate for Penn Avenue and 76th Street 10. MSA reviews and submittal coordination 11 CSA reviews and submittal coordination 12. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) reviews and submittal coordination 13. Identify right -of -way acquisition limits 14. Prepare permanent easement descriptions and exhibits 15. Permit submittals 16. Preliminary investigation of sound wall design 17. Loop road between Newton and Oliver Avenues 18. Sanitary sewer and water services to Best Buy 19. Ramp modifications at I -35W 20. Public involvement Honorable Mayor and City Council October 2, 2000 Page 3 21. Knox Avenue improvements south of intersection with 76th Street 22. Access to Colony and Fountainhead Apartments 23. Bidding assistance Scope of Work Exclusions Our proposed scope of work excludes the following components at this time: Sanitary sewer or watermain modifications Coordination with Best Buy beyond driveway locations and utility services Decorative lighting or other streetscape amenities We will provide the City with a detailed scope and fee estimate for these and other additional components if and when they evolve. Proposed Fee The proposed fee for design and bidding services is $347,000. Billing for our services will be on an hourly basis and includes reimbursable expenses. We will identify any additional services outside the scope of work in accordance with our current contract for services. 40 Schedule We understand the City's need to have Penn Avenue open to traffic on-August 1, 2001 and 76`h Street open to traffic on November 1, 2001. We have prepared a preliminary schedule with these criteria in mind. • Item Milestone SEH begins design October 9, 2000 Topographic survey, soil borings, preliminary design October 15. — November 15, 2000 Right -of -way needs identified November 13, 2000 Final design November 15, 2000 — January 15, 2001 MSA, CSA, & Mn/DOT review & revisions January 15, 2001 — March 15, 2001 Right -of -way authorized March 12, 2001 Advertise for bids March 12, 2001 Contract award April 9, 2001 Construction start May 1, 2001 Penn Avenue open to traffic August 1, 2001 76 1h Street open to traffic November 1, 2001 Final project completion August 1, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 2, 2000 Page 4 We look forward to working with you and assisting the City with design and construction services for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952 -912- 2620 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Sh Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Michael P. Foertsch, P.E./L.S. Principal c: Al Horge, SEH Kevin Kawlewski, SEH Glenn Schreiner, SEH h:\ civil\ projects kichfieldlrich1007\proposa1 10 02 00.doc Accepted by: Mayor Public Works Director Date Date • 0 M: Pmm 11 WORK PLAN Penn Avenue and 76th Street LTry of Richfieldd, , MN 10/3/00 ESTIMATED HOURS PROJECT TASKS STAFF ENGJ 3PERSON PRINCIPAL PROJECT PROJECT LEAD SURYJ SURVEY PROD ADMIN. TOTAL SEn, /rte. HOURS - MANAGER ENGINEER iECHMCIAN TECNMCIAN CREW SPECIALLST TECHNICIAN HOURS 1.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1.1 Evaluate Existing Roadway System Conditions Site visit 3 3 3 1 3 12 Misc. 4 ! 6 j 6 16 Conduct Deficiency Study Opffational Analysis 2 - ( 16 8 8 34 SIR's - 2 2 4 36 ! 4 48 Existing drainage system evaluation 2 4 4 ! 10 12 Base Mapping and Physical Inventory I i I i 13 Data Collection and Fleld Surveys 1.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Control 16 i 12 28 ! 56 1.3.2 Topo Ama/Miscellaneous Survey 28 28 ! 190 ! 246 I IA Preliminary Design 1.4.1 GeotecMical Evaluation Coordinate Soil Borings 2 1 ! 8 ! 10 Identify scope of testing services req'd 4 20 24 Recommendations 4 - 24 ! 28 1.4.2 Initial Phase (Up to 30% Complete) i Geometric La out 12 1 ! 12 Horizontal Alignment 4 8 8 20 Vertical Alignment 4 8 12 24 Typical Sections 2 4 8 8 22 Cross Sections 2 4 12 12 30 Construction Limits 4 4 8 8 24 Staging Scheme 6 16 8 8 38 Utility Coordination 6 8 8 22 Preliminary Drainage Design 8 12 12 32 Preliminary Sound Wall Design 4 8 8 8 28 - Loop Road - Newton to Oliver ! 4 8 16 8 36 13 Right -of way/Easement Documentation 1.5.1 Colony Apartments Access investigation 2 4 6 12 Traffic Circulation 2 4 6 1 12 Meetings with propeny owner (4) - 4 1 4 i 8 - Repave r.o.w /easement exhibits 2 8 12 1 24 ! - 46 1.5.2 Fountainhead Apartments Access investigation 4 8 12 24 Traffic Circulation 4 ! 8 ! 12 24 Right -of -way mitigation 8 8 16 ! 16 1 48 Meetings with propen owner (4) 8 8 - 16 Repave r.o.w /easement exhibits 2 ! 8 12 1 24 46 1.5.3 Century Court 3. ! 3 4 ! 6 6 22 1.5.4 Intersection of 76th and Penn 6 6 8 8 8 4 40 1.5.5 Pm are written summary of acquisitions 6 8 12 1 12 1 12 4 ! 54 Exhibits 2 2 ! 6 12 12 4 38 Summary of Costs 2 2 6 12 12 4 38 i I 2.0 DETAILED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS 2.1 30% to 60% Completion t I I I ! I ! I I I I • • AM&Wr51F&11 WORK PLAN Penn Avenue and 76th Street City of MehJiefd, MN PROJECTTASKS SER, I— MOMS ESTIMATED HOURS PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT ENGINEER .srAFFencJ LEADSURVJ TECHNICIAN TECHNICIAN )PERSON SURVEV CREW PROD SPECIALIST ADNIIN. TECHNICIAN TOTAL HOURS Continue plan preparation as required for the 60% submittal. ! The plan set will expand on the preliminary plan from the 30% submittal, containing sheets listed below. The number of sheets will be established during the final design process. All sheets will be prepared with Wcrostation software and will be provided as 11" x 17" plans. I 10 40 j i �. � 50 • Title Sheet 2 110 ! 12 • General Layout 2 10 - 12 • Standard Plates List g - j 8 • Public Utility Tabulations i 10 15 20 45 • Typical Sections 6 20 26 • Standard Plan sheets 2 4 8 ! 14 • Construction Sequence 12 12 24 8 56 • Alignment Plans and Tabulations 1 2 1 6 - 8 • Topography and Utility Plan I 4 12 16 o Removals 4 4 8 1 15 31 • Construction Plan 6 8 1 15 29 • Construction Plan Intersection Details j 12 32 40 84 o Profiles 8 1 20 40 68 o Drainage Plans 6 12 24 10 - 52 o Subsurface Drainage Details 2 8 15- 1 25 o Temporary Traffic Control Details and Plans - 4 16 j 20 20 1 60 o Pavement Marking Plan I g 12 - 24 44 o Signing Plans 4 i 12 12 8 36 o Sign Panel Plans 2 g g 18 o Sign Detail Sheets 2 8 8 I 18 o Traffic Signal Plans 72 72 o Sanitary sewer and water services to Best Buy 2 6 1 12 12 32 64 o Cross Sections 2 12 10 1 24 I � � I 22 Final Plan and Estimate (95% Completion) Complete plan preparation as required for the 95% submittal. The plan set will expand on the preliminary plan from the 60% submittal, containing sheets similar to those listed below. The actual type and number of sheets will be established during the final design process. I 1 15 72 1 � j 87 o Tide Sheet I 2 2 4 8 o General Layout 2 q 6 o Statement of Estimated Quantities ' 6 12 24 24 66 o Tabulation Index and Standard Plates i i 2 1 6 6 14 0 Soils and Construction Notes ! 2 6 6 14 o Quantity Tabulations j 3 10 20 I 33 o Existing Drainage and Utility Tabulations 2 8 16 26 o Earthwork Tabulation and Summary 8 8 8 24 o Typical Sections 1 2 j 4 8 14 o Miscellaneous Details 6 12 16 34 o Miscellaneous Standard Plan Sheets 1 ! 4 1 4 9 o Construction Sequence 6 ! 12 12 30 o Alignment Plan and Tabulations q g g 20 o Removals q- g g 20 o Construction Plan 4 1 16 12 32 o Construction Plan Details 2 6 6 14 o Profiles 2 12 8 22 o Superelevation Plan j 2 4 8 8 - 22 o Superelevation Diagrams j q 8 i 8 I 20 • Drainage Plans 6 10 16 24 j 56 • Drainage Profiles and Tabulation 4 8 16 32 tip • Drainage Details 2 4 1 12 18 36 • • rrYPI WORK PLAN Penn Avenue and 761h Street City of Richfield, MN umng I 1 1 i I 1 i 2 Assistance during bidding period 1 4 4 q 13 Tabulation of bids received 1 2 2 5 Contract award recommendation 1 5 5 j 11 I 2.4 Private 1.1011ty Adiustments and Relocations 2.5 Pemits and Approvals LABOR COSTS - $13386.00 $41,790.00. $62,985.00 $80,220.00 $57,632.25 $47950.00 $26,500.00 $3,363.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $333,126.25 TOTAL EXPENSES $13,873.75 TOTAL PROPOSED PEE $347,000,00 1 ESTIMATED HOURS PRWECT TASKS —IT ENGI I PERSON PRINCIPAL. PROJECT PROJECT LEAD Suit" SURVEY PROJ ADMIN. TOTAL SEH, I.. HOURS aUNAGER ENGINEER TECHNICIAN TECHNICIAN CREW SPECIALIST TECHNICIAN HOURS • Erosion Control Plan and Details 8 12 14 30 64 • Turf Establishment Plan and Details 2 6 q 12 • Temporary Traffic Control 12 16 16 10 54 • Pavement Marking Plan and Details 4 10 14 • Temporary Lighting 9 • Permanent Lighting 1 8 9 • Signing Plan, Details and Tabulation'i 8 16 i 24 • Sign Panel Details 8 8 - 16 • Traffic Signal Plans 72 1 72 o Sanitary sewer and water services to Best Buy j 2 6 12 12 j 32 • Cross Sections 2 24 24 50 � 2.1.11 95% Construction Cost Estimate I 2.1.15 State Aid Review and Complete Plans 2.2 Project Specifications umng I 1 1 i I 1 i 2 Assistance during bidding period 1 4 4 q 13 Tabulation of bids received 1 2 2 5 Contract award recommendation 1 5 5 j 11 I 2.4 Private 1.1011ty Adiustments and Relocations 2.5 Pemits and Approvals LABOR COSTS - $13386.00 $41,790.00. $62,985.00 $80,220.00 $57,632.25 $47950.00 $26,500.00 $3,363.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $333,126.25 TOTAL EXPENSES $13,873.75 TOTAL PROPOSED PEE $347,000,00 1 1!►►► .,•,,,, t � 111 a • • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 304 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 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: Request that the Minnesota Department of Transportation retain the proposed noise wall over the Nicollet Avenue bridge in construction plans as not inconsistent with guidelines established by the 1 -35W Aesthetic Design Review Committee. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Request that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) retain the approximate 100 feet of noise wall on the Nicollet Avenue bridqe in the construction plans. IL BACKGROUND The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 1 -35W High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane addition and 1- 35W/TH 62 commons separation project identified highway noise as exceeding Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise pollution standards. Constructing a noise wall along certain segments of the new highway system can mitigate the excessive noise. 112700 noise wall The cities of Richfield and Minneapolis established an Aesthetic Design Review Committee and appointed residents to the committee. The task of the Committee is was to review the functional design of the project and to establish aesthetic guidelines to be used in designing the visual components of the project. The Aesthetic Design Guidelines established by the Committee for this project do not include noise walls on bridges. Instead, a decorative railing already used on 1 -35W bridges in south Minneapolis is proposed for the Nicollet Avenue Bridge. The Committee believed a railing would better comply with the aesthetic guidelines, break up the monotony of a noise wall, and preserve a common visual theme throughout the length of the project than the use of a noise wall would. The issue of noise walls versus railings was discussed at three open houses held in April and May 2000, and recently on November 13, 2000 as part of the Capital Improvement Budget. At the last open house, one public comment from Gail Janes, 6216 Third Avenue, indicated her preference for a noise wall. She believed the noise from the airport was bad enough for her neighborhood and the City should make every effort to reduce noise from 1 -35W. She favored a noise wall on the Nicollet Avenue Bridge instead of the iron grillwork. In previous public meetings there was general public support for noise walls. With a noise wall on the Nicollet Avenue Bridge, the noise levels would be slightly decreased by 2 dBA at Nicollet Park and residential neighborhoods to the east and west. The MnDOT noise study showed that without a noise wall the noise level is projected to be 57 dBA. With a ten -foot high noise wall, the noise level drops to 55 dBA. The Minnesota Daytime Noise Standard is 65 dBA and the Nighttime Noise Standard is 55 dBA. Council has not chosen to request noise waivers in the past on segments of 1 -35W that previously did not have noise walls; i.e., on both sides of the freeway along Wood Lake. While the Aesthetic Design Review Committee recommended removing the wall on bridges, the Committee did not have the benefit of architectural renderings to compare a noise wall versus a decorative railing. Based on the appearance of the noise wall, City staff is recommending retaining the noise wall as both attractive and effective at reducing noise levels. If Council favors a railing instead of a noise wall on the Nicollet Avenue Bridge, the City Council must request an exemption from noise standards for the length of the Nicollet Avenue Bridge (approximately 100 feet). This request would result in the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) deleting the noise wall on top of the Nicollet Avenue bridge. The two design options are attached to this letter and will be available on display boards at the Council meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Richfield City Council has long supported efforts to control noise in residential areas such as, along 77th Street and I -35W. • A railing instead of a noise wall on the Nicollet Avenue bridge • preserves a common visual theme used on other bridges throughout the length of the project. • Council has also supported efforts to add an aesthetically pleasing look to both public and private infrastructure within the City such as patterns, painting and plantings on noise walls, planted medians and streetscapes and required aesthetic components to private redevelopment projects. 0 B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Choosing between two conflicting objectives, a decorative railing or a noise wall, can be difficult. Other bridges on 1 -35W will not have noise walls because the noise study did not show a need for one; i.e., noise levels in excess of L(10) 55 dBA. • At the Nicollet Avenue Bridge, there is a residential area to the southwest of the bridge, and Nicollet Park and another residential area to the southeast. All three are noise sensitive land uses that are represented in MnDOT's 1 -35W Noise Study at noise monitoring sites #33 -35. Noise levels without and with a noise wall on the bridge produced the following results at the three noise monitoring sites: 57 and 55 dBA at monitoring site #33; 53 and 51 dBA at monitoring site #34; and, 59 and 57 dBA at monitoring site #33. The state daytime noise standard is L(10) 65 dBA and the nighttime standard is 55 dBA. The L(10) standard means that noise levels can not exceed the standard for more than ten percent of the time. Generally, the human ear can not detect an increase in noise levels of 2 dBA. • Council has not requested noise waivers on other segments of 1 -35W. Furthermore, the architectural renderings show that the noise walls on the Nicollet Avenue Bridge are attractive and not inconsistent with the 1 -35W Aesthetic Design Guidelines. C. FINANCIAL • This action does not affect Richfield's financial contribution to the project, although the cost of the bridge will increase if noise walls are added. Noise walls add considerably to the weight of the structure. The design of the bridge may be prolonged if noise walls are added. MnDOT would have to redesign the bridge to hold a noise wall. - D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . • Council could request a noise waiver, which would mean installing a decorative railing instead of a noise wall on top of the Nicollet Avenue Bridge and increasing noise levels by 2 dBA. • Council could request additional public input on the two design options before selecting a preferred alternative. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map and two tables from MnDOT 1 -35W Noise Study showing noise levels without and with a noise wall at monitoring sites 33 through 35. Layout showing both design options: (1) Noise Wall on the Nicollet Avenue Bridge; (2) Decorative railing on the. bridge. • Detail of railing on top of 2.5 foot concrete barrier. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING _David Gepner, one of Richfield's representatives to the 1 -35W Aesthetic Design Review Committee. • • U I I ❑ �II� rl • f I, _ ° H ❑ Ll !!0 cr rzr I e c cj 2 - ❑ 0 Q o ° ❑❑ °c o ❑ ❑ °o $ a ` o° o° ��'�o❑❑❑ o ❑ o ° c ° c $ 000 0 Diamond Lake c 0 ° 0 o ° ° 0 00 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° 0 ❑ ❑ ° 0 O M0 400 600 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° p ❑ ❑ o c @ C scab ® feet ° ❑ ❑ c ❑ c ❑ °c ° 0 $ ❑ ° o ❑ c c ° °°° ° 0 ° ❑ ❑ °°o ° ❑ ° $ o ❑ pt ❑ ❑ ` o o g ❑ B �, oo ° c L ' 2❑ R 7t r' ❑ ° ❑ 0 0 C ❑ ❑ c ❑ ❑ $ a c ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ° S c a ❑ ❑ c ❑ ° ❑ ° ° o ° o o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ § o o ❑ $ ° °❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ cc) ❑ 8 ° B o ° ° ° $ ° o ❑ ❑ ° o a ❑ 0 o 0 o ° ° o o o c c ° S ❑ CB � ❑ ❑❑ ❑np i: t ° ❑ c ❑c a°=_ ^ ❑ c _ ❑ °o o O o ° ❑ 0 ° ° ❑ ° ❑ ° d' ° ° c❑❑ ❑ o C 28-10 Cc) C ^c r D��❑ 0 ED ❑ o > ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ° i o O 29 o ,I ° ❑ ❑ ❑c ❑^ e 43 41 42 L�n ° - FLA G p ❑ ❑ J ❑ ❑ g o 33 ❑ 32 �39��❑ ❑.35 7C > ❑z F 38�� ❑ G 4 ��_ .� ��.� ❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C G O C ❑ _ ❑ ❑ ❑ J G ❑ O ❑ (�', 'v C ❑ ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ G L' .- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ^ - F- C 21 u ❑ n ichfield Lak �\ p ❑ _ .. I _ 34 ❑ - ❑ J ❑ ❑ L 33' 11 G G ❑ C ° ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C G ❑ C G rl � C ❑ p G ❑ `� G G F7 ❑ ° O o ° ❑ ° ° po o ❑ ° °o o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ° o ° °❑ S a ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ u ❑ o ❑ ° r ° ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ LLn 7 Cl' ❑ O o ° p °o ° a ❑ ° ° ❑ ❑ ❑ c ❑ ❑ ° l� o coo ° 00000 ° ❑ I� c ° "q" �❑ u ! O ❑ ° j ❑ 0 ° ° ❑ j ° ° ° ° ° u ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ° 530 0 r Q J / // IF° PI n I ° nl o °�;° ❑° �° ❑ ❑° 0 0 0 � o o IF o 1 -35W Preliminar Desi n Studies Phase : EIS ° °' n n NOISE MODELLING RESULTS Figure ►4 SRF _ WITH EXISTING NOISE WALLS CROSSTOWN SUB -AREA 6 -8 Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metropolitan Council - Federal Highway Administration 1 -35W Technical Memorandum 4 Noise TABLE 1 NOISE MODELING RESULTS (L10 dBA) PEAK HOUR 2013 Build 2013 Build Modeled With Existing With Proposed — Existing 7.010 No Build Noise Noise Site From FETS from FEIS Mitigation Mitigation LS1 --- -'- - -- 0) i - -- - - -� - -- -' -- - -- - - - -j . 20 I 5t7 60 60 BO — 21 67 67 ' 68 68 ' 22 68 68 65 65 23 ` 62 62 59 59 24 70 71 72 72 25 80 61 62 62 26 62 62 63 '61 27 67 68 68 058 28 59 80 59 59 29 59 ': 59 64 '58 30 65 66 68 163 31 70 72 73 "62 ' — 32 60 61 82 '57 33 65 66 57 155 34 47 47 53 051 35 59 59 59 ' 157 36 60 60 68 080 ' 37 62 62 63 63 38 52 53 60 '56 39 55 56 80 •57 40 64 65 58 '57 i 41 57 58 65 '62 = 42 65 68 66 •61 43 60 67 67 '64 44 55 55 61 •60 45 55 56 61 '59 46 67 68 68 68 -- 47 57 ' 57 I 58 58 ' 48 59 60 61 61 ' 49 80 81 81 61 50 63 64 61 61 51 55 56 63 •60 52 60 81 ` 59 '60 53 57 57 59 59 — 54 74 74 75 '63 55 57 57 59 59 56 66 67 69 69 57 NA NA 62 I 62 58 NA I NA 68 •64 59 WA NA 68 '84 60 NA NA 79 79 — Includes all existing nose mitigation and 2010 traffic volumes. The No Build alternative was not revised with 2013 traffic volumes because the resulting difference in noise Levels would be minimal. ' See ToWe 2 for noise levels with 10, 15 and 20 toot high noise walls. Notes: - Federal noised cMeris is 70 L10 dBA — - The Minnesota state daytime standard is 65 L10 d8A 1 -35W Technical Memorandum 4 Noise _ TABLE 2 NOISE MODELING RESULTS (L10 dBA) PEAK HOUR 2013 Build With Various Noise Wall Heights (feet) - Site 10 15 20 Q10) !{t_0} V10)__ 26 _ _ 66 63 61 27 62 i 60 58 29 62 60 58 7 - 30 66 65 63 31 67 1 64 62 32 62 59 57 _ 33 59 57 55 34 1 55 53 51 _ 35 1 62 59 57 36 63 61 1 60 38 60 58 56 - 39 60 58 57 40 58 57 57 ' _ 41 63 63 62 42 63 62 1 61 43 65 64 64 - 44 61 60 60 45 60 59 59 51 62 61 60 `r 52 61 60 60 54 71 67 63 _ 58 70 68 64 59 72 1 68 64 Notes: - Federal noise abatement criteria is 701-10 dBA - The Minnesota state daytime standard is 65 L10 dBA - This table is provided to predict how variations in wail heights will affect predicted noise levels. 1 -35W Technical Memorandum 6 Noise • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Re=ports AGENDA ITEM # 1 REPORT # 303 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY. NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: V)3A Lo REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Peg Gallagher, 7312 Harriet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny the request for a new residential kennel license for Peg Gallagher, 7312 Harriet Avenue South. III. BACKGROUND I On August 8, 2000, Peg Gallagher submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Gallagher's application contains the signatures of three contiguous property owners. It is City procedure that staff notifies surrounding neighbors of the request for a residential kennel license. Neighbors are then given a 10 -day period in which they may respond, either for or against the requested license. Staff received three letters and four phone calls regarding this application. Of the responses received, one neighbor at 7305 Garfield was in opposition to the approval of the license because the neighbor thinks the neighborhood already has too many animals. No specific problem with the applicant was stated, only the fear exists that more animals would be too overwhelming. 1127Gallagher A letter from a resident at 7309 Garfield was also in opposition to the requested license. That neighbor also did not have an objection to the neighbors requesting the license. The neighbor would have the same issue with anyone. The concern is simply with the request to have an additional animal. It is felt that two animals is a reasonable number for any household to maintain and any more than that can present more challenges in keeping the property clean, animals confined, and peace (quiet) in the neighborhood. The third letter received was from a resident at 7317 Harriet Avenue who was also in opposition to the issuance of the requested license. The concern was with the property. It is the opinion that the property is not suitable for a kennel and not large enough to properly exercise the animals. No specific problems with the applicant or the applicant's animals were stated. Of the four phone calls received, only two had concerns, which were in regards to the fence and animals at large. All four phone calls were in favor of the issuance of the residential kennel license. On September 28, 2000, staff received a phone call from a neighbor at 7327 Harriet Avenue, stating that she wanted her name removed from a "petition" letter. She went on to say that a resident in the neighborhood drafted a letter that was being passed around the neighborhood for signatures against the issuance of the residential kennel license. The caller said that she did not understand what she had signed and had felt she had been mislead. In the beginning of October, staff received eleven of these "petition" letters in the mail. Because of the confusion this letter may have caused, staff tried to make contact with these residents to explain the City's policy on residential kennel licenses. Of the eleven "petition" letters received, staff was only able to make contact with six of the residents. After staff explained City policy, only one of the six was still in opposition to the approval of the license. Because staff was unable to contact all eleven residents by phone, staff mailed letters to the remaining five residents. This letter explained City policy and gave those residents an opportunity to respond either in approval or opposition to the requested kennel license. Staff received no phone calls from any of these residents in response to this letter. The Public Safety Department received four calls to the applicant's address in 2000. Calls were as follows: One fire alarm, one theft, and two animals at large. It is unknown whether the animals at large were animals owned by the applicant. There was no written police report. The Environmental Health staff received one complaint in May 2000 regarding animals at large. The resident was contacted and no further complaints have been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on September 10 14, 2000. The Community Service Officer observed that the fence was in need of repair. The resident stated she was looking into having it replaced. 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 four phone calls and three letters regarding this application. The concerns included the number of animals and the size of the yard. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Peg Gallagher • CITY OF RICHFIELD ♦ 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH ♦ RICHIFELD, MN RECEIPT NO. LICENSE NO. NEW RENEW APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LICENSE July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 OD 55423 �y�r # of Dogs # of Cats 0 FEE Applicant's Name: ✓Residential $ 85.00 Applicant's Address: -�, /J Veterinary Applicant's Phone No: $ 150.00 Business Name: /V Commercial $ 150.00 Business Address: - /V n / Total Amount Due $ Business Phone No.: / V Ar -- I (we) hereby agree to operate I -- in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are tru and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Authorized Signature: Date: 7/67 9/0 APPROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESIDENTIAL KENNEL (A residential kennel is a place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes.) (In July of 1991, City Council passed a policy that no resident may havemore than six animals (dogs & cats) in total.) Ordinance Code Section 905.3 1, Subd. 3 — The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. 7313 73z-� X31 � ��r✓ -731, r A r 7313 73z-� Whether or not tall of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the council may grant or deny the license. The license may not be granted unless the council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will i not be likely to have any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy f thereof, and will not constitute a nuisance tot he neighborhood. The council may impose condition upon the granting of any residential kennel license. HEREBY APPROVE OF A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ON THE PREMISES OF: Applicant: Address: 73 /,2 AA t e Signatur . Address: Signature: f Address: Signature: _.__ Address: % o HA 1Z1" ET, ,i f5- FOR CITY USE ONLY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO DATE KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION INSPECTION Address x %02 kldxy � Ae S Number of Animals: dogs cats Breed: Are animals currently licensed? yes no Number of residents occupying dwelling Is and enclosed with a fence in Y good repair? yes no Will fence keep animals on-owner's property? A? yes no Is yard clean and free of animal feces, etc.? yes no Is garbage stored in covered metal container? ryes no _Are pets kept for breeding purposes? yes no How are pets exercised? (where - what area) Are there unpleasant odors present? yes no Have all abutting property owners signed a petiti n f 'approval for a kennel license for this number of animals ? yes no If not, why not? Additional comments and histor -y: knre in CQ c, f ^_Soac%?d by �.J�si✓� ��1%�`�✓tC1? Date ass jw • i �,U September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting .this license the potential is therefor breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, 0, vG C '7 rid, �J,4, 3 aAa,G,at)-L �- h4,lo Ao • 0 SEP 2 2 2000 September 20, 2000 ME Richfield Public 5afety Department 5upport 5ervices Division Attn: Stephanie Gillette RE: Kennel License • 7312 Harriet Ave 5 Dear 5tephanie: In response to your letter regarding the issuance of a residential /commercial kennel license, received 5eptember 16, 2000, at 7312 Harriet Ave S. I am not in favor of processing of this request. The dogs, to date, have not presented a problem. However, the property itself, in my opinion, i5 not suitable for a kennel(o) to be constructed to house and /or properly exercise the animals that currently reside at this residence. I understand that issuing this license does not mean that a Structure will be built for breeding purposes etc... but it also does not indicate that this will not happen either. The property io simply too Small, and dogs of this Size need more exercise and space then what this property can provide. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to matter and am requesting this letter be included in the City's Council's information packet. Regards, W O ;' �.