Loading...
4-19-93 special agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING . HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. CONSIDERATION OF USE OF SOUTHERLY FIVE ACRES OF CLOVERLEAF SITE FOR PORTABLE CONCRETE BATCH MIXING PLANT FOR 77TH STREET PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 123 HRA LETTER NO. 12 2. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE 6318 NICOLLET AVENUE TO 77TH STREET RELOCATEE FOR ONE YEAR COUNCIL LETTER NO. 124 HRA LETTER NO. 13 3. RECEIPT OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 125 HRA LETTER NO. 14 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF CONCURRENT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 15;•1993 HRA MEETING • 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING A HOUSING PROGRAM WITH TWIN CITIES HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION.OF 6225 14TH AVENUE AND 6310 15TH AVENUE HRA LETTER NO. 15 3. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS: A) ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT; AND B) REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, MODIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,AREAS AND FOR CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS HRA LETTER NO. 16 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 5. CLAIMS AND PAYROLL ADJOURNMENT AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE -UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 9.6 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.' 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 125 HRA Letter No. 14 Agenda April 19, 1993 Issue Statement: Receipt of disclosure statement and discussion of employee participation in local business. Background: Kaye Wallace, spouse of Community Development.Director Byron Wallace, has indicated interest in operating the new Baskin- Robbins ice cream store at the HUB. Minnesota Statutes.require that an employee of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority disclose financial interest or possible conflict and that such statement be entered into the minutes of the HRA meeting. The City Council should also be aware of the financial interest. Byron Wallace may have a financial obligation in the sublease and franchise. Byron Wallace may assist in the operation of the franchise business operation during non-Richfield City Hall business hours, however, Kaye Wallace would be responsible for the operation of the business on a daily basis. The portion of the HUB shopping center that includes the Baskin- Robbins has not benefited from any tax increment financing. Attached is a report from the Assistant City Attorney reviewing applicable state law, City code and charter provisions relating to conflict of interest policies. The basic conclusions of the .report are that there are no statutory provisions or charter provisions restricting the purchase and operation of the business. There are provisions that provide for disclosure of interest if the business would, at some future time, become involved in a contractual relationship with the City or HRA.• The attached disclosure is provided for that reason. Recommended Motion: HRA: The HRA should receive the disclosure statement and enter it into the minutes of the meeting. City Council: The City Council should take notice of the disclosure. Basis for Recommendation: The legal opinion of the Assistant City Attorney is attached. Also attached is the disclosure statement that is consistent with the requirements as outlined. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council and the HRA may decide to impose additional restrictions regarding an employee's and employee's immediate family operating a business within the City. 2. The City Council may also decide to: • Amend the City Charter to include employees as well as public officials. i Adopt a disclosure policy for City employees similar to those requirements imposed on HRA employees. ? Adopt a policy similar to the requirements of State Statute but which broaden the proscribed conflicts to include those that affect personal as well as financial interest. This type of policy would reach situations where City officials or employees have decision making powers over matters that would affect close, personal family ties. It should be noted that the proposed operation of the Baskin- Robbins by Kaye Wallace would not conflict with any of these proposed changes included in Alternative 2. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at.the concurrent City Council/HRA meeting of April 19, 1993. lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager/ - Executive Director. JDP:cak • DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In response to Section 469.009 of the Minnesota Statutes as outlined in an opinion letter dated April 6, 1993 from Corrine Heine, Assistant City Attorney, I am submitting this disclosure. statement as Community Development Director and an employee of the HRA. l.' My wife, Kaye Wallace, is interested in operating the Baskin- Robbins Ice cream store in the-Hub Shopping Center located in the LHN Redevelopment Area. 2. The proposal being considered is a two year lease of the facility as a sublessee and franchisee of Baskin-Robbins with an option to renew for two years with a further purchase option of the equipment. 3. Baskin-Robbins is responsible for obtaining all approvals before turning the facility over to a sublessee. The policy of Baskin-Robbins is to continue as the property lessee for so long as it is used as a Baskin-Robbins store. 4. Documents related to the sublease, franchise and operations would have to be signed by both of us and would be our joint responsibility. 5. Kaye would be the manager of the business and no part of the business could or would be operated out of City Hall in any way. Nor would I take any part in operations during normal City business hours. 6. There is no conflict of interest that I•am aware of. No financial assistance has been received by us or Baskin- Robbins from the City, HRA or anyone else affected. There are no contracts in existence or contemplated between the HRA or City and the business other than a normal license or review as any other such business. I am unaware of any plan by the HRA or City to purchase the real estate. There are no financing plans pending or contemplated that would affect. this property. A payment would be made to Baskin-Robbins equivalent to the proportionate share of real estate taxes paid by Baskin-Robbins to the HUB, part of which are taxes levied by the City and HRA. 7. If a potential conflict of interest should ever arise over any action or issue, it.would immediately be referred to the City Manager who would ensure that another employee would be assigned to handle the matter. Submi ed April. 1 1993 Byro J.- Wallace Community Development Director APR 16 193 10:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.2 KEMORANDUM TO: Jim Prosser City Manager FROM: Corrine Heine Assistant City Attorney DATE: April 161 1993 RE: Conflict of Interest Question i Issue Byron Wallace, the Director of Community Development, (subsequently referred to as "Employee") has asked whether City ordinances or policies or state law would prevent him from purchasing a business located in the City of Richfield. The business would be jointly owned by Employee and his spouse but would be oa ted by the spouse. The purchase of the business does not require any approvals by the Community Development Department, and at this time, Employee knows of no future need for any zoning or other approval by his department. The business does require a restaurant license and health inspections, which would be provided by the City. Employee is not involved in and does not supervise licensing or inspection. The business is also located in an HRA redevelopment area, and Employee's duties do include working for the HRA. Sum®ar'y Conclusion The Employee's purchase of the business does not constitute an immediate conflict of interest, and the Employee is not prohibited from purchasing the business and - continuing in the City's employ. The potential for future conflicts of interest does exist. Should those conflicts arise, state statutes prohibit the Employee from taking part in any HRA derision or action that ?t would substantially to duos affect the that int restloyThe- financial interest, and the Employee q -common law, rather than a statute, prohibits the Employee from participating in a City decision that substantially affects the Employee's financial interest. As a practical matter, that common law prohibition should prompt disclosure by. the Employee of any potential conflict. If adequate disclosure is made, however, and.the Employee is sheltered from any participation in the action or decision, the Employee may own and operate the business in the. City and remain a City employee. Analysis A. General matters. Conflicts of interest are prohibited both by statute and at common law. There are a number of statutes that relate to conflicts of interest. Many of those statutes, however, do not apply to the instant case. For example, several statutes are restricted in scope to other persons (e. g. , city council members or economic development officers, Minn. Stat. if 412.311 and 469.098). This situation does not i Anvolve a council member or economic development officer. Other statutes are restricted to specific triusaetions (a.g., Minn. $tat. ! 471.87 prohibits a public CADS1306 1 =160-2 APR 16 '93 10:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 official from participating in the making of any contract) . This situation does not involve the making.of a contract by the City or HRA. ' These statutes arise out of common law principles, and those principles are broader than the specific language of the statutes. That broad principle is that "a [person) cannot serve two masters," and that principle extends from council members and commissioners, to department heads, to hourly employees.. The statutes and case law focus primarily on council members, because those persons are most often the decision makers on public matters, but the common law principle applies to public servants at every level. The discussion below focuses on those statutes and common law principles that apply to this particular situation. The same statutes, and other statutes, may apply in other circumstances (e.g., public contracts, or conflicts involving council members). B . Statutes applicable to HRA employees. Section 469.009 is the conflicts of interest statute for housing and redevelop- ment authorities. Unlike some other conflicts statutes, Section 469.009 governs not only elected or appointed officials but also.employess. The significant requirements of the statute are summarized below: 1. Ddaelocure required. The statute requires that, "[b]efore taking an action or making a decision which could substantiall affect the commissioner's or an employee's financial interests , the empoayee must disclose the potential conflict. Minn. Stat. 1 469.009, subd. 1 (emphasis added). No disclosure is required, however, if the effect on the employee of the decision or act will be no greater than on other members of the same business, profession or occupation. If the act or decision does have potential for a substantial financial effect, the employee must prepare a written statement that describes the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest. The statement must be submitted to the HRA board and entered upon the minutes at the next HRA meeting. The statement must be submitted not later than one week after the employee becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest. An employee who knowingly fails to submit a required statement or submits a false or incomplete statement-Is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. • 2. Nonparttdpation• If an employee has a potential conflict of interest, the employee's superior must immediately assign the matter to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest. Minn. Stat. 1469.009, subd. 2. The employee is only prohibited from participating in the action or decision; the employee is not prohibited from holding public employment if a potential conflict arises. A knowing violation this provisions is a gross misdemeanor. 8. Contracts prohibited. BRA commissioners and employees are prohibited from taking part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in which the commissioner or employee has a personal financial interest. Minn. Stat. 1 469.009, subd. S. (This provision has no immediate application -to this circumstance. but the HRA does occasionally G85i388 2 1tC160-2 APR 16 '93 10:24 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.4 purchase property, and it could apply in the future. ) Violation of this provisions is a gross misdemeanor 4. No fence jumping. For one year after termination of employment, an HRA employee (or commissioner) may not appear personally (or as an attorney or agent for another) before a court or agency in connection with any proceeding, claim, etc., in which the BRA is substantially interested, if the subject matter of the proceeding, claim, etc. is one in which the employee took any action or made a decision within the year prior to termination . Minn. Stat. 1 469.009, subd. 4. In effect, the statute creates a two-year ban on switching sides with respect to actions or decisions made while employed by the HRA. 5. FYnancial assistance. An HRA employee or commissioner may receive financial assistance once only from each program established by the HRA to provide financial assistance or financing for real property (other than rental assistance programs). Minn. Stat. 1469.009, subd. 5. This statute does not preclude the Employee from purchasing a business in the City of Richfield, because the Employee's purchase does not require any decision or approval by the Employee in his capacity as an BRA employee. It is possible, however, that future HRA decisions or actions could raise potential conflicts. If the Employee becomes aware of a potential conflict, the diselosure.and non-participation requirements of 1469.009 will kick in. R- Statutes governing city employees • - There is no statute comparable to Section 469.009 that governs city employees. Section 471.87 prohibits government entities from entering into contracts in which a "public official" who has has a personal financial interest, if the official has authority to participate in the making of the contract. As interpreted by the courts; the statute prohibits the making of such a contract, regardless of whether the interested public official participates in the decision. Typically, the cases decided under this statute have involved council members; it is uncertain whether the statute would be extended to department heads or other employees, who generally do not have authority to make contracts. Regardless of how that issue would be resolved, the statute does not apply to this circumstance, because the Employee's business does not contract with the City or HRA. As an aside, it should be noted that Section 471.88 contains exceptions to the prohibition in Section 471.87. : However, it is not necessary to discuss those exceptions here, because the instant question does not involve a City or BRA contract. 1 C. Glut charter provisiom. The City has adopted a code of ethics which contains requirements substan- tially aimilar to those in Section 471.87 and Section.-469.009. Section 12.04 of the City Charter prohibits a public official from entering into any contract with the City that is prohibited by law. Section 12.05 of the City Charter mirrors the disclosure requirements of Section 469.009 for "[a]ny public official who in the discharge of e.ia off awls duties would bo required to take an action or make a decision which ct?ssiase RC260-2 3 APR 16 '93 10:25 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.5 would substantially affect such official's financial interest ..." Although Section 12.05 requires disclosure, it does not specify what should be done after disclosure is made. That is, it does notexpressly prohibit the public official with a potential conflict from participating in the decision; however, that prohibition is implied. The more fundamental issue is whether Chapter 12 of the City Charter applies to the Employee. It does not . Section 12.01 of the City Charter defines a "public official" to include "all elected officials, the City Manager, and all members of boards or commissions., as are authorized under this Charter." Lastly, even if Chapter 12 did apply to department heads and employees, the instant circumstance does not come within Section 12.05. At the present time, the Employee is not involved in his official capacity in an action or decision that would substantially affect the Employee's financial interest in the business he is buying. Potential conflicts may arise in the future, but even then, Chapter 12 would not apply because of its restrictive definition of "public official." D. - Common law principles. Even without statutory or charter provisions, however, in my opinion, under the common law, a City or HRA employee may not take part in a decision or action which could substantially affect the employee's personal or financial interest. Where a potential conflict exists, therefore, the Employee should disclose the conflict so that an employee without a disqualifying interest can be assigned to the task. If the Employee does participate in the decision or action, there is a risk that the decision or action could be invalidated. E. Adoption of more restrictive poNcies. You have asked whether the City and HRA may adopt conflict-of-interest policies that impose more restrictions on City and HRA officials and employees than are currently imposed under the City Charter or the statutes discussed above. The answer to your question is: yes, the City and HRA may impose reasonable restric- tions on employees' activities that create the potential for a conflict of interest or that create an appearance of impropriety. The need for and scope of such policies is a policy issue for the City Council and HRA Board to decide. For the purpose of guiding discussion, however, I have listed some options for the Council and Board to consider. 1. Amending the City Charter to cover employees as well as "public officials ." 2. Adopting a policy for city employees with requirements similar to those imposed on HRA employees by Minn. Stat. 1469.009. 3. Adopting a policy similar to the requirements of 1469.009 but which broadens the proscribed conflicts to include those that affect personal as well as financial Interests. This type of policy would reach situa- tions where City officials or employees have decision-making powers over matters that would affect close personal (e. g. , family) ties. Conflicts-of-interests policies serve a valuable purpose, but they also involve a daliaate balanco. The policy should be restrictive enough to prevent abuse and P?O41aee - xciao-s 4 APR 16 '93 10:25 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.6 Instill public confidence in the decision-making process, but not so restrictive that it discourages public employment or employee participation in the City's commercial and civic affairs. CM1388 5 RC160-2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 124 HRA Letter No. 13 Agenda April 19, 1993 Issue Statement: Authorization to lease 6318 Nicollet Avenue to a 77th Street relocatee for one year. Background: A residential relocatee at 7646 Lyndale Avenue has brought the construction process for Phase I to a halt as of Wednesday, April 14, 1993. MnDOT will not approve advertising for construction contractors until the relocatee signs a "Waiver of 90 Day Relocation Rights." The relocatee will not sign the waiver until an acceptable relocation has been identified. Despite extraordinary efforts by our relocation consultant, the relocatee has been unwilling to accept a wide variety of options. The only option that he has been willing to accept is a one year lease on 6318 Nicollet. 6318 Nicollet is a rehabilitated, two bedroom, single family house that has been offered for sale as part of the Richfield Rediscovered Program. Renting the house would take the property off the "For Sale" market for one year. Recommended Motion: City Council: 1. The City Council request the HRA to utilize the property at 6318 Nicollet as a relocation resource for the relocatee for a period of one year. HRA: 1. The HRA authorize the leasing of 6318 Nicollet to the subject relocatee for one year at $650 per month under the following terms: ? A security deposit equal to one month's rent will be paid at the beginning of the lease term. ? HRA insure the property for liability and property damage. ? The relocatee to have option of purchasing own insurance for personal properties. ? No pets. ? Yard maintenance to be responsibility of relocatee. ? Term of lease: one year maximum. After the one year lease expires, the relocatee would find permanent housing elsewhere. The property would then be offered for-sale by the HRA under the normal program terms. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Despite extraordinary efforts, this is the only housing the relocatee has been willing to accept as suitable replacement housing. A summary of the relocation process is attached. It is clear that every reasonable effort has been made to provide other acceptable alternatives on a timely basis. 2. If the relocatee does not sign the Waiver of Relocation Rights, letting of the project contract could be delayed two months. 3. Delay in initiating construction would likely cause serious problems. If the relocatee does not sign a waiver, he would be eligible to remain in the current apartment until May 28, 1993. Assuming a worst case situation, an uncooperative relocatee, a holdover could result and the City would need to obtain an unlawful detainer and could not legally terminate occupancy until 20 days later, or about June 18, 1993. Construction would then not be permitted to begin until two to three months later. With an August or later construction start time, two alternatives are available: delay construction until 1994 or start construction with the risk of very poor, and probably unacceptable, road conditions during the winter. 4. The City Council has previously directed staff to undertake especial effort to initiate construction in this calendar -. year. The timeframe for construction letting has been compressed from the normal 30 month process to approximately 12 months. 5. Staff and consultants have conscientiously followed relocation procedures. The need to look at this unconventional relocation choice is a result of efforts beyond the City's control. MnDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must approve the acquisition of property before offers to purchase can be made and the relocation can formally begin. The acquisition of this property and several others were submitted to MnDOT for review and approval on October 26, 1992. Althougha December 1992 approval had been expected, it was not provided until February 23, 1993 despite concerted efforts of staff to expedite this process. 6. The suggested rental price of $650 per month is approximately $100 less than an informal estimate of the market rent for this property determined by appraiser. The tenant's income and relocation payment will support a payment of $650 per month. The rent received should be sufficient to provide a payment in lieu of taxes and repainting walls and replacing floor coverings if necessary. 0 Alternative Recommendation: 1. 'Staff has explored the''possibility of reviewing other alternatives with MnDOT which would permit advertising to proceed and delay relocation to a later date. MnDOT has stated that this is not acceptable. 2. The project could proceed without the acquisition of the relocatee's parcel if the City would agree to not seek MnDOT/FHWA.funding for expenses relating to this property. Costs related to the property, including acquisition, relocation, demolition and retrofitting of the wall of the adjoining building to remain is approximately $250,000. 3. Direct staff to find an alternative relocation resource. As recounted in the attached summary, significant efforts have already been.expended to locate suitable alternative housing. It is most likely that our efforts would not be successful and the project would be delayed and result in increased cost to the City and residents. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the concurrent City Council/HRA meeting of April 19, 1993. _ ly submitted, • JDP:cak Jam Dtive . Prosser Cit anager/ Exe Director 0 SUMMARY OF RELOCATION EFFORTS The relocatee was first visited by Mr. John Connors of Conworth Inc., in October 1992 to begin the process of establishing a working relationship and in anticipation of MnDOT approval of property purchase.December 1992. It took the relocatee a .long time to accept the project. •• Initially, an appearance was made before the City Council to protest the project and request a redesign so that a property purchase would not be necessary. Subsequently, the relocatee protested to MnDOT. Eligibility for relocation benefits is established at the time an offer is made to purchase a property. MnDOT/FHWA funding are not available until a property is approved for purchase. Activity prior to the approval would have resulted in the City losing cost participation in the acquisition and relocation expenses and construction costs for this property. Devising a relocation strategy for this person has been difficult. Mr. Connors and the two other relocation consultants in his office have a total of 55 years of relocation experience and considerable experience in relocating single elderly people. Extraordinary measures have been taken and will be recounted at the meeting by Mr. John Connors. A psychologist was consulted. The ministers at the relocatee's church were asked to intervene and refused. A member of the church, who works in real estate, was consulted but to no avail. Other family members have not been able•to help. The regulations are interpreted to require a minimum of three referrals. The referrals must be similar in size and location to the unit from which the person is being moved. It must be affordable. As April 14, Mr. Connors had evaluated 12 potential referrals and personally toured five of them with the relocatee. Although the five units seemed to meet almost all of the relocatee's criteria, they were consistently rejected. Referrals were obtained from private listing companies, advertisements in the Richfield Sun-Current and Bloomington Sun-Current and through an advertisement placed by Conworth in the Star Tribune under Housing Wanted. In anticipation of MnDOT completing a plan review on Wednesday, April 14, a "brainstorming" session was held on Friday, April 9. Attention focused on the 77th Street houses east of Portland Avenue owned by the City. They are vacant and readily available. However, they will be removed•this year forcing the relocatee to relocate twice in less than a year. Previous attempts to relocate, which involved interim moves, were rejected by the relocatee. Then the focus shifted to the Vo-Tech houses on Nicollet Avenue. The 6318 Nicollet site seemed to be the more desirable of the two properties. The relocatee•stated that he thought about it, prayed about it and consulted with a close friend and agreed to accept the house if formally offered. As of this writing, 631.8 Nicollet is the only property the relocatee has indicated a.willingness,to move. It can be ready for occupancy on Tuesday, April 20. The relocatee could be in residency on or before.April 23. HISTORY OF 77TH STREET - MnDOT RIGHT OF WAY APPROVAL PROCESS 11/91 Federal funding approval. 2/92 City authorized for Federal reimbursement for staff time spent on project - engineering and right-of-way support. MnDOT staff informs City staff that project development is a three year process. City Council goal setting established 77th Street as a top priority. One year process developed by City staff. 6/92 Engineering consultant selection process completed - BRW/OSM team can now begin reimbursable work. 8/92 City staff requested and received an exception from MnDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to allow a variance in their project development procedures which allows City to begin to purchase most of right-of-way before final construction limits are established. At least six months time is saved. 10/26/93 Final right-of-way (ROW) plan including all easements and the property at 7646 Lyndale is submitted for MnDOT approval. Expect a two month turn around; approval by Jan. 1. Review is delayed at MnDOT District office. 12/17/93 Repeated phone calls result in District approval of final ROW plan and plan transmittal to MnDOT Central office for final review. MnDOT District staff direct City staff to make all plan status inquiries through the-District office. 1/30/93 Repeated inquiries first through District and finally directly to Central office reveal that final right-of-way plan has been misplaced at MnDOT Central office. Central office staff had mistakenly been reviewing the previously approved preliminary ROW plan instead of the final ROW plan. 2/5/93 City staff meet with senior MnDOT officials to establish workable interagency communication links for project. 2/24/93 MnDOT officials inform City of final-right-of-way plan approval one week after 2/17/93 approval given. City staff has since been trying to recover two months lost time in a time sensitive purchase process. MnDOT CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS 1/93-4/93 In order to expedite review, City sends plans directly to MnDOT division offices with review authority (signals, hydraulics, structure) despite MnDOT request that plan be reviewed sequentially by each division. Result is an accelerated review above concerns of process by MnDOT staff. 0 4/5/93 MnDOT Director of State Aid Division agrees to a variance in contract advertising procedure which allows the City to advertise one month earlier than normal. 4/14/93 Construction plans ready for advertising. r • SCHEDULE OF EVENTS FOR THE CONTRACT FOR 77TH STREET ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT April 14-21 Finalize PS&E April 21 MnDOT authorizes project. April. 30 First ad in construction bulletin May 7, 14 Second and third advertisement . May 24 Bid opening May 30 Special City Council Meeting to recommend award to low bidder. May 31-June 14 MnDOT Equal Employment Opportunity office reviews bid for compliance with. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements. This stop frequently causes delay. June 21 Following notice by MnDOT, City deposits local share with MnDOT. June 21 Contract sent to various State agencies for approval. Contract form approved. Contractor will normally start work at this time. July 19 Notice of approval of contract by State agencies. July 20 Latest date contractor can mobilize for work assuming no snags in contract preparation. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.123 HRA Letter No.12 Agenda April 19, 1993. Issue Statement: . Consideration of use of the southerly five acres of the Cloverleaf site for a portable concrete batch mixing plant for the 77th Street Project. Background: Seventy-seventh Street will be paved with concrete. The quantity of concrete needed is sufficient to justify the use of an on-site batch plant. The plant would introduce cost and operational efficiencies into'the process. An open site of-approximately five acres with relatively convenient access is needed.. The City's consultants have identified only one potentially suitable location, the southerly five acres of the Cloverleaf site. Staff is continuing discussion for use of Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) property as an alternative site. An update on these negotiations will be available at the meeting. The items which warrant consideration include: 1. Lease - the successful contractor would sign a lease yet to be drafted. Issues included in the lease are environmental controls, waiver of liability, term and hours of operation. 2. Rent - typically a use such as this would not pay rent. The use of the property would be viewed as an "in kind" contribution by the community to support the project. An appraiser familiar with the site and market rents informally valued the use of the property for this purpose at $138,800 per year or $11,600 per month.' 3. Term - a site would be needed for three years, 1993-95. Ideally the lease would permit such a term. An alternative would be-one construction season at a time renewable based on performance criteria established by the City and/or HRA. 4. Particulate matter - BRW, the project consultant, has indicated that when such a plant has operated at other locations it has met MN Pollution Control Agency emission requirements. 5. Noise - the operating noise levels would exceed those permitted by the City''s noise ordinance given the proximity of a residential zone some 800 feet to the northeast.. Another alternative being investigated is the use of power from NSP instead of using gas engines. BRW has indicated a portion of the screenwall could be constructed prior to initiating operation of the batch plant. The screenwall would mitigate the noise to an ordinance acceptable level. The ordinance does contain a provision fora variance which -could be granted by the City Council upon application. 6. Restoration = the site would be restored to its previous condition within a reasonable time period once the operation :ceased. 7.: The lowland and wooded areas - use of the southerly five acres would not impact the west central low land nor the northerly oak trees. Recommended Motion: City Council: Request the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority to allow the use of the Cloverleaf site for the purpose of a concrete batch plant for:the exclusive use of mixing concrete for the 77th Street Project. HRA: Allow the use of the southerly five acres of the Cloverleaf site for one year for use as a concrete batch plant. However, depending on potential extra contract costs, should MAC property become available for the City's use as a concrete batch plant, the MAC site will be used instead of the Cloverleaf site.-- Basis of Recommendation: 1. The use of the site would introduce cost efficiencies into the project. 2. Trucks would be less likely to intrude into the commercial and residential areas. 3. The 77th Street project will benefit the site by improving access and providing adequate storm water drainage such that a future development project will not have to bear the multi million dollar cost of construction of the storm sewer. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refuse to support the proposal. 2. Delay consideration. 3. Modify the proposal. Discussion/Decision Mode: The project will soon be bid. The project specifications must identify the availability of the site as it will impact bid prices. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser city nager/ Executive Director JDP:cak • 0