01-26-10 agenda packetCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2010
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Interview of persons interested in serving on City advisory commissions (Council
Memo No. 4)
Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
CITY- HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Presentation by Michael Development and St. Croix Real Estate regarding potential
development of Woodlake Plaza (Council Memo No. 5)
Notes:
2. Demonstration of new Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) utility system
and discussion of possible capital investments at water treatment plant (Council Memo
No. 6)
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of January 6,
2010; (2) Special City Council Meeting of January 9, 2010; and (3) Special City Council
Worksession of January 12, 2010
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
1. Council discussion
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the
Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action.
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing 2010 social service agency
funding recommendations of certain human service agencies S.R. No. 18
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing dispatch and use of City
equipment and .services by City Manager or designee in emergency situations S.R.
No. 19
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of all grants and
donations received by Richfield Recreation Services Department in 2009 S.R. No.
20
D. Consideration of approval of resolutions authorizing submittal to Hennepin County
for Transit Oriented Development Program Grant and Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program for
acquisition for redevelopment transit improvements and streetscape improvements
throughout community S.R. No. 21 `
E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of additional $1500
grant from Wal-Mart Corporation for funding Richfield Police canine unit S.R. No.
22
F. Consideration of approval of closing Parking Project Capital Project Fund and
transferring residual assets to City Hall Project Fund S.R. No. 23
Notes:
4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
RESOLUTION
5. Consideration of resolution expressing support for statewide Complete Streets Policy
Staff Report No. 24
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions
Staff Report No. 25
Notes:
7. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contracts as recommended by
Stahl Construction for new Richfield Municipal Center
Staff Report No. 26
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
8. City Manager's report
Notes:
9. 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:
10.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
January 21, 2010
Council Memorandum No. 4
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Advisory Commission Interviews
(Council Agenda Item No. 1)
Council Members:
The interviewing of two advisory commission applicants is scheduled for Tuesday,
January 26, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room in City Hall.
An updated vacancy list is attached.
Approval of commission appointments is scheduled for the January 26, 2010 Regular
City Council meeting.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
R s ectfu y submitted,
1~
St .Devi
City M Hager
SLD:cak
Attachment
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
0
r,
0
N
O
0
00
N
W_
U
Z
a
V
a
Z
O
N
cN
G
O
U
r
r
O
cn N
L_ ~
M
W ~'
~ ~
~ ~
I- ~
E ~
N L
~ N
~ E
L
a "~
_ .-. N
WO ~ I
G N Z
_~ O
O~ N
OD ~
O U
N N
D ~
a a
M M N ~ M ~ M N N M M N N N ~ ~
~~~~
O O O O r
O r
O ~~~
0 0 0 ~~~~~~~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~~~~
M M M M r
M r
M ~~~
M M M ~~~~~~~
M M M M M M M
ca cv ca t0 RT ca ca ca ca ccf N cC c6 ca cB cv
c~ c c c c c~ c c~ c c c c~
cd ca ca ca ca ca c~ ca c~ ca ca to ca N ca ttf
~ ~ ~
~ ±+ ~
~ ~ W
U
W
N
J
V
E
L
~+
L
"~
. N E
~ ~ ~
r L
~+ C
L
Z y
1
''.'
O `~
~
N ~
N N
~ O z
N O
O
U V/
N
N
W ~
~
~~
~
U v EE ~
S '
+
N
V/ ~/ U C C T
°' "" c~
.z N ~
~ D Z
~ Z a.
O ~ ~
(~ LL =
~ E E E E
L L L L L
Q~
~F'+ ~ ~ +~+ .r.'r
C C C C C
~`i~~~~~
U
J
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
January 21, 2010
Council Memorandum No. 5
The Honorable Mayor Y-
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Woodlake Plaza
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
On October 27, 2009 Michael Development and St. Croix Real Estate made a
presentation at a City Council Warksession regarding their proposed development at
6401 Lyndale Avenue. At that Worksession, members of the City Council requested
that the developers provide more detailed information regarding their proposal.
As a response to that request, Michael Development and St. Croix Real Estate have
submitted a detailed project proposal (attached) with supporting documentation..,..
Included in this proposal are the following:
^ A description of the history of the existing retail center;
^ An explanation of the difficulties the owners have experienced in their recent
.efforts to market/lease retail space;
^ A description of the proposed multi-family housing..project and the financing that
is being sought;
^ Maps of the general area, comprehensive planning in the area and zoning in the
area;
^ Architectural drawings of the proposed project;
^ A market study and supplemental market study;
^ A sources and uses statement showing project funding; and
^ Tax Increment Financing projections.
The developers will be in attendance at the January 26, 2010 City Council Worksession
to further discuss their proposal and address any questions or comments from Council
members.
Resq~ectf~rlly sub
Manager '
Attachments
,~`e-
SLD:cak
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
~icnae~
2177 Youngman Avenue, Suite 180
St. Paul, MN 55116
(651)698-3452 (651)699-6433-fax
January 15, 2010
Mayor Goettel and Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mayor Goettel and Council Members:
We have been the owners of Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center located at 64~' and
Lyndale Avenue South for over 17 years and are pleased to present a proposal for a new
housing development to replace the existing center.
This proposed 90-unit rental housing development is the result of several years spent
exploring numerous alternative uses and was a difficult decision; in addition to asking for
City assistance in the form of a housing tax increment district, the owners need to assume
substantial risk and make a substantial cash investment as well.
The enclosed report provides a detailed history of our efforts to date as well as detailed
financial and architectural information on the proposed project. To summarize the
current situation and opportunity, we would ask you to consider the following:
• This center is physically and structurally obsolete
• Despite extensive leasing efforts by the owners and a major regional leasing
agent, the center is currently 49 percent vacant
• The surrounding area has declined significantly; vacant and boarded Lyndale
Garden Center, vacant Kmart store, vacant/competing retail immediately adjacent
to the center, etc.
• The owners are asking that the increased taxes from the proposed development be
captured and applied to the cost of the project
• The owners have worked with City staff and the City's legal and financial
consultants prior to submitting this proposal for your consideration.
• Hopefully, this development acts as a catalyst for further
development/redevelopment in this portion of the city.
City of Richfield
Page 2
January 15, 2010
The proposed project works today because the current costs of construction are attractive
and interest rates are low. We believe that failure to act will see a continuing decline in
the neighborhood and this property. The City of Richfield has an overabundance of this
type of retail development and as we all compete for tenants, we end up attracting or
acquiring the type of tenants that neither we, nor the City, would like to see just for
economic survival.
We hope that you will look favorably upon this request; we see it as an opportunity to
inject some new life into an area of the City that needs it and to bring some much needed
employment to the area as well.
We look forward to meeting with you on January 26. If you have any question in the
meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at 612-991-9062.
Sincerely,
=~~~~-i
Terry c elks
TM:pk
Enclosure: Lyndale Commons Proposed Sources & Uses
McNellis.WoodlakeRedevelopment Proposal.doc
January 15, 2010
Proposed Redevelopment/Housing Project
Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center
64th and Lyndale Avenue South
Background
Mary and Terry McNellis and Mike Swenson (the "Owners") of Woodlake Plaza are proposing
an alternative use for the property known as the Woodlake Plaza shopping center at the
intersection of 64th and Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. The property is economically
obsolete as a retail building and the surrounding neighborhood is in the early stages of visible
decline and deterioration. Despite extensive efforts, the Owners of the building have been
unable to lease the center to viable commercial tenants for a number of years, and after
extensive examination of alternatives are proposing a change in use to multifamily housing.
The feasibility of the housing development is dependent on the use of Tax Increment Financing
within a Housing District and the acquisition of a small residential lot owned by the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA).
The Owners have owned this property for over seventeen (17) years and would be the owners
of the proposed housing project.
Histor
The Woodlake Plaza shopping center was constructed in 1960, was remodeled and expanded in
1985; and again, most recently in 2003 when a new facade and sign band were installed. The
center is well maintained and is comprised of approximately 24,000 square feet with the
majority of its parking in the rear of the building. The building fa.~ade is constructed at the
sidewalk edge with no on-street parking available on Lyndale Avenue, its primary commercial
frontage.
Over most of the building's history, it has provided rental space for small businesses serving
primarily the immediate neighborhood. It has provided a good start for new businesses and for
several national tenants such as Weight Watchers, H & R Block and Pizza Hut.
However, the commercial .real estate market, especially for retail tenants, is an ever changing
environment based on the changing tastes and shopping patterns of the American consumer.
The Woodlake Plaza shopping center, as well as many the neighboring properties, has become
physically obsolete and an unattractive choice for the new age of retail and service businesses.
These market trends have hit Woodlake Plaza especially hard over the past five years. The
property has lost almost all of its viable tenants as many of its long time local businesses either
went out of business or relocated to presumably superior locations within Richfield or in other
more suburban locations. Currently, the property is 49 percent vacant. Several of the new
tenants leasing space in the past five years have already gone out of business or have moved
on.
There are a number of reasons for the lack of business and .leasing activity at Woodlake Plaza
and the other commercial properties in the neighborhood. They include, among others:
1. Chan~ine neighborhood economics: There has been a concerted effort by the City of
Richfield to redevelop the area near 66th and Lyndale, and it appears to have been a
great success; however, travel north two blocks and you will find several deteriorated
buildings including the former Lyndale Garden Center, vacant Kmart, several
freestanding small vacant commercial buildings and three strip centers in excess of 50
percent vacant; the closing of the Garden Center resulted in the removal of this area
from the leasing market for small tenants because the Lyndale Garden Center had
served as regional identification of the .location and as an "anchor" to draw traffic for
decades; the City of Richfield has seen many failed attempts to redevelop the Garden
Center site over the years and its current condition and the resulting lack of a large
retailer has had a devastating impact on occupancy at the surrounding properties;
2. Hi~hway construction: over the past two years, the Crosstown/I 35W project has closed
Lyndale completely as well as the interchange at the Crosstown; this has crippled our
existing tenants and the ability to draw any new tenants to this location; intermittent
closures and congestion on the freeway will continue for at least the next year or two;
3. Decline in small businesses; even before the credit crisis and the Great Recession hit the
scene, leasing to small business was very minimal; this was caused by the "one, two
punch" of the consumer movement to the "big box" discount retailers and the
termination of credit to small businesses; the credit crisis has shut down the ability of
small businesses to borrow money to start and/or maintain their businesses; this has
resulted. in no leasing activity for this sector of the commercial market for the past three
years; the only exception is side shop space next to a anchor grocery store or some
other big box anchor; these factors and trends were in place well before the Great
Recession; projections are that we will see a long, slow recovery period which does not
improve prospects for small business leasing;
4. Over supply of Product; Richfield has an abundance of vacant retail space and, we would
suggest, an over abundance of older neighborhood based strip centers. This provides
tenants with many options, but results in a number of vacant, economically struggling,
centers. This proposed project would help remove some of that excess space from the
market and would increase the number of households in the area to assist the
remaining strip center properties and businesses..
5, Recession: the Great Recession, as it has become known, has cut off credit to
businesses and the consumer, has strangled consumer spending and created record
levels of unemployment creating in the "knock- out punch" for the Woodlake Plaza
commercial neighborhood. Recently, Kmart announced the closing of the store just a
block down the street.
6. Finally, the factor that ties all the other factors toeether for Woodlake Plaza is the
physical construction of the buildings which is economically obsolete; the buildings do
not have a major anchor, the suites are small in size designed for small businesses for
which there is no market, the buildings are constructed with the front door at the street
and the parking behind the building, which was desirable in the 1950's, but does not
serve the modern shopper consisting of busy families with a desire to park at the front
door, run in and move on; in fact, if you examine the location of the few tenants we
have left in this center, you will find that they are located on the ends of the center,
where the parking is closer to the front doors of the individual suites; in addition,
several of the separating or demising walls in the shopping center are constructed of
concrete block which does not allow flexibility in accommodating newer or larger tenant
specifications.
Alternative Uses
For the past three years, the Owners have hired Welsh Companies, one of the major
commercial real estate brokers in the Twin Cities area, to market this center to new tenants; in
all that time, they have produced one, 500 square foot tenant; they report to us that since the
recession has hit, there is major discounting of rents in the Class A retail locations, therefore,
what few prospects there are for smaller suites have gravitated to the Class A properties, resulting in no
prospect traffic at all at the Class B or Class C properties.
Based on the bleak prospects for leasing Woodlake Plaza to viable, neighborhood based tenants; the
Owners have spent the past two years exploring alternative uses for the property. Two years ago, there
was good activity for freestanding drug store development (Walgreen's and CVSj, freestanding bank
facility development and specialty grocery store and hardware store development. The owners have
explored all of these alternative users for a redevelopment within the property's existing commercial
zoning classification.
Prospective tenants and users have indicated they were not interested in a new building at 64th and
Lyndale because it is not located on a "hard corner", which is a retail term for property located on the
intersection of two major thoroughfares with high levels of traffic. Lyndale Avenue certainly meets the
requirement of a major thoroughfare, but 64th most definitively does not because it simply provides
access to a small residential area. The intersections of 66th and Lyndale and 65th and Lyndale meet the
requirements of being a "hard corner".
The banking facility development market has come to a standstill in light of the broader.credit/banking
crisis.
Many of the smaller specialty grocery stores find the site too small for their buildings and parking
requirements or they also require a "hard corner" for their location.
Other users we have pursued for the center include Ace Hardware, a medical clinic and several fitness
facilities. Ace Hardware rejected the location for lack of the "hard corner' and the inflexibility of the
building construction to accommodate a larger user; the medical clinic was unable to sell its existing
building within the current market conditions and the fitness centers could not be accommodated due
to the inflexible lay out of the building.
The research into alternative uses eventually brought the owners to.the concept of multifamily housing.
Two of the partners in the ownership structure of Woodlake Plaza are area experts in the construction,
management and financing of multifamily rental housing with decades of experience. After preliminary
discussions with the Richfield development staff, and the City's legal and financial consultants, the
Owners prepared architectural plans and studies and professional market studies to determine the type,
amount and style of multifamily housing which might be successful at this location. The Owners also
explored several avenues for financing a project given the limited sources available in today's
capital/financing environment.
The Owners believe they have arrived at an attractive, market rate housing development of 90 units
which would be an appropriate re-use of the property, a positive contribution to Richfield's housing
stock and, hopefully, a jump start (or stimulus) to the revitalization of the section of Lyndale Avenue
from 65th Street north to the Crosstown Highway.
Proposed Multifamily Housine
The Owners have spent much of the past year working with architects, market researchers, contractors
and finance professionals to design the proposed housing development. The project consists of 90 units
of rental housing currently planned to consist of nine studios, forty-two one bedroom, thirty-five two
bedroom and four three bedroom units. The building is three and four stories high and creates an
attractive urban edge to the Lyndale Avenue corridor. The current design provides two three-story
elements defining the edge of Lyndale Avenue. Between these two elements, there is a landscaped
courtyard that will provide a very "livable" amenity for the resident, and will provide green space along
Lyndale Avenue. The shape of the building also provides a high level of articulation to add interest as
well as defining this urban courtyard area. The "step back" from the street also provides attractive
green space between the development and it s neighbors. A front entry to the building, along with
individual unit access is provided from the courtyard, and Lyndale Avenue to help activate the street.
The exterior is a combination of brick, rock face block and siding providing additional interest. The
design provides good articulation in both the "stepped back" smaller fourth story and with the balconies
and material selections.
Parking is available with sixty-nine below grade and sixty-five above grade stalls, consistent with the
City's. building and zoning code. The units have individual controls for heating and air conditioning, as
well as individual washers and dryers, high quality interior finishes for the kitchens, bathrooms and
bedrooms and many energy efficient features. Residents will have access to common areas within the
building including a fitness room and community room. There is a leasing office with direct access to the
entry which will be staffed seven days a week.
The architectural drawings are attached to this report and electronic versions can be made available for
public meetings and discussions.
The market studies show a demand for market rents that would serve "workforce" households which is
consistent with the Tax Increment Financing requirements the either 20 percent of the units be available
at 50 percent of area median income or that 40 percent of the units be available for households making
60 percent of area median income. This is rental housing for working families and households at income
levels serving the existing population of the City of Richfield.
This site is on a transportation corridor which the Owners believe would be attractive to young
professional and service workers in downtown Minneapolis. The proposed development is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Owners would hope to work with the City on "streetscape"
improvements that would eventually extend south to 66th street for future connections in the
neighborhood.
Financins Methods
The Owners have worked diligently with local finance professionals and the City's financial and legal
consultants to determine the most feasible methods of financing the proposed development. The
current financing environment is incredibly challenging; FNMA, Freddie Mac and commercial banks are
virtually out of the market. The only source available to the developers is a HUD insured mortgage. The
sources of funds for the proposed project consist of a HUD insured first mortgage, developer equity, tax
increment financing and sale of a small HRA owned lot to complete the site.
This is a not a "luxury" housing project and consequently the proposed rents, while affordable, also limit
the total project revenue which presents a financing challenge. The Owners have struggled with the
amount of cash that they will need to contribute-over $800,000 to date-to this project and even this
amount is only achievable because of current "depressed "construction activity. If the City will approves
our Tax Increment request we will commit to bring our resources to the table if we can move quickly
enough to take advantage of the current construction environment.
The Owners are requesting assistance from the City of Richfield in the form of Tax Increment Financing
for the portion of the taxes generated by the increased tax value created by the project. The existing
level of taxation would remain available to the City and other taxing jurisdictions. The Tax Increment
assistance would be provided within a Housing District, and the legal and financial assumptions assumed.
in this proposal have been reviewed and approved by the City's consultants.
The other source of public assistance is the sale of one residential HRA owned lot adjacent to the
shopping center site to provide additional surface parking and green space for the number of proposed
units. The payment will be deferred and paid through excess TIF proceeds.
Attached to this report is a summary of the proposed sources and uses of funds and a Tax Increment
Financing cash flow statement and other relevant documents.
Summary
The Owners of Woodlake'Plaza have owned and operated this property for approximately seventeen
years, and after extensive efforts to try to make it a success as a retail/service building, have determined
that it is best to find another use for this property. The construction of the existing building, designed
for small businesses, with no convenient parking at the front doors of the suites in an area devastated
by the loss of its "anchor business", the Lyndale Garden Center, does not support economically feasible
commercial investment, and this trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
The Owners believe, and the market study supports, a need in Richfield for new, affordable, non-elderly
housing at this location and this development would be a good complement to what the City has
accomplished at 66th and Lyndale.
We believe that the redevelopment of this site will; remove an economically obsolete building, help
adjacent properties both with the new project itself and by providing new potential tenants as our
existing ones need to relocate, and, hopefully, the development of ninety housing units could help
stimulate the return of viable neighborhood commercial development and preserve and grow the
overall tax base of the City of Richfield. Lastly, this project will provide much needed employment in our
local economy. Failure to act will likely result in the continued decline of this property and of this
portion of Lyndale Avenue and, ultimately, the surrounding neighborhood as well.
Attachments:
Site map
Site zoning map
Architectural drawings of the proposed project
Market study/Supplemental market study
Sources and Uses of Funds
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 2
Market Area Definition
Maxfield Research Inc. determined the draw area for housing in Richfield based on geographic
and man-made boundaries, commuting patterns, and our knowledge of Richfield and the south
Metro Area. The draw area, or Market Area, includes the Cities of Richfield, Bloomington, and
portions of South Minneapolis. We also estimate a portion of housing demand will come from
outside the Market Area. A map of the Market Area is shown below.
RICHFIELD A%I_ARI~ET ARE~i
NI~.~'ield Reseucli, Inc.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 3
Population, Household and Employment growth Trends
Table 1 presents population, household, and employment growth trends and projections for the
Market Area from 2000 to 2020. The data for 2000 is from the Census Bureau. The 2008 to
2020 estimates for population, households, and employment were determined by Maxfield
Research, based on data from the Census Bureau and the Metropolitan Council.
• The Richfield Market Area is proj ected to experience modest growth through the remainder
of this decade and next decade as in-fill and redevelopment occurs. The communities in the
Mazket Area remain popular residential locations and households preferring to live closer in
to the urban area continue to consider new properties located on attractive sites.
The table reveals that Richfield is projected to add 3,990 people during the ZOOOs, about 40%
of the Market Area's growth. South Minneapolis is projected to add the next highest number
of people at 3,868 for the decade. There is virtually no land available for new development
and nearly all new housing constructed has been through redevelopment. Because of the
ongoing popularity of the Mazket Area communities, new developments have continued to be
successful.
• Since households represent occupied housing units, household growth trends are a much
better indicator of housing demand than population growth trends. Between 2008 and 2020,
the Market Area is forecast to add 3',215 households, a growth rate of 4.5%. This rate of
growth compares to nearly 37.0% for the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole.
• Richfield is 1,627 households (10.8%) from 2000 to 2010 and another 1,900 households from
2010 to 2020, a growth rate of 11.4%.
Employment growth is projected for the 2010s, but has been lackluster the latter half of the
2000s. As shown on the table, Market Area communities aze projected to experience growth
of between 18,600 new jobs from 2000 to 2010, but only 6,840 new jobs from 2010 to 2020.
Because of the slowdown in job growth during the latter half of the 2000s, some of the
projected job growth for the 2010s may spill over into the next decade, increasing job growth
there and reducing overall job growth in this decade. Employment increases however, will
fuel demand for housing long-term as new employees move to live near their jobs.
Typically, households prefer to live near work for convenience. This is particularly true for
renters. Young adults entering the work force, a primary tazget market for rental housing,
often place great value on living near employment, shopping, and entertainment. In addition,
because young adults usually have more moderate incomes, transportation costs often
account for a greater percentage of their budgets. Thus, the projected employment growth in
the. Market Area is proj ected to translate into demand for new rental housing.
• The current lack of new rental product in Richfield has caused some renters to look
elsewhere for new housing. New construction with market rate rent levels has performed
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 4
well in the area, although the lack of new rental construction may initially constrain rent
levels to some degree. The existence of limited competition and generally low vacancy rates
throughout the area, indicate that new construction would bewell-received by the market.
TABLE 1
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
RICHFIELD MARI~T AREA
1990 to 2020
Census
2000 Estimate
2008 ~ Projection
2010 2020 2000 to 2010
No. Pct. 2010 to 2020
No. Pct.
Po ulation ... ...
. ,..:.
,,: , ; ... ,.:
.
. _.
~:::
~. ,
Richfield
Bloomington
South Minnea olis t. 34,310
85,172
36 783 37,500
87,035
39x880 38,300
87,500
40 651 42,700
90,500
42,414 3,990
2,328
3 868 11.6
2.7
10.5 4,400
3,000
1763 11.5
3.4
4.3
Total 156,265 164,415 166,451 175,614 10186 6.5 9163 5.5
Twin Cities Metro Area 2,288,729 2,861,750 3,005,000 3,334,000 716 271 31.3 329,000 10.9
.. .
...::,::
Househol s:..::_;•,,..,.•.~•;........:°,..:•.,;`::;•
;i`; -
;,.;
.are,;<.;,
:,,~:~
Richfield
Bloomington
SouthMinnea olis t. 15,073
36,400
15,868 16,375
37,440
16,100 16,700
37,700
16,156 18,600
39,200
16,816 1,627
1,300
288 10.8
3.6
1.8 1,900
1,500
660 11.4
4.0
4.1
Total 67,341 69,915 70,556 74;616 3,215 4.8 4,060 5.8
Twin Cities Metro Area 875,504 1,133,500 1,198,000 1,362,000 322,496 36.8 164,000 13.7
Em to ' ~ "'
Richfield
Bloomington
South Minnea olis t. 11,762
104,548
7,080 16,030
115,790
6,455 17,100
118,600
6,301 17,600
126,200
5,044 5,338
14,052
-779 45.4
13.4
-11.0 500
?,600
-1,257 2.9
6.4
-19.9
Total 123,390 138,275 142,001 148,844 18,611 15.1 b,843 4.8
Twin Cities Metro Area 1,272,773 1707 355 1,816,000 1,990 000 543,227 42.7 174,000 9.6
Sources: Bureau of the Census: Census of Population and Housing; Metro olitan Council; Maxfield Research Inc.
Overall Rental Market Trends
Table 2 shows average rents and vacancy rates for Richfield, Bloomington-and South
Minneapolis submarkets. According to the Metro Trends Report First Quarter 2008, published
by GVA Marquette Advisors, the City of Richfield had a 2.9% vacancy rate, Bloomington. a
3.7% vacancy xate and South Minneapolis, a 3.1% vacancy rate. The vacancy rates are lower
than the overall rate for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area vacancy rate of 3.9%.
The overall rental market in the Twin Cities Area has strengthened over the past 12 months
between March 2007 and March 2008, with the overall Twin Cities vacancy rate dropping from
4.4% to 3.9%.
MAXF'IELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 5
From March 2007 to March 2008, Metro Trends Report shows that average rents increased in all
of the submarkets shown on the table, frorrl a low of 2.7% to a high of 9.1 % over a 12-month
period. On average, rents have increased on an average annual basis by about 4.0% to 5.0%.
TABLE 2
AVERAGE RENTS/VACANCIESRMONG MARI~T AREA SUBMARKETS
4TH Quarter 2007 and 1st Quarter 2008
•~Overall:::vg; Rent Inc.
~
Communi ~ .:Studio ~: `1BR , 1BR/D r •::2BR ::':. • 2BR/D : :. 3BR •:: .Avers` e~ ~ ~12~mo§: •~
.`
Rlchfteld
4th Quarter 07
Rent $593 $658 $1,295 $862 $1,420 $1,197 $749 4.6%
Vacancy Rate 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 2.3% 3.0%
Tst Quarter 08
Rent $593 $676 n/a $889 n/a $1,237 $765 9.1%
Vacanc Rate 6.7% 2.7% 4.3% 3.2% 10.9% 2.8% 2.9%
Bloomington
4th Quarter 07
Rent $653 $787 $956 $977 $1,001 $1,157 $889 2.9%
Vacancy Rate, 0.5% 3.3% 3.8% 5.1% 1.8% 9.0% 4.3%
Ist Quarter 08
Rent $661 $794 $959 $974 $1,008 $1,137 $893 3.6%
Vacanc Rate 2.0% 2.8% 5.0% 4.3% 1.8% 6.8% 3.7%
South ~nneapolis
4th Quarter 07
Rent $590 $715 $818 $970 $1,450 $5,120 $750 2.7%
Vacancy Rate 2.6% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5% 33.3% 4.5% 3.4%
Ist Quarter 08
Rent $618 $720 n/a $983 n/a $1,583 $769 5.0%
Vacan Rate 3.4% 2.3% n/a 4.4% n/a 1.5% 3.1%
Notes:lst QuarterZ008
South Central Suburban =Average Rent: $907 per month; Average Vacancy: 3.9°/a
Larger Developments (Over 200 units) = Average Market Rent = $998; Average Vacancy Rate 3.4% (Metro-wide)
Sources: GVA Mazquette Advisors Inc.; Maxfield Research Inc.
Average vacancies declined, from 3.0% to 2.9% in Richfield, from 4.3% to 3.7% in Bloomington
and from 3.4% to 3.1 % in South Minneapolis. We note that average rents as shown on the table
are much lower than would be rents for new construction. The substantial amount of older rental
product in these submarkets accounts for the lower average rent profile. However, newer rental
developments across the Twin Cities are also reporting reasonable vacancy levels. According to
the Metro Trends Report, the average vacancy rate for new construction is 5.8%, essentially at
market equilibrium with an average rent of $1,257 per month.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 6
Comparable Rental Projects
Maxfield Research identified-four selected newer (1990+) xental properties in the area that
provide examples of features, amenities and market positioning similar to new product that
would be developed on the subject site. These properties span a wide range in product offerings;
from modestly appointed to fully-appointed. The properties are shown here to provide an
example of the diversity in rental rates and features among newer products, those built only just
recently and those that are newer in the marketplace, but built in the 1990s. These properties are
listed in Table 3, along with their number of units, a rent range and average rent, asquare-foot
range and average square feet, vacancies and an average rent per square foot. This information
provides examples of the ability of these properties to successfully capture a portion of the
market, rent levels currently charged and overall vacancies. The following are key points from
our survey of existing competitive developments.
• The four developments shown on the table have a total of 2,428 units. Overall mix among
the properties is less than one percent studio units, 34% one-bedrooms units, 48% one-
bedroomplus den and two-bedroom units, and 18%two-bedroom plus den and three-
bedroom units. These competitive properties generally have fewer studio units, more one-
bedroomplus den units than the Twin Cities market as a whole.
• .The overall average vacancy rate for the identified competitive projects is 4.2%, slightly
higher than the Metro Area's vacancy rate of 4.7%. We note that vacancies may be
somewhat higher at this time due to higher rates of turnover during-the peak leasing and
moving months from June through September.
• The newest property is Cornelia Place apartments in Edina. This property serves an affluent
renter segment and offers distinctive features such as granite counters, built-ins, hardwood
floors and stainless appliances. We do not expect that the level of finishing for a new
property would equal that of Cornelia Place.
• Oaks on Pleasant is a newer rental property in Richfield that has continued to increase rents
and maintain low vacancy rates. Oaks offers newer contemporary features and amenities, but
below the level currently offered by Cornelia Place. We envision that new rental product
would be similar in quality and character to The Oaks on Pleasant. Currently, the Oaks is
fully-occupied. The renter profile is a mix, but is predominantly older adults and seniors.
• The average rent per square foot at the projects surveyed was $1.02 per square foot.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
o ~
o
N ~
~a
ti
0
~ N
~A
~ c u .:.:,
Y .
~
. w ... O
~ ~
~
~ ~
,°
.c
° ..
~ ~
"
O
~~ .g
~w
~
a•
O
~ a
o
S
.y
.r.i 12~
O .
~„
'e
'~~ ~
~
p N ., ~Np
L
p ;
~ t~
~ '~
~
A
~
C +0~
~ ~:7 !:~. ,:'•
•O'
~ i0U
q a0
.:~.~
C+
'~
~
jy ~;,•
!I G
3 ~ O
a ~ icy S ~' ~ ~' :'•..~`~ Fn m ~ 'p tom. ~ : y ~O S
C ~.~~';~~'.~ ~.:o'.
~jo ee h
~ h O .. :° M p :: o
'aNl
~ c`fj
~
'~ fA K; K'•G9
fA ~ fA 69 69 69 K Vf V!
p Q
ii fA f/l..69• fA
.:
K 69 fR 69 69
r r r r :4'4;?,;:j~Fi :: r,::;::~ .
r r r ~r:..'Nt:'•~!.: Y.'en~
~~
'~ r I r
[~ ai d O ~ .+ •D T~1'.'.C tV':~a ~;. ~,~ '::i:'iC
D
~ O• ~ t` M'..tH1 00 W V1
vs ~ fe sn v9:.tA::vi.t/~ ~..: s9 69 64 in iA 69'K.,i9 cn;H. f9 fN vi
;;;
M h ',: ~.'i~''iF~d1;•~;,.
rn O N ~O O.C. yef•:'M'1~'`7
. •
N o
N N b p N 0 `VM1 ib•~'O ~YOt
rn o0
~o t
o •
'
`
~ O b 'OY
..
i Y
a a •
;;
~ ;. ~
~~
a rn v, v~
~ ~ ~. ~. o,::~. _ _
fA: ~'iR
64
to H
^ .
o iy, e
;
o
1 c
.1.
a it '., ;:; :~ ~'
f9 69 6
~
i
'
9 ~ o
~,
~ i
4
;
~
~ . 19:69 .fR ~
f
g H
9 6 r
~
a
d ~
M
p y1 y •::i.':>j`~•(O~'~~~ ~.
v1 Vl O O T C~,M'M .::
~ V1 10 N b. 0 ,r, *;;~ C ~~Y1'`O~O'O
O O M
e~ ~ d' N~VI~~N1..h :0
O O .r ~ ~.0~'~~t.~o0'C~ V1 V1
O ~O ~
sf O
a
O
N ~i
.~ ~ rA Q• .r t` W.~.r ~"i',;
69 il9 69 69 i9'f9;'K..H ':•:~
' ri N dir.: a}
fA ~ 69 K N fA f9 ~,K
'
•
•...
.:.
. O~
V! ~ ~
u
p
7
F ~i p ar
O ai
r~ •
r r r r !:;!,;i, %: t.':~(:i';
V'1 h O h O.:Q~'"O~:`_O~',:`;
d' ~D N N..oO.!.'d'.: M ~::::
..::~
.r
•T
t` l~
00 00 Y ,r
.
d
r r r r M r
ir.P
r
N O~ o n 41:;O~ii1'O•: C'
~O yr O. •O ~ Off. N.'[~; rn.:0
. ~O ~
W a\ O~ . ~~
f'1
~1
' r r r
CC h V1
et ~O N
Q• O .-~
W .
