Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
112310completeagenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding regional transportation plans (Council Memo No. 176) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of November 9, 2010 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 9, 2010 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing issuance and sale of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels project), Series 2010A, in original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 and taxable Educational Facility Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels project), Series 20108, in original aggregate principal amount of $250,000 S.R. No. 212 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing $1,000,000 internal loan to fund capital improvements within City's water utility infrastructure S.R. No. 213 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of grant funds from State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, used for payment of overtime for officers involved in DWI Enforcement Grant Program formerly known as Nightcap S.R. No. 214 D. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $5,568 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 215 E. Consideration of approval of extending current agreement with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for 1,400 tons of quick lime for water treatment in amount of $168,000 ($120/ton) for 2011 S.R. No. 216 F. Consideration of approval of remaining contract change proposals for renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex in amount of $4,896.80 S.R. No. 217 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 5. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to rezone certain properties throughout City in order to comply with Richfield Comprehensive Plan and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 218 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 6. Consideration of resolution authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Pension Refund Fund residual assets for police and fire expenditures related to Richfield Municipal Center Staff Report No. 219 Notes: 7. Consideration of resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees Staff Report No. 220 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 8. City Manager's report • Annual goalsetting facilitator discussion Notes: 9. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 10.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. richfield: November 2010 ltd `chfl lender Navigate: 20309 ,l~n deb Ma.r A.pr f~/ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct .Nov November 2010 Page 1 of 1 Calendars Net Dec 201.1.. 1 €r~r 2 3 ~ 5 GENERAL ELECTION 7 PM Transportation 7 PM Arts Commission Commission @ Community Center 8 9 10 11 12 7 PM Planning 6 PM Special City 7:00 PM Bike Task City Administrative Commission Study Council Worksession Force @ Maintenance Offices Closed - Session Facility Lunchroom Veterans' Day 7 PM Regular City Council Meeting 7 PM Human Rights Commission Meeting at Richfield Community Center 15 1C~ 17 l8 1~) 7 PM HRA Meeting 5:30 PM Hearing 7 - 8:30 PM Public open 4:30 PM FOWL Board Examiner in Heredia house to gather input on Meeting @ WLNC Room proposed Richfield Parkway north 7 PM Friendship City 7 PM Community connection. (Mt. Calvary Commission Services Commission @ School Gym, 66th Community Center St./16th Ave.) ?~ z~ 2 2s 2~ 7 PM Planning 6 PM Special City City Administrative Gity Administrative Commission Council Worksession Offices Closed -- Offices Closed - Thanksgiving Thanksgiving 7 PM Regular City Council Meeting SATURDAY, NOV. 27 9:30-10:30 AM Mayor's Hour @ Wood Lake Nature Center ? ~0 1 ~e~ 2 7 PM Truth-in-taxation 7 PM Transportation 7 PM Arts Commission Commission @ Community Center C9isplay: Year Month Week ~ Block List Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search Add Events: E~aiiy. duration Period..ic Administer: This_Galendar 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 11 /18/2010 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager November 18, 2010 Council Memorandum No. 176 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: November 23, 2010 Worksession on Regional Transportation Plans (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: City staff will be updating the Council on several major regional studies and plans that have been released in 2010. These documents include: • Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) • Metro Highway System Investment Study (MHSIS) • MnDOT's Congestion Management Safety Plan (CMSP) • MnPASS System Study Phase II Report • 35W Solutions Alliance Project Prioritization Study City staff will briefly summarize these studies and explain how the resulting plans affect Richfield and our region. There will also be discussion about some of the major questions these plans have raised, particularly in how limited funding is being balanced with long-term planning. An article from Star Tribune is attached which reflects some of those questions related specifically to the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan. pe tfully submitted, -~ ~S en L. D ~ City Manager SLD:cak Attachment Email: Department Directors Assistant to the City Manager ,11/1/ +010 Scott County blasts transportation plan S#at~T~(bt~rt~--~~IT1 I~III~1I~iJPOLI - STD P~T,~L, NrI1VI~I;~OT~ Scott County blasts transportation plan By DAVID PETERSON, Star Tribune October 13, 2010 The metro area's umbrella planning agency has released its preliminary plan for transportation investment in the decades to come, and it would be fair to say that Scott County, and to a lesser extent Dakota County, are unimpressed. The plan raises questions about the region's ability to afford major new road and bridge projects. There's no point in promising expensive new lanes and bridges when there's no sign of how to pay for them, planners say. The plan has drawn from Scott County a fiery blast. Here's a verbatim look at some highlights, topic by topic: BRIDGES A massive project Scott County is hoping for -- a flood-proof new river crossing well to the west of 969 -- is listed in the new plan as one to be "reassessed" -- a designation that draws a particularly strong response: What about river crossings? This is the first regional plan that appears to totally abandon any discussion of major river crossings. With the region so heavily dependent on these crossings, some mention of their need ... seems warranted. This region has just spent seven years evaluating and preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for right-of-way preservation on [Hwy.] 41. As we are preparing these comments to you, the southwest metro area is experiencing its second 100-year flood event of the year. The first event closed four out of the six river crossings, with nearly 35,000 and 50,000 daily trips being diverted between 20 to 50 miles further for nearly an entire month. The economic consequences of these closures are huge to the commuting public, farming community and the businesses impacted ... [We are] for all practical purposes served by only one flood-proof river crossing [169] which is at capacity today. It's irresponsible of the region to ignore this problem in its 2030 plan. ROADS Scott County worries that the Met Council is basically pulling its road-improvement resources into the inner metro area, leaving Scott to cope on its own. Among its complaints: Lack of planning? startribune.com/.../Print_This_Story?sid... 1/4 11/1~/~010 Scott County blasts transportation plan If we had planned the regional system based on our fiscal situation 50 years ago as proposed in the [new plan], projects such as [Hwys.] 610, 212, 77, [and] 169 would not have been [planned for at all]. These were corridors that needed alignment studies and right-of-way preservation so they could be constructed later as part of that long-term vision. These projects were part of a vision that took about 50 years to complete. Unequal treatment with transit Frankly, we find it troubling that the [plan] requires highway system planning to stay within a fiscally constrained plan, yet does not require the same fiscally constrained planning for the construction of high-cost transit projects. The plan admits that it does not -- and cannot -- identify the source of funding needed to create these transitways. ... Further, the [plan] now states that interchanges should be funded by any benefiting property owners. Interestingly, this approach deviates sharply from [its] treatment of transitway development, where it promotes transitways as redevelopment attractors and property value enhancers without property owner contributions for this public facility. To be consistent, would the Metropolitan Council recommend that adjacent property owners be asked to fund the transitway construction? The $1 million fund created for the Central Corridor to help businesses "survive" construction would suggest otherwise. Too much for the urban core While the [plan] is correct in noting that the transit system carries nearly 89 million riders a year, it conspicuously overlooks the fact that the metro highway system carries that number in two weeks. Even [if we] double e~asting transit ridership by the year 2030, the highway system will still be the region's workhorse in 2030, carrying over 90 percent of the region's trips. Given that fact, we are greatly concerned that ... the transit proposed funding is flowing almost exclusively to high-cost rail lines within the urban core and first- ring suburbs for redevelopment purposes. It is concerning that the region will be investing ... less than $1 billion in highway expansion projects from 2015-2030, yet is investing $5.5 billion in transitway expansion projects during that same time period. TRANSIT Scott County is growing increasingly anxious about being left out of the metro area's fast- developing and interconnected network of light rail, commuter rail and Bus Rapid Transit, which seeks to mimic light rail but on exclusive highway lanes. A major worry: That the five counties that agreed to impose aquarter-cent sales tax, and became full partners in an agency called "CTIB, "have the inside track. We are disconcerted by the fact that -- unless a city or county is a member of CTIB -- there appears to be no transit corridors planned or funding identified, as the corridors outside of the CTIB priorities will not be deemed regional priorities. For example, [Hwy.] 169 is not shown as one of the transitway corridors.... It was conveyed to the county that ... it was more appropriate for a corridor like 169 to be evaluated as a managed lane [high- occupancy, with tolls at rush hour]. The decision according to council staff had nothing to startribune.com/.../Print_This_Story?sid... 2/4 11/1/?010 Scott County blasts transportation plan do with CTIB. Why [several others around the metro] were better transitway corridors is still hard to comprehend, but we waited for the managed lane study. That study has now been completed and 169 had one of [the highest], if not the highest benefit cost but was delegated to Tier 3 from a funding perspective [meaning many, many years away] because it is not a transitway. All transitways appear to be CTIB corridors. Who is planning for corridors such as 169 and 212? LOCAL PLANS One of the most exasperating things to Scott County is that this new plan comes on the heels of the Met Council's approval of its own local transportation plan. That local plan -- part of a so-called "comprehensive plan, " or 2030 plan, which is only done once a decade -- took years to develop and was approved by the Met Council. What about local plans? Unfortunately, much of the work that has been done in Scott County's 2030 Plan, [OK'd] by the Metropolitan Council, was not recognized at all in this [new plan]. The regional arterial system that Scott County has either installed or planned to serve the rapidly urbanizing portion of Scott County ... [was] noticeably absent in the [plan]. It was always our understanding that the local comprehensive plans were to be completed in conformance with the region's current plan, and thus the subsequent regional [plan] update would reflect changes within the local comprehensive plans. DAKOTA'S TAKE Dakota County's formal response makes some of the same points as Scott's does, but offers its own take as well. Among the points Dakota makes: •Too timid on transit: The goal of doubling transit use by 2030 was crafted before the tidal wave of new transit funding, Dakota says, and looks weak today. With no real ability to fix congestion through new lanes, transit needs to be pushed harder. •There's a transit gap here: No transitways such as light rail or busways are being planned for the Eagan-Inver Grove Heights-Rosemount area despite growth plans, the letter says. There could be more riders there than in northern and eastern parts of the metro. Even though Robert Street is actively being studied as a transitway corridor, it doesn't rate a mention. •Why not "reassess" the Stillwater bridge project? The bridge would have "substantial costs" and "limited benefit" to the metro as a whole, the letter says, so why not reconsider it in the same way as other bridge crossings are? • More plans for bikeways: There's a map of e~asting trails, the letter says, but the plan could go further in outlining a "coordinated, interconnected system of bikeways." David Peterson • 952-882-9023 Roads: Leaders bemoan the lack of highway projects they say are needed to keep from startribune.com/.../Print_This_Story?sid... 3/4 ;11/17/?010 Scott County blasts transportation plan drowning in congestion. Bridges: After years of planning, amuch-needed new river crossing between Scott and Carver counties is to be "reassessed." Transit: The county says billions are earmarked for rail lines and the like in the urban core, but plans for transitways that include Scott County are nowhere to be found. Local plans: The county believes its own transportation plan was largely ignored by the Met Council. ©2010 StarTribune. All rights reserved. startribune.com/.../Print_This_Story?sid... 4/4 J SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession November 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jeffery Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Kristin Asher, City Engineer; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 171) Public Works Director Eastling discussed the PowerPoint presentation (City Clerk File No. 457) regarding projects being considered in northeast Richfield including: . Taft/Legion Stormwater Project • Three Rivers Park District Bike Path • 66th Street reconstruction . Richfield Parkway City Engineer Asher discussed funding possibilities and Richfield's influence if the City takes the lead. Council Member Wroge expressed concern regarding the number of projects at that are needing to be addressed, specifically the Lyndale Garden Center Site. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the proposed vision for Taft Park. Special Worksession Minutes -2- November 9, 2010 Council Member Wroge expressed concern regarding the possible closing of the frontage road and forcing commercial vehicles at Cedar Point to use Richfield Parkway. Public Works Director Eastling explained the parkway was designed and intended to handle commercial traffic. City Manager Devich stated there are other infrastructure needs throughout the City but northeast Richfield appears to have attracted outside funding sources that should be considered. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:50 p.m. Date Approved: November 23, 2010 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting November 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM Ann Sewich, 6334 Aldrich, expressed concern regarding the deterioration of the Lyndale Garden Center site, especially the condition of the fence. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of October 26, 2010. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 9, 2010 Item #1 PRESENTATIONS • ANNUAL MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Gerald Charnitz, Chair, reported on the Community Services Commission accomplishments and goals. Item #2 I COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS • CANCEL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2010 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING • SCHEDULE CITY COUNCIL/CITY STAFF ANNUAL GOALSETTING SESSION (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 172) • SCHEDULE ADVISORY COMMISSION INTERVIEWS (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 172) Council Member Fitzhenry reported on a Yellow Ribbon Rally, regarding a community program to work together to meet the-needs of service members and military families. He encouraged Richfield to start this program. Council Member Fitzhenry encouraged City staff to bring new ideas and innovations to the City Council for consideration. Council Member Sandahl announced the Bike Task Force meeting on November 10 at the Maintenance Facility. Council Member Sandahl announced a public open house on November 17 at the Mount Calvary School gym to gather input on the proposed Richfield Parkway North Connection. Council Member Sandahl announced Davanni's move to Penn Avenue. Mayor Goettel announced the November 20 Music at Gramercy event and the December 8 Holiday Bazaar. Mayor Goettel reported on the recent Designing for Wellness Conference. Mayor Goettel announced the Crosstown reopening ribbon cutting on November 13 at Pearl Park in Minneapolis. Council Member Wroge expressed concerns regarding the lack of maintenance and safety issues at the Lyndale Garden Center Site. The City needs to be proactive and hold the owner accountable. If no developers come forward soon, the City and/or HRA may need to become involved. Mayor Goettel stated condemning the property may be an option. City Manager Devich explained staff's aggressive approach to address issues at this site. Mayor Goettel expressed concern regarding traffic issues for Richfield residents due to the CVS drive-thru pharmacy in Edina at 69th Street and York Avenue. Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 9, 2010 Public Works Director Eastling explained the right out onto 69th Street is only for pharmacy drive-thru because of the median. Mayor Goettel suggested the Transportation Commission consider traffic calming options on 69th Street. Community Development Director Stark stated CVS has made application for planning purposes at the corner of 66th Street and Penn Avenue. If the proposed project goes through the process, it is likely CVS will be constructed. M/Goettel, S/Wroge to cancel the Tuesday, December 28 Regular City Council Meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The City Council consensus was to schedule the annual goalsetting on Friday, January 7 and advisory commission interviews on Saturday, January 8. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution determining results of City General Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2010 S.R. No. 197 RESOLUTION NO. 10436 RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10436. B. Consideration of approval of resolution amending and restating I-35W Solutions Alliance Joint Powers Agreement S.R. No. 198 RESOLUTION NO. 10437 RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND RESTATE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE I-35W SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10437. C. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 14, 2010 for renewal of 2011 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and University Cash Company, LLC, d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry S.R. No. 199 Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 9, 2010 D. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 14, 2010 for renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill; Patrick's Bakery & Cafe; Lariat Lanes; The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. d/b/~ Noodles and Company and Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant S.R. No. 200 E. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 14, 2010 for renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque; Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champp's Restaurant; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's; Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar; The Frenchmans; EI Tejaban Mes. Grill; and Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant S.R. No. 201 F. Consideration of approval of request for renewal of currency exchange licenses for New Unbank Company, LLC; 6421 Penn Avenue; and Los Gallos 12, Inc., 6539-B 14th Avenue S.R. No. 202 G. Consideration of approval of agreement with Bigos-Richfield Towers, LLC for maintenance of sump manhole at 7717 Chicago Avenue S.R. No. 203 H. Consideration of approval of renewal of contract between City of Richfield and Chief's Towing, Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue, for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2010 through November 30, 2011 S.R. No. 204 M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to amend the agenda to include conducting a City Council closed Executive session at the end of tonig_ht's Regular City Council meeting to discuss the proposed Jun Bo settlement regarding alleged liquor dispensing violations. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #6 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO FINANCING OF PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PURSUANT TO MN STATUTES SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.165 AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION TO MN DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS (STAFF REPORT N0.205) M/Goettel, S/Wroge to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Joe Uhrich, Academy of Holy Angels, stated no additional improvements are scheduled at this time. Council Meeting Minutes -5- November 9, 2010 Council Member Wroge stated he would abstain from voting on this item because he works for the Academy of Holy Angels. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10438 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE FINANCING OF A PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.165, AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS Motion carried 4-0. (Wroge abstained.) This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10438. Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION ADOPTING CHANGE IN PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE OF RESIDUAL ASSETS OF POLICE AND FIRE CONSOLIDATED PENSION PLANS (STAFF REPORT NO. 206) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 206. M/Wroge, S/Goettel to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Council Member Wroge suggested using the remaining funds to close the account because previous City Council direction was to use these funds for the municipal center to keep costs down for residents and businesses. City Manager Devich stated use of the funds is a policy decision and could be considered at a later date. Finance Manager Regis explained for the past several years the interest has been used for Police and Fire expenditures. Council Member Wroge asked about a maintenance fund for the new building. City Manager Devich explained those funds are in the government buildings budget. Council Member Sandahl suggested considering use of the funds if necessary and also getting feedback from Police and Fire. Mayor Goettel expressed concern regarding the next budget cycle. Council Member Elliott suggested leaving the reserves. City Attorney Heine explained the purpose of the resolution is not allocating $7.6 million but only revises the plan authorizing the City to use the Police and Fire pension residuals in such amounts needed for construction. At a future City Council meeting, a resolution will authorize the principal expenditure. Council Meeting Minutes -6- November 9, 2010 M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes and prepare a resolution for City Council consideration regarding expenditures of the $7,621,000 in principal and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10439 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE IN PLAN FOR RICHFIELD ASSET AMOUNT FROM POLICE AND FIRE CONSOLIDATION FUND Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10439. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE APPENDIX 1 REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT CITY IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (STAFF REPORT N0.207) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 207. Council Member Elliott suggested the City Council consider exceptions to the rezoning of 7421 Lyndale Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue because it could restrict the ability and highest use of the properties. Community Development Director Stark stated there are 321 proposed separate rezonings and only two properties have been contentious. He credited City Planner Melissa Poehlman's efforts with shepherding this project. Community Development Director Stark explained the 6800 Penn Avenue block as a whole is considered but practically there could be an exception. The proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan of 7421 Lyndale are consistent with what's in place now and having an island could cause a problem with spot zoning. Tom Price, 7421 Lyndale Avenue, owner of Woodlawn Homes Park, expressed concerns and objections regarding rezoning and requested removal of the parcel because of impacts on future development options. Community Development Director Stark suggested deferring rezoning until the Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment Plan is reviewed or a development proposal is presented. Mark Balkowitsch, owner of 7401 Lyndale Avenue, requested the rezoning on this property be unchanged until other developments are presented. M/Elliott, S/Sandahl to approve first reading of the ordinance and include 6800 Penn Avenue as an exception and 7401 and 7421 Lyndale Avenue as exceptions due to being part of e Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -7- November 9, 2010 Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEFEASANCE, PREPAYMENT AND REDEMPTION OF $1,045,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2002C BONDS, DATED DECEMBER 5, 2002 (STAFF REPORT NO. 208) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 208. M/Goettel, S/V1/roge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10440 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE DEFEASANCE, PREPAYMENT AND REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT Council Member Wroge suggested using the funds for more upscale homes, not low to moderate income housing. City Manager Devich responded that is a future decision and the resolution considered tonight authorizes the defeasance. Community Development Director Stark explained the changes in the Richfield Rediscovered Program. Changes made by the HRA, the Richfield Development Fund and the current land buying and banking. The City Council decision to use the funds could defray costs of Richfield Parkway construction. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10440. Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REFUNDING OF $8,350,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2001A, DATED APRIL 1, 2001 WITH $6,465,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2010B (STAFF REPORT NO. 209) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 209. M/Goettel, S/Wroge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10441 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $6,465,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2010B City Manager Devich commended Best Buy for their generosity in basically giving $78,000 to the HRA Development Fund. Council Meeting Minutes -8- November 9, 2010 Council Member Wroge questioned paying off the Penn Avenue bridge earlier with a new bond. Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers and Associates, explained that could be one option but the pay-as- you-go note may not shorten the bond. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10441. Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF WORK PROPOSAL PRESENTED BY WSB & ASSOCIATES FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RICHFIELD PARKWAY NORTH CONNECTION TO BLOOMINGTON AVENUE AT COST NOT TO EXCEED $35,000 (STAFF REPORT N0.210) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 209. Public Works Director Eastling discussed the Richfield Parkway alignment corridors and water quality improvement project. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to approve the proposal presented by WSB & Associates for preliminary engineering for Richfield Parkway North Connection to Bloomington Avenue at cost not to exceed $35,000. Council Member Wroge expressed concern regarding commercial vehicle use of Richfield Parkway at Cedar Point and suggested it be reconsidered as part of the project. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER FOR FIVE-YEAR TERM COMMENCING NOVEMBER 9, 2010 AND EXPIRING OCTOBER 31, 2015 (STAFF REPORT NO. 211) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 211. Mayor Goettel stated that due to previous City Council discussions to have more City Council representation on the HRA, she requested she be appointed to the HRA. M/Wroge, S/Elliott to approve the appointment of Debbie Goettel to the HRA for a five year term commencing November 9, 2010 and expiring October 31, 2015 or until such later date as a successor is appointed and qualified. Motion carried 5-0. Item #13 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Assistant to the City Manager Dmytrenko provided a Municipal Center construction update. Council Meeting Minutes -9- November 9, 2010 Item #14 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/V1/roge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 11/9/2010 A/P Checks: 198802-199148 $ 1,885,970.51 Payroll: 70586-70912 $ 514,719.28 TOTAL $ 2,400,689.79 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Heine stated the City Council will be going into Closed Executive Session to discuss the administrative proceedings pending in the alleged liquor dispensing violations at Jun Bo Restaurant and the proposed settlement.. By unanimous consent the City Council left the Council Chambers at 9:05 p.m. to conduct a Closed Executive Session in the Executive Conference Room. The Closed Executive Session was called to order by Mayor Goettel in the Executive Conference Room at 9:08 p.m. Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. The Closed Executive Session was convened pursuant to M.S. 13D.05 -The Closed Executive Session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:25 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room. The Open Session was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 9:26 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Meeting Minutes -10- ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:27 p.m. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager November 9, 2010 AGENDA SECTION: CONSEN"T AGENDA. ITEM # 3A REPORT # 212 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ NOVEMBER 23 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY; r DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~f REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: L_LJ ~ f:. ~.. CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAAAF T/TI.F ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution with regards to the financing of a project undertaken by the Academy of Holy Angels. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the issuance and sale of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels Project), Series 2010A, in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 and taxable Educational Facility Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels Project), Series 2010B, in the original aggregate principal amount of $250,000, approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of the bonds and certain related documents; and providing for the security, rights, and remedies with respect to the bonds. II. BACKGROUND • At the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting, a preliminary resolution was approved that gave preliminary approval to the financing of a project undertaken by the Academy of Holy Angels (Holy Angels). Tonight's City Council meeting is the final step in the process of approving the financing for the project. • As was described at the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting the project undertaken by Holy Angels is the installation and repair of a roof over their facility. They are now seeking financing for the project. • To finance the project, Holy Angels seeks assistance from the City of Richfield in the form of issuance of approximately $1,250,000 million combined tax exempt and taxable conduit bonds to finance the project. The 1123Ho1y Angels Conduit Debt Final issuance of tax-exempt bonds as a major part of the financing results in a lower interest cost to Holy Angels. The debt would be issued in two series, an estimated $1,000,000 portion that would that would be issued as tax-exempt bonds and an estimated $250,000 portion that would be issued as taxable bonds. The City would only serve as a conduit for the project financing. The City would not incur any financial liability as a result of the issuance of the debt, nor would the City incur any out of pocket expenses. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ CY ~ Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, the City of Richfield has authority to issue revenue bonds. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The tax-exempt portion of the combined bond issue (approximately $1,000,000) would not count against the City's bank qualified debt limit for 2010. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorizes 501(c) (3) organizations to have their own annual bank qualified "debt limit of $30,000,000 for bonds issued in 2009 and 2010. The tax exempt portion would therefore count against Holy Angels' bank qualified debt limit for 2010. • The approximate cost of the project is $1.25 million. • The bonds will be issued in the City's name, but will not be a charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers. The City will act as a conduit for the financing of the project. It does not create any financial liability to the City. • The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out- of-pocket expenses related to the financing, including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst fees, bond counsel fees, staff costs, and any deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding authority. • The applicant will be charged an annual administrative fee in the amount of 1/8t" of 1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance of both issues. D. LEGAL • Kennedy & Graven will serve as bond counsel for the issues. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Forgo approving the attached resolution and not proceed with the issuance of the private activity revenue bonds. V. ATTACHMENTS • RPSnlutinn_ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Andrew Pratt, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ~~ - ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PROJECT), SERIES 2010A, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,000,000, AND TAXABLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITY REVENUE BONDS (ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PROJECT), SERIES 20106, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $250,000; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS AND CERTAIN RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), is a home rule city and political- subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469-1651, as amended (the "Act"), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue bonds or other obligations to make a loan to finance or refinance a revenue producing enterprise; and WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Academy of Holy Angels, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"), that the City issue its (i) Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels Project), Series 2010A, in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 (the "Series 2010A Bonds"), and (ii) Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 20108, in the original aggregate principal amount of $250,000 (the "Series 20106 Bonds," and collectively with the Series 2010A Bonds, the "Bonds"), and loan the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds to the Borrower (the "Loan"); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Loan are proposed to be applied by the Borrower to (i) finance costs related to the installation and repair of a roof on the Borrower's educational facility (the "Facility"), located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South in the City (the "Project"), and (ii) pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ("DEED") for approval of the Project pursuant to the requirements of Section 469.154 of the Act, and the City is in receipt of the approval of DEED for the Project, which approval is dated November 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing (in which a general, functional description of the Project was provided, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the obligations to be issued with respect to the Project, the identity of the initial owner, operator, or manager of the Project, and the location of the Project by street address) was published in the Sun Sailor, the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general 3A-~ circulation in the City not less than fourteen (14) days nor more than thirty (30) days before the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City on November 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the City Council of the City conducted a public hearing at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds and the location and nature of the Project; and WHEREAS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (the "Lender") has agreed to purchase the Bonds in a manner consistent with the policies of the City relating to the issuance and sale of non-rated conduit revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds are proposed to be loaned to the Borrower under the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010 (the "Loan Agreement"), between the City and the Borrower, and applied by the Borrower, together with other funds of the Borrower, to finance the Project and to pay certain costs of issuing the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the loan repayments required to be made by the Borrower under the terms of the Loan Agreement will be assigned from the City to the Lender under the terms of an Assignment of Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010 (the "Assignment"), between the City, the Borrower, and the Lender; and WHEREAS, the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds: (i) shall not constitute general or moral obligations of the City and shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City nor a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City's interest in the Project and the Loan Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Authorization of Bonds. For the purpose of financing the Project and paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Bonds, there is hereby authorized the issuance of the Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,250,000 (consisting of an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 for the Series 2010A Bonds and an aggregate principal amount of $250,000 for the, Series 20106 Bonds). The Bonds shall bear interest at such rates, be in such denomination, be numbered, dated, mature, subject to redemption prior to maturity, in such forms, and have such other details and .provisions as are prescribed by the forms of the Bonds on file with the City on the date hereof. All of the provisions of the Bonds, when executed as authorized in this Resolution, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Bonds shall be substantially in the form on file with the City, which form is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions (including changes to the principal amounts of the Bonds, the determination of the initial interest rates on the Bonds, and changes to the terms of redemption of the ~~ _~ Bonds) as the Mayor and the City Manager in their discretion shall determine. The execution of the Bonds with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and the delivery of the Bonds by the City shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 2. Special, Limited Obligations. The Bonds shall be special limited obligations of the City payable solely from revenues of the Facility, in the manner provided in this Resolution and the Loan Agreement. The Bonds do not constitute general or moral obligations of the City, or a pledge of the faith and credit or any taxing power of the City, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision thereof. The Bonds shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital. shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this Resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 3. Loan Documents. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds shall be loaned by the City to the Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Loan repayments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreement are to be fixed so as to produce revenues sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. The Loan and the City's rights to the Loan repayments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement shall be assigned to the Lender as security for payment of the Bonds pursuant to the terms of the Assignment. The Bonds, the Loan Agreement, and the Assignment shall be substantially in the forms on file with the City on the date hereof, and are hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution and delivery thereof by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The Bonds, the Loan Agreement, and the Assignment are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager. 4. Disclosure. The City has not participated in the preparation of any disclosure documents relating to the offer and sale of the Bonds and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained in any such disclosure documents. The City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of any information set forth in any such disclosure documents. 5. Bond Proceedings. The Mayor, the City Manager, and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Lender and to Bond Counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 6. Additional Documents. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary ~~ ~~ and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom, and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the officials authorized herein to execute said documents, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Mayor, the City Manager, and other officers of the City are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, all other certificates, instruments, and other written documents that may be requested by Bond Counsel, the Lender, or other persons or entities in conjunction with the issuance of the Bonds and the expenditure of the proceeds of the Bonds. Without imposing any limitations on the scope of the preceding sentence, such officers are specifically authorized to execute and deliver a general certificate of the City and an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038 (Rev. June 2010), relating to the Series 2010A Bonds. 7. Representations of City; No Liability. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the City contained in this Resolution or contained in the Loan Agreement, Assignment, or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, representatives, and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, .representations, and agreements shall be binding upori the City. Except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, all rights, powers, and privileges conferred, and duties and liabilities imposed, upon the City by the provisions of this Resolution or of the respective Loan Agreement, Assignment, or other documents referred to above shall be exercised or performed by the City, or by such officers, board, body, or agency as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the Loan Agreement, Assignment, or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement of any elected official, officer, agent, or employee of the City in that person's individual capacity, and neither the members of the City Council nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. 8. No Other Rights or Remedies. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Resolution or in the Loan Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person, firm, or corporation other than the City and the registered and beneficial owners of the Bonds, any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this Resolution or any provision hereof or of the Loan Agreement or any provision thereof; this Resolution, the Loan Agreement and all of their provisions being intended to be, and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of, the City and the registered and beneficial owners of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, and the Borrower to the extent expressly provided in the Loan Agreement. 9. Illegality. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Resolution, or of the documents mentioned herein, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this Resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained therein. 3~-~ 10. Performance of Acts and Conditions. All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota, relating to the adoption of this Resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, and the other documents referred to above to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this Resolution, and precedent to the issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, and the other documents referred to above, have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 11. Further Authorizations. The members of the City Council, officers of the City, and attorneys and other agents or employees of the City are authorized to do all acts and things required by them by or in connection with this Resolution and the Loan Agreement and the other documents referred to above for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, and the other documents referred to above, and this Resolution. 12. City Designees. If for any reason the Mayor is unable to execute and deliver those documents referred to in this Resolution, any other member of the City Council, or any officer of the City duly delegated to act on behalf of the Mayor, may execute and deliver such documents with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed by the Mayor. If for any reason the City Manager is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this Resolution, such documents may be executed and delivered by any member of the City Council, any officer of the City duly delegated to act on behalf of the City Manager, with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager. 13. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 23rd day of November, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT # 213 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY J MANAGER: ~~ ~. CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing an Internal Loan in the amount of $1,000,000 to fund capital improvements within the City's Water Utility infrastructure. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing a $1,000,000 Internal Loan for capital improvements within the City's Water Utility Infrastructure. IL BACKGROUND • During 2006 the City issued $6,080,000 G.O. Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds to finance capital improvements to the Water Plant. • All of the improvements planned to be funded with the 2006 bond issue have been completed. • Currently there is a need for further capital improvements to the water utility infrastructure. It is anticipated that the funding for the improvements would be provided through a combination of an internal loan and the issuance of general obligation revenue bonds. • The City Council reviewed the 2010-2011 Utility Budgets, rates, capita! improvements and potential bond issue at the October 12, 2010 Study Session. • The Water Utility staff has been working with the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Inc., to determine the needs and cost of replacement and refurbishment of the infrastructure of the utility. 