092810completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
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 Regular City Council Meeting of September 14, 2010
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
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 first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield
City Code Appendix D establishing fee schedule for certain permits and
applications and scheduling second reading for October 12, 2010 S.R. No. 174
B. Consideration of approval resolutions appointing additional election judges and
high school student trainee election judges for November 2, 2010 General
Election S.R. No. 175
C. Consideration of approval of resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer
and storm water service charges to County Auditor S.R. No. 176
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Cost-Share Grant Agreement
between City of Richfield and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for $20,000
S.R. No. 177
E. Consideration of rescinding Resolution No. 10407 directing preparation of
assessment roll for 2010 concrete alley paving project and canceling public
hearing scheduled for October 12, 2010; and authorizing resolution directing
preparation of assessment roll for 2010 concrete alley paving project and
scheduling public hearing for October 26, 2010 S.R. No. 178
Notes:
4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance relating to conduct within city parks
and recreation facilities; prohibiting tobacco use, sales activity, feeding of wild animals,
unleashed dogs, damage to park plants and trees and regulations on public bodies of
water in parks, amending Section 840 of Richfield City Code
Staff Report No. 179
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Consideration of authorization to advertise Request for Proposal for design and
construction of tier-one skatepark
Staff Report No. 180
Notes:
7. Consideration of award of contracts for interior signage and furniture for. new Richfield
Municipal Center
Staff Report No. 181
Notes:
8. Discussion of policy issues relating to Property Excellence Task Force
recommendation to City Council regarding screening of garbage containers
Staff Report No. 182
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
9. City Manager's report
Notes: -
10. 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 musf have registered prior to
the meeting.
Notes:
11. Closed Executive Session in City Hall Executive Conference Room to discuss status
of condemnation award related to City of Richfield v. Sinclair, 6600 Portland Avenue
12. 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.
ricriTlelq: October LUlU
Yage 1 of 1
1~1c~udav Tuesclav ~~ec3nesda - Thursday ~'~°idav
27 Sep 28 2~ 30 1 (act
7 PM Planning 7 PM Regular City 7 PM Special Friendship
Commission Council Meeting City Commission
Meeting @ Richfield
Community Center,
7000 Nicollet Avenue
4 5 ~ 7 8
5:30 PM Special City 7 PM Human Rights 7 PM Transportation 7 PM Arts Commission
Council Worksession Commission Commission @ Community Center
11 12 13 14 1>
6 PM Special City 7:00 PM Bike Task
Council Worksession Force @ Maintenance
Facility Lunchroom
7 PM Regular City
Council Meeting
18 .9 2{) 2. 22
6 PM Advisory Board of 5:30 PM Hearing 4:30 PM FOWL Board
Health Examiner in Heredia Meeting @ WLNC
Room
7 PM HRA Meeting 7 PM Friendship City
7 PM Community Commission
Services Commission @
Community Center
25 26 27 2~ 29
7 PM Planning 7 PM Regular City SATURDAY, OCT. 30
Commission Council Meeting 9:30-10:30 AM
Mayor's Hour
@ Farmers Market
Llispiay: Year Month Week Day Block List Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search
Add Events: Daily Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar
All meetings held at City Hall-(6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise
Calendars Net
free online interactive web calendars
http://www.my.calendars.net/richfield/d01/10/2010?display=M&style=B&positioning=A 9/20/2010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
' ~ Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
September 14, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Tom Fitzhenry; and Pat
Elliott.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety
Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Services Director; Chris Regis, Finance
Manager; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator;
Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
OPEN FORUM
Deanna Alevizos, 6638-17th Avenue, addressed the City Council regarding the lack of an
ordinance to restrain or confine dogs in their own yards either by being on a leash or behind
fencing.
Suzanne Freiheit, 7321-11th Avenue, addressed the City Council regarding her concerns
about her neighbor raising rabbits for sale or slaughter. She suggested the City Council consider
an ordinance addressing when animals are considered pets or livestock and potential public health
concerns.
The City Council agreed these issues should be addressed in the animal ordinance
revisions currently underway.
PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Council Meeting Minutes -2- September 14, 2010
M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of
August 9 2010 (~ Regular City Council Meeting of August 9, 2010; (3) Regular City Council
Meeting of August 13. 2010: and (41 Soecial Citv Council Meeting of August 30, 2010.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO RICHFIELD
ROADRUNNERS - U 17 GIRLS TRAVELING SOCCER TEAM CLASS 3
DIVISION STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE
Council Member Wroge presented the certificate to Sue Greimel and the soccer team.
Item #2 PRESENTATION OF LANDSCAPING GOOD NEIGHBOR AWARDS (C.M. NO.
140)
Susan Rosenberg, Richfield Beautiful Co-Chair, presented the awards.
Item #3 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO RICHFIELD
GARDEN CLUB
Mayor Goettel presented the certificate to Bev Munson.
Mayor Goettel presented a plaque from the 2010 Census Bureau to Christine Costello,
Community Development Coordinator, acknowledging her efforts in the City's participation in the
census.
Item #4 ANNUAL MEETING WITH CHARTER COMMISSION
Marty Kirsch, Charter Commission President, reported on the 2010 commission meetings.
Item #5 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS .
Council Member Elliott announced the O'Neal Hampton speaking event at the Richfield
High School on September 20, 2010.
Council Member Sandahl announced the Cattail Days and St. Richards Fun Festivals
events on September 18, 2010.
Council Member Fitzhenry acknowledged the efforts of Police, Police Reserves and Fire
personnel related to the home explosion at 76th Street/11th Avenue on September 9, 2010.
Public Works Director Eastling explained the proposed road closure of Penn Avenue at
75th Street as part of the Metro Sewer project and the detour route. He also provided an update
on the sewer project.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- September 14, 2010
Item #6 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Goettel removed Consent Calendar Item 7B for consideration at a later date and
moved-Items 7K, 7C and 7D to Item 8 for separate consideration.
M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #7 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of approval resolution authorizing Richfield City Manager to enter into joint
powers agreement for medical first responder reimbursement pilot project between City of
Richfield and Minnesota Department of Public Safety S.R. No. 158
RESOLUTION NO. 10403
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST RESPONDER REIMBURSEMENT PILOT
PROJECT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10403.
B. Removed from the agenda.
C. Moved to Item 8.
D. Moved to Item 8.
E. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering
preparation of proposed assessment roll for unpaid false alarm user fees against private
property and setting public hearing for October 12, 2010 S.R. No 162
RESOLUTION NO. 10406
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10406.
F. Consideration of approval of resolution directing preparation of assessment roll for 2010
concrete alley paving project and setting public hearing for October 12, 2010 S.R. No.
163
RESOLUTION NO 10407
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR THE CONCRETE PAVING OF ALLEYS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
This resolution appears as-Resolution No. 10407.
G. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring costs to be assessed for current
services performed for weed elimination from private. property and removal or elimination
Council Meeting Minutes -4- September 14, 2010
of public health or safety hazards from private property and setting public hearing for
October 12, 2010 S.R. No. 164
RESOLUTION NO. 10408
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION
OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10408.
H. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield acceptance of mini
grant monies from City of Bloomington Public Health Division for City of Richfield and
Richfield School District Wellness programs and contract with Minnesota Institute of
Public Health hired by Bloomington to manage contractual functions of grant S.R. No.
165
RESOLUTION NO. 10409
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD'S
ACCEPTANCE OF A MINI GRANT FROM THE' CITY OF BLOOMINGTON TO BE
USED, WITH THE RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE COLLABORATIVE
PARTNERING AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT'S
EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAMS, AND APPROVING A CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH THAT HAS
BEEN HIRED BY BLOOMINGTON TO MANAGE THE CONTRACTUAL FUNCTIONS
OF THE MINI GRANT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10409.
I. Consideration of approval of delegation agreement between City of Richfield and
Minnesota Department of Health for inspection and enforcement of food, lodging facilities
and public swimming pools S.R. No. 166
J. Consideration of approval of additional two antennas in cellular telephone antenna
configuration by T-Mobile at Logan Avenue water tower S.R. No. 167
K. Moved to Item 8.
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
7K. Consideration of approval of request by Richfield Visions, Inc. for itinerant place of
amusement and itinerant food licenses with fee waiver for Richfield Cattail Days events on
September 18, 2010 at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 168
City Manager Devich explained the recommended action in the Staff Report distributed with
the packet contains an error. Instead of recommending approval of the requested fee waiver for
the licenses, the recommendation should have been denial of the waiver. The City ordinance
states that the City Council may consider waiving the fee for civic, religious, veterans or charitable
organizations. However, the practice has been consistently not to waive those fees because the
City pays the City of Bloomington for food inspections and certain other inspections, and the fees
Council Meeting Minutes -5- September 14, 2010
help pay for those costs. If this fee was waived, it could be seen as a new practice and other such
organizations would expect the same treatment. In view of the present budget situation, the City
needs to collect these fees to cover costs.
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the request by Richfiel
September 18 2010 at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue.
Motion carried 5-0.
7C. Consideration of approval of resolution for site plan amendment at 6315 Penn Avenue
to allow retail furniture sales S.R. No. 160
Council Member Wroge questioned the status of the sign ordinance violation.
Community Development Director Stark explained the business owner has complied and
the issue has been resolved.
Council Member Wroge questioned the liability for costs related to the parking granted for
this site when development occurs on Penn Avenue and the road is widened.
Community Development Director Stark explained Penn Avenue is a Hennepin County
roadway so costs would be their responsibility. However, in discussions with the County, it is likely
the curb would stay in place or the road changed from four to three lanes with wider sidewalks.
M/Wroge, S/Elliott that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these
minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10404
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL
OF A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 6315 PENN AVENUE
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10404.
7D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing reimbursement for costs related to
condemnation awards for Lyndale Avenue Bridge and 66th Street and Portland Avenue
improvements projects S.R. No.-161
Council Member Wroge stated he was unaware of a settlement with Sinclair.
Public Works Director Eastlirig discussed the condemnation settlement award status. He
stated a Council Memo would be provided.
City Manager Devich explained the purpose of the resolution related to the reimbursement
of costs.
M/Wroge, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
RESOLUTION 10405
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10405.
Council Meeting Minutes -6- September 14, 2010
Item #9 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING:
• SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO INSPECTION AND REGULATIONS OF PUBLIC
SWIMMING POOLS AND ADDING NEW SECTION 619 FOR PUBLIC
POOLS;
• SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 615 AND
ADDING NEW SECTION 617 FOR REGULATION OF FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS;
• SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 1190 AND
ADDING NEW SECTION 618 FOR REGULATION OF LODGING
ESTABLISHMENTS; AND
• THREE RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTIONS
619 PUBLIC POOLS, 617 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AND 618
LODGING S.R. NO. 169
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 169.
M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Member Wroge questioned the delegation of the enforcement and determination of
variances.
City Attorney Heine explained the delegation agreement in which the Minnesota Department
of Health delegates to Richfield the responsibility and authority to enforce State regulations,
including variances.
