090815CompleteAgenda SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
6:15 PM
Call to order
1. 6:15 p.m.-6:45 p.m.
Human Rights Commission presentation regarding commission diversity and Naturalization Ceremony
(Council Memo No.82)
2. 6:45 p.m.-6:55 p.m.
Discussion regarding a Paid Parental Leave Policy (Council Memo No.80)
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.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
7:00 PM
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
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 items not on the agenda.Individuals who wish to address
the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the minutes of the (1)Special City Council Worksession of August 11,2015; (2)Special Concurrent City
Council, HRA and Planning Commission Worksession of August 11,2015; (3)Regular City Council Meeting of August
11,2015;and (4)Special City Council Meeting of August 24,2015.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
1. Hats Off to Hometown Hits
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. Approval of the agenda.
3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items,which are acted upon by the City Council in one
motion.Once the Consent Calendar has been approved,the individual items and recommended
actions have also been approved.No further Council action on these items 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 the approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending the Cityls Zoning Code and
a resolution approving summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance would clarify
regulations related to accessory dwelling units.
Staff Report No. 126
B. Consideration of a the approval of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a Local Road
Improvement Program General Fund Predesign or Design Grant Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for$2,146,842 to be used for the design of the 77th Street Extension and
Crossing of Trunk Highway 77.
Staff Report No. 127
C. Consideration of the approval of the resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased
trees from private propertyfor work ordered in 2014 and scheduling a public hearing for October 13,2015.
Staff Report No. 128
D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district
assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 13,2015.
Staff Report No. 129
E. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet(LHN)
maintenance assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 13,2015.
Staff Report No. 130
F. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an update to ordinances 428 and 429 related to
construction site runoff control and post-construction stormwater management and schedule second
reading for September 22, 2015.
Staff Report No. 131
G. Consideration of the approval of the following relating to the 66th Street Storm Water Project:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing City staff to incur cost for construction.
2. Approve the hiring WSB &Associates, Inc.to perform Engineering Services for the 66th Street
Storm Water Project for a fee not to exceed $197,843.00.
Staff Report No. 132
H. Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing the refunding of the$6,080,000 G.O.Water&
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A,dated May 18,2006 and the$2,500,000 G.O.Storm Sewer Bonds,
Series 2006B,dated December 21,2006 with the$5,695,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds,Series 20156.
Staff Report No. 133
I. Consideration of the approval of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for unpaid false alarm user
fees against private property.
Staff Report No. 134
J. Consideration of the approval of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for current services performed
for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from
private property.
Staff Report No. 135
K. Consideration of the approval of a request for the temporary expansion of the licensed premises for
Davanni's, located at 6345 Penn Avenue South,to allow for the outside service of strong beer on
Sunday,September 20,2015, in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event.
Staff Report No. 136
L. Consideration of the approval of a resolution appointing Laural Kenney Mamula to the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board to the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31,2015 or until a successor has
been chosen,whichever is later.
Staff Report No. 137
M. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that amends the Cityls tobacco ordinance
and schedule a second reading of the ordinance for September 22,2015.
Staff Report No. 138
N. Consideration of the approval of a resolution regarding the support of an application for a Temporary
Classification of Body Worn Camera Data from the Commissioner of Administration.
Staff Report No. 139
4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public hearing and consideration of a second reading of an ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium on the
consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City,County,and State right-of-ways
throughout the City and consideration of a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
Staff Report No. 140
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Consideration to reject all bids submitted for the construction of the Richfield Community Band Shell.
Staff Report No. 141
7. Consideration of the acknowledgement of a Transformation Home Loan Application submitted by Mayor Goettel.
Staff Report No. 142
8. Consideration of the 2015 Revised/2016 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting the 2016 preliminary property
tax levy,setting truth in taxation hearing date,authorizing budget revisions,and authorizing revision of 2015
budget of various departments.
Staff Report No. 143
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
9. City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
10. Claims and payrolls
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 items not on the agenda.Individuals who wish to address
the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
11. 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
September 3, 2015
Council Memorandum No. 82
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Human Rights Commission Report on Diversity on City Commissions and
information on Naturalization Ceremony at City Hall
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
In January 2015, the Human Rights Commission held a community conversation in
English and Spanish with the public at Augsburg Library. This was a continuation of
efforts by the HRC from 2013. This event included members of other Richfield
Commissions. The Advocates for Human Rights also helped facilitate the meeting and
edit the final report. This is to discuss the findings and seek potential follow-up actions
from the City Council.
The Human Rights Commission is hoping to hold a Naturalization ceremony, in the
Council Chambers, to swear in new US Citizens in early 2016. The HRC has been in
discussions with the US District Court and they are very interested in having Richfield
be part of this schedule. We look forward to further discussions on this in the near
future.
Re7pectf ly pbmitte ,
(f; 1
'__3.teve` evi
City nager
SLD:kaa
Attachment
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
Richfield
i
All The People: Community Conversation Ino 1:0]
w
About Diversity on City Commissions Human Rights Commission
Final Report
07 July 2015
Introduction
In July 2013, the Richfield Human Rights Commission conducted its first Community
Conversation, asking community members what "welcome" means to them, and how welcome
they felt in Richfield. Like many commissions, the RHRC has struggled to build and maintain
diversity of its membership. In 2014, the RHRC began planning for a more targeted
conversation, specifically to ask about whether the diversity of Richfield's boards and
commissions adequately reflected the diversity of the community. We conducted two meetings
and collected information about the makeup of the boards as of fall 2014.
Planning for this event and report was conducted by a subcommittee of the RHRC,
including Debbie Eng, Sean Hayford Oleary, Todd Chase, Katie Eagle, and Jeff Wright. Youth
representative Judith Dominguez also participated, and assisted in interpreting the community
conversation in Spanish.
Background and Statistics
In lieu of official statistics of the make-up of boards and commissions, board chairs were
asked to provide their impressions of their board's demographic background. This is not an
exact measure, but provides a general idea of the make-up of our boards and commissions. Six
of seven commission chairs participated in this survey. The general impressions of the chairs
were:
1. The whole of all boards and commissions is much more balanced than individual boards
may be. For example, the distribution of all men and women was near 50/50, but the
Transportation Commission was 88% men, and the Advisory Board of Health was 82%
women.
2. Only two boards included LGBT persons, and only one included someone who spoke
English as a second language.
3. More than 50% of board and commission members were over the age of 50. By
comparison, only 32% of Richfield's population is over 50.'
4. 85% of the commissioners were white. Only 69% of Richfield is white.'
5. Less than 20% had children under the age of 12 (young enough to require childcare
during meetings).2
The full results of chair-reported demographics are shown in figure 1. The RHRC also mapped
home addresses of board and commission members using public data available on the City's
website. Similar to the overall demographic trend, the city was relatively well-represented as a
whole, but individual commissions trended toward one area. In general, the area east of
Portland Avenue had fewer representatives, and the area west of 35W had more. The map can
be seen at http://bit.ly/l CtsNCf or in figure 2.
Board Chairs' Meeting
The Board Chairs' Meeting was held on November 13, 2014. The chairs of Human
Rights, Planning, Friendship City, Advisory Board of Health, and a liaison for the Transportation
chair all participated. Two other RHRC members involved in this project also participated.
Board chairs noted that the commission appointment process could be intimidating and
was not adequately understood by the community. Even within the meeting, there was a
misunderstanding regarding how often appointments are made (at least one participant
assumed January was the only appointment time during the year). Chairs noted that the boards
were not readily understood to those not active in the City, and the brief explanations provided
on the application was not adequate. However, the recently created video introductions were a
good start to making the boards more understood.
Detailed suggestions on how to improve demographic makeup were made, which are
outlined later in this document, under Possible Improvements to Diversify Commissions.
Community Meeting
The Community Meeting was held on January 17th at Augsburg Park Library. There
were approximately 25 participants, and the conversation was organized into four tables. Two of
' "Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 more information 2010 Demographic
Profile Data." US Census Bureau.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtmI?src=bkmk
2 This may be in line with census data, as Richfield has a relatively high percentage of"non-family
households" and relatively few households with children under 18.
the tables held the primary conversation in Spanish, and two held the primary conversation in
English. The introduction and conclusion
were in English, and interpreted in
Spanish. The introduction discussed the
demographic surveys and the general 10 all
Im omits& P1
reasons for the meeting. The conclusion R
compared the discussions from each table
4. s.
and compiled the overall views of
participants.
As individual groups, the tables r
were asked to discuss the following: r
1. How connected do you feel to City
of Richfield and decisions that are
made regarding Richfield?
2. Do you feel that you are aware of participation opportunities within Richfield's city
government and city activities?
3. How does Richfield increase diversity and engage its citizens on boards and
commissions? What are barriers to getting involved? What helps to remove barriers?
Several tables noted the value of being aware of community goings-on, especially via
the Sun-Current. Others preferred online communication, and found some value in social media,
but generally found the City's web presence to be lacking. In general, participants who were
already serving on boards and commissions felt much more aware of community decisions
(even those unrelated to their particular board) than community members not formally engaged
with the city. Spanish speakers felt particularly left out of City communications, as nearly all of
the information is only available in English.
Participants noted the value of having individual people to reach out to. More desire was
expressed for Spanish-speaking city staff members. However, participants also noted the value
of existing contacts, like the Police-Community Liaison, as well as private organizations such as
MIRA and La Mission of Assumption Church.
Participants pointed out that City residents generally engage with the City when they
need something: a license or permit, for example, and that the City should find ways to connect
with people as they seek those services. They also suggested that offering City-sponsored
programs that attract participation of new residents (for example, an event on immigration)
would be a way to introduce new City residents to a civic event and invite ongoing participation.
In short, participants noted that in order to engage new communities in civic life, the traditional
functions and offerings may need to be expanded.
Toward the end of the meeting, it was noted by one participant that even this multi-
lingual event focused on diversity was held mainly in English, and the suggestion was made that
some events in the future consider other languages as primary. Concern was also express
about balancing representation of various groups with the risk of tokenization. One participant
noted that, since moving to Richfield just a year ago, she had been asked to join various
community and City boards, even those well outside her interest or expertise. She felt that
people were mainly interested in having a Latina voice, and were not specifically interested in
her contributions.
Compared to the board chairs' meeting, fewer details were offered on problems with the
commission appointment process itself, as most participants had not gone through such a
process. The overarching desire was for more awareness of opportunities to get involved, and
better explanation of the processes to do so.
Participants were also asked to complete demographic self-identification surveys, which
are compiled in figure 3.
Possible Improvements to Diversify Commissions
From both meetings, the following suggestions are made to improve diversity of commissions:
Demographic Self-Identification
Problem: One barrier in collecting initial information for the event was the lack of
demographic self-identification information collected by the City. We do not know, in any official
capacity, how diverse our commissions are. To get a general idea, we asked board chairs to tell
us how they perceived their boards. However, this is extremely imperfect, and does not allow for
an ongoing, comprehensive look at the composition of boards and commissions.
Solution: A voluntary self-identification form -- including age, race, gender, sexual
orientation, and first language -- could be requested of each new board/commission member,
and de-identified to maintain privacy. This information could be compiled by staff each year in
consideration of future board appointments.
Improving Clarity of Commission Appointment Process, Especially Online
Problem: Not all participants understood the appointment process. Many, including
board chairs and RHRC members, assumed that the only time appointments could be done was
in January, even if vacancies were available. Not all community members understood what
commissions did what, or what pre-requisites or expectations there were for individual
commissions. The website is particularly confusing, as the application forms do not list due
dates, and there is limited explanation of each board. The application requires specific PDF
software that not all computers are equipped with in order to save and email the application.
Solution: The Commission videos created in fall/winter 2014 are a great first step toward
making commissions clearer. Still, an online portal that would present this and more clearly
explain the commission appointment process would be beneficial to newcomers. Online
applications — submitted via a web form —would be much easier for computer users.
Designating one (preferably bilingual) staff member responsible for the interface of
commissioners and appointments would simplify messages to current and prospective
commission members. Offering a Spanish version of the application forms and additional
board/commission information should also be considered.
Reducing Intimidation of Commission Interview
Problem: Among those who had been appointed to boards in the past, many felt that the
Commission Interview with City Council was a difficult part of the process— especially for the
first appointment, when individuals are not familiar with the process.
Solution: No obvious solutions were suggested, other than better explaining what the
interview would involve, clarifying that it was more "to get to know" the applicant rather than
being solely determinative. Changing the terminology from "interview" to "meeting" may also be
beneficial.
Translation Options
Problem: Not all persons interested in participating in City government have adequate
English skills to understand staff reports and other documents necessary to fully participate on a
board or commission. Even those not explicitly interested in a board/commission may not have
access to basic information about City issues.
Solution: Offer translated versions of materials for citizens who could understand
another language better than English. Provide a language line (or use existing language line
resource) for communication with City staff.
Community Meetings Available in Languages Other Than English
Problem: Even with interpreters, the power dynamic of meetings tends to favor native
English speakers.
Solution: Hold some public meetings (of all types -- road construction, etc) in other
languages, especially Spanish, as a supplement to English meetings. Consider utilizing
headphone systems that allow for simultaneous translation.
Stipend and/or Childcare Reimbursement
Problem:A barrier that younger participants may have is caring for children at home.
Although some commissions may tolerate bringing children to meetings, this is contingent on
the meeting style of the commission and how patient/quiet the child is. During the Board Chairs'
meeting, one of the board chairs noted that she does not have a partner or family member
available to watch her daughter; as such, simply participating in her community board costs her
$30 each meeting. At best, this is a discouraging expense to participation; at worst, it's an
expense that just doesn't make participation in commissions feasible.
Solution: One suggestion to alleviate this issue is to offer a flat stipend to all board and
commission members for meetings attended, regardless of personal circumstance. This may
also encourage participation on boards that suffer from low attendance. A less-expensive option
that may still benefit those in need would be to offer a reimbursement by application to members
who suffer a particular hardship by participating in meetings (e.g., childcare costs).
Buildinq Relationships
Problem: Many Richfield citizens do not feel connected to city activities and city business
affairs. This is particularly true for community members of color. Oftentimes, participation by
minority groups in well-advertised meetings and forums is minimal. Of those engaged citizens of
color, it is reported that they are often asked to participate in a number of activities regardless of
interest or expertise which can be construed as a form of tokenism.
Solution: Richfield schools and churches are an integral segment of our community and
serve families of all walks of life. It is the intention of the Human Rights Commission to continue
to build relationships with targeted churches and the Richfield School District. Past partnering
with these entities has shown a greater turnout at events.
Fig. 1: HRC Demographic Survey results (2014 representation)
Figure 2: Home location of 2014 commissioners
Crosstown H
d Y�Woo
n ,W70cn'sl e J * c vau,T
AV9LUrg Park _ O
nw OU
{,I
K, 7l W 7AIf1 St
W771h S1 hirrh Sl =:'m�
W.W,Park nl Alnenra.
- Snoppm9Cemer Amerman 13 13 C
This can be seen at higher quality (with a legend indicating which colors belong to which
commissions) at http://bit.ly/1 CtsNCf. The highlighted area is Richfield's Racially
Concentrated Area of Poverty (RCAP), as identified by the Metropolitan Council.
Fig. 3: Demographic surveys of participants in January 17, 2014 community
conversation
st
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
September 3, 2015
Council Memorandum No. 80
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Paid Parental Leave Policy
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 2 )
Council Members:
In response to the City Council's request, staff has drafted a Paid Parental Leave policy
for Council consideration (see attached). This policy is scheduled for discussion at the
September 8, 2015 work session.
The main components of the policy include:
• Purpose: To provide parents of all genders time to bond with newborn children or
newly-adopted children in hopes of setting children up for long term health and
wellbeing.
• Eligibility: The policy applies to all eligible benefit-earning City employees who have
been employed by the City for a minimum of one continuous year (12 months).
• Provides: 100% of the employee's regular base wage (does not include overtime,
supplemental pay, and/or other additional pay) for regularly scheduled work hours, for up
to 10 consecutive working days (or 80 hours).
• Paid leave is available to both the birthing and non-birthing parents (regardless of
gender).
• Paid leave must begin on the date of the baby's birth or placement for adoption.
• This policy would be a separate and distinct benefit from any other City benefit.
If the City Council wants staff to proceed with this policy or some variation of it, it is
staff's suggestion that the policy be made effective January 1, 2016 for employees not
represented by a collective bargaining agreement. In the intervening time, Human
Resources will meet and confer with each union group to determine if they wish to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding providing the same benefit to their members
effective for the same time period.
s ec�ly submit ed,�,
6 S . De
City Manager
SLD:pd
Attachment
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
PARENTAL LEAVE (PAID)
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PERSONNEL POLICY
DATE: January 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Paid Parental Leave Policy
Introduction
In recognition of the importance of family and work life integration, it is the policy of the City of Richfield
to provide paid and unpaid parental leave benefits to benefit-earning employees due to the birth of an
employee's child or the placement within an employee's home of an adopted child. This policy does not
apply to foster parents.
Purpose
To provide parents of all genders time to bond with newborn children or newly-adopted children in hopes
of setting children up for long term health and wellbeing.
Policy
This policy applies to all eligible benefit-earning City employees who have been employed by the City
and are benefit earning for a minimum of one continuous year (12 months). This policy is separate and
distinct from any other City benefit.
Paid parental leave will be provided to regular benefit-earning employees (regardless of gender) who
meet eligibility requirements, as described above, and who become biological or adoptive parents in
conjunction with childbirth or adoptions occurring on or after January 1, 2016. Surrogate mothers and
sperm or egg donors are excluded from coverage.
The paid parental leave benefit provides 100% of the employee's regular base wage (does not include
overtime, supplemental pay, and/or other additional pay) for regularly scheduled work hours, for up to 10
consecutive working days (or 80 hours) and must begin on the date of the birth or placement for adoption
(pro rata hours for regular part-time employees). Multiple births or adoptions (i.e. twins, triplets), medical
conditions, and/or other circumstances will not increase the length of paid leave granted. For the
purpose of this benefit, holidays will be counted as a regularly scheduled work day and will be included in
the 10 work day (80 hours) count. Employer benefit contributions and leave accruals continue during
paid parental leave. Paid parental leave will run concurrently with FMLA, MN Parental Leave and/or
Short Term Disability and does not extend the length of these leaves or programs.
See the below illustration for a typical 12-week leave, due to the birth or adoption of a baby, with the use
of paid parental leave:
2 weeks(80 hours) STD leave for birthing parent Additional unpaid FMLA/Parental leave available
Eligible to use Paid Vaginal birth(4 wks.STD)C-Section(6 Up to 12 weeks total
Parental Leave. wks.STD) May use accrued leave and/or unpaid leave.
<_ Paid at 100%
Birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Paid Parental Leave Page 2
Unpaid parental leave will also be provided to eligible employees in accordance with the MN Parental
Leave Act. Unpaid parental leave must be taken within 12 months of a child's birth or adoption and
eligible employees can choose when the leave will begin. The maximum amount of parental leave
(including both paid and unpaid leave) is 12 weeks.
Eligible employees intending to use of paid parenting leave must submit a request form (attached) to
Human Resources before the anticipated birth or adoption of the child and, preferably, with FMLA (and, if
applicable, Short Term Disability insurance) paperwork. In no event will the combination of FMLA and
parental leave exceed 12 weeks duration. The employee shall be returned to the position that the
employee vacated at the commencement of leave or to a position of like status and pay.
Approved: /s/ Steven L. Devich
City Manager
RETURN FORM TO: City of Richfield
Human Resources Office
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
OR0
FAX: 612/861-9715
Questions? Call 612/861-9704
TO BE COMPLETED BY EMPLOYEE
Required Form for City of Richfield Paid Parental Leave Policy
Name:
Dates of Leave:
I have read and understand the City of Richfield's Paid Parental Leave Policy and I have had the
opportunity to ask Human Resources staff questions regarding this benefit. I agree to meet the
requirements and conditions of the Policy.
Employee Signature Date
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
�✓ J Special City Council Worksession
August 11 , 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; Tom Fitzhenry; and
Present: Michael Howard
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director;
Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Robert Hintgen, Utilities
Superintendent; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 66TH STREET STORM SEWER (COUNCIL MEMO
NO. 75)
Acting Public Works Director Asher outlined the drainage issues to be addressed along the
66�h Street Corridor during the future construction, specifically west of 1-35W to Penn Avenue
impacting Monroe Park and Stevens Avenue low point. Ms. Asher reviewed the background, design
options, and financing.
Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer stated there would be neighborhood engagement.
The City Council consensus was to proceed with the options presented by staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:15 p.m.
Date Approved: September 8, 2015
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent City Council,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
and
Planning Commission Worksession
August 11 , 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The concurrent worksession was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:15 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; and
Present: Tom Fitzhenry.
HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; David Gepner; Pat Elliott; and Debbie Goettel.
Present:
HRA Member Doris Rubenstein.
Absent:
Planning Commission Rick Jabs, Chair; Sean Hayford Oleary; Erin Vrieze Daniels; Susan
Members Present: Rosenberg; Daniel Kitzberger; and Gordon Vizecky.
Planning Commission Charles Standfuss.
Member Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/Executive Director; Karen Barton, Acting
Community Development Director; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; and
Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item #1 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
FOR SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 74/HRA MEMO
NO. 28)
Mark Nelson, United Properties, presented the preliminary site plan options for a multi-family
senior housing project on the St. Richard's Catholic Church property, 7540 Penn Avenue.
There was discussion regarding the location of the project on the property to minimize the
impacts on single family homes to the west and the need for senior housing.
City Planner Poehlman explained rezoning will be necessary to allow multi-family use on this
site.
The consensus was to move forward with the proposed project.
Della Kolpin, Mesaba Capital, presented the preliminary site plans for a multi-family senior
housing project on the former City public works site, 7644 Pillsbury Avenue/211 West 76`h Street.
Special Worksession Minutes -2- August 11, 2015
There was discussion regarding the use of the site for senior housing and addressing
neighborhood concerns.
City Planner Poehlman discussed the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning
Ms. Kolpin stated this is a TIF District and they will be working with staff on financing.
The consensus was to move forward with the proposed project.
The concurrent worksession was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:57 p.m.
Date Approved: September 8, 2015.
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
August 11 , 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; Tom Fitzhenry; and
Present: Michael Howard
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Koob, Acting Public Safety Director;
Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director; Chris Regis, Finance
Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive
Coordinator.
OPEN FORUM
Mary Barnes, 7544 Bryant Avenue, expressed her dissatisfaction with unresolved issues
related to the work on 76th Street and questioned the use of the same construction company to
work on 66th Street.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Elliott; S/Howard to approve the minutes of the (1) Special Concurrent City Council and
Planning Commission Worksession of July 27, 2015; (2) Special City Council Worksession of July
28, 2015; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of July 28, 2015.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1 PRESENTATION OF THE 2015 RICHFIELD IN BLOOM AWARDS (COUNCIL
MEMO NO. 75)
Acting Community Development Director Barton presented the awards to:
• Sandra Schmidt & Sheila Fitzgerald, 7413 Sheridan Avenue
• Nancy Buck, 6748 Grand Avenue
• Becky Rossum, 336 Apple Lane
Council Meeting Minutes -2- August 11,2015
Joe and Pam Krzyzaniak were presented the Richfield in Bloom Lifetime Achievement
Award recognizing their continuing efforts towards making Richfield beautiful.
Item #2 PRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD TO CITY OF RICHFIELD FINANCE
MANAGER CHRIS REGIS (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 72)
Council Member Howard presented the award to Finance Manager Chris Regis.
Item #3 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Elliott announced the opening of the newly renovated Fireside Pizza.
The City Council discussed the success of Night to Unite.
Council Member Garcia announced the following community events:
• Augsburg Park concert, August 13, 7 p.m.
• Concert at Bartholomew House, August 19, 7 p.m.
• St. Peter's Pig Roast; August 15
Council Member Fitzhenry discussed the success of the Urban Wildland Half Marathon and
the presentation of the Certificate of Appreciation for the Richfield Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Committee.
Council Member Fitzhenry provided a Noise Oversight Committee update. He also
requested the City Council authorize his signing a letter to the airlines notifying them to honor the
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. no-fly time.
The City Council authorized Council Member Fitzhenry to sign the letter on behalf of
Richfield and thanked him for his continued monitoring of airport issues.
Mayor Goettel acknowledged the efforts of staff on addressing storm water issues with the
66th Street reconstruction. She also stated that at the earlier worksession, two senior housing
preliminary proposals were presented.
Mayor Goettel announced the October 8 Richfield Foundation Autumn Wine and Cheese
Gathering at Woodlake Centre.
Item #4 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/Garcia, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Meeting Minutes -3- August 11,2015
A. Consideration of the approval of the second amendment to the site lease agreement at
6700 Portland Avenue between the City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum Realty Company,
LP (successor in interest to Sprint Spectrum LP) to a modification in cellular telephone
antenna facilities S.R. No. 114
B. Consideration of the approval of the first amendment to the site lease agreement at 6355
Penn Avenue between the City of Richfield and T-Mobile Central, LLC to a modification in
cellular telephone antenna facilities S.R. No. 115
C. Consideration of the approval of an annual request for a temporary on-sale intoxicating
liquor license for the Church of St. Peter located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South for their Pig
Roast event to be held on August 15, 2015 S.R. No. 116
D. Consideration of the approval of a resolution releasing tax-forfeited land located at 6304
Washburn Avenue for sale to the public S.R. No. 117
E. Consideration of the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending the City's Zoning
Code. The proposed ordinance would clarify regulations related to accessory dwelling units
S.R. No. 118
F. Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing an interim use permit to allow
Richfield Bloomington Honda to use City—owned property at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue for
employee parking S.R. No. 119
RESOLUTION NO. 11098
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TAX FORFEITED LAND RELEASED FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11098.
G. Consideration of the approval of a request for a temporary parking lease agreement for
Richfield Bloomington Honda to use City-owned property at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue for
employee parking S.R. No. 120
RESOLUTION NO. 11099
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A STANDALONE PARKING
FACILITY BY RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON HONDA AT 7700 PILLSBURY AVENUE
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11099.
M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF NEW ON-SALE WINE
AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MY BURGER
OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A MY BURGER LOCATED AT 6555 LYNDALE
AVENUE SOUTH S.R. NO. 121
Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 121.
Council Meeting Minutes -4- August 11,2015
John Abdo, My Burger President/On Premise Manager, was present for questions.
M/Elliott, S/Fitzhenry to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
M/Garcia, S/Goettel to approve the new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses
for My Burger Operations, d/b/a My Burger located at 6555 Lyndale Avenue South.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
CHANGING SUNDAY HOURS OF ALCOHOL SERVICE FROM 10 A.M. TO 8
A.M. S.R. NO. 122
Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 122.
M/Elliott, S/Fitzhenry that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2015-8, amending
Section 1202 of the Richfield City Code by changing Sunday hours of alcohol service from 10 a.m.
to 8 a.m., that it be published in the official newspaper, and that it be made part of these minutes.
Council Member Elliott stated that this ordinance is not approving earlier alcohol
consumption on Sunday but rather recognizing progress and moving forward with the larger
metropolitan area.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO
PROVIDE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN SERVICES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE 77TH STREET EAST
EXTENSION AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 CROSSING PROJECT FOR AN
AMOUNT OF $2,146,841.92 S.R. NO. 123
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 123.
Acting Public Works Director Asher stated a letter was received today from MnDOT
authorizing the advance of the status of the project and approval of Local Road Improvement
Program grant funds capped at $2,146,842.00 to help pay for city costs associated with the 77tH
Street Underpass project.
City Manager Devich explained his conversation with MnDOT regarding cost overrun
concerns.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to approve the proposal for WSB and Associates, Inc. to provide
Preliminary and final design services and environmental documentation for the 77 Street east
extension and Trunk Highway 77 crossing project for an amount of$2,146,841.92.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #10 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- August 11,2015
Item #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 08/11/15
A/P Checks: 242748-243147 1,210,342.84
Payroll: 112051-112429, 42435 $ 639,082.96
TOTAL $ 1,849,425.80
Motion carried 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:51 p.m.
Date Approved: September 8, 2015
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
�✓ J Special City Council Meeting
a
August 24, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; Tom Fitzhenry; and
Present: Michael Howard (arrived 6:05 p.m.)
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; Bill Fillmore, Municipal
Liquor Operations Director; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works
Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; and Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City
Manager
Item #1 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONFIRM
THE APPOINTMENT OF KRISTIN ASHER AS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD S.R. NO. 124
Mayor Goettel stated that she thought this was a great appointment.
Council Member Howard recounted all the assistance that Ms. Asher gave him with respect to
getting up to speed on traffic and transportation issues.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott to approve confirmation of the appointment of Kristin Asher as Public
Works Director for the City of Richfield.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #2 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AND THE FIRST READING OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND
ANTENNAS IN CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE RIGHT-OF-WAYS THROUGHOUT
THE CITY S.R. NO. 125
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 125.
Council Members asked for further information regarding the need for the moratorium and
what led up to this request.
Finance Manager Regis summarized the events that led up to the moratorium request.
Special Meeting Minutes -2- August 24, 2015
M/Goettel, S/Garcia that this constitutes the first reading of an ordinance establishing a one-
year moratorium on the consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City,
County, and State right-of-ways throughout the City and that the following resolution be adopted and
that it be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 11100
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSIDERATION OF WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS IN CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE RIGHT-
OF-WAYS, AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11100.
Item #3 DISCUSSION OF THE 2015 REVISED/2016 PROPOSED BUDGET AND 2016
PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY
City Manager Devich led off the discussion by making some overall comments that indicated
the biggest challenges that were addressed in preparing this year's budget and tax levy.
Finance Manager Regis presented the 2015 Revised/2016 Proposed Budget and 2016
preliminary tax levy. He covered all of the major aspects of the General Fund revenues and
expenditures, the elements of the overall tax levy and its predicted impacts on residential properties.
Finance Manager Regis, Assistant City Manager Dmytrenko, and the City's department
directors presented a summary of each of their respective departmental budgets, including
Enterprise, General, and Special Revenue Funds.
There was general discussion of the budget by the City Council and staff including responses
to specific questions regarding the various departments.
Mayor Goettel thanked the staff for their work on the budget. The general consensus of the
City Council was that they agreed with the direction of the 2016 budget and tax levy.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p.m.
Date Approved: September 8, 2015.
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich Steven L. Devich
Acting City Clerk City Manager
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.A.
STAFF REPORT NO. 126
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
8/31/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending the City's Zoning Code
and a resolution approving summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance would
clarify regulations related to accessory dwelling units.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 24th of this year the City Council approved regulations to allow accessory dwelling units in the R
(Single-Family) and R-1 (Love-Density Single-Family) Residential Districts. The summary of proposed
regulations that was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council included the following statement:
"Units may be internal to a primary structure, attached to a primary structure or detached (in an
accessory garage structure)."
The intent of the regulations was to allow detached accessory dwelling units only as a part of a detached
garage, as opposed to a stand-alone additional structure on the lot. This limitation, as well as some of the other
adopted regulations, is intended to limit the potential for recreational vehicles or other similar structures to be
used as permanent living space. The regulations that were adopted are intended to allow accessory dwelling
units in a way that blends in with the single-family character of the neighborhood; properties with accessory
dwelling units would be largely indistinguishable from those without. The language requiring that detached
accessory units be a component of a detached garage was inadvertently left out of the actual text. The adopted
regulations would make it difficult for this type of unit to be approved, but staff feels it would be best to explicitly
state our intent.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Approve the ordinance amending the Richfield City Code to clarify regulations related to
accessory dwelling units.
• Approve the resolution allowing summary publication of an ordinance related to accessory
dwelling unit regulations.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Discussed in Executive Summary
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
Summary of Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) Regulations:
• Units may be internal to a primary structure, attached to a primary structure or detached (in an
accessory garage structure).
• Exterior materials must match existing structures.
• No more than one ADU shall be allowed on a lot.
• ADUs shall be permitted as an accessory to single-family homes only.
• The ADU shall not create a separate tax parcel.
• An owner of the property must occupy at least one dwelling unit on the lot as their primary place of
residence and homesteading is required.
• A rental license shall be required in accordance with current City requirements.
• Minimum area: 300 square feet; Maximum area: 800 square feet or the size of the principal
dwelling, whichever is less.
• Principal dwelling units must continue to meet minimum floor area requirements of the R and R-1
Districts (960 and 1,100 square feet, respectively) or not increase the degree of nonconformity.
• Creation of an internal or attached ADU shall not result in the creation of additional entrances facing
the public street.
• Conversion of garage space without replacement of the garage space (up to 2 spaces) is not
permitted.
• A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in order to add an ADU of any kind.
Summary Publication
• In instances where the full text of an amendment is cumbersome and the expense of publication of
the full text is not justified, the City is permitted to publish a summary of the approved text.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 27, 2015.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper in accordance with State
and Local requirements. No members of the public spoke.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
• A first reading of this ordinance was approved by the Council on August 11, 2015.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S .
