The URL can be used to link to this page

07-28-09 agenda packetCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding stormwater capital improvement program (Council Memo No. 126). Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to .order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of July 14, 2009; (2) Special City Council Meeting of July 14, 2009; and (3) Special City Council Worksession of July 20, 2009 PRESENTATIONS 1. Consideration of resolution accepting $1000 grant from Sam's Club Foundation to Richfield Fire Services Department Staff Report No. 141 Notes: 2. Consideration of resolution authorizing Public Safety Department/Police Division to accept monetary donation for Safety Day 2009 and 2010 Staff Report No. 142 Notes: COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Update regarding Neighborhood Inspection Program • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 first reading of ordinance modifying electric franchise fee on Northern States Power dba Xcel Energy for providing electric service within City of Richfield and scheduling public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 143 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordnance modifying gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within City of Richfield and scheduling public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 144 C. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting reference to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and scheduling second reading for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 145 D. Consideration of approval of contract change order #1 for additional tree removal in amount of $19,151 and change order #2 for frost footings under concession stoop in amount of $2,717.20 for Lincoln Athletic Complex S.R. No. 146 E. Consideration of approval of authorizing Joint Powers Agreement between City of Richfield and Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization S.R. No. 147 F. Consideration of approval of issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 148 G. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and public dance licenses for The Church of the Assumption annual Fun Fiesta on August 16, 2009 S.R. No. 149 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: RESOLUTION 7. Consideration of resolution authorizing option agreement with Accessible Space Inc. for redevelopment of 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, south portion of former Public Works facility site Staff Report No. 150 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of placement of permanent barriers on 64th and 65th Streets at Richfield Parkway (17th Avenue) for neighborhood west of Cedar Point Staff Report No. 151 Notes: 9. Consideration of street light user implementation schedule plan and schedule public hearing on August 25, 2009 Staff Report No. 152 Notes: 10. Consideration of design development phase for new Police/Fire/City Hall facility Staff Report No. 153 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 11. City Manager's report Notes: 12. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient Time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 13. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 23, .2009 Council Memorandum No. 126 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Update (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: At the July 28, 2009 Council Worksession, staff and the City's consultant will discuss the status of the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP) outlined in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Attached is an excerpt from the CIP Table and feasibility reports completed for projects No. 2 (68th Street & Oliver Avenue) and No. 4 (65th Street & Newton Avenue). These reports will be .discussed at the Worksession. suarr~tea, ~t~n L. Devich City Manager t SLD:cak Attachment Email: Department Directors .Assistant to the City Manager ~~~ ~ Associates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction Meuaorc~ndum To: Kristen Asher, City of Richfield Mike Eastling, City of Richfield Frorn: Pete Willenbrirzg, PE Date: April 22, 2009 Re: Flood Problem in the Vicinity of 65th Street and Newton Avenue City of Richfield, MN WSB Project No. 1532-23 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Te1:763-541-4800 Fax:763-541-1700 I. Introduction/Purpose This memorandum has been prepared to present the results of an investigation into a flooding problem that has been routinely experienced near the intersection of 66th Street and Newton Avenue and in backyard areas east and north of this intersection. During significant rainfall events, water collects near the intersection of 66th and Newton Avenue, flows north along Newton Avenue, and eventually overtops the driveway apron at 6535 Newton Avenue (see Figure 1 and 2). Once this water overtops the driveway apron, it flows into a large depression that serves as the backyard to residents north of 66th Street along Newton Avenue and Morgan Avenue. Damages in excess of $50,000 can occur when this area floods during major rainfall events. Some of the homes and businesses along Newton Avenue, Morgan Avenue, or 66th Street have constructed flood-proofing measures such as block retaining walls or berms to reduce damages when overflow events occur; however, most are still threatened during major events. It is the purpose of this memorandum to discuss various alternatives that are available address this problem as well as provide a recommendation for the most cost-effective, feasible alternative to address this issue. II. Alternatives Considered As part of this investigation into correcting this flooding problem, a number of improvement alternatives were evaluated. A discussion of each of these alternatives and a summary of the findings made is provided below: ACEC 2008 Firm of tlae Year Minneapolis 1St. CIoUd K:10153?-?3Udmi+dDocsIMEMOffood~roA(em-0.f1709.dnc Equal Opportunity Employer Flood Problem Apri122, 2009 Page 2 Alternative A: Construct Additional Storm Sewers to Carry Flood Waters from the Area. This alternative was evaluated and found to not be acost-effective, feasible alternative to correcting this problem. Constructing additional storm sewer capacity from the 66th and Newton area would likely consist of constructing a trunk line from Newton Avenue north to 64th Street and then east all the way to 35W. Any storm sewer system that would be constructed through this reach would be relatively flat and not able to provide the peak- flow capacity necessary to prevent flooding in this intersection. Furthermore, the cost for this type of improvement would be in excess of $10 million, would likely impact downstream properties with the additional flow rates, and transfer this flooding problem to another location in the City. For this reason, this alternative is not recommended. Alternative B: Flood-Proof Structures The option of allowing water to continue to overflow into these backyard areas but to prevent damage to the structures through the use of flood-proofing measures was considered. Options such as installing window wells, sealing walkouts, and raising foundation elevations were evaluated as part of this analysis. Many of the residents in the area have already undertaken such measures in an attempt to protect their structures during periods of heavy rainfall. It should also be noted that fora 100-year rainfall event of a critical duration, water may pond in the backyard areas to depths exceeding 8 feet in some locations. This requires the use of rather robust flood-proofing measures that significantly impact the ability of residents to reasonably use the lower levels of their homes. For the above reasons, we found this flood_proofing option to be feasible but somewhat unreasonable for residents to construct on a site-by-site basis. Alternative C: Provide an Emergency Overflow for the Area Another option that is routinely considered when addressing aflood-problem is to find if there is an opportunity to construct an emergency overflow that would allow water to leave the area if it reaches an elevation that starts causing flooding in the street. Based on a review of the topography in the area, no such emergency overflow route or downstream area that could accommodate this water is available. Alternative D: Encourage Homeowners to Purchase Flood Insurance This option provides homeowners with an opportunity to receive payments that may equal the damages that would periodically occur should their structure flood. This option is generally found to be cost effective compared to the construction of other public _ improvements options because the frequency of flooding is generally low and compared to the cost of other improvements; the cost benefit of this alternative is generally high. Generally, from a public policy perspective, this alternative is not generally viewed in a positive light, as homeowners are still impacted by flood waters. K:10/53?-331AdminlDocsIMEMO Jlond pro6fem-04/ ]09doc Flood Problem April 22, 2009 Page 3 Alternative E: Construct Additional Storage for Flood Waters in the Backyard Areas to Protect Structures from Flooding This alternative (shown on Figure 3) consists of the following: - Obtaining an easement from property owners over areas that have the lowest backyards in the area. - Construct a project, whereby, these low areas would be further depressed to provide increased flood storage at lower elevations. This flood storage could be used to contain flood waters at these lower elevations instead of having this water flood the backyard at a higher elevation and inundate the homes. - Construct a defined overflow route to take water from the intersections when they flood to a depth that impacts passing cars. - Construct a pump or other outlet that would allow for water to be removed from this depression following a significant event occurring. - Continue to encourage homeowners to maintain flood-proofing measures around their homes to a reasonable extent to further reduce the probability structures would be inundated during significant events. The implementation of this option would likely require the voluntary dedication of a drainage easement over selected backyard areas for the purpose of constructing this improvement. Should property owners not be interested involuntarily dedicating these easements, condemnation of property for this purpose may not be deemed reasonable. The cost to construct this alternative is estimated to range from $250,000 to $400,000. Recommended Alternative Based on a review of the alternatives available to address the flooding problem in this location, we recommend the City further investigate the viability of constructing additional storm water storage in the backyard areas as a cooperative prof ect between the City and homeowners in this area (Alternative E). Depending on the interest by the homeowners of working with the City in constructing such an improvement and should the homeowners be willing to voluntarily dedicate easements and work with the City to construct additional storm water storage in the backyard areas of their property, this is the most cost-effective, feasible alternative to correct this flooding problem. We estimate the cost to construct this additional storage to range from $250,000 to $400,000. sm/tsf K:10153?-?3W dmirdDocsIMEMO Jlnnd problem-041709.dnc - ti R,,~ ~, ~ ,; m z A~_ ' ~~ ~ , ~: ,~ . ~ ~~ , 'b~.~-'~ R'w.~ ifs- . .~ ~,., -- - _ _ _ O - -- I 65th fit. 8 /Newton Ave. ,,' Drainage Area = 184 Acres ~~ _ r _ 1~~+.t ~~ 65th ~ 0lle~rrton FI®od Problem Area City ®f Richfield, IVIN ., _. ' ~4 : - vv ouiu at. "`_ _... -_ .. ,Y - - .~ N W~E s o soo ~,ooo Feet i ~^ ,..,r:.,~ . " ~ ~ VY 66th Jt• -_: _ $f ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~„~~~, wsB R~ t~~`, -. ~.`.s. -. d A c¢u< . Irac. R~•i~"~v~ 65th & Newton Flood Problem Area City of Richfield, MN FIgU-°e 2 N W~E 0 125 250 Feet ~- ,. '~ ,. , - .,.~ _- ~; ,. v ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ". °M -- "~' ~ ~,~b r' ~' a `~ r:~k~ f ~~@ _ ,, „y~'R ,. y,. _ , ~ _.,:. . -. k r ry N_ 55 ~ • a ffi ~~i d-. r, ~. ~, y „c' ~ ~°~ ~ ~ :a,~q - '.a ~ `~ x a. Rp" '~ t P r., I dC$"` ~ l Y~ e~ ra ~t , t, •. ~, bbb ~ ~~ T °'^ . A 6 .. ~i '~ ~ ~ ~~ p . ~~ r~~y:~, r (b~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ A '0Y. 4, •1y~ ~a ~ ~b ,4'..~_t a '.,. '~.~"I'9ar..,. ~ ... F try 4 ,~ - ~ .. ~~,. 'S -~ s n.I uF~ r Wed ~-- t v ~'~_ .. I `1. ~ 5~ t..'e `i'~ a ~. ~'u.~ >~F ~~ 3> t_..,,,~R ,~ ~ Y. ~" '~ ~~ i, ,~~. ~' ~ P fi'fV f ~b : '~.~.:: y1 I 1ks a~4.'._~ Nv k -- a ~; lu ,~ .. W ~ ~~, ' v ~,. _ ., mt~ ~ ' ~ ~ w ~ ,~ ~~. 'fir ~t -; n,» ~r ~?~ .,; ~ ~,, " ~ ._ I' ~ I' f M[ ~ ~r t ~. k ~F } ~~ ~ MT ~~: ,.. ~ .~ ~ _ •~ ~ L `• /lr ~) ~', ' ~ ~ v ~~ .~~ _ .~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~' ` ~:- ~~ ~ "a {e ~ ~ "'wrou ~1 Y J •'~ ~ ~ 4 r, 4 -'s~' l 1 Y. V ^.,., -~ / r. _. _ __ -. --_ _-_ }" WSB Project No. 1532-23 Date: April 22, 2009 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 3DD Proposed Grading Plan WVL Minneapolis, MN 55416 wwwwsben9°°m 65th Street & Newton Avenue Figure Y & A.,~e~nd~r~ca~, r,:~~. 7fi35A1L8Gt~-raz7&15x1-17W ~.~ ~~ ~/I lYl11P Ql1+~ iULRG C'FI I^TI IFF FN';INFFRINf: PI ANNINf: (:~NSTRII(:TInN {I 1 ~ 1 A ~~~ &.4ssociates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction Memorandum To: Kristen Asher, City of Richfield Mike Eastling, City of Richfield Czty of Richf eld City Council Front: Pete Willenbring, PE 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax:763-541-1700 Date: April 22, 2009 Re: Investigation into Flood Problem area at 68t~' Street and Oliver Ave~aue City of Richfield, MN WSB Project No. 1532-24 I. Introduction/Purpose This memorandum provides the results of an investigation into a recurring flooding problem that is present in the vicinity of 68th Street and Oliver Avenue (see Figures 1 and 2). The problem occurs during heavy rainfall events when storm water runoff directed to west 68t Street is conveyed to the east in the vicinity of Oliver Avenue South. Homes in the mid-block area of 68th Street have a common driveway extending south, and these homes generally have first-floor elevations below the elevation of west 68th Street. During heavy rainfall events, water can overflow the gutter and apron of west 68th Street, and be carried south into the driveways, fill a small depression, and then inundate low- lyinghomes in this area. Damages in excess of $50,000 may occur if this area is inundated. The City has completed some minor improvement projects in this area in the past to contain water within west 68th Street and not allow it to overflow and inundate homes in the depression to the south. The City previously raised a boulevard area and the driveway apron on the south side of west 68th Street to reduce the likelihood of this overflow occurring, and installed a flat gate that serves the storm sewer to prevent water from backing up into this depression should this storm sewer surcharge in this area. Although these activities have increased the level of flood protection for these homes, this area has again recently been impacted by flooding that occurs during shorter duration, high-intensity rainfall events. ACEC 2008 Firm of the Year Minneapolis 1 .St. Cloud K:IOI533-?4UdmirdOcerlML•MOJloodproblem 68&Oliver-0417tl9.doc Equal Opportunity Employer Flood Problem - 68~` Street and Oliver Avenue April 22, 2009 Page 2 II. Alternatives Considered A number of improvement alternatives were considered and evaluated as part of the effort to reduce the frequency of flooding in this area. Outlined below, please find a listing of these alternatives and a summary of the findings associated with the investigation. Alternative A: Increase the Capacity of the Storm Sewer System to Carry Water from the Area Storm water runoff in this area is carried by a storm sewer system along 68th Street that carries water over a distance of approximately 3,000 feet prior to its discharge to Wood Lake. No storm water storage areas are present along this route, and the entire system from Sheridan Avenue east to Wood Lake would need to be reconstructed to increase the capacity of the system at this location. The cost for this reconstruction would be in excess of $10 million, and the increase in capacity that would be achieved for this expense would not provide 100-year protection for these homes. For these reasons, this alternative was not deemed to be a feasible way to address this problem. Alternative B: Construct an Emergency Overflow for the Area The depression in which these homes are located is one of the lowest areas in the vicinity and as such tends to serve as an emergency overflow from other areas in the watershed. Furthermore, the homes that are present in this location are lower than the surrounding area, and any connection of this area to the storm sewer will result in water backing up into this area when the system becomes pressurized during heavy rainfall events. For these reasons, no viable emergency overflow was found available for construction in this location. Alternative C: Install Flood-Proofing Measures around Threatened Structures This alternative was deemed feasible to some extent. Because the current driveways and slab on-grade, first floors have elevations similar to the ground around, then small berms could be utilized to reduce the probability of flooding and still allow for reasonable access to the structure via driveways and sidewalks. An investigation into the amount of storage provided by installing these measures revealed that it was unlikely that such measures could provide 100-year flood protection for these residents taking into consideration the direct tributary drainage area through this area, as well as the potential for water that currently could overtop 68th Street in this location: Based on the above considerations, this alternative can partially address the flood problem, but is not capable of fully addressing this issue independently. The cost to implement this option is estimated to range from $15,000 to $30,000 per structure. K:1015!?-?4LldmirdDnce~IMEMOJIoadproblern 68 & Oliver-041702doc Flood Problem - 68`~ Street and Oliver Avenue Apri122, 2009 Page 3 Alternative D: Encourage Homeowners to Purchase Flood Insurance This is the most cost-effective measures available to address these flooding problems, but does not address the issue related to the personal impact of the home being periodically inundated. Alternative_ E: Construct Additional Storm Water Storage in the Problem Area This alternative was deemed to be the most viable of the alternatives considered, however, the storage areas would need to be constructed on private property and would impact the homeowner's use of this property in the future. This option would consist of removing the driveways in this area and lowering the elevation of these areas to provide additional storm water storage below the first-floor elevations of the structures (see Figure 3). The area would then be re-constructed with lower driveways and small berms would be constructed in the vicinity of the homes to further increase the flood protection for the structures. The goal of this project is to provide ponding volume equal to the runoff from the direct tributary area during a 100-year, 24-hour storm. The grading plan shown on FiguNe 1 provides 0.74 acre-feet of storage volume. The construction cost for this work is anticipated to be approximately $200,000, which includes a small lift station to remove runoff from the low area. Alternative F: Increase the Height of the Boulevard Immediately South of 68tH Street This improvement alternative consists of only increasing the height of the boulevard and re-grading the driveway access from 68th Street to provide added assurances that water from the street will not overflow to this area during significant rainfall events. Additional enhancements would also be constructed to provide added assurances that the back-flow prevention system currently in place in the storm sewer system serving this area will function as desired. The cost for this alternative is estimated at $50,000. Alternative G: Construct Additional Stormwater Storage in the Drainage Area This alternative consists of creating a depression in the area (see Figure 4) north of 68tH Street to provide stormwater storage for an upstream drainage area of approximately 10 acres. The storm sewer north of the park area would also be redirected into the new pond, and the 48-inch trunk line in 68th Street will be able to surcharge and back into the pond during larger storm events. The anticipated construction cost for this option is $150,000. K:10153?-?4UdminlDneslM&MOI-flood prob(ern 68 & 0(iver-OJ1709.duc Flood Problem - 68~' Street and Oliver Avenue April 22, 2009 Page 4 Recommended Alternative It is recommended that Alternative E and F be implemented if the homeowners in the area are receptive to the anticipated impacts to their property. If they are not receptive, alternative F coupled with Alternative G should be considered. sm/tsf K:10!53?-?41AdmintDocsIMEMO-/land problem 63 & Oliver-041709.doc .~,, btate Hwy 62 W. 62nd St _ ` " ~y~ ~c"•.~r.Heritage Dr ~~ t T * ; ~~ , ,~~~~ aNi i . . cx •l ,~ q ~ ~~ ;`#'~~. s 'a t '`'~d 1 V~ #~s,L f ty t ~~ t R Ct ; `- o '~¢ ~. ~,r" ~ Q a x awl ~ .~C f ' ~,,~ ''Y@ 1~ d. ,~ `• ~ r+~~'~r'~ ,,~, i^1 ' . " ~ ~, ~ lixX~ YID s ,~~ a,.~ay, ~.- W`64th SY~ ~ -'*,~d' ~~;..~ .' ~ 7 ~ ~ ; s. . ; ii 1 ~.~~i . r ,~ ~~. ~'= ~' ~-1i _~ ti ~ ' ~,•` t ~ ®raina a Area = 299 Acres 9 ~ "` I ~" "" `"' ~ . W 65~1./2th St f~w.sR.~ ~ .~ ¢j`1 ~ - ~, . ~, :iir..... r; _. ~.'._':~:i _: ~ ~ , _. ,. t .- DliverAve. i7 j ,~z~°: N 68th & Oliver Flood Problem Area W~E ~; City of Richfield, MN wsB 5 ~~ ~ Figure 1 o Soa ,,ooo a..- ~~.s„~~m~~.r.6.c. Feet ~:;. y~~{~ '*s. _ ~ ~' ,~ , 4~'k _ ,? # ~; a: ~ F ;' ~... r a ,,. - ,, . 4 !.:, f ~ ~ 4 ~ ~'.-. !" }Y~ ~J x• ~ .A `x. /E. ~ ~ a ~.. ~ ~'r -n M ~ / ~^ 'e t .~. ~~ xt > t~ / ~a 1' F ,. ar'., t ~,,,~ i ~ ~e s ~'... r m ~ F ~„~~ rc...t~ li it R EI ~ ~e _ ~ .. y~ ~ ~' a°g~ P N ~. ~ ~ . ~ ~ p.. 1' r xz, r ~' L ~ ~~ ,~,.' ~ ~3+e a . ~ st i _~. ." p~?5 ~~ y .. ~~.II6 ~ ~& ~~ ~ ~tl'Wl• P . a - ~~ ~. , ~"a"za~~ 5 ~~ ~ le g ~ ~, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ; ~ , ~. .~ F ~.~,., .~ z. „ ~ ~. r ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ I e~" ~ 14~ ~ r~ ~' .: .k _ _~. _ - _.-_ .: v~ ~ ,~ . ~° r~ ;.f ~'~ ,~ 4 e s ~ .~ `~'` M- xi t ar_ -X1946. ~r ~ _~~ y , ,~ ~'_1..,r~l, Vii; ~, ,, I ~,®r1~1 / }. ~ ,.,. • µ~~ ., _ I yM1c fi iL .. ~ X ~Pw - _ ~.. ~..~~~ ~ ~ +*~+r ~ F ~ ~ r. ~~ s ~ ~ ~- ° t F~~B k c~ I ~£~~ ~ '~":~~'~'j~i,,°~"~b~~ ~~ ~6 ~'° '~~ d~ .mss Pr. /oak. ~ ~ 4+"'^c ~ ~W"'ti`~ ~t~` :3~k '? ,ep~ ~4~ er .~. "t~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ .' s div. ~ ~-~ ~ tel: ~ ~ I t~ ~ 6 ti ~ s.~ .. ~ ~c= ~ y s._..~, ` Proposed Grading WSBProjectNo. 1532-2 c 7D1 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 ~ 'A,[1~ Minneapolis, MN 55416 ~-/~/ ,~wWSben9com 68th Street ~L Oliver Avenue F Y ~@ Ae'sac~iules, Irzc. 763-Sa14800-Faz7635dL17W INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING ~ CONSTRUCTION Richf eld, Minnesota ~pp.' .R ~~ u dL`"~t 4r ~ ~ ~;~ ~n y ' ' M`~ :.. I b . I .. 4 '~ - ~.~w,~~ 't ~1, 4 Date: April 22, 20D9 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. „~ ' !~ "~ a 4~ ~ a, "':. -,~ 4m'- - - '~ ~ "` }.i c ~,% ~ ~ g i t ~R P ~", ,,'~ ",#a9R *'"° y, c:. ~ ,~ s}~" ~ . ",,, ti°? ~ "x ~ I w' ~. . ~ ,~ ~ / ;: ~,' A h \ ~` ~ $-~~rt-r~'~'~ a\ - ~ ~~ "rd's, ,/ "r~ ~' :,~. W z r ,~,, ~, t Ir ;~ ~ J~ ^~~ ~a Y kkt 1`~ ~~ `~ \ .~ ]~~l `.e ra - ~~€m` FLEA .r~z~4 ~ t .~~ ~; ~.1 a ~ ~ ~ Y, ~ ~ N ~.. . , ~ ~p .,, . ° ~ h2 4 ~ ~ tF T sa F. ~~i~ ~; ~ ~ "^~.. ~~,."'h '~~q~e,. v..p: a ,~4 'jJ .:1 a *"'~91 ~•i ~J w ~" ' ~5. Mc. ~ • . ;# , , ti ~t.~~r ~ i ~. .. ~ iA k ,a b `a ~ t ei h4~'.M i 1m- ~...-z~ ~ ,.m ,~ T~ a~ ~ `E°~~ "~ ~~ ~' ~ ` ~+~~ fir, ~ `` "" k '" ~ ~o, a k ~ 1 '~ q'k° ~ t _~~ ~ _ ry ~' r'e~ d 'x M~.h ~ E 4. '~ ~~t ~'. x4 ^ .~._ # ~ ~ L! r ~ ~° ~,ay.. AAA ~ mk ~' ` ~~ .; ~_ .~ .~.k .~'`+, i.' ~, e ' ~ 1 1 Aft }R _ ~ , ~~a ~ al ~~'~ ~F M ~ ,~,~~'`~ #, Y.. CP ~ x 4`. 'Y I ., ,- o,J L y :: .E I o ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ` ` _ - i o r . dd~~~,~' ' ~ "'`'- t __~~;:~ ~ ` ' .,_ it t°' ~ s u ~ ~ r ~~~~ s"_ -i' -•Y' ~ `_ *! 4_ . .~ „ ~ ~II~i~~i~ ~, ~ _ WSB Projecf No. 1532-24 Date: April 22, 2009 ` Proposed Grading c~ 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 30D __ ,n ,q/~'f~ Minneapolis, MN 55416 o vvJ wwwwsbeng.com 68th Street c~ Oliver Avenue Figure ~ & Aesoala¢e~. fnc. INFR45TRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING GDNGTRUCTION ~} '~~~1800 F~'~~'"~ Richfield, 1Vlinnesota A _.- _ ~ ~ °, cn ~ W N ~ ® '~ D C7 C r. (!] `G C O T --^ ~ ~ O O ~ (~ ~ "t W _^ ~ ~ '~ l0 (O ~. O d ^J N ~ W d 7 U1 C) N O ~'S ~ Q. C O d= ~ ~ C O_ d 7 CO d C d~ d d `NG O ~~ O '~ C~ ~1 o- o. ~ O ~ ~. ° O ~ ~ n N W N ~ ~ Q_ N ~ ~p ~ ~ tOn (D cD ~ ~ C "4 O ~ ~ C N N ~ n = d N F A N T ~ (D ~~ p ~, Q, Q a y ~ m ~ - o ~ 'a ~ ° v, n ~ w m ~° o m ~ ~ o ~ '~ m (IS ' a ~ ~ ~ o Q ~ n N 3 o m D q g° fl D m m 3< ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ c m. ~ ~ ~ ~ m c ~ ~ Z m m CD v m ~' fD ~ ~ > ~ j N > o O o m ~ O .A N m N cn m ~ ~ ~ ~ v; ~ .T ~ ~ CD to ~ p . r SU O O O ~ O ~ r-t _ ~ ~ O • w N N ~ Efl ~ f8l '-a n (D C'1 p Q v ~ O O o ~ ~ ® ~ IDD O O p p p ~ ~ ~ p p o O O ~ M Q O ~ ' O O C3 p ~~ O c~ O C~ c~ C~ Q C ~ ~ ~ D _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ O -I o w rn ~ b' N 6' N ~ fPl m ~ po ~ °o O N ~ °~ '® Z ~ ~ ~ ~ O O p ~ O O o v9 1V1 f9! (~ L o ~ ~- C7 O ® ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~. 1 N ~ ~ O O O ~ 0 9J O iV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ CJ ~ CD ~p (D (D -~ T 'T7 ~~ C O C t0 C O O O o ~ N ~ ' CJ m ~j C L o ~ W d n o . ~ 0 -~ '~ -o ~ f v O m -o ~ zc m G ~ W = Q ~ e. K a X X p~y t Y l z t~ ® `~ D O ° ^. ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~_ O C7 ~ G ~ C C ~ co ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ a °' ~ m n G° N O ~ n N o ni `< o cn -, ~ C7 $1 ~~ (D cn 61 O ? .-. Cu to ~ -- , N ~. '~ ~ ® °~ ~ y. r4 ~ o ~ ? ~ ° r m fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m u; = m o w .-. ~ ~ m Us ~ < .~ ~ ^ m ~ 3 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ r, ~ ~ o ~ ° ° m v ?. ~ p cD m Q m ° ~ ~ O b ~ O O O °_~' n C°) p 0 O ~ ~~ ~ ® (O1 O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O ~ ~ r1 o ~ p ° 0 ° A ._.. cn ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ ~ a v ~ Z o o ~ C ~ d o o ~ ~ J ~' ~ ~ ~ -a Q ~ D ~_ ~ ~ ,~' ~ ~ N O ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ -o y ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ C C G ~ ~ ~ r N o O H (:] [V ($~ p O C O O C~ G ,O fl Q N (~ ® ~6 H ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O a Q O ,O 1 "~ £9 {" O ~ O o ® 0 0 0 a P1 o o p o , N ~ O a a ~ W ~ c ~ 'c ~ in ~ J o `~ ~ m o m o ~ m C7 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ? ~ cn y ~ ° `~ o ~ o ° ~' ° d r CD ~ T ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ CD N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U m - ~ ° O ~ v ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ cc - ° m c Cn rn ~ Dao ~n~ o n~ CD ~ o G^-o ~nm J ~ m ~ nD o ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ N ~ - ~~ ~ ~~ a "°-, ° ~ m ~' O ~ c o ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -Ip ~ m c~ O p-n c n p ~.... c c° ~ 0 N O t!! ~ m O m n m ~ m o m~ o~~ c~ ~° o° ° co ~ a v ~ ~ J ° ~ v n `~66'dp ` 01Y r w C J CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Worksession July 14, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl (arrived 5:33 p.m.); Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Kristin Asher, City Engineer; John Stark, Community Development Director; Karen Barton, Assistant Community Development Director; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; Jeffrey Pearson, Transportation Engineer; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING CEDAR CORRIDOR (MEMO NO. 122) Community Development Director Stark discussed development issues primarily related to projects for this area that were proposed over 18 months ago but have not been able to progress due to market conditions. Greg Bronk and Frank Lange, LaNel (developer), discussed the financial issues and options related to the Cedar Point Phase I I senior housing proposal by Lang Nelson for the area north of 66th Street. Community Development Director Stark stated the proposal has been changed to a phased approach, beginning with a 75-unit assisted living facility and a future independent living unit facility. Mr. Lange discussed a proposed timeline for the phases. Council Member Wroge expressed concern that the original project has changed significantly and suggested the area be returned to the market for other developers to consider. Council Member Elliott stated the developer's continued retention of the area should be negotiated. Mr. Lange responded that Phase I of the project could begin this fall if it diligently moves forward. He added there have been no acquisition negotiations with property owners in the area because of continued uncertainties with the project. Community Development Director Stark explained the Richfield Parkway project depends upon the location of the project but staff's conclusion is the development of the southern portion of the site is the simplest. Special Worksession Minutes -2- July 14, 2009 City Manager Devich added this area would be the least costly for the City. Marc Soderberg, 6445 -16th Avenue, expressed frustration with the City Council's lack of decision and requested the project move forward quickly and efficiently. City Manager Devich stated property acquisition can be difficult with the neighborhood itself, not the City or developer. The City Council requested additional information on Phases I and II, including a financial proposal, timeline, and benchmarks on the phasing. Community Development Director Stark reviewed the three options related to the design and location of Richfield Parkway south of 66th Street, including the Special Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District boundaries, regional trails, and property acquisition issues. Trent Mayberry, TOLD Development, discussed the Cedar Corridor proposed development for the area south of 66th Street, including a delay in the developer's agreement due to the impact of the parkway location changes on the concept plan. Their interest is in only commercial development, not residential, and more time is need for reevaluation. Council Member Wroge suggested Cedar Avenue be another option for the Richfield Parkway location because homes would not need to be purchased and it would still provide visibility to the TOLD Development. Mr. Mayberry stated there would still be an impact to the development. Council Member Elliott said there appears to be some duty to accommodate the developer since the project is near the end of the developer's contract. Community Development Director Stark responded that TOLD was aware from the beginning there were some compatibility issues with the Richfield Parkway. There needs to be a determination of the use of the parkway. Hennepin County funded and managed an alternative design study on the parkway but that is ending due to budget constraints. To move forward, the City will need to provide the funding. Community Development Director Stark explained the unresolved issue on the parcel with Ryan Companies right of first refusal agreement which impacts the TOLD development. City Engineer Asher discussed the significantly increased traffic volumes and speeds on 64th Street since Cedar Point opened and traffic calming options to address neighborhood concerns. There was a petition received from the 17th Avenue neighborhood that did not support traffic barriers, as well as a petition from 16th Avenue neighbors who do support barriers. There is no one method that appeals to all the affected property owners. City Engineer Asher stated staff's recommendation is to place barriers on 64th and 65th Streets at 16th and 17th Avenues. City Engineer Asher added there will be signage to inform the public and encourage use of the frontage road and/or 66th Street. Andy and Patricia Hartle, 6332 -17th Avenue, expressed concern with increased traffic on 17th Avenue and the need to repair the frontage road. City Manager Devich stated the decision on traffic calming and placing barriers should be a City Council decision and not decided administratively due to the sensitivity of the issue and it will be on the July 28 City Councif agenda. Mayor Goettel requested that staff ask the stores to do more signage to direct truck traffic. ADJOURNMENT Special Worksession Minutes -3- July 14, 2009 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:54 p.m. Date Approved: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES .Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting July 14, 2,009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director;. Kristin Asher, City Engineer; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The City Council voted unanimously to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of June 17, 2009; (2) Special City Council Meeting of June 23, 2009; (3) Regular City Council- Meeting of June 23, 2009; (4) Special City Council Worksession of June 23, 2009; (5) Special Citv Council Worksession of Julv 7. 2009: and (6) Special Citv Council Closed Executive Session of July 8, 2009. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 14, 2009 Item #1 PRESENTATION BY YOUTH ACTION COUNCIL Mayor Goettel stated this presentation has been postponed to a future City Council worksession to provide time for a video and lengthier discussion. Item #2 UPDATE FROM PROPERTY EXCELLENCE TASK FORCE Patrick Howard, 6812 Morgan Avenue, presented an update on the Property Excellence Task Force. Item #3 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS The City Council acknowledged the success of the July 4 events. Council Member Fitzhenry requested a pedestrian crossing sign be placed in the road at 66th Street and Park Avenue for safety reasons. City Engineer Asher said Hennepin County would approve the sign and it would be placed on the road. Council Member Sandahl announced the upcoming Optimist Club Hole-in-One contest at 70th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Public Safety Director Fritz provided an update on the Part I and II crime comparison. Public Safety Director Fritz provided an update on the Metro Gang Strike Force. Mayor Goettel encouraged businesses to maintain their property. Mayor Goettel reported on her conversation with realtors and foreclosure programs. Mayor Goettel stated there is now a ramp open for Penn Avenue on the Crosstown. Mayor Goettel reported on a recent meeting of the Regional Council of Mayors. Council Member Sandahl spoke about the 35W Solutions Alliance. Council Member Sandahl. encouraged residents to patronize Richfield businesses in construction areas. Council Member Sandahl reported on a peer review session on Crosstown communication efforts. Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 14, 2009 Item #4 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda.. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordnance amendment to pawnbroker code, subsection 1187.43 relating to changing age limit from 21 to 18 years for pawn transactions and scheduling public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 129 B. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2008 removal of diseased trees from private property and setting public hearing for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 130 RESOLUTION NO. 10256 RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2008 TO DECEMBER 31, 2008 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10256. C. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2008 Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet maintenance, and proposing similar assessment process for 2010 and setting public hearing for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 131 RESOLUTION NO. 10257 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10257. RESOLUTION NO. 10258 RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10258. Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 14, 2009 D. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment roll for 2008 77th Street maintenance district, and proposing similar assessment process for 2010 and setting public hearing for August 11, 2009 S.R. No. 132 RESOLUTION NO. 10259 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10259. RESOLUTION NO. 10260 RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10260. E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing new four-year contract to provide two police officers as Juvenile Investigators/School Liaison Officers to School District #280 at Richfield High School and Richfield Intermediate School, along with other schools in the district as necessary S.R. No. 133 RESOLUTION NO. 10261 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #280 TO APPROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS TO PROVIDE TWO RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS AS SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICERS AT THE RICHFIELD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND THE RICHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, AND OTHER SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT AS NECESSARY This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10261. F. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police to accept $100 donation from Residential Mortgage Group in name of Richfield residents; Aaron Stehly and Amanda Burbach S.R. No. 134 RESOLUTION NO. 10262 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $100 FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. IN THE NAME OF RICHFIELD RESIDENTS AARON STEHLY AND AMANDA BURBACH This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10262. Council Meeting Minutes -5- July 14, 2009 G. Consideration of approval of resolution granting subdivision waiver for 6809 Newton Avenue (100 foot lot) into 75-foot wide lot and 25-foot remnant to be combined with adjacent 50-foot wide property to north (6801 Newton Avenue), creating second 75-foot wide lot S.R. No. 135 RESOLUTION NO. 10263 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6809 NEWTON AVENUE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10263. H. Consideration of approval of Memorandum of Understanding between Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and City of Richfield allowing City to exercise sole regulatory authority within City boundaries under MCWD Rules B (erosion control), C (floodplain alteration), D (wetland protection) and N (stormwater management) S.R. No. 136 I. Consideration of approval of request for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to include Legion-Taft-Nokomis area water improvement project in 2011 Capital Improvement Program S.R. No. 137 J. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Fahrner Asphalt Sealers, LLC for 2009 rout and seal project in amount of $31,960 S.R. No. 138 M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF PLAT FOR 500 EAST 66TH STREET; VICTORIA MANOR S.R. NO. 139 Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No.139. M/Wroge, S/Goettel to close public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10264 RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR 500 66TH STREET EAST (VICTORIA MANOR APARTMENTS) Council Meeting Minutes -6- July 14, 2009 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10264. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT OPTION 2 TO HARRIS COMPANIES FOR UPGRADE OR REPLACEMENT OF HVAC, LIGHTING, AND REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA S.R. NO. 140 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 140 M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to approve award of contract option 2 to Harris Companies for upgrade or replacement of HVAC, lighting, and refrigeration equipment at Richfield Ice Arena. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer discussed the significant savings in energy and operational charges. Keela Bakken, Harris Companies, reviewed the sustainability of the improvements. Council Member Wroge expressed concern that this project did not go out for fair bid because it is a service contract. He said the 20 year service contract cost exceeds the guarantee cost. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer responded the preventative maintenance fee can be stopped after two years so the value of that guarantee needs to be considered. Council Member Elliott stated he did not recall from the proposal that there was a cost to the guarantee. Ms. Bakken explained the operational expenses increase in the contract are based upon the CPI. Brandon Klement, Ice Arena Manager, stated the arena staff will continue to perform daily preventative maintenance on the facility and Harris Companies will be doing the work now conducted by contractors. City Manager Devich explained the State Statute permitting this process for Ice Arena projects for energy cost savings. However, the City Council could choose to conduct a formal bidding process. Council Member Sandahl stated she believed this project was awin-win situation. Mayor Goettel stated she was aware of the costs from a previous worksession discussion She added the State Statute allows taking advantage of a contract process for major projects resulting in increased energy costs quicker. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer clarified there should be a two year warranty and the City Council will decide if any service plan should change after one or two years. Council Member Wroge questioned the 2% interest charged on internal fund transfers. City Manager Devich explained the benefits of this charge and would clarify if this was done for the Lincoln Fields improvements. Council Meeting Minutes -7- July 14, 2009" The original motion was amended to include the City Council's review each year of the warranty guarantee. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to_ approve award of contract option 2 to Harris Companies for upgrade or replacement of HVAC, lighting, and refrigeration eauipment at Richfield Ice Arena and that the City Council review the warranty guarantee each year of the contract. Motion carried 4-1. (Wroge oppose) Item #9 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich stated the City Council will be contacted to schedule the budget meeting. Mayor Goettel discussed the residential garbage hauling options. Council Member Wroge requested staff provide information on having property taxes include a charge for a curbside pickup similar to the City of Bloomington. Item #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 07-14-09 A/P Checks: 186827 - 187300 PAYROLL 58805 - 59555, 41443 - 41451 TOTAL Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. $ 5,431,083.98 $ 1,174,275.31 $ 6,605,359.29 The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:31 p.m. Date Approved: Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Worksession July 20, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Services Director; Bill Fillmore, Municipal Liquor Operations Director; Dave Conrads, Building Maintenance Supervisor; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING CONCEPT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW POLICE/FIRE/CITY HALL FACILITY (MEMO NO. 123) Wold Architects presented site plan for new Police/Fire/City Hall facility. Mike Klass, Wold Architects, asked the City Council if 155-160 parking spaces would be enough for staff, visitors, and customers. He stated that currently there are 149 spaces. The City Council consensus was that 155-160 parking spaces would be appropriate since it is more than the current building. After considerable discussion, the City Council directed Wold Architects to look more at the site and how tennis courts will work with the site plan. Wold Architects stated they will present athree-dimensional image on how the site will look. Some possibilities include screening the tennis courts or raising the fence on the east side and rearranging the walking path. The worksession recessed at 6:55 p.m. due to the start of the HRA Meeting at 7:00 p.m. The worksession resumed at 7:30 p.m. Wold Architects also stated that they need to look at how draining and ponding will affect the site. The City Council directed Wold Architects to check on different glass colors that may be available or possible colored metal for a portion of the exterior of the facility. Special Worksession Minutes -2- July 20, 2009 Wold Architects also stated that they would be working with Orfield Laboratories to complete the final report and that Wold is putting together other strategies for the project. Wold Architects will come back to the City Council at the July 28 Regular City Council Meeting to ask for approval to start the project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:20 p.m. Date Approved: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager AGENDA SECTION: Presentations AGENDA ITEM # 1 REPORT # 141 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR - REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRAD SVEUM, FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME. TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of acceptance of a donation of $1000 from the Sam's Club Foundation to the Richfield Fire Department. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution accepting a grant in the amount of $1000 from the Sam's Club Foundation to the Richfield Fire De artment. II. BACKGROUND On July 8, Rania Nazy of the Sam's Club Foundation delivered a check for $1000 to the. Richfield Fire Department as part of their Community Grants program on behalf of the Bloomington Sam's Club store. Sam's Club has contributed to the Fire Department in the past. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota State Statute requires acceptance of a grant or donation of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. • -The Administrative Services Department issued a memorandum in November of 2004 requiring all grants to departments be received by 0728SamsClubDonationFire resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03: B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This donation will allow us to secure additional training for Fire Department personnel. C. FINANCIAL • This-donation will be used to offset costs associated with specialized training that was not budgeted for in 2009. • There are no matching fund requirements. D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires acceptance of a grant or donation of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Decline to accept donation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Council Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rania Nazy, Sam's Club Foundation RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION BY THE SAM'S CLUB FOUNDATION COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: _ Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of the citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been named to have a $1000 grant directed to the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, a check for $1000 has been from the Sam's Club Foundation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accept a donation of $1000 donated to the City of Richfield Fire Department by the Sam's Club Foundation Community Grants program and authorizes the city to administer the donation in accordance with the . terms prescribed by the donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of July, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 Presentations 2 142 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of attached resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department/Police division to accept moneta donations to Safet Da 2009 and 2010. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve attached resolution allowing the Public Safety Department/Police to accept donations as listed in the Staff Report from businesses to cover costs for presenting Safety Day to students in Richfield on June 9, 2009, with remaining funds to be used for preparations for 2010 Safety Dav. II. BACKGROUND Each year, the Public Safety Department/Police and the Fire Department conduct a Safety Day for students entering the fourth grade in the fall of the year. The Safety Day is open to all Richfield students and the only requirement is that they will enter the fourth grade in the fall. Various costs are incurred in preparing for and presenting the full day of safety training and fun for the participants. Community support is needed both financially and by participation in order to continue to have a quality program for the youth attending. In that regard, Richfield's Crime Prevention Specialist solicited funds from various businesses and organizations to help carryon the program as it has in the past. TODD SANDELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY/DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF 0728 Resolution Accepting Funds for Safety Day The following donations towards Safety Day were received and earmarked for Safety Day, and are included in the resolution: Sam's Club $1,000 Best Buy $500 Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union $500 Rotary $500 Laundro Max $400 American Legion, Post 435 $200 M&I Bank $100 Total Donations $3,200 A. POLICY • The State requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the funds prior to their issuance. • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donation to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The funds have been earmarked for Safety Day activities during 2009 and in preparation for the 2010 Safety Day. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could deny the acceptance of donations which would result in the return of such donations- and could have a direct affect on whether the Safety Day can be continued. IV. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. ~ V . YRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None ~- i __ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT MONETARY DONATIONS FOR SAFETY DAY 2009 AND PREPARATION FOR 2010 WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department/Police and the Fire Department conduct a Safety Day which is held annually for students entering the fourth grade in the fall; and, WHEREAS, a Safety Day was held on June 9, 2009 and hasn't been scheduled for 2010 at this point; and, WHEREAS, businesses and residents in the community support the City's desire to bring activities to young people promoting safety; and, WHEREAS, some businesses and residents have indicated a desire to make monetary donations to ensure the Safety Day will be held in 2009 and 2010; and, WHEREAS, those businesses and residents who have chosen to contribute in 2009, along with their monetary donations are as follows: Sam's Club $1,000 Best Buy $500 Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union $500 Rotary $500 Laundro Max $400 American Legion, Post 435 $200 M&I Bank $100 Total .Donations $3,200 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the donated funds will be used strictly for the funding of the Safety Day 2009 and preparation for 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Director of Public Safety will accept the donations totaling $3,200, to be used entirely for costs incurred by Safety Day. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of July 2009.. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST:. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5A REPORT # 143 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER .-_ ~ ~ _ _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and schedulin a ublic hearin and second readin for Au ust 11, 2009. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve first reading of the ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and • Schedule the public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009. IL BACKGROUND The City first adopted an Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003, to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee. schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to large commercial and industrial customers at a monthly meter charge of $65. As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $6.50 per month increase on the large commercial and industrial classification. 0728Electric Franchise Fee As part of the 2006 budget process, a 3% franchise fee increase was passed as part of the 2006 revenue package. This increase amounted to a 5 cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to $2.15 per month on the large commercial and industrial classifications. At the May 26, 2009 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted by resolution, a Dutch Elm Diseased (DED) boulevard tree removal policy. Funding for the removal of trees infected with DED was to come from franchise fees. Accordingly, a 14% franchise fee increase is being proposed. This increase will amount to a 23 cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to $10.31 increase per commercial and industrial classifications. Finally, in accordance with the franchise fee agreement, the City has notified the electric utility, Xcel Energy of the intended franchise fee increase. It is estimated that the fee will be implemented commencing November 1, 2009. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, removal of diseased trees and the purchase of new trees. B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • An increase in the franchise fees was approved by the City Council as part of the DED Tree Removal Policy. C. FINANCIAL _ • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 14% increase amount to approximately $100,000. These additional fees will fund the removal of DED trees on City property. • At the May 26, 2009 City Council meeting, a contract in the amount of $99,000 was awarded to North Star Tree Care-for DED tree removal. D. LEGAL • Schedule a public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009. • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the electric franchise ordinance. E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDA": • None, as the fee schedu Franchise Ordinance. ange should be memorialized through the V.. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~-i ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER DB/A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2007-5, a Franchise Agreement between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, the ,City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee design as authorized in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise. (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2007-5, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of Xcel Energy as to amount and notice period, to which Xcel Energy has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2007-5, the franchise fee imposed on Xcel Energy under its Electric Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's November 2009 billing month. Subd. 3. Payment and Fee Design.. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.3 of the Franchise. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the city will control. JMS-240033v2 RC145-516 ~~ Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City .recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Support for Payment. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when due. and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives that Xcel Energy will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2011 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of July 2009. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 2009. Debra Goettel, Mayor Steven Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk JMS-240033v2 RC145-516 5F3 EXHIBIT A XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Residential Sm C & I -Non-Dem Sm C & I -.Demand Large C & I Fee Per Meter $~ _1.88 $~9_ _5.81 $ ~~3-_ _12.92 $~-5 83.96 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. JMS-240033v2 RC145-516 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 Consent 5B 144 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TiTZE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield and scheduling a ublic hearin and second readin for Au ust 11, 2009. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: _ • Approve first reading of the attached ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield; and • Schedule the public hearing and second reading for August 11, 2009. ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ The City first adopted a Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003, to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to LVDF (Large Volume- Dual Fuel) customers at a monthly meter charge of $10. As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $1 per month increase on the LVDF classification. 0728gas franchise fees As part of the 2006 budget preparation process, a 3% franchise fee increase was passed as part of the 2006 revenue package. This increase amounted to a 5 cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to 33 cents per commercial and industrial classifications. At the May 26, 2009 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted by resolution, a Dutch Elm Diseased (DED) boulevard tree removal policy. Funding for the removal of trees infected with DED was to come from franchise fees. Accordingly, a 14% franchise fee increase is being proposed. This increase will amount to a 23 cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to $1.59 per commercial and industrial classifications. Finally, in accordance with the franchise agreement, the City has notified the gas utility, CenterPoint Energy of the intended franchise fee increase. It is estimated the fee will be implemented commencing November 1, 2009. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, removal of diseased trees and the purchase of new trees. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • An increase in franchise fees was approved by the City Council as part of the DED Tree Removal Policy. C. FINANCIAL • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 14% increase amounts to approximately $100,000.. These additional fees will fund the removal of DED trees on City property. • At the May 26, 2009 City Council meeting, a contract in the amount of $99,000 was awarded to North Star Tree Care for DED tree removal. D. LEGAL • Schedule a public hearing and second reading for August 11 2009. • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Gas Franchise ordinance. E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A.. 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENI • None, as the fee schE Franchise Ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECT • None. ange should be memorialized through the AT MEETING 5~3--I ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003-10, a Franchise Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy ("CenterPoint"), the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint in an agreed upon amount and fee design, as set forth in Section 6.1 of the CenterPoint Franchise. - (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2005-13, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of CenterPoint as to amount and notice period, to which CenterPoint has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2005-13, the franchise fee imposed on CenterPoint under its Gas Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the CenterPoint's November 2009 billing month. The franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by Minnegasco for its use of Public Ways and Public Ground in the City. Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth as follows. The. franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however each change shall meet the same notice requirements and may not occur more often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed any amount, which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for Gas service. The Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times, provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information that is not public data which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or any other information regarding specific customers. JMS-240028v4 RC145-515 ~i3~2- Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that CenterPoint will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Support for Payment. CenterPoint shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default .regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon CenterPoint by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by CenterPoint's representatives that CenterPoint will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2011 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee; the Council shall give CenterPoint at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of CenterPoint to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of July, 2009. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 2009. Debra Goettel, Mayor Steven Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk JMS-240028v4 RC145-515 r n EXHIBIT A CENTERPOINT GAS FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential $~_ Comm-A $~-5 Comm/Ind-B $~A_ Comm/Ind-C $~3_ SVDF-A $~3_ SVDF-B $~-1-~3_ LVDF $ 2 1.88 1.88 5.81 12.92 12.92 12.92 12.92 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by April 30. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. JMS-240028v4 RC145-515 CONSENT SC CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLEKR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and schedule second readin for Au ust 11, 2009. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting reference to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and schedule second reading for August 11, 2009. II. BACKGROUND The City Attorney has recommended to amend Section 100.07 (Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances) to reflect the adoption of the most current State Statutes and Rules. This change will update a section of the City ordinance code that should be periodically updated. Section 100.07 currently references Minnesota .Statutes 2007 and Minnesota Rules in effect on August 1, 2007. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 100.07 is an ordinance section that references Minnesota Statutes and Rules. These Statutes and Rules should be the most current and therefore, readopted periodically. 0728statute B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There is no critical time issue, but the amendment should be made as soon as possible to reflect the most current law. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact associated with this change. D. LEGAL • Amendment to Section 100.07 will keep the City ordinance in accordance with State law. IV. ALTERNATIVE IZECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed City Administrative Ordinance Code change. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ,~ c-~ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 100.07 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances" is hereby amended: 100.07. Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutes are to Minnesota Statutes 20029, Minnesota Statutes, 20029 Supplement and Laws of Minnesota 20029, unless otherwise provided in this code: References in this code to rules and regulations of state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities are to those documents in effect on Ai!g! ~~t..~~~July 1, 2009 unless otherwise provided in this code. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2005. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent .AGENDA ITEM # SD REPORT # 146 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR- COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Contract Change Order #1 and Contract Change Order # 2 for the Renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve Contract Change Order #1 for additional tree removal in the amount of $19,151.00 and Change Order # 2 for frost footings under the concession stoop in the amount of $2,717.20 for the Lincoln Athletic Complex. IL .BACKGROUND The City of Richfield authorized a contact with Ebert Construction Inc. on June 23, 2009 for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex. -Staff is recommending Council to approve Contract Change Order #1 and #2: Change Order #1 -The original contact specifies 30 existing trees on site to be removed from the site. Staff is requesting to remove an additional 14 trees due to safety and maintenance reasons (see attached tree removal plan). Most of these trees are cottonwoods that rooted in the fence line and were allowed to grow. The cottonwoods are old and beginning to break which causes a safety concern. A large branch recently fell onto an outfield while kids were playing. The old trees will also be much more difficult and costly to remove after the complex is renovated. The number of trees to be planted as part of the contract far outnumbers the 44 trees planned and proposed for removal: 0728 Lincoln Athletic Complex Change Order 1&2 38 American Lindens 16 Autumn Blaze Maples 8 Spring Snow Crabapples 74 Black Hills Spruce 136 Total New Trees Planted The cost to remove the additional 14 trees with stump removal is $19,151.00. Change Order #2 -The Richfield Building Inspector has required a frost footing under the stoop in the concession building. The cost of the frost footing is $2,719.20 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is appropriate for City Council to review and approve contract change orders which are additions to the project contract. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Contractor is under a time constraint to complete site demolition, grading, irrigation and seeding by September 24, 2009 in order to establish turf for the next season. C. FINANCIAL • If approved, the two contact change orders will change the contract for -Ebert Construction as follows: Base Bid with Alternates $972,100 Change Order.#1 $19,151 Change Order #2 2 719.20 New Contract Amount Cost $993,970.20 Funding for the remainder of this project will be in the form of an internal loan to the City's recreation fund, paid back from future proceeds from City liquor store operations, the same manner that the City financed the outdoor pool renovation in 2003. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Tree Removal Site Plan • Change Order No. 1 • Change Order No. 2 `1~, PRINCIPAL PAR`T'IES EXPECTED AT MEETING Nane ~i ~~ THE NORTN LING OF TXE SOUTX 20 ACRES OF TXE NORTN 30 ACRES OF TXE EA1/4 OF TXE SIT1/4, SECTION 34 I I TXE NORTH 4.0' EXCEPTION NB9,53'S9~ .• ": .. • ., • . •; 468.68' I .. x~X~ X~X ,max X->i-X ®,~;I~~X, _;<~XTX =;~;~~.~.. h I I I \\ ~~ i ~ \ ~ _\ z3 1 ~ ~ I \ zs a ~ \~ I \~-___ \\ 8 \\ ~ I I `~~~~ I I 1 ~ I ~ ~~\ ® 1 _ ` I I cnnvz~ \ 41~~ / \ Z !yV5 ~ PP \\\\ /j.~7~- X~X ~X 7~% X K~ i X )(X-X X IM I ~ \ I r `D \ X ~~ I ~\ I' a i I / I / '~/ \ I z w p~ ~\ w C ~ \ w ~ U I \\ \~ ~\\ \\ I $ i y \ ~ \ I \ h \ \`~ ~~ yl ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ I~ W \ \\ ~ \ auva /~~~' I I R / I \\ \ k ~ \\ / I I c ` \\~ \\ \ kl ' \~ 1// i II z I I I \ / \ I ° I I \\ \\I \ / ~1 l ~iy\i i ~-\\ 1 i I 45 i F t1I l ~ I I p \ / ' / /~ II \X_X ~~ ewaei \\ a I _• ~ I PP \ _X X~X / \\ I y \ \ k X~ \ I Q I r \ I O R II I(/ rf`,~,',: i•.~:~ ~/ ~.X \cw,vsi \ i ` J I o -\ I,l QI m 1 Z 1 \ ~~ % I \\ I ~ G_ I v I _ a _ \ I h _ I x ~ ~ f8 ~~X-X X/ > I I W I ! W I % ~X~x-X / /. - I z ~~~ / j I J ( F ~ sxm X`X / c vz~ x~ j I 1 I I x i x micwrt ~ /- I I O H I X-X X I X_~\I' I ~ I / ~'/ i-'1~ I I N I ~ X\ ~ I ~ I I f~ ~ I I\ Ib` ~ I i~ I I m I I ; + I `, ~ ' \ III I F ~ \\ I \ II i ~ II \ ~a,.,n ~ II ~ i i I j 1x / I Ix \ x ~ I I i I 1 / 1 i \ I I / 1 ~ ~ I II I I ~ / '\~ , x\ I~ ~ I I I ~ i /\ 1 I\I III x II ~ `\ I I I I I I ~ / \ ~ I II w j l I\f xi \\ \~\ + \ I I I I \ I I ~~ I / X~X-x 1r \ 1 ~\ X \\\ 1 / /~' I / \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ / ~I I I 4ty e _ _ \ / ~~ / ~ ~ / S zs~ I I , ~ 1/ , i i 1 u. I /~ II ~'> --X , - ~ - , I ---- ~ __ _ -- _ X ~ ~' ,, ., ..~-.-.----_ ~ g II ~ I ' 468.68' :EXIST.: '+ /~ ~ ~' ~ ~ • • • • • I 5895323'W ~ BLDG.' ©I $ li II I I : BLDG. ~ I/ =g I I I ,EXIST.: I : I ~ I I ~.......: I \~~ ~ ~ ~ I ;BLDG.: I :...... • :....... I I ¢ 2 I NORTNE30 ACRES OF TXETAAI/4NOI TXE SM1/4o SECTION 34 I O I I I ----- -----------~ o S ~---------~-----------~ Q ~I 1 I I z° I I J I 1 I I ~ I I l a I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I 1.~ I 1 I j ~i \, TREE PROTECTION /REMOVAL PLAN _ ~, L2,j SCALE: 1"= 40'•0" ~31'E~T OONS'#HUOTION Contractor; Ebert Construction 23350 County Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 Description: Additional Tree Removal 23350 County Road 10 (~, ~„ Corcoran, MN 55357 1~ Ph :763-498-7844 Change Order Change Order: 7 Date: 7/9/2009 Job: 8520 Lincoln Athletic Complex The Contract is changed as follows: 1 Tree Removal $19,151.00 TOTAL: $19,157.00 The original Contract Amount was ................................................................................................................. $964,800.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ..............................:........................................................ $0.00 The Contract Amount prior to this Change Order was ...................................................................................... $964,800.00 The Contract wiU be increased by this Change Order in the amount of .............................................................. $19,151.00 The new Contract Amount including this Change Order w111 be .......................:................................................. $983,951.00 The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER Kev1n Busch (i3usch Architects Inc) Ebert Construction Jim Topitzhofer (Richfield Recreation Servi Suite 501 23350 County Road 10 7000 Nicoilet Avenue St Paut, MN 55114-1745 Corcaran, MN 55357 Richfield, Mn 55423-2599 CrC. ~ ~ is l Q S - 7~ ~s~pq igned Date Signed Date Signed Dafe Please sign and return Original to Ebert Construction .,. ~""n ~r,. ~~: '» ~3~~T CONSTRUCTION Contractor: Ebert Construction 23350 County Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 Description: Stoop 23350 County Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 ~~ _ ~ Ph :763-498-7844 Change Order Change Order: 2 Date: 7/15/2009 Job: 6520 Lincoln Athletic Complex The Contract is changed as follows: 2 Addition of Stoop $2,719.20 TOTAL:. $2,719.20 The original Contract Amount was ................................................................................................................. $964,800.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ................................................................................... $19,151.00 The Contract Amount prior to this Change Order was .. ......... ......... ........ ......... ....... ......... ............. $983,951.00 The Contract will be increased by this Change Order in the amount of . ......... ......... ....... ......... .............. $2,719.20 The new Contract Amount including this Change Order will be ......................................................................... $986,670.20 The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER Kevin Busch (Busch Architects Inc) Ebert Construction Jim Topitzhofer (Richfield Recreation Servi Suite 501 23350 County Road 10 7000 Nicollet Avenue St Paul, MN 55114-1745 Corcoran, MN 55357 Richfield, Mn 55423-2599 Signed Date Signed Date Signed Date Please sign and return Original to Ebert Construction AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # rjE REPORT # 147 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM; FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: l REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 0 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approve and authorize the Richfield City Manager to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Richfield and the Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Or anization. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve and authorize the Richfield City Manager to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Richfield and the Regional All-Hazards Incident Management organization. II. BACKGROUND The All Hazard Incident Management Organization (AHIMO) is amulti-discipline organization, of emergency and public health personnel representing several government agencies. It is approved by the state director of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management under Minnesota State Statute 12.03 subd. 9b. Members of the team may be detailed or activated, to support incident management activities inside and outside-the State of Minnesota when requested by a local agency or other unit of government. Currently, the Richfield Fire Department has five members trained as team participants. Previously, Richfield. team members have deployed several times including two to assist iri flood management in Moorhead, MN this spring. 0728JPAFire The team has been in existence since 2005. Recently, a JPA has been created formally establishing the team as a unified specialized emergency response asset of the state and, when deployed by the State Director of Homeland Security, team members will be considered as state employees for worker compensation and tort claim defense and indemnification. The JPA addresses common issues but not limited to: scope of work, command structure, designation of a board of directors, personnel qualifications, financial accountability and indemnification. III. -BASIS OF .RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Emergency responders use the federally required National Incident Management System to conduct and manage emergency response operations. Large or long duration incidents will quickly overwhelm a local jurisdiction's resources to adequately manage an incident. Participation in the AHIMT aids in combining multi-jurisdictional . disciplines providing emergency management support resources. • The AHIMT is a group of highly trained and experienced personnel from several disciplines who are able to provide emergency management expertise to a requesting jurisdiction. • A resolution has been signed allowing Richfield to enter into a joint powers agreement to place. specially trained Richfield Fire Department personnel on the team. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Currently five Richfield Fire personnel have completed all specialized training requirements and are members of the team. C. FINANCIAL • Training for the team has been done during normal duty hours. • Personnel costs, when members are deployed by the State of Minnesota Emergency Management Director, are reimbursable. D. LEGAL • The JPA is made pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.59. • When activated by the State Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management team members are deemed employees of the State of Minnesota for the purposes of workers compensation and tart claim defense and indemnification. • For the purposes of determining total liability, participants are considered a single governmental unit and the total liability shall not exceed the limits governmental liability for a single government al unit as specified in Minnesota Statutes 3.736 or 466.04. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could disapprove the resolution which would void the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Copy of the Joint Powers agreement establishing the All Hazard Incident Management Organization. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • -None ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL ALL-HAZARDS- INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND FOR RICHFIELD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ALL-HAZARDS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION. WHEREAS, an All-Hazards Incident Management Organization has been established in Minnesota for the purpose of providing emergency incident management support to jurisdictions inside and outside the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the organization has been created pursuant to the authority conferred upon the participants by Minnesota Statute 471.1; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield Fire Department has members duly trained, qualified and is willing to maintain participation in the All-Hazard Incident Management Organization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED -that the City of Richfield authorize Steve Devich, Richfield City Manager, to authorize and execute such agreements as necessary to enter into the Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization - Joint Powers Agreement to implement Richfield as a member of the organization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28t" day of July, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~_ Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Regional A!i»Hazards lncident Management Organization This agreement is made pursuan# to the authority conferred upon the participants by Minnesota Statute 471.59. The participants to this agreement are ail "governmental units" as defined by Minnesota Statute 471.59, Subdivision 1. 1.0 General Pumose. The purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to establish the Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization, which shall be governed by a Board of Directors, for the purpose of establishing, training, equipping; maintaining and deploying All-Hazard Incident Management Teams to incidents inside and outside the State of Minnesota as may be requested by a local agency or other unit of government. 2.0 Definitions. In addition to the standard definitions found in the National Incident Management System (2008), the following defini#ions apply to this document. 2.1 "All Hazard incident Management Organization" (Organization) -The group of ail Team Members, governed by the Board, who may be available to be rostered or activated to support incident management activities pursuan# to this Agreement. 2.2 "Ali Hazard Incident Management Team" (AHIMT) - A group of Team Members, designated by the Board, who are rostered for deployment or are deployed to support incident management activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.3 "Team Member" - A trained and qual~ed person, approved by the Board, who is employed by, contracted to, or volunteering with a Participant, who is or may be available to be activated to support incident management activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.4 "Board" -The Board of Directors established by this Agreement 2.5 `°Director" = A member of the Board of Directors, qualified as defined under this Agreement, who is employed by, contracted to, or volunteering with a Participant, who may be available to be activated #o support incident management activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.6 "Participant' - Any governmental unit as defined by Minnesota Statute 471.59, Subdivision 1 which is a signatory to this Agreement. 3.0 Participants. 3.1 Participants: Subject to additional Participants added hereunder, the Partiapants shall be: {Attached Roster) 3.2 Status: No change in governmental boundaries, structure,. organizational status or character shall affect the eligibility of any Fina111-17-2008 ,~L"-3 Participant listed above to be represented on the Board as long as such Participant continues to exist as a separate political subdivision. 3.3 Responsibility for Employees: All employees engaged in the work to be performed by a participant under this Agreement may not be considered employees of any other participant for any purpose, including worker's compensation and other claims that may or might arise out of the employment context on behalf of the employees. All claims made by a participant as a result of any act or omission of a participant's employees while engaged on any of the work performed under this Agreement are no# the obligation or responsibility of any other participant. Each participant is responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Unless otherwise provided by law, each participant will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self- insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are praviding services under this Agreement. Each participant waives the right to sue any other participant for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other participant or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 3.4 Emergency Management Assistance Compact EMAC: Any participant engaged as a member of the AHIMT and deployed as part of an EMAC request are afforded all the protections and coverage as stated in Minn. Stat.192.89, and retains all stated protections and coverage while engaged as part of an EMAC request. 4.0 Board of Directors. 4.1 Directors. The Organization shall be governed by a Board of Directors which shall consist of one {1) qualified Director appointed by the governing body of each participant. Each Participant may designate a qualified alternate for its appointed Director. 4.2 Qualifications. Directors and alternates must be Team Members and must have taken the current FEMAAtl-Hazards Incident Management Team Training, Incident Command System ICS-400 level training and current FEMA IS 700 and IS 800 training. 4.3 Compensation.~Directors shall serve without compensation from the Organization or Board. This shall not prevent a Participant from providing compensation to a Director for serving on the Board. 5.0 guorumNoting: 5.1 Quorum. A majority of all of the Directors shall constitute a quorum. A simple majority vote of the Directors present at a meeting with a valid quorum shall be required for the Board to take action, unless a#herwise provided in this Agreement or by law. Final l 1-17-2008 2 5C-`~ 5.2 Voting. There shall be. no voting by proxy. All votes must be cast by the Director or designated alternate at a Board Meeting. Each Director shalt have one (1) vote. 6.0 Officers. 6.1 Officers. The officers of the Board shall be a Chair, ice-Chair ad Secretary/Treasurer. 6.2 Elections. At its first meeting, the Board shall elect aChair, aVice- Chair, and a SecretarylTreasurer who shall serve two year terms ending on December 31. Officers elected to partial or unexpired terms (including the initial term of office which ends on December 31, 2008) shall serve out the partial term but must then stand for election with the other Officers for the following term, 6.3 Vacancies. A Director shall be elected in the same manner as above to fill out an unexpired tens of any office which becomes vacant. 6.4 Other Officers. The Board may elector appoint such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. 7.0 Meetings 7.1 Annual Meeting. The Board shall meet at least annually on a schedule determined by the Board. 7.2 Cail. Meetings of the Board may be called by the Chair or upon ,written request of a majority of the. Directors. 7.3 Open MeetinglData Practices. The Organization shall comply with data practices and open meeting laws which are applicable to the Participants. 7.4 Meeting by Teleconference. The Board, in an emergency, may meet by teleconference. A quorum of the Board is required to be present on the call to conduct business. 8.0 Powers and Duties of the Board. 8.1 The powers and duties of the Board include, but are not limited to, those enumerated in this section. 8.2 The Board shall prepare, adopt, and implement a plan to provide AHIMT response according to the terms and conditions herein. 8.3 The Board shall establish, train, equip, maintain, and govern the Organization, AHIMT(s) and Team Members in their capacity as Team Members. Fina111-17-2008 3 5~- 8.4 The Board shall provide for the deploymen# and recovery of one or more AHIMTs to incidents as may be requested by another government unit under circumstances approved by the Board. 8.5 The Board shall prepare and approve an annual budget for the AHIMT. 8.6 The Board may purchase and maintain equipment necessary for the performance of its duties and the duties of the AHIMT. $.7 The Board may enter into contractual delegations of authority with local, state, or Federal, government units for the purposes of conducting incident management operations within the jurisdiction of such units and such power may be delegated to designated incident commanders. 8.8 The Board may research and make recommendations to the Participants regarding other matters related to the AHIMT's purposes. 8.9 The Board may consult with persons knowledgeable in all hazards .incident management and response, such as research organizations, .educational insti#utions, other political subdivisions, regulatory organizations, technical experts, and any other persons who can provide pertinent information. 8.10 The Board may cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota, any political subdivision, federal agencies or private or public organizations to accomplish the purposes for which rt is organized. 8.11 The Board may contract with other governmental units to provide the services of the AHIMT. The Board may enter into a mutual aid agreement with other similar AHIMTs. 8.12 The Board may contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the Board, the Participants, the Response Team, and its property. 8.13 The Board may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the Organization not currently needed for i#s operations. 8.14 The Board may collect money from participants, subject to section 10.2, and from any other source(s) authorized by law. 8.15 The Board may make contracts, employ consultants, incur expenses and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and powers, in conformance with the requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of all the Participants. Final l 1-17-2008 4 ~~""]],, v~.~ 8.16 The Board shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the Board and shall make and file a report to the Participants at least once each year. Strict accountability of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements shall be made. 8.17 The Board's books, reports and records shall be available for and open to inspection by its Participants at all reasonable times. The Board's records shall be available for inspection by the public pursuant to Minnesota Statu#es, Chapter 13. 8.18 The Board may appoint such committees as it deems necessary to exercise the powers of the Board in accordance with by-laws adopted by the Board and as allowed by faw. 8.19 The Board may exercise all other lawful powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein, including, without limitation, the adoption of by-laws to govern the functioning of the Board, provided that no by-faw or action of the Board shall be contrary to the terms of this Agreement. 9.0 Additional Participants 9.1 Vote of Board. Other governmental units may become a participant to this Agreement upon approval of a 2I3 majority of the Board entitled to vote. The new Participant shall sign a copy of this Agreement. Existing Participants shall not be required to sign the agreement again. 9.2 Non-Governmental Entities. With the approval of the Board, Non- Governmental entities may appoint qualified Directors to become advisory (non-voting) members of the Board and may contribute personnel to AHIMT operations upon entering into a sponsorship agreement with any one Participant in a form accepted and approved by the Board. 10.0 Fin, ante 10.1 No Joint Powers Board. A joint powers board" pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59, Subd. 11 is not established by this agreement. Neither the Board nor the Organization has authority to issue bonds or obligations. 10.2 Revenue. The Organization is wholty funded through grant funds available to one or more of the Participants. Partiapants are not obligated under this agreement to fund the Organization in any other fashion without an amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. 10.3 Disbursements. The Organization may make disbursements from public funds to carry out the purposes of this agreement. Fina111-17-2(}OS ~ 5E-7 10.4 Fiscal Agent. The Board shall designate one Participant, with that Participant's consent, to serve as the fiscal agent for the Organization and funds may be paid to or disbursed by that Participant provided that the method of disbursement shall agree as far as practicable with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by the parties to the agreement. 10.5 Purchasing. Contrac#s let and purchases made under the agreement shall conform to the requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of the Fiscal Agent. 10.6 Accountability. The fiscal agent shall maintain accountability of all. funds and report of all receipts and disbursements. 10.7 Distribution of Property. In the event that the Agreement is terminated as provided herein, any property acquired as the result of such joint or.cooperative exercise of powers or surplus money shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of any applicable grants or other contractual obligations, or, in none, pursuant to the procedures of the Fiscal Agent and the proceeds from such disposal shall be distributed pro rata to the Participants. 11.0 Indemnification 11.1 Each participant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resetting from negligent acts or omissions of the participant and/or those of its employees or agents. Under no circumstances, however, may a participant be required to pay on behalf of itself and another participant any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one participant. The limits of liability for two or more participants may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for one participant. The intent of this paragraph is to impose on each participant a limited duty to defend and indemnify each other subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 4.66. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and. indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among the participants and to permit liability claims against both participants from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. 11.2 Total Liability. For purposes of determining total liability for damages, the Participants are considered a single governmental unit and the total liability for the Participants shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single governmental unit as specified in section 3.736 or 466.04, subdivision 1, or as waived or extended by all Participants under section 3.736, subdivision 8; 466.06; or 471.981. Fina111-i7-2008 d ~~ 11.3 Waiver. If a Participant has procured or extended insurance coverage pursuant to section 3.736, subdivision 8; 466.06; or 471.981 in excess of the limits on governmental liability under section 3.736 or 46fi.04, subdivision 1, covering participation in the Organization, the procurement of that insurance constitutes a waiver of the tim[ts of govemmental liability for that Participant to.the extent that valid and collectable insurance orself-insurance, including, where applicable, proceeds from the Minnesota Guarantee Fund, exceeds #hose limits and covers that govemmental unit's liability for the claim, if any. Waiver under this paragraph and related lay by any one Participant shall not constitute a waiver by any other Participant. 12.0 Duration. This Agreement shalt remain in full force and effeck until it is terming#ed in the manner provided herein. 13.0 Default. Upton the failure of any Participant to fulfill any of its other material obligations under this Agreement the Board may expel a Participant upon 2/3 vote. 14.0 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the approval of any two Participants herein and shall become binding upon the remaining Participants on the dates of the approval of each of them. Ali Participants need not sign the same copy. The signed Agreement along with a certified copy of the resolution authorizing the Agreement, shall be filed with the Fire Chief of the City of Bloomington, who shall notify all Participants in writing of its effective date and set a date and place for the Board's first meeting. 15.0 Amendments. This agreement may be amended only by the unanimous agreement of all Participants acting by and through their governing bodies. 16.0 Withdrawal and Termination. 16.1 Withdrawal. Any participant shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement and Organization hereby created in the following manner: 16.1.1 Notice of intent to withdraw shall be given in writing to all Participants. 16.1.2 The governing body of the withdrawing particpant shall pass a resolution declaring its in#ent to withdraw effective Final 11-17-2008 7 L- ~' / on a specified date, which date shall not be less than ninety .(90) days from the- day of the resolution and shall send a certified copy of such resolution to the Chair of the Board not less than ninety (90) days before the effective date with withdrawal. The certified copy of such resolution shall be provided to the Chair of the Board by hand delivery. 16.1.3 Upon receipt of the resolution of a withdrawal, the Chair of the Board shall mail copies of the resolution to all Directors. 16.2 Continuing Organization. Notwithstanding the parties' authority to withdraw, this Agreement and the Organization created hereby shalt continue in force until all remaining Participants mutually agree to terminate or revise this Agreement. 16.3 Termination, After the effective date of termination, the Board shall continue to exist for the limited purpose of discharging the Board's debts and liabilities, settling its affairs, and disposing of its property and surplus monies, if any. 17.0 Ca ions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement. 18.0 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Agreement is held to be contrary to law, rule, or regulation having the force and effect of law, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Agreement. 1.9.0 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one agreement. The Fiscal Agent shall act as administrator of the Agreement for the purpose of maintaining the document and insuring its availability to all Participants. The Fiscal Agent shall provide notice to ail parties in the event of the addition or withdrawal of a Participant. 20.0 Construction. Each provision of this Agreement has been reviewed and negotiated, and represents the combined work product of all Participant hereto. NO presumption or other rules of construction that would interpret the Final 11-1?-2008 $ ~~ ~~ provisions of this Agreement in favor of or against the Participant preparing the same shalt be applicable in connection with the construction or interpretation of any of the provision of this Agreement. 21.0 Goveming Law. This Agreement, and the rights of the parties hereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 22.0 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the Participants hereto is contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes atl of their previous understanding and agreements, written and oral, with respect to the subject matter.of this Agreement. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF -the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statute 471.59. . Fina111-17-200$ 9 5~-~~ Execution Page for the Joint & Cooperative Agreement For The Alt Hazards Incident Management Team The party listed below has read, agreed to and executed this Agreement on the date indicated. Date Entity By Title And Title Fina111-17-2008 ~ 10 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # r STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28,.2009 Consent 5F 148 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: -~ BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE MANAVGVEER;BY CITY ~ '~~~~I~i~~ L. _ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South. Richfield. II. BACKGROUND On May 18, 2009, the City received the application and other required documents for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes. The applicant has satisfied all objective criteria for eligibility under state and local ordinances. The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied. They are as follows: 1. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. 2. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Illinois Casualty affording the coverage. 3. Proof of worker's compensation insurance has been supplied. 0728 Lariat Lanes New On Sale Wine & Malt Liquor Licenses 4. The property is owned by Jon E. Powers Sr. & Assoc., Inc. All payments are made to First National Bank of the Lakes, with all payments being current. 5. There are no unpaid general sales and withholding taxes. 6. There were three previous "calls for service" to Lariat Lanes in the past year. They are as follows: -Property damage accident on February 1, 2009, Alarm on December 21, .2008, and Theft on August 30, 2008. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The applicants and owners of Lariat Lanes are John Edwin Powers, Sr., John Edwin Powers, Jr., Jeff Earl Powers, and David Matthew Powers. The manager of the establishment is Brandi Lea James. A criminal history check was conducted on John Powers Sr., John Powers, Jr. and David Powers with no criminal convictions. Jeff Powers has a misdemeanor DWI from 1999. His criminal history indicated a DWI; however, it is listed on his driving record as careless driving. There are no other convictions listed. Brandi James has a misdemeanor DWI conviction from 2007. There are no other criminal convictions. Besides the DWI arrests, no other issues were found during this investigation that raised any concerns about the applicant's suitability regarding the application for an on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. On-sale wine licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. ~. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. • That the service of wine and malt liquor is permitted only in the interior of the establishment. No outside service of alcohol is allowed. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to deny the license requests, which would mean that the .current applicants would not be able to obtain an on-sale wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brandi James, Manager AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 Consent 5G 149 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request by The Church of the Assumption for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and a public dance license for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 16, 2009. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the following licenses for The Church of the Assumption for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 16, 2009: 1. Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license; and, 2. A public dance license. II. BACKGROUND On June 9, 2009, The Church of the Assumption submitted requests for a public dance license and a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 16, 2009. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as nachos, sweet corn, wraps, popcorn, hot dogs, tacos, roast beef, pizza, fried pork skins and potato chips. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. Licensing. requirements for. the preparation and service of food for this event have been met. 0728 Assumption Fun Fiesta Licenses The event will take place from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday, August 16, 2009. Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided showing The Catholic Mutual Relief Society as affording the coverage. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been submitted C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The Church of the Assumption staff/representative. STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 Resolution 150 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Option Agreement with Accessible Space Inc., for redevelopment of 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, south portion of the former Public Works Facility-site. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve and authorize execution of attached Option Agreement with Accessible Space Inc. for the redevelopment of 7700 Pillsbury Avenue (south portion of the former Public Works Facility site.) II. BACKGROUND Accessible Space Inc. (ASi) and Twin City Christian Homes (TCCH) are considering the development of two housing projects. The first housing project is a proposed 15-unit project for persons with physical disabilities with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income (AMI). The project will allow adults residents age 18 and older the opportunity to live and work independently in the community. The proposed location for the 15-unit housing project is on the 0.94 acre site of the former south half of the City of Richfield public works maintenance facility. The second housing project is an accessible, affordable 51-unit housing project for very low-income (30% AMI) seniors age 62 or older. The 51-unit senior housing project is proposed to be located on the 1.13 acre site at 301 77th Street West, also known as the vacant Candlewood Parcel. The site has been vacant since it was purchased by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in 1998. The HRA will consider the approval 071409 -Option Agreement with ASi.doc will consider the approval of an Option Agreement for the Candlewood Parcel A at their August 17, 2009 meeting. There are no additional parcels that need to be acquired for either of the proposed projects. ASi is a national nonprofit organization headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota that has provided accessible, affordable housing, assisted/supportive living, and rehabilitation services to very-low income adults with physical disabilities and seniors for more than 30 years. ASi has constructed 101 buildings in 27 states, with approximately 39 of the buildings located in Minnesota. TCCH has been developing and managing senior living communities throughout the Twin Cities for more than 25 years. Currently, TCCH owns and operates the 161-unit Mainstreet Village senior housing development in Richfield. ASi will act as the developer and TCCH will be the property management agent for the proposed housing projects. For the development of each site, ASi/TCCH will be applying for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding through two programs, Section 202 and Section 811. For the site at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, the funding source would be HUD funding Section 811. The HUD funding allows for the capital advance to finance the construction of the projects as well as providing rent subsidies to make the project affordable. The HUD funding source requires "local financial support" as evaluating criteria for the funding. When the new public works facility was constructed, the City anticipated that the sale of the former city garage site would be used to pay down the debt service of the General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. The proposed ASi development will allow the City to start paying down those bonds. The south portion of the former City Garage site was determined to appraise .for no more than $575,000 in today's market. Given the current development market, it is unlikely the City would be able to sell the parcel for that amount. Therefore, the City and HRA are creating Housing TIF Districts for the two proposed development sites..By creating the Housing TIF Districts, the City is able to sell the south portion of the parcel to ASi for $225,000 and recoup the remaining $350,000 through tax increment over the next 25 years. This also meets the HUD requirements for `local financial support' for the Section 811 funding. In addition to the TIF, the new development would also pay new "base" taxes to the City, County, and School District, all of which the site has not been generating due to its exempt status as a City-owned property. The north and larger portion of the former City Garage site is proposed for redevelopment by a different developer. That developer will be responsible for the purchase of the north portion of the site. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City owns the property known as the former public works facility. There site consists of two parcels; only the south portion is being discussed for development by ASi. • .The Option Agreement is contingent upon ASi securing HUD funding. If funding is not secured then the Option Agreement will be terminated and the City will retain ownership of the property.. • On August 17, 2009 the HRA will consider an Option Agreement with ASi for redevelopment of 301 West 77th Street, the vacant Candlewood parcel. ASi is proposing a 51-unit housing project for ' very low-income (30% AMI) seniors age 62 or older for that site. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Without the City's "financial support" it is more than likely that ASi will not be awarded the HUD funding for the proposed 15-unit supportive housing project proposed for the south portion of the former City Garage Site. • Approval of the two projects is not contingent upon one another. C. FINANCIAL • On August 17, 2009 the HRA is scheduled to consider the modifications to the redevelopment plan and proposed TIF plans for the creation of a housing district for 301 West 77th Street and 7700 Pillsbury Avenue (south portion only). The purpose is to create housing TIF districts for each parcel to recover the cost of the land and to ensure both the City and HRA receive the full present-value of the land. • The City Council will tentatively hold a public hearing on September 8, 2009 regarding the modifications to the redevelopment plan and the proposed TIF plans for the creation of the two housing districts. • Under the proposed project, the City will be paid $225,000 upfront -from ASi for the vacant south portion of the former city garage site. The remaining present-value of the property will be recovered through TIF. • A Cost/Benefit Analysis prepared by Ehlers, Inc. and sent to the City Council via a June 16 memorandum, stated that the greatest fiscal benefit to the City would be a development similar in scale and value to the project proposed by ASi, with the land value paid upfront and not requiring the creation of a TIF District or other public funding. • Receiving the land value paid upfront for the site is not feasible in today's development market. Most developments will likely require some form of public assistance within the next few years until the market improves. D. LEGAL • The City's legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Option Agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve the proposed Option Agreement with ASi with added provisions or modifications. • Do not approve the proposed Option Agreement with ASi. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Option Agreement Cost/Benefit Analysis prepared by Ehlers Map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dan Billmark, ASi ~~ f ._ CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OPTION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is the owner of certain real estate located in the City of Richfield, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, as described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Accessible Space, Inc. desires to entire into an Option Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, the Option Agreement contemplates the potential purchase of the Property by Accessible Space, Inc. for the construction of affordable housing for individuals with physical disabilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest to enter into the Option Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD as follows: 1. The recitals. set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute an Option Agreement in substantially the form as presented to the City Council. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement the provisions of the of the Option Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof including, but not limited to all other instruments and documents customary to such transactions. 4. This resolution and the City's performance of the Option Agreement are contingent upon the approval of an ordinance authorizing the sale as required by City Charter. Adopted this 28th day of July, 2009 Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk 0728option Agreement with ASi ~~~ EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property Lot 6, Block 4 of the R.C. Soens Addition. 7-3 ASI 7/20/09 Draft OPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2009, by and between the City of Richfield, a Municipal Corporation under the Laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called "Seller") and Accessible Space, Inc. a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (hereinafter called "Purchaser"). 1. Seller hereby irrevocably grants and conveys unto Purchaser the exclusive right and option until 2010 (together with any extension permitted under Section 12 below, the "Option Period"), to purchase that certain land situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Subject Property"). In consideration of the granting of this option, Purchaser shall, within five (5) days of acceptance hereof by Seller, deposit with a realtor, title company or other escrow agent acceptable to both parties, an initial option money payment in the amount of One Dollars ($1.00). In the event this option is exercised, said sum (the "Initial Option Deposit") shall be applied as a credit on the purchase price hereinafter provided. 2. The parties agree that the Subject Property has a current market value of $575,000. As consideration for the purchase of the Subject Property, the Buyer agrees: (i) to pay, at Closing the total sum of $225,000, less the Initial Option Deposit; and (ii) to pay when due, and before penalty attaches, any real estate taxes assessed against the Subject Property for 25 years from the date that the Subject Property is first ?-~ occupied as affordable housing. such tax payments will generate reimburse it for the additional value. 3. Purchaser shall have and paying for any surveys that 4. At any time, and from The Seller has determined that sufficient tax increment to $350,000 of the current market the responsibility of arranging Purchaser may desire. time to time during the Option Period, Purchaser shall have, and Seller hereby gives and grants unto Purchaser, the right of Purchaser, Purchaser's. employees, agents, and representatives to enter upon the Subject Property, or any part thereof, with workmen, tools, materials, and equipment, and to make such examination, surveys, and tests, by drilling or otherwise, of said lands as Purchaser may deem desirable to determine the suitability of said premises for Purchaser's purposes. In the event this option is not exercised, Purchaser shall be obligated to restore the lands to as good or better a condition as its prior condition, repair and restore all fences damaged as a result of such operations,. and compensate Seller for any actual damages done to the lands resulting from the operations provided for in this paragraph. Purchaser shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any costs or expenses (including attorney fees) which Seller could incur as a result of Purchaser exercising its rights to go upon the Subject Property. In the event this option is exercised, Purchaser shall not be liable for any damage done to said lands or to fences resulting from such operations. 5. In the event the option is not exercised, the aforesaid sum or sums paid for the option shall be returned to Purchaser, 2 ~] i / '"~ and neither party shall have any further claim against the other, except as provided in Section 4 and 12 hereof. 6. The option hereby granted may. be exercised by Purchaser by written notice to Seller given at any time before the expiration of Option Period, as it may be extended as set forth below. Such notice shall_be deemed sufficiently given if and when it is addressed to Seller as provided in Section 20 below and either (a) delivered personally to Seller, (b) deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, with postage prepaid, (c) deposited with an overnight delivery service for next day delivery, or (d) telecopied. 7. Notwithstanding any title commitment that Purchaser may have received previously, if Purchaser so requests, and agrees to pay for the cost of the same, Seller shall cause to be delivered to Purchaser, within fifteen (15) days of such request, a current ALTA form commitment for title insurance, in an amount equal to the purchase price, covering the Subject Property, setting forth all exceptions from the title insurance coverage, and enclosing copies of all .documents of record recited in such commitment. Purchaser will reimburse Seller for the cost of the commitment at the time of such delivery. Purchaser shall have fifteen (15) business days from receipt of said commitment for title insurance to examine and, in its sole discretion, provide written notice to Seller that it (a) objects to the title and conditions its purchase of the property upon the removal of specified exceptions ("Purchaser's Title Objections"), or (b) rejects the same. Seller shall have no obligation to cure the Purchaser's Title 3 1~ Objections. In the event Seller is unwilling or is unable to cure any matters set forth in Purchaser's Title Objections, Seller shall, within l5 business days of receipt of Purchaser's Title Objections, notify Purchaser in writing of the matters that Seller is unwilling or unable to cure. Purchaser may then either waive such objections or terminate and cancel this agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, specifying the unacceptable exceptions, and Purchaser shall be entitled to a refund of the amount paid to Seller. Exceptions to title not timely objected to or later waived by Purchaser in writing are herein referred to as "Permitted Exceptions." Title to the Subject Property shall be conveyed by Seller by Quit Claim Deed. As soon as is possible following the closing, Seller shall cause the title company to furnish, at Purchaser's sole expense, an ALTA Extended Coverage Form policy of title insurance, dated as of closing date, insuring title to the Subject Property vested in Purchaser, free from all encumbrances except "Permitted Exceptions." 8. Closing of title shall take place within sixty (60) days after exercise of this option, or upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to Seller from Purchaser, given at any time after title is acceptable to Purchaser. 9. The Seller agrees to pay the real estate-taxes and assessments payable in the year prior to the year of closing, and all prior years' taxes. Real estate taxes and installments of special assessments payable in the year of closing shall be prorated to the closing effective as of the closing date. Seller shall have no other obligation to pay any special assessments 4 ~-~ levied or pending as of the date of closing or thereafter. 10. Seller warrants there are not now and will not be at closing any leases or parties in possession of .the Subject Property, except as may be disclosed in the commitment for title insurance or otherwise disclosed by Seller in Seller's Affidavit delivered to Buyer at closing. 11. Purchaser's right to exercise this Option Agreement is specifically contingent upon Purchaser's having obtained satisfactory financing from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the proposed housing development. The parties acknowledge the Subject Property is being purchased in an open market and, to the best of Seller's knowledge, the property is not under threat of condemnation or eminent domain proceedings. 12. If Purchaser has received notification by 2010 that it has been approved for receiving HUD Section 811 Funds, it can extend the Option Period until 2010, by providing written notice to Seller no later than 2010. Unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties, if closing does not occur within 60 days after the exercise of this option due to any reason other than default by Seller, this Agreement shall terminate and the deposit shall be retained by Seller. If the closing does not occur as a result of Seller's default, the deposit, and payment made by Seller for the title commitment shall be returned to Purchaser. If closing does occur within such timeframe, or such extension, the deposit will 5 ~-~ be applied to the purchase price. If Purchaser has not provided Seller with written notice that it has been approved for receiving HUD Section 811 Funds by 2010, this agreement shall terminate as of that date without further action by either party, and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder. 13. In the event of default, the only remedies available are (a) as contained in Section 12 above, or (b) the right of either party to enforce this agreement through an action for specific performance. 14. Possession of the Subject Property shall be delivered by Seller to Purchaser at the time of the closing. 15. The terms "Seller" and "Purchaser" as used herein shall include the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto, respectively. It is acknowledged that this agreement may be assigned by Purchaser to a new nonprofit corporation sponsored by Accessible Space, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. 16. To assist Purchaser in its subsurface investigations, Seller will furnish Purchaser with information of which it is aware, regarding the existence of hazardous substances, water wells and underground storage tanks, provided that Purchaser must be satisfied as a result of its independent investigation as to all such matters. 17. Each party shall be responsible for paying the fees or commissions of any broker .retained by that party. 18. Time is of the essence of this agreement. 19. Each party shall, at the request of the other, execute, 6 l- -/ acknowledge (if appropriate), and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other -acts, as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this agreement. Specifically, Seller agrees to execute and deliver to Purchaser at closing the HUD form Identity of Interest and Disclosure Certification (the "Disclosure") that identifies any relationships Seller may have with Purchaser or any member of Purchaser's project development team. Seller shall update such Disclosure subsequent to closing if required by HUD. Purchaser shall advise Seller of the identity of Purchaser's development team members at any time that Purchaser requests the Disclosure. Purchaser agrees to provide Seller with documentation sufficient to establish that, subject to the interests of HUD should HUD take title to the Subject Property: (i) Purchaser will not use the Subject Property for purposes other than as Affordable Housing for individuals with physical disabilities for a period of at least 25 years from the date that the Subject Property is first occupied for that purpose; and (ii) Purchaser will pay when due and before penalty attaches, any real estate taxes assessed against the Subject Property for such 25-year period. Seller acknowledges that Purchaser's entering into the HUD form Use Agreement shall constitute sufficient documentation to establish compliance with clause (i) above, provided that Purchaser shall also. agree that it, and, subject to the interests of HUD, its successors or assigns, shall not seek modification or release of the HUD Use Agreement for at least 25 years from the date that the Subject Property is first occupied for Affordable Housing for 7 ~' individuals with physical disabilities without Seller's prior approval. Seller shall be entitled to enforce this covenant by specific performance. 20. All communications, notices, and demands of any kind which either party may be required or may desire to give to or serve upon the other shall be made in writing, and such notice shall be deemed sufficiently given if and when it is addressed to then other party as provided below and either (a) delivered personally,. (b) deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, with postage prepaid, (c) deposited with. an overnight delivery service for next day delivery, or (d) telecopied: To Seller: City of Richfield Attn: Christine Costello 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN. 55423 Facsimile No: 612-861-8974 John Dean, Esq. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN. 55402 To Purchaser: Accessible Space, Inc. 2550 University Avenue Suite 330N St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 Fax: (651) 645-0541 Attn: Dan Billmark 21. This agreement and the transaction herein contemplated shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws 8 ~- ~ ~ of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their. hands the day and year first above written. SELLER: CITY OF RICHFIELD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA By Its PURCHASER: ACCESSIBLE SPACE, INC. By Dan Billmark Its Director of Real Estate Development 9 ~~ ~~ EXHIBIT `A' SUBJECT PROPERTY 10 ~-/ 3 Memo To: Richfield City Council From: Rebecca Kurtz and Jon North, Eh#ers Date: June 15, 2009 Subject: Cost/Beneft Analysis for Development of the Candlewood Parcel Background As requested by the Ci-ty Council, Ehlers has worked with,staff to complete a Cost/Benefit Analysis for the proposed development of the Candlewood Parcel (34-028-24-33-00$7). Twin City Christian Homes and Accessible Space, Inc. has submitted a proposal to develop a 51 unit affordable, senior rental housing complex with-the assistance of the HUD 202 program. Analysis Assumptions The Analysis reviews four development scenarios with two land values for each scenario. The following assumptions were made for the Analysis: • The Cand.lewood parcel is currently-owned by the HRA and istax-exempt. • A housing TIF District would be established for the HUD 202 Project and used to reimburse the HRA for the land. ® TIF assistance would not be available for the fast food development. It is unlikely that the site would qualify to any type of TIF assistance outside of a housing development. ® The land value/base value of $660,000 is from a 2005 appraisal. ® The land value/base value of $880,000 is the shadow market value provided by Hennepin County for Pay 2004.. • The market value for the fast food development is based on .the Pay 2009 building market value of the Culver's in Bloomington, which is $579,000. • Total Taxes include City, County; School District and other taxing entities in the community, as well as fiscal disparities and statewide taxes for commercial development. • Housing developments do not pay fiscal disparities or statewide taxes. • Richfield's. tax rate for Pay 2009 is 42.528%. • The analysis assumes 2/1/2028 as the last payment.date and is the date used to calculate the present value; this is the required. decertification date, if a TIF district is established. • The analysis assumes no inflationary/deflationaty changes in market values or tax rates.. • The analysis assumes an interest rate/present value rate of 5.0% beginning 2/1/2010 and ending on 2/1/2028. vv~,~v~r. ehlers- ir~c .cam ~ ~ L ~ ~~ -- - -------___-____ _ _ .__ ____._ ____._.__-_._ 1lhinnesata phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive LEADERS IN PUBUC FINANCE Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois tax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1122 toll free 800-552-1171 ~-~ ~ Scenario 1: FiUD 202 Deve{opment-with TiF Assistance Under this scenario., the HRA would give the. land to the developer, and the developer would construct 51 units of affordable, senior housing under the requirements of the HUD 202 Program. The completed market value of the development is estiiziatedbetween $5,306,100 and $5,526,100, depending on the land market value. Since the parcel is currently owned by the HRA and tax exempt, at the time land sale, the property would be placed on the tax roll. The City pornon of:th~e taxes collected ins estimated to be $3,5Q9 to $4,678; depending on the mar"ket value of the lan°d. If a TIF District was establ:islae.d, the .City woul..d co: ritmue to collect those tax dollars over the term of the D~stri~ct. In addition, the annual tax increment -estimated to be approximately $60;000 -would be used to. reimburse the HRA for the land. 'The present value of the'TI;~ revenue stream, and m~xaIInunt amount available for the land reinnbursement is estimated to be $784,562. Therefore; the present vaI}use of the taxes collected on _the Iand at«I tlz,e TIC re~enzae is estimated to be betw~ee~n ~83~0,532 and $845.,85,1y depending:.or~ the la~a~d value. Scenario 2: FaPst Fo~ad Deve~hopment in 2009i20~4 , Under this scenario, the HRA would sell the land to a developer at market value iri 2009, and a fast food restaurant would be constructed. The completed market value of the development is estimated between $1,239,500 and.$1.;459,500, based on a buildzng with a market,vaiue of $579,500 and the land value. The HRA would receive between $:66,0,:000 and_$880;:000 in cash at the time of the=l~a~~d sale, and tax increment would not be used for the development. At the tiir3:e of t3~e land sa1!e, the property would be placed on the tax roll. The City portion of the taxes., .after the b~aaida~b was construet~ed, is estim~ed to be between ~7,1.57,;a~nri $7,:99'1.. 'Tle present valuue of'the revenue streana;.(a~p-fu~o~at payrne~tt ~~or tl~<e Iaa~.tl ~n~ t~~e City portion of .the tax reuen.ues over 26 yeaa's~ n~ estarnated to be betvveea~ ~G~7,1T1,ar~d $882,4`85, depending on the land. value. Based on tl:e history of this site and. o~ Current market condifi:ons, it,i's not anticipated that a private developer would purchase this site for a commercial developir~ent in 209. Scenario 3. Fa=s~ Food Development 'in 5 years ,Since it is not anticipated that commercial developrr~ent will o~cour on this site an 2009, a third scenario assuming a 5 year delay was reviewed. This allows tirr-e fbr the market to irriprove. Like in the above scenario, the HRA would: sell the land to a developer at market value in 2014, and a fast food restaurant would be constructed. The completed market value of the development is estim,atetl between $1,239,500 and $1;354,5.00, based 'on a building with a market value of $579,500. -~ ~ J The HRA would receive cash at the time of the land sale, and tax increment would not be used for the development. At the time of the land sale, the property would be placed on the tax roll. The City portion of the taxes, after the buildang was constructed, is estimated to be between $10,224, and $11,202. The present value of the revenue stream (up-front payment for the land and the City portion of the tax revenues over 21 years) is estimated to be between $521,101 and $684,972, depending on the land value. The decrease in the present value is due to the 5 year delay in development. This estimate will increase/decrease depending on the time of the delay in development. To the extent that development occurs before 2014, the present value will be greater; however, to the extent that the development is further delayed or does not occur, the present value will decrease. Scenario 4: No Development The final option assumes that no development will occur on the site in the near future. If development does not occur, and the parcel continues to be owned by the HRA, it will continue to be tax exempt and remain off of the tax rolls until the time of sale to a private entity. Summary As the attached spreadsheet shows, Scenario 1 (HUD 202 Development with TIF assistance) generates the most present value of land sale and taxes to the City with the lower value. Assuming the highest land value of $880,000, Scenario 2 is slightly better, so a policy question for the Council is to determine the value of a certain project, versus an uncertain project in this economic environment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. d L !4 a O 3 d c U 0 .y >: ~ _ ~a ~ w V d _ d O m T y O U U ~~ l~. C N a d C X M~ ~ t%> .- O r cr O r r O /f} i J {~ M R r~ N 'N R ? m o j 's F ~ , c N N o o n rn o ~ 3 c oa c ~~ 00 ~~ UT N~~~ V' V O O ~7 r x ~ O O O O ~ ` °aj ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O 3 N N O O `R LL 'b~ F ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q ~ C ~~ Z Z Z Z Z M i 0. ~ d ~ T O~ ~ f~ f~ O w N O n ~ ~ 61 O ~ O CA fA ~ aM R x ~~ ~~ ~~ m `~; c F- m ~~ c _ Q O G U ~ ~ O ~ O ~ R N N O J C O C O 3 i9 d N h N O N O w O O O O O O O a Y y d 6 A m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N R Q O CO O O O O ~ a O O N M to M~ a Qt O O ~ M~ N~ N V d O j > ~~ ~ifl i»if> i a 1- p „r 00 OO 00 O Y 7 43 = OO 00 OO R R R o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ '~ m~ ~~ O ~ ~ _ c 0 R T C ¢ ~~ d d a a ~ o a a s c eC R d d d d G7 N 7 3 3 3 p 3 is is i¢ m > > > > Y L V L L v R R ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ~ a a a a a s c c c s C C A R R R R O O O O O 0 0 O O O C C O O O O O O tD O~ t0 C'O rp pp 0 0 O O ~s +g CD m yr va ~~ c c s p c e i a i a i a a i E £ 'ac as a s o 0 0 0 > > i > d d G~ OD DO p, a s a s o N N L L O I L L L LL d 0 Q ++ +.+ ++ .~+ ~ 2 = li li lL ti Z a 0 d d a R .` d _~ O O o w N s. ~ .Or R N L X W w O a ~ ~~ ~ ~ Vt .~+ N N s a ~ R 3 °~~' ,a e ~' C m w'a m 6 = Q s > •~ w a ° vw, m N a ~_ ti _ O N w ~; N R ~ N_ w ~ > ~ d LL _~, cc (j tya k= Q. ~ w ~ ~ w ° '•. ~ m cOS oi- O ,•,~ >, d E R w ~ ~ ~ a N p> v N O eyya V d ~; R .~ c c y F w o . t- .m ~ ~ ,~' ,L.. t., O p N d N ~ = d = w a .y II1 m ea ~ •~ d °- m c .~~+ ~ d d ~ N = d y a ~ X 3 5 Q w a ~ o c ..:a ~, o ea N Q-'~ t VT ~ ~ci `o d R a y N d w d ` Y ~ ,R ~ 7 >, w a y C~ a c _ L {Q d d Cp > ~ w R~ 2 Q Q\ ~ ... dw~ ~ a s ~, o o? o R H Q. y O•~N R >t N~ m N y, a m ~, :' i F v= w O "' aO'p" i N N~ 3 0 0 N 0 w= 0 0 N O O N C6 C i Cfi N O O Vim.. ~ O R C+Oj ~T- d ~ o o y as o ~~ ooo~ _ yam c c ~xctOO~ ~U c o° o s R R ~, ~ O p G `~- N C e6 Q' U1 .~ ~' a ~ ,~d, N N N o s c c ea c y x 3- c ~ C6 R > ~ > w N N CR ~ R>> d y~ N R CNG R R N t L O L L ^ 0 0 .~ C C C t-QFt-FFSO.'000 ~ N M c1' 41 CO 1~ flD O O r ~-~ `~ IVlemo To: Richfield City Council From: .Rebecca Kurtz and Jon North, Ehlers Date: June 15, 2009 Subject: Cost/Benefit Analysis for Development of the South Portion of the Former City Garage. Site Background As requested by, the City Council, Ehlers has worked with staff to complete a CostlBenefit Analysis for the proposed development of the south portion of the former City Garage site (34- 028-24-34-0052). Twin City Christian Homes and Accessible Space, Inc. has submitted a proposal to develop a 15 unit rental housing complex for adults with disabilities with the assistance of the HUD 811 program. This analysis compares the financial impact of four development options. Analysis Assumptions The Analysis reviews four development scenarios with two land values for each scenario. The following assumptions were made for the Analysis: • The former City Garage parcel is currently owned by the City and is tax-exempt. ® A housing TIF District would be established,fortbe HUD 811 Project and used to help reimburse the City for the land. or write down the land -sale price. ® A 16,000 commercial/office development is another potential use for the site; however, there is currently no proposal or interest in the site for this type of development. • TIF assistance would: not be available for the. commercial/office .development. It is unlikely that the site would qualify to any type of TIF assistance outside of a housing development. • The land value/base value of $515,.000 is based on a previous appraisal. • The land value base value of $623,944 is the pro-rated shadow market value provided by Hennepin County for Pay 2004 (the most recent available). The total shadow market ' value is $2,40.0;000. (Since the property is tax exempt, the County Assessor does not annually update the market value; the County will update the value in 2010 or at the. time the property is sold and becomes taxable.) The south portion of the site is 41,103 square feet, and the value is pro-rated to $15.18 per square foot. • The market value of $125 per square foot for the commercial development is based on other developments in the metro. area. Depending on the type of commercial/office building, the market value may be higher or lower. • Total Taxes. include City, County, School District and other taxing entities in the community; as well as fiscal. disparities and statewide taxes for commercial. development. EHLER~ LEADERS ih PUBUC PINAMCE www.ehiers-inc.com Minnesat2 phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive QfSces also in Wisconsin and nlinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville. MIJ 55113-1122 tg1l free 800-552-1171 ~8 • Housing developments do not pay fiscal disparities or statewide taxes. • Richfield's tax rate for Pay 2009 is 42.528%, • The analysis assumes 2/1/2028 as the last payment date anal is the date used- to calculate the present value; this is the required decertifcation date, if a TIF district is established. • The analysis assumes no inflationary/deflationary changes in market values or tax rates. • The analysis assumes an interest ratelpresent value rate of 5.0°lo beginning 2/1/2010 and ending on 2/1/2028. Scenario 1: HUD 811 Development with T!F Assistance Under this scenario, the City would give the land to the developer, ancl'the~developer would construct a l 5 .unit rental housing complex for adults with disabilities with the asszsxance of th.e ,., HUD 811 program. The completed markef value of the development is estimated between $2,572,.850 and $2,681,794, depending on the land market value. Since the,parcel is currently-awned by the City anal tax exempt, at the time-land sale, tl.e property would be placed o-n ;fle tax roll. The an;~u~al City por~x:oan of t~h~e i~axes col=l~ctea~ is estxiua~nated to 'be $2,738 and`$3,317, depending on the market value of the land. If a TIF District was established, the City would continue to co~laect those tax dollars over the term o~f the Dstri:ct.~ln addition, the annual tax increment -estimated to be approximately $ i 8,5°00 -would. be used to reimburse the City for the land or write down the sale price of the land. The presenf vai.ue of the TICF revenue strea;an, anal maximum amount available for the Land reirrx~b~urseare:ent.is estimated to be $347;498. Therefore, the present value of tine taxes collected ore the lamd and tine '~'' reveae`ue is estimated to be between $383,369 and ~39~,956, depending on the land value. Based on TIF Projfecti~ons fo=r the proposed pr~jvct, there would not be suff dent TIF revenues to reimburse the City for the entire estimated m~.rket value. 'Therefate, the'City has several options to consider: - • Give the 1-and to' tl~e de~velope~; and reimburse. the City for-flee land at a redue~d price equal to the amount of TIF generated • SeII the land to the developer at a reduced price, .and use the TIF to pay tli~e difference between the ma~rl~et value and the amount.ot'the l`ancI=sale • Sell the land to the developer at market rate; as analy~e~ in Optian 2: • Po~a~l f~z~ads from the I-ItJIS 202 TIF L?istr-ict to assist with the difference betv,!een the market val?ue and the TIF revenue fir the 811 pi oj:aet;. it ~s anticpatsd' that there wi.1l be additional funds (currently estimated to be between $25,000 and $12;000, depen°ding on the market value of the Candlewood parcel) above the market value of the I:arid` in the HUD 202 project. Scenario 2: De~ve~kop~m~ent of a 15. unit rental ho~us.ing without Ti`s Assistance Under this scenario, the Crty vtould sell tine land to a developer at market value in 2009, :and a rental .project would be constructed, with a similar project val~ze to the A°Si/TCCH proposal. ~-19 The City would receive between $515,000 and $623,944 in cash at the tune of the land. sale, and tax increment would not be used for the development. At the tune of the land sale, the property would be placed on the tax roll. The annual City portion of the taxes, after the buildan_g was constructed, is estimated to be between $13,677, and $14,256. The present value of the revenue strearrg (up-front payment for the land anal the City portion of the tax revenues over 26 years) is estanated'to be between $634,373 and $730,920, depending on the land value. However, the developer has stated that to receive a higher ranking on the HUD funding application and increase the probability of HUD funding, the City is requested show a level of financial commitment to the project. By selling the land at market rate, the City's commitment would be nominal, potentially adversely impacting the HUD application. Scenario 3: 16,000 SF Commercial Development in 5 years Given the current market conditions, it is not anticipated that commercial development will occur on this site in 2009. As a comparison, a third scenario assuming a 16,004 square foot commercial/office building constructed in 5 years was reviewed. The 16,000 sq. ft. building is an estimate based on the size of the parcel and the size of a building that could be developed on the parcel; and the market value of $125/sq. ft is an estimate based on other commercial developments. Currently there are not plans for other development opportunities on the parcel, and it is unknown when the parcel may develop as a commercial site. The 5 year delay allows time for the market to improve. Like in the above scenario, the City would sell the land to a developer at market value in 2014, and a commercial development would be constructed. The completed market value of the development is estimated between $2,151,000 and $2,623,944, based on a market value of $125 per square foot. Depending onthe type of facility constructed, the rriarket value may be less than the estimate. The City would receive cash at the time of the land sale, and tax increment would not be used for the development. At the time of the land sale, the property would be placed on the tax roll. 7Che City portion of the taxes, after the building was constructed, is estimated to be between $21,074, and $22,000. The present value of the revenue stream (up-front payment for the land and the City portion of the tax revenues over 21 years) is estimated to be between $548,142 and $631,825, depending on the land value. The decrease in the present value is due to the 5 year delay in development and the lower completed market value. This estimate will increase/decrease depending on the time of the delay in development as well as the final market value of the development. It is very likely that the final development of this site will be significantly different from this example. Scenario 4: No Development ~~~ ~ The final option assumes that. no de~~elopment will oGCUT :on the si~te:ixi. the near future;.. If develop~~ent does not occur, and the:parcel continues,:to be owned by.,the H-~2.A, it,w,ili continue to be tax exempt and remain off of the tax rol.l•s unt11 the.tirne..of.saIe td aprivate-entity. Summary As the attach°ed spread-sheet: shows, Scenario 2 .(1.5 unit rental housing -development with cash for Land) generates the most present value of land sale anal taxes to the City. Please do i~ot hesitate to contact us if you have questions. d J d a~ i U d O lL C 0 O a O w N .~ a 'a C d Q w ~+ v d ~ ~ O ~ T M ~ ~ U U ~~ d L d M~ M ~~ ~ R T M O V O N n- ci 4 v ~ d ; ~ c» uj u9 vj e~ + o > R F ~ O 7 A '~ 1 ;.V V ~ N ~ M d ~ 6M9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q d ° rn rn LL vv_ r' r Q Q ' Q Q c ~~ z z zz z N a ~ c C° r ~~ ~ ° ° ~_' Q d U r i r M CO N o O O N e s ~ ,.° G H N M tf3 4A M V N 3 R ~ O O ffl CA ~ C A ~ cI- d ~ U ^ ". rnco rno rnm 0 M M Q V ~ ~ C w X O O. C ~ ~' -~ a ~ ~ Ems ~ ~ ~ y d d W ~ ~ 1~ CO 1~ O 01 Q~ Q !S. ~ O r W ~ N a d o ono ~o m N N d C R d ~~ b 9~ ~6 9 y.. ~ ^ o v o c O o v O~ o ~ Y 3 O~ T Cp ~ iQ 'n M CC') M 4i (h -'~ ~ '~ «') (D to CNO t[> fN0 fR to ffl 69 tfj b9 u. w > ~, . C C C C as as ~ = c c R:° .;~ ° ° .e .~ z s y LL LL 1= F= R e 4 ~ ~ R R v v .C r L .C t t 3'~ 33 33 d d ~ r1 7 3 3 O Sc > > ~ w _ _ d ~ R .Y i Y i O V ea is ~ ~ o er o m ~ ~ a s a s ~ N _ ~ c c in m R : a R ; a rss ca °o v o~ o v ' c c o a~ o m vi rS N H m ~ ~ ~ ~ O O > ~ O O ~ > C C C C ^ ~ d d O_ SS O O R C6 • O O == i i C > >? w w dd d d O ° O i W N ,p ~ C O O d ( ^^^ 1 ^~ O4 ^ ~ ~ S u~ u> ~o ca". O '~ S/ r r r r Z c ° c O d a C d d ~ o ~ ... V _ d ~ !L d Y°.. to '° N R X d a w ;? 0o a d "' aoi 3 d d ~ a ~ ~ O 0 3 R e~ y N r ~ d a ~! R .~ d > R t O d O. N O ~ N ''~- O E- G yy R O ,..r R ~ 6Fi ..d.,. N N w o LL N ~ ~ d R N X ~ ~ C 3 Q lL w F p R F N y T3 ;j~ R ~ O N C06 > .O 7 d A ~, Y ~ a U `m ~ v ~ 4 3 ~ w R " ~ ~ F •~ C ~ ~ >, ~ L ".. d Q t7 O d N .+ O G c =~m~ a ° O d i = Q ~ O N •O ~, vyic3 a ~ .. ~e>wd+ ~ ~° 0 i N 'O. Z3 "R"' d o 3 i C R +.O' US `~ a v Q d 'd ~ p y O r R= d a N N w N y~~ R m F R ~ L i 0 iC p v R d N_ aooo°u°,'aa oyi = N ~,az ~ vlt ~~ fl. U d d~ to R V' d w eNa m a' ,Z+ a o> s ~ _ N y N C~ fp~i A O y w o v QU O T~ is ~~j C~~,~~,, NLLN C.Q-. ~" r N K U C~ ~ O C ~ K ON O d d !'V C !G d 0 0 o d'a ai a w a+ ~ O ~ X 3 7 Ca C d~ 0 0 0 O . . > > C6 N N N ~> > d d a _~ R R R 7 N N i' R te" N~ N O R R t4 F- C d ~N N N N.C S2 ~- yw a?~T d d d d .R+ 3 .C R R R .C L .G .O Q O V C C C F-FFFl-2~~Q~ r N M eF 41 O N W 67 ~ ~, ~- Option Agreement with Accessible Space Inc. for 7700 Pillsbury Avenue ~ 45 90 180 270 360 Feet AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 Other Business 151 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW. ~1 / (~ SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider traffic control options for the- neighborhood west of the Cedar Point Development. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the placement of permanent traffic barriers on 64t" and 65t" Streets at Richfield Parkway (17t" Avenue). II. BACKGROUND The opening of the Cedar Point development has resulted in a significant increase in traffic volumes on 64th Street between and Richfield Parkway. A large number of vehicles going to Cedar Point from Bloomington Avenue are currently using 64tH Street and area residents have complained about the increased traffic volumes and speeds. This increase is due to it being the most direct route when compared to the alternatives of either 66th Street or the Cedar Avenue frontage road around Taft Park. As summarized below, 64t" Street has seen a considerable increase in traffic volumes. The average traffic for both directions of travel over the three-day period is over the 1,000 daily vehicles threshold used by the Metropolitan Council in the designation of a Local Street. Atypical .residential road in Richfield rarely sees over 500 vehicles per day. 0728CedarPointTraffic 64th Street Eastbound ADT Westbound ADT Before Cedar Point 79 65 Opening (weekday) After Cedar Point 215 226 Opening (weekday) After Cedar Point 1 022 1 287 Opening (weekend) , , Neighborhood Input In March 2009, the City's Traffic Control Committee suggested placing barriers on 64t" Street, essentially closing the street to cut-through traffic. The City Council supported this option if the neighborhood was accepting of the closures. Staff notified the neighbors of the consideration and invited them to attend an open house on May 19, 2009. A petition was received at the May 19t" Open House from Richfield Parkway residents opposed to any closure of 64t" Street at Richfield Parkway. The concern of the petition was for increased traffic volumes on Richfield Parkway due to the diversion of vehicles from 64t" Street, they like the cut through traffic and believe it keeps volumes down on the parkway. However, staff does not anticipate that an increase in traffic volumes would be generated from the closures once Cedar Point patrons are diverted to 66t" Street and the Cedar Avenue Frontage Road. Also, Richfield Parkway was intended to see an increase in traffic levels and is designated in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan as an `A' Minor Arterial. An additional petition was received from the 16t" Avenue residents on Monday, June 29, 2009 requesting the closure of 64t" Street at Richfield Parkway (17t" Avenue) in order to divert through traffic to the alternative connections. This closure would also necessitate the placement of barriers on 65t" Street at Richfield Parkway to eliminate that through connection. Staff Recommendation The Traffic Control Committee feels that placing barriers on both 64t" Street and 65t" Street at Richfield Parkway addresses the complaints of the majority of residents most effectively. Alternative solutions include placing two additional stop signs at the intersection of 64t" Street and 16t" Avenue, making it a four-way stop; placing additional signage at the intersection of Bloomington Avenue and the Cedar Avenue frontage road to encourage Cedar Point costumers approaching from Minneapolis to use that route; a combination of these steps; or to take no action. Staff recommends the placement of the barriers to eliminate the use of 64t" and 65tH Streets as through-ways. This action also mimics the ultimate conditions proposed for Richfield Parkway Phase II. Because all other solutions leave 64t" Street open as the most direct route between Bloomington Avenue and Richfield Parkway, staff feels traffic volumes would remain unacceptably high. With the traffic barriers in place, drivers wishing to access Richfield Parkway from Bloomington Avenue would be forced to use either the Cedar Avenue frontage road or 66t" Street. Staff considers both of these routes acceptable for the volume of traffic in question. Spacing of the concrete barriers would still allow pedestrian and bicyclist access at these intersections. Truck Delivery Additionally, complaints were received at the July 14, 2009 City Council Work Session regarding the delivery trucks for the Cedar Point development passing in front of the homes on Richfield Parkway. Staff has reviewed the project site plans and is reviewing development agreements to find out if there was an approved designated truck delivery route for the development. Staff believes the approved truck route has the trucks enter the loading dock access from the south (at the main entrance) and exiting the site at the north end of Richfield Parkway. The trucks then go south on Richfield Parkway to access 66t" Street. The delivery road behind the buildings is a one-way northbound road so there are no truck turn-around facilities at the rear of Target or Home Depot. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Richfield Comprehensive Plan designates 64t" Street and 65t" Street as Local Streets. The primary emphasis of a local street is to provide access to adjacent properties and neighborhoods and to discourage through traffic. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The neighborhood is in disagreement and has presented opposing petitions. C. FINANCIAL • The City has the necessary concrete barriers and signage available so no additional purchases would be needed. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Additional signage to encourage the use of the frontage road around Taft Park from Bloomington Avenue to Richfield Parkway. • Place additional stops signs at the intersection of 64t" Street and 16t" Avenue making the intersection a 4-way stop. • Take no action. I V . .ATTACHMENTS I • ~ ratric vo~ume txnibit • Petition Against 64t"/65t" Street Traffic Diversion • Petition For 64t"/65t" Street Traffic Diversion I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I r~`-I ~E r ~~~ City Council: ~~~ ~L ~ '~'~ e ~ ;;~ rv~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ We do not want a concrete BARRIER ON 64TH Street and'=.17th Ave. We do not need increased traffic. ~ ""'.rr t/ €4 ~„ . ' ~ ~/ 1 •---~ / f --~ 1 ~~ .~~, ~~ ~ ~' s~ ~ f df~~~1~~~°~J ~~~./ "' _~ ,~. . ~ ,.~. 8-3 Petition to request Traffic Impact Study The following petition requests the City of Richfield conduct a traffic study to determine the traffic impact and the safety of the residents of 16~" Avenue South, 17t" Avenue South and 64t" Street fast due to the placement of the entrances for the Target/Home Depot development. The residents request a traffic study be done which should include weekend data, prior to any changes to compare the traffic levels once traffic is diverted. Residents request a traffic diversion which would utilize the frontage road around Mother's Lake or 66t" Street at Richfield Parkway for entry into the shopping center, which ,was the original traffic plan once both phases of the __ __ _ de_ve[e~ment has_ been co_m~p~eted. __ Due_to__the delays ire the Phase II development the resident in the area feel they have been unnecessarily burdened by high volume traffic. The residents contend this will not increase traffic heavily on other routes around the shopping center, but equally distribute the traffic flow. The traffic diversion would include a closure of 64t" Street at 17t" Avenue South. By signing the attached petition I agree with the request for the Traffic Impact Study. /, ;? _ ..._ .. .. ,. n to ~ ~~~- c~--' ' 1. r~~.c~.~- ~f tom" ~= s-~ a R c 'v a ~ Z ~ u s //y~a 11~~ 6.i. .r l W a c ea ~s a a M ~ `° z a~ ~ _ a a~ > .~ a Q ~~ a _ z a 0 U O O O ~ ~ o a; ~ rz ~.+ ~ .~ ~ ~ i --_-E". L _' N Q 1 ~_ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ `i o ,1 ~' ~. `~ `~ ' ~ _ ~ ~ V ~„ ' '~' J ,\' -V ~3 v . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . c~ /` ~ ~~ _ ~ L ~ `~~~FYY `~ ~, ... .` ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ l .~. i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (°~ 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ ) ` ~ ~ ` ~, '~ ' ~ U (~ , ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ r_... sJ ~ ` ~ r ~ `~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ rte. ~ & O.. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ j ~ 1 ~ ,~ .F'~ i~ i ~ J P P .~ ~ ~ ~ ~- .j..1 ~ ~ O J.d ~ 1J ~ .i-J ~ .{J ~ 1J ~ 1J ~ .IJ ~ a--! ~ .{J ~ ~ Q a-.' ~ '~--, ~ .~..+ ~ }J . ~ L ~ ~ .7..J ~ .L.1 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ a Q~ ¢ ~ ¢ Q) a ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ Q) ¢ ~ ¢ Q) ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ Q~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ rn O M d- +-~ M ~ +-i M o N M ,-i N M r~ N M o~ N M d- M M o~ M M rn M M a- 'Ci" M ~r d' M ~n d" M --, Lf] M o O d' ,-, O d" o~ O d' rn O d' d- r-t d' ~O t0 l0 ~ ~O ~ t0 ~O l0 CO ~O ~D ~ ~O l0 t0 O Cfl ~O ~'~ •~~ '' \~ t ~..~ V '.~ ~~ 1 ~.~` '--._'~ L v V n ~~ J y i Z.S-° .~ ...._ a i n a~ a~ ~ ... ch a~'i B __=° _. .. 0 U •O 0 `^+3 W `0 W T 'C5 ,~ to v -~- o _... ~;~. _.. --r+ C :i~~ ~ 9t 1 ~,/ ~ f ~ `~ ,'~'` _ ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ _. _ .- ~. Y ~ ~ i ' tl ~F(~y4q{ b ~E i i ~ ,^.~yp _ V ~ ~py~[4 v..,,,,~ 1 ` - .~' V ~ - ~ ' J ~'~ ~ ~ 1~ _ ice- - ~ fir.,, cs~ ~; . e~.; ~ ~ Q ~ c1~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ Q -~ Q O O ~ ~ N ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 152 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ca CHRIS LINK, OPERATIONS MANAGER STREETS/FORESTRY NAME, TITZE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Street Light User Fee Implementation Schedule I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve a Street Light Implementation Schedule 2. Schedule a public hearing on August 25, 2009 to receive comment on the consideration of charging auser-fee for purposes of the operation of a street lighting system in the City of Richfield. II; BACKGROUND At the February 24, 2009 Council Study Session, the Council reviewed service fee options and directed the staff to move forward with the implementation of a street light utility fee. The proposed fee could be used to generate up to $321,570 per year, or approximately the City's annual electric bill for street lights. In 1995 the City initiated a street light fee which lasted for five years. The fee at that time was used for replacement of lighting heads. In 2003 the City attempted to resume collecting a street light user fee and scheduled a public information meeting on August 12, 2003. At this meeting approximately 60 residents attended. The residents provided comments and asked questions of staff. The residents were also given an opportunity to provide written comments. These comments along with 072809StreetLightUtility others received from phone calls, emails and letters were tabulated and given to the Council Members (see attached). At that time the City Council chose to initiate franchise fees rather than implement a street light fee. City staff is proposing to use the same rate structure as was used in 1995. All residential properties pay the same rate. Residential and Commercial property pay the same rate per acre assuming 5 residential lots per acre. Using a base fee for residential homes of $6.15 per quarter, Commercial property is then charged $30.75 per acre. Schools and churches are charged 25% of the commercial rate due to the large land parcels that do not have streets and streets lights on the interior of the streets. This rate generates sufficient funds to cover the approximate estimated annual electrical costs for street lighting or $321,572 per year. In order to initiate the user fee, Council must adopt the attached resolution. A formal public hearing is not required, however, staff suggests that the City Council consider holding a public hearing to solicit additional public input since it has been four years since the August 12, 2003 Public Information Meeting. City Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached draft Implementation Schedule and approve the schedule after making any necessary revisions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State statute and City ordinance allow the Council to initiate a street light user fee by resolution. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Cuts in State Aid have forced the City to pursue alternative funding sources to maintain current services. C. FINANCIAL • The table below shows the City's anticipated budgeted electrical costs for 2009 and 2010. 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Line Item Proposed Revised Proposed 10610-6207 $316,620 $338,780 $362,500 (Xcel/Electrical Costs) • The estimated revenue(s) generated from a proposed user fee of $6.15/quarter (electric only) is $321,570. • The fee will be collected on the Utility bill as a separate line item. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council may choose not to hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution at this time. • The Council may choose not to continue consideration of a street light utility fee. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution to charge a user fee for purposes of the operation of a street lighting system. • Draft Implementation Schedule. • Street Light User Fee Rate Factors Sheet • Comments from the August 12, 2003 Public Information Meeting VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected. ~---_i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A STREET LIGHT FEE TO BE CHARGED TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE OPERATION OF A STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield community values the operation of a street lighting system; and WHEREAS, every property in the City, residential and commercial, benefits from good streets which are well lighted and maintained through a city street light system; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statues, Section 429.101 the governing body of a municipality may charge for certain current services provided by the municipality including the operation of a street lighting system. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield., Minnesota as follows: 1. Every property in the City of Richfield, residential and commercial, benefits from streets which are well lighted and maintained. 2. Each property in the City of Richfield is to be charged a quarterly user fee, -with commercial property to be charged on an acreage basis by a multiplier of five of the amount charged to a residential property. 3. The initial Street Light User Fee for residential single family property is $6.15 per quarter for residential property. Rates for other land uses will be determined by the attached street Light User Fee Rate Factors Sheet. 4. The rates for the Street light User Fee will be reviewed and established annually as part of the City's budget preparation process. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~e~ Draft Street Light User Fee Implementation Schedule July 28, 2009 Schedule Public Hearing Early August Advertise Public Hearing in the Richfield Sun and on the website August 25, 2009 Conduct Public Hearing and accept comments September 8, .2009 Approval of resolution establishing the Street Light User Fee. October, 2009 First Street Light User Fees are included in the utility bill ~~~ Street Light User Fee RATE FACTORS SHEET Fees are based on Land Use Land Use Titles: COM -All commercial properties, to include multifamily residents (apartments) and industrial parcels. RES -All residentially coded parcels. PUB -Public buildings, i.e. City .Hall, City Garage, and Fire Stations CHURCH -All Churches also to include cemeteries and activity buildings associated with a Church SCH -..All schools, to include private and public schools. PRK -All parks owned by the City of Richfield, also to include Nature Centers and all "properties" located within city park parcels DPLX -Addresses that split a residential lot, to include townhomes, 3-plexs, and 4-plexs. LAND USE CODE MULTIPLIER To Bill FACTOR COM (acres>0.2} 5* (5 x ACREAGE) if acres<_0.2 ---- 1 RES ---- 1 PUB (acres>0.2} 5 (5 x ACREAGE) if acres _<0.2 ---- 1 CHURCH (acres>0.2) 1.25** (1.25 x ACREAGE) if acres <_0.8 ---- 1 if acres 50.2 ---- 1 SCH (acres>0.2) 1.25 (1.25 x ACREAGE) if acres <_0.8 ---- 1 if acres 50.2 ---- 1 PRK 1.25 1.25 x ACREAGE DPLX ---- 0.5 * The multiplier of "5" is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre, hence multiplying acreage by 5 produces the equivalent number of residential lots. ** The multiplier of "1.25" " is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre and multiplying acreage by 5. produces the equivalent number of residential lots. However, the total area of each parcel is not proportional to the number of street lights in an equivalent residential area so the factor of 5 is reduced by 75%, producing 1.25. ~" 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: August 13, 2003 TO: File FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Public Comments Received on Proposed Street Light Service Fee On August 12, 2003, a public meeting was held to discuss the proposed Street Light Service Fee. Comment cards were made available for the attendees. Below are the comments/opinions/questions that were received. They are divided into groups that have a common question or opinion. OPPOSED Name & Address Carl Palmquist 6215 - 5th Avenue Comment I oppose this -not necessa .Police -Fire -EMT -YES! Cit Response Name & Address Mary Ann Palmquist 6215 - 5th Avenue Comment Vote "No" - $3.00 here, $3.00 there. $1.00 on light bill, what else? Retired and on limited income. Cit Response Name & Address Phyllis Brandt 6614 Washburn Avenue Comment I am very much opposed to the street light assessment. The City would not remove debris from previous storm but will try to charge an assessment fee to all homeowners. Where is Best Buy's role in this? Are the bein taxed also? I should hope so. City Response ANOTHER WAY OF TAXING Name & Address Robert Hall 7309 Oliver Avenue Comment The City is just using street lights as an easy way to raise taxes because it is such a visible service that involves safet and securit . (Date) ~~ ~ Pase 2 City Response The Street Light Service Fee is one of only a few ways cities are authorized by state law to generate revenue. In light of reduced state aid to local governments, many cities including Richfield are considering a Street Li ht Service Fee Name & Address Fletcher L. Cornely, Sr. 7312 L ndale Avenue Comment I live at 7312 Lyndale Ave. S., Richfield, MN and my tax for the year is ~, $3,000.00. I don't think your tax plan is fair for the neighborhood. I live alone and no school children in school. I personally don't want any more tax. Get taxes some other way. Cit Response Name & Address Unanimous Comment Please tell where the money comes from when you are on Social Securit , a fixed income. You keep raisin our taxes all the time. Cit Res onse Name & Address Kathie Yahr 6244 James Avenue Comment This is not fair. Seniors are already over-taxed. Between trees and lights - $49.60 per year. Yet offices in City Hall and the Community Center have new flat panel monitors. What about the Kensington project -1.4 million in tax increments and 6 million low interest to developer. Wasted money on the new pool for all the frills. How much did the Best Buy mess cost the City - 3 million. Shops at Lyndale -tax-increment. What do you do with our tax dollars? What about the talk of charging us for seal coating streets? I did not keep the article from the paper. The woman on the City Council who made the statement about tree fees - If home owner does not have one, we will plant one -PLEASE. People in Richfield are not made of money. Get real. Seniors have a hard time making ends meet. Maybe you would like them to all leave Richfield. Cit Response Name & Address Arlen Orth 7145 Nicollet Avenue Comment How is the average homeowner supposed to keep up with all the increases put to us? Property taxes are constantly going up (school). Now ou want more cash from us. Just sa no!!! Find a different wa . City Response (Date) C1 _ Page 3 Name & Address Betty Schultz 6305 Newton Avenue Comment I feel like you are taxing senior citizens out of Richfield. I have lived in Richfield for almost 50 years. We have not any children so have not cost Richfield any money in that regard. We have given and given higher taxes and are sick of it. Please do not add another tax as a street light fee. Use Best Bu for more mone .The make millions at our ex ense. City Response ALTERNATIVES Name & Address Robert Hall 7309 Oliver Avenue Comment The formula is inherently unequal because apartment dwellers pay only a fractional share of the land they are on. Who maintains lights and surrounding trees (boulevard trees that obscure light)? Will there be a sunset provision? Will all the comments and questions be public) answered? Cit Res onse Name & Address L. A. Jackson 6434 Lo an Avenue Comment Many would like to see substantiation of the Xcel charges for lights. How much of the charges are ?Who has written a letter of inquiry/information/intent from, the City of Richfield to Xcel asking for a rate reduction (due to budgetary constraints)? This letter should detail what may have to happen if relief is not given, i.e., 1. Burn lights from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. only - or for shorter times) 2. Shift the lights except for main thoroughfares - 66th St., Penn, Nicollet, etc. 3. Light maintenance is lacking, i.e., there are three lights that blink on and off which cost more to run (by the way) all night. Locations are: • between the East Swimming Pool and Elliot along the blacktop sidewalk • 65th and Xerxes (corner), the light over the Southddale Square signboard (this one should be disconnected since the signboard puts out more light). Take some funds from Fire and Police budgets if Police and Fire deem li hts Cit Response Name & Address Patricia A. Young 6227 Second Avenue (Date) Donn /1 9-~ Comment I am opposed to the street light fee. Perhaps an alternative could be every other light. Or neighbors within the light ray area could divide the fee among those who want it. I would like the streetli ht on m pro ert removed please. Cit Res onse Name & Address Garfield Hoverston 6413 Pleasant Avenue Comment If we can't afford it, let's cut the lights. There is too much light pollution now! Cit Res onse Name & Address Arlene Anderson 6238 James Avenue Comment Did we need to spend the million plus on the swimming pool? What is the cost per Richfield child? Do we need to give tax breaks to CSM & Best Buy? Do you really want people living in Richfield or do you want to turn the city into a business perk? How much more can we expect are taxes to increase? Richfield offers nothing to their private homeowners. Cut down the trees and turn out the li hts. I'm read to leave City Response Name & Address Kathie Yahr 6244 James Avenue Comment Is someone getting a kickback? The Council keeps granting favors for developers and big companies. Do something for people who actually a taxes. Let the trees die and li hts o out. I have had enou h. Cit Res onse Name & Address Greg Halverson 7432 - 2nd Avenue (Date) Page 5 t-8 Comment If this goes to Council prior to a formal public hearing, you have not followed H.F No. 965 Is your mater plan current through the next five years? If so, how much of this money is being used for upgrades instead of exiting infrastructure. Please consider the counter attached. 1. What are the advantages of paying for this service through our electricity bill and have Xcel energy reimburse the City? 2. Upgrades and new lighting should be assessed to neighboring lots. The fund should only be used for the electricity bill and maintenance to existin li hts and infrastructure. Please put this in the evaluation Cit Res onse Name & Address 6714 Stevens Avenue Comment I think the City splitting the cost with the residents would be a more atrractive option. Cit Res onse Name & Address Joanne Hart 7645 Garfield #5 Comment Proposed charge of $24.60/yr. To residents of the Casteel Place townhouses is not equal to the $24.60 for the sigle family housing in the next block. $24.60/yr/townhouse is a total of $984/yr. If there are eight houses in the 1/2 block of Harriet their comined total is $196.80. For the same gographic area, I think this is not fair. I propose a lower rate for the townhouses of a max. of $10/ r/unit. City Response THE PROCESS Name & Address Stan Cromer 6833 -16th Avenue Comment Why is this meeting at this time only one hour? What is your next project- - street sweepin , trimmin trees, patchin holes in street? Cit Res onse Name & Address Vicki Forslund 6624 Morgan Avenue (Date) Page 6 ~~~ Comment I'm very disappointed! With this turnout, it would have been beneficial for City employees to introduct themselves and their position, explainn charts and their reasons for fee increase, and ask people for comments and ideas. I'm going home with public handout and I'm sure people made comments worth hearing -I'll never know! When you decide on "public hearings" for fees for "boulevard trees" and "road repaving" please or anize so it can be a true "public hearin ." Cit Response IN FAVOR OF FEE Name & Address Dawn Nilsen 6908 Oakland Avenue Comment I am in favor of this charge. I would request that the City respond in a time) manner to reported outa es! Cit Res onse Name & Address Mike Tegeder 6540 James Avenue Comment I support your street light proposal in the face of our budget cuts due to loss of LGA fundin s. I am not hap about the State cuts. Cit Response The following comments were received from residents not at the Public Meeting on 8/12/02. The comments were received by phone, mail, or email. Name & Address Ron Meyer Comment What is the basis for the lot size calculations? Does it include the street? Cit Response Name & Address Kent Comment What services would be cut is street light service fees are not implemented? City Response Name & Address Unanomous Comment I vote NO Cit Response Name & Address Unanimous Comment How do char es to a artment com are to residents? Cit Response (Date) Page 7 ~-1 ~ Name & Address Deb Moran Comment Are apartments charged per unit or lot size? Is the rate pro-rated to 3/4 acre? City Response Name & Address Unanimous Comment Can we turn off eve other li ht? Cit Res onse Name & Address Gesmaine Gustofson Comment I was unable to attend the meeting on 8/12/03 regarding additional charges for street lighting. Let me just say I am very mucy opposed to this and other "taxes" presented. Nickel and diming the Richfield residents with all these extras is a poor way to wrangle more money aour of us - many on limited, fixed incomes. If more money is needed, and I question this, raise property taxes - at least these costs are deductible which is of some benefit. Thank ou. City Response Name & Address Unanimous Comment We have excellent snow plow service, but couldn't we reduce the service here? Cit Response Name & Address Unanimous Comment Cut more out of Public Safety Cit Response Name & Address Tricia Comment No, has a street li ht on propert and does -not like it. City Response Name & Address Donald Johnston 7345 Park Avenue (Date) Page 8 ~'-~ Comment Living on Social Security. We certainly can't afford to pay for lights. We are ushed to the limit now! Cit Res onse Name & Address Wanita Carlson 7309 Sheridan Avenue Comment Doesn't like to see us keep adding fees to water bill. How is she suppose to pa for this on her fixed social securit income? Cit Response Name & Address Dave Swanson 6300 Russell Avenue Comment Strongly objects to user fees, prefers street light costs to be funded by property taxes. Increase property tax if necessary, but don't create a new fee. City Response Name & Address Eric Morris Comment Doesn't want to pa user fee but would like to see pa cuts. Cit Response Name & Address Connie Zessler 6904 Thomas Avenue Comment We don't need the street light fee and we don't want the extra taxes. We have a dust to dawn light and we have a privacy light. We will move of Richfield if necessary. Cit Res onse Name & Address Jack Morris Comment Suggestions as alternative to user fee: 1. Turn off selected lights 2. Add solar panels to power lights. 3. Cut City Manger's salary of over six figures (by a little bit) at least temporarily. She can afford it easier than the middle income residents who predominate Richfield's electorate. Cit Response ` (Date) Page 9 ~r~ Name & Address Jim Nelson 6524 Newton Avenue Comment In response to the City's consideration of a Street Light Fee, I have a few questions: If you or someone from the City can not respond, I will understand. 1. Can the City operate Street Lights on a $300,000 annual budget? 2. Maybe the city could do a test, and turn off the street lights, see what the people of Richfield think? With all the street lights in Richfield maybe we could save a lot more than $300,000 on electric and maintenance. 3. Sometimes it seems like a waste of power to operate the street lights on summer evenings, when Xcel Energy is cycling the power to my home AC. If we could turn off the 2 center lights on each block could enough power and maintence be saved to stop the Street Light Fee and save some power? We would still have Street Lights on each intersection. Let's work together to keep our taxes and fee's low and still keep Richfield the great place it is to live and work. Thank you for your time in this matter, City Response Name & Address Paul J. Riffel, Sr. 7432 Bloomin ton Avenue Comment I think it's outrageous that you charge us $12.00 per year on our electric bill, invoices as "City Surcharge" for street lights and then $24.60 per year for the same thing on our water bill. You should know that every dollar taken from the people, lowers their spending power creating more layoffs and adding to the bad economy. More layoffs means less revenue for the cities creating the need to increase taxes again and creating additional fees. This snow ball has to stop before everybody is out of their homes and then you'll get nothing. Where do the suckers come from then? You'll have drained the current ones down to homelessness. From a regretful homeowner in Richfield. I have been ivin a serious thou ht of movin . Cit Response Name & Address Comment City Response AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # LO , REPORT # 153 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING l~ JULY 28, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approve the design development phase for the new Police/Fire/City Hall facility and proceed to the contract document hase. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the design development phase for the new Police/Fire/City Hall facility and proceed to the contract document phase. II. BACKGROUND The design development phase for the new Police/Fire/City Hall facility has been completed. Drawings and other documents have been presented to the City Council and staff to describe the size and character of the project. At this juncture, Wold Architects is ready to proceed with the next phase of the project, which is the development of contract documents for the bidding process. The site plan has been determined, Wold representatives have met numerous times with staff user groups to focus on building functionality, neighborhood meetings have been held to receive input from the public regarding Heredia Park, and several site tours have been conducted by City Council members to get ideas from other facilities. 0728design development approval According to the project schedule, the first bid package to prepare and secure the site and create temporary parking, will take place in early September, followed by a second bid package in early October for building and site work for the new structure. At this time, construction is anticipated to begin in November. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Before proceeding to the next phase of contract development, Wold Architects requires formal approval of the design development phase, indicating City Council approval of the overall design plan and character. • The outstanding issues yet to be determined will not hinder Wold Architects from beginning the next critical phase of developing contract documents. As the outstanding issues are decided, those decisions will be incorporated into the construction documents. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ` • In order to stay on the project schedule and allow enough time for Wold Architects and Stahl Construction to prepare contract documents for the bid process, it is critical for the City Council to give its approval to the design development phase, signifying agreement with the plan and movement into the next phase. C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Sustainable strategies will continue to be addressed at future work sessions with City Council and staff. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONr;S~ • Do not approve the design development phase and provide direction to Wold Architects as to changes to the overall design plan and character. However, City Council approval is required before Wold can proceed with developing contract documents and any delays at this point in the project may postpone construction until 2010. V. ATTACHMENTS • Project book from Wold Architects VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Wold Architects • Representatives from Stahl .Construction NEW CITY HALL, POLICE AND FIRE Design Development Submittal _ City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, Minnesota - July 28, 2009 ivi i iii iiiii iii ~ %/.ii ii/~~ i i i / i %„ ~ iii/ /ii i/iiii iiii/ ~~ , ~tects and Engineers ~~ ~i~~i, %30~ ,..t'Yeter Street ;St; Qaul, Minnesota 55102 651.227:7773 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Guiding Principles Building Program Summary Site Design Objectives Site Plan Landscape Views -Plaza Building Objectives Building Floor Plans Main Level Upper Level Lower Level. Exterior Elevations 3-D Exterior and Interior Views Daylighting Control Strategies Sustainable Strategies Mechanical Design Narrative Electrical Design Narrative Project Schedule Project Budget Paae 1 2 3-15 16 17 18 19 20-24 25-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35 36-37 38-41 42-48 49 50 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers __ Design Development July 28, 2009 INTRODUCTION Wold Architects and Engineers is pleased to submit to the Richfield City Council the Design Development Submittal for the New City Hall, Police and. Fire. We wish to thank the City Council, CHAT III, Orfield Labs, City Staff and the Work Group for their exhaustive efforts in providing the Design Team the information necessary to advance to this stage of development in a timely fashion. The Design Team will commence the next phase of this project upon approval by the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this design presentation. ichael Cox, AIA „~ WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 1 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Enhance Heredia Park and the surrounding neighborhood - The building's design should enhance the park and fit within the existing neighborhood. - This project should highlight the park's features, the park can become the inspiration for the building design and the park can be reorganized and/or reinterpreted. - The building's design and the park should work together to create a unified space. • Efficiency -Create efficiency through design - Spatial Efficiency- Create flexible spaces that can accommodate future needs. - Organization- Efficiently organize departments within the building to maximize space usage. - Energy- Create an energy efficient building through use of materials and design. - Land- Placement of the new facility/ facilities to work most efficiently with the surrounding neighborhood and Heredia Park. The building should be designed in such a way to create a balance between footprint size and. overall building. height and mass. • User Friendly -Create user friendly working, gathering and meeting spaces • Community - Create a building that serves as a community gathering place 2 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design -. 1.000 City Hall Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Apr-09 Jul-09 1.100 Executive 1.101 City Manager 180 180 180 1.102 Assistant City Manager 150 150 150 1.103 Human Services Planner/Coordinator 64 64 64 1.104 Communication Coordinator 64 64 64 1.105 Secretary 64 64 64 1.106 Executive Coordinator 64 64 64 1.107 Executive Conference Room 300 300 300 1.108 Printer Area/Storage/Workroom 120. 120 190 Subtotal Executive 1,006 1,006 1,076 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 _ 1.100 Total GSF Executive 1,408 S.F. 1,408 S.F. 1,506 S.F. 1.200 Administrative Services-Administration 1.201 Director 150 150 140 1.202 HR Coordinator 120 120 140 1.203 Info Desk (combined w/1.204) 150 150 -- 1.204 Mail Area/Switchbd/Recep. (Shared w/ 1.210) 100 100 160 Subtotal Administrative Services 520 520 440 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.200 Total GSF Administrative Services 728 S.F. 728 S.F. 616 S.F. 1.210 Administrative Services-Assessing 1.211 Appraisal Supervisor 64 64 64 1.212 Appraiser (3@48 sf) 64 192 (3@ 64 SF; 128 (2@ 64 SF) 1.213 Assessment Clerk 64 64 64 1.214 File Area 100 100 200 Subtotal Assessing 292 420 456 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.210 Total GSF Assessing 409 S.F. 588 S.F. 638 S.F. 1.220 Administrative Services-City Clerk/Licensing 1.221 City Clerk 150 150 150 1.222 Deputy City Clerk 120 120 120 1.223 Lead Licensing Clerk -- 64 80 1.224 Licensing Clerk 192 (3@64 S.F.; 128 (2@64 S.F.) 124 (2@64 S.F.) 1.225 Report Writing Stations 36 36 64 1.226 File/Record Storage (combined w/1.227) 200 200 260 1.227 Work Room 180 180 -- 1.228 Reception Counter 64 64 64 1.229 Passport Counter 48 48 48 _ 1.230 Waiting Area/Play Area 925 400 740 1.231 Public Viewing Room 80 80 -- 1.232 Driver's License Area -- 100 100 1.233 License Plate Storage -- 80 80 1.234 Elections Storage 720 500 500 Subtotal City Clerk/Licensing 1,995 2,000 2,180 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.220 Total GSF City Clerk/Licensing 2,793 S.F. 2,800 S.F. 3,052 S.F. Cemmissier No. 082169 Page 3 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 1.230 Administrative Services-Finance 1.231 Finance Manager 150 150 155 1.232 Finance Clerk 64 64 64 1.233 Accounting Clerk-Liquor 64 64 64 1.234 Accounting Clerk-Receivables 64 64 64 1.235 Accounting Clerk-Payables 64 64 64 1.236 Payroll Accountant 144 110 115 1.237 Accountant 80 110 115 1.238 File/Printer/Workroom 80 80 195 1.239 Safe/Auxiliary Room 64 64 50 1.240 Storage Rooms 200 200 300 Subtotal Finance 974 970 1,186 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.230 Total GSF Finance 1,364 S.F. 1,358 S.F. 1,660 S.F. 1.240 Administrative Services-Human Resources 1.241 Interview/Small Conference Room 120 120 120 1.242 Secretary 64 64 64 1.243 Testing Room 48 48 60 Subtotal Human Resources 232 232 244 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 4.240 Total GSF Human Resources 325 S.F. 325 S.F. 342 S.F. 1.250 Administrative Service-I.T. 1.251 IT Manager 120 120 140 1.252 IT Technician 64 64 80 1.253 Help Desk Operator/I.T. Technician 80 80 100 1.254 Network Administrator 64 64 80 1.255 Workbench 150 260 270 1.256 Equipment Storage Room 150 280 260 1.257 Elec. Equip./Server Room 800 800 330 1.258 Demark Room 50 50 50 1.259 Break Room/Small Conf. Room 120 120 120 1.260 Central Copy Room 400 400 360 Subtotall.T. 1,998 2,238 1,790 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 - 1.250 Total I.T. 2,797 S.F. 3,133 S.F. 2,506 S.F. Comrnissior. No. 082169 Page 4 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design - Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 1.300 Community Development 1.301 Director 150 120 150 1.302 Assistant Director 120 120 125 1.303 Director's Conference Room 80 80 145 1.304 Community Development Specialist 80 80 80 1.305 Community Development Assistant Coord. -- -- -- 1.306 Community Development Accountant 80 100 80 1.307 CD Accountant Storage Room 100 80 150 - 1.308 Community Development Tech. (Section 8) 80 80 80 1.309 City Planner 150 150 160 1.310 Housing Coordinator 80 80 80 1.311 Leased Housing Specialist {Section 8) 64 80 80 1.312 Leased Housing Assistant (Section 8) 64 64 80 1.313 Housing & Redvlp't Manager/Assist. CD Manage 120 80 80 1.314 Redevelopment Specialist -- -- -- 1.315 Graphics Technician -- -- -- 1.316 Secretary/Waiting Area (2-3 Seats) 150 150 150 1.317 Marketing Workroom 120 120 120 1.318 Future CD Technician Position 64 64 80 1.319 Vacant Office (2 @ 133 S.F.) -- -- -- 1.320 Conference Room 100 100 220 1.321 Section 8 Conference Room 100 100 140 1.322 Conference Room 300 300 -- 1.323 Fiie Storage -Section 8 120 120 85 1.324 Print Area/Coffee Station 80 80 80 1.325 Storage Room 150 .150 150 Subtotal Community Development 2,352 2,298 2,315 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.300 Total Community Development 3,293 S.F. 3,217 S.F. 3,241 S.F. 1.500 Recreation Services 1.501 Director 150 150 150 1.502 Administrative Aide &4 64 64 1.503. Printer Area/Storage 80 80 -- 1.504 File/Plan Storage 100 100 -- Subtotal Recreation Services 394 394 214 _ Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.500 Totaf Recreation Services 552 S.F. 552 S.F. 300 S.F. Commission No. 082169 Page 5 - City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 1.600 Environmental Health (Moved from Public Safety). 1.601 Health Administrator 120 120 135 1.602 Health Assistant/Lic. Specialist (3 @ 48 S.F.) 192 (3@64 S.F.; 192 (3@64 S.F.) 240 (3@80 S. F.) 1.603 Community Services Officer (3 @ 48 S.F.) 192 (3@64 S.F.; 192 (3@64 S.F.) 240 (3@80 S.F.) 1.604 Code Compliance Specialist 80 80 80 Subtotal Admin. Support Service 584 584 695 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.600 Total GSF Environmental Health 818 S.F. 818 S.F. 973 S.F. 1.700 Building Inspections 1.701 Chief Building Official 120 120 150 1.702 Secretary 80 80 80 1.703 Building Inspector 160 (2@8o s.F.; 80 80 1.704 Housing Inspector 80 160 (2@80 S.F.) 160 (2@80 S.F.) 1.705 Clerk/ Typist (Receptionist) -- 64 64 1.706 Sr. Office Aide -- 64 128 (2@64 S. F.) 1.707 Plan Storage Room 100 100 55 1.708 Records/File Room 120 120 170 1.709 Shared Plan Review/ Conf. Rm. 300 300 350 Subtotallnspections 660 788 1,237 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1.700 Total GSF Building Inspections 924 S.F. 1,103 S.F. 1,732 S.F. 1.800 City Hall Support Areas 1.801 Council Chambers 1,900 1,900 1,855 1.802 Cable Room 156 156 155 1.803 Lunch Room/Break Room 350 350 680 1.804 Lobby 4,000 4,000 2,690 1.805 Meeting Room (Conf. B) 700 1,200 1,185 1.806 Meeting Room Storage 250 250 180 1.807 Medium Conference Room (Conf. C) 400 700 725 1.808 Small Conference Room (Conf. A) 300 350 355 1.809 Council Toilet Room -- -- 70 1.810 Public Restrooms, Men's 150 150 170 1.811 Public Restrooms, Women's 150 150 210 1.812 Service Kitchen -- 200 215 Subtotal Support Areas 8,356 9,406 8,490 - Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 1.800 Total Support Areas 9,192 S.F. 10,347 S.F. 9,339 S.F. * This area is depended on the layout of the site and maybe higher or lower once the design is determined. Conurissicn No. 02169 Page 6 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Auq-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 1.000 City Hall 1.100 Executive 1,408 1,408 1,506 1.200 Administrative Services 8,415 8,932 8,814 1.300 Community Development 3,293 3,217 3,241 1.500 Recreation Services 552 552 300 1.600 Environmental Health 818 818 973 1.700 Building inspections 924 1,103 1,732 1.800 City Hall Support Areas 9,192 10,347 9,339 Subtotal City Hall 24,601 Building Net to Gross Factor (Circ.) x 1.2 Total City Hall 29,522 S.F. Page 7 26,377 25,905 x1.2 x1.2 31,652 S.F. 31,086 S.F. Co~~imission No. Oo2169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 2.000 Fire Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 2.100 Administration 2.101 Fire Chief 150 150 190 2.102 Assistant Fire Chief 120 120 130 2.103 Fire Marshall -- 120 130 2.104 Shift Commander 64 120 140 2.105 Sr. Clerk Typist/Admin. Sec. (Lobby) 64 64 140 2.106 Waiting Area/Lobby 120 120 150 2.107 File Storage 150 150 200 2.108 Printer Area 132 132 85 Subtotal Administration 800 976 1,165 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 2.100 Total GSF Administration 840 S.F. 1,025 S.F. 1,223 S.F. 2.200 Staff Spaces 2.201 Dayroom 350 350 450 2.203 Storage Room (combined with 2.204) 80 80 -- 2.204 Training Room 500 500 575 2.205 Firefighter Dorm 400 (4@100 S.F 400 (4@100 S.F. 360 (4@90 S.F.) 2.206 Officer Dorm 250 (2@125 S.F 250 (2@125 S.F. 220 (2@110 S.F.) 2.207 Kitchen (3 Refrigerators) 200 200 350 2.208 Kitchen Pantry (combined with 2.207) 40 40 -- 2.209 Dining Room 284 284 210 2210 Women's Locker Room/Toilets (6 Lockers) 200 200 370 2.211 Men's Locker Room/Toilets (30 Lockers) 370 370 820 Subtotal Staff Spaces 2,674 2,674 3,355 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 _ 2.200 Total GSF Staff Spaces 2,808 S.F. 2,808 S.F. 3,523 S.F. 2.300 Vehicle Bays & Support 2.301 Apparatus Bay/24 Gear Racks (3 Bays) 5,166 5,166 (2 half and 5,150 (2 half and 2 ful 2.302 SCBA 120 120 110 2.303 Tools/Workbench (combined w/ 2.301) 100 100 -- 2.304 Compressor Room 50 50 50 2.305 Mud Room/EMS Decontamination Area 200 200 215 2.306 Hose Tower/Training Tower 200 200 270 Subtotal Vehicle Bays & Support 5,836 5,836 5,795 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 2.300 Total GSF Vehicle Bays & Support 6,128 S.F. 6,128 S.F. 6,085 S.F. Commission No. OE2169 Page 8 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 2.400 Auxiliary Spaces Predesign Design Program S.F Aua-07 Schematic Design Program S.F. Feb-09 Design Development Program S.F. Jul-09 2.401 Storage Mezzanine/Mechanical 300 300 500 Subtotal Auxiliary Spaces 300 300 500 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 2.400 Total GSF Auxiliary Spaces 315 S.F. 315 S.F. 525 S.F. 2.100 Administration 840 2.200 Staff Spaces 2,808 2.300 Vehicle Bays & Support 6,128 2.400 Auxiliary Spaces 315 Subtotal Fire without options 10,091 10,275 11,356 Building Net to Gross Factor (Circ.,Stairs) x 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 Total Fire without options 12,109 S.F. 12,330 S.F. 13,627 S.F. This option not included in the 2.000 Fire total square footage. See last page of program for total building square footage with options. 1,025 1,223 2,808 3,523 6,128 6,085 315 525 Commission No. 082169 Page 9 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 3.000 Public Safety Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 3.100 Administration 3.101 Director 3.103 Director's Administrative Aide 3.104 Deputy Director 3.105 Shift Command Administrative Aide 3.106 File Room -Active Files - 3.107 Lieutenants (3 @ 141 S.F.) 3.108 Admin. Conference Room (2 @ 13o s.F.) 3.109 Reception (Shared) 3.110 Lobby 3.111 Clerk Typist/Receptionist 3.112 Conference Room (off Lobby) 3.113 Women's Staff Toilets 3.114 Men's Staff Toilets 3.115 Copy/Mail Area Subtotal Administration Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) 3.100 Total GSF Administration 150 150 180 64 120 110 150 150 180 80 120 120 120 120 80 360 (3@120 S.F 360 (3@120 S.F. 375 (3@125 S.F.) 120 150 300 400 400 -- 400 400 265 128 (2@64 S.F.; 64 -- 150 150 200 150 150 50 150 150 50 80 80 80 2,502 2,564 1,990 x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 3,503 S.F. 3,590 S. F. 2,786 S.F. 3.200 Patrol 3.201 Sergeants (Shared Room) 3.202 Patrol Officers (Shared Room) 3.203 Reserves & Explorers 3.204 Briefing Room/Police Training/E.O.C. 3.205 Report Recording/Writing Booth 3.206 Crime Prevention Specialist/Civilian Crime Prev. 3.207 Crime Prevention Storage Room Subtotal Patrol Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) 3.200 Total GSF Patrol 200 (2@100 S.F 200 (2@100 S.F. 460 192 (3@64 S.F.: 192 (3@64 S.F.) 250 150 150 150 700 800 780 128 (2@64 S.F.; 128 (2@64 S.F.) 110 (2@55 S.F.) -- 160 (2@80 S.F.) 185 -- 100 40 1, 370 1, 730 1, 975 x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1,918 S.F. 2,422 S.F. 2,765 S.F. 3.300 Investigations 3.301 Detective (Shared Office) 3.302 Detective Trainee (Shared Office)(2 @ 3s S.F.) 3.303 S.I.U. Officers (2 @ 48 S.F.) 3.304 School Liaison 3.305 Community Liaison 3.306 Investigative Clerk 3.307 Investigative Storage/Equipment Room 3.309 Open Conference Area 3.310 Interview Room (off Lobby) Subtotal Investigation Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) 3.300 Total GSF Investigations 256 (4@64 S.F.: 400 (4@100 S.F. 400 (4@100 S.F.) 128 (2@64 S.F.: 200 (2@100 S.F. 200 (2@100 S.F.) 128 (2@64 S.F.: 200 (2@100 S.F. 200 (2@100 S.F.) 128 (2@64 S.F.: 128 (2@64 S.F.) 192 (3@64 S.F.) -- 64 110 64 64 64 180 180 -- 200 200 300 240 (2@120 S. 240 (2@120 S.f 160 1,324 1;676 1,626 x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 1,854 S.F. 2,346 S.F. 2,276 S.F. Commission ho. 0821rg Page 10 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Design Program S.F Aua-07 Schematic Design Program S.F Feb-09 Design Development Program S. F. Jul-09 3.400 Evidence 3.401 Evidence/Property Storage 1,250 1,250 685 3.402 Dead Storage -- -- 400 3.403 Evidence Processing Area 150 150 110 3.404 Evidence Garage -- -- 415 Subtotal Evidence 1,400 1,400 1,610 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 3.400 Total GSF Evidence 1,960 S.F. 1,960 S.F. 2,254 S.F. 3.500 DetentionlBooking Area 3.501 Group Holding Area 180 120 110 3.502 Holding Cells (3 @ 52 S. F.) 132 (2@66 S.F.; 198 (3@66 S.F.) 140 (2@70 S.F.) 3.502 Juvenile Holding Cell -- -- 120 3.503 Report Writing/Intoxilizer 80 80 80 3.503 Booking Area 150 150 200 3.504 Interview/Conference 80 80 (2@80 S.F. 95 (1@95 S. F.) Subtotal Detention/Booking Area 622 628 745 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 3.500 Total GSF Detention/Booking Area 871 S.F. 879 S.F. 1,043 S.F. 3.510 Detention Vehicle Sallyport 3.511 Parking Stalls 420 420 3.512 Storage 100 100 Subtotal Detention Vehicle Sallyport 520 520 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.1 x 1.1 3.510 Total GSF Detention Vehicle Sallyport 572 S.F. 572 S.F * This option not included in the 3.000 Public Safety total square footage. See last page of program for total building square footage options. "This area is located offsite and is utilized by staff/departments at the existing City Hall. Page 11 700 110 810 x 1.1 891 S.F. Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S. F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 3.600 Dispatch 3.601 Lead Dispatcher 120 120 120 3.602 Dispatcher (3 @ 97 S.F.) 400 (3@133 S.F 400 (4@100 S. F. 510 3.603 Elec. Equip./Server Roam See 1.257 See 1.257 40 3.604 Staff Toilet 60 60 50 3.605 Staff Kitchenette 64 64 125 Subtotal Dispatch 644 644 845 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1 4 x 1.4 x 1.4 3.600 Total GSF Dispatch 902 S.F. 902 S.F. 1,183 S.F. 3.700 Clerical/ Records 3.701 Sr. Clerk Typist (3 @ 38 S.F.) 192 (3@64 S.F.', 192 (3@64 S.F.) 192 (3@64 S.F.) 3.702 Clerk Typist 64 64 64 3.703 Records Supervisor 120 120 120 3.704 Secretary 64 64 64 3.705 Copy/ Mail Room 180 180 200 3.706 Records Room 120 1.20 280 3.707 File Room (combined w! 3.706} 100 100 -- 3.708 Criminal Record File Rm (combined w/ 3.706) 140 140 -- 3.709 Dead File Room 140 140 200 Subtotal Police Services 1,120 1,120 1,120 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 3.700 Total GSF Clerical/ Records 1,568 S.F. 1,568 S.F. 1,568 S.F. 4.100 Public Safety Support Areas 4.101 Break/Lunch Room 350 350 470 4.102 Fire Range 1,048 1,048 1,500 4.102b Control Room 140 4.103 Armory 200 100 235 4.104 S.W.A.T. Storage Room -- 150 205 4.105 Defensive Tactics -- -- 590 4.106 Men's Locker Rm/Shower/Toilets (42 Lockers) 596 596 860 4.107 Women's Locker Rm/Shower/Toilets (10 Lockers) 466 466 450 4.108 Tower w/Radio Equipment Room 500 500 505 4.109 Quiet Room -- 80 -- 4.110 Public Restrooms, Men's" 150 150 -- 4.111 Public Restrooms, Women's 150 150 -- Subtotal Support Areas 3;460 3,590 4,955 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 4.100 Total GSF Support Areas 4,152 S.F. 4,308 S.F. 5,946 S.F. This area is depended on the layout of the site and maybe higher or tower once the design is determined. Ccminission Nc. 0216° Page 12 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 3.000 Public Safety 3.100 Administration 3,503 3,590 2,786 3.200 Patrol 1,918 2,422 2,765 3.300 Investigations 1,854 2,346 2,276 3.400 Evidence 1,960 1,960 2,254 3.500 Detention/Booking Area 871 879 1,043 3.510 Detention Vehicle Sallyport 572 572. 891 3.600 Dispatch 902 902 1,183 3.700 Clerical/ Records 1,568 1,568 1,568 4.100 Public Safety Support Areas 4,152 4,308 5,946 Subtotal Public Safety without options 17,299 18,547 20,712 Building Net to Gross Factor (Circ., Stairs) x 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 Total Public Safety without options 20,759 S.F. 22,256 S.F. 24,855 S.F. Commission No. 082169 Page 13 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign Schematic Design Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Feb-09 Jul-09 5.000 ENCLOSED PARKING 5.001 Squad Parking Stalls (26 Stalls @ 410 S.F.) 10,790 10,660 10,660 5.001 b Covered Ramp __ __ 970 5.002 Wash Bay 160 160 180 5.003 Miscellaneous Patrol Storage 250 250 235 5.004 Bicycle Storage 100 100 140 5.005 Maintenance 1/2 Ton Pickup Stall 420 354 354 5.006 Maintenance 1/2 Ton Van Stall 420 354 354 5.007 Maintenance Ford Excursion 420 354 354 Subtotal Enclosed Parking 12,560 12,233 13,248 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1 1 5.000 Total GSF Enclosed Parking 13,816 S.F. 13,456 S.F. 14,573 S.F. 6.000 MAINTENANCE 6.001 Maintenance Office 200 200 125 6.002 Maintenance Workroom/Shop 600 600 600 6.003 Miscellaneous Storage 215 215 620 6.004 Records Room (Existing) __ __ __ 6.005 Janitorial Supply Room 300 300 100 6.006 Outside Storage __ __ gp 6.007 Grounds Equipment/Storage Room 185 185 160 Subtotal Maintenance 1,500 1,500 1,695 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.1 x 1 1 x 1 1 6.000 Total GSF Maintenance 1,650 S.F. 1,650 S.F. 1,865 S.F. 7.000 SHARED AREAS 7.001 Exercise Room 900 900 1,140 7.002 Day Locker Bay I. 4.104-5 800 (2@400sf) 800 (2@400sf) 7.003 Plan Review/Conference Room See 1.709 See 1.709 See 1.709 7.004 Mechanical/Boiler /Electrical 4,561 4,561 5,800 7.005 Misc. Storage 200 200 600 7.006 Receiving/Staging*" -- 200 375 7.007 Recycling Room/Garbage** -- 150 295 Subtotal Shared Areas 5,461 6,811 9,010 Department Net to Gross Factor (Circulation) x 1.4 x 1 4 x 1 4 7.000 Total GSF Shared Areas 7,645 S.F. 9,535 S.F. 12,614 S.F. `This area is located offsite and is utilized by staff/departments at the existing City Hall. '* These rooms added to program during SD phase. Commission No- 082169 Page 14 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Predesign .Schematic Design _ _. Design Design Development Program S.F. Program S.F. Program S.F. Aug-07 Apr-09 Jul-09 1.000 CITY HALL 29,522 S.F. 31,652 S.F. 31,086 S.F. 2.000 FIRE 12,109 S.F. 12,330 S.F. 13,627 S.F. 3.000 PUBLIC SAFETY 20,759 S.F. 22,256 S.F. 24,855 S.F. 6.000 MAINTENANCE 1,650 S.F. 1,650 S.F. 1,865 S.F. 7.000 SHARED AREAS 7,645 S.F. 9,535 S.F. 12,614 S.F. Total GFS Building Departments 71,684 S.F. 77,424 S.F. 84,047 S.F. 5.000 ENCLOSED PARKING 13,816 S.F. 13,456 S.F. 14,573 S.F. Total GFS Building Departments & Enc. Parking 85,500 S.F. 90,880 S.F. 98,619 S.F. Commission No. 082169 Page 15 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development .luly 28, 2009 SITE DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1. Design building to embrace the park. 2. Minimize impact on the park. 3. Minimize impact on existing City Hall operations during construction. 4. Provide drive-through fire station apparatus bays. 5. Use existing site elevations to provide access to enclosed (lower level) Police/ City vehicle parking. 6. Maintain primary vehicular traffic to Portland Avenue and 67th Street. Minimize vehicular traffic on 68th Street. 7. Maximize East/ West building orientation for daylighting. 8. Architecture that is sensitive to and responds to its surroundings. 16 Commission No. 082169 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiixiiiii~i~ STAFF - PARKING LOT s C ,o ~ ,a ~, - - - ~i// /~~ ~~ ,~ ~ ;~ ;,!~/ ~, ,iii ~ ~. ~' // /; , 68TH. STREET szr~ P~A~ ,,, . 80~-0~~ 17 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development L~NDSGRPE VIEWS- PUBLIC PLP~ZA July 28, 2009 18 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1. Site Context - Building massing sized to reflect residential scale. 2. Connection to Heredia Park - Physical connection through lobby - Visual connection in public circulation 3. Consider Council Chambers as a symbolic seat of government. 4. Create public meeting room suite adjacent to the lobby. 5. Locate city departments with functional efficiency for public and staff. 6. Use daylighting to provide efficient lighting and controls to enhance the City Hall work environment. 19 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Haul, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 MEET RC SL CITY HALL IRE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 " = 60'-O" 20 Commission No. 082169 ~~ ~~ i '~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ N, f~ O CD ~ 'd O ~L O fl- '3~' ?. ~ ; n O UN N, O Z O .p Cp N j 61 .r, ~~ N O O t9 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ..• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~0 ~; ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ _~ c~(~ --~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ rnr --~ z N N 0 3 N O Z 0 0 N ...a --~ o o, o ~o < ~. m .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~- m ~o 0 ~+ a G 0 a a ., a. ~ m 3 N o~ .. N t0 O tti ~ ~ ~i~~ f~ _ ' ~ rn s3 Z r„ rn ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O Q O 3 rn -t _ ~ ~L.-~ --_~ ~--_~ Z A N =_=_~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z rn ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N N~ rn z ~~ rn O~ rn r ~ ~ B~ ® ~ rn --~~ 03 rn~ ~ dA ~_ ~~ ~z ~~ rn z z ~ ~rn ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ 3 / ~-_ O _ _ ~ L IC - -6 _ rn ~ N rn I I N I I ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ `4~ O d ~ ~ ~ STORAGE ~ ~ ~ ~p O t ~ -c ~ ~ ~ ~-O~~ ~ ~ ~~ I I z ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 z0 -n NO~yrrny11 N r~t c ~g NUp ~ ® ~ ~N ~ (rniz iNrn ~ . O zd S~ rn nN ~z ~ C~ II` II®~ Z ~ rn N O n n O q rn ~~ ~ ~c Z1 C7 rn~ ~N c~+ v ~ C1 1 ~ nN_~ D z N_ z (Dl C~ ~z nz ~ r - d N W \_ ~ ~' ~~ ~ or =rn 3 ~. rn o ~ Z 0 0 N r r ~~~ .~ z O ~a o a O ~ ~~~ o Z ~p 1 ~ ~O ~~8~ O ~ O rn z O T -n U' E rn A~ rn -Dip Z 7cr O~~ n ~- ~ n ~ ~ o~ ~- ~~ o ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ o =~ ~~ ~~ ~~ z n as ~' a c~ N N O O CO C 0 fl. D N 3 ~D y ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~''' ''` ~ ~' "'~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ l or _~ r 7~ j~~ N " ~jr r~ ~~~ ~~ t~ ~ ~~ o _~ ~. ~~ o ~, ~- ~~ ~~ O m ~~ r `L r N Od ; N O O co City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 CITY HALL RE UPP€R LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 " = 60'-O" 25 Commission No. 082169 i ~ ~ ~ ~ r!' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l l ~ O `r~ ^ '~ rn GMIL~-~~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~, ~ r rn ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ -{ r ~~ r- ~~ ~ m ~ ~~ ~ ~ ltd -~ ~ ~'~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s" e ' ~ ` ~ ~ e' r-~ 3 ~.. C 1 cs` cP J T [~,~ ~ ~ ~ `~r/ ~. ~ °~t z ~ _~ ,` n 0 N N, O Z O .O OQ N ~. c0 o :~ N, t ~ O* 4 rn o cc ~ Q rn S ~~ 'O m fl• ~. .t c~ O q m ~ ~ ~ ~ r N cp N O tS) i '~' ~ ~ ~ - 1 ..-1 ~_ 4 ~? N, c ~ O~ 0 (D 'mod (D ~+ =o 0 m a -n c~ L O ~^ I N C C n O itN U1, O Z O .~ N 4~ co • G J 1 J ~1 1 '` l1 ~ Y ...> ~ N ~_ ~1 C 1 it n 0 3 3 U1 N, O O O N rn O ~w `• Q ~s 1 ~- N ~'_ ~~ ~ ~ 1 .., City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 ~~~~ 1 " = 60'-D" 29 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 POLICE LOYVER LEVEL PLOOR PLAN 1/32" = 1'-0" 30 Commission No. 082169 0 0 s~. rn r _~ O z ~ ~ 0 ~- 0 o .~ 0 rn ~ ~ -~ rn r { _~ 0 z 3 r~i t~t o n ~- ~, o~ <~ ~~ o =' ~~ ~~ ~~ '~"- ~ n .~ O m fl. c~'D 3 r~i r N ~1 r W n 0 ~' o' z 0 0 N ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ . r^ir c N N O O O Q. D a rn 1;~ W 7~i, ~~ 0 0 -~ rn r rn _~ O ~~ 0 0 Z 7Q I rn r rn _~ O 3 r~i r~i rA r 3 r~i A r N r~i r w N D C7 (D ~_ ~ O ~ -+, D ~ CD < ~. (D ~ O ~ .a ~ a m ' ~ z n -v 0 a c'~ C ~_ Q n O ~~ o' Z 0 0 N_ d7 D n Q1 L ~ ~ a ~ m N ~ ~ . N ~ O ~ ~ n m _N. ~G ~ O ~ -~ ~ ~ cD n < ~ m ~, o ~' ~ Q ~ Z -i~ n ~ ~_ ~ d _ (J1 ~rn ~rn rn 7~ O w "I n 0 3 ~' o~ Z 0 O N CO ~~ Z (~ = N rn~ ~~ ~rn rn 70 O ~-- 2 a 0 a D c~ n ..~ ~ ~ c Q. ~ m N ~ ~ ~ N ~. O ~ O ~ ~ ~ City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 INTERIOR VIEW O~ LOBBY ~N~7 GOUNGIL GH~MBERS IN~ORM~TION DESK 34 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 CEILING SLOPES TO 11' - ABOVE FINISH FLOOR 2' INTERIOR LIGHT SHELF 2' EXTERIOR LIGHT SHELF 1'-6" DEEP VERTICAL SHIELD 3'-0" O.G. CEILING SLOPES TO 11' ABOVE FINISH FLOOR 2' INTERIOR LIGHT SHELF _ Q 2' EXTERIOR LIGHT SHELF ~ ~` ~ (y 1'-b" DEEP VERTICAL _ ~ SHIELD 3'-0" O.G. Q 'd' Q (h ~ -! ! I l I7~YLIGHTING SECTION r i i 1"".. ' ~' SH~flING 17ET~IL 35 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES Siting of Building a. Re-use of a previously developed site b. Utilize native plants 2. Daylighting/ Controls a. Clerestory windows in the Community meeting suite, Lobby, Council Chambers and Fire Apparatus Bay. Skylights in interior areas of Police, Fire and City Hall. b. Windows in offices and open workstation areas provide natural light c. Office lighting • Dual level light switching • Low watts/ s.f. with indirect lighting. 3. Energy-efficient building shell a. Fixed, thermally insulated, low emissivity windows b. High insulation R-values at walls and roof c. Light colored roof membrane 4. High Performance lighting and electrical systems a. Energy efficient fluorescent fixtures b. Time control for exterior lighting c. Premium efficiency motors d. Offices, Toilets, Storage Rooms and other enclosed rooms will be provided with local switches and occupancy sensors to automatically control lighting. e. Daylight harvesting will be used at exterior walls with exterior windows and interior where clerestory spaces are practical. f. Task lighting will be used at workstations and offices with manual on-off control. 5. High performance mechanical/ ventilation systems a. High efficiency air handling equipment b. Air heat recovery systems c. Energy Management computer system 6. Environmentally sensitive building products and materials a. Local brick and stone b. Recycled content materials including linoleum, carpet and countertops 7. Indoor air quality a. Low V.O.C. finishes, adhesives and other materials b. Vapor barriers at exterior walls, treated acoustical ceiling the and moisture- resistant gypsum c. Ventilation exceeds ASHRAE standards d. Ventilation system intake located to minimize contamination e. High efficiency filters utilized 36 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development Juty 28, 2009 SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES, CONT'D 8. Acoustical, thermal and visual comfort a. Insulated interior walls and acoustical ceiling finishes contribute to noise control b. Individual thermostats at offices for thermal comfort 9. Water conservation/ storm water management a. Reduced existing impervious parking area on site, increased permeable area b. Water-saving plumbing fixtures 10. Commissioning and maintenance a. Provide training for maximum staff knowledge of product maintenance 37 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Mechanical Design Narrative Design Criteria A. The design will comply with the following codes: 1. 2007 Minnesota Building Code, with amendments 2. 200 Minnesota Mechanical Code 3. 2007 International Fuel Gas Code 4. NFPA Code 13 "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems" 5. ASHRAE Standard 15 "Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems" 6. ASHRAE Standard 55 "Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy" 7. ASHRAE Standard 62.1 "Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality" 8. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 "Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings" 9. ASHRAE Standard 135 "BACnet - A Data Communication Protocol for Building Automation and Control Networks" 10. Minnesota Plumbing Code 11.2006 International Fire Code 12. Local Authorities having Jurisdiction B. Exterior Design Conditions Outdoor Ambient Temperature Summer 89 DB, 73 WB Winter -16 DB C. Interior Design Conditions Office/Conference Temperature (°F) Humidity (%) Summer 74 DB+/-2 50+/-10 Winter* 72 DB+/-2 N/A Garage/Apparatus Bay/Gun Range Temperature (°F) Humidity (%) Summer~`* N/A N/A Winter* 68 DB+/-2 N/A Notes: *Humidification systems will be provided only at the evidence processing area and dispatch area. **Cooling will not be provided. D. Indoor Air Quality 1. Office Areas: Outdoor air ventilation rates are determined by the "Ventilation Rate Procedure" as defined by ASHRAE Standard 62.1. Carbon dioxide sensors will be installed in return air ducts of variable air volume systems to monitor the air quality and as an energy conservation measure to ensure excessive quantities of outside air are not continually supplied. 38 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 2. Garage and Apparatus Bay: The parking garage will be ventilated at a rate of 3/4 CFM/Sq. Ft. The apparatus bay will be ventilated at a rate of 1.0 CFM/Sq. Ft. 3. All air handling units will be typically provided with 30% efficiency, MERV-8, 2" pleated pre-filters and 65% efficiency, MERV-13 cartridge filters. Make-up air units are typically provided with 30°lo efficiency, MERV-6, 2" pleated filters. E. Noise Levels 1. Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall not exceed a Noise Criteria (NC) of 35 in open offices, 30 in private offices, and 25-30 in conference rooms. Systems Summary Central Heating Plant Two condensing boilers (approximately 3,000 mbh each) will provide hot water to the building for heating purposes. All hydronic piping will be welded steel pipe or soldered copper and have isolation valves at all main branch lines to aid in maintenance of the distribution system. The water will be distributed to mechanical equipment throughout the building via two 100% redundant variable speed, base-mounted pumps. The water temperature will automatically be reset by the Building Automation System (BAS) based upon outside air temperature. Central Cooling. Plant One air cooled chiller (approximately 200 tons) will provide chilled water to the building for cooling purposes. All hydronic piping will be welded steel pipe or soldered copper and have isolation valves at all main branch lines to aid in maintenance of the distribution system. The water will be distributed to mechanical equipment throughout the building via two 100% redundant variable speed, base-mounted pumps. The circulating fluid will be a 35% ethylene glycol solution. Ventilation Systems Office Areas: The main buildsng will be divided into four zones based upon hours of operation and ventilation requirements. Each of these zones wi11 be served by a centralized variable volume air handling unit located in a mechanical room or penthouse. All of the air handling units will provide code required ventilation rates and feature both hot water heating coils and chilled water cooling coils. Air will be delivered through variable air volume boxes (VAV boxes) with hot water reheat coils. Perimeter finned tube radiation will also be provided for additional heat. Garage: The garage will be ventilated by a direct gas fired make-up air unit with integral flat plate heat recovery of garage exhaust air. The garage will be ventilated at a rate of 3/ CFM/Sq. Ft. The system will be controlled onloff based on an air quality sensor. The garage will be heated by horizontal hot water unit heaters. Apparatus Bay: The apparatus bay will be ventilated by a direct gas fired make-up air unit with integral flat plate heat recovery of apparatus bay exhaust air. The garage will be ventilated at a rate of 1.0 CFM/Sq. Ft. The system will be controlled on/off based on an air quality sensor. The garage will be heated by a gas fired infrared system. 39 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Woid Architects and Enaineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Gun Range: The gun range will be ventilated by a direct gas fired make-up air unit with integral flat plate heat recovery of gun range exhaust air. The MAU will be interlocked with an exhaust system such that consistent air velocities and flow patterns will be maintained throughout the firing range. Special care will be given to ensure air is evenly distributed to and exhausted from the facility at all times with all contaminants drawn down range, away from shooters. The sizing of equipment serving this area is based upon air velocities within the range and will be determined later in the design process. Data Rooms Separate dedicated DX cooling systems will be provided for each of the dispatch equipment room, the radio equipment room, and the city data center to provide 24 hour cooling. The systems will include humidity control. Domestic Plumbing System Two 96%, high efficiency gas fired water heaters will supply the building with domestic hot water. An inline circulating pump will ensure hot water is readily available throughout the building per plumbing code. All distribution piping will be type L copper and be insulated in accordance with energy codes. A water analysis will be performed to determine the water softener system requirements. All plumbing fixtures will feature manual controls and be of a "low flow" nature to conserve water consumption. Flush valves on toilets will be a dual-flush design (1.6gpf/1.1gpf). Security style fixtures will be used in applicable locations. Building Automation System Direct digital control (DDC) components will provide monitoring and control of all HVAC systems via the Building Automation System (BAS). The BAS will be an open protocol design conforming to BACnet standards. The BAS will be web-based to allow secure monitoring/control of systems via remote computers over the Internet. All control points will be visible to users through the BAS, with adjustment of setpoints available to authorized users. All HVAC systems will feature independent occupancy schedules allowing the BAS to use relaxed setpoints during unoccupied times, increasing energy conservation. Fire Protection Automatic sprinklers will be provided throughout the facility in accordance with all NFPA requirements. A wet-pipe system will be utilized throughout the facility, with chemical-based or pre-action systems potentially provided in spaces with critical materials/equipment (i.e. - evidence area, dispatch room, radio equipment room, and city data center). Green Strategies The following green/energy saving strategies are included in the mechanical system design: Premium efficiency motors on pumps and fans. Variable frequency drives on pump and air handler fan motors. High efficiency condensing boilers. 40 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers _ _ Design Development July 28, 2009 • Lighting control through the Building Automation System (BAS). • Carbon Dioxide reset of outside air ventilation rate. • Heat recovery systems on the garage, apparatus bay and gun range make up air units. • Space temperature reset when the space is unoccupied. • VAV boxes control to a lower minimum airflow when the space is unoccupied. • High efficiency domestic water heaters. • Low flow plumbing fixtures. Optional Green Strategies The mechanical system can be upgraded to include the following green/energy saving strategies: • Energy recovery systems on the variable air volume air handlers serving the office spaces. • Independently piped and controlled perimeter finned tube radiation. • Water cooled chiller in lieu of an air cooled chiller. • Geothermal ground source heat pump system. • Heat recovery of condenser reject heat from the chiller. • Storm water storage and reuse for site irrigation. Optional Comfort Strategies The following strategies are recommended in the Orfield report or would contribute to meeting the requirements set forth in the Orfield report: • In floor radiant heating/cooling in office areas. • In floor radiant heating in the apparatus bay. • Passive chilled beams in open office areas. • Additional zone control such that every individual office has its own space temperature control. • Air distribution through a raised floor system with adjustable floor diffusers in office areas. • Airflow returned low from spaces to assist in destratification of air within space. 41 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE The electrical systems will consist of one power feeder (normal power) from the Utility Company (Xcel Energy), one emergency/standby generator and single UPS Systems (not redundant to each other and not in parallel), automatic transfer switches as required and single circuits to critical workstations and electronic equipment and all motors, etc. Lighting will be T8 fluorescent for 2'x4' fixtures with occupancy sensors, daylight sensors, dimming and zoned switches and programmed/dimmable control. Outdoor lighting will be metal halide poles and wall packs. Systems will include Security/CCTV Surveillance, Voice/Data, TV, Sound/Intercom/PA, Sound Masking, Fire Alarm and miscellaneous. Appropriate grounding systems will be installed as well as lightning protection. DEMOLITION SCOPE Building Demolition: A. Disconnect existing Building electrical service and demolish lighting, power and systems within Building. Site Demolition:: A. Disconnect and remove existing Building site lighting, conduit and wire back to source. POWER SCOPE Normal Power Distribution Equipment: A. Service Rated Entrance Main Switch/Switchboard: One will be provided that serves the Police, City Hall and Fire Station, each distribution separate from each other. Copper bussing and uniform capacity on the entire length of a single main switchboard, TVSS/Surge Protection, 100KAIC, electronic-trip type main and distribution overcurrent protection devices, 480/277V, 3 phase, 4 wire, and 1600 A (or sized as required) will be provided. B. Transformers: Dry-Type transformers, some K-Rated and some electronic-phase adjusted (mitigating) as required for UPS Systems, primary of 480V, 3 phase, 3 wire delta and secondary of 120/208V, 3 phase, 4 wire wye. Transformers will include four primary voltage adjustments taps, Class H insulation for 150 degree C rise above 40 degree C ambient and a ventilated enclosure. High efficiency rated transformers will be used. C. Panelboards: Copper bus, enclosures made of code gauge steel with finished cabinet front with concealed trim clamps, concealed door hinges, door-in-door construction, lockable trim door with flush locks and all keyed alike. Circuit breakers for 120/208V will be of bolt-on type and min 10KAIC rating; 277/480V circuit breakers will be bolt-on type and min 14KAIC rating. Ratings at 100A, 225A up to 800A, and 42 pole panels for lighting and mechanical loads. Some panels will have double size neutral with integral TVSS protection (electronic grade types) for electronic loads (for dispatch, data room power, etc.). 42 Commission No. 0821.69 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers __ Design Development July 28, 2009 D. Disconnect Switches: Shall be heavy duty, horsepower rated, 250V or 600V, 2 or 3 pole, fused and with solid neutral. Switches shall be quick-make, quick-break with interlock and lockable enclosure door for opening. Shall be provided in NEMA 1 enclosures indoors, NEMA 3R outdoors and NEMA 4X in interior wet locations. Fusible switches shall use current limiting fuses and rejection type fuse clips. Fuses 600A and above shall be equal to Bussman Low Peak, KRP-C. Fuses 600A and below shall be equal to Bussman Low Peak LPN-RK or LPS-RK except motor circuit fuses shall be equal to Bussman Fusetron FRN-R. E. Motor Controls: Magnetic/Combination Starters: NEMA 1 enclosure with pilot light, HOA switch, control transformer with matching closing coil, one-NO and one-NC auxiliary contact and thermal overload protection sized to the motor. Fusible switches shall be quick-make, quick-break with interlock to door. Starters shall be full-voltage across-the-Fine and/or VFDs for motors typically at and above 0.5 horsepower and above 120 VAC. F. All wiring shall be copper. Emergencv Power Distribution Equipment A. Packaged Engine Generator: One Diesel engine generator at 480/277V, 3 phase, 4 wire wye, 24 hr base fuel tank, outdoor enclosure, with critical silent sound attenuation to be NC 35 and meet PCA Dba levels at property line and sized as needed to back-up 100% of the Police, City Hall and Fire Station and for life safety. B. Emergency Power Distribution: Shall consist of 480/277V, 3 phase, 4W Automatic Transfer Switches (ATS), 4 poles, open transition types: 100A to 800A and as required. Automatic Transfer Switches (ATS's) will also serve the Life Safety loads (egress and emergency lighting, Fire Alarm Control Panel, etc.), Mechanical loads, and Electrical loads (Data Rooms, Radio Equipment Room, Dispatch Room and Critical Equipment). Maintenance By-Pass Switches will be provided for all ATS's. C. UPS Systems: 10 to 20 KVA units (or sized as required), to provide 100% back-up to all critical loads for Police and other designated areas in City Hall and Fire Station. This includes Data/Radio/Computer equipment room, the Dispatch Consoles and other miscellaneous electronic equipment. Maintenance By-Pass Switches will be provided for each UPS. D. Provisions will be included for a portable generator to be connected for certain critical loads in the case where the emergency standby generator fails to start on loss of normal power for Police Dispatch. Grounding A. A grounding system consisting of the following will be provided: 1. #4/0 AWG bare copper grounding loop around the Police building, minimum 24" below grade and minimum 24" outside of the footing. 2. At each corner and designated areas of the building, three 10'x3/4" ground rods located 10' apart in a triangle arrangement and with each rod connected to each other with #4/0 AWG copper and then connected to the grounding ring will be provided. 43 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers __ Design Development July 28, 2009 3. A 4"x3/4"x36" copper ground (min) busbar in the Main Electrical Room. Connected to this busbar will be ground leads to the water main within 5' from entering the building, a minimum of 20' of rebar in the footing, connections to the grounding ring and connected to the building steel. This main ground busbar will be used as the single-point ground connection for the telecommunications rooms and other systems in each of the buildings. 4. Grounding and bonding of the service entrance equipment and complete with grounding bushings on each conduit entering the service equipment. Service entrance switches will be connected to the ground busbar. 5. Motor Equipment Grounding: Motor circuits will have a ground conductor pulled with the phase conductors. 6. Feeder and Branch Grounding: A green grounding conductor will be installed in all feeder and branch circuit conduits. Includes grounding conductors in all conduit systems, flexible conduit lengths, and surface raceways. Isolated grounding conductors to Isolated/TVSS grounded panels and circuits and per NEC to be installed. 7. Grounding of all equipment comprised of a permanent bonding method to bond together all metallic, non-current carrying parts of the electrical system like raceways, boxes, panels, cable trays, cabinets, equipment enclosures, housings, motor frames, ducts, raise floor pedestals, and luminaires. 8. Ground perimeter rings will be provided in the Dispatch Room, Radio Room and Data Rooms either under raised floors or above or both as necessary. These will connect to telecommunications bus bars and bus bars connected to main service bus bar. Raised floor pedestals and floor the panels will be grounded. Lightning Protection A. A lightning protection system on the total roof area will be provided and tied into the grounding ring. 44 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers _ _ Design Development July 28, 2009 LIGHTING SCOPE Interior liphting A. Lighting systems appropriate for the tasks and design of spaces, will be selected. This will include one 2'x4' lay-in fluorescent volumetric fixtures in office rooms, suspended direct/indirect fluorescent in Dispatch and Open Office Areas and industrial fluorescent surface mounted or chain suspended in receiving and mechanical rooms. Task lighting will be used at all work stations and light shelves at specified window areas will be used for energy efficient lighting. Lighting levels will meet IES recommended levels using-task lighting and ambient lighting combinations. Use of LED lighting will be evaluated for some lights indoors and outdoors. Lighting levels typically will be designed as: 1. 40-50 fc: Offices (ambient and task lighting) at work level. 2. 10-15 fc: Corridors, Lobbies (at floor level). 3. 20-30 fc: Mechanical Rooms, Closets, Electrical Rooms, Storage Rooms. Optional lighting in offices is the use of 2'x4' fluorescent 4" deep parabolic luminaires and 4' long 2-lamp fluorescent linear direct/indirect 2-lamp. B. Lighting installations will be designed to meet LEED (even though not a LEED building) and local energy code requirements. Design will utilize energy efficient T8 fluorescent lamps and high efficiency lamp/electronic programmed and dimmable ballast combinations and zoned switching in open office areas. Daylighting using photo-sensors and dimming ballasts at windowed wall areas will be used. C. LED exit signs will be used with polycarbonate housings throughout the office spaces and non-public areas, and brushed aluminum housing throughout public areas. Exterior Lighting A. Exterior lighting will be Metal Halide to meet IES and Code fc levels including the following: 1. Security lighting. 2. Building accent lighting. 3. Parking area lighting. 4. Landscape and walkway lighting. Emergency Egress Lighting A. Will be supplied by the back-up emergency/standby generator and Central Battery Inverters (and/or battery ballasted powered light fixtures). Building mounted exterior lighting at entrances/exits from the building will be circuited and controlled to serve as egress lighting. Some of the HID sources will be equipped with quartz restrike to provide egress lighting. 45 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Lighting Controls A. Offices, toilets, storage rooms and other enclosed rooms will be provided with local switches and occupancy sensors to automatically control lighting. B. Open offices, corridors, lobbies and other large and open areas will be controlled by switches, occupancy sensors and by a microprocessor based lighting control panel (line- voltage relays controlled through the microprocessor based system, each building separate, and by low-voltage switch stations). Local lighting occupancy sensors will be zoned for selected areas. Daylight harvesting will be used at exterior walls with exterior windows and interior where clerestory spaces are practical. C. Multi-level switched and/or dimmable lamps/ballasts will be provided in dispatch areas and office areas to allow automatic and occupant selection of lighting level. Lighting occupancy sensors (and daylight sensors near windows) will be used. D. Glare, ambient lighting and locations of light fixtures will be taken into consideration. E. Task lighting will be used at all workstations with manual on-off control (Toggle Switch). F. Exterior lighting will be controlled by contactors operated by input signals from the Lighting Control Relay Panel. 46 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 SYSTEMS SCOPE Fire Alarm A. An addressable fire alarm system/Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) will be provided with devices throughout the building. System will include manual stations, smoke detectors (photo electric), heat detectors, duct smoke detectors, connections to fire suppression and dry-pre-action sprinkler systems, audio/visual devices and visual devices and conduit/wire. 1. Manual pull stations will be provided at each exit door per Code. 2. Will interface to accomplish control of HVAC units based on duct detector input/FA input. Monitoring of power used for life-safety functions (shunt-trip power, etc) will be used. 3. Connection's to tamper/flow and sprinkler systems and switches in quantities and locations determined by the fire protection contractor and the fire suppression contractor will be included. 4. LCD remote Fire Alarm Annunciator (FAA) panels (in addition to the FACP) will be provided at main entry of the Police, City Hall and Fire Station buildings acceptable to the fire department for notification and control of the system. Telecommunications A. Systems below to be further clarified but typically include: 1. Voice/Data Systems: Will provide cable tray above ceilings and below raised floors, horizontal system of Cat 6 Cables in raceways and Cat 6 jacks/plates at outlet junction boxes of four drops per outlet, two voice and two data. 2. Voice/Data Backbone: Fiber Optic and copper cables, racks, patch panels, and conduit systems and IDF's/MDF's as required. Owner to provide electronic servers, routers, etc. 3. TV Distribution: Coax cables and raceways and junction boxes with jacks/plates will be provided. Satellite or cable company to be verified. 4. Voice Over IP: Will be provided for separate paging each Police, City Hall and Fire Station building with overhead speakers. Telephones by Owner. 5. Clock Systems: Common Clock Server for Police, City Hall and Fire Station will be provided. Wireless clocks will be used as verified by Owner. 6. Sound Masking: Will be provided in open-office areas of City Hall. 7. Radio Room/Tower: Power, conduits for low-voltage cables and racks; equipment by others. 8. Miscellaneous: a. Will include conduit, wire, and power to all systems provided in Bid(s). b. Systems provided by others will include conduit and box rough-in and power only. Segregated Racks will be provided for separate systems. 47 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall. Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 Security Systems A. To be further clarified but typically will include: 1. Card Readers: Proximity Type at designated doors. 2. Intrusion Alarm: With motion sensors and door monitoring. 3. CCTV (Video Surveillance): Sally Port/Cell Areas; Designated doors, specified rooms, corridors and exterior. 4. Duress Alarm: Cell areas. 5. Miscellaneous: Conduit, wire and power for all systems. If systems provided by others, will provide power and conduit and box rough-in only. 6. Integrated systems will be provided where applicable. 48 Commission No. 082169. City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 ~OLU 2008 2009 2010 2011 J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A Schematic Design Work Group ~ ® ~ CHAT III City Council Approval Janu ary 2 7, 20 09 Desi n Develo ment ~"°~ p g Work Group " ~ ~ ° CHAT III -~~ City Council Approval April 1 28, 2 009 I Contract Documents Work Group CHAT Ill City Council Approval Augu i st 25 i , 200 r 9 Issue- Bid Pack #1 Sept embe r 1, 2 009 Bidding- Bid Pack #1 City Council Approval Sept t embe r 22, 2009 r t Issue- Bid Pack #2 Octo ber 1 , 2009 Bidding- Bid Pack #2 1 City Council Approval November 10, 2009 Construction Febr uary 2011 7esign /Construction Documents , Construction Bidding 49 Commission No. 082169 City of Richfield- New City Hall, Police and Fire Wold Architects and Engineers Design Development July 28, 2009 COST ANALYSIS Construction Cost Building Construction Demolition /Relocation City Hall General Conditions Construction Contingency Budget $18,550,000 DD Estimate July 20, 2009 $18,540,000 Project Costs Plan Review, Testing, Fees Other CM Fees Orfield Labs Land Acquisition Bond Fees FF&E Total Project Budget 358,625 $ 368,625 $18,908,625 $18,908,625 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 956,375 $ 956,375 $ 885,000 $ 885,000 $ 22,250,000 $22,250,000 50 Commission No. 082169