1123Water Utility Internal Loan III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Water Utility infrastructure is an important asset of the City and needs to be maintained at up to date operating standards. • Pursuant to Section 7.12, Subd. 7, the City Council may make interfund loans by resolution. $. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • If the improvements are not completed, the Water Utility infrastructure could possibly face equipment failures and interruptions in operations. C. FINANCIAL • The internal loan will come from the City's Capital Improvement Reserve Fund. The loan is estimated to be in the amount of $1,000,000 with a term of ten (10) years. • The repayment of the internal loan will be paid from water utility revenues and will carry an interest rate of 2%. This rate may be adjusted depending on future interest rate market conditions. • The total planned improvements with estimated costs include the following: • Clarifier and South Reactor Improvement $ 966,540 • Chain Room Piping/Pump Replacement 220,000 • Logan Avenue Tower Refurbish./Painting 750,000 $1,936,540 The internal loan will only provide funding for a portion of the planned improvements and accordingly staff will be bringing before the City Council a recommendation for the issuance of general obligation revenue bonds sometime in early 2011. The implementation of the internal loan will solidify the financial position of the Water Utility for future bond issues. All improvements proposed are included in the 2011 Capital Improvement Budget and the 2012-2015 Capital Improvement Plan included in the 2011 Adopted Budget. D. LEGAL • Procedures related to City Charter Sections 7.12, Subd. 7 have been followed and completed. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ 3~ - ~ RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING $1,000,000 INTERNAL LOAN FOR CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS AT THE CITY'S WATER UTILITY OPERATION WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for the City Council to make interfund loans by resolution, and WHEREAS, the planned capital improvements are included in the 2011 Capital Improvement Budget included in the 2011 City Budget, and WHEREAS, the internal loan will be from the City's Capital Improvement Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, the repayment of the internal loan will be provided through the revenues generated by the water utility operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: The City Manager is authorized to execute an internal loan from the City's Capital Improvement Reserve Fund to the City's Water Utility Operation to fund the capital improvements. 2.' The term of the loan will be ten (10) years in the amount of $1,000,000 with an interest rate of 2%. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the interest rate as market conditions may dictate. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # RF,PORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 CONSENT 3C 214 REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE FLAHERTY POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: i.., REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /'' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding an agreement between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, and the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, pertaining to the DWI Enforcement Grant Program formally known as Nightcap. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds from the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, to be used for payment of overtime for officers involved in the DWI Enforcement Grant.Proaram. II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota State Patrol coordinates alcohol enforcement saturations with local police departments throughout the state and has contacted the Richfield Police Department to participate in the periodic saturations for alcohol enforcement in coordination with the State Patrol. The State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, has awarded the Richfield Police Department reimbursements not to exceed $11,000 for overtime to participate in the DWI Enforcement Grant Program. The contract begins October 1, 2010 and expires September 30, 2011. 1123 Resolution State Patrol DWI Enforcement Grant III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Department of Public Safety's Fiscal Administrative Office is requiring that the Minnesota State Patrol gets a copy of the resolution/delegation of authority from the Richfield Police Department stating who is authorized to sign off on the. grants allowing the Richfield Police Department to participate in these programs. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to Departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. The grant money will be used by Public Safety to pay overtime costs for officers participating in the DWI Enforcement Program. C. FINANCIAL • The overtime paid to the officers will come from Grant Funds. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could disapprove the resolution, which would void the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3G-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/POLICE TO PARTICIPATE JOINTLY WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PATROL IN AN AGREEMENT WITH AND TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF MINNSOTA, COMMISIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO PAY OVERTIME TO OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE DWI ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FORMERLY KNOWN AS "NIGHTCAP" WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Patrol coordinates alcohol enforcement saturations with local police departments throughout the state and has contacted the Richfield Police Department to participate in the periodic saturations for alcohol enforcement in coordination with the State Patrol; and, WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, has awarded the Richfield Police Department reimbursements not to exceed $11,000 for overtime to participate in the DWI Enforcement Grant Program; and, WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police would like to sign a contract with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division; and, WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police would receive the grant funds for saturated overtime alcohol enforcement in coordination with the Minnesota State Patrol; and WHEREAS, the contract would cover saturated enforcement between October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Richfield Public Safety/Police will enter into a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol for the project entitled DWI Enforcement Grant Program from October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. Richfield Public Safety Director Barry Fritz or Deputy Director Todd Sandell or Patrol Lieutenant Mike Flaherty are hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Richfield Police Division and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3D REPORT # 215 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ ~ NOVEMBER 23 2010 c__ ._.::T w; ~ REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE I'~ MANAGER #` -•>--~ j NAME, TITLE t `- __ _~., REVIEWED BY CITY >~~ ~ '~ MANAGER: ~ ' -- -..._ .. ,-r.. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of $5,568 in items included in the project budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Municipal Center change order report for an aggregate net effect of $5,568 in items included within the project budget. II. BACKGROUND Resolution No. 10309 provides the City Manager the authority to approve change orders for all contracts awarded by the City Council for the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center subject to the following limitations: • Up to an aggregate of $25,000 for non-budgeted items • Up to an aggregate of $100,000 for items within the project budget Following the approval of such change orders, the City Manager must report this information to the City Council. Attached is the list of the approved project change orders since the October 26, 2010 City Council meeting. Some change orders represent an increase to the originally awarded contract and some represent a decrease. The aggregate net effect of the change orders before the Council on November 23, 2010 is $5,568. All of the change orders are budgeted items. Total net project change orders to-date are $50,092. 1123C0 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In order to maintain the construction schedule of the Richfield Municipal Center project and respond to change order requests in a timely manner, the City Council has authorized (Resolution No. 10309) the City Manager to approve change orders up to an aggregate value of $100,000 for budgeted items and up to an aggregate value of $25,000 for non-budgeted items. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City Manager must report approved change orders for the Richfield Municipal Center to the City Council at the next Council meeting. • These change orders have already been approved and, in most cases, implemented. • Future change order reports will most likely be made on a monthly schedule depending upon the number and timing of the change orders. C. FINANCIAL • The change orders before the Council for review on November 23, 2010, represent a net effect of $5,568 for budgeted items. • Total net project change orders to-date are $50,092. D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Richfield Municipal Center Change Order Log VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Change Order Log COR # PR # Description Amount Subcontractor(s) 1033 SI 12 Fire dampers at floor per code review 1,864.00 ~ Thelen 1089 40 Electrical Floor Box Revisions in Council Chambers 904.00 Vinco 1110 54 Insulating of skylight "tension rings" 2,800.00 Southern MN Urethane - --- - Net Change Orders 5,568.00 - - - W V AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3E REPORT # 216 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~~' REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of extending the current agreement with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for 1,400 tons of quick lime for water treatment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve extension of current agreement with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for the purchase of quick lime in the amount of $168,000.00 ($120.00/ton) for 2011. II. BACKGROUND The chemical quick lime is used in the water treatment process to lower hardness thus producing softened water. Approximately 1,400 tons of quick lime is required each year. On December 8, 2009 Council approved cone-year agreement with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for 2010 in the amount of $168,000.00. The Quick Lime Bid Specifications included language stating the agreement may be extended for additional one-year periods to a maximum agreement period of three years upon mutual consent of both parties. Graymont has agreed to supply quick lime in 2011 at no increase in price. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 112310quicklime A. POLICY • City Council awarded Graymont (WI), LLC Company cone-year agreement for 2010 with the option of extending the agreement for additional one-year periods to a maximum agreement period of three years (can not be extended beyond December 31, 2013) B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Quick lime is a necessary chemical required in the water softening process and the 2010 agreement expires December 31, 2010. C. FINANCIAL • A recent history of prices for this product is: Estimated Years Base Price Annual Cost Vendor 2006 $78.66/Ton $107,240.00 Cutler Magner 2007 $95.20/Ton $133,280.00 Cutler Magner 2008 $99..65/Ton $139,510.00 Cutler Magner 2009 $112.00/Ton $156,800.00 Graymont 2010 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont 2011 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont Funding for the purchase of quick lime is in t he 2011 Water Department Budget, line item 51000-6413 (Chemicals) D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction exceeds $25,000.00, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • -None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may reject the extension; however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. V. ATTACHMENTS • Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPfN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT Purchase of Quick Lime Contract No. 2769 THIS AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of November 2010 between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and through- its Mayor and City Manager, herein called "The City," and GRAYMONT (WI), LLC, Foot of Hill Avenue, Superior, WI 54880, the "Contractor," witnesseth; that the Contractor, in consideration of the payment of the contract price therefore, amounting substantially to ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($168,000.00) Dollars agrees to furnish all materials (except such as are specified to be furnished by the City, if any), ail necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform all the necessary work and labor for the full completion of City projects as follows: \ Purchase of 1,400 Tons of Quick Lime for the Water Treatment Plant At 6221 Portland Avenue as per specifications, for the price and compensation set forth and specified in the proposal signed by the Contractor, which is hereto attached and hereby made a part of this Agreement, all in accordance with the specifications and special provisions therefore on file in the office of'the Utility Superintendent, City of Richfield, and hereby made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement sha11 be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and there respective successors and assigns. "The contract price is a unit price of $120.00, per ton in calendar year 2011." The Contractor agrees that the work shall be done and. performed in the best and most workmanlike manner; that all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity in every respect with the plans, specifications and special provisions for the improvement, shall be subject to inspection and approval of the City or a duly authorized engineer of the City, and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City or engineer as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material-shall be removed, and replaced with approved material and the rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction and Approval of the City or Utility Superintendent and at the cost and expense of the Contractor. 3 F~ - a-- Purchase of Quick Lime Contract No. 2769 Page 2 The Contractor further agrees that he will commence work immediately upon receipt of contract, and will have all work done and the improvement fully completed to the satisfaction and approval of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as provided in the specifications. Time is the essence of this contract for prompt completion and if the Contractor shall fail to complete the work within the time herein specified, the City shall have the right to deduct from the unpaid part of the contract price, the amount, or amounts specified in the specifications, or, if no moneys shall be due the Contractor, to recover damages in accordance with said specifications, for each and every working day thereafter during which the contract shall remain unfinished and incomplete, such damages being hereby agreed upon as liquidated damages in lieu of actual damages occasioned by such delay, but special provisions, if any, contained in the. proposal are also.continued in effect and shall be read and construed as part of this provision as to the completion and liquidated damages for delay. It is agreed, however, that upon receipt of written notice from the Contractor of the existence of causes over which the Contractor has no control and which will delay the completion of the work, the City Council in its discretion, and in accordance with the specifications, may extend the d-ate hereinbefore specified for completion, and in such case the Contractor shall .become liable for said liquidated damages only for failure to perform within the time so extended. It is agreed, also, that delays caused by the elements or by strikes or other combined action of workmen employed in the construction or in the transportation of materials, but in no part caused or resulting from default or collusion on the part of the Contractor, shall be excused to the extent which the City Council may find and determine such conditions to have delayed completion within the time limit, but the judgement of the City Council in fixing such amount shall be final and conclusive upon the parties hereto. It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims-for extra work done or materials furnished by the Contractor will be allowed by the City Council except as provided herein., nor shall the Contractor do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans, specifications, special provisions, and this contract, unless such work is first ordered in,writing, as provided in the specifications. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Contractor without such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. 2 3C -3 Purchase of Quick Lime Contract No. 2769 Page 3 It is further agreed, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, that the City of Richfield,. City Council, and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Contractor, Subcontractors, materialmen, {aborers, or to any person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvement provided herein. Dated at Richfield, Minnesota, this 23rd day of November, 2010. Signatures for GRAYMONT (WI), LLC. By. Its By_ Its By. Debbie Goettel, Mayor Signatures for the City of Richfield, Minnesota By Steven L. Devich, City Manager 3 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3F REPORT # 217 ,: ~::_ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of remaining change proposals for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve remaining contract proposals #17, 22, 26, 27, 30 and 33 in the amount of $4,896.80. IL BACKGROUND The City of Richfield authorized a contract with Ebert Construction Inc. on June 23, 2009 for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex. Staff is recommending Council to approve the remaining contract change proposals as follows: Change Prop. #17 Change Prop. #22 Change Prop. #26 Change Prop. #27 Change Prop. #30 Change Prop. #33 Install attic access Repair shade structure footing erosion Raise playground curb to new grade Install swale to correct drainage Install additional asphalt to correct drainage Credit for fencing and parking lot curb $ 232.10 $ 2,593.80 $ 2,933.00 $ 2,464.00 $ 3,399.00 -6 725.10 Total Contract Change $ 4,896.80 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1123 Lincoln Athletic Complex Remaining Change Proposals A. POLICY • It is appropriate for City Council to review and approve contract change orders which are additions to the project contract. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The contract with Ebert Construction will be finalized as a result of this contract change and the project will be official closed. C. FINANCIAL • If approved, the two contact change orders will change the contract for Ebert Construction as follows: Base Bid, Alternates and previous approved change orders $1,033,673.00 Change Proposals #17, 22, 26, 27, 30 and 33 $ 4,896.80 New Contract Amount Cost • The project will be officially closed under budget. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None $1,038,569.80 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~-K STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ NOVEMBER 23, 2010 CONSENT 3G 221 REPORT PREPARED BY: TODD SANDELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/DEPUTY CIiIEF OF POLICE N.ta~ TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider acceptance of new grant funds from Hennepin County for the 2011 JCPP Cadet Program. I. RECONIMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to accept 2011 funding from the Hennepin County Department of Human Services and Public Health for a Police Cadet program, in the amount of $30,000. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Public Safety/Police has accepted a grant from Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department in relation to the Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP) for a Police Cadet. This agreement is for personal/professional services in which Richfield Police agrees to furnish certain services to a Police Cadet when hired. These services include: conducting recruitment; interviewing; testing and enrollment of a cadet into its local police department; providing training and day-to-day activities required by Richfield Police and; coordinating activities of the cadet in conjunction with the Hennepin County Joint Community Police Partnership. Staff did not receive the necessary grant information and request for signatures until after the City of Richfield Council Agenda was finalized and sent out. The urgency 1123 Resolutlon #o Accept New Grant Funds from Hennepin County for JCPP Cadet Program in returning the signed grant and resolution conflicted with the timing of the City Council meeting deadlines; therefore, Richfield had to submit the staff report for the November 23 meeting to meet Hennepin County deadlines. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This Personal/Professional Service Agreement follows. contracts that have been approved in the past. Its purpose is to lay out the services to be provided, term and costs of the agreement; payment for services, etc. • Richfield Public Safety/Police has- previously been under an agreement with Hennepin County JCPP for Cadet Services, beginning 5/1 /2007 -12/31 /2008, and extended to 12/31 /2009. • ~ The attached agreement is for the period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. • The amount of the agreement to be paid to Richfield Police is not to exceed $30,000. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • A resolution agreeing to the terms of the contract must be signed by the City of Richfield and returned to Hennepin County in time to meet their deadline for executing the agreements of November 30, 2010. C. FINANCIAL • Hennepin County will provide funding to accommodate cadet's salary, fringe benefits, testing, uniforms and equipment, tuition assistance, books, supplies and applications fees not to exceed $30,000 for 2011. D. LEGAL • Contract with Hennepin County. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N!A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • To not sign the agreement would mean financing of the Police Cadet would not take place. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3C~-{ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT FUNDING FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR A POLICE CADET PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department, has identified the City of Richfield as a segment of the County that is in need of Cadet Training services; and, WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin has funds available and wishes to purchase such services from the City of Richfield/Police; and, WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police will provide Cadet Training services through a cost reimbursement contract described as "training and educational opportunities in conformance with police department rules and procedures, and will provide recruitment, interviewing, supervision, support and training to selected cadets;" and, WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety/Police has agreed to.the terms as set forth in the Human Services and Public Health Department Provider Agreement and will sign such agreement upon Council approval of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, City Manager Steve Devich and Public Safety Director/Chief of Police Bany Fritz are hereby authorized to execute such agreement, and Barry Fritz is authorized to facilitate and make available whatever is needed to carry out the terms of the agreement; and, WHEREAS, the agreement will be in effect from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department/Police will accept the provisions of.the agreement and receive reimbursement as detailed in the agreement for Cadet Training services. - Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # 218 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE :J _. _._ °~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR `~ °-~,. REVIEW: G '`~:~ ,` r ~' ~ ~ SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY ~ ~ ~ ~`ti ~ ~~ ~- ,~; '~'~~~~ MANAGER: ~ ~~ ~~ -~ ~' _ _ .. ~. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct a second reading of an ordinance rezoning certain properties throughout the City in order to bring them into conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Approve summary publication of the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the attached ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to rezone certain properties throughout the City in order to comply with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix 1, which pertains to the zoning of certain properties throughout the Citv. II. BACKGROUND Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Minnesota State Statute (473.864 Subd. 2) requires that cities prepare and review a comprehensive plan at least once every ten years. The Comprehensive Plan (Plan) contains information regarding the City's vision and provides specific recommendations for future land use, housing, parks, utilities and transportation. On June 23, 2009 the Richfield City Council adopted a final Comprehensive Plan to guide future growth within the City. This Plan was the result of over two years of 112310 - 2nd Reading Comp Plan Rezonings work and public communication. A series of informational newsletters were mailed to all residents and property owners in the City (February 2007, May 2007, September 2007, October 2007, and June 2008) and open houses were held at locations throughout the community (February 2007, May-June 2007, and November 2007) to solicit input from residents and business owners. In addition, a public hearing for which notice was published was held before the Planning Commission on June 23, 2008 to consider a final draft of the updated Plan. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Requirements In addition to the requirement to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive plan, State Law requires that cities amend zoning regulation to comply with that plan (MN §473.865). In Richfield's case, there are approximately 300 properties that must be rezoned to meet this requirement. The properties are located throughout the entire City. Some of these changes are related to the newly adopted Plan, but many changes are related to the previous update of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997. Properties were not rezoned at that time because nonconforming buildings and uses could not be rebuilt if destroyed. This prohibition could have made it difficult for property owners to secure insurance. Since that time, State Laws regarding legal nonconformities have greatly increased the protections for property owners. Even if destroyed, so long as a property owner applies for a building permit within 180 days, cities must allow the legally nonconforming building (or use) to be replaced as is. Proposed Rezoning Facts about rezoning: • Rezoning does not impact the current use of the property. • Property owners may continue to use the property in the current manner indefinitely. • Owners may sell their property and the buyer may use the property in the same manner. • Residential properties -The City Attorney has confirmed that the nonconforming status of the property would not affect a buyer's ability to qualify for a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan. • Taxes -The Hennepin County Assessor's Office stated that they designate a property's Class (and thereby its Class Rate) by the current use rather than the zoning. • Home Values -City staff spoke with two appraisers regarding the issue of valuation. Both appraisers stated that the value of a property is based on the "highest and best use" that is allowed and economically viable on the property. If appraising only a single property, it would be appraised as a single-family home and the rezoning should have no effect on the property value. • The new zoning designation impacts the future use of the property if it is redeveloped or if the use changes or expands. • The City has no plans to purchase these properties. Exceptions 70th Street and Nicollet Avenue This intersection is currently a neighborhood commercial node. Uses include a dental office, small retail shop, chiropractic office and realtor office, as well as a small commercial/residential building at 7 East 70th Street. History: In 2004, the City rezoned aSingle-Family (R) District property to Service- Office (SO) District in order to allow an additional low-intensity commercial business at this intersection (Cornerstone Realty - 6941 Nicollet Avenue). Staff believes that it was an oversight that the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property was not also changed at this time. Further, it seems that this action was a confirmation of the Community's support of continued commercial use at this corner and that the designation of all properties at the intersection should have been reconsidered at that time. As the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was considered to be an update of the existing Plan, rather than an overhaul, this area was not specifically focused upon. Staff recommends, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the Council should direct staff to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment to designate these properties as Neighborhood Commercial, rather than amending the current zoning. No zoning changes are required if the properties are designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and staff does not anticipate that the magnitude of this change in terms of housing units will be an issue for the Metropolitan Council. Lyndale Gateway Properties Six properties within the Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment Plan area would need to be rezoned in order to comply with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. These properties are: • 7526, 7532, 7538 and 7544 Garfield Avenue (four single-family homes located just east of Lyndale Avenue); • 7401 Lyndale Avenue (currently Audio Perfection); and • 7421 Lyndale Avenue (currently asingle-family home and the Woodlawn Terrace Mobile Home Community) The Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment Plan is now nearly 15 years old (1996). It seems prudent that the Planning Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and City Council reexamine this Plan to determine whether or not the policies and plans remain relevant. Staff recommends that the rezoning of these six properties be deferred until the Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment Plan has been reviewed. 6800 Penn Avenue This property is currently the site of Salon Junallo. Upon closer examination of this corner, the Council finds that continued commercial use at this corner is appropriate and that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to reflect this. To be Omitted 6401 Nicollet Avenue This property was included in error. 6401 Nicollet Avenue is designated as Community-Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District. These designations are consistent. 6913 Penn Avenue This property was included in error. 6913 Penn Avenue is designated as Low- Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently in the R (Single- Family Residential) District. These designations are consistent. Additional Rezoning The multi-family building located at 6901 Penn Avenue is currently within the MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Low-Density Residential in this location, therefore, the property should be rezoned to R (Single- Family Residential). Because the building was condominiumized, the parcel as a whole no longer shows an address in the City's mapping data. For this reason, 6901 Penn Avenue was not included on the list of properties sent to property owners even though it was shown on the map. In order to be certain that everyone involved is aware of the change, staff has republished and sent additional neighborhood notification of this proposed change. The proposed zoning change will be brought before the Commission next month. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Subsection 507.03 of the Zoning Code states as its foremost purpose, "to assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan." • Current zoning regulations do not adequately regulate development to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. • MN §473 requires that cities amend their zoning ordinance so as to not conflict with the comprehensive plan. • These parcels must be rezoned or the Comprehensive Plan must be amended. • Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter allows the City Council to authorize by unanimous vote summary publication of an ordinance when the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Cities have nine months following adoption of a comprehensive plan to amend their ordinances. The Metropolitan Council is aware of the fact that Richfield is working to bring properties into agreement with the City's Plan. C. FINANCIAL • Failure to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements could impact the City's ability to receive funding provided by the Council. D. LEGAL • Failure to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements leaves the City open to litigation. • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 25, 2010. Mr. Tom Price, owner of 7421 Lyndale Avenue, spoke against the proposed changes for his property. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and was mailed to subject property owners and owners with 350 feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval 6-2 (Hall, Schuller dissenting). A first reading of this ordinance was held on November 9, 2010. If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve the ordinance with amendments. • Deny approval of the ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Resolution for summary publication Map of properties to be rezoned List of properties to be rezoned VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Property owners in and around the subject area s-~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Paragraph (10) of Section 2 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (10) M-17 (W side of Chicago, 71St to 72nd) That area lying between the east line of Block 1, Wallaces Sunnyside Acres 6t" Addition and the center line of Chicago Avenue, and between the center line of 72nd Street and a line distant 449200 ft. south and parallel to the center line of 71St Street. Sec. 2. Paragraph (33) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (33) M-6 (SW corner, 66t" and Portland) Th~+ ~ro~ Minn ho+,^,oon +ho non+or lino of GifFh nr1 I7nr+lnni-1 °~icn~ ioc ~nrJ hofi^iocn +ho non+or lino of G:G:~ Q+~ +~,~ ten,.