Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
3-10-97 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1997 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24,1997; (2) SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 3,1997; AND (3) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 3, 1997 PRESENTATIONS INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT FOR NEW APPROACH PROPOSED BY 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 62 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT • CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENTS WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR 77TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT C.L. 63 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES HEARING ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN C.L. 64 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COLUMBUS AVENUE STORM SEWER PROJECT TO BARBAROSSA & SONS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $686,771.60 C.L. 65 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE, INC. IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $85,630 C.L. 66 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE TO OPERATE GROOMING CLINIC FOR PETCO ANIMAL . SUPPLIES INC. DBA PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET C.L. 67 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE; 6817 PENN AVENUE; THREE DOGS C.L. 68 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE FOR EL PULSO DE LA VIDA AT ST. PETER'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 6730 NICOLLET AVENUE, FOR APRIL 5-26,1997 C.L. 69 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW AUTO DETAILING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE FOR AUTO PLAZA, INC., 1201 EAST 66TH STREET C.L. 70 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR FUNCOLAND, 34 WEST 66TH STREET PROPOSED ORDINANCE 5. FIRST READING CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 416.09, SUBDIVISION 3 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 71 0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT BUSINESS 6. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION-ITEMS 9. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 10. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. • 0 5 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 71 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance for the amortization of nonconforming outdoor advertising displays; amending Subsection 416.09, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code. Background: In 1987, the City of Richfield adopted a new sign ordinance. That sign ordinance provided for enforcement of some elements of the new sign ordinance 10 years after its initial approval. The impact of that ordinance was that business signs and outdoor advertising display signs would have to fully conform with new ordinance requirements in October 1997. For business signs that meant certain types of signs, such as rooftop signs or signs that exceeded certain size requirements, will be required to comply with the new ordinance in October 1997. The ordinance also provided that no outdoor advertising signs would be permitted after October 1997. The City Council has previously reviewed the signs that will be nonconforming as of October 1997. This information has also been reviewed with the owners of the signs. Universal Sign owns the 16 outdoor advertising display billboards signs within the City. Universal Sign has stated they believe that the City requirement to remove the signs violates federal and state law and also is not required under the Richfield ordinance. The City Attorney has reviewed the legal position of Universal Sign Co. attorneys and has recommended a change in Richfield's local ordinance to clarify the amortization requirement. The revised ordinance would provide fora three year amortization period. The ordinance would also provide an option for an extension. The request for the extension would be heard by a hearing examiner appointed by the City Manager with an appeal to the City Council. The hearing examiner would be required to review specific criteria including cost of the sign, depreciated value, remaining useful life, length and remaining term of any lease, location of the display, character and uses of surrounding neighborhoods. The City Council has previously directed staff to work with the sign company to develop and agreement regarding enforcement. The City Manager met with Mike Cronin representing Universal Sign on January 9 to discuss the possible settlement provision. Also, Mr. Cronin was advised that the City would be proceeding with the revised ordinance. Mr. Cronin has continued to seek clarification regarding the acceptability of such an agreement with Universal Sign Co. However, as of now, no settlement discussion has been requested by Universal. 