The URL can be used to link to this page

032216CompleteAgendaSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM MARCH 22, 2016 6:00 PM Call to order Discussion regarding the 5 year street reconstruction plan. 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. SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM MARCH 22, 2016 6:15 PM Call to order 6:15 p.m. - 6:35 p.m. Discussion regarding Lakes at Lyndale wayfinding signage (Council Memo No. 15/HRA Memo No. 8) 2. 6:35 p.m. - 6:55 p.m. Discussion regarding Penn Avenue banners (Council Memo No. 16/HRA Memo No. 9) 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 March 17, 2016 Council Memorandum No. 15 HRA Memorandum No. 8 Housing and Redevelopment The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners and City of Richfield Members of the City Council Subject: Lakes at Lyndale Wayfinding Signage Discussion (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members and Commissioners: The Lakes at Lyndale area, centered around 66th Street & Lyndale Avenue, is home to significant redevelopment, Richfield Lake, Woodlake Nature Center, and is considered to be the City's "downtown". In 2013 a Connectivity Plan (Plan) was completed to better integrate improvements throughout this area, and to encourage pedestrian travel. Following approval of the Plan, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) contracted with Signia Design to develop wayfinding signage for the Lakes at Lyndale area. Potential signage may include; gateway markers, interpretive signs, directional/wayfinding signs and standard street signs. Using feedback collected from residents via Richfield Connect, from staff, and from a previous worksession held in October 2015, Signia Design has further refined two design options (attached) for wayfinding signage to be located in the Lakes at Lyndale area. Signia Design will be presenting these options at a joint worksession of the City Council and the HRA on March 22, 2016 at 6:15 p.m. in an effort to garner additional feedback and narrow the selection. pectfu�y sub it ed, to . De h itanager SLD:mrb Attachment: Lakes at Lyndale Wayfinding Signage options and Plan Map Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors Planning Commission 1% N fo 32-1 fo -0 r M --se fo ;7 —1 0) -o2 Fo N F -- CL W U z O U C m c N U "6 N N i d ❑ 11 J 70 �i s 3Av Aun863lld E 0■■+■m * 1 M. I =may =tii� �' 4i V ■ Q 0 c w U za O s Q a W Q Z _U N i N> 'i L C C C (� Q D ~ vi W z EI D Q O a 7 O c Z m O O Z 70 O— 70 �j O O U 0 >Q> 0 o C O z LJJ jz z0 0 Q > > w A h > W J LL W I • >Q > 00')0 T Q 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager March 17, 2016 Council Memorandum No. 16 HRA Memorandum No. 9 Housing and Redevelopment The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners and City of Richfield Members of the City Council Subject: Penn Avenue Banners Discussion (Worksession Agenda Item No. 2) Council Members and Commissioners: The Penn Avenue Corridor (Corridor) stretches from Highway 62 to 68th Street and is home to many small businesses. Several years ago, the Penn Central group was founded by citizens and business owners seeking to better market the area. In 2013 banners carrying the Penn Central logo were installed on streetlights throughout the Corridor. Those streetlights have since been replaced with smaller, pedestrian -scale lighting to improve aesthetics in the Corridor. The former banners were too large to fit the smaller light poles, presenting an opportunity to create new banners for the Penn Central area by soliciting input from a broader segment of the public. In late 2015 three different artists each contributed three banner design options. These initial designs were presented to the public at Penn Fest and put out for comment on the Richfield Connect website. Using feedback collected from residents at Penn Fest and via Richfield Connect, staff has narrowed the field to two options (attached). Staff will be presenting these options at a joint worksession of the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on March 22, 2016 at 6:15 p.m. in an effort to garner additional feedback and put forth a preferred banner selection. Rep ully ubmitted even., .; City"kanager SLD:mrb Attachment: Penn Avenue banner finalists Summary of Richfield Connect poll Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors Planning Commission w 2: PENN BUSINESS DISTRICT O U 14D04DO W G O()C)43 P L A Y PennCentralofRichfield.com WELCOME NEIGHBORHOOD. bemindo� valkmm�a malifayang pagdanngwel4oa n ,�� L Gl w Q O O M to Q� .O N C C m O u O w N Ql t w O L v vi= Cm d REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 22, 2016 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Open forum (15 minutes ma)imum) 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 March 3, 2016; and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of March 8, 2016. PRESENTATIONS 1. Welcome to the returning Friendship City Commission delegation from Heredia, Costa Rica. COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Hats Off to Hometown Hits AGENDAAPPROVAL 3. Approval of the agenda. 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 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 a resolution amending the allocation of the 2015 General Fund Budget. Staff Report No. 35 B. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. Staff Report No. 36 C. Consideration of the approval of a resolution providing for the sale of $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A. Staff Report No. 37 D. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that amends City Code Subsection 930.09 related to noise control hours for construction activities and schedule a second reading for April 12, 2016. Staff Report No. 38 E. Consideration of the approval of the installation of protective floor coating to the concrete floors at the Public Works Facility by SwedeBro for $140,398.00 and authorize the City Manager to approve additional work up to $10,000 without further City Council authorization. Staff Report No. 39 F. Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on April 26, 2016, for the consideration of the issuance of new On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, with outside service, for VPC Richfield Pizza, LLC d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, 3000 66th Street West. Staff Report No. 40 G. Consideration of the approval of the renewal of the contract with Adesa Minneapolis for 2016/2017 for auctioning forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police. Staff Report No. 41 H. Consideration of the approval of a resolution modifying the establishment of a Richfield Transportation Commission. Staff Report No. 42 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar RESOLUTIONS 6. Consideration of a variety of land use applications related to a proposal for an 88 -unit assisted living facility and associated site improvements on property located generally between 76th and 77th Street West and Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues. Staff Report No. 43 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Public hearing regarding a resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Assisted Living Addition that will combine four parcels (211 -76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 PillsburyAvenue South) and an adjacent 30 foot strip of land in order to allow construction of an assisted living facility. Staff Report No. 44 RESOLUTIONS 8. Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 for the contract period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Staff Report No. 45 OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of the following related to the West Richfield Stormwater Project: 1. Accepting the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Minger Construction Co. in the amount of $1,930,000.20 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. 2. Authorizing the City Manager to approve contract changes under $100,000 without further City Council authorization. 3. Approving hiring WSB & Associates to perform construction engineering services for a fee not to exceed $159,207 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. 10. City Manager's Report Staff Report No. 46 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 11. 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. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. Executive session for attorney-client privileged discussion pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, subd. 3(b) relating to pending litigation between Raymond Spiegel and the City of Richfield 13. Reconvene the Regular City Council Meeting in the City Council Chambers. 14. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession March 3, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:01 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Police Chief; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; Fire Chief; Mike Dobesh, Assistant Fire Chief; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; and Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager. Item # I CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNUAL GOAL SETTING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING The City Council and City staff met to discuss annual goal setting and strategic planning. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m. Date Approved: March 22, 2016 Debbie Goettel Mayor Pam Dmytrenko Steven L. Devich Assistant City Manager/HR Manager City Manager CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting March 8, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Howard at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Michael Howard, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Present: Tom Fitzhenry. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor. Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tempore Howard led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia to approve the Regular City Council Meeting of February 23, 2016. Motion carried 4-0. Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Member Fitzhenry presented a five year recognition certificate that he received, on behalf of the Richfield Beyond the Yellow Committee, at the 2016 Joining Community Forces - Minnesota Conference. Council Meeting Minutes -2- March 8, 2016 Council Member Elliott discussed the work of the Hendrickson Foundation which supports Minnesota Hockey's disabled programs for people who are wheelchair bound, amputees, have cognitive issues, or were injured in the military. Mayor Pro Tempore Howard commented on the significant street work along 66th Street that is being done by the Met Council. He stated that residents are voicing concern over the lack of communication from the Met Council regarding the project. He reported that staff and the City Council have discussed the matter with the Met Council and have asked them to increase their communication efforts. He further encouraged residents to contact staff and/or City Council with any concerns or issues regarding the project. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott to approve the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance rezoning 211 76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30 -foot strip of land from Industrial (1) and undesignated to Planned Multi -Family Residential (PMR).S.R. No. 33 M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE MARKET PLAZAIVILLAGE SHORES MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 6501 WOODLAKE DRIVE. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL 50 UNITS OF HOUSING AND SITE MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE TENANT (HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER). S.R. NO. 34 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 34. City Planner Poehlman discussed the proposed changes to the development that would improve and better align the existing development with the current market. She further explained the proposed improvements would help address the lack of activity and interest at the corner and the poor pedestrian connections throughout the site. Council Member Garcia questioned if any businesses in the area have voiced any concerns. City Planner Poehlman responded that they have not received any statements of concern from area businesses. Council Meeting Minutes -3- March 8, 2016 Council Member Elliott questioned the possibility for public art in the area. He recommended involving the Arts Commission to help come up with some ideas that are self- directed and self -produced. Mayor Pro Tempore Howard asked about utilizing the corner space in the long term. City Planner Poehlman responded that the applicant is proposing to install two trellis structures atop a raised parking area at the corner of the lot. These structures are intended to make this area less attractive for parking and instead lend itself to community activities. The applicant is open to something more permanent on that corner but it is not feasible right now. David Gevers, E.J. Plesko & Associates (property owner), has looked at trying to populate the corner area but two things are impacting feasibility; 1) the future roundabout will require significant taking of land, and 2) Hennepin County Medical Center, tenant applicant, has indicated that all parking is necessary. Mr. Gevers believes that the surface parking lot will exceed their needs but they can measure and reevaluate this need in the future. M/Garcia, S/Elliott that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 11184 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 6501 WOODLAKE DRIVE Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11184. Item #6 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Item #7 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 03/08/16 A/P Checks: 248057-248441 1,292,231.04 Payroll: 117072-117404; 42447 $ 610,721.62 TOTAL $ 1,902,952.66 Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM None. Item #8 ADJOURNMENT The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:25 p.m. Date Approved: March 22, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes -4- March 8, 2016 Michael Howard Mayor Pro Tempore Theresa Schyma Steven L. Devich Deputy City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 35 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director 3/15/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution amending the allocation of the 2015 General Fund Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis. During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget. At year end, if a department within the City's General Fund exceeds its approved appropriation, a transfer of appropriations from another General Fund department is required to bring that department's budget into balance. One General Fund department, Fire, has exceeded their approved 2015 appropriation by approArnately $65,000. The reasons for this are as follows: • First, the department had a firefighter on leave for a military deployment. When this occurs the firefighter still gets paid for 15 days of service by the City. In addition, to cover the temporary loss of one firefighter, the department hired a new firefighter which increases personnel costs. • Second, the department has been turning over to younger firefighters over the last several years and as such, the leave benefits have been accruing, while at the same time the newer firefighters are not taking as much time off. • Finally, the firefighters are also utilizing "shift trading". This is where a firefighter, in lieu of using leave time, will trade a shift with another firefighter. This can have the effect to cause vacation and sick leave balances to increase, resulting in increased year end balances and year end costs. These last two reasons can become budgetary issues because the City is required to accrue and recognize the cost of unused leave balances at the end of every year. Furthermore, it is very difficult to budget for this accrued amount. For 2015, the effect of shift trading and firefighters not taking as much time off has had the effect to increase the Fire Department's cost for unused accumulated leave balances by $38,500 above what was originally budgeted. To balance the appropriation of the Fire department, a transfer of appropriations from the Public Safety department in the amount of $75,000 is recommended. Finally, it should be noted, that the General Fund will end 2015 with an estimated surplus of $189,295. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution amending the 2015 General Fund Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the Public Safety Department to the Fire Department. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The Fire Department's budget for 2015 exceeds the adopted appropriation by approximately $65,000 or 1.71°/x. The cause for the Fire Department to exceed the adopted appropriations can be narrowed down to increased labor due to a military deployment and an increase in leave accrual costs. Therefore, after the compilation of the 2015 Revised Budget, the expenditures of the Fire Department has exceeded the appropriation contained in the 2015 Revised Budget, resulting in total 2015 expenditures to exceed appropriations by approximately $65,000. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis. • During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: N/A D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The amount exceeding budget for the Fire Department is approximately 65,000. • City staff is recommending that the 2015 Revised Budget be allocated between the following departments and divisions in order to balance all City departments: INCREASED BUDGET EXPENDITURES Fire Department Fire Division $75,000 Total $75,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety Department Police Operations Division $75,000 Total $75,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at the department level of spending. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund Budget; instead it provides that no department end the fiscal year overspent. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2015 Budget Amendment Resolution Resolution Letter N= 9101 III] I us] Z I Z us] RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2015 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11017 appropriated funds for personal services, other services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 2015; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11153 authorized revision of the 2015 budget various departments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 2015 budget appropriations in accordance with charter provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN as follows: R1 IKAKAARY INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Fire Department Fire Division $75,000 Total $75,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety Department: Police Operations Division $75,000 Total $75,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget -0- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN. this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.13. STAFF REPORT NO. 36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director 3/15/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of the Capital Improvement Budget and annual City Budget process, certain special revenue funds are allocated each year to fund capital projects identified through the budget process. The source of the special revenue funds are profits derived from the City's Liquor Store operation. These profits are transferred to the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund. Before the funds within the Special Revenue Fund can be used for the identified capital projects, the City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of the funds. In addition, the ordinance process allows for public input through a public hearing. The proposed funding for 2016 totals $450,000 and encompasses several park and recreation related projects. However, at the February 23, 2016, the City Council approved the remodeling of the Cedar Avenue Liquor store. As part of the financing for that project, the liquor operation will reduce the 2016 special revenue fund transfer by $350,500. The reduction in the special revenue transfer will be offset by utilizing Local Government Aid set aside funds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements, schedule public hearing and second reading for April 26, 2016, and approve the use of Local Government Aid set aside funds for certain capital projects. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT At the December 8, 2015 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital improvements in 2016. • Included in the $450,000 are: • $45,000 for Major Park Maintenance Projects • $5,000 Wood Lake Fence Repair & Tree Removal • $156,740 Lincoln Field Loan Repay • $143,760 Community Center Boiler & Air Conditioning • $10,000 Community Center Parking Lot Seal Coating • $52,500 Swimming Pool Heaters • $37,000 Wood Lake Nature Center Rest Room Improvements With the reduction in special revenue funding, the following projects, totaling $350,500, will be funded by utilizing Local Government Aid set aside funds. • $45,000 for Major Park Maintenance Projects • $5,000 Wood Lake Fence Repair & Tree Removal • $156,740 Lincoln Field Loan Repay • $143,760 Community Center Boiler & Air Conditioning • In addition, staff is requesting the redirection of funds from Wood Lake Nature Center Rest Room Improvements to the replacement of carpet at the Community Center. The 2016 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2016 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. It is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on March 22, 2016 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the April 26, 2016 City Council meeting. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: While the total 2016 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $15,040,000 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is now $99,500 as a result of City Council action at the February 23, 2016 city council meeting. Community Center Parking Lot & Seal Coat $10,000 Swimming Pool Heaters $52,500 Community Center Carpet Replacement $37,000 In addition, Local Government Aid set aside funds will be used to offset the reduction in special revenue funds for the following projects: Major Park Maintenance Projects $45,000 Wood Lake Fence Repair & Tree Removal $5,000 Lincoln Field Loan Repay $156,000 Community Center Boiler & Air Conditioning $143,760 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize the appropriations utilizing special revenue funds pursuant to City Charter. • A transitory ordinance is not required to approve the use of the Local Government Aid set aside funds. • The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue funds. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D 2016 Transitory Ordinance Resolution Resolution Letter BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Ili IWKS] 0NIN: Ia14411Biel*K61N17_11kiF Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Community Center Parking Lot Seal Coating $ 10,000 Swimming Pool Heaters $ 52,500 Community Center Carpet Replacement $ 37,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 37 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director 3/16/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/16/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution providing for the sale of $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Storm Water utility fund of the City is responsible for the treatment and disposal of storm water within the City. As such the operation serves two purposes: • To provide protection of property from damage due to flooding in the City and; • To provide environmentally responsible treatment of storm water. As part of the City's planning process for the upcoming 66th Street Reconstruction project by Hennepin County, a storm water project was identified by City staff. That project was the Monroe Park/66th Street Storm Water Project. This project was developed to increase flood protection on the west side of the City. The current storm water pipe from 66th Street is undersized, flat, and frequently backs up causing localized flooding in the area. The new storm water infrastructure will provide the relief needed to reduce the localized flooding issues in the west side of the City. In addition, with 66th Street being reconstructed it would be efficient to initiate and complete the project in conjunction with the street reconstruction. This project would continue the City's efforts to fulfill the Storm Water utility's two purposes. Funding for the project would come from the issuance of the $3,085,000 of G.O. Storm Water Revenue Bond, Series 2016A Finally, it is expected the fund will continue to maintain a positive cash flow in the near future with the new bond issue debt service requirements and other additional cash requirements. However, cash balances will need to be monitored along with storm water rates. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution providing for the sale of $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT N/A. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • The City has made the commitment to provide for the treatment and disposal of storm water in the City. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The project is scheduled to begin construction in April of 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The total cost of the Monroe Park/66th Street Improvement project is estimated to be $3,000,000. • Funding for the project is as follows: G.O. Storm Water Bonds $3.000.000 Total Funding $3,000,000 • The debt service of the bonds will be paid from storm sewer revenues. • Annual debt service is expected to average $201,729 over the life of the bond. • Storm Sewer utility rates for 2017 will need to be reviewed to insure the utility can maintain cash flow needs to cover operations and debt service. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • Legal Counsel has reviewed the Pre -Sale report and the resolution. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • Decide not to proceed with the sale of bonds and postpone or reduce the planned storm sewer improvements. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: - Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers &Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution Providing for the Sale $3,085,000 G.O. Storm Resolution Letter Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A D Pre -Sale Report $3,085,000 G.O. Storm Water Revenue Backup Material Bonds, Series 2016A Resolution Providing for the Sale of $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A (the "Bonds") to finance the construction of a storm water main from 66th Street to Monroe Park. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc. in Roseville, Minnesota (Ehlers), as its independent municipal financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals 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 solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 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 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk is EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE March 22, 2016 Pre -Sale Report for City of Richfield, Minnesota $3,085,000 General obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A Prepared by; Rebecca Kurtz Senior Municipal Advisor And Brian Reilly Senior Municipal Advisor ...._..E-1— I rvwI,Icrs i1r;.� crrt Executive Summary of Proposed Debt Proposed Issue: $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for the 2016 storm water project along 66th Street. Debt service will be paid from storm sewer revenues. 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 a 21 year term. Principal on the Bonds will be due on February I in the years 2018 through 2037. Interest is payable every six months beginning February 1, 2017. The Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2026 will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2025 or any date thereafter. 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 a new rating for the Bonds. The City has chosen not to have the bonds credit enhanced by the State since the State is also rated "A A+." 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. 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. Presale Report March 22, 2016 City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 1 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 underwriters/banks. We have included an allowance for discount bidding equal to 1.2% 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 2.00% to 10.00% 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 will determine the use of any premium on the day of the sale. 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. Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are four potential advance refunding opportunities: • G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 2007A (callable 2/i/2017) • G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2007B (callable 21112017) • G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A (callable 2/1/2019) • G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 2009A (callable 2/1/2019) We are in discussions with City staff regarding the options for these issues and the timing of a potential refunding. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City's outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities. Presale Report March 22, 2016 City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 2 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 reportable 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 the Bond debt service with utility funds. If utility revenue is inadequate, the City may have to levy taxes to pay debt service on the Bonds. 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 service provider. 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: Bond Trust Services Rating Agency: Standard & Poor's 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. 40 Presale Report March 22, 2096 City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 3 Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule Pre -Sale Review by City Council: March 22, 2016 Distribute Official Statement: Week of April 11, 2016 Conference with Rating Agency: Week of April 11, 2016 City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: April 26, 2016 Estimated Closing Date: May 16, 2016 Attachments Sources and Uses of Funds Proposed Debt Service Schedule Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed With Bond Sale Ehlers Contacts Municipal 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 March 22, 2016 City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 4 City of Richfield, Minnesota $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 25bps Sources & Uses Dated 0 511 512 01 6 j Delivered 0511512016 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $3,085.000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $3,085,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1?00%) 37,020.00 Costs of Issuance 43,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 3,000,000.00 Rounding Amount 4,980.00 Total Uses 53,085,000.00 Series 2016A GO Storm Wat I SINGLE PURPOSE 13111!2016 1 12'.37 PM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City of Richfield, Minnesota $3,085,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A Assuming Current GO BQ "AA+" Market Rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 051€5120€6 - 02/0112017 49,219.56 49,219.56 49,219.56 081012017 - - 34,607.50 34,607.50 - 02/012018 130,000.00 0.950% 34,607,50 164,607.50 199,215.00 08101!2018 - - 33,990.00 33,990.00 - 021012019 130,000.00 1.050% 33,990.00 163,990.00 197,980.00 08/012019 - - 33,307.50 33,307.50 - 02/01/2020 €35,000.00 1.200% 33,307,50 168,307.50 201,615.00 081012020 - - 32,497.50 32,497.50 - 0210112021 135,000.00 1,300% 32,497.50 167,497.50 199,995.00 08101/2021 - - 31,620.00 31,620A0 - 02101/2022 135 000,00 L450% 31,620.00 166,620.00 198,240.00 081012022 - 30,641.25 30,641.25 - 02101/2023 140,000.00 1.650% 30,641.25 170,641.25 201,282.50 08101.1023 - - 29,486.25 29,486.25 - 02/01/2024 140,000.00 1.750% 29,486.25 169,486.25 198,972.50 08101/2024 - 28,261.25 28,261,25 02/01/2025 145,000.00 1.900% 28,26125 173,261.25 201,522.50 08/01/2025 - - 26,883.75 26,883.75 - 02/01/2026 145,000.00 2.050% 26,883.75 171,883.75 198,767.50 08/012026 - - 25,397.50 25,397.50 - 02/0I/2027 150,000.00 2.150% 25,397.50 175,397.50 200,795.00 08/0112027 - - 23,785.00 23,785.00 02/01/2028 150,000,00 2.250% 23,785,00 173,785.00 197,570.00 06/01/2028 22,097.50 22,097.50 02/01/2029 155,000.00 2.400% 22,097.50 177,097.50 199,195.00 08/01/2029 - - 20,237.50 20,237.50 - 02/012030 160,000.00 2.500% 20,237.50 180,237.50 200,475.00 08/01!2030 - - 18,237.50 18,237.50 02/01/2031 165,000.00 2.650% 18,237.50 183,237.50 201,475.00 08101/2031 - - 16,051.25 16,051,25 - 02/01/2032 165,000.00 2.750% 16,051.25 181,051.25 197,102.50 08/01x2032 - - 13,782.50 13,782.50 - 02/01/2033 170,000.00 2.850% 13,782.50 183,782.50 197,565.00 08/0112033 11,360.00 11,360.00 - 02/01/2034 175,000.00 2.950% 11,360.00 186,360.00 197,720.00 08/01/2034 - 8,778.75 8,778.75 - 02/01/2035 180,000,00 3.050% 8,778.75 188,778.75 197,557.50 08/01/2035 - - 6,033.75 6,033.75 - 02/01f2036 185,000A0 3.150% 6,033.75 191,033.75 197,067,50 0810112036 - - 3,120.00 3,120.00 02/01/2017 195,000.00 3.200% 3320 20 00 198,120.00 201,240.00 Total 53,085,000.00 - 5949,572.06 54,034,572.06 - Yield Statistics Bond Yem Dollars_ _ _ 536,713.78 AveraE Life _ 11 901 Years Average Coupon 2.5864188% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 2.6872529"/ True Interesi Cosl (TIC) 2.6735530% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.5527624% All Inclusive Cost (A1C) 2,8164259% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.5864188% Weighted Average Maturity 11.901 Years Series 2016A GO Sturm Wai I SINGLE PURPOSE I Sri 412016 1 12-37 PM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE REPORT PREPARED BY: AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 38 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 Jared Voto, Administrative Aide/Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 3/15/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 3/14/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that amends City Code Subsection 930.09 related to noise control hours for construction activities and schedule a second reading for April 12, 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: During a typical construction season staff receives noise complaints from residents regarding construction work taking place in the evening. City Code currently allows construction activities to take place until 10pm on weekdays and Saturday. Staff recommends revising City Code to move the end time from 10pm to Bpm on weekdays and Saturday, in response to residents' complaints. Contractors may request a variance to the noise ordinance for construction work outside the designated hours. The City Council and Manager may require the applicant of a noise variance to notify property owners within 500 feet of the noise source. This has been standard practice of past requested variances. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the ordinance revising City Code Subsection 930.09 related to noise control hours for construction activities and schedule a second reading for April 12, 2016. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • City Code Subsection 930.35, gives authority to the City Council and Manager to grant variances to the noise control ordinance. • Staff researched 11 metro area cities noise control ordinances and found the following hours: -- x. - . 7am - 10pm 8am - 10pm N/A N/A 7am - 9pm 8am - 7pm 8am - 7pm 8am - 7pm 511 11.. 7am - 10pm 9am - 9pm Prohibited N/A 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm -... 7am - 6pm B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • The City Charter requires a first and second reading on ordinances. • A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • None D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no financial impact to the City. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI • None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Ordinance Ordinance w/ permit w/ permit w/ permit ' 7am - 10pm N/A N/A N/a ... 7am - 10pm 7am - 10pm 7am - 10pm 7am - 10pm ' 7am - 10pm 9am - 10pm 9am - 10pm 9am - 10pm 7am - 10pm 9am - 9pm 9am - 9pm 9am - 9pm Cottage . - 7am - 7pm 9am - 7pm Prohibited Prohibited 7am - 10pm 9am - 9pm 9am - 9pm 9am - 9pm .. - ... 7am - 7pm 7am - 7pm Prohibited N/A .. '... 7am - 10pm 7am - 10pm B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • The City Charter requires a first and second reading on ordinances. • A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • None D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no financial impact to the City. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI • None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Ordinance Ordinance BILL NO. 2016 - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 930 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Subsection 930.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: Construction activity involving the use of power equipment which does not generate a sound level in excess of 85 dBA, measured at the property line of the source, may be operated in all zones between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:008:00 p.m. daily. All other construction activity may be carried out only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:008:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:008:00 p.m. on Saturdays. SECTION 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of April, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor /_IaION9 Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 39 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 2/29/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the installation of protective floor coating to the concrete floors at the Public Works Facility by SwedeBro for $140,398.00 and authorize the City Manager to approve additional work up to $10,000 without further City Council authorization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Public Works Facility's concrete floors are showing signs of wear and need a protective coating before any more damage becomes apparent. Coating the floors will prevent subsurface damage that would require replacing the concrete. The concrete floors to be coated are: • Main Vehicle Bay • Mechanics Bay • Wash Stall • Basement Additional costs to the project would include moisture mitigation if humidity levels are too high at the time of installation. Staff does not anticipate this additional cost, but it may be necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the installation of protective floor coating at the Public Works Facility by SwedeBro for $140,398. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work up to $10,000 without further City Council authorization. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The Public Works Facility was completed in 2008. At that time a temporary sealant was applied to the concrete flooring. Oil, dust, and salt have eroded this sealant and surface damage is beginning to appear. Salt is the major factor that damages concrete. Installation of a protective floor coating to the floors now is essential to eliminate the need to replace concrete in the near future. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $100,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The purchase of this service will be made through a Service Cooperative. Service Cooperatives are public entities created under MN Statute 123A21 to negotiate services that result in cost savings and enhanced services for schools, governmental entities, and nonprofit entities. The City of Richfield participates in the Cooperative Purchasing Connection program, a Service Cooperative, and SwedeBro is an approved vendor in the Cooperative Purchasing Connection program. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Approval at this meeting will ensure that the work will occur within the same year it was budgeted and will allow the work to be scheduled with the contractor, potentially eliminating the need for moisture mitigation (an additional cost). D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This project was estimated to cost $250,000 and is identified in: • 2016 and 2017 CIB/CIP • 2015R/2016P Garage Budget Staff will be requesting to revise the approved budget to complete the project in one year. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $100,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI The Council may take no action and delay the installation of the protective floor covering; however, delaying this work increases the likelihood of further damages to the floor. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 41. STAFF REPORT NO. 40 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn, Support Serivices Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 3/10/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on April 26, 2016, for the consideration of the issuance of new On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, with outside service, for VPC Richfield Pizza, LLC d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, 3000 66th Street West. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 12, 2016, the City received the application materials for new On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, with outside service, for VPC Richfield Pizza, LLC d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, located at 3000 66th Street West. Giordano's of Richfield is a new addition to the City of Richfield that will be occuping the space previously held by Bakers Square. All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on April 26, 2016, for the consideration of the issuance of new On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, with outside service, for VPC Richfield Pizza, LLC d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, 3000 66th Street West. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Being this is a notice to "set the public hearing" at this time, staff will provide a more detailed historical context in the staff report that is submitted for the Public Hearing that will occur on April 26, 2016. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • City ordinance provides the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license applications and a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. • The new process has been initiated. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Holding the public hearing on April 26, 2016 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All licensing fees have been received. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(51. • Reject the applications for new On -Sale Into)acating and Sunday Liquor licenses, with outside service, for VPC Richfield Pizza, LLC d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield. • Schedule the public hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: There are no parties expected at this meeting. AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.G. STAFF REPORT NO. 41 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jay Henthorne, Director Of PublicSafety/Chief of Police DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 3/10/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the renewal of the contract with Adesa Minneapolis for 2016/2017 for auctioning forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Adesa is a company used by the Public Safety Department to store and auction off seized vehicles. The City currently has a contract with Adesa and would like to renew the contract for the year 2016-2017 as the contract expires on March 31, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of the 2016-2017 attached auction service contract between the City of Richfield and Adesa Minneapolis, for the auctioning of forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • Adesa's performance during the past year of the contract period was satisfactory. They auction forfeiture vehicles for many cities, including the City of Bloomington. • Adesa Minneapolis has submitted the new contract for 2016-2017. No changes were made to the services they provide. Adesa indicates that, as in the past, they have three different towing services that can handle Richfield and that they will use the least expensive when they can. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • Adesa Minneapolis notified the City that they wish to renew their contract with the City. • The Public Safety Department wishes to renew the contract with Adesa Minneapolis. • The contract has numerous conditions that must be met. Adesa Minneapolis is a reputable, established auction company that meets all contract requirements. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • A 30 -day written notice must be given by either party to terminate the contract. • Public Safety must have a company to store and auction forfeited vehicles on April 1, 2016. • Adequate space is not available in the City to store forfeited vehicles. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no financial impact E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the past contract with Adesa Mlnneapolis and there are no contract changes under the new contract. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(51. • Do not sign the contract; however, Public Safety would need to find other means to auction the forfeited vehicles. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ 2016/2017 Adesa Contract Cover Memo AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND ADESA MINNEAPOLIS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1st day of April, 2016 by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Ave., S., Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and ADESA Minnesota, LLC dba ADESA Minneapolis, a Minnesota limited, liability company with its principle business offices located at 18270 Territorial Road, Dayton, Minnesota 55369 (hereinafter referred to as "ADESA"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City comes into possession of and is authorized to retain various motor vehicles which are identified as potentially being subject to forfeiture of other civil processes under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a result of their having been used in the connection with a criminal act (hereinafter referred to as "Forfeiture Vehicles") and upon successful completion of the forfeiture or civil process the City is authorized to dispose of said vehicles in accordance with Section 315 of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, ADESA represents that it has the professional expertise and knowledge to perform its duties as an automobile dealer, and is licensed by the State of Minnesota in that capacity; and WHEREAS, THE City desires to hire ADESA to transport, store, repair, maintain and sell its Forfeiture Vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall begin April 1st, 2016 and shall continue until April 1" 2017, subject to termination as provided in Article IV. DUTIES OF ADESA A. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to drive or transport those vehicles identified by the City as one of its Forfeiture Vehicles to a secure location to be determined and managed by ADESA. B. Upon receipt of a City Forfeiture Vehicle and except for fire, storm, flood, war, civil disturbance, riot, act of God, lightning, earthquake, or other similar casualty, which is not within the control of ADESA or any act/omission of City or its officers, employees or agents, ADESA accepts full responsibility for it and agrees to exercise due diligence in its care, maintenance and storage of said vehicle until the time that it is sold or released; so as to avoid waste and obtain a reasonable sale price at auction. C. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to perform such minor repair work on the City's Forfeiture Vehicles so as to prepare them for auction and maximize the City's return at auction, but in no event shall such repair work exceed the cost of TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($200.00) without prior, written authorization by the Richfield City Manager or his/her designee. D. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to release the City's Forfeiture Vehicles prior to auction on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. E. ADESA agrees to box and store personal property that is not affixed to, but located within, the City's Forfeiture Vehicles and upon specific authorization from the City to release such property on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. F. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to promptly sell the City's Forfeiture Vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner by an open and competitive automobile dealer or salvage auction. G. ADESA agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from ADESA's (including its officials, agents or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of ADESA. H. During the term of this Agreement ADESA agrees to maintain general comprehensive liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for any damage to property, theft, loss or other claims as a result of ADESA's negligence or malfeasance in performing this Agreement. In addition, ADESA agrees to maintain such motor vehicle liability insurance as required by state and federal laws. I. ADESA shall be licensed and bonded in the State of Minnesota to perform its duties under this Agreement and shall provide a certificate of licensure, bonding and insurance to the City. J. ADESA agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement. K. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting ADESA's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. ADESA and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. ADESA represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of ADESA or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by ADESA under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, clams of discrimination against ADESA, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and ADESA shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. L. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subdivision 5. M. ADESA agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs or activities. ADESA agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from, costs, including by not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the ADESA. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. N. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act., Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. O. Any Forfeiture Vehicles which ADESA has been authorized and directed to sell but was unable to under the terms of this Agreement shall be returned to the City at a site designated by it as soon as reasonably practicable but in no event more than sixty (60) days from the occurrence of the event making sale under this Agreement impossible. III. DUTIES OF THE CITY A. The City shall consign specifically identified Forfeiture Vehicles to ADESA to sell to the highest bidder at public dealer or salvage auctions. B. The City shall certify that it has good title and right to sell those of its Forfeiture Vehicles which it directs and specifically authorizes ADESA to sell at public dealer or salvage auctions and shall provide and deliver merchantable title to the purchaser upon notification from ADESA. C. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the ADESA, its officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages losses or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of City. Notwithstanding the above, City shall also fully defend, indemnify and hold ADESA harmless for and against any and all claims, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees), suits and demands arising out of, based upon and resulting from alleged or actual damage caused by the forfeiture process or from inaccuracy of the odometer reading on any Forfeiture Vehicle prepared in connection with the sale at auction, unless such inaccuracy is caused by an employee, agent or officer of ADESA. D. The City shall pay to ADESA and ADESA shall deduct from the sale proceeds of the Forfeiture Vehicle, the following amounts as and for its services properly authorized and provided pursuant to this Agreement: 1. Transportation of an operable Forfeiture Vehicle to or from the City of Richfield to ADESA's designated storage site: $50.00. 2. Tow of an inoperable Forfeiture Vehicle (tow or trailer) to or from the City of Richfield to ADESA's designated storage site: Not to Exceed $100.00. 3. Basic cleaning of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $37.00. 4. Complete detail of a Forfeiture Vehicle (vacuum and shampoo carpets, detail interior, etc.): $85.00. 5. Repair of a Forfeiture Vehicle: Shop Rates. 6. Sale by auction of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $125.00. 7. Release of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction: $50.00 redemption, fee plus any charges (i.e., transportation). 8. Storage fee if car is not sold within 90 days: $3.00/day. 9. Inventory fee for lease of personal property: $25.00. IV. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to either party. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in the event of default or violation by ADESA of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages arising from a default or violation or to enforce performance of this Agreement. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by both parties. B. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. C. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between ADESA and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. D. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. E. The parties hereto agree to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973/31 CFR Part 51. This Act states in part that, "...all recipients of federal funds, whether in the form of a grant or a contract, review, and if necessary modify, their programs and activities so that discrimination based on handicap is eliminated." F. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on ADESA's successors and assigns and to the extent any assignee of ADESA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD DATED: BY: Director of Public Safety DATED: DATED: BY: ADESA MINNEAPOLIS BY: Its AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4.1-1. STAFF REPORT NO. 42 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jack Broz, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 3/16/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 3/16/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution modifying the establishment of a Richfield Transportation Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the December 8, 2015, City Council approved changes to Section 305 of the City Code and directed commissions to amend their bylaws to be in conformance with the new code. The Transportation Commission has met and unanimously recommended the required changes to the Commission's Bylaws and the addition of two youth members. In order to add the two youth members, the Council must approve a resolution modifying the establishment of the Richfield Transportation Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution modifying the establishment of a Richfield Transportation Commission. 1:T -1M 611yel00:1*7iyiIiyi14ki107_19C7lk A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The 2015 Richfield City Council Goals included enhancing citizen participation in City Commissions. At meetings held in January and February, the Transportation Commission reviewed its bylaws and discussed the potential to include youth appointees. At the March 2, 2016 meeting the Transportation Commission unanimously recommended a change to the Commission Bylaws to include youth appointees, update meeting dates and locations, and edits consistent with changes to Section 305 of the Richfield City Code. Specifically, the changes include: • The addition of two youth appointees to the Commission's membership • Updating the date and location of the regular meeting to align with current practice of meeting on the first Wednesday of the month at the Richfield Municipal Center • Updating the month for the election of officers to align with current practice of holding elections annually at the February meeting of the Commission. • Revisions to the following sections to be consistent with changes to Section 305 of the Richfield City Code. • Term of Membership - Revised language to only address liaisons to the Transportation Commission • Removal, Vacancy - Deleted this section • Council Liaisons - Deleted this section Modifications to the establishing resolution are needed to enact the recommended Commission Bylaws. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch On April 12, 2005, City Council approved Resolution No. 9607, Resolution Establishing a Richfield Transportation Commission. On March 25, 2008, City Council approved Resolution No. 10080, A Resolution Modifying the Establishment of a Richfield Transportation Commission. On December 8, 2015, City Council approved Ordinance No. 2015-17, amending Section 305 of the City Code codifying requirements pertaining to city commissions and directing commissions to amend their bylaws to be in conformance with the new code requirements. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Council directed commissions to update their bylaws to conform with the new code requirements. The Council must approve this modification to the establishing resolution before the Transportation Commission can update their bylaws. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolution and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI • None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance that transportation planning has on the overall development of the City of Richfield; and, WHEREAS, the City Council established a Richfield Transportation Commission on April 12, 2005 to advise the Council on a variety of transportation issues and to encourage citizen involvement in the City's decision-making process on transportation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council modified the establishment of the Richfield Transportation Commission on March 25, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the City Council amended Section 305 of the Richfield City Code on December 8, 2015, codifying requirements pertaining to city commissions and directed commissions to amend their bylaws to bring them into compliance with Richfield City Code; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to modify the resolution establishing the Richfield Transportation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that a Richfield Transportation Commission be established as follows: Resolution No. 9607, dated April 12, 2005, and Resolution No. 10080, dated March 25, 2008, related to the establishment of the Transportation Commission, are hereby repealed. 2. The Commission will consist of nine members and two youth appointees. The City Council will appoint nine members and two youth appointees. The Community Services Commission and Planning Commission will each appoint one member from their respective commissions to serve as liaisons to their respective commissions. The liaisons from the other commissions will serve as non-voting members of the Transportation Commission. 3. To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a resident or owner/manager of a business in Richfield and must have an interest in diverse transportation or environmental issues. It is desirable that each Council Ward be represented by three residents or owner/managers of businesses. 4. The Richfield Bicycle Advisory Group (B.A.G.) will appoint one member to serve as a non-voting liaison to the Transportation Commission with the following provisions: (a) if the B.A.G. fails to meet regularly for more than four months; or (b) if regular membership and/or attendance drops below six members; then, (c) the liaison position be recommended for termination by the City Council. 5. The Council shall appoint three members to an initial term of two years, three members to an initial term of three years, and three members to an initial term of four years. All subsequent Council appointments shall be for a term of three years, except when filling a vacancy in an unexpired term. The Community Services Commission and Planning Commission shall establish the length of the term for their respective appointees at the time of the appointment, but the term may not exceed the remaining term of the appointee's membership on the appointing commission. 6. The Commission shall be advisory to the City Council on transportation matters including: (a) review of policy plans on the state, regional or city level; (b) encourage citizen involvement in the City's decision-making process on transportation issues; (c) conduct transportation studies; and, (d) oversee the planning of transportation projects. 7. The Commission will be charged to recommend transportation capital improvements and prepare reports to the City Council on other related topics that the Council refers to it. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS - PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 6. STAFF REPORT NO. 43 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director 3/16/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 3/16/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a variety of land use applications related to a proposal for an 88 -unit assisted living facility and associated site improvements on property located generally between 76th and 77th Street West and Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mesaba Capital Development ("Applicant") is proposing to develop an 88 -unit assisted living facility on property formerly occupied by the Richfield Public Works Garage, Gleason Mortuary, and surrounding parcels. The Applicant is requesting a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations in order to make this possible. Tonight, the Council is asked to consider these requests as well as final development plans. The Applicant first approached the City with interest in building an assisted living facility on this site last summer. Reception of an initial plan presented at a joint work session of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and Planning Commission on August 11, 2015, was generally favorable. The Developer hosted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project on September 2, 2015. The meeting was sparsely attended and no comments were received. A Pre -development Agreement between the HRA and the Developer was approved on September 21, 2015. Since that time, the Applicant has worked with staff to design a project that is financially feasible and context - sensitive to the surrounding area. The proposed 2 and 3 -story building is L-shaped in order to concentrate the bulk of the structure away from the single-family homes along Pillsbury Avenue, something that the neighborhood has previously indicated to be important. Access for larger vehicles involved in deliveries, move-in/outs, and emergency response has been provided off of 77th Street, thereby limiting the 76th Street traffic to what would be more typical in a single-family neighborhood; also something that the neighborhood has stated as a concern in the past. The proposed unit count exceeds the allowable 24 units per acre in the Medium -High Density District by 10 units and is just shy of 27 units/acre; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the property for High Density housing is necessary to move forward. Staff does not believe that the additional units, as proposed, are detrimental to the area or cause undue additional burden on the site, surrounding roads, or neighborhood. In addition to guarantees offered by the attached Planned Unit Development Resolution, the Applicant has agreed to the placement of a restrictive covenant on the land that will limit the use of the property to a maximum of 88 units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designations of 211 -76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30 -foot strip of land from Medium - High Density Residential and Right -of -Way to High -Density Residential; and 2. Approve the ordinance amending the zoning designation of 211 - 76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30 -foot strip of land from Industrial (1) and undesignated to Planned Multi -Family Residential (PMR); and 3. Approve the resolution authorizing a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan to construct an 88 -unit assisted living facility on property located at 211- 76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30 -foot strip of land. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT In 2007 the new Richfield Public Works Maintenance Facility at 1900 - 66th Street East opened and the former sites, both north and south of 77th Street, became available for redevelopment and reuse. In anticipation of this move, the City had partnered with the Center for Neighborhoods and the Corridor Housing Initiative to explore options for this site and surrounding properties. The result was a recommendation for multi -family housing of 2-3 stories that would blend in with the neighborhood through building and site design. The recommendation envisioned a pedestrian -friendly development that would be affordable to low and middle-income families and/or seniors. The City's Comprehensive Plan was updated to designate this area for Medium -High Density Residential development; density that would be similar to that of the nearby Casteel Place development at 76th Street and Garfield Avenue. Since at least 1982, this area has been designated for Medium to High Density development. The property at 7614 Pillsbury Avenue is not part of the proposed project. The existing single-family home will remain indefinitely. In the upcoming months staff will bring forward a proposal to rezone and reguide this property to Single -Family Residential. These changes will make the property conforming and allow the property owner the greatest flexibility to improve and maintain the property. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Comprehensive Plan is a vision and guide for future land use in the City. While the proposed unit counts exceed those allowed by the current designation, the project is consistent with the City's vision of a context -sensitive, low-rise, multi -family development. The security provided by the restrictive covenant and the conditions of the attached Resolution that place an upper limit of 88 units on the site, allow staff to recommend approval of the amendment to High Density Residential. Zoning Amendment: This entire block is currently zoned Industrial; a vestige of the previous use of much of the site for Public Works -related activities. The City has put off changing this zoning until a viable development proposal was submitted. The Applicant is requesting a change to the Planned Multi - Family Residential (PMR) District. The guiding Zoning District under this designation is the High Density Multi -Family (MR -3) District. The requirements of this guiding district have been met in almost all respects; only minor variations are requested as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD). Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use Permit / Final Development Plan: There are a number of sets of review criteria that apply to this proposal. A full discussion of all requirements is included as an attachment to this report. The following variations from standard requirements are requested: • West Building Setback: The bulk of the building meets the required 38.5 -foot setback along the railroad tracks. The areas that encroach upon the setback include the one-story loading dock and the kitchen areas. These elements are deliberately situated to minimize disruption to the residential neighborhood and to allow easy access and serving of roof -top equipment. Furthermore, the required setback in this case, doesn't account for the fact that the adjacent parcel is railroad right-of-way and not a developed/developable piece of land. Principal Entrance Orientation: Code requires that buildings be oriented so that at least one principal entrance faces the public street rather than the interior of the site (parking lot). The Applicant is requesting flexbility in order to situate the bulk of the building away from the single- family homes along Pillsbury Avenue and also to better serve an elderly population. In a commercial or mixed use corridor, staff would be concerned with the location of the primary entrance. Sign Allowance: Sign allowances in residential districts are significantly less than those in commercial districts. The Applicant is requesting a 36 square foot monument sign along 76th Street (maximum allowed by right is 24 square feet) and an additional 28.5 square foot monument sign along 77th Street to direct delivery vehicles. Total allowable signage is 36 square feet; the Applicant is proposing a total of 64.5 square feet. Staff has reviewed the proposed signs and feels that the scale and location are reasonable. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: 60 -DAY RULE: The 60 -day clock 'started' when a complete application was received on February 8, 2016. A decision is required by April 8, 2015 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The area was approved as a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District by the City Council in 2014. The City and/or Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority have expended approximately $220,000 for environmental abatement and demolition on the site since that time. Those costs will be reimbursed through TIF. The developer has agreed to pay over $1.2 million for the property ($975,000 up front and $244,000 in pledged TIF). The developer will also be eligible to receive TIF for reimbursement of statutorily qualified redevelopment costs that they incur. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 22, 2016. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site. • One member of the public spoke against the proposal. Written correspondence related to the project is attached. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments and site plans (5-0). • A Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a four-fifths majority vote by the City Council. Amendments must also be approved by the Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: Deny one or more of the requests with findings. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Mesaba Capital Development Representatives - Della Kolpin & Bo Nickoloff ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution - Comprehensive Plan Resolution Letter ❑ Ordinance - Rezone Ordinance ❑ Resolution - Planned Unit Development Resolution Letter ❑ Required Findings Exhibit ❑ Senior Housing Policy Statement Exhibit ❑ Project Narrative Exhibit ❑ Proposed Plans Exhibit ❑ Planning & Zoning Maps Exhibit ❑ Resident Correspondence Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 211 76TH STREET WEST; 7600, 7608, AND 7644 PILLSBURY AVENUE SOUTH; AND AN ADJACENT 30 -FOOT STRIP OF LAND TO "HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing particular planning needs for specific segments of the City; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates 211 76th Street West and 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South as "Medium -High Density Residential;" and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan does not call out a specific designation for a small, adjacent 30' x 75' strip of land; and WHEREAS, the "Medium -High Density Residential" designation was chosen with a pedestrian -friendly, context -sensitive, low-rise development in mind; and WHEREAS, the proposed "High Density" plan provides a pedestrian -friendly, context - sensitive, low-rise development with a slightly higher unit count than currently allowed; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classification and determined that it would be appropriate to designate 211 76th Street West and 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South, as well as the adjacent 30' x 75' strip of land, as "High -Density Residential;" and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 22, 2016 concerning modifying the Guide Plan and recommended approval of the modifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the amendment on March 22, 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to designate 211 76th Street West and 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South, as well as the adjacent 30'x 75' strip of land, as "High -Density Residential;" contingent upon the following: 1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor /_,111aION9 Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING 211 76TH STREET WEST; 7600, 7608, AND 7644 PILLBURY AVENUE SOUTH; AND AN ADJACENT 30 -FOOT STRIP OF LAND TO PLANNED MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PMR) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 1, Paragraph (5) of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (5) M-16 That area 1yiRg betweeR the %Rtor lined of the See I i% Trrar-arca-r�nTg ccvPccrr ccrrccr�rrrcv-vr w��rrc Railway ri g..t_Of_way and Dillhi lni Aden, ie, and between the Ge t� crrcrarrc�v cry ccrrc I 77 t4 Street extended and 7&St�The Easterly 121.99 feet of the North 75 feet of Lot 3. Block 4. R.C. Soens Addition. Sec. 2. Section 9 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new Paragraph (7) as follows: (5) M-16, Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Assisted Living. Sec. 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 211 76TH STREET WEST; 7600, 7608, AND 7644 PILLBURY AVENUE SOUTH; AND AN ADJACENT 30 -FOOT STRIP OF LAND WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow construction of an 88 -unit assisted living facility 211 76th Street West and 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South, as well as the adjacent 30' x 75' strip of land, property legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5, Block 4, R.C. Soens Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 3, Block 4, R.C. Soens Addition, except the Easterly 121.99 feet of the North 75 feet, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and recommended approval of the requested final development plan and conditional use permit at its February 22, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on February 9, 2016 and published in the Sun -Current on February 11, 2016 and; and WHEREAS, the requested final development plan and conditional use permit meets those requirements necessary for approving a planned unit development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the request meets those requirements necessary for approving a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of a planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. A planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for an 88 -unit assisted living facility as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: • Approval of the related Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. • Development on the above described properties shall be limited to 88 units. Additional units may not be approved through the minor amendment process described in Subsection 542.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code. • A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. • The property must be platted and the plat recorded prior the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. • Odor control system required to mitigate cooking odors. • Separate sign permits are required. This resolution constitutes approval of a size variances to allow approximately 65 square feet of total sign area divided between two monument signs. • All new utility service must be underground. • All utilities must be screened from public view in accordance with Ordinance requirements. A screening plan is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and tending of all landscaping in accordance with approved plans. • The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee Report dated February 4, 2016 and compliance with all other City and State regulations. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the developer must submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete. • As-builts or $7,500 cash escrow must be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 4. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or upon written request by the developer, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period of up to one year, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. 5. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor /_�aION9 Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Required Findings Part 1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application (542.09 Subd. 3): The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The Housing Goals of the Comprehensive Plan are: a. Maintain and enhance Richfield's image as a community with strong, desirable and livable neighborhoods; and b. Ensure sufficient diversity in the housing stock to provide for a range of household sizes, income levels and needs. In 2014, the HRA adopted a Senior Housing Policy Statement. This document has been attached for reference. Both a market study commissioned by the City and the independent study by the Developer indicate that there is a need for senior housing, especially senior housing with services, in Richfield. The proposed development is compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. This requirement is met. 3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified by the design of the development. The development is in substantial compliance with the intent of the guiding MR -3 District. Variations are minor, reasonable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to serve the development. The City's Public Works, Engineering and Recreation Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues. 5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. No undue adverse impacts are anticipated. The site and the conditions of the resolution are designed to minimize any potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. 6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest. The final development plan and contract for private development establish conditions sufficient to protect the public interest. Part 2: All uses are conditional uses in the PMR District. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. See above — Part 1, #1. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is consistent with the intent of the Planned Multi - Family District and the underlying Medium and High Density Residential Districts. The proposal provides for multi -family senior housing at a "reasonable range" of density and "preserves as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family district." The proposal 11minimize[s] traffic congestion" and provides a "safe and attractive" multi- family housing development. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. N/A 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development is in substantial compliance with City performance standards. Deviation from Code requirements is requested as follows: Principal entry orientation — The proposed development does not include a primary entrance along a public street. The specifics of the site shape and use as a senior facility make this impractical and problematic for the community the facility will serve. Sign size — The applicant has proposed slightly larger signs than are typically permitted in order to ensure visibility for visitors, emergency vehicles, and deliveries. The signs are tastefully designed and no larger than necessary. 5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City's Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any adverse impacts. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. Adequate provisions have been made to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. See above — Part 1, #1. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met. RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SENIOR HOUSING POLICY STATEMENT Adopted: April 21, 2014 When considering proposals for senior housing, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority shall evaluate proposals based on the following criteria: The inclusion of lower -density senior housing (i.e., attached and detached townhomes); If the proposed project includes high-density senior housing, does it provide a continuum of care within the project, including independent living, assisted living and memory care accommodations, when feasible; Consideration should be given to the location of the proposed project: how it does or does not lend itself to providing a geographic balance of senior housing throughout the city, and to avoid concentrations of senior housing; Senior housing proposals in the Cedar Point II Housing area can be considered; Can the senior housing project readily convert to serve other populations in the future (i.e., market rate units), as the market dictates; Feasibility of the project based on a market survey conducted on behalf of the HRA; and Feedback obtained through one or more "town hall" meetings held jointly by the HRA and the developer to garner input from residents regarding the proposed development, ideally held in locations near the proposed development. Work with existing senior developments to continue to update, upgrade and meet needs. This Senior Housing Policy is intended to guide housing in a comprehensive manner that is consistent with the City's Market Rate Multi -Family Housing Policy and Affordable Housing Policy. RICHFIELD HOUSING VISION STATEMENT Adopted: June 25, 2013 Richfield is a sustainable community that is known for its strong, vibrant and eclectic, amenity -rich neighborhoods supported by a full range and balance of housing types that match the choices of its diverse residents at every stage of their lives. 19:1=1iylW_1Z11Z[Ko]ATJ[elNWBIZi0:1 *TJ [1[a]Z&If- 94iyy1401kI Richfield is — means that this is an aspirational statement. The Task Force members are describing the housing and community they want for their future. a sustainable community — "community" was a theme repeated by the Task Force members throughout the process. Housing was acknowledged to be very important, but housing was viewed as a means to achieving a strong community. "Sustainable" is added to encompass environmental, economic and social considerations. that is known for its strong, vibrant and eclectic, amenity rich neighborhoods — like community, strong neighborhoods were identified over and over again by the members throughout the process. The word "vibrant" means that these neighborhoods are prospering economically and socially. "Eclectic" was used to acknowledge that Richfield can have varied and unique neighborhoods, each building on distinct attributes and opportunities. "Amenity -rich" means environmental amenities like green space, trees, trails and other natural features, as well as community gathering places, coffee shops and similar cultural offerings. supported by a full range and balance of housing types — the concept of housing supporting the neighborhoods is reinforced with these words. "Full range" of housing types means that there is a wide variety of housing options available for people to choose from when considering moving to or staying in Richfield. A "balance of housing types" means the avoidance of concentrations of any housing types. that match the choices of its diverse residents at every stage of their lives. — "match the choices of diverse residents" means that the City has what residents want, not just what they have to adapt to. The Task Force supports a broad definition of diversity. These varied housing offerings mean that residents can stay in the community their whole lives and find housing that meets their needs and their preferences. nn C;3 1070o Normandalc Blvd. MESABA CAPITAL SUite 202 P A R T N E R S Bfnomington, MN 55437 Phone 651.324.9492 Fax 95z.83o.i98n www.mesabacapital.com City of Richfield Planning Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Assisted Living on 76th Street Mesaba Capital Development proposes to develop a 88 -unit assisted care facility in Richfield, Minnesota. The proposed building will be on the property known as the 'former garage site' between 76th Street and 77th Street with Pillsbury and Pleasant as east and west borders. The site is conveniently located in the heart of the City of Richfield offering easy access to multiple service and retail centers where family members can shop for their resident family. Bus lines are conveniently located south of the site at 77th Street West and Pillsbury, as well as 76th Street West at Lyndale Avenue S and Nicollet Avenue S. The current parcel is 3.28 acres and currently zoned Industrial. The parcel is planned to be re -platted and rezoned during the entitlement process. Mesaba Capital Development along with SilverCrest Properties, LLC and Kaas Wilson Architects believe this is a strong development opportunity and aligns with the vision, goals and needs of the City of Richfield. Delivering the specialty services to the aging Richfield residents, who can no longer remain in their homes, allows for younger families to purchase existing housing stock, which will in turn allow them to robustly patronize local services and businesses. The Program: The Assisted Living building will include independent living, assisted living and memory care options. SilverCrest Properties offer industry-leading expertise in management of senior living properties. This team understands the opportunity and challenges inherent with providing services to the aging. Their experienced leaders create customized approaches specific to the unique needs and circumstances of the residents, market and facility. SilverCrest manages eight campuses in two states; Minnesota and Texas. They currently manage Village Shores at 66th and Lyndale, a 166 -unit senior community in Richfield. Mesaba Capital Development engaged Viewpoint, a senior housing market research firm, to provide a summation of current senior living providers in the Richfield area. The summary provided several strong market results including the following: • Between 2016 and 2020, all senior age groups in the PMA will experience strong growth. • The population ages 70 to 74 will grow at the greatest pace as the first baby boomers begin turning 70 in 2016. • The age 75 and over population, the target market for senior housing with services, is projected to grow by 8.9% between 2015 and 2020, reaching 8,723 seniors. • By 2020, about 3,020 households age 75 and older will have incomes of at least $40,000 (increased from $35,000 to adjust for inflation). The proposed building is two and three stories in height with underground parking. The 88 -unit facility is being programmed and designed to accommodate a continuum of aging, including Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care Units. The total square footage of the project is proposed to be 914,685 NSF. We see the residents moving in at ages of 78-82 years of age and then the average age of the resident over the life of the building will be approximately 87 years of age. Overall Development Goals: + Create a sense of Community Pride + Provide a warm and inviting environment • Connection to Nature — indoor and outdoor • Sense of quality and dignity • Maximize the potential of the site. Senior Housinq with Services (60 units) Private apartments with full kitchens and laundry. Support services for those who have more complex care requirements and support staff is on site 24 -hours -a -day. • Assisted Living is for seniors who wish to live as independently as possible, yet may require assistance with some of the activities of daily living. • Independent Living is for seniors who wish to eliminate the burden of home ownership for an apartment and facility offering numerous conveniences and amenities. Memory Care (28 units) The private memory care apartments will be secure and specially designed for those with mild to moderate memory loss from Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The area is designed to bring comfort, peace and familiarity to the residents while providing exceptional care. The Memory Care wings will provide multiple indoor activity spaces and protected outdoor gardens. Proposed Building Amenities: Office space for support staff and concierge, a nurse on call 24 hours a day to support the health aids. Full commercial kitchen with congregate dining. Beauty Shop and Spa Community Room Lounge areas on every floor Library & Computer Room Craft Room Fitness Facility The Site Planning: The overall site concept is to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. The new building has been anchored in the southwest corner of the site, with an L-shaped building. This placement is desirable in that it maximizes the green space and minimizes the impact on the residential neighborhoods along 76t�l Street West and Pillsbury Avenue. The green space made available will be developed for outdoor amenities. This placement also increase the sunlight into the units and shielding the patio areas from the winds. Also, the plan utilizes the existing rail corridor and new landscaping as a buffer zone to the adjacent multi -family neighborhood to the west. Access to the site has been designed to separate conflicting traffic and in discussions with the neighbors and City of Richfield, to remove emergency vehicles & delivery trucks from 76th Street West, Pleasant and Pillsbury. Resident, visitor and employee access from 76th Street West_ Truck deliveries, move -ins and emergency response from 77th Street West. The parking for the project is planned for 90 total parking stalls; 34 surface stalls and 56 below grade enclosed. A new sidewalk with a boulevard tree planting will be provided along Pillsbury Avenue. Path and sidewalk connections will be made from the proposed building to the existing and proposed sidewalks surrounding the site. The Building Exterior Design: The exterior design has been developed to be integrated within the existing neighborhood in terms of scale and articulation. Taking cues from the single family homes near and around the site, as well as being sensitive to the feeling of home and place that this building will create for its future senior residents. • Gable roof ends break up the pitched roof and relate back to the neighboring homes. • Masonry & stone is used to highlight building features and create a rhythm along the exterior. • Areas of lap and panel siding visually blend in with the neighborhood vernacular. • Balconies add scale & texture allowing residents easy access to the outdoors. • The drive -under canopy defines a clear point of entry and provides a welcoming extension of the building to guests and neighbors. The overall massing and space planning of the building has been carefully developed. To lessen the impact of a three story building on the site, the end of the third floor leg facing 76th Street W and Pillsbury Avenue South steps down to two stories. In addition, mechanical and kitchen equipment has been located on the west side of the property and will be screened from view. The Landscape Architecture: Active engagement in outdoor spaces is an important component in the emotional and physical well-being of senior residents. This plan provides programmed and un -programmed settings for both active and passive activity as well as varying degrees of social interaction. These settings include an array of different spaces, from walking paths & sidewalks to gardens, patios and therapy spaces. Below are several of the spaces described: • Dining patio - decorative paving and site furnishings, including dining tables and chairs are available for the residence. The space is planted to provide shady, open views to the surrounding lawns. • Memory Garden — these are programmed therapy spaces, numbering two on-site, which are essentially staff supervised "mini -gardens". Elements within these include paving, for experiential wandering, as well as colorful, familiar planting areas. Several memory care activities are also incorporated into the garden, dependent on final therapy program. • Raised Box Gardens — these cedar timber structures are incorporated throughout the site to provide the residents a chance to continue their life-long hobbies of perennial or vegetable gardening. Specialty planting soil, watering facilities, as well as trellis structures may be incorporated into the final design of these pieces. • Path system — the on-site walking path system is a combination of bituminous and concrete pathways which connect to the surrounding pedestrian and street system for easy interaction. The system may be experiences as both a direct connection style experience or as circular active exercise. • Corner park — this future proposed park space is envisioned to incorporate paving, and site furnishings into the corner of Pillsbury and 77111 to help provide a new community node of activity. The possibilities for this area could include garden space, trellis of overhead structure, etc. The Site Lighting: The site lighting has been developed using a variety of RAB brand LED light fixtures. This site design includes a combination of pole mounted area lights, wall packs, canopy lights, and pathway bollards to enhance the building and site architecture. The fixture locations are based on achieving IES recommended light levels footcandle levels and reducing/eliminating light spill onto neighboring homes. IES recommends 0.5 minimum foot-candles and a max/min ratio of 15:1 for standard parking lots. Mesaba Capital Development is requesting for following variance deviations for our project. We have worked diligently with the city staff, neighborhood meetings and our operator to design a facility that meets and exceeds all expectations. Setback Variance: We are requesting a setback variance along the West side of the property at the one story elements of the building. These include the receiving dock, part of the commercial kitchen, and a dining room alcove. City code requires a 30'-0" or height setback here. The building is 38'-6" to the midpoint of the roof. The main body of the three story building is able to maintain this 38'-6" setback. The three one-story encroachments into this setback benefit the operation and maintenance of the building as well as the neighbors. • The placement of the receiving dock in this location allows for truck turning to be contained within the site so the traffic of 77th Street W. is not disturbed. • The commercial kitchen extends west beyond the main body of the building in order to provide a place for the roof top equipment to be easily and safely serviced. • The dining room alcove provides a design element of interest along this facade and a more secluded dining space for residents to enjoy. Principal Entrance Variance The shape of this building and its position on the site have been developed in order to minimize the impact of an 88 unit, three story, assisted living building within this Richfield neighborhood. As well, the plan has worked around the existing single family home that remains on the site. The main entrance was located in close proximity to the available parking area and at the center of the core elements of the senior living building (elevators, community spaces, and offices). The principal entrance therefore faces Pillsbury Ave S. This entrance is defined architecturally by a welcoming drive -under canopy. Keeping the main entrance in the center of the building and close to available parking makes the most sense for a senior population and is in keeping with the site planning goals. Signage variance The main drive entrance on the North side of the site along 76th Street W. will have a monument sign welcoming residents, guests and staff to the parking areas. We are asking for an additional site sign at the South entrance off 77th Street W. This sign is needed to identify the property and direct guests to the main entrance off 761h Street W. The South entrance is used primarily for deliveries, move -ins, and emergency vehicles. Appropriate signage in this location is a key means of communication. Please see attached for sketches and sign square footages of the site signs at both the North & South entrance drives. Sincerely, ZBokoloIne ing Vd ICK9NW'NOLONIAOOIS 'ZOZSlIns cndd'A31f10S3ltl(INVA?dON9OLOI )'a 9IMM013A30 IVlldVO VSdS3W w C) �w �0 'gm • CR NW'C]7 I AHOI 8' 3AV 1Ntl5d37d Q 133NIS H1BL IM —4�� JNIAII 031SISS`d 013UH31M HLIM so W ale 0 Z w x ooa Qo�55 wz g�ww ° 8 --- azauUWpL po Moo o-�M _ ;s J o �ga _ Fp � � � ,� •. _ ver a.es ,,.�, r��A• � ..,w�,�l �.z o m 0 oU) LUU)N a 0 z p z W _a•d aamg�H °g xww. Cl) ❑ o - -- I --------------------I 2 z u a 0 N1-�0� =_ r in L_ o - r J = Z -Pk 3 W ry ujum i m I tW N_ Ii V K H Z 2 C V w a w z Fo - ¢'o rt a z O o o 7 N„wpm O WN—¢ O-hm w -Phti� m C7 ewe � 1 I I Y I � � J1---------------------------- _ -L --- .'k ------ "'-- a i r e H -LOOS DnNDnd �.CVJn8snl�d `,3 � 3 Il Osi 3 y sib y — �41.Ob 60v0(IS m d v � 1�" <;5 9L H9£ L— 1 n —mss— — IL W i 111 F I �W s N .. ... .-o is � C � p W w - W CA I - M a , w " � I CA —sem- �s I -- -- – fi,,£,�, a � adob�idb DNI -1 ops DID- �a z anv LNVSdand u --------- -- - -- - - O +" 0 m a ,:" Z =a W Z 3 N _ H W O d z - - - � 1 I I Y I � � J1---------------------------- _ -L --- .'k ------ "'-- a i r e H -LOOS DnNDnd �.CVJn8snl�d `,3 � 3 Il Osi 3 y sib y — �41.Ob 60v0(IS m d v � 1�" <;5 9L H9£ L— 1 n —mss— — IL W i 111 F I �W s N .. ... .-o is � C � p W w - W CA I - M a , w " � I CA —sem- �s I -- -- – fi,,£,�, a � adob�idb DNI -1 ops DID- �a z anv LNVSdand u --------- -- - -- - - O +" 0 m a ,:" Z O � 1 I I Y I � � J1---------------------------- _ -L --- .'k ------ "'-- a i r e H -LOOS DnNDnd �.CVJn8snl�d `,3 � 3 Il Osi 3 y sib y — �41.Ob 60v0(IS m d v � 1�" <;5 9L H9£ L— 1 n —mss— — IL W i 111 F I �W s N .. ... .-o is � C � p W w - W CA I - M a , w " � I CA —sem- �s I -- -- – fi,,£,�, a � adob�idb DNI -1 ops DID- �a z anv LNVSdand u --------- -- - -- - - O +" 0 m a ,:" i r LLI a bu N 1 I W O N I W m m o W L �b a c - --.-.-.- -.-.- i 66 O > �- �� ..I oa _ ��V 1,N'd9'd�Id Z -L — ---- — -- -- °' C.1 _oEa.. 4w L— w N U) 2 I 0 7 AN 3� i r LLI a bu N 1 I W O N I W m m o W L �b a c - --.-.-.- -.-.- i 66 O > �- �� ..I oa _ ��V 1,N'd9'd�Id Z -L — ---- — -- -- °' C.1 _oEa.. 4w L— w N U) 2 I 0 7 SZ 144 "oN 'fiaaOIOZ PUZZ 'uop'a3o0 66t)st# sor fi2`l�an P f ov LBBy-BSbLyL IA a 31N3 J P- Aaq Pw as . oaew No urns a,lw,ae sn av III OM.omns ONtl-1 3FJOtl' l -o3oaa ro alols am ro a.,ol a43 'p -a-5 Puol Paa3al6ay nlnp o I .43 1 41 1.1 9 Vln 31111 'AabON— 1V1d5'9l/80/ZOw'A3a iso we eaasal zrozieiz e.w rola xanwrun3aabsaslsa.ws.,=ncama-,I dllslee1s'a uenaaal=ua=os=w3sa=aam�s vl.. wevl�rcl .l�ar�axr ,v 1. �7 .: Z,�xsa�vlv�IN. - 'sAION'�1VA71lO I I I I I I I �aeas- z � - sawawnrvow s�s iol ao .w waoN ao 3wn woos ae rn _0 I rn - = J If 1 _S I�Gt C- y If 4� II x/11 i4 v .I nr o� II a,_ l II a-J-JWN3 IIA10 v I I ..ren a r7 ia3 i_n a z, a I 1 rt. - I NoUdIN. Sia lV.)d'I O I S Id `Sr], 1&,NDln -v J JJ � I ' V I NOI,LVWTIOd NI.lNBWdOldAB❑ L L - NlNJN I5 D 1 m c t L 9I M.o9o.a III JN 1JJJ1S JJNIl I JbI ' c aaro rn I _ II m JDJ.3AJr5 I C c I J I I I 31 ro I�.ae�-owe _0 - tt Nn s c SJJNMO A D rn _0 I rn C- . 4 i4 v .I nr o� II a,_ l II v I I ..ren a r7 ia3 i_n a z, a I 1 rt. - I NoUdIN. Sia lV.)d'I O I I � I ' V I NOI,LVWTIOd NI.lNBWdOldAB❑ L I D 1 m c M.o9o.a III rn c aaro rn I _ m O I C c I J I I I 31 ro I I ❑le,)s =laoJ1-'- _ k IIGIfIJlWOaFg f.1h92nV AJMgjRdfl6§LL su ead lla t'1IIV] l[]nnt.1 �1 � 9d1I�4w•I ii spd--.Vj a, 1 �d\iN A.IINDTA T,�trZai ll'bs�$9'oll-LLV]!)tl 1V1o1.�� I Bs'Sez' �sa,00 eac) "33"es lee'znl = v3av lmol I l '100—l8 l 10- mro •. cunaw ucac»sne x asl gsN � laa xoa LL e � ` x _0 I rn z n O D O I m I r 1 III rn I A I D I M.o9o.a D,. 71 HISON _ - _ a -- 1 — - - _. o I JNIAII 031SISSV 0131IN31H -io- Md AHVNIW1138d •N •E O O = N L C O L � U cn Q� Q ++ +, cu cl) U -a M L a) ch ■� cu L CD O N L � O N U- I � � � � � � LLI 3nV Hl2iOM1N3M os z z z z z z £ 3nVJ.JnaSllld LU �. r w LU - w af Lo z z ct! a a OVOJIIVJ / 3nb 1NVSV3Id a � 3nV ONVJO 3nV H1JOM1N3AA z z z z z z os £ 3nV).Jnasllld CL K K K LU ~ LU LU - i w af Lo ~ z z OVOJIIVJ / 3nV 1NVSV3Id N N N N N N a � 3nV ONVJO 0 0 N O a o m N N N N N N a � 3nV ONVJO 3nV H1JOM1N3AA z z z z z z os £ 3nV).Jnasllld CL K K K LU ~ LU LU - i w af Lo ~ z z OVOJIIVJ / 3nV 1NVSV3Id N N N N N N a � 3nV ONVJO 0 0 N O a o m % CD ■N � O a = U L � O ■i O C/) O L 1 � o L Q y� V T ■ L � J Tco— L O N N I I �- �- Ll ❑ o LLI 0 3nV Hl2iOM1N3AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ❑ ❑ x x sF 3AvJ.Jf18S-nld w • o o �, ❑ = o x ❑ � p r OVOHIIV'd / 3, 1NVSV3�d K K � O � ❑ K K K ❑ ❑ 3nV ONVJO ❑ o 0 0 w • o o �, ❑ = o x ❑ � p r OVOHIIV'd / 3, 1NVSV3�d K K � O � ❑ K K K ❑ ❑ 3nV ONVJO 0 K U y N ro M. y @ 'Z7] CN T.- a� U w oC)or 000xp a ai o z E O � w T Q 3nV Hl2iOM1N3AA d i o 0 � o � o x x U N D ■� d Cl) V ) U sin o 1 3AVJ.:jnas- ld c 1 m a w❑ ❑ ❑� w z z i w O U) ❑ ❑ E �i 2 � � � ❑x o ocu. ❑ N D W U � _ o ■Q OVOHIIV2J / 31NVSV3�d N L E R! (U o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ o t n U V � O U y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �_ @ d' <6 ■� � (6 i M6 C = C L a y N 3nVONVJ0 moa cu a� CO C C = N @ 3 N E C Ir - O 0O U x q 2� LJL N 000ro� N - -1 � / U U U= x p d ❑ o 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p p p 0 K U y N ro M. y @ 'Z7] CN T.- a� U w oC)or 000xp a ai o z E O � w T Q 3nV Hl2iOM1N3AA d i o 0 � o � o x x U N D ■� d Cl) V ) U sin o 1 3AVJ.:jnas- ld c 1 m a w❑ ❑ ❑� w z z i w O U) ❑ ❑ E �i 2 � � � ❑x o ocu. ❑ N D W U � _ o ■Q OVOHIIV2J / 31NVSV3�d N L E R! (U o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ o t n U V � O U y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �_ @ d' <6 ■� � (6 i M6 C = C L a y N 3nVONVJ0 moa cu a� CO C C = N @ 3 N E C Ir - O 0O U x q 2� LJL N 000ro� N - -1 � / U U U= x p d ❑ o 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p p From: Ghislaine Ball Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:52 PM To: Joseph Hoover Cc: Debbie Goettel; Michael Howard; Pat Elliott; Tom Fitzhenry; Edwina Garcia; John Stark; Steve Devich; Barry LaBlanc; ghislaine; Amy Utley Subject: Re: Memory Care at Village Shores After all the discussions that took place - the housing commission - A NATIONAL discussion about how concentration = segregation - why/how are we still having this discussion? I understand that the city staff is required to put forward all proposals - I find it baffling that these are the only projects that are coming in? If we don't have staff resources to seek -out economically beneficial projects then let's figure it out - lets actively seek the right people for the right positions and empower them to pursue the vision of the citizens of Richfield. Based on our current make-up - and honoring the guidelines of the Housing Commission plan - not one of these proposals can be accepted. Ghislaine From: Joseph Hoover Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:33 AM To: Debbie Goettel; Michael Howard; Pat Elliott; Tom Fitzhenry; Edwina Garcia; John Stark; Steve Devich Cc: Barry LaBlanc; ghislaine; Amy Utley Subject: Memory Care at Village Shores To All: My dad just received the attached postcard from the City of Richfield. Village Shores is now looking at expanding and adding a memory care facility. So now we have a memory care facility at Main Street Village at 76th & Lyndale and a proposed memory care complex going it at St. Richards at 76th & Penn and now a proposed expansion of units and addition of memory care Village Shores (are there others we have not been made aware of"?). How much memory care and senior housing is Richfield Community Development going to pursue before enough is enough? Again, Richfield is small city with and a diverse but poor community and pursuing a memory care development at 76th & Pillsbury will be adding residents to Richfield with little -to -no purchasing power. This is going to have adverse economic effects that would not be the case if we had a larger land area and/or if we were a wealthy community. If our community development model is to take on all of the region's senior memory care housing and group homes then I think the only way this will work is if we dissolve Richfield city government and merge with a larger city like Minneapolis or Bloomington. We simply cannot support this type of bad community development planning. If we are going to continue to pursue development projects for residents with fixed, low and no income we need to have a larger area to draw the tax base from. Please decline Mesaba Capital of Edina's memory care facility proposal for 76th and Pillsbury and focus on the original plan to develop market rate housing opportunities on the site as promised. As the residents in a memory care facility will not have any (or very little) purchasing power, it is a very poor proposal in an area already sporting a senior housing complex with memory care and two large scale 1960s apartment complexes. I have talked to a couple of you already on this issue, If you have questions or concerns I would be very happy to meet and discuss matters. Best, _Joe Hoover February 5, 2016 Planning Commission City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN Greetings Everyone, gk� This letter is meant to address concerns regarding the proposal for development on the old city garage site. I apologize for the lateness, it seems that time just flies. I do request that it get read into the record regarding proposed developments at the City Garage Site as well as Cedar Point North/South. As noted before in the neighborhood meeting on September 2, 2016, 1 am not necessarily opposed to this project, though I am not necessarily for it either. I would, however, like to call your attention to several items that should be considered before a final decision is made. As part of the Housing Visioning Task Force, I was part of a selected group of people called to assist in your process by creating formal policy statements to be used during any proposal process for new, or "re", development in the city. We assessed current availability, discussed current needs and future forecasts to develop these policy recommendations. We discussed the direction we would like to see Richfield move in order to be able to compete with other cities in the metro. Through that 1 was able to learn a lot more about our city, and how the process works. 1 have read Maxfield Research Inc.'s report that was submitted to the city on January 15, 2014 regarding the assessment for senior housing in Richfield. A map of the current senior housing in Richfield was provided on page two. On it, one can see a large concentration of senior housing at the 66" Street/Lyndale intersection. There is one more senior housing facility down the street from my house, at 76`h and Lyndale. Part of the Senior Housing Policy Statement (SHPS) calls for attention to be paid to providing a better geographic balance of senior housing throughout the city. This proposal would add more senior housing to an area that already has senior and assisted residences, in fact, within five blocks of the proposed area. I do not believe that proposing seven senior properties essentially less than two miles apart, and within the east boundary of Nicollet Avenue and the west boundary of I -35W, fits this parameter. The SHPS also refers to future developments in terms of density. As we all know, we have a considerable amount of high density senior housing already. We lack lower density senior housing such as townhomes or garden homes. This type of housing can provide easier transitioning to seniors, as many have been in their homes for 20- 30+ years and do not wish to move into "apartment" living. Maxfield's report estimates that 85% of the demand . for senior housing in the city will come from residents already living in Richfield. The report also notes that "ownership rate" for those age 55-64 as of 2010 was 76% and 82% for those age 65-74. Providing an alternative to high density living might keep seniors already living in Richfield in Richfield. This proposal consists heavily of one bedroom units. It is a well known fact that Richfield has an over abundance of one bedroom offerings. Included in the SHPS, "Consideration should be given to senior housing projects that can readily convert to serve other populations (i.e., market rate units) in the future, as the market dictates. This item was discussed during the neighborhood meeting. I am sorry that I have forgotten the presenter's name, but she stated that the facilities within the proposed property could easily apply to market rate (fitness center, community room, beauty salon, etc). She neglected to speak of how infusing the city with many more one bedrooms could convert to future need for the city. This point is also addressed in the Market Rate Housing Policy Statement (MRHPS). Finally, in regards to the SHPS, recommendations were made to extend senior housing to the Cedar Point II housing site. This area would provide walkable opportunities for shopping, both for groceries and sundries, as well as dining/mingling at restaurants and coffee shops. Further, perhaps areas to the west of 1-35W could be explored to compete with Edina? On a more personal note, I am concerned as to what effect the introduction of a high density property will have on the traffic levels on 76th Street. A few years ago money was spent to convert this road from a four lane to a two lane, complete with bike and walking paths. In addition to resident traffic, there will be many other vehicles moving in and out of the property. A property such as this would create jobs, (fantastic for the city) however these employees would be coming and going throughout the day and night. Services would require delivery vehicles/trucks. I also think it fair to assume emergency calls to the neighborhood would potentially increase, resulting fast moving vehicles and loud sirens. With the only access being from 76th Street, this is going to make it quite busy and loud three doors down from my house. At a minimum, I would suggest access from 77th Street for deliveries, trash pickup and emergency vehicle access. I implore you to still seek options for the City Garage Site that do not incorporate high density housing. I am aware that this area is zoned for medium-high density; however I believe the people living in the area would actually prefer to see something like garden homes or townhomes on this site. A great example of a style of garden home development (fully ADA compliant, one level living) can be seen in St. Anthony, MN on Silver Lake Road, behind the development that was built after Apache Plaza was demolished. A development such as this would better fit the neighborhood. It would also provide housing for seniors who might otherwise stay in their homes, regardless of ability to maintain them, in order to avoid apartment living. In conclusion, I will say again that I am not necessarily for or against this project. I am actually much more in favor of this plan than what was proposed with Pillsbury Commons. I have merely provided you all with "food for thought" as you continue forward in this process of development for the old City Garage land and with the development at Cedar Point as well. Hopefully the eventual development is met with more open arms than closed fists. Thank you for your time and attention. Amy Utl 7530 Pillsbury Avenue South Richfield, MN 55122 612-501-5075 tnvol27@gmail.com AGENDA SEC -10N: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7. STAFF REPORT NO. 44 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director 3/16/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Assisted Living Addition that will combine four parcels (211 -76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South) and an adjacent 30 foot strip of land in order to allow construction of an assisted living facility. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In conjunction with an application for a Planned Unit Development on the north half of the former Public Works Garage site and adjacent parcels, Mesaba Capital Development is requesting approval of the attached preliminary plat. If the Council votes to deny the requested development proposal, the plat request should also be denied. The proposed plat for the Richfield Assisted Living Addition has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Prior to consideration of a final plat application, Mesaba Capital Development will be required to satisfactorily address all comments. No major issues are anticipated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution for a preliminary plat of the Richfield Assisted Living Addition that will combine four parcels (211 -76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South) and an adjacent 30 foot strip of land in order to allow construction of an assisted living facility. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • All plats or subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council Resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.357. • Prior to approval of the final plat, all improvements must be completed or their construction secured by contract and bond. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Per State Statute, the City has 120 days from the date of submittal of a complete application to issue a decision regarding plat unless the applicant agrees to an extension. • A complete application was received on February 23, 2016. The Council must render a decision by June 22, 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Mesaba Capital Development Representatives - Della Kolpin & Bo Nickoloff ATTACHMENTS: Description D Resolution D Preliminary Plat Type Resolution Letter Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING ADDITION WHEREAS, Mesaba Capital Development ("Applicant") has requested preliminary approval to combine the properties located at 211 -76th Street West, 7600 Pillsbury Avenue, 7608 Pillsbury Avenue, 7644 Pillsbury Avenue, and an adjacent 30 - foot strip of land ; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority are the fee owners of the land and have consented to this application; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed preliminary plat of RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed preliminary plat of RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat of RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant must address to the City Attorney's satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter prepared by the City Attorney's office. b. The applicant must address any/all comments by the City Engineering Department. c. The Applicant must apply for final approval once construction of improvements has been completed or construction of said improvements has been secured by contract and bond. d. The Applicant must submit a completed application for final plat within one year of preliminary play approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk x � 3 Z s. O - \14 S t------^ x o Z s. O - \14 d t------^ ---___ _---------- _ _____---- gg .. _�• p �E9m y�l H-LPOS DnNDA'd J.LnEIS-171d _ ' _ a v , a off I o oos.— H _ k'kwk k kw wk r 9• j' e I s. - \14 d t------^ ---___ _---------- _ _____---- gg I , H-LPOS DnNDA'd J.LnEIS-171d - a v , a off I o oos.— H _ r , e � bu , _ ------------------ O �a W W I w ew ww W -- - � I I I � P e y I i � I 0 a a — —I — cz— u o,3 II1�I CVOa,roz DNn OQS - � I y a aII m v - Qi _ sr. o - n p=-- _ zPH O �: z � 3 = W g W _ = N W I 0 I I d Y U :A ✓. w,a j nos NDAV j,,,' nes Y= ; Hinos a= )L Y9E M,W�,LL05 v ;, " W g W _ = N W N W Z --- w iom' 5 i LU i �.., CA C.1 w Z jj �s cz 66 LT S�aJUN _ _ QdOC'�1ldCVJ DN11 009 `� .... n I I �z ��',� IEEEr SAV iNb'Sb'�-ld 5 \� n m L_ 0 i PRELIMINARY PLAT - of A- RICHFIELD ASSISTED LIVING I I WEST�76TFJ STREET unu,r NALIT I Ill Q Z Q Q I W I J a 11.✓ I'w Ifs F t� I > I� Q I z I � I Q I W a I I I I II T T—--—---—- 1 -------- yss•s�•to•w 13 a I mns N.RfrywEl ve.nlo) N£ R1IIs LCT 1, BLOCK 1 TOTAL AREA = 142,001 sgLL (3.20 acres) NORTH WEST 77TH STREET I I ^ _�rorAL AREA = lo,€€ ss-q.rr-(a:zxarre�h�« sauTR Li or LOT s r r__4 sassy eo w.� soum LwE or Noanl ao or Lor s` uoNUMeNTeo-� I I, I, VICINITY MAP: L ,� GFNFR AT NOTES DIS EVITHIl M—SL rt e �,R1M �1Hti�� 6N�L t sMRAa ,�15Lt�L Ml LS�L� r r0 N �A I� i _blme-Trois 1 r p St Feul nRei ka �� silylmi �� RETE 02/08/16. PLAT BOUNDARY, TIRE TI my dlraot s�par�rsao� and tnat am a tluly RegiL ntl Burvepr antler ene mw>< o1 INm,e smle or nlmpesom. ACRE LAND SURVEYING ERIC au�7aa l7�necndestssyMoano-dry o eyZ � JOB #15499 Date:J 22ntl 2016 Reg. No. 14125 C;I2AFIIIr SCALE I rn' 1Rw alll eP, W > Toi�xru olw,y P... 1 I Q ^F � I I r , O 0[ (n I _ J W E , � M -437 wRR 7 Z W Q SURVEYOR ix• 1 x >1 E tIn- ewcn mP 1—T 4 M1�Rr ,Tf'rrT Nr Mi RFI TI ED N It I�JJ I J J a I DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION w I 00 O- C 'A IFA 1l s fPLAN INR ETRTct.S. c -D Ciwc.rrr. r,aoUv^_ I > I 1 j LEG\L DESCRIPTION: - - I I rR v 2 Y, rn x+rrl .F Ian... .�S...as neM1nm. I io �,y u_ 1ial�ieFve CIVIL ENGINEER , To IK arc orrrx 1o21N. 141 _ M e .00 L.. W uRIUIk4,2 _lllWuw.H } , 4- IT —.td : r F � •Dx Isr r s.x r a tlCarffrarso ra.iaa oc. } IratYio O. ... mo, v -. 1 W WEST 77TH STREET I I ^ _�rorAL AREA = lo,€€ ss-q.rr-(a:zxarre�h�« sauTR Li or LOT s r r__4 sassy eo w.� soum LwE or Noanl ao or Lor s` uoNUMeNTeo-� I I, I, VICINITY MAP: L ,� GFNFR AT NOTES DIS EVITHIl M—SL rt e �,R1M �1Hti�� 6N�L t sMRAa ,�15Lt�L Ml LS�L� r r0 N �A I� i _blme-Trois 1 r p St Feul nRei ka �� silylmi �� RETE 02/08/16. PLAT BOUNDARY, TIRE TI my dlraot s�par�rsao� and tnat am a tluly RegiL ntl Burvepr antler ene mw>< o1 INm,e smle or nlmpesom. ACRE LAND SURVEYING ERIC au�7aa l7�necndestssyMoano-dry o eyZ � JOB #15499 Date:J 22ntl 2016 Reg. No. 14125 A,lmee.i_ varCaninr+ra�orTirla W > Toi�xru olw,y l„Ss'90s Q I r , 0[ � OWNERS: J E , � M -437 SURVEYOR x:L, suwt rne, 1vc. 4 M1�Rr ,Tf'rrT Nr Mi RFI TI It I�JJ I � 514NF, M11N 55�4F 8 _ I - - I I rR v 2 Y, CIVIL ENGINEER , `1/, III i.R LI 141 4- IT —.td : r EN PR.—I U,LTY NET ; ' n-1 n tl TT F P� -� 44 L11 ... mo, v -. 1 WEST 77TH STREET I I ^ _�rorAL AREA = lo,€€ ss-q.rr-(a:zxarre�h�« sauTR Li or LOT s r r__4 sassy eo w.� soum LwE or Noanl ao or Lor s` uoNUMeNTeo-� I I, I, VICINITY MAP: L ,� GFNFR AT NOTES DIS EVITHIl M—SL rt e �,R1M �1Hti�� 6N�L t sMRAa ,�15Lt�L Ml LS�L� r r0 N �A I� i _blme-Trois 1 r p St Feul nRei ka �� silylmi �� RETE 02/08/16. PLAT BOUNDARY, TIRE TI my dlraot s�par�rsao� and tnat am a tluly RegiL ntl Burvepr antler ene mw>< o1 INm,e smle or nlmpesom. ACRE LAND SURVEYING ERIC au�7aa l7�necndestssyMoano-dry o eyZ � JOB #15499 Date:J 22ntl 2016 Reg. No. 14125 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 8. STAFF REPORT NO. 45 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/22/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jesse Swenson, Asst. HR Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director 3/16/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich 3/16/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 for the contract period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 (Union). The provisions of the 2016-2017 labor agreement cover all of the employees in this Union which consists of 25 positions. The two-year contract provides a wage adjustment of 2.5% in 2016 and a wage adjustment of 2.75% in 2017. The other provisions of the tentative agreement include: • Up to a $115 per month increase in the City's contribution towards health insurance, and • A $0.50 per month increase towards Employee single dental coverage. There is a reopener provision for insurance for 2017. • A new benefit which provides acting pay of 115% of the top firefighter wage step for Lieutenants acting in the capacity of Captain. The acting pay does not become effective until after the first twenty-four (24) hours as the acting Captain. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2016-2017 labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The tentatively approved two year contract settlement includes the following significant changes: • Wages: A 2.5% wage adjustment for 2016 and a 2.75% wage adjustment for 2017. • Health Insurance: Up to a $115 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution, which provides up to a ma)amum contribution of $826.50 per month for single Employee coverage, $1,135 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage and $1,215 per month for Employee plus family coverage. Dental Insurance: A$0.50 per month increase to the Employer contribution for Employee single dental insurance coverage at $59.00 per month. A new benefit which provides acting pay of 115% of the top firefighter wage step for Lieutenants acting in the capacity of Captain. Such compensation commences after the first twenty-four (24) hours as the acting Captain. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. • The proposed settlement for the health and dental insurance provisions is identical to those provided to both union and non-union City employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of insurance benefits to all eligible City employees. • The 2.5% wage increase represents the same 2.5% wage adjustment implemented for non-union City employees and all other contracts settled for 2016. • The 2.5% wage adjustment and health insurance increase is comparable to other bargaining groups in similar metro cities. A survey of Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing anywhere from a 1.5 to 3 percent increase. The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the mid-range as possible for Stanton 5 cities, in terms of wages and benefits. • The 2.75% wage adjustment for 2017 is the City's and Union's best estimation of what will be the average of such settlements in the metro area. The City is aware of at least one other metro area city that has settled at 2.75% for 2017. • A 2.75% wage adjustment for 2017 was recently approved for two other City bargaining units, Police Officers (LELS 123) and Police Supervisors (LELS 162), as part of their 2016-2017 contracts C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2016 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on March 22, 2016 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • A 2.5% wage increase for contract year 2016 and 2.75% wage increase for contract year 2017. • A new benefit allowing acting pay, of 115% of the top firefighter wage step, for Lieutenants acting in the capacity as Captain. The benefit becomes effective after the first twenty-four (24) hours as the acting Captain. The estimated annual cost of the new benefit is appro)amately less than $1500. • A ma)amum $115 per month increase in Employer monthly contributions towards health insurance coverage for 2016. • A$0.50 per month increase in Employer monthly contributions towards dental insurance in 2016. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. • Defer discussion to another date. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D 2016-2017 Contract Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF), LOCAL 1215 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2016 AND 2017 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Firefighters IAFF Local 1215 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for year 2016 and 2017; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize IAFF Local 1215 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and IAFF Local 1215 Bargaining Unit for 2016 and 2017, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective January 1, 2016 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March 2016. Debbie Goettel Mayor /_laIZNM Elizabeth VanHoose City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 9. STAFF REPORT NO. 46 CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT PREPARED BY: Mike Petersen, Engineer 3/22/2016 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 3/15/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 3/15/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the following related to the West Richfield Stormwater Project: 1. Accepting the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Minger Construction Co. in the amount of $1,930,000.20 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. 2. Authorizing the City Manager to approve contract changes under $100,000 without further City Council authorization. 3. Approving hiring WSB & Associates to perform construction engineering services for a fee not to exceed $159,207 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West Richfield Stormwater project includes the replacement of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main along James Avenue from 69th to 68th streets and installation of a 3'x6' box culvert from 69th Street to 66th Street, along James Ave and through Monroe Park. To the south, the box culvert will connect to the 4'x8' box culvert installed last year with the 69th Street Reconstruction project. To the north, the box culvert will connect to a future stormwater line installed as part of the 66th Street Reconstruction project. The project also includes a dry pond (temporary storage area) that will be graded in the north half of Monroe Park, which will provide additional stormwater storage capacity for the drainage area, achieving upstream flooding relief with the future 66th Street Reconstruction project by collecting stormwater and routing it through the box culverts to Wood Lake. Bids for the construction of the West Richfield Stormwater project were opened on March 8th, 2016. Minger Construction Co. was the lowest responsible bidder. WSB & Associates, the consultant used for design, has submitted a proposal to provide the construction engineering services for the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Minger Construction Co. in the amount of $1,930,000.20 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes under $100,000 without further City Council authorization. 3. Approve hiring WSB & Associates to perform construction engineering services for a fee not to exceed $159,207 for the West Richfield Stormwater Project. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • At the August 11, 2015, Worksession staff presented the project details and how the box culvert will allow for improved flood protection west of Wood Lake and along the 66th Street corridor including 66th/Newton. • City staff attended the Great Pumpkin Giveaway on October 10, 2015, and provided information on the project. • An open house was held on October 20, 2015, to gather comments on trees and plantings. • Plans and specifications were completed by WSB & Associates, Inc. for the installation of a 3'x6' box culvert along James Avenue and through Monroe Park, along with the sanitary sewer and water main on James Avenue. • Advertisement for Bids was published on February 18, 2016. • City staff attended the 66th Street Environmental Assessment open house held on February 18, 2016, and presented information on the project. • An open house was held on March 2, 2016 to discuss a possible sidewalk on James Avenue. • Resident project feedback has been generally positive. • Bids were opened on March 8, 2016. • Minger Construction Co. was the lowest responsible bidder. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • Project addresses flooding issues/concerns in west Richfield and increases stormwater capacity for the drainage area. • Council approval is required for expenditures over $100,000. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The acceptance of the bid tabulation and the award of contract will allow the construction to stay on schedule for spring of 2016. • Work is anticipated to begin middle to the end of April. Staff will notify impacted residents of the schedule upon award. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Eight bids were received for construction; the low bid was $1,930,000.20. • The Engineer's Opinion of Cost for construction was $2,367,401.00. • The difference between the low bid and engineer's estimate is due mainly to reduced prices on the box culvert, bituminous paving materials, and seeding. • Construction engineering services provided by WSB & Associates is for a fee not to exceed $159,207. • Construction and construction engineering services for the project will be funded by a City Stormwater bond. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • All contracts over $100,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by public notice. • The City Attorney will be available for questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • The Council may postpone the award of the contract and direct staff how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Bid Tabulation WSB Construction Phase Proposal Type Contract/Ag reement Exhibit CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening March 8, 2016 10:00 a.m. West Richfield Stormwater Project Bid No. 16-01 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the West Richfield Stormwater Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 18, 2016. Present: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent Mike Petersen, Engineer Theresa Schyma, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 22, 2016 City Council Meeting. Elizabeth VanHoose City Clerk Affidavit Bid and Responsible Addendum Bidder's Name Bond Information Contractor No. 1 Total Base Bid Required Certificate Received of Bidders Burschville Construction, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 2,109,987.80 CS McCrossan Construction, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 2,680,157.70 Geislinger & Sons Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 2,164,732.01 Max Steininger, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 2,497,995.39 Minger Construction Co., Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 1,930,000.20 RL Larson Excavating, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 2,779,023.01 Ryan Contracting Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 1,930,836.01 SM Hentges & Sons, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 1,964,925.90 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 22, 2016 City Council Meeting. Elizabeth VanHoose City Clerk AL WSBi� S1..7 Building a Iegacy —your legacy. March 11, 2016 Ms. Kristin Asher City Engineer City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: 2016 — West Richfield Stormwater Project Work Plan — Construction Services WSB Project No. 1532-970 Dear Ms. Asher: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 WSB & Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal for professional engineering services to facilitate the construction services phase of the 2016 West Richfield Stotmwater Project. This letter represents our entire understanding of the project scope. If you are in agreement, please sign on the space provided and return one original signed copy to us for our records. We will immediately start upon receipt of the signed agreement. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The 2016 project consists of extending a 3 by 6 foot box culvert north from 69th Street up James Avenue to 66"' Street. The project will also include full replacement of the sanitary sewer and water main that is present along James Avenue from 68d' Street to 69d' 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 691h Street to 68"' Street. Work in the park will include installation of the 3 by 6 foot box culvert from the south end of the park at 67"' Street, north to 69t1, 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. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\01532-970\Admin\Contract\Construction Services\2016-03-11 Ric hfie Id Monroe Park - Construction S—c—d- West Richfield Stormwater Project Construction Services Proposal March 11, 2016 Page 2 The proposed scope of services for the construction phase will include full time field inspection, contract administration by an experienced licensed civil engineer, pay voucher preparation, survey staking and coordination, assistance with construction communications, record drawings, project closeout, and warranty inspection duties. It is understood that the project funding does not include assessments or State Aid funding. Therefore, State Aid testing or paperwork will not be needed. Work Plan Construction Administration Task A — Proiect Management: Project Management The project manager will coordinate with City representatives regarding items such as invoices, change orders and pay vouchers. Public Involvement and Coordination Our project manager and inspectors will communicate with local property owners to keep them apprised of the latest construction activities and how it may affect them. The project team will also answer concerns property owners may have and work with the contractor to alleviate the concerns. Should a request be above and beyond what is in the power of the contractor or inspector, the inspector will ask City representatives to become involved to address the concern. Task B — Contract Administration Preconstruction Conference WSB will facilitate a preconstruction conference prior to the start of construction and prepare and distribute minutes for the meeting. We will review all shop drawings and submittals for conformance to the specifications and plan drawings. Weekly Meeting WSB will attend and host weekly construction meetings with the contractor and any other persons deemed necessary for the next week's particular work schedule. The weekly meetings will require the contractor to give an upcoming two week schedule. WSB will compose and distribute meeting minutes before the following weekly meeting. Documentation Review WSB will review documentation provided by the contractor and the contracted geotechnical firm. This task also includes documenting, on a daily basis, the work performed by the contractor. K:\01532-970\Admin\Contract\Construction Services\2016-03-11 Ric hfie Id Monroe Park - Construction S—c—d- West Richfield Stormwater Project Construction Services Proposal March 11, 2016 Page 3 Contract Administration WSB will process any change orders and obtain appropriate signatures from the contractor. WSB will obtain the necessary documents from the contractor such as certifications, to ensure the materials placed are done so according to the project specifications. Monthly Pay Estimates WSB will generate monthly pay vouchers after meeting with the contractor to agree upon the quantities of the items performed during that month. We will provide the signed pay vouchers to the City for processing. Final Pay Voucher WSB will generate a final pay voucher upon completion of the project and after receiving the final paperwork is submitted, such as the IC -134 forms. Materials Certification/Summary WSB will work with the contractor and the contracted geotechnical firm to ensure the materials used are being tested per the requirements as dictated by the project specifications. After the project is complete, WSB will work with contracted geotechnical firm to close-out the project and verify that testing occurred according to the prevailing specifications. Final Documentation At the conclusion of the project, WSB will provide one CD of the final record plans based on field surveys and GPS instrumentation. We will also obtain all contractor documentation to close out the project. Task C — Construction Inspection Services Pre -Project Inspection/Removal Measurements The WSB inspectors will visit the site prior to construction and mark removal limits and identify if there are any areas that should be considered that may have differed from the plans. Full Time Construction Inspection A full-time construction observer will be provided during the project to monitor the work and ensure City requirements are met. WSB will coordinate required documentation including material testing, work orders, change orders, change in contract status, coordination with private utilities, active involvement with K:\01532-970\Admin\Contract\Construction Services\2016-03-11 Ric hfie Id Monroe Park - Construction S—c—d- West Richfield Stormwater Project Construction Services Proposal March 11, 2016 Page 4 property owners to address their questions and concerns, complete substantial completion and final completion punch lists and contract closeout documentation. Traffic Control Inspection The inspector will travel through the detour on a daily basis to ensure all necessary signs are in place and visible. If any of the signing is not in place, they will notify the contractor to fix the issue as soon as possible. Construction Staking The WSB survey crews will provide construction staking for street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main. In addition, WSB will collect GPS as -built survey information for completing as -built documents for city records. Punchlist/Warranty/Final Inspection The inspectors will do a walk through when the project is substantially complete. They will provide a punch list to the contractor and the City. The inspector will work with the contractor to make certain the items on the punch list are addressed in a timely manner. Task D — Materials The contracted geotechnical firm will be performing the field testing for concrete, grading & base and bituminous pavement. WSB staff will work closely with them to ensure they have advanced notice for times of pours, testing and picking up samples for gradation. K:\01532-970\Admin\Contract\Construction Services\2016-03-11 Ric hfie Id Monroe Park - Construction S—c—d- West Richfield Stormwater Project Construction Services Proposal March 11, 2016 Page 5 PROPOSED FEE A copy of the project task hour budget is attached for your reference. Based on the proposed task hour budget, WSB & Associates, Inc. will complete the scope of work previously discussed on an hourly basis with a not -to -exceed amount of $159,207. 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 you with this proposal and we are looking forward to working with you and your staff toward the completion of the project. Please feel free to contact me at (763) 287-8532 with any questions or concerns you might have. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. �;� Z'--�� Jim Stremel, P.E. Project Manager Attachments City of Richfield: Authorized signature Title Date K:\01532-970\Admin\Contract\Construction Services\2016-03-11 Ric hfie Id Monroe Park - Construction S—c—d- PEI 0 0 0 0 O O N N � T F 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a, 0 0 0 0 v� °, C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti Ef3 69 69 64 69 6R 64 E}? 64 64 '` E}? N 69 64 ZR 64 E}? 69 ll ^ ° R w C5 y W D y N � o F o o x � c R R ° u W � J 7a R Y L it y � C •iL a ~ r v R � bD N Fr ti Y u v�3 a � O WD n v O C u �r u /. � m cn v w � a v M N Y R J L 3 v s4un a ° a ° un ctL 3 aa: a. Ua:Saov�U: ��w Ua:U: Nua. zNvc7w ¢' x F 0 0 0 0 O O N N � T F PEI 0 0 0 0 O O N N � T F 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a, 0 0 0 0 v� °, C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti Ef3 69 69 64 69 6R 64 E}? 64 64 '` E}? N 69 64 ZR 64 E}? 69 ll ^ ° R w C5 y W D y N � o F o o x � c R R ° u W � J 7a R Y L it y � C •iL a ~ r v R � bD N Fr ti Y u v�3 a � O WD n v O C u �r u /. � m cn v w � a v M N Y R J L 3 v s4un a ° a ° un ctL 3 aa: a. Ua:Saov�U: ��w Ua:U: Nua. zNvc7w ¢' x � F 0 0 0 0 O O N N � T F