4-22-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
APRIL 8,1996; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CLOSED EXECUTIVE
SESSION OF APRIL 15,1996; AND (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
APRIL 18, 1996
0 PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE TO RUBY STEELE FOR COMPLETION OF
CRIME FREE MULTI - HOUSING PROGRAM
3. RECOGNITION OF CITY CLERK TOM FERBER FOR COMPLETION OF CITY'S
MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 121
4. PRESENTATION OF THE GREAT MINNESOTA GREEN -UP AWARD TO
WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 122
AGENDA APPROVAL
• 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
• 6. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION UPDATING AND
INCREASING CITY OF RICHFIELD HEALTH CARE AND DEPENDENT DAY CARE
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN C.L. 123
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING STATUTORY
INCREASE IN PERA CONSOLIDATED POLICE AND FIRE FUND BENEFIT C.L.
124
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL AWARD OF BID TO LAWRENCE SIGN TO
FURNISH AND INSTALL DOUBLE FACED, ILLUMINATED SIGN FOR ADVENTURE
GARDENS MINIATURE GOLF AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ENTRANCE AT
64TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE IN AMOUNT OF $7,640 C.L. 125
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
TO EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. FOR REPLACEMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT AT
CHRISTIAN PARK IN AMOUNT OF $34,390 C.L. 126
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF CONTRACT SERVICES
FROM DATA GUIDANCE COMPANY TO WRITE PC SOFTWARE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY LICENSING AND INSPECTIONS OPERATIONS IN AMOUNT OF $42,000
C.L. 127
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
TO KEYS WELL DRILLING COMPANY FOR REPLACEMENT WELL #7 PUMP
COLUMN IN AMOUNT OF $28,400 C.L. 128
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
NEW BRUSH CHIPPER FOR STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION FROM
ARBORQUIP, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $18, 581.06 C.L. 129
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
SEASONAL STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FROM COMMERCIAL ASPHALT
COMPANY, INC. IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $14,500 C.L. 130
I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SALE OF 1982 ELGIN STREET SWEEPER
TO RDO EQUIPMENT, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $18,500 C.L. 131
RESOLUTION
7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
RECORD OF DECISION REGARDING MERIDIAN CROSSINGS ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 132
e PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SECOND
READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REZONING LAND FROM HIGH DENSITY
COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED GENERAL
COMMERCIAL FOR TOLD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 133
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSIDERATION OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE I OF TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 134
10. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSIDERATION OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE II OF TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 135
11. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 905, ANIMAL CONTROL, REGARDING LICENSING OF PETS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 136
12. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR AMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS, 6600 NICOLLET
AVENUE, TO CONSTRUCT SEASONAL SPORTS FACILITY (CONTINUED FROM
APRIL 8, 1996)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 137
13. CONSIDERATION OF TABLING ACTION ON THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
AMENDMENT REGARDING COUNCIL VACANCIES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 138
RESOLUTIONS
14. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 7700
LYNDALE AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 139
15. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR
MEMBERS OF CITY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 140
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
16. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING
AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 141
17. CONSIDERATION OF BID MINUTES; REJECTION OF DELOUGHERY PAINTING
COMPANY PROPOSAL; AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ODLAND PROTECTION
COATINGS FOR PAINTING OF PENN AVENUE WATER TOWER IN AMOUNT OF
$577,600
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 142
AIRPORT BUSINESS
18. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
•
CORRESPONDENCE
19. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
20. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
21. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
22. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests
must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at
861 -9702.
li
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 142
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the painting of Penn Avenue water tower.
Background:
The Penn tower is a 1.5 million gallon elevated storage tank located at 64th Street and
Penn Avenue. The tower was painted in 1983 with a lead -based paint that in the last
13 years has deteriorated to the point where it needs to be repainted. The MPCA
(Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency) will require that the tower be totally enclosed
during the sand blasting operation to prevent the lead -based paint from contaminating
the surrounding area. The cost of painting the tower in 1983 was approximately
$80,000 compared to $577,600 today.
Bids from four contractors were opened on March 26, 1996 with the following results:
DeLoughery Painting Company $ 574,800
Odland Protection Coatings $ 577,600
TMI Coatings $ 685,300
Tenyer Coatings Inc. $1,075,100
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes /tabulation; reject DeLoughery Painting Company's proposal of
$574,800; and award the contract to the second lowest bidder, Odland Protection
Coatings, in the amount of $577,600 for the painting of the Penn Avenue water tower.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. DeLoughery Painting company has no experience with full containment painting
procedures. Containment is required to catch all sand blasting paint chips from
scattering on Penn Avenue and the commercial properties located in the vicinity.
2. DeLoughery Painting Company has not been able to meet deadlines for the current
painting project on the Logan Avenue water tower.
3. It is the City Attorney's opinion that there is adequate grounds for rejecting
DeLoughery's bid.
4. Odland Protection Coatings was the second lowest bidder and is a reputable
painting contractor. Odland Protection Coatings is an experienced contractor in
total containment of this size.
1 � -I
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the
bids received are in line with the amount of work which needs to be completed and staff
does not believe a better price could be obtained from a reputable contractor.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 City Council meeting. Staff is requesting
approval at this time in order to facilitate timely completion of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
•
•
•
16
Ta
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
March 26, 1996
Painting the Penn Avenue Water Tower
Bid No. 96 -5
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for painting thePenn Avenue water
tower, bid no. 96 -5, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 6, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name /City
Bid Security
Total Bid Amount
Odland Protective Coatings
5% Bid Bond
$ 577,600.00
Rockford, MN
TMI Coatings, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 685,300.00
St. Paul, MN
Tenyer Coatings, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 1,075,100.00
Badger, MN
DeLoughery Painting Co.
5% Bid Bond
$ 574,800.00
Minot, ND
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
22, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
A0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 141
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Deferral of construction of additional parking at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield.
Background:
The 1996 Capital Improvements Budget included $110,000 for construction of an
additional 100 -car parking lot at Veterans Memorial Park. The parking lot had been
included in the capital improvements plan approved by the Planning Commission and
was part of the Master Park Plan. The parking lot was recommended for the following
reasons:
• Veterans Memorial Park is designed to be a community park.
• Major events regularly scheduled at the park including Farmers' Market, Fourth of
July, Cattail Days, Concerts in the Park and Safety Camp often attract more vehicles
than available parking permits.
• Parking congestion has led to vehicles backing up and obstructing Portland Avenue.
• Inadequate parking has resulted in park users parking in residential areas west of
Portland.
On March 19, 1996 the Community Services Commission recommended delaying the
Veterans Memorial Park parking lot. Staff has recommended that the overall park
design be reviewed. The parking lot construction can be included as part of that
review.
Recommended Motion:
Defer construction of additional parking at Veterans Memorial Park until review is
completed by Community Services Commission.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Community Services Commission has requested that additional parking at
Veterans Memorial Park be deferred.
2. Staff is reviewing possible alternatives to additional parking at Veterans Memorial
Park.
3. The Community Services Commission will be reviewing the Master Concept Plan
for Veterans Memorial Park.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to proceed with construction of the parking lot.
2. The Council could direct staff to provide a report regarding interim traffic
improvements at the parking lot of Veterans Memorial Park.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the April 22 regular City Council meeting.
Respegtfplly submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
40
/S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 140
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution regarding a residency requirement for members of the
City's advisory boards and commissions.
Background:
The Public Safety Department has suggested to the Human Rights Commission that a
non - resident be considered as a member of their commission. This individual is an
African - American minister at a Richfield church who has assisted Public Safety on
several occasions and has a special interest in the community.
Currently, there is no residency requirement for a Human Rights Commission member
in the state statute, City ordinance or commission bylaws. The Planning Commission
requires residency by ordinance; the Community Services Commission and Advisory
Board of Health by resolution. The Friendship City Commission does not state a
requirement. Residency is established by state statute for the Civil Service
Commission, Charter Commission and HRA.
John Dean, City Attorney has suggested that the City of Richfield adopt a resolution
10 stating a residency requirement that includes all City advisory boards and commissions
unless a non - resident is restricted by law.
The process should include the following:
• A notice to the public of vacancies and the required application.
• If no applications were received from qualified Richfield residents or after the
interview the applicant was determined to be not qualified, it would be the Council's
discretion to appoint a qualified applicant who is a non - resident.
• Appointment of the non - resident would require a recommendation by a majority of
the commission on which the individual is desiring to serve.
• The preference would be for a Richfield resident to be appointed.
Following discussion at the April 1 Study Session, the City Council directed staff to
prepare a resolution regarding a residency requirement for City advisory boards and
commission members to include the attorney's process for appointment and the
following additional stipulations:
• Restrict non - residents to serving on the Human Rights Commission and Friendship
City Commission.
• A maximum of two non - residents should be permitted on these two commissions.
•
1,5-1
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution establishing a residency requirement for members of the City's
advisory boards and commissions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Council discussed the residency requirement at the April 4 Study Session and
directed staff to prepare a resolution.
2. The Public Safety Department has suggested to the Human Rights Commission
that a non - resident be considered as a member of the commission.
3. A resolution including all City boards and commission will provide consistency on
the resident requirement for members.
4. A non - resident who has a vested interest or connection in Richfield may be a
worthwhile member of a board or commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the residency requirement for board and commission members.
2. Discuss other options available to non - resident members.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The City Council should consider approval of a resolution regarding establishing a
residency requirement for the City's advisory boards and commissions.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERS
OF THE CITY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has established from time to time boards and
commissions including those which serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council to seek to involve citizens in the
important activities of these boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the membership composition of individual commissions and boards
is important to assure the highest quality of the recommendations and advice; and
WHEREAS, an aspect of the composition of the various boards and
commissions involve rules which relate to the residency of the members; and
WHEREAS, it is important, wherever possible, that residency requirements
facilitate rather than hinder citizen participation and the quality or recommendations.
0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. Whenever residency requirements for the various boards and commissions are
fixed by law, those requirements shall govern.
2. The Council finds and determines that situations my exist when it may be
desirable and appropriate to extend membership to the Human Rights Commission and
the Friendship City Commission to individuals who, although not residents of the City,
show a strong interest in the work of these commissions.
With respect to these commissions, the following procedures will be used:
• A notice to the public of vacancies and the required application.
• If no applications were received from qualified Richfield residents or after the
interview the applicant was determined to be not qualified, it would be the
Council's discretion to appoint a qualified applicant who is a non - resident and
has a vested interest or connection to Richfield.
• Appointment of the non - resident would require a recommendation by a majority
of the commission on which the individual is desiring to serve.
• The preference would be for a Richfield resident to be appointed.
• Permit a maximum of two non - residents to serve on each commission.
5-3
3. The Council finds that it is desirable and appropriate that membership in all the
other boards and commissions of the City be limited to residents of the City.
This resolution shall be in full force and effect for terms expiring January 31,
1996.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 139
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of resolutions authorizing the purchase of 7700 Lyndale Avenue; 77th
Street Project.
Background:
On March 25, 1996, the City Council authorized the purchase of 7700 Lyndale Avenue
and set just compensation at $544,182. The offer to purchase was subsequently
presented. The owners rejected it and countered with $594,182. Negotiations
continued and the owners are agreeable to selling for $588,182 subject to a negative
environmental finding. They also agreed to vacate the property by approximately
midnight, May 31, 1996.
Construction timing for the right turn lane is a critical issue. Because there is not yet an
executed purchase agreement it would be advisable to adopt a resolution which
authorizes the initiation of condemnation against this property. If for some reason a
purchase agreement is not executed in a timely fashion, condemnation would be
initiated. The owner's representative was comfortable with this approach.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolutions which authorize the following regarding 7700 Lyndale
Avenue:
a) purchase at $588,182 (Exhibit A); and
b) the initiation of condemnation (Exhibit B).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The property is needed to provide for a right turn lane from 77th Street onto
Lyndale Avenue.
2. The proposed purchase price is 8% above the offer which is below the cost of
condemnation.
3. The owner - occupant will vacate on approximately May 31, 1996.
4. It is more cost effective to undertake construction this year.
5. , MnDOT and /or FHWA funds would be used for the purchase (City general funds
would not be used.)
6. Although the parties have negotiated in good faith, an impediment to executing a
purchase agreement could develop. By approving the condemnation resolution
the opportunity to initiate and complete construction would be preserved.
(Condemnation would be filed on or after April 26 in accordance with project
rules.)
7. MnDOT and FHWA procedures were followed.
/q--I
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay action.
0 2. Reject the proposal.
3. Propose an alternative.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The approval of this proposal will help assure construction of the turn lane this year.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam
nd Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
9
RESOLUTION NO. N—a
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
77TH STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real
property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore
adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property located at 7700 Lyndale
Avenue, Conoco Petroleum, being described as follows:
Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Strand's Second Addition, Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1996, the City did set and approve just compensation
for said real property in the amount of $544,182 which was rejected by owner; and
WHEREAS, consideration has been given to the consequences of setting price
through the condemnation process; and
WHEREAS, the purchase and vacation of this property prior to August 30, 1996
is critical to the success of construction; and
WHEREAS, a Phase I and Phase II environmental evaluation has been
�1 undertaken; and
40
WHEREAS, the owner has agreed to sign a purchase agreement and vacate the
property by May 31, 1996 for a purchase price of $588,182.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
That the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a purchase
agreement for $588,182 subject to the findings of an environmental evaluation.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. / LT-3
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
0 AND ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota ( "City ") is a municipal corporation
and subdivision of the State of Minnesota organized and operating under Minnesota
law, as amended, and is authorized by its City Charter to acquire real estate by
exercising the power of eminent domain in the manner provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that its citizens and property owners desire
that the City widen the west half of Lyndale Avenue South between 77th Street and 77-
1/2 Street to provide for a right turn lane; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it desirable to redevelop the remainder of the
site as Municipal Liquor Store #4; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to the provisions of the Interstate -
Lyndale- Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and was identified for redevelopment therein;
and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( "MnDOT ") has
advised the City of MnDOT's intention to improve Interstate Highway No. 1 -494 (1-494")
by widening 1-494; and
• WHEREAS, the widening of 77th Street (77th Street Project ") is becoming
increasingly more necessary in order to (a) accommodate substantial amounts of traffic;
and (b) provide an additional east -west arterial within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has obtained commitments of substantial financial
assistance from the federal and state governments to undertake the 77th Street Project;
and
WHEREAS, BRW, Inc. and Orr, Schelen & Mayeron, Inc., the consulting
engineers retained by the City to design the proposed improvements for the 77th Street
Project, have identified various parcels of real estate which must be acquired by the
City in order to construct the 77th Street Project ( "Subject Property "); and
WHEREAS, a substantial amount of the real estate which is required for the
project has already been acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, substantial portions of the 77th Street Project have already been
completed; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property (all of which is located in the City of Richfield,
Henenpin County, Minnesota) is legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, in order to construct, operate, maintain and reconstruct Lyndale
Avenue between 77th Street and 77 -1/2 Street, and to redevelop the remainder of the
Subject Property for Municipal Liquor Store #4, the acquisition of the Subject Property
is necessary nd convenient for the promotion of the public health safety and welfare
rY p p Y
of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by law to acquire the Subject Property for the
purpose described herein by use of eminent domain proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BET IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The City Council hereby finds acquisition of the Subject Property to be
suitable, necessary, convenient and reasonable and for a public purpose to
serve the needs of the citizens and property owners of the City.
2. Pursuant to and in accordance with said Minn. State. Ch. 117, the City
Council further finds that it is in the public interest to authorize and to direct
the acquisition of the Subject Property for the construction, operation,
maintenance and reconstruction of the 77th Street Project.
3. The City Council hereby finds that it is desirable, reasonable, necessary and
convenient, and for a public purpose, for the City to acquire the Subject
Property by eminent domain proceedings in accordance with the provisions of
Minn. State. Ch. 117, including the early transfer of title and possession of
the Subject Property to the City under Minn. fit. § 117.042.
4. The City Attorney is authorized and directed to acquire the Subject Property
by use of eminent domain proceedings pursuant to this Resolution.
0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
r�
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
CONOCO INC.
7700 Lyndale Avenue
Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Strand's Second Addition
Hennepin County
10
/4 -S
MIJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 138
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of tabling action on the Richfield City Charter amendment regarding
Council attendance.
Background:
The Charter Commission has previously submitted to the City Council an amendment to
the Charter regarding Council Member attendance. The City Council on February 12
referred the matter back to the Charter Commission. The reason for the referral was
that the Richfield City Attorney recommended changes to avoid any potential
constitutional challenges. The Charter Commission met on February 29 with the City
Attorney and approved changes which were included in Draft A. The City Attorney
reviewed these changes and recommended additional clarification which were included
in Draft B.
The Charter Commission and City Attorney mutually agreed to seek the Attorney
General's opinion on this issue. On April 5, 1996, the City Attorney submitted a letter
(attached). The Charter Commission requested a response from the Attorney General
• by their April 15 meeting. The Attorney General's opinion was not provided by that
time. The Charter Commission at their meeting, voted to approve Draft Bill No. A with
one change as shown. The Charter Commission has requested the Council take action
at their April 22, 1996 Council meeting.
A third draft ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney, Draft Bill No. C. This
draft includes a provision for a determination regarding absences to be made by an
administrative law judge. A finding by the administrative law judge that there have been
six absences without sufficient excuse within a six month period would require the City
to conduct a special recall election.
Recommended Motion:
Table action on the Charter amendment regarding Council attendance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Charter Commission and City Attorney mutually agreed to seek the Attorney
General's opinion regarding this issue.
2. The Attorney General's opinion should be received before the public hearing and
second reading are conducted.
3. The City Attorney believes that the Charter amendment as drafted may not be
• constitutional. It is reasonable for the Council to clarify the constitutional issue prior
to approving this amendment.
i3-I
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide to proceed with the scheduled public hearing and second
reading of Draft Bill No. A.
2. The Council may decide to approve alternative Charter amendment (Draft Bill No.
C) and request concurrence by the Charter Commission. If the Charter
Commission does not concur, the matter may be presented to voters for
consideration. The City Attorney believes this draft is clearly constitutional.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for consideration by the City Council at the meeting of
April 22, 1996.
Respectf y submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
iCopy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President
is
13 -a
0 BILL NO. A
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTION 2.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings: authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 2 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(1) A vacancy shall exist as of the date of death or resignation of a
Council Member.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible
because of any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the
Council to qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in
the year following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident
of the City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be resident of the district which the
• member represents; (iv) continuous absence of the Council Member from the City for
more than 90 days; (v) conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before or
i3 -3
• after qualification; (vi) any other reason specified bylaw except those reasons specified
in paragraph (1) of this subdivision; er (vii) by reason of the failure of the Council
Member without good cause to perform any of the duties of a Council Member for a
period of 90 days: or (viii) failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council
meetings during a six -month period which would constitute non - feasance in office, the
Council shall, by resolution at a the next regular or special Council meeting, declare a
vacancy on the Council to exist.
2.03 This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except
that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
2.04 On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
/3 -Ll
0 BILL NO. B
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTION 2.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings; authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 2 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
is the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(1) A vacancy shall exist as of the date of death or resignation of a
Council Member.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible
because of any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the
Council to qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in
the year following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident
of the City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be resident of the district which the
member represents; (iv) continuous absence of the Council Member from the City for
more than 90 days; (v) conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before or
I3 -5
after qualification; (vi) any other reason specified by law except those reasons specified
in paragraph (1) of this subdivision; er (vii) by reason of the failure of the Council
Member without good cause to perform any of the duties of a Council Member for a
period of 90 days: or (.viii) failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council
meetings during a six -month period under circumstances that constitute non - feasance
in office, the Council shall, by resolution at a regular or special Council meeting, declare
a vacancy on the Council to exist.
2.03 This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except
that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
2.04 On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
DRAFT BILL NO. C
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTIONS 2.05 AND 2.06
OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Backaround: findings: authority.
/3 -1a
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. This amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 2 of the City Charter is being
proposed pursuant to the procedures and authority conferred in Section 410.12,
Subdivision 7 of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. Following introduction and first reading of the Amendment on April 22, 1996, a
public hearing was held on by the City Council after two weeks'
published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act. The
notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the Amendment. All
persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public
hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted and referred to the Charter Commission as
provided for in the Act.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date; filing.
2.01. The Amendment is adopted and is referred to the Charter Commission.
2.02. The text of the Amendment is as follows:
A. Section 2.05 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows:
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(1) A vacancy shall exist as of the date of death or resignation of a Council
Member.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible because of
any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the Council to
qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in the year
following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident of the
City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be resident of the district which the
member represents;
meFe than 90 days; (4 W conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before
or after qualification; (v4 Uv any other reason specified by law except those reasons
13-/)
specified in paragraph (1) of this subdivision;
the Council shall, by resolution at a regular or special Council
• meeting, declare a vacancy on the Council to exist.
(3)
As soon as it is determined that a Council
Member has:
i) failed to attend
six reaular
Council meetings during a six month period:
or ii) failed
to perform any of the
duties of
a Council Member for a period of 90 days
or iii) been continuously absent
from the
City for more than 90 days the Council shall,
at its next regular
Council
meeting refer
the matter to a hearing to be conducted
before an administrative
law
j dge appointed
by the Chief Administrative Law Judge
of the Minnesota
Office of
Administrative
Hearings The hearing shall beheld
not later than
30 days following the
date of reference
by the City Council unless it is necessary
to extend
such date to
accommodate
the schedule of the appointed judge
The hearing
shall be upon such
procedures
as are provided for in rules coverma hearings
before administrative
law
judges The two issues for determination by the administrative
law judge relating to the
failure described
in (3) i) above are: a) whether the subject
Council
Member has failed
to attend
six reaular Council meetings during a six month
ep riod;
and b) whether there
is reason
to believe such failure is without sufficient
excuse. The
two issues for
determination
by the administrative law judge relating
to failure described
in (3.) ii)
above are:
a) whether the subject Council Member has
failed to perform
any of the
duties of
a Council Member for a period of 90 days:
and b) whether
there is reason to
believe such
failure is without sufficient excuse. The
two issues for
determination by
the administrative
law judge relating to the failure described
in (3)
iii) above are: a)
whether the
subject Council Member has been continuously
absent
from the City for
more than
90 days: and b) whether there is reason to
believe that
such absence is
without sufficient
excuse.