None
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Ordinance Ordinance
❑ Resolution Resolution Letter
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO
CLARIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 514.05, Subdivision 8 of the Richfield City Code relating to
allowable accessory uses in the R District is amended to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Internal, attached, and detached accessory dwelling units shall
be allowed provided that:
a) The principal residential structure is a permitted or conditional single-
family dwelling;
b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a lot;
c) The lot must meet current minimum width and depth requirements;
d) The creation of an accessory dwelling unit shall not create a separate
tax parcel;
e) An owner of the property must occupy at least one dwelling unit on the
lot as their primary place of residence. Proof of homesteading shall be
required and variances from this provision shall not be considered;
f) A rental license for the non-owner-occupied unit shall be required in
accordance with Section 407 of the City Code;
g) Accessory dwelling units must have a minimum area of 300 square
feet and cannot exceed 800 square feet or the gross floor area of the
principal dwelling, whichever is less;
h) Principal dwelling units must continue to meet minimum floor area
requirements or not increase the degree of nonconformity in this
matter;
i) The primary exterior materials of an attached accessory dwelling unit
must match those of the principal structure. Exterior materials for new
construction related to any type of accessory dwelling unit must match
the structure to which it is attached;
j) The creation of an attached or internal accessory dwelling unit shall not
result in the creation of additional entrances facing the public street on
the primary structure;
k) Exterior stairways leading to an upper story accessory dwelling unit
shall be allowed so long as the staircase and railing are not
constructed with raw or unfinished lumber;
1) Detached accessory dwelling units are permitted only as a part of an
approved accessory garage structure.
Im)Conversion of garage space to an accessory dwelling unit is prohibited
unless the garage space is replaced. Space within a garage that
exceeds what is necessary for two vehicles may be converted without
replacement; and
n�n)A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in order to
add an accessory dwelling unit of any kind.
Section 2 Subsection 518.05, Subdivision 8 of the Richfield City Code relating to
allowable accessory uses in the R-1 District is amended to read as
follows:
Subd. 8. Internal, attached, and detached accessory dwelling units shall
be allowed provided that:
a) The principal residential structure is a permitted or conditional single-
family dwelling;
b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a lot;
c) The lot must meet current minimum width and depth requirements;
d) The creation of an accessory dwelling unit shall not create a separate
tax parcel;
e) An owner of the property must occupy at least one dwelling unit on the
lot as their primary place of residence. Proof of homesteading shall be
required and variances from this provision shall not be considered;
f) A rental license for the non-owner-occupied unit shall be required in
accordance with Section 407 of the City Code;
g) Accessory dwelling units must have a minimum area of 300 square
feet and cannot exceed 800 square feet or the gross floor area of the
principal dwelling, whichever is less;
h) Principal dwelling units must continue to meet minimum floor area
requirements or not increase the degree of nonconformity in this
matter;
i) The primary exterior materials of an attached accessory dwelling unit
must match those of the principal structure. Exterior materials for new
construction related to any type of accessory dwelling unit must match
the structure to which it is attached;
j) The creation of an attached or internal accessory dwelling unit shall not
result in the creation of additional entrances facing the public street on
the primary structure;
k) Exterior stairways leading to an upper story accessory dwelling unit
shall be allowed so long as the staircase and railing are not
constructed with raw or unfinished lumber;
1) Detached accessory dwelling units are permitted only as a part of an
approved accessory garage structure.
tm)Conversion of garage space to an accessory dwelling unit is prohibited
unless the garage space is replaced. Space within a garage that
exceeds what is necessary for two vehicles may be converted without
replacement; and
mn)A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in order to
add an accessory dwelling unit of any kind.
Section 12 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION
OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance adds language to clarify that detached accessory dwelling units are
permitted only as a part of an approved detached garage and not as a standalone
structure.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.13.
STAFF REPORT NO. 127
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
8/28/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a the approval of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a Local
Road Improvement Program General Fund Predesign or Design Grant Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for$2,146,842 to be used for the design of the 77th Street Extension and
Crossing of Trunk Highway 77.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City was awarded up to $2,500,000 in the 2014 Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) to be used
towards the preliminary and final design of the 77th Street E)dension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing. The
program is administered by MnDOT and requires a grant agreement as part of the process to release funds.
Once the agreement is in place, the LRIP funds will be available immediately for design in the amount of
$2,146,842.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a Local Road
Improvement Program General Fund Predesign or Design Grant Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for$2,146,842 to be used for the design of the 77th Street Extension and
Crossing of Trunk Highway 77.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• The cost estimate to complete the 77th Street Underpass, including design, right of way, and
construction is $22.5 million.
• The 77th Street Underpass was earmarked in 2014 legislation to be funded through the LRIP;
however, a total was not included in the earmark.
• After considerable negotiation, MnDOT agreed to award up to $2.5 Million for the design of
the project with the understanding that additional money could be awarded in the future
once design was in progress or complete.
• The LRIP funds can only be used for consultant work. City staff time will be covered using city
funds.
• MnDOT administers the LRIP funding and requires a grant agreement with the City.
• According to MnDOT, any remaining portion of the$2.5M after design is complete will go back into
the LRIP for redistribution to other projects.
• An additional $10 Million for the 77th Street project was included in the 2015 bonding bill to be used
for right-of-way acquisition and construction costs.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etcy
• Increasing capacity of the 1-494 corridor and the 77th Street crossing of TH 77 are identified in the
City's Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 - Transportation).
• On December 10, 2013, the City Council approved an Official Map for 77th Street including the
extension and underpass of TH 77.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Design and right-of-way acquisition must be complete to make the project"shovel ready."
• The remaining funding gap on the project is$10 Million.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The grant funds will be used to cover the consultant design costs.
• Other city funds will be used for staff time.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the grant agreement and will be available at the meeting for questions.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
The Council may choose to reject the LRIP Grant Agreement and direct staff on how to proceed; however, this
would delay the start of design work.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None anticipated
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D ResulUU011 Resolution Letter
D Grant Agreement Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO
ENTER INTO A LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(LRIP) GENERAL FUND PREDESIGN OR DESIGN GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR $2,146,842 TO BE USED FOR THE
DESIGN OF THE 77TH STREET EXTENSION AND
CROSSING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation
for a grant from the Minnesota State Transportation fund for the 77th Street Extension and
Trunk Highway 77 Crossing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a Local Road Improvement Program
General Fund Grant for $2,146,842; and
WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to complete preliminary and final
design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of
more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor and City
Manager to enter into a Local Road Improvement Program General Fund
Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for
$2,146,842.
2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the funds in
accordance with the grant agreement and the terms described by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
3. The City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby agree to the terms and
conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.50,
subdivision 5, clause (3), and will pay any additional amount by which the
cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Minnesota State
Transportation Fund any amount appropriated for the project but not required.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
09082015 LRIP General Fund Grant
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP)
GENERAL FUND PREDESIGN OR DESIGN LRIP GRANT AGREEMENT
This Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") and the
LRIP grantee named below is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 174.50 and pursuant
to Minn. Laws 2014 Chapter 295. The provisions in that section and the Exhibits attached hereto
and incorporated by reference constitute this Agreement and the persons signing below agree to
fully comply with all of the requirements of this Agreement. This Agreement will be effective on
the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes §16C.05, subdivision
1. Public Entity(LRIP grantee) name, address and contact person:
_City of Richfield
1901 E 66th Street
Richfield MN 55423
Contact: _Jeff Pearson, Transportation En_g neer_
2. Project(s):
Amount of Amount of Required
Name of Project LRIP Funds Matching Funds Completion Date
77th Street $2,146,842 $0 01/31/17
Underpass Design
3. Total Amount of LRIP grant for all projects under this Agreement: $_2,146,842
4. The following Exhibits for each project are attached and incorporated by reference as part
of this Agreement:
Exhibit A Completed Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule
Exhibit B Project Completion Schedule
Exhibit C General Fund Financed Property Certification
Exhibit D LRIP grant Application
Exhibit E LRIP grantee Resolution Approving LRIP grant Agreement
Exhibit F General Terms and Conditions
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
5. Additional requirements, if any:
6. Any modification of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.
(The remaining portion of this page was intentionally left blank.)
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
PUBLIC ENTITY (LRIP GRANTEE)
By:
Title: Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Date:
By:
Title: Steve Devich, City Manager
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Title: State Aid Program Engineer
Date:
OFFICE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
By:
Contract Administrator
Date:
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT A
SOURCE AND USE OF FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT
SOURCES OF FUNDS USES OF FUNDS
Entity SupplyingFunds Amount Expenses Amount
..... ................................................................................................... ..... ..........:................................................
.....................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
State Funds: Items Paid for with
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
LRIP grant $_2,146,842 LRIP rant Funds:
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... ................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Consultant Design $_2,146,842_
............................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Services
Other: $
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................,.....................................................................................
$ $
$ $
$ $
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Subtotal $ 2,146,842 Subtotal $ 2,146,842
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Public EntityFunds: Items aid for with Non-
................................................................ ................................................................................................................ ..... paid
Matching Funds $ LRIP rant Funds:
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................... .............................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Other: $ $
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$ $
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Prepaid Project Expenses $ Prepaid Project Expenses $
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
$ $
$ $
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Subtotal $ Subtotal $
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TOTAL FUNDS $_2,146,842_ = TOTAL PROJECT $_2,146,842_
COSTS
............................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................:.....................................................................................
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE
ATTACHED— SEE NEXT PAGE
45 \ \
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT C
NOT APPLICABLE
GENERAL FUND FINANCED PROPERTY CERTIFICATION
(Complete only one Certification for all projects)
S.A.P. _-_-_
State of Minnesota
General Fund Financed Property
The undersigned states that it has a fee simple, leasehold and/or easement interest in the
real property located in the County(ies) of , State of Minnesota that is generally
described or illustrated graphically in Attachment 1 attached hereto and all improvements
thereon (the "Restricted Property') and acknowledges that the Restricted Property is or may
become State general fund-financed property. To the extent that the Restricted Property is or
becomes State general fund-financed property, the undersigned acknowledges that:
A. The Restricted Property is State general fund-financed property under Minn.
Stat. Sec. 174.52, is subject to the requirements imposed by that statute, and
cannot be sold, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise disposed of without the
approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget; and
B. The Restricted Property is subject to the provisions of the Local Road
Improvement Program LRIP grant Agreement between the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the undersigned dated ,
2015; and
C. The Restricted Property shall continue to be deemed State general fund-
financed property for 37.5 years or until the Restricted Property is sold with
the written approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and
Budget.
Date: , 20
[name of Public Entity LRIP grantee], a
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
Attachment 1 to Exhibit C
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RESTRICTED PROPERTY
NOT APPLICABLE
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT D
LRIP PREDESIGN/DESIGN GRANT APPLICATION
ATTACHED— SEE NEXT PAGE
Local Road Improvement Program Solicitation ' ' ' 'sx. MnDOT lState Aid tr Local Transportation
2014 Application Form $ 395 John Ireland Blvd,MS 500
St.Paul,MN 55155
Agency: City of Richfield
First Name: Jeff Last Name: Pearson
Address: 1901 E 66th Street City; Richfield
0
U
State: MN Phone Num: (612)861-9791 E-mail: jpearson@cityofrichfield.org
County Sponsor(if applicable):
Road Authority 2-City Road Authority Name Kristin Asher
c Route: 77th Street MnDOT District M- Metro
r
V
� County: 27HENNEPIN City/Township Richfield
d Project limits Termini
.0 1 (Termini)
a From Mile Post: 9 To Mile Post: 9 Length (mi): 0.5
Beg. Desc. Loc. 77th Street E&16th Avenue S End. Desc. Loc. 77th Street&Longellow Avenue
Brief Description of the Project:
Engineering of a 77th Street extension via underpass of TH 77 including traffic lanes, sidewalk, and
regional multi-use trail. Connection to existing roadways on east and west side of TH 77 corridor to
comlete "ring-road" reliever system parallel to 1-494 as started in the 1990s and consistent with the 2010
MnDOT Metro Highway System Investment Study.
Is your project on a route of regional significance? (check all that apply)
❑ Farm to Market artery ® Part of a 10-ton route system
® Part of an economic development plan ® Serves as a regional tourist destination
® Provides capacity or congestion relief to a ® Is a connection to the IRC system,
parallel trunk highway system or county road trunk highway or a county road
0
r
a Project's contribution to other local regional, or state economic developments or redevelopment
efforts:
p The 77th Street Underpass Project will directly connect the developed 1-494 commercial strip to the
following destinations:
- MSP International Airport
-Commercial shipping centers
- Metro Transit South Garage
- Mall of America/Bloomington South Loop area.
The project will connect to identified redevelopment areas along both 1-494 and TH 77.
Local Road Improvement Program Solicitation '�
� � � MnDOT!State Aid iar Local Transportation
2014 Application Form $ r 395 John Ireland Bled,MS 500
` y St.Paul,MN 55155
ur r:ri.
Identify the transportation deficiency that the project will address
and the proposed saftey or engineering strategy.
The extension of 77th Street under TH 77 will facilitate the ability to consolidate freeway access at
Portland Ave and Lyndale Ave and remove access points at 12th Ave and Nicollet Ave along 1-494. This
access consolidation will improve safety and traffic flow on 1-494. The connection to 24th Ave that the
77th Street underpass provides is identified in the 2010 Metro Highway System Investment Study as a
necessary component in this access control implementation.
c The consolidation of Nicollet, Portland, and 12th Ave access ramps is identified here: http://
www.metrocouncil.org/getattachment/b6ab4a4O-lfl l-4612-8df3-bd796726ffaf/.aspx. This graphic was used
CL throughout the study process and the final report (http://www.metrocouncii.org/getattachment/e0a8a905-
w 4a5d-499e-a60a-05e302c00333/.aspx). Appendix A (http://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Publications-
p And-Resources/MHSISAppACorridorEvaluationSheets-pdf.aspx) makes reference to access modification
along 1-494 as a consideration in the effort to reduce traffic congestion in the corridor.
Consolidation of the ramps along 1-494 is consistent with SHSP Strategy M.3)Access Management.
MnDOT and the City have historically agreed that the closure of the Nicollet Avenue ramps and the
consolidation of the 12th Avenue ramps to Portland Avenue will not occur until 77th Street is fully
connected to the 24th Avenue access to 1-494. This underpass will complete that connection.
Construction Year(select one) 2016
Does the project have any historical/archeological impacts?
Q No 0 Yes, Describe:
c
What is the project development status?
..
W
Q Design work has not started 0 Design in progress 0 Plans have been approved
a
What is the Right-Of-Way status on the project?
0 No R/W needed Q R/W needed but not yet acquired
Project funding sources:
c Federal State Aid Local/Other LRI P Total Cost
v 000 .000 .000 X14,68420 X14,68420
For Internal Use Only
District State Aid Engineer Signature-Review and Approval Date
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT E
LRIP GRANTEE RESOLUTION APPROVING LRIP GRANT AGREEMENT
ATTACHED— SEE NEXT PAGE
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO
ENTER INTO A LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(LRIP) GENERAL FUND PREDESIGN OR DESIGN GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR $2,146,842 TO BE USED FOR THE
DESIGN OF THE 77TH STREET EXTENSION AND
CROSSING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation
for a grant from the Minnesota State Transportation fund for the 77th Street Extension and
Trunk Highway 77 Crossing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a Local Road Improvement Program
General Fund Grant for $2,146,842; and
WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to complete preliminary and final
design of the 77th Street Extension and Trunk Highway 77 Crossing; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of
more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor and City
Manager to enter into a Local Road Improvement Program General Fund
Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for
$2,146,842.
2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the funds in
accordance with the grant agreement and the terms described by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
3. The City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby agree to the terms and
conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.50,
subdivision 5, clause (3), and will pay any additional amount by which the
cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Minnesota State
Transportation Fund any amount appropriated for the project but not required.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
09082015 LRIP General Fund Grant
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
EXHIBIT F
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP) GENERAL FUND GRANTS
(Applicable to each project.)
Article I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01 Defined Terms. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have
the meanings set out respectively after each such term (the meanings to be equally applicable to
both the singular and plural forms of the terms defined), unless the context specifically indicates
otherwise:
"Advance(s)" — means an advance made or to be made by MnDOT to the Public
Entity and disbursed in accordance with the provisions contained in Article V hereof.
"Agreement" — means the Local Road Improvement Program grant agreement
between the Public Entity and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to which this
Exhibit is attached.
"Certification" —means the certification, in the form attached as Exhibit C, in which
the Public Entity acknowledges that its interest in the Real Property is subject to the
provisions in this agreement.
"Commissioner" - means the Commissioner of Management and Budget and any
designated representatives thereof.
"Event of Default" - means those events set forth in Section 4.01.
"LRIP grant" - means a grant from MnDOT to the Public Entity under the Local Road
Improvement Program in the amount specified in the Agreement, as such amount may be
modified under provisions hereof.
"Public Entity" - means the grantee of the LRIP grant and identified as the Public
Entity in the Agreement.
"Predesign Stage" - means the performance of predesign or design functions relating
to the Public Entity's acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the
Real Property and, in addition and if applicable, the acquisition, improvement, renovation,
rehabilitation, or new construction of a facility.
"Real Property" - means real property identified in the Agreement on which the
Project is located.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
Article II
LRIP GRANT
Section 2.01 LRIP grant of Monies. MnDOT shall issue the LRIP grant to the Public
Entity and disburse the proceeds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The LRIP
grant is not intended to be a loan.
Section 2.02 Use of LRIP Grant Proceeds. The Public Entity shall use the proceeds of
the LRIP grant to perform, complete and fully pay for the Predesign Stage.
Section 2.03 Completion of Predesign Stage. The Public Entity shall diligently pursue
and complete, or cause to be completed, the Predesign Stage and pay all of the costs related
thereto.
Section 2.04 Public Entity Representations and Warranties. With respect to the
Predesign Stage the Public Entity represents and warrants to MnDOT as follows:
A. It has legal authority to enter into, execute and deliver this Agreement, and it has
taken all actions necessary to its execution and delivery of this Agreement.
B. This Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Public Entity
enforceable against the Public Entity in accordance with its terms.
C. It will comply with all of the terms, conditions, provisions, covenants,
requirements, and warranties contained in this Agreement.
D. All of the information it has submitted or will submit to MnDOT or the
Commissioner relating to the LRIP Grant or the disbursement of the LRIP Grant is and will
be true and correct.
E. It is not in violation of any provisions of its charter or of the laws of the State of
Minnesota, and there are no actions, suits, or proceedings pending, or to its knowledge
threatened, before any judicial body or governmental authority, against or affecting it
relating to the Predesign Stage, and it is not in default with respect to any order, writ,
injunction, decree, or demand of any court or any governmental authority which would
impair its ability to enter into this Agreement or to perform any of the acts required of it in
this Agreement.
F. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor compliance with any
of the terms, conditions, requirements, or provisions contained herein is prevented by, is a
breach of, or will result in a breach of, any term, condition, or provision of any agreement
or document to which it is now a party or by which it is bound.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
G. It will use the LRIP grant solely to reimburse itself for expenditures it has
already made, or will make, to perform and complete the Predesign Stage.
H. The Predesign Stage will be performed and completed in full compliance with
all applicable laws, statutes, Mules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state,
or local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the Predesign Stage.
I. It has complied with the matching funds requirement, if any, contained in
Section 6.18.
J. It will supply or cause to be supplied whatever funds that are needed above and
beyond the amount of the LRIP grant to complete and fully pay for the Predesign Stage.
K. It will furnish to MnDOT as soon as possible and in any event within 7 calendar
days after the Public Entity has obtained knowledge of the occurrence of each Event of
Default, or each event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both would
constitute an Event of Default, a statement setting forth details of each Event of Default, or
event which with the giving of notice or upon the lapse of time or both would constitute an
Event of Default, and the action which the Public Entity proposes to take with respect
thereto.
L. It will promptly notify MnDOT if and when it acquires an interest in or
improves the Real Property, or acquires an interest in or improves, renovates, rehabilitates,
or newly constructs a facility.
M. It shall furnish such satisfactory evidence regarding the representations and
warranties described herein as may be required and requested in writing by either MnDOT
or the Commissioner.
Section 2.05 Termination/Modification of LRIP grant. If the Predesign Stage is not
started within five (5) years after the effective date of the Agreement or the LRIP grant has not
been disbursed within four (4) years after the date the Project was started, MnDOT's obligation
to fund the LRIP grant shall terminate. In such event, (i) if none of the LRIP grant has been
disbursed by such date MnDOT shall have no obligation to fund the LRIP the Agreement shall
terminate and (ii) if some but not all of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date, MnDOT
shall have no further obligation to provide any additional funding for the LRIP grant and the
Agreement shall remain in force but shall be modified to reflect the amount of the LRIP grant
that was actually disbursed and the Public Entity is still obligated to complete the Project by the
Completion Date.
In addition, if all of the LRIP grant has not been disbursed on or before the date that is 5
years from the effective date of this Agreement, then MnDOT's obligation to continue to fund
the LRIP grant shall terminate, and in such event(a) if none of the LRIP grant has been disbursed
by such date then MnDOT's obligation to fund any portion of the LRIP grant shall terminate and
this Agreement shall also terminate and no longer be of any force or effect, and (b) if some but
not all of the LRIP grant has been disbursed by such date then MnDOT shall have no further
obligation to provide any additional funding under the LRIP grant and this Agreement shall
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
remain in full force and effect but shall be modified and amended to reflect the amount of the
LRIP grant that was actually disbursed as of such date.
In the event that the legislation that authorized the LRIP grant is amended to increase or
reduce the amount of the LRIP grant or in any other way, then this Agreement shall be deemed to
have been automatically modified in accordance with such amendment and the amount of the
LRIP grant shall also be automatically modified in accordance with such amendment.
Section 2.06 Excess Funds. If the full amount of the LRIP grant and any matching
funds referred to in Section 6.18 are not needed to complete the Predesign Stage, then, unless
language in the legislation that authorized the LRIP grant indicates otherwise, the LRIP grant
shall be reduced by the amount not needed.
Article III
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF
ANY REAL PROPERTY
Section 3.01 Applicability. The provisions contained in this Article III are in addition
to and not in replacement of the other provisions contained in this Agreement, and shall only
apply in the event that and at the time that the Public Entity acquires an interest in and, if
applicable, improves the Real Property. Such application shall occur even if the Public Entity
does not receive any additional monies from MnDOT for the subsequent acquisition of an
interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property. If the Public Entity never
acquires an interest the Real Property, then this Article III shall have no effect.
Section 3.02 Operation of the Real Property. The Real Property must be used by the
public entity in conjunction with or for the operation of a county highway, county state-aid
highway, town road, or city street and for other uses customarily associated therewith, such as
trails and utility corridors, and for no other purposes of uses. The Public Entity shall have no
intention on the effective date of the Agreement to use the Real Property as a trunk highway or
any part of a trunk highway. The Public Entity must annually determine that the Real Property is
being used for the purposes specified in this Section and, upon written request by MnDOT, shall
supply a Certification.
Section 3.03 Execution and Delivery of Certification. The Public Entity shall deliver a
Certification to MnDOT in the form attached as Exhibit C with all of the recording information
displayed thereon.
Section 3.04 Public Entity Representations and Warranties. With respect to the
Public Entity's acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real
Property the Public Entity covenants with and represents and warrants to MnDOT as follows:
A. It has legal authority to execute, deliver and perform the Agreement and all
documents referred to therein, and it has taken all actions necessary to its execution and
delivery of such documents.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
B. It will take all actions necessary to its execution, and if necessary, the recording
and delivery of the Certification.
C. The Agreement and all other documents referred to therein are the legal, valid
and binding obligations of the Public Entity enforceable against the Public Entity in
accordance with their respective terms.
D. With respect to the Real Property it will hold either (i) fee simple title, (ii) a
lease or easement, in form and substance acceptable to MnDOT and that cannot be
prematurely cancelled or terminated without the prior written consent of MnDOT, for a
team of 37.5 years if there is no facility, or (iii) a lease or easement, in form and substance
acceptable to MnDOT and that cannot be prematurely cancelled or terminated without the
prior written consent of MnDOT, for a term of years equal to or greater than 125% of the
expected useful life of the structures and improvements which make up the facility if there
is a facility, and, in addition, will possesses all easements necessary for the operation,
maintenance and management of the Real Property in the manner specified in Section 3.02.
E. Its acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, improvement of the Real
Property will be performed in full and complete compliance with all applicable laws,
statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political
subdivisions having jurisdiction over the Real Property.
F. It will obtain all applicable licenses, permits, and bonds required for its
acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, improvement of the Real Property and, in
addition and if applicable, its acquisition, improvement, renovation, rehabilitation, or new
construction of the facility.
G. Its use of the Real Property will be performed in full compliance with all
applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or
local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the use of the Real Property.
H. It will obtain all licenses, permits, and bonds required for its use of the Real
Property.
1. In its acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real
Property and, in addition and if applicable, the acquisition, improvement, renovation,
rehabilitation, or new construction it will comply with all of the terms contained in this
Agreement and the Certification.
J. It will not allow any lien or encumbrance that is prior and superior to the
Certification to be created or imposed upon the Real Property, whether such lien or
encumbrance is voluntary or involuntary and including but not limited to a mechanic's lien
or a mortgage lien, without the prior written consent of MnDOT.
K. As of the date of this Agreement it is not in violation of any of the provisions of
its charter or of the laws of the State of Minnesota nor are there any actions, suits, or
proceedings pending, or to its knowledge threatened, before or by any judicial body or
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
governmental authority, against, or affecting it that would (i) prohibit it from entering into,
recording, and delivering the Certification, (ii) affect its ability to acquire an interest in and,
if applicable, improve the Real Property or operate the Real Property for the purpose
delineated in Section 3.02 or (iii) if applicable, affect its ability to acquire, improve,
renovate, rehabilitate, or newly construct a facility or operate the facility for the purpose
delineated in Section 3.02. In addition, it will not take any action that would be in violation
of such charter or laws that would prohibit or prevent it from performing such acts.
L. As of the date of this Agreement there are not any actions, suits, or proceedings
pending, or to its knowledge threatened, before or by any judicial body or governmental
authority, against, or affecting it that would (i)prohibit it from entering into,recording, and
delivering the Certification, (ii) affect its ability to acquire an interest in and, if applicable,
improve the Real Property or operate the Real Property for the purpose delineated in
Section 3.02, or (iii) if applicable, affect its ability to acquire, improve, renovate,
rehabilitate, or newly construct a facility or operate the facility for the purpose delineated in
Section 3.02.
M. As of the date of this Agreement it is not in default with respect to any order,
writ, injunction, decree, or demand of any court or any governmental authority which
would prohibit it from (i) executing, recording, and delivering the Certification, (ii)
acquiring an interest in and, if applicable, improving the Real Property or operating the
Real Property for the purpose delineated in Section 3.02, or (iii) if applicable, acquiring,
improving, renovating, rehabilitating, or newly constructing a facility or operating the
facility for the purpose delineated in Section 3.02. In addition, it will not take any action
that would cause a default under any such order, writ, injunction, decree, or demand of any
court or any governmental authority to occur that would prevent the performance of such
acts.
N. As of the date of this Agreement, neither (i) its execution, recording, or delivery
of the Certification, (ii) its ability to acquire an interest in and, if applicable, improve the
Real Property or operate the Real Property for the purpose delineated in Section 3.02, or
(iii) if applicable, its ability to acquire, improve, renovate, rehabilitate, or newly construct
the facility and operate the facility for the purpose delineated in Section 3.02, will be
prevented by, be a breach of, or will result in a breach of, any term, condition, or provision
of any agreement or document to which it is a party or by which it is bound. In addition, it
will not enter into any agreement or document that would prevent the performance of such
acts.
O. As of the date of this Agreement its acquisition of an interest in and, if
applicable, improvement of the Real Property or operation of the Real Property for the
purpose delineated in Section 3.02 and, in addition and if applicable, its acquisition,
improvement, renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction of a facility or operation of
the facility for the purpose delineated in Section 3.02 will not violate any applicable zoning
or use statute, ordinance, building code, rule or regulation, or any covenant or agreement of
record. In addition, it will not take any action that would cause such a violation.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
Section 3.05 Sale. The Public Entity shall not sell its interest in the Real Property unless
all of the following provisions have been complied with fully.
A. The Public Entity determines, by official action, that it is no longer usable or
needed as intended in the provisions of this agreement.
B. The sale is made as authorized by law.
C. The sale is for Fair Market Value.
D. Written notice of such proposed sale has been supplied to both MnDOT and the
Commissioner at least 30 days prior thereto.
The acquisition of the Public Entity's interest in the Real Property at a foreclosure
sale, acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure of the Public Entity's interest in the Real
Property or enforcement of a security interest in personal property used in the operation
thereof, by a lender that has provided monies for the acquisition of the Public Entity's
interest in or betterment of the Real Property shall not be considered a sale for the purposes
of this Agreement if after such acquisition the lender operates the Real Property in a
manner which is not inconsistent with the program specified in Section 3.02 and the lender
uses its best efforts to sell such acquired interest to a third party for Fair Market Value. The
lender's ultimate sale or disposition of the acquired interest in the Real Property shall be
deemed to be a sale for the purposes of this Agreement, and the proceeds thereof shall be
disbursed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3.07.
Section 3.06 Proceeds of a Sale. Upon the sale of the Public Entity's interest in the
Real Property the net proceeds thereof shall be disbursed in the following manner and order:
A. The first distribution shall be to the Commissioner in an amount equal to the
amount of the Grant actually disbursed, and if the amount of such net proceeds shall be less
than the amount of the Grant actually disbursed then all of such net proceeds shall be
distributed to the Commissioner.
B. The remaining portion, after the distribution specified in Section 3.06.A, shall
be distributed to pay in full any outstanding public or private debt incurred to acquire the
interest in or for the betterment of the Real Property in the order of priority of such debt.
C. The remaining portion, after the distributions specified in Sections 3.06.A & B,
shall be divided and distributed in proportion to the shares contributed to the acquisition of
the Public Entity's interest in or for the betterment of the Real Property by public and
private entities, including MnDOT but not including any private entity that has been paid in
full, that supplied funds in either real monies or like kind contributions for such acquisition
and betterment, and MnDOT's distribution shall be made to the Commissioner. Such
public and private entities may agree amongst themselves as to any redistribution of such
distributed funds.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
The Public Entity shall not be required to pay or reimburse MnDOT for any funds above
and beyond the full net proceeds of such sale, even if such net proceeds are less than the amount
of the Grant actually disbursed.
Section 3.07 Effect of Sale. Upon the occurrence of a sale that is made in conformance
with the provisions contained in Sections 3.05 and 3.06, this Agreement shall terminate and the
Real Property be released from the Certification.
Section 3.08 Insurance. If the Public Entity elects to maintain general comprehensive
liability insurance regarding the Real Property, then the Public Entity shall have MnDOT named
as an additional named insured therein.
Section 3.09 Condemnation. If all or any portion of the Real Property is condemned to
an extent that the Public Entity can no longer comply with the provisions contained in Section
3.02, then the Public Entity shall, at its sole option and discretion, either: (i) use or cause the
condemnation proceeds to be used to acquire an interest in additional real property needed for the
Public Entity to continue to comply with the provisions contained in Section 3.02 and, if
applicable, to fully or partially restore the facility and to provide or cause to be provided
whatever additional funds that may be needed for such purposes, or(ii) sell the remaining portion
of its interest in the Real Property in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3.06.
Any condemnation proceeds which are not used to acquire an interest in additional real property
shall be applied in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3.06 as if the Public
Entity's interest in the Real Property had been sold, and such amounts shall be credited against
the amounts due and owing under Section 3.06 upon the ultimate sale of the Public Entity's
interest in the Real Property. If the Public Entity elects to sell its interest in the portion of the
Real Property that remains after the condemnation, then such sale must occur within a reasonable
time period from the date the condemnation occurred and the cumulative sum of the
condemnation proceeds plus the proceeds of such sale must be applied in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 3.06, with the condemnation proceeds being so applied within a
reasonable time period from the date they are received by the Public Entity.
If MnDOT receives any condemnation proceeds referred to herein, MnDOT agrees to or
pay over to the Public Entity all of such condemnation proceeds so that the Public Entity can
comply with the requirements of this Section.
Section 3.10 Use, Maintenance, Repair and Alterations. The Public Entity shall not,
without the written consent of MnDOT and the Commissioner; (i) permit or allow the use of any
of the Real Property for any purpose other than the purposes specified in Section 3.02, (ii)
substantially alter any of the Real Property except such alterations as may be required by laws,
ordinances, or regulations, or such other alterations as may improve the Real Property by
increasing its value or which improve its ability to be used for the purposes set forth in Section
3.02, (iii) take any action which would unduly impair or depreciate the value of the Real
Property, (iv) abandon the Real Property, or (v) commit or permit any act to be done in or on the
Real Property in violation of any law, ordinance or regulation.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
If the Public Entity fails to maintain the Real Property in accordance with this section,
MnDOT may perform whatever acts and expend whatever funds necessary to so maintain the
Real Property, and the Public Entity irrevocably authorizes MnDOT to enter upon the Real
Property to perform such acts as may be necessary to so maintain the Real Property. Any actions
taken or funds expended by MnDOT shall be at its sole discretion, and nothing contained herein
shall require MnDOT to take any action or incur any expense and MnDOT shall not be
responsible, or liable to the Public Entity or any other entity, for any such acts that are performed
in good faith and not in a negligent manner. Any funds expended by MnDOT pursuant to this
Section shall be due and payable on demand by MnDOT and will bear interest from the date of
payment by MnDOT at a rate equal to the lesser of the maximum interest rate allowed by law or
18%per year based upon a 365-day year.