0 5..) • Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance providing for the amortization of nonconforming outdoor advertising displays; amending Subsection 416.09, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code and schedule the public hearing and second reading for April 14, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Attorney has recommended that the City's current sign ordinance is subject to misinterpretation and therefore, should be amended to clarify the original intent. 2. Court rulings have provided clear direction regarding development of ordinances which are likely to withstand legal challenges. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City, Council could decide not to approve this revised ordinance. If the ordinance is not revised, a legal challenge on the local ordinance may be upheld by a court. In any case, it is likely that the Universal Sign Co. will challenge this ordinance. 2. The City Council could decide to revise the ordinance by providing that the Council appoints the hearing examiner. 3. The City Council could decide to revise the ordinance by providing that the ruling of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the City Council. 4. The City Council could decide to request further research regarding this matter and delay first reading. 5. The City Council could decide to wait for an agreement with Universal Sign Co. Regarding enforcement on this ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of March 10, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser -111 City Manager 0 JDP:cak BILL NO. 5-2 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE . AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 416.09, SUBDIVISION 3 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 416.09, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Nonconforming outdoor advertising displays. Outdoor advertising displays lawfully erected and located on the ^#^^+"v^ date ^{+"` ""°^^or prior to October . 1987 may continue subject to the following limitations: (a) Except as provided in subdivision 2, paragraph (k) of this subsection, no nonconforming outdoor advertising display maybe expanded, rebuilt, relocated or altered without being brought into conformity with the requirements of this ordinance. This provision shall not apply to the following circumstances. (1) The rebuilding of an outdoor advertising display which sustains damage the repair of which in the opinion of the building official will cost less than 50% of the replacement cost of the physical structure prior to the damage. (2) Nonstructural alterations of modifications designed to improve the appearance of the sign and changes of the new sign face. (b) Any outdoor advertising display which is not used for advertising purposes for a period of more than two years shall be deemed abandoned and must be removed by the owner of the parcel on which it is located. LcJ All nonconforming outdoor advertising displays, including displays relocated under subdivision 2 paragraph (k) of this subsection must be removed or brought into compliance with this ordinance on or before . 2000 or such later date as may be granted in an extension obtained pursuant to paragraph (d) of this subdivision. fdJ The owner of an outdoor advertising display may apply for an extension of the deadline provided for in paragraph (c) of this subdivision: M Applications for extension must be made to the director of community development on or before on forms provided by the city-. Upon receipt of a completed application the director shall assign the application to a hearing examiner appointed by the city manager and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the hearing examiner. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 10 days prior to the ?,3 hearing and must also be mailed to the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the property on which the outdoor advertising display is located. The hearing examiner shall render a written decision concerning the application. In making the decision, the hearing examiner may consider the following factors: (i) cost of the display and any improvements thereto prior to the effective date of this ordinance; (ii) depreciated value of the display; (iii) remaining useful life of the display; (iv) length and remaining term of any lease under which the display is maintained; (v_) lease terms in effect as of March 10, 1997; NO location of the display in relation to surrounding property uses; (vii) character of and uses in the surrounding neighborhood, (viii) benefit to the public by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use; (ix) burden on the property owner by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use; (x) length of time the use has been in existence and the length of time the use has been nonconforming. The owner has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to an extension. The hearing examiner may grant an extension if the amortization period provided in paragraph (c) unreasonably deprives the owner of the opportunity to recover the value of the display and any improvements made thereto prior to the effective date of this ordinance. The hearing examiner may extend the removal deadline for such period of time as the hearing examiner determines reasonable under the circumstances. The hearing examiner may impose reasonable conditions upon the owner of the display, for the purpose of mitigating or alleviating the harm caused by the nonconformity during the extension period. fQ The decision of the hearing examiner is the final decision of the City. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 qH CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 70 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new auto detailing establishment License for Auto Plaza Inc., 1201 East 66th Street. Background: City ordinance Section 1195.01 Subd. 2, defines an auto detailing establishment as a business activity where, for a fee, automobiles, including components and parts, are cleaned and refurbished. On February 7, 1997, Auto Plaza Inc. located at 1201 East 66th Street submitted an application for an auto detailing establishment license. The application is complete and the required fees have been paid. Community Development staff have been contacted and all requirements have been met. There is, however, one concern that the business only conduct auto detailing business. There can be no auto repairs or any other service work done at this location. The Inspections and Fire division staff have also been contacted. They have no concerns. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that an auto detailing establishment license be granted to Auto Plaza Inc., 1201 East 66th Street, with the stipulation that they are only providing auto detailing services. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It appears the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinance. The applicant has also indicated their desire to comply with all codes and reasonable expectations of the City. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could deny the application. To do so would require the Council to issue findings of fact as the basis for denial. 2. The Council could issue the license with stipulations. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a new auto detailing establishment license for Auto Plaza Inc., 1201 East 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respec Ily submitted, Jam . Prosser City nager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 69 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Request for a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida, 1145 Lilac Circle, Victoria, Minnesota, to be located at St. Peter's Catholic Church, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for April 5 through April 26, 1997. Background: The applicant, Thomas William Bright, submitted an application on February 26, 1997 for a public dance license. These dances are scheduled for April 5, 12, and 26. They are scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. and end promptly at 1 a.m. Dancing is done to a disc jockey and is the only activity taking place. The applicant has a signed lease agreement with St. Peter's Catholic Church for the dances to take place at their location. Staff has had several conversations with the owner of the establishment and has reviewed all requirements with him thoroughly. There will be no alcohol of any kind served to anyone or available during these dances. The owner has contacted Public Safety and made arrangements for a police officer to be present at all public dances with the cost being incurred by the owner. Arrangements will be made for an officer to be present for each evening's activities. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends approval of a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida, 1145 Lilac Circle, Victoria, Minnesota, to be located at St. Peter's Catholic Church, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for April 5 through April 26, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The owner has submitted the required information and paid the fees. 2. The owner has had several discussions with Public Safety staff and has agreed to all the requirements of the public dance ordinance. 3. No problems have occurred at previous dances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to approve the public dance license which would mean that no dancing could take place on the premises. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for a public dance license is presented to Council for their consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, D. Prosser J4,anarger C• JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I Council Letter No. 68 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel license for Suzanne and Joseph Carrang, 6817 Penn Avenue. Background: On January 6, 1997, Suzanne Carrang submitted an application for a residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Mrs. Carrang's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. On February 25, 1997, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the neighbors. Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Carrang has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Mrs. Carrang's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from three to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Joseph Carrang, 6817 Penn Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jame- Prosser City M nager JDP:ds '{E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 67 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new commercial kennel license to operate a grooming clinic for Petco Animal Supplies Inc., dba Pet.Food Warehouse, at 710 West 66th Street. Background: City ordinance Section 905.01, Subd. 3, defines a commercial kennel as a place where the business of selling, breeding, boarding, showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats is conducted. Section 905.31, Subd. 2, requires that a license application for a kennel license be deferred to the Council which may grant or deny the license. Pet Food Warehouse has recently merged with Petco Animal Supplies Inc. They are currently operating as Petco Animal Supplies Inc., dba Pet Food Warehouse. Beginning in April of 1997, Pet Food Warehouse will cease to exist. At that time, the store will operate soley under the name of Petco Animal Supplies Inc. As a result of this merger, Petco must reapply for a new grooming license as the previous license issued is not transferable. On February 7, 1997, Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., dba Pet Food Warehouse, located at 710 West 66th Street, submitted an application for a "Commercial Kennel License for Pet Grooming." The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. This license will be in conjunction with the other functions of Pet Food Warehouse. It does not include, however, veterinary, services. No boarding of any animals will occur at any time. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that a commercial kennel license be granted for grooming purposes only to Petco Animal Supplies Inc., dba Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It appears that the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinance. The applicant has also indicated their desire to comply with all codes and reasonable expectations of the City. 2. To date, the City Council has issued four commercial kennel licenses for grooming. Two of these licenses are in residential neighborhoods and two are in commercial areas. 0 ? E•1 • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could deny the application. To do so would require the Council to issue findings of fact as the basis for denial. 2. The Council could issue the license with stipulations. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a new commercial kennel license for grooming purposes only for Petco Animal Supplies Inc., dba Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, rosser JamYager City JDP:ds 0 46 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 66 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Award of contract for 1997 removal of diseased trees from private property. Background: In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When the City's Tree Inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the homeowner has three options: • removal of the tree by the homeowner; • homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work; • homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work. If the City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to pay the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over a three-year period. • In an effort to attract more bidders, since 1994, staff divided the City into two districts. Staff also allowed bidders to give separate prices for front yard and back yard trees, realizing accessibility is a primary factor in cost. A formal bid opening for this work was held on February 24, 1997, and four bids were submitted. The companies were asked to bid a per-inch cost, based on the average number and size of trees removed in the past three years. Bids were as follows: East District West District Total Arps Tree Service* $40,030.00 $44,055.00 $84,085.00 Asplundh Tree Expert Company $47,043.00 $51,947.00 $98,990.00 Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. $46,870.00 $51,750.00 $98,620.00 Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. $40,920.00 $44,710.00 $85,630.00 *It was discovered later than Arps had not signed thei r submitted bid. The City Attorney advised staff that the Arps bid must be considered a " no bid;" and therefore, may not be considered eligible for award of this contract. Contract amounts for the past three years are listed below: 1994 $108,764.00 1995 $ 80,188.00 • 1996 $ 767678.00 H b.1 Recommended Motion: Award a contract for 1997 removal of diseased trees on private property to Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc., in the total estimated amount of $85,630. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. submitted the lowest acceptable bid for this work. 2. Past experience with this company has proven them to be a responsible contractor. 3. Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield homeowners with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to have the City coordinate the removal of their diseased tree(s). Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices from a responsible contractor could be obtained. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the March 10, 1997 Council meeting in order to assure sufficient time to process necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for removal. • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 0 ND-2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February. 24, 1997 11:00 a.m. Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property East District and/or West District Bid No. 97-2 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property, bid no. 97-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 12, 1997. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: • Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount Bid Amount EAST WEST Ceres 5% Bid Bond $46,870.00 $51,750.00 Brooklyn Park Arp's Tree Service 5% Bid Bond $40,030.00 $44,055.00 Anoka Precision Landscape 5% Bid Bond $40,920.00 $44,710.00 Little Canada Asplundh Tree 5% Bid Bond $47,043.00 $51,947.00 Spring Lake Park The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 10, 1997 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 4c. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 65 Agenda March 10,1997 Issue Statement: Award of contract for the construction of the Columbus Avenue storm sewer project. Background: After the heavy rain and associated flooding of 1987 the City of Richfield began providing increased flood protection to areas which did not have a 1 % or smaller probability of flooding. Most of the least protected areas in Richfield have already been provided with increased flood protection. The mid-block area of the 6900 block of Columbus Avenue is one area which has not received additional protection. At the May 28, 1996 City Council meeting, Council authorized an expanded scope of the Columbus Avenue storm sewer project to provide relief to Norby Pond. The revised cost of the project was $515,000 including $14,500 for internal construction engineering costs. Pete Willenbring, WSB and Associates, the design engineer for the project, discovered a difficulty when designing the crossing of 66th Street. This difficulty is reflected in the bids received for the project. Details of the change in the plan, storm water Capital Improvement Budget and alternative courses of action were discussed at the March 3, 1997 City Council Study Session. Bids for the Columbus Avenue Storm Sewer Project were opened according to legal requirements on February 13, 1997. A copy of the bid minutes/tabulation is attached. The-total project cost using the low bid construction cost is $725,000. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $686,771.60 for construction of the Columbus Avenue storm sewer project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. is the lowest bidder and is qualified to do the work. Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. recently constructed the Richfield Lake Outlet Project for the City. 2. Financial resources are available to fund the project. A copy of the Revised Stormwater Capital Improvement Program as discussed at the March 3, 1997 City Council Study Session is attached. 3. There is a need for this project to be completed. Council discussed alternative courses of action at the March 3, 1997 Study Session but did not indicate a preference for any other approach to this project. (4C-1 4. Staff has met with residents who are expecting relief from the flooding they have experienced. This project would relieve the problems in what is believed to be the last area experiencing less than City standard protection as a result of the stormwater system structure. Alternative Recommendation: Council could decline to award the contract and direct staff to delay construction until later. However funds are available now and the project is needed. Also, staff has met with the residents who are expecting relief from the flooding problems they are experiencing. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests that Council consider this item at its regular meeting of March 10, 1997 in order to get an early start on the project. Staff wishes to complete the project in time for Richfield's Independence Day Celebration. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachments 0 4 c-2 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 p 0p 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 V 0 O 0 0 O M t 0 0 0 ? ? Lo ln 1- Ln o N O O °0 rS ri a ~ M M a°a c°o C M vi? ? o o $ c + c O $ ° o o ° a) a. a N .- V- N o lie D ° W 0 o o 6 0 > N co N 0 N O 0 (-0 0: ' o ° ° 0 . ? - 0 o 0 0 o 0 O 0 2 O r U') 0 O m Q F- N © N M N O N C: O K W ° 0 o O O C) o 0) E ?' 'a o V ti ° s- uu i N N to a o N a) C W N D F 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 _ L ?. o o o 0 0 0 °0 0 °0 "' c o o o C6 16 & O C6 C%j pp _ ? ? L C IT IN V- N M N ? N cm :3 O ' O O S z z cm ° 0 ° o ° ? o O o M o 0 N M 4 M C L N N C m c ' - •0 C a - N 42 Q _ N Co r- -' ? ? °Y' o a a' ° w > M ? M E CL ? 