The administrative law judge shall render its decision
to the City Clerk
If the
administrative
law judge finds in the affirmative as to
both issues,
and if the subject
Council Member
does not resign within 10 days of notification
of such
determination
the City Clerk
shall schedule a special recall election
not less than
30 nor more than 45
days following
delivery of the decision to the City Clerk
but if any
other election is to
occur within
sixty (60) days the Council may, in its discretion
provide
for the holding of
the recall
election at that time If the recall election involves
a district
Council Member,
the recall
election shall be conducted only within the
district of such
member. If it
involves the
Council Member elected at large or the
Mayor, the recall
election shall be
a City-wide
election.
The City
Clerk shall include in the published notice of
the recall election
the statement
of the grounds
for the recall and also in not more than
500 words,
the answer of the
Council member
concerned in justification of his or her
absence from
the City, failure to
attend such
meetings or to perform such duties, as the
case may
be The election shall
he conducted
as far as possible in accordance with
the usual procedures
in municilal
elections.
The form of the ballot at such election shall be: "shall be recalled ?"
The name of the Council Member whose recall is sought and his or her office shall be in
the blank The electors shall be permitted to vote separately "yes" or "no" upon this
question If a majority of those voting on the question vote in favor of recall, the official
13-F
shall thereby be removed from office upon the canvas of the vote and the procedures
contained in Subdivision 2 of this section shall be followed
B. Section 2.06 of the City Charter is amended by amending Subdivision 2 thereof
to read as follows:
(1) Existence, Declaration. A vacancy in the office of Mayor shall be declared
upon the same grounds and by the same procedure as provided in Section 2.05,
Subdivision 1, paragraphs (1)} aP4 (2) and (3) for Council Members.
(2) Procedure Following Vacancy. Following a vacancy in the office of
Mayor, the president pro tem shall assume the duties of Mayor until a Mayor is elected.
The president pro tem's duties shall be in addition to that person's duties as Council
Member. Such person shall have only one vote with respect to all matters which are
voted upon by the Council. If less that 180 days or more remain in the unexpired term
following the vacancy in the office of Mayor, a special election shall be called at the
regular Council meeting at which the declaration is made or at resignation of the Mayor,
as the case may be, and the special election shall be held not less that 30 nor more
than 60 days after the meeting at which the election is called. The election to fill the
unexpired term shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.03, except that
there shall be no primary election and the candidate receiving the highest number of
votes shall be elected to fill the unexpired term.
The term of the person so elected shall start as soon as the declaration of the results
has been filed with the City Clerk and the person qualifies for office.
2.03. Subject to the procedures contained in Section 410.02, Subdivision 5 of the Act,
this ordinance shall be effective in accordance with the provisions provided for in
Section 410.12, Subdivision 4 of the Act 30 days following approval by at least 51 % of
the voters voting on the question of its adoption at an election called for that purpose.
2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
KENNEDY & GRAVEN I�'�� �rK g IUD
CHARTERED
Attameyt at Law JAMES J. THOMSON
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota SS402 LARRY M. WERTHEIM
ROBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337.9300 J c"� BONNIE L: WILKINS
BRUCE M. BATTF.RSON JOE Y. YANG
RONALD H. BATTY Facsimile (612) 337.9310
STEPHEN J. BUBUL
- DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929.1991)
JOHN B. DEAN _
DANIEL J. GREENSWEIG
DAVID J. KENNEDY OF COUNSEL
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE ROBERT C. CARLSON
JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL ROBERT L. DAVIDSON
ROBERT J. LINDALL WELLINGTON H. LAW
ROBERT C. LONG FLOYD B. OLSON
JAMES M. STROMMEN CURTIS A. PEARSON
CORRINE H. THOMSON April 5, 1996 T. JAY SALMEN
The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, III
Attorney General
State of Minnesota
102 Capitol Building
Aurora Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Attorney General Humphrey:
I am the city attorney for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. I have been authorized by
the Richfield city council to submit the question stated below to your office and request your
opinion.
BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield operates under a home rule charter adopted in 1964. Recently the
Charter Commission submitted a proposed charter amendment regarding council member
attendance at regular council meetings. If amended, Section 2.05 of the charter would read, in
relevant part, as follows:
Section 2.05 Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible because
of any of the following reasons: ... (viii) failure of a council member to attend six regular
council meetings during a six -month period which would constitute non- feasance in
office, the Council shall by resolution at a regular or special council meeting, declare a
vacancy on the Council to exist. [Underlined material is the amendment proposed by the
charter commission].
The proposed amendment was first considered by the Richfield city council at its March
25, 1996 meeting. At that time, members of the charter commission were present and indicated
that the proposed amendment was intended to provide that six absences from regular council
JBD102535
RC160 -1
6-10
Attorney General Humphrey
w April 5, 1996
Page Two
meetings would automatically constitute nonfeasance in office. Although the language of the
proposed amendment may be subject to other interpretations, the intended meaning of the charter
commission is fairly clear.
Article 8, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution provides:
"The legislature of this State may provide for the removal of inferior officers from
office, for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties."
Prior to its repeal in 1958, Article 4, Section 36 of the Minnesota Constitution provided in part:
"Any city of village in this state may name a charter for its own government... but
such charter shall always be in harmony with and subject to the constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota."
Sections 4 and 5 of Article 12 of the 1974 Restructured Minnesota Constitution deal with
the subject of home rule charters and charter commissions but to not contain similar language
to the above referenced provision.
In addition, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 contains the grant of authority to cities to
create their own municipal charter in the manner perscribed in that chapter. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 410.20 reads in relevant part:
410.20 Recall and Removal of Officials; Ordinance
Such commission may also provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and
for removal of the officer by vote of the electors of such city....
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request your opinion on the following questions:
1. Except in situations involving such matters as death, resignation or moving away
of the elected official, does the city have authority, through the proposed
amendment, to provide for removal from office -- for any reason -- without the
vote of the electors of the city.
2. If it does, must those reasons amount to malfeasance or nonfeasance as is required
in Article 13, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution.
3. If that standard is applicable, does the city have authority, through the proposed
amendment, to determine for itself what acts automatically constitute nonfeasance.
JBD]02535
RC160 -1
•
•
r.
The city council and charter commission will greatly appreciate your response at your
earliest convenience. The charter commission next meets on April 15.
If i can supplement this request in any way, I hope that you will contact me.
JBD:ds
cc: James Prosser
Shirley Johnson
JBD102535
RC160 -1
Sincerely,
J n B. Dean
1(9,
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 137
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Request for an amended conditional use permit for Academy of the Holy Angels to
construct a seasonal sports facility.
Background:
The Academy of the Holy Angels is proposing to construct a seasonal sports facility on
its property at 6600 Nicollet Avenue. The neighborhood raised several issues with the
proposal at the Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 1996. The Planning
Commission recommended that Holy Angels and the neighbors go through mediation to
facilitate communication between the two parties.
Mediation sessions were held on April 9 and April 16. The issues were not sufficiently
resolved to allow the Planning Commission to review the application.
Recommended Motion:
Continue discussion of the item to the City Council meeting on May 13, 1996.
• Basic of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission requested that the two parties use mediation to
communicate about the issues. The two parties are still in the process of mediation.
2. The Planning Commission did not complete its review of the application. The
Planning Commission will discuss the item after the mediation has been completed.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on April 22, 1996. The hearing will be held
in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of
the hearing was published in the Sun - Current. Property owners within 350 feet were
notified of the cancellation of the April 8, 1996 hearing. They were not notified of the
April 22, 1996 hearing. They will be notified of the hearing on May 13, 1996.
Respe tf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
• JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 136
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 905, Animal
Control, regarding the licensing of pets.
Background:
In an effort to streamline cumbersome ordinance requirements, Public Safety staff has
identified several areas of the animal control ordinance to amend. Primarily, these
areas are regarding the licensing of pets and the clarification of definitions.
Pets are currently licensed annually with proof that the pet has been vaccinated.
Annual pet license fees are $9 for a dog and $8 for a cat. These licenses are due by
July 1 of each year and the 2,000 animal licenses are processed in a four to six week
period of time. Often this results in lines at City Hall for residents to get their pet's
license.
The amendments being proposed would change the process to one in which licenses
are issued in conjunction with the length of time their rabies vaccination is valid. Rabies
vaccinations can be valid for a period of one to three years. If an individual had a
rabies vaccination good for a two year period of time, they could obtain a license for two
years at an $8 per year fee whether the animal is a dog or a cat. This is not only a cost
reduction in the license fee but a savings of citizens' time. It is feasible that an animal
owner may only have to visit City Hall for this license -once every three years. This
would also spread out staff's time issuing licenses throughout the year so that pet
licensing lines at City Hall should be significantly reduced.
The amendments would also be a cost savings to an individual who could provide proof
that an animal is spayed or neutered. Unneutered or unspayed animals would need to
continue to purchase a one year license at the cost of $12 per year. Multi -year licenses
would only be issued for animals which have been spayed or neutered. Hopefully, this
would result in an incentive for individuals to consider spaying or neutering their pets.
This is also viewed as a more responsible approach to dealing with the ever growing
number of unwanted dogs and cats.
This would also amend the section on the need to immediately dispose of feces. The
old language referred only to the need to immediately clean up dog feces. Staff
proposes changing the word "dog" to animal throughout the ordinance to make it
clearer that it means both dogs and cats. The only exception to that would be the
leashing requirement for dogs that is not intended for cats.
0 First reading of this ordinance amendment was held on April 8, 1996.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment to
Section 905, Animal Control, regarding the licensing of pets.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a slight cost reduction to the residents of Richfield in the license fee as
well as a savings of their time.
2. This should be a much more convenient way for residents to obtain their pet's
license.
3. This may result in an added incentive for residents to have their pets neutered or
spayed. This is a more responsible approach in dealing with the growing number
of unwanted dogs and cats.
4. This should spread out the animal licensing function throughout the year which
would eliminate the burden on staff to process a large number of licenses in a
relatively short period of time.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do nothing and leave the ordinance as it currently is.
• Discussion /Decision Mode:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment to
Section 905 Animal Control regarding the licensing of pets is presented for Council's
consideration at this time.
Respectf illy submitted,
Jam ianager Prosser
City
JDP:cak
•
// -a
0 BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 905
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 905 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended as follows:
Section 905 - Animal control.
905.01. Licensing of domestic animals. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this
section the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having custody of a
dog - er-catianimal.
Subd. 3a. "Commercial kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or two cats
over six months of age are kept, and where the business of selling, boarding, breeding, showing,
=- #eafi*g or grooming dogs or cats is conducted.
Subd 3b "Veterinary kennel' means a kennel facility or clinic operated and maintained
by a licensed veterinarian, where treatment, care, diagnosis, and veterinary procedures are
performed, _
Subd. 4. "Residential kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or two cats over
six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and occupied for residential purposes,
and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for
residential purposes.
Subd. 5. A dog is "at large" when it is off the property of its owner and not under
restraint.
Subd. 6. A dog is "under restraint" if it is controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in
length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody of it and obedient to that person's
commands, or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street or within the property
limits of its owner's premises. An unattended dog on the property of another, without the
consent of such property owner, is "at large" and not under restraint even though it is on a leash.
Subd. 7. "Animal' shall refer to domestic dogs cats, and other permitted domesticated
animals as defined in 905.41.
905.03. License. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may own, harbor, keep or have custody
of a- dog -or- eat-animal over six months of age within the city, unless a current license for the
11 -3
animal has been obtained as provided in this subsection. hieenses shall be issued on an affi+ual
basis and sha4l be made for- the whole or- une?ipifed poi4ion of the yeaf ending an the 30th day-of
hme He4t following the first eff ^tive day of the heense Applications for animal licenses must
be made when the animal attains 6 months of age, a and not later than 30 days from The
acquisition of an animal, (ii) and not later than 30 days from the moving of an animal into the
city, (iii) this registration will expire on the date the
animals rabies vaccination expires. and must
be reinstated within 15
days of the expiration of the animals rabies vaccination.
Owners whose
animals have received
rabies vaccinations which are
effective for more than one
year may apply
for a two or three year
license, depending on the
type of rabies vaccination.
When making
application for multi -year license, the owner must
submit all of the information required for an
annual license as well
as documentation indicating
that the animal has received
a rabies
vaccination which is
effective for the multi -year license being applied for.
The multi -year
certificate provided by the veterinary clinic, or veterinarian, which vaccinated the .animal. These
multi -year licenses may only be issued for animals which have been spayed or neutered. _
Subd. 2. License fees. The license fee for each dog heense, the e- fee -fer earh eat license,
animal license and the charge for a duplicate na imal license for- either- animal is as provide in
appendix D.
Subd. 3. Late penalty. If the animal license is obtained while the
animal deg -op-eat is impounded by the city, or _ ,
Is if the 15 day beriod allowed for reregistration of the animal has expired there shall be added to
the regular license fee a late - license penalty as provided in appendix D for each animal; provided
that an owner who newly acquires an animal , or an
owner who has a deg -e - eat - animal at the time of becoming a resident of the city, shall be
allowed thirty days to secure a license, without incurring the late - license penalty provided in this
subdivision.
Subd. 4. Contents of application. Application for _° dog eY eat'i °ens° an animal license
shall be made to the Public Safety Department. The application
shall include such descriptive information as is necessary to provide reasonable identification of
the animal and his owner. Applicants shall provide a certificate issued by a licensed doctor of
veterinary medicine showing that the animal has been vaccinated against rabies and that such
vaccination is effective on the date of the application. And that the vaccination will be effective
for the period of time for which application for animal license is made.
Subd. 5. Identification of licensed animal. Upon the issuance of a dog or- sat an animal
license by the city clerk or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be provided with a mag_tallic
tag bearing the license number, the word "Richfield; ", _
beings -o _has beg . Except where the-dog - or- -eat animal for which the license is issued is
indoors on the premises of his owner, the animal shall have a collar or harness on which the
license tag, and current rabies - a" is affixed. No person may counterfeit any tag of this city or
use a counterfeit tag.
11-q
Subd. 6. License nontransferable. A license tag is nontransferable to any other animal or
to a new owner for a dog erg the animal for which it is issued.
Subd. 7. Replacement of lost tag. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the owner may obtain
a new tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by paying the charge for a duplicate
license as provided in appendix D.
905.05. Dogs not to be at large: _��� °a�� *° a:�= ^ °�' ^f a An owner may not permit a
dog to be at large in this city, but shall keep dog under restraint at all times. -A dog eA%ef and
per-son having eustedy er- eaefAfel of a dog shall iffffnediately elean up and sanitarily dispose of
aff _feees of the anifnal, e)iraept #iat this pr-evisien dees fiet apply to blind per-sons �� F-espeet to
their
905,06 Immediate disposal of animal feces An animal owner or person having custody or
control of an animal shall immediately clean up and sanitarily pose of any feces of the
animal, except that this provision does not apply to blind persons with respect to their ownership
and use of seeing eve dogs.
905.07. Confinement when necessary.
car. leswe any fi ry cm°,- dangerous- er- ;ieieus dog, eywept -A�emuzzled-
eempetent petse} }. A female deg or- eat animal in heat shall be confined in a building, secure
enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel, or shall be controlled on a leash while being
exercised, provided the animal does not create a public nuisance.
905.09. Public nuisances. The keeping of a dog or -swan animal which annoys other persons is
a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by
the occupants of two or more neighboring properties, the city shall notify the owner of such dog
or- -ratan animal that the nuisance shall be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey a notice is a
violation of this subsection.
905.11. Cijy pound. The council may provide for a city animal pound either within or outside
the limits of the city.
905.13. Pound keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall designate the pound
keeper who may appoint and deputize special officers to enforce this section. The special officer
shall have police powers to cite owners of dogs or cats for violations of this section, to impound
dogs - er- eatsanimals and to enforce the provisions of this section.
905.15. Enforcement procedures. Such officers as the manager shall designate to enforce this
section may pick up and impound any dog -er-sa na imal found not to be kept, confined or
restrained, or licensed in the manner required by this section. The officers may enter upon
private property where there is reasonable cause to believe that a dog- ep- eatanimal is on the
premises and is not licensed as required by this section, or that there is a deg e animal on the
4-5
premises which is not being kept, confined or restrained, as herein provided. An owner shall
produce for inspection a deg -e satanimal license receipt when requested to do so by the officer.
905.17. Quarantine. Any deg eFeatanimal, capable of carrying; the rabies virus that has bitten a
person shall immediately be impounded for at least ten days and kept apart from other animals,
under the supervision of a veterinarian, or the Department of Public Safety until it is determined
whether the animal had or has a disease which might have been transmitted by the bite. The
impounding may be done by the owner and need not be at the eity pound or- any p
desigaa4ed by the ,at his residence,. or veterinary facility with the approval of the Department
of Public Safety. but if it is not at the city pound or designated pound, the owner shall notify the
pound keeper or director of public safety immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that the
dog or- animal is being impounded and shall follow all policies and procedures relating to the
Quarantine as directed by the Department of Public Safety. Upon the expiration of ten days, if it
is determined that the deg er-- eat: — imal does not have a disease which might have been
transmitted by the bite, he may be released and the pound keeper or director of public safety shall
be notified immediately prior to the release by the owner of the dog -eF eA nim . If the doge
eatanimal is impounded at the city pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter provided. Any deg
or- satanimal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall be euthanated or impounded and kept
in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the dog -eFeat imal which has
been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at least three weeks before the bite and within
one year of the bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated, then such animal shall be confined
or impounded for a period of forty days before it is released. The owner of a deg- ep- eatanimal
which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall notify the city pound keeper or director of public
safety immediately prior to the release of the dog -er eat na imal.
905.19. Dangerous animals. Adoption by reference. Minnesota Statutes 343.20, 343.40.
346.57, 347.50, 347.51, 347.52 }347.53, 347.54, and 347.55 as they pertain to domestic animals
are adopted by reference and are as much a part of this code as if fully set forth herein. Any
violation of the statutes herin adopted by reference is a violation of this code.If a deg —e
eatanimal is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and the dog - ep-eatanim 1
cannot be impounded after a reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the
persons attempting to impound it, or if a deg-er- eatanimal has made; more than one attack on a
person or persons, the deg ep- eatanimal may be immediately killed by or under the direction of
an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section.
905.21. Treatment during impounding. Any dog eF-eataanaiimal which is impounded in the city
pound or designated pound shall be kept, with kind treatment and sufficient food and water, and
sanitary conditions, for the animal's comfort. If the animal is not known or suspected of being
diseased and has not bitten a person or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound
for at least five days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If the animal is known to be or
is suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be transmitted to persons, it shall be
kept in the pound for at least ten days.
905.23. Redemption of animals. A deg eanimal may be redeemed from the pound by the
owner upon paying the following:
//_(V
(a) the license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously been obtained;
(b) the late license penalty, where a license has not been obtained within the time
provided in this section;
(c) the amount of the boarding fee which the city is required to pay to the pound
keeper; or
(d) an impounding penalty as fixed in appendix D.
905.25. Disposal of unredeemed animals. The city pound keeper or designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any dog `-e - animal -which has been
impounded and which has identification on it. If at the end of the impounding period the deg e
eatanimal is not reclaimed by the owner, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and
may be disposed of or sold to any person following the procedures contained in Minnesota
Statutes, section 514.93. If the animal is to be kept in the city, a license shall be obtained before
possession of the animal is given to the purchaser, if a license is required.
905.27. Limit of dogs and cats on one premise. Not more than two dogs or cats over six months
of age shall be kept on any one premise, except at a licensed commercial kennel; veterinary
kennel, or a licensed residential kennel.
905.29. Abandonment. It is unlawful for any person to abandon any dog or other animal in this
city.. -.or at the city pound, or designated cites pound.
905.31. Kennel licenses. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The terms "commercial kennel" and
"residential kennel" are defined in section 905.01.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may operate a veterinary, commercial, or
residential kennel in this city without first obtaining a . kennel license as provided in this
subsection. Application for the license shall be made to the city clerk and must be accompanied
by the license fee set by appendix D. The clerk shall refer the application to the council, which
may grant or deny the license. Licenses issued for kennels shall be on an annual basis.
Subd. 3. Approval of continguous proper owners. The application for a residential
kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of
privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. Whether
or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the council may grant or
deny the license. The license may not be granted unless the council finds that the use of the
applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any
adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a
nuisance to the neighborhood. The council may impose conditions upon the granting of any
residential kennel license.
Subd. 4. Revocation. Kennel licenses may be revoked by the council by reason of any
violation of this subsection or by reason of violation of any other provisions of this code or any
order, law or regulation.
Subd. 5. Notice and hearing. Before revoking a kennel license, the licensee shall be
given notice of the meeting at which such revocation will be considered, and if the licensee is
present at such meeting, the licensee must be given an opportunity to be heard. Notice of the
meeting shall be given to the licensee in writing. Written notice shall be mailed to the address of
the licensee as set forth in the licensee's application for the kennel license, and it shall be mailed
at least five days before the date of the meeting at which the revocation is to be considered by the
council.
Subd. 6. License fees. The fee for a veterinary or commercial kennel license and the fee
for a residential kennel license are as fixed in appendix D. The residential kennel license fee is in
addition to the usual animal license fees provided in this section,. if applicable.
Subd. 7. Sanitation. Kennels shall be maintained in a clean and healthful condition at all
times, and shall be open to inspection by the director of public safety, at all reasonable times.
Subd. 8. Reports to city. Each month that a kennel is operated, the owner of the kennel
shall report to the city manager, accurately stating in writing the greatest number of animals kept
on his kennel premises during the preceding calendar month. Animals kept by a kennel in its
capacity as the city pound need not be so reported.
905.33. Reports by hound keeper. The city pound keeper or designated pound keeper shall
account for and pay over monthly to the city all monies received by him on behalf of the city as
license fees or other charges. The pound keeper shall also give an accurate written report each
month to the city, stating (i) licenses issued, (ii) fees or other charges collected, (iii) sales made,
(iv) dogs, cats and other animals impounded, (v) the duration of any such impoundment, (vi) all
animals destroyed, and (vii) other pertinent data relating to animal control which may be
requested by the city manager.
905.35. Miscellaneous prohibitions. Subdivision 1. General rule. The existence of any of the
conditions enumerated in this subsection are declared to be nuisances and may be proceeded
against in the manner provided in section 925.