Section 3.11 Inspection by MnDOT. The Public Entity shall allow MnDOT to inspect
the Real Property upon reasonable request by MnDOT and without interfering with the normal
use of the Real Property.
Section 3.12 Applicability to Real Property. This Agreement applies to the Public
Entity's present or future interest in the Real Property and if a facility currently exists or will
exist in the future the facility. The term "if applicable" appearing before the term "facility" is
meant to indicate that the this Agreement will apply to a facility if one exists, and if no facility
exists then this Agreement will only apply to the Public Entity's interest in the Real Property.
Article IV
EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 4.01 Event(s) of Default. The following events shall, unless waived in writing
by MnDOT, constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement upon MnDOT giving the
Public Entity 30 days written notice of such event, and Public Entity's failure to cure such event
during such 30 day time period for those Events of Default that can be cured within 30 days or
within whatever time period is needed to cure those Events of Default that cannot be cured
within 30 days as long as the Public Entity is using its best efforts to cure and is making
reasonable progress in curing such Events of Default, however, in no event shall the time period
to cure any Event of Default exceed 6 months. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any of the
following events that cannot be cured shall, unless waived in writing by MnDOT, constitute an
Event of Default under this Agreement immediately upon either MnDOT or the Commissioner of
Management and Budget giving the Public Entity written notice of such event
A. If any representation, covenant, or warranty made by the Public Entity herein, in
any other document furnished pursuant to this Agreement, or in order to induce MnDOT to
disburse any of the LRIP grant, shall prove to have been untrue or incorrect in any material
respect or materially misleading as of the time such representation, covenant, or warranty
was made.
B. If the Public Entity fails to fully comply with any provision, term, condition,
covenant, or warranty contained in this Agreement.
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
Section 4.02 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and at any time
thereafter until such Event of Default is cured to the satisfaction of MnDOT, MnDOT or the
Commissioner may enforce any or all of the following remedies.
A. MnDOT may refrain from disbursing the LRIP grant; provided, however,
MnDOT may make such a disbursement after the occurrence of an Event of Default
without thereby waiving its rights and remedies hereunder.
B. The Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, may demand
that the portion of the LRIP grant already disbursed to the Public Entity be returned to it,
and upon such demand the Public Entity shall return such portion to the Commissioner.
C. Either MnDOT or the as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, may
enforce any additional remedies they may have in law or equity.
The rights and remedies herein specified are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or
remedies that MnDOT or the Commissioner would otherwise possess.
If the Public Entity does not repay any portion of the amount specified in Section 4.02.13
within thirty (30) days of demand by either MnDOT or the Commissioner, then such amount
may, unless precluded by law, be taken from or off-set against any aids or other monies that the
Public Entity is entitled to receive from the State of Minnesota.
Section 4.03 Notification of Event of Default. The Public Entity shall furnish to both
MnDOT and the Commissioner, as soon as possible and in any event within 7 days after it has
obtained knowledge of the occurrence of each Event of Default or each event which with the
giving of notice or lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default, a statement setting
forth details of each Event of Default or event which with the giving of notice or upon the lapse
of time or both would constitute an Event of Default and the action which the Public Entity
proposes to take with respect thereto.
Section 4.04 Effect of Event of Default. If an Event of Default occurs and the Public
Entity is required to and does return the amount specified in Section 4.02.13 to the
Commissioner, then the following shall occur.
A. This Agreement shall survive and remain in full force and effect.
B. The amount returned by the Public Entity shall be credited against any amount
that shall be due to the Commissioner under Section 4.02.B, and against any amount that
becomes due and payable because of any other Event of Default.
Article V
DISBURSEMENT OF LRIP GRANT PROCEEDS
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
Section 5.01 The Advances. MnDOT agrees, on the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth herein, to make Advances from the LRIP grant to the Public Entity from time to time in
an aggregate total amount equal to the amount of the LRIP grant. Provided, however, in
accordance with the provisions contained in Section 2.05, MnDOT's obligation to make
Advances shall terminate as of the day and date which occurs 5 years from the effective date of
this Agreement even if all of the LRIP grant has not been disbursed by such date.
Section 5.02 Draw Requisitions. Whenever the Public Entity desires a disbursement of
a portion of the LRIP grant, which shall be no more often than once each calendar month, the
Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT a Draw Requisition duly executed on behalf of the Public
Entity or its designee. Each Draw Requisition shall be submitted on or between the l st day and
the 15t1' day of the month in which an Advance is requested, and shall be submitted at least 7
calendar days before the date the Advance is desired. Each Draw Requisition shall be limited to
amounts equal to the portion of the Predesign Stage that has been completed since the submittal
of the last prior Draw Requisition.
At the time of submission of each Draw Requisition the Public Entity shall submit to
MnDOT such supporting evidence as may be requested by MnDOT to substantiate all payments
that are to be made out of the relevant Draw Requisition.
If on the date an Advance is desired the Public Entity has complied with all requirements of
this Agreement and MnDOT approves the relevant Draw Requisition and receives a current
construction report from the Inspecting Engineer recommending payment, then MnDOT shall
disburse the amount of the requested Advance to the Public Entity.
Section 5.03 Additional Funds. If MnDOT shall at any time in good faith determine
that the sum of the undisbursed amount of the LRIP grant plus the amount of all other funds
committed to the completion of the Predesign Stage is less than the amount required to pay all
costs and expenses of any kind which reasonably may be anticipated in connection with the
completion of the Predesign Stage, then MnDOT may send written notice thereof to the Public
Entity specifying the amount which must be supplied in order to provide sufficient funds to
complete the Predesign Stage. The Public Entity agrees that it will, within 10 calendar days of
receipt of any such notice, supply or have some other entity supply the amount of funds specified
in MnDOT's notice.
Section 5.04 Conditions Precedent to Any Advance. The obligation of MnDOT to
make any Advance hereunder (including the initial Advance) shall be subject to the following
conditions precedent:
A. MnDOT shall have received a Draw Requisition for such Advance specifying
the amount of funds being requested, which such amount when added to all prior requests
for an Advance shall not exceed the maximum amount of the LRIP grant set forth in
Section 1.01.
B. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to
MnDOT, that (i) the Public Entity has legal authority to and has taken all actions necessary
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
to enter into this Agreement, and (ii) this Agreement is binding on and enforceable against
the Public Entity.
C. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to
MnDOT, that that the Public Entity has sufficient funds to fully and completely pay for the
Predesign Stage and all other expenses that may occur in conjunction therewith.
D. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to
MnDOT, that the Public Entity is in compliance with the matching funds requirements, if
any, contained in Section 6.18.
E. MnDOT shall have received evidence, in form and substance acceptable to
MnDOT, that the Public Entity is in compliance with those provisions contained in
Attachment I attached.
F. No determination shall have been made by MnDOT that the amount of funds
committed to the completion of the Predesign Stage is less than the amount required to pay
all costs and expenses of any kind which reasonably may be anticipated in connection with
the completion of the Predesign Stage, or if such a determination has been made and notice
thereof sent to the Public Entity then the Public Entity has supplied or has caused some
other entity to supply the necessary funds in accordance with Section 5.03, or to provide
evidence acceptable to MnDOT that sufficient funds are available.
G. No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute an
Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or
time elapse shall have occurred and be continuing.
H. The Public Entity has supplied to MnDOT all other items that MnDOT may
reasonably require.
Article VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 6.01 Records Keeping and Reporting. The Public Entity shall maintain or
cause to be maintained books and records pertaining to the costs or expenses associated with the
completion of the Predesign Stage and shall allow MnDOT, auditors for MnDOT, the Legislative
Auditor for the State of Minnesota, or the State Auditor for the State of Minnesota, to inspect,
audit, copy, or abstract, all of such items. The Public Entity shall use generally accepted
accounting principles in the maintenance of such items, and shall retain all of such books and
records for a period of six years after the date that the Project is fully completed and placed into
operation.
Section 6.02 Data Practices. The Public Entity agrees with respect to any data that it
possesses regarding the LRIP grant, the Predesign Stage, and, if accomplished, the acquisition of
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property and, in addition the
contemplated use of the Real Property, to comply with all of the provisions and restrictions
contained in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act contained in Chapter 13 of the
Minnesota Statutes, as such may be amended, modified or replaced from time to time.
Section 6.03 Non-Discrimination. The Public Entity agrees to not engage in
discriminatory employment practices in the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if
accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real
Property or contemplated use of the facility, and it shall, with respect to such activities, fully
comply with all of the provisions contained in Minn. Stat. Chapters 363A and 181, as such may
subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time.
Section 6.04 Worker's Compensation. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of
the provisions relating to worker's compensation contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 176.181 Subd. 2 &
176.182, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or replaced from time to time, with
respect to the completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an
interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property.
Section 6.05 Antitrust Claims. The Public Entity hereby assigns to MnDOT and the
Commissioner all claims it may have for overcharges as to goods or services provided in its
completion of the Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if
applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property which
arise under the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota or of the United States of America.
Section 6.06 Prevailing Wages. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of the
applicable provisions contained in Chapter 177 of the Minnesota Statutes, and specifically those
provisions contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.435, as such may subsequently be
amended, modified or replaced from time to time, with respect to the completion of the
Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the
improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property.
Section 6.07 Liability. The Public Entity and MnDOT agree that they will, subject to
any indemnifications provided herein, be responsible for their own acts and the results thereof to
the extent authorized by law, and they shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and
the results thereof. The liability of both MnDOT and the Commissioner is governed by the
provisions contained in Minn. Stat. § 3.736, as such may subsequently be amended, modified or
replaced from time to time. If the Public Entity is a "municipality" as such term is used in
Chapter 466 of the Minnesota Statutes, then the liability of the Public Entity, including but not
limited to the indemnification provided under Section 6.08, is governed by the provisions
contained in such Chapter 466.
Section 6.08 Indemnification by the Public Entity. The Public Entity shall bear all
loss, expense (including attorneys' fees), and damage in connection with the completion of the
Predesign Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the
improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property, and agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
agents and employees, from all claims, demands and judgments made or recovered against
MnDOT, the Commissioner, and the State of Minnesota, their agents and employees, because of
bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, or because of damages to
property of MnDOT, the State of Minnesota, or others (including loss of use) from any cause
whatsoever, arising out of, incidental to, or in connection with the completion of the Predesign
Stage and, if accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the improvement
of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property, whether or not due to any act of
omission or commission, including negligence of the Public Entity or any Contractor or his or
their employees, servants or agents, and whether or not due to any act of omission or commission
(excluding, however, negligence or breach of statutory duty) of MnDOT, the Commissioner, and
the State of Minnesota, their employees, servants or agents.
The Public Entity further agrees to indemnify, save, and hold MnDOT, the Commissioner,
and the State of Minnesota, their agents and employees, harmless from all claims arising out of,
resulting from, or in any manner attributable to any violation by the Public Entity, its officers,
employees, or agents of any provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
including legal fees and disbursements paid or incurred to enforce the provisions contained in
Section 6.02.
The Public Entity's liability hereunder shall not be limited to the extent of insurance carried
by or provided by the Public Entity, or subject to any exclusion from coverage in any insurance
policy.
Section 6.09 Relationship of the Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement is
intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-
partners or a joint venture between the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, nor shall
the Public Entity be considered or deemed to be an agent, representative, or employee of either
MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota, in the performance of this Agreement,
the completion of the Predesign Stage, or, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an
interest in and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the
Real Property.
The Public Entity represents that it has already or will secure or cause to be secured all
personnel required for the performance of this Agreement, the completion of the Predesign Stage,
and, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in and, if applicable, the
improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real Property. All personnel of the
Public Entity or other persons while engaging in the performance of this Agreement, the
completion of the Predesign Stage, or, if and when accomplished, the acquisition of an interest in
and, if applicable, the improvement of the Real Property or contemplated use of the Real
Property shall not have any contractual relationship with either MnDOT, the Commissioner, or
the State of Minnesota, and shall not be considered employees of any of such entities. In
addition, all claims that may arise on behalf of said personnel or other persons out of
employment or alleged employment including, but not limited to, claims under the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota, claims of discrimination against the Public Entity,
its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of either
MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota. Such personnel or other persons shall
not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
either MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota including, but not limited to, tenure
rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, disability benefits, severance pay and
retirement benefits.
Section 6.10 Notices. In addition to any notice required under applicable law to be given
in another manner, any notices required hereunder must be in writing, and shall be sufficient if
personally served or sent by prepaid, registered, or certified mail (return receipt requested), to the
business address of the party to whom it is directed. Such business address shall be that address
specified below or such different address as may hereafter be specified, by either party by written
notice to the other:
To the Public Entity at: At the address indicated on the first page of the Agreement.
To MnDOT at:
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Office of State Aid
395 John Ireland Blvd., MS 500
Saint Paul, MN 55155
Attention: Patti Loken
To the Commissioner at:
Minnesota Department of Management and Budget
400 Centennial Office Bldg.
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Attention: Commissioner of Management and Budget
Section 6.11 Binding Effect and Assignment or Modification. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Public Entity and MnDOT, and their respective
successors and assigns. Provided, however, that neither the Public Entity nor MnDOT may
assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of
the other party. No change or modification of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be
binding on either the Public Entity or MnDOT unless such change or modification is in writing
and signed by an authorized official of the parry against which such change or modification is to
be imposed.
Section 6.12 Waiver. Neither the failure by the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the
Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, in any one or more instances to
insist upon the complete and total observance or performance of any term or provision hereof,
nor the failure of the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of
this Agreement, to exercise any right, privilege, or remedy conferred hereunder or afforded by
law shall be construed as waiving any breach of such term, provision, or the right to exercise
such right, privilege, or remedy thereafter. In addition, no delay on the part of either the Public
Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement, in
exercising any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
partial exercise of any right or remedy preclude other or further exercise thereof or the exercise
of any other right or remedy.
Section 6.13 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the documents, if any, referred to
and incorporated herein by reference embody the entire agreement between the Public Entity and
MnDOT, and there are no other agreements, either oral or written, between the Public Entity and
MnDOT on the subject matter hereof.
Section 6.14 Choice of Law and Venue. All matters relating to the validity,
construction, performance, or enforcement of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All legal actions initiated with respect to or arising from
any provision contained in this Agreement shall be initiated, filed and venued in the State of
Minnesota District Court located in the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.
Section 6.15 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is finally judged by any
court to be invalid, then the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, and they
shall be interpreted,performed, and enforced as if the invalid provision did not appear herein.
Section 6.16 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all of the matters
contained in this Agreement.
Section 6.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 6.18 Matching Funds. Any matching funds as shown on Page 1 and Exhibit A
of the Grant Agreement that are required to be obtained and supplied by the Public Entity must
either be in the form of (i) cash monies, (ii) legally binding commitments for money, or (iii)
equivalent funds or contributions, including equity, which have been or will be used to pay for
the Project. The Public Entity shall supply to MnDOT whatever documentation MnDOT may
request to substantiate the availability and source of any matching funds.
Section 6.19 Source and Use of Funds. The Public Entity represents to MnDOT and
the Commissioner that Exhibit A is intended to be and is a source and use of funds statement
showing the total cost of the Predesign Stage and all of the funds that are available for the
completion of the Predesign Stage, and that the information contained in such Exhibit A
correctly and accurately delineates the following information.
A. The total cost of the Predesign Stage detailing all of the major elements that
make up such total cost and how much of such total cost is attributed to each such major
element.
B. The source of all funds needed to complete the Predesign Stage broken down
among the following categories:
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
(i) State funds including the LRIP grant, identifying the source and amount of
such funds.
(ii) Matching funds, identifying the source and amount of such funds.
(iii) Other funds supplied by the Public Entity, identifying the source and
amount of such funds.
(iv) Loans, identifying each such loan, the entity providing the loan, the
amount of each such loan, the terms and conditions of each such loan, and
all collateral pledged for repayment of each such loan.
(v) Other funds, identifying the source and amount of such funds.
C. Such other financial information that is needed to correctly reflect the total
funds available for the completion of the Predesign Stage the source of such funds and the
expected use of such funds.
If any of the funds included under the source of funds have conditions precedent to the
release of such funds, then the Public Entity must provide to MnDOT and the Commissioner a
detailed description of such conditions and what is being done to satisfy such conditions.
The Public Entity shall also supply whatever other information and documentation that
MnDOT or the Commissioner may request to support or explain any of the information
contained in Exhibit A.
Section 6.20 Third-Party Beneficiary. The Public Entity and MnDOT agree that the
completion of the Predesign Stage will benefit the State of Minnesota, and the provisions and
requirements contained herein are for the benefit of both MnDOT and the State of Minnesota.
Therefore, the State of Minnesota, by and through its Commissioner, is and shall be a third-party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
Section 6.21 E-Verification. The Public Entity agrees and acknowledges that it is aware
of Minn. Stat. § 16C.075 regarding e-verification of employment of all newly hired employees to
confirm that such employees are legally entitled to work in the United States, and that it will, if
and when applicable, fully comply with such statute.
Section 6.22 Term of LRIP Grant Agreement. This Agreement shall, unless earlier
terminated in accordance with any of the provisions contained herein, remain in full force and
effect for the time period starting on the effective date of this Agreement and ending on the date
that corresponds to the date established by adding a time period equal to 125% of Useful Life of
the Real Property and, if applicable, facility to the date on which the Public Entity first acquires
an ownership interest in the Real Property and, if applicable, facility and puts such property into
use for the operation of the Governmental Program. If there are no uncured Events of Default as
of such date this Agreement shall terminate and no longer be of any force or effect, and the
Commissioner shall execute whatever documents are needed to release the Real Property and, if
applicable, facility from the effect of this Agreement and the Certification.
Section 6.23 American-Made Steel. Minnesota Laws 2014, Chapter 295, Section 21,
requires public entities receiving an appropriation of public money for a project in that act to
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 1001366
ensure those facilities are built with American-made steel, to the extent practicable. The Public
Entity shall comply with this requirement, and shall furnish any documentation pursuant thereto
reasonably requested by MnDOT.
Section 6.24 State Owned Property. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, the location of the work includes State-owned property as a necessary part of the
Project. State-owned property is not subject to those provisions, requirements, restrictions and
encumbrances applicable to "Real Property" as defined in Article I Section 1.01 of this
Agreement and"Restricted Property" as referenced in Exhibit C.
(The remaining portion of this page was intentionally left blank.)
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.C.
STAFF REPORT NO. 128
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
8/28/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased
trees from private property for work ordered in 2014 and scheduling a public hearing for October 13,
2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
According to Section 910 of the City Code, it has been determined that the health of trees within municipal
limits is threatened by shade tree diseases, and it is the City's responsibility to control and prevent the spread
of these diseases.
If the City has deemed it necessary to remove a diseased tree, the property owners have four options available
for private tree removal:
1. Remove the tree themselves.
2. Hire and pay for their own contractor.
3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal.
4. Hire the City's contractor and request the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax
In the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, 13 property owners chose the fourth
option. The total amount to be assessed is $27,235.34.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Adopt a resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation for the
proposed assessment roll for the removal of diseased trees from private property for work
ordered in 2014.
2. Set the public hearing date for October 13, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist homeowners
in the removal of diseased trees on private property. The following process is how the City ensures
property owners are aware of their diseased tree(s).
Notification to Property Owners
At time of marking for removal, paperwork is left at the property which includes:
• Removal deadline
• Why the tree was marked for removal
• Assessment Information
• Information regarding private contractors
• Card informing City of owners removal plans
• City Staff contacts for more information
If the tree becomes hazardous or is past the removal time limit an additional deadline letter is sent to
the property owner. The letter is sent to the last known owner, obtained from Hennepin
County Property Records and verified with Richfield utility billing records.
Occupied Properties
As stated above, property owners of diseased trees have four options available for private tree
removal:
1. Remove the tree themselves.
2. Hire and pay their own contractor.
3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal.
4. Hire the City's contractor and request the cost of the tree removal be assessed
against their property tax.
Vacant Properties
In cases where the property is vacant and no owner can be found, removals must be ordered when
trees have passed the removal time limit or become hazardous. The City's contractor then performs
the removal and the cost is assessed to the property.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etcy
• The work has been completed with prior approval from the affected residents; except in cases of
vacant properties.
• Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments.
• A notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment (attached)will be mailed at least two
weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree
removal to the owner.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The unpaid charges for the removal of the diseased trees must be special assessed for certification
to the County Director of Property Taxation and Collection along with current taxes as stated in City
Code 825.05 Subd. 3.
• Unpaid assessments must be reported to Hennepin County by November 30th of each year.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The costs to be assessed for the removal of diseased trees on private property for work ordered
during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, have been determined to be
$27,235.34.
• The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days
from the date the Council adopts the assessment. The unpaid balance will be spread over
five years with a five percent interest rate.
• The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• The notice of assessment hearing to be mailed to the residents has been reviewed by the City
Attorney and Finance Manager.
• The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Property owners on assessment roll
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution Resolution Letter
D Tree Assessment Letter Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014.
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased
trees from private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or
to be incurred for such work ordered during the period of January 1, 2014
through December 31, 2014 amount to $27,235.34.
Address PID Amount
136 E 70th 27-028-24-43-0004 $1,350.00
6220 14th Ave 26-028-24-12-0123 $1,650.00
6621 Chicago 26-028-24-31-0056 $3,218.25
6440 Washburn Ave 29-028-24-42-0067 $2,413.69
6745 Chicago 26-028-24-31-0066 $1,126.39
6804 Russell Ave 29-028-24-44-0043 $2,091.86
6813 Upton Ave S 29-028-24-43-0021 $5,800.00
6856 Oliver Ave 28-028-24-33-0145 $1,000.00
6915 Nicollet Ave 27-028-24-43-0074 $1,448.21
7000 Lakeshore 33-028-24-21-0001 $1,287.30
7040 1 st Ave 34-028-24-12-0016 $1,800.00
7312 Blaisdell Ave 34-028-24-24-0091 $1,823.68
7433 Upton Ave 32-028-24-42-0011 $2,225.96
TOTAL $27,235.34
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared
to be $27,235.34.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially
assessed for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy
of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection.
3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the
City Council thereof.
4. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of October, 2015 in the Richfield
Municipal Center - Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as hereafter it
may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment
and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said
diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in
reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the
proposed assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state
in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. The City Clerk shall
also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in
the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of September,
2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Public Works Department
September 9, 2015
«P ro pe rty_Tax_Paye r»
«Mailing_lnformation»
«Mailing_City» «Mailing_Zip»
PID: «PID»
Property Address: «Address»
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY
FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
(JANUARY 1, 2014 - DECEMBER 31, 2014)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearing
on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment
for the removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property.
DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center,
6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: Costs incurred for removal of
diseased trees from private property with the consent and approval of the property owners
for work ordered from the City of Richfield, January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. The
City proposes to assess the costs for this work, which totaled $27,235.34.
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY IS: $«Amount».
Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 12, 2015 at
the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please
make you check payable to the City of Richfield.
THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO
SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR.
A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the
assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments
accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of interest payable
depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply:
Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original
principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the
assessment, scheduled for October 13, 2015. If the original principal amount is not paid, the
assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest.
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861 .9749
(Name)
September 9, 2015
Page 2
Payment on or after November 12, 2015: Payments received on or after November 12, 2015
will be charged interest at the rate of 5% through the date of payment. Payments are not
accepted between November 16, 2015 and January 1, 2016. After January 1, 2016
payments can be made on the outstanding balance not certified to the current year taxes
anytime with interest through December 31 of the year in which payment is made. If no
prepayment is made, the tree assessments are spread over five years. Interest will be
charged at the rate of five percent (5%) annually. Interest is calculated for 14 months on the
first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year
over the five year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions
regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-
861-9710.
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council
may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead
property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it
would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set
forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When
deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason
provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any
assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within
30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form
for deferral of this special assessment.
HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will conduct a public hearing
on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be
considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a
proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected
property owners as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed
assessment at the same meeting as the hearing.
RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the
assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk
within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of
appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the
City Clerk prior to the hearing on October 13, 2015 or present the written objection to the
presiding officer at the hearing on October 13, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations
Superintendent at 612-861-9174.
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.D.
STAFF REPORT NO. 129
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
8/28/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance
district assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 13, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Since the 1988, the City has been performing special maintenance along the 77th Street redevelopment area
between 1-35W and Cedar Avenue. The special maintenance services include:
• Maintenance and operation of irrigation systems
• Mowing
• Fertilization
• Weed control
• Trash and litter removal
These services are provided on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current
services, are funded through a maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses.
Staff is recommending the City Council:
• Approve resolution declaring the 2014 assessment costs and order the preparation of the proposed
assessment for 2014.
• Schedule public hearing for October 13, 2015 for proposed assessments.
• Approve resolution proposing a similar assessment process for 2016.
• Schedule public hearing for October 13, 2015 for similar assessment process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Adopt the resolution proposing to assess commercial properties in the 77th Street assessment
district for costs incurred to maintain the area for 2014 and schedule a public hearing for
October 13, 2015.
• Adopt the resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for
2016 and schedule a public hearing for October 13, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2014 maintenance
of this area to be$71,499.01, and estimate the cost for 2016 maintenance to be$80,000.
• Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment area are caused by
a number of factors:
• Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs
• Concrete repair varies from year to year
• Updating aging infrastructure
• Replantings
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following:
(a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks;
(b) weed elimination from streets or private property;
(c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding
any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26;
(d) installation or repair of water service lines;
(e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets;
(f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street;
(g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property;
(h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys;
(i) the operation of a street lighting system;
(j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or
adjacent to street right-of-way; and,
(k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas.
• Council ordered the work, and the work is done.
• Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs.
• Commercial property owners will be assessed on a per-square-foot basis; however, all single family
and multi-family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the
special assessment levy.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Each year, by September 1st, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services
against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the
City Code.
• This list is available at the offices of the City Clerk, Assessing, and Public Works.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• All costs to the City will be recovered through this assessment.
• Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services from 2002 - 2014 are:
Year Estimate Actual
2002 $80,000 $75,490.39
2003 $80,000 $59,831.07
2004 $80,000 $63,842.79
2005 $80,000 $64,841.54
2006 $80,000 $69,606.52
2007 $80,000 $77,441.46
2008 $80,000 $77,000.01
2009 $80,000 $62,894.55
2010 $80,000 $64,124.81
2011 $80,000 $72,427.48
2012 $80,000 $78,286.46
2013 $80,000 $59,779.82
2014 $80,000 $71,499.01
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council
meeting should a legal question arise.
• Section 825, Subd. 2 states that"the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish notice
that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and levying of special
assessments to pay costs thereof."
• The notification is scheduled to be published on September 24, 2015.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S .
Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Resolution(2014) Resolution Letter
❑ Resolution(2016) Resolution Letter
❑ ILN/77th Assessment Letter Backup Material
❑ Map of ILN/77th St Assessment District Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the 77th Street
Redevelopment Area the boundaries of which are approximately east of 1-35W and west
of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for
such maintenance amount to $71,499.01 for the period of January 1, 2014 through
December 31, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared
to be $71,499.01.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the
City Council thereof.
4. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of October, 2015, in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on
the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior
to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The
City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT
SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE
PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are
east of 1-35W and west of Cedar Avenue, for the purposes of assessing for current
services provided by the City.
2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the
City in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against
benefited property within the District;
• The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees
from any street;
• The repair of sidewalks;
• The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to
street rights-of-way;
• Trash and litter removal.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of each
and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that the
special assessments on the commercial property be made on the basis of area.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing by this
Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and
the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be
published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the date of
hearing. The City Clerk shall also give mailed notice of such hearing as required by
law. Such hearing shall be held Tuesday, October 13, 2015, commencing at 7:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services for the
period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. The estimated cost of
providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $80,000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September,
2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Public Works Department
September 9, 2015
<<TAX_NAME))
<<TAX_ADD_L1
«TAX ADD L2»
Property ID: «PID»
Property Address: «Parcel_Address»
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE
77TH STREET PROJECT AREA
FROM JANUARY 1, 2014 - DECEMBER 31, 2014
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearing
on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment
for the maintenance services of the 77th Street Project Area in the City.
DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center,
6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2014
through December 31, 2014 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the 77th
Street Project area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties,
including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City
proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street Project area, which totaled
$71,499.01, against the properties that benefited from this work.
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY IS: $«Amount».
Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 12, 2015 at
the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please
make your check payable to the City of Richfield.
THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO
SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR.
A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the
assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments
accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of interest payable
depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply:
Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original
principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861 .9749
(Name)
September 9, 2015
Page 2
assessment, scheduled for October 13, 2015. If the original principal amount is not paid, the
assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest.
Payment on or after November 12, 2015: Payments received on or after November 12, 2015
but before November 16, 2015 will be charged interest at the rate of 5% through the date of
payment. Payments are not accepted between November 16, 2015 and January 1, 2016. If
no prepayment is made the assessments are spread over one year. Interest at the rate of
five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 14 months on the first year of the
assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year
life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the
assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710.
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council
may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead
property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it
would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set
forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When
deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason
provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any
assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within
30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form
for deferral of this special assessment.
HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will continue a public hearing
on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be
considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a
proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected
property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed
assessment at the same meeting as the hearing.
RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the
assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk
within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of
appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the
City Clerk prior to the hearing on October 13, 2015, or present the written objection to the
presiding officer at the hearing on October 13, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations
Superintendent at 612-861-9174.
E.■ '■.®ice�■ - � -- 1---r w ■ ' i�
1 - 10 — ---- -----1 , _
son
—
h£
_ n-
_ n
1
NMI . ■ *,--�-- 1
I 9-WrAt-
on owel" -12
mma
I�
e
■.
4+1+
al-
8:
.-
a
1.
,'I� 0000 �'I -1112 _
■ . • g08 ■
ORR—
A
I WE ■- u-
�1. a
. F.
�1�F.r FFFF���� � � •,
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.E.
STAFF REPORT NO. 130
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
8/28/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the resolutions pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN)
maintenance assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 13, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet(LHN) maintenance assessment was established to recover special maintenance
expenses in the LHN area in 1981. The special services include:
• Maintenance and operation of irrigation systems
• Mowing
• Fertilization
• Weed control
• Trash and litter removal
• Maintenance of street lighting system
The LHN Redevelopment Area is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue.
Staff is recommending the City Council:
• Approve resolution declaring the 2014 assessment costs and ordering the preparation of the
proposed assessment for 2014.
• Schedule public hearing for October 13, 2015 for proposed assessments.
• Approve resolution proposing a similar assessment process for 2016.
• Schedule public hearing for October 13, 2015 for similar assessment process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed
assessment roll for 2014 Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) Maintenance and schedule a public hearing
for October 13, 2015.
2. Adopt the resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2016 and
schedule a public hearing for October 13, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2014 maintenance
of this area to be$29,415.52, and the estimated cost for 2016 maintenance to be $50,000.
• Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of LHN are caused by a number of factors:
• Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs
• Concrete repair vary from year to year
• Repairs are never foreseeable
• Update aging infrastructure
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etcy
• Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following:
(a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks;
(b) weed elimination from streets or private property;
(c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding
any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26;
(d) installation or repair of water service lines;
(e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets;
(f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street;
(g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property;
(h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys;
(i) the operation of a street lighting system;
(j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or
adjacent to street right-of-way; and,
(k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas.
• Council ordered the work, and the work was done for 2014.
• Council needs to order the work for 2016.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Each year, by September 1st, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services
against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City
Code.
• This list is available at the offices of the City Clerk, Assessing, and Public Works.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• All costs to the City will be recovered through this assessment.
• Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services from 2002-2014 are:
Year Estimated Actual
2002 $50,000 $35,136.62
2003 $50,000 $37,785.67
2004 $50,000 $44,031.39
2005 $50,000 $45,385.31
2006 $50,000 $45,648.56
2007 $50,000 $51,605.29
2008 $50,000 $49,999.99
2009 $50,000 $49,747.02
2010 $50,000 $32,459.40
2011 $50,000 $39,090.87
2012 $50,000 $32,244.51
2013 $50,000 $25,522.16
2014 $50,000 $29,415.52
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the
Council meeting should a legal question arise.
• Section 825, Subd. 2 states that"the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish
notice that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and levying
of special assessments to pay costs thereof."