Public Safety Director Fritz added that Bloomington Public Health is acting as agents for the
City of Richfield, performing inspections and reporting to Richfield staff.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of:
• Ordinance No. 2010-12 amending Richfield City Code by adding a new Section 619, .
pertaining to inspection and regulation of public swimming pools in City of Richfield; and
• Ordinance No. 2010-13 amending the City Code repealing Section 615 and adding new
Section 617pertaining to inspection and regulation of food establishments in the City of
Richfield; and
• Ordinance No. 2010-14 amending the City Code pertaining to inspection and regulation of
lodging establishments in the City Of Richfield, repealing Section 1190 and adding Section
618; and that they be published in the official newspaper and be made part of these
minutes; and that the following resolutions be adopted and be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10410
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF A NEW ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 619;
PERTAINING TO INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS IN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 10411
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REPEALING SECTION 615 AND ADDING NEW
Council Meeting Minutes -7- September 14, 2010
SECTION 617 PERTAINING TO INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 10412
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT REPEALING SECTION 1190 AND ADDING NEW SECTION 618
PERTAINING TO INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS IN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Motion carried 5-0. These resolutions appear as Resolution Nos. 10410, 10411 and 10412.
City Attorney Heine sought clarification from the City Council that their motion approved the
revised ordinance related to lodging establishments.
The City Council confirmed the motion approved the revised ordinance.
Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS RELATED TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR LYNDALE COMMONS PROJECT:
• SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 6401 LYNDALE AVENUE, 515 64TH STREET WEST AND
521 64TH STREET WEST FROM C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND R
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PMR (PLANNED MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL); AND
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 90-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING
COMPRISING LYNDALE COMMONS PROJECT AT 6401 LYNDALE
AVENUE, 515 64TH STREET WEST AND 521 64TH STREET WEST S.R.
NO. 170
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 170.
. Community Development Director Stark discussed the revised ordinance distributed to the
City Council which identifies the additional language to ensure that the existing development does
not become anon-conforming land use in the event the proposed apartment development does not
proceed.
Terry McNellis, Michael Development, stated financing is not yet secured and the earliest
notification from HUD would be in January. He added the intent of the tot-lot park could be publicly
owned but privately maintained.
Council Member Wroge questioned the sale of the HRA property if there is no financing and
expressed concern about the potential of a public park on private property. He suggested the .tot-lot
remain privately owned because he did not want additional expenses for the City.
Community Development Director Stark explained the sale of the HRA property would not
occur until financing was secured. He responded the tot-lot is under consideration and would be
discussed by the Community Services Commission who would make a recommendation to the City
Council.
Mr. McNellis provided an update on the project, including entrance/exit options, fencing,
plantings, traffic flow and construction worker parking.
M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that this constitute second reading of Ordinance No. 2010-15
regarding an ordinance rezoningproperties located at 6401 Lyndale Avenue 515 64th Street West
Council Meeting Minutes -8- September 14, 2010
and 521 64th Street West from C-2 (general commercial) and R single-family residential) to PMR
(planned multi-fami~r residential); and that it be published in the official newspaper and be made
part of these minutes; and that the following resolution be adopted and be made part of these
minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10413
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE LYNDALE COMMONS PROJECT
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10413.
Item #11 I CONSIDERATION OF:
• SECOND READING OF NEW AND AMENDED ORDINANCES RELATED
TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RULE B (EROSION
CONTROL), RULE C (FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION), RULED (WETLAND
PROTECTION) AND RULE N (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT);
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 428;
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE RELATING TO WETLAND PROTECTION; AND
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS S.R. NO. 171
Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 171.
M/Elliott, S/Goettel that this constitute second readings of Ordinance No. 2010-16 related to
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule B (Erosion Control), Ordinance No. 2010-19 related to
Rule C (Floodplain Alteration), Ordinance No. 2010-17 related to Rule D (Wetland Protection) and
Ordinance No. 2010-18 related to Rule N (Stormwater Mana ement) and that they be published in
the official newspaper and be made part of these minutes; and that the following resolutions be
adopted and be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10414
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
REGULATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 428.03, 428.05, 428.11 AND 428.13 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE.
RESOLUTION N0.10415
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO
WETLAND PROTECTION WITHIN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT.
RESOLUTION NO. 10416
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING
TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
Motion carried 5-0. These resolutions appear as Resolution Nos. 10414, 10415 and 10416.
Council Meeting Minutes -9- September 14, 2010
Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING TEXT OF
IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
DEFER REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES S.R. NO. 172
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 172.
Community Development Director Stark reviewed the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
Discrepancies map. .
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10417
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGING THE TEXT OF IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER TO DEFER REZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTIES
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10417.
Item #13 CONSIDERATION OF 2010 REVISED/2011 PROPOSED BUDGET
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING 2011 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY,
SETTING TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATE, AUTHORIZING BUDGET
REVISIONS AND AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2010 BUDGET OF VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS S.R. NO. 173
Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 173.
City Manager Devich explained the rationale for staff's recommendation of Option 4 which is
a 6.82% tax levy increase, including a proposed 2% salary adjustment for City staff.
Council Member Wroge expressed support for getting off local government aid and that staff
should understand a possible 1 % salary adjustment if it means keeping their job.
M/Wroge, S/Goettel that the following resolutions be adopted and be made part of these
minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10418
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2011
RESOLUTION N0.10419
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS
Motion carried 5-0. These resolutions appear as Resolution Nos. 10418 and 10419.
Item #14 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Council Meeting Minutes -10- September 14, 2010
None.
Item #15 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/V1/roge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 08/24/2010
A/P Checks: 196903 - 197291 $ 2,324,943.54
PAYROLL 69972 - 69240, 41503 $ 585,391.12
TOTAL $ 2,910,334.66
U.S. BANK 09/14/2010
A/P Checks: 197292 - 197694 $ 1,366,542.18
PAYROLL 69241 - 69608, 41504 $ 545,328.55
TOTAL $ 1,911,870.73
Motion carried 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
- The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:23 p.m.
Date Approved:
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2UlU
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MELISSA POEHL,MAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a fee
schedule for certain permits and app ications and set a second reading for October 12,
2010.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Approve first reading of the attached ordinance amendment
to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a fee schedule
for certain permits and applications.
• Set second reading for October 12, 2010.
IL BACKGROUND
Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees
adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and
those adopted by ordinance.
On an annual basis, as part of the budget process, departments are asked
to review the schedule of fees that apply to their departments. The
departments review their fees for services and compare the fees charged
with the costs incurred in providing that service. If it is found that costs
exceed the fee charged, the respective departments will adjust their fees
accordingly.
092810 - Appendix D Fee Changes.doc
The proposed ordinance includes all fees that are required to be
established by ordinance. Other fees, including rental licensing fees, are
established via resolution (as opposed to ordinance). Revisions to these
fees require only one hearing, which is tentatively planned for October 12,
2010 in order to coincide with the second reading of ordinance fee
revisions.
Only one change to fees governed by ordinance is being proposed by
Community Development staff; an increased processing fee for variances.
It is anticipated that additional legal review will be required when
processing variances due to a recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme
Court. This ruling makes it significantly more difficult to obtain a variance
based on a new interpretation of the "undue hardship" requirement. The
increase in the variance fee is equivalent to one hour of the City Attorney's
time.
Other Planning and Zoning fees are not increasing at this time because
the staff and other administrative costs associated with providing the fee-
based services and programs are not anticipated to increase. Increases
in fees related to building permits are also not proposed because the fees
collected for such programs have met program costs for the past fifteen
years.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain
fees be established by ordinance.
The City attempts to establish fees that appropriately reflect
the City's costs of administering the permit or application for
which the fee is charged.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• It is important for the City to annually review fees to ensure
-that the fees charged are in line with the costs of the service
provided.
The ordinance will be effective January 1, 2011.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE
RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do no approve the recommended fee change. However, if the
recommended change is not approved; City fees may be less than
costs incurred to provide services.
V. ATTACPIlVIENTS
• Ordinance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• None
~~-i
BILL NO. 2010-
TRANSITORYORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D
TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE
FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background
1.01- Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees
adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and
those adopted by ordinance.
1.02 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be adopted
by ordinance. The City Council has previously established certain fees by
Transitory Ordinance No. The City Council. has established other
fees by resolution, which resolution is also part of Appendix D.
1.03 The City Council has determined the need to update the schedule of fees
under Transitory Ordinance No.
Section 2. Fee Schedule Adopted
2.01 The fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted by
ordinance.
2.02 The fees adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance shall be amended only
by ordinance. Any fees established by resolution, other than those
adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance, may be amended from time to
time by resolution of the City Council.
Section 3. Effective date; codification.
3.01 This ordinance is effective as of January 1, 2011.
3.02 A copy of this ordinance shall be included in Appendix D to the Richfield
City Code, immediately prior to the resolution establishing fees.
3.03 This ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No. to the extent
that Transitory Ordinance No. is inconsistent with this ordinance.
Adopted by the. City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
October; 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ a-~-
EXHIBIT A
CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES
A. Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit:
Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced
without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for
such work.
Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then
or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by
this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Section 2. The
payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions
of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
B. Permit fee refunds:
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no
work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid
when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled
before any plan reviewing is done.
The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the
original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $60.00
(minimum charge -two hours) per hour
(b) Reinspection fees $60.00
(minimum charge $35.00) per hour
(c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically $60.00
indicated minimum char a -one-half hour er hour
(d) Additional plan review required by changes, $60.00
additions or revision to plans (minimum charge per hour
- two hours
(e) Fee to reissue building inspection record $35.00
card
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision,
overhead, e ui ment, hour) wa es and frin e benefits of the em to ee involved.
(1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $35.00
. (includes one inspection)
Each additional ins ection $35.00
$501 to $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 plus $3.25
each additional $100, or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000 with
a minimum fee of $35.00.
$2,001 to $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 plus $14.75
for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$25,000.
$25,001 to $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000 plus
$10.75 for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.
BOLD represents added/amended fees
3 ~ ~~
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
$50,001 to $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50
for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000.
$100,001 to $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 plus
$6.00 for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$500,000.
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 plus
$5.00 for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000.
1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus
' $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof.
(2) Driveway, Parking 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 35.00
Area Permits
(3) Swimming 420.00 Permanent or portable pools are based on
building permit fees with a minimum of $ 35.00
(4) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 35% of building permit fee for one and two family dwelling
detached garages and basement remodels
65% of building permit fee for all other building permits; except no
fee for the following:
(a) Existing single family dwelling minor nonstructural alterations.
(b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work.
(c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not
exceeding $1,000 or where plans. are not required.
Plan review fee for Maximum 25% of permit fee based on Minnesota State Building
similar buildings Code 1300.0160
(5) Contractors Charged once each time a contractor applies $ 5.00
License Verification for permit(s)
Fee
(b) Moving - 845 Moving Permit Fee $ 50.00
Buildin s
(7) Structure 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial
Demolition Demolition cost as per Building Permit
Schedule with a minimum of $ 50.00
(b) Dwelling
One or two story $ 50.00
Residential - Gara a and lesser structure $ 35.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees
~A~~
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(8) Plumbing 400.03-400.09 Residential
Permit Minimum Fee 2% of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 35.00
(includes one inspection)
Each additional ins ection $ 35.00
(9) Plumbing 400.03-400.09 Commercial/Industrial/Multi-family Based on Total
Permit Job cost
2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ .45.00
(includes one inspection)
Each additional inspection $ 35.00
Plan Review 10% of permit fee when the job cost
exceeds $50,000
(10) Electrical 400.03-.400.09 Residential
Permit (a) Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 35.00
(b) Each additional Inspection $ 35.00
(c) Complete Wiring Fee: $ 150.00
Single Family Dwelling and each dwelling unit of a
two family dwelling and includes not more than
three inspections.
(d) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 55.00
(e) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 45.00
(f) Installation, addition alteration, or repair of
each circuit or feeder $ 8.00
Swimmin ool or exterior hot tub $ 55.00
(11) Electrical 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings
Permit (more than two units) and Technology systems:
Commercial Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 45.00
Each additional inspection $ 35.00
(a) Based on total job cost
- 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00
- Over $50,000 -Fee/ $1,000.00
plus 1 1 /2% of cost over $50,000.00
(b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $ 185.00
(c) Fire Alarm: Based on 3/4% of cost of electrical job
to customer with a minimum of $ 45.00
(d) Carnivals, festivals and similar events
plus $35.00 for each service on generator $ 1 10.00
(12) Electrical 400.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with
Permit a minimum of $ 45.00
Si ns se arate electrical ermit re aired for si ns
(13) Residential 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs
Heating, 1 1 /2% estimated cost with a minimum of $ 35.00
Ventilating, Air (Includes one inspection)
~
Conditioning Each additional inspection $ 35.00
and
Refrigeration
Commercial Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs $ 45.00
Heating, 1 1 /2% estimated cost with a minimum of
Ventilating, Air
Conditioning
and
Refrigeration Plan Review of 10% of permit fee when the job cost
exceeds $50,000.
(14) Sign Installation 415.01-415.11 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 35.00
(b) Permanent sign (any size) $ 100.00
Building permit is required for sign support structures Fees
based on buildin ermit fee schedule
BOLD represents added/amended fees
~p,~
ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES
TYPE OP PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION PEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Planned Unit 542 (a) $500 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a
Development maximum fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) PUD Plan Amendment fee -major $ 550.00
c PUD Plan Amendment fee -minor $ 350.00
(2) Site Plan Review 547 (a) $500 plus $.50 /$1,000 of project value to a
maximum fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) Major amendment $ 500.00
c Minor amendment $ 350.00
(3) Variance 547 Residential $ 400.00
Non Residential $ 600.00
Extension $ 75.00
Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 225.00
(4) Conditional Use 547 (a) $500 + $.50/$1,000 of project value to a
Permit maximum fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) Major amendment $ 500.00
(c) Minor amendment $ 350.00
5 Interim Use Permit 547 $ 500.00.
(6) *Zoning District 547 $ 500.00
Chan e
(7) *Subdivision 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00
Approval
Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd. 2 $ 350.00
(8) Street Vacation 820 $ 350.00
(9) Appeal to Board of 547 $ 350.00
Adj. & Appeals
(10) Special Request to $ 350.00
City Council
(1 1) Zoning $ 50.00
Compliance Letter
(12) Comprehensive $ 600.00
Plan Amend.
(13) Plat: preliminary & $ 500.00
final
*Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to
the a licant.
BOLD represents added/amended fees
~~,~0
PUBLIC WORKS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE SECTION
REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(8) Utility Services
Sanitary Sewer 700.05 All land uses
New Service $ 100.00
Repair $ 100.00
Disconnect $ 100.00
Replacement $ 100.00
Water Service 715.01 All land uses
New Service $ 100.00
Repair $ 100.00
Disconnect $ 100.00
Replacement $ 100.00
Turn on/off $ 50.00
-Meter Installation $ 50.00
Private Hydrant $ 50.00
Storm Sewer 720 All land uses
New Service $ 100.00
Repair $ 100.00
Disconnect $ 100.00
Re lacement $ 100.00
FIRE SERVICES FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE
REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(6) Fire Extinguishing Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
System Permit minimum of: $ 50.00
Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee,
except no fee for the following:
a no char e for valuation of $1,000 or less
(7) Fire Alarm Systems Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
minimum of: $ 50.00
Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee,
except no fee for the following:
a no char e for valuation of $1,000 or less
(8) Flammable or Tanks (installation or modification $ 150.00
Combustible
Liquid or Gas Installation or alteration of piping
Storage Tanks Each unit or dispenser $ 50.00
and Piping
Under round Tank Removal $ 100.00/Tank
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE SECTION
REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(3) Antenna 426 (a) CWTS antenna permit application fee $ 100.00
Commercial (b) Antenna permit fee for additional antennas $ 35.00
Wireless added to an existing antenna location
Telecommunicatio
n Service CWTS
ev~o represents added/amended fees
AGENDA SECTION: CnNSF.NT
AGENDA ITEM # qR
REPORT # 1 7 5
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
NAME,, TITLE
n SCI~I
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolutions appointing election judges and high school student
trainee election judges for the November 2, 2010 General Election.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolutions appointing additional election
judges and appointing high school student trainee election judges for
the General Election on November 2, 2010.
II. BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statute 2046.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a
municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that
the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election
judges will serve.
On June 8, 2010, the City Council passed Resolution No. 10372, which appointed
election judges whose names were on the election judge availability list. That
appointment by the City Council allowed for them to serve as election judges at the
Primary Election, the General Election or both elections. Election judges are
assigned to the precincts based on availability, party balance and the number
required for each election. The General Election will require assignment of the
greatest number of available judges.
Since the June 8 City Council appointment of election judges, the City Clerk's office
has received several additional names of individuals who are eligible and able to
serve as election judges for the Tuesday, November 2, 2010 General Election.
0928election
Also Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 provides that a student enrolled in a high
school in Minnesota who has attained the age of 16 is eligible to be appointed as a
trainee election judge (without party affiliation). The student must meet
qualifications for trainee election judges specified in rules of the Secretary of State.
A student appointed as a trainee election judge may be excused from school
attendance during the hours that the student is serving as a trainee election judge if
the student submits a written request signed and approved by the student's parent
or guardian to be absent from school and a certificate from the appointing authority
stating the hours during which the student will serve as a trainee election judge to
the principal of the school at least ten days prior to the election. The principal of the
school may approve a request to be absent from school conditioned on acceptable
academic performance.
The City utilized high school student trainee election judges in the 1994, 1996,
1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections. The City Clerk's office again has
worked with Richfield High School and the Academy of Holy Angels to facilitate
student participation in the High School Student Trainee Election Judge Program-for
the November 2; 2010 General Election.
The City Clerk's office has received a list of students who are eligible and able to
serve as student trainee election judges for the Tuesday, November 2, 2010
General- Election.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge
appointments at least 25 days prior to the election.
• The proposed resolutions contain names of those qualified individuals
who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election-
judge and names of high school student trainee election judges for the
November 2, 2010 General Election.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• If the City Council does not appoint additional election judges or high
school student trainee election judges, the conduct of the election
would be hindered.
C. FINANCIAL,
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2 regarding.
election judges.
• Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 regarding high
school student trainee election judges.
• The General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 2,
2010. Therefore, the City Council should appoint additional election
judges and student trainee judges to serve at this election.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could choose not to appoint the additional individuals who are
named on the resolution to serve as judge.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution appointing additional election judges for the General Election of
November 2, 2010.
• Resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the
General election of November 2, 2010.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None. _
~3~' f
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2010
WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election:
Greg Frost Cindy Prince Ruth Bennett
Mary Gagne Glenn Wisser Kimberly Blomberg
Reed Harms Yvonne Atkins Robert Boehlke
Ruth Hiland Lisa Anderson Linda Boyd
Merlin Hill Delores Armstrong Ellen Brandon
.Mary Lovett Patricia Bates Laura Calbone
Elizabeth Charloff Thomas Couch Julie Daniels
Eileen Davenport Joann Gleason Jan Gregerson
Char Hanson Dorothy Wulf Alex Higgin-Houser
Doreen Higgin-Houser Kathryn Jeffries Clare Jewell
John Jobe Alia Johnson Kathy Johnson
Elaine Kaibel . Donald Timmons Claire Killian
Erica Klein Mike Lueck Beverly McCain
Jonathon McClellan John Rock Meland Christine Mullen
Cindy Norland Karen Nyvall Charlie O'Brien
Paul Perkal Brittany Piatz Rosanne Pingree
Elizabeth Powers Martha Prottengeier Nancy Weinacht
Jeff Wright Elaine Ruble Judith Sausen
Ed Thom Kathy Tighe
John Tvvisk Marinda Vanderkieft
And, that these names be added to .the list of those appointed as election judges in
Resolution No. 10372.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
September, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ ~-a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE
ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2010 '
WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
that the following are hereby appointed as high school student trainee election judges for
said election:
Nicole Berrien Becky Hammerly Theresa Darden
Olivia Schultz Elisabeth Weiss Claire Jacques
Bonnie Theis Julia Joseph Gloria Perez
Nicholas Ogren Jennifer Hanson Jenna Dygert
Kiersten Larson Mandy Hinyish Passang Lhanro
P J Peterson Quartez Williams Michael Peterson
Danielle Piles Samantha Scherther Oshau Callaway
Manuel Cardenas Terric Clark Luke Polk
John Johnson Mario Machorro Denise Nickens
Kane Anderson
Briana Olson Kelsey Metz Baza Houle-Selassie
Mitch Wojcik Jesse Vaneyll
Lauren Smith Joseph Photnirat
Naomi Molly
Michona Johns Andrew Nguyen
Joey Gamoke
Mara LeBlanc Yeshi Gyaltsen Tronisha Schafer
Tyler Klapp
Chris Tomkinson Andre Hill
Dion Nelson Malaynon Enstad
Miranda Mathke
Keeseng Vue Kallie Johnson
Jake Hollenback
Jared Etienne Monan Greenblat Raven McMillan
Dechandra Malo Ivory Ative Ethan Hollis
Terrance Hill
Isabel Fajardo Olivia Kor Jonathon Havri
Jae McMullen Kyle Maloney
Angie Preston Scott Boe
Allison Petersen
Collin Randolph Paul Youngblom Kim Bui
Andrew Tolvstad Matthew Fink Alex Lehinger
Malcolm Tillman Antonio Silva Jr. Tyler Jegting
Carly Klass Derek Kreidler Joseph Vital
Asia Glaze
Ileana Mejia Shumanik Williams
W
K Jessica Martinez
Dana Platt illiam
ing
Selarah Albert Reschell Hampton
Jasmine Whitner
John Bennett Manlet Mahari
Jessica Stewart
Rebecca Hendrickson Alex Westman Zak Beavdet
Tiffany Chena Geena Lindeberg Paul Domingo)
.Jon Moreno Derek Pederson Ellie Mollan
Steph Burt
Samm Nordstrom Paul Ketchan
Briana Montiel Ronnie Amigen
Michele Heinecke
Candace Burk Elizabeth In
Sara Tseng
Eric Amundson Alex Putnam Ivong Ativie
Allie McClement Chelsea Massey Ursula Wenk
Erica Brandon Steve Manuel Philip Reynolds 3 a~3
Cindy Salazan Vallini Mohabir Victoria Phonlom
Julie Rotz Dana Jensen Tabara Kromah
Roberto Escobar Rodolfo Perez Antonio Jordan
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
September, 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 3 C
REPORT # 17 6
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2$, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: .
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer and storm water utility
accounts to the County Auditor.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid water, sanitary
sewer and storm water service charges to the County Auditor to be
collected with other taxes on said properties.
II. BACKGROUND
Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water, sanitary
sewer and storm water charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be
included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also
authorizes a certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By
certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties,
the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges.
In 2009 the City Council certified $232,074.34 of delinquent charges for 565
properties, an average cost of $410.75 per account. The 2010 certification currently
under consideration totals $360,499.52 for 912 properties, an average of $395.28
per account. Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent
accounts will be paid before certification.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITIES
SUPERINTENDENT
092810delinquent.
A. POLICY
• State Statute and Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provide
that unpaid water,. sanitary sewer and storm water charges may be
certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's
annual property tax bill..
• A Notice of Certification to Property Taxes (see attached) will be
mailed on September 29, 2010 to Richfield property owners owing.
utility charges.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• To prepay the special assessment and avoid certification, the entire
past due amount must be paid by October 29, 2010 as stated in the
attached Notice of Certification to Property Taxes.
C. FINANCIAL
• Throughout the year, the Division bills and collects charges for water,
sanitary sewer and storm water from accounts within the City.
• The charges include a 6.5% penalty on unpaid balances. This penalty
is paid quarterly against the accrued unpaid balance.
• The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in
-order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax
process. A $50 certification fee is charged to each account assessed
to taxes.
The assessment is spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8%
per annum..
D. LEGAL
• No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in
attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only
process the City has to collect these delinquent accounts.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution authorizing certification of unpaid water, sanitary sewer and storm
water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes
on said properties.
Notice of Certification to Property Taxes
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
3~'~
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID WATER, SANTITARY
SEWER AND STORM WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO
BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES
WHEREAS; Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water
service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water
service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected
with other taxes on such property; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for
sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof provides that all sanitary sewer
services charges not paid within 15 days after the quarterly due date may be certified to
the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other
taxes on such property; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 established rules, rates and charges for storm
water service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof provides that all storm water service
charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such
properties, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount, which
shall be certified against each particular property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary
sewer and storm water service of $360,499.52.
2. That a $50 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account, such
charges totaling $45,600.
3. That the above-described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the
rate of 8% per annum.
4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other
taxes on said properties.
5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
September 2010. _
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
/~
' City of Richfield/ _
Public Works Department
~"~'~ Utilities Division
Sept 29, 2010
Mailing Address Line 1
Mailing Address Line 2 Property ID: Tax Roll Numeric
Mailing Address Line 3
Mailing Address Line 4 Account #: Account Number
Mailing Address Line 5 Customer #: Customer Number
Mailing Address Line 6 Tenant/Owner: Customer Name
Service Addr: Service Address
Past Due Amt: Current WO Balance
Subject: **NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION TO PROPERTY TAXES**
Dear Richfield Utility Customer:
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City of Richfield certifies all delinquent (water, wastewater,
storm water) charges to the Hennepin County annual property tax assessment roll.
Your unpaid utility balance will be assessed to the 2011 Hennepin County Property Tax assessment
roll. To prepay this special assessment and avoid certification please pay the entire past due amount
by October 29, 2010. Failure to pay the entire past due amount will result in an additional 8% interest
charge and a $50.0.0 service fee when assessed to your 2011 property taxes.
If you have recently paid your past due bill, thank you, and please disregard this notice.
Contact the Utility Billing Division at 612-861-9164 or 612-861-9165 if you have any questions
regarding your past-due amount or assessment procedures.
lnformacion lmportante • Si usted no entiende el contenido de esta Carta, alguien tendra que
traducirla Para usted, iGraciasl
------------------------------------------- - - -- - - - - -- -- --
~c P/ease return this portion with your payment.
Payment must be received by October 29, 2010 to avoid certification to your 2011 property taxes.
Mail payment to: City of Richfie/d, Uti/ity Bi//ing, 6700 Port/and Ave, Richfie/d, MN 55423
Account Number:
Customer Number:
Property ID:
Account Number
Customer Number
Tax Roll Numeric
Past Due Amount: Current WO Balance
Tenant/Owner: Customer Name
Service Address: Service Address
Property Owner: Property Owner Address Line 1
(if different from above) Property Owner Address Line 2
Property Owner Address Line 3
Property Owner Address Line 4
Date:
Amount Paid:
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM
REPORT #
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 20.10
CONSENT
3D
177
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRIS LINK, OPERATIONS MANAGER
FORESTRY/STREETS
N.u~rE TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Cost-Share Grant Agreement between the City of
Richfield- and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMVWD).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Cost-
Share Grant Agreement between the City of Richfield and Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) for $20,000.
~ II. BACKGROUND
The. City of Richfield has been selected to receive acost-share grant in the amount
of $20,000 from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMVWD). The purpose of
the grant is to provide for and manage the retrofitting of equipment to reduce road
salt applications on City streets.
The MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) is currently rewriting their permits
so that in the future it will be required that cities be in compliance with TMDL's
(Total Maximum Daily Load) to obtain a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permit for stormwater discharges. Recently Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District has published a TMDL for chlorides which directly influences the
amount of salt applied to roadways.
092810Grant9MileCreek
As part of the Agreement, the City agrees to use the equipment for 10 years to
control ice while limiting salt use.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires that the City approve a resolution
accepting the funds of the grant money.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Equipment needs to be purchased and retrofitted before first snowfall
and salt application.
• Funds must be used by August 11, 2011
C. FINANCIAL
• The NMCWD will reimburse the City 75% of eligible costs not to
exceed a total of $20,000.
• The remaining 25% will be funded by the Garage Capital Outlay
Budget line item 61000-7500
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to adopt water-quality
standards to protect waters from pollution.
• Standards are set on a wide range of pollutants, including Chlorides.
• Chlorides are directly related to salt application in winter months.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Choose not to approve the resolution, which would void the acceptance of
the grant.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
NMCWD Grant Cost-Share Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~D-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A
COST SHARE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH .NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT (NMCWD) FOR $20,000 TO BE USED TO PROVIDE FOR AND
MANAGE THE RETROFITTING OF EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE ROAD SALT
APPLICATIONS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department, has applied for and
received a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Cost Share Grant in the amount of
$20,000; and
WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to provide for and
manage the retrofitting of equipment to reduce road salt applications on City
Streets; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a
grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be
made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes
the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District Cost Share Grant in the amount of $20,000;
and
2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the
funds in accordance with the grant agreement and terms
described by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th
day of September 2010.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
e~ ~ IJ~
NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
GRANT/COST-SHARE PROGRAM
Cost-Share Agreement between
NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT and
the City of Richfield
This parties to this Cost-Share Agreement are the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District (NMCWD), a public body with purposes and powers set forth at
Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1036 and 103D, and the City of Richfield (CITY), a
body corporate and politic and a [HOME RULE CHARTER/STATUTORY] city of the
State of Minnesota. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the
construction and maintenance of a project demonstrating water resouree
protection and providing education on property owned by the CITY (the
Property).
1. Scope of Work
CITY will provide for and manage the retrofitting of equipment to reduce road
salt applications (Project) on the Property in accordance with the Site Plan,
Design Plans and Specifications, and Budget attached to and incorporated into
this Agreement as Exhibit A. CITY may adjust the work during construction
based on field conditions or other adaptive design considerations as in its
judgment will better achieve the Project purposes.
CITY will submit to the NMCWD at least one report that includes a narrative
describing the construction of the Project, a description of and receipts
documenting eligible costs incurred including in-kind contributions, a
description of any changes made or expected to the Project and photographs
documenting construction (Project Report). A final Project Report must be
submitted to the NMCWD within 30 days of the certification by CITY or CITY's
agent of substantial completion of construction.
2. Reimbursement
The NMCWD, on receipt and approval of a Project Report and accompanying
documentation (including receipts), will reimburse CITY seventy-five (75)
percent of CITY's eligible costs to design and construct the Project.
Reimbursement under this Agreement will not exceed a total of $20,000.
3~'3
At the discretion of the NMCWD, failure by the CITY to complete the Project in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement may result in withholding of
reimbursement, repayment by the CITY to the NMCWD of reimbursement
already paid, or other available action at law or equity for these purposes.
3. Right of Access
CITY will permit NMCWD representatives to enter the Property at reasonable
times to inspect the work, ensure compliance with this Agreement and monitor
or take samples for the purposes of assessing the construction or performance
of the Project and compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the NMCWD
finds that an obligation under this Agreement is not being met, it wil( provide
30 days' written notice and opportunity to cure, and thereafter may declare this
Agreement void. CITY will reimburse the NMCWD for all costs incurred in
exercise of this authority, including reasonable engineering, legal and other
contract costs.
CITY will cooperate with the NMCWD in allowing members of the public
periodically to enter the Property to view the Project in the company of a
NMCWD representative. This paragraph does not create any right of public
entry onto. the Property except as specifically provided for and agreed to herein.
4. Maintenance
CITY will maintain the Project for a minimum of 10 years from the date
construction is complete in accordance with the Maintenance Ptan attached as
Exhibit B. If CITY fails to maintain the Project, the NMCWD will have a right to
reimbursement of all amounts paid to CITY, unless the NMCWD determines that
the failure to maintain the Project was caused by reasons beyond CITY's control.
If the CITY conveys into private ownership a fee interest in all or any portion of
the public property that is subject to this Agreement, it must require as a
condition of sale, and enforce: (a) that the purchaser record a declaration on the
property incorporating the maintenance requirements of this Agreement; and (b)
that recordation occur either before any encumbrance is recorded on the
property or, if after, only as accompanied by a subordination and consent
executed by the encumbrance holder ensuring that the declaration will run with
the land in perpetuity. If the CITY conveys into public ownership a fee interest
in all or any portion of the property that is subject to this Agreement, it must
3~.~1
require as a condition of the purchase and sale agreement that the purchaser
accept an assignment of all obligations vested under this Agreement.
5. Acknowledgment and Publicity
Any publicly distributed or displayed printed or electronic documents or other
text display regarding the Project will properly acknowledge the funding
provided by the NMCWD. The CITY will cooperate with the NMCWD to seek
publicity and media coverage of the Project. CITY will permit the NMCWD, at its
cost and discretion, to place reasonable signage on CITY's property informing
the general public about the Project and the NMCWD's Grant/Cost Share
Program.
6. Independent Relationship
The NMCWD's role under this Agreement is solely to provide funds to support
the performance of voluntary work by CITY that furthers the purposes of the
NMCWD. This Agreement is not a joint powers agreement under Minnesota
Statutes section 471.59. CITY acts independently and selects the means,
method and manner of constructing the Project. CITY is not the agent,
representative, employee or contractor of the NMCWD. CITY holds harmless the
NMCWD, its officers, board members, employees and agents with respect to any
and all actions, costs, damages and Liabilities except for the right to receive
reimbursement according to the terms of this Agreement. No action or inaction
of the NMCWD or the CITY under this Agreement creates a duty of care on the
part of the NMCWD or the CITY for the benefit of any third Party.
7. Effective Date: Termination- Survival of Obligations
This Agreement is effective when fully executed by all parties and expires 10
years thereafter. The NMCWD retains the right to void this Agreement if
construction of the Project is not certified as substantially complete by August
1, 201 1. The NMCWD may grant a request to extend the construction-
completion period based on satisfactory explanation and documentation of the
need for an extension. Upon issuance by NMCWD. of notice of NMCWD's
determination to void this Agreement, CITY will not receive any further
reimbursement for work subject to this Agreement, unless the NMCWD extends
the construction-completion period.
3~,5
All obligations that have come into being before termination, specifically
including obligations under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, shall survive expiration.
8. Compliance With Laws
CITY is responsible to secure all permits and comply with all other legal
requirements applicable to the construction of the Project.
9. Notices
Any written communication required under this Agreement shall be addressed
to the other party as follows:
To NMCWD:
Administrator
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
7710 Computer Av
Suite 135
Edina MN 55435
To CITY:
Chris Link
_Operations_Mana.ger Streets/Forestry
-1-9_Ql_~a~_bSzth St
_B ;`-------h f'-~=~-a-f-.MN 5 5 4 2 3
10. Waiver
The NMCWD's failure to insist on the performance of any obligation under this
Agreement does not waive its right in the future to insist on strict performance
of that or any other obligation. Notwithstanding any other term of this
Agreement, the NMCWD waives no immunities in tort. This Agreement creates
no rights in and waives no immunities with respect to any third party or a party
to this Agreement.
3~~~
Intending to be bound, the parties hereto execute and deliver this Agreement.
CITY
Date:
By:
Chris Link
Its: Operations Manager Streets/Forestry
Date:
Date:
By:
Steven L. Devich
Its: City Manager
NINE NIiLE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Date:
By:
Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION
By:
Debbie Goettel
Its: Mayor
Its Attorney
~~1
3
Exhibit A
[Site Plan, Design Plans & SpecificationsBudget]
In an effort to reduce the amount of road salt applied to City streets, the City of Richfield
Public Works Department will be implementing apre-wetting process to salt application.
This process will require the purchase of additional equipment for reporting application
rates, equipment to be added to trucks and for storage of bulk material. The budget for
the project is as follows:
AVL/Application Reporting Hardware $4,894.00
Updated Application Control Boxes $6,400.00
Truck Mounted Brine Tanks $10,256.00
Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies $1 200
Bulk Brine Storage Tank $12,223.52
TOTAL $34,973.52
~'1 \A~
Exhibit B [INCLUDE/DELETE PROVISIONS AS APPROPRIATE TO PROJECT]
Maintenance Plan
1. Buffer Areas. Buffer areas described in the Site Plan and Design Plans and
Specifications attached as Exhibit A to the Agreement must be maintained as
follows:
a. The buffer will be maintained free from mowing and other vegetative
disturbance except as specified herein, fertilizer application, yard or
other waste disposal, the placement of structures, or any other
alteration that impedes the function of the buffer in protecting water
quality, shading riparian edge areas, moderating flow into an adjacent
wetland or waterbody or providing habitat.
b. As feasible, upland plantings will be subject to annual controlled
burning to eliminate invasive species; where burning is not feasible,
upland plantings will be mowed to control invasive species. Invasive
vegetation will be destroyed by spot treatment; herbaceous vegetation
,24 inches tall or more will be mowed to a height of 16 inches.
c. Upland plantings will be replaced and seeded areas will be reseeded
as necessary each spring to maintain ecological health and function
and in accordance with a written proposal or plan prepared by the City
and approved by NMCWD staff.
2. Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities
described in the Site Plan and Design Plans and Specifications attached as
Exhibit A to the Agreement must be maintained as follows:
a. Stormwater retention and detention ponds. All ponds will be
inspected at least annually. Pond function will be considered
inadequate if sediment accumulation has decreased the wet
storage volume by 50 percent, or dry detention volume by 25
percent. The property owner will restore the basin to its original
design elevations and dimensions and restore vegetation in
disturbed areas within one year of the inspection date:
b. Rain gardens and filtration basins. Rain gardens and filtration
basins will be inspected annually; kept clean of excess sediment
and debris; dead vegetation will be removed each spring; and the
top two to five inches of media will be removed and replaced every
three to five years so as not to impede filtration of sediment and
oils.
~~/~
c. Vegetated swales. Naturally vegetated swales will be maintained
free from mowing or other vegetative disturbance, fertilizer
application, yard or other waste disposal, the placement of
structures or any other alteration that impedes the function of the
vegetated Swale.
d. Pervious pavers and pervious concrete. Pervious pavers and
concrete will be inspected at least once each year after a major
storm and otherwise annually; surface openings will be vacuumed
in dry weather to remove dry, encrusted sediment as necessary;
and broken units that impair the structural integrity of the surface
will be replaced. If water stands for an extended period of time,
base materials will be removed and replaced.
e. Other stormwater facilities. Grit chambers, sump catch basins and
sump manholes will be inspected in the spring, summer and fall,
and outlet structures, culverts and other stormwater facilities
annually. Accumulated sediment and debris will be removed so
that the facility continues to operate as designed. Erosion or
structural problems will be corrected.
3. Shoreline and streambank Stabilization. Shoreline and streambank
stabilization areas described in the Site Plan and Design Pfans and Specifications
attached as Exhibit A to the Agreement must be maintained as follows:
a. The shoreline or streambank will be inspected at least annually and
any erosion or structural problems observed will be corrected within
30 days of inspection to establish and maintain a naturalized,
ecologically healthy shoreline that is structurally stable and resistant
to erosion.
b. All planted and seeded areas will be maintained in perpetuity free
from mowing or other vegetative disturbance except as specified
herein, fertilizer application, yard or other waste disposal, and the
placement of structures or any other alteration that impedes the
function of the shoreline or streambank in protecting water quality,
shading the riparian edge, moderating flow into any adjacent wetland
or waterbody, or providing habitat.
c. As feasible, upland plantings will be subject to annual controlled
burning to eliminate invasive species; where burning is not feasible,.
upland plantings will be mowed to control invasive species. Invasive
3b,~~
vegetation will be destroyed by spot treatment; herbaceous vegetation
24 inches tail or more wiii be mowed to a height of 16 inches.
d. Upland and shoreline plantings will be replaced and seeded areas will
be reseeded as necessary each spring to maintain ecological health
and function and in accordance with a written proposal or plan
prepared by the property owner and approved by NMCWD staff.
4. ~reert R®of. The green roof described in the Site Plan and Design Plans
and Specifications attached as Exhibit A to the Agreement must be maintained
in accordance with specifications provided by the installer and/or manufacturer
to ensure continued -`unction in accordance with design and construction
specifications. Relevant specifications and documentation, of continued function
must be provided to the N14~C~/D in conjunction with the report required under
paragraph 5.
5. Rep®rrtic~g. CITY will submit to the NI~CWD annually a brief written report
that describes the maintenance activities performed- in accordance with this
Maintenance Pian, including dates, {ocations of inspection, maintenance
activities performed and photographs of the Project.
6. Terrni~ati®r~. The CITY's obligations hereunder will be terminated on
[DATE 1 d YEARS AFTER DATE OF CERTIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLEI ION
OF CONSTRUCTION].
CITY OF ~Ci
ay:
Date:
Chris Link
I.ts: Operations Manager Streets/Forestry
Accepted by:
NiN~ MILE ~:~EI=~ 'A ~ ~[~Si QED 1715 [ RiC'1'
Sy: Date:
District Administrator
AGENDA SECTION: f nNSF1~TT
AGENDA ITEM # ~ F
REPORT # ~ ~ R
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2$, 2010
DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL
ENGINEER
NAME,
d
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Rescind resolution 10407 and consideration of a resolution directing the preparation of the
assessment roll for the 2010 Concrete Alley Paving Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Rescind resolution 10407 directing the preparation of the
assessment roll for the 2010 Concrete Alley Paving Project and
cancel the public hearing scheduled for October 12, 2010.
2. Adopt the attached resolution directing the preparation of the
assessment roll for the 2010 Concrete Alley Paving Project.
3. Schedule a public hearing for October 26, 2010.
~ II. BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2010, the Council passed resolution 10407 to assess $92,500
based on 50% of the bond amount of $185,000. The final invoice has been
received and the total cost of the project is $200,133.47. Staff is recommending the
Council rescind resolution 10407 and adopt a new resolution based on actual costs
and reschedule the public hearing for October 26, 2010.
Ideally special assessment bonds are sold after the completion of a project when
the actual costs are known. However, the estimated cost of the alley paving was
low enough that it was included in the sale of a General Obligation Bond in the
spring of 2010. To avoid selling the bond for more than the total project costs, the
092810Alleyassess
par value for the project was set very conservatively to avoid over bonding for the
actual costs of the project. Now that all the final projects. are in, it was found that
the project came in about $15,000 higher than estimated at the time the bonds were
sold. The new assessment amount is in line with what residents were originally told
the project cost.
Project Timeline _
February 24 2009 - A public hearing was held as part of the regular Council meeting.
The Council adopted Resolution No. 10224 ordering the preparation of plans and
specifications for the project. The original total estimated cost of the project was
$2.14, 000.
February 23 2010 -The Council awarded the contract for construction of the alley
project to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for the sum of $144,657.00. The total
estimated cost of the project was revised to $200,000.
March 23. 2010 -Council approved sale of a $1,535,000 General Obligation Bond, of
which $190,000 of the par value was to be used for the 2010 Alley Paving Project
(actual par value $185,000).
May 10. 2010 -Construction of 2010 Alley Paving Project begins.
September 13 2010 - 2010 Alley Paving Project reaches substantial completion
September 14 2010 -Resolution 10407 was adopted based on the bond amount of
$185,000.
September 15 2010 -City receives final cost for the project totaling $200,133.47.
September 28. 2010 -Council considers rescinding resolution 10407 based on bond
amount and adopting revised resolution based on total project costs. Public Hearing is
scheduled to be held October 26, 2010.
October 26. 2010 -City Council holds the assessment Public Hearing and considers a
resolution adopting the assessment roll. 30 day prepayment period begins.
November 25. 2010 - 30 day prepayment period ends.
November 29. 2010 - 2011 assessment roll due to Hennepin County.
LII. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is City policy to pave alleys with concrete.
• It is City policy to assess the adjacent property owner for the cost of
the alley paving.
• Staff is following the Minn. Statute 429 (local improvements) process
for the assessment.
• A notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment (see attached)
will be mailed at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in
the notice the total cost of the alley paving.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The property owner's have a 30 day prepayment period whereby no
interest will be charged on the prepaid portion of the special
assessment.
• No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid before
November 25, 2010.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total cost of the project is $200,133.47.
• The total cost to be assessed to homeowners is $100,066.73 (one-half
of total project cost).
• Of the $100,066.73 to be paid by the City:
• $84,933.27 by debt service tax levy for G.O. bond
^ $15,133.47 paid through other City funds
D. LEGAL
• No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in
attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed- necessary
following the public hearing.
• Do not rescind resolution no. 10407, and assess the $92,500 based on the
original resolution. However, the public hearing would still need to be
rescheduled to allow for adequate public notice.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Graphic
Notice of Assessment Hearing to be mailed to residents
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO ~~
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AN
D ORDERING
FOR THE ONCRETE PAVING OF ALLE SSN THEMCITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, a contract was let for the improvement of unpaved alleys in the City of
Richfield, which are shown in the attached Exhibit A; and whereas the total cost incurred of
the improvement was $200,133.47.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The portion of the estimated cost of the improvement to be paid by the city is hereby
declared to be $100,066.74. and the portion of the cost to be assessed against
benefited property owners is declared to be $100,066..73. If the final cost exceeds the
estimated cost, the City shall pay the excess of the final cost over the estimated cost.
2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20
years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday m January
2011, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5% percent per annum from the date of the
adoption of the assessment resolution.
3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the
proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every
assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash
valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her
office for public inspection.
4. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City
Council thereof.
5. A hearing shall be held on the 26th day of October, 2010, in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the
agenda to pass upon such roposed assessment and at such time and .place all
persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to
be heard in reference to such assessment.
6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to
the hearing; and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The
City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
7. The owner of any property so assessed may, at an time prior to certification of the
assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property,
with. interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city finance director, except that no
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the
adoption of the assessment. An owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the city finance
director the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made
before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding
year.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
September, 2010.
e ie oette , ayor
ATTEST:
ancy i s, ity er
EXHIBITA 3E`
2010 ALLEY PAVING PROJECT'~`r
63rd Street
Legend
Proposed Alleys
Assessed Parcels
64th Street
65th Street
a~
c
a~
B
L
L
V
ssol
6505
6525
6529
i
6533
6537 (9
1
;,, ~
M
/,,
Richfield
Lake
6444 ~
C
Q
ssoo ~
6504 Q
6508 L
Q
6512 >_
6516
6520
6524
6528
~ ~ ~~ j~
66th Street Q i ~ ! i l
j ' ~ ~ ----_ __ .___ ---..._
~i
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
J ~E 3
PIN
Name
Address
MAYOR Cit /State/Zi
DEBBIE GOETTEL y p
CITY COUNCIL
PAT ELLIOTT September 29, 2010
TOM FITZHENRY
SUZANNE M. SANDAHL
FRED L. WROGE, JR.
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING
CITY MANAGER
STEVEN L DEVICH
NOTICE 01='HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
CONCRETE PAVING OF CITY'S UNPAVED ALLEYS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment
hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed
assessment for the concrete paving of the City's unpaved alleys.
DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield City Hall, 6700
Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED:.The City of Richfield
incurred costs for the concrete paving of the City's unpaved alleys. The City proposes to
assess fifty percent (50%) the costs for the concrete paving, which totaled $200,133.47,
against the properties that benefited from this work.
PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all
properties is $100,066.73.
The amount to be assessed against your particular property is: $
Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 25, 2010
at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423.
Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield.
A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's
office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota.
THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO
SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE
ASSESSMENT HEARING ~I (~TO~ER 26 2010.
e Nan ometow>~
www.Cityofrichfield.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3F'~
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the
assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the
Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid
assessments accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of
interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines
apply:
Pavment within 30 days of adopted assessment: If the original principal amount of
the assessment is $300 or more, you may make a partial prepayment of $100 or more
within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 26,
2010. No interest will be charged on the prepaid portion. Partial prepayments are not
allowed after the 30-day period. The unpaid balance will be spread over the life of the
adopted assessment. Five percent ~5%) interest will not be charged if the entire
assessment is paid before November25t .
Pavment on or after November~25 2010: Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) will
be charged, calculated from the date of adoption of the assessment until the date of
payment. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12
months thereafter. There is a $1.50 surcharge per. year over the life of the assessment
when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment a ment
procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the
Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any
homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and
for whom it-would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for
deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City
Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for
any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due.
.Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may,
within 30 days of the' confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Cierk for' the
prescribed. form for deferral of this special assessment.
HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will conduct a public
hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral
objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to
the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further
notice to the affected property owners as the Council deems advisable. The Council may
adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing.
RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the
assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk
within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of
appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk: You may not appeal unless you file a written obiection signed by you with
,the City Clerk prior to the hearma on October 26 2010 or present the written objection to
the presiding officer at the hearing on October 26 2010
Questions? Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer @ 612-861-9178.
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~~:.
~~~. ~.
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
PUBLIC-HEARING
5
179
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
JIM TOPITZHOFER,
RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Conduct a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance relating to conduct within city
parks and recreation facilities; prohibiting tobacco use, sales activity, feeding of wild animals,
unleashed dogs, damage to park plants and trees and regulations on public bodies of water in
parks; amending section 840 of the Richfield City Code.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and By motion:
• Approve second reading to adopt the attached ordinance
relating to conduct within city parks and recreation facilities;
prohibiting tobacco use, sales activity, feeding of wild animals,
unleashed dogs, damage to park plants and trees and
regulations on public bodies of water in parks; amending
section 840 of the Richfield City Code, effective January 1, 2011.
II. BACKGROUND
The Community Services Commission has been discussing the various
revisions to the parks ordinance. The recommended revisions introduce
additional park rules including a comprehensive restriction of the use of
tobacco, no feeding of wild animals, damaging vegetation and a restriction
0928Parks Ordinance Amendment
on the selling of products or services in parks. The Commission. also
recommends allowing portable ice houses on Taft Lake during daylight
hours only and restating the regulations regarding dogs and animals in
parks.
City Council has discussed the proposed amendments at two separate
occasions at a study session on November 3, 2009 and May 25, 2010,
instructing staff to proceed with a public hearing.
Enforcement of the tobacco ordinance was a concern to the Council. To
provide enforcement without placing a burden on Richfield Police, the
Commission is recommending that Recreation Services Staff be instructed
to hand out information about the new ordinance to park participants seen
violating the tobacco restriction. Furthermore, the following enforcement
plan is recommended:
• Public Education -Richfield residents will be informed about the
implementation, enforcement, and violation of the- Park Ordinance
through press releases, Recreation Brochure, utility bills, City website
and cable N.
Si na a -All park signs will be replaced with updated signs. Some
targeted areas will be installed with tobacco free signs and signs
pertaining to the feeding of wild animals.
Another Council concern was the enforcement of the tobacco ,ordinance
during the Fourth of July Celebration, where there are thousands of
people attending, many of which do not live iri Richfield. The Commission
is recommending to not to include an exemption of the ordinance during
the Fourth of July Celebration because there are other popular community
events in Richfield also and the Commission thought an exemption for one
event would lead to an exemption for more events.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Community Services Commission is recommending the
misdemeanor/criminal method as the process of collecting a
fine for violations of the new ordinance. Richfield has used
only the misdemeanor/criminal method in the past, which is
administered through the Hennepin County Court System.
In this system, some of the fees are predetermined, such as
traffic offenses, and the fine amount is listed on the ticket. A
judge can fine someone up to $300 for a petty misdemeanor.
Hennepin County collects the fine and a portion is then given
to the City of Richfield.
0928Parks Ordinance Amendment
Although City policy does not require a public hearing for this
matter, the Community Services is recommending one to
maximize public interaction on the subject. City policy
requires that a notice of public hearing be published no later
than 14 days in advance of the hearing date. A notice of
public hearing was published on September 9, 2010.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
• Funding for the replacement of park signage in the amount
of $1,650 is available through a State Health Improvement
Program grant received by the City last year. Additional
signs focusing on the comprehensive tobacco restriction in
parks will be provided from Tobacco Free Parks at no
charge.
D. LEGAL
• The attached amendment was written by the City Attorney.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE
RECOMMENDATION(S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• ~ Parks Ordnance Amendment
• Letters of Support
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Jennifer Turrentine, Richfield Advisory Board of Health Chair
• Members of the Youth Action Crew
• Robyn Weisman, Bloomington Health Department
• Derick Larsen, Tobacco Free Parks
0928Parks Ordinance Amendment
i
~~ 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONDUCT WITHIN CITY
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES; PROHIBITING
TOBACCO USE, SALES ACTIVITY, FEEDING OF WILD
ANIMALS, UNLEASHED DOGS, DAMAGE TO PARK PLANTS
AND TREES AND REGULATONS ON PUBLIC BODIES OF
WATER IN PARKS; AMENDING SECTION 840 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE;
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 840 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding
the following subsections:
840.13 Use of Tobacco Products Prohibited. No erson ma use
tobacco products on city-owned parks conservation areas open- spaces
or recreational facilities, including without limitation• trails within parks
used for walking and bikma picnic shelters athletic fields and play areas
This subsection does not apply to the use of tobacco products inside
motor vehicles parked on the premises of city-owned parks conservation
areas, open spaces or recreational facilities
840.15 Selling Food Products or Services Prohibited No person may
sell or offer for safe an roduct food or service in an ublic ark without
the prior written approval of the recreation services director
840.17 Feeding of Wild Animals or Birds Prohibited No person may feed
non-domesticated animals or birds or de osit a food source for non-
domesticated animals or birds within Cit -owned arks conservation
areas, open spaces or recreational facilities with the exception of
authorized City officials
840.19 Re ulations on Public Bodies of Water in Parks. The followin
activities are prohibited on bodies of water in city parks except as
authorized by subsection 835 09 of this code• swimming bathing placing
ice fishing houses or similar enclosures snowmobiling and the use of any
boat, raft or any other device or object designed to support or buoy up any
individual m upon or attached to such device or object with the exception
of authorized City officials Portable ice houses are permitted on Taft
Lake during daylight hours only
840.21 Dogs and Animals in Parks All dogs must be leashed in public
arks. An animal owner or person having custody or control of an animal
shall immediately clean up and sanitarily dispose of any feces of the
0928Parks Ordinance Amendment
5a
animal, except that this provision does not apply to blind persons with
respect to their ownership and use of a seeing eye d~
840.23 Damaging Veaetation in Parks No person may damage or
disturb any flower bed planting area or ornamental landscaped area
within a city-owned park conservation area open space or recreational
facility. No person may cut trim or remove any wild flower tree shrub
plant, branch or portion thereof or any soil or other material from a city
owned park, conservation area open space or recreational facility with the
exception of authorized City officials
Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in .accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
0928Parks Ordinance Amendment
""' : i
~ °:
-~~ _ ~ ~.
.MAYOR
QEBB[E GOET7EL.
clnr caurtcr~
PAT`ELLICITT
TOM' FITZHENRX
StJZANiVE-M. SANDAHL
FRED L, WROGE,.JR.
G€TY MANAGER
STEVEN L. DEVICH
/~
Public SafetY~epa~tment
St~ppar~ Services Division
Jufy"29, :2010
Mayor Debbie Goettel
fi525 James Avenue.Sflufh
Richfield.;: MN. 5x423
Dear Mayor Goettel,
On actober 19, 2009., the Richfield Advisory Board of Health voted unanimausfy to
support a tobacco ordinance prohibiting tobacco use in City parks. We continue to
support such an ordinance given the first- anti second-hand health -risks involved
surrounding tobacco use.
We strongly urge Richfield's City Council to adopt the tobacco .ordinance as soon as
passible.
:Regards,
~~~~
Jennifer A. Turrentine
Chair, Richfield Advisory Board of Health
T6Te ~Ir~la~f7 ~!<r,a:etcl~;,j~
6:760 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICFfFlELD. MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGE NC'('8~2.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
-:wv~w.vdyofndhCieid.org AN EQUAL QPPQpTUNIT' EivfPIOYER- _
/ /
~~x ~~
Medical Group and`Clincs
Corporate Office: Mailing Address;
8970 33rd Avenue;Soufh P.4. Box:13o9
Bloomington, MN 55425 Minneapolis, Mtn 55440-13Q9
heaithpartners:cam
June 28, 20`1
Dear Mr. Tapitzhofer;
On behalf of HealthPartners, we write to support the proposed city ordinance to ban
smoking in public parks within the city of.Riclifield, which will soon be coming before
you for your consideration.
HealthPartners is a family of nonprofit Minnesota health care organizations focused on
improving the health of its members, .its patients and the. community. Healthl'artners has
80 employees and over 5,:500 merrrbers who live in Richfield and the Bloomington
Healthartners Clinic saw 1,25'7-.Richfield residents last year. We help keep your
community healthy and we want to help keep your health care affordable.
As an organization, and a proud member of the south metro community, we care deeply
about the health of our patients, our members, and our community. Tobacco use still
:ranks as the number one -cause of preventable death in the U. S. and secondhand smoke
the number three cause. It is responsible for over $2 billion in health care costs every
year.
These-are not just numbers-they are real people. We see them every day in our clinics.
and in our hospitals, Every day. our colleagues deal with the ravages that smoking and
secondhand smoke have on the health of our patients. As an oncologist and as an
internist, we see firsthand. the misery that families go through as their loved ones die from
Iung cancer, heart disease and other smoking-related illnesses. And we can tell you -
nothing is more frustrating than seeing patients who we know will die because their
exposure to smoke has left them with a terminal illness.
lt'°is sad,and frustrating to see patients like the 41 year old woman who is being seen in
our clinic, getting chemotherapy for Lung cancer even though she has never srrroked in
her life. This patient has naw had one lung removed and despite. undergoing
chemotherapy, there. is a greater than 50 percent chance that the cancer will recur and. she
.will die of the disease. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that her cancer could have
been prevented.
~,~
Drifting tobacco smoke, even outdoors, can trigger asthmatic attacks, heart attacks,..
bronchial infections, and. other serious health problems in non-smokers; This is
especially true for. fhe almost 10.0 million Americans who have asthma,.: chronic...:
bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, emphysema, and other breathing-related conditions which
make them especially susceptible to secondhand tobacco smoke.
Banning snacking in public parks, though we recognize it is not the silver bullet, would
certainly be a good. step. in the right direction to helping prevent tobacco use. We note
that the cities of Blootrtington and Edina have also implemented. smoking bans. in their
publicparks and ~e strongly encourage the city of Richfield to follaw suit.
Sincerely,
Brian. H. Rank, MD
1VIedical Oncologist
Medici Director.
HealthPartners Medical Group and CIinics
~; .,V._ ....
...,
.Douglas ~I. Hotvedt, MD
Internal Medicine
Clinic Chief, HealthPartners Bloomington Clinic
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OTHER_.BUSINESS
180
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NaNtE TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW;
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorizing staff to advertise the attached Request for Proposal for design
and construction of a tier-one skatepark.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize staff to advertise the attached Request for
Proposal for desi nand construction of a tier-one skatepark.
III. BACKGROUND
i ne community Services Commission has developed the attached Request for
Proposal (RFP) for the design and construction of a tier-one skatepark. The RFP
calls for the design, supply and installation of a concrete tier-one skatepark, not to
exceed a cost of $66,500 with the following components:
• Street components only, such as stairs, handrails & ledges.
• No ramp components.
• Incorporate at least one skate-able art component.
The Commission evaluated various locations based upon the following criteria:
• Existing potential hard-court surface with lesser use compared to other
Richfield courts
• Buffer from residential neighborhoods
• Visibility to public safety personnel
• Separation from other park uses
• Central location
• Proximity to restrooms and water facilities
0928Skatepark RFP
The attached summary indicates the Commission's scoring for each location.
Augsburg Park received the highest score and has remained the Commission
preferred location.
Public meetings were conducted on October 21, 2008 and July 28, 2010.
The RFP does not include the cost of a site survey and soil testing which are
estimated at about $3,500 and will be arranged pending Council approval of the
RFP. The project is included in the 2010 Capital Improvement Budget in the
amount of $70,000.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The attached Skatepark RFP is very similar to the RFPs the City has
prepared for play equipment selection in the past. The Skatepark
RFP was developed by a planning group of the Community Services
Commission with the help of community feedback from two public
meetings. The Community Services Commission discussed the topic
on numerous occasions.
B. CRITICAL rI'IMING ISSUES
• If a final project is approved by Council, construction would begin in
Spring 2011. This timeline allows ample time for designers to submit
proposals and for design selection.
C. FINANCIAL
• Total project costs include:
$66,500 Design and Construction (RFP Budget)
$2,500 Soil Testing
1 000 Site Survey
$70,000 Total Project Cost
• The project is included in the 2010 Capital Improvement Budget in the
amount of $70,000.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed this report.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
~ 1 V . ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl
• uirect the Community Services Commission to recommend an alternative
location.
• Direct staff not to issue or to postpone the RFP advertisement.
ATTACHMENTS
• Project Request for Proposal
• Site Location Map
• Location Evaluation Summary
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Roger Schmidt, resident and skate board advocate.
• Other residents may be present to express their opinions of the project.
°------------ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN 55423
RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
DESIGN, SUPPLY & INSTALLATION
OF CONCRETE TIER-ONE SKATEPARK
AT AUGSBURG PARK
GENERAL GUIDELINES.
A. Requests For Competitive Proposals.
The City of Richfield is seeking competitive proposals from interested and
qualified companies for the design, supply and installation of a concrete tier-one
skatepark at Augsburg Park, 7145 Wentworth, Richfield, MN 55423.
B. Owner and Submission Information.
Interested companies should submit ONE COPY of their competitive proposals
to:
Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director
City of Richfield
7000 Nicollet Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Richfield Lake Park Proposal
Competitive proposals shall include all of the items set forth in Section II below.
Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals should be directed to Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director at 612-861-9394.
All proposals must be sealed and submitted to the Recreation Services
Department at the above address by 10:00 a.m. on
Late submissions will not be considered.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE.
A. General Project Scope.
The City of Richfield Recreation Services Department is seeking competitive
proposals for the design, supply and installation of concrete tier -one skatepark
as defined in Section II B and C.
B. Budget (~~
Design, supply and installation of the skatepark, soil samples, testing, soil (¢
emending freight, delivery and sales tax and all other costs associated with the
project should not exceed the budget of $66,500.
C. Design and Cost Proposals
The Proposer shall provide a concrete skatepark design suitable for the
proposed site. If Proposer-deems modifications are necessary to the proposed
site, these modifications should be indicated on proposer's plans and are subject
to approval by the City.
The design must meet the following guidelines:
1. Design to comply as a tier-one skatepark as defined by the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
2. Design to utilize the existing grade of the area defined in the attached site
survey with minimal material import or export.
3. Concrete specifications should be based upon recommendations from the
attached Soil Engineer, James Samuelson, Braun Intertec, 1826 Buerkle
Road, St. Paul, MN 55110, 651-487-3245.
4. All edges should be protected with hot dipped galvanized metal type edge
to prevent cracks and chipping.
Design should include the following components:
1. Street plaza components only, such as stairs, handrails and ledges
2. No Ramps
3. Incorporate one skate-able art component.
D. Alternative Location -Separate proposals are encouraged for an alternative
location that has a relative flat grade and otherwise as defined in Section II B
and C.
Each competitive proposal submitted should reflect, by line item, the cost for the design,
purchase and installation of skatepark components, including all applicable sales taxes,
freight, and other costs associated with each piece of equipment. Costs should be broken
down into logical categories to aid the City in evaluation and include:
All soft costs; including design, overhead, insurance, proposal, performance and payment
bonds, as well as all applicable sales taxes.
All hard costs; including all work and materials related to the installation of the concrete
skatepark and repair of disturbed turt.
Each Proposer must submit the following with bid:
• Written assurance that the design meets all applicable specs.
• Concept plan layout of design.
• Current warranty, insurance, and product specification information on all products and
materials included in your proposal.
• Written estimate of installation time frame.
2
~~3
Exhibit "A" -Park locator map which identifies the location of the park within the city.
E . References
Each Proposer shall provide a list of at least three municipal references. Each
reference must include the name and address of the jurisdiction where the
Proposer has installed a concrete skatepark similar to the skatepark proposed
for this request, and the name and daytime telephone number of an individual,
who still works for the jurisdiction, that the City can contact. Municipalities should
be within the State of Minnesota.
III. EVALUATION AND SELECTION.
A. Desian Considerations
The design proposed will be a key factor in the selection process. The City
encourages innovative, interesting and exciting designs that will distinguish
Richfield parks and stand up to the elements.
B. Evaluation Criteria.
The Selection Committee will evaluate and rank each proposal against the
following criteria:
1. Overall design
2. Compliance with RFP requirements
3. Review/Inspection of previous installations and/or references
The recommendation of the Community Services Commission will be provided to the
City Council. The City Council will award the contract to the successful
designer/installer.
C. Contract and Insurance Reauirements.
The selected vendor will be required to enter into a contract with the City, provide
the City with a performance bond in an amount equal to the full amount of the
contract (or in the discretion of the City an irrevocable letter of credit) to assure
the timely performance of and payment for the work proposed. Insurance
requirements include:
Worker's Compensation Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and
maintain, during the life of the contract, Worker's Compensation Insurance.
with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the State of
Minnesota. Such insurance shall protect the Contractor, or Subcontractor or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them from claims under
worker's compensation, disability benefit and other similar employee benefit
acts.
2. Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: The
Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this contract Public
Liability Insurance, Property Damage Liability, and Personal Injury
Insurance with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the
State of Minnesota. Such insurance shall protect the Contractor, ~ J~
Subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor
or Subcontractor performing work covered by this contract from claims
arising out of public liability, property damage, or personal injury including
death, as well as claims for property damage which may arise out of work.
The Contractor's policy shall list the City as an additional insured on a
primary ornon-contributory basis. The recommended minimum limits of
insurance per project are:
• General Aggregate $500
000
• Product-Completed Operations Aggregate ,
$500
000
• Personal and Advertising Injury ,
$500
000
• Per Occurrence (Bodily Injury & Property Damage) ,
$500
000
• Professional Liability Insurance ,
$1,000,000
3. Fire Insurance: The Contractor is responsible for insuring for fire, and
extended coverage including vandalism and malicious coverage on the
work included in the contract from the beginning of the work until final
acceptance of the completed project. The policies shall cover all work
incorporated in the project and all material in place or stored at the site for
installation against loss by fire and wind. This provision does not exclude
material partially paid for by the Owner. This insurance shall be for the full
insurable value of the material and shall be kept in full force until final
acceptance of the work by the Owner.
4. Automobile Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain
during the life of the contract Automobile Insurance with a company that is
lawfully authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The
recommended minimum limits of insurance are $1,000,000 combined single
limit (61 & PD).
All insurance referenced in paragraphs 1 through 4 shall be placed with
companies acceptable to and approved by the City prior to the commencement
of the work. The Contractor shall submit copies of the certificate with the City
prior to commencement of the work. Certificates of insurance will not be
canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been
given to the City. The City shall be shown on the General Liability coverage as
an "additional insured."
Any proposals received with limits lower than those referenced above may still
be considered for this project.
5. Payment to Subcontractors: The Contractor shall agree to pay at
subcontractors within 10 days of receipt of payment from City as required by
Minnesota State Statute 471.425.
D. Reservations and Other Considerations.
1. The City of Richfield reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for
reasons of safety, quality, quantity, design or other issues deemed important
to the successful completion of the project. Any proposals exceeding the
maximum funding or footprint on the site will be excluded.
4
~'~
2. Proposals are to be submitted on or before 10:00 a.m.,
to Richfield Recreation Services
Department, 7000 Nicollet Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423, RE: Augsburg
Skatepark Proposal. For additional information contact Jim Topitzhofer,
Recreation Services Director, 612-861-9394. City Council award of contract is
scheduled on .Proposal amounts will need to be
effective for 45 days after the above deadline.
3. The City reserves the right to accept proposals based upon factors other than
the lowest price as set forth in the evaluation criteria.
4. The City will not be responsible for any costs incurred by those submitting or
preparing competitive proposals. At the request of the Proposer, proposals
will be returned after the selection process has been completed and a vendor
selected.
5. The City reserves the right to revise the scope of the project based on budget
limitations and other relevant considerations.
6. The City reserves the right to select more than one provider for the Skatepark
Project.
7. Each Proposer must meet the City of Richfield contract requirements. The
City reserves the right to reject proposals that cannot meet contract
requirements.
5
'r' ~ ~ ' ~•
' ^'! ~ ~ ~ ~•~ ~` . x.'73 '
`R =fir
~ ~ n ~ 'err.. ~,.' ~ - ~. _.
y
i ~' ~,
.,,~ ~~.
~" ~~'t .
< '~:
s 'x.. ~ _
~ ~ ~ -' j.. n. r
f ~ ~~ I. K
r § ~~ 4
~ ~ r M
_ sa r y "~w,~~R'{: S ~' ~~
y 1i , >
Yy 4
~ , Y a' I \t
'` ~, . .,~, ~ _",~, :~ «~ ~~~~ SIB.
r
~ ~ i. !i -.
d~ «w ,~~
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .
~~ „~ ; „~ ".,~ ~ ~.r'~ ~ ~ 'l j`- 't-. ~ Lax ~7, '.s~;'~. ('~"'~f,-.
~ - ~.. :r
x x x 3` - r; "iii i, ~ ~ ~~ i..^ y~ ~ ~ ~~` r { r~~ r ` ''1'~~~
~~.~ !e -
~ xr
k 4?1,~. t ~l sR~.»"H" ~~ ;,Z" ~ 125.' y. ,,t ~ j,.~ ~ ~.... ~: ?~
{,
r rte, 1 ~~.4`t - ~ "irs '" ~ t y .
r, { ` } ~ , ' t .s, w'r :fit.
' 3F , ~~?~. _ fit., :« ~ ~ iilnlNb ' ,w ~
v x_'=
Skate Board Facility (~ ~`1
Site Selection Evaluation
iv
Y'
N
Gi ~.
N N
U
-
N C
U _
7
O O
U U
w
~ ~ N N
y
._ U
N ~
L ;
O U
U ~
~
~'
,~ Y
m
a ~
~
L
2 a in
~ v
s
o E
o W
~
~ o w
c ° O
m
v
O m - "' U p to
°' E '~ p
~' ° ~ ~, --I
~
w ~ a v
_
.~ U D =
_ ~ 'E Q
PARK ~
~ N v
~ ~
Q
W ~ ~ a ° PARK TYPE
Adams Hill
•~ 13.0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Neighborhood
Apple Blossom
•' o.s 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 Mini
Augsburg
' - z1.o 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 Community
Christian
' ~~ ~ •' • 11.0 1 1 0 2 0 2 6 Neighborhood/CommunityPlayfield
Donaldson
' •
23.6
1 2 2 2 0 2
9 Community Playfield/
Fairwood Athletic Complex
~~ • 2.5 0 1 Z 2 0 1 s Neighborhood
Fremont
" o.s 2 0 2 2 2 Q $ Mini
Garfield
•~ o.s 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 Mini
Heredia
'~ ~• 3.6 2 0 2 0 2 2 $ Neighborhood
Jefferson
' ~~ • 4.0 2 1 2 2 0 1 g Neighborhood
Lincoln Field
~~~' 7.1 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 Community Playfield/
Little Bob's Athletic Complex
' ~~ 0.3 0 0 2 1 2 0 5 Mini
Madison
" • 4.5 2 0 0 0 0 1 $ Neighborhood
Monroe
' ~ •' 9.5 0 0 0 1 0 1 Z Neighborhood
Nicollet
~~ 6.5 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 Neighborhood
Richfield Lake
''~~ ~ 24.0 2 2 2 2 2 0 10 Neighborhood
Roosevelt
13.5 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 Neighborhood/
Sheridan Athletic Complex
'~ •' 6.8 1 1 2 1 0 2 ] Neighborhood
Taft
~ ~
42.0
1 2
2
2
0
2
9 Community Playfield/
Veterans Memorial Athletic Complex
~• 108.0 0 2 2 2 0 2 g .Community
Washington
~ 8.0 1 2 2 1 0 2 $ Neighborhood/
Community Playfield
Does not meet requirements = 0 POINTS
Partially meets criteria = 1 POINT
Meets criteria = 2 POINTS
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
-D~'HER RTTSTNF~g
181
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER
AME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider the award of contracts for interior signage and furniture for the new Richfield
Municipal Center.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Award of contract to Takeform Architectural Graphics in the
amount of $30,766.10 for interior signage.
• Award of contract to KARNS Services Inc. in the amount of
$28,151.32 for Dispatch work stations.
• Award of contract to KI in the amount of $31,970.84 for meeting
room tables.
• Award of contract to Innovative Office Solutions in the amount of
$89,876.77 for chairs, executive conference room tables and lobby
furniture.
• Award of contract to General Office Products in the amount of
$23,013.17 for break room furniture and children's size furniture.
II. BACKGROUND
Staff has been working with Wold Architects representatives to determine furniture
needs for the new Richfield Municipal Center and to make furniture and work station
0928purchase agreements
selections. While some:. of the existing furniture in City Hall will be re-used in the
new facility, the majority of work stations and furniture will need to be replaced.
Wold Architects solicited several quotes from a variety of vendors for the furniture
and signage recommendations. City staff tested and vetted many of the items,
including conducting a testing and surveying process for the selection of a task
chair.
As part of the entire project budget approved by the City Council, $885,000 was set
aside for Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E). The entirety of the .purchase
agreements before the Council on September 28, 2010 fall within this budgeted
amount.
Because the City will be purchasing some of the items off the Cooperative
Purchasing Venture (otherwise referred to as the "State Contract"), a competitive
bidding process was not required. However, several quotes were received in
making a determination of each furniture selection.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• .Quotes for each FF&E element included in this motion were requested
from at least three qualified vendors.
• Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority policy, contracts
estimated to have a value between $25,000 and $100,000 may be
made by direct negotiation based on multiple quotations.
• Under Minnesota State Statute 371.345, the City may purchase
supplies, materials and equipment without regard to the competitive
bidding requirements if the purchase is through the Cooperative
Purchasing Venture (State Contract).
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Approval of the contracts at the September 28, 2010 meeting will
allow ordering of the FF&E items some of which have a several week
production and shipment timeframe.
C. FINANCIAL
• The project budget had an estimated amount of $885,000 allocated for
FF&E. The total amount of contracts recommended to be awarded at
the September 28, 2010 meeting is well within that budget. However,
these contracts do not represent the entirety of the FF&E needs which
include work stations and audio visual technology.
D. LEGAL
• All contracts or purchases in excess of $25,000 require Council
approval
E. ENVIItONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve some or ail of the recommended contracts. However, this
may significantly delay the order and shipment of some of the items.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• Bid tabulation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
O `D Project Name: [PROJECT NAME] BID TABULATION
Commission No.. 92049 Wold Architects and Engineers
Date: 9/28/2010 305 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651.227.7773 Fax: 651.223.5646
Takeform Architectural Graphics $30,766.1 0
1 Mahar Way
Medina, NY 14103
585-798-8888
KARNS Services $28,151.32
9801 Little Rd
Bloomington, MN 55437
612-644-9174
KI
10921 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 123 $31,970.84
Hopkins, MN 55343
952-929-5686
Intereum
845 Berkshire Ln N I
Plymouth, MN 55441
763-238-0107
Innovative Office Solutions $89
876.77
151 E, Cliff Road ,
Burnsville, MN 55337 L
612-701-9488
General Office Products $23
013.17
4521 Highway 7 , E
Minneapolis, MN 55416 F
952-925-7543
S&T Office Products
1000 Kristen Court V
St. Paul, MN 55110
651-486-1268
BLINDS VENDOR
In
Signage
Meeting Room, Break. Room Tables
xecutive Chairs and Patio Furniture
;hairs, Executive Conference Table:
obby Furniture
creak Room Chairs, Children's Size
urniture, Breifing Tables,
ide Tables
/orkstations, Chairs and File Cabinets
terior Window Treatments
GRAND TOTAL $203,778.20 ~
r--~
AGENDA SECTION: OTH STNFSS
AGENDA ITEM # o
STAFF REPORT
REPORT # 18 Z
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
MIME, TITZE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGN/I RE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
V1" `
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Discussion of policy issues relating to the recommendation given by the Property Excellence
Taskforce to the City Council regarding screening of garbage containers.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion of policy issues related to the Property Excellence Task
Force recommendation given to the City Council regarding screening
of garbage containers.
II. , BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Property Excellence Task Force was formed to take a look at the City's
current environmental health program and to identify ways that the program could
be streamlined, improved or tweaked to make it better.
One unresolved policy issue identified by the Task Force that requires City Council
consideration is the screening of garbage containers. It is staffs intention to draft
an ordinance addressing this matter for first reading consideration in October.
However, this issue first requires discussion and agreement by the City Council
before proceeding forward.
As background to this discussion, the Task Force .recommended that the City
Council consider changing the current code in the area of garbage and refuse to
include a requirement that all garbage cans must be screened, hidden or not be
visible from the roadway. Alley views would be exempt. Staff currently uses
0928 Property Excellence Task Force Policy Issues
existing code 601.25 which requires that containers be placed alongside or behind
the rear of ahouse/garage. Code 601.25 states: "Storage of garbage, refuse, and
recyclables containers. Garbage cans, refuse, and recyclabfes containers must be
located alongside or behind the house or garage of a residential dwelling unit."
However, the Task Force's concern about the screening of garbage containers is
not explicitly addressed in City code.
The unresolved policy issues/questions to be discussed by Council are as follows:
^ The Property Excellence Task Force cited aesthetics as the reason for the
code change. The City Attorney has recommended further review of that
issue if the Council is inclined favorably towards the proposed change. (See
attached Task Force recommendation #13)
^ The matter of how to speak to the corner lots where driveway/garages face
the cross street rather than their main block street in terms of being hidden
from roadway view.
^ What should the size, type of material and form of exterior coverage of the
material (paint/stain, etc) be for a garbage screening enclosure in terms of
specifics? Height requirements will likely mirror the City's fence ordinance,
but questions remain about the range of width and depth of structure that will
be allowed. Must it be painted or stained?
^ How long will residents, who currently have no screening, be given to
transition to one with screening?
^ What if a resident is unable to construct screening due to an affordability
issue from being on a fixed income or inability to complete the work
physically?
^ Will moving cans from their storage area to their pick up area create
problems during the winter, especially for the senior population?
^ Enforcement issues relating to non-compliance will result in formal
complaints being issued with the City Attorney's office for prosecution. This
will likely result in increased prosecution costs for the City and how will that
be handled without burdening an already fragile budget?
^ Staff has concerns about the viability of putting a screening code
requirement in the code primarily as it relates to staff's time and an already
burdened environmental health inspection system.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A decision on whether or not to proceed with code changes for
screening garbage containers must be determined by the City Council.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSiTES
Prior to bringing a proposed ordinance draft to the Council for first
reading in October, discussion of the unresolved issues must take
place.
C. FINANCIAL
• Prosecution costs could increase for those citizens who do not comply
with any new code requirements.
D. LEGAL
The City Attorney has recommended legal review of the proposed
changes prior to final adoption.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Approximately two to three calls per month during the months of April
- October are received by staff relating to garbage containers being
improperly placed. This is a small number compared to the yearly
total received in the area of approximately 2,500 complaints.
TERNATIVE
~ ne matter is before the City Council for review and discussion about
whether the code is or is not a good idea.
TTACHMENTS
Property Excellence Task Force Recommendation # 13
AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
one
~~~
F~~~~s~t#~~ndatic~n 13
~~~ang~ Trish ~t~~yclir~~; ~3t`dinat~~e
tdenti#ied Issue
The Taskforce examined the current trash. and recycle container ardit~ance. It-was
determined that the ordinance is not working vue#1 with the differ#'ng styles of
homes in Richfield. T'he concern is that viewing multiple containers setting out in
front of homes looks messy and unkempt.
discussion
~ Trash and .recycle containers are an :issue that affects- the #ivabi#ity of the
city.
~- Current comp#iance sti## al#ows for trash containers to be placed at the front
Qf the lac~use for some styles of homes.
• lv3a#~ing a smal# change in language could go a long way to improve this
issue.
I~~cammendation
'' Change the ordinance so that trash and recycle containers cannot be visible
from roadways {alley views exempt}.
~ Home owners can place the containers in the garage, the back of the
houselgarage or build a barrier around them so as to not be seen from the
street.