Subd. 2. Swine. No swine of any kind or nature may be kept within the limits of the city
at large or in any enclosure situated within a distance of 75 feet from any dwelling house, store
or shop of any person other than the owner, nor within 75 feet of any public street in the city.
Subd. 3. Maintenance of grounds for fur-bearing_ animals. No person may keep mink,
foxes, muskrats, raccoons or polecats in yards, pens or houses for breeding purposes in the city.
905.37. Maintenance of fowl and birds. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person owning or
keeping chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds may permit the same to run at
/ /Is
large or enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such fowl or birds
be kept, raised or permitted to go on any street, park, lake or public ponding area.
Subdt. 2. Limitation on number. No more than three fowl or birds may be kept or raised
on any residential property in the city. This limitation does not apply to the keeping of pigeons
pursuant to a license under the provisions of this section.
Subd. 3. Injury or annoyance to others. No such fowl or birds may be kept or raised in a
manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other properly in the vicinity by reason of
noise, odor or filth.
Subd. 4. Impounding of fowl or birds. A fowl or bird at large in violation of subdivision
1 may be impounded by the city,, and, after being impounded for three days or more without
being reclaimed by the owner, may be destroyed or sold. A person reclaiming any impounded
fowl shall pay the cost of impounding and keeping the same.
905.39. License: pigeons. Subdivision L. General rule. No person may keep more than three
pigeons on any premises in the city without first obtaining a license as provided in this
subsection, and no person may keep or harbor pigeons except in compliance with this
subdivision.
Subd. 2. Definitions. As used in this subsection, the term "pigeon" includes any and all
Is varieties of pigeons. The term "loft" includes any and all quarters in which pigeons are housed.
Subd. 3. License application. Application for a license to keep pigeons shall be made to
the city clerk and accompanied by the specified license fee. The application shall be investigated
by the administrative staff of the city to determine compliance with the ordinances of the city and
shall then be referred to the city council, which may grant or deny the license. Licenses shall be
issued on an annual basis. The applicant shall seek the written approval of such application by
the occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting the premises for which the license is
sought. The approvals which are obtained shall accompany the application. The license
application shall include a plan showing the construction of the proposed or existing loft and its
location on the property. The loft shall be regarded as an accessory building and shall conform
to the building and zoning regulations of the city. The loft shall conform in design with the
principal building on the premises.
Subd. 4. License fee. The annual license fee is as fixed in appendix D. The license year
is from April 1 to March 31.
Subd. 5. Limitation on number. Not more than 25 pigeons may be kept at any one time
on any licensed premises. At the time of issuing the license, however, the council may issue a
license for a lesser number. It is a violation of this subsection to keep more pigeons on licensed
premises than the number authorized in the license.
Subd. 6. Other restrictions. Premises on which pigeons are kept and maintained shall be
kept reasonably clean from filth, garbage and any substances which attract rodents, at all times.
I
The loft and its surroundings must be cleaned daily. The loft must be constructed and
maintained so as to be fly -free and rodent - proof. Pigeons shall be fed within the confines of the
loft on the premises on which the pigeons are housed. The pigeons must be confined to the loft
except for short periods of exercise during which they may be permitted to fly outside the loft.
Grains and food stored for the use of pigeons on any licensed premises shall be kept in
rodent -free containers. The loft shall be elevated a minimum of six inches and a maximum of 12
inches above grade to insure freeway beneath the loft. The loft shall rest upon concrete footings
and piers, cement blocks or other suitable foundation material. The loft shall have a maximum
height of nine feet. Pigeons may not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the
occupants of adjacent property.
905.40. Feeding of deer and raccoons prohibited. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person shall
provide liquids or edible material to deer or raccoons within the boundaries of the city.
Subd. 2. Exception. This subsection does not apply to veterinarians, city animal
wardens, or county, state or federal game officials who in their course of their duties have deer or
raccoons in their custody or under their management. (Added, Bill No. 1993 -13)
905.41. Maintenance of non - domestic animals. amphibians. reptiles and insects. Subdivision 1.
Definition. "Domestic animals" means and includes dogs, cats, birds kept indoors, hamsters,
chinchillas, rabbits, lizards and snakes capable of being maintained continuously in cages,
is caterpillars and other living creatures generally referred to as domestic pets.
Subd. 2. Maintenance of non - domestic creatures prohibited. All other living creatures
not enumerated or covered in subdivision 1 are considered non - domestic creatures and the
maintenance thereof is considered a nuisance and punishable pursuant to this part.
Subd. 3. Impounding of non - domestic creatures. Any non - domestic creature kept in
violation of subdivision 2 may be impounded by the city, and, after being so impounded for three
days or more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be destroyed or sold. Any person
reclaiming the impounded animal shall pay the costs of impounding and keeping the same.
Subd. 4. Temporary permits. The city manager may grant temporary permits, for a
period not to exceed 60 days, for the keeping of any non - domestic animals for use in connection
with an exhibition or seasonal display thereof, provided that he finds that such animals are not
likely to be dangerous; that they will be kept in safe and sanitary surroundings; that they will not
be maintained in an inhumane manner or be subjected to inhumane treatment; and that their
presence on the premises will not be a source of nuisance or annoyance to the occupants of
adjacent property. In granting the permit, the city manager may impose limitations upon the
permit to insure that the animals will be kept under such conditions. No person having a permit
to keep animals without maintaining the conditions or abiding by the limitations imposed. A
permit shall be subject to immediate suspension by the city manager if the manager determines
that the animals constitute a safety or sanitary hazard, are being subjected to inhumane treatment
or conditions, or are a source of nuisance. The suspension shall remain in effect until the
subsequent meeting of the city council at which the city council may revoke the permit or may
reinstate the same subject to such limitations as the council shall deem necessary.
Subd. 5. Fees. The permit fee is fixed in appendix D.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of , 1995
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
TYPE OF PERMIT
,,. OR LICENSE
(6) General
Amusement
SECTION
REQUIRING
FEE 11 -11
1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each)1 year
$32.00
1. Coin operated
Investigation fee
1 year $90.00
(b) Bowling Alley (per lane)
1 year
$25.00
(c) Circus
Investigation fee
1 year $129.00
(d) Dance Hall 1 day
$129.00
1 year $1,737.00
(e) Golf
Investigation fee
(actual cost minimum)
1. Minature
1 year
$30.00
2. Driving Tee.
1 year
$30.00
(f) Mountback
1 day
$124.00
(g) Rides, mechanical or animal ofany kind (each)1 year $19.00
(h) Shows, any kind
1 day $124.00
(i) Shuffleboard (each lane)
1 year
$14.00
0) Other games
1 day
$63.00
(6a) Musical Concert1110.01
(7) Theatre Cinema1120
(8) Roller Rink 1115
(9) Commercial Adult -605
Oriented Enterprises
(10) Massage
Practitioner 605
(11) Public Baths 610
Per event
(12) Fortune Teller1130.05- 1130.07
and related trade
$25.00
Plus a notice publication fee 1 year $124.00 $ 6.50
1 year or portion thereof $124.00
SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Animals 905.01 - 905.29 (a)_-DegAnimal
(b) SatAnimal
(c) Duplicate
(d) Late Penalty
1 month $600.00
1 year$1,000.00
FEE
1 year(non spayed /neutered) $8:88$12.00
_1 yeaFMulti -year Per-yea $8.00
€it#ef deg- epsafAnimal $5.50
Each animal $448$5.00
905.31- 905.33(e) Commercial Kennel 1 year
$150.00
I -- (f) Veterinary Kennel 1 year $150.00
(g#) Residential Kennel 1 year $85;.88
905.37- 905.39(hg) Pigeons 1 year $30.00
905.41 #) Non - domestic Animals Temporary Permit $20.00
905.01- 905.29gi) Impounding each Animal
1 st time $25.00
2nd Time $50.00
(& each impound after)
- - -- (k) Kennel Boarding Fee Each Animal/Per Day -.110.00
1 Year $1,500.00
Investigation fee
1 year
$1,500.00
Certificate fee
1 year
$50.00
Investigation fee
1 year
$124.00
1 year $1,737.00
Investigation fee
(actual cost minimum)
$1,737.00
1 day
$100.00
1 week $300.00
SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Animals 905.01 - 905.29 (a)_-DegAnimal
(b) SatAnimal
(c) Duplicate
(d) Late Penalty
1 month $600.00
1 year$1,000.00
FEE
1 year(non spayed /neutered) $8:88$12.00
_1 yeaFMulti -year Per-yea $8.00
€it#ef deg- epsafAnimal $5.50
Each animal $448$5.00
905.31- 905.33(e) Commercial Kennel 1 year
$150.00
I -- (f) Veterinary Kennel 1 year $150.00
(g#) Residential Kennel 1 year $85;.88
905.37- 905.39(hg) Pigeons 1 year $30.00
905.41 #) Non - domestic Animals Temporary Permit $20.00
905.01- 905.29gi) Impounding each Animal
1 st time $25.00
2nd Time $50.00
(& each impound after)
- - -- (k) Kennel Boarding Fee Each Animal/Per Day -.110.00
CHAPTER 343 (�
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
0 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
CHAPTER 343
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
343.20 Definitions.
Subdivision 1. Application. Except as otherwise indicated by the
context, for purposes of sections 343.20 to 343.36, the terms defined in
this section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Animal. "Animal" means every living creature except members
of the human race.
Subd. 3. Torture; cruelty. "Torture" or "cruelty" means every act,
omission, or neglect which causes or permits unnecessary or unjustifiable
pain, suffering, or death.
Subd. 4. Impure milk. "Impure and unwholesome milk" means all milk
tained from diseased or unhealthy animals, or from animals fed on any
ubstance which is putrefied or fermented.
Subd. 5. Animal control officer. "Animal control officer" means an
officer employed by or under contract with an agency of the state,
county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state
which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction.
(10442) RL s 5151; 1981 c 53 s 1; 1989 c 37 s I
•
CHAPTER 343 ,
l 1 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY `
43.40 Do g houses
Subdivision 1. In general. A person in charge or control of any dog
which is kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure shall provide the dog
with shelter and bedding as prescribed in this section as a minimum.
Subd. 2. Building specifications. The shelter shall include a
moistureproof and windproof structure of suitable size to accommodate the
dog and allow retention of body heat. it shall be made of durable
material with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground
and with the entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or a
self - closing swinging door. The structure shall be provided with a
sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hav,
straw, cedar shavings, blankets, or the equivalent, to provide insulation
and protection against cold and dampness and promote retention of body
heat. I
Subd. 3. Shade. Shade from the direct rays of the sun, during the
months of June to September shall be provided.
Subd. 4. Farm dogs. In lieu of the requirements of subdivisions 2
and 3, a dog kept on a farm may be provided with access to a barn with a.
sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding to protect against cold and
dampness.
Subd. S. Zoning. All shelters required by this section shall be
Object to all building or zoning regulations of any city, township,
county, or state.
Subd. 6. Penalty..Whoever violates the provisions of this section is
guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
1959 c 571 s 2; 1965 c 764 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1981 c 53 s 16
CHAPTER 346
STRAY ANIMALS; COMPANION ANIMALS
46.57 Dogs and cats in motor vehicles.
Subdivision 1. Unattended dogs or cats. A person may not leave a dog
or a cat unattended in a standing or parked motor vehicle in a manner
that endangers the dog's or cat's health or safety.
Subd. 2. Removal of dogs or cats. A peace officer, as defined in
section 626.84, a humane agent, a dog warden, or a volunteer or
professional member of a fire or rescue department of a political
subdivision may use reasonable force to enter a motor vehicle and remove
a doa or cat which has been left,in the vehicle in violation of
subdivision 1. A person removing a dog or a cat under this subdivision
shall use reasonable means to contact the owner of the dog or cat to
arrange for its return home. If the person is unable to contact the
owner, the person may take the dog or cat to an animal shelter.
Subd. 3. Petty misdemeanor. A person who violates subdivision 1 is
subject to a fine of $25.
1988 c 711 s 6
E
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CATS
iREGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CkTS
347.50 Definitions.
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purpose of sections 347.50 to 347.54,
the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Dangerous dog. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human
being on public or private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the
owner's property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has
otice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites,
.ttacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Subd. 3. Potentially dangerous dog. "Potentially dangerous dog"
means any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on
public or private property;
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a
person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or
private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent
attitude of attack; or
(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack
unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans
or domestic animals.
Subd. 4. Proper enclosure. "Proper enclosure" means securely
confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure
suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection
from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include"a
porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that
would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or
structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens
are the only obstacles than prevent the dog from exiting.
Subd. 5. Owner. "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation,
organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an
interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog.
Subd. 6. Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial bodily harm" has the
meanin g given
it under section
609.02, subdivision 7a.
Subd. 7.
Animal control authority.
"Animal control authority" means
an agency of the
state, county,
municipality, or other governmental
subdivision of
the state which
is responsible for animal control
operations in
its jurisdiction.
1988 c 711
s 1; 1989 c 37 s
3 -5; 1994 c 550 s 1
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CATS
347.51 Dangerous dogs; registration.
Subdivision 1. Requirement. No person may own a dangerous dog in
this state unless the dog is registered as provided in this section.
Subd. 2. Registration. A county shall issue a certificate of
registration to the owner of a dangerous dog if the owner presents
sufficient evidence that:
(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog and a posting on
the premises with a clearly visible warning sign, including a warning
symbol to inform children, that there is a dangerous dog on the property;
and
0 (2) a surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to conduct
business in this state in a form acceptable to the county in the sum of
at least $50,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog, or
a policy of liability insurance issued by an insurance company authorized
to conduct business in this state in the amount of at least $50,000,
insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous
dog.
Subd. 2a. warning symbol. IT a county issues a certificate of
registration to the owner of a dangerous dog pursuant to subdivision 2,
the county must provide, for posting on the owner's property, a copy of a
warning symbol to inform children that there is a dangerous dog on the
property. The design of the warning symbol must be uniform and specified
by the commissioner of public safety, after consultation with animal
control professionals. The design specification process is exempt from
rulemaking under chapter 14 and is exempt from section 14.38. The
commissioner shall provide the number of copies of.the warning symbol
requested by each county and shall charge the county the actual cost of
the warning symbols received. The county may charge the registrant a
reasonable fee to cover its administrative costs and the cost of the
warning symbol.
Subd. 3. Fee. The ccunt -r may charge the owner an annual fee, in
addition to any regular dog licensing fees, to obtain a certificate of
egistration for a dangerous dog under this section.
a w enforcement; exemption. The provisions of this section
Subd. _. La enforce P
do not apply to dangerous dogs used by law enforcement officials for
police work.'
f/ -f7
Subd. 5. Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the
threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person:
(1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort
upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog;
(2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or
who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented,
abused, or assaulted the dog; or
(3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
Subd. 6. Counties without licensing systems. If an owner of a
dangerous dog resides in a county that does not license dogs under
sections 347.08 to 347.21, the owner shall obtain a certificate as
required under this section from the county auditor or other person
designated by the county board in the county where the owner resides.
Subd. 7. Tag. A dangerous dog registered under this section must
have a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying the dog as
dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol, affixed to the
dog's collar at all' times. The commissioner of public safety, after
consultation with animal control professionals, shall provide by rule for
the design of the tag.
Subd. 8. Local ordinances. A statutory or home rule charter city, or
a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially
dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances
inconsistent with this subdivision are void.
Subd. 9. Contracted services. A county may contract with another
Olitical subdivision or other person to provide the services required
under sections 347.50 to 347.54.
1988 c 711 s 2; 1989 c 37 s 6 -10; 1991 c 195 s 1; 1994 c 550 s 2
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CATS
347.52 Dangerous dogs; requirements.
An owner of a dangerous dog shall keep the dangerous dog, while on
the owner's property, in a proper enclosure. If the dog is outside the
.proper enclosure, the dog must be mu =zled and restrained by a.substantial
chain or leash and under the phys =cal restraint of a responsible person.
The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dos from biting
any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the dcg or
interfere with its vision or respiration.
1988 c 711 s 3
•
DOGS AND CATS
347.53 Potentially dangerous dogs.
• Any statutory or home rule charter city, or any county, may regulate
potentially.dangerous dogs. Except as provided in section 347.51,
subdivision 8, nothing in sections 347.50 to 347.54 limits any
restrictions the local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially
dangerous dogs.
1988 c 711 s 4; 1989 c 37 s 11
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CATS
347.54 Confiscation.
Subdivision 1. Seizure. (a) The animal control authority having
jurisdiction shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if:
(1) after 14 days after the owner has notice that the dog is
dangerous, the dog is not validly registered under section 347.51;
4a(2) after 14 days after the owner has notice that the dog is
ngercus, the owner does not secure the proper liability insurance or
surety coverage as required under section 347.51, subdivision 2;
(3) the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or
(4) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical
restraint of a responsible person as required under section 347.52.
(b) If an owner of a dcg is convicted of a crime for which the dog
was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated
and destroyed in a proper and humane manner, and that the owner pay the
costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog.
Subd. 2. Reclaimed. A dangerous dog seized under subdivision 1 may
be reclaimed by the owner of the dog upon payment of impounding and
boarding fees, and presenting proof to the appropriate animal control
authority that the requirements of sections 347.51 and 347.52 will be
met. A dog not reclaimed under this subdivision within seven days may be
disposed of as provided under section 35.71, subdivision 3, and the owner
is liable to the animal control authority for costs incurred in confining
and disposing of the dog.
Subd. 3. Subsequent offenses; seizure. If a person has been
convicted of a misdemeanor for violating a provision of section 347.51 or
47.52, and the person is charged with a subsequent violation relating to
e same dog, the dog must be seized by the animal control authority
aving jurisdiction. If the owner is convicted of the crime for which
the dog was seized, the court sha11_order_that_ the dog_be_ destroyed in a
proper and humane manner and the owner pay the cost of confining and
destroying the animal. If the person is not convicted of the crime for
which the dog was seized, the owner may reclaim the dog upon payment tom
the animal control authority of a fee for the care and boarding of the
dog. If the dog is not reclaimed by the owner within seven days after
the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be
,,disposed of as provided under section 35.71, subdivision 3, and the owner
s liable to the animal control authority for the costs incurred in
confining, impounding, and disposing of the dog.
1988 c 711 s 5; 1989 c 37 s 12
CHAPTER 347
DOGS AND CATS
347.55 Penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of section 347.51 or 347.52 is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
1988 c 711 s 7
CHAPTER 346
STRAY ANIMALS; COMPANION ANIMALS
346.01 Who may take up'
No person shall take up
such estray shall be found
the town wher in the person
(7267) - RL s 2769; 1986
i
ESTR.AYS
any eacr
on lands
resides.
c 444
ay, except horses�cr� mules, unless
owned or occu zed by the son in
CHAPTER
346
STRAY ANIMALS; COMPANION ANIMALS
- ESTRP_YS
06.01 Who may take up.
No person shall take up any estray, except horses or mules, unless
such estray shall be found on lands owned or occupied by the person in
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 135
is Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on consideration of a final development plan and conditional use permit
for Phase II of the TOLD Development Company office development project.
Background:
Phase II of the TOLD office development project, Meridian Crossings, consists of the
area bordered by Girard Avenue to the west and Emerson Congregational Church to
the north.
Phase II would include an eight to ten story office building with a gross building area of
193,100 to 241,600 square feet. A two to three level parking deck and underground
space within the building will provide parking for 730 to 916 cars at four spaces per
1,000 square feet of rentable space (182,450 to 228,900 rentable square feet).
The Phase II building will feature a stopped glass curtain wall facing the intersection of
1 -35W and 1 -494. The parking deck is located northwest of the building. Access to
Phase 11 is provided from 77th Street and Girard Avenue.
• The site layout minimizes the loss of the existing mature oak trees to the extent
possible. Additional landscaping will be provided to supplement and enhance the
existing trees. Landscaping will be provided to the north of the parking deck to screen
the deck from the church property. The irregularly shaped parcel to the northeast of the
church property and adjacent to 77th Street will be a part of Phase 11. The oak trees on
this parcel will remain and be maintained by the developer.
The Planning Commission added a friendly amendment to their approval asking the
developer to work with Emerson Congregational Church regarding the parking deck and
the site line of the church. TOLD held a meeting with the church on March 11 to show
them renderings of what the development will look like from the church's perspective.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase II of the
Meridian Crossings office development project pursuant to the attached plans, with the
following stipulations:
That the City Engineer approve the erosion control plan and storm water
management plan.
2. That the Community Development Director approve a detailed landscape plan, which
includes specifications for protecting existing trees during construction.
3. That the Community Development Director approve the signage plan for the site.
/C) _/
4. That the Community Development Director approve the final layout of the parking
deck.
5. That the conditional use permit not be issued until a building permit is applied for.
6. That the developer obtain an Indirect Source Permit and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
7. That the City Council adopt a negative declaration regarding the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet.
8. That the City Council and the Department of Natural Resources approve the
Wetlands Replacement Plan.
Basic of Recommendation:
1. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes
the advantages of the site.
3. Analyses of the traffic and environmental impacts of the development indicate that
the site and location can accommodate a building of eight or ten stories.
4. On February 27, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, April 22, 1996. The hearing will be
held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice
of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
PLi
-H
z
-y
y
O
oG
v
z
OC
t ll�
i
.ro
/C) -a
�\M� ••:'�2�.�"� .I4 Via, � ��,
w�
' � �1•.! � ��� =1ji�� 1113.. � '. /�
aeeec � �
I
� lil
1.
O
•
10 -3
\ J
N
4
C m
ro
m
m
W �
C
F:
r
ZA
�I
Iz
R
m
m
m
0
�I0
m
m
m
S
Fr
m
m
0
0 Meridian Crossing
N
Z� Richfield, Minnesota
T O Dut�dgowod
��
wa wu 100
I� Gow. I'N 69369
(6 )410 -8000
An.ka
Lendwp� A-h, e
8196 rtn Dr.
Ed— f-m— Mn 66344
(617) 834 -1000
Gar Engnw(a8
Dr.
Q-1 F j.r�xg
6300 tEm n Cann
HurwPelu, MJ 66437 -1600
(6Q1 A31 -7100
OL
N
W
C
r
v
z
v
•
n
C
g
D
r
9
!I
4S
IN 3
P'S � Z
3 �
,?v
z�
"s z
Meridian Crossings
Richfield, Minnesota
�R
�aD
vn ewuw aim
15�M2lMrlw Dr.