• The notice is scheduled to be published on September 24, 2015.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Resolution(2014) Resolution Letter
❑ Resolution(2016) Resolution Letter
❑ LHN Assessment Letter Backup Material
❑ Map of LHN Assesment District Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the
Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by
64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and
the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $29,415.52 for
the period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared
to be $29,415.52.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the
City Council thereof.
4. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of October, 2015, in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on
the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior
to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The
City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS
FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED
WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as
follows:
1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which
are conterminous with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project Area,
for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City.
2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by
the City in the district, with the costs of such services to be specially assessed
against benefited property within the district:
Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
Weed elimination;
Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private
property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26;
• Installation or repair of water service lines;
Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
• Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees;
• Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways;
Operation of the street lighting system;
• Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent
to street right-of-way;
• Maintenance of Civic Plaza;
Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
• Painting and repair of wood furniture;
General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of
every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special
assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each
square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an
equal amount for maintenance of common area. Exempt from the special
assessment levy shall be all single family, two-family, multiple family residential
property within the LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual
commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing
said maintenance to said property.
4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this
Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services
and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The City Clerk
shall also give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law.
Such hearing shall be held on Tuesday, October 13th, 2015, commencing at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned
services for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. The
estimated cost of providing all the aforementioned current services during that period
is $50,000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th of September,
2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Public Works Department
September 9, 2015
«oNamel»
«oNamel»
«Address»
«CSZ»
Property ID: «PID»
Property Address: «Parcel_Address»
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AREA
FROM JANUARY 1, 2014 - DECEMBER 31, 2014
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearing
on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment
for the maintenance services to that area known as the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (L/H/N)
Redevelopment Area in the City.
DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center,
6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2014
through December 31, 2014 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the LHN
Redevelopment area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties,
including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City
proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the LHN Redevelopment area, which
totaled $29,415.52 against the properties that benefited from this work.
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY IS: $«Amount 2014».
Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 12, 2015 at
the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please
make your check payable to the City of Richfield.
THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO
SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR.
A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the
assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments
accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of interest payable
depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply:
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861 .9749
(Name)
September 9, 2015
Page 2
Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original
principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the
assessment, scheduled for October 13, 2015. If the original principal amount is not paid, the
assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest.
Payment on or after November 12, 2015: Payments received on or after November 12, 2015
but before November 16, 2015 will be charged interest at the rate of 5% through the date of
payment. Payments are not accepted between November 16, 2015 and January 1, 2016. If
no prepayment is made the assessments are spread over one year. Interest at the rate of
five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 14 months on the first year of the
assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year
life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the
assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710.
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council
may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead
property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it
would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set
forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When
deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason
provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any
assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within
30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form
for deferral of this special assessment.
HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will conduct a public hearing
on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be
considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a
proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected
property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed
assessment at the same meeting as the hearing.
RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the
assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk
within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of
appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the
City Clerk prior to the hearing on October 13, 2015, or present the written objection to the
presiding officer at the hearing on October 13, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations
Superintendent at 612-861-9174.
sell® 11�® A E
u
®Q®
I ...............
i
,mg
F. .
Ilea . 8. B328�
l31 i7 F GF G r.E74+ ��ti F.�
7 �
� �■ 12289ei o E 1�;of 2 1 /
/ 1
'�aB OB �F� 90x2. o
a��� ��r�a��� �~■F�1�.�i1� LOf
ai _ '����rF���iii
MINIMUM � ,. . .
1 iN �.'�� FI�r• H H■.a F
gal
®®�� ���.�.' �� �� ��"■.�,� � � Iii �����.iJ.�
mulm
JQ�7- POP',",
� � �■ ���i��l�m ®F1 l,1� Faaai�' "'>�" .,'�.... � I � � • i71�• — r
ti ti�■
r
---------------
- --- ---'
tb FI IOU
C G.�G E S ALyr' fa
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.F.
STAFF REPORT NO. 131
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jaeson Morrison, Natural Resources Coordinator
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
9/2/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an update to ordinances 428 and 429 related to
construction site runoff control and post-construction stormwater management and schedule second
reading for September 22, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires that municipalities that own and operate storm sewer
systems with a population greater than 5,000 people obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4)
permit on a five year cycle. The MS4 Permit was updated by the MPCA and reissued in 2013, which required
the City to reapply for MS4 Permit coverage. The City applied for and was reissued their permit on March 17,
2014. With the reauthorization of the permit, the City is mandated to come into compliance with the most
current MPCA requirements and update their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Updating
Ordinances 428 and 429 will place the City in compliance with MPCA's mandates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Approve the first reading of the ordinances related to construction site runoff control and post-
construction stormwater management.
2. Schedule a second reading on September 22, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• The City's current 428 and 429 ordinances do not meet the new requirements of the MS4 Permit.
• The ordinance updates will put the City into compliance with MPCA mandates.
• Staff has developed an Engineering Design Standards document which would serve as the guideline
for construction site runoff control and post-construction stormwater management.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• The City Charter general provision on adoption of ordinances requires a first and second reading
on ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or
ordinance requires it. In this case, there is not a public hearing requirement.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The MPCA expects that the City should be in compliance with the most current MPCA requirements
as soon as possible.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• The City Attorney has reviewed and revised these documents and converted them to ordinance
format.
• There are no legal issues known at this time that would affect the passage and implementation of
this ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE REC0MMENDATI0N(6)-
• The Council could choose not to approve the ordinance amendment and direct staff how to proceed.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Amendment to Ordinance 428 and 429 Ordinance
D Engineering Design Standards Backup Material
D WSB Memo Backup Material
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 428 PERTAINING TO
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS AND
SECTION 429 PERTAINING TO WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 428 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
428.01. Purpose.
The purpose of this Section is to promote the public health, safety, property and general
welfare of the citizens of the City and to regulate land disturbing activities to preserve and
enhance the natural environment by reducing sedimentation in streams, lakes, ponds, storm
sewer systems, and other water ways, protect the quality of surface water resources, preserve and
protect wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of construction
activities, and provide uniform techniques and methods for erosion and sedimentation control.
This Section is intended to meet the current construction site erosion and sediment
control regulatory requirements for construction activity (NPDES Permit, Part IV.) as defined in
40 CFR pt. 122.26(b)(14)(x) and(b)(1 5), respectively.
428.02. Scope and Effect_
Subdivision 1. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the permitting
authority for Land Disturbing Activities requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit for construction activity, including the requirements for developing and
implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Where required, the NPDES
Permit is in addition to Permits required by the City of Richfield.
Subd. 2. Incorporation by reference. The City's Engineering Design Standards are
incorporated into this Section by reference. The standards shall serve as the official guide for
stormwater principles, methods, and practices for proposed development activities.
428.03. Administration.
The City Council hereby designates the Building OffieialCity Engineer as the
Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved under the
existing building permit process. Applications for a permit shall include information required by
this Code. Applications for a permit fi,r pfejeets . ,ithi , the Min ei,,,i,,, r,-eek Watefshea Dist ie
Cf eek Wale fshea Dist ret Rule B.shall also meet the requirements of the Richfield-Bloomington
Watershed Management Organization (RBWMOI, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
MCWDI or the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD), as applicable. A fee in
Page 1
465507v1 RC160-4
addition to the building permit fee is not ,•equi e r required for erosion control plan review
and inspections as provided in Appendix D—License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees.
428.05. Performance standards for erosion and sedimentation control.
The design, testing, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
operations and facilities shall adhere to the standards and specifications contained in the
" Minnesota Stormwater Manual, dated
2014, as amended or if a f4eility-or measure is not addressed ift that handbook, then to the
1989), as Fevised. Erosion control plans shall also adhere to the City's Engineering Design
Standards for erosion and sediment control.
428.07. Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measure.
Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities shall be subject to erosion
control measures, except those activities described in Section 428.09:
a. An area of 5,000 square feet or greater that will be disturbed by excavation,
grading, filling or other earth moving activities resulting in the loss of protective
vegetation; or,
b. Excavation or fill exceeding 50 cubic yards; or,
C. The installation of underground utilities, either public or private, resulting in more
than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance.
Subd. 2. Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to
have the potential for substantial erosion.
428.09. General Exemptions.
Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities that meet all of the requirements
of this subdivision are exempt from this Section. The disturbed or fill area is less than (;It;) 5,000
square feet in area; and:
a. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is 50 cubic yards or less; and
b. Impervious surface of less than 10,000 square feet is created; and
C. No drainageway is blocked or has its stormwater carrying capacities or
characteristics modified; and
d. The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from
the top of the bank of the watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of the water
Page 2
465507v1 RC160-4
body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or
water body.
Subd. 2. Agricultural lands, including gardens, used mainly for the production of food,
general farming, nurseries, etc. are exempt from this regulation.
428.11. Erosion control plans.
Subdivision 1. Land disturbing activities not exempt from this Section shall be required
to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to commencement of
construction.
Subd. 2. The erosion control plan shall contain all information necessary for the City
Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed.
The plan shall include a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of
any natural watercourses, storm sewers, and drainageways. The extent of the land disturbing
activity and any erosion control measures shall be shown on the submitted erosion control plan.
,;41, the site ri, and g a lir,.plan-
(a)
(b) Contour fines extending beyond the propei4y botindafies for a dista-nee suffieient to
show the Felationship between en site atid off site drainage.
PR*-.
(e) Detailed plans of any suffaee and sub suffaee dt-ainage > Walls, eribbi >
•
Quantity, iii ettbie
>
(i) Outline of the methods to be used to eleaf vegetatieft and to store a-Rd sipase o
No ed vegetative fV.attov
filling aefivities, a-n it vreafth mz`Etcrial stofage @r dispe�zEL
by the r e g ,,,ing o f 4...ns
Page 3
465507v1 RC160-4
submitted. This fepeft shal-11 �_Aeesetribee the timing of the iftstalla4ion, ph---t:"
of all erosion eantfol stfuetures.
a. At a minimum, the erosion control plan shall follow the Construction Site
Stotmwater Runoff Control standards set within the City's Engineering Design
Standards and contain the following information:
11 Erosion Control
21 Sediment Control Practices
31 Temporary Sediment Basins
(4) Dewatering and Basin Draining
51 Inspection and Maintenance
61 Pollution Management Measures/Construction Site Waste Control
71 Final Stabilization
(8) Training
K. no For land disturbing activities within the "�nehGfeek Watershed Distfie a
Watershed District's or Watershed Management Organization's jurisdiction, any
other information required for an application by Nfinnehaha Cfeek Watefshe
Distfiet E,-,.siei Gentfel n„'e.the Watershed the District or Watershed Management
Organization.
428.13. Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, notification and inspection.
Subdivision 1. It shall be responsibility of the owner/developer to maintain all erosion
control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. As a
minimum, maintenance shall meet all requirements of the Minnehah Creek Watershed Distfi t
Efes o„ ee tfo Dulecorresponding Watershed District. If, after the installation of the erosion
control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be
installed at the expense of the owner.
Subd. 2. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining
properties, City streets, storm sewer, etc. shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for
clean-up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas affected by
erosion, the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses
associated with the clean-up. Failure to maintain these measures shall be a violation of this
Section.
Subd. 3. The City may require an applicant to provide a bond or other financial guarantee
in form satisfactory to the City and meeting the requirements of the N Nuri ei.,i.,, Gfee, 3x'„tefslie.4
Disifie corresponding Watershed District for financial assurances to guarantee the installation
and maintenance of erosion control measures and compliance with the requirements of this
Section.
Page 4
465507v1 RC160-4
Subd. 4. The owner/developer shall meet all requirements for inspection and notification
specified in the "ter'�aCfeek Watefsh�stfict Ef entre ecorresponding
Watershed District's Rules.
428.15. Penalties for Violation.
The following penalty options are available for violation of this ordina-neeSection:
Subdivision. 1. Notice of Violation. When the City determines that an activity is not
being carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Section, it shall issue a written
notice of violation to the owner of the property. The notice of violation shall contain:
a. The name and address of the owner or Applicant,
b. The address when available or a description of the land upon which the violation is
occurring.
c. A statement specifying the nature of the violation,
d. A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity
into compliance with this Section and a time schedule for the completion of such
remedial action
e. A statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation is directed, and
f. A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the City Engineer
by filing a written notice of appeal within 15 days of service of a notice of violation.
Subd. 42. Stop Work Order. Persons receiving a stop work order will be required to halt
all construction activities immediately. This Stop Work Order will be in effect until the City
confirms that the Land Disturbance Activity is in compliance and the violation has been
satisfactorily addressed. Failure to address a notice of violation in a timely manner may result in
civil, criminal, or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in
this Section. step Wet-7k" erdef. it is unlawffi' f r afty pefseft, eithefby Ihe -P1F +tee
efdef may be issued to the land distufbing aetivity until sueh times as adevate ffleastifes af-e
plo me
Subd. 23. Suspension or revocation of permit. The City may suspend or revoke the
permit and permittee shall cease work on the site except for work necessary to remedy the cause
of the suspension. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended or revoked permit
upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the Permit have been
complied with in full, the City shall reinstate the permit.
Subd. 34. issue violation as a misdemeanor. Any person violating a subsection,
subdivision, paragraph or provision of this OfdiftafteeSectlon when that person performs an act
thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or
Page 5
465507v1 RC160-4
declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a petty misdemeanor,
except as otherwise stated in specific provisions hereof.
Section 2. Section 429 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
429.01. Purpose.
The purpose of these regulations is to achieve the policies described in the City's surface
water management plan relating to wetland management, shoreline and streambank
improvements, stream and lake crossings, dredging, and stormwater management.
429.02. Incorporation by reference.
The following tied into this S eetion by f efef enee.
The City's Engineering Design Standards are incorporated into this Section by
reference. The standards shall serve as the official guide for stormwater principles, methods, and
practices for proposed development activities. The City's Engineering Design Standards are
incorporated into this Section by reference.
429.03. Definitions.
Subdivision 1. For purposes of this Section, the following terms have the meanings set
forth below.
Subd. 2. Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs identified in the SWPPP and
this permit must be selected, installed, and maintained in an appropriate and functional manner
that is in accordance with relevant manufacturer specifications and accepted engineering
practices.
the Minnesota Pellution Contfol
' cc
Noteeting Watef Quality in
Urban ", dated Oetebef 1989 „na as amended.
429.05. Stormwater Management for Land Altering Activities.
Subdivision 1. Administration. The City c-Council hereby designates the Director of
Public Works as the administrator of this Section.
Subd. 2. Application. Stormwater management plans shall be reviewed and approved
under the existing building permit review process. The applicant must include the requirements
of this Section in the plans submitted as part of the building permit review.
Subd. 3. Stormwater Management Regulations Out-side ej' the AMiiie'a'a Gree'
4;ii ei, ea nkti-ie Residential development proiects with land disturbing activities of one acre
or greater, or any commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed- use development with land
disturbing activities of 1/2 acre or greater shall submit a stormwater management plan that meets
the criteria of the City's Engineering Design Standards to the City prior to construction. T-he
Page 6
465507v1 RC160-4
following table 1 outlines these aetivities that require no peftnit and these aetivities that fequife
City's
permits far stofmwatef management as outlined in the
T\Tirniel,al,a Cf eek Watofshe,J Dist,•;,.t.
TTS
P"jeet Requirements
No RAM Mlatei= Watef
permit quantity quality
Cll ol
&) Single family home eOffStVde6Off
(''
b) onstfuet;,.,•, o loss than '7 . e �,/C„4„J;yis Y-
�7 1 density oFless e tha of equal to 2 aefes
Residential subdivision between 9 and 20 aefes Y-
Boll Residential l s„bdi ; e tef than , equal to
�
7 20 aefe$
Multi unit fesidential development
W/Cab„ iyisior 1 lessth n 4 nits/Su d—iV*
Y�
7 iteres J leas tha,, G iteres
1•,ll Multi unit side ,,
t; 1 development g oat th„
�
of o,.,,,,1 to G ----e- --,,,1 lo__ th -- 4 aefes
;l Multi unit residential development ot elo•.,,�
„ e greater t tha X X X
�l $
o development oFless e than ',- aere
l-1 CoLatae fe „1dust. „1 institutional, of mixe J x x
use meiiCVfgFeZatef than e and less
than Q aefes
o Je.,el .me,,t „Fgfeatef tl,a,, 4
in-) Maiee. impfovement, of eonst,•„_t_e VF x
„b.lie of pfiva4e,• a,J stfeet highway
1,.t that does et fesult; of ;
Page 7
465507vl RC160-4
lot that r ults ; of inerea se imp
„fee efless that 1
e} Mai-rrtetiattee, impfevement, of - --.tydetie of
publie or private read, street, highway-,
sidewalk, tra'l,ethef lineafpfe j e et of pafkl-rtg
lot that f „1l., in of ;
see of greateth n I aere and the rejeet
af ea is loss that 5 aef es
sidewalk, trail, etherlineaf pfejeet of pafknfg
lot that f „1l., in of ;
see of greaterth n I aere fflid the prejeet
af ea is mef o that 5 aefes
a. Stormwater runoff discharge rates may not exceed the existing conditions for the
one-, ten-, and 100-year storm events. If the increase in imperviousness is 50
percent or greater, the discharge rate requirements must be based on pre-
development conditions.
b. Stormwater runoff to a landlocked area that cannot handle the increased runoff must
maintain runoff volumes to the existing conditions.
a4iiitiala-vefage Femoval basis.
dc. Stormwater ponds must have a ten-foot, 10:1 bench, two (2) feet of freeboard, and
must remove floatables from a one-year event.
ed. Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a
pervious buffer of at least five (5) feet on each side are not included in calculations
for net increase in impervious surface.
fe. Water quality and quantity provision requirements may be waived by the
administrator if a downstream facility is in place or will be constructed and the
facility is designed to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the project.
gf. The requirements of this ei:dinanee Section may be waived by the administrator or
boafa of adjustments .,ra appe lythe City Engineer if it is determined that meeting
the requirements of this Subsection on site is not feasible.
Subd. 4. Performance criteria for stormwater management. Unless determined by the
City to be exempt or granted a waiver, all site designs shall establish Stormwater Management
Practices to control the peak flow rates and pollutants of stormwater discharge associated with
Page 8
465507v1 RC160-4
specified design storms and runoff volumes. as detailed in the City's Engineering Design
Standards.
Subd. 45. Stormwater Management Regulations in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District ("MCWD"). In the area of the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
no one may create new or replace existing pervious surface or change the contours of a parcel of
land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate, volume, or water quality of runoff flows from
the parcel or subdivide a parcel of one (1) acre or more in size into three (3) or more lots without
first submitting a stormwater management plan to the City Director of Public Works and
securing a permit from the City approving the plan.
a. New development, redevelopment, subdivision of land and linear transportation
projects must comply with applicable requirements of the MCWD Stormwater
Management Rule.
b. Activities that are exempt from the MCWD Stormwater Management Rule are
exempt from this Section.
C. An applicant must meet the requirements of, and provide a stormwater management
plan that includes all information required by, the MCWD Stormwater Management
Rule unless otherwise directed by the Director of Public Works.
Subd. 56. Financial assurance. The City may require a performance bond, letter of
credit or other financial assurance for any project that requires installation of stormwater best
management practices. The financial assurance shall be maintained until the stormwater best
management practice has been constructed and stabilized.
Subd. 67. Compliance with plan and maintenance of facilities.
a. Projects shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved
stormwater management plan, the City's Engineering Design Standards and any
conditions imposed by the City.
b. All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for
maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they
continue to function as designed.
C.
Peftnit appliea-nts must pfovide a maintenanee plan that identifies and pfoteets the
maintena4iee deela alio .The Responsible Party shall enter into a Maintenance
Agreement with the City that documents all responsibilities for operation and
maintenance of all permanent storm water management facilities. Such
responsibility shall be documented in a maintenance plan and executed through a
Maintenance Agreement. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed and
Page 9
465507v1 RC160-4
recorded against the parcel. The stoimwater Maintenance Agreement shall be in a
form approved by the City and shall describe the inspection and maintenance
obligations of this Section and shall, at a minimum:
11 Designate the Responsible Party who is permanently responsible for
maintenance of the structural and nonstructural measures.
21 Pass responsibilities for such maintenance to successors in title.
31 Allow the City and its representatives the right-of-entry for the purposes of
inspecting all permanent storm water management facilities.
41 Allow the City the right to maintain the facility if necessary maintenance is
not performed within 60 calendar days after a written notice has been sent to
the responsible party of the permanent storm water management facility.
(5) Include a maintenance plan that contains,but is not limited to the following:
"a Identification of all structural permanent storm water facilities.
A schedule for regular inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of each
practice. Monitoring shall verify whether the practice is functioning as
designed and may include, but is not limited to quality, temperature, and
quantity of runoff.
" Identification of the Responsible Party for conducting the inspection,
monitoring and maintenance for each practice.
"d Include a schedule and format for reporting compliance with the
maintenance agreement to the City.
d. The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor
to enter upon the construction site. The applicant shall allow the City and its
authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials. to:
fD Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information
examination of records, conducting investigations or surveys.
2 Bring such equipment upon the permitted development as is necessary to
conduct such surveys and investigations.
Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to
activities or records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of the
Inspect the stormwater pollution control measures.
-5�- Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to stormwater pollution
control measures.
Page 10
465507v1 RC160-4
Correct deficiencies in stotmwater and erosion and sediment control
measures.
Subd. S. Inspection of Storm Water Management Facilities.
a. Inspection programs shall be established on any reasonable basis, including but not
limited to: routine inspections: random inspections; inspections based upon
complaints or other notice of possible violations; inspection of drainage basins or
areas identified as higher than typical sources of sediment or other contaminants or
pollutants; inspections of businesses or industries of a type associated with higher
than usual discharges of contaminants or pollutants or with discharges of a type
which are more likely than the typical discharge to cause violations of state or
federal water or sediment quality standards or the NPDES permit; and ioint
inspections with other agencies inspecting under environmental or safety laws.
Inspections may include, but are not limited to, reviewing maintenance and repair
records; sampling discharges, surface water, groundwater. and material or water in
drainage control facilities; and evaluating the condition of drainage control facilities
and other storm water management practices.
When any new storm water management facility is installed on private
property, or when any new connection is made between private property and a
public drainage control system, sanitary sewer, or combined sewer; the
property owner shall grant to the City the right to enter the property at
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection.
This includes the right to enter a property when the City has a reasonable basis
to believe that a violation of this Section is occurring or has occurred, and to
enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a
violation.
2 The Director of Public Works, or designated representative, shall inspect all
storm water management facilities during construction, during the first year of
operation, and at least once every five years thereafter. The inspection records
will be kept on file at the public works department for a period of 6 years. It
shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements
or other property interests to allow access to the storm water management
facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes.
bf. Records of Installation and Maintenance Activities. The Responsible Party shall
make records of the installation and of all maintenance and repairs of the storm
water management facilities, and shall retain the records for at least three (31 years.
These records shall be made available to the City during inspection of the storm
water management facilities and at other reasonable times upon request.
Page 11
465507v1 RC160-4
cg. Failure to Maintain Practices. If a Responsible Party fails or refuses to meet the
requirements of the Maintenance Agreement, the City, after reasonable notice, may
correct a violation of the design standards or maintenance needs by performing all
necessary work to place the storm water management facility in proper working
condition. In the event that the storm water management facility becomes a danger
to public safety or public health, the City shall notify the Responsible Party in
writing. Upon receipt of that notice, the Responsible Party shall have thirty days to
perform maintenance and repair of the facility in an approved manner. After proper
notice, the City may specially assess the owner(s) of the storm water management
facility for the cost to maintain the practice and any penalties: and the cost of the
work shall be assessed against the property and collected along with ordinary taxes
by the county.
Subd. 79. Construction standards. The design and construction criteria for stormwater
management plans outlined in the City's surface water management plan, the City's Engineering
Design Standards, and the NIPC^ "WateetionVatef Qualit., i T Trb r ^re-as"Minnesota
Stormwater Manual, as amended, shall be utilized as the construction standards for these
regulations. These criteria are on file in the City engineering office.
.
aeeefda+tee with the �1 etl ,i,1 Pfeteeti.,, Rule of the T f('')AID
Sttbd. 7 (Repealed, Bill No-2011 20
Subd. 3 (Repealed, Bill No 2011 264
Sttbd. 4. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011026)
429.06. Penalties for Violation.
Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of these regulations or failure to comply with
any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law.
Subd. 2. Notice of Violation. When the City determines that an activity is not beim
carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Section, it shall issue a written notice of
violation to the owner of the property. The notice of violation shall contain:
a. The name and address of the owner or Applicant,
b. The address when available or a description of the land upon which the violation is
occurring,
C. A statement specifying the nature of the violation,
Page 12
465507v1 RC160-4
d. A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity
into compliance with this Section and a time schedule for the completion of such
remedial action,
e. At statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation is directed, and
f. A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the City
Engineer by filing a written notice of appeal within 15 days of services notice of
violation.
Subd. 3. Stop Work Order. Persons receiving a stop work order will be required to halt
all construction activities immediately. This Stop Work Order will be in effect until the Citv
confirms that the Land Disturbance Activity is in compliance and the violation has been
satisfactorily addressed. Failure to address a notice of violation in a timely manner may result in
civil, criminal, or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in
this Section.
Subd. 4. Civil or Criminal Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty
provided herein or by law, any person who violates the provisions of this Section shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and subject to prosecution. Such person shall be guilty of a separate offense
for each day during which the violation occurs or continues.
Subd. 5. Restoration of Lands. Any violator may be required to restore land to its
undisturbed condition. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time
after notice, the Cit
y may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which may, after notice
and opportunity for hearing, be specially assessed against the property and collected along with
the ordinary taxes by the county.
Subd. 6. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the action of any official charged with the
enforcement of this Section, as the result of the disapproval of a properly filed application for
a proval, issuance of a written notice of violation, or an alleged failure to properly enforce this
Section in regard to a specific application, shall have the right to appeal the action to the Citv
Engineer.
a. The Applicant shall submit the appeal in writing and include supporting
documentation.
b. City staff shall make a decision on the appeal within 15 business days of receipt of
a complete appeal application.
C. The Applicant may appeal the decision of city staff to the City Manager This
appeal must be filed with the City Manager within 30 days of City staff's decision.
Subd. 2. Nothing her-ein eontained shall pfevent the City of Riehfield from taking sueh
Page 13
465507v1 RC160-4
Offleial may utilize the full affay of efifefeement aetions available to the guilt
1
the admiiiist+a4of of Building Offieial, the situation shall immediately be
investiga4ed. Doeumentation of the natttfe and extent of the viola4ioii of the offieial
e. The administfator must notify the suspeeted pa-Ay of the requirements of this
viola4ioii of these eont+o1s. if the stvaetiffe of use is tt*def eetistfuelion of
development, the A`lcrmrrnist--fater may order the eanstmetieft orelo mieni
immediately halted until a pfopef pefmit is ganted by the City. if the
of development is alfeady eompleted, then the admiiiist+a4of may eillief.: a) issue a
ofdef ideiitil�4iig the eoffeetive aetions that must be made within a speeified ti
nolify -— fes ---- pa-14y to apply f6 --- aftef -— faet r- _ .it a `r
eeified
pefied of time fiat to exeeed 30 days,
Building Offieial within the speeified pefiod of time, eaeh additional day tha4 lapses
eenstitutes an additional violation of this Fegulatieft and may be proseeuted
the ViOlfftiffi of this FegUlfftiffi.
Section 3. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this day of 12015.
By:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Page 14
465507v1 RC160-4
=099A
Engineering Design Standards
for Stormwater Management
City of Richfield
April 2015
Prepared by WSB & Associates
A
WSB
&Associates,Inc.
Engineering Design Standards
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Design Overview ................................................................................................................ 2
2. Definitions........................................................................................................................... 2
3. Procedure for Reviewing Stormwater Management Plans................................................. 4
4. Submittal Requirments........................................................................................................ 5
5. Acceptable Stormwater Practices ....................................................................................... 9
6. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ................................................................... 9
7. Guidance on Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs)...................................................... 17
8. Stormwater Management.................................................................................................. 17
9. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD) .............................................................. 24
10. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District(NMCWD)............................................................. 26
11. Stormwater Treatment Practice Design Standards ........................................................... 26
12. Design Examples .............................................................................................................. 32
13. Stormwater Treatment Practice Detail Drawings ............................................................. 32
14. Construction Specifications.............................................................................................. 32
15. Checklists.......................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stormwater Management Plan Review Checklist
Appendix B Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Form
Appendix C Maintenance Agreement
Appendix D Watershed District Boundary Map
Appendix E Richfield's Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) Map
Appendix F Standard Details
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page]
Engineering Design Standards
1. DESIGN OVERVIEW
The City of Richfield's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifies the goals and
policies that define the City's stormwater management program, which are implemented via the
City Water Resource Management Code (Chapter IV, Section 429) and these Engineering
Design Standards. Richfield's stormwater requirements were written to meet the City's goals to
preserve, protect, and manage its water resources as well as to meet federal, state, and watershed
stormwater regulations and to meet the following objectives:
1. Minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates from any development in order to reduce
flooding, siltation and erosion and in order to maintain the integrity of stream channels,
2. Minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from
development which would otherwise degrade local water quality,
3. Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff that flows from any specific
site during and following development so as not to exceed the predevelopment
hydrologic regime to the maximum extent practicable,
4. Ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to
public safety, and
5. Implement stormwater management controls to help meet current and future total
maximum daily load(TMDL) goals, to address the need to improve water quality, and to
meet objectives in the Local Surface Water Management Plan.
2. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Design Manual, the following definitions describe the meaning of the
terms used in this Design Manual:
Applicant means a property owner or agent of a property owner who has filed an application
for a Stormwater Management Permit.
Applicability means any land disturbing activity requiring a City of Richfield Stormwater
Management Plan as defined in City Code Chapter TV, Section 429: Water-Resources
Management.
Channel means a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks that conducts
continuously or periodically flowing water.
hnpervious Area means those surfaces that cannot effectively infiltrate rainfall (e.g.,building
rooftops, pavement, sidewalks, gravel, driveways, swimming pools, etc.).
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 2
Engineering Design Standards
Land Disturbance Activity means any activity that changes the volume or peak discharge rate
of stormwater runoff from the land surface. This may include the grading, digging, cutting,
scraping, or excavating of soil,placement of fill materials,paving, construction, substantial
removal of vegetation, or any activity that bares soil or rock or involves the diversion or
piping of any natural or fabricated watercourse.
Maintenance Agreement means document recorded against the property which provides for
long-term maintenance of stoimwater treatment practices.
Nonpoint Source Pollution means pollution from any source other than from any discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyances, and shall include but not be limited to,pollutants from
agricultural, silvicultural, mining, construction, subsurface disposal and urban runoff sources.
Off-Site Facility means a stormwater management measure located outside the subject
property boundary described in the permit application for land development activity.
Redevelopment means land-disturbing activity that creates or replaces impervious surface on
a parcel that is fully or partially occupied by buildings and/or impervious surface with the
exception of linear transportation projects.
Responsible Party means the entity which will be responsible for ownership and maintenance
of Stormwater Treatment Practices.
Stop Work Order means an order which requires that all construction activity on a site be
stopped.
Stormwater Management means the use of structural or non-structural practices that are
design to reduce stormwater runoff pollutant loads, discharge volumes, and/or peak discharge
rates.
Stormwater Management Plan means a set of drawings or other documents submitted by a
person as a prerequisite to obtaining a stormwater management approval, which contains all
of the required information and specifications pertaining to Stormwater Management.
Stormwater Review means review of any residential development project with land
disturbing activities of one acre or greater, or any commercial, industrial, institutional or
mixed use development with land disturbing activities of 1/Z acre or greater. The review will
be completed to evaluate compliance with the City of Richfield's water quality and water
quality requirements as specified in these standards.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 3
Engineering Design Standards
Stormwater Runoff means flow on the surface of the ground, resulting from precipitation.
Storinwater Treatment Practices (STPs) means measures, either structural or nonstructural,
that are determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing
point source or nonpoint-source pollution inputs to stormwater runoff and waterbodies.
Water Quality Volume (WQ„) means that runoff storage volume needed to treat the specified
phosphorus loading as determined in the Richfield Engineering Design Standards.
Watercourse means a permanent or intermittent stream or other body of water, either natural
or fabricated, which gathers or carries surface water.
Watershed means the total drainage area contributing runoff to a single point.
3. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PLANS
Any residential development project with land disturbing activities of one acre or greater, or any
commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use development with land disturbing activities of
1/2 acre or greater will require the submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan. In lieu of
preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan, projects disturbing less than I acre and down to
5,000 square feet or will result in greater than 50 cubic yards of cut and fill will be required to
develop an Erosion Control Plan addressing the requirements of Section 6 of these standards.
The following activities are exempt from the requirement of an Erosion Control Plan:
I. The disturbed or fill area is less than 5,000 square feet in area; and
2. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is 50 cubic yards or less; and
3. No drainageway is blocked or has its stormwater carrying capacities or characteristics
modified; and
4. The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from the top
of the bank of the watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of the water body, or the
ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or water body.