� 1' /M/3O-=W 7317 Harriet Ave Richfield, MN 5423 • September 21, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: 7312 Harriet Ave, Richfield -Dear Ms. Gillette: We have received your letter informing us about our neighbor at 7312 Harriet Ave request for a Residential Kennel license. We wish to formally present our objection to the licensing. First, this is not an objection to our neighbors. We have no personal issues that form this objection. We would object to this request regardless of the neighbor. We simply are objecting the request for an additional animal. Two animals is reasonable number for a household to maintain. More animals can present more challenges to keeping an individual property clean, keeping animals confined and peace (quiet) in the neighborhood. In addition, there are personal concerns regarding animal safety our family. Should an animal get loose in the neighborhood they have a potential to cause harm. The harm may result from a playful animal jumping, or an animal reacting to a situation and biting a person. The potential for feces on our property not being removed is a concern. This can present a health concern. We have a child that is crawling and finds the "odd" objects in the yard very interesting. We would not like to expose our curious child to the feces. Thank you for requesting our input and allowing us to express our concerns. Sincerely, Solvei & Todd Wilmot 7309 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612)861 -7994 Mary and Bill Sullivan 7305 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Tel: 612.869.6738 e-mail: wsu1147460 @aol.com September 23, 2000 Dear Director: The purpose of this letter is to indicate our opposition to the city issuing a commercial kennel license for our neighbor at 7312 Harriet Avenue South. We think our neighborhood is now nearly overrun with dogs. There currently are nine dogs living within 50 yards of our home. That's a bit many. We fear more would be overwhelming. Thank you for requesting our opinion on this matter. Sincerely, Mary J. Sul Ivan W iam B. ullivan P.S. We don't feel that attending a mediation session would cause us to modify our position. • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 `Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, W" V Ti �p E September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, Name 3 5 tr r Address c \ �� 3 I i U September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: L This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, Name Address • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 ISear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: L This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, huuress • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: L This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking . Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, a2�d NameP Addr s 0 C7 • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599, Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 ' Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, _ .. WR 1�. iTHAlIu � FA I September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, CiA Name '7333 y�d�dress �' September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 tear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, Name Address \ • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, Name —7327 Address T VIVP C�\O0 �� V �Vi rwr �l C (IJA • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 'Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential/commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a,residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential.is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely] ' r I t rick Nwde -;S&A 4+&r r i'& .y Address 4 -DC* naF- obJc& -FO - I�►rce .1 d0lo Ih T,Y<cd�n9 -J�4 r� • X32/ wMik bl,g- - R,94q- Sao • • • • �s a� T)od 61YP • � 3G6 �� Ile I'b • October 30, 2000 o� Public Safety Department Police Division City staff has tried to make contact with those of you who have signed a "petition letter" to explain this policy, to answer any questions you may have, and to find out if you are still in opposition of the granting of the residential kennel license. We have been unable to contact you by telephone, therefore we are sending you this letter. Please call me at (612) 861 -9870 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. if you have any questions or comments. If I do not hear from you by Friday, November 3, 2000, 1 will assume you are still in opposition of granting the residential kennel license for 7312 Harriet Avenue South. Sincerely, Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Department of Public Safety The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 -2599 NON - EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.richTield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RE: Kennel Application for 7312 Harriet Avenue South MAYOR MARTIN). KIRSCH Dear Resident: CITY COUNCIL SUSAN ROSENBERG I am writing to you because your neighbor at 7312 Harriet Avenue South has made SUZANNE M. SANDAHL application for a residential kennel license in the City of Richfield. KRISTAL STOKES RUSS SUSAG As you know, a "petition letter" has been passed around the neighborhood for CITY MANAGER signatures from those of you who are in opposition of granting the requested license. SAMANTHA ORDUNO I have received a few telephone calls regarding this "petition letter" with questions as to what the City's policy is on kennel licenses. Because it seems as though there may be some confusion in what the City defines as a residential kennel license, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you what that means. A residential kennel license does not mean that your neighbor will be introducing a commercial business in your neighborhood. It does not mean that an unusually large structure will be constructed for breeding purposes, etc. They may have an average size kennel on the property for their pet's exercise and shelter. It is simply the name we have given to the license that is to be obtained for anyone owning more than two dogs or two cats in a residential neighborhood. City staff has tried to make contact with those of you who have signed a "petition letter" to explain this policy, to answer any questions you may have, and to find out if you are still in opposition of the granting of the residential kennel license. We have been unable to contact you by telephone, therefore we are sending you this letter. Please call me at (612) 861 -9870 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. if you have any questions or comments. If I do not hear from you by Friday, November 3, 2000, 1 will assume you are still in opposition of granting the residential kennel license for 7312 Harriet Avenue South. Sincerely, Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Department of Public Safety The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 -2599 NON - EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.richTield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P-.A • s AGENDA SECTION: Prop. Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 302 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 0/ �— \ "I REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code allowing for the sale and consumption of liquor at the Richfield Community Center. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct first reading of the amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code allowing the sale and consumption of liquor at the Richfield Communitv Center. II. BACKGROUND In an effort to expand rental potential of the Richfield Community Center, staff is recommending an addendum to the City's liquor -use ordinance that would allow for the sale and consumption of liquor at the Community Center. By permitting a licensed on -sale liquor provider to serve liquor at the Center, staff could effectively market the facility to a new base of users, including wedding, birthday and anniversary parties and other receptions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 1127 liquor • • On -sale liquor providers in Richfield and adjacent cities would apply for a Public Premises On -Sale Liquor Permit. Upon receipt of the permit application, staff will investigate license, dram insurance, and past violations. The permit would not be granted if the licensee committed a violation in the past six months. • Customers would then contract directly with one of the licensed on- sale providers. • Depending on the size of an event, a police officer would be required to supervise. • On -sale liquor providers would pay an annual application fee, as well as a per -event fee. This fee structure will be included in an amendment to the City License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fee Resolution at a later date. For Richfield on -sale liquor providers, the application fee will be approximately $100 and the per -event fee will be approximately $15. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • At their November meeting, the Community Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. • Staff has also discussed the amendment with the Advisory Board of Health. • C. FINANCIAL • Making liquor available to rental groups at the Community Center will greatly stimulate rental of the facility and generate new revenue streams for the Community Center. Licensed on -sale liquor providers would be charged an annual permit fee and a per -event fee. D. LEGAL • This policy is structured to protect the City by requiring liquor to be served by trained and licensed providers who have given proof of adequate dram insurance and supervision by a police officer for larger events. IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not conduct the first reading of the liquor ordinance amendment. • Conduct the first reading, but do not schedule the second reading at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS Amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1200 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION TO ALLOW THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AT THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER BY PERMIT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 1200 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subsection as follows: 1200.22. Public Premises On -Sale Permit. Subdivision 1. Public Premises Permit. The city council may issue to the holder of an on -sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the city or a municipality adjacent to the city, a permit to allow the dispensing of intoxicating liquor at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting or social affair conducted on the premises of the Richfield Community Center. The licensee must be engaged to dispense intoxicating liquor at an event held by a person or organization permitted to use the premises and may dispense intoxicating liquor only to persons attending the event. The licensee may not dispense intoxicating liquor to any person attending or participating in an amateur athletic event held on the premises. Subd. 2. Application process. Applicants for a public premises permit shall be subject to the following process: (a) Annual application. Applicants for a public premises permit must apply annually to the city for a permit on a form provided by the city. The application must identify the applicant, include information concerning and a copy of the applicant's existing on -sale intoxicating liquor license, and must contain a permit fee as established in appendix D. (b) No hearing required. No public hearing is required for the granting of an public premises on -sale permit: (c) Application approval. The city council may approve the application if it determines that the applicant has a duly issued on -sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the city or an adjacent municipality and if it further determines that the applicant has committed no violations of municipal ordinances regarding the applicant's on -sale intoxicating liquor license in the past six months. (d) Duration. A permit granted under this section expires on • December 31 of the year in which it is issued. (e) Automatic suspension or revocation. The permit granted under this subsection is subordinate to and dependent upon the applicant having a valid on -sale intoxicating liquor license 1127 liquor issued by the city or by an adjacent municipality. If the iapplicant's existing license is suspended or revoked for any reason, the permit granted under this subsection shall be automatically suspended for a similar duration or revoked, without the necessity of any independent hearing or action by the city council. Subd. 3. Other conditions. In addition to requirements otherwise set forth in this section, licensees shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) Event fees. In addition to the annual permit fee required at subdivision 2 of this subsection, a licensee shall pay a per- event fee at least 24 hours prior to the event. The per -event fee is fixed in appendix D. (b) Minnesota products. Any permittee that sells beer must make provision for the sale of at least one Minnesota - produced beer at each station on the premises where beer is being sold. (c) Events; special conditions. Whenever the city council determines that a specific event for which the licensee will be providing on -sale intoxicating requires special or unique conditions, the city council may impose such conditions and the permittee must abide by such conditions. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted this 8th day of January, 2001. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • r� AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # IM =099A STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Presentation of Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts for LHN, ILN, and CABA prepared by HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. and consideration of a resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts. II. BACKGROUND Tax increment has been and continues to be an important method of achieving economic development goals within the City of Richfield. Minnesota Statutes establish . parameters regarding use of tax increment revenues. The rules are complex and are not the same for: • Different types of tax increment districts; • Different dates of establishing those districts; • Differences in the timing of incurring financial commitments; and • Differences in the timing of incurring financial transactions. 1127TI F The use of tax increment for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) ) and City of Richfield started before 1979. Laws since that date have been amended to reflect ever - changing legislative intent and interpretation. One such law change transferred reporting and compliance monitoring from the Department of Revenue to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) in 1995. The OSA currently reviews tax increment districts in Minnesota and routinely issue reports that identify a potential violation of tax increment laws. The OSA has also changed tax increment finance (TIF) reporting forms and requirements since their oversight authority was established. Yet other law changes require referral of contested interpretation of compliance matters first to the County Attorney and then, potentially, to the state's Attorney General. The HRA and City have devoted significant resources to TIF compliance since tax increment was first used (in -house staff and systems as well as the use of consultants and attorneys). Recent changes in reporting requirements impact transactions from the inception of each district. Additionally, there are differences in interpretation of Statutes between the OSA and attorneys who have specialized in tax increment matters since the laws were first enacted. Within the past year, the HRA and City have jointly analyzed transactions and OSA tax increment finance reporting forms with the help of Ehlers & Associates (financial consultants to the HRA), HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. (CPAs and City /HRA auditors), and Kennedy & Graven. The results of the analysis to date are attached in a report entitled "Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts." This report reviews the LHN, ILN and CABA Tax Increment Districts. The report also provides recommendations, which need to be implemented. Pages three to five discuss objectives, process and recommendations. On November 20, 2000 the HRA approved a resolution companion to the attached City's resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts. Rob Tautges of HLB Tautges Redpath and Sid Inman of Ehlers & Associates will be present at the HRA meeting to review the report and answer questions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Additional detailed research, review, and analysis of the city's TIF districts has come about strictly as a result of the OSA's oversight authority for TIF and staff's desire to be proactive in any potential audit of records by the OSA. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Certain transactions recommended in the report need to be implemented by the end of the year. • On November 20, 2000, the HRA approved a resolution companion to the attached City's resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts. C. FINANCIAL • Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts, dated November 2000 (Attachment A). D. LEGAL • The HRA's financial consultants, CPA, legal counsel and staff have prepared the financial reports and analyses in accordance with state TIF law, federal law pertaining to bonds, and generally accepted accounting principles and practices for government. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Not to approve the resolution at this time. However, certain transactions recommended for implementation could impede year -end transactions and impact the reporting to the OSA in 2001 for the time period ending December 31, 2000. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving and ratifying financial transactions related to certain tax increment financing districts. • Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts for Lyndale -Hub Nicollet (LHN), I nte rstate-Lyndale-N icol let (ILN), and Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rob Tautges, HLB Tautges, Redpath, Ltd • Sid Inman, Ehlers &Associates, Inc. 0 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND RATIFYING FINANCIAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ( "City ") and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( "HRA ") have previously created certain redevelopment projects known as the I nterstate-Lynda le-N icol let ( "ILN ") Redevelopment Project, the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet ( "LHN ") Redevelopment Project, and the Richfield Redevelopment Project (collectively, the "Project "), all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ( "HRA Act "); and WHEREAS, within one or more of the Projects, the City and HRA have established certain tax increment financing districts including the ILN TIF District, the LHN TIF District, the Cedar Avenue Business Area TIF District, and the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District (collectively, the "TIF Districts "); and WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed a financial analysis of the TIF Districts prepared by HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. titled Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts, dated November 2000 ( "TIF Report"), which describes the financing transactions related to the TIF Districts since their inception; and WHEREAS, the TIF Report analyzes fund balances, recommends certain fund transfers, and makes certain other recommendations regarding the accounting of transactions funded in whole or in part with tax increments from the TIF Districts; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is in the interests of the sound financial management of the City and the HRA to accept the TIF Report and take actions needed to implement its recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council accepts the TIF Report and ratifies and approves all expenditures described in the report and all transfers to and from the funds described and recommended in the TIF Report, specifically including prior tax increment expenditures approved by the City Council. 2. The Council authorizes and directs staff work to carry out the fund transfers and other recommendations made in the TIF Report. 3. The Council authorizes and directs City staff, working in cooperation with the HRA, to take all actions necessary to revise reports regarding the TIF Districts filed with the Office of the State Auditor in order to conform those reports with the TIF Report and this resolution. 1127TI F 4. The Council recommends that the HRA also accept the TIF Report and approve a substantially similar resolution implementing the recommendations contained in the report. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this November 27, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk r 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts ■ Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) ■ Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet (ILN) ■ Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) November 10, 2000 • 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Table of Contents Page Introduction.... ............................................................................ ............................... 3 Description of the Process ......................................................... ..............................4 Recommendations..................................................................... ............................... 5 Discussion and Analysis: Lyndale Hub and Nicollet District (LHN) ......................... ..............................6 Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet (ILN) ............................... .............................12 Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) ............................. .............................16 District Financial Transaction Summaries: Lyndale Hub and Nicollet District (LHN) ....................................... Schedule 1 Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet (ILN) ............... ............................... Schedule 2 Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) ............. ............................... Schedule 3 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Introduction A joint effort to analyze the tax increment transactions of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield was started in November, 1999. Participants in the process included: HRA Staff Bruce Palmborg Katia Medvetski Myrt Link City Staff Chris Regis Ehlers and Associates Sid Inman Rebecca Kurtz HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Rob Tautges i Tom Hodnefield l The districts analyzed were: • Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) • Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet (ILN) • Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) An analysis of the Richfield Rediscovered District is in process and will be issued separately. The objectives of the work were to: 1. Identify the remaining tax increment district balances by tracing district transactions from the inception of the District through the audited financial statements of the City and the HRA. 2. Define the specific funds in which the remaining district balances reside. 3. Segregate the residual balances of the specific funds between the portion that is unspent tax increment revenue and the portion that was generated from non -tax increment revenue sources. 4. Amend, if appropriate, the balances as reported in the Tax Increment Forms of the Office of the State Auditor (OSA). 3 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Description of the Process The process included the following: ■ Preparation by HRA staff of detail account expenditure and revenue transactions from the inception of each district. • Preparation by City and HRA staff of a number of schedules, such as combining fund worksheets that supported the amounts contained in the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Statements of the City and HRA. • Research by all participants of budgets, transfers, specific transactions, and other areas. ■ Consultation with Steve Bubul of Kennedy and Graven regarding interpretation of statutes. ■ A series of meetings to review the progress of the project. The work generally did not include testing of expenditures to invoices or other supporting documents. The work also did not resolve areas of potential challenge by the OSA review process. The OSA has taken certain positions regarding interpretation of tax increment statutes. Several of these positions, if deemed appropriate by the court system or the state legislature, would have broad sweeping effects on many, if not all, tax increment authorities in Minnesota. Areas often interpreted differently by tax increment authorities and the OSA include: ■ Adequate documentation of expenditures: 1. Administrative 2. Other • Commingling of TIF revenue with non -TIF revenue. • Transfers including authorization and reporting issues. • Potential overpayment of increment. • Budget and line item reporting specificity. • Various other compliance areas related to District formation and subsequent administration. The schedules and analysis contained in this report reflect common reporting and management practices of tax increment authorities in Minnesota. These practices have evolved since the 1970s as tax increment laws have changed and as practitioners have interpreted the statutes. 4 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Recommendations Based on the financial transaction summaries and analysis, the project team recommends the following actions.: 1. HRA Board and City Council ratification of the tax increment transactions from the inception of the Districts analyzed. 2. City and HRA staff to review District budgets and amendments thereto in light of the financial transaction summaries contained herein and evaluate the need for further amendments. 3. HRA staff to amend OSA TIF reports in accordance with the results of the financial summaries and analysis contained herein. 4. Transfer recommended amounts to match CABA tax increment eligible expenditures with CABA tax increment revenues. 5. Authorize the HRA staff to transfer residual non -TIF revenue balances to the Development Fund from the following funds: Fund # Description 481 LHN Tax Increment 943 LHN Redevelopment Project 482 ILN Tax Increment 483 CABA Tax Increment The transfers should be effective December 31, 2000 and reflect the residual non -TIF revenue balances of those funds as of that date. In addition to the above list, the HRA has budgeted residual fund balance transfers from the $1.9 million Redevelopment Bonds of 1988 (Fund 301). 6. The LHN District, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 469.176, will spend tax increment revenues exclusively for debt issued prior to April 1, 1990. In compliance with this statutory provision, pooled.debt issued after April 1, 1990 must be paid by other Districts starting April 1, 2001. Incompliance with statutes, authorize the re- designation of the G.O. Taxable TIF Bonds of 1996 and the related Capital Project Fund from LHN to ILN in accordance with the plan to retire the remaining pooled debt from ILN tax increment revenue. 5 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) LHN is a redevelopment district established in 1975. The City and HRA have used the following funds to account for LHN transactions: N/A (old 402) Redevelopment Bonds of 1984 N/A (old 403) 6.265 Ref Bonds of 1985 N/A (old 411) Ref Bonds of 1983 - Debt Service N/A (old 447) Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1977 N/A (old 449) Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1979 N/A (old 480) GO Improvement Bonds of 1980 N/A (old 505) LP705 LHN Public Improvement N/A (old 954) LHN Special Revenue 300 Redevelopment Bonds of 1977 Debt Service 302 GO Imp. Bonds of 1988 - Debt Service 303 GO Refunding Redevelopment Bonds of 1991 309 GO Refunding Bonds of 1988 312 GO Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1994B 313 $5,075 Taxable TIF.GO of 1996 481 LHN Tax Increment 942 Capital Projects Funding (1996 Bond Proceeds) 943 LHN Redevelopment Project 944 LHN Management Properties The detailed analysis of the LHN District includes the transactions of the above funds since 1976. The transaction summary is presented in Schedule 1. LHN has had a number of transfers effecting the reported balances of the District Funds. Transfers between funds generally occur to match funding sources with intended or restricted uses. The LHN District reflects transfers of non -TIF amounts that are not restricted by the tax increment statutes. Such funding sources include, for example, interest on investments and sale of property. The LHN District funds generated over $22 million of non -TIF revenue since the inception of the District. Transfers from the LHN District also reflect pooling of tax increment revenue between Districts as authorized by statutes. LHN transfers are detailed in Schedule 1. 6 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Reporting of transfers on OSA TIF forms exclude infra- district transfers, for example, the transfer of tax increment revenue from a Capital Project Fund to a Debt Service Fund that pays debt of the tax increment district. Transfers out which were used to reimburse other funds for budgeted tax increment qualifying expenditures are reported on the OSA TIF forms as an expenditure of TIF revenue. Reporting of transfers contained in this report is consistent with the recommended procedures as published by the OSA. The calculated LHN Tax Increment District Balance at December 31, 1999 was as follows compared to the 1999 submitted OSA TIF form: 312 Refunding Imp. Bonds of 1994B 481 LHN Tax Increment 942 Capital Projects Funding (1996 Bond Proceeds) 943 LHN Redevelopment Project 944 LHN Management Properties Total District balance per 1999 OSA TIF form Difference December 31, 1999 Balance $ 7,068 1,954,375 3,128,370 303,062 (248,878) 5,143,997 7,235,918 $ (2,091,921) The above difference relates to changes in methods of accumulating accounting information since the 1970s. City and HRA systems, personnel and record retention policies have changed over the periods included in the tax increment cumulative reported balances. Additionally, the OSA reporting form has changed significantly from the initial reporting requirements. 7 14291.1 ID Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts We recommend that the OSA TIF form be amended to reflect the amounts as summarized in this report. The LHN District balance calculated on Schedule 1 from the inception of the District through December 31, 1999 is as follows: 14291.1 8 Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) Sources: Total TIF Non -TIF Bond proceeds $ 54,609,933 $ 53,809,933 $ 800,000 Tax increments (TIF) 35,836,439 35,836,439 - Homestead Credit (HACA) 768,771 - 768,771 Interest on investments 13,244,229 - 13,244,229 Sale of property 1,517,941 - 1,517,941 Special assessments 4,177,974 - 4,177,974 Rent 24,235 - 24,235 Intergovernmental revenue 1,996,094 - 1,996,094 Contributions 65 - 65 Refunds & reimbursements 74,705 - 74,705 Other 404,477 - 404,477 Total sources of funds 112,654,863 89,646,372 23,008,491 Expenditures and other uses (101,368,204) (100,474,536) (893,668) Transfers in 1,414,531 763,337 651,194 Transfers out (7,557,193) (1,033,043) (6,524,150) Balance - December 31,1999 $ 5,143,997 $ (11,097,870) $ 16,241,867 14291.1 8 r Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts The HRA has systematically transferred non -TIF revenue to the Development Fund and other funds as financial planning initiatives have identified funding requirements. Based on the financial analysis contained herein, the remaining balance of the LHN District funds includes unspent tax increment revenue that is the remaining bond proceeds included in the fund balance of the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942). The remaining balance of LHN District funds as segregated between TIF revenue and non - TIF revenue is calculated as follows: District balance - December 31, 1999 * Non-TIF revenue: Total non-TIF revenue Transfers in of non -TIF revenue Transfers out of non -TIF revenue Net non-TIF revenue Lyndale Hub and Nicollet 942 Capital Projects Other Funding Total $2,015,627 $ 3,128,370 $5,143,997 21,731,245 477,246 22,208,491 651,194 - 651,194 (6,145,201) (316,772) (6,461,973) 16,237,238 160,474 16,397,712 Non-TIF revenue in excess of District Balance 14,221,611 - 14,221,611 Unspent tax increment revenue $ - $ 2,967,896 $2,967,896 * District balance will increase by $249,978 based on matching transfers in related to land purchase. The above table indicates that the remaining LHN District balance at December 31, 1999 consists of non -TIF revenue except for the residual bond proceeds of the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942). This non -TIF balance may be transferred to other HRA funds subject to: ■ Cautions outlined earlier in this report regarding OSA interpretation of TIF statutes • Other potential OSA audit findings • Other restrictions such as bond covenants The residual 'bond proceeds of the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) are from a pooled debt bond issue. The remaining proceeds may be used in the Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet District (ILN) and other districts which qualify for pooling. Future debt retirement is anticipated from the ILN District. The source of future funding was planned based on statutory provisions that restrict the use of LHN tax increments starting April 1, 2001 as follows: 9 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Section: 469.176 Duration limits; pre -1979 districts. For tax increment financing districts created prior to August 1, 1979, no tax increment shall be paid to the authority after April 1, 2001, or the term of a nondefeased bond or obligation outstanding on April 1, 1990, secured by increments from the district or project area, whichever time is greater, provided that in no case will a tax increment be paid to an authority after August 1, 2009, from such a district. If a district's termination date is extended beyond April 1, 2001, because bonds were outstanding on April 1, 1990, with maturities extending beyond April 1, 2001, the following restrictions apply. No increment collected from the district may be expended after April 1, 2001, except to pay or defease (i) bonds issued before April 1, 1990, or (ii) bonds issued to refund the principal of the outstanding bonds and pay associated issuance costs, provided the average maturity of the refunding bonds does not exceed the bonds refunded. i. We recommend that the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) be reclassified from LHN to ILN as of December 31, 2000. The reclassification will not impact the accounting system; however, the OSA TIF forms will reflect a pooling transfer between the districts to formally recognize the shift in source of funding of the bond issue from LHN to ILN. 10 14291.1 • 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts The preceding table also indicates that non -TIF revenue is sufficient to fund the current recorded non -TIF revenue transfers out. In 1997, Capital Projects Funding (Fund 942) transferred amounts to purchase property (the Jensen property). The property was a budgeted expenditure of the CABA District. Additionally, as discussed later in this report, the CABA District transferred amounts that are designated for this same purchase. The transfers from Capital Projects Funding were as follows. for the Jensen property acquisition: 1997 - budgeted 1997 - actual property purchase Total 1997 transfers 1998 - reverse 1997 Net transfers out Matching transfers: Development Fund Galyans/Interchange Adjusted net transfers out of non -TIF revenue $343,530 282,000 625,530 (282,000) 343,530 (146,463) (103,515) (249,978) $93,552 As further discussed in the CABA section of this report, we recommend the above matching transfers be recorded in 2000. 11. l Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Interstate Lyndale Nicollet (ILN) ILN is a redevelopment district established in 1985. The City and HRA have used the following funds to account for ILN transactions: 301 482 945 946 N/A (old 337) N/A (old 40 1) N/A (old 404) N/A (old 961) $1.9 Redevelopment Bonds of 1988 ILN Tax Increment Fund ILN Capital Project ILN Acquisitions City ILN PIEL Redevelopment Bonds of 1985 ILN Tax Increment 1251 ILN Capital Project The detailed analysis of the ILN District includes the transactions of the above funds since 1985. The transaction summary is presented in Schedule 2. LHN has had a number of transfers effecting the reported balances of the District Funds. Transfers between funds generally occur to match funding sources with intended or restricted uses. The ILN District reflects transfers of non -TIF amounts that are not restricted by the tax increment statutes. Such funding sources include, for example, interest on investments, sale of property and Municipal State Aid (MSA). The ILN District funds generated over $6.2 million of non -TIF revenue since the inception of the District. Transfers to the ILN District include pooling of tax increment revenue from the LHN District as authorized by statutes. ILN transfers are detailed in Schedule 2. Reporting of transfers on OSA TIF forms exclude intra - district transfers, for example, the transfer of tax increment revenue from a Capital Project Fund to a Debt Service Fund that pays debt of the tax increment district. Transfers out which were used to reimburse other funds for budgeted tax increment qualifying expenditures are reported on the OSA TIF forms as an expenditure of TIF revenue. Reporting of transfers contained in this report is consistent with the recommended procedures as published by the OSA. 12 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts The calculated ILN Tax Increment District Balance at December 31, 1999 was as follows compared to the 1999 submitted OSA TIF form: 301 $1.9 Redev Bonds of 1988 482 ILN Tax Increment 945/946 ILN Redevelopment Capital Project Total District balance per 1999 TIF Form Difference December 31, 1999 Balance - $ 652,942 1,214,596 (269,171) 1,598,367 (88,771) $ 1,687,138 The above difference relates to changes in methods of accumulating accounting information since the 1970s. City and HRA systems, personnel and record retention policies have changed over the periods included in the tax increment cumulative reported balances. Additionally, the OSA reporting form has changed significantly from the initial reporting requirements. 14291.1 13 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts We recommend that the OSA TIF form be amended to reflect the amounts as summarized in this report. The ILN District balance calculated on Schedule 2 from the inception of the District through December 31, 1999 is as follows: Sources: Bond proceeds Tax increments (TIF) Homestead Credit (HACA) Interest on investments Sale of property Special assessments Municipal State Aid (MSA) Total sources of funds Expenditures and other uses Transfers in Transfers out Balance - December 31,1999 Interstate Lyndale Nicollet (ILN) Total TIF Non -TIF $ 20,558,470 $ 20,558,470 $ - 7,331,562 7,331,562 - 8,357 - 8,357 4,104,846 124,335 3,980,511 752,825 - 752,825 48,202 - 48,202 1,429,443 - 1,429,443 34,233,705 28,014,367 6,219,338 (34,552,645) (34,386,315) (166,330) 2,109,467 1,443,017 666,450 (192,160) (192,160) $ 1,598,367 $- (4,928,931) $ 6,527,298 14 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Based on the financial analysis contained herein, the remaining balance of the ILN District funds includes no unspent tax increment revenue. The remaining balance of ILN District funds as segregated between TIF revenue and non -TIF revenue is calculated as follows: $1.9 Redevelopment Bonds The above table indicates that the remaining ILN District balance at December 31, 1999 consists of non -TIF revenue. This non -TIF balance may be transferred to other HRA funds subject to: ■ Cautions outlined earlier in this report regarding OSA interpretation of TIF statutes • Other potential OSA audit findings • Other restrictions such as bond covenants As discussed in the Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) section of this report, the residual bond proceeds of the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) are from a pooled debt bond issue. The remaining proceeds may be used in the Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet District (ILN) and other districts which qualify for pooling. Future debt retirement is anticipated from the ILN District. Based on these facts, we recommend that the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) be reclassified from LHN to ILN as of December 31, 2000. The reclassification will not impact the accounting system; however, the OSA TIF forms will reflect a pooling transfer between the districts to formally recognize the shift in source of funding of the bond issue from LHN to ILN. t 15 14291.1 Other of 1988 Total District balance - December 31, 1999 $ 945,425 $ 652,942 $ 1,598,367 Non -TIF revenue: Total non -TIF revenue 4,977,773 1,241,565 6,219,338 Transfers in of non -TIF revenue 666,450 - 666,450 Transfers out of non -TIF revenue (192,160) - (192,160) Net non -TIF revenue 5,452,063 1,241,565 6,693,628 Non -TIF revenue in excess of District Balance a 4,506,638 588,623 5,095,261 Unspent tax increment revenue $ - $ - $ _ The above table indicates that the remaining ILN District balance at December 31, 1999 consists of non -TIF revenue. This non -TIF balance may be transferred to other HRA funds subject to: ■ Cautions outlined earlier in this report regarding OSA interpretation of TIF statutes • Other potential OSA audit findings • Other restrictions such as bond covenants As discussed in the Lyndale Hub and Nicollet (LHN) section of this report, the residual bond proceeds of the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) are from a pooled debt bond issue. The remaining proceeds may be used in the Interstate Lyndale and Nicollet District (ILN) and other districts which qualify for pooling. Future debt retirement is anticipated from the ILN District. Based on these facts, we recommend that the HRA Capital Projects Fund (Fund 942) be reclassified from LHN to ILN as of December 31, 2000. The reclassification will not impact the accounting system; however, the OSA TIF forms will reflect a pooling transfer between the districts to formally recognize the shift in source of funding of the bond issue from LHN to ILN. t 15 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) CABA is an economic development district established in 1988. The City and HRA have used the following funds to account for CABA transactions: Fund # Description 407 CABA Tax Increment 906 CABA 483 CABA Tax Increment The detailed analysis of the CABA District includes the transactions of the above funds since 1987. The transaction summary is presented in Schedule 3. CABA has had a number of transfers effecting the reported balances of the District Funds. Transfers between funds generally occur to match funding sources with intended or restricted uses. The CABA District reflects transfers of non -TIF amounts that are not restricted by the tax increment statutes. Such funding sources include, for example, interest on investments and sale of property. The CABA District funds generated over $150,000 of non -TIF revenue since the inception of the District. CABA transfers are detailed in Schedule 3. Reporting of transfers on OSA TIF forms exclude transfers out which were used to reimburse other funds for budgeted tax increment qualifying expenditures. Such amounts are reported on the OSA TIF forms as an expenditure of TIF revenue. Reporting of transfers contained in this report is consistent with the recommended procedures as published by the OSA. 16 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts In 1996 and 1997, the CABA District transferred $249,978 to the Development Fund ($146,463) and to Galyans/Interchange ($103,515). Budgeted CABA eligible expenditures, however, were expended from the HRA General Fund for Modification #3 to the tax increment plan. To properly match CABA tax increment revenue with eligible expenditures, we recommend the following transfers: 931 Development Fund 453 Galyans/Interchange 942 Capital Projects Funding To From $ 146,463 - 103,515 $ 249,978 - The calculated CABA Tax Increment District Balance at December 31, 1999 was as follows compared to the 1999 submitted OSA TIF form: December 31, 1999 Balance 483 CABA Tax Increment $ 18,002 906 CABA (215) Total 17,787 District balance per 1999 TIF Form 18,427 Difference $ (640) 17 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts We recommend that the OSA TIF form be amended to reflect the amounts as summarized in this report. The CABA District balance calculated on Schedule 3 from the inception of the District through December 31, 1999 is as follows: Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) Sources: Total TIF Non -TIF Tax increments (TIF) $ 1,814,888 $ 1,814,888 $ - Interest on investments 85,948 3,223 82,725 Sale of property 75,780 - 75,780 Total sources of funds 1,976,616 1,818,111 158,505 Expenditures and other uses (1,818,111) (1,818,111) - Transfers in Transfers out (140,718) - (140,718) Balance - December 31, 1999 $ 17,787 $ - $ 17,787 18 14291.1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield 1 Financial Reporting Analysis Tax Increment Districts • Based on the financial analysis contained herein, the remaining balance of the CABA District funds includes no unspent tax increment revenue. The remaining balance of CABA District funds as segregated between TIF revenue and non -TIF revenue is calculated as follows: District balance - December 31, 1999 Non -TIF revenue: Total non -TIF revenue Transfers in of non -TIF revenue Transfers out of non -TIF revenue Net non -TIF revenue Non -TIF revenue in excess of District Balance Unspent tax increment revenue $ 17,787 158,505 (140,718) 17,787 The above table indicates that the remaining CABA District balance at December 31, 1999 consists of non -TIF revenue. This non -TIF balance may be transferred to other HRA funds subject to: • Cautions outlined earlier in this report regarding OSA interpretation of TIF statutes • Other potential OSA audit findings • Other restrictions such as bond covenants 19 14291.1 Ll Z FOF.. U Z D Z W � Z � L - ^ N DC Q N N O N � P � s �_ . • r . • - R O �_ _ - P p N •1 N N SL • _ h M N ... • M A H V p N N N N C: N N C Q •N•1 N ty. N N V m „� M F_ •� _ i • ao r M N A •V•1 Y N .P.• r N N !P•1 M � _ � N N � N y��Z7ij• (� . _ N pc • ro �. " DON vt vi N pp. < � N • r O N � c N l("Y• pp X01 N b r v v N 1�1 O ONO b N Ir•1 O O v p ^ pp b v e c r e N o � ii• H - pep O` w N v v ,,. O •O.f •pNpif yy N iy4j P ? o h o mc�ro aq V• H _ p v N � V _ N M r � n n ^ oe P N aC ry T C •�•• S N n oD N � • n n M QD V v b « r n •M•f_ � ppGG T r • � . • O - Y • • • r . d O Qm M N O � � N � � „ H ••i 00 v v OD p� P N P a N 9 F �� ` �-n -•Nips �S, ev �= � � r Hao�n� r� r.Ni� � O_ m • � N O � P H P oz n r • • • c N (A d 4I N � V _ ,^ _v ... v � N ... - - - H p n v P ^ N c c a `o c u° °` OC m$ U 4 u ��F -•�SU •� 4E� E$ E a e Y w y 6 U u 9 C_ < 5� M Q 4' N uF=^ u °�p�< �•� E E y 3U °9.5 °i'Y, vY.. ge YOYCY •. .�.0 S 55' uaaccuu� §�vS�scu�c =a�5�ae�a <aa L Z C y z F cc 0!C < Z' � 2 � z S 3} • • • • _ •n vN1 0 0 N C N C r C • N �k �'o i -N � m s „ _ „ __ a •.� o_ eo v N T u e r V=v ^8 H N 5 ups Vy ^ •'• ? n Y N n�m _ n P h D? _ Q N P N vNl • rm•1 C- P O 0�0. O C- n h v N `N" O XVr v O N N _ C v _ ''� ^N• h ^ 6 � N N m m O n i� N m O O P �� N O m • • • � In.1 « Q m n n 00 ^ ]2 n S b V T N N 1P n ? V N �' c o � H d a M • oe r e" c' 'i 1c �' r � •rVi ry e N e N N w lz _ QQP N 8 N • b v N P M N C V P V • In P N r m Y aC N P a C N V N N= b fn m pC Z w ... r •wif ry h n •wn p! ^ N O N •n ^ h g IL Q Q � M O N Cp Cp H N n N N Q N Y h m V w n n e r O v N N �' N v 3 Y1 « O w m n� h •nA Y _ _ I O • • n N w M y a N N N A P � n P � w v O � •! • �D m • H v P T? S O P L y m ° v a O. � •.. P P V O 'af x ad S C U u o v�^ F u E .o o. U .o.. Q';� % a 4 a a iL g U Y. E s � C � Z ZZ ZZY $$� •� � po O oo E- ry<<ry;; ` yG.Si C7V��oS c.Q GFOE E �' VI °.5 v u °u, e� j jdoGCPMSC7 'ZU°�o a, Z, ° 5i� §6U �uaauuu�c�4c�cu�cxau 5 €qa <a °£a <g c� aY m e ion woi in v c 0 • z N Z 5 F� zZ ^ m • n r. P N y. p— V P P O a• m C Oe C N v N N N N — — .•p �iP1 O 'O • N en O p OO O V N 1 M 00 1� wOi • N Y N b �r N N V F v R P r O N 3i L � N I:r Q N • M M r N q w . P N N M N ,` p • C O H r . r N S O O n^ v O O • O. rPii N N wbf 9 6 C r eC rr c C ..d C Z C U Z O P r' tG 5 3 '3 09 a Z > O C y F 93 H 00 �2rnc'e5aacSv°i^, ^ „yF QE$u `' °C -o° aviwr du�.0 $o swve �� O$O �•` �a90 -�, u C a �= Z a F N F e zz z�a'i+ a9 $ uupQUa duc� ud ZNZ Z° �- d dOUV� v,uu O y� iZZN� wgyy r.:Z dEd -dN O O O >UU dddP <eSCSU� y v° `� {i ti t+. ii 0.• FFF HFFHFFF pp�� v Z% rl w 9 4 z <Z F U z z fi. o .e$$eT_ eQ. F N ■■ N h N Q r .NM O 00 O N b .P•1 v n Q N z cX le W N p� V 0• Qpp O O Q n r�� b M O� Q P N Q� N n M . � O P r N pp� P O r Cl • ` Q •mn .rp N_ Q wbf h N P ~� N T 00 N r . •^ N .Q..- N M N b IM O. N p �•q PP I`ZI pS QQ '� Q p� Q b _ � — O wNi M y N N (� T-. n b b '•. N aC r N .bi. r P N P 0r0 20 <Pp p N M N O b N O O N O r r O b m N N P W y .. C pP• `7 :p I m O m Q • n ae N C N iY mb O b P Q O ISM O O r P .ri. O P n P ar0 4z7 pVr, - ct r b o b It m oho r m Q O. O ••� m N fN N Q. 0 r `? •� P • O' . O N e•i O• p .O N CC J E can z — z _Z ,, Z` V' C U F J U u� z ...1 5C ZA J Z P 5 5 C L '$ .Cz O 7 9 5 M 9CV�5 z P u 0. .. U C� 45 u0a EIS u4`a $..ya V i >�, •Gz $ a�F�Fo�c o z z z g$ C E°'°' Gua 3 GOO•d h ZrZ ZP A d'?d U QU tS'F tn°U �'g. i.0 Z Z ZnN� D..Z ^PQ <x wi o 0 0 0 op�vu.Y:ddd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O P N ti W x n Mao g e P# C n • H 47 �i h z 0 F J y Z a 0 N 00 d b O N a0 n v1 M 7 �D O OCL Go O " T n M , M M en C-4 M 6q (d) W 10 M 10 ° C h „ K M ? � R F W N H °. O n n [1 M M `� �O f1 �• C4 m 'A Vl M 10 �D M K On0 fA a n -N ^ 1 100 n O � h ? w 6n 6n N 10 IC M q M 6A ., . rWM N O oo — O Y 6A 69 f9 ar- C, o T G a In 00 o N N N ��•. r Go 6^A fA W M 6A fA N M f9 fA M N N vj W N N N N f9 fA � 69 a0 00 OO p 10 60 b 69 O� 6A y� lc� a, � v � Q 00 V 7 a n — Nom' 610 a6i ' el a 12, `� w _N o ° = ono oho o = oho v” obi h h o Nv f A K a a W w N O V O R ? L N V•' O ' O 'O >,�� G I6. Li L 6w v h Sr y a O C C 'O r 'O L L 60 W h • C3 M U•� o o c•E °vEeMO �a��'c7�w u 64oFZ F 0�0� 'Oro CC? F- 5 m U a 0 N 00 d • • t, w C 6 .7 0 U 4Z F cc SE h O� c c O r N r OIL t C.4 00 m F � � 'A w N V pp N r fA �y O b N w �+ p N h Iq W 00 n N n T o ^ N f en 44 44 � V W M � K 00 a0 .1 W O 0C� 0 00 ? C4 ' 7 W R O b N In b b N N K iq u � o: 64-M W F-. ;s � rWW1. OO OF C� - b V05 N b N N W v 614 Vq 0cn0 n O. vV11 h h b ^ v t+1 N V) K N O� O O O C In m N o0 7 V. C 00 V O < V � 0 ,C L k" O C 'O C oo Q 7 c 7 V V n Q °o �+ u, y V o G C . U o oZ; v v � >> >> =� 7 .Z N C O M .�.. eFfFFF� -[- avva cc SE h O� • r AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # 300 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SID INMAN AND REBECCA KURTZ EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. NAME, TLTLE BRUCE PALMBORG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 12A 70 NAME, TLTLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution modifying the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifying the, Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District, Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, A- 5 Tax Increment Financing District, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing District. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: approve a resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifying the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan, Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan, A -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan. II. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2000 the HRA approved the attached modifications. In summary this amendment accomplishes three things; a. Adds 11 properties to the list of parcels which may be acquired under Richfield Rediscovered; b. Accommodates the potential of the City Bella project moving forward; and 1127RR c. Completes modifications to fully implement the bond funding provided by the HRA and City Council last year. Since 1990, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program has provided the vehicle for the purchase and clearance of small, substandard houses and the availability of vacant lots for the construction of larger, single family homes. The demand for this new housing continues. Over time, however, the dynamics of the program have changed such that a new approach to funding was required in order to sustain the program. To that end, in 1999 the City of Richfield sold General Obligation Bonds to provide funding for the 2000 Richfield Rediscovered Program. These bonds are paid for utilizing the 15 percent trust fund revenue source from the Gramercy and Urban Village tax increment projects. The City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) are initiating actions to expand the number of properties to be acquired and to provide funding for the next several years. These modifications account for those payments from the Gramercy and Urban Village tax increment projects and add an additional 11 parcels that will be available for acquisition. The modifications are specifically aimed at the following: Modification of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan: • Modification to the parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, Urban Village TIF District and Richfield Rediscovered TIF District; • Modification to the Sources of Funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF 10 District and Urban Village TIF District; • Modification to the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; • Modification to the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; • Modification to the Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness to increase the total to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy. TIF District; and • Modification to the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 and B -5 TIF Districts. • Modification to the Gramercy Tax Increment Fjnancj Plan: • Modification to incorporate the list of 28 acquisition parcels from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan; • Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69th Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 • 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 • Modification to allow the use of Gramercy TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; • Modification to include the current Impact on the Tax Base, Impact on the Tax Rates, and Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion; • Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered acquisition parcels; • Modification to allow for interfund loans to cover project expenses and to include language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds; and • Modification of the Sources and Uses of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness and the Uses of Funds to include an increase to a total of $63,000,000 due to the addition and identification of the construction of a mixed use commercial /housing component referred to as City Bella. Modification to the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan: • Modification to incorporate the list of 28 acquisition parcels from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan; • Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69th Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 • Modification to allow the use of Urban Village TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; • Modification to allow for interfund loans to cover project expenses and to include 10 language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds; and • Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered 10 acquisition parcels. Modification to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan: • Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69 Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 • Modification to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; and • Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered acquisition parcels. Modification to the A -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan: • Modification to remove two parcels from the A -5 TIF District and include them in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District Modification to the B -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan: • Modification to remove one parcel from the B -5 TIF District and include it in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is the City's policy to comply with the State of Minnesota's Tax Increment Financing Act. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program continues to be a successful program which clears small, substandard houses and provides vacant lots for the construction of larger single family homes in the community. • Richfield Rediscovered is a proven redevelopment program yet requires the modification of its plans from time to time in order to provide updated lists of qualifying properties to comply with tax increment budgetary considerations and to maintain funding opportunities. • The HRA approved a similar resolution at their meeting on October 16, 2000. C. FINANCIAL • The Council's consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., has prepared the modifications in conjunction with legal counsel's review and found them to be in compliance with existing law. D. LEGAL • The Council's consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., has prepared the modifications in conjunction with legal counsel's review and found them to be in compliance with existing law. • Notice of public hearing was inadvertently published in the Edina Sun Current on November 1, 2000. Therefore, the public hearing was re- published on November 8, 2000 in the proper newspaper. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The Council may choose to delay approval of the modifications or to not approve them at this time. However, that would provide an interruption to the continuity of the Richfield Rediscovered Program, delay the removal of substandard properties, and delay the construction of new single family homes. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Plan Modification • Comments from Hennepin County VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates, Inc. will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING THERETO; MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE B -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota ( "Council ") adopt the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District, Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 District; Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the A -5 District; and Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the B -5 District (collectively, the "Modifications "), all pursuant to and in conformity with existing law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Modifications and presented for the Council's consideration; and WHEREAS, the Council has investigated the facts relating to the Modifications and has caused the Modifications to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed developments as described in the Modifications, in the opinion of the Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary; and WHEREAS, the Council has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Modifications, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Gramercy, Urban Village, and Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A -5 and B -5 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts, notice of the modifications to the local county commissioner, a request for review of and written comment on the Modifications by the City Planning Commission, and a public hearing on the Modifications upon published notice as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council is not modifying the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Council is not modifying the boundaries of the Gramercy TIF District, the Urban Village TIF District, the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District, the A- 5 TIF District nor the B -5 TIF District; and 1127RR WHEREAS, a public hearing was held after proper public notice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A public hearing has been held, and the Council hereby approves the modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan. 2. The Council is modifying the list of parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy TIF District, the Urban Village TIF District and the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District to include 11 additional parcels and state the City's intent to acquire additional parcels when necessary. 3. The Council is modifying the sources of funds to include an interfund loan to cover project expenses in the Gramercy TIF District and a second loan to purchase certain properties, and to include language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds. 4. The Council is modifying the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values. 5. The Council is modifying the Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness and the Uses of Funds in the Gramercy TIF District to include a budget increase due to the addition and identification of the construction of a mixed use commercial /housing component referred to as City Bella. 6. The Council is modifying the sources of funds in the Urban Village TIF District to allow for interfund loans to cover project expenses and to include language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds. 7. The Council is modifying the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 TIF District and the B -5 TIF District to remove parcels from the Districts and identifying them as parcels to be acquired using tax increment from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. 8. The Council hereby approves the modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy TIF District, Urban Village TIF District, Richfield Rediscovered TIF District, the A -5 TIF District, and B -5 TIF District. 9. The Modifications, as presented to the Council on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. 10. The staff, the Council's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Modifications and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to the Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Modifications does not constitute approval of any project or any development agreement with any developer. 11. The City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of the Modifications to the Hennepin County Auditor and the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, subdivision 2. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of November, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 Draft as of October 24, 2000 • MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE B -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: November 13, 2000 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. E H L E R S 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 & A S S O C I A T E S I N C (651) 697 -8500 fax: (651) 697 -8555 www.ehiers- inc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ................ ............................... 1 Introduction..................................... ..............................1 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ............................. 2 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT ............. 3 Introduction................................... ............................... 3 Property to be Acquired ................ ............................... _ ... 4 Sources of Funds ................ ............. ............................... 5 Duration of the District .......................... ............................... 6 Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............... ............................... 6 Estimated Captures Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ............................... 7 Usesof Funds ................................. ............................... 7 Sources of RevenueBondedIndebtedness ........... ............................... 8 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ...... ............................... 9 MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT .............. ............................... 10 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ....... 11 Introduction.................................. ............................... 11 Property to be Acquired ........................ ............................... 11 Sources of Funds . ............................... 13 MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ......... ............................... 14 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIFDISTRICT ..................................... ............................... 15 Introduction......... ....................... ............................... 15 Property to be Acquired ........................ ............................... 15 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE A -5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 18 Statement of Objectives ........................ ............................... 18 Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 ................. 18 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE B-5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 19 Statement of Objectives ........................ ............................... 19 Legal Description*of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B -5 .................. 19 0 MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Introduction The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area originally adopted by the Richfield City Council on June 14, 1993, and revised subsequently thereafter. Generally, the substantive changes in this plan modification include the following modifications, all in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area: a. Modifying the parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, Urban Village TIF District and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District; b. Modifying the sources of funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District; C. Modifying the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; d. Modifying the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; e. Modifying the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District; and f. Clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District; g. Modifying the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 TIF District and B -5 TIF District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted July 16, 1990, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department of the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. 0 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA C7 • t 9� t ti t; t lHilitill C3' �Z $ ri a I go— il��w —�► ice, INNI ONE Mil �ill�iiiiii� MISS MEN MINE • iiiiii'iiiii i��Siii .ii ■ ■ ! - ■� - -viii■ i - r� i ■��. ■, ■ ■ ■iiii • MRS.- _ -_-_- WIN NINE MISS ■ j `_ r— —t ' =00M INNE �. = i 1011= MINE iOWi'ii— - 1- Mold --— MORNME SEEM MOMMOM _ s - i W$ N 0 0 °v 0 .o P Oi S O kL R w m w w 3 N z V a I go— il��w —�► ice, INNI ONE Mil �ill�iiiiii� MISS MEN MINE • iiiiii'iiiii i��Siii .ii ■ ■ ! - ■� - -viii■ i - r� i ■��. ■, ■ ■ ■iiii • MRS.- _ -_-_- WIN NINE MISS ■ j `_ r— —t ' =00M INNE �. = i 1011= MINE iOWi'ii— - 1- Mold --— MORNME SEEM MOMMOM _ s - i W$ N 0 0 °v 0 .o P Oi S O kL R MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City "), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District (the "Gramercy TIF Plan" and "Gramercy TIF District "). The Gramercy TIF District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Gramercy TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. I incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan"), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council ") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revised by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 11 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Vilage and RR 1999 TIF Districts; C. allow the use of Gramercy TIF District increment (the "Gramercy Increment ") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels; and e. allow interfund loans to pay eligible project costs for Gramercy TIF District activities prior to the receipt of Gramercy Increment. f. modify the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment, and the. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; g. modify the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; h. modify the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District; and i. clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District; C, • Property to be Acquired The Acquisition Parcels listed in the RR 1999 TIF Plan and New Acquisition Parcels, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels, are listed for reference purposes and made part of the Gramercy TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that Gramercy Increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 3rd Avenue 6637 51 Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 6833 Park Avenue 6833 Grand Avenue 7036 1" Avenue 72412 nd Avenue 7316 Clinton Avenue 7301 Garfield Avenue 75442 nd Avenue 7333 Emerson Avenue 6928 141 Avenue 6315 Newton Avenue 6310 Irving Avenue 6306 Irving Avenue 6320 Girard Avenue 6645 Knox Avenue 6800 Logan Avenue 6912 Penn Avenue 6933 Queen Avenue Parcel Numbers 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 27- 028 -24 -41 -0084 27- 028 -24 -41 -0105 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 34- 028 -24 -12 -0015 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 28- 02.8 -24 -21 -0075 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 28= 028 -24 -12 -0033 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 4 6833 Penn Avenue 6929 Queen Avenue 6901 12''' Avenue 6945 Clinton Avenue 7615 Pillsbury Avenue New Acquisition Parcels: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 69`h Street 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 27- 028 -24 -44 -0108 34- 028 -24 -34 -0045 Parcel Numbers 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 27- 028 - 24-42 -0064 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 28- 028 -24-24 -0009 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 27- 028 -24 -42 -0070 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Gramercy TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Sources of Funds Due to the build -out schedule for the entire Gramercy TIF District, an interf ind loan of $275,000 will be made from the General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1996 (the "Bonds of 1996 ") to cover project expenses of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District. The Bonds of 1996 are part of the revenue sources of the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District (the "ILN TIF District"). M.S. Section 469.1763, Subd. 2 allows tax increment revenue to be pooled between tax increment districts for eligible project costs. A second interfund loan up to $500,000 from the Development Account will be used to purchase certain properties within the Gramercy TIF District. Additional interfund loans from the City, HRA or other districts may be used to cover project expenses of the Gramercy TIF District. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with tax increment from the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District. 5 0 Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the Gramercy District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of the Gramercy District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that the Gramercy District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify the Gramercy District prior to the legally required date. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the Gramercy TIF District is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 1998 for taxes payable 1999. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. change in tax exempt status of property; reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; change in the use of the property and classification; change in state law governing class rates; or change in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of the Gramercy TIF District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. Listed in the table below is a comparison of the Original Tax Capacity and Original Local Tax Rate for the Gramercy TIF District as originally approved by the City Council on June 22, 1998, and as currently proposed: . * Based on taxes payable 1998 ** Based on taxes payable 2000 IDThe values for the current proposal reflect redevelopment of Phase II of the Gramercy TIF District, namely the "City Bella" project, a mixed -use commercial, retail and housing project. As Approved on June 22, 1998* As Modified 11/13/00 ** Original Tax Capacity Value $84,482 $62,805 Percent Retained by City 100% 100% Estimated Original Local Tax Rate 138.585 — Certified Original Local Tax Rate — 151.7290 Current Local Tax Rate — 132.6410 * Based on taxes payable 1998 ** Based on taxes payable 2000 IDThe values for the current proposal reflect redevelopment of Phase II of the Gramercy TIF District, namely the "City Bella" project, a mixed -use commercial, retail and housing project. 0 Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment • Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the Gramercy District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1999. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Uses of Funds The Gramercy TIF District is a phased redevelopment project consisting of (a.) a senior cooperative housing project and VFW facility; and (b.) a mixed use commercial/housing component known as city Bella. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the projects for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the Gramercy TIF District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Gramercy TIF District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Gramercy District is outlined in the following table: As Approved on As Modified June 22, 1998* 11/13/00 ** Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion 1,045,848 1,698,599 of Project (PTC) Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 84,482 62,805 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 961,366 1,635,794 Estimated Annual Tax Increment $1,332,309 — (CTC X Local Tax Rate) Estimated Annual Tax Increment — $2,169,733 (CTC X Current Local Tax Rate) Uses of Funds The Gramercy TIF District is a phased redevelopment project consisting of (a.) a senior cooperative housing project and VFW facility; and (b.) a mixed use commercial/housing component known as city Bella. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the projects for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the Gramercy TIF District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Gramercy TIF District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Gramercy District is outlined in the following table: • Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay -as- you -go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $63,000,000, as modified without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This -provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay -as- you -go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer. The estimated sources of funds for the Gramercy District are contained in the table below. As Modified As Modified 11/13/00 October 11, 1999 Uses of Funds Gramercy City Bella Total Land Acquisition $10,426,057 $5,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 Demo./Relocation $1,920,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 Rehabilitation $1,120,000 Site Work $1,383,093 $700,000 $500,000 $1,200,000 Utilities/Roads/Walks $1,648,850 $100,000 $500,000 $600,000 Permits $1,972,000 $34,500,000 Interest $15,500,000 $600,000 Admin.costs (up to 10 %) $3,357,568 TOTAL $37,327,568 $5,900,000 $22,000,000 $63,000,000 Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay -as- you -go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $63,000,000, as modified without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This -provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay -as- you -go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer. The estimated sources of funds for the Gramercy District are contained in the table below. • • C Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Gramercy District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated total impact of the Gramercy District, as modified, would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2000/2001 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Enti ty Total Hennepin County 1,387,128,179 1,635,794 0.1179% I.S.D. No. 280 24,057,761 1,635,794 6.7994% City of Richfield 26,732,297 1,635,794 6.1192% As Modified on October 11, 1999 As Modified 11/13/00 Sources of Funds All Phases Total All Phases Total Tax Increment $31,950,860 $60,000,000 Local Contribution $1,678,793 $3,000,000 Land Sales $840,000 Taxes Other Tax Increment $2,857,927 27.70% TOTAL $37,327,580 $63,000,000 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Gramercy District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated total impact of the Gramercy District, as modified, would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2000/2001 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Enti ty Total Hennepin County 1,387,128,179 1,635,794 0.1179% I.S.D. No. 280 24,057,761 1,635,794 6.7994% City of Richfield 26,732,297 1,635,794 6.1192% The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate as certified. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2000 figures. 9 IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1997/1998 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.383860 27.70% 1,635,794 627,916 I.S.D. No. 280 0.643340 46.42% 1,635,794 1,052,372 City of Richfield 0.271250 19.57% 1,635,794 443,709 Other 0.087400 6.31% 1,635,794 142,968 Total 1.385850 100.00% 2,266,965 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate as certified. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2000 figures. 9 0 MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Ll 10 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City "), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "Urban Village TIF Plan" and "Urban Village TIF District "). The Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Urban Village TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan'), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council') on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 11 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; } C. allow the use of Urban Village TIF District increment (the "Urban Village Increment ") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Property to be Acquired The parcels to be acquired in the Urban Village District are being modified to include the parcels to be acquired listed below, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels. Please see the map on page 12 for further information on the location of the Urban Village District. Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6220 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 6608 Stevens Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6625 3`a Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0084 6637 5`h Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0105 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 III New Acquisition Parcels: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 691h Street 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue Parcel Numbers 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 34- 028 -24-13 -0121 12 6833 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6833 Grand Avenue 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7036 V Avenue 34- 028 -24 -12 -0015 72412 n' Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 7544 2 °d Avenue 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 6928 141 Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 6320 Girard Avenue 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 6645 Knox Avenue 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 6833 Penn Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 6901 121 Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -44 -0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34- 028 -24 -34 -0045 New Acquisition Parcels: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 691h Street 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue Parcel Numbers 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 34- 028 -24-13 -0121 12 • 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 27- 028 -24 -42 -0070 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Urban Village TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Sources of Funds Interfund loans from the City, HRA or other districts may be used to cover project expenses of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with tax increment from the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. 13 MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • 14 • r a W 0 OC IL uj z 2 O W W 0 uj 0 u. t H,6; Wby Hat KW NLOL =Ntn 11 NLb1 IKLu N,� ,=3 cadom OnSMwo aNro 3AV GNYUaod tuo Hit NOI x' GVC GNZ Oa� J= '3AV 13TtOM TGOGWIG KWoNLLN3M ANAWTId 1NVSr3u GmVW ,31li" 013hPAID �3hr 3wwl ,DRIO„► IWAae xvd'no INOdnO NOSt M INOYMA G MIIJ ,G10SYMN ONVO mvr XGGN9 • NVOGI NWVovm NOLAOGM W3AnO -3AV NN3d NIMO i imna "Wma s SWONt Notdn jigsaw Nanacvnn �d 3 am- man » » » » e g e P I: 0 r • MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City "), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan" and "RR 1999 TIF District "). The RR 1999 Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan "), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council ") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22,1999; b. add 11 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; C. allow the use of RR 1999 TIF District increment (the "RR 1999 Increment ") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the RR 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of RR 1999 Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Property to be Acquired The following RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels, are listed for reference purposes and made part of the RR 1999 TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that RR 1999 Increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 31 Avenue 6637 51 Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue Parcel Numbers 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 27- 028 -24 -41 -0084 27- 028 -24 -41 -0105 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 167 New Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24-33 -0103 1015 East 69 " Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 Is 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 irl 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 6833 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6833 Grand Avenue 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7036 151 Avenue 34- 028 -24 -12 -0015 72412 n' Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 7544 2 °d Avenue 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 6928 141 Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 6320 Girard Avenue 2& 028 -24 -12 -0033 28- 028 6645 Knox Avenue -24 -31 -0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 6833 Penn Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 6901 121 Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -44 -0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34- 028 -24 -34 -0045 New Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24-33 -0103 1015 East 69 " Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 Is 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 irl 0 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7517 Humboldt 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6600 Stevens 27- 028 -24 -42 -0070 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Boundaries The following parcels are located in previous Richfield Rediscovered TIF Districts, but were not certified. As noted in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the A -5 TIF District and in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the B -5 TIF District, the Plans are being modified to clarify that these parcels are no longer in the A -5 TIF Plan and B -5 TIF Plan, and they are included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address 6616 Second Avenue 6620 Fifth Avenue 6440 Humboldt • Parcel Number 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 28- 028 -24-24 -0009 17 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District A -5 currently consists of 53 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District A -5 was created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District A -5 consists of 53 lots with the potential for a total of 55 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District A -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District A -5 does assume that 55 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District A -5 and Redevelopment Project Area A. Generally, the Modification includes removing 2 parcels, that were not certified, from the District. Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 The following property and all adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District A -5 but are not certified in the District. These parcels are being removed from District A -5 and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 - 24-42 -0064 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 • 18 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE B -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District B -5 currently consists of 29 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District B -5 is created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District B -5 consists of 29 lots with the potential for a total of 30 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District B -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District B -5 does assume that 30 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District B -5 and Redevelopment Project Area B. Generally, the Modifications include removing one parcel, which was not certified, from the District. Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B -5 The following property and all adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District B -5 but are not certified in the District. These parcels are being removed from District B -5 and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 • 19 s Hennepin County 6 An Equal Opportunity Employer November 6, 2000 Sid Inman Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 -1105 Re: Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and TIF District Modifications Dear Sid: Enclosed is a report from Richard P. Johnson, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator, to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, concerning the proposed Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan modifications and Modifications to the Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered Is 1999, A -5 and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Districts. Please arrange to have the report entered into the record of the public hearing of the Richfield City Council on Monday, November 13, 2000, to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. If you have any questions about this information, please call me at 348 -5076. Sincerely, Aean'K- Jean IM. Bierbau n, Senior Administrative Assistant Financial Analysis and Support Division CC Katia Medvetski, Richfield HRA JMB:jb RevuRichfieldGramercyUrbanVillageRediscovered1999A5B511132000JTransmittalLetter Taxpayer Services Department A -600 Hennepin County Government Center Recycled Paper Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0060 • DATIi November 6, 2000 TO: Board of Commissioners (FROM: Richard P.Johnson, Deputy Administrator Re: Proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan, r the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B -5 TIF Districts The following hearing is scheduled: Monday, November 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall. RECENT HISTORY FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: This plan was modified on October 11, 1999, to enlarge the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by adding eight blocks between 621 and 661 Streets and Stevens and Clinton Avenues South, and three blocks between 62nd and 631 Streets and Garfield and Pleasant Avenues South. The purpose of the modification was to permit the use of tax increment generated by the Gramercy and the Urban Village TIF Districts for development of properties within the enlarged Redevelopment Project Area. The properties to be developed, in part with tax increment from Gramercy and Urban Village TIF Districts, were part of the 10 proposed Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The current proposal will: 1) Modify the parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy TIF District, the Urban Village TIF District, the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District, the A -5 TIF District and the B -5 TIF District; 2) Modify the sources of funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District, 3) Modify the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; 4) Modify the uses of funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; 5) Modify the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District No. 1275; 6) Clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District; and 7) Modify the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 and B-5 TIF Districts. Continued... 9 November 6, 2000 Proposed Richfield Modifications to Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B -5 TIF Districts Page 2 RECENT HISTORY OF GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT 71F DISTRICT. The Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District was created on 6/22/98 and certified by Hennepin County on 4/22199. It is located on the southwest quadrant of Lyndale and 66"', and provides for tax increment of $30,875,000 to assist in the construction of a senior cooperative housing project, a new VFW facility, medical offices and clinic, a new hardware store and another retail store. The Use of Funds portion of the Gramercy TIF District budget was increased by $4,827,586, on October 11, 1999, to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt for the purpose of supporting the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District, created on October 11, 1999. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Gramercy Tif District will be modified as follows: 1) Add 28 parcels for acquisition from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District and add 10 other new parcels for acquisition, so that Gramercy tax increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels; 2) Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy Increment to pay eligible project costs for the acquisition parcels. 3). Allow an interfund loan of $275,000 from the GO TIF Bonds of 1996 to cover eligible project expenses incurred prior to receipt of Gramercy increment. The GO TIF Bonds of 1996 are part of the revenue source of the Interstate - Lyndale-Nicollet TIF District, but the TIF Law permits pooled TIF revenue for eligible project costs. 4) Allow an interf ind loan of up to $500,000 from the Development Account and additional interfund loans from the City, HRA or other TIF Districts to purchase certain properties within the Gamercy TIF District and cover other Gramercy TIF District expenses. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with Gramercy tax increment. 5) Modify the Uses of Funds to include $22,000,000 for the mixed use commercial/housing development component known as City Bella; and 6) Modify the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase of approximately $29 million of tax increment and $1.4 million local contribution in the Gramercy TIF District. RECENT HISTORY OF THE URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The 25 -year Urban Village Redevelopment TIF District was created on November 23, 1998 and certified by Hennepin County on 7/15/99. It is located roughly between 66°i and 671h Streets and Lyndale and Pleasant Avenues South, and provides for tax increment of $26,250,000 for redevelopment of the site with 132 rental apartments with underground parking; approximately 78 units of senior assisted living; 80,000 square feet of commercial-space on three levels, connected by a corridor to a 500 to 650 car parking ramp for on -site and general public parking needs. The Use of Funds portion of the Urban Village TIF District budget was increased by $4,827,586, on October 11, 1999, to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt for the purpose of supporting the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: 1) Add 28 parcels for acquisition from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District and add 10 other new parcels for acquisition, so that Urban Village tax increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels. 2) Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. November 6, 2000 Proposed Richfield Modifications to Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B -5 TIF Districts Page 3 RECENT HISTORY OF THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 REDEVELOPMENT 71F DISTRICT. The Richfield Rediscovered Housing program created its first TIF District on July 23, 1990. The purpose of this program is to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable home - buyers to construct new houses on the lots through the program administered by the HRA. Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District contains 28 scattered -site parcels that have been certified by the County as tax increment generating parcels. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: 1) Add 10 new parcels for acquisition; 2) Allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New acquisition parcels; 3) Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TI Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered TIF Plan acquisition parcels. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE A,5 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Plan for TIF District A-5 is being modified to clarify that two parcels included in the TIF Plan, but for which no request for certification was received by the County, are to be removed from the A-5 TIF District Plan and are to be included in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan. Therefore, while the certified geographic boundary of the A-5 TIF District is not being changed, the potential for use of A -5 tax increment for the acquisition or development of the two parcels has been eliminated. These two parcels are included on the list of 10 parcels for acquisition added by modification to the Gramercy, Urban Village and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Districts. This change means that tax increment from these three TIF Districts may be used for acquisition and development of the parcels. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE B-5 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Plan for TIF District B -5 is being modified to clarify that one parcel included in the TIF Plan, but for which no request for certification was received by the County, is to be removed from the B-5 TIF District Plan and is to be included in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan. Therefore, while the certified geographic boundary of the B-5 TIF District is not being changed, the potential for use of B -5 tax increment for the acquisition or development of the parcel has been eliminated. The parcel is included on the list of 10 parcels for acquisition added by modification to the Gramercy, Urban Village and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Districts. This change means that tax increment from these three TIF Districts may be used for acquisition and development of the parcel SUMMARY: The modifications to these five TIF Districts are interlaced and provide authority to spend tax increment for parcel acquisition and development by the TIF Districts with enough tax increment to cover the expenses. None of the TIF Districts are being enlarged or reduced in size; that is, no tax increment - generating parcels are being added or deleted from the districts. However, the TIF Plans are being modified to include a number of parcels that can be acquired and developed by the Richfield HRA with TIF funds. The TIF Law requires a degree of budget and tax increment spending specificity that requires scrupulous identification of these modifications. Since the modifications are technical in nature and since TIF Districts are being neither created nor enlarged, there is no basis for measurement as to adherence to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for the use of tax increment, as identified in Resolution 92- 10- 917R1, adopted 10/27/92. A copy of this report will be forwarded to the City of Richfield with a request that it be entered into the public record of the November 13, 2000, public hearing to reflect the county's position on these proposals. ( w. rewRi chfieldGramercyUrtranVillageRediq =ered1999A5B511132000) morp-1 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: El Public Hearings 7 299 JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a final development plan and conditional use permit for the Best Buy Campus project, located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Continue the public hearing on the final development plan and conditional use permit for the Best Campus project to December 11, 2000. III. BACKGROUND I Best Buy is proposing to construct a corporate campus, including four buildings with 1.5 million square feet of office space and parking for 7,500 cars, in the Interchange West area (76th Street to 1 -494 and Knox to Penn Avenues). Best Buy's current office facilities are located in nine buildings throughout Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Best Buy is seeking to consolidate its employees into one campus setting. Buildings The four buildings would be six and eight stories tall, with approximately 300,000 and 400,000 square feet in each building. They would be connected with a one - level (30 feet tall) commons area where functions such as a cafeteria and 1127bestbuy2 convenience store would be located. A day care facility for 250 children and a fitness center would be located in the first building. A training center would also be incorporated into one building. Some basement space (up to 90,000 square feet) may be constructed to provide a service corridor underneath the buildings, storage space, a store mock -up area, and other similar functions. Access Signalized entrances will be located on Penn Avenue at 77th Street and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. A signal will also be added on 76th Street at Knox Avenue and additional access to the development will be off of Knox Avenue. Each access will provide entrance to the parking structure at a different level. Parking A majority of the parking (6,700 stalls) would be provided in a five -level parking ramp located in the northeast portion of the site. On the 76th Street side, two levels of the ramp would be below grade (approximately 38 feet would be above grade). On the Knox Avenue side, one level would be below grade. An additional 250 parking stalls would be available for visitor parking in the southwest corner of the site. A 476 -stall surface parking lot would be located on the south side of the site. This area would be taken for roadway purposes at such time that 1 -494 is widened. A partial sixth parking deck could be added to the parking ramp, if necessary, but at considerable cost. Best Buy views the future loss of parking as an incentive for implementing a successful Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM). A partial sixth deck would be located in the area closest to the buildings and would not change the lighting or shadow analyses that were conducted for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). City parking standards would not require the lost parking to be replaced. Transportation Improvements/Traffic Several transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate traffic from the development. - A new Penn Avenue bridge would be constructed. - Penn Avenue would be reconstructed from 1 -494 to 76th Street. - The intersection at Penn Avenue and 76th Street would be reconstructed with dual left turn lanes and right turn lanes in all directions. - 76th Street, from Penn Avenue to the 35W entrance ramp, would be reconstructed. 76th Street will be a four -lane roadway with a center median and protected left turn lanes at the Newton and Knox Avenue signals. Nineteen intersections were studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The level of service for individual turning movements as well as the intersections as a whole were analyzed for the project in the year 2003 and 2022. Thirteen of the intersections were found to be acceptable with Best Buy traffic. Two experience congestion but the congestion is not caused by Best Buy traffic. Four intersections will be upgraded to provide acceptable levels of service. The EIS indicates that an improvement is necessary at the north /west exit ramp from 35W to provide adequate storage space for right turning cars. The preferred solution is to construct a second right -turn lane and maintain the existing "no right turn on red" sign. The transportation improvements will be in place by November, 2002. The EIS shows that, with these transportation improvements, these intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service. The purpose of the EIS traffic study is to determine which intersections are impacted by the project. There are other intersections that currently having failing operations that are not caused by the project. The owners of the Colony and Fountainhead apartment communities have expressed concern about the reconstruction of 76th Street and the effect it will have on their properties. In the case of Fountainhead, there is an access point within close proximity to 76th Street that may become unusable with the changes to the intersection. City staff are exploring options for minimizing the impact of the changes on the apartment community. One option could result in reconstructing Knox Avenue farther to the west, which could reduce the setback and green space for the parking ramp. More information on this option will be available by December 11. Travel Demand Management Best Buy is developing a Travel Demand Management .(TDM) plan to reduce the number of employees who drive to work during peak hours. The TDM plan is included in the EIS, although the results of the traffic study indicate that traffic could be accommodated without TDM. A copy of the TDM plan as it appears in the EIS, is included as Attachment J. The site is being designed to accommodate transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. An on -site transit stop has been designed off of 76th Street. Bicycle storage facilities will be provided on campus with shower and locker facilities in the proposed fitness center. Eight -foot paths are proposed throughout the site. to provide access for pedestrians and bicyclists (employees as well as community members). The entrance at Newton Avenue will be constructed to accommodate buses on the site. Stormwater Management Two ponds would be provided on site to retain and treat stormwater. The ponds will improve the quality of storm water runoff discharging from the site and will increase capacity for the area. There are existing flood ing /ponding problems in the 1 -494 right -of -way at Penn Avenue and at the Fountainhead Apartments that would be reduced with the project. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan is Attachment H. A significant number of trees -over 900 are proposed for the site. Larger trees and more intensive landscaping would be planted along 76th Street to soften the visual impact of the parking ramp. There are approximately 560 trees currently in the project area. Trees will not likely be saved for the project; however, the City will be given the opportunity to move trees to parks and other locations in the City. Utilities There is adequate capacity in the City's water system to accommodate the development. There is currently a lift station at Knox and 77th Street that controls the flow of sewage into the metropolitan interceptor along 76th Street. The storage capacity of the lift station will be expanded to accommodate additional sewage from the development. Lighting Lighting will provide adequate levels for safe use of parking areas. The lighting will meet the ordinance requirement for less than 0.5 foot candles at any residential property line. The landscaping along 76th Street will also be designed to minimize any impact from lighting inside the parking ramp. Shadows A shadow analysis was completed for the proposed plan. The analysis indicates that, during the spring and fall, there will be some shadows on parts of the buildings to the east and west of the site in early morning and late evening. In the summer, the shadows will be contained on site. In the winter, there will be morning and afternoon shadows on part of the Woodlake Church parking lot and apartments at 76th and Penn. Signage Monument signage is proposed at the corner of Penn Avenue and 1 -494 and at 46 Penn and 77th Street. Smaller identification /directional signage is proposed for the entrance at 76th and Newton and at 76th and Knox. Building signage is proposed for the freeway side of the development. Trash and Loading Area Trash will be accommodated inside the building and accessed through the southeastern access to the site. All loading functions will take place in this building with access from Knox Avenue. Schedule Acquisition of properties is expected to occur between February and April of 2001. Demolition and grading would take place in April and May. Construction would begin on the first building in June of 2001. Construction of the remaining buildings would occur consecutively, one month apart. Construction is expected to be completed by November of 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages high density development along the 1 -494 corridor. The Plan also encourages improvements at Sthe gateways to the community. The proposed redevelopment of the Interchange West area is consistent with these goals. • The proposed redevelopment removes 167 housing units. A portion of the project's tax increment will be dedicated to a housing fund. Those funds will be used to increase and improve the City's housing stock. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Several transportation improvements are planned to accommodate the increased traffic from the development and to improve existing failing intersections in the area. • Best Buy is developing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan to promote the use of alternative transportation modes and reduce the number of employees who drive alone during peak periods. • To provide adequate time for public testimony, the public hearing has been scheduled for November 27 and December 11. • The project requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. The EIS process will be completed on December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EIS. C. FINANCIAL • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has signed a contract for private redevelopment with Best Buy that details the financial aspects of the development. • Funding for the proposed transportation improvements is identified. The Penn Avenue bridge will be funded through a portion of the project's tax increment, a loan from Best Buy to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MnDOT funds. Funding for 76th Street will be paid for with the City's Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds. D. LEGAL • The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning on September 26, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. • The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on October 23, 2000. • A final decision would not be made until December 11 when the EIS process is completed. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 15, 2000. • All uses are conditional uses in the PC -2 district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Thirty acres are guided for Regional Commercial /Office, which is consistent with the proposed development. The Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in March, 2000; the amendment changes the designation for the north 10 acres of the site from R -SFH (high density single family residential) and C -N (neighborhood commercial) to CR /O (regional commercial office). The City Council authorized staff to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council in May, 2000. The Met Council approved the amendment on September 27, 2000. Final action by the City Council is scheduled for November 27. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: A redevelopment district has been established for this area. The proposed project is consistent with that district. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities, exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development. With the proposed improvements, there will be adequate roadways to serve the development. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 6. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That the final Travel Demand Management Plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 8. That, at such time that the south portion of the property is taken for roadway purposes, that a revised design for the south edge and for any replacement parking be submitted to and approved by the City Manager. 9. That the City Council makes a finding of adequacy regarding the Environmental Impact Statement. 10. That a final plat be submitted. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the proposed project would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A: Current and proposed land uses • Attachment B: Existing conditions • Attachment C: Proposed site plan • Attachment D: Building elevations • Attachment E: Ramp elevations • Attachment F: Preliminary grading plan • Attachment G: Preliminary stormwater management plan • Attachment H: Landscape plan • Attachment I: Lighting plan • Attachment J: Travel Demand Management Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Best Buy and Opus will be present at the meeting. • U Iwo Z 0 L 4 PF-7M IOU KU a It WWOMIN" 51 Ml��t 1, ENE[ a , \\\\\\ 'IN IMIS-111, At rr ieLo ■ ■ r • \ \` Ilil ►II111111111( f • F _ p 3 { , , y e� � 1 1 I 1 � I 1 I p 1 1 � . 1 1 O � qYq 1 d 1 r I Z r ♦ r 1 1•� fill If ; a n � I a II � � M �-R ' E Az � i v. yC� I Via"' ows 1� VIII fuuuuwuuw a I I I I I i I� t� I� 11 la 1 I I 4 I i � . E a oil s if I I I ®��`�#, �t�` ii i ll�� f � i � o a - > ills, -- - -- -- -- - - - _ _ __ Fri _ i r "M &7J a t + I I 1 1 I. � J 1 1 � I 1 1 o •- S: c pp = 1 A- 1 r I 2 _ � ♦ M M a 1 i n i { A as 4 till, 1-om"MOR" e'. 11/91 11� a a J N r - � Illllillilliilllf A a J rn Z !pit Fri w Fe (tt[Iala a A a J rn Z �I111111111111111 im_ Fill 1111 =111:111IN IN IN °11!= 11!°111 =111 IIE ■I e ■ PI Z.O. •/ j:'/ •0- 111 �so �;� %�j %j:Z �- % /i /j1 / %•j /� %�i /i1 '0 '00 iIII�IIIiIIIiIIIiIIIi �- e•'1, %i1 /400 .� ■I ow oo 'ot dill _ ■1 . ■1. ■I_.I_ ■1_ ■1_ ■1' _ ■I . ■1_ ■1_il_.1_ ■1_ ■I I. i is 101110 ■1 I I ■mm, . �111�111.111.111.111_■I e ■ iIII�IIIiIIIiIIIiIIIi :i i i is ii . . _ _ . _ ■I . 1_ 1_ 1. ■1 . _ . ■I _ 1. 1. I_ ■f ■ . a . t _ . . _ ■I _ ■I . _ _ 1. 1_ 1. ■I 0 . . . ■I . . . . . I. 1. I. 1. 1. ■t 1_ ■I. • _ . . _ . ■I . i1 _ llM iI . l IN i 1. 1_ ■I _ . _ _ In In 1_■1 . _ _ In In l_ ■1 _ _ . 1_ 1_ 1. 1. _fI 1. ■1 _ . _ M I_ 1_ !_E1 _ _ ■ 1. 1_ I_ ■I _ . _ . 1. 1. 1. In 1. ■I 1_ ■I I■ . 1. IN 1. I_ 1_ ■1 . . . 1mm In 1_ 1_ ■I _ _ 1. 1. 1_ ■I 1_ ■I IN _ _ _ 1_ 1_ 1. 1_ 1_ ■I 0 a IIn mM 0 ii Ii :I 1_ ii 1O:1 , _ 1. _ _ _ Iin _ _ I i1l11 1_ 1_ 1_ ■I _ 1.II_ 1. I. ■I t_ ■I _ . _ _ _ IN In 1_ ■I ■ _ _ 1. 1_ 1_ ■1 . _ _ _ 1. 1_ 1. IE 1_ ■1 �_ ■1 _ . 1. 1. 1. ■I ! . _ _ _ _ ■I _ 1. 1. 1_ ■I . . _ _ _ . ■I _ _ . 1. 1. 1_ ■I . . _ ■ _ _ ■I _ _ _ 1_ 1_ 1_ ■1 _ _ _ _ _ _ ■1 _ _ ■ . _ 1. 1. 1_ ■I _ _ _ _ . _■1 . . . . 1. 1. 10 1. 1. ■I 1. ■I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■I M N l _ _ _ _ ■I 0 a i Ii Ii Im :I 1m :1: t i i i :I _ . 1. 1_■1 I _ _ . . _11 _ . _ _ . _ 1_ 1_ 1. I. 1_ ■I 1. ■1 Ii1 _ ••�•�� _ . _ _ ■I _ _ _ 1_ I_ 1_ ■1 _ _ _ _ _ _■1 _ _ . 1_ I. 1. ■I _ _ _ ■ _ ■I _ ■I _ ■ _ . . IN 1. 1. ■I _ lim _ _ .■I ■ _ _ _ 1_ 1_ 1. 1. 1_ ■I 1_ ■1 _ NM _ _ _ ■I ■ ■ 111110 . 10 1. I_■I _ _ _ _ _■1 _ ■I ■ . . _ . 1. 1. 1. I. I_ ■I 1_ ■I _ _ _ _ ■I ■ _ . 1_ I. 1_ ■1 _ . 1iill1ilm"li _ . _ Il . _ ■I _ ■I ■ m0 - n - 1 1- ME ■ - - • ■1 ■ iillil . ■ 1I 10 12 1. ■I . IN _ Li ■1 ■ . IN In In I_ ■1 . . . 11 ■I ■ . . _ 1. I. 1_ 1_ 1. ■1 I. ■1 IN . . . 1, ■I . . I.� I. 1_ ■1 . . _ _ . . _ ■I . \I : I: '�I: I::I ■ ■ mill _ I_ I_ 1_ ■1 I: : lmmi •��•�� -��- 1111111. \ ■I - e ■ 0 In 1111■ mol III No no m■ M■ in■ Imo■ ins Imil IN IN ZIIMIIiiI IM" I III iIH W HIM WWI H m It 1C in 1M ■I M IN m 11111 in IM i- IS im■i m IN in {N IN I�■i 0 0 m IN It IN IN 1� ■1 IN In IN IN IIIII■i IN 1� 1N IN �C■, M 1� 1� 1S in !�■� 1� �� 1N ■I C �� In �o IN ■� S �III� I�IIIN IN 10:11 IN IC in lm No no m■ M■ in■ Imo■ ins Imil IN IN ZIIMIIiiI IM" I III iIH W HIM WWI H i 1 11111 to Ill 40 I It ul t 1 t _ M I V K 0 1.1 1 t � 1 '/ x /111 ••• `' i� �1� 11.1 � k � 4p fit }} ` ��•`� tt 11 It it 1 :116 rn arm d Ur Iq y II No i f 1 _ f f 1 / 1 1 i 1 � ;�'. , •., .� 1, • ;�� r 111 ' _ _ — 2 � � ` '� 'i. � �•t � ' i Ili � � - - h 1�--i � � . t •1 ''. �'t, '' i al I '. 141 ! x �1 ' ; ,� %f �'•i,,�'' ��l., ' ��, r• �' 1 _ a —'i t I Ily/ 1 f f i i? �" ' ��' , �' i.14 i �'vroj �I �� ` \ . t 1 I t 1 L fill Ill # '� � + f t� � r �•� NIP i Ill I I� r 0 . wli� .0 !I`� Vii'• �'i�� t Pill pit t �Itt f!E{ i1R 1l�' � , f � I I hV •I pi A Beloit .. Ci t� 3: I<t I c 0� I \ I� ! I / IIM fit �l M i f i « =I I r its Ir M `r. I . P t � I. i PF I'M 1 4 u r IIM fit �l M i f i « =I I r its Ir M `r. I . P t � I. i M • I; II mmu-, Tom =r-i;. - NAWMBOW, i 0 zz Wff J N ow 11 1 MW vc� A U. 1, . - I - 'o—, ' I I . 'I 4 F4 z z C. f� 41 14 . . . . . . . . . . a N � (p jet As i o T $a if 3 :�' ��° i��p ;� •� fill, 11•; all IN% m lisp - is all, illr 11111; fit 11; oi B 1. lilt x l ,i nil 21 al of ;t� l iI I Iffql a oll R11 is �� j ;:a'� i a Z 3 m Z Ell 71,in loll fill Sol lilt �l it Dui �. r f, ! F1 ip I r A Im I;ti M CIEE r I a I fT :co) off ,fill � y Al ATTACHMENT J TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................1 1.1 Goal .................................................................................. ............................... l 1.2 Objectives and Strategies to Achieve Goal ....................... ..............................1 1.3 Development of Goal ........................................................ ..............................2 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ ..............................5 2.1 Initial Steps for TDM Plan ................................................ ..............................5 2.2 Existing Policies .. .............................................................. ..............................6 2.3 Project Description ........................................................... ..............................6 2.4 Access to Transit ............................................................... ..............................8 3. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ................ .............................10 3.1 Promote Transit Use ........................................................ .............................10 3.2 Promote Car Pooling ....................................................... ..............................1 l 3.3 Promote Van Pooling ...................................................... .............................11 3.4 Promote Bicycle Use ...............:................................:...... .............................12 3.5 Promote Telecommuting .................................................. .............................12 • 3.6 Promote Staggered Hours ................................................ .............................13 3.7 Promote Flex -time ........................................................... .............................13 3.8 Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of AM/PM Peak Hours .....................13 3.9 Integrate TDM Efforts Through Campus Transportation Coordinator ......... 13 3.10 Metro Commuter Services Support ............................... .............................14 3.11 Travel Demand Management Plan Budget .................... .............................15 3.12 Proposed Evaluation Program ....................................... .............................16 LJ 4. SUPPORTING AGENCIES .............................................. .............................17 4.1 Metro Transit ................................................................... .............................17 4.2 Minnesota Valley Transit ................................................. .............................17 4.3 Southwest Metro Transit .................................................. .............................17 4.4 I -494 Corridor Coalition .................................................. .............................17 4:5 Metro Commuter Services ............................................... .............................18 Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan i • 1.0 GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus in Richfield, Minnesota, identifies actions to be taken by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy), with support from Metro Commuter Services and other transportation organizations. It includes strategies to manage travel demand and minimize site - generated traffic during peak traffic periods. The development of this TDM Plan has been done in coordination with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, Metro Commuter Services (MCS), and the I -494 Corridor Commission. 1.1 GOAL: The TDM Plan goal is to cut the trips to the Best Buy Campus in each peak hour by 450 to 750 trips. 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE GOAL Best Buy will pursue the following objectives and strategies to achieve its TDM Plan goal. * 1 1.2.1 Objectives and Strategies Promote Transit Use • Build a transit friendly Campus • Increase transit service to the Campus • Provide financial incentives for transit use • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • ' Disseminate transit information widely and regularly Promote Car Pooling • Provide preferential parking spaces • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate car pool information widely and regularly Promote Van Pooling • Provide preferential parking spaces • Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly Promote Bicycle Use • Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan I Promote Telecommuting • Adopt corporate policies which encourage telecommuting • Evaluate policies to identify barriers Promote Staggered Hours • Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Identify appropriate schedules outside of the peak travel hours Promote Flex -time Adopt corporate policies which encourage flexible work arrangements Concentrate business meetings in core business hours Program employee activities during the AM and PM peak hours Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of the AM and PM Peak Hours • Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PM peak hours (This does not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries) • Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 1.2.2 Integrate All TDM Plan Efforts Through a Campus Transportation Coordinator Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator in Year 2001 Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management 1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF GOAL: 1.3.1 TDM Plan Goal Best Buy has identified a goal with the measurable objective of reducing the number of daily trips in the AM and PM peak hours by 450 to 750 at its new Campus. 1.3.2 Rationale for TDM Plan Goal This goal has been based on the results of the Employee Distribution Inventory conducted in May 2000 and the Employee Survey conducted in July 2000. The Distribution Inventory identified high concentrations of employees living in south Minneapolis, and in the south, southwest, and west suburbs of Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Prior Lake, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park. Best Buy Campus . Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 2 is The Employee Survey had a 30 percent response rate (approximately 1,300 employees) and indicated the following for those "likely" or "most likely" to try alternative modes of transportation: • 23% willing to try car pool • 16% willing to try the bus • 25% willing to try a van pool With these two key pieces of information, Best Buy met with the three service providers in these areas to demonstrate the opportunities to provide feasible bus service to the site as well as influencing opportunities to expand service along the I -494 Corridor with other large employers. In response to these visits, a number of actions are taking place. • Metro Transit has prepared a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site. • Both Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit are working directly with Best Buy now to set up car /vanpools to the existing locations. Encouraging car /vanpool use now, will begin to change the mindset of employees to alternative modes of transportation. • Best Buy will continue to work with the service providers to provide bus service to the site and to expand the car /vanpool programs. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place in Fall 2000 to develop car /van pools and distribute information. 1.3.3 Incentive to Implement Successful TDM Plan A key incentive for Best Buy to implement a successful TDM Plan is to avoid the need to replace the 476 parking spaces that will be lost to the I -494 widening in the Year 2011. Those parking spaces would be replaced in the parking ramp structure at a cost of approximately $5.7 to $6.3 million dollars. Since the TDM Plan is not required for traffic mitigation, this establishes a tangible target, with a financial incentive to Best Buy, for a successful TDM Plan. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 3 1] • Is 1.3.4 Achieving the TDM Plan Goal The site plan shows 7,500 parking spaces, of which 300 spaces are allocated for visitor parking, indicating that 4% of employees would need to use alternative times /modes of transportation. With the loss of 476 parking spaces due to I -494 widening, at least an additional 6% of employees will need to join the alternative times /modes group. This could be achieved, as follows: Mode # of Peak Hour Trips Reduced Bus 225 Car Pools 200 Staggered Hours 100 Flexible Hours 75 Van Pools 75 Telecommuting 75 750 Staggered Work Schedules The Best Buy TDM Plan already includes approximately over 100 employees who will work staggered hours (as shown above) and will need parking, but will commute outside of the peak travel hours as follows: # /Ty_pe of Employees Hours 50 Janitorial staff 30 Cafeteria staff 5 Fitness Center staff 30 Daycare staff (staggered) Flexible Work Hours 3:00 pm to 2:00 am 6:00 am to 3:00 pm early and late starts 6:00 am to 6:00 pm In addition, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Approximately 16 percent in the AM and 30 percent in the PM of employees surveyed indicated a preference to start/end work outside of the peak travel hours. 1.3.5 Success of TDM Plan The Success of the TDM Plan is dependent on a number of factors, including: • Financial benefit/cost savings. • Decreased commuting time • Decreased commuting stress • Bus service to the site Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 INITIAL STEPS FOR TDM PLAN Best Buy has undertaken a number of initial actions to develop a successful TDM Plan for the new Best Buy Campus, including the following: Developed and Administered a Survey of All Employees. The survey, administered during the week of July 10, 2000, has provided helpful information on employee commuting habits and the steps to be taken to encourage employees to use alternative forms of transportation. Metropolitan Council was involved in the development of this survey. • Compiled an Employee Distribution Inventory. The inventory was conducted in May 2000 and identifies the home location of all full -time employees to help determine the origin of work trips to the new Best Buy Campus (i.e. the "travel shed "). • Conducted Initial Meetinizs With Representatives From Transportation Organizations. Prior to the issuance of the Draft TDM Plan, Best Buy representatives met with representatives from Metro Transit, the City of Richfield, MnDOT and the I -494 Corridor Coalition to discuss and share ideas, and get input on initial elements of the TDM Plan. In May 2000, the Golden Triangle Transportation Management Association (TMA) was officially launched, in a partnership between the City of Eden Prairie, the Metropolitan Council, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Best Buy met with representatives from the Golden Triangle TMA based in Eden Prairie which is the location of existing Best Buy offices. Best Buy joined the Golden Triangle TMA in July 2000 as an active participant with a $5,000 annual financial commitment. • Held initial meetings with Hennepin County. Best Buy met with Hennepin County in April 2000 to discuss site design features that would support and encourage transit use and/or car and van pooling to the Project Site. • Incorporated "Transit- Friendly" Design Features. One of Best Buy's objectives has been to develop a transit - friendly site design. Coordination meetings have been held with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Metro Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metropolitan Council, the I -494 Corridor Commission, the developer, and the transportation consultant to accomplish this goal. Access to transit has been incorporated into the site plan with a bus turnaround into the site from 76h Street, with appropriate turning radius, access and drop -off. Employees who ride the bus will wait inside the building protected from the weather and have good site lines to view the approach of the bus. The Penn Avenue South northbound bus stop will be located just north of the Best Buy access drive. This is the shortest and safest route for transit riders to access the building. In addition, it has the least impact to peak hour traffic movements at this access point to the Campus and allows Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 5 adequate distance for the bus left -turn movement to go west on 76th Street. The southbound Penn Avenue bus stop is anticipated to be directly opposite the northbound stop. • Designated a Human Resources Employee. Best Buy has designated a Human Resources Employee for the next two years to explore the feasibility and implementation of a number of strategies and policy decisions to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the peak hour. 2.2 EXISTING POLICIES Best Buy currently uses a number of travel demand management strategies at its existing facilities to support employees' use of alternative modes of transportation to single occupancy vehicles. They include: • Designated preferential parking was initiated in January 1998 for approximately 120 car /van pools at existing facilities, indicating that approximately 4 percent of Best Buy employees either car or van pool. • Began a telecommuting policy in some departments in 1999. • Provided bike racks for 40 bicycles at the existing Best Buy facilities. • Began the informal use of flexible work schedules by some employees. • Currently working with Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit to set up car /vanpools at existing Best Buy office locations. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place to develop car /van pools (started September 2000). 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.3.1 Overview The proposed Best Buy Campus will be located north of Interstate Highway 494 (I -494), west of Interstate 35W (I -35W), and south of 76th Street, between Penn and Knox Avenues in Richfield (Project Site or Site). The Project Site is approximately 43 acres in size, and is currently fully developed. The Best Buy Campus is expected to be completed in late summer of 2002. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the Site by constructing four to five buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars (the expected level of redevelopment), and a maximum of 1.9 million square feet and parking for 9,500 cars. The Project will also include road improvements on 76th Street from the intersection with Penn Avenue east to the I -35W west ramps, on Penn Avenue between 76th and the access to Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 6 Southtown just north of 80th Street where the Penn Avenue bridge over I -494 will be completely rebuilt. The Project will be constructed as one complete development and no future phases are anticipated. Best Buy's current office facilities are located in nine separate locations within the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, accommodating approximately 3,200 employees. The expected level of development of the Best Buy Campus would accommodate 7,500 employees. Work Hours - The proposed campus will operate similarly to Best Buy's existing office buildings. Most employees work standard eight to nine hour days, Monday through Friday, with flexible work hours generally between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Amenities — The office complex will include standard workstations; office spaces; conference and team spaces; file and storage space; and adequate on -site employee parking. A common use area will include an employee cafeteria, a day care facility, a fitness center, and a convenience store with dry cleaning pickup. Conceptual Design — Two building layout concepts are now being considered for the project. Both could accommodate the expected and maximum square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. These conceptual alternatives are further described below and in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Site Access - Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. 2.3.2 Design Alternatives Two alternatives are being evaluated in the DEIS. Each of these alternatives has an expected development scenario (Option A) and a maximum development scenario (Option B) as follows: Option A: The total space developed for the expected development would be 1,500,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 7,500. Option B: The total space developed for the maximum development would be 1,900,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 9,500. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 7 0 Alternative 1- Site Plan Alternative Alternative 1 includes five buildings that would be clustered around a central pond that would extend out in two directions to form water features among the buildings. An additional one -story common use area would be constructed between two of the buildings. The five office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of three stories and a maximum of 11. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps — one on the south of the Project Site, one at the northwest corner of the Site and one along the northeasterly portion of the Site, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A surface lot would also be included along the southern portion of the Site. Alternative 2 - Proposed Project Alternative 2 includes four buildings, located in the southwest half of the Project Site, which would be connected by a one -story common use area, with several ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the Site. The four office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of six stories and a maximum of nine. Parking would be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half of the Site. This structure would have from five to six levels. A surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the Site. 2.3.3 76th Street Reconstruction Alternatives The City of Richfield will require upgrades to 76th Street between I -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of the Project. However, the preliminary design for these improvements has not yet been determined. Therefore, the DEIS analyzes three different road improvement alternatives for 76th Street, including one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway with some combination to the north and south of the existing right -of -way. 2.4 ACCESS TO TRANSIT 2.4.1 Existing Services There is a park- and -ride lot on the north side of 76th Street at Oliver Avenue South just across the street from the Project Site. This lot is shared with the Woodlake Lutheran Church. Existing bus service to the Site is provided by Metro Transit Routes 4, 35C, and 46/47. Route 4 is a local all day service along Penn Avenue between Downtown Minneapolis (Downtown) and the Site; the 35C is an express bus with 20- minute service between Downtown and the Site during the peak hours; and the 46/47 provides all day service via 35W between Downtown and the Site. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 8 The existing Route 590 currently uses 82nd Street as the east -west route between I -35W and Edina. Discussions with Metro Transit indicate that this route could be rerouted to use 76th Street with a stop at the Woodlake Lutheran Church to provide additional service to the Site. 2.4.2 Future Services Metro Transit is constructing the new 82nd Street/ I -35W Transit Hub that would provide additional bus service near the Site. Additionally, Metro Transit is evaluating transit service in the area as part of its "Transit Redesign" initiative. Since meeting with Metro Transit, they have developed a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site in Richfield. It is anticipated that new bus routes will be in place when the Best Buy Campus becomes operational in 2002. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 9 0 3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This section describes the Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus and the programs and strategies to support Best Buy employees in the use of alternative modes of transportation, telecommuting, staggered work hours, and flexible work hours. Best Buy proposes to undertake the actions described below. 3.1 PROMOTE TRANSIT USE Build a transit friendly Campus • Incorporated design features at the 76th Street entrance to the Site to accommodate buses, including a convenient area for passengers to wait inside the building with good site lines to view the approach of the bus. • Investigate installing an automatic signal device that gives preference to buses exiting the Site at 76th Street. • Construct a bus stop on Penn Avenue to provide convenient access for employees. This will reduce traffic flow interruptions caused by buses. • Construct passenger waiting areas that incorporate conduit and other features to accommodate the installation of electronic signs /monitors to display real -time .transit information, when available. Increase transit service to the Campus • Continue to meet with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit and Southwest Metro Transit to discuss service to the Best Buy Campus site. • Continue to coordinate with Metro Transit and others to incorporate transit features and amenities into the Site. • Continue to participate with transit providers to change transit routes to increase bus ridership to the Project Site and surrounding area. Provide financial incentives for transit use • Offer employees discounted bus passes through the TransitWorks! and/or Metro Pass program. • Provide on -site sale of bus passes to Best Buy employees. • Provide transit- related tax benefit information to Best Buy employees. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. GRH is available to all employees who ride the bus, carpool, vanpool, bike or walk to work at least three days per week. Eligible employees who complete a GRH registration form receive two vouchers for a bus or taxi ride home in the event of an emergency. Registration is renewable upon voucher expiration. Disseminate transit information widely and regularly • Provide materials to inform employees of available bus routes, stops and schedules. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 10 • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Transit web site for trip planning services. • Construct an information kiosk located centrally in the commons area to provide information on bus service and other transportation alternatives. • Conduct several Commuter Fairs annually in conjunction with Metro Commuter Services to inform and assist employees in learning about alternative transportation opportunities. • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus/Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one - day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation. 3.2 PROMOTE CAR POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide 225 parking spaces for car poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.' Disseminate carpool information widely and regularly • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Commuter Services web site which offers an online ride matching service and other information on forming car and van pools. • Provide information on ridesharing and other transportation alternatives as part of Best Buy's regular internal communications with employees. 3.3 PROMOTE VAN POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide 25 parking spaces for van poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Continue to explore opportunities for vans to be provided to vanpoolers through SouthWest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.2 ' This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. 2 This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 11 • Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly • Provide tax benefit information to vanpoolers and offer the Commuter Check program. (The Commuter Check program is a voucher program that allows employers and employees to take advantage of federal and state tax breaks.) 3.4 PROMOTE BICYCLE USE Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Provide bike storage for up to 80 bicycles (this is an approximate number, it will be adjusted to fulfill Best Buy employee needs). • Provide shower and locker facilities in the fitness center. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.3 Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus/Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one - day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation to the single occupant vehicle. 3.5 PROMOTE TELECOMMUTING Adopt corporate policies that encourage telecommuting • Best Buy has a policy that encourages the practice of telecommuting in some departments, it is currently used by very few of its employees. Evaluate policy to identify barriers • Best Buy has assigned a task force to investigate the barriers to telecommuting and ways to increase its use. 3.6 PROMOTE STAGGERED HOURS Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Approximately 100 employees (of the 7,500) will provide services such as maintenance of the building, cafeteria help, etc. The staggered work schedules for these employees will move trips outside of the AM and PM peak travel hours. Although these employees will need parking, they will have staggered work hours and arrive in shifts outside of the peak traffic periods. 3 This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 12 C'j Identify Staggered Schedules outside of the peak travel hours # /Tyne of Employees Hours 50 Janitorial staff 3:00 pm to 2:00 am 30 Cafeteria staff 6:00 am to 3:00 pm 5 Fitness Center staff early and late starts 30 Daycare staff (staggered) 6:00 am to 6:00 pm 3.7 PROMOTE FLEX -TIME In addition to staggered work schedules, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Adopt corporate policies that encourage flexible work arrangements • Provide flexible work arrangements for employees (with supervisors' permission) that encourage employees to arrive and/or leave outside of peak hour travel times. Concentrate business meetings in core business hours Program employee activities during the AM and PM peak hours • Program employee activities during the peak hour to encourage travel at non -peak periods, ie: Fitness, Wellness Programs 3.8 MOVE MAJORITY OF DELIVERIES OUTSIDE OF THE AM AND PM PEAK HOURS Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PM peak hours Best Buy will implement a policy that encourages truck and/or service deliveries to occur outside of Monday through Friday peak -hour traffic times.4 Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 3.9 INTEGRATE ALL TDM PLAN EFFORTS THROUGH A CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator Best Buy will designate a Campus Transportation Coordinator (Coordinator) for the Best Buy Campus, who will be responsible for implementing, administering, and monitoring the programs described in the TDM Plan.5 4 This would not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries. 5 This will be a 100% Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position for the first three years, 2001 -2003. After the first three years, the position will be evaluated to determine the appropriate time commitment. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 13 • Specifically, the Coordinator will be responsible for the following: • Maintain on -site information kiosks. • Distribute new employee orientation information. • Oversee the on -site sale of transit passes. • Provide information on transportation alternatives to employees. • Inform employees and administrators of associated tax benefits. • Oversee Best Buy's ridesharing programs. • Communicate with Best Buy employees on a regular basis regarding transportation alternatives. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan • The Coordinator will have the opportunity to connect to the regional ridematching software provided by MCS. The Coordinator will then be able to ridematch employees on demand, giving them options for car or vanpooling including individuals with which to pool, park- and -ride locations, pool registration, the Guaranteed Ride Home registration and local bike routes. • The Coordinator will also have the ability to connect to the Metro Transit internet site to do on- demand bus trip planning for employees. • The Coordinator will coordinate its services and programs with those offered by the various transportation providers in the area. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management The Coordinator will serve as Best Buy's liaison with transportation providers in the area. 3.10 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES SUPPORT Metro Commuter Services (MCS) will support the implementation of the Best Buy Draft TDM Plan as follows: • Take the lead in rideshare matching for the formation of car and vanpools by employees. MCS is the regional clearing house for rideshare matching. • Provide information to Best Buy on the MetroPass and TransitWorks! programs, and other discounted bus pass options. • Provide the Best Buy Campus Transportation Coordinator with information packets concerning transportation choices for distribution to all Best Buy employees. • Provide information to Best Buy employees on the Guaranteed Ride Home program sponsored by MCS. • Assist Best Buy with promotional events and other initiatives related to informing employees of available transportation alternatives. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 14 0 • rI rW V z a a z w w � a a� W 4S A ,N a o � U a� e+i W °o 0 N N N O 0 d h z tl U� ti 0 0 0 i o C o � q , 00 , � , , 00 O U r. O o O O O O O cl ° s d s0� O , CC : O Oi 45-S tn tn W 69 69 d H � � H d w bq 01 ,� Q N O U •o p �a ° I p °o v SO o"i ;Z: h ovi o v o ° ° N d U y •+�N., O d �] C w � � •ti 'Z3 "O � N LJ � y '- y W OD 44 p d tb U b o °0 0 O �+ Chi ;3;, ° `" a °° o C o oo U Y 3 o a x A � o � o � � � � � a � o U � b ' � � • a: in -d '5 ^a a� o n ° H r- o � d r. o .. O a S a a as °o 0 N N N O 0 d h z tl U� ti • 17-A 3.12 PROPOSED EVALUATION PROGRAM 3.12.1 Survey Employees As noted earlier, Best Buy has conducted a survey of its employees' current commuting habits and needs. • The Best Buy Commuter Survey was developed in coordination with the Metropolitan Council. • The survey findings will be used as a base -line to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. • Best Buy will survey employees one year after move -in to the Best Buy Campus to determine commuting patterns and needs. This will help determine how the TDM Plan is working. Follow -up surveys may be implemented, with assistance from MCS, every two years to monitor the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. 3.12.2 TDM Status Report The Campus Transportation Coordinator will review the TDM Plan one year after move -in to determine its effectiveness, and will document the results in a Status Report. The Status Report will be sent to MCS for review and recommendation and to the Metropolitan Council for review. Subsequent reviews will take place every two years. The Status Report will document the initial survey of employees, efforts of Best Buy to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and the results in terms of number of transit users, car poolers, bikers, pedestrians, and employees taking advantage of flex -time, staggered hours, and telecommuting options. Best Buy Campus Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 16 Revised October 20, 2000 0 4.0 SUPPORTING AGENCIES �J The following agencies are expected to provide services that directly support Best Buy's TDM plan: Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, SouthWest Metro Transit, the I -494 Corridor Commission and Metro Commuter Services. Currently, there is very little bus service provided in the vicinity of the Project Site. Coordination with each of these agencies will be needed to provide increased transit service to the Site in order for Best Buy to achieve its TDM goals. An overview of each agency is provided below. 4.1 METRO TRANSIT Metro Transit is the largest transit provider for the Twin Cities metropolitan area and operates as a division of the Metropolitan Council. Metro Transit's service area includes the City of Richfield. 4.2 MINNESOTA VALLEY TRANSIT Minnesota Valley provides a variety of public transit services to residents in Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan, Prior Lake, Savage and Rosemount. Major destinations from these cities include downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Mall of America and the Minnesota Zoo. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by Minnesota Valley Transit. 4.3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT SouthWest Metro provides public transit services to the residents of Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee to destinations throughout the metropolitan area. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by SouthWest Metro Transit. 4.4 I -494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION The I -494 Corridor Commission is a Joint Powers Organization QPO) of seven cities that are working together to reduce congestion along the I -494 corridor by working with affected businesses and public agencies to reduce travel demand. Their mission is to promote the improvement of I -494 from the Minnesota River in Bloomington to I -94 in Maple Grove, in order to increase the people- moving capacity of I -494, and to improve the productivity and convenience of businesses and residents throughout the region. Members include the Cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. Partners include the Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Maple Grove Transit, Plymouth Metrolink and Hennepin County. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 17 • LJ 4.5 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES The development of this TDM has been done in coordination with Metro Commuter Services (MCS), the Twin Cities area regional commuter transportation agency. As part of the Metropolitan Council, MCS promotes the planning, development and implementation of commuter options that decrease traffic congestion by improving both the effectiveness and efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. MCS offers direct assistance to employers who seek to promote commuter options. For example, MCS works with employers to assess the current transportation situation and commuting needs of its employees through the MCS Commuter Survey. MCS also assists employers through the Finding Alternative Sources of Transportation (FAST) Plan. Other services offered by MCS include ride matching services, subsidies for start-up vans of five or more passengers, and the Guaranteed Ride Home program. MCS also provides transit information; MCS can identify all the routes and park- and -ride lots available to employees for their commute. In addition, MCS can investigate the option of reverse commuting from inner city to suburb, and from suburb to suburb, thereby broadening the available employee pool. Best Buy Campus Revised October 20, 2000 Revised Travel Demand Management Plan 18 I-] s AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 Public Hearings 6 298 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Er SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a planned unit development plan for the Best Buy Campus project and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues to Planned General Commercial (PC -2), Best Buy Campus proiect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance amendment and consideration of the planned unit development plan to December 11, 2000. II. BACKGROUND Best Buy Corporation is proposing to construct a corporate campus, including four buildings with 1.5 million square feet of office space and parking for 7,500 cars, in the Interchange West area (76th Street to 1 -494 and Knox to Penn Avenues). The site is currently developed with a mixture of 68 single family and duplex properties, three apartment complexes (89 units), 12 small businesses and the Walser and McCarthy car dealerships. The 42 -acre site is covered by a variety of zoning districts including R (single family. residential), MR -1 (two- family residence), MR -2 (medium density multiple family residence), and C -2 (general commercial). The four buildings would be six and eight stories tall, with approximately 300,000 and 400,000 square feet in each building. They would be connected with a one - level (30 feet tall) commons area where functions such as a cafeteria and convenience store would be located. Some basement space (up to 90,000 square feet) may also be constructed to provide a service corridor underneath the buildings, storage space, a store mock -up area, and other similar functions. A majority of the parking (6,700 stalls) would be provided in a five -level parking ramp located in the northeast portion of the site. Several transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate traffic from the development. A new Penn Avenue bridge is proposed at 1 -494. Penn Avenue, from 1 -494 to 76th Street, will be reconstructed. The intersection at Penn Avenue and 76th Street will be reconstructed with dual left turn lanes and right turn lanes. all directions. 76th Street, from Penn Avenue to the 35W entrance ramp will also be reconstructed. These improvements will be in place by November, 2002 when the office complex would be completed. A planned unit development plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit will be presented to the City Council on November 27, 2000. Final action on the items will not take place until December 11, 2000 when the Environmental Impact Statement will also be before the Council. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Metropolitan Council approved an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan on September 27. The amendment re- guided 10 acres of the project area from high density single family residential and neighborhood commercial to regional commercial /office. Consideration of the amendment is on the City Council agenda on November 27. • The City's Comprehensive Plan (Plan) encourages high density development along the 1 -494 corridor. The Plan also encourages improvements at the gateways to the community. The proposed redevelopment of the Interchange West area is consistent with these goals. • The proposed redevelopment removes 167 housing units. A portion of the project's tax increment (approximately $7 million total in present value) will be dedicated to a housing fund. Those funds will be used to increase and improve the City's housing stock. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • To provide adequate time for public testimony, the public hearing has been scheduled for November 27 and December 11. • The project requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. The EIS process will be completed on December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EIS. C. FINANCIAL • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has signed a contract for private redevelopment with Best Buy that details the financial aspects of the development. D. LEGAL • The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning on September 26, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. • The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on October 23, 2000. • A final decision would not be made until December 11 when the EIS process is completed. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 15, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed on November 15 to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the planned unit development plan and rezoning with a finding that the proposed project would have a negative impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Attachment A: Existing and Proposed Zoning • Attachment B: Site Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Opus and Best Buy will be available for a brief presentation and to answer questions. s • BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 7, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: (10) M -14 (Southeast of 76th and Penn) That area bounded by the centerline of Penn Avenue on the west; the south border line of Section 33, Township 28 Range 24 Hennepin County Minnesota on the south: the centerline of Knox Avenue on the east: and the centerline of 76th Street on the north. B. Section 3, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: • -- C. Section 3, Paragraph (29) is amended to read as follows: ,i IVA WA L, _ - - - - - - - - - D. Section 3, Paragraph (60) is amended to read as follows: - - - = - - -- MEET- E. Section 12, Paragraph (23) is amended to read as follows: , 0 F. Section 11, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: G. Section 11, Paragraph (8) is amended to read -as follows: H. Section 11, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: „_ . - - . INNER ._ .. • 9-a G. Section 11, Paragraph (8) is amended to read -as follows: H. Section 11, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: I. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: R to PC -2: 7601 -7649 Penn Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Oliver Avenue South, 7601 -7645 Oliver Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Newton Avenue South, • 7601 -7633 Newton Avenue South, 7600 -7634 Morgan Avenue South, 7601 -7629 Morgan Avenue South, 7645 -7647 Morgan Avenue South, 1915 West 76th Street, 7615 Logan Avenue South MR -1 to PC -2: 7639 -7645 Newton Avenue South, 7638 -7644 Morgan Avenue South, 7639 -7641 Morgan Avenue South, 7608 -7646 Logan Avenue South MR -2 to PC -2: 7601 Logan Avenue South C -2 to PC -2: 7745 Penn Avenue South, 2015 -2121 West 77th Street, 1920 -2100 West 78th Street, 7701- 7725 Morgan Avenue South, 7700 -7708 Logan Avenue South, 7701 Logan Avenue South, 7600 -7700 Knox Avenue South J. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by or under the control of Best Buy Corporation or 30 days following publication of this ordinance, whichever is later. For purposes of this ordinance, a parcel is deemed to be under the control of Best Buy Corporation if either (i) the parcel is under purchase agreement in favor of Best Buy or its agents or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered an order approving the acquisition of the parcel by eminent domain by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. - . INNER .. - . I. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: R to PC -2: 7601 -7649 Penn Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Oliver Avenue South, 7601 -7645 Oliver Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Newton Avenue South, • 7601 -7633 Newton Avenue South, 7600 -7634 Morgan Avenue South, 7601 -7629 Morgan Avenue South, 7645 -7647 Morgan Avenue South, 1915 West 76th Street, 7615 Logan Avenue South MR -1 to PC -2: 7639 -7645 Newton Avenue South, 7638 -7644 Morgan Avenue South, 7639 -7641 Morgan Avenue South, 7608 -7646 Logan Avenue South MR -2 to PC -2: 7601 Logan Avenue South C -2 to PC -2: 7745 Penn Avenue South, 2015 -2121 West 77th Street, 1920 -2100 West 78th Street, 7701- 7725 Morgan Avenue South, 7700 -7708 Logan Avenue South, 7701 Logan Avenue South, 7600 -7700 Knox Avenue South J. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by or under the control of Best Buy Corporation or 30 days following publication of this ordinance, whichever is later. For purposes of this ordinance, a parcel is deemed to be under the control of Best Buy Corporation if either (i) the parcel is under purchase agreement in favor of Best Buy or its agents or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered an order approving the acquisition of the parcel by eminent domain by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor r :::::\ i, JJ11 ♦��• PO 0 ��r t - s� ,. � =I �1 . 3 J Z ofd 3 J Z 0 • RV7 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 Public Hearings 297 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Era,. SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and changing the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R -SFH (high density single family residential) and C -N (neighborhood commercial) to C -R /O (regional commercial /office). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Continue second reading of and a public hearing on a transitory ordinance to adopt the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and change the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R -SFH and C -N to C -R/O to December 11, 2000. III. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a Contract for Private Development with Best Buy. The proposed concept plan for the Best Buy development includes 1.5 million square feet of office space. The office development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Regional Commercial /Office classification for the majority of the property. The northern portion of the development is, however, guided for housing and neighborhood commercial, which the Best Buy concept does not include. A Plan amendment to 1127compplan i designate this northern area as Regional Commercial /Office is necessary to i proceed with the proposed office development. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the text for the West 1 -494 subarea are supportive of the proposed amendment. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a net gain of 1,125 housing units throughout the City. The net gain with the amendment would be 1,038 housing units, a reduction of approximately 87 housing units. • While housing is no longer a part of the proposed concept plan, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Comprehensive Plan amendment is one step in the review process for the Best Buy development. Additional zoning, financial, and environmental approvals will also be needed before the development can move forward. • The Comprehensive Plan provides a broad framework for the City to use when reviewing specific development proposals. • The current Comprehensive Plan suggests that 77th Street could be developed similar to 77th Street east of 35W, serving as a buffer between. commercial and residential development and a connection from 76th Street to Penn Avenue near 1 -494. The Best Buy proposal would not accommodate an arterial road through the center of the development; however, the on -site circulation patterns provide fora similar connection for Best Buy employees. In addition, 76th Street and the intersection at 76th Street and Penn Avenue will be upgraded to provide the connection to 1 -494 and Penn Avenue. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance by two- thirds vote of the full Council. • First reading was held on October 9, 2000. • The public hearing has been continued from November 13 because the Sun - Current published the hearing notice incorrectly. Because of the delay, it is appropriate to consider the amendment in conjunction with the rezoning and other land use items related to the project. To provide adequate time for public testimony, those items have been scheduled for November 27 and December 11. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 15, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. • On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the amendment and voted unanimously to approve the amendment. On May 8, 2000, the City Council authorized submittal of the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. • On September 27, 2000, the Metropolitan Council approved the amendment with the following conditions: 1. The wastewater system improvements to the local lift station must be completed prior to the occupancy of the office complex. 2. The City must complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for approval a Tier II sewer plan prior to any further development that reflects an increased discharge to the regional system. The Metropolitan Council approval included the following recommendations: 1. Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as a result of the land use change. 2. The City should use the TIF to be generated by the proposed development to assist the development or preservation of affordable rental housing in Richfield. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time; however, this decision would delay many other aspects of the development process. • Do not approve the amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: existing and proposed Guide Plan designations [VIL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A • BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED CONCERNING THE INTERCHANGE WEST AREA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides a. Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is designated R -SFH (high density single family residential) and C -N (neighborhood commercial) [the "subject area "]. The City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to classify this area as C -R /O (regional commercial /office). Section 2. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning modifying the Guide Plan classifications of property in the subject area. The Planning Commission approved the modification on March 28, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on April 24, 2000 and May 8, 2000. The Metropolitan Council approved the amendment on September 27, 2000; and Section 3. The City of Council makes the following findings of fact: A. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The proposed amendment is consistent with this objective. B. The amendment is also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." C. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." D. The amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." E. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." 1127compplan • F. The amendment is consistent with the description of the 1 -494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1 -35W." G. Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. Section 4. The City's Comprehensive Plan as amended, changing the classifications of property in the subject area from R -SFH and C -N to C -R/0, is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor \ \\ \ \ \\� \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ ammommoommm N N N N W i a wg mim!mlmlm M • PA AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4E REPORT # 296 �' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BARRY FRITZ, POLICE CAPTAIN NAME. TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a new contract for Public Safety towing services with Chief's Towing, Inc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the towing services contract between the City and Chief's Towing Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue, Bloomington, MN, effective 121112000, to replace the Morrow's Towing Contract that is terminated due to redevelopment. II BACKGROUND I The City of Richfield currently has a contract with Morrow's Towing for Public Safety towing services. Morrow's has notified the City that they are terminating their contract, effective November 30, 2000, because they are ceasing operation on December 31, 2000. They must vacate their property at 6445 Cedar Ave. S. by January 12, 2001 due to the redevelopment of Highway 77 and 66th Street. Chief's Towing Inc., is located in the City of Bloomington and previously contracted with the City of Richfield for Public Safety towing services. Their performance during the contract period was satisfactory. They meet all requirements stated in the contract, and currently provide towing for Bloomington Police. 1127TowingContract III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Contracts for services need not be competitively bid. • The contract has numerous conditions that must be met. Chief's Towing, Inc. is a reputable, established towing business that meets all contract requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES There was only 30 days notice of termination of Morrow' contract. • On December 1, 2000, Public Safety must have towing services. This is particularly important with the possibility of snow emergencies that could occur at any time. C. FINANCIAL • The current contract with Morrow's reflects rates from 1995. Rates will be higher with Chief's, but are consistent with inflation and increased fuel costs. There is adequate funding in the Public Safety budget to cover the increased costs. D. LEGAL The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the contract. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not sign the contract. However, Public Safety must have towing and impound services. V. ATTACHMENTS Towing contract and Exhibits A and B. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Robert Schoenborn, President of Chief's Towing • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES THIS AGREEMENT is made this 30th day of November, 2000, between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "City "), and Chief s Towing, Inc., located at 8610 Harriet Avenue South (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor "). WITNESSETH WHEAREAS, the City has a need to contract for the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City requires that the towing operators are located within (3) miles of the City limits; and WHEREAS, the Contractor is the operator of a towing and storage facility within (3) miles of the City limits and has the expertise and capabilities to provide the required services: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from December 1, 2000, to November 30, 2001, subject to termination as provided in Subdivision V. II. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. The Contractor shall tow, impound, and store all motor vehicles, which are 9 ordered removed under the direction of the police chief, or the fire chief, of the City of Richfield or their authorized and legal representatives. The Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for its towing and storage services pursuant to those fees specified in the Contractor's Proposal (Exhibit B). It is agreed that neither the City nor the Richfield Police Department is responsible for any charges as a result of towing and/or storage, with the exception of those vehicles identified by the Police as subject to forfeiture, and that the Contractor assume liability for any unpaid charges. B. The Contractor agrees to provide the services, as proposed, and perform all other terms and conditions according to the City's Specifications and the Contractor's Proposal, incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. C. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Contractor's (including its officials, agents or employees), performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Contractor. D. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Contractor's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The Contractor and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this 9 Agreement. The Contractor represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Contractor or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Contractor under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Contractor, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. E. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. F. The Contractor agrees to maintain for the full term of this Agreement, the following minimum insurance coverage: a) $1,000,000.00 Comprehensive General Liability insurance, Business Auto Policy with $1,000,000.00 limits, and Garage Keeper's Legal Liability. 0 b) Workers' Compensation insurance covering all employees of the Contractor, or his agents, in accordance with the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law. Certifications of insurance must be filed with the City and shall include a provision that states the insurance company shall give the City at least 25 -days written notice prior to cancellation, nonrenewal, or any material change in the policy. The Contractor further agrees to name the City of Richfield as additional insured on said comprehensive general liability policy. G. The Contractor agrees to furnish on or before the date this Agreement becomes effective, an acceptable corporate surety bond in the amount of $10,000, payable to the City of Richfield and subject to approval by the Richfield City Attorney, for the faithful performance of all duties and obligations imposed under the terms and conditions of the iAgreement. III. DUTIES OF THE CITY The City agrees to pay the Contractor the flat rate charge of $130.00 per vehicle for the towing and storage of vehicles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture and which are subsequently released to the Police Department. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. This agreement represents the entire Agreement between the Contractor and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 4- • B. The Contractor agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. The Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought, alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the Contractor. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. C. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this contract. D. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. E. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.06, Subdivision 4. u • F. The City and the Contractor agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non - binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non - binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving six (6) months 0 advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. DATED: DATED: CITY OF RICHFIELD BY: Its Mayor BY: Its Manager CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. DATED: BY: 9 Its: ,. EXHIBIT A 0 2000. SPECIFICATIONS TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES GENERAL: It is the intent and purpose of these specifications to specify and detail the requirements for the Towing, Impounding and Storage of Motor Vehicles for the City of Richfield 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, on an as needed and directed basis. Such direction is to be by the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, or their authorized and legal representatives. The contract for service shall commence on December 1, 2000 and terminate on November 31, 2001. The City reserves the right to extend the contract for additional (1) one year periods if such an extension is permitted by the Contractor, the standard of service is satisfactory, and, has the approval of the Richfield City Council. At the time of contract extension, the contractor may request a price increase for all categories to be effective during the contract extension period. Any requested increase shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index for the Minneapolis /St Paul urban area and have the approval of the Richfield City Council. Application for extension and price increases or decreases shall be initiated by the performing contractor, must be submitted in writing and be in the hands of the proper Director of Public Safety at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of contract expiration. All of the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles under this contract shall be in accordance with any section of the Richfield City Code related thereto. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 1. The contractor must own or have direct access to satisfactory equipment and trained, available personnel, in order to provide immediate and prompt service as ordered and requested by the authorized City officials. 2. The contractor must own or have available within (3) miles of Richfield's city limits the following equipment as a minimum: A. Two trucks having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 4 ton or more, to be equipped with a crane and winch, and further equipped to control the movement of the towed vehicle, and B. Equipment sufficient and designed to move a completely demolished vehicle by means of dollies or low -bed trailers. EXHIBIT A A listing of all equipment to be utilized shall be submitted to the City. Such listing shall show the make and model of all equipment available for use under this contract, along with size and all other pertinent information, such as specialized equipment not necessarily herein specified, but which may be a factor in performing effectively and efficiently. All equipment to be used by the contractor under this contract shall be maintained in good repair and condition. The City reserves the right to inspect the equipment from time to time for the purpose of determining that equipment condition is in conformance with the terms and conditions of the specifications and the contract. 3. All storage and parking lot facilities and all equipment to be used by the contractor under this contract must be located within (3) miles of Richfield's city limits. The storage and parking lot facilities must meet all of the applicable State building code standard and municipal license and zoning requirements, including those relating to screening and landscaping of the City in which the facility is located. 4. The facilities proposed to be utilized under this contract must have the capability of storing a minimum of one (1) vehicle inside and a further capability of providing storage for a minimum of (25) twenty -five vehicles outside. Inside storage will be necessary only when so requested or directed by an authorized official of the City of Richfield as identified in these specifications. When a direction is given to store a unit inside, such directions may be accompanied by certain instructions for security measures to be employed. The security responsibilities become the responsibility of the storing agent while the unit is in their keeping. 5. The Contractor performing under this contract shall assume all and full responsibility for the conduct of his/her employees. The Contractor guarantees that all of the employees performing under this contract will be adequately trained in their profession, will respond promptly to all calls, will provide safe and adequate equipment (as herein specified), be clean and neat in appearance, use decent language, free of profanity, and treat the public courteously at all times. Request for service from the Richfield Police Department must be given first priority by all dispatchers. Failing to meet any or all of the requirements of this section may result in cause for terminating the contract at any time as per the conditions specified for contract termination. 6. The Contractor will be solely responsible for loss or damage to any vehicle, including all equipment and contents, from the time direction is given by the authorized City representative turning the vehicle over to the Contractor or his Agency and until such time as the vehicle is legally released to the registered or actual owner or legal agent thereof. 7. The performing contractor must agree to maintain proper records of all vehicles received. The record keeping system shall meet the approval of the Richfield Public Safety Director and records are to be available at all times for inspection by authorized City officials. The records must include a copy of the police impounding report. A report shall be submitted monthly to the Richfield Public Safety Director detailing all vehicles stored or released during that current month. All contents of such reports shall meet the approval of the Richfield Public Safety Director. 2 EXHIBIT A 8. All vehicles towed or impounded are to be released only upon proper authority of the Richfield Public Safety Director, except for private tows. 9. While performing under this contract and under these specifications, the Contractor or their designated 'representative(s) must be present at the storage facility six (6) days a week, Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (excluding legal holidays) and from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 1:00 p.m. each Sunday and all legal holidays, for the purpose of releasing vehicles to authorized claimants. Police requested releases will be handled anytime. 10. It shall be agreed under this contract that motor vehicles will not be driven at anytime during the towing procedure. In the event that the vehicle is without tires or has flat tires, the performing Contractor agrees to tow the vehicle without damaging the wheels and further agrees not to tow any vehicle on its rims, on wheels without tires, or on flat tires. 11. Upon arrival at the scene of a tow where a vehicle accident has occurred, the performing Contractor, in addition to the physical removal of the vehicle, assumes full responsibility for removing any vehicular parts or other debris, excluding liquids and other commercial cargo, resulting from the accident. This clean-up is to be completed without any additional compensation. 12. The performing Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for his/her towing and storage services pursuant to the fees submitted in the accompanying bid proposal. The Contractor shall agree that neither the City nor any Department thereof is responsible for any charges as a result of towing and/or storage and that the Contractor assumes all liability for any and all unpaid charges. NOTE: This Provision and these Specifications are in no way a law or regulation relating to "price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property," under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 14501(c)(1)(1997). 13. If an involved private owner /operator makes a timely request for a tow by other than our Contractor, such request shall be honored by the Police Department. In either instance, the owner /operator is solely responsible for all associated charges. 14. For vehicles identified. by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture, and subsequently released to the Police Department pending the outcome of forfeiture proceedings, the performing contractor shall indicate a flat rate charge per forfeited vehicle. The flat rate shall include the towing, storage on the date of the tow, and three days of storage after the date of the tow. The flat rate applies to all cars, vans, small trucks, 4 -wheel drive vehicles, utility vehicles, and motorcycles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture to the City. 15. Should the Contractor fail to appear at a designated tow point within twenty (20) minutes after receiving a call for a tow, the City reserves the right to call another towing service to perform the work. If the Contractor is called and is unable to respond due to conditions beyond their control, the authorized City officials shall be immediately so informed, and the right is hereby reserved to call another service to perform the work. EXHIBIT A If, at any time, it becomes necessary for the City to request the services of another towing service for the reasons detailed above, the City retains the right to hold the Contractor retained under this contract responsible for any additional charges over and above the fee schedule recorded in this bid proposal. Such charges shall be assessed only if the response time is due to negligence or laxity on the part of the contractor, which negligence might include equipment failure. 16. The Contractor performing under this contract shall operate and maintain its parking and storage facility in compliance with the terms of this contract and all State and City applicable laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations that are presently in effect, or which may hereafter be adopted. 17. No alterations or modifications of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties hereto. 18. In the event of a breach by the Contractor of any terms or conditions of this agreement, the City shall have, in addition to any other legal recourse, the right to terminate this agreement forthwith. 19. Either party may terminate this contract upon the serving of such termination notice to the other, in writing; (6) six months prior to the intended termination date. 20. A copy of this contract, along with the authorized fee schedule shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the Contractor's place of business. INSURANCE: The successful Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until the specified insurance coverages have been obtained. The Contractor shall file, with the Richfield City Clerk, all certificates of insurance or documentation thereof indicating that all specified insurance have been obtained and are in full force. The City of Richfield shall be named as an additional insured on said comprehensive general liability policy. The following coverages are required as minimums: A. 1. Public Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 Comprehensive General Liability (including assault and battery). 2. Business Auto Policy with all coverages (all vehicles), with $1,000,000 limits. 3. Garage Keepers' Legal Liability. B. Workers' Compensation Insurance covering all employees of the Contractor, or his agents, working under this contract in accordance with the Minnesota Workers Compensation Law. The Contractor shall agree to provide to the Richfield City Clerk, 25 days prior written notice in the event any policy is canceled or a material change is effected and each policy must contain a provision that the insurer notify the Richfield City Clerk immediately if a policy is canceled or a material change has been effected. 4 EXHIBIT A L-1 PERFORMANCE BOND: On or before the date that the contract between the City and the Towing service becomes effective, the Contractor shall file with the Richfield City Clerk an acceptable Corporate surety bond in the amount of $10,000, payable to the City of Richfield and subject to the approval by the Richfield City Attorney for the faithful performance of all duties and obligations imposed under the terms and conditions of the contract. • EXHIBIT B 0 REVISED PROPOSAL FORM CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PROPOSAL FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RICHFIELD TOWING OF IMPOUNDED CARS, TRUCKS (UNDER 1 72 TON CAPACITY), MOTORCYCLES, ALL- TERRAIN VEHICLES, SNOWMOBILES AND UNATTENDED UTILITY TRAILERS TOWED FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD $ 60.00 TOWING CHARGE FOR SAME FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD $ 60.00 MILEAGE CHARGE FOR SAME $ 2.00 TOWING OF TRUCKS LARGER THAN 1 1/2 TON CAPACITY FROM INSIDE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD $100.00 TOWING CHARGE FOR SAME OUTSIDE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD $100.00 MILEAGE CHARGE FOR SAME $ 2.75 USE OF WINCH WITH A TOW CAR $15.00 ($60 PER HR MAX) TRUCK $25.00 ($100 PER HR MA)O USE OF DOLLY (S) $15.00 USE OF LOW -BED TRAILER OR TRUCK $75.00 (IF FLATBED REQUIRED) STORAGE CHARGES 1. FIRST 24 HOURS OR FRACTION THEREOF: A. INSIDE STORAGE $ 27.00 B. OUTSIDE STORAGE $ 20.00 2. EACH ADDITIONAL 24 HOURS OF FRACTION THEREOF: A. INSIDE STORAGE $ 27.00 B. OUTSIDE STORAGE $20.00.. r� L • EXHIBIT B REVISED PROPOSAL FORM CONTINUED OTHER CHARGES THERE WILL BE A $5.00 (PLUS TAX) PROCESSING SURCHARGE FOR ALL CHECK AND CREDIT /DEBIT CARD PAYMENTS. ON A YEARLY BASIS, CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. WILL REQUIRE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS C.O.L.A INDEX. IF THE LAW ALLOWS AND IF AGREEABLE BY BOTH THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. THIS CONTRACT MAY BE RENEWED ON A YEARLY BASIS. ANY CHANGES INCLUDING THE TERMINATION OF THE SAID CONTRACT MUST BE MADE WITH SIX (6) MONTHS NOTICE GIVEN TO BOTH PARTIES. SIGNED, IROBERT J. -SCHOENBORN OWNER /PRESIDENT CHIEF'S TOWING, INCORPORATED 8610 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MN 55450 (952) 888 -2201 DATE • r AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT # 295 STAFF REPORT mm9a CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 JOHN OLINGER, REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE, BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ar ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: To ratify the publication of the November 22, 2000, public hearing notice to consider a resolution and joint powers agreement relating to multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., and the issuance of revenue bonds therefor under the municipal housing programs act, all of which would be considered at a public hearing on December 11, 2000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Ratify the publication of the November 22, 2000, public hearing notice regarding a.resolution and joint powers agreement relating to multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., and the issuance of revenue bonds therefor under the municipal housing oroarams act. II. BACKGROUND Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc. (Rolling Acres) owns and operates facilities for the developmentally disabled. They own and operate a two unit home in Richfield. A primary facility of the organization is located in Victoria, Minnesota. They wish to consolidate mortgage debt and finance renovation work at several of their facilities 1127mountolivet including the one in Victoria, the two unit property in Richfield and nine other jurisdictions. The City of Victoria will issue the revenue bonds in the amount of $2,550,000. Because Rolling Acres wishes to expend some of the proceeds of the bond on their facility in Richfield, the City is being asked to become a "participating jurisdiction ". There would be no financial obligation against the City (the City played a similar role in a similar situation one year ago with St. Ann's Residential Services). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION Participation will result in an upgrade to a two unit residence in the community, which serves a special population at 6843 -45 Lyndale Avenue South. A. POLICY • One year ago the City participated in a similar situation with St. Ann's. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Participation will strengthen the housing resources in the community C. FINANCIAL • The City will assume no financial liability as a participating community • The costs related to this particular transaction will be paid by Rolling Acres. D. LEGAL • The notice of public hearing must be published at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. For the public hearing to be held on December 11, 2000, the notice had to be published on November 22, 2000. Thus, the request is for the City Council to ratify the publication of the public hearing notice. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(! • Delay action. • Reject participation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Copy of the public hearing notice (Attachment A) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 1] ATTACHMENT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City ") on a proposal by Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower") that the City of Victoria (the "Issuer"), acting pursuant to a joint powers agreement (the "Joint Powers Agreement ") issue revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance and refinance the costs of acquisition, construction, equipping, furnishing and rehabilitation of the various residential facilities for the developmentally disabled described below (collectively referred to as the "Development "), including the Victoria Project described below, and the Richfield Project described below, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act "), including related administrative costs, reserves, capitalized interest, and cost of issuance. The Bonds would be issued pursuant to a Housing Program developed in accordance with the Act, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall. The hearing will be held at the City Hall, located at 6700 Portland Avenue South in the City, on December, 11, 2000, at 7:00'clock P.M. The Victoria Project consists of the acquisition and construction of improvements, including equipment, furnishings and site improvements, to the existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located at 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (referred to as the "Victoria Project "). In addition to the Victoria Project, the Development consists generally of the following: (1) the refinancing, rehabilitation, *equipping and furnishing of various existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located in other cities or jurisdictions outside of the City (at specific addresses set forth below); and (2) the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, equipping and furnishing of new and /or existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located in those cities or jurisdictions and in Aiken County, Minnesota (at the specific address set forth below). The Richfield Project consists of the refinancing of existing taxable mortgage indebtedness with respect to, and the rehabilitation of, an existing residential facility of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled, located at the specific address in the City described below. The facilities included in the Development are situated at the following locations: 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (serving 44 persons); 129 Mackenthun Lane; Norwood -Young America, Minnesota (serving six persons); 1757 Highwood Drive, Chaska, Minnesota (serving four persons); 320 Fifth Street Northeast, Mayer, Minnesota (serving four persons); 241 West Third Street, Waconia, Minnesota (serving four persons); 3921 Leslie Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota (serving four persons); 112209 James Court, Jonathan, Minnesota (serving four persons); 25925 Birch Bluff, Shorewood, Minnesota (serving four persons); 6843 and 6845 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota (serving six persons); 7829 Tessman Drive, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (serving four persons); 8217 29th Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota (serving four persons); 2413 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota (serving four persons); and Route T, Jevne Township, McGregor, Minnesota (serving a minimum of 20 persons). Under the proposal, the City will enter into the Joint Powers Agreement, pursuant to which the Issuer (or another of the Participating Jurisdictions identified in the Joint Powers Agreement, as determined by the Participating Jurisdictions) will issue its revenue bonds in a principal amount of approximately $2,250,000 (the "Bonds ") to provide funds for the costs of the Development, and for related costs, including the funding of required reserves, administrative costs, capitalized interest and issuance costs. *The Development involves assistance for housing. Accordingly, the issuance of the Bonds is not a business subsidy, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended. At said time and place the City Council shall give all parties who appear or submit written comments an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. *Questions; contact John Olinger, Community Development, at 612.866.9781 STEVEN L. DEVICH Acting City Clerk 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. Publish: November 22, 2000 Ll • • • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4C REPORT # 294 STAFF REPORT =Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE Thd I WE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for property at 6856 Park Avenue that would enable the properly owner to divide the property into two lots. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6856 Park Avenue South to allow the property to be divided into two lots. III. BACKGROUND I The Richfield Housing Redevelopment & Authority (HRA) has purchased the property at 6856 Park Avenue. The parcel is 110 by 132 feet for a total of 14,520 square feet. The HRA would like to subdivide the parcel into two 7,260 -foot lots and provide sites for two new homes. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The property had been troublesome. When it was foreclosed upon, the HRA purchased it from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Creating two lots will help cover the high cost of 1127parksubd acquisition and will provide two new market rate homes in the .community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The neighboring uses are residential and the subject parcels would also remain residential. • The existing house would be removed. • The existing gravel driveway would be removed and /or replaced with a surface that meets City codes. • The City's Richfield Rediscovered Program has a substantial waiting list for vacant lots. • The sites would be marketed in 2000 with construction starting in 2001. C. FINANCIAL • Creating two lots will help cover the cost of acquisition. D. LEGAL • The proposed lots conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a newly created lot in an R (single family residential) district be at least 50 feet wide, 100 feet deep and • 6,700 square feet in total size (521.09, subd. 2). The two lots that would be created would be 55 feet by 132 feet for a total size of 7,260 square feet each. • The City's subdivision ordinance requires City Council approval of a lot division. • The City's subdivision ordinance allows the Council to waive the platting requirement in cases where the property is smaller than five acres. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the subdivision waiver. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Survey VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER OF PROPERTY 6856 PARK 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 generally located at 6856 Park Avenue, legally described as follows: That part of Lot 4 lying South of North 121.30 feet thereof, Block 3, PORTLAND AVENUE ACRES ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is legally described as follows: Parcel A: That part of Lot 4, Block 3, PORTLAND AVENUE ACRES ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying south of the North 121.30 feet and lying north of the South 55.00 feet thereof Parcel B: The South 55.00 feet of Lot 4, Block 3, PORTLAND AVENUE ACRES ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof; and WHEREAS, the two lots resulting 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 of 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 that a waiver for the subdivision of property legally described above is hereby approved subject to the following condition: That all future transfer of any of the property described as That part of Lot 4 lying South of North 121.30 feet thereof, Block 3, PORTLAND AVENUE ACRES ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof shall be by parcel or parcels described above as Parcel A and Parcel B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of November, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 1127parksubd • UA 0 0 s .r r� Its E All _W I I w l c� LL- _ Hinos nNMV x >INVd R — toga• 1 IF LL EE :fR C •'I M�f3l •••..... - -•• to Uolcobm C n `c I d_ Isle 1 Ei EiS E S S� S* i _W I I w l c� LL- _ Hinos nNMV x >INVd R — toga• 1 IF LL EE :fR C •'I M�f3l •••..... - -•• to Uolcobm C n `c I d_ Isle I' i • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # �' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 Consent 4B 293 BETSY CMUSTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES REPORT PREPARED BY: DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Lal SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution that is in opposition to a proposal before the Minnesota State Legislature that would allow the sale of wine, wine coolers and associated products intended for consumption off the licensed premises (off -sale) by other than municipal liquor stores. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution that is in opposition to a proposal before the Minnesota State Legislature that, if adopted and made into law, would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and other similar outlets to sell wine, wine coolers and associated 11 products for off- premise consumption I� III. BACKGROUND In the last several state legislative sessions, the issue of expanding off -sale licenses to convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and other similar outlets has been proposed, but never adopted. It is most likely that the same issue will be proposed in the 2001 Legislative session. This legislation, if passed, would significantly increase the number of off -sale establishments allowed to sell wine. This proliferation of outlet types would not only 11 /27WineProposal provide additional opportunities for youth access to alcohol, but would place large economic and personnel burden on regulatory bodies. The passing of this legislation would be detrimental and injurious to the financial well being of the City, due to the ownership of four municipal liquor dispensaries; and, more importantly, the control of the sales and consumption of alcohol would be greatly compromised. Several other cities including Alexandria, Edina, Lakeville and Savage have already passed similar resolutions. The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association, Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, Lakeville Police Department and the City of Lakeville Liquor Committee are in support of opposing wine in grocery stores. At their November 20, 2000 meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health made a unanimous motion to support the Department of Public Safety in opposing the sale of wine from these retail outlets. The Board continues to closely monitor the alcohol compliance checks being conducted by the Department of Public Safety and is aware that there continues to be control issues with alcohol sales to youth. One of the two establishments that failed their third compliance check is a gas station /convenience store combination that has admitted to Public Safety staff how hard it is to find good help that is conscientious about these issues. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Currently, the Richfield Department of Public Safety is actively performing alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments. • Establishments that are found not to be in compliance with regards to the legal sale of alcohol, are held responsible and are subject to progressive discipline in the form of suspension of license and predetermined fines. • Repeated violations in the sale of alcohol to minors by a licensed alcohol establishment could ultimately result in the revocation of the establishment's liquor license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • There have been numerous disciplinary hearings and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments that have undergone alcohol compliance checks and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth. An expansion of outlets could possibly increase violations. • The availability of alcohol to underage youth would naturally be magnified with the extension of selling outlets. • Enforcement by Richfield's Department of Public Safety would also be increased and potentially more difficult to control. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health has supported the current compliance checks and also the disciplinary actions against establishments that violate both State Statutes and City ordinance and are in full support of opposition to any proposed changes in further accessibility of alcohol to underage youths. C. FINANCIAL • The City of Richfield has owned and operated a successful liquor dispensary for over 50 years. Extension of licenses and retail establishments would certainly have a direct financial impact on funds generated to assist with City projects, mostly in the form of recreation. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The Council could choose not to oppose the proposed legislation. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution opposing the proposal before the State Legislature to allow dispensing of alcohol by other than duly authorized off -sale liquor stores. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Unknown Is RESOLUTION NO. 10 RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SELL OF WINE, WINE COOLERS AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS BY DISPENSARIES OTHER THAN DULY AUTHORIZED OFF -SALE LIQUOR STORES. • WHEREAS, the sale of 3.2 beer by convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations, and other associated retail outlets for off - premise consumption is currently allowed under Minnesota law; and WHEREAS, the check -out clerks at the aforementioned types of retail outlets are not generally fully trained to recognize deceptive identification or any other alcohol management techniques normally required for the employees of duly authorized off -sale liquor dispensaries; and WHEREAS, there is a proposal before the Minnesota Legislature that, if adopted and made law, would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and other similar retail outlets to sell wine, including sweet "pop" wines, wine coolers and associated products for off - premise consumption; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the citizen members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health are endeavoring to curtail youth access to alcohol and tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of the types of outlets mentioned in the proposal will provide additional opportunities for youth to have access to alcohol. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that they hereby oppose the concept of allowing the further proliferation of liquor sales from dispensaries other than duly authorized off -sale liquor stores. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of November 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk :7 17A AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT# 292 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 279 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Appointment to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a Resolution Re- appointing Erika Hiestand to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a Three -Year Term. II. BACKGROUND On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of three directors was also a part of the resolution. The terms of the appointment are for three years and are staggered to maintain Board continuity. The current members of the Tourism Board and the ending dates of their current terms are as follows: 1. Bill Brusman, Vice President of Realty Management Services, Inc. representing the Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2001. 2. Cathy Sulla, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending December 31, 2002. 1127Tourism 3. Erika (Olmstead) Hiestand, representing Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31, 2000. Erika (Olmstead) Hiestand, the General Manager of Candlewood Suites currently holds a position on the RTPB, which is set to expire on December 31, 2000. Ms. Hiestand has been the General Manager of Candlewood Suites since the facility opened in Richfield and has served on the RTPB since December 1999. She has expressed an interest in being re- appointed and has been an excellent addition to the Board. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City Council has the authority to make annual appointments to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board. Since its inception, the RTPB has included hotel /motel representatives as Board members. • Ms. Hiestand is interested in reappointment to the RTPB. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A vacancy on the Tourism Board exists as of December 31, 2000 and should be filled before December 31, 2000. C. FINANCIAL • There is no cost to the City, as Board members receive no compensation. D. LEGAL • The proposed changes conform to City Ordinance and the bylaws of the RTPB. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • The City Council could decide not to reappoint Ms. Hiestand to the RTPB The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint three (3) directors to the Board representing the Richfield hotel -motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or removal; and WHEREAS, the term of Erika (Olmstead) Hiestand, the representative for Candlewood Suites, Inc. expires on December 31, 2000 and Mrs. Hiestand has indicated that she wishes to be re- appointed to the Board. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows: Appoint Erika (Olmstead) Hiestand, Candlewood Suites, to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for the remainder of a three -year term ending December 31, 2003 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of November, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 1127Tourism Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor