06-09-09 agenda packetCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSON
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding residential garbage collection options :(Council Memo No. 95)
Notes:.
2. Discussion regarding City of Richfield Key Financial Strategies (Council Memo No. 96)
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on ifems not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of May 26, 2009 (2) Regular
City Council Meeting of May 26, 2009; and (3) Special City Council/CHAT III Meeting of
May 28, 2009
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Gene and Mary Jacobsen Citizen of Year award to Terry Bumgarner
(Council Memo No. 97)
2. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission
3. Presentation and consideration of resolution adopting 2009-2014 Community Health
Assessment and Action Plan for City of Richfield
Staff Report No. 107
Notes:
4. Presentation of Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Award
to Finance Manager Chris Regis (Council Memo No. 98)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
5. Council discussion
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
6. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended .actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an .item be removed from
the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and
action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution updating procedures and criteria for
deferment of special assessments against owner occupied homestead properties in
hardship cases for qualifying homeowners S.R. No. 108
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City Council not to waive
monetary limits on statutory municipality tort liability S.R. No. 109
C. Consideration of approval of resolution amending conditional use permit to allow
Construction of additional parking area at 6601 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 110
D. Consideration of resolution calling public hearing for:
• modification- to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area;
and
• modification to tax increment financing plan for Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax
Increment Financing District;-and-
• proposed- establishment of 2009-1 (Section 202} and 2009-2 (Section 811) Tax
Increment Financing District
all relating to Accessible Space Inc. and Twin City Christian Homes Project; 301
West 77th Street and south portion only of 7700 .Pillsbury Avenue S.R. No. 111
E. Consideration of approval of renewing contract number A090395 with Hennepin
County for purchase of assessment services from August 1, 2009 through July 31,
2013 S.R. No. 112
F. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Ron
Kassa Construction, Inc. for 2009 curb and gutter and miscellaneous concrete
repair in amount of $90,350 S.R. No. 113.
G. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to
Pearson Bros.,lnc. for 2009 street sealcoating work in amount of $507,154.20 S.R.
No. 114
Notes:
8. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
9. Consideration of Transportation Commission's recommendations for future rebuilding of
Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale and Penn Avenues resulting from Richfield Arterials Study
Staff Report No. 115
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
10. Consideration of resolution amending 2010-2013 Capital Improvement Plan to include
additional .Portland Avenue reconstruction and 66th Street East reconstruction .
Staff Report No. 116
Notes:
11. Consideration of resolution authorizing submission of grant applications for Federal
Surface Transportation Program funds including Portland Avenue reconstruction and
66th Street East reconstruction
Staff Report No. 117
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
12. City Manager's report
Notes:
13. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others, Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
lndividuals who wish to address. the Council must have registered prior to the meeting,
Notes:
14. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
June 4, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 95
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Residential Garbage Collection Options
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
(The following information was originally issued on January 16, 2009, Council
Memorandum No. 11).
In response to a citizen inquiry in early summer 2008, the City Council requested City
staff investigate the possible options available for garbage collection service in the City
of Richfield. This memo is a brief summary of the findings of that effort.
Under Minnesota Statutes 115A.94 Subd. (3), cities have several options with respect to
organized garbage collection. However, as a matter of practice, except for city-staffed
collection, there are three major models that cities tend to follow with respect to the
organized collection of garbage and refuse. This memo will not consider acity-staffed
operation, where. the city owns the garbage trucks and staffs the operation. The three
models referenced here are described as follows:
Collection of Garbage by City Licensed Contractors (Open Hauling)
The most common model for garbage collection in the metro area is the system used by
cities such as Richfield, namely, Open Hauling. In essence, there is little regulation by
the city except that each residential and commercial garbage hauler must acquire a city
license to operate within the city and follow appropriate protocol for limiting collection
within certain zones of the city on proscribed days and allowable hours of operation.
There is no limit to the number of licensed haulers that may operate within the city.
Each resident is free to make contractual arrangements with the licensed hauler of their
choice at whatever rate is agreed upon. Moreover, there is no requirement that every
home have garbage collection. In some cases, two neighbors have agreed to use one
common container.
The city has no interaction with the hauler or resident with respect to the collection of
fees and does not collect any portion of the fees. City staff does not get involved in
disputes between the hauler and the resident, nor does staff handle questions regarding
billing, collections services and other related matter.
City Garbage Collection Franchise/Contract Agreement
Another option is for a city to create a franchise type of arrangement for organized
garbage collection (this could also be done by a contract). This model is typically
limited to residential garbage service. Under this type of system, a city would take bids
for different levels of service for the entire community or by major sections of the
community. The successful contractor would then be awarded the bid for city-wide or
area-wide collection under a franchise type of agreement. No other hauler would be
allowed to operate in the areas designated by the city. The rate would be uniform
through out the city for various levels of service and be guaranteed for a certain period
of time with limits on the level and types of increases that would be allowed.
The collection of fees would be done by the contractor. An option in this model of
service is to provide for some type of "franchise" payment to the city. The fee would be
to cover the cost of preparation and administration of the franchise agreement and to
pay for the customer service calls to the city that would be generated under this type of
arrangement. There is some limited city staff interaction with resident customers for
service related issues and problems.
This type of arrangement is not typical and there are few, if any, metro communities that
use an actual franchise for such service.
City Garbage Collection
This is another model that is used by some cities in the metro area, such as St. Louis
Park. In this arrangement the city secures bids from garbage haulers for the exclusive
right to pick up all of the residential properties in that respective city. The rate is for a
period of time, such as one year, and may provide quotations for service for the
succeeding one or two years with limited increases. The city then adds a percentage
over that amount that forms the basis that is charged to the residents for service. For
example, the quarterly rate bid by the contractor might be $42 per residence per quarter
and the city might increase the charge to the resident to around $53 or $54 per
residence per quarter. The difference goes to the city for its costs of administering this
service.
In this type of arrangement, the city would typically establish an Enterprise Fund similar
to a water or sewer utility. The city collects the fees from the resident, usually included
on the city utility bill along with water and sewer charges, and then remits acity-wide
quarterly payment. to the contractor. The garbage haulers have no interaction with the
residents for the payment of garbage collection fees. Any unpaid garbage collection
fees would be assessed to the property taxes of the subject property similar to
delinquent water and sewer accounts.
In this arrangement, the city would typically employ a new city position to administer the
collection service and handle complaints and scheduling matters. Since the service
contract is, in essence, between the resident and the city, residents would call the city
for billing concerns, pick-up schedule problems, service quality matter and other
collection related issue. The city also has the obligation of managing the contract with
the hauler.
This system will usually provide a savings to the resident, even after the city up-charge
for contract administration is considered. This system typically provides a positive
revenue source for the City even with the hiring of additional staff, as is the case in St.
Louis Park.
One final thought on the St. Louis Park model is that the city is in a position to have
much greater influence on the .recycling aspect of garbage collection. In other words,
what items get recycled, how often recycling is picked up and promotion for recycling
efforts are all in the mix in this type of arrangement.
Cost of Service Issues
In the Open Hauling system, the price is established by the hauler and the resident.
However, in such a "free enterprise" system the resident is free to periodically call a
number of haulers that are licensed in the community and get competitive quotes from
them. They are also free to go back to their current hauler and ask them to match a
lower quarterly cost, if the resident finds one. This is a common practice in the metro
area.
However, it is clear that in a system where one hauler is the only hauler in the area or
community, the rates are generally less costly. There are two primary reasons for the
lower cost to residents under a system other than the open hauler system. First, the
hauler may be paid a certain quarterly payment by the city and thus does not have to
handle billing issues and non-payment for services rendered. Secondly, operating costs
are reduced where the hauler is picking up virtually every residence on a block or
section of an entire community.
Of course, the trade-off for these savings is that the resident is tied to one service
provider and loses their freedom to choose a different provider when they are
dissatisfied with service.
.Impacts on the Community
There are many impacts upon a community that may be considered in a full analysis of
which garbage hauling model is employed in a particular city. Disruption to citizens,
wear and tear on city roads, staff time required, quality of service, resident preferences,
costs, resident fees and revenues are all fair consideration in such a decision. Each
model has some impact on the community. A detailed analysis of those impacts could
be provided at a future date if the Council wishes to explore those matters further.
Staffinct Considerations
At the present time, the City of Richfield is not staffed to undertake any service model
other than the Open Hauling system.. If another service model was selected by the City
Council, it would require, at minimum, some staff time and legal assistance in setting up
such a system and writing the proper contract documents. The City would then need to
go through a bidding process, selection and ultimately, some level of administration.
With the current staff reductions and budget cuts faced by the City in 2009, the City will
be even less equipped to take on another function without additional revenue to cover
those co"sts. Again, if there are savings to the residents under some future garbage
collection system, there would need to be a mechanism for the City to recover some of
those savings to cover the costs of administration.
Finally, from a timing perspective, with the heavy staff involvement in the construction of
the new City Hall, it would be very difficult to find time from current staff to undertake
such a new service at the present time and provide the due diligence it would take to
implement this service.
Final Consideration
It is staffs recommendation that the City of Richfield continue with the Open Hauling
system for now. If there is consideration to move to another model in the future, staff
would recommend that the City Council give strong consideration to the city-wide
collection system employed by St. Louis Park. The St. Louis Park model would allow
the establishment of an enterprise fund to cover the costs and revenues of the system.
That system would .provide: a savings for Richfield residents and pay for all of the
associated City costs.
This matter is scheduled for discussion at the June 9, 2009 Special City Council
Worksession.
ctfully submitted,
Manager
SLD:cak
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
June 4, 2009
Council Memorandum No.96
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Key Financial Strategies
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 2)
Council Members:
At the June 9, 2009 Special City Council Worksession, staff will present to the City
Council the annual Key Financial Strategies financial plan. This will serve as a
preliminary discussion on the plan. Information will be distributed at the meeting.
If you have questions, please contact Chris Regis or me.
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Finance Managers
Assistant to the City Manager
J
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Worksession
May 26,2009
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John
Stark, Community Development Director; Kristin Asher, City Engineer;
Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; and Cheryl
Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING PROPOSAL FOR VACANT CANDLEWOOD
PARCEL AND SOUTHERN PORTION OF FORMER PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE
MEMO NO. 89)
Community Development Director Stark stated Accessible Space, Inc. (ASi) and Twin City
Christian Homes (TCCH) are considering the development of two housing projects. The first is an
accessible, affordable 51-unit housing project for very low-income (30% AMI) seniors age 62 or older.
The second housing project is a proposed 15-unit project for persons with physical disabilities to live
independently in the community. In order to develop the site for housing, a change in rezoning (from
"C-2 General Commercial to "MU-R Mixed Use Regional") and a Comprehensive Plan amendment
will need to be completed. Before expending great deals of time and money on preparing an
application, ASi/TCCH requested an opportunity to present their proposal to the City Council in order
to get preliminary input from the Council and discern local support for their proposal.
Community Development Director Stark also discussed the request by ASi/TCCH for land
donation on heavily reduced land prices as part of the HUD evaluating criteria for "local financial
support."
Community Development Director Stark stated further that a compensation option for a
potential land donation could be .creating a Housing TIF District which would guarantee the City
Council/HRA receiving back value of the properties. The developer is not requesting TIF assistance.
Dan Billmark, ASi representative, provided background on the organization and proposed
development projects.
Nancy Starr, TCCH representative, provided background on their developments in the Twin
Cities and their role as property management agent for the proposed projects.
Special Worksession Minutes -2- May 26, 2009
Mr. Billmark discussed the two HUD funding programs submissions, Section 202 and Section
811, which the development will make. The financial feasibility of the projects is somewhat
dependent in City and HRA financial support of ASi/TCCH.
Council Member Wroge expressed concern with giving the land away since there was a verbal
commitment for the old garage site land sale proceeds to pay off the bond debt for the new
maintenance facility.
Community Development Director Stark stated the Housing TIF District could be used to pay
the bond debt.
City Manager Devich said the property does not currently pay property taxes.
Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates, explained the preliminary base market value of the
properties, estimated tax revenue generated, and potential tax increment that could be applied as a
debt service payment.
Mayor Goettel. questioned the contamination status of the sites.
Community Development Director Stark explained clean-ups resulting from the 77th Street
construction and the need for a Phase II assessment.
Council Member Wroge questioned the legality of changing the zoning to potentially
accommodate this project when a previous project could not happen on the site because the zoning
requirement was not being met.
Community Development Director Stark stated changes are a policy decision and a City
Council prerogative.
Council Member Elliott requested a cost benefit analysis.
Community Development Director Stark discussed the marketing strategy to develop the sites.
He added there is a timeframe needing to be met by ASi/TCCH for submitting to the HUD funding
programs.
Mr. Billmark explained that if the HUD determination for funding in December does not include
this project, the agreement with the City is null.
Community Development Director Stark stated the Housing TIF District would proceed after
the HUD award. The City Council and HRA could give preliminary approval.
Council Member Sandahl stated the proposed project was a good use of the land and a good
service to the community but wanted to see the cost benefit analysis.
Mayor Goettel agreed with Council Member Sandahl in wanting to recover costs.
Council Member Fitzhenry said the project was a good fit for the neighborhood.
Council Member Wroge stated he was open to reviewing the project but needed the value
return analysis because there is an obligation to get as much money as possible to pay off bond debt.
Council Member Elliott expressed reluctance to tie up the properties that have no immediate
value to the City. He said the property tax generated is not a return on investment.
The City Council consensus was to proceed with the proposed project with a cost benefit
analysis.
Item #2 DISCUSSION REGARDING ARTERIAL ROADS STUDY (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 90)
Special Worksession Minutes -3- May 26, 2009
City Engineer Asher stated the Transportation Commission is nearing completion of the
Arterial Roads Study which will produce design concept recommendations for the Council's
consideration on Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale and Penn Avenue arterials. The Commission's
preliminary recommendation is to convert all four arterials to three-lanes. Hennepin County prefers
the three lane section with across-lane section and is willing to work with the City.
Jack Broz, HRGreen representative, made a PowerPoint presentation (City Clerk's File No. C-
451)regarding the arterial roads study.
Council Member Wroge stated that homeowners are more important than a bike trail so there
should be the ability to park in front of your own home. He added that not parking on the street is
causing homes to become rental which deteriorates the neighborhood.
City Engineer Asher discussed parking is viewed as a community value, which the
Transportation Commission did not view as precluding bike trails. Hennepin County requires a good
reason why parking is needed in certain areas. The purchase of right-of-way on the shoulder and
possibly losing some front yard space may be necessary as a result of needing more road width to
accommodate parking.
Council Member Fitzhenry expressed concern regarding traffic flow and Sunday parking
impacts.
City Engineer Asher discussed the funding process when the study is complete.
Council Member Sandahl stated that Hennepin County was supportive of the three lane road
due to decreased crash data and slower traffic.
Council Member Wroge said he liked the three lanes and suggested alternative signage for
parking be considered.
Council Member Sandahl requested staff provide data to support the inability to park in front
of their homes leads to single family homes becoming rental property along the roads under review in
the study.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m.
Date Approved:
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
May 26, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation
Services Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz,
Recording Secretary.
OPEN FORUM
Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place, Edina, Minnesota, speaking on behalf of 6214 - 5th Avenue,
requested the City address the drainage issues resulting from the Crosstown reconstruction project
along the loop road on 4th/5th Avenues at 62nd Street.
PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of
Mav 12, 2009; and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of Mav 12 2009.
Motion carried 5-0:
Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 26, 2009
Item #1 PRESENTATION AND RECEIPT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
2008 (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 91)
Bill Lauer, MMKR auditing firm, presented the audit results. (City Clerk's File No. C-452)
M/Wroge, S/Elliott to approve the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
The City Council acknowledged the successful Memorial Day event at Veterans' Memorial
Park of Richfield.
Council Member Wroge thanked Jaeson Morrison, Forestry Division staff, for taking him on
a tour to explain the tree varieties in the City and potential disease symptoms from insects.
Council Member Wroge discussed a City proposed program to address the lack of outside
property maintenance on vacant and foreclosed properties with the assistance of residents. He
encouraged residents to help City staff with maintenance.
City Manager Devich discussed the new Adopt-A-House program communication efforts.
He also explained a change in the notification process for repeat property maintenance violations.
Council Member Wroge discussed the ordinance related to storage of garbage containers.
Mayor Goettel stated the spraying for gypsy moths was completed. A potential Emerald
Ash Borer infestation is being monitored.
trees.
City Manager Devich discussed the impacts of the ash borer and clear-winged moth on
Council Member Sandahl thanked City staff for their work in maintaining the parks.
Council Member Fitzhenry provided a Noise Oversight Committee update.
Council Member Fitzhenry provided a Property Excellence Task Force update.
Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/VVroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -3-
May 26, 2009
Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of approval of resolution implementing Identity Theft Prevention Program for
Utility Division for City of Richfield S.R. No. 102
RESOLUTION NO. 10243
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ADOPT
THE FOLLOWING IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10243.
B. Consideration of approval of hiring Bonestroo to prepare Water Supply and Distribution
Plan for City of Richfield S.R. No. 103
M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None
Item #6 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING UPGRADE OR REPLACEMENT OF HVAC, LIGHTING, AND
REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA AND RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
S.R. NO. 104
Council Member Wroge presented Staff. Report No. 104.
Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the grant application process to assist
with funding. The completed study is scheduled to come before the City Council in June.
M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to close public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
M/Wroge, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2009-12, Transitory
Ordinance 18.66 authorizing upgrade or replacement of HVAC, lighting, and refrigeration
equipment at Richfield Ice Arena that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made
part of these minutes, and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
Council Meeting Minutes -4-
RESOLUTION NO. 10244
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF A
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE UPGRADE AND
REPLACEMENT OF HVAC, LIGHTING AND REFRIGERATION
EQUIPMENT AT THE RICHFIELD ICE ARENA, PURSUANT TO
RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10244.
May 26, 2009
Item #7 ,CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING DUTCH ELM DISEASED
BOULEVARD TREE REMOVAL POLICY S.R. NO. 105
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 106.
Council Member Wroge clarified a proposed $0.23 increase in franchise fees is per month
per meter for both gas and electric utilities.
Public Works Director Eastling stated the franchise fee rate changes will be presented to
the City Council for formal action at a future meeting.
M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10245
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ADOPT
THE FOLLOWING POLICY ON THE REMOVAL OF DUTCH ELM
DISEASED (DED) BOULEVARD TREES
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10245.
Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO NORTH STAR TREE CARE
FOR DISEASED BOULEVARD TREE REMOVAL FOR AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $99,000 S.R. NO. 106
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 106.
Council Member Wroge questioned the bid submission total versus the amount not to
exceed.
Public Works Director Eastling explained the exact number of DED trees is unknown but the
City Council tonight is authorizing an amount not to exceed. If that amount is exceeded, City
Council authorization will again be required.
City Attorney Heine explained the. competitive bid process will not be violated if the amount
($100,000) is exceeded because it does not apply since tree removal is a service.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- May 26, 2009
Public Works Director Eastling explained the process used to obtain the quotes.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to approve award of contract to North Star Tree Care for diseased
boulevard tree removal for amount not to exceed $99,000.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #9 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Devich stated in the near future, the City Council should discuss options
related to removal and disposal, replacement, and costs of trees due to an Emerald Ash .Borer
and/or clear-winged moth infestation.
Council Member Wroge stated there should be discussion regarding replanting boulevard
trees and potentially raising taxes or replacing a boulevard tree with a tree placed in a residential
front yard at the owner's expense.
Mayor Goettel stated the recent suspension of the Metro Gang Strike Force is being
monitored. She added that the work of the task force has been valuable to Richfield.
Item #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 05-26-09
A/P Checks: 185857 - 186162
PAYROLL 57799 - 58117, 41426 - 41427
$ 3, 926, 542.27
$ 486,078.96
TOTAL
Motion carried 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
$ 4,412,621.23
The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p.m.
Date Approved:
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
`.,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
c~ x
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
~:a . ~~..9:__~._ May 28, 2009
Members Present: Sue Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry.
Not Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; and Fred Wroge.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager.
The City Council and City Hall Advisory Task Force continued discussion on the project
update from Wold Architects; park design; and consideration of when to have a Public meeting on
design of the new Police/Fire/City Hall facility.
Date Approved:
Suzanne M. Sandahl
Mayor Pro Tempore
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
June 4, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 97
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Gene & Mary Jacobsen Citizen of the Year
(Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
The Richfield Human Rights Commission has selected a Citizen of the Year award
recipient since 1971. The award is given to a family, group, organization, business or
individual who lives or works in Richfield and whose actions demonstrate an awareness
and commitment to the attitudes and practices that foster human understanding,
tolerance and the spirit of human relations.
The Human Rights Commission has voted to present the 37th Annual Gene and Mary
Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen award to Terry Bumgarner. The person nominating her
says the following:
Terry is a Richfield native and lifelong resident who is proud of Richfield and supports
her hometown in every way. She retired after 30+ years of teaching and has
volunteered four hours per day, four days a week in a classroom at Richfield
Intermediate School. She has recruited neighbors to volunteer at RIS as well. She was
the first female swim official in the State of Minnesota and has been officiating high
school and swim team meets for 35+ years.
Among her other activities are the following: Neighborhood Watch Block Captain and
organizes National Night Out picnics in her driveway; provides church transportation to
her elderly neighbor each Sunday followed by lunch at her house; active in Girl Scouts
and Friendship City; participates in Rich Harvest, providing food to the needy. A cancer
survivor, she annually participates in the Race for the Cure and offers emotional
support, transportation and her own "meals on wheels" to others in Richfield that have
been diagnosed with cancer. She volunteers at her church and is chair of the
scholarship committee.
Terry is a great role model. Many of her former students think of.her as a mentor and
an important figure in their lives. She is proud of Richfield and strives every day to
better life in our City.
The award will be presented at the June 9, 2009 Regular City Council Meeting.
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
,~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
.TUNE 9, 2009
PRESENTATIONS
3
107
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NaarE,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the 2009-2014 Community Health Assessment and
Action Plan for the City of Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution adopting the 2009-2014
Community Health Assessment and Action Plan for the City of
Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1976, the State Legislature passed the Community Health Services Act. The
purpose of the act was to develop and maintain a system of community health
services under local administration throughout the State. In 2003, the Act was
amended and is now referenced as the Local Public Health Act but continued to
provide subsidy dollars to locals for the provision of health services to each
community.
Through this Act, Richfield receives local public health subsidy dollars from the
State to support the provisions of services in the areas of promoting healthy
communities and healthy behaviors, preventing the spread of infectious diseases,
assuring the quality and accessibility of health services, preparing for and
responding to disasters and assisting communities in recovery, assuring an
adequate local public health structure and protecting against environmental heath
hazards.
0609 Resolution Health Assessment and Action Plan
One of the items required by the Act is to conduct a community assessment that
looks at health priorities and then to use that assessment to develop an action plan
to address those priorities. The Local Public Health Act requires that this process
be completed on a five year cycle.
Since 1977, Richfield has contracted with the City of Bloomington, Public Health
Division for the provision of personal public health services.. This state subsidy
funding, in part, supports these local public health services through this contractual
agreement with Bloomington.
As a result of that contract, Bloomington Public Health was responsible for
organizing the community engagement process for the communities of
Bloomington, Edina and Richfield (BER). This was done through a variety of
venues; a BER community health survey, discussions with public health staff,
Advisory Boards of Health, City Councils, key community leaders, as well as
numerous committees and work groups, that public health staff are in partnership
with. .
For the first time, Bloomington Public Health, along with Richfield health staff,
prepared and piloted a survey using Survey Monkey for the three cities. This
survey focused on the six essential areas of public health responsibility as noted
earlier. Surveys were sent out electronically in January 2008 to sixty individuals,
several list serves, and community organizations. Groups and individuals were
asked to forward the survey to their community contacts. The survey was placed on
each of the three cities' websites and was promoted in the community papers.
English and Spanish hard copy surveys were distributed to a variety of community
and public health clinics. The survey was in the field and on websites for. one
month, and during that timeframe, a total of 966 responses were received.
Using those survey results and other available health data from various sources, the
three Advisory Board of Health (BER) held two joint community meetings. The first
meeting was held in March 2008 to review and discuss health assessment data and.
related health issues. A second meeting occurred in May 2008 and at that time
members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, using survey information and
other data, prioritized community health issues in Richfield. The Richfield Advisory
Board of Health approved the Community Health Assessment and Action Plan at
their April 20, 2009 meeting.
It is being presented to the City Council for their approval at this time. It will then be
submitted to the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Health.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• By approving the plan, the City will meet the requirements necessary
in order to continue to receive State subsidy money for local public
health activities.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
• None
D. LEGAL
• -None
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ ~.
• The Council could decide not to approve the 2009-2014 Community Health
Assessment and Action Plan for Richfield. This would mean that the City of
Richfield would not remain eligible to receive State subsidy funding.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Karen Zeleznak, Bloomington Public Health Director
• Eileen O'Connell, Bloomington Public Health staff
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
OfFce of City Manager
June 4, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 9s
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award (Council Agenda Item No.4)
Council Members:
The Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada (GFOA)
announced recently that the City of Richfield received the GFOA's Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award for its budget. The award is the highest form of recognition in
governmental budgeting and represents a significant achievement by the City. In order
to receive the budget award, the City had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for
effective budget presentation.
This is the 24th year the City has received the GFOA Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award. Richfield is one of only five cities and counties in Minnesota to
earn the budget award this many times.
The Richfield City Council will present a Certificate of Recognition for Budget
Presentation to Chris Regis, Finance Manager, on June 9, 2009.
~ctf ly submi d,
~~/4
. De
anager
SLD:cak
E-mail: Department Directors V
Finance Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
.3-1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO
APPROVE THE 2009-2014 COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND ACTION PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield is a local public health agency and as such
receives State public health subsidy dollars for the purpose of providing local public health
services to the community; and
WHEREAS, one of the requirements of the State to receive subsidy funding is for
each local agency to conduct an assessment, prioritization and complete action plans for
the public health needs within their community; and
WHEREAS, a process was undertaken in the spring of 2008 with the Richfield
Advisory Board of Health where health and survey data was reviewed and a prioritization
of the needs was completed; and
WHEREAS, a formal approval by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health was
received at their April 20, 2009 meeting of this process and its results; and
WHEREAS, the 2009-2014 Community Health Assessment and Action Plan for the
City of Richfield is being submitted to the Richfield City Council for formal approval at the
June 9, 2009 Council meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approves the 2009-
2014community health assessment and action plan for the City of Richfield.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of June,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ]A
REPORT # lO8
~~~
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution updating procedures and criteria for deferment of
s ecial assessments.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a resolution updating procedures for deferment
of special assessments against owner occupied homestead
properties in hardship cases for qualifvinq homeowners.
II. BACKGROUND
• At the October 26, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council updated the
procedures and qualifying criteria for deferring special assessments against
owner occupied properties in hardship cases.
• The update was in response to the policy being last updated in 1987 and to
the high cost of removing diseased elm trees from private property, which
was causing a hardship to some property owners on a fixed income.
• Presently the City allows residents to assess these costs and spread them
over five years on their taxes.
• Since the last revision the law has been changed to include those residents
that are a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other military
reserves.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
r~
0609 Deferred Special Asmt Policy
A. POLICY
• The current policy does .not address the owners of affected properties
who are members of the Minnesota National Guard or other military
reserves.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The new resolution allows the City Council to defer the payment of all
or a portion of certified special assessments by property owners who
are members of the Minnesota National Guard or military reserves
who is ordered into active military service, and by such orders would
make it a hardship to make the payments.
• Deferring assessments may be the only means for some residents on
fixed incomes to pay these high costs.
• Some provisions in the. policy are mandatory under State law, but
Council has discretion to change many of the provisions.
C. FINANCIAL
• Staff does not expect enough people to take advantage of this
process to affect the City's financial status.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed the updated policy.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• .None.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Policy for Deferred Special Assessments
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
/~~!
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES
IN HARDSHIP CASES FOR QUALIFYING OWNERS
WHEREAS, under Minnesota law, cities are authorized to defer the payment of
special assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or
older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a
hardship to make the assessment payments; or a person who is a`member of the
Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military
service as stated in the person's military orders for whom it would be a hardship to
make the payments.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 requires that any City desiring to
defer special assessments in such instances must establish, by ordinance or resolution,
standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for
determining the existence of a disability.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The City of Richfield hereby adopts a policy, as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A to this resolution, to consider requests for the deferment of
special assessments upon homestead properties-owned by (a) a person-
65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent total disability,
for whom it would be a hardship to make payments of special
assessments, or (b) a person who is a member of the Minnesota National
Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military service,
as defined in section 190.05, subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the
person's military orders, for whom it would be a hardship to make the
payments
2. ' The policy previously adopted by Resolution No. 9531 is hereby rescinded
-'and superseded by the policy as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota Phis 9th day of
June, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, .Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, CityClerk
~~-~-
Exhibit A
POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
BASED ON HARDSHIP AND AGE OR DISABILITY
The City of Richfield hereby establishes a program to defer all or a portion of the
special assessments of qualifying persons`. under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
435.193 through 435.195. Under the. program, the City Council and the City Manager
may defer the payment of all or a portion of certified special assessments by qualifying
property owners.
A. Eligibility
A person is eligible for a deferment if the person satisfies requirements related to
property classification, owner status, and financial hardship.
1. The. property upon. which the assessment is deferred must be classified as
homestead in the records of the Hennepin County Property Tax Division.
2, The property must be owned by a person:
a. Who is at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in which
payment of the, first installment of the subject assessment levy is due;
or
b. Who is retired-due to permanent and total disability. `For purposes of
this policy, "permanent and total disability" means a condition that is"
permanent by nature and. thaf totally incapacitates the person from
working at an occupation that would generate income to the persona
c. Who `is a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other military
...reserves who is ordered into active military. service, as defined in
.section 190.05, subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the person's military
orders.
3. 'The applicanf must have a "financial hardship" defined as:
a. An annual income for the applicant's household size which is at or
below the "Very Low Income" limit established annually by HUD for
the Minneapolis and St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments. from.
previously-existing special assessment levies plus the first year of
the current levy will exceed 1.5 percent of the- applicant's annual
income.
1
~~-
B. Calculation of Amount to be Deferred
1. The portion of the current. levy eligible for deferment is that portion of the levy
against the applicant's property which .requires a first year installment...
payment which, when added to `the applicant's annual payments from
previously existing special assessment levies,. would result in an aggregate
total of special assessment installments totaling more than 1.5 percent of the
:applicant's annual household income. The applicant may not defer the
portion of the current levy that, when aggregated with annual payments from
previously existing-. special assessment levies, is equal to or less than 1.5
percenf of the applicant's annual household income.
2. Special assessments levied-due to the applicant's failure-to-pay charges for
City services or .failure to comply to City codes (e.g., delinquent utility
assessments, assessments for weed removals,..assessments for nuisance
abatement, etc.) will not be deferred., and installment payments for existing
levies for such services will not be included in calculating the maximum 1.5
' percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph'B.1. above.
C. Interest.
Simple interest at the rate. of that particular assessment levy will be added to the
deferred assessment, calculated from the .date- interest started to accrue on the
original Jevy (usually the October- 1 immediately following the certification date) to
-the date of payment of the deferred- portion of the assessment.
D. Termination.
The option to defer the payment of special assessments will terminate: and all
amounts accumulated, :plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the
occurrence of any of the following events:
1. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for
he benefits.
2. The sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof.
3. If the property should for any reason lose its homestead status.
4. The City Council determines that a hardship no longer exists.
E. Application and Approval Process.
1. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments must be made on
forms prescribed by the Hennepin County Auditor. The applicant must also
provide such supplementary documentationas may be .required. to establish
the following:
2
`~ A-
a. The legal description and tax parcel number of the property.
b. The street address of the property.
c. The status of the homestead classification for the property.
d. The .description or designation of the local ,improvement forewhich-
assessments are to be or have been levied.
e. The name of the homestead owner-occupant.
f. The age or disability status of the applicant.
g. The.applicant's annual household income.
2. Within 30 days after the application is filed with the .City manager, the City
Manager should review the application for conformance. to'the standards
and guidelines prescribed above and either grant or deny the application.
The .City Manager musf notify the applicant in writing of the City Manager's
decision. If in the judgment of the City .Manager.. exceptional or unusual
circumstances exist that are not covered by the standards and guidelines,
the City Manager" may report to the City Council within 30 days after the
application is made, along .with a recommendation as to whether the
application should be granted or denied.
3. If the City Manager denies an application, the applicant has the right to have
the City Council consider the application. The applicant must. request City
Council review within 20 days-after the mailing- date of the City Manager's
notice of decision..-
4.` When the-City Council considers an application, the Council will grant or
deny the application by resolution, based on the standards and guidelines
set forth above. The City Council also may grant a deferment if it
determines that a hardship exists on the basis of exceptional and unusual
circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines set forth above,
provided that the determination is made in a nondiscriminatory manner and
does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over
other applicants. The City Council's decision to grant or deny an application
is final
5. At any time' while a special assessment remains deferred -and unpaid, the
City Manager .may request the applicant to provide current. and. updated
information as set forth at paragraph E.1. above, so that the City Manager
.may verify and determine whetheretigibility for the deferral has ended.
This policy is adopted by Resolution No. ,approved by the Richfield City
Council on June 9, 2009.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA I'~EM # ~B
REPORT # 109
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory municipality tort
liabilit
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
II. BACKGROUND
The City purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating
municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This
action must be taken before July 1 of each year.
The. current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000
occurrence limit.or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is
purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess
liability insurance.
FRANCIS FLETCHER, H. R. COORD.
'.0609-Tort Liability
Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of .liability. This is true of slightly more
than half of the cities in Minnesota.. Richfield has also elected not to purchase
excess liability coverage for the past several years.
The cost of excess liability insurance has been, and continues to be very expensive.
An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost in excess of $68,000 annually.
Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess
of the statutory $1,000,000 cap.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing, liability limits for cities at the current
$1,000,000 level was established fairly recently and appears to be a
reasonable limit.
• Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the
monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes
466.04.
• .The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years if a decision was
made to do so.
• The City Council may also wish to further consider purchasing excess liability
in the future. If this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust will renew on July 1, 2009. This action must be completed on, or
before that time.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of
the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage
would be between $65,000 and $75,000 if the City does not waive its liability
limits.
D. LEGAL
• The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protected
cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary
award in excess of the statutory limits against a municipality.
• Each city must annually decide whether the- City would voluntarily waive the
statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the
$300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
• If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate,
the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the
limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~~-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for
Minnesota cities; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each
city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive
it's limits; and
WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report
to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not
waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes
466.04.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of June,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~i
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
CONSENT
7C
110
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLF.
DEPARTMENT DIltECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the
construction of an additional parking area at 6601 Portland Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a resolution for an amendment to a conditional
use permit at 6601 Portland Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
In conjunction with the intersection improvements at 66th Street and Portland
Avenue, the City has worked with Mr. Timothy Teachout, owner of T&T Automotive
(T&T), to acquire a portion of their land in exchange for excess right-of-way from the
property at 6600 Oakland Avenue. The new road design has resulted in the closing
of one curb cut on Portland Avenue and one on 66th Street. The land exchange
allows space for a new parking lot on the former residential property at 6600
Oakland Avenue. (now considered as a combined property with 6601 Portland
Avenue) as well as a new entrance/exit on Oakland Avenue.
Service stations and auto repair shops are conditionally permitted in the C-2
(General Commercial) District. An off-street parking permit was approved for the
T&T property on October 11,.1965 and. a special conditional use permit to allow
auto mechanical work at the existing service station was approved on July 14, 1976.
Changes to the site layout, resulting from the intersection project, require an
amendment to these permits:
060909 ACUP 6601 Portland
This application was originally submitted on October 24, 2008, but the property
owner withdrew their conditional use permit (CUP) amendment application on
November 20, 2008 to resolve outstanding issues regarding the acquisition of their
former property and negotiate site requirements on the new property as part of the
property exchange. Engineering and planning staff has since worked out a
resolution to those issues to the satisfaction of City staff and the property owner
The Richfield Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposed
ACUP at their May 27, 2009 meeting. At-that public hearing, only one resident
testified; he supported approval of this item. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend Council approval.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Service stations and auto mechanical shops are conditional uses in the C-2 District.
The findings necessary to issue a CUP (547.09, subd.6) are as follows:.
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and
the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate
the proposed use. A parking lot is not allowed as a primary use in any
zoning district. In order to correct this, approval should be conditioned upon
the combination of the two parcels into a single tax parcel.
c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement does not apply.
d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance
standards specified in Section 544 of this code.
• Code requires 14 parking stalls for a service station/repair shop of this
size. The proposed plan includes 13 parking stalls; maintaining the
number previously available on the site prior to the intersection project.
Staff believes that 13 stalls are adequate to meet the needs of the site,
as there will be no building expansion.
• Code requires that 15 percent of the site be landscaped and that a site of
this size include a minimum of 10 trees and 24 shrubs.
o While the T&T site had little porous surface/landscaped area as it
formerly existed, aerial photographs indicate that it did include 10
shrubs.
o The former residential property included four trees (one of which
was a boulevard tree).
o The proposed site plan includes 12 shrubs and two trees;
o The proposed site plan includes some perimeter buffer yard for a
total of approximately 2,684 square feet of porous
surface/landscaped area.. (ten percent of the entire site or thirty-
one percent of the added site area).
o While the entire site does not meet the overall landscaping
requirements, the newly added portion does -City staff ensured
the property owner that dramatic changes to their existing site
would not be required as part of the land exchange that occurred
for the roundabout project.
o This requirement, therefore, is considered by staff as having been
met to the greatest degree possible under the circumstances.
e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This
requirement is met.
f) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or
welfare. This requirement is met.
g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This
requirement is met.
h) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this
code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is
met. See below.
Service stations and auto mechanical repair shops are conditional uses in the C-2
District, as specified in Section 534.07 Subdivisions 11 and 12 of the Zoning Code.
Conditions for approval are as follows:
a) The business shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1150 (Gasoline
Service Stations) of the City Code. These requirements are met and will be
monitored per usual.
b) The use site shall not be located. within 300 feet of the grounds of a school,
church or hospital. This requirement is met.
c) If the use site abuts a residentially zoned .lot, a buffer yard of not less than
25 feef in width and 75 percent all-season opacity from the ground to a
height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from
abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to
not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping and fencing, with
100 percent all-season opacity, is provided to screen the service station
use. A 15-foot buffer area is proposed between the residential property to
the south of the new portion of the lot. This buffer yard extends as far as
possible given the location of the underground tanks. In addition to the
buffer yard, a 6-foot tall wooden fence will be installed as well as two
coniferous trees.
d) A buffer yard of not less than 10 feet in width shall be provided to separate
all aspects of such use from abutting non-residential parcels. The portion of
the site abutting anon-residential parcel is not changing and constitutes a
legal nonconformity. ~ Further, it would not be possible to add a 10-foot
buffer given the drive aisle requirements of gasoline tankers that will need
access to the underground tanks.
e) Vehicles that are waiting for repair shall be stored in appropriately designed
and screened areas as approved by the City. Compliance will be monitored
per usual.
f) Vehicles that are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in
appropriatelydesigned and screened areas as approved by the City. In
accordance with Section 1320 of the City Code, inoperable vehicles cannot
be stored on any property for more than 96 hours. Compliance will be
monitored per usual.
g) Any repair, assembly, disassembly or maintenance of vehicles shall occur
within an enclosed building; except minor maintenance such as tire inflation,
adding oil or adding windshield wiper fluid. Compliance will, be monitored
per usual.
h) The minimum frontage on any street shall be 120 feet and the minimum
area of the site shall be 12,000 square feet. This requirement is met.
i) Any exterior speaker shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section
930 of the City Code:. Compliance will be monitored per usual.
j) Queuing space of at least 20 feef shall be provided in front of the pump
island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump -this
required space shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns of with
designate parking areas, and shall not be permitted in any public right-of-
way, private easement or within the required parking setback. This
requirement is met.
k) Pump islands shall be located not less than 20 feet from any property line.
This requirement is not met. The pump island to the north of the building is
approximately 14 feet from the property line. This is no fault of the property
owner, as the pump was previously in compliance. The taking of right-of-
way in this area led to the legal non-conformity.
I) If the use is not located on a County road of State. highway, it shall not be
operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This requirement
does not apply.
m) Canopies shall comply with the following regulations:
a. The canopy may extend up to twelve feet beyond the center line of
the pump island toward the street, but in no instance shall a canopy
be located closer than six feet from any lot line. As is the case with
the pump island to the north, the canopy as it extends north does not
comply. This becomes a legal non-conformity based on the taking by
the City.
b. Only one canopy shall be permitted per station unless the station is
located on a corner lot, in which case two canopies maybe
permitted. This requirement is met.
c. The canopy shall be at least 14 feet in height, but not greater than 16
feet in height. This requirement is met.
d. No signage of a permanent or temporary nature maybe placed on a
canopy. This requirement is met.
e. All canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy dwelling. This
requirement is met.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• On October 25, 2005 the City Council approved the design for a
roundabout at the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue.
• In connection with the project, the City needed to acquire a portion of
the property occupied by T&T Auto (6601 Portland Avenue) and the
former residential property at 6600 Oakland Avenue.
• In exchange for the area needed from T&T, the City gave Teachout
the excess right-of-way from the former residential site.
• Changes to the layout of parking and drive aisles and the property as
a whole require an amendment to the existing CUP for T&T.
• Approval of agreements between T&T and the City are conditioned
upon approval of this amendment.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the proposed amendment at their May 27, 2009 meeting.
C. FINANCIAL,
• N/A
D. LEGAL
Zoning: C-2 (General Commercial)
Land Use: Current: Service/Auto Repair Station & Residential
Proposed: Service/Auto Repair Station
Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial
Notification: Neighbors and property-owners within 350- feet were
notified of the Planning Commission's public hearing.
Other Actions:
Planning Commission: Recommended for approval May 27, 2009.
Council: Scheduled for City Council review June 9, 2009.
HRA: N/A
Hearing Examiner: N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONtS~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Proposed site plan
• Planning and zoning maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Timothy Teachout, owner T&T Automotive
• Mr. Mike Eicher, Pump & Meter
`7 C- I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING AREA ,
AT 6601 PORTLAND AVENUE AND 6600 OAKLAND AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an additional
parking area at property legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended
approval of this requested amended conditional use permit at -its May 27, 2009 meeting;
and.
WHEREAS, this requested amended conditional use permit meets the requirements
necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code,
Section 547.09, Subd.6; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional
use
permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. An amended conditional use permit is approved for construction of a new
parking area, as described in City Council Staff Report No. , on the
Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A.
2. This amended conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions:
• That the recipient of this conditional use permit takes steps to combine
the property legally described in Exhibit A into a single tax parcel.
• That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this resolution with
the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1
and Richfield Zoning Code 547.09, Subdivision.8.
3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal
operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required
by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of June,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
060909 ACUP 6601 Portland
`7 ~-~-
EXHIBIT A
That. part of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340, according to said plat on file and of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the northerly
28.00 feet thereof.
AND
Lots 19 and 20, Auditor's Subdivision Number 340, according to said plat on file and of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Except that part of Lots 19 and 20, Auditor's Subdivision Number 340, according to said plat on file
and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies westerly,
southerly, northwesterly and northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest
corner of said Lot 19; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 12 seconds East, assumed bearing along the
south line of said Lot 19, 26.00 feet, to the point of beginning of said line to be hereinafter described;
thence North O1 degrees 53 minutes 13 seconds East, 12.86 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds West, 9.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East, 42.61 feet; thence
North 10 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds East, 4.59 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 20
distant 17.48 feet east of the Southwest corner of said Lot 20, as measured along the South line of said
Lot 20; thence North 19 degrees 09 minutes 32 seconds East, 27.26 feet; thence North 28 degrees 31
minutes 39 seconds East, 13.50 feet; thence North 37 degrees 42 minutes 06 seconds East, 19.80 feet;
thence North 58 degrees 18 minutes 48 seconds East, 20:50 feet, to its intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 28.00 feet south of the north line of said Lots 19 and 20; thence North 89
degrees 56 minutes 12 seconds East, along said line drawn parallel with and distant 28.00 feet south of
the north line of said Lots 19 and 20, 30.00 feet, to the East line of said Lot 20; thence continuing East,
96.63 feet, along said parallel line to the east line of said Lot 19, and said line there terminating.
`~ ~~ .~
\ ~- - r~
_ _ ~ so
'~ ; ~ Xso
~~
,,
` ~
~~~ ~ `' i
.~ o ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
`~ ~
n
G
~,, h
~;~
I~ ~ '
x ~I
~ _
Q _. t O ~o I j
(f ~mt~ ~ i'
A
_. ~ ~~
~'.' ~ i
x p~ ~ ili -~~~ i
D' I 3 n I~
I"xx • o N
h (n `i C• (1
O W ~~ m O
~ _ ,~
~ I `~
OOK.J
Z Vl :°.
C+ ~ u '~ ~ -
N~'S i ~~i
¢ 'p ~ .. i I
„~ ; Raclnp Gaz `~ Q' ~T
ate, _ V ~ ~~
o I
r ~ i ]Mosel
g
Unload ~'
N J.
P /0 ~--~ ~-~ ~ N
~ ~
P h fir. ~ p ~ = C ~-•, .. ~ m
N 25' r O ~" CL ' $ i
~, a
~.i 3 O +:: -O ~ ~ ~ O ~~
C7 :. 1 .-~ ~ 2 fTl f^ ° ~ v f Z m D o ..
Ut C ~ ~} t~ n y ~;_,
~ ~~ ~ r o.~ r ~ ~ -~ I
3~N c~ z a nO~ C = s ~'
r,~ ~ Rr t7 fTl i ~ ~ ,~
£ ~ ,i , ,,
v~ ~ ~
o~ -- a~ L
-- ;~ r ~
r,l \ ~ _£
--__ - --
-.. ~D
~~
3s
-- --- _. ~---~~rrs.^-rrs--
-------- --- --
`'^~ T 8 T Automotive Service i~ ~ ~ ~ REVISION BLOCK
" - DATE REV DESCRIPTION
o ~. 601E 66th St "' ` ' ~~ J Adtl lentlsra m is ~ ~a
e, <.
~rn Richfield, MN 55423 q~° ''""`"" """`"'° ~~ az~roe K Revlae lerM m wd ~m .nd.~ ~ ~reu
.A .SCaI@: ~~~ = t0~ fff 1/73/08 L Revbe Ik
q k P~rnrfs aad Msto seMrlcq 9rc. R arvoe M Rmlee dmvin ro, ,ma a wmx«,
p s Drawn by: C Hein F „n,,,v„ „„ a arzzroe N Ravbed forlero
~u ~~
Date drawn:6/25/07 '+~'±~ ~~ snaroe O R,..bea~..~ln r~.b~,a
~~ _"" .,___. A~F.
C.:
6601 Portland Ave & 6600 Oakland Ave
Amend Conditional Use Permit 6/09
Surrounding Zoning
C-2
~ Veteran's Park
MR-2
0
C-2 M
C-2
66TH STREET
C-2 C-2
W
Q Q
R Z p
R ~ Q
R ~ ~
Y
R R d O
R R
R
R
LEGEND
C-2 -General Commercial
MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential
R - Singel-Family Residential N
0 55 110 220 330 440
Feet
C-2 C-2
C-2 C-2
R R
R
R R
R R
R R
R
R
R
R R
R R
R
R
R
R
C."J
6601 Portland Ave & 6600 Oakland Ave
Amend Conditional Use Permit 6/09
Surrounding- Land Use
R ~
COM
P
Veteran's Park
APT ~,
O
COM M
COM
66TH STREET
APT COM
W
Q Q
RES p
Z p
RES ~ Q
RES ~ Y
d O
RES RES
RES RES
S
RES
RES
S
LEGEND
APT -Apartment
COM -Commercial
PRK -Park N
RES -Residential
0 55 110 220 330 440
Feet
COM COM
COM RES
RES RES
RES
RES RES
RES RES
RES RES
RES RES
RES
RES RES
RES RES
RES RES
RES
R RES
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 7D
REPORT # 11 1
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
ITEM FOR COUNCIL
TION:
Call a public hearing for the:
1. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area;
2. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet
Tax Increment Financing District; and
3. Proposed establishment of the 2009-1 (Section 202) and 2009-2 (Section 811) Tax
Increment Financing District; all relating to the Accessible Space Inc., and Twin City
Christian Homes Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing for:
1. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area; and
2. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment Financing District; and
3. Proposed establishment of the 2009-1 (Section 202) and 2009-2
(Section 811) Tax. Increment Financing District; all relating to the
Accessible Space Inc., and Twin City Christian Homes
Project.
II. BACKGROUND
At the May 26, 2009 City Council work session Accessible Space Inc., (ASi) and
Twin City Christian Homes (TCCH) presented their. proposal for two developments
060909 Call PH for ASi TCCH
located in the 77th Street Corridor. They include 301 West 77th Street and 7700
Pillsbury Avenue (the south portion only). The first property is often referred to as
the `Vacant Candlewood Parcel'; ASilTCCH are proposing a 51-unit senior housing
development that would allow seniors age 62 and older with incomes at or below
50% of the area median income, an affordable housing option. The second
property is a proposed 15-unit supportive housing development. The supportive
housing would allow those age 18 or older with only physical disabilities (i.e.
Veterans) with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income 100%
wheelchair accessible housing.
For the development of these sites ASi/TCCH will be applying for Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) .funding through two programs, Section 202 and Section
.811. The HUD funding allows for the capital advance to finance the construction of
the projects as well as providing rent subsidies to make the project affordable. The
funding source, however, uses "local financial support" as an evaluating criteria. A
price reduction (or outright donation) would make these projects much more likely to
get approval from HUD for the financing. ASi/TCCH therefore, is requesting land
donation or heavily reduced land prices.
ASi/TCCH will not be requesting tax increment financing (TIF) for their proposed
projects. However, to compensate the City/Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) for the potential donation of the land, the City/HRA would create two Housing
TIF Districts in order to ,recover the costs of the land; this would guarantee that the
City/HRA would receive back the value of the properties. Even with TIF, the new
development would pay new "base" taxes to the City, County and School District.
The public hearing for this matter is proposed for August 11, 2009. The public
hearing date needs to be set in advance in order to process the various notification
requirements to the County Board of Commissioners, School Board and undertake
other public body approvals (such as the HRA and Planning Commission).
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A public hearing is required for the plan modifications.
• The City Council is the body that must hold a public hearing to
consider approval of the proposed modifications to a redevelopment
plan and modifications to the TIF plans
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing at the August 11; 2009 Council meeting would keep
the project on track with regard to when the developer would receive
the additional gap funding.
• Cost Benefit Analysis requested from City Council at the May 26th
work session will be presented prior to the, public hearing on August
11th.
C. FINANCIAL
• Creation of the Housing TIF Districts for each of the sites would
guarantee that the City/HRA would recover the costs of the land.
D. LEGAL
• The resolution calling for a public hearing was prepared by Ehlers and
Associates and reviewed by legal counsel.
• The HRA will be considering this matter at its July 20, 2009 meeting.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council may direct staff to select another date for the public hearing.
However, a schedule for processing the ASi/TCCH project has been set and
is tied to other matters related to moving the project along.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution calling a public hearing by the City Council on the proposed
adoption of modifications to the redevelopment plan and TIF plans.
• Schedule
VL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~ ~-i
RESOLUTION NO:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT;
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF HUD 202 AND HUD 811 TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS, AND THE ADOPTION OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield, Minnesota
(the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meeton August 11, 2009, at approximately
7:00 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, the proposed Modification to
the Tax Increment Financing. Plan for Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing
District, specifically the removal of parcels, the proposed establishment of HUD 202 and HUD 811
Tax Increment Financing Districts (housing districts), and the proposed adoption of Tax Increment
Financing Plans therefore, referred to collectively herein as the "Modifications and TIF Plans", all
pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and
Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the
development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Modifications and TIF Plans. City staff is
authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modifications and
TIF Plans and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin
County and Independent School District No. 280. The Community Development Director is
authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as
required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10,
nor more than 30, days prior to August 11, 2009, and to place a copy of the Modifications and TIF
Plans on file in the Community Development Director's office at City Hall and to make such copy
available for inspection by the public.
Dated: June 9, 2009
Adopted:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
060909 Call PH for ASi TCCH
~'p~.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF HUD 202 AND HUD 811
(TCCH / ASi) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
(housing districts)
Draft as of June 1, 2009
May 26, 2009 City Council holds session to discuss the proposed TIF Districts.
June 2, 2009 Legal notice for Planning Commission to consider zoning change is due.
June 9, 2009 City Council calls for public hearing on the proposed Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, the proposed
Modification to the ILN TIF District, and the proposed establishment of HUD 202
and HUD 811 TIF Districts.
June 12, 2009 Planning Commission staff report regarding zoning change is due.
June 15, 2009 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions, detailed
project description, maps, but/for statement, list of sources and uses of funds, and
estimated fiscal impacts of the project public improvements and on fire and police
protection) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
June 22, 2009 HRA receives project information and considers establishment of the TIF Districts.
June 22, 2009 Planning Commission considers zoning change.
June 23, 2009 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the
property to be included in each of the TIF Districts.
N/A* Project information submitted to the County Board for review of county road
impacts if necessary* (at least 45 days prior to public hearing). *The County Board,
by law, has 45 days to review the TIF Plans to determine if any county roads will be
impacted by the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax
increment financing districts will not require unplanned county road improvements, the TIF
Plans will not be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. Please
be aware that the County Board could claim that tax increment should be used for county
roads, even after the public hearing.
EHLERS
LEAEENf IN PUBLIC PINNNEC
~~
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS -PAGE 2
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF HUD 202 AND HUD 811
(TCCH / ASi) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
(housing districts)
June 30, 2009 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential housing tax
increment financing districts establishment and potential redevelopment district
modification (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice.) [Ehlers
will fax and mail on or before June 30, 2009.)
July 10, 2009 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor
(at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax & mail on or before July
10, 2009.)
July, 14, 2009 Council completes 1St reading of rezoning and comprehensive plan changes and sets
date for 2"d reading.
Council completes 1St reading of transitory ordinance on city for land sale and sets
2na date for reading.
July 20, 2009 HRA considers the Modifications and TIF Plans and passes resolutions adopting the
Modifications and TIF Plans.
July 23, 2009 Ehlers conducts internal review of Modifications and TIF Plans.
July 27, 2009 Planning Commission reviews TIF Plans to determine if they are in compliance with
the City's comprehensive plan.
July 28, 2009 Council completes 2°d reading of rezoning and comprehensive plan changes.
Council completes 2°d reading of transitory ordinance on city for land sale.
July 30, 2009 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30
days prior to hearing). [Sun Current publication deadline, July 23, 2009 -City will
submit notice and map to newspaper. Ehlers will provide language to City via email
by July 22, 2009.)
FREERS
LC~N6Nf IN PYN616 PINhN6Q
7 D-`~
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS -PAGE 3
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF HUD 202 AND HUD 811
(TCCH /ASi) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
(housing districts)
August 11, 2009 City Council holds public hearing at 7:00 P.1vi. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, a Modification
to the TIF Plan for the ILN TIF District, and the establishment of HUD 202 and
HUD 811 TIF Districts. City Council and passes resolutions approving the
Modifications and TIF Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the
City on August S, 2009.)
August 11; 2009 City Council passes resolution authorizing an interfund loan in connection with the
TCCH /ASi Tax Increment Financing District.
2008 TCCH /ASi receive project approval from HUD.
2008 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF Districts.
2009 Ehlers files TIF Plans with the MN Department of Revenue and the Office of the
State Auditor, and requests certification of the TIF Districts with Hennepin County.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section
469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
1 180 days after the municipality's approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
~2~ 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177,
subdivision 1.
FREERS
6CANGN! IN VUNLIC fINANCN
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
CONSENT
7E
112
REPORT PREPARED BY:
FRANCIE FLETCHER, H. R. COORD.
NAME, TI7ZE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approval of renewal of agreement for assessment services with Hennepin County.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute renewal contract
number A090395 with Hennepin County for the purchase of
assessment services for the period beginning August 1, 2009 and
expiring July 31, 2013.
II. $ACKGROUND
In 198.1, the City of Richfield entered into the first of a series of four-year contracts
with Hennepin County for assessment services. Prior to that time, a City assessing
staff consisting of a City Assessor and three Property Appraisers performed
assessment services. The current contract with Hennepin County will expire on
July 31, 2009. The City must take action to renew the contract with Hennepin
County or hire a City Assessor and property appraising staff.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The assessment service provided by Hennepin County during the past
29 years has been extremely responsive and professional.
0609Assessing
• Tamara Doolittle, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, has
supervised the Richfield assessment staff since 2003. She is very
responsive and courteous to residents and City staff.
• Hennepin County assigns well-trained and knowledgeable staff to
perform the Richfield assessment in addition to Ms. Doolittle.
• The City has no less local control of the assessment process under
contract with Hennepin County than it would if the assessment was
performed by City staff.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If the City were to consider terminating this contract, the City-would
need to begin immediately to assemble a City property assessment
staff.
The current contract expires at the end of July and Hennepin County
would like advance notice of the City's intentions with respect to the
contract renewal
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of purchasing the base assessment service from Hennepin
County is $215,000 per year starting with the 2009 assessment, a
5.64% increase over the past year.
• The cost of the 2008 base assessment was $203,520.
The cost estimate of providing an in-house City Assessor and
Appraiser staff would be approximately $290,000 based on the
Stanton Group V Salary Data average salaries plus benefit cost
calculation of 33% of salary.
D. LEGAL
• The City and County may enter into a legal contract for the provision
of this service.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City could elect not to renew this contract with Hennepin County.
However, if this contract were not renewed, the City would have to hire at
least three new employees to provide this service.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Contract
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
Contract No. A090395
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the .provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor
to provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate-with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 property
assessment for the CITY OF RICHFIELD in accordance with property assessment ,
procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the validity and
reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the CITY. Any
such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the COUNTY in
its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so require. The
~ E a~
.property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those assessment services
which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein. shall be considered to be
approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, office space needed by the
COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. The CITY assures. that such areas shall not be unattended,
during or after work of any kind by or on behalf of the CITY, in any area occupied by the
COUNTY as provided herein, or if unattended, the CITY shall make certain that such
areas are locked and secured. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to
accommodate reasonably three (3) appraisers and any furniture placed therein. The
office space shall be available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during the
C1TY's business hours, and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with
levels of heat, air conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, telephone service and WEB access to the
COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY.
~2)
~ ~- 3
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices each CITY working day a person. who has the knowledge and skill to be able to
answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters
and to receive, evaluate and organize homestead applications. It shall also be the
responsibility of the CITY to promptly refer any homestead application which needs
investigation to the COUNTY.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY 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
(3)
7 C''-}
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of
discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way
be the responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the
COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers
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 COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and
hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment
Compensation, disability, severance pay and retirement benefits.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting form or caused by any act or
omission of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, employees or duly authorized
volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement.'
9. The. COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in
an efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement
by the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including. but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort,
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
(4)
--------------------------- -------------------
10. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes
in laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable .control.
11. This Agreement shall commence on August 1,.2009, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2013. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend no less
than 150 days prior to the termination of this Agreement: If the party who receives said
notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the other party of its desire not to
extend within 110 days prior to termination of this Agreement, this Agreemenf shall
terminate on July 31, 2013.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall
be on the same. terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1; 2013.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause" as determined by the
Commissioner of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner
of Revenue and which has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which
said representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such
determination, any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party
no less than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above
provided, before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the
(5).
-~ L% ` l0 - -- -----------
CITY agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and
duly authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just-cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
12.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand dollars ($215,000) for each
annual assessment, provided that any payment for the current year's assessment may
be increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year's
assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing
for the current year's assessment.
12.B. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment
in the above manner, said assessment cost of $215,000.00 may also be increased by
the. COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, gasoline, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this
paragraph 12(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such
increase. shall apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current
calendar year. Any such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new
{6)
~C-~
construction and new parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the
contrary, if any such increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new
construction and new parcel appraisals, exceeds ten (10%) percent of the amount charged
for the assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the
estimated costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this
Agreement by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation,
notice must be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar
year and said cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of
said notice by the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said current calendar year.
Supportive records of the cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times
as are mutually agreed upon by^the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY aprice-change notice by June 15
shall not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten (10%) -
all as above set forth -the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives
notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of
any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be
effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation
notice and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price-
increase notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Any bill from the COUNTY for the current year's assessment which is received by the
CITY before August 18 of the current year shall be due on September 7 of said year,
(7)
~~~g
provided that the CITY may elect to pay said bill before said date. Any said bill received
by the CITY after August 18 shall be due no later than twenty-one (21) days after the
CITY's receipt thereof.
13. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in
writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as
follows:
TO CITY: Mayor, City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
(8)
~'
14. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 11, and 12 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their
sense and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall
so survive the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this
Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
~9)
`?E-~o
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this. day of
2009.
Reviewed by the County
Attorney's Office
.`~ ~
Date:".. ~~~®~~
City organized under:
Statutory _
Option A
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESCSTA
By:
Chair .of Its County Board
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Date:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its
And:
Its
Option B Charter
{10)
~ C- ~ 1
Contract No. A090395
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF RICHFIELD
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review -approximate dates:
March through May 15.
4. Attend Board. of Review. Per Board request, make all necessary review
appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 -May 31 .
5. Keep updated field card file -current values, homestead and classification
data.
6. Print, mail and post valuation notices and homestead cards.
7. Respond #o taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries periodically.
8: Make divisions and combinations periodically.
9. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 375.192 (2000).
10. Make appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court eases:.,
11. Post values from appraisal cards to assessment rolls.
12. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as needed as per sales analysis.
(11)
~a
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ~'7F
REPORT # 113
~. STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for the 2009 Concrete Curb and Gutter Repair.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract
for 2009 Curb and Gutter and Miscellaneous Concrete Repair to Ron
Kassa. Construction, Inc. in the sum of $90,350.00.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the City awards a contract to replace cracked and heaved curb and
gutter, and other concrete as necessary. This year's concrete contract includes:
.removal, replacement and appurtenant work for concrete curb and gutter at various
locations. Because the specifications were written early in the year, not all 2009
concrete-needs have been identified. Therefore,. the contract provides for an
increase/decrease in quantity to meet the budgeted amount.
There were seven plan holders for the June 2, 2.009 bid opening. Three bids were
received.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• As part of the City's street maintenance program, each year the City
contracts to replace cracked and heaved curb and gutter and other
concrete work as necessary.
0609SideCurbGutter
. .
$. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder to
submit a bid and is an established contractor that meets all
.requirements.
C. FINANCIAL
• A recent history of prices for curb repair (remove and replace) is:
Year Bid Price Cost per Year Contractor
2005 $19.00 $38,746.70 Ron Kassa
2006 $19.25 $47,393.50 Ron Kassa
2007 $18.00 $32,074.20 Standard Sidewalk
2008 $14.96 $71,744.74 Create Construction
2009 $18.00 TBD Ron Kassa
Funding for the purchase of concrete repairs is in the 2009 Street
Maintenance Budget, line item 6103 (Professional Services)
D. LEGAL
• When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $100,000,
sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and
subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of
Richfield.
• The advertisement for bid for this contract was published in the
Richfield Sun-Current on May 21, 2009 and in the Construction
Bulletin on May 15, 2009.
• A bid opening was held on June 2, 2009.. A copy of the bid tabulations
for the Concrete Curb and Gutter contract is attached.
• The City follows a competitive bid process and should award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• ~ Council may choose to reject the bid and direct staff to obtain new bids;
however, the prices received for this work are fair, and staff does not believe
lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
• Council may choose to not do the work.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes/tabulation.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
a~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 2, 2009
9:45 a.m.
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Bid No. 09-11
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud bids for 2009 Concrete Curb & Gutter, as
advertised in the official newspaper on May 21, 2009 and the Construction Bulletin on
May 15, 2009.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Non- Intent
Bidder's Name .Bond Collusion To Total Base Bid
Compl
Ron Kassa Construction Inc.. Provided Provided Provided $90,350.00
Standard Sidewalk Inc. Provided Provided Provided $158,975.00
Ryan Contracting Co. Provided Provided Provided $127,080.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June
9,-2009 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
CONSENT
7G
114
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER
r
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for the 2009 Pavement Management Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract
for 2009 Sealcoating work to Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of
$507,154.20.
II. BACKGROUND
The pavement management program was implemented in 1988. That policy
direction was set to improve the quality of the roads within the City and maintain an
acceptable roadway system for residents. Committing to and continuing the
preventive maintenance program is essential to delay the high costs associated with
the deterioration of the streets to the point of major repair.
The franchise fee implemented in 2004 provides the funding for the City's Pavement
Management Program.
Sealcoating has been the leading cost-effective technique for slowing the
deterioration of our residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a
thin coat of emulsified oil, and then covering it with buckshot sized rock.
060909Pavement Mgmt
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program.
The program includes sealcoating for all City streets in five-year
cycles, asphalt crack repair, and asphalt milling and overlaying..
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Regular preventive maintenance techniques such as sealcoating and
overlaying delays costly reconstruct projects.
• Construction costs have stabilized somewhat since last year,
especially asphalt costs.
C. FINANCIAL
• The. cost of oil used for sealcoating has increased over 22% in two
years, from $1.76 a gallon in 2007 to $2.15 in 2009. This year's
sealcoat project cost is 18% higher overall compared to 2007, which
was 26% higher than 2006.
• A recent history of bid prices for sealcoating is:
Year Bid Price Rock Bid Price Oil Contractor
2005 $20.00 $0.86 Pearson Brothers
2006 $21.52 $1.39 Pearson Brothers
2007 $25.35 $1.76 Pearson Brothers
2009 $27.00 $2.15 Pearson Brothers
• Funding for sealcoating is provided by the City's Franchise Fees and
is in the 2009 Street Maintenance Budget, line item 6103
(Professional Services)
D. LEGAL
• When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $100,000,
sealed bids shall be solicited. by public notice in the manner and
subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of
Richfield.
• The advertisement for. bid for all contracts was published in the
Richfield Sun-Current on May 21, 2009 and in the Construction
Bulletin on May 15, 2009.
• Bid openings were held on June 2, 2009. A copy of the bid
tabulations for the sealcoating-contract is attached.
• The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award
contracts to the lowest responsible bidders.
• Pearson Bros. Inc. submitted the lowest responsible .bid within the
sealcoating budget amounts.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may chose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids;
however, the prices received for the contract was competitive, and staff does
not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
• Council may chose not to continue with the Pavement Management Program
as planned. However, the program is essential to maintaining and extending.
the usable life.of the City's streets.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• A copy of the June 2,.2009 Sealcoating Bid Tabulation.
• A map depicting the 2009 Sealcoating and Overlay project/contract areas.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~~-i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 2, 2009
9:30 a.m.
2009 Sealcoat
Bid No. 09-12
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2.009 sealcoat, as advertised in the official
newspaper on May 21, 2009 and the Construction Bulletin on May 15, 2009.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Non- Intent gid Amount Bid Amount
Bidder's Name Bond Collusion ~ TO Lines 1-7 Lines 1-6, 7A
Com I alternate bid
Pearson Bros. Inc. Provided Provided Provided $499,684.20 $507,154.20
Allied Blacktop Co. Provided Provided Provided $588,536.64 $598,496.64
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June
9, 2009 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
i v v~
- J ~! J d ~ ~ Et ~ ~ E ~
_
P~ - s _
s a N .. ti- ~ ~ a a
xER%ES ~t00
WASHBURN 3DOn ~ ~~
VINCENT 2900
uPTON z9aa ~~
TIiO MAS 2]00
0 I
H
4
SH ER IOAN 290
RUSSELL 2a0D r
~
OU EEN 2'80 +
i{
PENN x800
OLIVER 2200 A
NEWTON 2100
M Oft GAN 2000
LOGAN 1900
KN OX 1900
JAMES 1100
^m
IRVIN G ~s00
°pA"h~°3;, xg
yy
F:
HUMBOLDT X500 ,i
'
GIRARD ~^oo I
~" Irr 1
~i
FREMONT 1000
,W ,
•
EMERSON 1200 ''•' , ~•
DuPGNT it00 • • 0 P
COLFAX ,000 ~ s '• ~ : ~ ®,'•
BRYANT 900 ~ ~ ~ ~
Boo ~y
~ '
ALDR ICH ,
~L
LYN PALE '100 I",
GARFIELD [00 W
HARRIET so0
GRAND a0U II
PLEASANT 900 ~~
PILLSBURY x00 ~'~
WEN TWO RTH tOB
BLAIS DE LL s0 ',
Nlcouer aoB
1:1 iBD
~I
ST EVENS Ix^
2ntl 200
3rd 300
CLINTON s2^ ~ Q7
a00
NM1
r m
PORTLAND 800
OAKLAND 8x0
PARK
200
C:.
COLUMBUS 220 r F
~
°E •
0~
~
CHICAGO 900 A `
ELLIOT 900 r
~~ e 1
a
•
•
,
mm Ima
nm noB
Inn 1200
13IM1 t20n
151M1 t.00
BIOOMIN GTON 1~2~.
1
0C
o
16th
1JtN 1100 ~
181E ~oDC ~ ~~
CEDAR i.n0
y ~ s ~ ~ n .. s ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ n
XERXES
WASHBURN
VINCENT
i
~ ~ '0 '0
ro 0 0 0
a z a
0 0 0 0
(~ ~ m m
m c c c
~ n n D
v
~ ~ y ~
O ~
~ D ri m
w ~
~ N tJ
m ~
-! !L
n O
~ ^
D D
m ~
d 'y
THOMAS
SH ER IDAN
RUSSELL
O pU EEN
PENN
OLIVER
NEN/TON
MOR GAN
LOGAN
KN OX
JAMES
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMOIJT
EM ER SON
DuaoIJT
coLFAx
BRYANT
ALDalcn
LVN DALE
GA RFIE LD
HARRIET
GRAN D
PLEASANT
PILLS BURV
WENTWORTH
BLAIS pE LL
e
~~
ST EVEI.`
OLINTON
PORTLAND
OA K LAN D
PAR K
coLU Meus
cwc AGo
mIHIOT
nm
1zIN
131M1
8~OO~.1'.N Gt~"]IJ
181H
cE DAR
C
i
!n Z
I m ,~
'~
~ - - ~
...1•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
OTt~R BIISINESS
9
115
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the Transportation Commission's recommendations for the future rebuild of
Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale and Penn Avenues resulting from the Richfield Arterials Study.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve recommended Concept Sections 61 and B2 as
the preferred options for Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale and Penn
Avenues which recommends conversion. of the four-lane roadways to
three-lanes as part of the Richfield Arterials Studv.
II. BACKGROUND
The City was awarded Federal Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program funds
to evaluate the ability to accommodate good facilities for bikes, walking and transit
on the main north-south arterials within Richfield (Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale, and
Penn). The federal grant funded the Richfield Arterials Study with the purpose of
determining a future build condition for the arterials that would encourage people to
shift from the use of automobiles to an alternative travel mode.
The Richfield Transportation Commission began the Arterials .Study in November
2008 and has held multiple open houses encouraging public input into the study
process. Ultimately the Commission is recommending four-to-three lane
conversions on the City's north-south arterials. The recommended section would
provide improved pedestrian, transit and bicycle accommodations.
KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
060909ArterialStudy
Portland, Nicollet, and Penn Avenues are under Hennepin County jurisdiction which
requires any final design to obtain County approval. County staff has been
engaged throughout the study and have offered their input on the options
considered by the Commission. The County supports the Transportation
Commission's recommendation of four-to-three lane conversions identifying
Concept Section B2 as their preferred option.
The Arterials Study's goal was to identify concepts that encourage biking, walking,
and transit use on a concept level, without going into final design detail. When
funding is identified for the reconstruction of a specific road then a public
involvement process will be used to discuss the potential for adding landscaping
nodes, parking, and improved transit stops on a more specific level.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Improving non-motorized and pedestrian travel in the City is identified
as a goal in the City Comprehensive Plan (Transportation).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The completion of the study at this time allows for the City to apply for
Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the proposed
reconstruction of Portland Avenue.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no financial impact by approving the Transportation
Commission's recommendations.
• The study was funded using Federal Non-motorized Transportation
Pilot Program funds totaling $50,000.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available for questions.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• .Reconstruction of the arterial roads within Richfield will improve the
quality of life for those that live adjacent to and use the roadway.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the recommended Concept Sections B1 and B2 as the
preferred options for Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale and Penn Avenues.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Concepts B1 and B2
• Arbor Day Excerpt provided by Councilmember Sandahl
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None expected.
~l -- ~
'.
n
-n
rn
r
v
~ •
-~
m
~ ~
D
r
N '•
.:57 ~ ~
m ~
m
--~ g
N ~T
F n
a ~ ~i
C7 ~ J9
= 3 L
N ~
r
°o m
'O --~ P~
rn ~
~ °a
m ~
rn
c~i3
N ~
-1
C
~ ~ ~r
~~ '~
_ -~
V:
'\
\_1
W~,~~ ~~
~
~
(D CG i7 _, tD C7
~ ~ -r T c .z"
-
Q c~
O ~ ~ ('~
Q
~ ~ m
~ ~ ~D
~
~
~ r
tea
I~
- -,.
~ ~~
i ~°f i
.~~.
1®
n
a
T_
r
v
y ~` '~
~ ,~. F ~~'
--~ _":.:
m '' ~ .
D "!~~a
N ~ •rA
ti
71
rn ~, ., .
m _
N
D ~
a
n ~
x _
ti r e+q
O C.'! Y 9
~ H
Ci° ~
N
...p ®Y
m ~
m ~
H ~
-1
C
-C
~ ~f
'~ ~` ''~
~,
c
0
r a~~~~
o G7
m - ~-
cc ~~ V ~~ ~~ C7~
~~ ~,
~ _ A~
('J 1 i i
(D < C
~ ~ ~i
~ ~
(~
~1 ~ v~-
~,;
~. ~ >~
~-
By James R. Fazio
Tees don't walk, of course, but people do.
Trees help make the prospect of walking
more appealing and when people walk,
everyone wins.
Dan Burden of Orlando, Florida,
believes that walking is so important to
the quality of life that in 1996 he found-
ed Walkable Communities, Inc. Burden is a former
National Geographic photographer who has studied and
photographed the `walkability' of more than 200 com-
munities in Aznerica. With the zeal of a missionary he
has made it his life's cv>ork trying to convince community
leaders to make their cities more pedestrian-friendly.
"We need to stop building cities for cars," Dan told
us. Instead, Dan's company believes "walkable commu-
nities are more livable communities and lead to whole,
happy, healthy lives for the people who live in them."
Walking is also the cheapest form of transport and the
easiest way to burn up from 160 - 310 calories per hour
while at the same time doing chores or otherwise meet-
ing the demands of a daily schedule.
Trees play an essential role in walkable communi-
ties. They provide cooling shade, slow down traffic
speed and reduce crime and social problems. In busi-
ness districts, shoppers linger longer and are willing to
pay 12 cents on the dollar more than in areas devoid of
trees. Trees provide a sense of pride, unite neighbors,
and link the past with the future.
For these reasons and more, the Arbor Day
Foundation began sponsoring Tx•ee City USA 32 years
ago. Today, more than 3,300 communities use this
popular program as the backbone for planting commu-
nity trees and providing for their continuous, system-
atic care. Many of the benefits are practical such as
air pollution control and storm water retention. Trees,
after all, are the only part of the municipal infrastruc-
ture that actually i~zcrease in value and service over
the years. But the benefits go beyond the monetary to
introducing children to nature, adding joy to life and
providing volunteer projects that bring together people
of all walks of life.
Trees and walkable communities go hand in hand.
With the foresight of visionary community leaders and
partnerships that can turn dreams into reality, together
we can help make America's cities more livable and
sustainable -socially, economically and ecologically.
~li~ `~- s tsar nE.
~~5t~rc.-4r~.~.,~.~,.~N 'G .- "~
E CI'T'Y U-
~!-,e~. t
~~.N
A street transformed. Under the guidance of Dan Burden with Glatting Jackson
Kercher and Anglin, this illustration by Steve Price of Urban Advantage shows
proposed changes "to bring a street back to life" in Sacramento, California.
Photos cowtesy of Dan Burden (Glatting.lackson Kercher and Anglin)
7~
New Member is Inspired by Generosity of
Others and Memories of Poem
6G our Arbor Day newsletter
story about a member who was
leaving a `Legacy of Trees' moved
me to want to do the same," said
Patricia Goldblatt, a new Foundation
member. As a result, she has just
included the Arbor Day Foundation in
her will and has become a J. Sterling
Morton recognition level member.
Patricia said, "This is something that I
can leave that means something to me
in my heart and will pass on the great
love for trees that I have.
"I am in awe of trees and have been
since I was a child. We were always in
the outdoors camping with my parents,
and I did the same with my children
when they were growing up," said
Patricia. "Even today, I go hiking in the
forest and I'm inspired by the peaceful-
. ness, wildlife, and wonders of nature.
When I look up at the trees, I think of
Joyce Khmer's poem, Trees, that I've
known since childhood. Soine of its
words almost make me cry: A tree that
looks at God all day, And lifts her leafy
arms to pray; A tree that may iTZ sunz-
m.er wear, A nest of robins i.n her hair"
Patricia's lifetime of traveling has
left imprinted images of beautiful and
unique trees from around the world.
She has that same admiration for the
trees she plants in her yard at home.
Patricia said, "Trees give so much
to us and I feel good that I can give
something back through the Arbor Day
Foundation." Her bequest will help the
Foundation plant trees in fire-devastat-
ed areas of our nation's forests and in
storm-damaged communities across the
country, as well as providing valuable
trees for city parks and green spaces.
If you'd like to know more about sup-
porting the mission of the Arbor Day
Foundation with a bequest, special gift
or an Arbor Day charitable gift annuity,
please contact Mark Musick, Director
of Special Gifts, at 888-448-7337 x 212,
or e-mail anmusick@arborday.org. More
information is also available at
arb®rday. ®r~/t~ iina~ta®rx.
You can help too. To include the Foundation in your will, please include the following sentence and gift information: ~
I give (specific amount or property, percentage or residue) to the Arbor Day Foundation, located in Nebraska City, Nebraska, T j
~ atax-exempt organization, for the purpose of supporting their environmental-stewardship programs. (TAX ID 23-7169265) lI
Credit Unian G®es
Green Wit~l Trees
The State Employee Federal Credit Union of
Albany, New York, has partnered with the Arbor
Day Foundation to make New York greener. SEFCU
and its 29 offices throughout upstate New York have
already donated $157,000 for the Western New York
Tree Recovery Program. Through the rest of this
year, an additional $1.00 will be given on behalf of
every new credit union member. The funds are be-
ing used for seedlings that, in turn, are distributed
free to residents, with Western New York Ameri-
Corps workers providing staff to get the job done.
SEFCU is also promoting recycling, offering rate
reductions on the purchase of gas-saving vehicles,
and creating educational programs on how to be
more environmentally responsible.
~, t r e~
i ti ~t r test
Michelle Holiinan of Maryetta
School in Stilwell, Oklahoma,
not only has great insights about
how a tree functions, but also the
role it plays in providing wildlife
habitat. Michelle's newly-found
knowledge of trees and her talent
for art combined to make her the
winner of the 2008 Arbor Day
National Poster Contest. The
contest is sponsored by Toyota
and annually involves fifth grad-
ers in more than 67,000 class-
rooms and home schools. This Michelle Holiman and her teacher,
year, winners from 46 states and Samilou Smith, proudly display the 2008
winning poster.
the District of Columbia were
submitted for the final judging.
Michelle's poster superbly reflects the 2008 contest theme -Trees
are Terrific Inside and Out! Accompanied by her family and her 5th
grade teacher, Michelle was awarded an expense-paid trip to Arbor
Day Farm in Nebraska City for the National Awards Weekend in
April. Michelle also received a $1,000 savings bond and lifetime mem-
bership in the Arbor Day Foundation. Her teacher, Samilou Smith,
received $200 for classroom materials.
All participants receive educational materials in an effort to intro-
duce young people to the world of trees. For information about th.e
contest and to see the winning posters from each state, please visit
arb®rday.®rg'/p®sterc®nte st.
Buffalo
Mayor Byron
Brown (at
podium) and
Paul Maurer
of Re-Tree
Western New
York took
part in distrib-
uting 10,000
seedlings on
Earth Day.
6 ARiBOR DAY • 3epternber/October 2008 • 888-448-7337 •arb®rday.®rg
Trees inspire Patricia Goldblatt. She's also in-
spired by fellow Arbor Day Foundation members.
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLIITIONS
AGENDA ITEM # lO
REPORT # 116
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR L~ ,
REVIEW: (./
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2010-2013 Capital Improvement
Plan to include additional Improvement Projects.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Resolution: Adopt the proposed amendment of the 2010-2013
Capital Improvement Plan to include the Portland Avenue
` Reconstruction and 66t" Street East Reconstruction.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a comprehensive list of major
improvements identified as necessary to meet the needs of the community. The four-
year 2010-2013 CIP was adopted on June 24, 2008. The following projects are not
included in the 2010-2013 CIP.
Portland Avenue Reconstruction (2013) -The roadway condition of Portland Avenue
has deteriorated beyond repair and maintenance. This project would reconstruct
Portland from 67t" Street to 77t" Street. The new roadway cross-section would be
consistent with the recommended alternative identified in the Arterial Roads Study.
66t" Street East Reconstruction (2013) -Reconstruction of the portion of 66t" Street
between Richfield Parkway and Park Avenue. Hennepin County is funding a roadway
concept study of this area for future reconstruction consideration.
060909PortlandClP
These projects are potential candidates for federal funding under the current State
Transportation Program (STP) Solicitation that is due on June 15, 2009. In order for a
project to qualify for the federal fund it must be included in the City's adopted CIP.
The City's Planning Commission reviewed both projects on May 27, 2009 for
consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan and adopted a resolution to include both
projects in the 2010-2013 Capital Improvement Plan.
Staff is recommending that Council adopt the attached resolution to include these
projects into the 2009-2013 CIP so that they qualify for federal funding consideration.
The projects that are selected for STP funding will be announced in January 2010.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The proposed projects meet multiple goals in the City's Comprehensive
Plan (Transportation).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If these projects are not included in the current 2009-2010 Capital
Improvement Plan they will not meet criteria to be considered for Federal
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
C. FINANCIAL
• If selected these projects will receive 80% federal funding. The matching
dollars would be funded with County, Municipal State Aid, and City Utility
funds.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The existing condition of Portland Avenue and this portion of 66t" Street
could be considered a quality of life issue.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may chose not to amend the 2010-2013 CIP at this time and staff
will not submit the projects for STP consideration.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
CIP Project Summary Forms
• Portland Avenue Reconstruction
• 66t" Street East Reconstruction
VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None expected.
~~ -C
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2009-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 (the "Act"), cities
are authorized to adopt a capital improvement plan and carry out programs for the
financing of capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), has caused to be
prepared the Capital Improvement Budget and Plan for years 2009 through 2013 (the
"Capital Improvement Plan"); and
WHEREAS, in considering the Capital Improvement Plan, the Council has
considered for each project and for the overall Capital Improvement Plan:
1. the condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for
repair and replacement;
2. the likely demand for the improvement;
3. the estimated cost of the improvement;
4. the available public resources;
5. the level of overlapping debt in the City;
6. the relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds;
7. operating costs of the proposed improvements; and
8. alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities with.
other local government units.
WHEREAS, the City would like to amend the current 2009-2013 Capital Improvement
Plan to include the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project and the 66t" Street East
Reconstruction Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:
1. The Capital Improvement Plan is hereby amended to include the Portland
Avenue Reconstruction and 66t" Street East Reconstruction.
2. City staff is hereby authorized to do all other things and take all other
actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Capital Improvement Plan
in accordance with any applicable laws and regulations.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of June,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1C~-~
' Right of Way Imp>~ovements
Proiect Summary Form -Portland Avenue Reconstruction
2009 Capital Budget (CIB)
2010-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
1. Protect: Portland Avenue Reconstruction
2. Total ro'ect cost: $4,900,000
3. Years to com lete: One
4. Is this a continuation of a current ro'ect? No
If " Yes", what is first ear ro'ect a ears in CIP?
5. Res onsible de artment: Public Works
6. Please list below the annual cost for each of the following years for this project:
2009 CIB $ 2013 CIP $ 4,900,000
201.0 CIP $ Be and 2013 $
2011 CIP $ $
..2012 CIP $ $
7. Please indicate the sources of funding:
User Fees $ 600,000 %oftotal 12%
S ecial Revenue $ %oftotal
Bonds $ %oftotal
Mun. State Aid $1,525,000 %oftotal 31%
Grants
Federal $2,240,000 %oftotal 46%
State $ %oftotal
County $ 535,000 %oftotal 11%
.Other $ %oftotal
Federal Demo.. $ %oftotal
Tax Increment Fin $ %oftotal
Other $ %oftotal
TOTAL $4,900,000 100%
8. Brief summary of project:. The roadway condition of Portland Avenue has deteriorated beyond repair and
maintenance. The project would reconstruct Portland Avenue from 66th Street to 77th Street. The new roadway
cross-section would be consistent with the recommended alternative identified in the 2009 Arterial Roads Study.
9. Does the project conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Yes No X
_____10,_Prority ranking. system
A. Check one of the following:
- -Preserve -1Vlana e- Re iace/Im rove X Ex and
B. Indicate points for the following:
Protect existin resources: X
Health/safe X
1Vleets multi le ob'ectives in Com rehensive Plan: X
Land use com atibili X
Communi su ort• X
Coordination• X
Cost effectiveness: X
/o- 3
Right of Way Improvements
Proiect Summary FOYm - 66th Street Reconstruction
2009 Capital Budget (CIB)
2010-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
1. Protect: 66th Street East Reconstruction
2. Total ro'ect cost: $4,500,000
3. Years to com fete: 1
4. Is this a continuation of a current ro'ect? No
If "Yes", what is first ear ro'ect a ears in CIP?
5. Res onsible de artment: Public Works
6. Please list below the annual cost for each of the following years for this project:
2009 CIB 2013 CIP $4,500,000
2010 CIP Be and 2013
2011 CIP
2012 CIP
7. Please indicate the sources of funding:
User-Fees $500,000 % of total 11
S ecial Revenue $ % of total
Bonds $ % of total
1VIun. State Aid $200,000. % of total 5%
Grants
Federal $3,200,000 % of total 71
State $ % of total
Coup -- ...._ _.. $~OO,OOD._ __ __ -%-o~tofar 13%.__ __ _ _ _ -
Other $ % of total
Federal Demo. $ % of total
Tax Increment Fin $ % of total
Other. $ % of total
TOTAL $4,500,000 100%
8. Brief summary of project: Reconstruction of the portion of 66th Street between Richfield Parkway and
Portland Avenue following a 2010 roadway study.
9. Does the project conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Yes No X
l0. Priority ranking system
A. Chec-k one of the following:
Preserve Mana a Re lace/Im rove X Ex and
_ K. Indicate points for the following: -
Protect existin resources: X
Health/safe X
Meets multi le ob"ectives in Com rehensive Plan: X
Land use com atibili : X
Communi su ort• X
Coordination: X
Cost effectiveness:
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 117
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SICNAT
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approval of submission of Federal Surface Transportation Program Grants.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the submission
of grant applications for Federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP) funds including Portland Avenue Reconstruction and 66tH
Street East Reconstruction.
II. BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Council and the Transportation Advisory Board have released the 2009
Solicitation Package for federal funds. The regional solicitation process selects projects or
programs to be funded by the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Transportation Enhancement
Program (TE) as well as the Bridge Improvement or Replacement Program (BIR).
Applications may be for construction projects for all programs, transit operations and
vehicle purchases from CMAQ as well as various types of projects or programs that fall
within criteria for Transportation Enhancements. Applications are due Monday, June 15,
2009.
Staff is asking the Council to consider the submittal of two projects for the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds.
060909STPGrant
Portland Avenue Reconstruction -This project would include the reconstruction. of Portland
Avenue from 67t" Street to 77t" Street. The roadway condition of Portland Avenue has
deteriorated and is in need of reconstruction. The new roadway cross-section would
implement the approved design concept identified as part of the Arterial Roads Study.
66t" Street East Reconstruction -The project includes the portion of 66t" Street between
Richfield Parkway and Park Avenue.. The new roadway would implement across-section
consistent with a 2009 roadway study funded by Hennepin County.
On June 3, 2009 the Richfield Transportation Commission voted to support submittal of
both projects for STP consideration.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The proposed projects meet multiple .goals in the City's
Comprehensive-Plan (Transportation).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• .The deadline for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
is June 15, 2009.
C. FINANCIAL
• The reconstructionof Portland Avenue is estimated to be $4,900,000.
If selected for STP funds $3,920,000 (80%) would be funded with
Federal dollars and the matching 20% and design would be funded
with County, Municipal State Aid, and City Utility funds.
• The reconstruction of 66~' Street East is estimated to be $4,500,000._
IF selected for STP funds $3,600,000 (80%) would be funded with
Federal dollars and the matching 20% and design would be funded
using County, Municipal State Aid, and City Utility funds.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• c;ouncu can
submission.
to reject one or
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• Resolution approving the su
• 66t" Street Concept Graphic
of the grant proposals for
n of the grant applications.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR
FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield believes that portions of the City's arterial roads
are in need of reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield proposes to "right size" arterial roads to fit the
forecasted travel modes in corridors at the time reconstruction occurs to meet mobility and
safety goals consistent with Hennepin County's transportation policies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is committed to promote walking and biking as
alternative travel modes to the automobile; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports the conversion of four-lane to three-lane
sections (center left turn lane) with multi-purpose paved shoulders along portions of
arterials that can safely and effectively move traffic of all modes; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield approves the submission of applications for Federal Surface Transportation
Program funds. The applications include: (1) the Reconstruction of Portland Avenue
between 66t" Street and 77t" Street and (2) the Reconstruction of 66t" Street between
Portland Avenue and Richfield Parkway to improve facilities for walking, biking, and transit
use along these corridors.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of June,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
C _
., ~ m
a ~ C
O -O p
~ N
N > O N O
4J Q
O -O O ~ O m
N ~ N ?' N vUi m
~ O. N O- ~ O_ O N
o m w m m m ~
VJ N ~ ~N. ~
m m ~ a~ a~
~ N X N O1 N Y Y
_ C
U Cn ~ cn [n cin a am.
L~l^~~~
rfi~ ^.
.a
~ .,~ ,.
,~° -
.. :Y. ~.
:~I
. - ~ .~~.
l ~u~=:~. .. roc r_n.. f.ar..>..~ _ - ~.
-~.:
~. - -
~,. _
.,
'ilf ~ ~
n -_
4`
~t~
~ •
~ N~
C ~~
~ 1
~.
0
c
co
a>
c
cv
J
O
H
a
c
O
U
c
Q ~~,~~~
a~
c
c
a~
~1~
~ht .~; !i
,-~ \; ;
n, ~,~~`-~,,
\' ~~Y~y
._
CQ
Q
Y_
(B
d
~t
,x 4
.~ j
ti
~ '~~
V~ .'.
/~
r
1
~ I I
T 'v
-~ v ~
S _ s
I
l