;
~
:
K 69 `~ in;is.in:;,;::, r .
.,:.
..
,
6H 69 H :.:'..r-.:N.-in
H .:..
F ~ s9 vi ;:Y.:=.:e9, iA iR' ~ 69,:f9 X69 K 69
W
6i
` ~O •D ;;: ";±:;SC:,f`1 '::i:
; .
O M M M O ,`O .v! .~
t;;:
V1: N~
~ •~•
N O~ ~
v b O M='~:2`.i:'O•~'1D~f0
O e} 00 00 .+ ~O~ ;.~: 00
O el' C O ry.~' ~:.~r.v. '~'. N
O O O
O O C
] r
:
.
.
'
`: r
r
'~v
i` ~.' r
'7rt:.r.
r r r r
r r r r
,
~
p~
:~~;
r r r r
.
:> .
,
a{
,..: .:::.: ~.., • ,:rti .y:.ti
~ xxoi ~.:da:a": axxxxa•x•a
° xxx
~ ~waaoa ~w:.w~::•
`
~
' caoacooaoaat'~oa.a~.
~~
+ N N N ~..
-
N c~~a~
(~
p .
V1 N M fq
.:. :~5
i:`. ..
1 r 1 1 ..r t.;'~,r, P,'a':•=i. N.
.
a .
..
r I r "i':'~:1:~.~~.::,:; __~:
"
~
1 1 1
r7 N fN~ a0 h N~'oo :.oo .N ~.•,,
N n N ~•,~. T'rti::., C.
:.'d'
O ~O oe rn O. N d'
M ~p .~i O~ N ..! N.: ~' !"!:~~;: oo d~ O
d' N M •
~'~:~ :'i't N b r"y
p
~ i
C
~
r~ N O O N ~•.,r ,"r.+_ '.. ~
?ri O~ O~ e? O• oG ~O O O O
g
`
:
' '
'
i
:`
~
'
-• ~ .
t;
:
o gip ::;
:
..°,
n O
,
.:r
:',
~~ m
.; ~
O
sir.' p ~ a w Q
:r,. ,;_.~::
~
~
r~
.~
f
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 8
Typical in-unit amenities are central air, modern kitchen amenities such as a built-in
microwave and dishwasher and walk-in closets. Features such as balconieslpatios and
underground parking are found inmost newer properties. Common area and recreational
amenities found among the comparable properties include outdoor pools, party rooms, picnic
areas, fitness centers and business~centers. In-unit features and amenities vary but typically
include open floor plan designs, center kitchen islands or open galley kitchens, stainless
appliances, and high ceilings.
Rental Unit Demand Analysis
Table 4 shows our preliminary demand calculations for general occupancy rental housing for a
project in Richfield between 2008 and 2015. The table presents demand for market rate and low-
and moderate income housing. Below is a discussion of our calculations.
• The Market Area is expected to add 2,674 households between 2008 and 2015. Of this
projected growth in households, we estimate the general occupancy rental market to capture
about 30% of this growth. The potential demand for rental housing from new household
growth is 802 units over the next eight years.
• We expect that 30% of the total demand for rental units in the Market Area will come from
projected growth outside the Richfield Market Area. This demand can be from individuals
who would move into the Market Area for a specific product, or because of a lack of
available product just outside the Market Area, or for other reasons. Adding the additional
3U% results in a total estimated demand for 1,146 rental units from 2008 to 2015.
• We estimate that of the demand for 1,146 rental units, 50% of that demand will be for market
rate units. The remainder of demand will be from lower-and moderate-income households
seeking subsidized and affordable units. This equates to demand for 573 market rate and 573
affordable (moderate and low-income) units.
• From the total demand for rental units in Market Area, we subtract the planned and pending
rental units, of which there are currently none.
• No one project or location can capture all of the rental demand. We estimate that your
property in Richfield could capture approximately 20% to 25% of the demand in the Market
Area for market rate rental housing, This results in demand for about 115 to 143 rental
units on a subject Site between 2008 and 2015.
• In addition, we estimate that your Richfield property could capture approximately 25% to
30% of the demand for low- and moderate-income rental housing. This results in demand
for about 143 to 172 rental units on the subject Site between 2008 and 2015.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 9
TABLE 4
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSING
RICHFIELD MARKET AREA.
2008 to 2015
Housing :: ~;, .
~~ Units ° `-.
Projected new housing unit demand from household growth, 2008 to 2015 2,674
(times) Estimated percent of demand for general occupancy rental housing x 30.0%
(equals) Estimated G-O rental demand in the Market Area, 2008 to 2015 = 802
(plus) Demand from outside the Market Area (30%) + 201
(equals) Demand for rental housing in Market Area = 1,146
(times) Percent of rental demand for market rate units x 50.0%
(equals) Demand for market rate rental units = 573
(less) Competitive units pending in the MarketArea - 0
(equals) Total demand for market rate rental housing in MarketArea = S73
times Estimated ercent of demand ca tunable on the Site in Richfield x 20% - 25%
43-
e' uals Market Itafe:~uni~s'su " ~ ortalile `on ~tlie Site yin ~Richfielci ~ `~~.':`= •'~ ~:~ : ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ITS,:': -:.:'1
(times) Percent of rental demand for moderate rent units x 50.0%
(equals) Demand for moderate rent units = 573
(less) Competitive units pending in the MarketArea - 0
(equals) Total demand for moderate rent rental housing in MarketArea = 573
times Estimated ercent of moderate rent demand ca tunable on the Site in Richfiel x 25% - 30%
::,;...
.. •.~..~ :~r
e~~iials ModerateYtentunits'sn `"~ortableontheSitein~Richfield:~~=` ~°:`:~~:~. ~:=.~.~:~
::'•143:.=:~~:172:
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
In addition to the demand identified here, we also note there is pent-up demand for units in the
Market Area. Based on current vacancy rates, pent-up demand in the Market Area totals another
240 units. Approximately 30% of these units would be for market rate housing (72 units) and the
remainder (168 units} would be for moderate income rental housing.
Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations
The rental market has improved considerably from two years ago; rents have increased between
3% and 5% and vacancies aze below market equilibrium, in the 3.0% to 4.5% range. Based on
the calculated level of demand for rental housing in the Richfield Market Area, we believe there
is sufficient demand to support between 120 and 150 units on the property that would have a mix
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
Michael Development Page 10
of market rate and moderate-income units. We recommend that the moderate-income units
account for no more than 30% of the units in the building and preferably no more than 20%.
Suggested Rent Levels, Unit Mix and Unit Sizes
Table 5 shows our suggested unit mix, sizes, and rents for the proposed development. We
recommend market rate rents of $825 to $875 for studio units, $925 to $950 for one-bedroom
rents, $1,350 to $1,400 for two-bedroom rents and $1,500 to $1,600 for three-bedroom units.
Moderate rent units would range in price from $700 per month for a studio unit to $1,100 per
month for atwo-bedroom unit.
Table 5 shows average base rents for market rate units to be $1.31 per square foot. Total average
per square foot rent for market rate and affordable would be $1.27 per square foot.
TABLE 5
PRELIMINARY SUGGESTED UNIT MIX AND RENTS
RICHFIELD PROPERTY
June 2008
of Suggested Rent /
Unit Type Rent Basis Units Square Feet Rent Sq. Ft.
Studio ~ Market 5% - 5% 600 - 625 $825 - $875 $1.38 -$1.40
Studio Affordable 2% - 2% 500 - 535 $700 - $725 $1.40 - $1.36
1BR/1BA Market 35% - 35% 700 - 725 $925 - $950 $1.32 -$1.31
1BR/1BA Affordable 10% - 10% 650 - 700 $800 - $850 $1.23 -$1.21
2BR/2BA Market 30% - 30% 1,000 -1,100 $1,350 - $1,450 $1.35 -$1.32
2BR/2BA Affordable 8% - 8% 950 - 1,050 $1,000 - $1,100 $1.05 -$1.05
3BR/2BA Market 10% - 10% 1,250 - 1,300 $1,500 - $1,600 $1.20 -$1.23
TOTAL:.t:~:;.:::. •,,.:, ::; :: t:.:~.~~'•'.::'~'::. •:,.;:
'
.~. 0%`~=.:100% ; -~:;AVG'~:i~~~'~:~,~'8
=10 35
_
x$1;046
~~r~~$1.2T.::::;`~'`
er a Onl
Market Av a .:
- -
"~
~ $1.31 '
*Rents include water, sewer, trash, and one under and stall.
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
Residents of the proposed project should pay for gas heat and electricity. The newest rental
properties in the marketplace require their tenants to pay fox heat as well. Water, sewer and trash
charges are typically incorporated into the monthly rent as is the monthly charge for one covered
parking stall.
We recommend floor designs that maximize flexibility and use open spaces that flow into one
another. We also recommend the following in-unit amenities.
• High-speed Internet access;
• Digital cable/satellite TV access;
• .Full kitchen appliance package including microwave oven;
• One bath in one-bedroom /plus den and two baths in larger units;
• Walk-in closet in master bedroom;
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Michael Swenson June 4, 2008
iylichael Development Page 11
~;
• Mini/vertical blinds;
• Private balconies or patios;
• In-unit washer/dryer.
We also recommend the following recreation /common area amenities:
• Outdoor gas grills and a picnic area;
• Rooftop terrace with outdoor sundeck;
• Community room with serving kitchen and big screen TV;
• Business center;
• Exercise room;
• Bike room;
• Storage lockers.
These common area features will also attract residents to the property and will offer an additional
value to the apartment community. We recommend 1.0 stall of underground parking per unit
with the option for tenants to pay an additional $50 /month for extra stalls.
Projected Absorption
If a property is developed with.approximately 150 units, we estimate that 20% of the units could
be preleased with the remaining units leasing at a rate of 12 units per month. At this rate, the
project would reach stabilized occupancy (95%) in 9 to 10 months of opening. This absorption
rate assumes that the project would open during the peak leasing season. If the property opens in
the Late fall or winter months, the absorption period would be extended by between 3 to 4
months.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
--- -.,
axfieId
--,. ~ Hrsrarch Inr.
July 31, 2009
Mr. Michael Swenson
Michael Development
2177 Youngman Ave. #180
St. Paul, MN 55116
RE: Preliminary Unit Mix, Sizes and Rents for Proposed Workforce Housing
in Richfield, Minnesota
Maxfield Research Inc. has compiled a preliminary unit mix, unit sizes and rents for a proposed
workforce housing development that would be located on South Lyndale Avenue and roughly
64~' Street in Richfield, Minnesota. The project would be comprised of a mix of retail and
residential uses and would replace neighborhood strip center development.
Table 1 presents a suggested development concept for the residential component of the property.
Rents include heat, water, sewer and trash removal and one enclosed parking stall. Electricity
and telephone would be paid for by the resident.
TABLET
PRII.IIVIINARYUNIT NIIX/SIZZ>iS/RIIVTS
RICFIFIII,D RENTAL
July 2009
of Average
Unft Type Total Sq~Ft. Rent Range Rent/S~c . Ft,
Rental Building
Studio 5.0 550
1BR/113A 50.0 .750
2BR/1,75BA 35.0 1,050
3BR/2.SBA 10.0 1,300
Total 100.0
$860 - $885 $1.56 - $1.61
$985 - $1,085 $1.31.- $1.45
$1,335 - $1,430 $1,27 - $1.36
$1,545 - $1,595 $1.19 - $1.23
Median = $1.34
Note: Rents include heat, water, sewer and trash removal;
Rents include wall-unit air conditioning
one parIring stall inckuded; additional parking stalls, $75.00 per month.
Rents are in 2009 dollars with an annual trend factor of2.5% to occupancy.
Source; Maxfield Research Inc.
615 In Avenue NE, #500, Minneapolis, MN 55413
(612) 338-0012 (612) 904-7979 fax
www.maxfieldi~esearch.com
Mr. Michael Swenson July 31, 2009
Michael Development Page 2
In marketing of mid-price properties, we find that the target markets respond very well to
properties that include the heat in the rent rather than provide separately metered heating and
cooling units. Although some case is attempted to be made that the resident has more control
over utility costs by managing their own heating and cooling, there is almost always a trade off
in that the rents for new product do not appear to be less to accommodate this feature. Inmost
instances, rent levels are higher because of the additional cost to add separate the separate utility
units uxespective of what is paid by the tenant inutility costs later on. As such, prospects tend to
prefer having their heat included in the rent.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at (612) 904-7977.
Sincerely,
MAX]~TELD RESEARCH INC.
~~ ~~
Mary C. Bujold
President
6151" Avenue NE, #500, Minneapolis, MN 55413
(612) 338-0012 (612) 904-7979 fax
w~vw.maxfieldresearch:com
SITE MAP
64th and Lyndale Site Plan
SITE ZONING
MAP
Comprehensive Plan Map - Woodlake Plaza and HRA Property
1 i
i~
_~~ ._
64th Street
Legend
Proposed Development sit
Regional Commercial
Regional Commercial/Offic
Comm Commercial
~, Comm Commercial/Office
I Neighborhood Commercia
office
High Density Res
~j1, High Density Res/Office
Medium-High Density Res
Medium Density Res
Low Density Res
Mixed Use
Park
Public
Quasi-Public
School/QP
Church / QP
ROW
a
65th Street
Zoning Map - Woodlake Plaza and HRA Property
64th Street
d
Proposed Development
C-1
C-2
I
MR
MR-1
MR-2
MR-3
MU-C
MU-C/PAC
MU-N
MU-R
PC-2
- PMR
PMR-1
R
---- R-1
SO-1
_. ,.
~,
D
N
\\ C~i ~ 65th Street
~ ~ ~ ~,~\
ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS
OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
6 4th and Ly n d a l e
.Michael
L1--'._I~~V~1Qj~lil~Ilt Co I I a e
a r c h i t e c t s
PL~BLlC RlCHT-OF-JYAY J
NEST 64TH STREET
/I
~\
~~
~~.
~~
9~
~~
`\~ G
~~
~`\ ~
rn
rG' yG
9a Ct'~
o~ G~
~~
9~
J
t~ ~
oG
a~
~~I I I I L
I
~ 66 STALLS
6 4 t h a n d L y n d a ~@ -SITE PLAN o~.0~.200~
~;Mcnael
~.,~~ ~~VelQ~ment CoI Ia e
__ _
a r c h i t e c t s
~ ~
DECK
1 2'-O" X 6'-O"
---- -.
^ __....
GREAT ROOK
12'-O" X 1 6'-J"
I
~:,
BEDROOM NOOK
B'-O" X 1 O'-O"
+--~.
ij
11f W/D
--
64th and Lyndale o~.0~.200~
-'
Init plans are ai
ante ~vitf,out n
STUDIO
571 SF
72 SF DECK
1 BATH
O 4r pi
~~
,... ,.:
~_ - ----
-----
,Z~_U~~ ,.,~
-- ~_ - i
i
i
DECK
1 2'-O" X 6'-O"
~ ~ _
i ~~
_ __
u J
', ~ ~---~
-._
~~ BEDROOM ~l __
,.
', ~ -- -
- - _- ~_
R. , „ -
I _--
GFIEAT ROOM
~~
~ ~ ~ 1 2'-3" X 1 B'-4" ' i
rv
\ \ -~ /
i ~!'
~.,, ~
.."_--Y- I ._ _
~~,-
W/D -
KITCHEN
\ ,.:
/ ,~ ~~.
~ ~I
I ,,
_-
~. ~ ~
~ ~
_: _
~7
64th and Lyndale 03.03.200
ONE BEDROOM 3/~ 6" _ ~ '-o"
721 SF
~2 SF DECK
1 BATH
0 ~~ 8•
~-_~
~ ,~ i
i
DECK
I~ i 1 2'-O" X 6'-~" I
64th and Lyndale o~.0~.200~
ONE BEDROOM
BB8 SF
72 SF DECK
1 BATH
~ 4• 8•
'Unit plans are an artist re ~~
change without notice. Se_
BEDRODM
1 2'-6" X 1 1 '-~"
GREAT ROOM
1 2'-6" X 1 E'-4"
4
/ ;~
li
~i
\ \ ~
~ / / /
64th and Lvndale o~.0~.200~
- f-- -+---- r ->
.,
DECK
1 3'-O" X E'-O" it
TWO BEDROOM 3~~ 6 ~ ~
J14 SF
7B SF DECK
1 BATH
nit plans are en ert~st representation only and are suLrjeot to
enge without notice. See your builder for crmplete information.
~ 4! 8•
~~
2, _,,,
N
DECK
1 2'-O" X 6'-O"
64th and Lyndale o~.0~.200~
TWO BEDROOM ~~~ 6 ~ ~
'1022 SF
72 SF DECK
2 BATH
Unit plans are an
hange without noti
~ 4• 8•
~~
11'- I"
DECK
.~'' ~ 'I 2'-O" X 6'-O,.
~ ~ ~
0
~~
`~c
~~
64th and Lyndale 03.03.2000
TWO BEDROOM 3~~ ~ ~ ~
'1022 SF
72 SF DECK
1 BATH
lnit plans are an artist representation cn!y and are subject to
range without notice. Bee your builder ror complete inrormation
~ 4• 8•
®~
~ _.
DECK
1 2'-O" X B'-C
~ ~
64th and Lyndale o~.0~.200~
TWO BEDROOM 3/1 6" _ ~ '-o"
'1025 SF
72 SF DECK
2 BATH
Unit plans are an artist representation only and ere suL'
hange without notice. See yow, builder for complete inf
~ 4• 8•
~•®~
f
i' ' '
~` i ,,
~I
~' ~,
BEDROOM
~ 1 2'-O" X 1 O'-B"
.,C ~ . ___
~,
y
--- - ~
,~,' -
/r _,
.. ~
/ ~~ ~~' __
KITCHEN
\.. /. /
~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
_ i,
:,
~~
__ _ ~
_._1-.. _-- h
OM I ~~- ~_
X 1 1 '-6"
GREAT ROOM
1 B'-2" X 1 B'-B"
12
'/ ,.~ .
j ~~
~~ ~
i
~~
~_J
. ~`\~
_~
r__ -~ r~
~~
i ~ j
~~--- ~ ;
~ ~ I
n
~ ~t
~ ~' DECK
x;'
~~ 1 2'-O" X B'-O" '~
__
-- __
64th and Lyndale o0.00.200~
THREE BEDROOM
'1055 SF
72 SF DECK
2 BATH
'urnt puns are an arLisL repreSenLatiion only ano are sw~ec~ ~c
change without notice. See your builder far complete informal
~ 4• 8•
~~~
~~ ;~
i
L~ i
ZG -J
BEDROOM
1 2'-6" X '12,_7„
~\ -
i
4__-J-'
_ __ ~ - --
I
I ,.---~
~ I
GREAT ROOM
1 2'-6" X 23'-O"
~--~ ,..
r~
I
,~, - _-~
BEDROOM ~~~ ! ~
'12'-2" X 13'-J"
i --- --
n
-~
~~, ~ -~
~_~
~1
J ~~
64th and Lyndale o3.03.200~
THREE BEDROOM
1210 SF
72 SF DECK
~ 1 BATH
'Unit plans ere en ertist representar.ion cniy ~sno Gra
~hanGe without notir_e. See your builder for complete
L !
f~~
~ 4• 8r
~~
I _.___
DECK
1 2'-O" X E'-O"
n~
cp
4
Z
O
C
t0
O'
fD
7
J
0
N
n ~
SO -~-~\
t
~;~
~~t~;
n ~
m /- ~~
a
^W
,A
h ~
er C~
O f~~
fir:
e'
~~~;""
`a, ~~ .
~ ii~~
~,~~ ~ t ~w
i'`'~~
ir=
~~ ....~.,~ ~ a z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~4 ~ rs ~tji t i~,..
~...~_....~., ~ ~ .,«,.~.~.1~.m...el ~c~~4 ~G~ `~5~:.. ~ ~~~ ~
~ ;ii ~i t r ~ ~ C)
r. ~ D~ 0 0 ~ ~^ Y Q n_ a .~ y n
JN N~ Z C C_ .U :~ Z A -~ n` C: ~ rt A Z ~ m ~
f x' o 'J ~ ~ D O LA O x ? x O
a c z a z .,~ ~ ~ n
i ra `~ a ~ :u o m _
r~
m
0
Z
N
s
o ~'
rn~
~n
~~
~3
m
3
m
= j
0
A
m A
r
v
m
m
r
0
'o
m ~
z
z
~~
.~
0 0
m
~~ ~
nw ~
2 ~ D
z .~
~D ~
~ r ~'
zm
ZD
~m
Om
D~
O
C
i
m,
z
A
S
~~ a
o~ ~ z
-'a C 'ir
m N ~ C
~ ~
m ~' 3 ~
z~'z Xl
N~z (D
A~~ _~ ~
`m~° Z z
-~ .. ~ m ~
nCD-
,OsS
`~NZ 00
rn~ N
~> ..
~~
~A Z
N
m n c~ r. ~ % o
~ r .
r
o
z
C, <:
N
r, ~- `z1
y
~-
a
~,
r.
~~
~,
j
i /
/ / i
:; NICIt >/ If ~l.~f lit' . 0 J5W
~.
N '
m
L
r, - - -._
%% SO J5 ~2 ~L- 186. 1?
- - ~~~ ONNE2' CIT Y OF RICHF/ELL' K R A.
X ~v(~
._.
n a _ ~ ~ rn
~ i _ n ~ z
~ D ~
q
~
~ ,,, _ ~.
i
T
`, - ~ - - ~ o
Z r ~ , o - 3
I -
? ~ ; ~
I ~ ~ _ _
~ ~ ~ j - o - jv - 3n s , c .-
~
=
3 ? 3 ~
. 3
~ t 3
- "F° 3 w
o° 3 i
~
v 3 -' ~n ' _m
~ n
~` ~m L - C
Z c O - . .
_"
O
0
a -
3 3 A
o ~
°f f
_ ,o a3„ ~ ~ 3 3
F ,
0
m d ' 3 - ~ 3 .3 3
v - 7 -
o nn N .. n -
3 _ '
3 ~ ~ -
_ ~ s
~- _
l';
GPI,
j v
~ i ',
nl
~~ I
j,
1 N,
~~ ~
i
i
I
i
i
.. _. ~
i
i
_- ~
I
I
~ `: r 3 n iai
~~ °_~
y
5 , ~ o is
a
-~
,ca ~~
I
I ' a ~ ~,
m3
F
^ 3 z 3 '~'
- in f C
I ~ f m ' -
I ~
- _ c_3 _ l~
c _ = m3 zm
;c _ _
0 3 l' < J
v z"
- vy
:4 o N~ ~_ p 2 ~a _
d
30
i33
m z j n _
_- ~
i y m~ 3~ ° ~
~n"_ i:3
~~ Hi
_ ~7 n~:
ti;o
~~
?`: „
-'J~~
hA
,`~~o
~~ N
~n~
- .)
~ I~
n~
CD
4
s
s
s
s
~~
'y ~
~'
'y
~ ~
y
z
0
~-
0
ti
0
0
c~
~_
m
r
D
z
~~
~A
0
Y
an
n' O
nnf
NW
~~_
~ I -- \~
~,~
d~~ .
~ ~
~ e~
0 ~r
~~
O O
~,
~,
_
-~
~
-~
N c~-t
~ (Jl
~ -
~ N (~
00 N
07 ~
~ --,
~ ~
~ D
~
o
Q
o
~ ~
oQ ~
o
o
~
~
~
~ D
cn
TI cn
TI <.
O cn p
TI ~ cn ~
TI -~ ~,
RJ ~
CAD
~^
~ r~^^
V, ~~T~
~
`
v w
~ ~.
~ ~
~. cn
V n
rr
n
U,
~ ~ ~
~_
-• .~~ ==~
_:. A
~. r.
III
^O
1 V
O
'O'^
W
cF
S
I~
r
1
1
1
^
1~
O -n m p p j C7 ~ D] Q7 D
-1 --1 ~ -I -i -1 -I -I O O O
W „~
O o- o- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r
0 0 0 -a
a ~~ o 0 0 0 o co m co a ~
r co co W W of W W O W W o.
~
H o W W
0 0 o cn co m m
0_ o_ o_ a_ n_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co m m
o_ o_ o_
~ ~ ~
„ o_ o_ °
° °
°
° °
°
°
a ~ ~ o a
o
o
o o
o
o
~ ~ O O t!!
O O
~ d ~ d ~
.Tr
N N O O O 00 -~ 00 N 00 ~I
-~Ul NNNN-P OJT W ~
O Ul CTl N N
[a ~ ~ W W ~ W CD N Ql .1~ W ~ N CD CO O
O CJf (J1 N O G] .c
.a v ~ ~ W W -~ W [D ~ C3'I N N ~ ~ W U'1 fJJ
~ N to N ~l ~ fJl O ~ v .A V O ~ U'I ~ -' a
~ p V ~ d7 ~ W 07 CD Q] 00 W Q] CTt 00 W W
N N ~ O C31 CJ1 v O] W~ A ~~ W N fa t.D
Q~ 00 'A CJl ~ Q1 .p
~ N N N
W W W
n~ o~ m
c-r
~' rr ct
S ~"
-,
ail l ~ y ~'>
n ~ i(
~n
=0 d~,;
~_ ~~
s~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~
~-.
0
C""r
v
co
0
N
n'
cp
Ll
z
0
~-
0
N
0
0
CF
S
r
N
m
0
Z
0
r
m
m
r
r
D
Z
~~
W
0
Y
9 A
T~I
n -
0 -
n
N.~
~,
_ \ 1~
~~'
~~ ~"D
O
a~
0
/L I
3.1.J
T
'^~\
T^
VT+
1
N
n~
tp
4
z
a
0
N
0
0
c~
CF
S
3
r
~.
c~
-~
a
r
m
m
r
r
D
Z
~~
W
0
Y
;~
7
~O
~~
:~
~nf
' Wn
WT
ID
-~ t \\
~ ~ ~\`/
I~, ~ ,
~;,
d~,
CD r~r
C ~
0
^~
!.!./
T
W
c~
~D
4
z
0
0
N
0
0
co
cF
r
3
~D
0
c
~o
r
m
m
r
r
D
Z
~~
w
0
m~
^' 0
~ -
r~
x
1
~~ i
~~
O
^~
S.LJ
~y~
W
O
'7'~
uTJ
I 1
3
c~
cD
z
0
0
N
0
0
c~
cF
S
3
r
3
Q.
~D
~o
D
Z
r
0
0
r
D
Z
~~
W
0
~n
a O
~ ~
m -
H~
N
~~,
~»
~,
d~,;,
C~ In~~
~+ +~~1
~_
~~
j o
w ~
cn v
v v
rr^~^
x.1..1
r
n~
S.LJ
N
~~
rn c.~
D D~
~ c~
0 0
m ~^
UJ
Q ^..
~~
U~J ~
~_
3~
s
Z
m
r
m
D
0
Z
N
G
m
N
n
0
C
D
10
0
m
m
D
0
Z ,
z ..
0
~ ,
a- ,
co QI
Y . .
V
~'
O
r
O O
Y
Y
~_ Z
^ Iii r
~ m
v
b ^~' °/ '~
~-> O
m_ ~ ~ ~
~~ C ~
N ~~ Z
W ~ ~~ I Q
W
C
~p v
z
~~ I ~
c
e
c
11
Z
t
i
_J
~
m
D
-N+
r
r 3
m
D
~
Z
~
r
~
m
A
o
~
r v
m
2
N
x
p
3
D
r
~
~
3 <
Z
r
z
O
~
~
~
~
A
3 ~
m
2
N
x
v
3
D
r
~
r
Z
~ n
3
Z
W
D
~
~
3 n
3
Z
m
D
~
~
~
D
m
r <
Z
~
N
v_
~
N <
Z
~
y
v_
~
~ ~
~
~
D
~
m
W oo
~
~
o
y
O
n
o
~
N
m ~
~
Q7
~
T
IT~T7
I'1
~
D
r
Z
m
s
z
0
C
~D
CD
7
J
0
tt
S
3
r
Q.
tD
z
0
~ --
D
z
n ~
m
i '' r
-~
0
a
C
Z
~ °
~ o
T
C
v_
D r
z
c~
--
m
r
m ,
D
0 ~--
z
IF
m ,, ~~- _
~~ ~~>
70 ~ ~~
~ C~ ~~
m _. ~ `~'
n
N
~ ~ ~
IY
~~
z
0
s_ _
m
N
~~
~ ~-
oC
~~
"~
D'
0
m
r
m
D
~_
0
Z
~
m
D
-N~1
r m
n
D
n
~
r
C
rn
~
r ~
m
Z
=
v
3
D
r
~
3 ~
<
r
2
o
~
~
<
Z
~
~
A
3 ~
m
Z
=
v
3
D
r
~
r_
Z
~ m
3
2
W
D
~
A
3 m
3
Z
~
a
~
~
D
~
D
m
r <
.Z~
r
N
O
~
N <
~
r
Vl
O
c~i
~ A
tai
7C
'fl
n
m
W
~ W
~
~
N
Or
v
~
C
O
~
m D
~
W
n
~
D
n
D
7
K
~~
a
z
z
0
3
c~
cF
S
3
r
3
Q.
m
r
m
D
0
Z
N
Y
m
D
N
m
r
m
D
~_
O
Z
r-
~_
I
I
I
I m
I ~
I ~
I~
I~
0
Z
I
I
I W
I
I v
I
i
~___
r__
I
I
I
r--
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
r--
i
~---
I
I
I
I
i
~---
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
L__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~---
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L___
I
I
I
I
I
---
I
I
I
I
I
~- -- - -
~~ ~---_
O
r
Q O
I
~_ ~ I
_,~ I
m ~ ,< I
~n ~ ~ ~ ~_
~ ~ 1
~O
"~ ~~ ~
m n~~ J
^ W '~G
O ~~ ~_
-~ ~r
IY
C~
~~
D
~
m
D
~
~
~
r m
~
D
Z
~
r
O
<
m
~
~
~
~ ~
m
z_
w
x
o
m
D
r
-i
~
3 ~
~
r
~
z
O
~
~
~
r
-~
A
3 ~
m
z_
y
s
v
rn
D
r
~
r
~
Z m
3
i
ao
~
D
o
~
3 m
3
z
w
~
D
o
~
1
'~
D
m
r
Z <
~
r
°_
~
~
N <
~
r
o
~
G~
# A
~
7r
D
~
m
~
°
~ oo
~
T
w
o
O
~
o
C
N
m D
~
Oo
~
~
T.
Trn
/~
~
D
r
Z
vv
111
?~ ~ Z
s ~ 0
~ ~
~ ~ I
z ~
~ m
~ D
~. ~
r ~
,~ z
3
~D
m
r
m
D
-~
0
Z
~ N
0
3 ~
m ~
Y
~ II
N
Y
~-
~-
L_
I
~_
L_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L -
~- -
r-
~- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
L_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~
~ m ~ ~ ~ m m << A oo D Y
m n m j m 3 3 ~~ ~ ~ n
D D z r z z z r r 7c W Trn
~ ~= g= W~ o v_ ~ o
~ Z y ~ y ~ ~ N N D y ~ /w
r ~ o O v D D ~ 6i m v ~ ~
r r ~ ~ ~ sa a W m
3 3 c 0 N ~
c D~ D A T ~ ~ r
m r~ r r c
A ~ ~ ~ 3 1 ~ Z
0 3~ r D m
~ A Z m rn
r 3 O r
n•
m
sl
Z
O
feD
3
^O
V
O
W ~
ct
S
r
J~\
A~
^
D
r
N
Am
I
7O
..
Y
'1
O
Y
MATERIAL INDEX
-FACE BRICK
-BRICK SOLDIER COURSE
-ROCK-FACE BLOCK
-VINYL SIDING #1
®s -VINYL SIDING #2
®e -CEMENT BOARD (FLAT PANEL)
-CEMENT BOARD TRIM
-PREFINISHED METAL RAILING
-VINYL WINDOW WI VINYL TRIM
+o -PREFINISHED METAL TRIM
++ -MECHANICAL LOUVER I GRILL
+~ -PRECAST SILL
+a
,.