The general review process, from the submittal of the concept and final plans to the issuance of
the Stormwater Management Plan approval, is summarized in the following steps:
1. Determine if the project falls with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) or
the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD).
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 4
Engineering Design Standards
2. Determine what stormwater management provisions apply(stormwater management,
erosion control, buffers, floodplain management).
3. What permits, or approvals, are required for the project site, and what waivers and/or
exemptions are applicable (ACOE, DNR, MPCA, Watershed District, WCA, etc.)
4. Determine if the project falls within the 1-year capture zone of the Wellhead Protection
Plan.
5. Are the selected practices appropriate for this site?
6. Are the practices designed to meet the minimum performance criteria?
7. Does the Plan meet other resource protection requirements as specified in the City of
Richfield Code (i.e. shoreland alteration, tree preservation, etc.)?
8. Does the Plan meet stormwater management provisions of the MCWD or the NMCWD?
9. Are provisions for long-term maintenance adequate, including access and methods for-
maintenance defined?
Additionally, depending on whether the project falls within the MCWD or the NMCWD,
additional permits and other requirements may apply. The MCWD and the Richfield-
Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (RBWMO) do not have permitting authority
in the City of Richfield; therefore projects that fall within the jurisdiction of the MCWD or
RBWMO may require review by the entity,but will ultimately be permitted by the City.
4. SUBMITTAL REQUIRMENTS
Requirements for Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan Approval
Stormwater Management Plan Required
No stormwater management permit will be approved unless it includes a Stormwater
Management Plan detailing how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the
development will be controlled or managed(note the exceptions in Section 3). This plan must
indicate whether stormwater will be managed on-site or off-site and, if on-site, the general
location and type of practices.
The Stormwater Management Plan must be signed by a licensed professional engineer in the
State of Minnesota, who will verify that the design of all stormwater management practices meet
the requirements outlined in the Plan Review Checklist found in Appendix A. No building
permit, demolition permit, sediment control permit, or subdivision approval shall be issued until
a satisfactory final Stormwater Management Plan, or a waiver thereof, shall have undergone a
review and been approved by the City after determining that the plan waiver is consistent with
the requirements of this manual.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 5
Engineering Design Standards
Stormwater Management Conceptual Plan Requirements (Optional)
A stormwater management concept plan submittal is optional, but highly encouraged. A concept
plan identifies basic site information, locations of proposed development features, and
preliminary locations and sizing of STPs. The concept submittal has a greater chance of
identifying major obstacles and can facilitate alternative stormwater management arrangements
in a timely fashion and at the onset of project planning. If a concept plan is submitted for
review, it should include sufficient information (e.g., maps, basic hydrologic and water quality
calculations etc.) to evaluate the environmental characteristics of the project site. This
information should show the potential impacts of all proposed development of the site, both
present and future, on the water resources, and show the effectiveness and acceptability of the
measures proposed for managing stormwater generated at the project site. The intent of this
conceptual planning process is to determine the type of stormwater management of stormwater
runoff form future development, and to identify major issues prior to completing final plans.
The concept plan is less time consuming and more efficient to evaluate proposed development
plans with this step of the review process.
The final plan provides more detailed design information for the proposed STPs, and includes
much more detail in terms of hydrologic conditions and site features.
For redevelopment an applicant should include within a concept plan measures for controlling
existing stormwater runoff discharges and water quality from the site in accordance with the
standards of this Manual. After review of the concept plan and modifications are made to that
plan as deemed necessary by the City, a final Stormwater Management Plan may be submitted
for approval.
Stormwater Management Plan Requirements (Required)
Record drawings are required for all projects that impact wetlands and/or the floodplain, require
water quality ponding, have significant grade changes, and/or have other unusual circumstances.
Record drawings must be certified by a professional land surveyor or civil engineer. (Record
drawings should not include temporary erosion control measures.)
Plan Details
❑ North arrow, street names, and lot and block numbers for property or subdivision
❑ Location of benchmark, based on the City/County benchmark system
❑ Key with all line types, symbols, shading, and cross-hatching denoted for each sheet
❑ Illustration key showing symbols for all information pertaining to lot and building design,
including grades, easements, lot and block, setbacks, etc...
❑ Plan scale (shown graphically on a bar scale) of. 1 inch= 20 feet, 1 inch= 30 feet, 1 inch=
40 feet, or 1 inch= 50 feet. Plans in other scales will not be reviewed.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 6
Engineering Design Standards
❑ Total area of subject property, with subtotals of disturbed and undisturbed areas (tabulation
permitted)
❑ Subject property's boundary lines, lot lines, easements (with document numbers, if
applicable) and right of way lines
❑ All existing and proposed drainage and utility easements (with document numbers, if
applicable)
❑ All man-made features, including existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved
areas
❑ All existing storm sewer facilities within 50 feet of the subject parcel, with invert elevations,
size and type
❑ All proposed storm sewer facilities (include invert elevations, grades and size of structures)
❑ All existing and proposed natural features including, but not limited to, significant trees and
tree lines, wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, drainage channels, floodplain, etc. with water
surface elevations and date of survey
❑ Show setbacks and buffers for wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, and floodplains
❑ All adjacent plats,parcels, rights-of-way, section lines, extended a minimum of 100 feet (50
feet for single family home construction)beyond the subject parcel in all directions
❑ Crossing out of incorrect information (elevations, distances, etc.) will not be allowed on
record plans. Incorrect information must be cleanly removed and replaced with the correct
record plan information. Proposed elevations and lengths that are not changed should be
check-marked to indicate them as being as- built, and the complete as-built layout and
location shall be shown.
Topography
❑ Topography details at a minimum of one-foot contour intervals with existing contours as
dashed lines and proposed contours as dark, solid lines, labeled at each edge of the plan and
at other appropriate locations to clarify the elevations
❑ Standard lot benching detail, where appropriate (maximum slopes 3:1)
❑ Direction arrows indicating swales and lot drainage patterns (show percent grades along
drainage swales on plan)
Elevation Information
❑ Proposed top of curb elevations at lot corners and driveway or entrances
❑ Finished spot elevations at all high and low points
❑ Proposed elevations at garage and lowest floor for proposed and existing construction
❑ Proposed finished ground elevations around home for final grading
❑ Grade elevation at the foundation and elevation of top of foundation of structures on adjacent
lots
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 7
Engineering Design Standards
❑ Lowest point of entry(i.e. door sill or top of window well) of proposed and existing
construction
❑ Low building opening elevation with freeboard to emergency overflow from site
❑ Soil boring locations with groundwater elevation
❑ Low floor elevation freeboard to groundwater, if applicable
❑ Low floor elevation freeboard to basin or pond HWL
Temporary Erosion Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Show location of all structural erosion control measures (with standard detail plates and
maintenance information for each), including, but not limited to:
❑ Temporary rock entrance/exit for all vehicle access points (show on plan and provide detail)
❑ Perimeter silt fence; silt fence and/or-bale checks should also be placed along swales or-
slopes greater than 50 feet in length (flare ends of silt fence up slope)
❑ Storm sewer inlet filters (indicate type and show graphically on plan at each location)
❑ Temporary sediment basins
❑ Erosion control mats, fiber blankets, netting, temporary seed, or temporary mulch. All
exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case
later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or
permanently ceased and no later than seven (7) days after construction activity in that portion
of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased when discharge points on the project is
within one mile of a special or impaired water and flows to that special or impaired water.
❑ Soil stockpile areas (indicate temporary stabilization measures)
❑ Street Sweeping Required
Plans must include a note indicating that all adjacent streets will be swept daily, or as
directed by the City, to remove all accumulated materials. Failure to perform any street
sweeping within 24 hours of notice by the City will result in the work being performed by the
City and all associated costs billed.. The City also requires removal of accumulated materials
on streets during winter.
Final Stabilization
New resident construction requires vegetated stabilization from the front curb line to the back of
the structure for the entire width of the lot. Show seeding and/or turf establishment locations and
specifications, including:
❑ Type of seeding (permanent, temporary, dormant)
❑ Seed type and application rate
❑ Fertilizer type and application rate
❑ Mulch type, application rate, and method of anchoring
❑ Specifications for installation and maintenance of erosion control mats, blankets, or netting
❑ Note requiring seeding/restoration to be completed within 48 hoursof final grading
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 8
Engineering Design Standards
❑ Location of all areas to be vegetated
Tree Preservation
Show the following standards when a Tree Preservation Permit is required (see Tree Preservation
ordinance for more requirements and information).
❑ Identify, tally, and locate all significant trees on site (tally and show graphically on plan).
❑ Identify, tally, and locate all significant tree removals on site (tally and show graphically on
plan).
❑ Use tally information and calculations from ordinance to determine if mitigation is required.
❑ If mitigation is required, provide separate landscape plan identifying requirements.
❑ Show location of all tree preservation fencing required by ordinance specifications (heavy-
duty silt fence can also be used for tree protection).
5. ACCEPTABLE STORMWATER PRACTICES
Low Impact Design (LID)practices are encouraged when they can be functionally incorporated
into the design. Alternative practices may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer.
6. CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL
6.1 Erosion Control
1. The Permittee must plan for and implement appropriate construction phasing
vegetative buffer strips, horizontal slope grading, and other construction practices
to minimize erosion. All areas not to be disturbed shall be marked (e.g. with flags,
stakes, signs, silt fence etc.) on the project site before any work begins.
2. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion
but in no case later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of
the site has temporarily or permanently ceased and no later than seven (7) days
after construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or
permanently ceased when discharge points on the project is within one mile of a
special or impaired water and flows to that special or impaired water.
3. Additional BMPs together with enhanced runoff controls are required for
discharges to special waters and impaired waters. The BMPs identified for each
special or impaired water are required for those areas of the project draining to a
discharge point on the project that is within one mile of a special or impaired
water and flows to that water. The additional BMPs are identified in Appendix A
of the NPDES Construction General Permit.
4. The permittee must stabilize the normal wetted perimeter of any temporary or
permanent drainage ditch or swale that drains water from any portion of the
construction site, or diverts water around the site, within 200 lineal feet from the
property edge, or from the point of discharge into any surface water. Stabilization
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 9
Engineering Design Standards
of the last 200 lineal feet must be completed within 24-hours after connecting to a
surface water or property edge.
5. Pipe outlet must have temporary or permanent energy dissipation before
connecting to surface water.
6. When possible, all slopes must be graded in such a fashion so that tracking marks
made from heavy equipment are perpendicular to the slope.
7. All areas disturbed during construction must be restored as detailed in these
requirements. The type of permanent restoration shall be clearly shown on the
plans including but not limited to sod, seed, impervious cover and structures. A
minimum of 6 inches of topsoil must be installed prior to permanent restoration.
Areas in which the top soil has been placed and finish graded or areas that have
been disturbed and other grading or site building construction operations are not
actively underway must be temporary or permanently restored as set forth in the
following requirements.
a. Areas with slopes that area less than 3:1 must be seeded and mulched within
14 days of the area not being actively worked.
b. Areas with slopes that area greater or equal to 3:1 must be seeded and erosion
control blanket placed within 14 days of the area not being actively worked.
c. All seeded area must be either mulched and disc anchored, hydro- mulched, or
covered by erosion control blanket to reduced erosion and protects the seed.
Temporary or permanent mulch must be disc anchored and applied at a
uniform rate of 2 tons per acre and have 90% coverage.
d. If the disturbed area will be re-disturbed within a six month period, temporary
vegetative cover shall be required consisting of an approved seed mixture and
application rate.
e. If the disturbed area will not be re-disturbed within a six month period,
permanent vegetative cover shall be required consisting of an approved seed
mixture and application rate.
f. All areas that will not have maintenance done such as mowing as part of the
final design shall be permanently restored using an approved seed mixture and
application rate.
g. Restoration of disturbed wetland areas shall be accomplished using an
approved seed mixture and application rate.
S. All erosion control measures must be maintained for the duration of the project
until final stabilization has been achieved. If construction operations or natural
events damage or interfere with any erosion control measures, they shall be
restored to serve their intended function.
9. Additional erosion control measures shall be added as necessary to effectively
protect the natural resources of the City. The temporary and permanent erosion
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 10
Engineering Design Standards
control plans shall be revised as needed based on current site conditions and to
comply with all applicable requirements
6.2 Sediment Control Practices
1. Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters
before any upgradient land disturbing activities begin. These practices must
remain in place until final stabilization has been achieved.
2. If down gradient treatment system is overloaded additional up gradient sediment
control practices must be installed to eliminate overloading. The SWPPP must be
amended to identify the additional practices.
3. All storm drain inlets must be protected by approved BMPs during construction
until all potential sources for discharge have been stabilized. These devices must
be maintained until final stabilization is achieved. Inlet protection may be
removed if a specific safety concern (street flooding/freezing) has been identified.
4. Temporary stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls on
the down gradient side of the stockpile and shall not be placed at least twenty five
(25) feet from any road, wetland,protected water, drainage channel, or
stormwater inlets. Stockpile left for more than 14 days must be stabilized with
mulch, vegetation, tarps or other approved means.
5. Vehicle tracking of sediment from project shall be minimized by approved
BMPs. These shall be installed and maintained at the City approved entrances.
Individual lots shall each be required to install and maintained entrances
throughout the construction building until a paved driveway is install.
6. Sediment that has washed or tracked from site by motor vehicles or equipment
shall be cleaned from paved surfaces throughout the duration of construction.
7. Silt fence or other approved sediment control devices must be installed in all
areas as shown on the SWPPP.
8. Silt fence or other approved sediment control devices shall be required along
the entire curb line, except for approved opening where construction entrance
will be installed or drainage flows away from curb. This device must be
maintained until final stabilization is achieved. Ditch checks shall be required
in ditch bottoms. Spacing for the check must be as follows: [Height in feet(of
the sediment device used)]X100/Slope Gradient
9. Dust control measures, such as application of water must be performed
periodically due to weather, construction activity, and/or as directed by the City.
10. Flows from diversion channels or pipes (temporary or permanent)must be
routed to sedimentation basins or appropriate energy dissipaters to prevent the
transport of sediment to outflow or lateral conveyors and to prevent erosion and
sediment buildup when runoff flows into the conveyors.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page I
Engineering Design Standards
11. A concrete washout shall be installed on projects that require the use of
concrete. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operations
must be contained in a leak-proof containment facility or impermeable liner. A
sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility to inform operators to
utilize the proper facilities.
12. All sediment control measures shall be used and maintained for the duration of
the project until final. If construction operations or natural events damage or
interfere with any erosion control measures, they must be restored to serve their
intended function.
13. Additional sediment control measures shall be added as necessary to effectively
protect the natural resources of the City. The temporary and permanent erosion
control plans shall be revised as needed based on current site conditions and to
comply with all applicable requirements.
14. Restrict clearing and grading within 20 feet of an existing wetland boundary
to provide for a protective buffer strip of natural vegetation.
6.3 Temporary/Permanent Sediment Basins
A temporary sediment basin (or permanent) shall be provided when 10 or more acres
of disturbed soil drain to a common location prior to the runoff leaving the site or
entering surface waters. The Permittee is also encouraged, but not required to install
temporary sediment basins in areas with steep slope or highly erodible soils even if
the area is less than ten (10) acres and it drains to one common area. The basins shall
be designed and constructed according to the following requirements:
1. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of
runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except
that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below
the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin.
2. Where no such calculation has been performed, a temporary(or permanent)
sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe per
acre drained to the basin shall be provided where attainable until final
stabilization of the site.
3. Temporary basin outlets will be designed to prevent short-circuiting and the
discharge of floating debris. The basin must be designed with the ability to allow
complete basin drawdown (e.g.,perforated riser pipe wrapped with filter fabric
and covered with crushed gravel,pumps or other means) for maintenance
activities, and provide a stabilized emergency overflow to prevent failure of pond
integrity. Energy dissipation must be provided for the basin outlet.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 12
Engineering Design Standards
4. Temporary (or permanent)basins must be constructed and made operational
concurrent with the start of soil disturbance that is up gradient of the area and
contributes runoff to the pond.
5. Where the temporary sediment basin is not attainable due to site limitations,
equivalent sediment controls such as smaller sediment basins, and/or sediment
traps, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips or any appropriate combination of
measures are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area and
for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site
conditions. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is attainable, the
Permittee must consider public safety and may consider factors such as site soils,
slope, and available area on site. This determination must be documented in the
SWPPP.
6. The Permittee shall maintain the sedimentation basins and will remain functional
until an acceptable vegetative cover is restored to the site, resulting in a pre-
development level rate of erosion. The city will not issue building permits for lots
containing sediment basins until they have been removed or relocated based on
the projects restoration progress.
7. Basins designed to be used for permanent stormwater management shall be
brought back to their original design contours prior to acceptance by the City.
6.4 Dewatering and Basin Draining
1. If water cannot be discharged into a sedimentation basin before entering a surface
water it must be treated with the appropriate BMPs, such that the discharge does
not adversely affect the receiving water or downstream landowners. The
Permittee must make sure discharge points are appropriately protected from
erosion and scour. The discharge must be dispersed over riprap, sand bags, plastic
sheeting or other acceptable energy dissipation measures. Adequate sediment
control measures are required for discharging water that contains suspended soils.
2. All water from dewatering or basin draining must discharge in a manner that does
not cause nuisance conditions, erosion in receiving channels, on down slope
properties, or inundation in wetlands causing significant adverse impact to
wetlands.
6.5 Inspections and Maintenance
1. The Permittee shall be responsible for inspecting and maintenance of the BMPs
2. The Permittee must routinely inspect the construction project once every seven
(7) days during active construction and within 24-hours of a rainfall event of 0.5
inches or greater in 24-hours.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 13
Engineering Design Standards
3. All inspections and maintenance conducted during construction must be recorded
in writing and must be retained with the SWPPP. Records of each inspection and
maintenance activity shall include:
a. Date and time of inspection.
b. Name of person(s) conducting the inspections.
c. Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions.
d. Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and the party completing the
maintenance activities).
e. Date and amount of all rainfall events 0.5 inches or greater in 24-hours.
f. Documentation of changes made to SWPPP.
4. Parts of the construction site that have achieved final stabilization,but work
continues on other parts of the site, inspections of the stabilized areas can be
reduced to once a month. If work has been suspended due to frozen ground
conditions, the required inspections and maintenance must take place as soon as
runoff occurs or prior to resuming construction, which ever happens first.
5. All erosion and sediment BMPs shall be inspected to ensure integrity and
effectiveness. All nonfunctional BMPs shall be repaired, replaced or
supplemented with a functional BMP. The Permittee shall investigate and comply
with the following inspection and maintenance requirements.
6. All silt fences must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become
nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/2 of the height of the fence. These
repairs shall be made within 24-hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions
allow access.
7. Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment
removed when the depth of sediment collected in the basin reaches 1/2 the storage
volume. Drainage and removal must be completed within 72-hours of discovery,
or as soon as field conditions allow access.
8. Surface waters, including drainage ditches and conveyance systems, must be
inspected for evidence of sediment being deposited by erosion. The Permittee
shall remove all deltas and sediment deposited in surface waters, including
drainage ways, catch basins, and other drainage systems, and restabilize the areas
where sediment removal results in exposed soil. The removal and stabilization
shall take place within seven (7) days of discovery unless precluded by legal,
regulatory, or physical access constraints. The Permittee shall use all reasonable
efforts to obtain access. If precluded, removal and stabilization shall take place
within seven (7) calendar days of obtaining access. The Permittee is responsible
for contacting all local,regional, state and federal authorities and receiving any
applicable permits, prior to conducting any work.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 14
Engineering Design Standards
9. Construction site vehicle exit locations shall be inspected for evidence of off-site
sediment tracking onto paved surfaces. Tracked sediment shall be removed from
all off-site paved surfaces, within 24-hours of discovery, or if applicable, within a
shorter time.
10. The Permittee is responsible for the operation and maintenance of temporary and
permanent water quality management BMPs, as well as all erosion prevention and
sediment control BMPs, for the duration of the construction work at the site. The
Permittee is responsible until another Permittee has assumed control over all areas
of the site that have not been finally stabilized or the site has undergone final
stabilization, and a NOT has been submitted to the MPCA.
11. If sediment escapes the construction site, off-site accumulations of sediment shall
be removed in a manner and at a frequency sufficient to minimize off-site impacts
(e.g., fugitive sediment in streets could be washed into storm sewers by the next
rain and/or pose a safety hazard to users of public streets).
12. All infiltration areas shall be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing
construction activities is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are
protected from compaction due to construction equipment driving across the
infiltration area.
6.6 Pollution Management Measures/Construction Site Waste Control
1. The Permittee must implement the following pollution prevention management
measures on the site.
a. Solid Waste—Collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating
debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction and demolition debris and other
wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposal
requirements.
b. Hazardous Materials such as oil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances
must be properly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills,
leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas shall be provided
to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste shall be in
compliance with MPCA regulations.
c. External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must be limited to
a defined area of the site. Runoff shall be contained and waste properly
disposed of. No engine degreasing is allowed on site.
d. The City of Richfield prohibits discharges of any material other than
stormwater, and discharges from dewatering or basin draining activities.
Prohibited discharges include but are not limited to vehicle and equipment
washing, maintenance spills, wash water, and discharges of oil and other
hazardous substances.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 15
Engineering Design Standards
e. The Permittee must comply with all other pollution prevention/good
housekeeping requirements of the MPCA NPDES Construction General
Permit.
6.7 Final Stabilization
1. The Permittee must ensure final stabilization of the project. Final stabilization
can be achieved in one of the following ways.
2. All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and all soils will be
stabilized by a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of at least 70
percent over the entire pervious surface area, or other equivalent means necessary
to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions and;
a. All drainage ditches, constructed to drain water from the site after
construction is complete, must be stabilized to preclude erosion; and
b. All temporary synthetic, and structural erosion prevention and sediment
control BMPs (such as silt fence)must be removed as part of the site final
stabilization; and
c. The Permittee must clean out all sediment from conveyances and from
temporary sedimentation basins that are to be used as permanent water quality
management basins. Sediment must be stabilized to prevent it from washing
back into the basin, conveyances or drainage ways discharging off-site or to
surface waters. The cleanout of permanent basins must be sufficient to return
the basin to design capacity.
3. For residential construction only, final stabilization has been achieved when:
a. Temporary erosion protection and down gradient perimeter control for
individual lots has been completed and the residence has been transferred to
the homeowner.
b. The Permittee must distribute the MPCA"homeowner factsheet" to the
homeowner so the homeowner is informed for the need, and benefits, of final
stabilization.
6.8 Trainin6
1. The SWPPP must provide a chain of command showing who prepared the
SWPPP, who is responsible for the management of the construction site and
inspections.
2. The training shall consist of a course developed by a local, state or federal agency,
professional organization, water management organization, or soil and water
conservation district and must contain information that is related to erosion
prevention, sediment control, or permanent stormwater management and must
relate to the work that you are responsible for managing.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 16
Engineering Design Standards
7. GUIDANCE ON STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES
(STPS)
Designers are expected to follow the requirements of these Engineering Design Standards and
the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Deviations from recommended guidance will require
detailed written explanation with discretion given by the City.
8. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Proposed Stormwater Management Plans must incorporate Volume Control, Water Quality
Control, and Rate Control as the basis for stormwater management in the proposed development
plan. The City of Richfield, as a permitted MS4, requires for new development projects to have
a no net increase from pre-project conditions of total volume, TSS, and TP; in addition, for
redevelopment projects within the city, it is required to have a net reduction from pre-project
conditions of total volume, TSS and TP.
8.1 Volume Control Requirements
Volume control measures are required on projects to meet the water quality criteria of the
RBWMO, and to meet the requirements of the City of Richfield's MS4 Permit obligations.
Volume control shall be required for proposed new impervious areas greater than 1 acre or
redevelopment of impervious greater than 1 acre. If an applicant can demonstrate that the
volume control standard has been met, then the water quality sizing criteria shall be
considered satisfied.
8.2 Volume Control Calculations
Depending on applicability, a proposed development shall capture and retain on site 1.0 inch
of runoff from the impervious surfaces in post-construction conditions for increases in
impervious surface greater than 1 acre.
The use of infiltration techniques shall be prohibited where the infiltration BMP will be
constructed in any of the following areas:
1. Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater
under and NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the MPCA.
2. Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur.
3. With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the
infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of
the bedrock.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 17
Engineering Design Standards
4. Where high levels of contaminant in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the
infiltrating stormwater.
5. Where High Vulnerability Wellhead Protection areas are present (within the 1-
year capture zone; Appendix E).
The use of infiltration techniques shall be restricted and subject to higher engineering review
where the infiltration BMP will be constructed in any of the following areas:
1. Soils in predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils.
2. Within 1,000 feet up-gradient, or 100 feet down-gradient of active karst features.
3. Drinking Water Supply Management Areas are present, as defined by Minn. R.
4720.5 100, sup.13, unless precluded by a local unit of government with an MS4
permit.
4. Soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour unless soils are amended
to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour.
Where the site factors listed above limit the construction of infiltration systems, the project
proposer shall provide appropriate documentation to the City regarding the limitations. If the
City determines that infiltration is restricted or prohibited onsite, the applicant shall consider
alternative volume reduction BMPs and the water quality volume must be treated by a wet
sedimentation basin, filtration system, regional ponding or similar method prior to the release
of stormwater to surface water.
8.3 Water Quality Control
The water quality control standard shall be considered satisfied if the volume control
standard has been satisfied. In the event that it is infeasible to meet the volume control
standard due to contaminated soils, site constraints, etc. for new development, the proposed
BMP will need to maintain the existing TSS and TP loading. The goal for redevelopment is
to reduce the TSS and TP loadings from existing (based on the MS4 Permit requirements).
Mechanical stormwater treatment devices may be implemented to provide site-specific
treatment of stormwater provided that the following criteria are met:
1. Removal of a minimum of 80% TSS from the surface water discharge on an
average annual basis for a particle size distribution representative of published
NURP study distributions or other locally published distributions; or,
2. Removal of 80% of a particle size distribution having a mean particle size no
greater than 100 microns.
3. The devices must provide removal based on the actual annual precipitation for the
area or retain the volume resulting from a 100-year storm event.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 18
Engineering Design Standards
4. Long-term maintenance of the structure including frequency, equipment needed,
and estimated cost must be identified and included in the stormwater management
plan. The maintenance plan must be signed by the property owner and include
provisions for submitting an annual report of operation to the City upon request.
For redeveloping sites that are tributary to City stortnwater treatment facilities:
1. A fee of$0.60/SF of impervious surface directed into the City system shall be
charged to cover the Cities cost to providing regional treatment to remove TP and
TSS.
2. Up to a 10% reduction of fee may be granted if approved Low Impact
Development (LID) BMP's are incorporated into the site (i.e. disconnected
impervious, infiltration, grit removal). The City reserves the right to dismiss
BMPs as effective long-term solutions. Maintenance agreements are required for
all BMPs considered effective, long-term water quality solutions.
3. Sites greater than 5 acres will be required to include a City-approved sump
manhole to provide grit removal.
When stormwater discharges cross the City's boundaries without entering a regional
treatment system:
1. Treatment to NURP guidelines is required.
2. New stormwater management ponds constructed as part of private.
3. Skimmers are required in the construction of new pond outlets and should be added to
existing systems whenever feasible.
Under certain circumstances, some construction projects cannot meet the TSS and/or TP
reduction requirements for new or redevelopment projects on the site of the original
construction. All methods must be exhausted prior to considering alternative locations where
TSS and TP treatment standards can be achieved. If the City has determined that all methods
have been exhausted, the permittee will be required to identify alternative locations where
TSS and TP treatment standards can be achieved. Mitigation projects will be chosen in the
following order of preference:
1. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from
the original construction activity.
2. Locations within the same Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment
area as the original construction activity.
3. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up-stream.
4. Locations anywhere within the City of Richfield.
In addition, mitigation projects shall also meet the following criteria:
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 19
Engineering Design Standards
1. Mitigation projects shall involve the establishment new structural stormwater
BMPs or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a
properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP.
2. Previously required routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs cannot be
considered mitigation.
3. Mitigation projects must be finished within 24 months after the original
construction activity begins.
4. A maintenance agreement specifying the responsible party for long-term
maintenance shall be identified.
8.4 Rate Control
1. At a minimum, detention basins should maintain existing flow rates for the l-
year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour chance storm events in accordance to the
NOAA Atlas 14 data as shown in the table below:
Event Rainfall/Snowmelt Depth (inches)
1-Year, 24 hour(99%) 2.48
l0-Year, 24 hour(10%) 4.25
100-Year, 24 hour(1%) 7.50
100-year, 10 day snowmelt 10.2
2. Surface water discharge rates from new development and redevelopment on sites
disturbing less than one (1) acre of land must be reviewed for surface water
discharge purposes by the City Engineer if the development will result in an
increase in rate, volume, or change the location of surface water runoff.
3. Runoff rates are limited to existing conditions for discharges leaving the City
boundaries or for discharges into systems such as Mn/DOT, not owned by the
City, unless an agreement is in place.
4. Detention basins shall be designed with capacity for the critical 100-year event,
which is defined as the 100-year event that produces the highest water level
among the 24-hour rainfall event or the 10-day, 10.2-inch snowmelt runoff event.
5. The maximum duration for rainfall critical event analysis shall be 24-hours except
in cases where basins are landlocked, where back to back 24-hour events and the
10-day, 10.2-inch snowmelt runoff event shall also be used. In all cases a
hydrograph method of analysis should be used. For the 24-hour rainfall event, or
back to back 24-hour rainfall events, an SCS Type II distribution should be used.
For shorter duration critical events other distributions may be used with the
approval of the City Engineer.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 20
Engineering Design Standards
6. All drainage system analyses and designs shall be based on proposed full
development land use patterns.
7. For development adjacent to a landlocked basin (and basin is not provided an
overland outlet), freeboard should be determined based on one of three methods
(whichever provides for the highest freeboard elevation and low floor elevation):
a. Two feet above the HWL determined by modeling back to back 100-year, 24-
hour events;
b. Three feet above the highest known water level; or
c. Five feet above the HWL determined by modeling a single 100-year, 24-hour
event.
8. When modeling landlocked basins, the starting water surface elevation should be
the basins Ordinary High Water elevation, which can be determined through
hydrologic modeling or, in the case of a DNR regulated basin, from a DNR
survey.
9. For basins with a suitable outlet, freeboard will be 2 feet above the HWL
determined by modeling the 100-year critical event. Emergency overflows a
minimum of 1 foot of freeboard to the low building opening with capacity to
convey the 100-year 24-hour flow. The lowest ground elevation adjacent to a
structure should be a minimum of 1.5 feet above the emergency overflow.
10. Adjacent to channels, creeks, and ravines freeboard will also be 2 feet to the 100-
year critical event elevation.
11. The NOAA Atlas 14 24-hour rainfall distribution with average antecedent
moisture conditions should be utilized for runoff calculations.
12. City standard detail plates should be utilized for pond outlet structures.
13. Outlet structures should be designed in three phases with primary outlet structure
and secondary overflow structure routed to the storm sewer and a defined
emergency overflow as the tertiary outlet structure.
8.5 Freeboard
The City requires a minimum of two feet of freeboard elevation between the low point of
entry elevation and the I% chance event high water elevation in a given area for all new and
redeveloped structures.
8.6 Floodplain Management
The City prohibits filling activities within the 100-year floodplain the will cause an increase
in the stage of the 100-year or regional flood or cause in increase in the flood damages in the
reach affected unless compensatory storage is provided and/or channel improvement is
provide that will not result in the flood stage. Filling within the floodway is prohibited unless
the filling meets FEMA, DNR, and Watershed Commission requirements, and the City's
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 21
Engineering Design Standards
floodplain ordinance. Applications proposing to alter the floodplain shall submit the
following to the City:
1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the impact of the
proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain; and
2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and proposed contours of
the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain elevations; and
3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity resulting from the project.
8.7 Buffers
Buffers are required adjacent to wetlands as defined in the City's Surface Water Management
Plan, and Wetland Protection and Management Plan.
1. Prior to issuance of any City grading or building permits, all development or
redevelopment activities shall comply with the Wetland Conservation Act.
2. The City will promote and encourage all properties adjacent to lakes, streams and
wetlands to establish a vegetative buffer strip consisting of native, non-mowed
vegetation.
3. The City requires that the development or redevelopment of all structures shall be
outside the recommended buffer zone outlined in the Wetland Protection and
Management Plan or at least 10 feet back from the wetland edge as delineated by
a qualified delineator and/or verified by City staff.
4. The following standards shall guide the creation or restoration of buffers to
achieve the goals and policies of the City of Richfield, MCWD, and NMCWD.
The Administrator may modify or waive standards depending on each project Site
and goals for the wetland.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WS13 Project No.2092-460 Page 22
Engineering Design Standards
Buffer Class Definitions
Wetlands assigned the unique/outstanding
rating in the inventory of wetlands
conducted by the city. Class 1 wetlands
are those with conditions and functions
Class 1 most highly susceptible to human impacts,
are most unique, have the highest
community resource significance such as
rare species habitats, and similar
characteristics.
High value wetlands that are relatively
undisturbed, with conditions and functions
Class 2 that are susceptible to human impacts, are
connected to other wetlands or waterways,
and may contain locally significant or rare
wetland types.
Wetlands whose functions include wildlife
habitat value, that is, provide a diversity
Class 3 of habitats, and are connected to other
wetland or upland habitats to provide
wildlife habitat.
Moderate value wetlands that are less
susceptible to further impacts than Class 1
Class 4 or 2, and have low diversity and
connectivity to other wetlands and
waterways.
Wetlands assigned the highly impacted
rating in the city's inventory. Class 5
wetlands are those with conditions and
Class 5 functions most impacted by human
activities, with the least diverse vegetation
communities, least community resource
significance and similar characteristics.
Recommended Buffer Widths for Classes
Class 3, Class 5
Class 1 Class 2 Lakes and Class 4
Stotmwater
Streams
Average
Buffer 100 Feet 100 Feet 50 Feet 25 Feet 0 Feet
Width
Minimum
Buffer 100 Feet 50 Feet 25 Feet 20 Feet 0 Feet
Width
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WS13 Project No.2092-460 Page 23
Engineering Design Standards
8.8 Shoreland Management
The City Code has established setbacks for placement of structures and impervious and also
requirements for shoreland alterations. The City also encourages the following for work
occurring within the shoreland zone:
1. Encourage the use of natural vegetation or bioengineering techniques for the
stabilization of shorelines.
2. Development and construction must be planned and conducted in a manner that
will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential,
and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and
protected using methods and facilities designed and installed consistent with Best
Management Practices.
3. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation
conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural
features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions,
settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be
used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and
infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities.
8.9 Long Term Inspection and Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities
1. No private stormwater facilities may be approved unless a maintenance plan is
provided that defines how access will be provided, who will conduct the
maintenance, the type of maintenance and the maintenance intervals. At a
minimum, all private stormwater facilities shall be inspected annually and
maintained in proper condition consistent with the performance goals for which
they were originally designed and as executed in the stormwater facilities
maintenance agreement.
2. Access to all stormwater facilities must be inspected annual and maintained as
necessary. The applicant shall obtain all necessary easement or other property
interests to allow access to the facilities for inspection or maintenance for both the
responsible party and the City of Richfield.
3. All settled materials including settled solids, shall be removed from ponds, sumps,
grit chambers, and other devices, and disposed of properly.
9. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD)
9.1 Water Quantity
1. Future discharge rates will not exceed existing discharge rates.
2. Runoff rates are limited to existing conditions for discharges leaving the City
boundaries or for discharges into systems such as Mn/DOT, not owned by the
City of Richfield, unless an agreement is in place.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 24
Engineering Design Standards
3. The design of major storm water storage facilities shall accommodate a critical
duration event with a 1% chance of occurrence (6" in 24 hours).
4. The design of new storm sewer systems shall be based on a critical duration
rainfall event of having a 10% chance of occurrence in any given year.
5. No orifice having a diameter less than 8" is allowed in the design of rate control
structures.
6. An emergency spillway from ponding areas shall be installed to have a 100 year
overflow capacity at a flow profile a minimum of 1 foot below the lowest building
opening.
7. The low floor elevation will be 2 feet above any historic high groundwater
elevations and 100-year high surface water elevations for the area.
8. Building will maintain a minimum building opening elevation 3 feet above the
projected 100-year high water elevation for the area.
9. Filling activities must be allowable per City's floodplain ordinance.
10. Design calculations for the I%, 10%, and 99% chance storm event must be
submitted to the City for review and approval.
9.2 Infiltration and Water Quality Treatment (for sites greater than one acre)
1. For redeveloping sites that are tributary to City stormwater treatment facilities:
a. A fee of$ 0.60 / SF of impervious surface directed into the City system shall
be charged to cover the Cities cost for providing regional treatment remove
TP, and TSS
b. Up to a 10% reduction of fee may be granted if approved Low Impact
Development (LID) BMP's are incorporated into the sites'2 (i.e. disconnected
impervious, grit removal)
c. BMP required
d. Sites greater than 5 acres will be required to include a City approved sump
manhole to provide grit removal
2. When storm water discharges cross the City's boundaries without entering a
Regional treatment system:
a. Phosphorus, Rate, and Volume Control must meet MCWD Mule requirements.
b. Treatment to NURP guidelines is required.
c. New storm water management ponds constructed as part of private
development must be covered by drainage and utility easements dedicated to
the City.
d. Skimmers are required in the construction of new pond outlets and should be
added to existing systems whenever feasible.
The City reserves the right to dismiss BMP's as effective long-term solutions.
`Maintenance agreements are required for all BMPs considered long-term effective water quality solutions.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 25
Engineering Design Standards
9.3 Volume Control
1. No increase in volume is allowed for a critical duration event with a I% chance of
occurrence (6" in 24 hours).
2. New and Re-development are required to incorporate LID techniques that have
been reviewed and approved by the City(i.e. green roofs, reuse, evaporation,
rainfall harvesting, and/or evapotranspiration).
3. A City approved maintenance plan for these features will be required. Any BMPs
to be considered effective as a long-term water quality feature will require a
maintenance agreement with the City.
9.4 Groundwater
1. All unsealed and abandoned wells shall be properly sealed.
10. NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (NMCWD)
Proposed projects within the NMCWD must follow the Rules and requirements of the
NMCWD. For additional information, visit www.ninemilect-eek.org or call the NMCWD at
952-835-2078.
11. STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICE DESIGN STANDARDS
11.1 Storm Sewers
1. Manhole spacing shall not exceed 400 feet.
2. Where more than one pipe enters a structure, a catch basin/manhole shall be used.
3. Storm sewer pipe should match top of pipe on top of pipe unless grade constraints
prevent this. In that case, hydraulic calculations will be necessary to verify that
excessive surcharging will not occur.
4. Stormwater pipes shall be designed utilizing the Rational Method. Channel
design shall be hydrograph method only. All methods are subject to the City
Engineer's approval.
5. Lateral systems shall be designed for the 10-year rainfall using the Rational
Method. State Aid roadway storm sewer shall be designed per the State Aid
requirements.
6. The minimum full flow velocity within the storm sewer should be 3 feet per
second(fps). The maximum velocity shall be 10 fps, except when entering a
pond, where the maximum velocity shall be limited to 6fps.
7. Trunk storm sewer should be designed at a minimum to carry 100-year pond
discharge in addition to the 10-year design flow for directly tributary areas. The
following table shall be used for the calculation of peak rates using the Rational
Method:
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 26
Engineering Design Standards
Cover Type 10-Year Runoff Coefficient
Single-family Residential 0.4
Multi-family Residential 0.5
Commercial 0.7
Industrial 0.7
Parks, Open Space 0.2
Ponds, Wetlands 1.0
8. For storms greater than the 10-year event, and in the case of plugged inlets,
transient street ponding will occur. For safety reasons, the maximum depth in
streets should not exceed 1.5 feet at the deepest point.
9. To promote efficient hydraulics within manholes, manhole benching shall be
provided to 1/2 diameter of the largest pipe entering or leaving the manhole.
10. Vaned grate (3067V) catch basin castings shall be used on all streets.
11. The maximum design flow at a catch basin for the 10-year storm event shall be
three (3) cubic feet per second(cfs), unless high capacity grates are provided.
Catch basins at low points will be evaluated for higher flow with the approval of
the City Engineer.
12. All structures located in the street are to be a minimum of four feet deep (rim to
invert) and a minimum of three feet deep elsewhere. Two-by-three catch basins
are to be four(4) feet deep.
11.2 Outlet and Inlet Pipes
1. Inlet pipes of stormwater ponds shall be extended to the pond normal water level
whenever possible.
2. Outfalls with velocities greater than 4 fps into channels, where the angle of the
outfall to the channel flow direction is greater than 30 degrees, requires energy
dissipation or stilling basins.
3. Outfalls with velocities of less than 4 fps, that project flows downstream into a
channel in a direction 30 degrees or less from the channel flow direction,
generally do not require energy dissipaters or stilling basins, but will require
riprap protection.
4. In the case of discharge to channels, riprap shall be provided on all outlets to an
adequate depth below the channel grade and to a height above the outfall or
channel bottom. Riprap shall be placed over a suitably graded filter material and
filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not migrate though the riprap and
reduce its stability. Riprap shall be placed to a thickness at least 2.5 times the
mean rock diameter to ensure that it will not be undermined or rendered
ineffective by displacement. If riprap is used as protection for overland drainage
routes, grouting may be recommended.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 27
Engineering Design Standards
5. Discharge velocity into a pond at the outlet elevation shall be 6 fps or less.
Riprap protection is required at all inlet pipes into ponds from the NWL to the
pond bottom.
6. Where outlet velocities to ponds exceed 6 fps, the design should be based on the
unique site conditions present. Submergence of the outlet or installation of a
stilling basin approved by the City is required when excessive outlet velocities are
experienced.
7. Submerged outlet pipes from ponds are not allowed.
11.3 Channels and Overland Drainage
1. Overland drainage routes where velocities exceed 4 fps should be reviewed by the
City Engineer and approved only when suitable stabilization measures are
proposed.
2. Open channels and swales are recommended where flows and small grade
differences prohibit the economical construction of an underground conduit.
Open channels and swales can provide infiltration and filtration benefits not
provided by pip.
3. The minimum grade in all unpaved areas shall be 2%.
4. Maximum length for drainage swales shall be 400 feet.
5. Channel side slopes should be a maximum of 4:1 (horizontal to vertical)with
gentler slopes being desirable.
6. Riprap shall be provided at all points of juncture, particularly between two open
channels and where storm sewer pipes discharge into a channel.
7. Open channels should be designed to handle the expected velocity from a 10-year
design storm without erosion. Riprap may need to be provided.
8. Periodic cleaning of an open channel is required to ensure that the design capacity
is maintained. Therefore, all channels shall be designed to allow easy access for
equipment.
11.4 Ponds
1. Where on site water quality detention basins are required, copies of the
calculations determining the design of the basin(s) will be provided. The size and
design considerations will be dependent on the receiving water body's water
quality category, the imperviousness of the development and the degree to which
on site infiltration of runoff is achieved. Design of on-site detention basins, as
described in the site's runoff water management plan, shall incorporate
recommendations from the nationwide urban runoff program (NURP), or the
applicable publications, as adopted by the city. The following design
considerations are required for on-site water quality detention basins based on the
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 28
Engineering Design Standards
receiving water's water quality category. These designs include permanent
detention for water quality treatment; extended detention designs may be
substituted provided that they provide treatment equivalent to the requirements
below:
a. A permanent pool (dead storage)volume below the normal outlet shall be
greater than or equal to the runoff from a two and one-half inch (2.5") 24-hour
storm over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development.
b. A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) which shall be
greater than four feet (4'), with a maximum depth of less than ten feet (10').
c. An emergency spillway(emergency outlet) adequate to control the 100-year
frequency critical duration rainfall event.
d. Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than three
to one (3:1) when possible, and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a
minimum width of ten feet (10') and a maximum slope of ten to one (10:1)
below the normal water level is recommended to enhance wildlife habitat,
reduce potential safety hazards, and improve access for long term
maintenance.
e. To prevent short circuiting, the distance between the major inlets and normal
outlet shall be maximized.
£ A flood pool (temporary storage) volume above the principal outlet spillway
shall be adequate so that the peak discharge rate from the 1-, 10- and 100-year
frequency critical duration storm is not greater than the peak discharge for a
similar storm and predevelopment watershed conditions.
g. Extended detention of runoff from the more frequent(1-year to 5-year) storms
shall be achieved through a principal spillway design which shall include a
perforated vertical riser, a small orifice outlet or a compound weir. The
spillway must be constructed of a limited maintenance material. The use of
treated or naturally decay resistant timber shall not be allowed.
h. Effective energy dissipation devices which reduce outlet velocities to four feet
(4')per second or less shall consist of riprap, stilling pools or other such
measures to prevent erosion at all stormwater outfalls into the basin and at the
detention basin outlet.
i. Trash and floatable debris skimming devices shall be placed on the outlet of
all on site detention basins to provide treatment up to the critical duration 10-
year storm event. These devices can consist of baffled weirs, submerged inlets
or other such measures capable of restricting the overflow of floatable
materials, including litter, oil and grease. The skimming device must be
constructed of a limited maintenance material. The use of treated or naturally
decay resistant timber shall not be allowed. Computations for the design of
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 29
Engineering Design Standards
such devices shall be included. The maximum velocity through the skimming
device shall be less than one foot(1')per second(fps) on the 2-year 24-hour
event.
J. For purposes of erosion control, vegetation protection and wildlife habitat
enhancement, the 10-year flood level of the basin shall be no more than two
feet(2') above the normal level of the basin.
k. All constructed ponds shall be provided a maintenance access from an
adjacent roadway. The maintenance access shall be provided in the form of
an easement no narrower than 20 feet. The maintenance access shall have a
longitudinal slope no steeper than 6:1 and minimal cross slope. Maintenance
access routes, due to their extra width, also serve well as emergency overflow
(EOF)routes.
2. In areas where NURP treatment basins are not feasible to construct and approval
from the applicable Watershed District has been acquired, MPCA guidelines may
be substituted as outlined in Section 6, Part 6.3: Temporary/Permanent Sediment
Basins of these Engineering Design Standards.
11.5 Infiltration/Filtration Practices
1. Sizing of filtration/infiltration practices, or STPs, shall be in conformance with
the volume control requirements of this manual and the Minnesota Storinwater
Manual.
2. When designing an infiltration practice for volume control and water quality
management, on-site testing and detailed analysis are strongly encouraged in
order to determine the infiltration rates of the proposed infiltration facility.
Documented site-specific infiltration or hydraulic conductivity measurements
(double-ring infrlitrometer) completed by a licensed soil scientist or engineer is
required. In the absence of a detailed analysis, the saturated infiltration rates
listed in the Infiltration Rates for Infiltration STPs table found on the Minnesota
Storinwater Manual shall be used. A piezometer shall be installed in order to
ascertain the level of the local groundwater table and demonstrate at least three
feet of separation between the bottom of the proposed facility and the
groundwater. The soil boring is required to go to a depth of at least five feet
below the proposed bottom of the STP. The soils shall be classified using the
Unified Soil Classification system. The least permeable soil horizon will dictate
the infiltration rate. Infiltration practices shall be designed to infiltrate the
required runoff volume within 48 hours.
3. Pretreatment, in the form of ponds, forebays, filter strips, or other approved
methods, shall be provided for all infiltration areas. Pretreatment upstream of
volume management practices is a key element in the long-term viability of
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 30
Engineering Design Standards
infiltration areas. The level of pretreatment varies largely depending on the STP
and drainage area of the watershed, City staff, and Minnesota Stormwater Manual
recommendations shall be utilized for determining the appropriate level of
pretreatment on a case-by-case basis.
4. The infiltration practice shall not be used within fifty feet of a municipal,
community or private well, unless specifically allowed by an approved wellhead
protection plan.
5. The infiltration practice shall not be used for runoff from fueling and vehicle
maintenance areas and industrial areas with exposed materials prosing
contamination risk, unless the infiltration practice is designed to allow for spill
containment.
6. The infiltration practice shall not be used in Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) D soils
without soil corrections.
7. Vegetation of infiltration/filtration practices shall be as shown in the City of
Richfield Standard Details. A plan for management for vegetation shall be
included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
8. If soils are unsuitable for infiltration, then filtration may be used with drain tile,
provided in accordance with the City of Richfield's Standard Details.
9. Subgrade soils for infiltration/filtration practices shall be as presented in the City
of Richfield's Standard Details. Assume a 40% void ratio for clean washed rock
and 20% for construction sand for the purposes of volume calculations.
10. Rock storage beds shall be constructed using crushed angular granite that has
been thoroughly washed to remove all fine particles that could result in clogging
of the system.
11. For infiltration benches adjacent to ponds,benches shall have slopes no steeper
than 5:1 over the proposed infiltration zone. A slope of 10:1 is preferred. The
Minnesota Stormwater Manual cites concerns with locating infiltration features
immediately adjacent to ponds. To address this, benches shall be located to
maintain hydraulic separation from the saturated zone of the pond in order to
minimize the loss of infiltration potential over time.
11.6 Emergency Overflow Paths
1. Emergency Overflows (EOFs) shall be sized with a minimum bottom width of
five feet and 4:1 side slopes.
2. The maximum flow depth in EOFs shall be less than or equal to one foot as
calculated for a 100-year back-to-back storm event.
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
wSB Project No.2092-460 Page 31
Engineering Design Standards
12. DESIGN EXAMPLES
The design process for each of the acceptable Stormwater Treatment Practices is detailed in the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual, http://stormwater.pea.state.mn.us/index.php/Main_Pag_e.
13. STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICE DETAIL DRAWINGS
Please refer to the City of Richfield's Engineering Details for the following:
1. Bioretention
2. Sand Filter System
3. Dry/Wet Swale
4. Infiltration Trench
5. Infiltration Basin
6. Stormwater Pond/Wetland
14. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
Construction specifications and details are found in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for each
of the acceptable STPs, unless otherwise restricted by this manual.
15. CHECKLISTS
Refer to Appendix A&B
1. Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Form
2. City of Richfield Plan Review Checklist
Engineering Design Standards
City of Richfield,MN
WSB Project No.2092-460 Page 32
WSB
�Assoc- engineering•planning•environmental•construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis,MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Jaeson Morrison, City of Richfield
From: Meghan Litsey, WSB &Associates
Date: July 31, 2015
Re: MS4 Ordinance Updates
WSB Project No. 2092-460
The MPCA requires that all municipalities that own and operate storm sewer systems with a
population greater than 5,000 people obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Permit on a 5-year cycle. The MS4 Permit was updated by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency(MPCA) and reissued in 2013, which required the City to reapply for MS4 Permit
coverage. The City applied for and was reissued their permit on March 17, 2014. With the
reauthorization of the permit, the City is mandated to come into compliance with the most
current MPCA requirements and update their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
This updated SWPPP contains six program components:
• Public education and outreach;
• Public participation;
• Illicit discharge detection and elimination;
• Construction site stormwater runoff control;
• Post-construction stormwater management; and
• Good housekeeping and pollution prevention practices for municipal operations.
WSB reviewed the City of Richfield's ordinances and identified where the current ordinances
(Section 428 and Section 429)have deficiencies according to the new requirements of the MS4
Permit. Additionally, WSB compared the City's ordinances to the Environmental Protection
Agency's model ordinances, and ordinances that have been adopted by other Cities that are
representative of the type of language and content needed to satisfy the new permit requirements.
The revisions to the ordinances are designed to bring the City's ordinances into compliance with
the new mandated requirements of the MS4 Permit.
WSB staff also worked with City staff to develop an Engineering Design Standards for
Stormwater Management, which includes mandated MS4 requirements for design,
implementation, inspection and maintenance obligations, etc. for construction site runoff control
and post-construction stormwater management. The Engineering Design Standards document
will serve as a resource to both developers and City staff for reviewing and developing
stormwater-management plans.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02092-460 Addn\Do \2014 0,d,u
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.G.
STAFF REPORT NO. 132
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Finnegan,Civil Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
9/2/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the following relating to the 66th Street Storm Water Project:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing City staff to incur cost for construction.
2. Approve the hiring WSB &Associates, Inc. to perform Engineering Services for the 66th Street
Storm Water Project for a fee not to exceed $197,843.00.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of street reconstruction projects, storm water issues are identified and opportunities to address them
are considered. With the reconstruction of 66th Street starting in 2017, the City has identified a way to address
long-term flooding issues in the areas of:
• 66th Street and Newton Avenue
• 67th Street and Logan Avenue
To address these areas, the proposed 66th Street Storm Water Project includes constructing a 3'x 6'
box culvert from 66th Street to 69th Street via Monroe Park and James Avenue. The project needs to
be constructed in 2016 to be available for the roadway project, starting in 2017.
Adoption of the resolution will enable City staff to begin incurring construction costs for this project. The
resolution allows costs incurred up to 60 days prior to Council Approval of the resolution using the proceeds of
the bond sale.
Additionally, the engineering firm of WSB &Associates, Inc. submitted a proposal to provide final design and
project bidding services in an amount not to exceed $197,843.00 for the 66th Street Storm Water Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing City staff to incur cost for the construction of the 66th Street
Storm Water Project.
2. Approve the hiring of WSB &Associates, Inc. to perform Engineering Services for the 66th
Street Storm Water Project for a fee not to exceed $197,843.00.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• In 1988, a Richfield Drainage Study was completed and the area near 66th Street and Newton
Avenue was identified as a flooding problem area.
• In 2000, WSB &Associates, Inc. completed a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan that
identified 66th Street and Newton Avenue as a problem area that had yet to be addressed.
• On August 11, 2015 City staff presented to the City Council the 66th Street Storm Water Project to
address these identified problem areas. Council directed staff to continue forward with the project.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• Council approval is required for expenditures over$100,000.00.
• The City takes each opportunity to improve flooding issues when the opportunity arises.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The 66th Street Storm Water Project needs to be completed before the 66th Street Reconstruction
project begins.
• The 66th Street Reconstruction project is scheduled to begin in 2017; therefore, the 66th Street
Storm Water Project needs to take place in 2016.
• Approval of the reimbursement resolution and hiring a consultant will allow the project to stay on
schedule.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• Adoption of the proposed reimbursement resolution provides approval for City staff to incur costs for
the 66th Street Storm Water Project.
• The reimbursement resolution makes projects costs eligible for reimbursement from the proceeds of
utility revenue bonds.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• The City Council may choose to postpone the adoption of the proposed reimbursement resolution and
direct staff how to proceed; however, the postponing adoption may affect the year of construction.
• The City Council may choose not to hire WSB &Associates, Inc. and request proposals from other
engineering firms for this project; however, staff believes that WSB &Associates, Inc. is best qualified
to perform the work at a reasonable cost.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution Resolution Letter
D Proposal from WSB Cover Memo
RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY
THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO MONROE PARK
STORMWATER PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the
"Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to
reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are
met; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") expects to incur certain
expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and
reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (the
"Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City proposes to undertake the 66th Street Storm Water Project within
the City (the "Project").
2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain
costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal
amount of $4,500,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of
issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section
1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of
any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the
proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds;
(b) costs in an amount not in excess of$100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue;
or (c) "preliminary expenditures" up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the
aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the
City to finance the Project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term
"preliminary expenditures" includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance,
and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or
rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs
incident to commencement of construction.
4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the
City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The
anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds
described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are,
or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise
set aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial policies to pay such Project
expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose , City Clerk
rr��,A
WSB
&,a,,,,,- engineering-planning-on vironmenta/•construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis,MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
August 20, 2015
Ms. Kristin Asher
City Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: 2016—Monroe Park/James Avenue Drainage Improvement Project
Work Plan - Final Design& Bidding Services
WSB Project No. 1532-740
Dear Ms. Asher:
As requested, the following proposal outlines the scope of services and the associated
engineering fee necessary to complete the 2016 Monroe Park/James Avenue Drainage
Improvement Project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The 2016 project consists of extending a 3 by 6 foot box culvert north from 69th Street up James
Avenue to 66`h Street. The project will also include full replacement of the sanitary sewer and
water main that is present along James Avenue from 68th Street to 69th Street. The street
reconstruction portion will still include the removal of the existing curb and gutter on both sides
of the street, and replacement of the bituminous surface and existing aggregate base from 69th
Street to 68th Street. Work in the park will include installation of the 3 by 6 foot box culvert
from the south end of the park at 67th Street, north to 69th Street along an alignment that will
minimize impact to trees and the newly constructed ball field on the south side of Monroe Park.
Work in Monroe Park will also include excavation of soil material within the north half of the
park property by up to three feet to increase the volume of floodwater storage that could be
provided in the park during major rainfall events, the installation of drain-tile within the park to
keep the park dry following rainfall events and eliminate the existing lift stations currently in
place that are utilized to dry out the park following rainfall events, and restoration of the park in
areas that are disturbed as part of the project.
Any significant improvements to the park that are outside of those listed above, that might be
identified during the public input process are not included in this scope of work and may be an
extra to this scope of services. It is also understood that the project funding does not include
assessments nor State Aid funding so neither an assessment roll or improvement hearings are
required.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\01532-740�Admin\Contract\Final Design\2015-OS-20 Rirhii,ld Munr,,Park-W urk Ilan fur Final D,sigmduc
Ms. Kristin Asher
August 20, 2015
Page 2
The proposed scope of services will include public involvement, development of construction
documents including final plans and project specifications, and bidding assistance.
A detailed estimate for construction services has not been included in this scope of work, and can
be added to the scope of work upon request. The cost for the construction services required is
primarily based on the construction time needed for the contractor to complete the proposed
work. A better estimate of the cost for these services can be provided when the project design
and schedule is complete. However, for purposes of estimation, based on past projects having a
similar scope, we would anticipate construction observation and management services would
range from $175,000 to $220,000.
SCOPE SERVICES
The following list of tasks is needed to refine the design and complete the contract documents
necessary to construct the project as described:
Task 1: Update Background Information
An additional design level survey will be completed for the added areas on the eastern
side of the park up to from 68t1' Street up to 66th Street to allow for a detailed drainage
and design review. This survey will include the development of street cross-sections and
identify the location and general condition of the infrastructure. The overall task will
include obtaining record plan information on the location and potential conflicts with
other utilities, finalizing an AutoCAD base map, and any other related information for the
area that may impact design or construction.
Task 2: Update Hydrologic/Hydraulic Design
Using the additional information gathered in Task 1, a more complete and updated
hydrologic/hydraulic design analysis will be completed to maximize the new storm sewer
system capacity. This information will be taken into consideration in this analysis and
the development of an appropriate geometric design for the transition between the
systems on 66`h Street to that on 69th Street. It is anticipated that this task will provide
appropriate geometric design information to allow the upstream system to make full use
of the new storm sewer system on 69th Street.
Task 3: Develop Final Plans and Specifications
Final plans and specifications will be prepared for the project. Specific work included
with this task will be development of the project documents including the updated plans
and specifications for bidding. The plans will detail the improvements including the
pavement section, excavation and pipe repair, centerline elevations for curb replacement,
removals and restoration (including park infrastructure), erosion control, and SWPPP
documentation. Documentation for the necessary permits will also be prepared along
with an engineer's opinion of probable cost. This task will also include a meeting with
private utility companies concerning the project prior to final plan completion. We
understand that City staff will conduct a neighborhood meeting or send out notifications
concerning the project prior to construction.
K 01532-740W drain Connect\Final nc�ib r\2015-OK-20 Richf id MOnrOc Park-Work Plan for Final 1]c�ib r.doc
Ms. Kristin Asher
August 20, 2015
Page 3
Task 4: Provide Bidding/Support Services
WSB staff will prepare the advertisement for bids, respond to contractor questions,
receive bids, provide a bid tabulation, conduct at pre-bid meeting if needed, evaluate the
bids and qualifications, and provide an award recommendation.
Upon Request:
Task 5: Provide Surveying/Construction Observation and Project Management
Services
WSB can provide construction staking and observations service as requested to verify the
project is constructed according to the plans and specifications, verify appropriate
contract documents are received and executed, work with residents to communicate
project activities, and perform other duties necessary to ensure conformance with City
standards and the plans and specifications. The cost of these services has not been
included with this proposal, but can be provided upon request.
SCHEDULE
City Approves Consultant Contract (Final Design Services) .......................... September, 2015
Final Design ...............................................................................October, 2015 - January, 2016
Council Approve Plans and Specifications /Authorize Ad for Bid.....................January, 2016
Conduct Informational Meeting (City Staff Only) ...............................................January, 2016
OpenBids....................................................................................................Late February, 2016
Council Awards Construction Contract..................................................................March, 2016
City Approves Consultant Contract (Construction Services).................................March, 2016
Begin Construction............................................................................................May/June, 2016
Final Completion ............................................................................... September/October, 2016
K 01532-740W drain Connect\Final nc�ib r\2015-OK-20 Richf id MOnrOc Park-Work Plan for Final 1]c�ib r.doc
Ms. Kristin Asher
August 20, 2015
Page 4
PROPOSED FEE
A copy of the project task hour budget is attached for your reference. Based on the proposed
task hour budget, WSB will complete the scope of work previously discussed on hourly basis for
a not-to-exceed amount of$197,843. This represents our complete understanding and scope of
the project. If the scope and fee appear to be appropriate, please sign on the space provided and
return one copy to our office. We are available to begin work immediately based on your
authorization.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide with this proposal and we are again looking forward to
working with you and your staff toward the completion of the project. Please feel free to contact
me with any questions or concerns you have.
Sincerely,
WSB &Associates, Inc.
Ji tremel, P.E.
Project Manager
Attachments
of
City of Richfield:
Authorized signature
Title
Date
K 01532-740\Adrain Connect\Final nc�ib r\2015-OK-20 Richf id MOnrOc Park-Work Plan for Final 1]c�ib r.doc
O r
64 64 64 6R 6R 6R &9 69 SR
F" x 09 Vl M N N 1�
Q .Sy
ll
F' V3 fi:4
3 0 0
� o0
G N N
O
v� VI Vi
N
�1 Cl) 69 fiR
- 00
O 7 T
G� ❑ � .� N V YJ N N � � 7 Vi
Y�I bq
Q O v
in
V rl ^fir' y �O N
•P•I It�ll j7 �?
W
b M
'O M M
c� a
N r-
��
•��/�N a� ,/ —
VJJ
11�/II a
r�r 69 6R
`y
Q
W
5Q
I�
Q �
N �
� 3
, yx
t72
c nn o a
o
L J.+
•� o ,� � =s '� a o GTr
a a U
C ° :a a4 a c A W
en r y i F
JL-
a >
� = F
s •
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.1-1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 133
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing the refunding of the$6,080,000 G.O. Water&
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A, dated May 18, 2006 and the$2,500,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds,
Series 2006B, dated December 21, 2006 with the $5,695,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2006 the City issued two separate bond issues, the $6,080,000 G.O. Water&Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series
2006A and the $2,500,000 Storm Sewer Bonds Series 2006B. Both bonds were issued to fund various capital
projects within the water &sewer and storm sewer utilities.
Interest rates continue to be at low levels, and the City's fiscal consultant, Ehlers &Associates, Inc. periodically
reviews the City's outstanding bond issues to determine which issues, if any are feasible for refunding. Upon
the latest review of the bond issues, Ehlers &Associates, Inc. recommends undertaking a bond refunding of
the Series 2006A and 2006B to take advantage of the low interest rates and realize interest savings. For this
refunding the savings is estimated to be$663,939.
The type of refunding being presented is a current refunding. In a current refunding transaction, the bonds
being refunded will either all mature or be redeemed within 90 days or less from the date of issuance of the
refunding issue. The City would then begin to make payments on the newly issued "refunding bonds."
Accordingly, the Series 2015B bonds are being issued to provide funds sufficient for a current refunding on
February 1, 2016. The par amount of the Series 2006A and Series 2006B to be called on the call date is
$3,935,000 and $1,645,000 respectively.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution providing for the sale of the $5,695,000 General Obligation
Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
N/A
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The sale of the refunding bonds at this time will allow the City to take advantage of the low interest rates
and realize interest savings.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• On the basis of Ehlers &Associates, Inc. review, it appears that the current interest rate climate
makes it feasible to refund the two bond issues.
• The current outstanding principal balance of the 2006A and 2006B bonds is$3,935,000 and
$1,645,000 respectively. The City will continue to make the principal and interest payments up to
and on the refunding date.
• The $5,695,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B are being issued to provide funds for a
current refunding on February 1, 2016, on all of the City's callable G.O. Water & Sewer Revenue
Bonds, Series 2006A and callable G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2006B.
• It is estimated that this refinancing under current rates would reduce the interest costs of paying
these two debt issues by approximately $663,939.
• This savings expressed in present value terms is around 10.604% of the refunded principal or
$591,707.
• The bonds are being issued for an 11-year period; this does not extend the term of the original
issue. The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be the same as the two current outstanding
issues.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Legal Counsel has reviewed the Pre-Sale report and the attached resolution.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as presently scheduled, and forego
the projected savings.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Brian Reilly, Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution Providing for the Sale of$5,695,000 General Resolution Letter
Obligation Refunding Bonds,Series 20156.
D Pre-Sale Report$5,695,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Exhibit
Series 2015B
Resolution No.
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 20158
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has heretofore determined that it
is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding
Bonds, Series 2015B (the "Bonds"), to finance the current refundings of the $6,080,000 G.O.
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A and 2,500,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds,
Series 200613; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers &Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"),
as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the
sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 PM on October 13, 2015,
for the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official
statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its
completion.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
September 8, 2015
Pre-Sale Report for
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
Series 2015B
I
1
i
Prepared by:
Rebecca Kurtz
Senior Municipal Advisor
And
Brian Reilly
Senior Municipal Advisor
t 1-300-552-1171 1 www,ehlei's-inc.com
Executive Summary of Proposed Debt
Proposed Issue: $5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B (the"Bonds")
Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for a current refunding for interest
savings on the following:
• Current Refunding of the $6,080,000 G.O. Water and Sewer Revenue
Bonds, Series 2006A, callable on February 1, 2016. Debt service will
be paid from sewer and water revenues.
Interest rates on the obligations proposed to be refunded are 3.95% to
4.3%. The refunding is expected to reduce interest expense by
approximately $469,825 over the next 11 years. The Net Present
Value Benefit of the refunding is estimated to be $419,080, equal to
10.65%of the refunded principal.
• Current Refunding of the $2,500,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series
2006B, callable on February 1, 2016. Debt service will be paid from
storm sewer revenues.
Interest rates on the obligations proposed to be refunded are 4.0% to
4.25%. The refunding is expected to reduce interest expense by
approximately $194,114 over the next 11 years. The Net Present
Value Benefit of the refunding is estimated to be $172,626, equal to
10.49%of the refunded principal.
Both refundings are considered to be Current Refundings as the obligations
being refunded are either callable (pre-payable) now, or will be within 90 days
Of the date of issue of the Bonds.
Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters:
• 444 — Allows cities to issue debt without limitation as long as debt
service is expected to be paid from water and/or sewer revenues
• 475—General bonding authority
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit
and taxing powers are pledged.
Term/Call Feature: The Bonds are being issued for an 11 year term. Principal on the Bonds will
be due on February 1 in the years 2017 through 2027. Interest is payable every
six months beginning August 1, 2016.
The Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2024 will be subject to
prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2023 or any date
thereafter.
Presale Report September 8, 2015
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 1
Bank Qualification: Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt
debt during the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as
"bank qualified" obligations. Bank qualified status broadens the market for
the Bonds,which can result in lower interest rates.
Rating: The City's most recent bond issues were rated "AA+" by Standard & Poor's.
The City will request an update to the rating for the Bonds.
If the winning bidder on the Bonds elects to purchase bond insurance, the
rating for the issue may be higher than the City's bond rating in the event that
the bond rating of the insurer is higher than that of the City.
Basis for Recommendation: Based on our knowledge of your situation, your objectives communicated to
us, our advisory relationship as well as characteristics of various municipal
financing options, we are recommending the issuance of general obligation
bonds as a suitable financing option because the issues being refunded are
general obligation bonds, and it has been the City's practice and policy to
finance utility projects with this type of debt. In addition, the issuance of
general obligation bonds provides the most overall cost effective option that
still maintains future flexibility for the repayment of the debt.
Method of Sale/Placement: In order to obtain the lowest interest cost to the City,we will competitively bid
the purchase of the Bonds from local and national undcrwriters/banks.
We have included an allowance for discount bidding equal to 1.0% of the
principal amount of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and
provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their compensation in the
transaction.
If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount
(maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to lower your
borrowing amount.
Premium Bids: Under current market conditions, most investors in municipal
bonds prefer "premium" pricing structures. A premium is achieved when the
coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the yield
to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of
the bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered
"reoffering premium."
The amount of the premium varies,but it is not uncommon to see premiums
for new issues in the range of 2.0% to 10.0%of the face amount of the
issue. This means that an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering may receive bids
that result in proceeds of$2,040,000 to $2,200,000.
For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to use the premium to reduce
the size of the issue. The adjustments may slightly change the true interest
cost of the original bid, either up or down.
You have the choice to limit the amount of premium in the bid
specifications. This may result in fewer bids, but it may also eliminate large
adjustments on the day of sale and other uncertainties.
Presale Report September 8, 2015
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 2
Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that,
other than the obligations proposed to be refunded by the Bonds, there are no
other current refunding opportunities at this time.
Based on discussions with staff we will continue to monitor the market and the
potential refunding of the 2007A and 2007B Bonds, which are callable on
February 1, 2017. These will be current refundings in the Fall of 2016.
In addition, we will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the
City's other outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding
opportunities.
Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including
this issue) and this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to
provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited
Financial Statement annually as well as providing notices of the occurrence of
certain "material events" to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
"MSRB"), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing
bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports.
Arbitrage Monitoring: Because the Bonds are tax-exempt securities/tax credit securities, the City
must ensure compliance with certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules
throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all gross proceeds of the
issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in construction,
escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers spend bond
proceeds and how they track interest earnings on funds (arbitrage/yield
restriction compliance) are common subjects of IRS inquiries. Your specific
responsibilities will be detailed in the Tax Certificate prepared by your Bond
Attorney and provided at closing. You have retained Ehlers to assist you with
compliance with these rules.
Risk Factors: Utility Revenue: The City expects to pay debt service with utility funds. If
utility revenue is inadequate, the City may have to levy taxes to pay debt
service on the Bonds.
Current Refunding: The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of current
refunding prior City debt obligations. Those prior debt obligations are
"callable" now and can therefore be paid off within 90 days or less. The new
Bonds will not be pre-payable until February 1, 2023. This refunding is being
undertaken based in part on an assumption that the City does not expect to
have future revenues to pay off this debt and that market conditions warrant
the refinancing at this time.
Presale Report September 8, 2015
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 3
Other Service Providers: This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service
providers. This section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can
coordinate their engagement on your behalf. Where you have previously used
a particular firm to provide a service,we have assumed that you will continue
that relationship. For services you have not previously required,we have
identified a serviceprovider. Fees charged by these service providers will be
paid from proceeds of the obligation,unless you notify us that you wish to pay
them from other sources. Our pre-sale bond sizing includes a good faith
estimate of these fees, so their final fees may vary. If you have any questions
pertaining to the identified service providers or their role, or if you would like
to use a different service provider for any of the listed services please contact
us.
Bond Attorney: Kennedy& Graven, Chartered
Paying Agent: Wells Fargo Bank,National Association
Rating Agency: Standard&Poor's Services
This presale report summarizes our understanding of the City's objectives for the structure and terms of this
financing as of this date. As additional facts become known or capital markets conditions change,we may need
to modify the structure and/or terms of this financing to achieve results consistent with the City's objectives.
Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule
Pre-Sale Review by City Council September 8, 2015
Distribute Official Statement: Week of September 28, 2015
Conference call with Rating Agency: Week of September 28, 2015
City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: October 13, 2015
Estimated Closing Date: November 10,2015
Redemption Date for 2006A Bond: February 1,2016
Redemption Date for 2006B Bond: February 1,2016
Presale Report September 8, 2015
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 4
Attachments
Sources and Uses of Funds
Proposed Debt Service Schedule
Refunding Savings Analysis
Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed With Bond Sale
Ehlers Contacts
Financial Advisors: Rebecca Kurtz (651) 697-8516
Brian Reilly (651) 697-8541
Disclosure Coordinator: Jen Chapman (651) 697-8566
Financial Analyst: Alicia Gage (651) 697-8551
The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the City Council at their home address or e-mailed for
review prior to the sale date.
Presale Report September 8, 2015
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 5
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
Issue Summary
Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 15bps
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 11/04/2015 1 Delivered 11/04/2015
Current Ref Current Ref Issue
06A 06B Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $4,020,000.00 $1,675,000.00 $5,695,000.00
Total Sources $4,020,000.00 $1,675,000.00 $5,695,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000°/x) 40,200.00 16,750.00 56,950.00
Costs of Issuance 40,941.17 17,058.83 58,000.00
Deposit to CuiTent Refunding Fund 3,935,000.00 1,645,000.00 5,580,000.00
Rounding Amount 3,858.83 (3,808.83) 50.00
Total Uses $4,020,000.00 $1,675,000.00 $5,695,000.00
Series 2015B GO Ref Bonds I Issue Summary 1 8/13/2015 1 10:44 AM
40 EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
Issue Summary
Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 15bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
11/04/2015 - -
08/01/2016 - - 73,786.56 73,786.56 -
02/01/2017 455,000.00 0.850% 49,743.75 504,743.75 578,530.31
08/01/2017 - - 47,810.00 47,810.00 -
02/01/2018 480,000.00 1.100% 47,810.00 527,810.00 575,620.00
08/01/2018 - - 45,170.00 45,170.00 -
02/01/2019 490,000.00 1.250% 45,170.00 535,170.00 580,340.00
08/01/2019 - - 42,107.50 42,107.50 -
02/01/2020 495,000.00 1.400% 42,107.50 537,107.50 579,215.00
08/01/2020 - 38,642.50 38,642.50
02/01/2021 505,000.00 1.600% 38,642.50 543,642.50 582,285.00
08/01/2021 - - 34,602.50 34,602.50 -
02/01/2022 515,000.00 1.800% 34,602.50 549,602.50 584,205.00
08/01/2022 - - 29,967.50 29,967.50 -
02/01/2023 525,000.00 1.950% 29,967.50 554,967.50 584,935.00
08/01/2023 - - 24,848.75 24,848.75 -
02/01/2024 535,000.00 2.050% 24,848.75 559,848.75 584,697.50
08/01/2024 - - 19,365.00 19,365.00 -
02/01/2025 555,000.00 2.200% 19,365.00 574,365.00 593,730.00
08/01/2025 - 13,260.00 13,260.00
02/01/2026 560,000.00 2.250% 13,260.00 573,260.00 586,520.00
08/01/2026 - - 6,960.00 6,960.00 -
02/01/2027 580,000.00 2.400% 6,960.00 586,960.00 593,920.00
Total $5,695,000.00 - $728,997.81 $6,423,997.81 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $36,786.29
Average Life 6.459 Years
Average Coupon 1.9817105%
Net Interest Cost(NTC) 2.1365236%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2.1396272%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.9713180%
All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 2.3134350%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.9817105%
Weighted Average Maturity 6.459 Years
Series 2015B GO Ref Bands I Issue Summary 1 8/13/2015 1 10:44 AM
40 EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
Issue Summary
Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 15bps
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2016 - (50.00) - 50.00
02/01/2017 578,530.31 578,530.31 636,142.50 57,612.19
02/01/2018 575,620.00 575,620.00 640,085.00 64,465.00
02/01/2019 580,340.00 580,340.00 638,235.00 57,895.00
02/01/2020 579,215.00 579,215.00 640,635.00 61,420.00
02/01/2021 582,285.00 582,285.00 642,072.50 59,787.50
02/01/2022 584,205.00 584,205.00 642,392.50 58,187.50
02/01/2023 584,935.00 584,935.00 646,805.00 61,870.00
02/01/2024 584,697.50 584,697.50 645,095.00 60,397.50
02/01/2025 593,730.00 593,730.00 651,932.50 58,202.50
02/01/2026 586,520.00 586,520.00 647,495.00 60,975.00
02/01/2027 593,920.00 593,920.00 656,997.50 63,077.50
Total $6,423,997.81 $6,423,947.81 $7,087,887.50 $663,939.69
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 591,657.34
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.971%(Bond Yield)..... 591,657.34
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... 50.00
Net Present Value Benefit $591,707.34
Net PV Benefit/$6,286,657.34 PV Refunded Debt Service 9.412%
Net PV Benefit/ $5,580,000 Refunded Principal... 10.604%
Net PV Benefit/ $5,695,000 Refunding Principal.. 10.390%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 11/04/2015
Refunding Delivery Date 11/04/2015
Series 2015B GO Ref Bands I Issue Summary 1 8/13/2015 1 10:44 AM
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$4,020,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
Current Ref 06A
Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 15bps
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2016 - (3,858.83) - 3,858.83
02/01/2017 407,196.04 407,196.04 448,172.50 40,976.46
02/01/2018 407,505.00 407,505.00 451,915.00 44,410.00
02/01/2019 408,765.00 408,765.00 450,065.00 41,300.00
02/01/2020 409,452.50 409,452.50 452,665.00 43,212.50
02/01/2021 414,552.50 414,552.50 454,502.50 39,950.00
02/01/2022 408,792.50 408,792.50 450,562.50 41,770.00
02/01/2023 412,312.50 412,312.50 456,125.00 43,812.50
02/01/2024 415,097.50 415,097.50 455,770.00 40,672.50
02/01/2025 417,307.50 417,307.50 459,407.50 42,100.00
02/01/2026 413,727.50 413,727.50 457,195.00 43,467.50
02/01/2027 419,840.00 419,840.00 464,135.00 44,295.00
Total $4,534,548.54 $4,530,689.71 $5,000,515.00 $469,825.29
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 415,222.04
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.971%(Bond Yield)..... 415,222.04
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... 3,858.83
Net Present Value Benefit $419,080.87
Net PV Benefit/$4,435,191.10 PV Refunded Debt Service 9.449%
Net PV Benefit/ $3,935,000 Refunded Principal... 10.650%
Net PV Benefit/ $4,020,000 Refunding Principal.. 10.425%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 11/04/2015
Refunding Delivery Date 11/04/2015
Series 2015B GO Ref Bands I Current Ref 06A 1 8/13/2015 1 10:44 AM
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
City of Richfield, Minnesota
$1,675,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
Current Ref 06B
Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 15bps
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2016 - 3,808.83 - (3,808.83)
02/01/2017 171,334.27 171,334.27 187,970.00 16,635.73
02/01/2018 168,115.00 168,115.00 188,170.00 20,055.00
02/01/2019 171,575.00 171,575.00 188,170.00 16,595.00
02/01/2020 169,762.50 169,762.50 187,970.00 18,207.50
02/01/2021 167,732.50 167,732.50 187,570.00 19,837.50
02/01/2022 175,412.50 175,412.50 191,830.00 16,417.50
02/01/2023 172,622.50 172,622.50 190,680.00 18,057.50
02/01/2024 169,600.00 169,600.00 189,325.00 19,725.00
02/01/2025 176,422.50 176,422.50 192,525.00 16,102.50
02/01/2026 172,792.50 172,792.50 190,300.00 17,507.50
02/01/2027 174,080.00 174,080.00 192,862.50 18,782.50
Total $1,889,449.27 $1,8939258.10 $2,087,372.50 $194,114.40
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Set-vice Savings..................... 176,435.31
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.971%(Bond Yield)..... 176,435.31
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... (3,808.83)
Net Present Value Benefit $172,626.48
Net PV Benefit/S 1,851,466.24 PV Refunded Debt Service 9.324%
Net PV Benefit/ $1,645,000 Refunded Principal... 10.494%
Net PV Benefit/ $1,675,000 Refunding Principal.. 10.306%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 11/04/2015
Refunding Delivery Date 11/04/2015
Series 2015B GO Ref Bands I Current Ref 06B 1 8/13/2015 1 10:44 AM
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
Resolution No.
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B
A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield,Minnesota has heretofore determined that it is
necessary and expedient to issue the City's $5,695,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series
2015B (the "Bonds"),to finance the current refundings of the $6,080,000 G.O. Water and Sewer
Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A and 2,500,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 200613; and
B. WHEREAS,the City has retained Ehlers &Associates, Inc.,in Roseville,Minnesota("Ehlers"), as its
independent financial advisor for the Bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60,
Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the sale of
the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 PM on October 13, 2015, for the
purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. in connection with said sale,the officers or employees of the City are hereby
authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the
Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by City Council Member
and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the
following City Council Members voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Dated this 8`" day of September,2015.
City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 134
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A.
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for unpaid false alarm
user fees against private property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Richfield City Code and City Charter allow the City to specially assess delinquent false alarm user fees against
the respective properties. State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for these
costs.
Unpaid alarm user fees must be paid to the City within 30 days from the date of written notice by the City to the
alarm user. Fees not paid within the time specified will be subject to a 10% penalty charge.
The special assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees from private properties is to recover costs incurred by
the City in connection with the response by public safety to an alarm call on certain properties in the City that
turns out to be false.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for unpaid false alarm user fees against private property and setting the
public hearing date for October 13, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etcy
• Richfield City Code section 915.07 Subd. 3 and chapter 8.02 of the City Charter allows the City to
specially assess delinquent false alarm user fees against the respective properties.
• Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one-year assessment for these
costs.
• Notice of the certification will be published in the Sun Current September 24, 2015.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
N/A
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• A 10% penalty charge is applied to all properties which have not paid within the time specified.
• The proposed special assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees from private property is
$1,540.00 with an additional 5% interest charge on the assessment.
• The affected property owner may prepay the original principal amount without interest within 30
days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 13, 2015. If the
original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged 5% interest.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting
should a legal question arise.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the City.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering
D the Preparation of the Proposed Assessment Roll for Resolution Letter
Unpaid False Alarm User Fees Against Public Property
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PROVATE PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for unpaid false alarm fees from private
properties in the City of Richfield in the amount of$1,540.00.
Unpaid
False
Property Address Property ID Number Alarm Fee
28 West 66th Street 27-028-24-24-0061 990.00
6401 Richfield Parkway 26-028-24-14-0136 110.00
6625 Lyndale Avenue S. 27-028-24-32-0137 220.00
6636 Cedar Avenue S. 26-028-24-41-0063 110.00
6901 Lyndale Avenue S. 27-028-24-33-0001 110.00
Total $1,540.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be
$1,540.00.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for
costs incurred against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed
assessment in her office for public inspection.
3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City
Council thereof.
4. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of October, 2015 in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to
pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by the unpaid false alarm fee assessment will be given an opportunity
to be heard in reference to such assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total
cost of the unpaid false alarm fees. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be
given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two
weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.J.
STAFF REPORT NO. 135
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for current services
performed for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or
safety hazards from private property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for the elimination of
public health or safety hazards or the elimination of weeds from private properties.
The special assessments are based on costs incurred by the City in connection with the abatement of weeds or
public health or safety hazards on certain properties in the City which are not properly maintained.
The owners of the subject properties are notified by the City to take corrective action with regard to the issue
with the property. If the specific property issues were not abated within the proper time limit the City would take
the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner.
In all cases, property owners will be notified that any unpaid charges or fees may be assessed against the
property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of
public health or safety hazards from private property and setting the public hearing date for October
13, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• The nuisance properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to
abate the nuisance.
• Minnesota State Statutes and Richfield City Code provide that the City may levy a special
one-year assessment for these costs.
• Notice of the certification will be published in the Sun Current September 24, 2015.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
N/A
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The proposed special assessment for the elimination of public health or safety hazards
from private property is $6,870.37 with an additional 5% interest penalty.
• The proposed special assessment for weed elimination from private property is $4,180.00
with an additional 5% interest penalty.
• Costs incurred for city staff time in the cleanup of the properties or to remove the weeds are
included in the special assessment amount.
• A$25.00 administrative fee is charged to all properties.
• The affected property owner may prepay the original principal amount without interest
within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 13,
2015. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged 5%
interest.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting
should a legal question arise.
ALTERNATIVE REC0MMENDATI0N(5)_
Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the City.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering
Preparation of Proposed Assessment For Weed
D Elimination From Private Property and Removal or Resolution Letter
Elimination of Public Health or Safety Hazards From
Private Property
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
WEED ELIMINATION FROM PROVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION
OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for weed elimination and removal or
elimination of public health or safety hazards from private properties in the City of Richfield
and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work ordered amount to $11,050.37.
Public
Property Address Property ID Number Weed Health or
Elimination Safety
Hazards
1430 66TH Street East 26-028-24-13-0084 145.00 247.50
209 Pillsbury Lane 34-028-24-24-0068 290.00
2525 65th Street W 29-028-24-14-0033 145.00 200.00
6236 Bloomington Ave S 26-028-24-12-0049 290.00
6238 Thomas Ave S 29-028-24-12-0007 145.00
6245 13th Ave S 26-028-24-12-0128 130.00
6305 Dupont Ave S 28-028-24-11-0086 130.00
6308 2nd Ave S 27-028-24-12-0067 145.00
6313 Aldrich Ave S 28-028-24-11-0038 145.00
6414 Grand Ave S 27-028-24-23-0045 420.00
6515 13th Ave S 26-028-24-13-0145 145.00
6521 Stevens Ave S 27-028-24-13-0087 250.00
6529 Newton Ave S 28-028-24-23-0110 295.00
6600 4TH Ave S 27-028-24-41-0044 145.00
6642 Humboldt Ave S 28-028-24-31-0086 420.00
6701 4th Ave S 27-028-24-41-0090 290.00 425.00
6734 Pleasant Ave S 27-028-24-32-0113 145.00
6817 Portland Ave S 26-028-24-33-0107 145.00
6845 18th Ave S 26-028-24-44-0009 500.00
6933 Blaidell ave S 27-028-24-34-0005 100.00
7010 Irving Ave S 33-028-24-21-0018 145.00
7144 4th Ave S 34-028-24-11-0044 495.00 250.00
7204 Stevens Ave S 34-028-24-13-0102 415.00
7224 18th Ave S 35-028-24-14-0069 145.00 455.00
7409 Oakland Ave S 35-028-24-32-0122 450.00
7435 4th Ave S 34-028-24-41-0115 250.00
7438 12th Ave S 35-028-24-31-0007 135.00
7438 Clinton Ave S 34-028-24-41-0081 435.00
7438 Elliot Ave S 35-028-24-31-0119 250.00
7527 Stevens Ave S 34-028-24-42-0108 205.00
7529 Emerson Ave S 33-028-24-42-0134 145.00
7600 Aldrich Ave S 33-028-24-44-0065 145.00
7601 Pillsbury Ave 34-028-24-34-0047 145.00
7633 15th Ave S 35-028-24-43-0051 145.00 807.87
7645 Nicollet Ave S 34-028-24-43-0070 145.00 595.00
Total $4,180.00 $6,870.37
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be
$11,050.37.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for
such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed
assessment in her office for public inspection.
3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City
Council thereof.
4. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of October, 2015 in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to
pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by the weed elimination and/or removal of public health or safety
hazards assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such
assessment.
5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total
cost of the weed elimination and the removal or elimination of public health or safety
hazards. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.K.
STAFF REPORT NO. 136
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn,Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
9/1/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a request for the temporary expansion of the licensed premises for
Davanni's, located at 6345 Penn Avenue South, to allow for the outside service of strong beer on
Sunday, September 20, 2015, in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 24, 2015, Davanni's requested permission to serve strong beer outside in the parking lot area of
their licensed establishment in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event. While Davanni's is
currently licensed to sell wine and strong beer, their license is only valid for the interior area of their business
and does not allow for outside service of alcohol.
This request for a temporary expansion of the licensed premises for Davanni's would allow for the service of
strong beer only, and would be valid only on Sunday, September 20, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. during
Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event.
All required information and documents have been provided.
The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis for
denial.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for a temporary expansion of the licensed premises for Davanni's,
located at 6345 Penn Avenue South, to allow for the outside service of strong beer on Sunday,
September 20, 2015, in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The following requirements have been met:
• The City has been provided with a written narrative and drawing of the parking area showing how
Davanni's will control the flow of patrons purchasing beer and how they will be contained and
monitored.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance covering the exterior of the premises has been provided
showing West Bend Mutual affording the coverage.
• The applicant has contacted the food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure proper
food handling practices are followed.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of this
code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 340A.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
There are no critical timing issues.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This is a temporary expansion for the premises of their current alcohol license, so no fee is required for
the temporary expansion permit.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Minnesota Statute 340A.410, Subd. 7, states a licensing authority may issue a retail alcoholic beverage
license only for a space that is compact and contiguous and the retail alcoholic beverage license is only
effective for the licensed premises specified in the approved application which, in this case, is the interior
of their business only. In previous years, the city attorney has advised the staff that the Council would
need to approve an expansion beyond the interior walls of any establishment not already licensed for
outdoor service.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
The Council could deny the request for the temporary expansion of the licensed premises for Davanni's. This
would mean the applicant would not be able to serve strong beer outside in the parking lot area of their
establishment during Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Melissa Morrissette- General Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Narrative and drawing of alcohol service Backup Material
D Davanni's Expansion Insurance Backup Material
DAMIATIVI,
r.n7A A NOT RQAGIM
Request for Temporary Expansion of our premises to serve beer outside at Penn Fest
Penn l=est is Sunday,September 20th from 12pm -4pm
We will.section off a 32 foot x 32 foot square along the West Siete of our building and the
South Side of our parking lot. We will be using hurricane fencing.
We will have employees out selling beer at a table. We will have an employee checking
identification. Wrist Bands will be used,so that seller is confident that identification has
been checked. We will have some tables available in this area, as well.
Our pizza tent where slices will be served will be outside of this area,this will keep the beer
area easy to monitor.
Below is a drawing of the parking lot area.
Thanks for considering this opportunity.
Melissa Morrissette—General Manager
Qavanni's
5345 Penn Ave South
Richfield 111111 55423
5121866-3324
VA
Avnwt/
l ��ty
AI`,,,�RD4� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCEr./24/2.1.
OAT$(MM70QIYYYYi
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES
BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER-
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to
the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsernenL A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the
certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME Barb Michaels
Christensen Grow Insurance PHONE
p (9527 653-1000 F'ix .(952)653-1101
11100 Bren Road West Appf,L .bmichaels@christensengroup-com
lngaERM AFFORDING COVERAGEMAIC 4
Minnetonka MN 55343 INSURERA:WeSt Send Mutual 15350
INSURED
INSURER 6:
DAVANNI'S, INC. INSURER C
1100 Xenium Ln N Ste 2 INSURER D.
INSURER E:
Plymouth MN 5'5441 INSURER F:
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER--15-16 GL Master REVISION NUMBER:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WffH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID LTTRLICLAIMS-
-6M SUBR
LR A TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY EFF POLICY EXP
POLICY NUMBER MMID LIMITS
G ENEPAL UABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY MpVrW s s o - s 200,000
A cLnlMs MADE OCCUR P01e56645 (Bakery) 5/3/2015 13/2016 M®EXPAny oneperson) $ Exclude
&01863737 (Pizzerias) PERSONAL&ADV 94JURY $ 1,000,000
LNA"AGGREGATE S 3,000,000
GEML AGGREGATE UMIT APPUES PER: -COMPIOP AGG $ 3,000,000
X POLICY LOCAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY IN LE LIRT 1 00D 000
A IX
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per pen) $
ALL OWNED SCHEDULED .1856645 /3/2.015 /3/2016
AUTOS AUTO$ SOBILY INJURY(Per amident) $
NOwHIRED AUTOS AUTOS PRO TY DANA E S
accide
Camp Ded 5500 X Goll Led 5500
Automphile Plus Pak $ Include
X uNBRELIA LIARX OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 5,000,000
A EXCESS LIAR CLAUHs MADE
AGGREGATE s 5,Doa,aoD
DEC) I X I RETENTIONS 10,000 L1B56647 /3/2015 /3/2016 $
A WORKERS COMPENSATIONYUC STATLL O
TH-
AND EMPLOYERS*LL4u rrY +
r I N
ANYOFFICERIPROPRIh(EUBETORER IXEARTNE"CLUOE07 MX CUTNE 7 A
-L EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000
❑ N
t
(MandaWgInNH) 1856646 0/1/2014 0/1/2015 E.LDISEASE-EAEMPLO $ 1 0017 D00
yy�e9s,descnbe
T)E9CRFTIoN OPERATIONS below EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT 3 1 1 000 000
A Liquor Liability P01863743 /3/2015 /3/2016 Gcrxr Agate 2,000,000
comrr*nCaxe 1,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101.Addltlonal Remarks Schedule,If mare spare Is"ulml)
Location: 6345 Penn gve-nue South, Richfield, HN - City of Richfield is included as an additional insured
regarding General Liability as required by written contract. Includes coverage for Parking Lot during
Penn Fest event.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BE?FORF-
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN
City of Richfield ACCORDANCE Wt'rH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
Richfield, MN
AUTHDRI2EO REPRESENTATME
George, 8uchok/AhRSM
ACORD.25(2010105) (D1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. ACI rights reserved.
INS02S paioo s).oi The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 31.
STAFF REPORT NO. 137
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Steven L. Devich,City Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution appointing Laural Kenney Mamula to the Richfield
Tourism Promotion Board to the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2015 or until a
successor has been chosen, whichever is later.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% taxon gross receipts of lodging from
Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of directors were also a part of the resolution. Currently
there are five director positions on the RTPB. The term of each appointment is for three years.
The current appointments to the RTPB and the ending dates of their terms are as follows:
1. Pat Brekken, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ended on December 31,
2014.
2. Abisola Omiwade, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31, 2015.
3. Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2015.
4. Adam Selby, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2015.
5. Vacant, General Manager of Motel 6.
Abisola Omiwade, the General Manager of the Candlewood Suites, has been a representative of the Chamber
of Commerce to the RTPB for the past several years. Her term does not expire until December 31, 2015.
However, Ms. Omiwade recently resigned her position with the Candlewood Suites to accept another position,
leaving a vacancy on the RTPB.
Laural Kenney Mamula is the new General Manager of the Candlewood Suites and has been designated by
them to seek appointment to the RTPB to replace Ms. Omiwade.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution appointing Laural Kenney Mamula to the Richfield Tourism Promotion
Board to the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2015 or until a successor has been
chosen, whichever is later.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB.
• The RTPB has typically included a representative from each of the hotel properties and a
member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The Candlewood Suites representative to the RTPB has left the organization and a replacement should be
appointed to the unexpired portion of that term at the September 8, 2015 City Council meeting.
Reappointment of all of the Hotel/Motel representatives to the RTPB will come before the City Council on
the first meeting in December, 2015 as those three terms all expire on 12/31/15.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no cost to the City.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The appointment conforms to City ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• The City Council could decide not to make this reappointment to the RTPB.
• The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ RTPB Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of
lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190;
and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax
to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as
a tourist or convention center; and
WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc.
provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board
representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce;
and
WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has
been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death,
resignation, or removal; and
WHEREAS, the term of the Candlewood Suites representative, is now vacant due
to the resignation of the General Manager, and does not expire until 12/31/15; and
WHEREAS, the new General Manager, Laural Kenney Mamula, is seeking the
appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows:
Appoint Laural Kenney Mamula, Candlewood Suites representative, to the Richfield
Tourism Promotion Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending December
31, 2015 or until his successor has been appointed, whichever is later.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.M.
STAFF REPORT NO. 138
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn,Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
9/1/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that amends the City's tobacco
ordinance and schedule a second reading of the ordinance for September 22, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In November 2014, the City Council placed a 12-month moratorium on new establishments that may want to
allow indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco and related products. Staff conducted an in-depth study on the
issue of tobacco use and conducted several meetings with the Advisory Board of Health and now brings this
proposed Ordinance to the City Council for consideration. The proposed Ordinance would make the following
changes to current regulations:
• Prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes in City-owned parks and other recreational facilities;
• Expand and clarify the definition of electronic cigarette;
• Add definitions to the Code pertaining to smoking, sampling and places where smoking is prohibited;
• Prohibit the sale of any electronic cigarette liquid that is not in child-resistant packaging;
• Set minimum pricing for certain cigar sales;
• Prohibit indoor smoking and sampling of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes, except in
establishments that are already licensed by the City; and
• Codify the current practice of the City to conduct at least two compliance checks of licensed premises
yearly.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the City's tobacco ordinance and
schedule a second reading of the ordinance for September 22, 2015.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The second reading of a 12-month moratorium on new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling
of tobacco or similar products was approved by Council on November 10, 2014.
Shortly after that time, staff and the Richfield Advisory Board of Health were tasked with reviewing the
current tobacco code to make any updates/recommendations to the Council concerning its contents. The
Richfield Advisory Board of Health worked closely with Bloomington Public Health, Association for Non-
Smokers Rights (ANSR), City staff and the City Attorney to conduct that process at their January 2015
meeti ng.
Additional conversations and review were conducted by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health at their
regular meetings in February, April, May, June, July and August. Members had many questions and
reviewed the current ordinance carefully. The City Attorney attended several of these meetings to facilitate
discussions regarding any legal issues/opinions.
Members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health take the health of the citizens of Richfield very
seriously and clearly wanted an ordinance update that would provide them with the most protection.
It should also be noted that the Recreation Services Director approved of the change to the section of the
code that pertains to tobacco or electronic cigarette use in City parks, etc.
First reading of these code amendments are being presented to the City Council at this time.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etcy
• State Law allows cities to adopt interim ordinances for the purposes of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
• The Clean Indoor Air Act allows cities to enact more stringent measures than state law to protect
individuals from secondhand smoke.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
On November 10, 2014, the City Council approved of a second reading of an ordinance establishing a 12-
month moratorium on new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar
products. The consideration of this amended tobacco ordinance coincides closely with the end of the 12-
month moratorium so it was critical for the Richfield Advisory Board of Health members to complete their
review process in order to bring it back before the City Council and before the expiration of the 12-month
moratorium.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has met with and worked closely with members of the Richfield Advisory Board of
Health, Association of Non-Smokers Rights (ANSR) and staff on the development and review of this
ordinance. She has reviewed it and approves of the content.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Do not approve or approve with modifications, the attached ordinance.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Amended Tobacco Ordinance Ordinance
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1146 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO TOBACCO SALES AND THE
REGULATION OF SMOKING
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 840.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
No person may use tobacco products or electronic cigarettes on City-owned
parks, conservation areas, open spaces, or recreational facilities, including without
limitation: trails within parks used for walking and biking, picnic shelters, athletic fields,
and play areas. This subsection does not apply to the use of tobacco products or
electronic cigarettes inside motor vehicles parked on the premises of City-owned parks,
conservation areas, open spaces or recreational facilities.
Sec. 2. The following definition in subsection 1146.03 of the Richfield City Code
is amended as follows:
Subd. 12. Electronic cigarette. "Electronic cigarette" shall mean any electronic-
smoking device that can be used to deliver nicotine, lobelia or any other substances to
the person inhaling from the device. The term shall include such devices whether they
are manufactured as electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic pipes or any
other product name and includes any component part of such a product whether or not
sold separately. This term excludes any product that has been approved by the United
States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a
tobacco dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and
sold solely for such an approved purpose.
Sec. 3. Subsection 1146.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the
following new definitions:
Subd. 13. Ciaar. A "cigar" shall mean any roll of tobacco that is wrapped in
tobacco leaf or in any substance containing tobacco, with or without a tip or mouthpiece,
that is not a cigarette as defined in Minn. Stat. § 297F.01, subdivision 3 as amended
from time to time.
Subd. 14. Smoking. "Smoking" shall mean inhaling or exhaling from, or
carrying, any lighted or heated tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco-related device.
Smoking also includes the inhaling or exhaling of vapor from any electronic cigarette, as
well as carrying an electronic cigarette that is turned on or otherwise activated.
Subd. 15. Place of Employment. "Place of employment" shall mean any indoor
area at which two or more individuals perform any type of service for consideration of
1
payment under any type of contractual relationship, including, but not limited to, an
employment relationship with or for a private corporation, partnership, individual, or
government agency. Place of employment includes any indoor area where two or more
individuals gratuitously perform services for which individuals are ordinarily paid. A
place of employment includes, but is not limited to, public conveyances, factories,
warehouses, offices, retail stores, restaurants, bars, banquet facilities, theaters, food
stores, banks, financial institutions, employee cafeterias, lounges, auditoriums,
gymnasiums, restrooms, elevators, hallways, museums, libraries, bowling
establishments, employee medical facilities, and rooms or areas containing
photocopying equipment or other office equipment used in common. Vehicles used in
whole or in part for work purposes are places of employment during hours of operation if
more than one person is present. An area in which work is performed in a private
residence is a place of employment during hours of operation if:
(1) the homeowner uses the area exclusively and regularly as a principal
place of business and has one or more on-site employees; or
(2) the homeowner uses the area exclusively and regularly as a place to meet
or deal with patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of the homeowner's
trade or business.
Subd. 16. Public Meetina. "Public meeting" shall mean any meeting open to the
public pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.01.
Subd. 17. Public Place. "Public place" shall mean any enclosed, indoor area
used by the general public, including, but not limited to, restaurants; bars; any other
food or liquor establishment; retail and other commercial establishments; educational
faciltiies; hospitals; nursing homes; auditoriums; arenas; meeting rooms; waiting rooms;
and common areas of rental apartment buildings.
Subd. 18. Sampling. "Sampling" shall mean the lighting of tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices or the activation of and inhaling of vapor from
electronic cigarettes in a retail establishment by a customer or potential customer for the
purpose of sampling the product or device before a purchase.
Sec. 4. Subsection 1146.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.09. r-ehihitei►—sa►as. prohibitions.
Subdivision 1. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this section for any
person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, er tobacco-related device, or
electronic cigarettes:
(a) To any person under the age of 18 years.
(b) By anyone under the age of 18 years.
2
(c) By means of any type of vending machine.
(d) By means of self-service merchandising.
(e) By means of loosies.
(f) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos,
cocaine, marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled
substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in
tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process.
(g) By any other means prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law,
ordinance provision, or other regulation.
Subd. 2. Child-Resistant Packaging_ The sale of any liquid, whether or not such
liquid contains nicotine, that is intended for human consumption and used in an
electronic cigarette or electronic delivery device, that is not contained in child-resistant
packaging, is prohibited. All licensees under this Section must ensure that any such
liquid is sold in child-resistant packaging, as defined in Minn. Stat. $ 461.20, as
amended from time to time.
Subd. 3. Cigar Sales. No person shall sell, offer for sale, or otherwise distribute
cigars in original packages containing three (3) or fewer cigars for a sale price, after any
coupons, multipack or buy-one-get-one promotions, or any other discounts are applied
and prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed, of less than two dollars and sixty
cents ($2.60) per cigar contained within. In addition, no person shall sell, offer for sale,
or otherwise distribute cigars in original packages of four (4) or more cigars for a sale
price, after any coupons, multipack or buy-one-get-one promotions, or any other
discounts are applied and prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed, of less than ten
dollars and forty cents ($10.40) per package. This subdivision does not apply to
premium cigars as defined in Minn. Stat. $ 297F.01, subdivision 13a. This subdivision
shall become effective January 1, 2016.
Subd. 4. Smoking and Sampling Prohibited.
(a) Smoking shall be prohibited, and no person shall smoke, in a public place,
at a public meeting, or in a place of employment. This subdivision also
prohibits the sampling of tobacco, tobacco products, electronic cigarettes
and products used in electronic cigarettes.
k*-.A licensee under this Section that allows sampling at its licensed
premises on or before the effective date of this ordinance may continue to
allow sampling, but only while that certain licensee operates at that certain
licensed premises.
Subd. 5. Smoking permitted. Except sampling, which is expressly prohibited
under subd. 4, smoking is permitted as identified in Minn. Stat. § 144.4167.
3
Sec. 5. Subsection 1146.17 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.17. - Compliance checks and inspections.
All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by Richfield law enforcement or
other authorized City officials during regular business hours. From time to time, but at
least eeEe twice per year, the City shall conduct compliance checks by engaging, with
the written consent of their parents or guardians, minors over the age of 15 years, to
enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-
related devices, or electronic cigarettes. Minors used for the purpose of compliance
checks shall be supervised by the Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's
designee. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of the unlawful
purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, or electronic cigarettes, when such items are
obtained or attempted to be obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used
in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the
minor's age and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all
questions about the minor's age, asked by the licensee or licensee's employee and
shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which the minor is asked. Nothing in
this subdivision shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal laws for
educational, research, or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a
particular State or Federal law.
Sec. 6. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this of 12015.
By:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
4
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.N.
STAFF REPORT NO. 139
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Saftey/Chief of Police
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
9/2/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution regarding the support of an application for a Temporary
Classification of Body Worn Camera Data from the Commissioner of Administration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Richfield Public Safety Department seeks a resolution in support of participation in a multi-jurisdictional
application for a special temporary classification of police body worn camera (BWC) data from the
Commissioner of Administration. The application would protect the essential privacy interests of Richfield
residents while still providing access to stored BWC data by data subjects (those whose images were captured
by the camera) except as prohibited by current law. The temporary classification is being sought to allow for
privacy protection until such time as the Minnesota Legislature can establish law governing such data.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution regarding the support of an application for a Temporary
Classification of Body Worn Camera Data.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
During its last session, the Minnesota legislature passed a comprehensive bill governing the use of data
collected by Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. During this session, legislators wrestled
the complex and often competing interests of personal liberty and public safety. At the time, the ALPR
data was the subject of a temporary data classification made by the Commissioner of Administration upon
application by the City of Minneapolis. The Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable privacy
interest based on the fact that ALPR technology takes a photographic image of license plates and runs the
data from the plate against a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension developed "hot list". The "hot
list" includes stolen vehicles, wanted persons, and suspended, revoked and canceled driver's licenses.
The temporary classification governed public accessibility to stored ALPR data for a predetermined time
frame; thereby allowing the Minnesota legislature to debate policy and create new law. As mentioned, the
outcome of the session included a new law that establishes a series of standards, expectations and
requirements for Minnesota law enforcement agencies using ALPR technology. The Richfield Public
Safety Department currently owns and operates two ALPR units.
Also during this session, several legislators also advanced bills addressing the use of body worn camera
technology. These bills did not get the necessary hearing to become law. As a result, BWC data is
currently governed by Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is important to
note, the presumption of Minnesota's data practices law is that data created and held by the government is
essentially public with a number of specific exceptions. This means most police data is public with the
exception of juvenile data, sexual assault victim identifying data, or data that is part of an active
investigation, which are not public or confidential. The following are circumstances in which BWC data
would, in most instances, be available to any member of the public who requested it: mental health crisis
response, neighbor disputes, death notifications, and video footage captured inside a person's home on a
non-emergency call for service, etc. There is a lot of public support for BWC usage; however, despite the
support for the use of this technology, a majority of the population say they would not want video from their
encounter with the Police inside their home publicly available.
The Public Safety Department has utilized in-squad video technology for many years and it has become a
standard in most metropolitan and a large number of small outstate law enforcement agencies. The
department's current in squad video system is at its "end of life". We are no longer able to obtain
components for our current system and we have had units we have been unable to repair. Squad video
systems utilize a camera in the squad and a body microphone on the officer. Advances in technology
have now made the traditional body microphone a body camera with audio recording capacity. The BWC
device worn by an officer can be integrated with the squad video system. Since we need to replace the
in-squad video system it makes sense to advance our limited deployment of BWC use department wide.
Furthermore, policing is at a critical juncture in our nation's history. We know public trust is the
cornerstone of police legitimacy. While the Richfield Police Department, along with Minnesota law
enforcement agencies generally, enjoys considerable community support, we believe we must double
down on efforts to progressively and proactively maintain community trust and standing. BWC technology
is not a panacea, but we believe it offers considerable advantages for the community, for the officers and
for their profession.
It must be stated that the data resulting from the use of BWC technology is the focus of considerable
interest. Open government advocates have obvious and understandable concerns about any effort to limit
public access to government data and we are sensitive to these concerns. But even with the limitations to
public access to BWC video taken inside a person's home or in a place where expectations of privacy are
clear (inside hospitals or like facilities, etc), or during times of personal crisis, a data suspect(the person
filmed by the BWC) would have access to it, unless it is an active criminal investigation. We want these
protections for those who use our services. We want to honor the trust placed in us as police officers
serving this community. We believe BWC is a means of digitally capturing what was previously stored in
the respective memories of the police officer and the community member(s) involved. Access to the digital
data should be limited to only those who may require it to advance an investigation, recount previously
missed details, or for police accountability purposes. Offering unfettered public access to BWC data is
akin to knowingly allowing window peeping into events that may be highly personal, emotionally
traumatizing, and not intended for the eyes and ears of others.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
• The Government Data Practices Act, MN Statutes, chapter 13, creates the presumption that state
and local government records are accessible to the public, unless a statute or rule provides
otherwise. The data covered under this act includes all information in any form collected, created,
received, maintained or disseminated by government.
• The Commissioner of Administration can issue temporary data classifications as appropriate and
issue advisory opinions as appropriate.
• The act allows a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision to apply to the
Commissioner of Administration for a temporary data classification, which remains in effect until the
legislature has had the opportunity to act on a proposed statute that would codify the classification
permanently into law. The application for the classification is public.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The resolution needs to be approved tonight in order for the Richfield Police Department to be part of the
application for the Temporary Classification of Body Worn Camera Data. The application to the
Commissioner of Administration needs to be completed by September 15, 2015
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Any costs associated with preparation of the temporary classification will come from the department
budget and shared with partner law enforcement agencies.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
The Council could decide to not approve the resolution in support of the Application for Temporary
Classification of Body Worn Camera Data, but this would mean that data from the Body Worn Cameras that
was not part of an ongoing investigation would be public to anyone who wished to request it regardless if they
were the subject of the data or not.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution in Support of an application for a temporary Resolution Letter
classification of Body Worn Camera Data
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Resolution in support of the Application for a Temporary
Classification of Body Worn Camera Data
WHEREAS, critical incidents between law enforcement officers and community
members across the United States have resulted in demands for increased accountability and
transparency in police operations; and
WHEREAS, a June 2015 survey sponsored by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers
Association showed that Minnesota law enforcement is well-respected and highly regarded by
members of their respective communities; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Department has had a successful limited deployment of
body worn cameras since 2014 and seeks to expand use of body worn camera technology to
strongly affirm its commitment to high quality community oriented policing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has an interest in protecting the privacy of individuals
who have contact with its police officers while ensuring that involved persons can access video
for purposes of ensuring police accountability; and,
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Department intends to partner with other law
enforcement agencies and allied community organizations to prepare and submit an application
to Minnesota's Commissioner of Administration seeking a temporary classification of body worn
camera data until such time as the Minnesota legislature establishes law governing such data.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Richfield City Council supports the police
department's plan to actively participate as a joint-applicant in the development and submission
of a multi-jurisdictional application for the temporary classification of body worn camera data.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SEC-10N: PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM# 5.
STAFF REPORT NO. 140
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
9/1/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a second reading of an ordinance establishing a one-year
moratorium on the consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City, County,
and State right-of-ways throughout the City and consideration of a resolution authorizing summary
publication of said ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City has recently been approached by a company called Mobilitie who is interested in deploying additional
wireless technology in the community. This new technology, called "Small Cell," is a wireless access point that
is intended to improve wireless connectivity, coverage and performance. The equipment can be installed on
existing utility poles or on new 30-35 foot tall poles. Thus far, Mobilitie has indicated a desire to install six small
cell packages within the City's right-of-way.
After consultation with the City Attorney's Office and with the City's own telecommunication consultant, staff
feels that additional research is necessary to understand exactly what this could mean for the City. A number
of questions have arisen related to Mobilitie's rights as a registered public utility, the City's rights to restrict such
uses within the right-of-way, the City's policy to pursue underground utilities whenever possible, aesthetics, co-
location requirements and/or capabilities, and more. In order to properly study this issue, staff is
recommending adoption of a one-year moratorium on consideration of new wireless telecommunication
facilities and antennas in right-of-ways throughout the City. If determined necessary, this moratorium will give
the City time to amend related Ordinances. During the moratorium period, applications for any approvals
related to wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in right-of-ways shall not be accepted.
The City Council approved a Resolution authorizing the proposed moratorium and conducted a first reading of
the attached Ordinance on August 24, 2015. The moratorium is now in effect. The Council can repeal the
moratorium by denying the second reading and approving a motion to rescind the resolution approved at the
previous meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the second reading of an ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium on
consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City, County, and State
right-of-ways throughout the City.
• Approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance establishing a one-year
moratorium on consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City,
County, and State right-of-ways throughout the City.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etc.
• Currently, City Ordinances allow wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas to co-locate
with existing poles or towers in the City, County, or State right-of-way within any zoning district
(Subsection 544.25, Subd. 15).
• State Law allows cities to adopt interim ordinances for the purposes of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
• The City Attorney agrees that the adoption of a moratorium ordinance related to telecommunication
facilities and antennas in the public right-of-ways would be appropriate while the City studies this
new technology and its potential impacts.
• In instances where the full text of an ordinance is cumbersome and the expense of publication of the
full text is not justified, the City is permitted to publish a summary of the approved text.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The City has had one inquiry related to deployment of"small cell' technology. Until this item can be
fully examined, a moratorium should be enacted.
• The proposed moratorium period is one year. The City can repeal the moratorium at an earlier time
if studies have been completed and necessary ordinances changes adopted.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Resolution and Ordinance.
• Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper in accordance with City
and State requirements.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
Deny the second reading of the attached Ordinance and move to rescind the Resolution approved on August
24, 2015.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Legal Counsel
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Ordinance Ordinance
❑ Resolution Resolution Letter
CITY OF RICHFIELD
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSIDERATION OF
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS IN THE CITY,
COUNTY AND STATE RIGHT-OF-WAYS,
AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The City of Richfield regulates the installation of wireless
telecommunication facilities and antennas both on private property and
within the public right-of-ways throughout the City.
1.02. The City of Richfield requires that facilities newly installed, constructed or
otherwise placed in the public right-of-way must be located and
maintained underground, subject to limited exceptions.
1.03. The City has received an inquiry about potential installation of new
wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-
way. The type of technology contemplated was not previously available
and this inquiry makes clear the need for the City to study and determine
whether it should revise official controls related to wireless
telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-way.
1.04. The installation of additional above-ground utilities in the public right-of-
way has the potential to negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of
the community if not property regulated.
1.05. The City's consultants have recommended that the City study and engage
in deliberation of all of the issues pertaining to the development of Small
Cell sites in the City and to evaluate the need for additional standards to
regulate these facilities.
1.06. The City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to
determine the appropriate permitting and land use controls for wireless
telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-way.
1.07. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city
commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be
required by law, will consider the advisability of amending certain official
controls.
1.08. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4 allows the City to
adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
Sec. 2. Findings.
2.01 The City of Richfield has the authority, pursuant to common law and
Minnesota Statutes to regulate the installation of utilities and
telecommunications right-of-way users within the public right-of-way.
2.02 The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct planning studies to
determine the appropriate permitting and land use controls that should
apply to wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public
right-of-way and to protect the planning process and the health, safety,
and welfare of its citizens.
2.03 The purpose of the studies to be conducted includes, but is not limited to
determining the appropriate permitting and licensing standards, and land
use and development standards that should apply to wireless
telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-way and
determining the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to City
Ordinances.
2.04 The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium
Ordinance, while the studies referenced in Section 2.01 are conducted.
2.05 The City Council finds that this moratorium applies to, but is not limited
to, the following types of land use applications: right-of-way permits,
boulevard feature permits, antenna permits, building permits, and electrical
permits for installation, construction or operation of wireless
telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-way.
Sec. 3. Planning Study: Moratorium.
3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by
consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City
Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as
directed by the City Council.
3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the
City's official controls, a moratorium is established on the issuance of City
approvals for or related to the installation, construction or operation of
wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public right-of-
way.
3.03 During the period of the moratorium, applications for any such approvals
related to wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in the public
right-of-way shall not be accepted by the City nor shall the Planning
Commission or City Council consider or grant approval of any such
application.
3.04 The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall apply to any
application pending as of the date of this Ordinance Any application
submitted to which the moratorium applies shall be denied unless the
application includes a specific request that it be excepted from the
Moratorium, in which case the City staff shall submit the application to the
City Council for consideration of granting an exception.
3.05 The City Council may approve exceptions to this Moratorium for an
application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the
approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this
moratorium was adopted.
Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus,
injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium
established under this Ordinance shall remain in effect until August 23, 2016.
The moratorium may be extended for a reasonable time, in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355.
Sec. 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance is effective as provided by Section
3.09 of the Richfield City Charter.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM RELATED TO
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS
IN THE CITY, COUNTY AND STATE RIGHT-OF-WAYS
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. 2015-
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON
THE CONSIDERATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION
FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS IN THE CITY, COUNTY AND STATE
RIGHT-OF-WAYS,
AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section
3.12 of the Richfield City Charter.
On September 8, 2015, the Richfield City Council adopted an
ordinance designated as Bill No. , the title of which is stated
above. The ordinance establishes a one-year moratorium on the
consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in
public right-of-ways throughout the City. The ordinance also directs that a
planning study be conducted to determine the appropriate land use and
development standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and
antennas in public right-of-ways and that appropriate amendments be
made to the City's official controls upon completion of the study. During
the moratorium, applications for right-of-way permits, boulevard feature
permits, antenna permits, building permits and electrical permits for the
installation, construction or operation of wireless telecommunication
facilities and antennas with public right-of-ways will not be accepted.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling
the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 6.
STAFF REPORT NO. 141
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director
8/24/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to reject all bids submitted for the construction of the Richfield Community Band Shell.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 23, 2015, City Council passed a resolution granting approval of a site plan to allow the construction
of a community band shell in Veterans Memorial Park. The Council specified that no additional funding from
the City would be provided to the project. At the same meeting, the Council approved a contract with David
Linner Architects to prepare plans, specifications and bidding documents. A public notice was published in the
SunCurrent on July 30, 2015 and a bid opening was conducted on August 18, 2015. Four contractors
submitted bids (see attached bid tabulation). All four bids submitted exceeded the project budget. Therefore it
is staff recommendation that the bids be rejected.
A newly formed private non-profit organization, Friends of the Band Shell, will continue to look for new sources
of funding and will ask the Council to consider bidding the project again at a future date should sufficient funds
be secured.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Reject all bids submitted for the construction of the Richfield Community Band Shell.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The City of Richfield has long-planned for an outdoor performance facility. The 1985 Veterans Memorial
Park master plan identified a desire for a 1,500 seat amphitheater; the Richfield 2020 Visioning Project
Report(2001) identified a desire for an amphitheater to support an expanded summer concert schedule;
and finally, an outdoor performance stage is identified as a potential park improvement for Augsburg Park
in the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
At the direction of the Council, a Bandshell Committee was established by the Community Services
Commission in August of 2011 and a public meeting was held in December of that year to introduce the
idea to the community. In February of 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution to officially declare
Veterans Park as a preferred band shell site over Augsburg Park and the Lyndale Gardens site. A new
planning and fundraising Band Shell Task Force was formed in February of 2014. The group has met
approximately once a month to provide input for the design and to discuss issues in moving the project
forward. The site plan is the culmination of this multi-year process.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 27, 2015 and passed a resolution
recommending City Council allow construction of a community band shell in Veterans Memorial Park.
On June 23, 2015, City Council passed a resolution granting approval of a site plan to allow the
construction of a community band shell in Veterans Memorial Park. The Council specified that no
additional funding from the City would be provided for the project. At the same meeting, the Council
approved a contract with David Linner Architects to prepare plans, specifications and bidding documents.
A public notice was published in the SunCurrent on July 30, 2015 and a bid opening was conducted on
August 18, 2015. Four contractors submitted bids (see attached bid tabulation). The lowest base bid
exceeded the project budget.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
Contracts estimated to have a value over $100,000 must be made by sealed bids, solicited by public
notice, and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. All such contracts can only be approved by City
Council.
The notice that bids are being solicited must be published once in the city's official newspaper at least ten
days before the last day for the submission of bids.
The City has the authority to reject all bids.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Formal rejection of the bids should occur in a reasonable timeframe for the contractors to plan their
seasonal workloads accordingly.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Available funds for this project include:
Approved City Contribution $325,000
Donations received and/or pledged +$75,000
Total Available Funds $400,000
less cost of design &soil testing -$50,000
Total funds available for construction $350,000
The lowest base bid submitted was$541,700, which exceeds available funds for construction.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Legal Counsel has been consulted regarding this situation.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
Accept bids and consider award of contract to the lowest responsible bidder. This would required additional
funding either by the City or a combination of other sources.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Band Shell Bid Tabulation
LL LL LL LL
V J J J J
d O O O O
LO U') U') U')
(D c0 c0 c0
O O O O Y
U� U
C O O co O
:3 O co ti O
cn E o r ai cD U
o E Lri Ln c
2 O bs bs ea lbq =3
O
j_
O N co O
(D r co co P- r,
Q)U � � r r r U a)m — bs bs ea � U)
O
W� O O co O N 2
OLn (D N M a0 06 O
0
L L CO
ALO r co r r a)
CL) En b4 b4 b4 b4 �
a)
O O co O Q (6
CD Q O LO N CD U) W
^L,
CU
�� Q b4 b4 b9 b9
cu
�V
Q CD O O ti O
0
Z � b4 b4 b3 6s U)
CQ O C
Z L > O
r E O �O} O O co C:) U
O)O aj L) N O O f� a0 -0
ON E �LO Q) N r N ti (6
WQ� Q -r- o O b4 b4 b4 b4
UFZ v0 LCV � Q
_ 72 �N O�co Ua) O O O O
(� m �U)M Y i� O ti LQ O -0
Q M w rn o ao cu
r r
LL o �� U co � bs bs ea �
0 ESC O � O
O >>— co
L a) a) U a) 0 0 0 0
(� rE cu 6 a) m O O O O �
L O O O O
r
a) � OAU O O O O ti (n
m L17 N a0 r
mc
ZOa) = LO m (D LO U) Lin
O C�L � b4 b4 b4 b4 L
OEnm ��
_ N :3
O :3 O O +J
a) a) c"a) m~ a) En C a) a) a) a) a)
�j-� N �� _0 O
w1=3U a) az
O+J _ O
C/) CO 0
c
CD C: a) C m a)
=�
:3Om a) ?: U
E 0- a o m ,
EL-
ti C: c� o E
C
C) mU —
0aj 0 O= a� Z o 0 o L a�
iO C C C L) a
_ Q)
O
Z U) L _0 '(_� U) (n L U)
L C _0 C U C a) C 'i p
a) O O O O a) L
X00 �U0�0 m 2U Of WU 0 (D
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 7.
STAFF REPORT NO. 142
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Kate Aitchison/Julie Urban, Housing Specialists
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
9/1/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the acknowledgement of a Transformation Home Loan Application submitted by
Mayor Goettel.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Transformation Home Loan program is a program offered by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) as a tool to encourage large-scale remodeling projects of Richfield homes. The program is
available to residents completing a transformative renovation of their home, with a minimum investment of
$50,000.
Mayor Debbie Goettel has recently applied for a Transformation Loan through the HRA. Following the guidance
of the HRA's attorney, Mayor Goettel is required to disclose that she has applied for the loan during a public
meeting of the Richfield City Council and of the Richfield HRA.
Staff will ensure that Mayor Goettel meets all of the criteria required in the loan application. Other elected
and/or appointed officials have taken part in HRA programs in the past without incident.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Acknowledge the disclosure of an application for a Transformation Home Loan from Mayor
Goettel.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Transformation Home Loan has been available to Richfield residents since 1993. Since that time, over
170 loans have been issued, totaling $1.14 million. Those funds have gone on to leverage nearly $8 million
in remodeling within the community.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
Under normal circumstances, a Transformation Home Loan is approved at the staff-level, following the
steps listed below:
1. Complete application received and reviewed.
2. Substandard property evaluation completed and reviewed.
3. Review title work and draft loan documents.
4. Conduct closing of the loan at City offices.
5. Resident may begin project.
Because of the Mayor's position with the City, the following requirements are also necessary:
1. The Mayor must disclose that she has applied for the loan during a public meeting of the City
Council and a public meeting of the HRA.
2. The disclosure must be recorded in the official minutes of the meeting.
3. The Mayor/Commissioner must abstain from voting on the application or any other actions related to
the loan.
4. The HRA Board must approve the loan application by unanimous vote.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• This disclosure must take place at both a City Council meeting as well as an HRA meeting prior to
construction commencing on the project.
• The HRA is scheduled to meet on September 21st.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funding e)asts in the 2015 budget to fund the Transformation Home Loan for Mayor Goettel. The
loan is a 30-year, deferred loan, that accrues no interest. It is secured with a standard residential
mortgage and promissory note.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Under the guidance of the HRH's attorney, the City and Mayor will be protected from any Conflict of
Interest claims, if the following statutes are adhered to:
1). Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.88, subd. 19, which states: if a housing and redevelopment authority
administers a loan program with state or federal funds, the authority may make a loan from these funds to
a public officer of the housing and redevelopment authority who applies for a loan if certain conditions are
met. The conditions include the following: (i) the commissioner who applies for a loan must disclose that
he or she has applied for the loan during a public meeting of the HRA; (ii) the commissioner's disclosure
must be recorded in the official minutes of the meeting; (iii) the commissioner must abstain from voting on
the application or any other actions related to the loan; and (iv) the HRA Board must approve the loan
application by unanimous vote.
2). Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.88, subd. 14 states: the Mayor, as a City Council member, could
receive the loan from the HRA if she discloses this during a public meeting of the City Council
and it is recorded in the official minutes of the City Council.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Do not carry a motion to acknowledge the Mayor's Transformation Home Loan application.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
N/A
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 8.
STAFF REPORT NO. 143
..;f _.f_.. ..{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VN 9/8/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
9/3/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the 2015 Revised/2016 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting the 2016 preliminary
property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing date, authorizing budget revisions, and authorizing
revision of 2015 budget of various departments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 24, 2015, a special City Council meeting was held for the purpose of presenting and discussing the
2015 Revised/2016 Proposed Budget and 2016 preliminary property tax levy.
Consequently, as a result of this meeting the City of Richfield's preliminary gross tax levy is currently set at
$18,820,576 which includes a levy for general fund operations of$15,365,343, a debt service levy of
$2,406,043 a tax abatement levy of$299,190, and an equipment and technology levy of$750,000. The 2016
preliminary gross levy represents a 2.91% increase from the 2015 gross levy.
In addition, the City must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2016 to the County Auditor and
set a date for its Truth in Taxation public meeting on or before September 30, 2015.
The Truth in Taxation public meeting must be held between November 25 and December 28, 2015 and must
occur at 6:00 p.m. or later. The City's Truth in Taxation public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday December 1,
2015 at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Richfield Municipal Center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolutions establishing the 2016 preliminary property tax levy and proposed
date for the Truth in Taxation hearing, authorizing budget revisions, and authorizing revision of 2015
budget of various departments.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes.etch
• The City Charter establishes that at a special budget meeting of the Council on or before September
15, the City Manager must submit to the Council a proposed budget and a budget message in the
form and containing the information specified in Section 7.06.
• Consequently, as required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (MS 275.065) each "taxing
authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2015 to the County
Auditor on or before September 30, 2015. "Twang authority" includes all counties, all
school districts, all cities regardless of population, and all towns. The certification date for
Special twang districts remains at September 15, 2015. No local units of government are
exempted from this requirement.
• In addition, each "twang authority" with a population of 500 or more, must certify to their
County Auditor the date that has been selected for the Truth in Taxation public meeting by
September 30, 2015. This Truth in Taxation public meeting must be held between
November 25 and December 28, 2015 and must occur at 6:00 p.m. or later.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Along with the 2015 Revised/2016 Proposed budget and preliminary property tax levy, City
staff is also recommending a date for this year's Truth in Taxation public meeting. It is
recommended that this year's meeting be set for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 1, 2015. As
Council Members are aware, at these public meetings, the tax levy may be reduced from
the preliminary tax levy, but not increased.
• All official action concerning the preliminary tax levy and setting dates for the Truth in
Taxation hearings must be concluded before September 30, 2015.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The preliminary gross levy for taxes payable 2015 is$18,820,576.
• The City's tax capacity rate will increase from 60.1286% in 2015 to 61.8356% in 2016.
• Included in the 2016 preliminary gross levy is a levy to fund the purchase of rolling stock and
technology equipment of$750,000. This levy is in place of the issuance of debt to fund these
purchases.
• A final resolution for consideration authorizes the revision of the 2015 budget to conform to the most
recent 2015 revenue and expenditure projections.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(6)-
The City Council could adopt a lesser 2016 preliminary property tax levy or 2015 Revised/2016 Proposed
budget or select other allowable Truth in Taxation hearing dates.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution Adopting a Proposed Budget and Tax Levy for Resolution Letter
2016
D Resolution Authorizing Budget Revisions Resolution Letter
D Resolution Authorizing Revision of 2015 Budget of Various Resolution Letter
Departments
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2016
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy
to be certified to the County Auditor by September 30, 2015 and then recertified before
December 28, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2016 is hereby approved and
adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 847,420
Administrative Services 1,311,930
Public Safety 8,574,650
Fire Services 3,896,340
Community Development 1,394,410
Public Works 3,886,350
Recreation Services 1,838,320
Transfers Out 150,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $21,899,420
2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources,
including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year
2016 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the
2016 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $21,899,420
3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a
direct ad valorem tax in the year 2015, payable in 2016 for the following
purposes and in the following amounts:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
General Fund' $15,365,3432
Equipment 750,000
Debt Service 2,406,043
Cedar Point Tax Abatement 299,190
' Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's
contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association.
2 General Fund Levy includes all fiscal disparities distribution amounts.
4. The debt service tax levy as established in the bond documents for the G.O.
Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2012A, will be reduced from $144,071 to
$131,691 due to the use surplus bond proceeds from the issue.
5. The debt service tax levy as established in the bond documents for the G.O.
Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2015A will be reduced from $634,154 to
$281,866 due to the utilization of gas and electric franchise fees.
6. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the
year 2015 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all
taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year
2015, payable in 2016 for the following purposes:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Housing and Redevelopment Authority $508,759
7. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor.
8. The Truth in Taxation public meeting shall be set for 6:00 p.m. December 1,
2015.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for
adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager
and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and
WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of
the budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that
unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures.
2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department
providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget.
3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with
the approval of the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8t" day of
September, 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2015 BUDGET OF VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11017 appropriated funds for personal services, other
expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2015; and
WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority
to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within
the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2015 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2016
budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the 2015 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be
amended to establish the following totals:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 851,130
Administrative Services 1,238,390
Public Safety 7,983,090
Fire Services 3,780,300
Community Development 1,346,280
Public Works 3,689,410
Recreation Services 1,776,460
Transfer Out 147,370
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,812,430
DECREASE $ 315,230
2. Estimated 2015 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the
same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed
2016 budget, are hereby revised as follows:
DECREASE $315,230
3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions
of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
September 2015.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk