Loading...
05-09-06 Regular CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 ******************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:00 p.m. - 5:20 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding occupancy issues (Council Memo No. 73) 5:20 p.m. - 5:50 p.m. 2. Update on Property Maintenance Action Plan (Council Memo No. 74) 5:50 p.m. - 6:20 p.m. 3. Discussion regarding commercial vehicle ordinance (Council Memo No. 75) Adjournment ******************************************************************************************************* REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 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 Couhcil Worksession of April 20, 2006 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation recognizing Salute to Small Business Week 2. Presentation recognizing Earth Day 3. Presentation recognizing Law Enforcement Week . , 4. Swearing in of two police officers (Nathan Kinsey and Andrew Ueland) 5. Annual meeting with the Transportation Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION 6. Council discussion . Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 8. 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 renewal of lawful gambling license and resolution authorizing gambling activity for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive S.R. No. 89 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision of property at 6733 Cedar Avenue South S.R. No. 90 C. Consideration of approval of second reading of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing personal leave S.R. No. 91 D. Consideration of approval of resolution ratifying submittal of application to Hennepin County for Environmental Response Fund Grant S.R. No. 92 E. Consideration of first reading of Transitory Ordinance to vacate right-of-way, and set public hearing for June 13, 2006 to consider the request to vacate right-of-way for Cedar Point Commons S.R. No. 93 F. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property for Cedar Point and set public hearing and second reading for June 13, 2006 S.R. No. 94 G. Consideration of approval of the City's long-term financial and strategic plan S.R. No. 95 H. Consideration of resolution declaring the adequacy of petition for vacation of right-of-way; and conduct first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate the right-of-way; and call for a public hearing to be helo June 13, 2006 to consider the request to vacate right-of-way S.R. No. 96 Notes: 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: RESOLUTION 10. Disciplinary hearing regarding resolutions imposing civil enforcement for establishments in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth Staff Report No. 97 Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 11. Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance to rezone the southern tip of 1401 76th Street West from High-density Commercial (C-3) to General Commercial (C-2) Staff Report No. 98 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of approval of Cooperative Construction Agreement between Hennepin County and the City to receive County funds for 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvement project Staff Report No. 99 Notes: 13. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Pearson Bros. Inc. for sealcoating work in amount of $229,198.21 and Valley Paving for mill and overlay work in the amount of $339,338.48 Staff Report NO.1 00 Notes: 14. Consideration of execution of contract to conduct a community opinion survey to determine community interest in a community center facility as a joint venture between the City and the School District Staff Report NO.1 01 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 15. City Manager's report Notes: 16. 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: 17. 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. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CONSENT 8A 89 ....... STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TInE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TInE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 lakeshore Drive I II. BACKGROUND I On March 30, 2006, Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license. The $100 investigation fee has been received. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all of the requirements. 0509 VFW Gambling License Renewal I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The applicant has complied with the State statutes and City code pertaining to lawful gambling. . The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. . The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555. This would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct gambling activities within their establishment; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution No. granting approval for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 to conduct lawful gambling. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None ~R-I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 has submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal of their bingo operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEO by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of May 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 8B 90 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ REVIEW: L:::.I . REVIEWED BY CITY --' MANAGER: L:lI ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding the request for a subdivision waiver at 6733 Cedar Avenue South, site of the new Public Works Garaae Facilitv. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing subdivision of property at 6733 Cedar Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I The process for finding a suitable location for a new Public Works Garage Facility has been going on for a number of years. In 1998 the Council accepted the recommendation of a citizen task force to locate the new facility at a site east of Trunk Highway 77 at approximately the intersection of 66th Street and Longfellow Avenue. A portion of the proposed site belongs to Mr. Irwin Ketroser. Mr. Ketroser is the owner of the property located at 6733 Cedar Avenue South. Although it is not identified as a part of this parcel on available tax maps, Mr. Ketroser's property extends across and beyond TH 77 into the proposed garage site. 050906 - PW Garage~ite Subd. Waiver The City has entered into an agreement with Mr. Ketroser for the purchase of the portion of his land lying east of TH 77. The Council approved this agreement in December of 2005. In order to proceed, this portion of the property must be divided from the remainder of the parcel. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Normally, any division or re-division of land requires that a plat or re- plat be filed. . Platting requirements for the subdivision of land may be waived, however, when the following conditions are met: o Compliance with regular platting requirements will result in unnecessary hardship; and o Failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the patting regulations. . These requirements are met as follows: o The owner did not initiate the proposed subdivision and sale, therefore platting of the property would be an undue hardship; and o The City intends to include the land that it will acquire, together with other land that the City intends to acquire, in a plat or registered land survey. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . In anticipation of the future development of a new City Garage on this site, the City must begin assembly of the site. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . Legal counsel and staff worked together on this matter. I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A g'B-( RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY AT 6733 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, Irwin Ketroser is the owner of record for certain real property located at 6733 Cedar Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, having a tax parcel identification number of 25-028-24-32-0001, and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has entered into an agreement for the purchase of a portion of the Property; and WHEREAS, the portion of the Property that the City will acquire is located within the existing right of way of Trunk Highway No. 77 (Cedar Avenue) and is not identified as part of tax parcel no. 25-028-24-32-0001 on available tax parcel maps maintained by Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, in order to complete the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, the Property must be divided; and WHEREAS, Subsection 500.05, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code allows the City Council to approve the subdivision of land without platting under certain circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council determines that requiring the Property to be platted in order to subdivide the Property would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the owner of the Property, because the owner did not initiate the proposed subdivision and sale of a portion of the Property to the City. 2. The City Council further determines that failure to comply with the platting requirements in this instance will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations because the City intends to include the land that it will acquire from the Property, together with other land that the City intends to acquire, in a plat or registered land survey. 3. The City Council hereby approves the lot division of the property to create the two tracts described on the attached Exhibit B. 4. The City Clerk is authorized to make technical corrections to the legal descriptions in Exhibit B as may be required by the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. After the legal descriptions have been approved ~ f?-:J- and any technical corrections have been made, the City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of May, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~8-3 Exhibit A That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 690 feet thereof except the north 233 feet of the West233 feet of sad Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 25, Township 28, Range 24, and except that part of the above described tract lying Easterly of that part thereof taken under condemnation proceedings by the State of Minnesota for highway purposes, more particularly described as: that part thereof which lies within a distance of 60 feet Westerly and 144 feet Easterly of the following described line: from the Southwest corner of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, West running Northerly on the West line of said Section 36 for 1000 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle 90 degrees for 74.5 feet; thence deflecting to the left at angle of90 degrees 00 minutes for2893feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 5 degrees 37 minutes for 1434.45 feet; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 5 degrees 36 minutes for1180.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue along the last described course for 1363.79 feet and there terminating, together with all that portion of the above described tract lying Westerly of the Westerly boundary of the above described strip and which lies Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning ata point on a line running parallel with and distant 60 feet Westerly of the above described line, distant 1088.79 feet South of the point of termination of the above described line; thence running Northwesterly to the intersection of the Easterly line of Cedar Avenue with a line running Westerly at right angles to the above described line at a point distant 813.79 feet Southerly of its point of termination (both distances being measured along said line); also together with all that portion lying Easterly of the first above described strip and which lies Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line running parallel with and distance 144 feet Easterly of the first above described line at its intersection with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence running Northeasterly to the intersection of a line parallel with and distant340 feet Easterly of the first above described line with a line running Easterly at right angles to said first above described line, from a point distance 663.79 feet South of .its point of termination (when measured along said first above described line) thence running Northerly parallel with and distance 340 feet Easterly of said first above described line to the East and West quarter line of said Section 25. ~B-~ Exhibit B Parcel A (to be retained by Ketroser) That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 690 feet thereof except the North 233 feet of the West 233 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 25, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota and except that part of the above described tract lying Easterly of that part thereof taken under condemnation proceedings by the State of Minnesota for highway purposes, more particularly described as: that part thereof which lies within a distance of 60 feet Westerly and 144 feet Easterly of the following described line: from the Southwest corner of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, West running Northerly on the West line of said Section 36, for 1000 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle 90 degrees for 74.5 feet; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 2893 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 5 degrees 37 minutes for 1434.45 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 5 degrees 36 minutes for 1180.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue along the last described course for 1363.79 feet and there terminating, together with all that portion of the above described tract lying Westerly of the Westerly boundary of the above described strip and which lies Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line running parallel with and distant 60 feet Westerly of the above described line, distant 1088.79 feet South of the point of termination of the above described line; thence running Northwesterly to the intersection of the Easterly line of Cedar Avenue with a line running Westerly at right angles to the above described line at . a point distant 813.79 feet Southerly of its point of termination (both distances being measured along said line); also together with all that portion lying Easterly of the first above described strip and which lies Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line running parallel with and distance 144 feet Easterly of the first above described line at its intersection with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence running Northeasterly to the intersection of a line parallel with and distant 340 feet Easterly of the first above described line with a line running Easterly at right angles to said first above described line, from a point distance 663.79 feet South of its point of termination (when measured along said first above described line) thence running Northerly parallel with and distance 340 feet Easterly of said first above described line to the East and West quarter line of said Section 25; EXCEPT that part which lies within the following described tract: Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 25; thence South 00 degrees 03 minutes 22 seconds East along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 859.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds East distant 419.87 feet to the point of beginning of Tract B to be described: thence northeasterly for 279.23 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 378 feet, a delta angle of 42 degrees 19 minutes 28 seconds, a chord bearing of North 30 degrees 34 minutes ~ 0--5 17 seconds East and a chord length of 272.92 feet to the east line of Tract A; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 51 seconds East, along east line of Tract A, for 574.28 feet; thence South 49 degrees 38 minutes 54 seconds West, for 85.11 feet; thence South 06 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds West, for 300.80 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve having a radius of 5674.58 feet a delta angle of 02 degrees 16 minutes 26 seconds for 225.21 feet; thence South 03 degrees 58 minutes 41 seconds West, for 164.84 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve, having a radius of 6536 feet a delta angle of 00 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds for 67.13 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel B (to be conveyed to the City) Thatpart of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying Westof the East 690 feet thereof except the North 233 feet of the West 233 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 25, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota and except that part of the above described tract lying Easterly of that part thereof taken under condemnation proceedings by the State of Minnesota for highway purposes, more particularly described as: that part thereof which lies within a distance of 60 feet Westerly and 144 feet Easterly of the following described line: from the Southwest corner of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, West running Northerly on the West line of said Section 36, for 1000 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle 90 degrees for 74.5 feet; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 2893 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 5 degrees 37 minutes for 1434.45 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 5 degrees 36 minutes for 1180.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue along the last described course for 1363.79 feet and there terminating, together with all that portion of the above described tract lying Westerly of the Westerly boundary of the above described strip and which lies Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning qt a point on a line running parallel with and distant 60 feet Westerly of the above described line, distant 1088.79 feet South of the point of termination of the above described line; thence running Northwesterly to the intersection of the Easterly line of Cedar Avenue with a line running Westerly at right angles to the above described line at a point distant 813.79 feet Southerly of its point of termination (both distances being measured along said line); also together with all that portion lying Easterly of the first above described strip and which lies Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line running parallel with and distance 144 feet Easterly of the first above described line at its intersection with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence running Northeasterly to the intersection of a line parallel with and distant ~ 0-(0 340 feet Easterly of the first above described line with a line running Easterly at right angles to said first above described line, from a point distance 663.79 feet South of its point of termination (when measured. along said first above described line) thence running Northerly parallel with and distance 340 feet Easterly of said first above described line to the East and West quarter line of said Section 25; the title thereto being registered as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 733426. which lies within Tract B described below: Tract B. Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 25; thence South 00 degrees 03 minutes 22 seconds East along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 859.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds East distant 419.87 feet to the point of beginning of Tract B to be described: thence northeasterly for 279.23 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 378 feet, a delta angle of 42 degrees 19 minutes 28 seconds, a chord bearing of North 30 degrees 34 minutes 17 seconds East and a chord length of 272.92 feet to the east line of Tract A; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 51 seconds East, along east line of Tract A, for 574.28 feet; thence South 49 degrees 38 minutes 54 seconds West, for 85.11 feet; thence South 06 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds West, for 300.80 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve having a radius of 5674.58 feet a delta angle of 02 degrees 16 minutes 26 seconds for 225.21 feet; thence South 03 degrees 58 minutes 41 seconds West, for 164.84 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve, having a radius of 6536 feet a delta angle of 00 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds for 67.13 feet to said point of beginning. 8-1 Subdivision of property at 6733 Cedar Avenue S. Tax ParcellD 25-028-24-32-0001 + - o 75 150 300 450 600 - - Feet Created By: CD (MP) Date: 4/27/06 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT BC 91 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing personal leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of the proposed ordinance amendm~nt to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing personal leave. I II. BACKGROUND I In an effort to remain competitive with other city governments and the benefits that they offer and provide non-Union employees benefits already offered to Union members, a recommendation is being made to amend City ordinance Section 1, Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, as follows: Subd 1. Eliqibilitv and accrual. A managerial employee, a regular full-time or full-time probationary employee, and a regular part-time or part-time probationary employee, classified and compensated under the management compensation plan or general services pay plan, as those plans have been adopted and may be amended from time to time pursuant to subsection 310.17 of this code, is eligible to accrue and use persona/leave. Effective June 19. 2006, an eligible full-time employee shall accrue 0813 Vaca-PL ord 2..l2 3.0 hours of personal leave biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a maximum of 204 hours of personal leave, unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 204 hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compensation. Eligible part-time employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the full-time accrual based on hours worked per payroll period and shall be limited to maximum accruals and extensions authorized for full-time employees. This change would affect employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans who are not represented by a Union. The amendment is requested so that the City's benefit package remains competitive with those of other Stanton V cities and so non-Union employees are offered the same Personal Leave accrual rate as given to most Union employees (Police Supervisors, 911 Dispatchers, Labor & Trades) during the most recent contract negotiations. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The proposed modification to Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits offered to non-union City employees. In practice, those benefits offered to Union employees should not exceed the benefits offered to employees not represented by Unions. Of additional consideration is the fact that the majority of employees represented by the collective bargaining agreements are men while the opposite is true for non-union employees. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Increasing the personal leave accrual rate allows the City to remain competitive with other local governments and the benefits they offer. It also gives non-union employees benefits similar to those of City employees represented by bargaining agreements. I C. FINANCIAL I . By amending Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, General Services and Management employees would receive an additional 5.98 hours of personal leave per year. I D. LEGAL I . In order to provide the requested additional personal leave, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not approve the second reading of the ordinance amendment and take no further action. . Defer discussion to another date. I V. ATTACHMENTS . City Administrative Code change I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ C:-( BILL NO. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.37 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.37, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Personal Leave" is hereby amended: Subd. 1. EliQibilitv and accrual. A managerial employee, a regular full-time or full-time probationary employee, and a regular part-time or part-time probationary employee, classified and compensated under the management compensation plan or general services pay plan, as those plans have been adopted and may be amended from time to time pursuant to subsection 310.17 of this code, is eligible to accrue and use personal leave. Effective June 19; 2006, an eligible full-time employee shall accrue 2Il 3.0 hours of personal leave biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a maximum of 204 hours of personal leave, unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 204 hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compensation. Eligible part-time employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the full-time accrual based on hours worked per payroll period and shall be limited to maximum accruals and extensions authorized for full-time employees. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _th day of May, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 8D 92 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELLJ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution affirming and ratifying submittal of applications to Hennepin County for an Environmental Response Fund Grant for the environmental assessment work at 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue South, 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South, and 6544, 6545, 6600, and 6601 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution affirming and ratifying City's staff submittal of an application to Hennepin County for a Environmental Response Fund Grant for the environmental assessment work at 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue South, 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South, and 6544, 6545, 6600, and 6601 Portland Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I . Hennepin County has a grant program for investigation and cleanup of potentially contaminated property within the County. It is appropriate to submit an application to access funds to assist with the assessment of the potential need for environmental work. The sites identified for which it would be appropriate to submit a grant application include: 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue 050906_Hennepin County EFR Grant Application (property within Cedar Point Commons), 7700 Pillsbury Avenue (existing City garage), and 6544, 6545, 6600, 6601 Portland Avenue (the four properties surrounding the intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue). . The grant would fund the required environmental investigation of a property that is required before a property can be redeveloped. The environmental work that could be completed using this grant funding would include: a site history report, soil borings, hazardous materials inventory, and required steps for site cleanup if contaminates are found. . A requirement of the grant process is that a resolution indicating City Council support of the application must be passed within 30 days of submittal. The application was submitted on May 1, 2006, the deadline. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . It is appropriate to seek outside funding whenever possible. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Environmental assessment work is a critical step in determining the potential contamination of a site. . Not completing the environmental assessment work could make redevelopment more expensive and also contribute to blight in the community. I C. FINANCIAL I . No local match is required for the grant. . If a grant is not received other avenues will be pursued. I D. LEGAL I . The program guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the application. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny authorization and direct staff to withdraw the application. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution authorizing application to Hennepin County for Environmental Response Fund Grant funding. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A ~D-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING CITY'S STAFF SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY . FOR ENVIRONMENTAL R~SPONSE GRANT FUNDS FOR 6300 AND 63200 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH, 6544, 6545, 6600, 6601 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, AND 7700 PILLSBURY AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within Hennepin County and is therefore eligible to access the Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Grant; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms and ratifies the submittal of applications to Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services on behalf of the City of Richfield and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of May 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 8E <n ~ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: rrY REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate right-of-way, and calling for a public hearina to consider the request to vacate right-of-way for Cedar Point Commons. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate the right-of-way; and call for a public hearing to be held June 13, 2006 to consider the request to vacate right-of-way for Cedar Point Commons. I II. BACKGROUND I Ryan Companies US, Inc., (Ryan), is proposing to construct a 30-acre redevelopment project at the northwest quadrant of the Truck Highway 77 (TH 77) and 66th Street. The project will include approximately 370,000 square feet of retail comprised of: SuperTarget, Home Depot, a full-service restaurant, a bank, seven smaller multi-tenant buildings, and parking for 1,527 vehicles at the development. The proposed redevelopment project occupies a 6-1/2-block area along the eastern border of Richfield. The project area is made up of primarily residential, commercial, and industrial zoned property, some of which is vacant. The Cedar Point Commons project area has been considered an area for redevelopment due 050906_1stRdg ROW Vacation Cedar Point to the Minneapolis Airports Commission (MAC) decision in 1999 to add a new north- south runway to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. In September 2POO, a committee of noise experts endorsed by both the City and MAC identified an 87dB (decibel) low frequency noise area where impact from the runway will be such that redevelopment needs to occur. The Cedar Point Commons project is part of an overall redevelopment plan for the Cedar Avenue Corridor. The City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan in 2004, with the Cedar Point Commons project area being the initial phase of redevelopment. There are five public streets within the development area, including Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue, part of 17th Avenue, and 65th and 64th Street. The proposed development would eliminate portions of the aforementioned streets north of 66th Street and require that the utilities contained within the development be removed and/or relocated. The expense of which will be born by Ryan. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The proposed site plan for the Cedar Point Commons area proposes an internal circulation system. The public streets (Cedar Avenue, 18th Avenue, part of 17th Avenue, and a section of 65th and 64th Street East) would no longer be needed in this area. . The HRA approved the concept plan on March 20th, and the City Council approved the concept plan on March 28th. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The current utility easements would no longer be needed. Any easements necessary with the new development would be established in the plat. . Utilities currently located within the rights-of-way that provide seNice outside the project will be relocated. . Right-of-way necessary for the widening of 66th Street and 17th Avenue would be dedicated in the plat. . The vacation of the rights-of-way will not become effective until Ryan, can demonstrate that they have common ownership or control of all the properties within the Cedar Point Commons development. . As part of the Cedar Point project, Ryan will be responsible for relocating any utilities within the vacated rights-of-way. Ic. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation and is required to have a first reading and set the date and public hearing for the second reading. . The proposed Ordinance vacating street right-of-way easements were prepared by legal counsel. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny a first reading of the Transitory Ordinance with a finding that there is a public need for the right-of-way easements to be maintained. . Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission for review, although they are not required to review vacations. On April 24, 2006, the Commission did review the planned unit development application and voted unanimously to recommend approval. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Draft Transitory Ordinance . Illustration of right-of-way to be vacated. . Existing Zoning Map . Proposed Zoning Map . Existing Land Use Map . Proposed Land Use Map I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Ryan Companies US, Inc. - applicant . RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. $]G-l BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (Cedar Point Commons) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The following described land is subject to an easement for public right-of-way purposes: All that part of 17th Avenue South as dedicated in the pat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 1, Block 5 and to Lot 4, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 17th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 1 through 6 inclusive, Block 3, and to Lots 1 through 6, Block 4, of said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of 18th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 1 Block 4,and to Lot 14, Block 1, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 18th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 7 through 12 inclusive, Block 4, and to Lots 9 through 16 inclusive, Block 5, and to Lots 9 through 14, Block 6, of said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of 18th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 7 through 12 inclusive, block 1, and to Lots 7 through 14 inclusive, Block 2, and to Lots 9 through 14, Block 3, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of Cedar Avenue South, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin county, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 1 through 6 inclusive, Block 1, and to Lots 1 through 6 inclusive, Block 2,and to Lots 1 through 5 inclusive, Block 3, and the southerly 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of Cedar Avenue South, as dedicated in the pat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 1 through 10 inclusive, Block 1, and to Lots 1 through 12 inclusive, Block 8, and to Lots 3 through 12 inclusive, Block 15, of said New Ford Town. ~ G'd-- All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 12, Block 8, of said New Ford Town. All that part of 64th street East, as dedicated in the plat of new Ford Town, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin county, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 1, Block 8 and Lot 12, Block 15, of New Ford Town All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 6 and 7, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 14, Block 2, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 64th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, and Lots 1 and 14, Block 3, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according tot he recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 1 and 12, Block 4, and Lots 8 and 9, Block 5, of said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of 64th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lots 1 and 12, Block 5, and Lots 8 and 9, Block 6, of said Iverson's Second Addition. For purposes of this Ordinance, the lands are designated as the "Vacation Area." Sec. 2: The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Vacated Area. Sec. 3: There is no public need for a street easement over the Vacation Area. Sec. 4: There are existing utility lines within a portion of the Vacated Area, and there is not a continuing need for an easement for utility purposes over the Vacation Area, since utility lines are being moved. Sec. 5: Upon the effective date as provide in section 7 below, the public street easement encumbering the Vacation Area is vacated, reserving, however, to the public an easement for utility lines with right of entry to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend to said utility lines; provided that the utility shall promptly repair any damage resulting from such maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal. ~G;3 Sec. 6: The vacation of the easement over the Vacation Area is effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership or control by Ryan Companies US, Inc. Sec. 7: The City Clerk will not publish the ordinance until Ryan Companies US, Inc. has presented proof of common ownership or control. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, at the time proof of common ownership or control is presented. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after publication of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this June 13, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~ 12-4 :JN1,s~JI 1==-O"''''O''''''''''''-''''I---mor-"ON"J<l -"'Q~- ........ ttUWtS6lad ~ :;!dVcl,)Qlt)l cI1)l HlI'flIO ........ ;:--u ~..p_ ~;:.,~~-= ~~~~:::: =~-a: '-.-/ _~=:::==-..~~:...": nl~ lI) 5 E~ Em 01:: (j.!;; ....~ .S'ti ~~ Iol..~ l..'5 ~.... ~a: ~ '\ "'0 '\ ~ ~ -t: .~ a:: "'- o .0 " u '\ "~ '\ ....:t:: m~ .6~ C/)lJ.J "Oc: ~.~ 0.... ~~ e~ 0.:$ l!QI4X3 UOIlD"D^ 199JlS D)08OUUln O,(lUMO ~\8H PI91J~"IH suowwoo ~UIOd JDp90 ~Oi>SS NI'l 'S!lOdD9UU!1'l oo~ 9~!ns '~99J~S ~lO~ ~lnos os O"UI 'sn S9!uodwoO U"^H . ~ " f i :; " - - ~ ~ · ~.. ~ ~ i' l'; , , ." " " " ~$~ !$! ~$~ ~$!i ~$~~ ;$j] "~; ~~ ~~ ~d iji it! hi ~J! ~Ji II! lJii IJi~ iJi! ~~! ~~ ~i ~~! i~! ~~~ ~~~ ~si ~s. :s~ :s:~ -~~ ~S'i ~it. ~i H h~ ~i~ ~i; !j; " .'- .'~ ,.I." 's;" .1. .-il!! ~- .. .8 .8. .8. 'u. <8 8,! 8_ ~ 0 '" ii.U..D "ji.siJ;: Ji s;. 0 0 I) Iii %1.5 !.n -Ki-;:I ti~ D~: .==.~~ %~ %~ %i~ 11m %i~ iim. ~!~ ~!: ~!~ ~~i" ~~i" ~I;~ ~~~ ~]~ !~~ ~I; !l: !Ii ~li ..~ 'I; 'Ii 'I~~ 'I~: 'I;~ ~i::~ ;i~ ;i~ ;1: ;.: ;.~ ;I~ Ii! i::l i::~ i::l~ i.iri i::1i~ lH! in U! i~:! i!:! i!:; i~~ .i. .i. ,i: ,HI ,id 'i..~ '",;. "', ',"' ~"1i ~"1i ~.., ','" '," 'I' " ]" " 'l"~ ~I-- 'I I. 'i 'i '.~ ]~ ! 1p 1 ili 1t' 1.i! 1d! ~ h ~.~~ ~., ,'~ 'Ii 'Ii ,j~ "I i .!i ~.:~ .!i !:!:f ~!;t l -,f~ ~%i~ _Ii "'ii i:m. i;~ i:: ~!~ ! !.- ,.~. !.~ 'oi' 'oiE Hl"~ lin ~.. h. ,.' ,0' ,.- f.- €O(.!X .c.s!~ <.at <.s~C: 0(.9>>" ~.s~-;~ !t'll :5t~ ;t~ ;.s1 ;.sj .....21 ;.ei . ~;~ ~;-~ ~;~ ~;,:; ~;,~ lr-:!i tJ. .!:; ~!:; 'E~ ~.~ ~i:i ~.:. l 'P ,,~" 'P "3' ,,~. .,~,- u.~ u. u. 'I:;~ 'I:;~ 'po 'I:;~ ! 0 i . 0 il.~ bi , 0 ii" 0 il., ,il.,~ .i'" 0 i~! 0 i~: ~L.. ~L.. ~L'~ "L.~ " ~.". ~'I'.~ 0 .~. ~.".~ ~.".", ~'''f'''~ ..no ".~. r... 0 .~E' . .~E" 0 .~Eo .~Eo !1 :5F's :5 -'- :sF'" :5j!'.s: :5F.li "'II:5~ lI5"'11~..I;1') :5~: :5~: :5F iji 11:5F :5 ~~ :5 6~ ~ J.~i J. II J.~i J.~U J.~U h~ L hi::! J.,~ J.L J.~.~ h~i~ J.~,~ M.~ I I : J I------I~ / , nO" .. 1 I (1:3" :'''' " It: I 1 ""~~ ,.", "'" ,--. :'0"'" 1 ~I L.L.______~:::______-L1____~:.._ ; r ,- -,-.- -, r_llo,!,!!,J!.lIl!l!_, r1frr- -, TiJ,-...., , I I: I " I 1 '.J " 1 1~' ,1I.~' 1 . f-t---I----j f---illf----j 1--- o. J 1;: I 'I I" I I (~ f-t---I----j ~ liE I I CID E I. ". H---I----j ':'--1-":..- ~t~-ii-~~1 ~~li~~:- f-t---I--.".,-j --:;.../--- I I. 1 <r, 1 (l!_.~)_, ;,.-~,i, 11_c..~_, "_ f-+--I--~-j I I, I ,,;;! I (_~ -'- '_,\\ I,_<!_; "_ f- + - -1- - "'='-j .. ~ I I' I I I (t, L.L__I___-' I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I / 1 , I I I 1 r,--,---, 1 1 I, I" 1 I f-+--I----j I 1 I, I" I I f-+--I----j 1 liE I" 1 I " f- t- - -1- - ~ -j " I 0' 1 I '" 1 0 I ~ f-+'--I~.:'....;;'.-j ~ I m 1 " I " ~?; 1 ~ 1 ~ f-+--I---ti-j ~ I / I, 1 " ~:: 1 I f-+--I----j 1 I I, I m 1 , f-+.--I----j 1 1 I, I , I I LL_...L..__-' i r-;. r, .", 1 1 1 ,;j I r-- I I.., i ~i-" : 1'::/ : i il~ i i:;:;,: 1 d 1 , I I J, I I I 1 /, _.1_LI-_ _.._..L-.._..~.._.._.._.._.._..il 1I oJS BJ.99 j:: Q :z: Ilj .. , \ ! ~ t ~ . , 1 @! ,@" ---1--- '!) 1 @" ---1--- ~)~~~:!: - @, ;,; '/~;., --;".-1-"--- ~-=- ~:!~~- ~)g ::: I (~)n ---1--- (~_ I (!)Qj ---1--- ~~ t@= ~~ ig j:: ~ IZi .. +i ...~"_L~\..."'""'.L-.<>o<\"'-"O""'>l'.'" """"""""""......,. B TAFT CEDAR J POINT 63RD ST. .. PUD ~ EXISTING ~ I ~ ZONING I ~ I ~ ~ I - I - I I 64TH ST. I w ~ z w ~ 0 u.i ~ u.i I-- ~ C!) ':.. ~ "'-l.l 0:: z -rl <C :1E I ~ J: I-- Q 0 CO I-- W co 0 ~ ~ U ...J III t'- 65TH .SL t'- . - ~ S I (!) - I - - ~ ~ - Z :J 0:: 66TH ST. l- N ~ 4-13-06 I l I I I I I I I I ZONES RI I SINGLE FAM. RESIDENTIAL C-2 _ GENERAL COMMERCIAL PC-2 PLANNED GEN. COMMERCIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Feet I _ INDUSTRIAL ~-- I _ _ _ _ _ ,CEDAR POINT PUD BOUNDARY $3 ~ -5 ~~~ CEDAR TAFT POINT 63RD ST. J PUD --... .. PROPOSED - . - . ZONING - . - . - . - . - . - 64TH ST. . . I u..i . ~ . . z ~ . 0 u..i f'. I- ~ . f'. (!) z S . ~ :I: . ~ I- 0 co . 0 ..... ...J . S III . 65TH. -. I T _ . C> I - I I - I ~ I Z I ::::> I 0:: . l- I -- - - - 66TH1 ST. W w ~ ~ ~~~ ~ :I: a:: I- <( ..... C w N u I I I I I I I I I I I 4-13-06 ZONES RI I SINGLE FAM. RESIDENTIAL C-2 _ GENERAL COMMERCIAL PC-2 PLANNED GEN. COMMERCIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Feet CEDAR POINT ~--- I - - - - - 'PUD BOUNDARY 3 E--Co CEDAR 63RD ST. POINT .rI~ PUD - CURRENT - - LAND - v v - USES - v - - v = 64TH ST. I - W V ~ w V z w ~ e w w V ..... ~ ~ ~ C) a::: I"- z I <C ~ I ..... I 0 l"- e ..... "'" ..... w co T"" co e T"" T"" () ~ ...J I co - S 65TH ST. I ---j :c VI (.!) - - :c V ~ Z ~ :::> . l! 66TH ST. et: .---- - l- N - LEGEND V c::=J SINGLE FAM. RES. A" MULTI FAMILY C .. COMMERCIAL CH" CHURCH, QUASI PUB ... PARK SCH" SCHOOL [J[J VACANT 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet CEDAR POINT ro......- I - - · PUD BOUNDARY 4-13-06 8r;~7 ~ CEDAR POINT PUD 63RD ST. - - -- - - - - PROPOSED . ------- · LAND . . USES . . . . . . . 64TH ST. . . . w . ~ . Z Ii . 0 W ~ . I- ~ ... . l"- e> c . z I"- ~ ::I: :: . 0 ~ . ~ 0 ~ . ....J . OJ S . 65TH ST. ..-.- . :I . C> . . - . . :I . ~ ~ . . Z . ::::> . ~ N IIll . I- ~ ... ...- .----- .. W - - - I W ~ 66TH ST. ~ LEGEND 0:: J: <( c=J SINGLE FAM. RES. ~ 0 ~ W A" MULTI FAMILY V () C.. COMMERCIAL I I I I I CH .. CHURCH, QUASI PUB. BIll PARK SCH .. SCHOOL V c=J VACANT 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet CEDAR POINT r"\.-.- I - - · PUD BOUNDARY 4-13-06 g E--<3 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 8F REpORT # 94 ........ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD I I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: E)'/ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 63rd Street and 66th Street and 17th Avenue and Cedar Avenue from C-2 (General Commercial), R (Single Family Residential), and I (Industrial) to PC-2 (Planned General Commercial) I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct first reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 63rd Street and 66th Stre t and 17th Avenue and Cedar Avenue from C-2 (General Commercial), R (Single Family Residential), and I (Industrial) to PC-2 (Planned General Commercial) and set second reading and public hearing for June 13, 2006. I II. BACKGROUND I Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan), is proposing to construct a 30 acre redevelopment project at the northwest quadrant of the Truck Highway 77 (TH 77) and 66th Street. The project will include approximately 370,000 square feet of retail comprised of: SuperTarget, Home Depot, a full-service restaurant, a bank, seven smaller multi-tenant buildings, and parking for 1,527 vehicles at the development. 050906_1stRdg Cedar Point PUD The proposed redevelopment project occupies a 6-1/2-block area along the eastern border of Richfield. The project area is made up of primarily residential, commercial, and industrial zoned property, some of which is vacant. The Cedar Point Commons project area has been considered an area for redevelopment due to the Minneapolis Airports Commission (MAC) decision in 1999 to add a new north- south runway to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. In September 2000, a committee of noise experts endorsed by both the City and MAC identified an 87dB (decibel) low frequency noise area where impact from the runway will be such that redevelopment needs to occur. The Cedar Point Commons project is part of an overall redevelopment plan for the Cedar Avenue Corridor. The City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan in 2004, with the Cedar Point Commons project area being the initial phase of redevelopment. On April 24th the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the planned unit development plan, rezoning of property, and a conditional use permit for the Cedar Point Commons project. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a vote of 8-0. Existing Land Use and Zoning Prior to the City and HRA acquiring properties for redevelopment, the project area contained a mixture of single family and duplex residences, apartment buildings and businesses. The 30-acre site is covered by a variety of zoning districts including R (Single Family Residential), C-2 (General Commercial), and I (Industrial). Setbacks A Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows flexibility from the zoning and setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. A comparison of the PUD plan to the C-2 zoning district shows that most setbacks are exceeded (see next page for comparisons). The building heights of Home Depot and SuperTarget are below the maximum height that would be allowed in the C-2 zoning district. The only location in which the height exceeds what is allowed in the C-2 zoning district is the "tower" element on the SuperTarget building, which is 50 feet in height and exceeds the height requirement by 10 feet. The MAC also has height requirements for buildings in the area west of the airport. The height requirement in the Cedar Point area ranges from 100-140 feet. The proposed development is below the maximum height requirement of MAC. SETBACKS C-2 district PUD Principal Buildina Front (66th Street) 35 feet 1 0 feet Rear (63rd Street) 20 feet 25 - 110 feet Streets ide Trunk Highway 77 25 feet 45 feet HEIGHT Principal Building 3 stories (40 feet) 1 story - 30 feet Super Target Tower- 50 feet Parking Setback 8 feet - Right-of-way From 66th Street - 90 feet From 17th Avenue - 30 feet 5 feet - Adjacent From 66th Street - 20 feet Commercial 15 feet - Adjacent From 17th Avenue - 60 feet Residential Impervious Surface 85% 88.6% Coverage 83.3% with regional pond Pedestrian Connection An element of transit-oriented development is the use of pedestrian connections to permit people to move from one location to another in a comfortable and pleasant environment. The connections will encourage people to walk from one shop to another as long as that connection is visible and convenient. The pedestrian connections in Cedar Point provide 20-foot wide sidewalks throughout the development as well as over-story trees, outdoor eating areas, zero lot line architecture, and overhead trellises. The overhead trellises will not only provide interest for pedestrians but also break up the walls of the front fac;ade of SuperTarget and Home Depot. Ryan has created a tree-lined streetscape with planting islands and trees in front of SuperTarget and Home Depot. The pedestrian connections include such elements as locating streetlights and trees close to the "street", and separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic; making the walking experience more enjoyable. Respecting the urban grid, Ryan is also providing a direct sidewalk connection along 17th Avenue to Taft Park and sidewalks through the parking lot connecting the retail/service with housing and transportation. In the out building area there will be an over-story canopy and/or ornamental trees at all shops within the sidewalk area to provide shade and create a quality space between the shops and the parking fields. The pedestrian connection is also carried out along 66th Street. There will be landscaped area islands within the sidewalk and pedestrian scale lighting and plantings to continue the connection throughout the entire development. Access A new roundabout intersection will be located at 66th Street and 17th Avenue. Access from TH 77 will come via 66th Street and vehicles can enter the site through a right-in only entrance before the roundabout or they can proceed to the roundabout to access the development. Access to Taft Park and to the remaining two businesses (Time Warner Cable and Owest) north of the development will remain via 17th Avenue. Parking The development will include 1,527 parking stalls. The City Code requirements for parking for a regional shopping center that is over 50,000 square feet or more is a parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. By City Code standards the development should have 1,663 parking stalls. This represents an 8% reduction. Since this is a transit-oriented development, a reduction in the City Code standard is acceptable since many shoppers and employees may come by other modes of transportation. The parking is spread throughout the development and due to the layout of the development a customer will have the opportunity to park in one location and walk to the other establishments in the area. Multiple level parking structures were discussed during the design process but where found to be cost prohibitive. As 17th Avenue redevelops, bike lanes for commuter and leisure bike riders will be provided for use north of 65th Street. Transportation Improvements/Traffic Several transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate traffic to and from the development. A new roundabout at 17th Avenue and 66th Street will be constructed beginning in 2007 with a fall completion. Realignment of Cedar Avenue and 66th Street to have dual turn lanes for southbound-to-eastbound movement, with a signalized intersection. Dual eastbound-to-northbound left turn lanes at TH 77 and 66th Street interchange. Realignment on 66th Street to allow for bus stops on the east and westbound sides of 66th Street. City consultant, WSB and Associates, Inc. conducted a roadway and transit assessment of the Cedar Avenue Corridor, which includes the Cedar Point Commons project site, in January 2005. The assessment indicated that the current level of service is inadequate to handle the potential build-out of the entire Cedar Avenue Corridor. With the above proposed roadway improvements that are recommended by WSB and Associates, Inc., the proposed design would accommodate the traffic of Cedar Point Commons development and future development south of 66th Street. The development has been designed to be transit-oriented. The elements include bus pull-outs on 66th Street, twenty-foot sidewalks throughout the development to allow for comfortable walking and strolling space for shoppers, and bike racks to be located throughout the development to allow shoppers and employees the choice of using alternative modes of transportation to the development. The project will be accessible on foot, by public transportation, bicycle, and by motor vehicle. Stormwat r Management Ryan will be constructing a regional pond in the MnDOT right-of-way that is located to the north of Cedar Point Commons and to the west of TH 77. The regional pond will be designed and constructed to retain and treat stormwater runoff for 130 acres, including the 30-acre Cedar Point Commons development as well as future runoff from the west of 17th Avenue and portions to the south of 66th Street in the Cedar Avenue Corridor. The stormwater design takes advantage of the soil conditions that will allow infiltration of stormwater. The majority of the storm sewerwill be perforated pipe to allow waterto be dispersed throughout the site as the water flows to the pond. Ryan has also included a water infiltration landscape area in the parking lot between SuperTarget and Home Depot as a way to reduce runoff. Utilities The Public Works Department has reviewed the utility plan and has determined that there will be adequate capacity in the City's water system to accommodate the development. Site and Landscaping Plans Striving to achieve the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan's goal of creating a unique urban experience, Ryan is proposing smaller, individual buildings close to the street rather than a long strip center with parking next to the street. In addition, the number of uses with drive-up windows is limited; the one use proposed with a drive-up window locates the drive-up internally within the retail center. Home Depot is proposing a seasonal sales area adjacent to the building on the north side of the Garden Center. The seasonal sales area will be between 4,000- 5,000 square feet in size. The Site Plan incorporates a screen wall (ranging from 5 feet-1 0 feet in height and approximately 800 feet in length) at the property line with TH 77 designed to match the buildings so there will be no "backside" to the development. This wall will screen almost all of the delivery activity behind Home Depot and SuperTarget. Complementary planting along TH 77 right-of-way with a variety of trees and shrubs will blend with the screen wall and architectural facades. Ryan is also proposing three landscaped spines within the parking lot. Two of the spines are 20 feet in width, large enough to accommodate a sidewalk and landscaping. While the City Code requires a minimum tree size of 2 ~ inch caliper, Ryan is proposing 4 and 3 ~ inch caliper trees in front of the Home Depot and SuperTarget stores to provide some immediate impact. In addition, Ryan is proposing 3 and 3 ~ inch caliper trees along the main entrances to the development, and along 66th Street and along 17th Avenue from 66th Street to 65th Street. The east side of 17th Avenue has a 27-foot wide berm and will be planted with multiple layers of over-story and ornamental trees and shrubs from 65th Street to 64th Street to separate the parking from the street and minimize the intrusion of headlights into the neighborhood. From 64th Street to 63rd Street the berm will turn into a heavily landscaped edge adjacent to Taft Park and will provide for year-round screening. Irrigation will be extensively used to maintain the landscaping. Existing trees will be saved whenever possible. The site plan indicates that sixteen trees will be saved along 17th Avenue and along 63rd Street. The City Zoning Ordinance requirements for landscaping are being exceeded by Ryan's proposed landscaping plan. The landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance requires trees with a minimum of 2 % inch diameter, shade trees planted along the perimeter every 30 feet, landscaped islands in the parking lots of 50 cars or more, and an effort to plant as many trees by the required formula (gross floor area divided by 375 equals the total caliper inch divided by the average tree size of three inches, which equals the total number of required trees) in the landscape standards. The Cedar Point Commons project should have 329 trees throughout the development. The proposed landscape plans shows approximately 462 trees. The proposed landscape plan also provides for shade trees every 30 feet along the perimeter, as well as landscaped areas throughout the parking field. The landscaped areas in the parking field have been grouped together to allow for a pedestrian connection and also to ensure that the trees will survive. (When a landscaped area is small in size it is difficult for landscaping to grow because of the lack of space for root growth.) Ryan is also providing a tree caliper that is larger than the Zoning Ordinance requires, providing some initial height to the landscaping. Also, a requirement of the landscape standards is a cash escrow in the amount of 100 percent of the value of the required landscaping to be held until the landscaping is completed. Lighting Lighting will provide adequate levels for safe use of parking areas. An hour after store closings, only safety lighting will remain on. The lighting will meet the ordinance requirement for less than 0.5 foot candles at any residential property line. Additional design elements for the lighting will include: · The height of the fixture in the parking lot in front of Home Depot and SuperTarget will be 38 feet and have a shield over the light element to prevent unwanted glare. The light fixtures in the parking lot in front of the out buildings will be 30 feet in height. · The height of the fixtures in front of the out buildings will be at a pedestrian level. The pedestrian lighting will only be 16 feet in height. · The lights on the buildings will not interfere with the architecture and will enhance the articulation in the buildings. · Home Depot and SuperTarget plan to light their trellises. · The lights along the right-of-way are similar in design as those lights found at Kensington Park and City Bella. The interior site lights will differ from those lights and will be in keeping with the development. The right-of-way lights allow for continuity in the lighting along the City's right-of ways. Trash and Loading Area Trash will be accommodated inside the truck wells of the Home Depot and SuperTarget. Also, all deliveries will take place in the rear of the SuperTarget and Home Depot. For all the outbuildings the trash will be accommodated inside the buildings. Signage A monument sign for the Cedar Point Commons is proposed at the northeast corner of the development and will be visible from the southbound exit ramp on TH 77. The sign is proposed to be 10 feet in height. Another monument sign noting the two major tenants will be located at the signalized intersection of TH77 and 66th Street. This sign's height is proposed to be 37 to 41 feet, depending on final location. The City Code requirement for "ground" signs is a maximum of 200 square feet in sign area and 27 feet in height. Building signage is proposed for the out buildings but will be approved at the time tenants for the space is determined. Although, the Home Depot and SuperTarget signs are not being approved at this time, the SuperTarget sign shown on the plans is 309 square feet. The Home Depot sign on the front elevation is 438 square feet, and the Home Depot sign above the service doors is135 square feet, and the Home Depot sign above the dock doors is 305 square feet. A space has also been identified for a future "City of Richfield" gateway sign in the median on 66th Street. This sign will define 66th Street as the east gateway into the community. Schedule Acquisition of properties by Ryan is expected to occur by September of 2006. Demolition and grading would take place in September and October. Construction would begin on SuperTarget November 2006; while Home Depot and the remaining buildings would start construction in the spring of 2007. The construction timing would result in all buildings opening in October 2007. SuperTarget will own their parcel and Ryan will own the remaining parcels and lease to Home Depot and the tenants in the outbuildings. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . In 2004 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) hired JLG Architects to finalize a Cedar Corridor Master Plan. The master plan reflects the current 87dB low frequency noise area. . In 2004 the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area was amended to "Regional Commercial/Office" to reflect the recommendation contained in the Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan. . The Comprehensive Plan encourages improvements at the gateways to the community. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with those goals. . In May 2005 the City Council approved property tax abatement for the Cedar Point Commons project area east of 17th Avenue. . In July 2005, the HRA approved a contract for Private Development with Ryan to build a SuperTarget and Home Depot at this location. In October 2005 the City Council approved the concept of a roundabout for the intersection of 66th Street and 17th Avenue. . In November 2005 the Community Service Commission reviewed and approved the proposed connection and access to Taft Park's south parking lot. . In March 2006 the City Council and HRA approved the Concept Plan for Cedar Point Commons. . In March 2006 the City Council approved the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), and concluded an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not needed. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . There are several building and site design details that Ryan and staff are continuing to work including 17th Avenue access and its relationship to Phase 1\ of the Cedar Corridor Redevelopment. . Orfield Laboratories, Inc., the City's noise consultant is assisting Ryan in developing construction standards to ensure their buildings and their interior spaces will be mitigated from low frequency noise through quality design and construction of the buildings. Ic. FWANCIAL I . The HRA has signed a contract for private redevelopment with Ryan Companies US, Inc. that details the financial aspects of the development. . The City Council has agreed to provide tax abatement for the development. . Ryan's development encompasses the west side of 17th Avenue. Tax abatement does not extend to this area. Tax increment will be proposed. The tax increment proposal is now being drafted and will encompass the area authorized for tax increment used by the Legislature. The documents will be presented to the HRA, Planning Commission and City Council beginning in June. . Ryan has agreed in principle to pay 20% of the special assessment bond to support the intersection construction. The agreement is being drafted. I D. LEGAL I . Zoning: R, C-2, I, - PC-2 (proposed) . Land Use: Single-, Two- and Multiple-Family residential, Commercial, and Industrial. . Comprehensive Plan: Regional Commercial/Office . Notification: Notice of the hearing for the Planning Commission was mailed to property owners between 62nd Street to 68th Street, from Trunk Highway 77 to the east side of 15th Avenue. The notice of the hearing was also sent to property owners south of 68th Street to 72nd Street from Trunk Highway 77 to 17th and 18th Avenue following the boundaries of the Cedar Avenue Corridor. Mailed notices will also be sent out for the June 13th City Council public hearing. Mailed notices are not required for the May 9th City Council meeting since there is no public hearing. . Oth r Actions: Planning Commi sion: Recommended approval April 24, 2006, with a vote of 8-0. City Council: First reading is scheduled for May 9, 2006. A public hearing is scheduled for June 13, 2006. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny the planned unit development plan and rezoning with a finding that the proposed project would have a negative impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Bill . Map of Current Land Uses . Map of Proposed Land Uses . Map of Existing Zoning . Map of Proposed Zoning . Map of Comprehensive Plan designation for Cedar Point . Site Plan I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Ryan Companies US, Inc. - applicant . RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. 9r-{ BILL NO. 2006-_ AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (Cedar Point Commons Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located in the Cedar Point area, specifically between 63rd and 66th Streets and 17th Avenue and Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) is zoned R (single family residential), and C-2 (general commercia!), and I (industrial) [the "subject area"]. B. Ryan Companies US, Inc. has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] in the subject area. The PUD plan proposes to construct 29.6 acres of commercial space and 1,527 parking stalls. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PC-2 (planned general commercial) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PC-2 district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance in the subject area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and zoning ordinance amendment on April 24, 2006 following a public hearing. The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on May 9, 2006 and a public hearing on the PUD plan amendment and rezoning on June 13, 2006. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of property in the subject area meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: a) The project area is designated Regional Commercial/Office and the proposed development is consistent with this designation. b) An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation ~F;d- corridors." The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with this objective. c) The PUD plan and rezoning are also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." d) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." e) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "Promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." f) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." g) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the description of the Cedar Avenue Corridor plan that states as follows: "The intersection of East 66th Street and Cedar Avenue would afford the opportunity to attract a major regional commercial use such as a regional retail center." 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The project is designed to create an commercial development setting for Target and Home Depot and numerous other commercial tenants. The buildings and site development are all part of one unified development. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original C-2 zoning district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: the outbuildings have reduced setbacks than the C-2 zoning district regulations and the SuperTarget tower height departs from the original district regulations. The site was designed to be more urban and the buildings will have quality building materials and design on all four sides. Moreover, all of the principle buildings meet the building height requirement; the SuperTarget tower is a design element and does not have the massing of a building. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities <EF,'2> which serve or are proposed to serve the development: Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development and to improve existing traffic problems in the area at 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77. A regional stormwater pond is being added to the development to accommodate this development and future development south of 66th Street. With the improvements, there are sufficient utilities to serve the development. 5) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development. Site features are planned to minimize visual impacts from the development on neighboring properties. The final development plan provides details regarding landscaping and lighting, which are designed to minimize the impacts of the development on neighboring properties. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: A final development plan, which establishes the terms and conditions of the development, is required before construction can commence. The EAW was determined to be adequate by the City Council on March 28 2006. Section 2. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 1, Paragraph (7) is repealed as follows: (7) ~ That are::llying between the easterly line of Lots 7 through 1-1, inclusive of Block 2 and Lots 7 through 1-1, inclusive of Block 3 of Iverson's Third Addition and the center line of Cedar Avenue, and bet\veen the center lines of 63rd and 65th Streets. B. Section 1, Paragraph (8) is repealed as follows: (8) M 1, 2 That area lying between the center lines of Cedar Avenue and tho alley in Blocks 8 and 15 of NevI Ford Town /\ddition, and between the center lines of 63rd and 65th Streets. C. Section 3, Paragraph (42) is repealed as follows: (42) M 3 ('N of Cedar, S of 65th) That area lying betv.:een the center line of Cedar Avenue and the '.\'est line of Lots 3,4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition, ::lnd between the center line of 65th Street and a line distant 250 feet northerly and parallel to the center line of 66th Street. D. Section 3, Paragraph (52) is repealed as follows: ~r,~ (52) M 1. 2 That arc3 lying between the center lines of Cedar Avenue 3nd the alley in Block 1, Nev.' Ford Town Addition, and bet\veen the center lines of 65th and 66th Streets. E. Section 3, paragraph (75) is amended to read as follows: (75) M-3 (Bloominqton to Cedar Avenues and East 66th Street) That area lying between the center lines of Bloomington Avenue and the west lines of Block 3. Iverson's 2nd Addition and Block 5. Iverson's 3m Addition. Cedar Avenues, and between the center line of 66th Street and a line distant 250 feet northerly thereof and parallel thereto, and the north 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11, and 12, Girard Parkview. (Added, Bill No. 2000-11) F. Section 7, Paragraph (12) is amended to read as follows: (12) M-3 (NW Corner of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue) That area lying between the center line of 17th Avenue and the west riqht-of- way line of Trunk Hiqhway 77. and between 63rd Street and the center line of 66th Street. excludinq Lots 1, 2. 16, and 17, and Block 6. Iverson's Second Addition. and Lots 6, 7. and 8, Block 3. Iverson's Third Addition, and includinq Block 3 of Iverson's Second Addition and Block 5 of Iverson's Third Addition extended to the center line of 66th Street. Section 3. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: R to PC-2: 6315, 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339,6345 17th Avenue South, 6401,6409,6415,6421,6427,6433,6439,6445 17th Avenue South, 6500-6527 17th Avenue South, 6314-6527 18th Avenue South. C-2 to PC-2: 6532 17th Avenue South, 1614 66th Street East, 1620 66th Street East, 6532 18th Avenue South, 6533 17th Avenue South, 1700 66th Street East, 1708 66th Street East, 1714 66th Street East, 1720 66th Street East, 1800 66th Street East, 1829 66th Street East, 6500-6537 Cedar Avenue South. I to PC-2: 6300-6445 Cedar Avenue South Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by Ryan Companies US, Inc. The City Clerk will not publish the ordinance until Ryan Companies US, Inc. has presented proof of common ownership or control. Therefore, zoning would not become effective until 30 days after publication of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of June, 2006. ATTEST: t};f,-5' Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ~~ CEDAR 63RD ST. POINT -!II- PUD - CURRENT . - - LAND - v v - USES - v - - v '== 64TH ST. . c-- W V ~ w V z w ~ 0 u.i w V I- ~ ~ ~ C!) 0:: ....... Z I <C ....... :2E I l- I 0 0 l- t--. I- W (0 "l"- co 0 "l"- "l"- U ~ .....J (Xl - S 65TH ST. . r--< I V (!) - - I ; ~ V, Z ~ ::::> . ll66TH ST. 0:: .---- - l:- N - LEGEND V c:J SINGLE FAM. RES. A" MULTI FAMILY C .. COMMERCIAL CH" CHURCH, QUASI PUB all PARK SCH" SCHOOL DO VACANT 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet CEDAR POINT ~--- , - - · PUD BOUNDARY 4-13-06 <6F--fo ~ . 63RD ST. w ~ Z o J-- C) Z ~ o o ...J OJ 65TH ST. 64TH ST. u.i ~ :r: J-- co T"" ._ _ _ _ t I I ~r-7 ------- I,i .~ .... ~c i:: II [JI .uu_ n u_' 66TH ST. [ 100 0 1"'\"....- [ [ I I CEDAR POINT PUD - - -- - - - -. PROPOSED : LAND : USES . . . . I . I I I . I I I I ....... I ....... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I # ~ S I CJ - I ~ Z ::>. c::: I-- ~ N ....- .... 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet I v w ~ :r: J-- 00 T"" 4-13-06 w ~ 0:: LEGEND (3 c=J SINGLE FAM. RES. ~ A" MULTI FAMILY C.. COMMERCIAL CH .. CHURCH, QUASI PUB. .. PARK SCH .. SCHOOL V c=J VACANT CEDAR POINT - - · PUD BOUNDARY ~F-5< ij TAFT CEDAR J POINT 63RD ST. ... PUD - EXISTING I - I - I ZONING - I - I - I - I - I I 64TH ST. I u.i ~ z w 0 u.i ~ w ~ I- ~ C> ...... ~ a::: z "T'I ~ ~ J: ~ J: I- 0 co I- W CX) 0 ...... ...... t) ...J CC I"- 65TH .5'I. I"- .. - ~ S J: (!) - J: - - ~. ~ - z ::> 0:: 66TH ST. l- N ~ 4-13-06 I I I I I I I I I I I ZONES R D SINGLE FAM. RESIDENTIAL C-2 _ GENERAL COMMERCIAL PC-2 PLANNED GEN. COMMERCIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Feet I _ INDUSTRIAL ~-- I CEDAR POINT - - - - - 'PUD BOUNDARY 9F-Cf ~I CEDAR TAFT POINT . 63RD ST. J PUD .I - - PROPOSED I' ~ . ~ . ZONING ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ 64TH ST. . . . u..i . ~ . . Z u..i . I"- 0 . r' ~ l"- e> . z ::c .,. . ~ ~ r' S . 0 <.0 0 ..... . S ...J . m . :r: 65T T _ . (!) . - . :r: ~ . ~ . Z . :J . 0:: . ..... . - ------ - - - u..i W 66TH1 ST. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ a::: r' ~ ..... w N u I I r I I r I I [ [ I 4-13-06 ZONES RJ I SINGLE FAM. RESIDENTIAL C-2 _ GENERAL COMMERCIAL PC-2 PLANNED GEN. COMMERCIAL 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Feet CEDAR POINT 100 0 - - - - - 'PUD BOUNDARY ra...... - I ~E - 8F-/D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CEDAR POINT AREA ~ S :I: C> - :I: ~ Z "::::> 0:: ..... l"'- I"'- /j. N 4-13-06 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN USES C-R/Olt I REGIONAL COMM'L. OFFICE C-C/O COMMUNITY COMM'L. OFFIC C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 0_ OFFICE QP-CH _ CHURCH QP-S _ SCHOOL QP-U _ QUASI PUBLIC - UTILITY R I I SINGLE FAM. RESIDENTIAL R-SFH I I S. FAM. RES.- HIGH DENSITY BIKE ROUTE 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet ~___ I _ _ _ _ _ . CEDAR POINT PUD BOUNDARY I ""'04.100R1:......".. "~'Rl'O" r.o",P'lft...\200).'44_W\"q\jao\PJ\H4_1I2l'lA_f'J."~ oo!ll:;! el:r~~ . M 3: Vl_"tl ~,,~~ ~J!~ ffll'Tlc o "'Ill .-t~ > :;!O;J; M~> ~~b MO'" ~~J! o M ~~~ ?ij>01 MO,. ,."'0 :i'-~ 0'" ~1)~ 0",0 <Xl ",1;0; MillO ~U); 0,.... "'OM ~aii) M o " ,. '" 0... MO '" ... ~~ z ... M '" Z o ... '" zlD n'" g1; '" o z ~~ AS z 'i~ '" ~~ ::0 () a ~ ~ ~ :j a ~ ... 0. "- ~ SHEET , 2/38 L PRO.!EC , 2005744M 4;:/06 LJ o Ill'" "'''' aiM ,.'" o ~o ~g; o III ~~ ~:;; o!!! ~~ :l:o y;~ I""' o '0 ;c '" Z ... '0 I""' ,. Z III .., o '" '0 '" o '0 o III '" o ~~ I""' '" ;;Z "'I -<0 2~ c'" "'0 OZ I ... R-:r '" III '0 2~ 8fr1 :n ... 0"'0 ZM~ ~~~ t.J:::!v 00... gffi;g >Y1~ Z2.., ~~~ ~:~ OZM 00;'" ~~~ ~i'1:il ~ 0120 (/) z~?o J: (..,jVl!" 6 ~~Q o alllF! z ~t> .... 'OZ "- ",0 ;;: ~~ a or: en a:J2 ~ -<~ :t '" ,. 3: ,.. r o ... ,-,-r-r-r- S9998 V'..~!'J.- .- <Xl I""' o n " '" WCDCDOOt:D rr-r-r-r- ggggo """"Q '" '.. ,. o ~ p ~!"J...... "-l(>>i:n"lD ~~~~f; '" '" ... .. F ~ '" III .... 5 ~'" ~ ~r;: ..:-< ~f5{;~~ ~~'x;~~ ~I""'S!I""',... 3: ..Cit ~ ~~ ... III 'tl c~ l(lo M I""' .... ~ a. '" '" ~ - SPJ-;;iOt;; ~~t:8~ N 000 ~!4~!4!4 <Xl ,.G ",I""' 1"10 ,.% " !::1 en o o III .., ~ u. '" '" U> III III ... ~. ~ Iii III ;~~~af l./1lJ')Lf)(J1V) ~~$~~ rr-,........' VI Vltf)l/)(/) '0'0 :0,. 0:0 S" ~z 0" !J' '" "- o o o ..............t}I i,..v.;..,tno "-"-"-"-"- 08-08-0 000 000 0 '0 :0.. ,.:0 ::I2S oz " CEDAR POINT COMMONS RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA OVERALL SITE PLAN ,.", 'tlZ 'Os ~~ ;;;z o~ <lJZ -<~ ...r- ~Oi Q~ "'1Il -<Ill 8~ ~~ ~~ !f" ~ ....'" ~~ ~P1 ~! ~ III o M 1Il'tl !il1O =o~ ::II""' ~ III ... M ,. '" M ,. U '" '" '" ,. !il '" III 10~ "'0 >'" I""' 1Il"''O "'0'" 0"'0 ~"'R ~"'n ,....... ;;II,. :0 III 0 'O;;Jill ~~~ o.-fJ'T1 I""'::;~ ~J!1Il ",,.z 8;;;9 ~~z n 3:01""' z:oc o 0 0"'''' ...0,. 'O"'Z :0 ...-< ~~~ g~~ .~Q1 00 Z'" ,., I""'~ ,. -< 'tl ,. :0 " Z " ,. Z o <Xl C F o z " III '" aI .. ~ III ,. '" '" < > '" ;; <Xl I""' '" > Z o ,. III III :t ! ~ J! '" o '" ... ,. ;= '" o III ::; M '0 r- ,. ~ (j) m z m ;:0 )> r en -I m z ~ m en J M ~ 1Il ... Z " n o ;c '0 '" '" X '" Z III ~ '0 ~ ~ '0 '" !il o III '" o N 2 z " Vi '0 i:: !::> Vi ~ M g :Ie > I""' ~ ;c ,.., ~ o :;; I""' ~ n !" , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , i~-----T--~ -41 I I 10 t I I S!I I I (i;1 I I L.._ -L~) - - - :: "'Rt- S'f!REET '!:R ~-----+-----~ ~-----+.__._~ ~-----+--_._~ ~ ~-----+-----~ i2~-----+-----~ 004c!. I I ~:~-----+--_._~ ~~I I I ~~' , ___--j ,~ --I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , I I I ' r-----l I .0' I ' r------i I 0, I ' _____-1 z\!1 ;;IS! "'~ ~a i ~ ~ ~ !:S Sl ~ "< ::I '" !il z Q en ~ ::j ~ m N CJ ~ ~ " .)> Vi ,. 8 ;c <Xl Z ,. ::I !f !;l z <:> c 1Il ... ~ ;; r- III 'Z " r- M .., > ;c F -< '" '" III <:> '" z ... ;; I""' > Z o o o 3: ;c M '" n ;; :- j-- --T-- --11 '0 ' 0, ~D--m--D-i , -----~._---~ <;), 0 ' '0 ~i i ,-. - - - -:>-!- - - - - -- : 0 ~j 0 j ------~--_.._-: , D\ rn! D ! !D~--D--l -----1------:;-1 , ,0, ~----._i_-.--.~ , , , , _____l._____J -----------1 , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , :r I I .~ " -I 1J \j I ~ il~i1l I ~~~ !ll~ ;3 z o IYAN ~ Dululh,MN '" I.lam Lake:. MN HibbinA. MN RLK. Minnetnnka.MN Phone: l)S2 !);l;l {IIJ72 ( 1:C.OkI10Il,\Tj ) Pa:<: ')S2lJ;lJ 115:1 ~ www.rlkinc.cnm 6110 Blue Ci,de Drive. Suite 100. Minnewnb. MN 55343 ~ RYAN COMPANIES US, INc. 511 South Tenth Street. Suite JCIII Minneapolis. MN 554m.21112 612.492.4(XIO [eJ 612.492~3()(J(1 fax .IlEVi?IC>.t-l? I h'rlby ~'(IIf)' thol thl, pion wo. pr,por.d by m. or utlder my dirlct .up.ryl.lon Gnd that I om a dvly LlunllOd I.ond.cop. Archll.ct under Ih, IQI/fl of Iht Stole of I!,llnl\elOIQ. Su.YEYEO RLK OESlGNEO JRD 0...... TBR BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM . CHECKED DATE_ lIC. NO. I ~-----+-----1 ~--_._+-----~ ~--_._+._---~ ~--_._+-----~ ~_._--+-----~ i I i j I i , , L___._-L_____.J 6l ~ pi " z r> ---I ~-- -----l ~--~-1 , -----j ----- L.____ -----~ ___oj ... CIl :i! llo. ~ :a: lii , ' J , L.____-L_____ , , L___..-1 ~ '" 01- T <::::I:J 11 ~--_.- z o o , , I , , I , I , , I , , I , , L_____ I'-T-u '" '" !:l '" o o 1:.... ,..... (l ;r:;. ell: gCl-O~ 1;. Ix ::' ii rr1 2 ill:' :::0 ~ jZ (/)&' ~8: ~ ~ I i -f" ~~ rr1!' liS' ;~ ~'" '" '" rr1 () )> I r- -( AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 8G 95 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ri. g' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the City's long-term financial and strategic plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve by Motion the City's Long-Term Financial and Strategic Plan I II. BACKGROUND I The need to create a comprehensive financial management plan was identified by the Mayor, Council, City Manager and staff due to increased demands on City financial resources. As a result, in Augustof 2005, the City contracted with Ehlers & Associates, Inc. to begin the process of long term financial planning, known as Key Financial Strategies (KFS). KFS is a process that combines financial planning with strategic planning. The purpose of KFS is to provide a disciplined framework for decision-making required to identify and implement strategies that will assure long-term community viability. 05092006 KFS It is planned that the KFS process will be an annual process to review and evaluate the long-term needs of the City. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I POUCy I . Annually, the City prepares a Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which covers a five-year process. The KFS process goes beyond the five-year process of the CIB/CIP and looks at longer-term financial and strategic needs. Accordingly, the KFS process will now lead into the CIB/CIP preparation. As such, several items identified in the KFS process have been incorporated into the current 2007 CIB/2008-2011 CIP. . I III. IA. . I B. CRlTICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL I . The strategic financial plan is the result of several workshops with Council along with many hours of staff preparation. The results from those workshops make up the plan document. . The plan looks at the long-term needs of the City, how to fund those needs and the financial impacts of those needs. I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . The City Council could postpone the approval of the Key Financial Strategies Plan and decide to conduct further review of the plan. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Key Financial Strategies Financial Management Plans I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A gG-1 ., EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key Financial Strategies is a process that combines fmancial planning with strategic planning. Its primary purpose is to provide a disciplined framework for decision-making required to identify and implement strategies that will assure long-term community viability. This is especially important for communities such as Richfield because of its unique combination of opportunities and challenges. Some illustrative examples of these opportunities and challenges include: 1. Excellent strategic location in metro area (proximity to downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Mall of America, and the MSP airport) but challenged by the impact of ever-expanding transportation systems that surround and bisect community (35W, 1-494, Crosstown, CSAH 77 and MSP airport). 2. Established, stable and affordable residential neighborhoods proximate to job centers but lacking the larger tracts of both land to build new residential housing types competitive with new growth communities and some of the amenities available in new growth communities. 3. Sound City infrastructure and facilities to support current development and services (City Hall, Community Center, Public Works facility, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, roads, curb and gutter, street lights, parkway trees and parks) but many of which are nearing 50 years of service and will require reinvestment or replacement over the next decade. 4. Valued community amenities including walking paths, parks, Wood Lake Nature Center, Swimming Pool, Ice Arena, athletic fields and Community Center which require continued investment and financial support for operations. 5. Higher than typical City services including; residential street lighting at 200' intervals, maintenance of boulevard trees, residential and commercial sidewalk plowing, full-time firefighters. 6. Established, well maintained, conveniently located and affordable community growing in economic, age distribution, ethnic and cultural diversity of residents. In order to respond to these opportunities and challenges, the City of Richfield has identified the following long-term fmancial goals: 1. Promote long-term community affordability, livability and stability by continued diversification of property tax base and revenue sources with particular attention to loss of Local Government Aid and related revenues. 2. Support continued redesign and repositioning of City housing stock to compete effectively with both newer and established communities and attractive to growing diversity of residents. F'in(fn{~i{!l g6--2- 3. Establish on-gomg capacity to influence transportation system (highways, airports and transit) design and operations with a goal to maximize positive and minimize negative impacts of these systems on the City. 4. Establish fmancial framework required to extend the life of existing physical and technical infrastructure and provide for timely replacement and maintenance of facilities as needed. 5. Continue to revise and update core City services and amenities that establish Richfield's unique identity and responds to needs of a diverse population. 6. Review options and opportunities to improve City service delivery systems in a highly competitive environment. Richfield is a well-managed city that has developed and maintained sound fiscal policies in the areas of budgeting, fund balances, and debt management. The strong Aa-3 credit rating reflects the results of this management and the strength of the local. tax base. The financial principles guiding the community reflect a commitment to maintain the fmancial stability, maintain service levels based upon community standards, maintain the community infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, lighting, utility systems, etc.), and to provide additional services and investments based on the needs of current and future residents within the context of community affordability and without sacrificing the ability to maintain current operations. The fmancial projections prepared as part of the KFS plan indicate that the City will be able to maintain these principles with careful attention to the financial planning process. This process requires a specific commitment to reviewing and updating this financial plan on an annual basis with a focus on the following: . Development and update of goals and strategies directed at achieving the Richfield Community Vision. . Review of staff-prepared projections for the cost to maintain current level of services given projected growth. . Review of investments (capital costs) required to maintain or replace current facilities. . Analysis of the impact of adding new services and facilities on the tax rate and fees. . Periodic surveys to determine public assessment of the value and need for the current level of services. . Identification of a select number of new goals and initiatives for needs assessment, study, or implementation. . Continued assessment of the type and level of services provided and service delivery methods. . Development of direction to staff to prepare specific strategies for future years. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 2 of14 gG-3 KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES OVERVIEW Ehlers & Associates was engaged by the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), to assist in the preparation of the City's Key Financial Strategies. The need to create a comprehensive financial management plan was identified by the City Mayor, Council, Manager and Staff due to growing demands for [mancial resources. This strategic [mancial plan is the result of four workshops with the Council and many hours of staff preparation. Workshops focused on identifying potential [mancial needs of the City, reviewing financial projections, and discussing priorities for the community. The results from those sessions have been incorporated into this plan document. In addition, the City Council has conducted an annual goal setting session to help frame issues of importance to the community. The 2005 Council Goals document is attached as an appendix to this report. OBJECTIVES FOR THE FINANCIAL PLANNING PROCESS A financial plan is a necessary element of a City's strategy to remain competitive in today's demanding environment. Other objectives of the City's Key Financial Strategies are: . Establishing a common understanding among the elected officials and staff of the City's needs and financial capacity. . Developing a comprehensive view of financial resources and options. . Identifying City issues and opportunities. . Creating a framework in which elected officials and staff can make immediate and long- term investment decisions. . Developing a consensus among the elected officials and staff on key actions the City will take to remain competitive. . Providing a framework for forecasting long-range financial planning issues to the public. . Meeting the new standard presented in the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Regulation 34 including its capital planning provisions. Through this workshop process, the City Council has examined the current and future ability to meet these objectives to answer the question, "How do we get there?" The City's Key Financial Strategies will provide a road map into the future and a framework for future decision-making. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 3 of 14 ~b-~ FINANCIAL PRINCIPLES This financial plan reflects the following Financial Principles reflecting existing community practices. 1. Long-term Community Affordability - Long-term community affordability requires a balancing of tax impact and spending for both operating and capital investment. Tax impacts must be carefully analyzed as part of spending and investment decisions. Attention to diversifying a tax base that supports City operating costs and investments is a key element to assuring community affordability. Use of an established financial plan that includes a projection of operating and capital costs, community survey and comparable community analysis are useful tools for that purpose. It is especially important to evaluate the impact of delaying needed investment and maintenance on future operating costs. 2. Competitive and Responsive Community Services - As Richfield matures, the needs of those served change as well. The ability to refme both the services and methods of service delivery to reflect the needs of those served by the City is critical to maintaining a competitive edge and maintaining community affordability. This means that the City will need to modify or eliminate services in order to find the resources needed to support new services. 3. Protecting Community Investment and Value - Protecting and enhancing the value of residential and commercial property is a primary responsibility of City Officials. Community property values reflect not only the investment and re-investment of individuals, but public investments as well. Public investments in public infrastructure and leveraging private investments are required community investment strategies. Cities with deteriorating infrastructures frequently experience loss on market value and tax base. Likewise cities with deteriorating commercial or residential properties find that nearby properties are unlikely to reinvest in their properties. Reversing these trends is typically very difficult and expensive. Strategies that target investments and reinvestments on a timely basis are key components to this practice. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT - FINDINGS The financial assessment conducted of the City was divided into six Strategic Focus Areas corresponding to the City's long-term financial goals. The assessment provides a framework for preparation of the financial plan and subsequent strategies. This section summarizes information prepared and discussed at Council and staff workshops 1. Promote long-term community affordability, livability and stability by continued diversification of property tax base and revenue sources with particular attention to loss of Local Government Aid. This goal refers generally to the need to develop a long-term balance of revenues and expenses required to maintain Richfield as a desirable place to live, work, recreate and do business. Specifically it requires the need to identify, prioritize and finance the operating services and investments in capital expenditures. Richfield must remain affordable, but it must invest in its future as well. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 4 of14 S'6-5 1.1. Tax Rate - Richfield's tax rate is about average with comparable communities. Perhaps more important is the fact that community surveys indicate that residents respond that the tax rate is reasonable. Key factors in this assessment are the stability of tax rates, perception that residents are receiving value for services, and the overall tax impact (not just City rates). The public is increasingly more interested in participating in community [mancial decisions that impact taxes. Effectively involving the public in these decisions will be an advantage for the City. Recommendations: 1.1.1. Projected tax rates should be included in the financial model as part of KFS. 1.1.2. The City should update information on tax rates for comparable communities as part of financial planning and budgeting process. Comparisons should include "effective tax rate" as prepared by Citizens League, per capita tax rates and similar analyses. 1.1.3. Periodic community surveys assessing resident perception of value of services and tax rate impacts should be conducted 1.1.4. City communication should be developed to provide information on City programs, capital expenditures, and services. The communications should forecast the need for future capital expenditures in future years as a means to increase public participation in key financial decisions. 1.2. Redevelopment - Richfield is a fully developed community with a population of 35,000 located in a compact 7 square miles. Given its fully developed status andJimited land area, the City has made a deliberate effort. to become proactive with redevelopment to help assure efficient land use and to promote land uses that support reinvestment by adjoining property owners. The City's redevelopment efforts have focused on long-term goals including re-positioning land uses and removing market obsolete and lower value uses. Recommendations: 1.2.1. Ensure that the themes of proactive redevelopment, re-positioning of land uses, and attention to market obsolescence and declining values are integral to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 1.2.2 Require a visioning master plan process for redevelopment areas. 1.2.3 Allocate resources to accomplish the vision and plan. 1.2.4 Target redevelopment in those areas that will leverage private investment and the conversion of incompatible, lower value development with compatible higher value uses. 1.3. Market Value - City market value of $2.9 billion has been increasing steadily an average of 14% per year over the past five years. The City has a per capita market value of $84,580. The per capita market value is a good indicator of community affordability. While there is a tendancy to focus on population as a factor in community viability, per capita market value is a superior indicator of [mancial viability. The higher the relative value, the less the impact on individual taxpayers. Richfield's market value per capita is below average for comparable communities. This is primarily the result of the age and type of Richfield's housing stock and commercial areas. Richfield was essentially completely developed with affordable single and multi-family housing in the early 1950's. This housing stock remains the foundation of the City's tax base and accordingly efforts to increase per capita value need to include programs directed at City housing stock. Adjacent commercial areas benefit from similar attention. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 5 of 14 <6 &-(p Recommendations: 1.3.1. Per capita market value should be an indicator used to measure effectiveness of development efforts and incorporated into the financial planning process. 1.3.2. The City should continue to evaluate cost effective programs to enhance existing housing values. 1.3.3. Encourage redevelopment that increases market value. 1.3.4. Complete revision of parks master plan. 1.4. Diverse tax base -- The City has a tax base with 75% residential, 9% apartment rentals, 16% commerciaVindustrial. Increasing tax base diversification may help increase per capita value, especially in light of need to adapt land uses resulting from regional transportation initiatives. Recommendations: 1.4.1. Consider converting uses that are, or will become, incompatible with adjoining uses to more compatible residential and commercial uses. . 1.4.2. Evaluate the fiscal impact on city operating and capital costs of various uses prior to redevelopment. 1.5. Economic Development Policy - The City has developed successful practices to use financial incentives for economic development; those practices include: . Focused use of assistance, including the use oftax increment, to facilitate achievement of City development goals. . Aggressive analysis of the eligibility for and level of assistance provided to assist development, including use of the "but for" and "look back" provisions. . Leveraging public assistance to promote private re-investment of adjoining properties. . Compete for non-city sources of funds. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 6 of 14 g (S-7 Recommendations: 1.5.1. The HRA and City establish the guiding policies for the use of local resources. 1.5.2. Established guiding policies for TIF/Tax Abatement include; . Resources shall be used to achieve HRA/City project and program objectives. . The proposed project must meet business subsidy criteria. . The use of resources requires a "but for " analysis. . A project must contribute to fiscal disparities . The TIF project may receive up to 75 percent of available increment; a remaining 15 percent is for the housing fund and 10 percent is for HRA administration. . A "look back" applied to "for sale" projects ensures increased private sale revenues reduces the local committed public resources. . Developer pays staff and consultant costs related to the review, processing, and management of the project to completion. 1.5.3. Flexibility in policies is required to address opportunities. 1.5.4. Compete for non-city sources offunds. 1.6. Community affordability - Future home-seekers and current residents will increasingly evaluate overall community affordability in decisions to purchase and remain within communities. Affordability factors will include not only housing cost, taxes and fees but also life cycle housing choices, proximity to work, shopping, recreation and amenities. Richfield needs to be competitive in these areas. Recommendations: 1.6.1. The City should address factors that keep the City competitive and communicate to current residents and potential homebuyers: . the affordable location . the affordable price points 1.6.2. Introduce "green community" concepts that utilize innovation in material selection and site design and operation to sustain affordability. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 7 of 14 CZ(s--$? 2. Support continued redesign and repositioning of City housing stock to compete effectively with both newer and established communities. - Richfield has a solid base of affordable residential housing. (The most affordable housing has already been built.) Starting in the early 1990's, the City initiated two housing initiatives. The first was a group of programs titled "Richfield Rediscovered." These programs were directed at replacing substandard housing with new larger and higher valued housing, and promoting expansion/updating of existing housing. The second initiative was support to construct a variety of new multi-family liufe cycle housing choices to retain existing Richfield residents, attract new residents, and make available single- family housing for young families with children. Despite, or perhaps because of, notable success for these programs, there is a strong desire to increase housing options and encourage reinvestment in single and multi-family housing. 2.1. Single and multi-family redevelopment and rehabilitation Recommendations: Single Family Redevelopment and Rehabilitation 2.1.1. Promote programs to rehabilitate existing single-family homes; repair, maintain, improve, and expand. 2.1.2. Replace substandard homes that are not cost effective to rehabilitate. 2.1.3. Coordinate resources that assist low and moderate-income households with repair and maintenance. 2.1.4. Utilize small amounts of incentive capital to leverage large amounts of private capital that improves the existing housing stock. Multi-unit Housing Investment and Development 2.1.5. Consider programs that reinvest in and sustain Richfield's predominant one and two- bedroom rental housing stock. 2.1.6. Develop higher density housing options configured as parts of mixed use, mixed income, mixed generation, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented urban environments in redevelopment areas. 2.1.7. Consider higher density housing adjacent to commercial areas and high volume transportation systems to buffer single family neighborhoods Effectively Compete with Newer and Established Communities 2.1.8. Deliver. "best practices" housing programs. 2.1.9. Monitor key indicators; value, increase in value over time, house buying and selling patterns. 2.1.10. Evaluate options to introduce a wider variety of housing choices, including housing with services that meet identified needs. 2.1.11. Explore the opportunity and resources for affordable/work forces housing components when considering housing projects. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 8 of 14 8&-9 3. Establish on-going capacity to influence transportation system (highways, airports and transit) design and operations with a goal to maximize positive and minimize negative impacts of these systems on the City. - Richfield location provides many strategic benefits -- but challenges as well. 1-494, 35W, TH 77, Crosstown, 35W, Soo Line Railroad and the airport all impact the City's land use, transportation, economic and tax base, quality. of life and cost of services. Given its compact size, the City arguably is more impacted than any other Minnesota city by transportation systems. Richfield's response to this questionable distinction has been to play an active role in shaping best possible City outcomes and where possible turning negative impacts into positive outcomes. 3.1. Intergovernmental Intelligence - Monitor County, State, Federal and regional agencies planning and operating these systems within the City. This will increase the probability that the City can effectively participate in decisions impacting Richfield. It is likewise important to track funding opportunities and mechanisms that may be available as resources to assist with mitigation of negative community impacts. Recommendations: 3.1.1. Specific staff assignments should include responsibilities and resources directed at monitoring County, State, Federal and regional planning agencies. 3.1.2. City staff and elected officials should seek opportunities to serve on County, State and regional agencies, task forces and commissions. 3.1.3. City staff and elected officials will participate as voting members of MSP's Noise Oversight Committee and serve on relevant airport-related commissions and tasliforces that may be established. 3.2. Establishing effective working relationships with individuals and organizations that are stake-holders and policy-makers influencing these agencies will increase receptivity to addressing Richfield issues. Recommendations: 3.2.1. Conduct periodic meetings with key individuals and organization from 35W Solutions Alliance, 494 Corridor Commission and Transportation. Committee. 3.2.2. Include transportation related individuals and organizations in communication plans. 3.2.3. City staff and elected officials will continue to maintain effective working relationships with the Metropolitan Airports Commission staff and commissioners. 3.3. Implementing complementary or mitigating strategies including financing, required as a result of system changes will reduce negative community impacts. Recommendations: 3.3.1. Seek alterative analyses of options presented by various agencies that include replacing lost assets and mitigating impacts. 3.3.2. IdentifY opportunities to address City goals or resolve problems as part of analysis of City impact analysis. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 9 of 14 <{J&-/o 4. Establish fmancial framework required to extend the life of existing physical and technical infrastructure and provide for timely replacement of facilities as needed. - One of the major differences between businesses and cities is the need for much longer planning horizon. Cities need to identify, forecast and fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement to protect and prolong the life of those assets. Many communities have been caught in the cycle of living "paycheck-to-paycheck", balancing their annual budget but neglecting long-term infrastructure maintenance. The impact of this practice is to transfer the real cost of services from the current users to future generations. Failure to recognize and correct the problem will cause one or more of the following outcomes: . Reduced reliability and usefulness of major infrastructure systems (streets, water, sewers, etc.). . Increased operating costs. . Sticker shock tax increases in future years. 4.1. Pavement Management System - Richfield's residential streets were constructed between 1973 and 1977. The City has maintained a formal Pavement Management System since 1988. Pavement management is not an exact science, but it is generally accepted that proper and timely maintenance, including seal coating, crack repair and filling, will extend the useful pavement life, and timely street resurfacing will delay the need for complete street replacement. A pavement management program identifies specific levels of investment required to maximize the. useful life of street pavement. Budget decisions have limited funding below target program levels. City staff has identified options to the current program which would require an investment of $900,000 annually. Recommendations: 4.1.1. Review options to fully finance the current pavement management system. 4.1.2. Review options to fully fund street replacement. 4.2. Public Facilities - City officials are exploring the need for renovations or replacement of the City' sPublic Works, City Hall and Community Center buildings. . Each of these properties was built over 40 years ago and has a variety of operating and structural deficiencies. A plan has been developed for the Public Works building including financing, building design and location. Minnesota State Statutes, Section 475.521 authorize cities to issue bonds to finance certain capital improvements including street replacements, city hall, public safety and public works improvements without referendum. However, the requirements to issue bonds include preparation of a "capital improvement plan" in accordance' with the provisions of the statute. This new statute provides an option for funding capital facilities, which may benefit the City. The statutory requirements for a "capital improvements plan" differ from the conventional plans prepared by most cities and require pre-planning of about six to eight weeks. Staff should review these requirements as part of planning for the fire, city hall and public works building improvements. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 10 of 14 ~ & -I I Recommendations: 4.2.1. Implement a defined decision-making process for high value public facility investment decisions 4.2.2. Implement public participation models to gain public feedback for high value public facility investment decisions. . 4.2.3. Prepare and maintain public facilities assessment for all public facilities. The assessment should address expected non-annual maintenance cost and facility life expectancy. 4.2.4. Prepare a community survey to recommend community services as they relate to the community center and other recreational assests. 4.3. Technology -- Ever growing demands for staff services and the need for City departments to work together require ongoing investments in computers and technology. The City has a detailed technology plan. However, there will be more and better technology products available to cities. Residents, customers and employees will likely create pressure to invest in improved and new technology. This will require the City to develop a disciplined approach to reviewing the requests and needs for technology investments. That approach should address cost and benefits (not limited to financial), productivity, training, support and potential obsolescence. Recommendations: 4.3.1. Update technology plan on annual basis. 4.3.2. Develop and adopt a method to reviewing the requests and needs for technology investments. That approach should address cost and benefits (not limited to financial), productivity, training, support and potential obsolescence. 4.4. Vehicle Replacement -- The City has extensive vehicle replacement requirements for Public Works, Police and Fire equipment. The City does have a schedule of equipment replacement as part of the 20-year CIP that forecasts these needs for the expected life of the equipment. Equipment replacement is often deferred as part of budget balancing efforts. In the long term this may increase maintenance costs, increase downtime of equipment and staff and lead to a funding problem in future years. Maintaining the equipment replacement schedule and funding source will help remedy this problem and provide a more accurate measure of services. Recommendations: 4.4.1. Update vehicle replacement plan on annual basis. 4.4.2. Evaluate options to permanently fundplan with operating revenue to avoid use of debt instruments for what is essentially an operating cost. 4.5. Enhanced Public Infrastructure - Richfield's infrastructure, both City owned and public utility, was installed in the early 1950's. The City competes with communities that have newer more modem utility and infrastructure systems. It is important to periodically evaluate these systems, from both a competitive and operational perspective to assess need to update. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 11 of 14 8&-f?- Recommendations: 4.5.1. Evaluate cost, funding options and benefits of converting overhead utilities to underground. 4.5.2. Evaluate cost, funding options and benefit of street landscaping enhancement. 4.5.3. IdentifY current capability of public utility communication technology and evaluate need to request upgrade to meet standards available in other communities. 4.5.4. Complete a revision of the City's Bike Plan to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle- friendly amenities and connections to neighboring communities and regional destinations. 5. Continue to revise and update core City services and products that establish Richfield unique identity. Richfield is generally well maintained, both in the area of public investments and private property, and has long term experience in implementing strategies to avoid disinvestment and deterioration. The City offers a full complement of services to residents and businesses. Services offered by the City appear to be a higher level than many surrounding and comparison communities. Enhanced services include higher levels of street lighting, sidewalk plowing, a staffed nature center and full-time firefighters. Given the likelihood of . continued reductions in state and federal funding for local governments careful consideration to identifying means to finance, service options and options to service delivery should be evaluated. The probability of reduced state sharing of locally generated taxes combined with increased demand for more services and need to maintain or replace infrastructure will place pressure on the City ability to maintain current level of services. Recommendations: 5.1.1. Conduct exist interviews for residents moving from community via mail focus group or telephone survey. 5.1.2. Annually evaluate one or two services for potential alternate service delivery. 5.1.3. Budget option analysis should be prepared for 3% to 7% of annual budget. 5.1.4. Recruit, retain and re-train a high quality worJiforce. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 12 of 14 S&-/3 2006 Plan for the City of Richfield 1.0 Lon -term affordabili 1. Annual KFS update with tax rate projections 2. Review of comparable tax rates 3. Community survey 4. Annual report 5. Revenue enhancement for PSA/partnering w/ Hennepin County 6. Improve site design regulations (parking, signage, landscaping and lighting) 7. Penn Avenue redevelopment 8. Continue to grow Recreation programs (i.e., on-line registration) 9. Com lete Ai ort Noise Study 10. Assess redevelopment 0 portunities 11. Comprehensive Plan . Land Use . Transportation . Parks 2.0 Housin Strate ies 1. Identify funding sources of single family rehab program 2. Identify funding sources to maintain housing programs 3. Residential community roperty maintenance 3.0 Trans ortation S stem 1. Prepare communication plan for transportation related agencIes 2. 66 Street & Portland Avenue interchange improvement 3. Financial plan for operations and transportation improvements 4. Cedar Point intersection/redevelopment 5. Richfield Lake - storm water public im rovement . Storm water ublic improvement . Redevelopment 6, Complete Bicycle Plan 4.0 Infrastructure 1. Identify funding sources for Pavement Management System 2. Initiate construction for PW center City of Richfiel3 - Key Financial Strategies Projected Start Date Annual Annual 2006 2006 2006 1/1/2006 2006 2005 2004 1/2006 2006 2006 2006 1/15/2006 2006 2005 2/15/2006 2005 2005 2005 1/2006 1/2006 2006 11212006 9/1/2006 Level/Status A - Assess P ~ Plan I -: Implement I I P I A P P I I A A A A I A I P I I I A I A P P I Projected Completion Date N/A N/A 9/30/2006 6/30/2006 12/3112006 5/1/2006 6/2006 4/1/2006 6/30/2006 12/2006 2007 2007 2007 6/30/2007 2007 Ongoing 8/30/2006 9/1/2008 9/1/2006 12/2007 9/2007 12/2006 6/30/2007 5/30/2006 9/1/2007 Page 13 of 14 ~ b-/tf 3. Examine relocation possibilities for Cedar Liquor Store 6/2005 P 9/2007 4. Explore liquor store partnering with new development 6/2005 A 12/2006 5. Complete Lincoln complex 2004 P 2008 6. Update technology plan Annual I Ongoing 7. Underground utilities and street landscaping enhancements 3/2006 A 12/2006 8. Public utility communicationslWiFi possibilities 2008 A 6/2006 9. Implement market efforts to support family friendly initiatives 2005 I 2006 10. Complete Park Master Plan 2006 A 6/30/2007 5.0 City Services 1. Identify one city service for comparison pricing Annual P Ongoing 2. Succession planning and staff development Annual P Ongoing 3. Conduct exit interviews. . Annual A 2006 IMPLEMENTATION KFS is a policy implementation plan that pennits cities to combine long-term strategic planning with sound financial management practices. The results of the financial planning are used to guide the annual budget preparation process. In order to effectively use KFS the following process is recommended: 1) City staff updates and refines the five-year budget projection. The update should reflect the financial and performance result of annual operations. 2) City staff updates KFS issues and Action Plan (reflecting actual results of accomplishments and new issues) prior to annual budget planning. 3) City Council reviews KFS updates as part of (or prior to) annual goal setting/strategic planning. 4) Results from annual goals incorporated into updated KFS. 5) Updated KFS used to guide preparation of annual budget and preparation of Council work plan (scheduled meetings). 6) Summary ofKFS results provided to Boards and Commissions and general public. City of Richfield - Key Financial Strategies Page 14 of 14 ~ &-15' CO:2 go. !::!'" :::g~g ;g ,.,... '" '" '" ~'" "'.... '" '" iO~ '" 0)0000 '" '" 0 <10 .... '" ...c ".rcD~~~ "':ui"": tti N ~ ~ 0 <00 C\I iN "''''.... ;:l; ~ 2&; 0>(\1(0..- "'''' ... '" C <U ...-000 ;g"'''' '" '" '" .,..00)<0 "'.... '" r:: CO 0)00)(0 "''''A <10 <10 ~ NcDC\I-. ....: It)~'''': tti N tti COOON "''''.... ;:l; '" 0 0) C\I (0..- "'''' 0 0 ... N _000 ;g"'''' '" (l; ..- 0 M (0 "'.... ~ CDO<q-CO "''''a '" ~ Nu>iD-.;f ......~ u)......~ '!i tti <OOCON "''''.... '" 0 C>>Nlt)..- "'''' '" <10 N N ..-000 ;g~~ '" ... ...-OCXlN '" 0 ~o~~~ "''''A <10 CO ~ C\lcom,- ,..: Il'f"": tti '!i <OO<OM "''''.... ;:l; ~ m NlO..- "'''' <10 0 N N 'l"'""oao ..."'... '" ... 'l"""QMN CO"'.... '" Ie moco<O "''''0 <10 ~ NcO..-~OO r-:'u-r...: tti tti COOlON "''''.... ... '" CDNlO""'" "'''' '" <10 0 N '" ......000 ..."'... ~ ~ ...-0 coco CO '" .... mO......C\I "''''a <10 ... 1ig~~ ,..:Iri......- tti 0 "''''.... ... <10 0 "''''''' "'''' '" .... 0 N N goo ;g"'''' 0 o~;:l; "'.... '" "''''0 0 co cOo-N' ~gr:: '" 0"'''' ~. 0 "''''~ "'''' 0 N 0'" 0 ... ... .... 0"'''' CO .... 0; o~~ '" 0 .... Oa)M' ....- ....- tti CO ~ '" '" .... c; 0 CO ~ '" 0 N ... ... CD ;:!. ~ 0 N N l'1l ... ... '" 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ '" Ie ~ 0 ~l II '" lu'" ... .. ~ >~ Gl o ... " ~~ cr ii. Gl ... 16$ 0:: -i a. ~ :2_~ ~ U ",:"'~ '" c Ui'8: "':2'" ~ ~ 0 ..."'Gl '" '" '" ... '" ?;;:l;~ ~ ~m ... Gl G>C'\i...... ~ '" = "'...... 0:2 ",_Gl ... III ",,,! 5:gE> ii. ~ II ...'" '" c c Q)- cn~ 10 ~ I'll Gl ~~~ 002'" 0 E :2 .... ii: *.~ g 0-'(;)10 10 f ...co co - :; 1Ou.'U)'E "'00 .,; ::;: c lOBOlCl> "'00 e Ql cr Q) . '" ~ . & "':2 c 06; E OgO !e ~Nm:a~ _ 0 Gl _ <10 Q) ..J ii .-fhi'::~ ill"'''' '" ~ iii ~-coQ. , - '" c .. '" Cl> J: C 00 ~ <:'iUoa;c:f ooffi,g a. Gl Q) "':I;:2Gl>' 0 Co -1'llJ!l ;; ~~~E~ lO'5 t="C $ ~ en ii:EOl ~ ~18~~ c ;: -_<II 'iluC3~g 00 01: r~& o~olS1ij a. ::l Ql '" ~ ~ ~ ~n ... E z :: '0 g Got J!l ~~~~ '" E iii u ~zzo::f!!. '" :5!a-I'llD:: .. ii:......<O....J Ql 0 15 ~,-.5e: .~ 0 0 0 I- w(,)1I.0 a. ""C\lM~It)CO"""COO)O"-C\lM~IOCO"""COo)O"" ...-........-..-.............-..-..-....NN C III a:: ... c . =1IlJ!! 'fi:&rn ml~ "i ! :!:O"g i ~~l!~ illou:o CD ~ '" <( ~ ;- ., U) ....I CO CD .s:: ., a.. ~ c: en "0 8 a.. - ~,-{g ....~. .0 S Q) =CD ~5iQ. ~ ~~31 ~ i= ffi"c.=-g Q)a.. g~jE~~~~ ~~~!518~~~ (/)U::?iUolSolJm~ ~E~E:5=-gi ozzz~~~u CD :> CD c: :5~G) ~.!:!g,.... a:: m oc ...... _a..~<D:c m()....J~..... EolS:>2iIio BCi3~~ ~ en!.c: OJ"C co 1l~re8~~ E1ija;~i-g ~;:.~~~= ag'w 0 ~ e ~:s~iG'oooo ~.l!l.l=~=:5 ~&~(I)~J:: U) c: C) -E f tj'ljj ~ tj * co8iG' lE5 ..m lEe> -~ ao.c: m~O.c: B !~cc:~~~ ~e~a c ~~~~~~~ CD~~~~~ ic: g~~~~~~~ msmmmmc o~ ~(I)(I)~~~~~ ~g51~~~~ 8m CDmmCD~E~~ ~....Ia......I~~....Ia.. =~ ~ffi~~888u~rn~~mmmm-g ~~i ~~~-,-,-~'-~.c:mm~000m ~~.c: _008~~~~tm==~~~~:5~~~~ ~~~8~~~~~w~~3~~~~~~~~ w w x (I) (I) (I) '" co'" .s::co CD.s:: .=e c:_ '" c: E '" tE cot ~co ~~ .~-g ::?i:E c '" c. Ec: U) ~ g,g~ ~ I;; ~ a.~8 E c:_E l!!,g>'" ;:: CD s:: ~eijJ ~~e f/)~ [ ~ -g~ &-iC~.!9-5i1G _~ ! ~~~~0~~~iE~ .!2E g~'a;'lii3lB~:i2.e~a~~ ~ -~~~~~~msmss~e~~~ c _g~0~~0cs::ecs::cc~Q)Eo ~~e~~e~~~~~~~~~~s~~~ c~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ig ~a;~!3~~~~E~~g~~~g~m'-~ ~::?i-8C:'lii"'~~~~EoEEEEEEEl!!a..g>co CD~ _~ooo.s:: EEEEEEE:>U)>a. bmcQ)Q)ggg~!ooooooo5~~Q) ~a..~>>>>>~~UUUUUUU~>O~ c: o 'is 2 Iii 8 ~ .e c: ,2 ~ E; c: l!! m :c ~ (3 ~~~~re~re~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~m~~m~~~~~~~~ffim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ co:::; go.. I:! 10 0 0 8888 0 0 g .~~ g 0 0 0 ." 0 0 0 0 .C 0 tti OO~OO N ..; tti _0 g N ~C')("')CO ~! N ." C co 00 gg :'! \tilt). N- O ... 0 0 0 gg 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ ~ tti ~ LOlli N '" ... 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 '" <6 ... C III ii: .. . ;;:;S '5:::E1Il ~I~ ~ i ~b:g~ ~o~o ~ '" ... 15g "0 cci _10 N- O 0 g 0 0 ;g tti N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 <6 N ~ ;:! 0 000 0 000 0 000 g .o~ci ..."N 0 8g g 00 ,.: Or-: ~ 10" CO> o o ... co '" '" ... .. '" '" N U) g N II) '" o ... '" ~ :5 '0 Ol c '6 c ::l e e> G> "C C ::> ~8 '" e ~ ~~ ~ g ~ g~ ~ 0 ~ m ~ ~~ e 0 ~~ a 6 ~~ m G> ~'O ROEE - 00 m u ~o ~OmOc m $~~ ~o~~~~~ a-0uO 0 ~~~m;~~m~~E ~g~5~ ~ e.--~ccm0fiooo E~w~a c .~~!8~i€m~el g~j~~I: ~~~~m&egffi~I~~~~I~~~g ~~~~~i~i~~~~~~~~~~~i m~~!~~~~~~;~~~;~~~~~ b~~m~~~~~5S~S~S~~~ss ~oo~____:::;~~I~~~~~w:::;:::; is&~ 11 0 0 0 0 u; <6 N 0 0 0 '" .. N ~ 0 g 0 10 '" ~ 0 0 0 Ie 10 <6 N 0 0 g 0 0 ~ tti " N N 0 8 0 g 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 " " 10 10 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tti 0 " " '" g g 0000 0 000 gggg 0 ~g~ 0 0 0 0 tti gooo ,.: mci<<i 0 " 000 N ",OCO 0 10 to- "'I""" <0 N "'- _NCO N - ~a- '" 0 00000 g 00 0 0 00000 oco fg 0 00000 0 " '" 0 ~.gg8g 0 ~o) <6 0 m N'" u; 0 co..-co...... co N N ..; o '" "E '" "C G> C > '" ~ ~ ci c:.~ e ~ ~ ,gfic: G> ~ g.9~ K ~ >. ...J G> G> E ffi ~ ~~~ E - E ~ S ~~j i !~~ g ~ ~~~j~0~0~ea 0~~ i ;=~um~oE~~c:gw~8 "C ~~~G>E>~OmC~;eOl ~ 0~~~~~~a0~mii:s~ ~ ~ee~~g~~~~~~~g~E ~ ~~~~~~E~~~~~~2~~~~ G>S's..!;: cu"e=cn ~1l 0.0 15 f/) '" ~E'O "'''''''BG>G>BG>::l,"eo..-B~'''::l~ ~gg~~J!gigB€S!~S~~ ~gg~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~ w ~~gm~~~~~~mm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~gg~~~~gg~~~~~~~~g~t~~~t~t~~~~~m~~w~~ ~!:!! 0'" wi\) ,,0 3:5: i 002 ~~~ g~5. 2. -:j" .:< (Q o ." <0 2- ~ m ~ 0 (I) g ... I\) o o o .0 o o ... I\) o o o o o o ... ... ~ o o .0 o o ... ... ~ o o o o o ... o 0, o o o o o ... o 0, o o .0 o o ... o i\> o o o o o ... o i\> o o o o o ~ '" o o o o o 1\)<0 0'" 00 00 00 00 00 I\) o i\> o o o o o ... ... <0 i\>o 00 00 00 00 00 :? g III cn III ~ Q, -I ~ G'l (I) " (I) Pi ." c: " 0. ~ "C (I) " 0. e= (il cn c )> ElD~~ ~~.gm Cr'o.<Q ~~~~ r--II\)~ -.(1)';!!.6) ;!, ~3 0- - lD :? ~ $I ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ " 2" 0. (I) :i" (Q " III a: Ul o lD -< a 3 -I ~ cn I\) '" '" "'I\) I\) I\)~ ~ (.0) ~ - ~()),J:lo.Q) (.o)aCO(,,) ())~ 0)0) - a. - ........0......0> tja;jg I\) Co '" "'... (X) 000> C:..> t.>m w W~ I\) I\)c.> Co <:0........ --I --I <0 0> 0><0 (X) ~ .w 0> (J)~ I\) 1\)<0 Co (0<0 <0 <0--1 <0 <0 '" en -c.n t.> o 00 0> o>w ... o ~ w ~ 0> 0>0 (X) 00'" '0 '0'(0 W c.>--I <0 <Oc.> ~o~~ --I --1--1 ... 0> ~ w O>~......~ ~_F\J W~ :,:..g~:.... Q)oQ)(,,) N- I\.) """'" . 0- - CDoCD-" ~a~~ ... 0> ~ w C>>...),......~ ........~<OQ) . ~. . U)owo 0>00)0) ~~o~~ 1\,)01\)0) ~o~~ Ol ~ o ~ .......~Q)~ ,J:ra. ~o C1I 01 ~ 0) - - ~g:1g 0- om .. 0- - """"'o~O> ~o~~ ... '" ~ ~ m~co~ I\) _ I\) co - I\,) - ~ *~81~ eogCo:'" t;ot;~ I\) o ~ o ~ ......1\.)<018 oo':---coco - m'" ... (.0)0<00> ......o-..J-" N- 1\).1). - 0- - 1\.)01\)<0 ~o~~ I\) o ~ '" Q)f\.)o~ ......9........0> - I\) - - ......0<0(11 ~p~~ - 0- .. OoO..Jl, ~o~~ 9' (I) 1= Z -I III X 5" o iil 3 (I) a 0- ~ a ~ cn " $l 0- (I) o (I) ;:+ 3i (I) 0- Q lit x '< (I) ~ I\) ~ _w o ~ - III X CD en o " III " III < CD iil <C CD ::r o 3 (I) ~ c: 0: a- (I) '" '" '" ::r cO' ::r !!! III :J 0- 9' CD "C CD C'l CD " lit <C CD lit x :;" o iil III cn (I) ~ c: 0: a- CD ~ ~ ~ ::r cO" ::r ~ ~o"l cnOCD~ g- 3 !!!,lit CO 3 2- X ",(1)"0 I a d: III !I~~ ~2"~ ::Tm0Q) 3;agJ (I) I 5" c: ~cn~.g ~:-.-&g: m. '"'O~ ~ ~" c: CD I\) I\) '" o o o ~ --I '" o o tll --I '" o o I\) (X) 00 '" ~ ~ ... :..., ;c:, c.> w '" :..., ~ W 0> W '" ~, c.> <0 I\) :..., ~ ~ I\) ~ :.. j;j, ~ 8J .... g, ~d~ ag~ 3-1" Z~~ ~ re ~ G'lcnlXl ~CDIll o -cn !~CD =>"(il5" Ill::ll mg: " ~ o 3 1$ :;" I\) o o ~ ... o oeca "#,(ft.(ft. 00000 000 000 '#.** 0000 00 000 '#'#.'"$. 0000 00 000 '#.cf!.'#. 0000 00 000 ,*'"$.'"$. 00 00 00 000 '*'**' 00 00 00 000 ifl.'"$.'#. 00 00 00 000 **-*- 00 00 00 000 ~"$.,* "0 ~~ (I)~ ax III (I) 'i~ lit -go leQ :;6' ~=>" (I) 0 III 3 =: (I) _!11. = (I) !l!~ (I) 0 iilii 'is =- o 3 (I) ~ w - !"'... ...- 00 ~~ - ...... o. ...... ~~ :-I... .... Cl>I\) ~~ - ~... CI>- CDW ~~ $"... ...- ~~ !'"... Ol~ ~l:3 !'"- -./- :;H~ :-I... 0- CI>'" ~~ !'"... !Z<>> ~o ... o~ W ~~ ,,~ ~-I mm *~ o ~~ Zo G'l)> m" )> o ~ w ... :r.. '" '" ~ ~ o !"':r.. 0<0 ... ... te"#. ~ I\) ." . w CI> (X) Cl>I\) ~* ~ 0'" $~ '?1--;fl. ~ ~ CI> ' . ... _w ...... "i/!."#. ~ ....'" . 00 NI\) -./ 00 '$.?f!. ~ ....9 .... CD '" ....... 'il-"#. w ....?> . -oJ CD 0> ...~ ";/!."$. '" o?> .~ co I\) -./00 '#.* w ....?> . '" ...... ...... )/e'$. d~:?~~ );!::Eg.::l!!j r-.....ll.,,- );!~~!2i5 ><0 ~~ O)>::l_o)> )>"."ll)( ~~ii~ -< [0. ~~ 00 III III -g-g ~~ ~ '" IS :.. 00 00 ~ cotO'Ot 0>0><0 00001\) g, -en:"'" "''''00 .goo> I\) '" .... <0 '" ~ 00 I\) ~...o> 00:"" "''''<0 ",O>W ee-co ~~... .:::!......m I\) 00 Co w ... w I\) w I\) ......00 ""-":""'(0 ~~c.> 00--1 -en en t.> WWl\) .go(..) ~ i\> '" I\) '" o <0, ~....I.~ MNI\:J ww'" ......1\) -...............~ -oJ'" 0 ~wec c.> c.> :..., '" I\) ~ <0 ~, ~ W ......w ~t.>"""'" W c.> 01 001\) "''''~ ... ... <0 ~.:.~ W 0> ~ '" I\) '" co ~ ~ c.> ......'" ~~~ WW'" 0>"'1\) :...,:...,,,, ~~<O .gO.Jllo. .., <0 '" 0> 00 co o co, W ......co en <n -w "''''''' ... ... 00 '" '" .<0 ...--10 ~<O(O ~ I\) ~ 00 ~ I\) 1\), ~ ......1\) "''''''' "'--1'" '" '" 00 0,0,:,:.. ......1\) ~Wf\) ~ ... :..., I\) <0 :..., :;;! ~ '" ~ !>> ... 8J Z"'-I mCi)O -IO);! hiF:r- ~Q);! -IUl)( O~hi ~3~ "m )>Ul -< m " Ul <010 - ~- 1\)000> C;;....I.~ - 1\)- oo-oJ'" ~(})~ "'i'" _O~_I\) oo-oJw g:.JlIo.~ - w. "''''~ l:3-oJ<o "'i'" I\) c.> . ~. 1\)00'" ~co~ - 0>. 1\)0"" ~~t "'1'" W ~ :... g-m mC11~ mgm ~w~ "'1'" '" '" . "'- 01\)'" ~o~ (n~~ ~O>~ "'1'" '" ... . ",. o>w'" =O)~ - 1\)- CO(ON ~~8; ....1... 0> ... - "'- 0",'" ~f\.)~ Ot~"""'" ~....I.~ "'1'" 0> 00 ~~e ~O)g - 1\)- 0",1\) ~(X)~ ~ ... '" meo 0'" co <0 0,-00 ... <0 00 '" ...~... 00 <0 . "'- woo<O ~~~ . ~- "'<00 l8"'~ ~ '" ~ _00 ... '" .'" "'11\) 00 0 . "'- ooo~ ~o~ - <0- 000--1 t........~ ~ UJ " m n 1> r- Ift ~ "" C -I C " m lil OJ ::! UJ " m n IE r- m ~ ... CD <II c.. g: . N ... ... o .... ... i\> ... CI> U. ... -./ ... N - CI> U. ... -./ i ... c S i ... Co <II o N -:.. ! ~ N -:.. CD o ... t N 0. ~ -:.. 1:: N 0. N CI> -:.. 1:: N t i7I i N 0, I; i7I o . .!'" CD <II CI> ~ N 0. 8: ~ J>o 8 CI> ~ ... t o CI> Co CI> ... J>o C> ~ ... 3: .... Co N J>o ... 3: .,,'" co -10 c'" "n mill o'g >i "z ~i Z o nI ~ ~ c i:j 3 (I) a r- 3 ... ;: <II CI> o f; ~ i 5" ::II III d: o " ~ cn c: 3 :a 0' " cn > z o );0 ,... -. s:~ )>0 z; )> -. Qn m:T s:i' m- zCl. -t "'D !j; Z G'l m Z m ~ r- ." C Z o > n", -10 co >~ r- tr" i~ " " cnc: m (I) ~'" ~8 !!!.<II I\) (" o ~ o "tI " 0", "0 00 (llCI> m o 1\)1\) mOl 00 '$.~ N o o -./ WW 00 00 ?J!.* N o o CD WW 00 00 ?J!.?ft. '" o o ... WW 00 00 ?ft.?ft. N o "e; " o ... m o -I m o c.>W 00 00 '#.'$. N ~ - .., '" 010 00 *''* ~ - '" WW 00 00 '#.'$. ~ "" WW 00 00 eft*- N o ~ WW 00 00 ';fl.'#. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~m~m~~~~~ ~6 :I::;OG) :;0 6 -1:;0 "tI("}""tI)>liim -l 0;5:::!!("}05c::!!G):;O :r ~lDm m ~~ffiO:xiffi~G)~ 0 1(jjzj;:i("}~en~~ ::!l Z);! 8z < )! )! lU m Z:;o,....;!::m,....--m mprn:;om)>z~mm C!: ~,.... ",m en -;!:: _zenz 0 g,~ z r ,,~("}c: ("}(j)S;:en I"" :;O:;Ol/O~~;;;ffi""'~~ '" 1""0 c: ~ ::u )> -"tI 10,.... m m-l::E~ ~-I-Im !;2 if~Clen~oen~,....m '" Zm Cl"" 0 :;ooo~ ,,~~en '" . "II )> ;:o"m<l/O"tI"tI c: ~~ ("}C: < m gz~o ~::!- m zz"O:;om"tl)>;:O 3 oz m ~ z ("}C:m:;OG);:Om:;oO -g SO ::u -Iffienm <~ c: -m-enoz::u-"tI enz ':<0 "2 m ::u < mm m ~ Cilm<~l];ffl~ 0 '" mG) "tI (JI < m (") '" ,.... m z - 5 c: en ~~zCilen~ 0 m ~ 0 ("}"tI -I o -z-l )>0 ~ m m;!:: <: c: ~;!::~ ~ CO) .e! en m m r- -. :;0 enmo m g~ Z m z (") z z G) >< -I rn );! m )>.... ~ "II ~ Z;:o m ,.... z I"" )> -. I"" (JI " (i)n ~ m c: m':3 (JI z g:ll c m is: Z -I "tI s;: Z m:;o x m "0< )> 10 10 '" '" .... .... Ot.) '" c: Cl> ~t.A) ~m Cl> ~....I.N ~"'" -10 m m Co> N o>~o...J."'m~m<om ~ ~c;~~~~~~~~ c:o ... <D .....tr......tr.m(J)N.....tr.-.....IO )>.... .... t.) ~.JIio.(,,)"'"'-If\)..s:.....I.(,.) :.... ~U1 ~(J) ~m ~<o ~<D ~w :-I .N I"" a. c.. oeoc..,<o:t..b<oo ~ -.lUI<DOCOQ)U1--U1 0 <D O.....(,,)N.J::Io.O>N(J) ",~I\.)~"'I\.)oowo co Cl> . OQ)I\,)OOO)-"....I. .... O.....tr. 0....1. 0) <0 0) 0) (I) ~ .... .. ~~ 0 cc Cl> .....tr.(,,) 1\.)0) Cl> ~O> ;., (.)....1.<>> .... a. ~~t~~~~~ Co ~::~~~g~-~t CO 0 "'01\.) '" Cl> t.) !!!,'" <0 ...0> en en <D I\) I\,) U10.......-J. 01(,,) '" 1\)U10WWWO(")....I. I\.) Cn "Cnoc.n b ~ -........Cn'".r:a.CNO'-........~-........ ':...I "'<o"'t~-o:....:....a. i:11 ~ ... 0> 00 Co> mm~8~~~~ t ~~~O> ~:;Rl~ 0 00 . O>~O> co Cl> '#. "tI ::u ~ ~ .... .... Ot.) ~ ~ Cl> ....1.(,,) 1\)-.....1....1. en ~......tr. ~<O "tI= <0 (IJi...ll.(,) Co (nCnNo,'"-'-om Co ...".--I\.)~COQ).......~<O 00 0 o>~cc <D I\.)~Ut......tr.I\.)U1O>.....tr. <D <Oo)U1~(O...Jr.I\)N........ (JIen I\.) I\.) ~w cc en cc Co> U1(O.......<OQ)U1~1\) Co> (,,)O)...Jr.~(o(,,)OIU1~ m en- c..:,'"-'-w N CDo,ONCo-""""Cni\) N ~...a.-........O(nCA(n~OwW tho, . 0> C en ~ I\.)~oo Cl> CO......tr.WQ).....tr.('QN~ Cl> 0)......OU10(,,)U1U1N 00 (ftCJ1 o en 0 = . 00000000 = oooooooCO-'" *'(ft ~ ~ .... .... t.) I\.) I\.) ... ....1.(,.) N.........I. ... ~o 0 Cn ~-"'O c.. 0,0> NW-.I""<..>O (X) c.. Cn....l.I\):....OOl~~Cn 0 '" =I\.)~ = f\)-.I mN 0"""" co (,,) 0 (,.)......U1.......Nen~(,,)-.I ... 0> ~oen Co> m01W01-.1OO>O> Co> """'....1. (X) (X) <0 W-.I co 0) w'" en- '0:"":"'" b -~:....:....a.:....j,..j,..'" b <o-........tno,t..J~NW~ 00 . cc WI\> o en... :s III ~~~g::::I~g;~ III ............(,,)CO.......w....l.....I.O) 00 ?f..ClJ . 00>0 co co OI(,,)O-..COO~O....l. rft.* ~ ~ .. .... ~ ~ 5" I\> co .....tr.(,,) N-"-Jo. co ~~ ~ ~.....tr.m b "'m-""""N........(n:....(X) b (n....l.NNbw~~:.... 0 0> ~I\.)~ t.) NN......WCDCONO> t.) CD......O>....I.o>~mCJ1Q) co I\.) wO>W ~ .......N(,.)N(().....tr.CO-- co ~O>O>....oCo><Owcc WW ~O> '0:':":"" ~commo(nw........ :... :....~co~t..J:....Cnm-.....:r:. 00 I\.)~ wwen :s III 0I......U1(,,)....I.0)~0 ~ .....tr.N(X)OIOIWWO"J:. 00 tf:.w OI\.)l\.) = . . O1U'l(,,)~.....tr."""<OO'I O'Io>O)w......oo(,,)<o ,*tf. t.) ~ ~ .... .... ~ 0 0 w w co .....tr.W N......-" co ~~ <D '" ~-.,,-> c.. mo,~o,co:.....(D c.. 0>.....tr.1\),,",0 ...~co ~ I\.)woo en f\.)......(X)~.........loO>O) g: (.0,) (X)...... 0'1 co en co cn..... 0 ~UI.!'> ~ co (X).....c>>COI\)COw'""'" .....N"J:.-O.....tr.WNCOCl) e..>e..> en- ~ oO>Cx.mc,,(,.)NOt i ","''''",<00.:'''''''", 00 . 0 ~O>O> 0<0 I\.)~OI :s ......0)0).....tr.Q)...Jr.V)O'J ww......OO<>>W....l.~.....tr. 00 ;,Ren . 0<00> .... I\,)U1W~-~O...... m.,Jlr...,1o.I\)Ococo> '#.';f?. 0 ~ ~ .... ... t.) w ~ .....tr.~ NQ)- <D ~I\.) 0 ;., ~.....tr."""" -""""ON<OO:""'CO :... "'m -" I\)~I\):"'" o)~N "tiC; ~ WCo>~ t.) I\)I\)O~O'lUlCD...a. t.) 0>0>0>0>1\) ~O>O> 00'" en en O).....tr. WO> 00 (.0,) (X)..f!a. en O"'I\.)CO~ 0>1\.)1\.) ::u we..> ~~ ~~C>> b <OCO~C:>>COO,:""':"" b -m:....sCnN:"" (nCOCO 0 00 en cc '" en en en ...a......tr.(J)omCONCD en (X)OOON OI\.)l\.) C- oo ~N . '" cc ~ 0 .... .,J:tr.01<OI\)....I.W.......W .... ............(.o,).....tr._ , 0'" co m ~tf. 0 -l m c ~ ~ .. .... ~ t.) ~ <D ....."J:. (,,)00..... <D ~I\.) 0 :.... ,Jlo......:..... a. -......:.....l\)ONNco a. -"""".....tr.f\)CN:"'" Q)~m .... ~ en~en $ J\l......NCJ1.a:.COW.,J:!I. <D (,)CO<OI\)O't ~ccO> .... ~~O> CO(")(")~"""01"J:.-J. <D ...a.(")oO)co 0"'0 ww w- ~tnN Co -........~~O'lNm<nom Co oc..,(pm~ co-......~ 00 . ~ oe..> 1\.)",1\.) :s ~ (X) m...... 0 N............ 0 .... ow......~O) <001'" 00 ;,RO> . <0"'0> . . I\.)<o",m...oo<o III (J1I\)OO......w , en~-I>- *#. 0 ~ ~ ~ t.) ~ t.) _en .....~ wm..... 0 ~w 0 J:a,.~O' N C>>Nl\):""'o,Nco N -"""...a.I\)W:"'" (X) ""cnWo .... <0 ~~CO l8 (,,)I\).Jlo.O>(,),J:.......m <D CDCOcomc.o 0> ~... t.) w en '" o m..........lo. co.r:r....... co 0 I\,) (0<0 C>>(,.) 0>1\>0 ww f-A''O> o,C>>Co Co m C>> ..~.:)C>> "'"0 w b Co Co co--......... 0> I\) ~";j~ 00 0... o>w... :s ~ .............Q)C",)O'l.......COO1 .... (,,)f.I)OO1..... 00 ,*0 . 0>01\) 01(,.)01\,)0>0)(,,)....... .... 0'11\.)"""(,,)0) , en<ow '*'#. ~ ~ t.) ~ en en f\)~ (.l)oo...a. ~ ~e..> t.) ~ .r:r.......'N :... :""'c",1\)l\)"Q)wco O:>I\)(")~N CD ~C1I-"'" ~ ... Ul co en w.,J:l.........Q)(,,)Ooco en e,.)OOON <OI\)Ul Co> cc "'I\.)'" Cl> -(X),flo,COt.A)OCO(X) en 0)0'10)......<0 I\.)'l<O WW ~- o,m01 'i:J> g~P6~~~~~~ 'i:J> ~~""'mmo ..,a.", 00 .1\.) 0> ~ ~...I\.) Co> Co> 1\)0<001..... ~en'" 00 '#.CiJ , ...eno> 0 0 Ut......Q).......<>>.......Ol(.o,) 0 (,)0)001\)(.) 1\.)0>0 tf.'$. ~en .. - Oi t.) t.) ~ t.) o~ wi:> 0> .... I\).r:r.. (,,)(()...a...... .... ~~ 0 ;., ~-.:"'" Co e..> ~~ ~1:(g~-2 Co o,N(.o,):ta."M COa.N .... "tIO <0 <oen~ 0 0 CO.....-J:l,.O) ~~o .... ;!::g 0> W...O> .... 1\)1\)0'1""'" o.r:r.. (X) Q) .... .................<0(11 O>WW ww ~........ ~~:..... a. ~~~~~~~~ a. o,NComoo <0:""'0 00 o cc 'lo>en :s III t.) .....tr.(n01 (X) 0) ...w~ 00 *1\) . CCI\)I\.) (,,)(,)CO~(J1Q)I\).....tr. <D O)COCOI\)W 0> en... ffl-cfl. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 8H 96 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of attached resolution declaring the adequacy of petition for vacation of right-of- way, conducting a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate right-of-way, and calling for a public hearing to consider the reauest to vacate riqht-of-wav. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring the adequacy ot petition tor vacation ot right-ot-way; and conduct a tirst reading ot a Transitory Ordinance to vacate the right-ot-way; and call tor a public hearing to be held June 13, 2006 to consider the request to vacate right-ot-way. I II. BACKGROUND I The owner of 6996 Humboldt Avenue has submitted a petition requesting the vacation of a right-of-way easement along the east side of his property (see attached survey). The easement was originally acquired by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for trunk highway purposes, as this area is adjacent to Highway 35W. Having determined that the easement was no longer needed for trunk highway purposes, the State turned the easement over to the City in 1988. 050906 - 1st Reading Vacate 6996 Humboldt Avenue easement I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . City Code Section 820.05 states that the Council "shall by resolution acknowledge receipt of any petition. The Council shall also set the date for a public hearing on any proposed street vacation. No vacation may be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so. Not less than ten days prior to the public hearing, a notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mailed notice to the affected owner and residents." I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The Engineering Department has determined that the City has no need for such an extensive right-of-way easement. The Engineering Department requests that a right-af-way easement be maintained over the eastern-most 20 feet of the property in question. . The Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds and Titles and public utilities have received notice of the proposed right-of-way vacation and have been asked to identify any electric or telephone poles or lines; gas or sewer lines; water pipes, mains, or hydrants; and any other cables or utilities within the area to be vacated. Easements for those utilities which are identified, will be provided when the street is vacated. . There is a City-owned water main within the easement area. There is a continuing public need for a utility easement over the vacated area. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . In order to be determined adequate, the petition must be signed by the owners of half of the land abutting on the right-of-way to be vacated (Richfield City Code Section 820.03). This requirement is met. I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Deny a first reading of the Transitory Ordinance with a finding that there is a public need for the right-of-way easement to be maintained. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution finding the petition to be adequate . Draft Transitory Ordinance to vacate easement . Survey . Zoning and land use maps I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Mr. Bernie Mittlestead, petitioner ~H" RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for the vacation of the right-of-way easement on 6996 Humboldt Avenue; and WHEREAS, Richfield City Code Subsection 820.03 requires that a petition for vacation of a street or alley be signed by the owners of at least half of the land abutting the street or alley to be va~ated; and WHEREAS, there are two properties that abut the right-of-way easement in question. The owners of both parcels have signed the petition for vacation of the right-of- way; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. . A certain petition requesting the vacation of the right-of-way easement on 6996 Humboldt Avenue in the City of Richfield, filed with the City on March 29, 2006, is declared to be signed by the owners of the required percentage of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity with Richfield City Code Subsection 820.03. 2. A public hearing on the proposed right-of-way vacation is scheduled for June 13, 2006. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper once, not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 050906 - 1st Reading Vacate 6996 Humboldt easement 8t1-l.. BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT 6996 Humboldt Avenue South, Richfield THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The City of Richfield has received a petition for the vacation of a public street easement over the following described lands in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota: That part of Lots 8 and 9, Block 17, Wood Lake Highlands, according to the plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southeasterly of a line to be hereinafter referred to as Line 1 , and which lies westerly of a line to be hereinafter referred to as Line 2: Line 1: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Lot 9, distant 55.00 feet east of the southwest corner thereof; thence northeasterly to the northeast corner of Lot 7, said Block 17, and said Line 1 there terminating. Line 2: Beginning at a point said south line of Lot 9, distant 95.00 feet east of said southwest corner thereof; thence northerly to the intersection of the north line of said Lot 8 with said Line 1, and said Line 2 there terminating. For purposes of this Ordinance, the lands are designated as the "Vacation Parcel." Sec. 2: The City Council has determined the petition for vacation to be adequate by Resolution No. Sec. 3: The owner of the underlying fee title to the Vacation Parcel propose to combine the Vacation Parcel with abutting land to the west. Sec. 4: There is no public need for a street easement over the Vacation Parcel. Sec. 5: There are existing water utility lines within a portion of the Vacated Parcels, and there is a continuing need for an easement for utility purposes over the Vacation Parcel. (I have only heard back from one of the utilities thus far. I will add additional language if I hear that there are additional types of lines within the area.) Sec. 6: Upon the effective date as provide in section 7 below, the public street easement encumbering the Vacation Parcel is vacated, reserving, however, to the public an easement for utility lines with right of entry to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend to said utility lines; provided that the utility shall promptly repair any damage resulting from such maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal. <6 H'~ Sec. 6: The vacation of the easement over the Vacation Parcel is effective 30 days following publication of the ordinance. Sec. 7: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, as appropriate. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this June 13, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk , , , ....(..,.,,~ (1',' - - - -+--~~~ Set I / g~ Eo. I ~1iG \(..(.' , "'lie '-1"-" <0 <0 "\/...... , " ' ~ I I I r-..~...4o -- I I I ~---- I I I I I I ~----- 115.00 ,A '" I < I ,'/ r Denotes Found Iron Monument o Denotes Iron Monument To Be "''' I / , <- " < -, " I -, . \1 .. ~:~).. ',' , , . '. , I -/ o n I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STEVEN V. ISCHE DATE. 12/15/05 REG. NO. 22703 -~~ ('oj ('oj r<)r<) ~~ l> }-\- 4 -r- ~/""" Q) 0 EO. N1~ <0<0 <0<0 (,"I -, - ,(, I "',-'",," . ' \/- , ,,\ , ,/ ~ / / w (I) =:J o I o Z " ~ ,.... Vi X w (/) 0...... Q) 0 EO. ZW _0 I-<{ Viet: X<{ wo . ." -1:] i ('oj rr) --.J r<) r<) OJ ~~Q:- =:J Co (:) <: ;::: VJ 5? '-w COli) O<"'J c.cic.ci coco " .J r7 I I 55.00 115.00 70th 123.00 102.99 !y t$ It I/; Q::' I // / / ),,--j) ://- ~ / "'''' , i!: i!: ~ " -...; ~ ~ o C/) !J o .s ~ I- CJ c5 ~ ~ ::r:: / / STREET ~ EXISTING CURB LINE FOUND HENN ~ MEANDER COR. DENOTES HIGHWAY EASEMEN T TO BE VACATED (2,640 sq.ft) Certificate of Survey for: Bernie A. Mittelsteadt 6996 Humboldt Avenue South Richfield, MN Revised Date:4/18/06 WSB Project No.1149-05 Date:12/12/05 Legal Description: Lots 8 and 9, Block 17 Wood Lake Highlands, Hennepin County, MN Pid 28-028-24-34-0149. ~ WSB -- 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 www.wsbeng.com & Associates, Inc. .". 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 INFRASTRUCTURE" ENGINEERING PLANNING ;, CONSTRUCTION ~ 6996 Humboldt Avenue Re0~secL FH- 5 Street Easement Vacation 5/2006 Land Use RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES ~ 'C RES 0 RES RES e RES 0 .r:. RES U) RES RES G) ~ RES Cll -J RES - G) G) RES RES G) ~ ~ ~ - " In RES 0) '0 G) RES c .Q E ~ E Cll ::s .., RES ::E: RES 70th St RES RES RES RES RES RES RES N '^ RES - Residential 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 - - Feet Created By: CD (MP) 4/2006 Community DevelopmentlStaff/MelissalProjects/Zoning N tA 6996 Humboldt Avenue Rey,'secL 81-4-C; Street Easement Vacation 5/2006 R R R R R R R R R CD ~ en CD E Cll .., R R CD ~ R C) c: R ~ R R 70th St R R R R R R o 62.5 125 R - Single-Family Residential - - Zoning R R R R R CD > 'C Q R e 0 .c: R en CD .::t:. Cll ..J R - CD ~ - " '0 .Q E :J J: R R R R R R 250 375 500 Feet Created By: CD (MP) 4/2006 Commun ity DevelopmentlStaff/Melissa/Projects/Zoning AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTIONS 10 -- cn ~-- ...... STAFF .REpORT RIGHlPIE12L) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEw: IZl REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for establishments in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling tobacco to underaae youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and approve the attached resolution suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400 for the second violation; and proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two consecutive days that the license will be suspended. [ II. BACKGROUND I On March 31,2006, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance checks at all of the establishment's in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were assisted by three underage youth that were 16-17 years of age. These compliance checks were the first checks conducted in 2006. On March 31,2006, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In five instances, tobacco was sold to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on March 31,2006 is: . B&O Convenience - 813 East 66th Street . Eddie'z Car Wash - 2816 West 66th Street . Kmart - 6501 Lyndale Avenue South . Penn Amoco - 6601 Penn Avenue South . Portland Sinclair - 6600 Portland Avenue South This is a first offense for B&D Convenience, due to the fact that the compliance check conducted on March 31, 2006 was outside of the 24 months of their first failure on December 2, 2002. Their license will not be suspended and they are not required to appear before the City Council, however, they will be fined $200.00. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old. The clerk did request ID and the buyer's 10 was shown. This is a first offense for Eddie'z Car Wash, due to the fact that the compliance check conducted on March 31, 2006, was outside of the 24 months of their first failure on November 24, 2003. Their license will not be suspended and they are not required to appear before the City Council, however; they will be fined $200.00. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old. The clerk did request 10 and the buyer's ID was shown. Due to the fact that this is the first offense for Kmart, their license will not be suspended, nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200.00. Kmart has had no prior failures. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old. The.clerk did request 10 and the buyer's 10 was shown. This is a second offense for Penn Amoco, due to the fact that the compliance check conducted on March 31,2006 was outside of the 24 months of their third failure on November 24, 2003. They will be fined $400.00 and there will be a two (2) day suspension. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 16 years old. The clerk did not request ID and ID was not shown. This is the first offense for Portland Sinclair, due to the fact that the compliance check conducted on March 31, 2006 was outside of the 24 months of their last failure on August 3, 2001. Their license will not be suspended and they are not required to appear before the City Council, however, they will be fined $200.00. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 year old. The clerk did not request 10 and ID was not shown. At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented their ID's, if requested, and at notime attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in purchasing tobacco, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell tobacco within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur during 2006. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and alcohol education efforts within the community. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Richfield city code section 1146 specifies certain improper conduct of tobacco license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of tobacco to minors. . Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400.00. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell tobacco to underage youth. . Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this city. I C. FINANCIAL I . All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing a tobacco compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within the community. I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield. . The council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would deviate.from the guidelines set for pr6gressive discipline in City Code 1146. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution for Penn Amoco I VI. PRINCIPAL P ARYlES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . A representative from the establishment is expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement. JO-{ RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR PENN AMOCO, 6601 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENAL TV FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Penn Amoco ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on March 31,2006, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and WHEREAS, this is their second failed tobacco compliance check as a result of the fact that it is outside of the 24 months since their third offense which occurred on November 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on May 9, 2006 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $400.00 is hereby imposed. On or before June 9, 2006 the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $400.00. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of May 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUB}. Ie HF.ARING 11 98 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ;L REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance to rezone the southern tip of 1401 76th Street West from HiQh-Densitv Commercial (C-3) to General Commercial (C-2). 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached ordinance to amend Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to amend zoning district boundaries and rezone the area bounded by 1- 494 on the south, the original center line of 77th Street and its westerly extension to the easterly right-of-way of 1-35W on the north, 1-35W on the west, and Girard Avenue on the east, to the C-2 (General Commercial) District. I II. BACKGROUND I Over the past few months, the City Council has approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment and new zoning regulations for the 1-494 Corridor (Corridor). The rezonings that have taken place along the Corridor have all but eliminated the C-3 (High-Density Commercial) District in favor of mixed-use districts that favor the integration of a variety of uses. In the course of updating the text relating to the approved changes, it has come to staff's attention that a small corner of the 050906 - 2nd Reading Rezone portion of 1401 W 76th W property located at 1401 76th Street West (currently owned by the Minnesota School of Business) has retained the C-3 designation. The proposed ordinance rezones this portion of the property as C-2 (General Commercial), which is in keeping with the zoning designation of the remainder of the parcel. The High-Density Commercial District (C-3) was created in 1987 with the goals of broadening the tax base, providing for economic growth and employment opportunities, fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses, eliminating conflicts between the residential and commercial areas and working toward the "high density freeway strip" called for by the then-current Comprehensive Plan. At that time, it was decided that the area generally bounded by 77th Street, Pleasant Avenue, 1-494 and 35W should be rezoned to C-3 (see attached ILN Study Area Map). As is shown on this map, 77th Street does not continue through to 35W, and this boundary line effectively split the parcels west of Emerson Avenue into two different districts. Since the time of this rezoning the parcels between Girard and Emerson Avenues have been rezoned to PC-2 as part of a planned unit development. The Minnesota School of Business parcel is the only remaining site that is split between two zoning districts. The majority of the parcel is zoned C-2, with only the very southern point falling within the C-3 District. There is no apparent reason for this small area to remain C-3 thus it is proposed that it be rezoned as C-2 (General Commercial) to keep it consistent with the remainder of the Minnesota School of Business parcel. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The proposed ordinance amendment designates the entire parcel located at 1401 76th Street West as C-2 (General Commercial), rather than splitting the individual parcel into two separate zoning districts. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The small area of land that is designated as C-3 (High-Density Commercial) is too small to be developed as a separate parcel. The area is less than one-quarter of an acre, roughly 10,000 sq. ft. . Two zoning designations for one parcel could cause confusion in the future. . The rezoning will not impact any of the uses currently on the site. . Staff spoke with the Director of the School and also sent a letter detailing this proposal. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . A first reading was approved on March 28, 2006. . Notification of the City Council public hearing has been provided as required by State Statute and City requirements. . If approved, the rezoning will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Reject the proposed ordinance to amend Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to rezone the area bounded by 1-494 on the south, the original center line of 77th Street and its westerly extension to the easterly right-of-way of 1-35W on the north, 1-35W on the west, and Girard Avenue on the east, to the C-2 (General Commercial) District. o In the future the two zoning designations for a single parcel of land could be confusing and difficult to administer. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Proposed ordinance . Map: (Historical) ILN Study Area, dated 6/22/1987 . Map: C-3 Zoned Area I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 1/ -I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE BY REZONING A PORTION OF 1401 76TH STREET WEST TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Paragraph (59) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (59) M-14 (SE corner, 1-35W and 76th) That part of Lot 1. Block 1, Bourbon and Basin First Addition v:hich lies north of the westerly extension of the center line of 77th Street; and that area bounded by said Block 1, the northerly extension of the east line of said Block 1, the south right- of-way line of 76th Street and the east right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 35W. Sec. 2. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 4, paragraph (1). Sec. 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 050906 - 2nd Reading Rezone portion of 1401 W 76th W <( W '0: z<( ->- Q :::) 'I- CJ) J IZc.~"ra .)liIIQIWnll ... _J.OC1lflll_ .cn~ ".u'IDI JrlII)o\f ""UIlW Gad a13I.:1H:>J~ .:10 All:> · ..,. (II a: cO (II ...,: ...; C') cj w '(1) !! I ~ ! i GO ~ ~ I I . : ~ i - ..,. ~:iliii;Hl' ~ i i ii ..,. (II a: cO (II ...,: M C') d w (I) , . ,........j. - ;"i' . - i" ~:~.C1~Q.e;2l~.::I, ~ r a !Q 'OS I: i: ~ i~:l:i:~i~ji':!!!~1 '01 ~. ~...-.....-.:. JiIIOS.ImG I . _ i ( .. . _ . . i iii l~'~.~. ~ Tt !! / in'! : ;.~ ;:~ ~ I~'U! i : -- ":. ',1:: ~ = _ -.- .~-=--:'~ . :s s ! : ; /" /::. ' \) ! ~ l' ~ ~ ~. 9 f $i~ ~~,..-..~ -"'l!~I~ C\I 'OS ..... - ._, :! 0 _ ~ ::! ~ ! ~ t ~ i .f ~ . ; ~ i!o.~ '~;~I t ... ::'1 <; '4 ~'-;-'j ~ \ . .' .f I~ f ! $ l ii; i,~1 :'! ; i;: i : ~;i' ~ \. " ~ ~ "; ~. ..,~. '~"'. >; ~ .'_; *r,' .._".. in . ... . - . < : . .... .~.. ~ I....~. . 'JI . ~ ;:. ....: :; , .. ~ '; 1'; 0:: :: ::... .. ~ ~~.JtI' '! I; " . ... . .. '. g: ;7/ ':1'"...."" --Jr,'" -;:i. ' i . s' S ; I ~;: ~ I ~. ~ ~ !7Z~ 1 ~ ._-:..__~__/. . ! . ; ~ - ..... . .. ..,/ 't ..._. ~ '-- ~ ~....... MSE-=- 'ON~;:;MHDIH-; .-31.V1.SH3.LNI 's'f);;--;f H; . - -it "'-'n~~ ' ~" I ; t! =~~>. ~. "'-:I~~p ---=:; -:---.... J' .,:0-. - ~L j ~,d '~:::" '.:0-.' t ' ' ", . ".,\ :::~ ~ : .' , ! .. ~€): ,,- /I-~ ('I) ! f C,) 0 :1- C W Z 0 N >- W a: a: < w c CD Z 0 :3- 0 l- e CO < z W w Z ~ ...J a: \" w < ~ .... I ~ - I ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ --, 11-- 2; I ~i ~ ,. 'f ~ C-3 ZONE SOUTH OF SCHOOL OF BUSINESS " ~...,~ :t::t~~1 ,~. ...... . ~'\.... ?525 7524 ~'<\\'. . .9 7528 ~"<,:.. 7532 .~.."""''2.'' . .~ ... .. _...~._~. 7525 7524 7529 7528 75337532 -_..--- 7537 7536 ", . I "" "" "" 7529 7537 . I . I . . . . . II . I . . ~ ~..,.. ...." ~~ ~-t ~~....~. ~'" ...,. ~tf...~ .".~ <:'t\1t ~ ~'h, \ ~~~~ RAMP= 100 MERIDI N( .~ N 200 L o 200 400 Feet .. ----, 3-16-06 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 12 99 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAy 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: [E( ui ~G~ REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of a Cooperative Construction Agreement between Hennepin County and the City to receive County funds for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvement project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached agreement between Hennepin County and the City to receive County funds for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvement proiect. I II. BACKGROUND I Council approved the improvements proposed at 66th Street and Portland Avenue on October 25, 2005. The project anticipated receiving a $2.0 million grant from Hennepin County's Community Works Program. The attached agreement provides the City with these County funds. City staff is working with County staff to obtain additional funds from the same source for this project. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0509 County Coop Agmt , I A. POLICY I . Improvements to the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The County funds need to be secured to begin purchasing right of way needed for the road project. I C. FINANCIAL I . Approval of the cooperative construction agreement will provide the City with some of the funds needed to complete the intersection improvement project. I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not approve the agreement. This could delay acquisition of right of way or place an additional financial burden on the City by refusing to use County funds. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Cooperative construction Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield on the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Improvement Project. I VI. PRINe!? AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None anticipated. J~-{ Hennepin County Contract No. COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND INTERSECTION This Agreement made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1362, and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, on behalf of the Richfield Public Works Department. WHEREAS, by Resolution Nos. 9671 and 9672, the CITY approved a roundabout design and realignment of the intersection at 66th Avenue and Portland Avenue (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has designated funds for the Project in the 2006 Capital Project Budget; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has the authority to contribute to the Project pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 163 and SS 471.85, 471.59 and other applicable law; WHEREAS, the CITY has secured sufficient funds to complete the Project; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY wishes to contract with the CITY for construction of said Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereafter set forth, the COUNTY on behalf of the Department and the CITY agree as follows: c 1. Term and Cost of the Agreement. The CITY agrees to furnish services described in Section 2 during the period commencing August 1, 2006 and terminating December 31,2008, for an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00. 2. Services to be Provided. The CITY shall use all funds received under this Agreement ferlor the Project planning process and land acquisition and/or design, labor and materials required for construction of the Project. The CITY shall be solely responsible for securing all additional funds needed for completion of the Project. The CITY will be responsible for all phases of the Project, including land acquisition and relocation activities, design and construction. 3. Payment for Services. Payment for services shall be made directly to the CITY after completion of the services upon the presentation of a claim in the manner provided by law f;)~~ . governing the COUNTY'S payment of claims and/or invoices. The CITY shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered on forms which may be furnished by the COUNTY. Payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the invoice. . 4. Independent Contractor. The CITY shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent, representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The CITY is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The CITY represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the CITY or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the CITY under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the COUNTY, and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY. Any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law 'or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the COUNTY. The CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5. Data Privacy. The CITY, its officers, agents, owners, partnerS, employees, volunteers and subcontractors agree to abide by the,provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The CITY agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any claims resulting from the CITY's officers', agents', owners', partners', employees', volunteers', assignees' or. subcontractors' unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 6. Records - Availability/Access. Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 (as may be amended), the CITY agrees that the County, the State Auditor, the Legislative Auditor or any of their duly authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to' the accounting practices and procedures of the CITY and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained 2 1~-3 and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the contract and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation. 7. Liability. It is further understood that neither the COUNTY, nor its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner 'to the CITY for any claims, demands, judgments, fines, penalties, expenses, actions or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the herein described work by the CITY, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under the contract let by the CITY for the performance of said work; and the CITY agrees to defend, save and keep said COUNTY, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, judgments, fmes, penalties, expense, action or causes of actions and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereot) arising out of negligent performance by the CITY, its officers, agents or employees. 8. Merger and Modification. a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall orlly be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 9. Default and Cancellation. a. If the CITY fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the CITY's default is excused by the COUNTY, the COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for the COUNTY for delaying payment until the CITY's compliance. b. The COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to 'exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice. 3 I~-Y 10. Contract Administration. In order to coordinate the services of the CITY with the activities of the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Larry Blackstad, or his successor, shall manage this contract on behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the CITY. Kristin Asher shall be the contact person for the CITY. 11. Notices. Any notice or demand which must be given or made by aparty hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or.certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the.County Administrator with a copy to the originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent teto the City Manager at the address stated in the opening paragraph of the. Agreement. 12. Limited Scope of Aareement. This Aareement is intended only to address the responsibilities and liabilities of the parties with respect to the aareement of the Hennepin County Department of Housina, Community Works and Transitto provide fundina assistance for the Proiect. It is understood andaareed by the parties that this Aareement does not aovern the relationship between the CITY and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, or any other department of the County other than the Department of Housina, Community Works and Transit. relative to the Proiect. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 4 1d.-5' COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL CITY, having signed this contract, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this contract on the _ day of , 2006 and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: By: Assistant County Attorney Date: And: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Assistant County Attorney Date: By: Director, Department of Housing, Community Works & Transit Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its:Mayor And: Its: City Manager 5 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 13 100 . ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEP ARTMENTDIRECTOR REVIEW: Ef ri REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contracts for the 2006 Pavement Management Projects. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award of contracts for the following Pavement Management Projects: . Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of $229,198.21 for Sealcoating work to be completed in 2006. . VaHey Paving in the sum of $339,338.48 for Mill and Overlay work to be completed in 2006. I II. BACKGRO~ I Due to increases in the cost of oil and aggregate this year's Pavement Management Program had to be reassessed and reduced to match the funding available through the franchise fee revenue. Staff Recommendations: 1. Continue with the proposed sealcoat program area. Sealcoating the street before problems arise is the most cost-effective way to maintain the quality of the street. 0509PavementManagementContracts 2. Reduce mill and overlay program area to fit within budget limitations. One-third of the program was removed, reducing the 2.4-mile program to 1.6-miles. The mill and overlay program is essential in delaying high cost road reconstruction. 3. To avoid future program reductions consideration should be given to either increasing the franchise fee or to reallocating a larger portion of the existing franchise fee current funds to cover the increasing costs of the Pavement Management Program. Staff intends to move forward with the proposed program outlined above and suggests the franchise fee discussion take place during budget considerations. The City's Pavement Management Program is a detailed, comprehensive approach to maintaining the integrity of the streets within our responsibility, and why Richfield's streets, which have surpassed their years in life expectancy, are still in good overall condition. The Pavement Management Program was implemented in 1988. That policy direction was set to improve the quality of the roads within the City and maintain an acceptable roadway system for residents. Committing to and continuing the preventative maintenance program is essential to delay the high costs associated with the deterioration of the streets to the point of major repair. The franchise fee implemented in 2004 provides the bulk of the funding for the City's Pavement Management Program. Sealcoating has been the leading cost-effective technique for slowing the deterioration of our residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a thin coat of emulsified oil, and then covering it with buckshot sized rock. In 2000, the City started a mill and overlay program for streets in the worst condition. These roadways have deteriorated past the point where sealcoating remains effective in maintaining the surface integrity of the road and significant patching is needed every year. Because the base of these roads is still in good condition, the mill and overlay program offers a preventative maintenance strategy that delays a costly reconstruct of that road and also decreases immediate costs by reducing patching needs. This technique can add up to 20 years to the life of the roadway. In conjunction with regular sealcoating, the life of that roadway can be extended far beyond the intended life. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program. The program includes sealcoating for all City streets in five-year cycles, asphalt crack repair, and asphalt milling and overlaying. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Regular preventative maintenance techniques such as sealcoating and overlaying delays costly reconstruct projects. . Construction costs have gone up significantly since last year, mainly due to higher oil and aggregate prices, as well as diesel fuel and trucking costs. . Oil used for sealcoat increased from $0.86 in 2005 to $1.39 a gallon in 2006, an increase of over 60%. This year's sealcoat contract is 36% higher than in 2005. . Asphalt has increased from $31.00 in 2005 to $38.40 a ton in 2006, in increase of over 23%. This year's Mill and Overlay contract is 16% higher than 2005. I C. FINANCIAL I . The City Council identified 2006 franchise fee revenue for the following targets for expenditures: Street Maintenance Forestry City Hall ADA/Building Code Compliance Council Approved Annual Franchise Fee 2006 - B $ 490,000 20,000 200,000 $ 710,000 . Due to increased costs and lack of funds the Sealcoat and Mill & Overlay programs have been reduced. The Mill & Overlay project has been reduced by approximately $110,000 Uust over three-quarters of a mile). . If additional funds are allocated to the program the planned program can still be completed. . Additional work may be added or subtracted from the Sealcoating ,and Mill and Overlay contracts depending on actual cost of construction. I D. LEGAL I . When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $50,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of Richfield. . The advertisement for bid for all contracts was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on March 23; 2006 and in the Construction Bulletin on March 24, 2006. . A bid opening was held on April 11, 2006. A copy of the bid tabulations for each contract is attached. . The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award contracts to the lowest responsible bidders. . Pearson Bros. Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid within the sealcoating budget amounts. . Valley Paving submitted the lowest responsible bid within the mill and overlay budget amounts. [ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Council may chose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the prices received for both contracts were competitive, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. . Council may chose not to continue with the Pavement Management Program as planned. However, the program is essential to maintaining and extending the usable life of the City's streets. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . A copy of the April 11 , 2006 Sealcoating Bid Tabulation. . A copy of the April 11, 2006 Mill and Overlay Bid Tabulation . A map depicting the 2006 Sealcoating and Overlay project/contract areas. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None lo-J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 11, 2006 10:45 am 2006 Bituminous Sealcoat Construction Bid No. 06-01 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution NO.1 015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2006 bituminous sealcoat construction, bid no. 06-01, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 23,2006 and the Construction Bulletin on March 24, 2006. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Derick Anderson, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bond Total Bid Amount Allied Blacktop Co. Provided $235,192.71 Astech Corp. Provided $302,071.45 FahrnerAsphalt Sealers, Inc. Provided $401,285.39 Pearson Bros. Inc. Provided $229,198.21 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 9, 2006 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk f 3- d- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 11, 2006 11 :00 a.m. 2006 Mill and Overlay Bid No. 06-02 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution NO.1 015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud bids for 2006 Mill and Overlay, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 23, 2006 and the Construction Bulletin on March 24, 2006. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Derick Anderson, Public Works Director Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Present: Bidder's Name Bond Total Base Bid ACE Blacktop Inc. Provided $348,490.60 Bituminous Roadways Inc. Provided $397,467.40 C. S. McCrossan Inc. Provided $376,178.60 Hardrives Inc. Provided $371,263.10 Midwest Asphalt Corp. Provided $388,068.58 NW Asphalt Inc. Provided $355,978.22 Valley Paving Inc. Provided $339,338.48 FPI Paving Contractors Inc. Provided $380,710.40 DMJ Corp. Provided $399,900.70 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 9,2006 Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk @ B (j) (j) ~ (j) ~ \' rCl~-cc~~l-~~~=b~f=c~~'=-~l ..1\ XERXES 3~\if'\,--_I'---JC1- =_JL__]IIL-------IL-JJ~~:---=:'> - IJ~~ XERXES \~r \\---I~!I--l;--- Inr--li-i!ii-- -lllr-~-- 'I'[-------'r \\\\ I~''...---'i? :!____-'L~I 0 ~~. II ILJ. '---_,I. -lL-__-.lI, ..-==--"-;=---~-, Ir--". ,,~:JLJI ILi_ t) ...-ii...!ji........... Iii i.-1L. __J- L IL~L~~~ IL]l., 1i-----,r---7 ;;= 1 I I' '1- ~~.I\-r---~ _ \' L-J~__~! ~~t:-J--- _ j_jl_ll-_il IL~1 \\=-_J -~I \el JL-.-JL::Jj~L-JnnLJi-JI - JCJL \L-IL_~ ~ ~ In! iL='\ lL~CJI lni--lf ii J~r'r!~--ll ~ ~ ;~ ~ Ii (1'[ ~~~~-JI !lJI~ J,L -~~~Lc~[~p--l: ~I \~ II ,dL---jL~1 :i . L-__L IL-~ul-~ -11 'I' I ---1 ~ Ii I) - :lIi-jl !, ~l~ ,- ir---Ifl II I PENN =o==D----~~_-.---JL--,L- ii ~I Ii. -,' -.---J1<===sL,=IL JL ~ ~~Ilr -I~[--ll Ii II_~ I __.---J L _-----.J L-.... ;1 ! ~C::JCJ[~~ 'iCil ~' " r 1!1 II I !~ lL--,I-.-J~1 I C_~I Jc:=JO II I CJL Jc:=Ji !, Ii [ .ICJiiL I, I t=JL _J [::'JI - r--1[r-: 1-------: I i I I_.-J~c~ iC-1LJe--JiJj r--i r----,"---------; 1- PENN @ - ~ I \b-C:==-=--I~I' ~~-'\(iI 0-_ II! ~ ,'--- ----~~-L ~i !8:= i C-':17 5 10 ~ __~ 0 ~~ il c --=i ~__~___"I ~ ~ Ii I ~J~_~D~ I \11 ~-~ ~c_ 1...J I C--],~~~-~i III ~11~~-~\Db J'Ui,r L lc-rnDl~: i~~'CL . Iii! t='-~b- H11!L.JL-- !HI 1c=J: C7 L---JIl~ li\i \j~ -'-_10 \ lLJ1c:J1 L JC] I~--=~~-~~ II \111 J:c- __ ~c~ ~ IL !:L Il lii' Ii I! Il JI Iii J fll NICOLLETJ! - ''-------' -,_..--J -" ---.-JL------==::;L L___IL--I --- Lc::s-~Cl= ' W~~C;i ic::JW=--l~__~c-=:Jlll__~CJ~L_=L -~c:--- 1) 1( lilL-~L IW~~'1 I~~! -=11 Wc=J~~ :~ -~ ~I fr_~L_-.JL_.JL-.J~~--~b---~I~lL::~I-_Jc:=J~j~-!s- _Jj II~l ~b~L _'==~L~L__..JL-_-J~_--_'Ci:~I-=:JCJ~-~-- B @: ~\ I: :1 :liillii i[il--------;r--~~~i'-J-~i Ic='i ---,~I ~, _ 1\ I ~--_,L_-~'_-=,-_..J ____~I____'L____...JL-- II, \):- ~I .1\ \ 1 ,---' Ii' -,~ ,----, ,- r----lr--II--~,-~ '" ---',------- -'I ~I 1IL_--J L-=-.J~_~\__!i -~ _.JL____:...._ ~ '-_____ll__~ =:fJ r\\L..... il , I II ir------', I~-,,------~-,--~ ~ -- , 'i ~L.._I'____~I _L__JL___JI__;: :L_....Jl___ 1\ -'Jj '\ Ii I~r--~I Ir-~r-----l~I" I'-~---- PORTLAND~ I~~~I__.JL-_~L___~L-==-.J!--=~IL_II___----.JI JL - - 'IL- I I!t il l~!c=J1 Ii I[ If l!~1 1'--11 II I 1\ !lrL' -Ii -~l~- -j~~I~~--==lr-=..J!I'I-=lF=--=-~IiJF=-l11 ~ \1 II !1~~:--~r===j~-~i4i==--~F-=---I'--=iF==---~!ll-1 r\ N III Illrr i~ II ;:-~f---ll- -i~\~;l -~~I~i ~ _ ' . -.-J IL_J I__I~L~ L.......-, L. ----" L-__ L-----.J -----~ I___.....JL____ ...II 'n "==--I~,--,I-Ji-lr--'IiI~II~J,---l II ! _..----J l-.----J L-.J L___ l_...---1 '-~L_____II__II_---' ,- L-.----J i ill 111 --l:-!r----lil -li~l-l ! Iii Il~ iL11 !c:J~l_~1 !~ --J __~~~L--.JL ,_ " [&] 12th J ,LJ. L:~CJL ICJ. I. IDL~l__JC__:L_Jc:JL IL-il~l, 7.'-illlir--l'-----,,-~I-i,--Ir-I[--lCJIIII~~! 11\\ ( lir.r -i.H~ \ i,-- li~ ~L_ ~,--coji ~1~n:Hi 4r-'i \\ 1t--lII\~f--JI--3^~~_-cj~Jic~~f~- if ~i[ !imcl~ II -j=l~ !I I,(I-li-----I~,~'---II- ~I 11r=-~r- l'i__jl_,IL__J'--.J~. .L-_--.--1.CJ L_J~- i-=:JCJI_-.Jl_.-J".-------.JL__-.:L_ ,-1!"'=-,I~,~I--11I~'~r---!c-l,----,III-,1I1i . 1\ i\ 'l-...J ~.~--JMI. I.' -!,.L.3.~V.~.rlF==;~ 1~~HI=l~-=lr=-~J dJ ~ Ii l_J~,,_JL~l-------!.,<vj'----,_-JL-JL-----.-J IL-_II__...~-, ~I. \: ~~ Ii j~-J~~=j^{J! __j~l- J[_J~~.~ j~-~ ""'~ 'LII. II Ii" ,I I, J~'I---II- 'i I I' @] K----lL.----J~L___"!1 _ .~ --_-==J-==Jf=--JL JL..... =~= CEDAR V ~ ~ ~ @] -~ ~ ~ r ::s r~ )>0 ^O r110 - L YNDALE [\ 1\= Il [- NICOLLET ~ ~ PORTLAND ===-- @] rrl Z GJ Z rrl ~rrl ,;0 N- oZ OGJ O'l o < (f) o Z r ~ ~!: IT1 r- m r- G") ('") ;:tI r- I'"M o s;::: Qo '" ~ '< Z o o s:-I ~-< z ~O ~." ~;:;a m -u0 ~J: ffi." () -im en. e - oJ \ ()J ~.z tJ:j AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINRSS AGENDA ITEM # 1 4 REpORT # 101 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAy 9, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Authorize staff to execute a contract to conduct a community opinion survey to determine community interest in a community center facility as a joint venture between the City and School District. 1. . RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize staff to execute a contract, not to exceed $17,000.00, with the Center of Community Opinion to conduct a community opinion survey to determine community interest in a community center facility as a joint venture between the City and School District. I II. BACKGROUND City Council invited Richfield School Board to a joint meeting on February 6,2006 to discuss potential interest in investigating the feasibility of constructing a joint community center. Staff was instructed at the meeting to organize a small pre-planning group to begin studying the project and to arrange a community opinion survey. The following staff were assigned to the team: Jim Bradley, School Business Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; Marlene Evenson, School Architect; Rus 0509 Community Survey Contract George, School Supervisor of Building & Grounds; Todd Olson, School Athletic Director; and Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director. The Community Center Pre-Planning Team has begun their task of making preparations to conduct an opinion survey regarding the community's potential interest in a joint community center with ISD #280. The attached performance specification was sent to a number of consultants and three proposals were received to conduct a survey in early June. The Pre-Planning team analyzed the proposals, the findings of which are summarized on the attached tabulation. The Pre-Planning Team selected the Center for Community Opinion as their recommendation based upon the following rationale: The Center for Community Opinion's proposal was most complete including a not to exceed cost, favorable survey length and indication that the survey sample should include only registered voters. The School Board has contracted with the Center of Community Opinion i~ the past and has been pleased with the results. On May 1, 2006, the School Board approved a motion to authorize the administration to select a survey consultant to develop a community survey to determine community interest in a community center facility as a joint venture between the City and School District. The School Board indicated that they would pay for 50% of the cost of the survey. If authorized, staff will execute a contract to conduct a random phone sample of 400 registered Richfield voters to be completed by July 1, 2006. The consultant will have until May 17 to draft a set of survey questions with the help of the Pre-Planning Team. So that the survey questions do not go public before the survey is completed, the set of draft questions will be sent to the School Board and City Council in advance for review. The consultant will modify the questions based upon individual feedback from Council/Board members. A proposed joint meeting to present survey results with City Council and School Board is scheduled on July 17, 2006, 5:30 p.m. at the School District Offices. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . It is appropriate for staff to receive authorization from City Council before entering into a contract with a consultant of this magnitude. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The School District is challenged by the condition of two aging pools, both requiring significant upgrades and in jeopardy of catastrophic failure. They are seeking pool improvement alternatives at this time, one of which is a joint facility with the City to include a new pool(s). I C. FINANCIAL I . The not to exceed cost of the recommended consultant is $17,000. The School District has agreed to fund up to half the cost of the survey. The remaining cost of the survey would be funded from source determined through the revised 2006 budget. . I D. LEGAL . None I ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . City Council has the option to select another consultant. . City Council has the option to reject the proposals and not pursue a community survey at this time. I IV. ATTACHMENTS . Performance Specification . Consultant Evaluation Tabulation . Three Proposals Iv. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Pre-Planning Team I~-I PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION COMMUNITY SURVEY SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION A. OBJECTIVE The purpose of the Performance Specification is to solicit proposals from consulting firms to conduct a community survey among Richfield residents. The goal is to obtain information from citizens regarding their reaction to the creation of a community center to be jointly constructed and operated by the City of Richfield and Richfield Independent School District #280. The City and School propose to obtain this information from an accurate random sample survey. B. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield has attempted a referendum election for the construction of multi- purpose community center in the recent past. The City contracted a consultant to conduct a community survey of 400 randomly selected residents in 1997 regarding a variety of City services and issues. A portion of the survey gathered, feedback on the construction of a community center, the extent of willingness to pay for it through a bond referendum, and desired amenities included in such a facility. Survey results indicated that 75% of the respondents favored the construction of a new community center. The survey indicated that these respondents would be willing to pay $32.80 annually to support construction and partial operating costs. A referendum election was conducted in 1999 and the community center proposal failed. ISD #280 is currently is faced with the need to replace one or both of their aging indoor pool facilities and has the means to fund a significant capital expenditure through proceeds of the recent sale of surplus facilities. The School currently operates two pools and could conceivably redirect ongoing operating funds as well as initial capital repair/renovation dollars from the old pools to support the operations of a new pool. The School Board and City Council are now considering a joint facility to use together. With the help of the School, a proposal to construct and operate a joint facility has the potential to cost Richfield residents considerably less than the proposed facility in 1999. It is the desire of the School and City to determine the community's reaction to such a proposal. C. CONTACT Please address all correspondence regarding this Performance Specification to Jim Topitzhofer, Director of Richfield Recreation Services Department, 7000 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423. D. INCURRING COSTS The City of Richfield and Richfield Independent School District #280 are not liable for any costs incurred by the prospective firms prior to signing the contract. Performance Specification Page 2 1 t./- ~ E. SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Qualifications 2. Completeness of Proposal 3. Commitment to Complete the Tasks within the Required Timeframe 4. Cost for the Services F. PROPOSAL DEADLINE Proposals musts arrive at the Recreation Services Department office at 7000 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, on or before 4:30 p.m., April 14, 2006. G. DISCLOSURE All information in submitters' proposal except the analysis is subject to disclosure under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 "Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. " H. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS The City of Richfield and ISD #280 reserves the right to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part and to waive any formality or technical defects in the best interest of the City and School. Selected individuals or firms will be given the opportunity to discuss in more detail their qualifications and past experience with similar projects and proposed timeframe to accomplish a task. SECTION II - PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION A. DETERMINE THE BEST METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A COMMNITY SURVEY Consultant will be responsible for obtaining information from the City and School staff to determine what the potential questions will be on a community survey, and to determine what format the questions in the survey should be given in order to determine most accurately how people feel about those questions. The general topics to be addressed include: 1. Would residents support the construction of a joint community center? 2. What is the financial threshold that residents are willing to pay for the construction and partial operations of a joint community center? 3. What amenities and uses should be included in a joint community center? 4. When would residents use the facility and how often? B. DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS The consultant will be responsible for meeting with the pre-planning team to develop a draft: survey to address those particular issues that would be reviewed by the City Council and School Board. The consultant will be responsible for developing survey questions. Performance Specification Page 3 J tf-3 C. PROVIDE A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY The consultant will proved a realistic timeframe to complete survey questions, collect and interpret data, and to present findings. D. DESIRED DEADLINE FOR SURVEY COMPLETION The desired deadline to complete data collection and present findings and recommendations is July 1, 2006. SECTION III - INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ALL PROPOSALS A. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. State the name and the address of the individual(s) who will perform the work. 2. Manpower - include the number of personnel by qualification that will be employed in the work. 3. State history of the firm, in terms of the length of the existence. B. P AST INVOLVEMENT WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS List specific types of experiences your firm has had in developing and designing similar surveys for municipalities and/or school districts. List the name ofthe person responsible for completing the survey that is referenced. C. QUOTATION FEE State your firms not to exceed fee for the tasks listed in Section II, and include all travel expenditures within this not to exceed fee. List the types of services included in your proposal. D. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATOR Include the name and phone number of the individual in the organization authorized to negotiate the proposed contract with the City of Richfield and ISD #280. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMMENTS Include any other information that you believe to be pertinent and not specifically asked for in this performance specification. F. BACKGROUND INFORMATION To assist the consultant with determining an appropriate scope of services, a copy of the 1999 survey and summary will be provided upon request. >- w > 0:: :::J en ~ Z :::J :E :E o 00 Cz ..JO::U) !:!:!OC LLOC J:enN ~zaj Wii2 0 ::: 0:: - .- ol-a LL~<( en..J WW oen :> 0:: W en I- z <( I- ..J ::> en z o u I'-/-- '0 ~~ :g o.CI) Eo - co c ::s IV > C (;) 0 C Ill" 'E CI) (;) 8o~ G) N E ~ ~ 1'-.- 69- r-- 0 CI) N 1Il- ..... ..... :g (1)o. ..... ~ ,,- I >- E ~ 69- ~ C.!!! (;) >- ::s IVOl ..... 0 ~ CI) (.) ..., (;)~ (;) 'O:t III CI) >- ~ Q) CI) Q) I:: Q) ~ 2 .... Q) CI) ~ .E~ u (1)....!. 0- -gjgCi "0 0.' .... "OEQ)Q) Cl101:)..Q ..c:(J~E ~CU:J ~ - .S I:: I 06 III I:: ..... CI) CI) CI) >- Q)8 o a oq- '0 M ~ ~ o ~~ " o.CI) III CI) Oeo Eo - I'-.~ CI) IV co CI:l > - (J (;) "",,,,,,-~ Ill" ::s :c (;) C") 69- 0 C N ""'-.8 - E ~ "E C C") 0 CI) (;) - .....O~ ,,- 0 69- 0 C.!!! ..... z c;QM l!! Ol -oq- CI) C\I ~ 69-(0 (;)~ (;) ~ 'O:t ~ ~ Q) Q)0l '0 o~ :s. Q) CI) 1:):s. Q.1Il " CI) Q) co E" 10 . l.;. .... co CI) ~ 0 Q) C IV- (J (;) 0 C III 0 (;) ~ 6 .~ ~ E (;) ~ 0 u't J:: :c co CI) t:: Ol Q.:;::; N E CI) C 1IlQ.Q)~E "",-69-oq- o III ..... ,,::S - III (1)Eo(:lQ)co~ ..... ~ C 0 0 CI) >- 69- ~ >- >-oCl)1:)CI)5 :; IVJ:: Z g~.g~CI) ~ ..., (;) -1--1::.... (;) :;:0 It) 01:;: I:: co Cl)Q. Q) CI) o co a a> .c ....... ~ a> ~ CI) ..... o ::s "0 t:: o o .8 ..... CI) o o Ci:i E 'i:: ~ C 0>- 0.. a> ::l > -0..... a> ::l f/) f/) C13 a> ..0..0 -o~ a> 0 -g >. a>.$ E~ E ~ 00 0-0 ~ a> ..... a> .- 0 a> >< :Sa> f/) 0 C13....... Co o C 'c C13 '0. 0> Oc >-:0 .......::l 'c 0 ::l C E'- E2 o a> . o 0.. ~ ..... E a> 00....... -00 .... > a>Ci)-o """'0 a> C E ..... a> a> of/)Ci) a> C13.- .c:s:o> ....... a> - ..... -oC13>- a>f/)_ .......OC ~o..o -oa> a>.....-o f/) 0.. ::l Ef/)- - 0 C13Cc a>.Q.- I-c-o .- ::l 0>0..0 .!: 0 .c C >- f/) C ~ a> C13c_ -::lo.. D;-EE ~ E C13 o..of/) a> 0 iD' .c.....> 1-0..... - ::l I ..... f/) c 2 a> OC.c .- a> ....... 1iSo1o "Ca>.c c.c....... (I) I- C E ...Q Ea>....... -C13 o ~ .2 00-0 (1).- C 0:: 10 .- c.....-g o 0> C13 .- C -.- .c o:s:....... (1)00> --C (I) 0 a> en__ oj< -Of/) a> C13 f/) -g:s:c -f/)O o a>'- coCi) 0._ a> o (: ::l Ea>O" cof/)_ a> ..... 0 .......a>..... a> Q) a> .c.......o I-e-E a> ::l --':cc C13 .- -0 f/) ..... a> 00....... 0.. - C13 e a> E 0.. e':;::; a> C13 f/) ..c..ca> .......oa> cc.c '- 0....... a> I a> e':g 10 C13 C13.2 ..ca>-o _0 .c .!: "01-....... a> 0 a> . C 02-oc >< C13.- a> a>.......-o> o f/) _ ._ .......-C130> .......Of/)c 0....... 0 0 C ::l 0.._ - oe1li C13 -0 0.. E a> a> ..... ..... 10 ~'Q).E o ..0 .c c .- 1-.- "0 f/) -0 .!: C13 >- c .......:s:a>::l 0.......>0 c C13 ..... ..... "O.c::lO> .- ....... f/) ~ "OCa>C13 >-C13..c..o a>.............. ..c"5_a> ......f/)o.c a>,-............ f/) .... f/) C ::l000 C13oOo.. OC13_::l a>.c ~-o ..o~t+=a> "O:S: of/) 2 O>~ C13 Oc........o a> .~ -0 >- -...... a> a>o>-> ~:s:=::; oo:.of/) c......C13a> f/)a>............ C13 0>.2 ~ :S:C13"O::l ..... C ~ 0 a> C13 0.. 0 .......>cC13 ~"O::lc Offia>C13 .c:o:5E e C13.!: 0 C13a>.....'!:: ~"O.9~ a>-ooo 0::"5.$...... ... 0 .....a>-o '" 0 a> ca>.c-o .Q ..... 0 a> 1Oa>ca> Z:5C13c a> ..c ~o .- c "Of/) C C13 ::l :s: .Ef/) f/) a> ..... ....... e ~ ......- a> E "Oc C ._ C13.c f/)....... 00> o..C >-a> .......>- a> a> CD (: :s: ::l 0) f/) .....-0 0) 0) .c ....... I-~ . 0> 0)0> ......::l a> f/) 0..0) E.c 0....... O.c Co> .- ::l "00 O).c ........... a>- -0 <( . .- 0> f/) . C C C 0 00_ 0:;::; 0 f/) .9- 0 C13........... :> 0 a> :>f/)..o -0) C13"O"O f/) -0 ::l 000 0.. .c :> 0...... :> c..0)>- a> E ~ .c .!:::: ...... ......a>-- a>.c f/) f/) ....... C ::l C 0 C13'-._ Of/)Ci) a> ..... a> ..o2::l "000" a> > I ......-00 o a> (0 a> ..... C13 a> 2...... f/) f/) C13 ........- .c o 0>...... c~"O f/) 0 a> C13......."O :S:a>..;:! . 0 0 o c c c a> 0 -.....0 en ~ E a> a> ... o ..... '" ..... 0 a> ::lc...... o a> f/)-O.c a>c...... 0::C13-ci" c C13 a> o f/) f/) 'en 0 0 '0 g- ~ a> ......_ o 0..-0 (tf- 5' A Proposal for a Community Survey Prepared for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Friday, April 14, 2006 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion It.f-G A Community Survey Proposal An Introduction to the Services We Offer We value and appreciate this opportunity to present you with material concerning our services as community research and data specialists. Springsted and The Center for Community have partnered in order to offer clients survey research tools will provide you with the knowledge and insight needed to plan and successfully present tax proposals to your community. In this proposaL you will find a description of the specific services we offer. With this description, you will find a cost for our services and a proposed time line for the completion of a research project designed to meet your needs. After this information, you will find background material on both Springsted and The Center for Community Opinion. Our survey research services are unique. We offer you the individual attention required to win a tax election as we select a sample and craft a questionnaire to meet the unique needs of your district. We also offer our experience working with the Richfield Independent School District to plan and present a number of successful tax proposals over the last four years. We look forward to an opportunity to put our experience to work for you. J. Bradford Senden, Partner, The Center for Community Opinion Marcia Allington, Partner, The Center for Community Opinion Don Lifto and Terri Heaton, Senior Vice Presidents, Springsted Incorporated Page 1 Springsted The Ce1lteT For Community Opinion Jcf- 7 A Community Survey Proposal Survey Basics The questionnaire we will design for the City of Richfield will explore community reaction to the scope and cost of a bond proposal to build a multi-use community center in a joint-use project with ISD #280. It will also explore voter satisfaction with City programs and services. The questionnaire will be developed in a manner that allows broad-based district input. By encouraging such input. we create a truly unique survey instrument. The questionnaire will collect the data needed to answer questions about election timing, community tax tolerance and the scope of proposal to be presented to the community. The sample will be carefully prepared so that any regional differences of opinion in the City are measured carefully. Full community and voter file demography will be developed before interviewing begins to further confirm the validity of the survey's results. Before interviewing begins, a team of professional phone interviewers will be assembled. The characteristics of the team will be matched to the characteristics of the voting population of the district. The questionnaire will be field tested before formal interviewing begins. The supervisors in charge of the interviewing team will de-brief each interviewer in order to make sure that each question is collecting data as planned. Once interviewing begins, the work of each member of the interviewing team will be closely monitored by the team of supervisors in order to make sure that consistent, professional data collection is achieved. Once interviewing is completed, a report to the client is prepared. It will include a prose report that presents our recommendations concerning the timing, scope and content of the proposal to be placed before local voters. With the report the City will receive a complete set of cross tabulation Page 2 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion Jt.f-~ A Community Survey Proposal reports. These reports are designed to be "user friendly" and easy to read by individuals who do not have formal training in statistics. Finally, a graphic report is prepared f.or the district. Survey data and our recommendations are combined in clear, concise graphics to be presented by either Don Ufto or J. Bradford Senden. During and after the presentation of this material, we invite questions about the survey i~ order to make sure that at the end of the process the City is fully informed and fully prepared to place the right proposal on the ballot for voter .consideration. Page 3 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion J t.f-9 A Community Survey Proposal Survey Cost Options To explore voter reaction to a bond proposal to build a multi- use community center, we recommend that a survey based on 400 completed interviews using a questionnaire that includes approximately 40 questions. The margin of error achieved with 400 interviews provides an acceptable level of precision for the planning of a school finance election. The basic features of such a survey would be: If our proposal is accepted, Don Lifto (651-223-3067) will be authorized to negotiate contract details with the City for Springsted and The Center for Community Opinion. 1 When and by whom results will be presented will be determined when it is possible to begin to schedule exact dates and times for such an event. Page 4 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion / Lf -[ 0 A Community Survey Proposal A Time Line The following time line assumes that you engage our services in May 2006. It is a suggested time line and can be adapted to meet the specific needs of the District. Tentative Date Activity 8-May-06 Begin background research by outlining information needs to the City; Receive and review background information. 19-May-06 City receives first draft of the questionnaire. A time is scheduled to review and revise. Revised questionnaire is sent to the City for review and more discussion. 31-May-06 Target date for approval of final questionnaire language 3-June-06 Start to conduct interviews. 20-June-06 Preliminary results sent to the City. 27-June-06 Report presented to the City. Page 5 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion 1 <-/-11 A Community Survey Proposal The Center for Community Opinion (Voice) 800-827 - 1466 (FAX) 800-827-1046 The Center for Community Opinion, the research division of Political Designs, offers quality demographic, market and survey research to individuals, businesses, institutions and government agencies. The Center works in partnership with Springsted to provide clients with scientific survey research. Each survey is preceded by careful background research and attention to detail as survey questions are developed. The results and analysis provide valuable information that promotes .sound decision-making in areas such as policy development, market planning and campaign strategy. Working with school districts, libraries, community colleges and cities, The Center has provided survey research skills that have helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars through voter-approved General Obligation bonds. Our survey research provides the predictive tools required when communities ask local voters to allow them to build the schools, libraries, storm drains and other facilities needed to maintain and enhance the quality of life. There are two principals in The Center are Dr. J. Bradford Send en and Marcia Allington. They work directly on all projects accepted by The Center for Community Opinion. Dr. Senden holds an earned Ph.D. from Indiana . University and a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania. His experience working with schools, colleges, libraries and cities covers more than sixteen years and has involved him in projects in communities in all parts of Page 6 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion JLf-/~ A Community Survey Proposal California. His survey research techniques provide highly accurate, predictive data. The quality of the surveys he has conducted for referenda, candidates and issues is built on his detailed knowledge of how the information from such a survey will be used, whether it is used in order to win a two- thirds election or as part of a good decision making procedure. The results have been used to help build projects ranging from classrooms and libraries to local streets, roads and drains. MS. Allington has a B.S. from the University of Nebraska and came to polling and campaign work after a distinguished career as a teacher and Administrator of a K-8program for gifted students. Her community organizing skills have developed through building statewide support groups for education issues and numerous political campaigns including school bond and parcel election campaigns in California. Her work as a market researcher for national service providers using demographic data from census and commercial sources enhances the quality of the information provided by one of our surveys. Page 7 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion 1 cf-/3 A Community Survey Proposal Springsted, Inc. (Voice) 651-223-3027 (FAX) 651-268-5067 S pringsted, Inc., is one of the largest and most established independent public sector advisory firms in the United States. For over 50 years, we have continually grown in the range of our client relationships, the comprehensiveness of our services and our prominence within the industry. Our managed growth is focused on providing clients with a . balance of national perspective and local expertise. Organizational effectiveness and human resource productivity are essential in the current environment. Springsted I s staff has been advising our clients in these areas for over 25 years. Most recently we have added scientific, random sample surveys to our planning services in collaboration with The Center for Community Opinion. This tool provides our clients with qualitative information and reliable data from which to plan and make decisions. ~)\ ...."l:l3~ofPl Don E. Lifto, Ph.D" is a senior vice president and client representative with Springsted. He will be the lead staff person to manage this project. Prior to his work at Springsted, he was superintendent of Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, and served in other administrative and teaching positions for 33 years. Dr. Lifto' s dissertation study was titled, "Factors Affecting the Outcome of School Bond Referenda in Four Districts." His articles have been published in a variety of national journals including The School Administrator, American School Board Journal, Electronic School, School Business Affairs, Managing School Business, and Minnesota School Boards Association Journal. Lifto has presented election research and strategy at numerous professional meetings and universities. His work at Springsted includes Page 8 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion ltf-l~ A Community Survey Proposal consulting With clients doing survey research and facilitating planning for bond and operating levies. Terri Heaton, CPA, MBA, is a senior vice president and client representative with Springsted, serving as a principal advisor to cities and counties. Ms. Heaton has over 21 years of experience in local government finance. Prior to Springsted, she served as Chief Financial Officer for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota, where she was instrumental in facilitating the issuance of bonds, both competitive and negotiated. Her efforts helped to improve the City's credit rating, ultimately earning Aaa/ AAA bond ratings from both Moody's and Standard & Poor's. She serves clients in the Midwest, assisting them in attaining their financial goals through effective public finance, economic development, operational and structural alignment and developing strong human resource teams. Page 9 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion (1 tf-/~ A Community Survey Proposal Some Recent National Presentations by Drs. Lifto and Senden. "Precinct 5: How Data Turned an Election Defeat to Victory." Presented at the National School Boards Association national convention in San Diego, California - 2005 "Adding Value to Member Districts: Regional Planning Tools." Presented at the Association of Educational Service Agencies national convention in Phoenix, Arizona - 2004 "Turn Your Election Failure to Success!" Presented at the Association of School Business Officials International national convention in Cincinnati, Ohio - 2004 "Data Driven Decision Making for School Finance Elections? Yes!" Presented at the National School Boards Association national convention in Orlando, Florida - 2004 "School Finance Elections." Presented at the Association of School Business Officials International national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina - 2003 . "Comprehensive Planning Model for School Bond and Operating Levies." Presented at the National School Boards Association national convention in San Francisco, California - 2003 "November 6, 2001...Budget Battles at the Ballot Box." Presented at the Association of School Business Officials International national convention in Phoenix, Arizona - 2002 "Drivers of Successful Bond and Operating Levies...Q4C at the Foundation" Presenter at the Association of School Business Officials International national convention in Baltimore, Maryland - 2001 Page 10 Springsted The Cer>rer For Community Opinion tL?-/& A Community Survey Proposal Recent publications by Drs. Senden and Lifto School Finance Elections: A Comprehensive Planning Model for Success published by Scarecrow Press in March 2004. "Watch Your Language! Words to win by in your next school finance election" scheduled for publication in The School.Administrator, American Association of School Administrators, February, 2006. "The Case of Precinct Five" published in The American School Board Journal, April 2005. "Finding the Secret to Success on the Examination Table of Elections Past" published in The School Administrator, American Association of School Administrators, January 2004. "Finding Success at the ,Ballot Box" published in Managing School Business, Volume 7, Issue 22, February 2003 "Concentric Canvassing..~.Finding Success from the Inside Out" published in School Business Affairs, Association of School Business Officials International, November 2002 "Budget Battles at the Ballot Box" published in MSBA Journal, Minnesota School Boards Association, February - March 2002 Page 11 Springsted The Center For Community Opinion 11-/7 A Community Survey Proposal References Specific to Survey Clients Eden Prairie Public Schools Melissa Krull, Acting Superintendent 952-975-7000 Hastings Public Schools Tim Collins, Superintendent 651-437-6111 Richfield Public Schools Barbara Devlin, Superintendent 612-798-6011 Spring Lake Park Public Schools Don Helmsteller, Superintendent 763-783-5600 White Bear Lake Area Schools Ted Blaesing, Superintendent 651-407-7564 City of Fremont, California Fred Diaz , City Manager 51 0-284-4000 City of San Mateo, California K. G. Ouye, City Librarian 650-522-7802 City of Lafayette, California Steve Falk, City Manager 925-284- 1 968 City of Menlo Park, California David Boesch, City Manager 650-858-3360 City of Walnut Creek, California Gary Pokorny, Arts, Recreation and Comm Services Director 650-858-3360 t!. l':l'"1 . ~ ,G -.) -e (Mo.f-L ) ~A . A"'..Jt ~ .~ lf~~. ~ ~ --~f) "'rag~;2 ~,.;76t S. td ~~. . ~2-~...11;) P r I n g 5 e A-J p~ (,)AJ~t.l'- ~ IV' i.S(2.N--lQ ~ ~ ~~ The Center FOT n ~ Community Opinion .n. . J tJA.. ,~ ~ {).e. J . f< (i ~ .~1J"l).~ "b ~"'(..-" LL1 Y;:"'f? .... . /4-/ 8 Ci1y of Richfield Communi1y Center SUNey Proposal April 13, 2006 .....- NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Inc. National Research Center, Inc. 3005 30m St., Boulder, CO 80301 · t: 303.444.7863 · f: 303.444.1145 · www.n-r-c.com -- NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Inc. 14-/ 9 Jim T opitzhofer, Director Recreation Services Department Re: Community Survey RFP 7000 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 April 13, 2006 Dear Mr. T opitzhofer and members of the proposal evaluation team, On behalf of National Research Center, Inc., I am pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Richfield for the survey about resident opinion about anew community center. Within the proposal you will find a synopsis of our approach to the survey project and detailed qualifications of NRC. NRC has extensive experience conducting community surveys in the areas of parks and recreation for 10ng- range and strategic planning. Weare a social science research team specializing in the survey research needs of the public sector. We are known nationally for our expertise in survey research methods. Over the last twelve years, NRC and the project manager assigned to this project have worked on scores of surveys designed to assess resident opinions about facility amenities and residents' willingness to pay. Besides our methodological rigor, we are known by our clients for our flexibility, creativity and our collegial approach to partnership. We also have experience working in and with local governments, so we have a unique understanding of the processes and pressures at play to bring a credible piece of survey research to board members, government staff and elected officials. In this response to your RFP, we propose a phone survey of 400 residents at large or registered voters. If you select NRC, we expect to work with you to modify our work plan, reducing or rearranging costs if needed to reflect the key priorities and resources of Richfield staff and elected officials. Please call uS with any questions you may have. We look forward to speaking with you about this exciting and important project. Kindest regards, ;?Z:Jl1t&; Thomas 1. Miller, Ph.D. President National Research Center, Inc. 3005 30th St., Boulder, CO 80301 · t: 303.444.7863 · f: 303.444.1145 · www.n-r-c.com IL/~;;Lo Table of Contents A. Professional Qualifications......................................................... .......... ..................... 1 B. Past Involvement with Similar Projects....................................................................... 1 Community Facility SUNey Experience ...................................................................................................1 Scope of Work.................,........................................,...............,..... ... ... ............... ,...................................3 Sampling..............,.............................................,......,............................................................. ................3 Registered Voters....................................................................................................................................3 All Adult Residents................................................... ................................................................................4 SUNey Instrument Development.............................................................................................................4 Telephone DataCollection Methods Used by NRC and Customer Research International (CRI).........4 Data Analysis..................................................... ......................................................................................6 Timeline .................................................................................... ............................................................... 7 C. Quotation Fee ........................................................................................................ 8 Deliverables............ ....... .., ... ................................................................................................. ................ ...9 Report of Results............................................... ..... ...............................................................,.............. .... 9 Final Electronic Dataset.............................................................. ...................................................,........9 PowerPoint Presentation...................................................................................... .......... ....... ................... 9 D. Authorized Negotiator.............................................................................................. 9 I E. Additional Information and Comments.................................................................. 1 0 NRC's reputation and normative database .........................................................................................10 The National Citizen SuNeyTM and ICMA ...............................................................................................10 NRC's Knowledge Leadership...............,............................................................................................. 1 0 NRC's BEST Practice Laboratory .............................................................................................................11 NRC's Learning Environment............................. ....... ........................................................................... .11 Rigor, Flexibility and Efficiency in Our Research Methodology ............................................................11 Our Research Professionals.................................................................................... ........... ...................1 2 Gathering Community Input - Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches..........................................12 Devotion to Excellence..............................................................,................... ................ ...... ,............... .12 Special Capabilities - Making it Make Sense.......................................................................................13 NRC's Citizen SUNey Clients Last Two years...........................................................................................14 Recreation and Facility Feasibility SUNey Experience...........................................................................15 F. NRC's Background Information: Sample Report.................................... ...............:.. 17 National Research Center, Inc. l City of Richfield, Minnesota 14--d) Community SUNey Proposal l i" A. Professional Qualifications .- National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) is located in Boulder, Colorado. Our contact information is as follows: National Research Center, Inc. 3005 30th Street Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: 303-444-7863 Fax: 303-444-1145 nrc@n-r-c.com We have been in business for 12 years and have 20 professional researchers on staff. Key staff assigned to this project are: Thomas I Miller, Ph.D., President Erin Caldwell, MSPH, Senior Research Associate and Project Manager Rachel Cooper, MA, Research Associate and Data Analyst B. Past Involvement with Similar Projects Community Facility Survey Experience NRC has extensive experience conducting recreation surveys (by phone, mail and in-person) and focus groups designed to estimate residents' willingness to pay for proposed capital projects. Often our surveys are done in anticipation of a bond election to permit expenditures for community or senior centers, recreation facilities or open space purchases. In addition, most of our "omnibus. citizen surveys" (surveys to assess residents use of and satisfaction with a broad range of items related to quality of life and quality of service delivery) include a few questions about use of parks and recreation facilities and satisfaction with services provided by a parks and recreation department. In addition, we have conducted many resident surveys devoted specifically to parks and recreation services and issues. These surveys ask participants about their engagement in various recreation activities, their familiarity with and use of parks and recreation facilities, and/or their satisfaction with park and recreation facilities and offerings (e.g., South Suburban Parks and Recreation District Survey, Town of Castle Rock Community Recreation Survey). Often the results from these surveys are used in creating or updating a Master Plan, and may also include questions about the types of offerings residents would like to see, or the priority placed on various types of facilities or potential new projects (e.g., Douglas County Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Survey, North leffco Park and Recreation District Customer Survey, Town of Castle Rock Community Recreation Survey). These surveys may also include questions about resident willingness to pay for certain types of activities or the use of specific facilities (e.g., City of Boulder 2001 Parks and Recreation Survey, City of Golden Parks and Recreation Survey). As a stand-alone survey (e.g., Westminster Parks Ballot Issue Survey, City of Boulder 1995 Parks Survey) or as part of a larger survey (e.g. Hyland Hills Recreation District Resident Survey, Foothills Park and Recreation District Resident Survey), support for or opposition to fee increases, bond initiatives, or tax increases to support parks and recreation may be evaluated. The in-person intercept user surveys we have overseen have been used to determine how and the extent to which city parks and recreation facilities, mountain parks or open space are being used (e.g., Boulder Mountain Parks Visitor Counts and Survey Project, Lakewood Open Space and Parks User Survey). We recently completed surveys for Walnut Creek, California and Thornton, Colorado to help determine the size and uses of their proposed community centers. National Research Center, Inc. I City of Richfield, Minnesota /l/- ;;) d.- Community Survey Proposal Thomas I Miller, Erin Caldwell and Rachel Cooper have been key staff members responsible for most of these survey projects. Because she would be project manager, Erin's bio is reported below. Erin Caldwell, MSPH,is a senior research associate at NRC. Erin has earned a master's degree in public health with an emphasis in research methods and statistics. Erin has designed and conducted scores of needs assessments, policy studies and program evaluations. She has published in The American Journal of Public Health on the health and quality of life of ethnic minorities living in Colorado's San Luis Valley. Erin has over 10 years experience as a senior researcher and research manager and has overseen and performed a variety of research in local government and human services. Erin has managed many ofNRC's parks and recreation studies, including the 2003 North Jeffco Parks and Recreation District Resident Survey and the 2004 South Suburban Parks and Recreation District Resident Survey. She also is currently managing the City of Boulder 2005 Parks and Recreation Survey. Erin will be the primary contact for this project. She will be responsible for specific oversight and quality assurance of the project, instrument development, data analysis and report writing. Ms. Caldwell's contact information is as follows: Erin Caldwell Senior Research Associate National Research Center, Inc. 3005 30th Street Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: 303-444-7863 crin@n-H:.com National Research Center principals have conducted and evaluated hundreds of surveys of residents for local government over the past 15 years. Because of this experience, we have an in-depth understanding of the time and logistical requirements for all steps involved in the survey process and we also are knowledgeable about the obstacles that can throw a project off course. We have encountered and solved many problems over the years. When we commit to a study time line and costs we meet the established goals. We help keep our projects on budget and on time by detailing the survey methods arid assumptioJ;ls in the proposal, working closely with the client throughout the process, and discussing with the client up-front the potential financial or time impact of a methodological change. The table in Section E. lists clients for whom we are performing or have performed similar projects. Below, four specific references for this proposal can be found: References: Teresa Cope Communications Director South Suburban Park and Recreation District Centennial, CO 80121 303-798-5131 Sarah M. DeSouza Policy and Information Services Manager Department of Parks and Recreation City of Boulder Boulder, CO 80304 303-413-7226 National Research Center. Inc. 2 ! City of Richfield, Minnesota 1 c.J-d 3 Community SUNey Proposal Faith Gregor North Jeffco Park & Recreation District Arvada, Colorado 80005 303-403-2516 . Renee Zeimer Special Projects Manager Arts, Recreation, Community Services Walnut Creek, CA (925) 943-5899 x503 Scope of Work National Research Center, Inc. offers budgets to conduct a 10 or 12 minute survey either of registered voters in Richfield or for a random digit dialed survey (ROD) sampling from all adult residents of Richfield (whether registered to vote or not).The survey will be designed to provide the Richfield City and Richfield Independent School District staff, council and board with public opinions useful for planning recreation programs and facilities with specific attention to the feasibility of the development of a community center. - We understand the City's interest in understanding resident perspective about this new plan for financing a community center after the earlier plan for a community center failed at the polls in 1999. We also are aware that the facilities and services included in a proposed community center will have an important influence on the public's support of its construction. Our job will be to design and implement the survey in such a way that it contributes optimally to your decision making process, along with the other sources of information that you will undoubtediy be considering (such as facility cost, available locations, etc.). We will guide you through the instrument development process, clarifying each question's purpose and discussing the utility of the data. We recognize that the City and District are in a planning phase, and will have some highly specific questions and some more exploratory or directional questions. Both will be important. Our goal will be to meet your expectations and needs and provide you with meaningful results about the opinions and attitudes of your residents. .- Key questions will identify residents' support for the joint center and the proposed method for covering its costs; threshold for their willingness to pay for the facility; amenities preferred for inclusion in the center and anticipated use of the center - frequency and time. NRC has extensive experience working with jurisdictions across the U.S.. We can send a senior NRC staff member to consult on site with the pre-planning team and present results at project end. We have provided estimates for those services. We also have completed many projects successfully from greater distances than we are from you. For example, we are currently conducting phone surveys in Honolulu and San Francisco. We have many clients on the East Coast and just have finished an in-person survey of 1200 residents of two cities in India. Below are the proposed research methods that would be used to obtain the City's and District's goals for this project Sampling Registered Voters All registered voters within the area of influence where the vote will be taken would be eligible for the registered voter survey. Households would be randomly selected from a registered voter phone list. Where National Research Center, Inc. 3 I City of Richfield, Minnesota jcf-:1Y Community SUNey Proposal voters have failed to include their phone number, we will run those addresses through a reverse-directory to capture those with phone numbers publicly available. In cases where more than one household member is a registered voter and eligible to participate in the study, a procedure to select the survey respondent without bias is used. We use the birthday method to select a registered voter at random within the selected household. The birthday method requests that the registered voter be the adult (18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday (irrespective of the year of birth). This methodology helps ensure the attitudes expressed by our respondent "sample" closely approximate the attitudes of all registered voters living in the City of Richfield. We also would re- weight the sample based on the current information available for all registered voters. All Adult Residents It is possible to sample from all adult residents of the community. By sampling from residents, whether registered to vote or not, we will include new arrivals to Richfield who have not yet registered and those who may register later. We use RDD sampling to include all households whether they have listed or unlisted numbers. Survey Instrument Development The survey instrument can be designed in conjunction with a representative from the City's Recreation Department and the school district as well as other city officials. The final questionnaire will receive approval by the appropriate board and council. In an appendix, we have provided an example report in the back of which is an example survey to which staff can react as a first step in developing the survey instrument, if desired. We would be happy to provide other examples upon request. Telephone Data Collection Methods Used by NRC and Customer Research International (CRI) Interviewer Training and Selection Interviewers are carefully trained to understand not only the specific meaning of the words in the questionnaire script, but also the broader purpose of the survey. Experienced supervisors are always on-site and available to interviewers. Calls are frequently monitored by supervisors and can be monitored by clients as well. Pre-testing helps considerably to ensure that the questionnaire is clear and unbiased; and it allows for editing ambiguous or stilted questions. Pre-testing also allows interviewers the opportunity to create effective responses to unanticipated respondent answers or questions. Verification is done for 10% of all completed interviews as a standard industry practice to assure the validity of the data. As an option, additional verification can be done. However, the extensive interviewer training and constant supervisor monitoring make such an added expense unnecessary. Data Coffectfon CaLL backs and scheduling interview times The firm dials each provided number 5-8 times, prior to being deemed "exhausted." A number is given a disposition within the CATl (computer aided telephone interviewing) program where the entire sample is managed electronically. Based on the assigned disposition, numbers are generated randomly for continued dialing throughout the project until each is turned into a completed interview or an exhausted number. National Research Center, Inc. 4 I City of Richfield, Minnesota ,4-:; 5 Community SUNey Proposal UnListed numbers Since the thousands of random numbers used to generate the sample are not generated from published phone books, residents with unlisted numbers have the same likelihood of being selected as those with listed numbers. Interrupted interviews (Mid-interview terminations) Virtually all interviews that are interrupted prior to completion are done so because the respondent discovers the time for continuing has become inconvenient. Interviewers are trained to use pre-developed "rebuttals" encouraging the respondent to complete the survey if at all possible since sparsely completed surveys are not used in the final results. If the respondent is adamant about not finishing, the interviewer is trained to request a more convenient time to complete the survey. If the respondent agrees, the interviewer creates a callback by manually entering the appropriate time and date for the continuation into the CATI system. When the scheduled call is due, the number is automatically inserted into the dialing sample so an interviewer may complete the survey with the respondent. Refusals Refusals are a natural part of any telephone survey. Different courses of action, depending on the developing refusal rate, are recommended. Should the refusal rate rise above 30% (a rough average but unlikely to be a problem with the kind of survey you are seeking) we suggest calling the number of an initial refusal back at least one more time on another evening. Years of experience have proven that most refusals stem more from the inconvenience of the time of the call than an unwillingness to participate. Taking refusal management a step further, interviewers are trained to separate refusals into two categories: hard and soft. Hard refusals (adamantly not interested or requests to be taken off the list) are not reinserted in the working sample. These numbers are pulled out of the sample permanently. Soft refusals are those where the respondent was very nice, but was unwilling to schedule an actual callback time. Soft refusals, when attempted again, are often converted into completed interviews. There is no extra charge for this procedure. Some clients, especially public clients, worry about offending potential respondents by appearing too aggressive with soft refusal call.backs. Prior to commencement, we can agree not to call any refusers. If the client decides later this may be necessary, depending on available numbers, etc., interviewers are trained to be extra sensitive in these situations. Tracking call dispositions A summary is provided of dispositions for every call attempt. Typical call disposition categories include: refusal; busy; computer tone; no answer; language barrier (other than Spanish if there is a Spanish element included in the study); disconnected; business/government; answering machine; mid interview terminate; scheduled callback; and completed. Respondent Confidentiality All responses are held in the strictest confidence. Respondent names are never associated with the answers provided on the survey. Only first names are captured for possible verification by a supervisor (lO%actually being called back). All responses are kept in our database by a unique numeric identifier only. National Research Center, Inc. 5 .-. .... I City of Richfield, Minnesota 14-;;;. ?:> Community Survey Proposal Data Entry Use of a CATI system means all collected data are entered into the dataset at the time of the interview. Skip patterns are programmed into CATI so interviewers are automatically "skipped" to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Before the data are analyzed, an in-depth cleaning of the data is conducted as part of the standard quality control procedures. Data Analysis The dataset provided to NRC is an ASCII fixed format. We use SPSS to define the data and create an SPSS dataset. Range checks (looking for values out-of-range; for example, if a question asks for a rating on an excellent, good, fair, poor scale, with a don't know option, we would assign a 1 to excellent, 2 to good, 3 to fair, 4 to poor and 5 to don't know; if one of the records had a value of 6 for this question, we would compare the electronic dataset against the physical survey form to correct the dataset) and other forms of data checking are employed (e.g., examining whether respondents correctly followed skip patterns). The data will be analyzed using SPSS, a statistical software package. Survey responses will be statistically re- weighted to reflect the greater population norms of registered voters within the City and park users within the area. Beyond the computation of basic descriptive statistics, key questions in the survey can be cross- . tabulated by respondent socio-demographic characteristics and/or local geography, particularly Council Ward. Results can be reported for questions in which residents from varying subgroups (e.g., users vs. non- users; residents vs. non-residents) hold (statistically significantly and meaningfully) different opinions. National Research Center, Inc. 6 I City of Richfield, Minnesota 74 -'d.1 Community Survey Proposal Timeline Developing a survey instrument is a process that can take from a couple of weeks to several months, depending on the needs of the client, how well the questionnaire topics and research questions have been defined, and the amount of review required (e.g., advisory committees, staff teams, etc.). NRC will work with the City of Richfield and ISD #280 staff to develop an instrument that will provide useful information for your community center decision. This time line is our attempt to estimate when the project would begin, based on the project award date of May 1, 2006. Please note that we are happy to modify any or all dates to meet your needs if you wish to begin sooner or later than the proposed dates below. Task Date Finalize instrument ............................................................................................................ May 15, 2006 Program instrument .......................................................................................................... May 19,2006 Telephone Data collection................................................................... ......... ... ....... .... May 20-31 , 2006 Data analysis and report writing ....................................:..................................................June 19, 2006 Draft report for review to Richfield ....................................................................................June 19, 2006 Review of draft by Richfield ..............................................................................................June 26,2006 Report finalized and printed ................................................................................................ July 1,2006 Presentation after final report........................................................... anytime after final report delivered National Research Center, Inc. 7 I Ci1y of Richfield, Minnesota /'-1- c23' Communi1y SUlVey Proposal ~. c. Quotation Fee Below we offer costs for 10 or 12 minute telephone surveys of either registered voters or all adult residents of Richfield. Richfield, Minnesota Recreation Public Opinion Survey Cost Estimate for a 10-minute Phone Survey of 400 Registered Voters Tasks and Staff Cost Manaqement of Surveys $2,450 Instrument Design $1,900 Data Analysis and Report of Results $3,870 Subtotal, NRC Staff Costs $8,220 Hard Costs Cost Reverse Call Directory $300 Registered Voter List $30 Phone Survey $4,884 Subtotal, Hard Costs $5,214 TOTAL for 400 Completed Surveys $13,434 *Assumes no open-ended responses. Cost for other options follow: Survey Option , - 1 2 minute voter list 10 minute RDD sample 10 minute RDD sample Cost $14,200 $15,600 $16,300 Presentation Cost Development On-site delivery $500 $1500* *Optional on-site visits at $1500 each for a senior researcher plus travel costs estimated at $600 per one- night trip. No charge for phone conference calls to design the surveyor debrief results. . National Research Center, Inc. 8 I City of Richfield, Minnesota /4-(;). 9 Community SUNey Proposal Deliverables Report of Results In our reports, we present findings in both tables and graphs. We are careful to provide meaningful interpretation of the data and can provide interpretations of respondent opinions about the feasibility, construction and operation of a recreation community center. Our reports typically include an executive summary, a report of results, and appendices, including a detailed description of the survey methodology and detailed records of the response rate. We typically convert our documents into a PDF format (readable by Adobe Acrobat) for electronic distribution via the Internet or e-mail if you wish to put the final report onto your Web site for access by residents, however we will provide the report. Final Electronic Datoset Information will be stored electronically in case future information is needed by the City of Richfield. We also can provide an electronic copy of the dataset to the client in a variety of formats. Typically, clients prefer to receive the data as an Excel worksheet, but we can also provide an ASCII dataset, an Access dataset or an SPSS dataset depending on your preference. We will provide information about the layout and value labels of the data so that you will not have trouble accessing the raw data. PowerPoint Presentation Optionally, we will design and make an in-person presentation of the results Qf the survey to the city staff, school personnel, school board and city council. We use PowerPointTM as visual aid for this presentation. We are happy to provide these aids to staff, so they can make presentations to other groups themselves after NRC has finished its presentation. D. Authorized Negotiator Thomas I Miller, Ph.D. President 303-444-7863 National Research Center, Inc. 9 I City of Richfield, Minnesota IL/- 3D Community Survey Proposal E. Additional Information and Comments NRC's reputation and normative database National Research Center, Inc. principals have been conducting citizen surveys in local government since 1981. We innovated the use of normative comparisons in our classic text, first published in 1991 by The International City/County Management Association,when we wrote, "we don't know what is tall or what is small without comparing" (Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean). Soon thereafter we published our work in public administration's top rated peer reviewed journals. We wrote about the methods of our groundbreaking work in Public Administration Review, "Standards of Excellence: U.S. Residents' Evaluations of Local Government Services." and later, authored in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, "Assessing Excellence Poorly: The Bottom Line in Local Government," where we detailed the strengths and weaknesses of citizen surveys conducted by local governments across the U.S. We never have rested, maintaining our position as leaders in citizen surveying with the second edition of our text rewritten and published in 2000 and numerous other articles and chapters on citizen surveying in . the last few years. We maintain an up-to-date data base of every citizen survey that we can find across America. This comprehensive database is not just a gold mine for researchers, it is a great practical resource for our clients because NRC, uniquely, studies these surveys, culls useful questions from them and, this is most important, makes survey results available to our clients after the necessary statistical corrections to permit fair comparisons among them. These norms permit a jurisdiction to compare its ratings of resident opinion about, say, transportation services, to the opinions about the same services given by residents in other jurisdictions. Because we monitor the breadth of citizen surveys being conducted across America each year, we are aware of trends in methods, the use of new types of questions and we know how others analyze and report results. This comprehensive database of survey results now covers over 400 jurisdictions across the U.S. and permits NRC to ten our clients where they stand in citizen opinion compared to matched groups of jurisdictions, whether cities or counties; in the NE, SW, Rocky Mountain West, or elsewhere; from locales of 5,000 to 25,000 to 500,000 and over a million; for jurisdictions with great or little racial diversity; for well-off jurisdictions or relatively poor jurisdictions. A FAQ about our database is attached. The National Citizen Survey ™ and ICMA NRC has become the national authority on citizen surveying. We have been selected by the International City/County Management Association (lCMA) to offer to its members The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS), one of the service innovations that has come from NRC's working survey research laboratory. The NCS has provided scientifically sound, turnkey citizen surveys for over 90 participant jurisdictions in its first four years. Response from local governments has been overwhelming and our clients report being highly satisfied. We have been selected to train key local government staff including city managers and assistant city managers, budget and public information officers at national and regional conferences and conventions. Our trainings not only cover the how-to's of citizen surveying, but they cover the why's, the don't's and the so what's. NRC's Knowledge leadership Our leadership in citizen surveying continues fun speed ahead. We have been selected to train city officials as part of ICMA University at the ICMA national convention since 2002, generally providing two workshops each year; we have given talks and been discussion facilitators in convention programs about how to use citizen survey results - two at the September 2005 ICMA national convention - "Citizen National Research Center, Inc. 10 I City of Richfield, Minnesota 1</-31 Community SUNey Proposal Surveys and Public Trust" for the Marketplace of Ideas and Solutions and "We Must Be Doing Something Right! The Best of The National Citizen SurveyTM." We will be training attendees of the annual convention of the American Society of Public Administration in 2006. In 2002, we wrote the first article on the use of the Internet for conducting citizen surveys in a peer reviewed journal, Social Science Computer Review, "Citizen Surveys on the Web: General Population Surveys." and we continue to inform local government officials about important trends in citizen surveying through our newsletter, Perspectives. There is no other firm we know of with as strong a reputation, as long a history and as great a contribution to citizen surveying as National Research Center, Ine. to maximize the credibility of your survey methods and results. .-- NRC's BEST Practice Laboratory Our database of resident opinion from over 400 U.S. jurisdictions forms the crucible for identifying the characteristics that distinguish jurisdictions with the best ratings from those with middling or low ratings. We have partnered with clients interested in describing the service delivery practices of the communities whose residents give the best evaluations for certain services. After ordering the jurisdictions in our database from highest to lowest resident ratings, we use carefully crafted interviews of jurisdiction staff to determine what differentiates the top-rated jurisdiction from the bottom. We just completed a recent example of this BEST Practice reporting on code enforcement. NRC's teaming Environment NRC employs a large staff of social scientists with years of management experience ready to assist with your project should such assistance become necessary. Whether a survey research firm has one staff member, five or twenty, people take vacations, get sick, have family emergencies. When this happens, it will be especially useful to your project to have hired a firm in which there are many skilled research professionals' who also are experienced managers ready to take over a task to keep your project on time and of high quality. At NRC, we have fourteen associates or senior associates who are skilled project managers, most with emphasis on research and evaluation methods in social sciences and all but one with graduate degrees. Not only do we hire highly trained research methodologists, but we have a program of in-house training and education that we call "NRC University." This year's topics at NRC U include quantitative research design, qualitative research design and analysis, instrument development, reliability and validity of instruments and advanced statistics. Our staff are members of key organizations focusing on research methods and research content areas and attend national conferences such as the American Evaluation Association, International City/County Management Association, American Association for Public Opinion Research and a variety of regional conferences for municipal leagues, public information officers and we read and contribute to the latest journals about survey research methods. Rigor, Flexibili1y and Efficiency in Our Research Methodology NRC is uniquely trusted to design the best survey research at the most affordable price. We understand the limitations of government budgets and we have vast experience working with organizations on projects as small as a few hundred dollars and as large as more than a million dollars. NRC purposefully has avoided the weight of carrying a telephone field operation as in-house resource because, though we do conduct a large percentage of our surveys by phone, we do not want to be anchored by the financial pressure to recommend telephone surveying when other methods - mail, Web and in-person - can yield better data, higher response rates and at lower costs. By avoiding ownership of a field service, we are able to provide a dispassionate perspective about the best data collection method for our clients. When we do conduct telephone interviews we work closely with a few carefully selected telephone field services, train staff to our specific standards of excellence and monitor the field work regularly to assure that National Research Center, Inc. 11 Jtf-32 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 612-920-2401 612-920-1069 (fax) wmorriS@drhnpls.com April 16, 2006 Mr. Jim Topitzhofer Director Richfield Recreation Services Department 7000 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Topitzhofer: Decision Resources, Ltd. is pleased to present to you this survey research proposal for the City of Roseville and Richfield Public Schools. This prospectus is organized in :five parts: timeline, sample size and type, methodology, benchmarking and comparisons, and estimated project costs. As you will see, I am certain that DRL can provide the City and School District with the information it seeks in both a cost-effective and timely manner. Information about the Company and its Principals: The Firm: Decision Resources, Ltd. is a full-service market and survey research firm. DRL was incorporated in 1983, and has served clients across the nation in the private, public, and political sectors. The firm's main offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As a full-service firm, all word processing, duplication, printing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analysis are undertaken on-site. All telephone surveys are conducted at the DRL phone banks located in Saint Paul and Shakopee, Minnesota. Company personnel administer local in-home and elite/specialized interviews, as well as all residential telephone surveys. Computer analysis is obtained from our in-house MENTOR computer system, augmented with SPSS for Windows, to insure both access to the most current statistical analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. city of Richfield & Richfield Public Schools Residential Survey Research Proposal April, 2006 I (1-33 The company is composed of forty full-time and part-time employees. The main principals of the firm possess extensive backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey research, and statistical methods. This cross-disciplinary background allows DRL to approach research problems from many different perspectives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of theoretical bases. Proiect PrinciDals: William D. (Bill) Morris, President Bill Morris brings more than 20 years of experience as a survey researcher and policy analyst working with local governments. During the past decade, he has successfully completed projects for over three hundred local government units, providing guidance on issues ranging from budgets to service reviews and referendum possibilities. Bill holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from Carnegie-Mellon University, with an emphasis on statistics and mathematical modeling. Diane H. Traxler, Managing Partner Diane Traxler has worked for over 20 years with local governments in managing research projects cost-effectively and on-time. She also possesses extensive experience in grassroots organizing for successfully executing informational, communications, and referendum campaigns. Diane holds a B.A. in American Studies from the University of Minnesota and has completed graduate level coursework in Political Science. Peter J. Leatherman, Director Peter Leatherman has worked for Decision Resources, Ltd., for nine years. While fluent with research methods generally, he specializes in the facilitation of groups, including brainstorming, focused discussions, and small group dynamics. Peter holds a B.A. in Political Science and History from Augsburg College. Research Timeline: This section details the survey research process we would recommend to the City of Richfield and the Richfield Public Schools; 1. Planning meeting with City Council Members and/or City Staff to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Similarly, a planning meeting with School Board Members and/or District Administration would be scheduled for the same purpose. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. This activity will be completed within two weeks of the completion ofthe project contract; Diane Traxler and Peter Leatherman would be the authorized contract negotiators for this project. 2 city of Richfield & Richfield Public Schools Residential Survey Research Proposal April, 2006 jtJ- 3 tj 3. Discussion about the inclusion of survey questions from previous School District and City studies for tracking purposes. In addition, questions used in other feasibility surveys of community centers in other suburbs will be reviewed for potential applicability in this study to provide comparative norms. 4. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities would be completed within three weeks of the initiation of the process, depending upon meeting schedules and the internal approval process. 5. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing. 6. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. All pre-testing would be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 7. Completion of all fieldwork within a three week period. 8; Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical tests and commentary will be available within two to three weeks after completion of the fieldwork. 9. Discussion of the survey results and accompanying statistical analysis with the Pre-Planning team at a schedule meeting. 10. Presentation of the findings and implications of the survey at a formal City Council Meeting and/or Workshop Meeting, as well as a formal School Board Meeting and/or Workshop Meeting. 11. Delivery of20 copies of the final written report to the City of Richfield and the Richfield Public Schools after the meetings with elected officials and staff, including presentation graphics and an electronic version of the Executive Summary. This time line assures that all phases of the research and its presentation will be completed no later that July 1St, 2006. Sample Size and Type: Decision Resources, Ltd. proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 500 randomly selected households in the City of Richfield. A sample of 500 residents would provide results projectable to the entire city adult population within:l: 4.5 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The sample is also of sufficient size to permit the district to be divided into a maximum of five categories for more detailed analysis, such as age, mobility, home ownership, location of residence, presence of children, and other demographic characteristics. 3 city of Richfield & Richfield Public Schools Residential Survey Research Proposal April, 2006 /4- 35' Telephone-based random samples provide the most cost-effective statistically valid data. The normal non-response rate for DRL telephone surveys is less than 5% -- compared to the U.S. Census non-response rate of 10%. The comparable figure for telephone and Internet-based studies without follow-ups is at least 20%. Non-response bias, then, is minimized. The fieldwork time is less than either an Internet-based or mail-out survey; the time lag for follow-up contacts with non-respondents lengthens both processes. And, in our experience, the added cost of follow-up reminders, with the final offer to interview the subject by telephone, drives the cost of Internet and mail-out surveys almost as high the telephone-based methodology. Methodology: Decision Resources, Ltd. proposes dr sample through a random telephone number system. The number of households . Roseville using each telephone number prefix is established. Computer-generated suffixes are then a to the appropriate number of each exchange. Respondents are screened to insure a contact has been made with a residential household in the City ofRoseville. A random selection process is then used to choose the target respondent atthe residence. To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the industry on our procedures. Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated target, at least twenty tries are made to contact the initial households during a six-day period. The telephone calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our interviewers are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our non-contact rate to less than five percent on average. Residents who initially refuse to participate are called back and urged to do so; this "call-back" protocol significantly reduces the non-response rate and increases the reliability of the sample. To validate the completed sample, the latest United States Census updated population characteristics are utilized as a standard of comparison. Decision Resources, Ltd. has both Spanish and Hmong speakers who Can immediately administer the questionnaire in those languages, if English is not the principal household language. In addition, if necessary, DRL has also access to Russian, Somali, and several South Asian language interviewers. The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer analysis will be obtained from our in-house C-MENTOR and SPSS statistical analysis systems, insuring both access to the most current analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. 4 city of Richfield & Richfield Public Schools Residential Survey Research Proposal April, 2006 J LI-3b Relevant Experience and Past Community and School District Survey Work: Decision Resources, Ltd. conducted the 1997 residential survey for the City of Richfield discussed in the RFP. A split City Council, organized opposition group, and an insufficiently organized advocacy group greatly contributed to the defeat of the 1999 Bond Referendum and negatively changed the environment between 1997 and 1999. In addition to Richfield, the company has broad-based experience with cities considering community centers. During the past fifteen years, we have worked with the Cities of Chaska, Shoreview, Maple Grove, Eagan, Apple Valley, Maplewood, Woodbury, and currently Forest Lake in obtaining resident opinion data and making recommendations based upon citizen perceptions. While the company has worked extensively with suburbs throughout the Metropolitan Area, it has an established client base in Hemiepin County. In suburban Hennepin County, our clients include Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Crystal, Edina, Golden Valley, the City of Robbinsdale, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and Saint Louis Park. . Suburban school district studies either wholly or partially in Hennepin County include: the Anoka-Hennepin Public Schools, the Buffalo Public Schools, the Edina Public Schools, the Elk River Area Public Schools, the Hopkins Public Schools, the Minnetonka Public Schools, the Osseo Public Schools, the Orono Public Schools, the Richfield Public Schools, the Rockford Public Schools, and the Wayzata Public Schools. The company has been involved in over 300 referendum elections, both in Minnesota and across the country. While our clients have the much greater challenge in terms of the implementation of survey recommendations and general information campaigns, DRL's current success rate is over 90%. Cost Quotation: The cost of a survey is driven by two factors: sample size and questionnaire length. The cost to conduct a survey of 60 questions administered to a 500 household random sample would not exceed $14,500.00. Each additional question unit beyond the initial allotment would be $170.00. This cost also includes two survey pre-planning meetings, one pre-planning task force meeting to discuss preliminary results, and two formal presentations of the findings and recommendations. As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the commencement of fieldwork; the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL invoices clients for the initial payment at the time of the initiation of the contract; the remainder is due at the time of the receipt of the final written report. . 5 city of Richfield & Richfield Public Schools Residential Survey Research Proposal April, 2006 14-37 If you require any further information from us, feel free to contact either my partner, Diane, our colleague, Peter Leatherman, or me. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools once again, but, in any case, wish you well with this project. Sincerely, 'Cdt~ William D. Morris, Ph.D. President 6 ."-',.,'-'-.,,""0\ ."';-:--c: ;r'-~- ".j-":' ',of .-,',', ',;,)-;,~~, ~_: :~, ., '. "'I"::~/'jLq'b,:;~ ': " ,''', _..~:_ "jf-'i".,.:"C:Z1J..{J,',- -_.' -:'~:)'. ..; - , .', ,,;.., ; , ; -',,,.'~ ~ . --'i'. :f_--_.~ . ../ -'. '-"'''; "''>-; 'J' ;\, "j' "_,< :-;~ -.: . ." " _<_'_ ,~<i'~" . . . >:__'__' .._: '-.;', ,~', 'J.,. ',~' :<,' '--,': ...<"'<-~t:: '.'-:-.": ' ",J,':" ,. - :,}::~\,:,,;,~ ,', ',';'-': '; :;,~::~~~:;~~:.i..?~!' ',<::<- '""," :-:- ':-:~-" ~ ~;"'-i '.f< ';:,j.~:;,~h~ -,:Y.~",~ ~ >~-::,';_:c}; .'.' '-',.(' -; ':;.: -"',-'-:.',-.' 'I' ",:,.."..,~.',~;~;.'-~ ,:',.'c,.;' ~~'~,:>v<\:~"\'^ i'- ,- - ': :~:': .. -', .', _<,: ,'-. _ _ _, _ .;__. :j,,,_, "t.-,:>~,,'~,,".:;_: '1' . ~ . " ;~_'___~';'; - ,'.;~/.~,)~<'7;~;\';>'L~~~-~. ,,;-~ ::~; '.",,: .><.:" '~;'K?::-tX~>-~,-,:- \'L-'" ,....', .".;.' -- -" ":'; " "": ~~>II\f~ii~:;: :.,;,,;,;~.,;;~, , ~ r - \ '~ 1--; ': ' ',. ~, 0.;.~. .-..;:;-n.-0:::;.>.'>'~/';:-~':--' " ,,,,,.-- '.-,'- ".;',;,- '; ::"";.~ " ;r'--, ~ ~:: ,.;:;-' , ~ ",. "'1.;',--';. ,.~. ~ '-~ .-':-' ";'.r.- -:,:,,1. ., ";','-':,;:" ,- "," .'l, '[l-:. \>."_:~ ; ,j,. -'-_:-,.'" , ~ ~.....',;~. -,_'~;(I,' : :~,~ .:', ;:""'.\ '<,' j-- ". ,:'. ~;~.):,; .-,,-.: ~-..:,:::\ ,,:> {'_c_;:;) -,"'-i.:'(,- '-""\' -,;-" .. , ":t"",,~,~~ :~::,;;._".~:; ," ~S.."_: .' " ' ::;: ;i?:F:::'-~;~-I'~'~ ~-?, -,~~:.; :-,,';- ::i':-' ~ > - '-_..:' :;; ~ ~'- i:'~',.';._:'i},::,: -.~; ::1, '.0",__ i_'~{'~i;',:"~__'o-" _" ~,t " _; ~;-,..::.:. ::'.; ~/_'.-I :A~/-':":,--,-"~,,,:~}~~'~" ~,...:___;:::;~ )~" :i, '''<, ',,_. :~!,,':/" '/~ ,:_~,' ,:--;' '...-- :.;:., ,"J-' I,J"- . /: ':-?i:~;.~':{;':.' " , {~;:\~,\"~" .~~~~./:-, : <,' .,:~) '-; ;;,,-~':i-)",~:!\:- ':~ .', :..-, '":-.::,;<.".- .'....",.."'.,, ;-~~\;.. ~ -f ':.:_, .;,~~,'> ",','-,.:-;" .J'i;:~l,_.-:.S;:' ';":-"..'i'''.; ";: ~:~0i~~. ">,,".- --~>....: >_,',".V ',(-:,," ',-: S .ct: ),;~')1~ :{-~~I<:~' ;... .,;It ~l ,??/ -;,' >';Ia~j "", { \.\: ~{\;~l; )~jiF:~_::lh{;itr;::' ,gt ?~tI;f~tZ~}R';;; ~f;~!;:!;~'ti; I! ..3/ ';. ;.,: c' -".''',''. .,;\;",- :r. ," .:. ..', ......... .C{";;',;2:: . Cc. {;~,/;:;}~. :. " ':: :: ',.':. " ." k<' ,l;" .":;';,'7,'",",)". ., ",. :".;""., '- ,7;' "',' _ - , ~, , -.; \' > , - - ~ ~,~ I" ,~, '; ';. ~., .. ... .... ..~~~~~3;i1fk~~~~~I_~~~~~:! , ::.;.t.(H',:,t:',\~~~~l1~a~e~:':S?h{)~l,:q\~~;~~,;~ttl~~~~?$~1;ti.~Y:':~t'~~t~Ql" " cH ,',:, , /, ;.' .', " 'H";<:a,lue ~.~. :ScliQ()1:l)1~tnct?:i~(m!~f~~ll911'8iid.~l,l11dii1a. ,)~~~~ : " .;;;,~,~"\;: ,", .:<-L;;:.::;:,,:i';Miiule~6ta-:'}{: '. :, /,'~;[':I, ,.:;' ~: " ': '<:;",:~\";\:.:;';[:,,?:/ ~~':F3D;';,;r:':60:':'::~' ,." "0;::, "'\};:'( " '. ' ,:,7.: '. .cC'C' ',,",':'!C,':L;:;';"!:1-; ", ,'. ';,;;";"";;".iii' .'." , ;,:,::;:.:t~o:.:f';::;-~j', . ~;:,'. ". ,'" ,// ..:',,"" ;W~yzati;t SehOQJ::IDf~itict/ ',eren'Pt:$ttiay~PJi" ',\.,,": :"':<:?,C"'.:,, ',' ....,..... ',".,' '......,,;.......;,. ";',: ',".,> ',". "', ' .;.'.".... ,;' . , . '~~; . ,'Hdma;ScliobllDistticftRe ' . .. dy,'rRcl' "P' '.).}::;';:~it;;,~: "~~WR~~~~~&~~~~~:~c' ; "":"';"""'!' :<::,'-,.. ',;'; :.2::;;~;i">' ~1~;~~C.fJ,tiorf:Ehsttlct, i ');0' uill, <:"-' ":";:<}"':. ;"\~;:'~;r;::j'~:{,:,;> ':. " :;~~: . " ''''~.'~:. ". '~. ' " "I:JDI ~ j;~;',{:';,:"X#"<":'" ' '. '/,., ".iL"', ,';,>,,,uufc /.' '~".t;".,;.\.;t~;~ij~~~~~~(i <'ie <,;N/, ,~:'6.!;(",:~/!.' ".'. " ~:ri/"X';:"i j~;(~~?i:;,:~.:i ',' ,iit'~'~f~~~~t~~~~1~~' '1),';:; J"",. ~'\~"J;'." ",,\!/)\0~~~;~ ,\ ): .!{,K,,:,.,, '><)"}<jJ1i~~::!!; . :' >;,';:!:,' '.' b~.;::t;"'~,:" ,';'\.,': (}:Et;'M'$~ .... .. . \'h;\~' ;:~ ',' "",,;;~jf~~;.:?' ..,,),,';'\:: j" .;.<,( " " ,.i,;:]:':,:::' .; .: t." '."';) '\ ' "<::' :';'>:;c:-,;, ;{!' \..'~t,;:':'.. " ;C;', '.:!~~hd' I ;?~~~~N{ '-:'",;,,':;G:.", ",:'i~',.~' . ' . 'i,. i".:. /i '. <; ~ ., '..; i': "t>':"'>;;"""'\::::,"':',~:; >' :' ":,"':(<."; ,.,.: .!\': '<ct.. "::(.'" . '~.i~\<}:',t,:,' ,:\,' '}::::":.:;i.:,~\ ,:~'~''',,: """'..' '.\>. " .,;""" ..,....:. ",i. 'eEarth, ;":':Y';\i:)':: '.i; . :'~r;~'~.:: ':',:::':>':~>:::\:::~: ::; " . ,,'. '., ",< ", -.... ":..,"";. .;,,, <".,'. ,". .::." ..' . ';." ..,~"'. ':':,;'. '::." .,.... .... .' <'. :, ..:'. ., ". '-',. ,::> \',i < t.a'.'.,,' '" .."..... "..:" ',. . :'.' . !,'.,:;"::'.....:,.. ',. ..~.:::;>.//:~.,::,>:..; , : ':(~~f~:C~,,: .' .:~,";>?:.;:" ::,t.. ','. " ".: 'v";'.;":~'" :;: i:,,:::,;.':?"/': .'.:;":>.' ,/:; ..;';' , ,;';/ ::,.;,,;:.~,; \" "L:~' ~ ,"'~'." '.' ';:""" ~ ':.. . ~}~~~plr,~~el>;: .;,,: '. /. ;::~:~;;.r~/'>;<' ,;:: .'.1' ::j:::;<.i~~;;2.~,t~;;,," ~':~ '~t ~~i ~ ::"<! .. e'aHoirin'tlie" . " '" Db." ; :;Jt:!Frs:~0?j':;~:{;, , ~~:,,';!';; :}::: 'c". '\: ,; "C, "';': :'.".. ,....',,~~.. ":"<;} " 0'(:;',';; :", ,'"..: " " .;:: ~,;, ",;,,". , J>.i' .:,;:j::..; -:~ :',"-:' ~ .' . ,,:;, ~~: ~:,~ . )': ~ ',' ,,'" "........, 'f,. ..;,i'i'.; ~ ::Y;i',. ti..:' ':;i'{">~" :.i:{::;: ',,;. "'" "!. .' ;:~'.o ;::., ~..a:: SI8;., amt;;,v",,' .;c:5t;:\{f~:~".'; .' :," ", ,...;.. .:', c. ;i.:< -( --; .".........,. ,:..'" ]i' .. ",,' '.,:..;t..,,;;P!:,i,;;":~'\~..;; z) ~ :X'? '~'i ;:'<~;;':'. r'(\;:;~:;"~ <': ;y,,;~~~ '.P,,' 1~"Q,10US f{Si:~);}' ?\':: :: '!..,: ~.::'::":>' ~;;?~.::.;:i;.'~,:,,:(f,i!: ~~rAi:c : "-. ';"\:~j'h' ';/'~jl::;i; . ',.i. '". .. {'; , ",':::~;;;j'J"~::;rt/;ih;' i ,i:';i;.t:,:~r" . ,,:;.' If: tD\}'\;Ai>~.:i:,.. . ,".' ']. ..;iJ,},<,};j'~~\:~s"~0i: ;'~i,:l/ ..\4,,;,.,,',, ", ,( . CuOO. ' "P\:..:'('" , ;:;dWj~,') , '~1i'c"" ;!~~~I>)fr~~~,:~~~~l%.}k~~':,' . .";: .:y,;~~ :;;',~:(~.:~:.~i1~diitY~;fJ;.j(;'-;",~ . ~(:~"}<'0~.~::?t;;....i>:fiY.:\/.0);k,l~::;:.:U/";i!:' . .. ... ~2,,;:F;':qL:,j:::' i:(':C;:' "Y. . (?,:~:;~N,;}:.i ;' '. .;.( " . '::,':\; ~..i::.: . : . !:')". it ,'. , , ':';.-,,\: ,q,': ',..:. ,,,:';. "". ''i.' "<:.'~'.. ~ . ":' 'I'> ," 'L ....x . j, ;..';;>, \5;: d," " ". :;\~,(",,::t~;;...::< .:':" ': '" ":.',<,.,;',:~:, ~~~~t:s' I,,' . ,~,~". . "{'o,: ". , ~f ;11, ~ ~-;: ,,-'~ ~ ~ ;.' '-.; ,.'~#'~~";~ ~. ~"..' t' .' { "'.: It ;~~'i " '~, :' g..':. ,~.;:~,'~.;.;;~~:h: :....... ;'.... :~ ">('- r~: \' ....,l-;.':Jf:-~ ~~~~?~~~f;X:i;;;~'"r~:.r."z ::~~~,,~"\~~. ' ">7'.;, t .:':; /: :;:Mi~R" '..',; .:., ',' .,/,. i'(::,,,,,t .,> 'l.';:. ." y~.\ i<; :':)~:~!. . \~jl~~ .;';,;,1:; ~:r ~(' , .....-. "" .\ "..,.: '-;;;.,.'):. , It~f~~ ~~f~ ) ."'. y:..,. ..'.\ ; " ,c, '\. .t' '- " ~; .\ " J' 7. ~_ ".:..<: ,"' '-.,..j .' ",:,:.','" "~. ... ...,2;:;::.",....... ~~1t~I~~, .'i:.'it~. ';.",' ... .' h . . " 'j<, , J.,.,_ -;~,~;:' .,',~.;. "~C' '.'."""