!Gw ROAN. PM 'Y+11!
reC, nsaamam
�rdw� 4tl+uct
/05
•
•
Ll
CD
N E I11
� $ I
� I I
W I
1
I
U) r
n I
� I
CD I
1
I �
I
I
I
I
I �
O
°s
M
A
N I'
m I
m I
`m
5 I
I
�n I
I�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IY k£LA�
I
1
L_
x
v
m
N
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
€� I
. I
� I
i
I
I
I
1
1131
t
N�
Meridian Crossing
Richfield, Minnesota
�I
w
o I
I
I I
l
4
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
I
I_
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
I
i
I�
I
L
b4 N-5'
�Y
6TOLD rza 9Niw am
1'IeppM [rtov�. 1'H 3!369
l6Q1470 -0000
Dim
rune
Kd .
(60) pram, V 55344
61719�3w4� -]000
tlamc.nar 0r.
Mera.spebl,rN 554314600
(60109] -7600
Ca
0
0
r
CL
0
0
2)
1
CD
N
0
O
3
r D
'a
ii
Q�9
po -/a
No
m
3m -ni
TaLO lAv.lopment co.
6900 M.dgYOed Pd Sui4 100
Maple G.ovs. MN 55369
Meridian Crossing
(s121 aza -9000
a, "ke
Richfield, Minnesota
gRg�
M—..- — MN 55437 -2600
A
a
o�
�
s
W
z
�D
o�
a
m
O
D
x
Q
�
�9 Z
per
3
'a
ii
Q�9
po -/a
No
m
3m -ni
O
m
m
3
D
2
m
m
o,e,.,
Leld.oap. MW 4ot
Gnt Ergineenng
TaLO lAv.lopment co.
6900 M.dgYOed Pd Sui4 100
Maple G.ovs. MN 55369
Meridian Crossing
(s121 aza -9000
a, "ke
Richfield, Minnesota
15195 M—t- 0'.
Eden P--.. MN 55344
(6121434 -2000
8— Enq:rrug
8300 Norman C.nbr 0r.
M—..- — MN 55437 -2600
O
m
m
3
D
2
m
m
o,e,.,
Leld.oap. MW 4ot
Gnt Ergineenng
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 134
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on consideration of a final development plan and conditional use permit
for Phase I of the TOLD Development Company office development project.
Background:
Phase I of the TOLD office development project, Meridian Crossings, consists of the
area bordered by the Shops at Lyndale to the east and Market Drive to the south.
Phase I would include a six to eight story office building with a gross building area of
144,600 to 193,100 square feet. A two to three level parking deck and underground
space within the building will provide parking for 544 to 730 cars. Parking is based on
providing four spaces for every 1,000 square feet of rentable space (136,000 to
182,450 rentable square feet).
The Phase I building is located 40 feet from the south property line and will feature a
stopped glass curtain wall facing 1 -494. The parking deck is located to the north of the
building. The main entrance to Phase I will be from 77th Street. An additional entrance
will be provided off of Market Drive (1-494 frontage road).
The site layout minimizes the loss of the existing mature oak trees to the extent
possible. Additional landscaping will be provided to supplement and enhance the
existing trees.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I of the
Meridian Crossings office development project pursuant to the attached plans, with the
following stipulations:
1. That the City Engineer approve the erosion control plan and storm water
management plan.
2. That the Community Development Director approve a detailed landscape plan which
includes specifications for protecting existing trees during construction.
3. That the Community Development Director approve the signage plan for the site.
4. That the Community Development Director approve the final layout of the parking
deck.
5. That the developer obtain a permit from the Minnesota Department of
10 Transportation to access the frontage road.
Q -I
6. That the conditional use permit not be issued until a building permit is applied for.
7. That the developer obtain an Indirect Source Permit and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
8. That the City Council make a negative declaration regarding the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet.
Basic of Recommendation:
1. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes
the advantages of the site.
3. Analyses of the traffic and environmental impacts of the development indicate that
the site and location can accommodate a building of six or eight stories.
4. On February 27, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit.
5. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet process has been completed and no
significant reasons for not proceeding have been identified.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, April 22, 1996. The hearing will be
held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice
of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
•
� 40
H
Z
-
y
O
OC
V
Z
a
0
C
-0.o
CO
,�� � � �-� •� ��•i • iii � � �.1�� _�
IS
O
,
,
Of
N
I
C
v
z
v
[7
q -3
I°
m
m
m
m
d
0
g
s
m
m
F
m
m
0
r � Cl m
s �� N Meridian Crossing
i, _ Richfield, Minnesota
t�rg
69om w.c�dewu Imo
Map N (fever, MN 55369
(6R14J0 -9omm
Art*.
SM5 Mart. Dr.
Edon Pm—, M 55341
(60) 931 -262o
Barr Erginarng
8300 1 an Cantor Dr.
Msrwap lia, Y41 53431 -7662
!6Q) pJ -7600
0~
Lando po bdwta
r-I "—mq
9 -�
0 q"5-
•
0
M
R-1
S
N
CA
CD m
—+ m
W j
1
7
llr..i^
V J
� r
m
m -
a
m
a
m {
I�I
1
{
I
I► ruy
I
,a
z
m,
v
i
N
i
I
l
I
I
I
{
I
gkg I
g I
I
I
!
!
!
!
!
I
!
j�
w ! ft
Ln
I
I
i
0—
I.6M.op. ad.,.a
C-1 "—.g g
9
Mm il ss636.
e--vs.m, .
T r
m m
.W4
Mer idian Crossing
J -20 m
(l
Richfield, Minnesota
:ne a.
MlrMalaolu,MN 3,3431 -3600
(6Q) 639 -3600
nn
0—
I.6M.op. ad.,.a
C-1 "—.g g
R,
igm
C •
� M • , wLG
TI�P. OU
6
ku
9�' \ ' 'iii ��i'fi 4n. l� •.� , �' �.
`1� Imo- ►'r!
.a
Ord, / ~� ♦' •
• U y
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 133
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a planned unit development plan and second reading of an ordinance
amendment rezoning land from C -3 (high density commercial) and R (single family
residential) to PC -2 (planned general commercial) for the TOLD development proposal.
Background:
TOLD Development Company is requesting City approval of Meridian Crossings, a two -
phase office development consisting of 337,700 to 434,700 square feet of office space
and two parking decks with parking for 1,274 to 1,646 vehicles. TOLD proposes
building flexibility into the size of the approved plan to enable them to respond to tenant
needs and market conditions.
The buildings face the interchange of 1 -35W and 1-494 with the parking decks located to
the north. The site layout minimizes the loss of existing mature oak trees to the extent
possible.
The main entrance to the project will be a signalized entrance from 77th Street, just
west of Emerson Avenue. The entrance to the Shops at Lyndale at Emerson Avenue
will be closed and access will be provided to the retail development from the signalized
entrance. A pathway will connect pedestrians from 77th Street to the office building
entrances.
Additional entrances are provided on Girard Avenue and the 1-494 frontage road. The
developer has agreed to work with the City at such time that the 1 -35W and 1 -494
interchange is upgraded to ensure continued access to the frontage road.
An analysis of traffic impacts indicates that development of both phases will likely
trigger some additional roadway improvements on Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street
and /or at 1-494. The addition of a right turn on the Conoco property is a response to
this need. The City will regularly monitor the area for problems and make additional
improvements as necessary.
A Type II wetland, located on the northwest corner of the site, will be filled as part of the
project. The wetland is of low quality and has already been impacted by previous
development. The developer has applied for a permit to fill the wetland and replace it
with a high quality wetland adjacent to Legion Lake, just east of the Water Plant. The
U.S. Corps of Engineers recently approved this application. The Council will be asked
to approve the Wetland Replacement Plan at a future date.
Additional flexibility would allow the developer to construct either Phase I or Phase II
40 first, depending on tenant demand. If the project is approved, construction could begin
on one of the two phases in the fall of 1996 with completion expected by the end of
g'I
1997. Construction on the remaining phase is expected to be completed within three to
five years.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve the planned unit development plan pursuant to
the attached plan and adopt the attached ordinance amendment rezoning the project
area (phase I and phase II) from R (single family residential) and C -3 (high density
commercial) to PC -2 (planned general commercial).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed PUD plan and rezoning is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The PC -2 classification is appropriate for the proposed office use.
3. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes
the advantages of the site.
4. Staff and consultants have conducted extensive reviews of the proposal.
5. On February 27, 1996, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could modify the amendment, adding or deleting stipulations as it
believes appropriate.
2. The Council could deny the planned unit development plan and rezoning with a
finding of fact that the project would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Rezoning applications require a two- thirds majority vote of the Council for approval.
A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on April 22, 1996. The
hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland
Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
M
Bill No. 1996 -
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Amendment to Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning
districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 4, Paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows:
(1) That area bounded by 1 -494 on the South, the original center line of 77th
Street and its westerly extension to the easterly right -of -way line of 1 -35W on the north,
1 -35W on the west, and „�„er-sen Avenue Girard Avenue on the east.
B. Section 7, Paragraph (7) is added to read as follows:
The East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter:
The West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter:
The North 225.00 feet of the South 310.00 feet of the West Half of the East Half
of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter:
Except that part
of the Southwest
Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter
described as
commencing
at the Northwest
corner
of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter:
thence North
89 degrees
57 minutes
53 seconds East along the
north line of
said Southwest
Quarter
of the Southeast
Quarter
a distance of 347.71 feet:
thence
South 00
degrees 09
minutes 58
seconds West
a distance of 259.80 feet;
thence North
89 degrees
57 minutes
55 seconds
East a distance
of 31.00 feet to the
beginning of
the land
to be described:
thence
North 89 degrees
57 minutes 55 seconds
East a
distance
of 39.81 feet:
thence North
00 degrees
02 minutes 05 seconds
West a
distance
of 28.23 feet:
thence northeasterly
a
distance of 114.12 feet along
a tangential
curve concave
to the southeast
having a radius
of 114.00 feet and a central
angle of 57
degrees
21 minutes 23
seconds:
thence North
89 degrees 57 minutes 55
seconds East
a distance
of 41.80 feet:
thence
North 08 degrees
42 minutes 04 seconds
West a
distance
of 15.21 feet:
thence northerly
a distance
of 29.35 feet along a
tangential
curve concave
to the east
having
a radius of
114.23 feet and a central angle
of 14
decrees
43 minutes 12 seconds:
thence North
06 degrees 01 minutes 08
seconds East
a distance
of 27.54 feet:
thence southeasterly
a distance of 148.71 feet
along a non -
tangential
curve concave
to the
southwest having
a radius of 511.33 feet,
a central
angle of
16 degrees 39
minutes
47 seconds
and chord bearing of South
68 degrees 04
� -3
minutes
distance
48 seconds east: thence
of 48.69 feet: thence
South 44 degrees 33 minutes 55 seconds West a
Southeasterly a distance of 96.12 feet along a non
tangential
curve concave to the
southwest having
a radius of 114.00 feet, a central
anale
of
48 degrees 18 minutes
26 seconds and a
chord bearing of South 18 degrees
47 minutes
01 seconds East: thence
South 72 degrees
02 minutes 05 seconds East a
distance
of 144.10 feet: thence
South 17 degrees
57 minutes 55 seconds West a
distance
of 112.00 feet: thence
North 72 degrees
02 minutes 05 seconds West a
distance
of 263.91 feet: thence
South 89 degrees
57 minutes 5 seconds West a
distance
of 118.93 feet: thence
North 00 degrees
09 minutes 58 seconds East a
distance
of 52.00 feet to the point
of beginning.
Also except that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota which lies northerly and westerly of that property deeded from the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield to Emerson Avenue
Conareaational Church of the United Church of Christ by auit claim deed dated Auaust
MR16191
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter and the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter EXCEPT that part taken by the State of Minnesota for
Highway. g_ur op ses:
All in Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
C. This amendment constitutes rezoning of the property described in Paragraph
B. to PC -2.
This amendment rezones that portion of the property described in Paragraph B. lying
south of the original center line of 77th Street and its westerly extension from C -3 to
PC -2.
This amendment rezones that portion of the property described in Paragraph B. lying
north of the original center line of 77th Street and its westerly extension from R to PC -2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
[A
V
'Z
a
0
v
z
a
� y
b
M
C i
m�
V} C
;Al
a
-n
US•O•.❖ V
1 �► -� III' -1� -�1 `�lr
■ �� '�If_°��i III
I _I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 132
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Meridian Crossings
office development project.
Background:
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the Meridian
Crossings project. Based on the review of the EAW, the City Council must-determine
whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the project.
Staff prepared the EAW with the assistance of TOLD Development Company, the
project developer. The EAW assesses the impact of the project in regard to the
following factors: fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources; soils, erosion and
sedimentation; water resources, use, and quality; surface runoff; wastewater; ground
water; hazardous wastes; traffic; air and noise pollution; infrastructure and public
services; and land use plans.
The EAW was made available to the public from February 13 to March 13, 1996.
• Comments were received and are responded to in the Record of Decision (Exhibit A).
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution approving negative declaration and record of decision
and make the findings of fact and conclusions contained in Exhibit A in regard to the
Meridian Crossings Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects that
would warrant preparation of an EIS.
2. The project will increase the amount of local traffic. Planned roadway
improvements will enable all nearby intersections to operate at acceptable levels
given the increased traffic.
3. The stand of mature oak trees on the site will be impacted by the project,
however, such an impact will be unavoidable for any project which is reasonably
consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The
project has been designed to minimize the loss of trees and to protect those trees
that will remain.
4. The existing Type II wetland will be filled and replaced with a high quality wetland
• adjacent to Legion Lake. The wetland has already been heavily impacted by the
surrounding street, freeway and commercial development.
5. Staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and found it to be consistent
40 with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statues and regulations.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request for a negative declaration and determine that an Environmental
Impact Statement is required for the proposed project.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
•
� -a
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
RECORD OF DECISION
WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company, a Minnesota corporation
( "TOLD ") is the Proposer of a 9.5 acre office development comprised of two
office buildings and two parking structures located between 77th Street and 78th
Street and between Emerson Avenue and Girard Avenue in the City of Richfield
( "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 435,700 gross square feet
and total parking of 1,646 spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental
assessment worksheet ( "EAW') category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp.
14.13 (3) because the Project involves the construction of an office facility in
excess of 300,000 square feet in a city of the second class; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit ( "RGU ")
pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995) ; and
WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared by the City with assistance from the
Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City
consistent with Minn: Rules Part 4410.1400 (1995); and
WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( "MEQB ") for EAWs in accordance with
Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300 (1995); and
WHEREAS, the City issued the EAW on February 8, 1996, and provided
a copy to the MEQB on the same day; and
WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a
proposed Record of Decision on the EAW for the Project for consideration by the
City Council ( "Record of Decision "), which is attached hereto as (Exhibi A); and
WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision
and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence
submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of
their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council approve the
Record of Decision and determine that no environmental impact statement
1--3
• ( "EIS ") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under
the circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude
that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ( "Negative Declaration ").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby:
1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Meridian Crossings
Environmental Assessment Worksheet in the form which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions which are contained therein; and
2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, no
environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to
the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts
4410.0200 to 4410.06500 (1993).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd
day of April, 1996.
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
1�1
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
17-y
• RECORD OF DECISION
ON THE
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Meridian Crossings
(Project) is before the City Council of the City of Richfield to determine whether an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the Project. The City Council has
reviewed the record in this matter, including the EAW, comments from governmental
agencies and a citizen, reports of meetings between its staff and governmental agencies, and
proposed responses to comments. Based on this review the City Council makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Compliance With Procedures Of The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act And
• Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (1993)
The proposer of the Project is TOLD Development Company, a Minnesota
Corporation (TOLD).
2. The Project is a 9.5 acre office development comprised of two office buildings
and two parking structures. The total office development will be 434,700 gross
square feet. Total parking provided will be 1,646 spaces. The Project is
located on 77th Street in Richfield, Minnesota, in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Interstate 494 (I -494) and Interstate 35W (I -35W).
The Project falls within the mandatory EAW category of Minn. Rules Part
4410.4300, subp. 14.B.(3) because the Project involves the construction of an
office facility in excess of 300,000 square feet in a city of the second class.
4. The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is the local governmental unit, the
City of Richfield (City). Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995).
5. An EAW was prepared by the City with assistance from the proposer, who
submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the RGU. Minn. Rules Part
4410.1400 (1995).
0
i
n
U
7 -s
6. The EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) for EAWs. Minn. Rules Part
4410.1300 (1995).
7. The City issued the EAW on February 8, 1996, and provided a copy to the
MEQB on the same day.
8. On February 9, 1996, the City mailed one copy of the EAW to all agencies
listed on the official MEQB mailing list.
9. On February 9, 1995, the City provided a press release to the Sun - Current,
which contained a notice of availability of the EAW for public review. The
press release also included the name and location of the Project, a brief
description of the Project, the location at which copies of the EAW were
available for review, the date the comment period would expire, and the
procedures for commenting.
10. Notice of availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on
February 12, 1996.
11. The 30 day comment period on the EAW began on February 13, 1996, and
ended at 4:30 p.m. on March 13, 1996. Minn. Rules Pt. 4410.2100, subp. 3
(1995).
12. The Sun - Current published the notice of availability in its Wednesday,
February 14, 1996, edition.
13. During the 30 day comment period, copies of the EAW were available for
public review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, and at the
Augsburg Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, both
in Richfield, Minnesota.
14. During the 30 day comment period, the following written comments were
submitted:
a. Metropolitan Council letter dated March 7, 1996.
b. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) letter dated
March 7, 1996.
C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) letter dated March 12,
1996.
2
MI_
0 d. Larry Wozniczka letter dated March 12, 1996.
e. Larry Wozniczka letter dated March 13, 1996.
15. After the close of the 30 comment period, the following written comment was
received:
a. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) letter dated
March 25, 1966.
B. Responses To Comments
Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council letter stated that the
Council's transportation staff found the EAW to be adequate. Three issues
were raised on which further analysis was recommended.
a. Comment: Council staff noted that the addition of north and
southbound left turn lanes from Lyndale Avenue onto the I -494 ramps
(which would require widening of the Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-
494) is unlikely to occur by 2001 as assumed in the EAW. The staff
suggested further analysis to determine the impact of the Project if the
left turn lanes were not built by 2001.
Response: The City and TOLD have conducted further traffic and air
quality analyses of these intersections assuming full development of the
Project in 2001 and no left turn lanes at the I -494 ramp intersections.
The traffic analysis shows that the Lyndale Avenue /South I -494 ramp
intersection would operate at Level Of Service D and the Lyndale
Avenue/North I -494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of
Service F. The air quality analysis shows that despite the poor Level Of
Service at both intersections, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations
would increase only slightly and would remain well below the
applicable state 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO standards. (See also
Comment/Response 51.)
b. Comment: Council staff recommended that the Project encourage
transit and carpooling.
Response: The City will request that Metropolitan Council Transit
Operations move bus service from 76th Street to 77th Street to serve the
Project and other commercial developments along 77th Street. TOLD
will provide a location in each office building for posting transit and
•
carpooling notices, designate a transit and carpooling contact person
within its property management staff, and provide transit and carpooling
information to new tenants. In addition, TOLD will set aside parking
spaces in each ramp for carpooling.
C. Comment: Council staff recommended a site - specific survey to
determine the presence or absence of ecologically sensitive resources if
earlier developments or environmental reviews had not done so.
Response: The City has reviewed the I -35W Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and determined that ecological analysis was
performed on all properties within the I -35W corridor including the
Project site. No ecologically sensitive resources were discovered on the
Project site or in its vicinity.
2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The MDNR letter addressed
wetlands mitigation, stormwater runoff, and project related dewatering.
a. Comment: The MDNR letter stated that if wetland mitigation at
Legion Lake involved excavation below the ordinary high water mark, a
MDNR permit would be required. The letter also noted that no ordinary
high water mark determination has been made for Legion Lake by the
MDNR and suggested coordination with the MDNR Regional
Hydrologist.
Response: The City concurs that any excavation below the ordinary
high water mark in Legion Lake would require a permit for work in the
bed of public waters. The City has submitted a Wetland Replacement
Plan and will coordinate with the MDNR Regional Hydrologist.
b. Comment: With respect to the proposed regional water quality basin
which would receive stormwater runoff from the Project, the MDNR
noted that it was unclear whether Project - related construction would
begin prior to completion of the regional pond and recommended a
temporary on -site pond in the interim.
Response: The City Council approved construction of this regional
water quality basin on May 8, 1995. MNDOT awarded the construction
bid on June 19, 1995. Completion is anticipated in August 1996. The
pond will likely be available to receive stormwater runoff prior to
project- related construction.
4
C. Comment: MDNR suggested that stormwater runoff generated from
adjacent development also be routed to the regional treatment basin.
Response: This comment pertains to adjacent development, not the
Project addressed in the EAW. The City has directed the comment to
the City Engineer for consideration.
d. Comment: The MDNR letter noted that any construction dewatering in
excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year would
require a MDNR water appropriation permit.
Response: TOLD does not anticipate any construction related
dewatering for the Project. If dewatering becomes necessary at levels
above the cited thresholds, TOLD will apply for the appropriate permit.
3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MPCA letter discussed Indirect
Source Permit (ISP) requirements and the timing of traffic improvements.
a. Comment: The MPCA states that an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is
required for the Project, since the proposed parking spaces exceed the
required ISP threshold.
Response: The City concurs that an ISP is required for the Project.
TOLD and the City will prepare and submit an ISP application in the
near future.
b. Comment: The MPCA notes that three intersections along Lyndale
Avenue will operate at "unacceptable levels of service" by the year 2001
with completion of Phases I and H of the Project and recommends that
the improvements assumed in the EAW should be implemented "when
necessary to improve traffic within the vicinity of the site."
Response: The City concurs with the necessity to implement
intersection improvements when necessary. The City intends to install
the traffic light at the Project entrance on 77th Street, the eastbound
right turn lane at the 77th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection, and the
southbound right turn lane at the Lyndale Avenue/North I -494 ramp
intersection before Phase I of the Project opens.
C. Comment: The MPCA letter states that the EAW uses outdated air
quality monitoring background values and recommends new air quality
monitoring for the ISP application.
5
d. Response: TOLD is arranging for Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. to
0 conduct air quality monitoring at a site approved by the MPCA for use
in the ISP application.
4. Larry Wozniczka. Mr. Wozniczka's letters addressed economic impacts,
compatibility with freeway plans, wetlands, and urban forest preservation.
a. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka asks that the cost of additional City services
be addressed in the EAW including fire fighting equipment, additional
public safety staffing, traffic signals, and other public services.
Response:, Economic issues including public costs are not addressed in
environmental assessment worksheets. Question 29, however, does
require that any new or expanded public services be identified. The
answer to Question 29 in the EAW does not indicate that any new or
expanded City services will be required for the Project. As to Mr.
Wozniczka's specific concerns: (1) the buildings will be sprinklered so
no new fire fighting equipment will be required; (2) no additional public
safety staffing is required; (3) maintenance required for the new traffic
signal will be done by existing personnel; and (4) no public services
beyond those identified in Question 29 are anticipated.
b. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka asks that the cost of additional City
infrastructure including extension of water, sewer, and street utilities
and additional capacity investments be specified in the EAW.
Response: Again, economic issues including public costs are not
addressed in environmental assessment worksheets. Question 29,
however, does require that any new or expanded public infrastructure be
identified. The answer to Question 29 in the EAW describes the traffic
and street improvements required for the Project and notes that existing
utilities will be sufficient to handle Project demands. As to Mr.
Wozniczka's specific concerns: (1) no extension of public water or
sewer lines will be required; and (2) no street extensions are required.
C. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka asks that the writedown in the land cost, tax
increment contributions, and fiscal disparities contributions all be
included in the EAW.
Response: Again, economic issues such as land writedowns, tax
increment financing, and fiscal disparities are not addressed in
environmental assessment worksheets. Mr. Wozniczka can find the
answers to his questions in the Development Agreement between the
0
'f -10
City and TOLD approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Or, he is welcome to call Mr. Bruce Palmborg, Director of
Community Development, who will respond to these questions.
d. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka states in his letter that reconstruction plans
for I -494 and I -35W contemplate a frontage road crossing of the
interstate highways. He suggests the need to analyze the compatibility
of the Project with the reconstruction plans and the frontage road
crossing.
Response: First, TOLD's architect used MNDOT's latest
reconstruction plans in developing the Project's site plan just to avoid
conflicts should reconstruction proceed. Second, the Metropolitan
Council found no conflict with interstate reconstruction plans in its
letter. Finally, MNDOT did not identify any significant conflicts
between the Project and its reconstruction plans.
e. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka raises the concern that the wetland to be
filled on the Project site may be needed in this area for stormwater
ponding.
Response: While the wetland will be eliminated, on -site ponding will
still occur just north of the Project entrance onto Girard Avenue. The
combination of this pond and off -site ponding provide sufficient
ponding capacity for the anticipated stormwater runoff.
f. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka asks for an explanation of how additional
wetland will be created elsewhere in the City and at whose cost.
Response: Question .12 in the EAW states that the replacement wetland
will be located east- of the Richfield Water Treatment Plant and adjacent
to Legion Lake. The Wetland Replacement Plan indicates the lime
sludge lagoon at this location, which is no longer needed, will be
removed and a wetland created. This will be a project cost.
g. Comment: After noting that the City's Housing & Redevelopment
Authority intends to transfer parcels with mature oak trees to TOLD,
Mr. Wozniczka suggests that "assurance is needed that preservation of
trees will be honored on a permanent basis."
Response: The City and its Housing & Redevelopment Authority have
• both taken steps to assure the parcels intended for tree preservation will
continue to be used for that purpose. The Housing & Redevelopment
7
Authority has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
TOLD dated March 18, 1996, which addresses tree preservation. The
City Council has provided protection through the Landscape Plan
approved as part of the Planned Unit Development.
5. Minnesota Department of Transportation. The MNDOT letter addressed
future property takings, frontage road access, traffic analysis issues, traffic
improvements, and required MNDOT permits.
a. Comment: Referring to future plans to reconstruct the I -35W/I -494
interchange, MNDOT noted the proposed buildings or parking lots
would not be affected but that some property might be required by
MNDOT along the south and west edges of the Project site.
Response: TOLD's architect used MNDOT's latest reconstruction
plans in developing the Project's site plan in order to avoid significant
conflicts with the potential future reconstruction of the I -35W/I -494
interchange. Any questions of future property taking should be
addressed when the reconstruction project is funded.
b. Comment: The I -35W/I -494 interchange reconstruction plans also call
for one -way frontage roads between Lyndale Avenue and Penn Avenue
with limited access from other streets. MNDOT notes that the
secondary Project entrances onto the frontage road may have to be
closed in conjunction with the interchange replacement.
Response: Frontage road access will finally be addressed when the
reconstruction project is funded. Meanwhile, the City is working with
TOLD and adjacent property owners to consider various solutions to
frontage road access if the interchange were reconstructed.
C. Comment: MNDOT expressed concern that the projected level of
service in the traffic analysis may be optimistic given the current traffic
volumes in the area.
Response: The traffic analysis used current traffic levels as a base for
projecting future traffic demand. Further, the analysis used traffic signal
timing parameters that are the same or very similar to the existing timing
settings for the signals. The City believes the expected levels of service
are accurate.
•
�_ I d,
• d. Comment: MNDOT noted that the analysis seems to be based on
studies of individual intersections and suggested that a study of the
intersections in series would be necessary.
Response: MNDOT's comment regarding the importance of studying
intersections in a series is correct. MNDOT is incorrect, however, in
suggesting that the EAW analysis is based only on studies of individual
intersections. Consideration has been given to maintaining progressive
traffic flow through the multiple, signalized intersections in the area.
The traffic signals on Lyndale Avenue and on 77th Street are included
in a current traffic management project that is applying state -of -the -art
computer equipment to expedite traffic flow.
e. Comment: MNDOT states that dual left turn lanes are warranted at
both Lyndale Avenue/I -494 ramp intersections (rather than the single
left turn lanes suggested as mitigation measures in the EAW).
f. Response: The City does not agree that dual left turn lanes are needed.
The traffic analysis shows that in the year 2001 with full Project
development and single left turn lanes, the Lyndale Avenue /South I-
494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of Service C and the
Lyndale Avenue/North I -494 ramp intersection would operate at Level
Of Service B. These are fully adequate levels of service.
g. Comment: MNDOT also states that the 76th Street/Girard Avenue
intersection will warrant dual left turn lanes from eastbound 76th Street
to northbound I -35W.
Response: Again, the City disagrees. The traffic analysis shows that in
the year 2001 with full Project development and a single left turn lane
for eastbound traffic, the 76th Street/Girard Avenue intersection will
operate at Level Of Service B. This is a high quality level of service.
h. Comment: MNDOT notes that the addition of dual left turn lanes may
require bridge widening , and this should be coordinated with bridge
reconstruction. MNDOT recommends that other traffic improvements
should be in place on the day the development opens and notes that
transportation improvements "necessitated by local development are the
financial responsibility of the developer, the local government, or both."
Response: The City recognizes that the addition of left turn lanes on
the Lyndale Avenue bridge over I -494 will require bridge widening.
The City would be pleased to coordinate with MNDOT when MNDOT
6
•
�rl
schedules bridge reconstruction. Through the ISP process, the MPCA
will provide assurance that any traffic improvements required to meet
applicable noise and air quality standards will be implemented as
needed. The City and TOLD understand who is responsible for the
costs of the traffic improvements.
Comment: MNDOT notes that MNDOT stormwater drainage is
required for the Project and a permit would be required if any work
occurred within MNDOT's right of way.
Response: TOLD will secure all appropriate MNDOT permits.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and Minn. Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (1995).
2. The EAW took into account all cumulative effects of the Project's two phases
and other development under way in the immediate vicinity.
3. Substantive comments received during and after the comment period have been
responded to by the City and TOLD.
4. The type and extent of the environmental impacts described in the EAW and in
the comments are minimal.
5. The potential environmental impacts which do occur, such as increased
stormwater runoff, traffic, traffic related air emissions, tree removal, etc., are mitigated by the
Project design and subject to control through state permits and regulations and City
ordinances.
iff
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Note to Preparers
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project
proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but it is not to complete the
final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as
necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at
(612) 296 -8253 or (toll -free) 1- 800 - 652 -9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or
' consult "EAW Guidelines ", a booklet available from the EQB.
Note to Reviewers
' Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see Item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice of
the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.)
' Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may
warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an
EIS (see Item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest
issues for investigation in the EIS.
' 1. Project Title Meridian Crossings
2. Proposer TOLD Development Company 3. RGU City of Richfield
Contact person Walter H. Rockenstein II Contact person Bruce Palmborg
Address Faegre & Benson, 2200 Norwest Center and title Acting Dir. /Community Dvlpmt.
90 S. Seventh St., Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3901 Address Richfield City Hall
' Phone (612) 336 -3281 6700 Portland Ave.. Richfield, MN 55423
Phone (612) 861 -9760
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
' ❑ EIS scoping n mandatory EAW ❑ citizen petition ❑ RGU discretion ❑ Proposer volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category numbers) 4410.4300 Subp. 14
5. Project Location
SW Y4 SE Y4 Section 33 Township 28 Range 34 '
' County Hennepin City Richfield
Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW:
a. a county map showing the general location of the project; See Exhibit 5.12
lA previous Environmental Assessment Worksheet addressed development on this site. In November of
' 1985, an EAW was prepared for a mixed use development including a 25 story office tower and a 375 room
hotel proposed by CDR Investments.
2Exhibits have been numbered to correspond to the Item Number of the Environmental Assessment
' Worksheet form and placed at the back of this EAW. For example, the three exhibits required by Item No. 5
have been numbered 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and will be found after the EAW text behind a gray sheet entitled
"Exhibits for No. 5."
1
i
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;
See Exhibit 5.2
c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. See Exhibit 5.3
6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach
additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will
cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of
construction activities.
The proposed Meridian Crossings is a 9.5 -acre office development comprised of two office
buildings and two parking structures. The total office development will be 434,700 gross
square feet. Total parking provided will be 1,646 spaces. The project is located on 77th Street
in Richfield, Minnesota, in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 494 and
Interstate 35W.
The project size may vary, based on market conditions. Phase I may be from 6 to 8 stories
while Phase H may be from 8 to 10 stories. For purposes of this EAW, the maximum level of
development has been assumed; this will produce the maximum estimate of potential
ienvironmental impacts.
Based on this maximum development scenario, Phase I will feature an eight -story building
with a gross area of 193,100 square feet and a rentable area of 182,450 square feet. Phase H
' will feature a ten -story building with a gross area of 241,600 and a rentable area of
228,900 square feet. Structured parking, heated underground executive parking, and surface
lots will provide tenants with 730 stalls for Phase I and 916 stalls for Phase 11.
1 Meridian Crossings is responsive to the demands of corporate office users. The Class -A office
market along the I-494 "strip" is currently experiencing a vacancy rate of 2.7 percent.
Continuous blocks of space for tenants requiring more than 10,000 square feet are not
available. Construction of Meridian Crossings could begin as early as summer 1996. It is ,
anticipated that both phases of the project will be completed in three to five years. The
timing of this project correlates closely with the high demand and limited supply in the
market.
Meridian Crossings provides appealing Class -A space that is well- appointed, efficient, and
economical. Set amidst a grove of oak trees, the buildings are rectangular in shape and will
feature a stopped glass curtain wall facing the interchange. Meridian Crossings' design
provides an extremely efficient, virtually column -free floor plate that features 10 glass corner
offices per floor. The exterior will be constructed of pre -cast concrete with complementary
granite chip aggregate and reflective glass accented with medallions of polished granite.
Shared conference facilities, quality tenant improvement materials, and extensive storage
space are additional features that tenants will enjoy.
7. Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) 9.5 acres or Length (miles) Not Applicable
Number of Residential Units
Unattached 0 Attached 0
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total 434.700 square feet;
Indicate area of specific uses (square feet):
Office 434.700 Manufacturing 0 -
Retail 0 Other Industrial 0
Warehouse 0 Institutional 0
Light Industrial 0 Agricultural 0
Other Commercial (specify) 0
Building Height(s) Phase I office bldg-8 stories (max.). Phase H office bldg -10 stories (max.)
2
/)-/to
8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and
funding required:
Units of Government Tyne of Application Status
' Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit for Filling Wetland Submitted 12- 18 -95,
(Pending)
State
MPCA
MN Department of Health
MPCA
MPCA
Metropolitan
MCES
NPDES Construction Permit
Water Main Extension Approval
Sanitary Sewer Extension
Indirect Source Permit
Sanitary Sewer Extension
To be submitted
To be submitted
To be submitted
To be submitted
To be submitted
Local
City of Richfield Planned Unit Development Application Submitted
City of Richfield (LGU) WCA Wetland Permit To be submitted
' City of Richfield Final Plat Approval To be submitted
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.
Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any
potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to
past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks.
1�
1
In the recent past, the south half of the site was used to stockpile and process topsoil and
concrete and asphalt rubble. A motel (The Cloverleaf Motel) was present on the south half of
the site from approximately 1955 until approximately 1986 at which time it was razed. Prior
to the motel, the south half of the site was farmland. Presently, there are no structures or
stockpiles on the site. Adjoining the site on the north side is a recently constructed church.
The east side of the site is adjoined by 77th Street and a large retail strip mall called The
Shops at Lyndale. Interstate 494 and 35W right -of -way is south and west of the site. Adjoining
the site on the west is Girard Avenue and a multi -level office building. All adjacent areas are
fully developed. The project is compatible with present adjacent land use but not with
present zoning. The project is presently proceeding through the PUD Permit Approval
process which will provide for rezoning of the site consistent with the proposed project.
A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was completed by GME Consultants, Inc. in 1992. Based
on information obtained from public agencies and a site visit, GME found no evidence of
environmental contamination. A heating oil tank was likely associated with the motel on the
site. City files could not verify the presence or absence of USTs or AGSTs on the site and GME
found no evidence of USTs or AGSTs during their site visit as reported in the Phase 1 EA.
Excavations around the former motel site should be monitored for the presence of organic
vapors.
10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development (before and after totals should be equal):
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the
project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
3
Before
After
Before
After
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands
0.8 ac.
0.0 ac.
Urban/Suburban Lawn Landscaping
0.5
3.3
Wooded/Forest
3.5
1.0
Impervious Surface
0
5.2
Brush/Grassland
1.4
0
Other (describe) Stockpile area
3.3
0
Cropland
0
0
Industrial site
0
0
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the
project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
3
'The site is predominantly comprised of upland habitat, with one small wetland in the
• northeast corner and one small stormwater pond just east of the wetland. The upland
habitat is comprised of a recently restored construction stockpile area (topsoil and seeded,
' November, 1995), a forest area, and an open pasture area. Debris such as household
garbage, demolition materials and automobile parts are scattered throughout these forest
areas. These conditions were also noted in the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment by GME
Consultants, Inc. in 1992.
Forest Area
The tree layer of the forest area (upland habitat) is dominated by bur oak (quercus
' macrocarpa), green ash and elm. The individual growth patterns of the bur oak trees at
this site indicate that the site previously comprised an oak savannah habitat which has
succeeded into a more densely tree - populated mixed hardwood forest. The forest area
' shrub layer is dominated by green ash, with occasional occurrences of common buckthorn
and bog elder.
The forest area ground layer is comprised of species typical of ruderal habitat, with some
1 native woodland species, such as Virginia creeper, nettles, seedlings of the tree and shrub
species mentioned above, snakeroot, purple nightshade, raspberry and, infrequently,
Solomon's seal. This indicates that the forest area has been subjected to at least a moderate
amount of disturbance in its history as a forest. Historic aerial photos indicate that
' grazing by farm animals took place in the forest area.
Open Pasture Area
' The open pasture area is dominated up upland grass spp., with common occurrence of
yellow sweet clover, white sweet clover, various species of thistles, leafy spurge, white
sweet clover, and yellow foxtail. These species are all typical of disturbed habitat.
Wetland
The upland edges surrounding the wetland area are predominated by an herb layer.
1 However, bog elder trees are the dominant tree species in a row of trees between the
wetland area and Girard Avenue. The herb layer surrounding the wetland is comprised, of
yellow foxtail, green foxtail, and, on the west edge of the wetland, bog elder tree seedlings.
' The wetland area is predominately a monotypic stand of reed canary grass, with some
smartweed species. The wetland area would be classified as a Type 2 wet meadow under
the "Circular 39" wetland classification system, and as a PEMC under the "Cowardin"
system.
A small stormwater pond (300 square foot surface area) is located east of the wetland area.
Surface water from a portion of the church property is routed to this pond. No vegetation
1 is growing in the ponded area, but smartweed species and bare ground surrounded the
edge of the surface water. The area appears to be recently graded and seeded. Upland
vegetation around this surface water area is predominately yellow foxtail grass.
Impacts
The mature oak trees on the site are considered an asset to the development, and therefore
1 every effort will be made to preserve as many of them as possible. The alignment of the
entry road from 77th Street was selected because it minimises the loss of trees. Mature
trees on both sides of the road will be preserved and additional trees will be added as part
of the landscaping plan. At locations where earth cuts near trees are necessary to obtain
' proper road grades, retaining walls will be installed to reduce damage to tree root systems.
To maximize the number of trees saved, trench widths will be minimised as much as
possible while also considering safety requirements. During construction, special care will
1 4
i
�_ is
be taken to ensure the long -term preservation of trees that have been designated to be
saved. This will include temporary fencing around trees to limit construction traffic over
the roots and also limit the chances of accidental and unnecessary damage to roots and
limbs. If damage does occur, limbs and roots will be pruned in accordance with sound
forestry specifications.
Despite the effort to save the maximum number of mature trees, wildlife habitat on the site
' will be largely eliminated. Wildlife likely to be affected by loss of habitat include the
species typically inhabiting urban environments such as grey 'squirrels, cottontail rabbits
and miscellaneous birds.
' b. Are there any state- listed endangered, threatened, or special- concern species; rare plant communities;
colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological
resources on or near the site?
' ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of
the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
' See Exhibit 11.1 for response from MnDNR Natural Heritage Database. No records exist of
endangered, threatened or special- concern species on or near the site; the nearest reported
occurrences were at Wood Lake Nature Center, nearly one -half mile north of the site.
' 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration
(dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake,
pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ® Yes ❑ No
' If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction
process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area
affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed
mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
The existing wetland in the NW corner of the site will be completely filled. The wetland was
delineated in the field and found to be 0.82 acres and was classified as a Type H wetland. The
wetland is a low quality wetland that has been heavily impacted by the surrounding street,
' freeway, and commercial development and will continue to degrade with time. The wetland
will be filled using on -site soils as described in Item 16 below. The wetland is -presently
landlocked with a low point of approximately 819. Once developed, the area will function as
' an inundation area for stormwater runoff with a outlet pipe installed at the low point of 826.5.
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Application for filling the wetland was
submitted on 1248 -95. The application includes provisions to mitigate the wetland on a 2:1
' basis. The creation of a 1.64 -acre high quality wetland on City property is proposed. The
replacement wetland will be located east of the Richfield Water Treatment Plant and adjacent
to Legion Lake. The wetland will be constructed to provide a wide variety of wetland
functions and values.
' 13. Water Use
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yes ® No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously
unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
The following information related to past wells on the site was obtained from the Phase 1
EA prepared by GME Consultants, Inc. The former motel was serviced by a 6 -inch, 231- foot
deep well located approximately 80 feet to the NE of the NE corner of the former motel
building. The MDH Well Management Unit indicated that the well was abandoned in
November, 1985, by Keys Well Company. The well apparently was not registered with the
' MN Geological Survey.
it, 5
1 '7 -19
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)?
❑ Yes n No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water
appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation
appropriation permit number of any existing p pp riation p
on ground water levels.
c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? ® Yes ❑ No
1 If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the
quantity to be used.
The project will connect to the City of Richfield municipal water supply system.
' Connections will be made to the 12 -inch watermain within the Emerson Avenue right -of-
way on the east and to the 10 -inch watermain on Girard Avenue on the west, thus creating
a loop through the project. The water demand for Phase I is calculated to be 140 gpm peak
and 35 gpm normal. The water demand for Phase H is calculated to be 157 gpm peak and
15 gpm normal. The City has. the following MnDNR Water Appropriation Permits: #620691,
#631122, #670095 and #856335.
' 14. Water - related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland
zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river
land use district? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the
district.
The project is not in a shoreland zoning district. The City of Richfield Comprehensive Surface
' Water Management Plan dated May, 1995 indicates that the City is in the process of
developing Shoreland Management Regulations. The same Plan indicates that the previously
issued FEMA Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for the City of Richfield were rescinded effective
August 10, 1981.
The City has established a 100 -year flood elevation of 829.0 for the wetland area in the NW
corner of the site. The church adjacent to the north of the site is the only present structure
adjacent to this area. The church was to be constructed with a minimum low entry elevation
' of 831.0, or 2 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation. All structures associated with this
project will have low entry elevations at or above 831.0. The proposed storm sewer outlet and
inundation area will be designed to maintain the 100 -year flood elevation at 829.0 for the fully
' developed conditions.
15. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
❑ Yes ® No
' If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources.
NOT APPLICABLE
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum 7 average 20 Bedrock: minimum 100 average 100
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring
logs need not be attached.)
A report entitled A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Told Development Company. dated
1 November 29, 1995, was completed by Braun Intertec for this site. This report found the
surficial groundwater surface to be near Elevation 815. Elevations across the site range from
848 to 819. The soils near the surface in the southern portion of the site (the former motel and
stockpile area) consist of topsoil over 2 to 7 feet of fill (silty sand). The forest areas have
approximately 6 inches of topsoil (SM) and approximately 1 foot of topsoil (SM) is present at
the surface in the wetland area. The fill and topsoil is generally underlain by alluvial sands
including silty sand (SM) and poorly graded sands (SP -SM and SP). Soils beneath the topsoil
t 6
7 -d0
in and near the wetland could possibly be fill or slopewash. A 2 -foot layer of slightly organic
lean clay (CL) was encountered approximately 12 feet below the surface in the wetland.
17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to
be moved:
acres 8.5 ;cubic yards 40.000 .
1 Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
' All slopes will be 3H:1V or flatter. All areas that are graded will either be impervious surface
(buildings or roads), sodded, or left in their natural condition. An on -site storm sewer system
will convey storm flows off the site and thus minimize concentrated overland flows. Storm
sewer outfalls will be protected with riprap.
' An erosion control plan will be prepared as part of the construction plans for this site. The
plan will meet the requirements necessary to obtain an NPDES permit for construction
activities. Prior to the start of construction, silt fence and/or staked hay bales will be installed
' around the perimeter of the site at locations where sediment could leave the site. Best
management practices (BMPs) such as rock filter dikes will be placed at site access locations.
Storm sewer inlets will be surrounded with additional silt fence or hay bales to prevent
' sediment from entering the storm sewer system. The two low areas on the site will become
inundated during a storm event. This will provide for sedimentation during and after
construction. Grit chamber manholes will provide for the removal of sediment washing off
roadways and the parking decks.
' 18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be
used to manage and/or treat runoff.
NStormwater runoff from the project site will be routed to two separate trunk storm sewer
systems. The first system will handle runoff from approximately the west one half of the
site, including the two office buildings. The runoff from this area is routed to the storage
' depression in the NW corner of the site. The area tributary to this depression includes the
church property adjacent to the north side of the site. An outlet pipe from this depression
connects to the existing 42 -inch concrete pipe that presently bisects the site. Capacity in
' this storm sewer will be more than adequate, since 115 acres of Richfield that were
tributary to this pipe will be diverted into the new 77th Street trunk storm sewer. The
42 -inch concrete pipe is part of the trunk storm sewer that flows west across Interstate 35W
(into the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District), then south down Penn Avenue in
' Bloomington to where it outlets into Upper Penn Lake. The peak 100 -year flow (developed
conditions) from the depression in the NW corner of the site was calculated to be
approximately 20 cfs.
' Stormwater runoff from the eastern one half of the site, including both parking decks, will
flow to the new 77th Street trunk storm sewer system. This system flows north and
eventually outlets into Wood Lake. The peak flows from the eastern portion of the site will
' be reduced by providing storage on the upper deck of the parking ramps and in the natural
depression that exists on the eastern edge of the site. The peak 5 -year design flow
(developed conditions) from the eastern portion of the site was calculated to be 4 cfs.
Presently, runoff from this area flows either to the land- locked depression and infiltrates,
' or to the adjacent parking lot on the eastern side of the site.
The runoff from the eastern side of the site will ultimately reach Wood Lake. This runoff
will be pre- treated by passing through sump manholes on site for grit removal. Between
the site and Wood Lake, the City of Richfield is constructing a water quality detention and
• treatment basin at the downstream end of the trunk storm sewer. This regional basin will
7
provide water quality treatment for runoff from the site prior to discharge to the wetlands
of Wood Lake.
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the
' runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EAW
Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
See Item 18a above.
19. Water Quality - Wastewaters
' - - a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and
industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site.
Normal wastewater typical of commercial office space will be generated as part of this
' project. Each office building will have a service lead that will connect to the City of
Richfield sanitary sewer system located on Girard Avenue. The sanitary sewer flows west
across Interstate 35W to a lift station at Knox Avenue and 77th Street. This system should
have sufficient capacity, since a large tributary area upstream of the site has been recently
diverted. The sanitary sewer that bisects the site will be abandoned from Emerson Avenue
to Girard Avenue as part of this project. The wastewater flows for Phase I are calculated to
be 95 gpm peak or 30 gpm normal. For Phase H the peak discharge will be 110 gpm and the
normal flow will be 30 gpm.
b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment,
or if the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such
systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge
on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines"
about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
'II No wastewater will be treated on -site. All wastewater will be treated by a Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services wastewater treatment plant.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and
' discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any
improvements which will be necessary.
See Item 19a above.
20. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 7 minimum; 20 average.
' Groundwater elevation is approximately Elevation 815.
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map:
' sinkholes, shallow limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned
or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these
hazards.
The on -site soils are primarily loose alluvial sands (see Item 16 above).
An abandoned well exists on this site (see Item 13 above). The exact location is unknown.
' The well was apparently abandoned in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
The approximate location of the well is known. Minimal earth cuts in the vicinity of the
well are proposed and therefore this situation does not pose a risk to the groundwater.
1�
1
I -C3 CD-
CD-
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify
measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water.
Normal small quantities of toxic or hazardous materials associated with the construction,
operation, and maintenance of commercial office space will be used and present as part of
this project. All such materials will be handled in compliance with applicable Federal and
State regulations.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including
animal manures, sludges, and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects
generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how
the project will be modified to allow recycling.
Normal solid waste typical of commercial office space will be generated as part of this
project. Normal construction debris will be generated during the construction of the
project. Solid waste will be handled by private haulers and disposed of in licensed solid
waste facilities in accordance with State and Hennepin County requirements.
b. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage
of petroleum products or other materials ( except water).
No below ground storage tanks will be part of this project.
22. Traffic Parking spaces added 1646 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 Estimated
total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 4260 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if
known) and its timing 550 at 5-6 p.m. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional
distribution of traffic with and without the Project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic
congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary.
Daily and peak hour trip generation was estimated using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Trip Generation, 5th Edition, resulting in the volumes listed in Item 22 (ADT
generated--4260; Peak hour traffic generated --550 at 6 p.m.). The following three scenarios
were analyzed: (1) 1998 with Phase I of the proposed office development, (2) 2001 without the
office development; and (3) 2001 with Phases I and 11 of the office development. Daily trips
generated by the proposed development were added to the 1998 and 2001 background traffic
volumes on Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street. The 1998 and 2001 background daily traffic
volumes were developed based on existing daily volumes on each roadway. The resultant
daily volumes for each scenario are shown in Exhibit 22.1. PAL peak hour turn movement
volumes were also developed for the following five intersections: 76th Street/Girard Avenue,
77th Street/Meridian Crossings access, 77th Street/Lyndale Avenue, Lyndale Avenue/North I-
494 ramp and Lyndale Avenue /South I-494 ramp. These volumes are shown in Exhibit 222.
Capacity analyses were performed for the five interesections listed above using the p.m. peak
hour volumes for each scenario. All of these interesections presently are signalized except for
the Meridian Crossings access on 77th Street.
The capacity analyses for this intersection assume that it will be signalized because studies
have shown that standard engineering warrants will probably be met with Phase I of the
development and will certainly be met for Phase H. Current assumptions call for the Phase I
building to be 85 percent leased prior to opening. With 85 percent occupancy, standard traffic
warrants for a signal will be met.
For the first two scenarios (1998 with Phase I of the office development and 2001 without the
office development), existing roadway geometries were assumed to still be in place. The
analyses for these two scenarios resulted in level of service B for the 76th StreetJGirard
Avenue and 77th Street/Meridian Crossings access intersections, level of service C for the
Lyndale Avenue/North and South I -494 ramp intersections and level of service D for the 77th
Street Lyndale Avenue intersection.
For the 2001 with Phases I and H of the office development scenario, existing geometries
' resulted in unacceptable levels of service on Lyndale Avenue. These results are dependent
upon the assumption of growth in both background traffic volume and the growth in volume
from the Meridian Crossings development. The City of Richfield will monitor the areas of
' concern annually and, if justified, make appropriate roadway improvements for Lyndale
Avenue. Current long -range plans indicate that these improvements could include the
following:
1) an eastbound right turn lane and a second northbound left turn lane at the 77th
Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection,
2) a southbound right turn lane and northbound left turn at the Lyndale Avenue/North I -494
ramp intersection, and/or
' 3) a southbound left turn lane at the Lyndale Avenue/South I -494 ramp intersection.
Based on the traffic growth assumptions used in this analysis, with these improvements in
' place, the 77th Street Lyndale Avenue and Lyndale Avenue/South I.494 ramp intersections will
operate at level of service C and the Lyndale Avenue/North I-494 ramp intersection will
operate at level of service B. The 76th Street intersections with Girard Avenue and the 77th
Street/Meridian Crossings access will continue to operate at level of service B.
23. Vehicle- related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air
quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation
' measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or more parldng spaces, consult "EAW
Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.)
Background Carbon Monoxide Levels
Previous air quality studies in the study area include:
• 77th Street Corridor environmental studies
I -35W Environmental Impact Statement
MSP Alternative Environmental Document
• Vehicle inspection maintenance site air quality studies
n
1
1
The Carbon Monoxide background used here is identical to that used for the air quality
analysis in support of the Shops at Lyndale Indirect Source Permit Application. The Shops at
Lyndale development is located adjacent to and immediately east of this project. The
background concentration is based upon monitoring completed for the I -35W EIS in 1989 at
66th Street in Richfield east of I -35W. In addition three of the five intersections evaluated in
this Application are identical to those evaluated for the Shops at Lyndale. To adjust for the
difference in year between 1996 (Shops at Lyndale projection year) and 2001 (Meridian
Crossings projection year), an assumed VMT growth of 2 percent per year and the change in
fleet emissions using the MOBILE 5A model were used. The assumed CO background
concentrations for the year 2001 are presented in Table 23.1.
Table 23.1
CO Background - 2001
Time Period
MPCA Standard
Assumed Background
Concentration
1 -Hour
30 ppm
4.7 ppm
8 -Hour
9 ppm
2.2 ppm
10
4
1
c
A
n
1�
1
Location of CO Receptor Sites
')-c3v
The nearest structures adjacent to each of the four critical intersections have been selected as
receptor sites for Carbon Monoxide. These receptor sites are shown in Exhibit 23.1.
Assumptions Used in CO Emission and Dispersion Modeling
The air quality analysis is based upon traffic projections presented in Question 22 assuming
construction of both Phase I and Phase H. The U.S. EPA MOBILE 5A emissions model with
standard assumptions on tampering and misfueling was run for the year 2001 with speeds of
2.5 mph (for idle emissions) and 25 mph (for typical intersection approach speed). Use of the
25 mph approach speed provides a conservative estimate of vehicle emissions. The CAL3QHC
highway dispersion model has been used to estimate downwind concentrations of carbon
monoxide at receptor sites adjacent to critical intersections. The primary traffic and
meteorological assumptions used are summarized in emissions and dispersions models are
shown Table 23.2.
Table 23.2
Assumptions Used In CO Modeling
Projection year 2001 (year after project completion)
Traffic Approach Speed: 25 mph on all roadways
Signal Cycle Time: 90 seconds
Green /Cycle Time Ratios: (variable)
Percent Cold Starts: 20%
Vehicle Mix: Metropolitan Area Average
Wind Speed: 1 meter per second
Wind Direction: Direction yielding highest concentration
While some geometric improvements to the three intersections along Lyndale Avenue are
proposed, no improvements to roadways or intersections have been assumed for this analysis.
Proiected CO Concentrations
Based upon the approach traffic volumes, estimated intersection capacities, and the emission
assumptions noted above, carbon monoxide concentrations have been projected for each of the
receptor sites for the No -Build and Build scenarios. The 1 -hour concentrations are presented
in Table 23.3. The 8 -hour concentrations are presented in Table 23A.
11
�,01 S--
Table 23.3
1 -Hour CO Concentrations - 2001
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 2
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 3
Note: "Build" describes conditions after construction of Phase I and Phase II of proposed Meridian Crossings
project.
Table 23.4
8 -Hour CO Concentrations - 2001
No Build
Build
(ppm)
(ppm)
Intersection /Receptor Site
Roadway
Background
Total
Roadway
Background
Total
76th Street/Girard Avenue
Receptor Site 1 (NE)
1.0
4.7
5.7
1.0
1.0
5.7
Receptor Site 2 (SE)
1.0
4.7
5.7
1.0
4.7
5.7
Receptor Site 3 (SW)
0.9
4.7
5.6
0.9
4.7
5.6
Receptor Site 4 (NW)
1.0
4.7
5.7
1.1
4.7
5.8
77th Street/Main Access
Receptor Site 1 (NE)
0.4
4.7
5.1
0.7
4.7
5.4
Receptor Site 2 (SE)
0.4
4.7
5.1
0.5
4.7
5.2
Receptor Site 3 (SW)
0.5
4.7
5.1
0.7
4.7
5.4
Receptor Site 4 (NW)
0.4
4.7
5.1
0.6
4.7
5.3
77th Street/Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (NE)
0.9
4.7
5.6
1.1
4.7
5.8
Rec 2 (SE)
0.9
4.7
5.6
1.0
4.7
5.7
Rec 3 (SW)
1.2
4.7
5.9
1.6
4.7
6.3
Rec 4 (NW)
1.7
4.7
6.4
2.1
4.7
6.8
WB Ramps /Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (NE)'
0.6
4.7
5.3
0.9
4.7
5.6
Rec 2 (NW)'
0.8
4.7
5.5
1.7
4.7
6.4
EB Ramps /Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (SE)
0.8
4.7
5.5
0.9
4.7
5.6
Rec 2 (SW)
0.7
4.7
5.4
0.7
4.7
5.4
MPCA STANDARD
30.0
30.0
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 2
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 3
Note: "Build" describes conditions after construction of Phase I and Phase II of proposed Meridian Crossings
project.
Table 23.4
8 -Hour CO Concentrations - 2001
12
No Build
Build
(ppm)
(ppm)
Intersection /Receptor Site
Roadway
Background
Total
Roadway
Background
Total
76th Street/Girard Avenue
Rec 1 (NE)
0.6
2.2
2.8
0.6
2.2
2.8
Rec 2 (SE)
0.7
2.2
2.9
0.7
2.2
2.9
Rec 3 (SW)
0.5
2.2
2.7
0.5
2.2
2.7
Rec 4 (NW)
0.6
2.2
2.8
0.6
2.2
2.8
12
7
Table 23.4 (cont.)
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 2
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 3
Note: 'Build" describes conditions after construction of Phase I and Phase II of proposed Meridian Crossings
' project.
It can be seen from the tables that even with the conservative assumptions on background
' concentration, no violations of the MPCA ambient air quality standards are projected in 2001.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are anticipated from the project.
24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such
' as boilers or exhaust stacks)?
® Yes o No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution
' control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air
quality.
The project will be heated by a natural gas mechanical system with a peak input of
approximately 12,000 MBH and peak output of approximately 10,440 MBH. The plant will
generate carbon dioxide, smaller quantities of nitrous oxides, and very small amounts of other
combustion byproducts. All emissions are expected to be far below thresholds for new source
permitting. Emissions will be vented through a roof stack. Effects on air quality from the
' system are expected to be negligible.
' 13
No Build
Build
(ppm)
(ppm)
Intersection /Receptor Site
Roadway
Background
Total
Roadway
Background
Total"
77th Street/Main Access
Rec 1 (NE)
0.4
2.2 :
2.6
o.4
2.2
2.6
Rec 2 (SE)
0.3
2.2
2.5
0.4
2.2
2.6
Rec 3 (SW)
0.3
2.2
2.5
0.5
2.2
2.7
Rec 4 (NW)
1 0.3
1 2.2
2.5
1 0.5
2.2
2.7
77th Street/Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (NE)
0.6
2.2
2.8
0.9
2.2
3.1
Rec 2 (SE)
0.6
2.2
2.8
0.7
2.2
2.9
Rec 3 (SW)
0.8
2.2
3
1.1
2.2
3.3
Rec 4 (NW)
1.2
2.2
3.4
1.3
2.2
3.5
WB Ramps /Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (NE)'
0.5
2.2
2.7
0.5
2.2
2.7
Rec 2 (NW)2
0.6
2.2
2.8
0.6
2.2
2.8
EB Ramps /Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (SE)
0.4
2.2
2.6
0.4
2.2
2.6
Rec 2 (SW)
0.4
2.2
2.6
0.4
2.2
2.6
MPCA STANDARD
9
9
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 2
'Same as 77th/Lyndale Receptor Site 3
Note: 'Build" describes conditions after construction of Phase I and Phase II of proposed Meridian Crossings
' project.
It can be seen from the tables that even with the conservative assumptions on background
' concentration, no violations of the MPCA ambient air quality standards are projected in 2001.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are anticipated from the project.
24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such
' as boilers or exhaust stacks)?
® Yes o No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution
' control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air
quality.
The project will be heated by a natural gas mechanical system with a peak input of
approximately 12,000 MBH and peak output of approximately 10,440 MBH. The plant will
generate carbon dioxide, smaller quantities of nitrous oxides, and very small amounts of other
combustion byproducts. All emissions are expected to be far below thresholds for new source
permitting. Emissions will be vented through a roof stack. Effects on air quality from the
' system are expected to be negligible.
' 13
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ® Yes ❑ No
16
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed
measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and
' estimate the impacts on these receptors.
Construction equipment will generate normal amounts of dust, noise, and odors typical of a
heavy construction project. All equipment will be muffled. Dust will be controlled using
water trucks. All State regulations and City ordinances related to dust and noise during
construction will be enforced. See Item 23 for post - construction air quality analysis.
Identification of Noise Receptor Sites
The location of noise receptor sites relative to roadways carrying project traffic are shown in
Exhibit 25.1. A 12 -foot high noise wall is in place on the north side of 77th Street beginning
' just east of its intersection with 76th Street and extending to the commercial area along
Lyndale Avenue. A new 12 -foot noise wall will be constructed on the north side of 77th Street
beginning just west of 76th Street and extending west to the on -ramp and then north to
connect with the existing I -35W noise wall. This noise wall will be in place prior to the
opening of the project. A noise variance from MPCA standards for nighttime noise due to
traffic on 77th Street has been issued by the State of Minnesota. However, since no significant
traffic is expected to be generated by the proposed project during the nighttime hours, no
' problems or conflicts with the existing noise variances are anticipated. The closest receptor
sites are homes behind the noise wall and commercial establishments near the critical
intersections.
1 Assumptions Used in the Noise Analysis
The Federal Highway STAMINA 2.0 Highway Noise Model has been used to estimate noise
levels at these receptor sites. Speeds of 35 mph along 77th Street and 30 mph on other
roadways have been assumed to provide a conservative estimate of traffic noise impacts.
Noise contributions from traffic on local roads (not including I494) are included in this
analysis. A vehicle mix of 96 percent automobiles, 3 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent
heavy trucks have been assumed on all roadways.
' Proiected Noise Levels
Projected No -Build and Build noise levels for 2001 and the expected increase in noise level due
to the project are shown in Table 25.1. A comparison between the no -build and build levels
relative to the state daytime noise standards is presented in Table 252.
1
1
1
1
1�
Table 25.1
Projected Noise Levels and Differences - 2001
Intersection
L10 Noise Levels (dBA)
L50 Noise Levels (dBA)
Receptor Site
No-Build
Build
Increase
No -Build
Build
Increase
76th Street/Girard Ave
Rec 1 (home)
56.9
57
0.1
52.1
52.1
0.1
Rec 2 (home)
56.3
56.4
0.1
51.4
51.5
0.1
Rec 3 (church)
67.4
67.5
0.1
63.9
64.1
0.2
Rec 4 (office)
67.1
67.3
0.2
63.6
63.8
0.2
Rec 5 (home)
56.8
56.9
0.1
63.5
52.2
0.2
77th Street /Main Access
Rec 1 (home)
54.5
55.2
0.7
48.4
49.4
1
Rec 2 (home)
54.5
55.3
0.7
48.4
49.6
1.2
77th Street/Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (business)
71.5
71.8
0.3
66.2
66.6
0.4
Rec 2 (business)
68
68.2
0.2
63.9
64.2
0.3
Rec 3 (hotel)
66.4
66.7
0.3
62.8
63.3
0.5
Rec 4 (restaurant)
66.8
67.3
0.5
62.8
63.5
0.7
Table 25.2
Project Levels Relative to State Noise Standard - 2001
15
Predicted L10 Level
Predicted L50 Level
Relative to L10
Relative to L50
Roadway
Segment and
MPCA L10
Standard (dBA)
MPCA L50
Standard (dBA)
Receptor Site
Standard
No-Build
Build
Standard
No-Build
Build
76th Street/Girard Avenue
Rec 1 (home)
65
-8.1
2.4
60
3.8
3.9
Rec 2 (home)
65
1.5
1.6
60
2.9
3.0
Rec 3 (church)
65
2.4
2.5
60
3.9
4.1
Rec 4 (office)
70
-2.9
-2.7
65
-1.4
-1.2
Rec 5 (home)
65
2.2
2.4
60
3.5
3.7
77th Street/Main Access
Rec 1 (home)
65
-
-9.8
60
-
-10.6
Rec 2 (home)
65
-
-9.7
60
-
-10.4
77th Street/Lyndale Avenue
Rec 1 (business)
70
1.5
1.8
65
1.2
1.6
Rec 2 (business)
70
-2.0
-1.8
65
-1.1
-0.8
Rec 3 (hotel)
65
1.4
1.7
60
2.8
3.3
Rec 4 (restaurant)
70
-3.2
-2.7
65
-2.2
-1.5
15
? a9
It can be seen that the maximum increase in the L10 noise level is 0.5 dBA and the maximum
increase in L50 noise level is 0.7 dBA. These both occur at the restaurant in the southeast
quadrant of the 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection.
Predicted noise levels at the homes adjacent to 76th Street and the Girard Avenue on -ramp to
I.35 are below or only slightly above the L10 and L50 standards for both the Build and No-
Build scenarios. These levels are based on the construction of a noise barrier west of 76th
Street. Moreover, the increase in noise due to the project is estimated to be 0.2 dBA or less.
The homes north of the main access to the project are well below the noise standard because
of the noise wall. The business located close to the 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue
intersection is projected to be just over the commercial standard and an increase of 0.3 dBA is
estimated for this site. The hotel entrance is estimated to be over the standard but a
maximum increase in level of 0.5 dBA is predicted. These predicted increases in level are well
within the errors inherent in traffic projections and the model, and therefore, no significant
noise impacts are expected from the proposed project.
Noise Mitigation Measures
No noise mitigation is required since increases in noise level are generally well below 1 dBA.
The already constructed sound wall on the north side of 77th Street provides adequate
shielding of noise for the homes to the north of the street and keeps both the L10 and L50 well
below MPCA standards.
26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? o Yes ® No
b. prime or unique farmlands? o Yes ® No
c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? o Yes ® No
d. scenic views and vistas? o Yes ® No
e. other unique resources? o Yes ® No
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the
project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
A request for a review of the site has been submitted to the State Historical Preservation
Office; the response is included as Exhibit 26.1 and indicates no presence of significant
historical or archeological resources on the site.
A series of letters and findings of the State Historic Preservation Officer was also issued on
the 77th Street Reconstruction Project where the project site was evaluated as part of the
project; the same conclusion was reached in that review.
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights
visible in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.)
o Yes ® No
If yes, explain.
The project is consistent with the commercial/office land use of the I -494 corridor. The project
provides appealing Class -A office buildings with exteriors that will be constructed of pre -cast
concrete with complimentary granite chip aggregate and reflective glass accented with
medallions of polished granite.
See Exhibit 27 for site renderings.
16
3v
28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or
any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of an local, regional, state or federal
agency? z Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the
plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The project is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Development Plan, which includes
the site as "Freeway Strip" land use (see Exhibit 28).
The project is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
and the overall plan of the Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization.
29. Impact on infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project.
® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a
"connected action" with respect to the project must be assessed in this EAW; see "EAW Guidelines" for
details.)
Storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water mains that service the project will be connected to
existing city of Richfield systems. These existing utility systems have sufficient capacity to
handle the demands resulting from this project. Upon initial opening of Phase I of the office
development, the center median of 77th Street will need to be modified to create a westbound
left turn lane into the site.
A traffic signal will be installed at the Meridian Crossings access intersection with 77th Street
as part of Phase I. After Phase II of the office development is completed, improvements will
be needed on Lyndale Avenue to accommodate the background growth in the traffic volumes
and the office development traffic. These improvements, which are described in Section 22 of
this Environmental Assessment Worksheet, would occur between 77th Street and the south
ramp intersection of I494.
30. Related Developments, Cumulative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? ❑ Yes n No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ❑ Yes z No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this
project and the other development.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation is in the planning stages of improvements to the
Interstate 494 and Interstate 35W interchange. These future improvements were considered
when the site layout was determined. All other adjacent land has been developed.
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental
impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any
proposed mitigation.
The 1985 proposal for a 25 story office tower raised considerable neighborhood concern about
the shadow impacts on residential property to the north. Shadow studies of the two office
buildings proposed in this project show that the reduced height and the positioning of the two
office structures sharply reduce the shadow impacts.
17
1 7 -31
32.> SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being does for EIS scoping;
instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the
EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the
project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be
considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit
conditions.
1 The major impact of the project will be the removal of portions of the stand of mature oaks on
the site. The impact will be unavoidable for any project which is reasonably consistent with
the City's land use planning for the site. The project has been oriented and designed to
minimize the loss of oaks and construction practices will ensure that the remaining trees are
' protected.
Local traffic will be increased by the project. With planned improvements, all nearby
intersections will still be a level of service C and B, which is within the range of normal
conditions for urban areas.
Certifications by the RG U (all 3 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance ofthe EAW for publication of notice in
the EOB Monitorl
A I hereby i aiinf c twined in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my.knowledge.
Signature
' B. I hereby the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project
components, o er than thoFR,� document which are related to the project as "connected actions" or "phased actions " as
deemed, e ' ely, at 0.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60.
Signature /
C. I hereby tb copies, to all ims on the official E B EAW distribution list Y coP Po Q
Signature
Title ofsi er City Manager Date February .82 1996
' 18
i
0 1 2
I i I
Scale in Miles
Figure 5.1
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS
HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP
SHOWING PROJECT LOCATION
} L_1LJ L.1 Q: 01! t lly!< El Do F
W-Y Id .Lp em 0 r ' j
q� r'
k
i'
Ulu
•�-��� y T H ST [ ,r High Sc i -I W ❑, 7
i;
2 _ Dru�aldson, PROJECT
v? �j x _� 1 i ark ;; p .k LOCATION •
CO... - :1�`' ' St 1C Ch I ST 850.... it 71, .IN [ 00F �
nnsevelt
-- — —
i
1 1 - 1 CHAN E■ ' ■r
■• i 494 r1, ■�
F6012711,1
i'rIn '
�enter f
I 1.' � � � (.� � ■ � - /n'. : � 1. � �� t hoc _ —
' ' �'` _mow,. , it !iv R1. I� ■� �_'IjF= 11 :��
% _ _�Tr7ir��.i �r� � � T �';i —�;■ • �-;`�■ r �I"r ;j �� y' I A�.,■ FI , i• e. '� � t�; II�I�� g. .n �� +7J •�I
�`
Iwo
Nei
i�•� 1y 1 , j '; ■ II; n . �:: % ■- "�OM00I E 01, a f ICIL
L
iD
V 6 �
ST - Q �; li ■ I ' 'L
a d MTh I `Q S %
[ �a -� ■ .;ij� r: ,a
r H;IIfCS"
'Park _ " �� �' Bryar�
-,� i0go ✓ ��w e _., G ' '�" \`1
' '', /� � I r; `�... ��� II � il:i ■� - -- ■ I ICI
-'' Penn = j I x — = iI ?-�-1_
•y I
Lake -� 4/;� !I �'
808
Y
Ch- 1 — �- �;� t f I' �� i�• 7 t u'° i 1 v i ��� f A
!' r • \k �' 1
LJI w a7�• �il L_�LJ r +i• ii
� IIV.T ■_ '_�� i ortland,
(i i igh Sch
e sa �lilE ,�� F�i ~• `I •II 10'�_- -8rs
tv �;'NC S I ` + r r; Y�I ,�I:ill ■ -i� ri e3r ' ter Tan k•
l 1 t
'}L� Jl I I�i I� I �� �i �II;' x�i �I> Valley View Playfield
_' Al, Ii 1��
\, • `: J --- �
fPlrk� 'r�'l�° ��) �, \• :' an b tl�jlj 1 ii r
HiUefestch {l••
� .r-Ii �� .•n �. � , � ii - ` -1� \.��•� _ I�� IC —•mil• .�.`.��,,�Y�-� �pO� 1�liJl yY�N li I{
J. `-
k.- ' - --..' •�I:`a � � fI11fI11fI11I ��111!11!11!11' I {tIj ,
_ Ja f"P8( 4•• /i t ftlj�•A� '��' •� 1�1�[J
:Ft Y �L -A "K,E _ PA 7K ;/ • - -- �'�'� i i �����_ �1 i . ,. Ij, .It _ � L L_
•f��'» i \ . I_
_ �� �\� � .�. iz_ ' i( •� I �` / /. .'• .Iir •.• • la : • •'�i■ � '� :fiti.�r;i��� + ■:•..rtill ■ i(`' y/.•• \� x�!� =�= ''L- I I ■ " • ' ••• {!! i • , � .f : d =�`:i? Park
- :: �
z W � ja C'•,;lII i !�lnl I L 91 fI (
"
,.� Po o
%: �
II
' Source: Bloomington, Minnesota Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 1993.
\1V
' 0 2000 4000
l I I
Scale in Feet
MINN. Figure 5.2
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS
• PROJECT OUTLINE
' QUADRANGLE LOCATION
17L /
-
.
\ � \
�
NY- 4.
�
17L /
-
.
\ � \
11000"i
IR1 4 S }•t 3 F � 1 � f kg���� ��'Sl X_ J t(^'�( {G���� � 1.� T � ��(� � � �j yF ��ikJ •z`k L� �a
'i.
tt � p ;, ` �, tea•'£ �i `�� �,d�1�� �� 3;�Y�� - s,��„� ��"
k (s �„ ......
January 26, 1996
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Nels P. Nelson
Barr Engineering Company
8300 Norman Center Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55437 -1026
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4067
Re: Richfield Office Development T28N, R24W, Section 33, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Nelson:
7 -37
RECRIM)
JAN 291996
BARR
ENSINFMIMP rn.
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile
radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare
species or natural features in the area searched likely to be affected by this project.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the
Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. It
is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and
animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better
understanding and protection of these rare features.
The information in the database is drawn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly
being updated, but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are
currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the
database. We are in the process of addressing this via the Minnesota County Biological Survey
(MCBS), a county-by -county inventory of rare natural features, which is now underway. Because
survey work is in progress for Hennepin County, our information about natural communities judged to
be significant by our program is quite good for that county. The MCBS survey work for rare and
endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these
features exist in the project area for which we have no records. Because there has not been an on-site
survey of the biological resources of the project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features
exist for which we have no record.
DNR Information: 612 - 296 -6157, 1 -800- 766 -6000 • TTY: 612 - 296 -5484, 1- 800 - 657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer 4% Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity t4 l Minimum of 10% Post- Consumer Waste
738
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in minimizing impacts on
Minnesota's rare resources. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame
Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by
the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You
are being billed for map and computer search and staff scientist review.
Sincerely,
Ellen B. Heneghan
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program
612/296 -8279, FAX 612/297 -4961
nhp #960258
E
'JIS
I
YAW
�k
03 z
i
c y r
;i
�
v ns 5 �%
i' ✓ � r
I
/
i
t
s' it
y
<
=`s 9 fir,
}Ff'
YAW
�k
03 z
i
it w a
�U
+
-7—YD
ui
a
w
J
a
0
z
J
17100/18100/18400
12100/13300/16400
w
J
a�
ZV
Qa
aQ
02
U
7TTH ST.
22000/22400/24600
LEGEND
1998 DAILY VOLUME WITH PHASE 1 OF THE PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT
2001 DAILY VOLUME WITHOUT PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT
2001 DAILY VOLUME WITH PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT N
XX/XXIXX
NOT TO SCALE
TOLD DEVELOPMENT CO. MERIDIAN CROSSINGS FIGURE 22.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ASSESSMENT PROJECTED DAILY
TRANSPORTATION ENOINEERSANDPLANNERS AORKSH EE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Q'
> a
a5w c
+
-7—YD
ui
a
w
J
a
0
z
J
17100/18100/18400
12100/13300/16400
w
J
a�
ZV
Qa
aQ
02
U
7TTH ST.
22000/22400/24600
LEGEND
1998 DAILY VOLUME WITH PHASE 1 OF THE PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT
2001 DAILY VOLUME WITHOUT PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT
2001 DAILY VOLUME WITH PROPOSED MERIDIAN CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT N
XX/XXIXX
NOT TO SCALE
TOLD DEVELOPMENT CO. MERIDIAN CROSSINGS FIGURE 22.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ASSESSMENT PROJECTED DAILY
TRANSPORTATION ENOINEERSANDPLANNERS AORKSH EE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1
1
1
--1
o nw
S �
�- 90U80L/999
L9IM S ,� 969/455/£45
£9/ tog -�
Zfil£8/£9
Ad 3lVdNJ�I
'3AV 31VONAI
o � ss�ooV
n n sONGssoao
{y rroIaIa3w
64E ML4
Tf
n et
�o
n
� � m
z� F-- LOO L/9L6JSE6
4L15tb /o6£
'1S H19L
Eb/OZ /LE
F— 6£/9 t /LZ
46 /tZ/t£
T� 3AV aaVaiE)
��o
OR
i4
l+1
r
0.
SS30OV NIVW
31VONAI
1V SdOHS -
v�
5E£/55z/48z --t
£06&moZ9 -->
'3AV 91VONAl
SS30OV
SONISSOa3
NVIQIU3W
•and obvUlD
LU
U
0,
z 0- o
O
Z
Z
5Zbl5Zb /OOb
E-- 9EZt/oUU9
*1T1
anooi
�pn
n m
O n
COL 0
a N 0
xw xo xo
to t=co �co
wi w9I zo
�Q 32 mo
OW 000 dZ
�o �9 �a
OW 00 OD
x8 z =Yr W
aQ�
2 ^W x YQq+
W
"-W
�a0 N co
o a�w as as
LL,
6L6/OZ8/098 --�
EOEiEZZ/4SZ
_
'3AV 3lV4NJ.l
r
'1S H19L
Eb/OZ /LE
F— 6£/9 t /LZ
46 /tZ/t£
T� 3AV aaVaiE)
��o
OR
i4
l+1
r
0.
SS30OV NIVW
31VONAI
1V SdOHS -
v�
5E£/55z/48z --t
£06&moZ9 -->
'3AV 91VONAl
SS30OV
SONISSOa3
NVIQIU3W
•and obvUlD
LU
U
0,
z 0- o
O
Z
Z
5Zbl5Zb /OOb
E-- 9EZt/oUU9
*1T1
anooi
�pn
n m
O n
COL 0
a N 0
xw xo xo
to t=co �co
wi w9I zo
�Q 32 mo
OW 000 dZ
�o �9 �a
OW 00 OD
x8 z =Yr W
aQ�
2 ^W x YQq+
W
"-W
�a0 N co
o a�w as as
LL,
s��-� t �.�� r � ' r ' r .� .,..� �"'
��� � ��, P ���� � .,7 r t � � a r.,��Y'^�'a,�.,
�� � o �� � ifs }�/ wit ����'a,` �' r�`�2t�
PIN on
MIN01111 mill Al - *�'_
—7-43
V co
IV
U.
O 0
U
2
C4
O
.4AV.LNow3u
G)
lo
O. . ..........
'3AV 0~0
W 0
4)
1. /o CL
LU Is
I
U
0,
0
4) >
cqs
L —. J
m �• � m m
i
lei• t (AW[&jlflkL-LM
1
1 O4
3
111111111111
IF
X11111111 e��� *a --
M11181111 all - M
1111111 1 Isom
• r . -fti
1111111111 1 ~• ��. ' � _ : . -
11111111 v i I
Ing
111111111111,0
11111111111 led
'3AY 1NOW3Hd �� � • � � • O j
z CD
-- .. to
�►r atiYni� - - -- _ J W c \
� �U
■ '! �' v' z
In
to
-� Z O
7 =�s
W
0
\
O
c� 3
o z
1121111
�
4)
r
I
I
�w
II
I
N
O
Q)
,
Of
W
-171
L
M-1
CL
i
lei• t (AW[&jlflkL-LM
1
1 O4
3
111111111111
IF
X11111111 e��� *a --
M11181111 all - M
1111111 1 Isom
• r . -fti
1111111111 1 ~• ��. ' � _ : . -
11111111 v i I
Ing
111111111111,0
11111111111 led
'3AY 1NOW3Hd �� � • � � • O j
z CD
-- .. to
�►r atiYni� - - -- _ J W c \
� �U
■ '! �' v' z
In
to
-� Z O
7 =�s
1
I
I
W
0
\
O
c� 3
o z
�
4)
r
I
I
�w
LIM
II
I
N
O
Q)
,
4)
W
L
U
CL
_
u►
LL
U o 0
47
i
W
+_�
W
1 •� H Q
zz
1
I
I
W
0
\
O
c� 3
o z
VJ rn
4)
I
I
�w
II
I
o
W
0
0
\
U
4)
In
i
Q)
,
�.1
CL
_
u►
p
U o 0
47
i
i �+� H y
+_�
W
1 •� H Q
0
4.4
A
W
���� at`o
tip
Vz
rk. X Y
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
January 29, 1996
Mr. Nels P. Nelson
Barr Engineering Company
8300 Norman Center Drive
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Re: Office development between Emerson and Girard Avenues South
S33, T28, R24, Richfield, Hennepin County
SHPO Number: 96 -1200
RECEIVED
JAN 31 1995
ENGINEERING R CO.
Thank you for contacting our office during the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project.
There is one reported archaeological property in the project area, but we do
not believe that this site is significant. In addition we feel that the
probability of any unreported properties is low. Therefore, based on
available information, we conclude that project is unlikely to affect any
significant historic properties.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800,
procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection
of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance,
or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office
with reference to the appropriate federal agency.
Please contact our review and compliance section at 612- 296 -5462 if you have
any questions regarding our review of this project.
incerely,
B tta L. Bloo g
Deputy State Historic Preservation Off' r
BLB:dmb
cl, I -,
CN
711!
1 41'
1�1
t 4
.1 A "Y
V1
lr-
w
Vt
q
a
� y }
rr
7
rl x
rs
F
�I
w w
w «tT -
w
w rR
w +N
w "
w .
Y
w Am"
w vo+nm
w saw
w rT J
Y 9WLf �
w
w a+aan.
,..as,.
w a.e+c
w swan
wow.+
w we.
]w .rm
w wr
w n.<
• w wsw
w s... r
>,• Rwb r
M-
"I
V.
C
yM rN G
G
_0
O
C
w .nsa
LU u
w .n
uus i
r .a W
W
> >
> >
> F
F-
r at.a.e Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Z
Z
W
Z
Z
X X
X X
X J
J
a
�.... a
w ... �
� 0
0000
= 0
0000
O O
0000
000
w wt
W
W W
W
Q V
V
r ...e..w U
U Q
Q
W W
W N
N
v s
Q �
�
swam.
W
W J
J Q
Q W
r TM
d J
J H
H Y
Y
y.l.p d
g N
N ?
? a
a
w.wr� g
W
loom.
W-0
i
iY N
N U
U. ,
0
w
1
•4 W U .,,,.'149 9 o�
H H
49 - -
z z -H
ri) 2 .q 43 .E
44 •�-1
J � N
V
W
Z
x 1
1 N
'G Z `1 CI
N
NU z
0 UU xE z
W
W
CO
W o x ,
>
05
z
W
= Z ari >4
LU ° g 4 9
Ea
1
4 >•{c "'
rl� { = ?.
r;
O
61--
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 131
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of sale for a street sweeper.
Background:
Unit #266, a 1982 Elgin street sweeper, has been fully depreciated since 1992. Council
approved purchase of a new sweeper under a State of Minnesota purchasing
agreement in January of this year. At that time, staff informed Council the 1982 unit
would be sold after delivery of the new unit. Staff wrote specifications for the sale of
this unit, and a formal bid opening was held on April 3, 1996. Three vendors submitted
bids as follows:
RDO Equipment, Inc. $18,500
MacQueen Equipment, Inc. $17,000
ASTECH Corporation $16,101
Recommended Motion:
Approve the sale of Unit #266, a 1982 Elgin Sweeper, Serial No. S5251 D to RDO
Equipment, Inc. in the sum of $18,500.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. RDO Equipment, Inc. submitted the high bid for the 1982 Elgin sweeper.
2. Now that the new sweeper has been delivered, the old unit may be sold.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject the bids and instruct staff to re- advertise for this sale; however, staff
does not believe a higher bid than the one from RDO Equipment, Inc. will be obtained.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22,
requesting approval at this time.
Respectf y submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
1996 regular Council meeting. Staff is
is
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 61-1
Bid Opening
April 3, 1996
11 :00 a.m.
Sale of 1982 Elgin Sweeper Unit #266
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the sale of a 1982 Elgin
sweeper, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 20, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
Mark Hall, Streets Supervisor
Rick Beane, Mechanical Supervisor
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Bid Amount
RDO Equipment Co.
Burnsville
$18,500.00
MacQueen Equipment, Inc.
St. Paul
$17,000.00
Astech Corp. St. Cloud
$16,101.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
22, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
GN
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 130
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Purchase of seasonal street maintenance supplies in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the
purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the
amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council
for consideration.
Each year, the Street Maintenance Division purchases asphalt to use in the
general street maintenance operation. The materials are used for patching
throughout the summer months. Staff received two informal quotes from
suppliers as follows:
Commercial Asphalt Co., Inc.
Burnsville Plant Location Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
920 West Cliff Road 2825 Cedar Avenue South
41 B Mix (Asphalt) 19.70 /ton 18.50 /ton
• 41A (Driveway Mix) 20.60 /ton 19.00 /ton
A trip from the garage shop to Commercial Asphalt's Burnsville plant takes 20 to
30 minutes round trip. A trip to Bituminous Roadways is a 60 to 90 minute round
trip. Crews make approximately 150 trips for asphalt in a season. Because the
efficiency of the entire seven - person patching crew depends on timely delivery of
these materials, staff believes it is in the best interest of the City to purchase the
asphalt and driveway mixes from Commercial Asphalt, even though the prices
quoted per ton are slightly higher.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a master purchase order to Commercial Asphalt Company, Inc. in the
estimated amount of $14,500 for the purchase of seasonal street maintenance
supplies.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. While Commercial Asphalt Company, Inc. submitted a slightly higher
competitive quote, the road time to the Burnsville plant versus the road time to
Bituminous Roadway's south Minneapolis plant and back, is a considerable
difference. Staff believes the time factor alone would make up for the slightly
higher per -ton price.
40 2. These materials are needed for the summer street maintenance operation.
60,1
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject the Commercial Asphalt Company, Inc. quote and instruct
staff to prepare a purchase order to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. However, the
availability and convenience of the Commercial Asphalt plant is a big plus on
busy patching days.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 Council meeting. Staff is requesting
approval at this time in order to facilitate readiness for the coming patching
season.,
Ily submitted,
Jamek . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
40
0
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 129
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of bid for a new brush chipper to be used by the Street Maintenance Division.
Background:
Unit #286, a 1985 Eager Beaver Chipper, is fully depreciated and scheduled to be replaced
in 1996. Staff - written specifications included a trade -in price on the old chipper, plus two
options. Three vendors requested bid documents for the new unit, and bids were opened on
April 8, 1996 with the following results:
Base Bid Trade-In Opt. "A" Opt. "B" Total (W/Tax)
Aspen Equipment Co. $25,985 ($2,500) N/A Standard $25,011.53
Vermeer Sales & Service $27,023 ($9,023) N/A N/A $19,170.00
ArborQuip, Inc. $21,434 ($5,500) $892 $621 $18,581.06*
*The total for ArborQuip, Inc. includes the cost of the two options,, plus 6.5% sales tax.
Option "A" is for a hydraulically operated chute, and Option "B" is for a hydraulic lift for feed
opening, both of which will aid in ease of operation, safety issues, and maintenance needs.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to ArborQuip, Inc. in the amount of $21,434 minus trade -in of
($5,500), plus both options at $1,513 plus sales tax of $1,134.06 for a total sum of
$18,581.06.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. ArborQuip, Inc. submitted the low bid including the desired options.
2. The type of chipper bid is the most desirable machine for chipping operations.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject the bids and instruct staff to obtain new ones; however, staff does not
believe a brush chipper with the desired options can be obtained at a lower price.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 Council meeting.
this time in order to facilitate timely delivery of the new chipper.
Respectf ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Staff is requesting approval at
s
•
667-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 8, 1996
11:00 a.m.