0 - - j 0 0 ? o LL & c? U ? CL ? X W N m °O M -C ,a ? C Q -W N eo C m 0 W L Q ? - ? CO 3: CD CD Q C0 Q <C ?' 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 13, 1997 2:00 p.m. Columbus Avenue Storm Sewer Improvement Project City Project No. 503-30-590 City Bid No. 97-1 4c-3 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution- No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Columbus Avenue storm sewer improvement project, bid no. 97-1, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 15, 1997. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative • n U The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid.Security Total Bid Amount Arcon Construction Co., Inc. 5% Bid Bond $806,014.20 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $686,771.60 Bonine Excavating, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $774,483.60 Brown & Cris, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $864,951.20 G. L. Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $879,101.81 Hentges, S.M. & Sons 5% Bid Bond $694,167.00 Lametti & Sons, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $923,740.00 Minger Construction 5% Bid Bond $818,469.45 Northdale Construction Co., Inc 5% Bid Bond $797,766.93 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $792,853.80 Richard Knutson, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $757,408.15 Ryan Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $779,959.70 Schurcon, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $862,835.50 Thomas & Sons Construction 5% Bid Bond $931,845.80 S.R.Weidema, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $829,968.63 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 10, 1997 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber . City Clerk 48 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 64 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Authorization to request a hearing by the Board of Water and Soil Resources on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Water Resources Management Plan. Background: Part of the City of Richfield, mostly the area tributary to Legion Lake, lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). As required by state statute, MCWD has prepared a Water Resources Management Plan (Plan) for Minnesota State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approval. According to BWSR rules, cities can request a hearing on the plan. City staff raised some concerns about funding and control during the review process. These concerns are the same ones discussed at the January 6, 1997 City Council Study Session. The concerns are still not resolved to the satisfaction of City staff. A hearing on the plan with BWSR may help resolve some of these concerns. City staff is requesting authorization to file for a hearing from BWSR should staff find a hearing necessary. Recommended Motion: Authorize City staff to request a Board of Water and Soil Resources hearing on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Water Resources Management Plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Water resource management is an important function of local government. 2. The roles of cities and water management organizations should be carefully defined in order to prevent unnecessary and costly duplication. 3. Lengthy ongoing discussions between City staff and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have not resolved some remaining concerns. Alternative Recommendation: Decline to authorize staff to request a hearing. However, BWSR rules allow for a hearing if requested and such a hearing would allow for a better chance to define roles between the City of Richfield and the MCWD. Discussion/Decision Mode: BWSR rules allow cities to request a hearing until March 21, 1997. Action would be needed at the March 10, 1997 Council meeting to meet this deadline should the Council elect to authorize staff to request a hearing. Res a ully submitted, . Prosser 4rCianager JDP:cak qP CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 63 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing approval of Supplemental Agency Agreements with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the 77th Street Improvement Project. Background: The Agency Agreements between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield allow MnDOT to act as agent for the City in receipt of federal funds available for work related to the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. Final invoices for eligible costs associated with Phase I, Phase II and the Humboldt Avenue Storm Sewer of the project indicate the need for supplemental agreements to cover increased costs related to right-of-way land acquisition, preliminary engineering and construction engineering. The estimated cost of the additional eligible right of way acquisition activities is $1,089,953 with a Federal reimbursement of 80% equal to $871,963. The estimated cost of additional preliminary engineering activities is $78,940 with a Federal reimbursement of 80% equal to $63,152. The estimated cost of additional construction engineering activities is $55,050 with a Federal reimbursement of 80% equal to $44,040. The Supplemental Agreements outlined above provide a combined Federal reimbursement to the City in the amount of $979,155. The remaining 20% of funds would come from MnDOT Trunk Highway funds for 15% and the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds for 5%, consistent with previous 77th Street agreements with MnDOT. The agreements are based on actual costs incurred as of December 31, 1996. With the signing of these agreements, the City of Richfield will be able to close out all of the work completed to date on the 77th Street Project. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution on the Supplemental Agency Agreements with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to receive State funds to finance right of way land acquisition, preliminary engineering and construction engineering on the 77th Street Improvement Project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City staff has reviewed the proposed Supplemental Agency Agreements and found them consistent with the terms of previous agreements with the Minnesota Department of Transportation on the 77th Street Improvement Project. 0 4A-1 2. Approval of the Supplemental Agency Agreements is needed before the City can be reimbursed for the remaining costs for right of way land acquisition, preliminary engineering and construction engineering on the 77th Street Improvement Project. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision is needed soon to ensure timely reimbursement for costs incurred by the City on the 77th Street Improvement Project. Respectfully submitted, Ja . Prosser City anager JDP:cak 0 4A-z 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT NO. 69490 SUPPLEMENT NO. 2, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AGREEMENT NO. 69489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AGREEMENT NO. 70967 SUPPLEMENT NO. 5 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE 77th STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield (City) entered into Agency Agreements No. 69490, and 69490 Supplement No. 1, No. 69489, and 69489 Supplement No. 1, and No. 70967, and 70967 Supplements Nos. 1-4 on the 77th Street Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield (City) negotiated Agency Agreements No. 69490 Supplement No. 2, No. 69489 Supplement No. 2, and No. 70967 Supplement No. 5 on the 77th Street Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, these Agency Agreements provide funds for the City to pay for the right of way land acquisition, preliminary engineering services and construction engineering services on the 77th Street Improvement Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 161.36, the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as.Agent • of the City of Richfield to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible right of way acquisition costs for S. P. 157-108-04, S. P. 157-108- 05, S. P. 157-108-06, S. P. 157-108-07, and S. P. 157-108-13, for eligible preliminary engineering costs for S. P. 157-108-06 and S. P. 157-108-07, and for eligible construction engineering costs for S. P. 157-108-17, S. P. 157-108-20, and S. P. 157- 108-22, and in the records of the Federal Highway Administration as Minnesota Project HDP 9203(001) and DPR 0023(001). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and'directed for and on behalf of the City Council to execute and enter into agreements with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in Agreement No. 69490, Supplement #2; Agreement No. 69489, Supplement #2; and, Agreement No. 70967, Supplement #5, a copy of which said agreements was before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of March, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 62 Agenda March 10, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of support for the new approach being proposed by the 1-494 Corridor Commission. Background: The 1-494 Corridor Commission was started in 1987 to insure that the cities along the corridor would have a voice in the 1-494 corridor reconstruction study. The group consists of staff and elected officials from seven communities along the corridor including Richfield, Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Maple Grove. Richfield has been involved with the group since its inception and contributes financially at a rate of $.10 per capita annually ($3,526). All member cities contribute at the same rate and in total account for 20% of the Commission's budget. One of the group's original goals was to promote travel demand management (TDM). TDM is an effort to get employees of large businesses to car pool, ride share, or use transit. This effort has unfortunately not been very successful. The group has concluded that this effort cannot succeed unless the infrastructure is in place to accommodate, encourage and reward such changes in behavior. As a result, the group is now changing its focus and approach. The focus will now be to promote the reconstruction and incremental upgrading of 1-494 and to place the corridor at the top of the metro area transportation priorities. 1-494 is a major corridor moving both people and goods and supporting significant economic development. The total reconstruction of the corridor now looks unlikely. At a minimum incremental improvement such as high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp meter by-pass lanes should be added wherever possible to encourage increased transit use, ride sharing, and support future economic development. Lisa Raduenz, consultant to the commission, will be at the March 10, 1997 City Council meeting to discuss the corridor commission's new approach and its goals in more detail. Recommended Motion: Participate in the discussion and support the new approach of the 1-494 Corridor Commission. Basis of Recommendation: 1. 1-494 is a major transportation corridor which directly impacts the City of Richfield. Improving its carrying capacity and its safety is beneficial to city residents, workers and employers. It also has impacts for corridor redevelopment opportunities. a.-I 2. Without a concerted effort to promote the upgrading of the 1-494 corridor, it is unlikely that improvements will be made. 3. The 1-494 Corridor Commission's new approach is modeled after other successful transportation organizations such as the Scott County Transportation Coalition which was instrumental in getting the new river crossing in Shakopee. Alternative Recommendation: Do not support the new approach of the 1-494 Corridor Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: Lisa Raduenz, representing the commission, will be looking for the Council's feedback and comments on the new approach. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds r 0 a-a • U O i Q Q Q 3 a? Z Q c 0 .C/) E 0 U 1. 0 .0 i i 0 U 0 • 0 a-3 4-0 c a? E a? cz 4-0 0 W-.ag L a? a? L d. o o ? O - O . / C/) c O V ? O O L Cl) O O O -- O E O O E O O I- y- • U cz cz U cm O E _W O O O cn cz O L U O -o cz O cn cn O C: C: O ¦ - . - cn CD = O L L (D - O O CD E :3 O L > -? O ? L cn C) E O ' 73 73 .- CZ 1. a-q 0 • w w 0 z J Q 0 A-5 - ¦}.+ CD c W • O . . ?O L L L CL O U ? o cz O CL O C: ?--+ cz ? cn O O CZ CL O O L. .. E T ? O J Q Q O 0 V ? - W L 0 (1) C 4.0 O c: Fn E E E E O O ?U O O E i ? E O U O ?- Jc: E o (. O Q. ? O co •cn -cn U ? • W C E O 0O W C CO W E _? W mo WOMMU U - O :3 c? -0 O O O i ? U CZ O Q c: 0 U O O %4OOOo, (D ?Z? C: 0 C: CZ O *? O .C: C6 cz U - cn O cm C: > O O -Im a - E cS -2-j 0 0 *100 U cn • %I-- O O C > O L cn cz > U cz 0 a? C: ? O - • - > O CZ _cn " 0 CZ C: O ? ._ U '- cZ O O ? U CZ CD C: 0) N 0 O E I.- = - cz 1-+ c O C: cz U O O ? 0.% O O .O = M •i o o QD o Como 0 0 a-(o 0 0 0 73 CO o .. U) co O .>% CD .? U CZ cz 0 cz O 0 O 070 U C70 U •? • I V f ? _ I w cn Cl) 'i'.i r CZ ._ ?I CZ O CD 0 E Cn .- U cE r cn co c: 0 O • - •- U cts 4-0 CD cz aD CD 4-0 4--a 4-0 E .? •- O ?, U O 0 4-0 i CU O > Cj) 0 1 CD CD i O O Cn CU L i ?- V h CL :3 '''' -V Cv cz CY) .. ??? E a cz N c? .v CD V E co cz cn J CZ c: -0 CD Q o(]) C/) Cap 7C) (1) CZ C =3 C cn O •- 0 ? C/) X 0 0 ? .C/) W ? CO (1) CO o O Cl) % 4-0 • U ? - C: E 0 CU U > E 0 a? cl . CD E C: C: cz C '0 C: Z C: CD Cv =_ NO c: -0 V= i 0 C C: o c 6--p -0 cz CL C: Q N s-E cz i Co c ,0 i CD E o . • 0 A-1 W% C/ Cn L O c? .O O M J Q 0 0 cz a? cz cz Cn O a? cz 4-4 i cz Cl) 0 Cz Jc O Cf) -? CZ U c? ? C o O '- ? L. ° 4-0 o C: ?->C)) O :3 ., O cz O O•Ua0 O U c: O i (D O :3 .c 4-0 O .- .? Cl) U 70 a? 4--j - ? ° E:= c: O>?'coco E 0 0 C;) E - Ll= D cD 83 O O C O O L O ¦ i -? C: O E S U O O p CD.? lM E O i ¦ - cm o -O -0 76 ¦ C m ¦0 ° cm +, Cn ? •- ?_-V) CZ c ¦ 0 C: mo CD O O a? CD :D CD co CD > 0 Oa• s I• • 0 0) .c CCU Cn O Cn Cz U 0 J Q 0 0 i O i O U d' d7 d' O O O Jc -?- j Cz • ? ? O CO y-- Q Cn c =3 Cz O -- Cn U - E c c: so 0 E C: 4-a 0 •- Cn CD. O O c: O C: 0 O > O .? CD (D E CCU O C: -- O -1-j - .? E O O ? O E O C? E 0. E O O O O O K. C: CZ U ? U ? ? U A.9 O o 7C3 -6-J c: cz O cl) cz "0 +.j O c: cz V •Ci) 0 0 E CD. 0? cm CD U X d- a) a) v, O c: a) . CD C CD . V > CO CD $: E cz CZ O O N O .- ' Cz ?-• cn :3 Jc O U) (D CD CL 4-0 0) cz O cn CZ '> E == O cn CD -V 0 C: O '- CL `'- O O C: O ._ p 70 *..§ '- C: O O .- CD cn C LO OD CO CD cz ?. i Q. ? O O O ? cz U ? cl? .j 0 < 70 CZ 7C3 0 co L. L. 0 -P-0 CZ 7C) C/) p O O O O v C V O O ? ? 2-28-1997 d:53PM FROM LJR. INC. 612 690 d09d P.d CA-1o • ? s L Mimi Q i .0 0 U 0*) CL 0 m O Nt Id, co O r 0) M o O 0 CD co 0) co U 0 d• ? ? ? f`.Q N N r r N C 3 E E U O c ° o ° ?- O Lo O Lo rn o r- U w co co co N ti cr) co N M C ? 4? O • ? N CL Q3 C. S2. ?U 0 a. 0 a 10 Lu w 0 (D 2 to cn 8' Q cn C'3 co r W c\j T- W N W 0 • 0 2-28-1997 d:5dPM U r N N Q L. a i 0 U d' N E N A co N E O f: FROM LJR. INC. 612 690 dO9d a ?Lo a J? C) ( _ cv cQ Lo to E a T a ? ° > a o < 00 w? cV > , ?. T Q 0 0 co I _ I` co a c }-- U. M o.. . .. p ap c co Z co %. I a cf) cz -T? > CD CD ? tU S Q o > _ aC o E }-- p = O L- a Lo m = - a. 0 cc a 0 a 00 T N. P. 6 0