'. N_ FGCTIYG k CUIiN'Ct \ 'dJ A, RASErdE^lf
~~- `,"'•~ FI A t U Ct LIY I t. 1lIH -CR c _[49t
'-- NCR'i F(`OT:r - -- ~ M1 F PlY N[M[1HANF RG(:i
f 'RU TJRAt. IAPCR[.~ Ri G INSJ'~ AI N (2-40 nVG-)
t DPAIN III E w/-'.EE URAIN, f / 'PER : i)
~~ GRAK. k F~!~R FA5RtC G;P.ROIiNU St8 RGYJf X4.2 MYG
i' PryJRtC CON.RF.'.C 'M`(7 JC/SS SFE SiG.C.IUPAl
• : CWQ?C T'.. 'wAY~ G4TR f00TINO 2 inYCR$ 5/8" TYPF. 'X' GYP 9L~ (6R OYE
. v:. MSanN[ xn7ERPR0!YPIG (Olr wnL[ LAra imc 'Cj
n!.C CxTEYYU Ov;R fOOnkC) PREfINI ~'.EC NE'n1. >CFI'Ii
." RIGIC~ NSI.lA~iON PRC:ECROY HD f{ `
i
---- faF !l' ELE'VAiOR SHAF t: 2 10UR (_R CPpFC~~724
~~~ -~~
AND F0.L0w 5011.5 Ri:PORi REOUIRCMCN fS A
t>~. 3n . AS'EC NG L Y MF.MCIRANE ROOFING
L u'_< Ior ~: cG nRAUr)
I I Al
C(iNCPE F S~. AF3 1 A i - 3/t F vxU ~.1 DI GKING
.
A RE::V OHC ONCRE'F ~SLAU
' /% NGCI JUSI rJ i4 OC
IB t' c % -YYSJN f'.OARD
Af2DER
f• \.:L r OLY V.. J' RE 1 /2 a. ~ IENT GtnnYF..
a" coMPnorED cR nNt;Lnk Fu::. y/a' rwe 'n crns)M eoneD
~: STRUCT. F,^,R kEINFORCiiJG AND
' TvPICAI. FLOGR P,IM
iRO:. JOINT SPACING
IN ems.- -- -_----
5/&" "??E 'X' GY?SUM SHE ATNING
- ~I„AI,. E% ~:RIOFt CONCRCTC SI AFl
•~ ~. ----- - RIM. JOiS?
UL--F'AGED Ft CiERGI.l SS
~- :' REINF OR(;%) CONCRF-'h. 51 AH BAt INS~I.AIION (FOIL, ON
- 6" COMPAC IE:CI GF7ANULAR FIL:- IIY TEh:IOR 9DC IApE ':;E AL TO SiRUCT.)
~': S'fRIICI FOR RCiNFO TCING ANU
7 TYFI AL PAR APE t
_ ..-- __ _. _..__ -_.___ __
.
J-.'~ROL JOINTS AI 6'-0' UNLESS NOiEU .._
.~.,
• 2 . s wGnD FknuwG
'~^1L PRECAST' ~~OOR /CEILING • ,/g" T•!P=_ 'l' CWSUM 9aE ATHING
~ ._.__...._-_-_-_____-
iOPPI^+G
- - s/A" CYF'CRE TE pOi.+ SIOFS
`
.
• 5'AND f1° PREG.AST CONCRE r[ t'1. ANK ::U Sr~EAfHINC UYE SIDC
FL"wL
C.rU_,YT POA'RO E%''t f2lOR fACE
MEAIURANc ROOF
.JtE; 3-NR RA`EU P~Art V. '~L-FA FU f [3EkG. A. .i
E)~ DNS LA ICY (/~O N
- ^IGhL FLUOR VA i~. FLOOR TRUSSCS
:'. _.. .. _- _- _. N., 2I Jk ., J. ~ '-,. I-'~, I:IGf'i OF RICO !NSIJL.
'- ~ S/<" Gt'PCat T~ 12 '~N15,~ [ ME 7AI.. °A 2Af [ CAP
• ~/e' f & 6 PLt wroD (l,Y.UED k NAII.EIt) ~J nA4' )CF MFM Oft i !!nl 11
• 'ill INS:II.Af10N PR' tNi S~~t[ Vf;lAl_ -
~4' ~L0(Y2 iRIISSi:S Pi 1M1" O.C.
. ~ /' aFSll f ' CHANNEL w t6" O.C.
a f ""`
F'rrP x ;m SG 1
~
7 wC( [.1AIN:'
:•-L~. t Ra FIRE Rn".nc ~-c r
IJI. S~CN' L52tl
'IGAL. CORRIDOR FL.^. (iR / CEILINt. -
.. 3/4' CvPCRETC TOPPING
' '~~~•" i k G P;.YW000': (G_U GU r.
r' I~f x cm ND
n ~
O r 0_-
~ ~ ~ -t~
~r
~'_' /,
~ ~
~
~ p ~
p"
T
IY
`"
_ _ 10 _ _ T.O. ROOF ,~1
5 ^ EL = 146'-1 1 /2"
- --- 7 0
M
_ _ -_
__ _ - - -
\~~~I'I _ E ~ ROOF BEA~RING
EL = 141-6 3/4"~'
5 I
4
7
FOURTH FLOOR
__ _ 4 _ TOP OF SUBFLR.
- ~ EL = 132'-5 5/8
I
i
4 ~
I
THIRD FLOOR
- TOP OF SUBFLR.
- - - -
_ ~ ~ EL = 121'-7 3/4'
6 m
dd
«)
i
m
4 ~d
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF SUBFLR.
- -- _ -- ~ EL = 110'-9 7/8'
-~ ____.- .__.. C N
12
O 1.~.-LJ
U ~
12
f~
3
-=
I II TOP OF PRECAST
FIRST FLOOR
--_ '..._ - - EL = 100'-0,+
- . - _ - _ _ I
3
i
GRADE
a
ro
C~ ~~
TOP OF SLAB
_ _ GARAGE LEVEL__~~
_~, LL ~?~~_ w
,.~~ ~.,~.r : A„tom „~ ~ +tr a.;e
MARKET
STUDY
Inc:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Michael Swenson
Michael Development
FROM: Ms. Mary C. Buj old
Maxfield Research Inc.
RE: Preliminary Assessment of Market Conditions for General Occupancy Rental Units in
Richfield, Minnesota
Introduction
This memo provides a preliminary assessment of the potential demand for market rate general
occupancy rental units in Richfield, Minnesota. We also comment on the demand for affordable
rentals and the proportion of affordable to market rate that would appropriate for the proposed
development. This assessment includes:
• Identification of an appropriate Market Area for the proposed development;
• An analysis of population, household and employment growth trends in the Market Area;
• An overview of current rental rates and vacancy rates for apartment developments in
Richfield; a review of selected newer rental properties in Richfield and adjacent surrounding
communities, including the size of development, rents and estimated vacancies;
• Calculation of demand for general-occupancy rental housing in the Market Area, the target
market and the market share that the proposed development could capture in Richfield;
• Preliminary recommendations regarding an appropriate development concept including:
rental rates, unit mix, and unit sizes, and
• An estimate of absorption
(phone) 612.338.0012 (fax) 612.904.7979
615 first Avenue NE, Suite 400, Minneapolis, MN 55413
vnuw mavficlr•roeaarrh rnm
June 4, 2008
SOURCES
AND USES
OF FUNDS
LYNDALE COMMONS
PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES
SOURCES OF FUNDS Footnotes
HUD First Mortgage Loan Proceeds 8,311,000.00
TIF Pay as You Go Note 832,000.00
HRA Land ***
HUD Required Developer Contribution 806,245.00 *
Owner Equity 795,394.00
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $10,744,639.00
USES
Land 1,200,000.00
Site Work/Pre-Construction 499,608.00
Total structure, including garage 6,168,455.00
General Requirements 104,800.00 **
Builders Overhead 135,457.00 **
Total architectural 160,000.00
Engineering 13,800.00
Permits & Fees 55,373.00
SAC/WAC 164, 000.00
Third Party Reports-Phase 1 Environmental,
Architectural Review, Cost Review, 32,500.00
Capitalized Interest & Taxes 348,800.00 **
FHA Application, Insurance, Inspection,
Legal & Accounting 340,100.00 **
Working Capital 2% 181,000.00 **
Operating Deficit (3%) 271,500.00 **
Payment & Performance Bond 760,000.00
HRA Land ***
Contingency 203,000.00
HUD Required Developer Contribution 806,245.00 *
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
$10,744,639
*This is shown as both a source and a use. If the owner agrees to act as the General
Contractor, and assume that additional risk, HUD treats this as additional equity for
for underwriting purposes
**These amounts are either estimates from the HUD Mortgage Underwriter or
formula driven amounts under the FHA/HUD mortgage program.
***The purchase of the HRA Land will be paid for with excess TIF proceeds once the TIF note is retired
1/21/2010:2:05 PM McNellis:LyndaleCommons.ProposedSources.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
January 21, 2010
l
Council Memorandum No. 6
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: SCADA Demonstration and Capital investments
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 2 )
Council Members:
At the January 26, 2010 City Council Worksession, the following two items will be
presented:
• City staff will demonstrate the new SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition) system.
• Staff will also be discussing some possible capital investments at the water
treatment .plant.
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
Closed Executive Session
January 6, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl at 4:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Sue Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Members Absent: Debbie Goettel, Mayor.
Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
Kristin Asher, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; John "Mac"
LeFevre, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
City Attorney Heine stated that a Closed Executive Session was requested. to discuss a
possible settlement proposal and litigation risks related to the CSM Shops at Lyndale damages
resulting from the Lyndale Bridge project. City Attorney Heine stated the City Council may return
to open meeting following the closed session.
By unanimous consent the City Council left the Council Chambers at 4:31 p.m. to conduct
a Closed Executive Session in the Executive Conference Room.
Item #1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN EXECUTIVE
CONFERENCE ROOM FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
CONDEMNATION CASE AT SHOPS @ LYNDALE
The Closed Executive Session was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl in the
Executive Conference Room at 4:33 p.m.
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor (via telephone conference); Sue Sandahl; Pat
Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
Kristin Asher, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; John "Mac"
LeFevre, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
Closed Executive Session Minutes -2- January 6, 2010
The Closed Executive Session was convened pursuant to M.S. 13D.05.
The Closed Executive Session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:04 p.m. in the
Executive Conference Room.
Item #2 RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR POSSIBLE
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The open session meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl at 5:07 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
Members Present: Sue Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Members Absent: Debbie Goettel, Mayor.
Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
Kristin Asher, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; John "Mac"
LeFevre, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Wroge to approve the proposed settlement agreement as presented by
legal counsel
Motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:09 p.m.
Date Approved:
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Suzanne M. Sandahl
Mayor Pro Tempore
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
Advisory Board/Commission
Applicant Interview
January 9, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 9:20 a.m.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and
Tom Fitzhenry.
INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS
The City Council conducted interviews of the following applicants for appointment to City
Advisory Boards and Commissions:
Tim Carter
Dennis Callmie
Judy Goebel
Daniel Kitzberger
Michael Sharkey
Matt Tietje
Andrew Wittenborg
Debra Caserotti
Peter Dysart
Tracy Hollenback
Robert Hall
Bob Shotwell
Sarah Till
Maureen Scaglia
Molly Darsow
Daniel Edgerton
Melissa Huybrecht
Gary Ness
Roger Swanson
Jennifer Turrentine
Staff is to follow-up with Ron Wilson, Ellen Stinger, and Jeff Hovel.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:45 a.m.
Special Meeting Minutes -2- January 9, 2010
Date Approved:
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
J
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Worksession
January 12, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety
Director; Chris Link, Street Maintenance Supervisor; and Cheryl Krumholz,
Recording Secretary.
Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING EMERALD ASH BORER PREPAREDNESS (COUNCIL
MEMO NO. 1)
Public Works Director Eastling and Street Maintenance Supervisor Link presented
information regarding Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) preparedness. Topics discussed included:
Policy Direction
o Remove/replace trees
o Injection of certain trees
o Timeframe for removals
o Use of contractors
• Financiallmplications
• Possible grant funding
Mayor Goettel stated EAB issues were discussed at a recent regional mayor's meeting;
including legislative funding.
Special Worksession Minutes -2- January 12, 2010
City Manager Devich said it may be difficult to enforce inoculation of EAB trees on private
property. He suggested treating public property trees so costs can be managed for removal.
Council Member Wroge suggested discussion should include placement of a boulevard tree
that has been removed -private property or back on boulevard.
Council Member Sandahl stated that trees are part of the City's infrastructure and a
community value.
The City Council consensus was to monitor the EAB impact, draft an enforcement policy,
and contact other cities and states regarding their preparedness and treatment approaches.
Item #2 DISCUSSION WITH RICHFIELD FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE (COUNCIL
MEMO NO. 2)
Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer, Recreation Programs/Athletics Manager Frank
White, Public Safety Director Fritz, Rick Jabs, Tom Rubelin, and Andrew Seifert; Fourth of July
Committee members, discussed the following information:
• Committee Structure
• Spectator Estimates
• 2009 Financial Review of the Celebration
• Summary of City Resources for the Celebration
• History of July 4t" Police Calls
Mayor Goettel expressed concern that the carnival is not a family event and attendance is
down due to personal safety concerns.
Council Member Wroge stated he would find funding for the July 4 without the carnival
because it is important to retain the activities.
Council Member Fitzhenry stated he believed the carnival was the draw on July 4 and
residents don't go there due to its volatility.
Council Member Sandahl agreed that a broader range than Richfield residents attend July 4
events. She suggested the late hours of the carnival be restricted on July 4 since that is when it
appears to be the problem.
Mr. Rublein stated that restricting hours would have a financial impact.
The City Council consensus was to continue the carnival with a 1-2 year contract, give the
Public Safety Director or his designee the authority to shut down the carnival if problems occur,
and modify the carnival contract to limit their hours of operation on July 4.
ADJOURNMENT
Special Worksession Minutes -3- January 12, 2010
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:57 p.m.
Date Approved:
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ~ 3A
REPORT # 18
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26,-2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KAREN BARYON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANT DIIZECTOR
NAME,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the 2010 Social Service agency funding
recommendations and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for service with
those a encies funded b the Cit .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached resolution for the 2010 Social Service agency
funding recommendations and authorize the City Manager to execute
aareements for service with these agencies funded by the City.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield allocates funds on an annual basis to social service agencies serving
the Richfield community.
The following priority areas for funding consideration, established by the Richfield Human
Services Planning Commission, were used to evaluate the applications received: 1)
services for vulnerable senior residents; 2) services for individuals, families, teens and/or
children at risk; 3) housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk.
An announcement was made soliciting funding proposals.. for service in the Sun Current.
Applications were also sent to prospective agencies.
A total of nine applications were received from the following agencies: The Storefront
Group, Modulo de Informacion, Recursos y Apolyo (MIRA), Volunteers Enlisted to Assist
01262010 SocSerFunds Recommendations
People (NEAP), Senior Community Services (SCS), Bridging, Inc., Cornerstone Advocacy
Service, Loaves and Fishes, Church of New Life, and Minnesota Life College.
Minnesota Life College's request unfortunately did not meet the funding criteria and
therefore have not been recommended for funding. -The remaining eight applications
represent a wide variety of services offered to Richfield residents, as well as others outside
of the city of Richfield. The total funding requested by the eight eligible agencies
exceeded the City's funding by $35,000, or approximately 27%.
Staff reviewed the proposals from the applicant agencies and is making the following
recommendations for funding:
Or anization 2010 Fundin Request 2010 Recommendation
The Storefront Grou $30,000 $21,745
M I RA $15, 000 $10,950
NEAP $20,000 $14,600
Senior Community
Services $12,000 ~ $8,760
Brid in ,Inc. $15,000 $10,950
Cornerstone Advocac $22,550 $16,460
Loaves and Fishes $5,000 $3,650
Church of New Life $7,390 $5,395
TOTAL $127,440 $92,510
The 2010 recommendations represent funding of approximately 73% of each agency's
funding request.
The following is a history of the City of Richfield Social Service grant awards over the past
five years:
Or anization 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Senior Communit Services 9,070 9,070 9,070 11,500 $11,160
Cornerstone 13,500 13,500 15,000 15,000 - $13,950
Storefront 30,000 30,000 28,000 28,000 $26,040
Famil & Children's Services 10,000 8,000 8,000 $7,440
NEAP 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 $15,810
Richfield READY 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 $2,325
MIRA ~ 10,000 9,285 $9,737
Church of New Life $2,325
Loaves & Fishes 3,000 3,000 $3,720
Bethan Covenant Church 7,285
CAPSH 5,000
Assumption Church 8,000
RCC Communit Dialo ue 500
Oak Grove Church 7,000
HRA-Kids at Home 5,000
House of Pra er 10,000
RF Schools/ Au sbur Libra 1,500
TOTAL $93,570 $93,570 $93,570 $96,570 $92,507
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• All recommendations meet the priorities established for funding (see
attached "Guidelines and Instructions for 2010 Funding Assistance" and
"2010 Application for Funding Assistance").
• Agencies recommended for funding have met review criteria in the areas
of service need and program management (see attached "Guidelines
and Instructions for 2010 Funding Assistance" and "2010 Application for
Funding Assistance").
• Agencies recommended for funding have stated service outcomes and
have established methods for evaluating service results.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Services are to be provided in calendar year 2010.
C. FINANCIAL
• Recommendations are based on the unallocated portion ($92,510-
. Human Services-Programs), of the 2010 Other Agencies Division
Budget, 10105. A City Council/Administration 2010 allocation of
$25,720 of this budget is designated for the Hennepin South Services
Collaborative for research, planning and coordination functions.
D. LEGAL
• Agencies awarded funding will be required to sign a service
agreement.
E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Approve recommendations with revised allocations.
• Do not approve recommendations.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
Descriptions of Proposed Services
Guidelines and Instructions for 2010 Funding Assistance
2010 Application for Funding Assistance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~~~(
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2010 SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICE WITH~THOSE AGENCIES FUNDED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to support social service agencies serving
the city's residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has allocated funding for this purpose; and
WHEREAS., the City of Richfield solicited applications for said funding and has
reviewed the applications against criteria established for the award of this funding.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the funds are allocated as follows:
Organization Recommendation
The Storefront Group $21,745
MIRA $10,950
VEAP $14,600
Senior Community Services $8,760
Bridging, Inc. $10,950
Cornerstone Advocacy $16,460
Loaves and Fishes $3,650
Church of New Life $5,395
TOTAL $92, 510
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute
contractual agreements with the above-named agencies summarizing services to be
provided to Richfield residents.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
January, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ A- ~..
J
W
V
LL
O
V
W
V
Z
Q
H
N
N
Q
Z
0
z
LL
W
V
W
N
J
V
Z
N
V
Z
W
NQ
I.f.
W
F
O
N
z
O
D
Z
W
O
V
w
0
0
N
J
V
Z
O
V
Z
Z
Z
J
a
W
V
4f.
W
N
Z
2
~_
Z
V
J
W
V
_
O
C =
r d
N
O
v °o
~
~ °
O
~
Ef} °o
Cfl
r
Ef? c°o
N
69 °
O
~
b9 ~
~
~-
(~? ~
Cfl
EA rn
M
Efl
Ln
G7
b9
N -p V N
~ _ C _ tq fB ...:
~' ~_ ~
0 uS - U N O
•O ~
..,
~ ~ N
~ ~ (
6 ~
` ~ O c ~ ~~
~
V O O O ~ O ~-
O
~ cn ~ •
' N N
L L .r..
~' L L ~ rt
~+ U
C ~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ fn ~ ~: L ~ •~ N
~ O ~ T ~ ~
0 ~ p ~ ~ ~ '*" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (6
N 0
~-
~ ~
O ~ N
7 ~
~
ca ~ ~ ~ " ~
c •C .~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~
"_ .~ N ~ o
O~ ~O N O fn
U -a c
O C o
O Q
~ L~ a N
N N '~ N O N
tQ ~ X 3
N
~H U O O~ ~ U •
O ~
~ ~ Q~ ~~ ~ O '"' U O
p N ~~ ~ O c N c O
LT
N O -O ~=C 0 L N ~~~
fA y~-+ c N (B (B -a ~ ~ O~ C C p Q c >, O L
~ O C .~-. N N N ~'~ ~ U .0 ~ ~: ~ ~ .N ~ ~ O
~ O Q ~ U 'o "= N ~ ~ ~ 0 A fB
N ~ ~
~ U ~ N ~ O Q ~ ~ N (L O ~ ~ C O
. ~ I- ~ X
.
Q' ~ fA •
~ fn ~ d O O ~ O ~ L (B'~- > ~' N +-' ~ ~ f- In
_
.O ~ N ++ ~ L ~- C ~
~
L LL.. O
~ O
~' ~ N ~
~ L. O Q ~ C
O ~ ~
O ~ ~ p
N
L
>' N N ~
L Y N ~
~
'~
N
~ ~ ~
~ -
O U1 N O O
"~ C O
(0 L O
~ ~ c
>,
(a O U . U ~ "~ `+- (B ~
c `~ N
a~ ~ L ~ Q. ~ 3 ~ m ~' ~ vii E c a~ ~ ca c~ ° ~ m ~ a~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ oa
a
i ~a3~ ~~ o~ m•~ o °
~m ~~E aa~ioa~
y.. fA ~~ N
= w >+ ~ N~ O L O ~+ c. C ~ fq L
~ O N N ~ ~ C (A
O m c-
~ o•c
L ca ~ °~ c ~ ~
' ~ m o~~ ~~ ca ~
_ ~ .~ .C U fB ~ U U ~ O . ~ t/1 U • O N ` ~ ~, O ~ >, ~ O
. O
O Cc Q N •U ~ N '_~ 'a N .~ (0 .~-> Y- '~ Q O i C ~ yam,, ~ O O
O
N
O C O~~
Un "-
i
a O~~
o
~ p U
`
o ~ '~"~
a~ O N
a O~~ •~ ~
a ~-o
~ ~ O c N
a > c N ~ Q
H~ ~
~
v
i
i i ~
u a
c
n ~ a a
i
~
~ a~
~
~ _
~ ~
4 0 ° ~
I
~ a ~ ~
`a~ ca ~.~ ca ~ u Q ~ ~ ~
a ~
~ o~ ~w o~ ~ o ~ ?~
•
~= ~- ~~ UO i v ~ 0 0
V O~
~ ~~ w N i L a
~ i N
j -~ ~ J
C
~ ~
~'~ Q ~
~ ~ Q
° •~ .~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
I~-U '
a
~~ oa
~
~~ i
a
ia
~(A a
m o
U o
.I ray
UI- O
F-
~/~ - 3
CITY OF RICHFIELD
GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR
2010 FUNDING ASSISTANCE
The City of Richfield is offering Social Service grants non-profit agencies serving the city
of Richfield. Funding parameters and priority goals for the purpose of making the best
use of funds are as follows:
Funding Parameters
Any non-profit organization is eligible to apply.
Projects must serve Richfield residents.
Because of limited funds, requests made should not cover all expenses of a
proposed service.
Priority Goals
Projects must address at least one of the following priorities:
Services for vulnerable senior residents
Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk
Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk
Award Criteria
Priority will be given to proposals that meet the following criteria:
• Demonstrated need of the proposed service for the targeted population.
• Collaboration with other service providers.
• Participation in the Richfield Community Council and Hennepin South Services
Collaborative and its related activities.
• Efforts to serve cultural/ethnic/racial populations and low-income persons.
• Demonstrated value to the community.
• Does not duplicate services to Richfield residents.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b November 16, 2009
~~-~
Com leted a lications must be submitted b November 16, 2009
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
The attached Application for Funding Assistance must be used in your request for
funds. All requests for funding must include the following information:
• Typewritten responses to all questions on the 2010 Application.
• Agency/program name and address, contact person name, title, phone #, fax #, and
Email address as applicable.
• Please do not include expensive binding, brochures, letters of support or materials
not asked for in the application.
• NOTE: You must use the updated 2010 Instructions and Application
Questions.
Submit 1 original (2-sided printing) and 1 email copy of completed application by
November 16, 2009 to:
Karen Barton
Community Development Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
kbarton(a~cityofrichfield.org
The City will review applications for social service funds. Applicants may be asked to
respond in writing to additional questions. The City will determine 2010 funding
recommendations in December, 2009. The Richfield City Council will award grant funds
in January,. 2010.
Agencies awarded social services grants will be required to sign a service agreement
for calendar year 2010 and submit semi-annual reports on service outcomes.
Please contact Karen Barton at 612-861-9777 or kbartonC~cityofrichfield.or_g with
any questions and for assistance in completing grant applications.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b November 16, 2009
~a-5
CITY OF RICHFIELD
2010 APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING ASSISTANCE
PROPOSAL HEADING
1. Agency name, address, contact person, and phone/fax/email
2. Amount of request
3. Brief description of service(s) provided
4. Identify priority area(s) you are addressing:
a) Services for vulnerable senior residents
b) Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk
c) Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk
d) Other: Please Specify
ADMINISTRATION
1. Provide a mission statement for your agency.
2. Provide verification of your organization's non-profit legal status.
3. Indicate your total agency budget for 2010.'
4. Indicate your proposed project budget for 2010. Itemize proposed expenses and
describe as applicable. Indicate both proposed City funds and other funds to
support the project.
PROGRAM
1. Describe service to be funded. Include:
a) Brief statement detailing the service is and how it is provided
b) Target population(s); estimated number of unduplicated individuals you plan to
serve residing in the City of Richfield
c) Eligibility criteria and process
d) How clients are involved in the planning process for service
e) Desired client outcomes and methods of evaluating and measuring client
progress (use attached "Proposed Outcome/Evaluation Methods" form)
3. Demonstrate the need for the proposed service.
4. Describe efforts to outreach to target population, including immigrant and low-
income individuals.
5. If city funds were- reduced or not available after 2010, how you would continue to
provide the service.
COLLABORATION EFFORTS
1. Are you a partner in the Richfield Community Council, Hennepin South Services
Collaborative or the Children's Mental Health Collaborative? If so, briefly describe
your involvement.
2. Describe your efforts to collaborate with other agencies including your involvement
in developing and participating in these collaborations.
Please contact Karen Barton at 612-861-9777 or kbarton(~cityofrichfie/d.org with
any questions and for assistance in completing grant applications.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b November 16, 2009
~~'~
O
T
0
N
N
N
i O
~s
a~
C _O
v W
~~ d
d
~ 3
.p ~
~_ ~
O
O
~a
O
V
0
N
._
O
C
ca
V
.Q
Q
'~ N
O y
d O
~ ~
za
O
L
a
V
C
0
v
.4+
N
7
L
:rl.
•~ ~
C
E~
W =
s
's
3
L
d
.~
d
N
O
C
.~
V
N
d
~ ~
O d
am
-a
d
N
O
Q N
O y
i
Q
of ~
C
~ ~ •
7 O
~ -
> v
d d
O L
N
H ~
~ d
O ~
d- =
~
~ 3
~ O
L
d O
p t
L
0
V ~
O
a~ °
U O N
~ ~ ~
~
N O
~ ~ O
O
O. ~ .n ,~
~ U O
O ~ ~ U 3
~ O ~
O Q.
~ ~ ~ ~
L
O
~
Q~ N O C ~
UY•- ~
N :
~ ~ ~ ~
O i _
p to ~a
v ca~a~
~ O U O
~ O
L U
O ~•~ (B .~
.Q ~
C~ U ~ ~ •C
N
Rf
L ,
~ L. v N
O
~
V ~
}; ~ ~ ~
~
~
<C
.~ `
-- . ~ L
~ ,ca 'a v
G> N ~ •- a~ co
~ •~ ~
~ d
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
M O v
<n
~
Q
~ '
N
c
iu ca in
O .cU=~ .
~ ~ 3~~~
+
`~
~ a~
U ~ O O
L U ~-
N C ~ .~Ch
d I O "a
E as ~-a~°
O v m a~
V
~r
•-
~ ~~
o 'a
U '- O
>
te
.
0
N .-''
~
a
..
a~~
o
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ~$ _
REPORT # 1 ~ _
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Ja1vUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BRAD SVEUM -FIRE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, TLTLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the dispatch and use of City equipment and services
b the Cit Mana er, or his/her desi nee in emer enc situations.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing the dispatch and use of
City equipment and services by the City Manager, or his/her designee
in emer enc situations.
II. BACKGROUND
During emergencies of any type the resources of the City of Richfield may not be
great enough to deal with the situation and additional personnel and equipment is
requested from neighboring cities. The City of Richfield may also be requested to
send. resources to aid another city in similar situations. When requests for such
resources are received there usually is not time for the City Council to convene and
authorize- the dispatch of personnel or equipment. Currently the City has mutual aid
agreements, which have been authorized by the City Council, in place with
surrounding cities for the sharing of resources during emergencies. The Hennepin
County Fire Mutual Aid agreement is an example.
In recent_years there have been emergencies or disasters in the State of Minnesota
which have required resources to be requested statewide to combat.
0126Fire
A city may send resources beyond the geographical limits of it's current mutual aid
agreements. This may be done by one of two ways, 1) the City Council may meet
and authorize the dispatch of resources, however this may not be timely during an
emergency, or, 2) by a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or his/her designee
to dispatch resources. If the City Council desires that the City Manager be
authorized to send resources they must do so by resolution in accordance with
Minnesota Statute 12.27.
The City Manager's designee in these situations would be the department director
such as the Fire Chief, Police Chief or Public Works Director as appropriate to the
type of event and resources requested.
Emergency response organizations within the State of Minnesota are developing- a
statewide mutual aid plan. Such a plan greatly increases the depth of resources
available to all cities while reducing the response time. This resolution would allow
Richfield to participate in it in accordance with Minnesota Statute 12.27.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield currently participates in and has mutual aid
agreements with neighboring municipalities.
• This resolution authorizes the City Manager, or his/her designee, to
dispatch equipment or personnel to emergencies beyond the
boundaries of existing mutual aid agreements. `
• A plan is being developed to aid in the requesting, sending and
managing of resources on a statewide basis.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Local resources may quickly be depleted due to a large emergency or
disaster requiring aid from others to combat the event.
• There have been several events in recent years where resources
outside of a community's mutual aid agreements were required.
• Convening the City Council in a timely manner to authorize the timely
dispatch of resources to assist outside of the may not be possible. -
• Adopting this resolution will allow the City of Richfield to respond to
resource requests in times of emergencies and disasters.
C. FINANCIAL
• None
D. LEGAL
• This resolution allows the City of Richfield to send resources in
.compliance with Minnesota Statute 1.2.27.
• The City of Richfield is not bound or required to send resources by this
resolution if requested.
E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not adopt the resolution. However if response outside of the current
mutual aid geographical boundaries was requested, the City Council would
have to convene to authorize the response.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Fire Chief
3~- r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPATCH AND USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT AND
SERVICES BY THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE IN EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield City Council finds that instances have occurred in
the past and it can be anticipated in the future wherein there is a danger, by fire, hazard,
weather, casualty or similar occurrences taking place or occurring outside of the
boundaries of the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, due to the suddenness of such occurrences, it would be impossible for
the Richfield City Council to meet and authorize the dispatch and use of city equipment
personnel to combat such fire, hazard, weather, casualty or similar occurrence; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield City Council finds it desirable and necessary to
authorize the`City Manager, or his/her designee, to exercise discretion, considering at all
times the internal needs of the City of Richfield and its inhabitants to dispatch City of
Richfield equipment and personnel deemed necessary to combat such occurrence
whether it takes place within or without the City of Richfield boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that such dispatch and use as directed by
the City Manager, or his/her designee, shall be fully authorized as an act of the City of
Richfield and all provisions for compensation of personnel, rental of equipment, liability
insurance coverage, workers' compensation insurance and all other safeguards and
matters pertaining to the City of Richfield, it's equipment and personnel, shall apply in each
case as if specifically authorized and directed by this City of Richfield City Council at such
time, whether or not the governing body or authority of the place in which the fire, hazard,
casualty or other similar occurrence exists, has previously requested and provided for
assistance and use of the equipment and personnel under a mutual protection agreement
or other type protection agreement with the City of Richfield. Further the City Manager, or
his/her .designee, shall recall, order and terminate the use of such equipment and
personnel when the need for their use no longer exists, or earlier, when at his/her
discretion it appears in the best interest of the City of Richfield.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
January, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 3C
REPORT # 9(1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 2fi, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, T/TLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration. of a resolution authorizing acceptance of all grants and donations received by
the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the city to administer the funds
in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed b donors.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of all
grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services
Department and. to authorize the city to administer the funds in
accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors..
II. BACKGROUND
The Richfield Recreation Services Department received several grants and
donations from various sources and to fund different projects.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the
City Council.
The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
0126 Rec Services Grants
departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
• All of the donations listed were given without obligation to provide any
additional matching funds.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the
City Council.
E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Council Resolution
VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
3C-[
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL GRANTS AND DONATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO
ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND
TERMS PRESCRIBED BY DONORS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows:
Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real
or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in
accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize
such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall
be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members,
expressing such terms in full, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described below:
DAtE
_ _
June 2Q09 DONOR
~ _ - _
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Communit AMOUNT
$2,000
June 2009 Friends and Famil of Michael Frank Per $1,000
June 2009 Chorzempa Famil Foundation $2,000
July August 2009 Lunch Program Federal Reimbursement Grant $34,437.79
Au ust 2009 PMI $1,000
December 2009 Hennepin Count Youth Sports Grant $240,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts all grants and
donations as listed above for the year 2009 and authorizes the City to administer the funds
in accordance with grant agreements and. terms prescribed by donors.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
January, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 3D
REPORT # 2 j
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
~~
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolutions for submittal of applications to Hennepin County for a Transit
Oriented Development Program Grant and the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program for acquisition for redevelopment
transit improvements and streetscape improvements throughout the community.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions approving submittal to
Hennepin County for a Transit Oriented Development Program Grant
and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development Redevelopment Grant Program for acquisition for
redevelopment transit improvements and streetscape improvements
throughout the community.
II. BACKGROUND
Transit Oriented Development Grant Program (TOD)
It is appropriate to submit an application to access funds that support both
redevelopment and new construction that enhances transit usage.
The grant funds provided through the TOD grant program would allow for the
installation of public infrastructure improvements, including safety enhancements
that improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit rider access. The funds may also be
012610-TOD and DEED Grant Application
used for site clearance and installation of streets, utilities, and site improvements for
uses in accordance with a redevelopment project (i.e. Cedar Avenue Corridor
Redevelopment Area). In the past, funds have been awarded to such projects that
include bus shelters adjacent to commercial development, pedestrian lighting, and
streetscape.
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Grant
Program
It is appropriate to submit an application to access funds that support assistance to
Cities to help encourage private development on parcels of land that have become
unviable due to past uses and the need for more productive uses exists. The grant
program gives priority to communities where there is potential for redevelopment
within the community as well as the proximity to public transit.
A requirement of the grant process is that a resolution indicating City Council
support of the applications must be passed by the time the application is due on
February 25, 2010 (TOD) and on February 1, 2010 (DEED).
There are a number of potential projects (ranging from $80,000 to $300,000 in total
cost) that have been identified as potential uses of the TOD and DEED grant funds.
Richfield staff will be meeting with staff people from both agencies to determine
which of these projects would be most likely to receive funding. Examples of these
potential projects include:
^ Acquisition of property in redevelopment areas (on Penn Avenue, East 66th
Street and/or in the Cedar Avenue Corridor);
^ streetscape improvements (on Penn Avenue and/or East 66th Street);
^ Enhanced bus shelters (on Lyndale Avenue, Penn Avenue and/or East 66th
Street).
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is appropriate to seek outside funding whenever possible.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Receiving TOD and DEED grant funding the City will be able to set an
example to the property owners and businesses along the City's
Corridors and Redevelopment areas on what commitment the City has
towards acquisition for continued development as well as streetscape
and transit improvements.
• By the City of Richfield taking the first step in applying for funding, we
will show our commitment into reinvestment, revitalize, -and
redevelopment in the community.
C. FINANCIAL
• No local match is required for the TOD grant program, but the grant
program gives preference to projects in which substantial investments
from other sources are committed.
• A local match for the DEED grant program is required. The local
match must pay for 50% of the costs.
D. LEGAL
• The program guidelines for both the TOD and DEED grant require the
City Council to pass a resolution in support of each of the applications.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny authorization and direct staff to withdraw the applications.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing application to the TOD grant program.
• Resolution authorizing application to the DEED grant program.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~b al
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING CITY STAFF SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS
FOR PENN AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within Hennepin County
and is therefore eligible to access the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 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 application in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 383B.77, Subd. 3.,
supports the TOD loan/grant application submitted to the Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority 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 26th day of
January 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
012610-TOD and DEED Grant Application
~~~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING CITY STAFF SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION AND COMMITTING LOCAL MATCH AND AUTHORIZING
CONTRACT SIGNATURE TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DEED), BROWNFIELDS AND REDEVELOPMENT
UNIT FOR REDEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS the City of Richfeld (the "City")'is a city located within Hennepin County
and is therefore eligible to access the Redevelopment Grant Fund; 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, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield has approved the redevelopment
grant application submitted to the Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED) on February 1, 2010, by the City of Richfield. -
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield act as legal sponsor for
project(s) contained in the Contamination Cleanup Grant Program to be submitted on
November 1, 2007, and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the
Department of Employment and Economic Development for funding of this project on
behalf of the City of Richfield; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield has the legal authority to
apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match
identified in the application are committed to the project identified; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield has not violated any
Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, .bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict
of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the
City of Richfield may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-
referenced project(s), and that the City of Richfield certifies that it will comply with all
applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project(s) on
behalf of the applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of .
January 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: (,nNSF.'NT
AGENDA ITEM # ~F
REPORT # ~~
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MICHAEL FLAHERTY, POLICE
LIEUTENANT
NAME, T/TLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an agreement between Wal-Mart and the City of Richfield pertaining to
fundin for the Richfield Police Department Canine Unit.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the
acceptance of additional grant funds from Wal-Mart Corporation to be
used for funding the Richfield Canine Unit.
II. BACKGROUND
It is Wal-Mart's corporate policy to give back to the local community each year.
Each store is authorized funds to be given to local organizations. The Bloomington
Wal-Mart store, 715 East 78th Street, has been open for over fourteen years.
Throughout their history they have made financial contributions to local
organizations. The Richfield Police Department was selected as one of the local
recipients of this grant money in the amount of $1,500. This is the second Wal-Mart
grant awarded to Richfield as an identical grant was previously approved by the City
Council at the January 12, 2010 Council meeting.
m
0126 Wal-Mart Grant for K-9 Program
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a
grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the
donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the
City Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-
thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota
Statute 465.03.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Wal-Mart grant is for use by the Richfield Police for their canine
unit expenses,
C. FINANCIAL
• The grant funds of $1,500 will be designated for the Police Canine
unit.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could disapprove the resolution which would void the
agreement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution Number
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
.~~-i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD/POLICE TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDS FROM WAL-MART, BLOOMINGTON, TO ASSIST THE RICHFIELD POLICE
CANINE UNIT WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF THE TWO RICHFIELD
CANINES
WHEREAS, the Bloomington Wal-Mart corporation has a policy to give back to the
local community each year; and
WHEREAS, the Bloomington Wal-Mart has throughout their history made financial
contributions locally; and,
WHEREAS, the Bloomington Wal-Mart previously presented a grant to Richfield
Police that was approved by the City Council on January 12, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Richfield Police has again been selected as the recipient of grant funds
designated for the Richfield Police Canine Unit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Richfield Public Safety/Police will
accept a community grant of an additional $1,500 from the Bloomington Wal-Mart store.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
January 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 3F
REPORT # 23
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of closing the Parking Project Capital Project Fund and transfer of the residual
assets to the Cit Hall Project Fund.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the closing of the Parking Project Capital Project
Fund and transfer of the residual assets to the Cit Hall Pro'ect Fund.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1994, the City established a Parking Project Fund that was created as a capital
project fund to account for improvements to City owned parking lots. Several of the
City's parking lots were in a state of disrepair and. required costly attention. The
specific parking lots that were to be improved were the City Hall lot, Fire Station II,
the Community Center lot, and the lot at Donaldson Park.
Funding for these improvements/repairs/replacements was set aside from the
General Fund and the Special Revenue Fund. Improvements were made to the lots
and after the projects were completed, the fund was under-spent. The project fund
remained open and the relatively small balance continued to accumulate interest
earnings.
At this time, the next major parking lot that is currently scheduled for replacement is
the Ice Arena Parking lot. However, accumulated funding for this capital
improvement was completed in 2009 and set aside for work to commence in 2010.
0126Parking Project:Fund Closing
This Parking .Project Fund could now be closed out and the remaining balance of
$47,074 transferred to another project. The most logical choice as the designated
fund to receive this balance is the New Municipal Center project fund. There are
both parking lot and park restoration matters that must be addressed in this project
and the additional funding would be helpful
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
•~ The City's financial policies do not directly address the closing out of
accounting funds.
• A basic principle of government accounting states that a government
should use the least number of individual funds possible, consistent
with its particular circumstances.
• Accordingly, since the two funding sources for the original parking lot
projects were the General Fund and the Special Revenue Fund, it
would be appropriate to transfer the- residual assets to the City Hall
project fund as this project includes the construction of a General
Fund capital asset and the restoration of a City park.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• While the timing of this fund transfer is not time critical, it would be
helpful to transfer these funds at this time as staff seeks additional
funds to address project needs without placing any greater burden on
citizens and or businesses in the community.
C. FINANCIAL
• The balance of residual assets to be transferred to the City Hall
Project Fund is $47,074.
D. LEGAL .
• There are no legal requirements for the transfer of these funds other
than City Council approval.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDA'
e City Gouncu cou
S)
not to close this fund and keep it open for a
future purpose. _
The City Council could suggest closing out this fund to a different recipient
fund.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~~ STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JaIVUARY 26, 2010
RESOLDTION
5
24
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME; TITLE
REVIEWED BY CITY
..
MANAGER: AIIeIr. ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: '
Consideration of a resolution expressing support for a statewide Complete Streets Policy
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution expressing support of a statewide
Complete Streets Polic .
II. BACKGROUND
At the January 12, 2009 City Council Meeting Mayor Goettel indicated that she
would be bringing a resolution forward to the City Council on January 26, 2009
regarding. the issue of a statewide Complete Streets Policy. This action addresses
that issue.
"Complete streets" are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users.
Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are able
to safely move along and across a complete street.
Communities across thecountry, .including Hennepin County, have created
complete street resolutions and policies.. These resolutions and policies are varied
in complexity and legal ramifications.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) at the direction of the
Minnesota State Legislature has convened a complete Streets Study Committee
and Technical Advisory Panel to gather information and feedback about what a
Complete Streets Policy would mean for Minnesota. The study focused on
identifying the benefits, costs and feasibility of adopting a "complete streets" policy
0126Complete streets
in Minnesota. The Complete Streets Final ReporE can be found at the following
website, http~//www dot.state.mn.us/glanning/campletestreets/legislation:html
There is a movement by various agencies to pass a statewide Complete Streets law
in 2010 which would direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation to adopt
and implement a complete streets policy on all transportation projects to provide a
full menu of transportation options to meet the needs of everyone using the roads.
The Minnesota State Legislature reconvenes February 4, 2010 to discuss the
Complete Streets Report.
III. -BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION.
A. POLICY
• If the City Council supports the statewide Complete Streets Policy it
would be appropriate to adopt a resolution expressing such support.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If the City Council supports the Complete Streets concept it would be
best to adopt a resolution of support before the MN legislature
convenes to discuss the Complete Streets Report.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no financial obligation with adopting this resolution.
D. LEGAL
• None
E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could decide not to adopt a resolution of support for the
statewide Complete Streets Policy.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
.~
~r
RESOLUTION NO.
r
EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF A STATEWIDE
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
WHEREAS, the "Complete Streets" concept promotes streets that are safe and
convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicle
drivers of all ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, the October 2009 public draft of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation Complete Streets Report includes the recommendation: "Mn/DOT should
build on existing Context Sensitive Solution practices and develop and implement a
statewide Complete Streets policy..."; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council recognizes the importance of complete
streets, as shown in its 2008 Comprehensive Plan update;
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council supports a statewide Complete Streets
program that is process-based rather than design prescriptive, allowing engaged citizens
to determine what a complete street looks like project by project;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield encourages the
Minnesota legislature, with input and guidance from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, to authorize the development of a statewide, process-based, Complete
Streets program, which would provide for the development of a balanced transportation
system, through appropriate planning, that integrates multiple transportation modes, where
appropriate, for transportation users of all types, ages and abilities.
ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Attest:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 2S
r
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
L~d~
KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR:
NaxE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Appoint persons to fill the expiring or vacant terms on the
Cit adviso commissions.
II. BACKGROUND
Several terms of City commission members expire on January 31, 2010. In addition,
there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations that need to be filled. Vacancies were
advertised in the Richfield Sun-Current, on cable television channel 16 and the City's
Website.
The City Council made some appointments at the January 12, 2010 City Council
Meeting. However, there are vacancies still needing to be filled.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or
resolution. Terms are for three-years and are staggered. Several terms
expire on January 31 annually. The Council directs the City Manager's
office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies.
Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council
meetings. These Council meetings were posted in accordance with.the
open meeting law requirements.
0126commission
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings.
• Terms of several commission members expire on January 31, 2010..
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Defer appointments to a later Council meeting.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Commission vacancy list
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
0
N_
N
W_
V
Z
a
a
z
O
C~
G
O
V
l~~
M M N~ M ~ M N N' M M N N N~ ~
r
~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ r
~ r
~ ~~~
~ 0 0 ~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ •,
L r
M ..
r-~~r
M M M M r
M r
M ~~~
M M M '~~r-c-~~-c-
M M M M M M M
X
f6 td (0 (a ca (a (Q (0 t0 (6 (6 (B (6 t6 (Q (ti (B
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L
E
L
L
1
~_ ±+
'C c~_
~ C
i N
H E
L
J ~
Q
W ~
2 `~
0 ~ N
~ ~ Z
'O^
O ~ =/
m
~O U
~_ N
~ H
Q Q
L
.,~.
~ ~ ~
1
~ ~ W
W
N
J
U
L
r
Z
'O
V/
~_
O
U
N i~
W
UL
N
N ~
W '~
~~
~_
Z
V
E
a~
.~
N
.;.
r
Z
/O
A
N
O
V
a_
N
D
Z
W
E
a~
.~
~C
C
L
N
'z
V/
N
i1~~
~~ O
.Y +~+ V
~~ N
~ ~ 2
Z
Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L L L L L
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ + ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U
J
U
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BIISINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 26
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- JANUARY 26, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
I AGER
NAME, T7TL
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ~LKri t ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the award of contracts for the new Richfield Municipal Center.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bids as recommended by Stahl Construction
Compan on the attached report in the amount of $4,247,175.
III. BACKGROUND
On December 22, 2009, bids were opened for 47 packages for the new Richfield
Municipal Center project. The City Council awarded 13 of those .contracts on
January 12, 2010. As Dale Sonnichsen, Stahl Construction Co. Project Manager,
indicated at the January 12 meeting, more contracts will continue to be brought
before the City Council as contractor interviews are completed.
Since January 12, 2010, Mr. Sonnichsen has completed 22 more interviews of the
lowest qualified bidders. As the City's construction manager, Stahl Construction
Co. is recommending acceptance of these packages which are indicated on the
attached list.
A bid opening date of February 16, 2010 has been set for the packages that were
rejected by the City Council at its January 12, 2010 meeting, on the
recommendation of Stahl Construction Co. and Wold Architects, in order to reduce
the work scope. -
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
0126bid awards
A. hOLICY .
• Per City Ordinance, the ad for bids was published in the Sun Current
on November 19, 2009 and November 26, 2009 and bid openings
were held on December 22,.2009.
• All of the recommended contractors are the lowest responsible
bidders and are established contractors that meet all of the City's
requirements.
• Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority .policy, contracts
estimated to have a value over $100,000 require that sealed bids be
solicited through public notice.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
_ The Council •must acceptor reject bids in a timely manner since the
bids expire 60 days from December 22,-2009.
• Approval of the recommended contracts-will provide contractors the
necessary time to schedule work to meet our construction timeline.
C. FINANCIAL
• The 22 contracts being recommended for award on January 26, 2010
are valued at $4,247,175 and are within the anticipated cost for each
scope of work.
• At this juncture, the total cost of the accepted bids is $12,102,590.
The project is still approximately $867,000 over the estimated
construction bidding budget of $17,645,000 (which does not include
the potential additional costs of vertical fins, humidification and
possible audio visual design by Orfield Labs). The re-bidding of
selected bid packages should assist in reducing the cost overage.
However, those packages will not be opened until February 16, 2010
and then must be reviewed for accuracy so any savings are unknown
at this time.
City staff directed Stahl Construction Co. to accept the lowest bidder
for the built-up roof versus the TPO roof, which were bid separately.
The cost difference of $23,243 to install the built-up roof will be
financed separately from the project through the Government
Buildings Fund. There are many reasons for installing abuilt-up roof,
these include: less problems with leakage, bad experience with TPO
roofs, good value from the bids and construction timelines to meet.
D. LEGAL
All contracts that exceed $25,000 require Council approval.
• Contracts estimated in value between $25,000 to $100,000 can be
made either by sealed bids or by direct negotiation based on quotes.
• All contracts over $100,000 .require that sealed bids be solicited by
public notice.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Environmental considerations have been made in all aspects of
project planning.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council may chose to reject any of the bids and direct staff to obtain new
bids. However, re-bids will likely delay the project and/or increase costs.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Letter from Dale Sonnichsen, Project Manager, Stahl Construction Co.
• Bid tabulation from Stahl Construction Co.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• ' Dale Sonnichsen, Stahl Construction Co.
• Mike Klass, Wold Architects & Engineers
.~j~
STAHL
the PEOPLE. the PROJECTS. the PROMISE.
STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
January 21, 2010
Mr. Steve Devich
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Bid Award Recommendations
New City Hall /Fire /Police Project
Dear Mr. Devich:
After receiving bids on December 22, 2009, and after interviewing the apparent low bid contractors
below, we .recommend acceptance and award for the fa8owing contracts at the next City Counci) meeting:
Contract 13 -Carpentry and Specialties
Crossroad Construction, inc.
1232 -171 ~- Lane NE; Suite 200
Ham Lake, MN 55304
$ 435,370
Contract 14 -Architectural Woodwork
Aaron Carlson Corporation
1505 Central Ave N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Contract 1 b -Traffic Topping
Carciofini Company
755 East Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
Contract 17 -Sprayed Foam Insulation
Southern Minnesota urethane LLC
400 West Highway 52 / PO Box 181
Canton, MN 55922-0181
Contract 18 - Rainscreen Wall Panels
Division V Sheet Metal, Inc.
218 Ohio Street
St. Paul, MN 55107
Contract 19A -Built-up Roofing
Bernard L. Dalsin Company
8824 Wentworth Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420
$ 141,539
$ " 5,400
$ 43,500
$ 460,000
$ 465,000
www.stahlconstruction.com
5755 Wayzata Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ° 952-931-9300 fax 952-931-9941
An affirmative action, equal opportunity employer
~~
Contract 21 -Sealants and Firestopping
Carciofini Company $ 92.785
755 East Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
Contracts 23 -Coiling Doors and 24 -Sectional Overhead Doors
Overhead Door Co. of the Northland $ 78,110
3195 Terminal Drive
Eagan, MN 55121
Contract 27 -Drywall and Plaster
RTL Construcfion, inc. $ 744,469
4000 Valley Industrial Blvd. So. _
Shakopee, MN 55379
Contract 28 -Tile
CD Tile and Stone, Inc. Base Bid $ 328,200
3103 103~d Lane NE, Ste 160 Less Alternate #1 (Deduct} $ {90.630)
Blaine, MN 55449 Total Contract $ 237,570
Contract 29 -Terrazzo
Advance Terrazzo and Tile Co., Inc. $ 108,000
425 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Contract 30 -Acoustical Ceilings and Wa[I Panels
Sonus Interiors, Inc. $ 189,400
2440 Fernbrook Lane No., #200
Plymouth, MN 55447
Contract 31 -Carpet and Resilient Flooring
MCI, Inc.' $ 224,990
26 1 ~ Avenue
Waite Park, MN 56387
Contrail 33 -Resinous Flooring
Flor Dek Coatings LLC - $ 44,300
1733 Brunswick Road
Harris, MN 55032
Contract 34 -Painting and Wallcovering
Steinbrecher Painting, Inc. $ 176,400
1408 7"' Street No. P.O. Box 159
Princeton, MN 55371
Contract 37 -Lockers
Haldeman-Homme, Inc. $ 94,609
430 Industrial Bivd. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Contract 38 -Operable Shelving
Mid-America Business Systems $ 21,772
2500 Broadway Street N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
~~~
Contract 40 -Detention Equipment
Stronghold Industries, Inc. $ 25,800
2000 Oakes Road
Racine, WI 53406
Contract 41 Firing Range Equipment
Action Target, Inc. $ 179,850
341 i South Mountain Vista Parkway, P.O. Box 636
Provo, UT 84606
Contract 42 Plastic Laminate Casework
LSI Corporation of America $ 183,122
2100 Xenium Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Contract 43 -Elevators
Schindler Elevator Corporation $ i 23,800
895 Blue Gentian Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Contract 44 -Fire Protection
Breth - Zenzen Fire Protection, LLC $ 171,389
11 College Avenue No., P.O. Box 697
St. Joseph, MN 56374
The total of the above contracts is: $4,247,175
The date of the bid opening for the contracts being rebid is February 1 b"'. I would anticipate bringing
them to Council either 2/23 or 3/9, along with the remaining six contracts that f am in the process of
interviewing.
Upon receipt of your authorization, I will prepare contracts and get insurance certificates from the above
contractors.
Sincerely,
Stahl Construction Company
Dale onnichsen
Project Manager
~-`{
E
D
z
0
0
w
w
U
W
K
O
g
a
N
W 4
W N
U
~ O
h a
D
m s
~~
'o
~r
h U
O
Q
n
a
N
Q
Q
3
0
J
H
Z
W
K
Q
a
a
0
m
w
N
Q
m
n
O
2
W
O
O
Q
O
Z Z_
m }
Z
O
F
a
U
0
F
U
K
Z
U
O O O
O (OD ~
i~ N
N
M
~ ~ V3 ~
W N
m
O
U
0
Z
Q
°m
N9
O
O
W
C
f9
~ Y « ~
V1ZU mZ
~ ~ a
E
U
a
W
m
O
pV
O1
f9
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O N O
O O O O W O
O V cD O C7 u')
O m h N m cp
V N N N N M
V 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7
O
U
2
F
b
m o a_ o$ m v~ m o o 0 0
O O~~~ (D N C~'J m~ N m
o~ ~m~cnm o6r ri ~~n
w v3 en ds » rn En » bs » F»
O O O
O O O
N N O
V N u7
~ ~ ~
m n m
E
U
U
.~~
E
a
Z
O
K
Z
Q
m o 0 0°0 0 ~~ o o~ g o
r~+i u'irv rim rvvi
z
en of e> vi xi t» to a9 ea di rA t»
N
Vl
O
O
dD
V
EA
K
Z
O
rn
a
J
f
E
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
b
Q
a
a
ogo
0 0
M o v
~n t0 c
Q
to Men
N
Q
Q
Q O
J
W
R
Q
a
a
Q ~
oou.
O g ~ rn
~~~
W O N ~
N NM h f A
Q
m
b
~ N ~ l n
2 ~ ~
W ~ ~ ~
O
D
Q
m } Y YI}
z
~ O
? a
U
y
g W
~ O
W 8
W N
W
~ O
Q a
m $ #
O ~ F
~~ U
~ o
m~ 2
u ~
U
Q
O
W
LL
Z
O
U
m
U
8
~-
a
E
0
w ~ ~ ~ °o m ~
r
o
~ ~ ~ goo
m m
w ~ ~
w
~ 3
Q ei » wi us to
O
Q
n
Q
N
Q
Q
3
0
z
w
rc
a
a
a
a a
O
m
W
tll
Q
00
io
O ~
2
O
O
a
0
zz
m } ~
~ O
a a i
U ~
N
8 ~ I
Vl ~
i
o 'u
~ 8 ~
U b
C y G
o a°
'm s at
° ~y F'
¢ K Q
~ `o ~
hu Z
O
U
o
o m
m '-
~ m
~ 0
°o 0
°o 0
o 0
° 0
m 0
°o
Sri
~
~ Sri
<n
E» ~
a'
~ ai
~
(n ui
~
es m
ti
u3 ri
N
u> m
U~i
ei ai
~
f» ro
n
vi
u~ in u~ u~ ~n m ~n ~n ~n in
» > r r r > r »
c
~ a
O O
U
~
c
o
o
~ o
~
O ~
O
C V
w
m
Q
~
.~
O
~ o
'
U
N aJ
w ggm~
2
L
m
~
a ~
O
-~
= O
Q' >
> l0
Q
d
N
3 m
`m m
~ ~
~ ~p
c ~
O ~ N
E Q
~
L V]
m
_
a n m o m ~ ci a ° m
Q
m
o
o
o
o
m
~ r
~n
r
v
~ m
~
m
r
v
~ o
o
o
r
v
~ 0
~n
m
rn
r>
a~9 0
m
m
v
N
~ 0
o
N
~
m
~ o
o
O
v
r
~ m
~
oi
co
~ c
o
r
o
m
~ o
o
r~
r
v
~ 0
~n
r~
m
r~
Mm 0
o
o
<.i
a
rM
~n ~n ~n ~n ~n in in u~ in u~ u> ~n in
>- r r » » > > r r r r
U
~
c
O
~ y ~
'a ~ ~°o
R ~
o
c o
U W
w m
m
~
N w
O 0
m O
RA C 4=
O a' Q y - ~
N
~ m U
H O
a L
~ N
~ d'
m 3
y ^
Q
a
i
m O
~
d
N
o m
~
~
N i
a
~i .-
-=
°'
~
c
N
E
N
s vJ
m
'
L
F-
(n
a O
~ N
m
o
a
o
~
c~
a O Q
S
m
J
Q
r
w
w
x
Z
a
C7
LL
O
O
K
O
r
m
Q' 'j 0
w m ,~
.~ E
W ~ m
3wY
N N
w
N h a
N N N
M
x
c~
J
}
Y
~"'
Z
W
U
7
J
N ~
2
N
1~
E
0
Z
O
O
U
M
Q
N 0 o rn o
mocvm o m o o
oo~roi~ m
o
Q O O~ W
Q V M N m N m N
N N f") V N
N
fA ffl f9 f 9 ffi fA tH (A fA
Q
3
0
J
f
Z
W
~'
a
a
a
a
m
~ m
N
_
m O
W ~
~
Q
m
b
~
~
Z
W
Q
O
2 Z
}
O >
CC m
e
2
~ O
?' a
U
N
g` W
~ O
N
W a
U m
w
¢ S
O n
~ ~ ~
~ L
~ ~
~ 3' z
~/1 U 0
U
O N
E
0
U
d!
n
N
W
F
N
O O O ~(l O N O
~ O uOS h O N ~
N W ~ Q W m Q
O m ~ O (7
f9 f9 (A IA (9 t9 fA
N
R'
f
N
~v
rt ~
~ m
F C
N
F ~
O ~'1
a
E
0
U
W
N
th
d' m
O ~
J ~
LL
N N U
W =
'J U
Q ~ Q
N
h th
M
z
E
U
N
E
0
0
U
lh
Q
N
Q
a
O
J
F
z
w
a
a
~_
m
W
y
Q
m
N
O
W
Q
Z
0
m
z
3 ~
~.` ~
u 1
~ U
w
H ~
W
u e
~W u
N y
m s tc
O F
~ u U
R ¢
~ O F
~r z
~1 U O
U
M
~_
Y
E O
ai
~ O
3
m
V L" ~ w y
y
C7 O
Y
p
Z
w
~
LL
E
Q
U
C
~
m 2
W p~
C
m O
J
aE
m
O
n
7
~
W
m
(n
W
2
m
U
~
O
O
C ~ E
= _ ~
m
w E
= @
u E
2 C7
c ~
c O
2 ~
c w
z ~
c
m
Q
cmi `m
a C
o ~
m m ~
w
~
E m
<?
d
~ W
J
m
~p
~
N
3
'
t
o
J
f
w
in
C
in
O
F
v
~
~`~
H
N
J
U
~2
m
`m ~
..
C K
O
_
W W
m F
O
'
W
Y '9 F m
E Q
LL' E. O
° m
E my m
E ('
Q ~O-
m c -
Z O
t C7 a
' ~ F
y ~ `o m
U F
a N
s N 1
a
U
W
~ m
~
W
d Q
.Q o_
.D m
~ p
r m
U
m z
~
C
m W
~
W c
~ ~
0 z_
1i a
O
m o
._
Q
J v
C U
~
J
U >
W
J c
L ~
C
- W
K
Q
J ' ~ m
2 O ~ m
F- m
2 LL 2 fp m 0 V) ~ LL ~ ~ C sp
J y
J d W U
(q ~ LL
M h t M pp
d d a
M
M
o
o
O) ~n
r
m o
o
O o
~n
d o
o
[O r
m
W o
o
O m
m
M o
~n
V ~n
~n
N
r1
rn r
r N
m •-
r~ tD
m v
m m
rn ~
~ r
~ ~_
b9 N
di ~-
tH N
M N
f9
fA
fA
E9
b9 M
f9
N N N h u'~ u7 u] Y'1 ~l ~
> r r > r r r r > r
c
~
Y
m
m
U
~
m J
c
~
~
a
m
~
c
O
m
O
°.
0
p m m ti m
w ~
a O m
LL ~
m ~_
LL LL
V ~
N Li
U N
C
m
L C m
L - m C
` E t .- ._
o
m
~e
1
`o
(~ m
p
F- c
m
C'~ a
~
L
Q E
~
fn ;,
m 2
m
(n d
LL
'- O O O
fA f9 di M t9 fA f9 fA
t0 O O NI
C9 N O_ V
l7 M _ C1
f9 f9 fA d3
X 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O ~- O
T c0 O O O O ('l d'
~ N M V t0 ("J N N
C
3
m ~
3
0
0
d 0
0
O 0
0
O o
o
O m
m
f") o
o
0 0
o
0 0
m
00 0
o
0 0
0
0
V
(D
o r
W
m a
N
m O
W
~- N
m 0
N
o M
O
o 01
a0
n ~D
O~
r N
o
~
fA fA di ~
fA f9 ~-
M ~
fA fA t9 ~--
fA
~n u~ u~ ~n ~n ~n ~n rn ~n u~
T Y Y Y > Y T } > Y
U
J
`~ G
E
~
C
a O
E
y
~
m a E _
m `~
W 3
m a
~ ~ ~ -
m
r E o c
m
'c
c
'n m
L t~
.~
0
m 4S++
cg
2 -
a
m m
= o
U o a
'- ~
> a~i
~ L
ami
L E =
~ ~
~ .
N
(.~ Y ~ W (n ~ W a ~
C7
ID
a
O
r
J
0
F m
z
0
U ~
otl
U
2 ,.
d g
m
a`
.~_
E
Z
O
0
U
O
~D
r
O
N
U
g
e
h
w
U ~
¢y
N a
o .
ms
>i
a
~ o
yr
s
~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O pp
O O~ O O O O O O O O O M O
N O O v1 O O O O M O O N h 0 O O
O O
N~ 0 0
O to
~ W 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O LL",
N h ~O O t0 ~O
Q a u~mvmpprmro co coo
M V M M ~O M C N V M M C rM
V V cov
e- mN~mvco
~
t9 df Vi (9 f9 fA fA ~A M f9 f9 ~fl fA (A E9 t9 fA Vl b9 EA ff3 fA d3 (A
S°
f0 M
NN oS
V a0
rf~I °o~oSo
O vJ X 0 0 0
•-`TN l0 rf0
!7
Q
f9 f9
t9 (A
to e9 f9 fA f9 di
N
Q
Q
3
0
J
F
Z
W
Q
a
a
O
m
Q
m
b
0
Z
Q
Q _
Z
m ~
Z
O
r
U
W
O
u
U
Z
0
U
O
0
N
M
0
°o
0
°o
0
° 0
0
p. 0
0
4 0
0
o 0
0
o 0
0
o 0
0
v 0
0
o 0
0
o 0
o
o 0
r
v_ 0
o
o
N
m
~
~
~ r
m
N co
co
M v
m
M o
M o
o
M ri
cn
~O o
v
N v
e
N o
v
r ~
r
0 v
~
~ M~ MM MM ~ ~ (A ~ MM fA ~ di E9 N3
~ Yl N N N N N N N ~ ~ N N N
r r r r r > r r > r r r r >
m
U C
o C
N
L ~_
c ~°
N
~
~
W
~'
~
N
~
m
0 U
N
~ C
R
o
d
t
'n ~
U
C
L .~_.
C
U ~
L
`~
~ (0
U
m O
U
Q G
t
v
m
C
m
m C
f0
v
m C
L
E
~
E
m
U
~ ~ _
m ~
m E ~ = ~ a
L
O L
U N C
N O
O ~p
L E
~ S
~ L
O N
A d
L ~
L Q.
U ~
U Vl W U` Q U Y ~ Z ~ F Q VJ W
J
0
Z
U
a
0
a
E
!)
~e
a
U
a
r
U
W
r
a
a
m
m
w
m
0
m
O
J
W
~ ~
m a
m a
C Q
N LL
a o
~ ~
m O
O F
z
E
U
U
2