Purchase of one new Brush Chipper
Bid No. 96 -3
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for purchase of one new brush
chipper, Bid No. 96 -3, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 20, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Bid
Base Bid
Options
Total Bid
Security
Vermeer Sales &
5%
$27,023.00
trade -in
$19,170.00
Service
Bid Bond
$ 9,023.00
Burnsville
Aspen Equipment Co.
cashier's
$25,985.00
trade -in
$25,011.53
Bloomington
check
$ 2,500.00
Arborquip, Inc.
cashier's
$21,434.00
trade -in
$1,6,969.71
Bloomington
check
$ 5,500.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
22, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
mz
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 128
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the replacement of well #7 pump column.
Background:
Well #7 is a 1,000 foot deep well located in front of the Water Treatment Plant, 6221 Portland
Avenue. Well pumps are replaced on a seven year schedule.
The specification for the pump was written to require a reusable stainless steel shaft instead
of disposable mild steel. The reusable stainless steel shaft is expected to result in a savings
of approximately $6,500 when the next pump change is needed and may provide additional
savings with subsequent pump changes. However, by specifying a reusuable shaft, the low
bid was approximately $3,000 over the budgeted amount. There are funds available in the
Water Maintenance Division budget to cover the change in the 1996 revised budget.
Bids from three contractors were opened on March 26, 1996 with the following results:
Keys Well Drilling Company $28,400
Bergerson - Caswell $31,300
E. H. Renner & Sons $34,979
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid tabulation and award the rehabilitation of well #7 pump column replacement to
Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $28,400.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Keys Well Drilling submitted the lowest bid and is a reputable well contractor.
2. The 1996 Revised Water Maintenance budget will be increased to reflect this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the bids
received are in line with the amount of work which needs to be completed and staff does not
believe a better price can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 City Council meeting. Staff is requesting
approval at this time in order to facilitate timely completion of this project.
Resp y submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
March 26, 1996
11:00 a.m.
Redevelopment of Well No. 7
Bid No. 96 -4
(�F-j
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for redevelopment of well no. 7, bid
no. 96 -4, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 6, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name /City
Bid Security
Total Bid Amount
E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 34,979.00
Elk River
Keys Well Drilling Co.
5% Bid Bond
$ 28,400.00
St. Paul
Berge rson- Caswell, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 31,300.00
Maple Plain
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
22, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 127
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issu t men
Purchase of contract services in an amount estimated to be $42,000 from Data
Guidance Company to write PC software for Public Safety licensing and inspections
operations.
Background:
The City has been slowly making the transition away from its older Unisys computer to
a PC based system. All areas of Public Safety are now being served by PC based
applications except for the following:
• Housing Inspections;
• Rental Housing Licensing;
• Business Licensing;
• Animal Licensing;
• Environmental Health Complaint Tracking;
• Environmental Health and Animal Control Inspections; and
• Miscellaneous permits (Driveway /parking area, fire safety, signs).
Most of the above areas are being served by obsolete and, in most cases, very
inefficient programs that run on the old computer system. The primary reason these
service areas have not made the transition to PC's is the lack of suitable "off- the -shelf
PC based software -- especially in the area of housing inspections. Staff has determined
that the most appropriate and timely solution is to contract with a software developer to
write the appropriate software.
An analysis of the software needs of Public Safety's licensing and inspections functions
led to the conclusion that these applications are all related in that they regulate activity
linked to individual properties or businesses. A coordinated approach with shared
databases has two major advantages. First, all inspectors will be aware of all problems
and enforcement actions with a particular property since they will have access to
common violation and complaint databases. Often, inspectors from different divisions
of Public Safety are dealing with different problems at the same property. Customer
service would be improved under the proposed system because the "left hand knows
what the right hand is doing." The second major advantage is cost savings realized by
eliminating redundancy.
Staff prepared specifications and received proposals from 12 vendors. Three finalists
were interviewed and the proposal from Data Guidance Company of Minneapolis is
recommended. Their cost estimate to provide all of the features and components
requested is $59,450. This was the lowest cost proposal which staff believes was
responsive and from a qualified firm.
Funds for the conversion of some of these applications is a part of the 1996 Central
Services Fund budget. The remaining applications were planned for conversion in
1997. Data Guidance is able to split the project into two phases to better meet the
City's budget constraints. Phase One will be completed in 1996 and will include all
essential program elements to complete the transition from the old computer system to
PC's. The cost of this phase is estimated to be $42,000. Phase Two will include the
remaining program specifications, but will not be developed until next year when
is additional funds should be available.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Data Guidance Company to
complete "Phase One" of the Public Safety licensing and inspections software
applications in an amount estimated to be $42,000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposal from Data Guidance Company was by far the strongest proposal
both in terms of cost and completeness.
2. References for the company were favorable. Current and former clients that staff
contacted appeared satisfied with the services they received from Data Guidance.
They all also indicated that Data Guidance is able to complete projects within
budget.
3. Conversion to the proposed system will result in significant improvements in
customer service -- especially in the housing inspection program.
4. There are sufficient finds available for this contract in the 1996 Central Services
Fund.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do nothing. However, this approach will have the following impacts: 1) force continued
reliance on inefficient programs; 2) indefinitely delay the complete transition away from
the old computer system, forcing data processing staff to continue support of multiple
computer systems; and 3) forego improvements in the housing inspection program that
will improve communication and understanding between inspectors and homeowners.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval to enter into a contract agreement with Data Guidance
Company so that work can begin on the project as soon as possible.
Respectfu submitted,
James . rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
lG�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 126
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for replacement of play equipment at Christian Park, vicinity of
69th Street and Bloomington Avenue.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Budget adopted for 1996 includes $220,000 for
replacement of play features at Christian Park, Lincoln Field, Augsburg Park,
Garfield Park and Roosevelt Park. Christian Park is located in the vicinity of 69th
Street and Bloomington Avenue. The equipment at Christian Park is designed
for two age groups. The wood product equipment currently on site was
purchased and installed in 1980. Consumer Product Safety Commission
guidelines and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements have
changed since the original installation.
Bids for play equipment at Christian Park were opened according to legal
requirements on April 11, 1996. To balance the work load for City staff who will
be removing the existing equipment and performing other aspects of the project
for all five sites, purchase and installation of equipment at the other sites
10 budgeted for 1996 will be spread over the next few months. The bids received
for the Christian Park play equipment are as follows:
Vendor Total Bid
Earl F. Andersen, Inc. $34,390.00
Miracle Recreation Co. 34,633.29
Flanagan Sales, Inc. 40,900.00
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award a contract to Earl F. Andersen, Inca
in the amount of $34,390.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The play equipment at Christian Park was originally installed in 1980.
Generally speaking, the life expectancy for wood product equipment is about
15 years. The play equipment at Christian Park was due for replacement.
2. The Community Services Commission recommended, and the City Council
concurred by adopting the 1996 Capital Budget, that there be a conscientious
effort to replace aging play equipment in the City.
3. The bid submitted by Earl F. Andersen, Inc. was the lowest bid submitted by a
responsible bidder meeting specifications.
(�b-i
. 4. There is sufficient funding in the project allocation for the purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise. However, staff does
not believe a better price can be obtained from a reputable vendor.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the April 22, 1996 Council meeting in order to
facilitate the work on a timely basis.
Respect Ily submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
Attachment
•
•
•
•
(lam Z) —C)—
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 11, 1996
11:00 a.m.
Christian Park Playground Equipment
City Project No. 318 -9180
City Bid No. 96 -6
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Christian Park playground
equipment, bid no. 96 -6, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 20, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Bruce Palmborg, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Gretchen Blank, Leisure Services Coordinator
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name /City
Bid Security
Total Bid Amount
Earl F. Anderson, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 34,390.00
Bloomington, MN
Flanagan Sales, Inc.
5% Bid bond
$ 40,900.00
Shoreview, MN
Miracle Recreation Co.
5% Bid Bond
$ 34,633.29
Hastings, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
22, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
6L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 125
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of bid to have Lawrence Sign install a new sign for the miniature golf at Veterans
Memorial Park entrance on 64th and Portland Avenue.
Background:
Adventure Gardens Miniature Golf Course is located at Veterans Memorial Park. The
golf course is not visible from Portland Avenue. Thus, signage on Portland Avenue
indicating the location of the golf course is an important factor.
Visibility is a major success factor in any miniature golf course operation. Adventure
Gardens has generated about 50% of the original projected annual rounds of play. This
is due, in large part, to the relative obscurity of the miniature. golf course. The current
sign, located at the entrance to the parking lot on Portland Avenue, does not
adequately address this problem. The sign appears to be too high; has no mention
specifically of miniature golf, instead it reads "Adventure Gardens Golf'; and has three -
inch lettering which is not easily read by moving traffic. In addition, the sign is not
lighted.
In an effort to address the visibility of the golf course, a new sign on Portland Avenue is
needed. The new sign under consideration reads "MINI- GOLF" in large letters and has
a graphic that pictures an individual putting. This proposed sign is lighted with six -inch
letters on the reader board portion and is very similar in overall structure and design to
the sign outside of Richfield City Hall. The reader board portion would be readily
accessible and could be easily changed to identify any number of events featured in the
park or by the miniature golf operation.
The proposed new signage would utilize the base and primary electrical connections of
the existing sign. The existing sign would be removed and likely be reused in an area
near the walkway to the miniature golf course to assist park users and course patrons
to the miniature golf course operation.
Three quotes were solicited for the new sign. They are as follows:
Lawrence Sign $7,640
St. Paul, MN
Nordquist Sign Company, Inc. $7,900
Minneapolis, MN
Redwood Signs $9,481
Osseo, MN
Recommended Motion:
Approve the proposal from Lawrence Sign to furnish and install a double faced,
illuminated sign for $7,640.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Community Services Commission has recommended that a new sign be
installed on Portland Avenue to make the miniature golf course amenity more
visible to the public.
2. A new sign that will be attractive in appearance and easily noticed is needed at
the entrance to the parking lot on Portland Avenue to identify the miniature golf
course operation.
3. Several sign designs and companies were reviewed in formulating a
recommendation for a new sign. The Lawrence Sign layout was very creative in
attracting attention and will require a minimum amount of maintenance.
4. Lawrence Sign was the lowest quote of those submitted.
5. Lawrence Sign designed and installed the sign at City Hall on Portland Avenue
and the City was very satisfied with the product and the work performed.
6. The Richfield Tourism Board has indicated that it would donate $5,000 toward the
purchase and installation of the sign which would attract motorists along Portland
Avenue to the park and mini -golf amenities at Veterans Memorial Park.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could award the bid to another company.
2. The City Council could elect to delay installation of a new sign. However, the new
sign is needed prior to the start of this season to draw attention to the miniature
golf course.
3. The City Council could direct staff to. leave the existing sign and seek other
alternatives to make the miniature golf course more visible to the public.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the consent calendar for the City Council meeting of April 22,
1996. Action is requested at this time to allow the timely installation of the sign by late
May or early June commensurate with the beginning of operation of the miniature golf
course for 1996.
Re c ully submitted,
40 Ja Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
i
FEB -19 -96 MON 14:49 LAWRENCE SIGN FAX N0, 4886715
February 19, 1996 tawrence
TO: AI .Payne -
♦
iwn
City of Richfield
636 E. 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
Lrwr m m m MipmY. p"p#ja� t. for z6 xb qW NNW ram orr, = r.r.rr.d W GU81 OD�3{ Ck hum doaINW
b"*-, mbf pct to dr f =ova rd c- WASafs so 1.vQ W*&
Remove and scrap the existing wood sign, leave the two 6" steel poles.
Furnish and install one 5.5'x 9' double faced, illuminated monument sign and
aluminum pole wrapper on existing poles. Maio sign face is aluminum with
routed copy backed with acrylic, Reader board has a flat, white inner face
with track for 3 rows of 6" changeable copy letters and a hinged, locking
clear ever, Included is one 300 font of 6" letters and storage cabinet.
Primary electrical connection not included. See approved Lawrence drawing
for details.
TOTAL PRICE: $7,640.00 + Permit
TEILMS $3,820.00 Down paymen4 balance dine on completion:
TIUS PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE: The cost of permits or
primary electrical connections.
Ted Kroska dk�..Q ja
Salesman
The contract, with all conditions as noted, is herewith accepted by both parties.
CUSTOMER A J48 C ONCE SiGN,_INC.
Icy Y
Wray H essy -
$y Title
Date ]Date
•
-55
I
L J
`;� I r
I � I
1
!It)' /r
I ,
1 I
I"
"-
II
II
!
L c
1
cca107
III
{
I
! J �
11, un
J
n
ou
o �
O O i
IF
1
1
I,
1
I
� 1
r�
I
ate'
I ,
1 I
I"
"-
II
II
!
L c
1
cca107
III
{
I
! J �
11, un
J
n
ou
o �
O O i
IF
1
MM
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 124
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution approving a statutory increase in PERA Consolidated Police
and Fire Fund benefit.
Background:
In the 1995 legislation session, the legislature approved an amendment to Article 3,
Section 4, Chapter 262 which reduces the early retirement penalty for members of the
PERA Police and Fire Fund who retire between the ages of 50 and 55. The early
retirement penalty changes the actuarial reduction factor from about 4% per year to
2.4% per year. This benefit enhancement is effective for all Police and Fire members
who retire earlier than age 55 beginning July 1, 1996.
Members of Consolidated Police and Fire Relief Association Funds such as Richfield's
do not automatically qualify to receive this benefit enhancement. Section 5 of Chapter
262 requires that cities must approve the use of the new factors before they may be
applied to their consolidated members. PERA has requested that each city with a
consolidated police fund consider this issue and provide a resolution directing use of
the factors if the city chooses to do so. If a resolution is adopted by the city, the new
factors will be available to members of a local plan on July 1, 1996, or later, if directed
by the city's resolution. In conjunction with the reduced early retirement penalty, PERA
requested an actuarial study to be done by Milliman and Robertson to estimate the cost
of the new benefit enhancement. Chapter 262 also provides additional funding from a
special account to pay for the benefit enhancement for consolidated funds that are less
than 100% funded.
City staff has reviewed a copy of the actuarial report performed by Milliman and
Robertson for the Richfield Police consolidated account. While the potential cost of the
benefit enhancement for the Richfield account would amount to $7,408 per year, the
actuarial report indicated that the Richfield Police consolidated account is now more
than 100% funded. Thus, there would be no cash outlay for the City to implement the
benefit. Instead, the overfunding level, which is now approximately $125,000, would be
reduced by $7,408 per year.
In addition, when the Police account was consolidated in 1991 it was the intention of
the City to attempt to keep the consolidated benefit level comparable to the PERA
Police and Fire benefit level, as long as it was feasible to do so. Therefore, City staff is
recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution which would approve the
reduction in retirement penalty for the consolidated members of the Richfield
Consolidated Police Relief Association.
•
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the benefit increase of the PERA Police and
Fire Fund for the Richfield consolidated account.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City received an actuarial report on the impact of the benefit increase and has
found the cost of the benefit increase to be relatively insignificant.
2. The actuarial report also indicates that the Police consolidated account is more
than 100% funded.
3. The majority of the Police Officers in Richfield are part of the PERA Police and
Fire Fund and are not part of the consolidated account. These officers would
automatically receive this benefit increase because they were not part of the
former Richfield Police Relief Association. In order to maintain equity among all
police employees, the benefit increase must also be approved for the 14 active
members of the consolidated account.
4. Representatives of the consolidated fund have approached the City and asked
that the benefit increase be approved. It is their position that they voted to
consolidate on the belief that their benefit level would be the same as other PERA
Police and Fire Fund employees.
5. The net cash effect of this benefit increase will have no impact on the City. In
reality, the benefit increase would make a minor reduction in the overfunding level
of the consolidated account.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to approve this benefit increase.
2. The City Council could decide to approve the benefit increase, but make it
effective at a later date.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Action on this matter is requested at the April 22, 1996 City Council meeting so that the
effected employees will be aware of the City's position on this matter as close to the
effective date of the new benefit as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
to JDP:ds
ME
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING BENEFIT ENHANCEMENT
TO PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has approved a bill to reduce the early
retirement penalty for members of the PERA Police and Fire Fund who retire between
the ages of 50 and 55; and
WHEREAS, the legislation providing for the benefit increase requires local
approval of all cities which have a consolidated local pension fund plan with PERA
Police and Fire; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police Relief Association consolidated their pension
plan with PERA, Police and Fire Fund as of December 31, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has obtained an actuarial report of the impact of
the benefit increase to the City which projects no additional annual,cash contribution by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the employees of the consolidated fund have requested that the
City approve benefit increase; and
WHEREAS, the benefit increase approval would place all PERA Police
employees of the City of Richfield at the same benefit level.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that provisions of Article 3, Section 4, Chapter 262 changing the early
retirement reduction factor from the actuarial amount of about 4% per year to 2.4% per
year for members of the PERA Police and Fire Fund be approved for members of the
consolidated Richfield fund.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 123
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of updating and enhancing the City of Richfield Health Care
and Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan.
Back rg_ound:
Since January 1, 1991, the City's full -time and regular part-time employees have been
able to participate in the City of Richfield Health Care and Dependent Day Care
Expense Reimbursement Plan, also known as Flexible Spending Accounts. Under the
Plan employees are able to elect an annual dollar amount to have taken out of their
gross wages, pre -tax, to pay for: medical expenses not covered by insurance,
dependent day care services, and any employee portion of the premiums for City of
Richfield health or dental insurances.
DCA, Inc. is the administrator for the Plan. DCA recommends that the Plan be
reviewed and updated approximately every five years. The Plan has been reviewed
and updated to include language addressing Family and Medical Leave Act and Military
Leave concerns. The City would also like to take this opportunity to increase the
maximum amount employees can set aside for health care expenses from $2,000 to
$3,000 annually. The dependent day care amount would remain at the maximum
authorized by the Internal Revenue Service, $5,000. The City would also like to extend
the reimbursement claim deadline from February 15 to March 31, after the close of the
Plan year. This allows employees sufficient time to receive bills from providers for end
of year services and to submit them to DCA to receive reimbursement for those
expenses. There is no increase in the administrative fee to make these changes.
Summary Plan Descriptions must be approved by the City Council and sent to the
United States Department of Labor in order for the changes to go into effect. There is a
$150 fee for updating and submitting the Plan.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the update and enhancement of the City of Richfield Health Care and
Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City has undertaken its periodic review of the Plan.
2. The City Attorney has reviewed the Plan.
3. The Plan has been updated to reflect current law.
•
4. With an increased annual health care expense amount and the extended March
31 reimbursement claim deadline, employees can make greater use of this benefit
without increased cost to the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the Plan changes.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for April 22, 1996 so the City can implement the changes
of this benefit.
Respectfully submitted,
Jas D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
•
�z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING UPDATE AND INCREASE
TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HEALTH CARE AND DEPENDENT DAY CARE
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN (FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNTS)
WHEREAS, the City Council approves the benefits for City of Richfield
employees; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield offers Flexible Spending Account benefits to its
full -time and regular part-time groups of employees; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's duty to review the Plan document approximately every
five years; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been updated to reflect current law; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been updated to allow employees to make greater use
of the benefit by increasing the maximum health care reimbursement from $2,000 to
$3,000 annually and by extending the reimbursement claim deadline from February 15
to March 31 after the Plan year.
i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield Health Care
and Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan is adopted and that any
proper members of the City Council are hereby authorized to make such contributions
from the funds of the City as are necessary to carry out provisions of said Plan at any
time, and that in the event that any conflict arises between the provisions of said Plan
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) or any other
applicable law or regulation (as such law or regulation may be interpreted or amended),
the City shall resolve such conflict in a manner which complies with ERISA or such law
or regulation.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
April, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 122
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
The City of Richfield's Wood Lake Nature Center is recipient of The Great
Minnesota Green -Up award.
Background:
Wood Lake is the proud recipient of the The Great Minnesota Green -Up award
sponsored by the State of Minnesota and Aveda Corporation. The recognition
ceremony was held at 12 noon on Earth Day, April 22 at the Nature Center.
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, and Horst Rechelbacher, Chairman
and Founder of Aveda Corporation, made the presentation to Mayor Kirsch.
Earth Day will be celebrated in Richfield in conjunction with Wood Lake's week
long celebration of 25 Years in the Marsh. Richfield's official celebration will be
at Wood Lake Nature Center in conjunction with Arbor Day on Sunday, April 28
from 1 to 4 p.m.
Recommended Motion:
Mayor Kirsch will share The Great Minnesota Green -Up award with other
members of the City Council and with the community.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield, through its Wood Lake Nature Center facility, has established a
tradition of acknowledging Earth Day through a variety of community based
programs.
2. The Great Minnesota Green -Up award acknowledges Richfield's
environmental efforts.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Degision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1996 Council meeting.
submitted,
James
City Ma
JDP:ds
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Council Letter No. 121
Agenda April 22, 1996
Issue Statement:
Recognition of employee who has completed the.City of Richfield's Management
Certificate program.
Background:
The Management Certificate Program was designed by City staff in cooperation with
Normandale Community College. The program was designed for current management
or supervisory employees, giving them skills to perform the duties of their positions
more effectively.
City employees were surveyed for potential course topics. Based on interest and need,
a curriculum of seven required core courses was developed: Progressive Discipline,
Lawful Interviewing and Selection, Performance Appraisal, Interpersonal
Communications, Delegating and Empowering Others, Effective Time Management and
Cultural Diversity in the Work Place. To be awarded a Management Certificate,
employees must complete all core courses and an additional five elective courses. At
the completion of each course, participants earn continuing education units (CEU), a
nationally recognized unit of achievement.
The Human Resources Manager works with Normandale Community College's Center
9 tY 9
for Continuing Education and Outreach to develop each course. The Human
Resources Manager oversees the course content, presentation styles, and instructor
selection to ensure high course quality and consistency with City procedures and
policies.
City Clerk Tom Ferber has completed the required courses and received a Certificate of
Completion at the April 10, 1996 General Management Meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Congratulate and formally recognize Tom Ferber for successfully meeting the
requirements of the City of Richfield and Normandale Community College Management
Certificate Program.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. This employee hase successfully completed the seven required core courses and
five elective courses in the Management Certificate Program.
2. In the past the City Council has wished to take opportunities to recognize
achievement's of City staff, especially at a public forum such as the Council
is Meeting.
3-I
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The recognition could be scheduled for a future meeting.
2. If the Council wishes it could make no mention of these achievements at the
meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Action on this item is suggested for April 22, 1996.
RespectfUN submitted,
JamJeD . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
is