+h r~~~n+~Lots 1, 2 and 3 including the adjacent'/2 of vacated alley subject to street, Block 1, McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park Addition. Sec. 3. Paragraph (43) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (43) M-4 That area lying between the center lines of Portland and Oakland Avenues, and between the center line of 66t" Street and ~ lino ,+i~+,n+ 7~F ~ foo+ cni ~+horhi +horonf ~nr+ n~r~llol +horo+nthe northern line of Auditor's Subdivision No. 340. Sec. 4. Paragraph (47) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (47) M-4 That area lying between ~^,~s+ 'i~,,,,~4~ °-~cthe western boundary of the Eastern '/z of Lot 1, Block 1 Jerpbaks 1St Addition and the center line of 13t" Avenue, and between the center line of 66t" Street and a line distant 250 feet southerly thereof and parallel thereto. s-~ Sec. 5. Paragraph (54) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (54) M-4 (SE corner, 66t" and Chicago) Lots 1, 2, and 3 4 and~5 Block 3, Terrace Gardens Addition. Sec. 6. Paragraph (74) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (74) M-3 That area lying between the center lines of 13t" and Bloomington Avenues, and between the center line of 66t" Street and the center line of the alley northerly thereof and parallel thereto;-a~~ 1 n~ QInnL 4~~~FS--(_oriJ~s A°orr~n °rv~°n+ of R~A~~-1~ ~ ~iC7GT , C ~7Tf TCGUTrG~I"f~LTfTGTTVT~ , Sec. 7. Paragraph (75) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (75) M-3 (R'gter~-+~edar~er~esr-ana East 66t" Streets Bloomington and 16t" Ave area) + °r°° "~;/ptwe,Ier~~-tk~~c~Tt~ lin° /o~f,,~~R~lnnminrr~en~i~~~n~_~ ~ni°c~~~ et-B IBGR-d,}-•tve~s~}~~.,-mss ~~-~'FtttY'h ~-d~ tVerTS^vrr~~~~TCda}+inn[ivrr'arn'ra-ve'L~F~e{~ttil+ ~-vtree+ °nrJ ~ lin° rlic+~n+ '~F(1 f°°+ nnrFh°rl~i +hcr°nf °a;T~t1ie~~te; and t~e~~~h-z~~eer-of Lots 8-15, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview; and that area lying between the center line of 16t" Avenue and the west line of Cedar Point Commons Addition extended and between the center line of 66tH Street and a line distant 250 feet northerly thereof and parallel thereto. Sec. 8. Paragraph (71) of Section 11 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (71) M-17 (SE corner, 71St and Chicago) The East 161 40!100 feet of the West 325 3/10 feet of that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of the north 690 feet thereof and north of a line parallel with and 70 feet north from the north line of Zuberts Elliott Avenue Addition. Sec. 9. Paragraph (16) of Section 12 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (16) M-5 (SWE corner, 64t" and nlT~Blaisdell) Tho+ ~r°° I„iniv h°fini°°n ~L~n°nt~~~ n~~~ ~nrJ Ali~~//I~II°+ A~ipp~~~~ ~~~~~~++ ~nrf AL-LVYCG7T GCTf -QTTGrTfTGC7TfGTTTPGTfQG~~~iTC7 h°~hei°°n +h° n°n+°r lin° n+ G:il~ C+r°°+ ~nrl +h° any i+h lin° of Lots-a--an+~ 10, Block 8, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes 2nd Addition. 5--3 Sec. 10. Paragraph (3) of Section 13 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (3) M-11, 12 (SW 76t" and Penn) That area lying between the west line of Penn Avenue and the center line of Thomas Avenue, and between the center line of 76t" Street and the north right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 494 except the following described areas: 1. That area lying between the west line of Penn Avenue and a line 200 feet west of and parallel to said line within 200 feet north of the north right- of-way line of Interstate Highway 494; 2. a~ that area lying between the center lines of Sheridan and Thomas Avenues and the center line of 76t" and 77t" Streets; 3 a-r~ that area lying between the center line of Sheridan Avenue and a line 170 feet east of and parallel to said center line, and between the center line of 76t" Street and a line 258 feet south of and parallel to said center line; and 4. The East 330 feet of the South 230 feet of the Northeast '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. Sec. 11. Section 2 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraph (16) as follows: (16) M-17 Block 2, Engberg Walden 2nd Addition. (17) M-7 (NE corner, 66t" and Oliver) Lots 10 and 11, Block 8, Fairwood Park 1St Addition. Sec. 12. Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraphs as follows: (77) M-3 (SE Corner 65t" and 16t") That area lying between the center line of 16t" Avenue and a line 164 feet easterly thereof and parallel thereto, and between the center line of 65t" Street and a line distant 180 feet southerly thereof and parallel thereto. (78) M-4 Block 2, Lots 4-13, Wexlers Addition. (79) M-4 (18t" Ave at 67t") Lots 9-16, Block 4, Wexlers Addition. (80) M-4 Block 1, Cedar Sunrise 2nd Addition. (81) M-4, 17 (18t" and Cedar Aves, 69t" and 70t") Lots 1-6 and 9-16, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise 3rd Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Engberg- Walden 2nd Addition. (82) M-17 Lots 1 and 12-23, Block 3, Engberg-Walden 2nd Addition. `1 (83) M-17 (E side of 18t" Ave, N of 72nd) Tracts F, G, H, I and J of R.L.S. No. 495. (See Reference #3 of attached Boundary Conflicts). (84) M-17 (E side of 18t" Ave between 72nd and 73rd) Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, Elder Grove 4t" Addition, and that part of the south 82 feet of the north 112 feet of the West '/2 of the East '/2 of the Northeast '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of the Northeast '/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24 lying between the extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 1, Block 1, Elder Grove 4t" Addition. (See Reference #3 of attached Boundary Conflicts.) (85} M-18 (NE corner, 75t" and 18t") Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Zubert's Southview Gardens Third Addition. (See Reference #4 of attached Boundary Conflicts.) (86) M-18 (SE corner, 75t" and 18t") Lots E, F, G, H, R.L.S. No. 734, and Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Zubert's Southview Gardens Fourth Addition. (See Reference #5 of attached Boundary Conflicts.) (87) M-10 (SW corner, 66t" & Queen) Lot 3 and the West 20 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition. (88) M-17 (SW corner, 73rd and Cedar) The North 465 feet of Outlot 1 of Evergreen Gardens 2nd Addition. (89) M-5 (SW corner, 64t" and Lyndale) Lot 1, Block 8, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes 2nd Addition. (90) M-12 (76t" and Portland) The East 330 feet of the South 230 feet of the Northeast '/a of the Southeast '/a of the Southeast '/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. Sec. 13. Section 12 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraphs as follows: (39) M-4 (SE Corner of 66t" and 11t") The Western'/2 of Lot 1, Block 1, Jerpbaks 1St Addition. (40) M-5 (64t" near Lyndale) Lots 4 - 6, Block 5, Lyndale Oaks Addition. (41) M-9, 10 (NW corner, 66t" & Thomas) Lot 7, Block 1, Andersen- Erichsen Addition. 5 -~ (42) M-4 (SE corner, 66t" and Chicago) Lots 4 and 15, Block 3, Tarrace Garden Addition. (43) M-4 (Portland Ave, near 66t") Lot 034, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340. Sec. 14. Section 13 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraphs as follows: (18) M-3 (16t" Ave between 63rd and 65t") Lots 2-8, Block 1, Iversons 2nd Addition and Lots 1-8; Block 2, Iversons 2nd Addition. (19) M-3 (17t" Ave between 63rd and 65t") Lots 9-4, Block 1, Iversons 2nd Addition and Lots 1-8, Block 2, Iversons 2nd Addition. (20) M-17 Block 3, Wexlers Addition. (21) M-17 Block 2, Cedar Sunrise 2nd Addition. (22) M-17 Block 2, Cedar Sunrise 3rd Addition. (23) M-17 Lots 1-10, Block 4, Engberg-Walden 2nd Addition (24) M-17 Lots 1-5, Block 1, John Engbergs 2nd Addition (25) M-7 (NW corner, 66t" and Rae Drive) Lots 1-3, Block 1, Rae 2nd Addition; Lots 1-5, Block 1, Rae 3rd Addition; and Lots 1-5, Block 2, Rae 3rd Addition. (See Reference #7 of attached Boundary Conflicts.) (26) M-9, 10 (NW corner, 66t" and Queen) Lot 4, Block 2 of Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 15, Richfield Gardens. (27) M-17 (SE corner, 71St and Chicago) The West 163 9/10 ft of that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of the north 690 feet thereof and north of a line parallel with and 70 feet north from the north line of Zuberts Elliott Avenue Addition. (28) M-15 (NW corner, 73rd and Portland) The south '/2 of the area between 72nd and 73rd Streets, and between Portland Avenue and the center line of the alley in Block 2, Blair's Wooddale 3rd Addition extended. (29) M-14 (74t" to 76t", between Penn & Oliver) That area lying between the center lines of Penn and Oliver Avenues, and between 74t" and 76t" Streets. / Y./ (30) M-14 (NW corner, 76t" and I-35W) The South '/2 of the Northeast '/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, except roads and highway. (31) M-17 (SW corner, 71St and Chicago) That area lying between the east line of Block 1, Wallaces Sunnyside Acres 6t" Addition and the center line of Chicago Avenue, and between the center line of 71St Street and a line distant 200 feet south and parallel to said center line. (32) M-17 (East side Chicago, 71St to 72nd) That area lying between the center line of Chicago Avenue and the east line of Lot 4, Block 4, Zuberts Elliot Avenue Addition extended, and between the north line of Lot 4, Block 4, Zuberts Elliot Avenue Addition and the center line of 72nd Street. (33) M-5 (NW corner, Lyndale and 64t") Lots 7 and 8, Block 5, Lyndale Oaks Addition. (34) M-9 (Queen Ave, N of 66t") Lot 1, Block 3, Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 15 Richfield Gardens Addition. Sec. 15. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 2, paragraphs 1, 2, 14 and 15; Section 3, paragraphs 5, 12, 16, and 21; Section 5, paragraph 5; Section 9, paragraph 1; Section 11, paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47 and 58; Section 12, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 19, 33, 35, 38; and Section 13, paragraph 11. Sec. 16. This ordinance constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 6601 5t" Ave; 6601 11 t" Ave; 6539 14t" Ave; 6309, 6315, 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6421, 6427, 6433, 6439, 6445, 6501, and 6509 16t" Ave; 6314, 6320, 6326, 6332, 6338, 6344, 6400, 6408, 6414, 6420, 6426, 6432, 6438, 6444, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639, 6645, 6701, 6709, 6715, 6721, 6727, 6733, 6739, 6745, 6801, 6809, 6815, 6821, 6827, 6833, 6839, 6845, 6901, 6909, 6915, 6921, 6927, 6933, 6939, 6945, 7001, 7009, and 7015 17t" Ave; 6620, 6626, 6632, 6638, 6644, 6700, 6701, 6708, 6711, 6714, 6715, 6720, 6721, 6726, 6727, 6732, 6733, 6738, 6739, 6744, 6745, 6800, 6801, 6808, 6809, 6814, 6815, 6820, 6821, 6826, 6827, 6832, 6833, 6838, 6839, 6844, 6845, 6900, 6901, 6908, 6909, 6914, 6915, 6920, 6921, 6926, 6927, 6932, 6933, 6938, 6939, 6944, 6945, 7000, 7001, 7004, 7005, 7025, 7029, 7030, 7033, 7034, 7035, 7038, 7039, 7044, 7045, 7048, 7049, 7100, 7101, 7104, 7105, 7110, 7111, 7114, 7115, 7120, 7121, 7124, 7125, 7128, 7133, 7134, 7138, 7139, 7144, 7145, 7203, 7211, 7217, 7223, 7229, 7237, 7245, 7247, 7431, 7441, 7445, 7503, 7511, 7517, 7523, 7527, 7531, 7537, and 7545 18t" Ave; 522, 600, and 610 W 64t" St; 910, 912, 920, 924, 926, 1008, 1012, 1014, 1016 1615, 1617, 2010, 2112, 2405, 2412, and ~ _~ 2702 W 66t" St; 7 E 70t" St; 805E 71St St; 420 and 424E 73rd St; 2215, 2917, and 2923 W 74t" St; 1605 W 75t" St; 6525 and 6533 Bloomington Ave; 6800, 6808, 6814, 6820, 6826, 6832, 6838, 6844, 6900, 6908, 6914, 6920, 6926, 6934, 7000, 7300, 7320 and 7334 Cedar Ave; 6617 (6611), 7100, 7104, 7107, 7108, 7115, 7121, 7127, 7137, and 7145 Chicago Ave; 6614 and 7106 Elliot Ave; 6345, and 6701 Lyndale Ave; 6402 Nicollet Ave; 6612 Oakland Ave; 7412, 7420, 7426, 7434, 7444, 7500, 7514, 7520, 7530, 7536, 7544 Oliver Ave; 6824, 6936, 6944, 6945, 7301, 7413, 7421, 7427, 7435, 7445, 7501, 7515, 7521, 7527, 7533, 7545, and 7620 Penn Ave; 6744 Pillsbury Ave; 6729, 6737 and 6745 Pleasant Ave; 6613 and 7244 Portland Ave; 6531 and 6535 Queen Ave; 901, 903 and 905 Rae Dr; 7401 and 7403 Washburn Ave. Sec. 17. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk s-$ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN On November 23, 2010, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. ,the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 6601 5t" Ave; 6601 11 t" Ave; 6539 14t" Ave; 6309, 6315, 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6421, 6427, 6433, 6439, 6445, 6501, and 6509 16t" Ave; 6314, 6320, 6326, 6332, 6338, 6344, 6400, 6408, 6414, 6420, 6426, 6432, 6438, 6444, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639, 6645, 6701, 6709, 6715, 6721, 6727, 6733, 6739, 6745, 6801, 6809, 6815, 6821, 6827, 6833, 6839, 6845, 6901, 6909, 6915, 6921, 6927, 6933, 6939, 6945, 7001, 7009, and 7015 17t" Ave; 6620, 6626, 6632, 6638, 6644, 6700, 6701, 6708, 6711, 6714, 6715, 6720, 6721, 6726, 6727, 6732, 6733, 6738, 6739, 6744, 6745, 6800, 6801, 6808, 6809, 681.4, 6815, 6820, 6821, 6826, 6827, 6832, 6833, 6838, 6839, 6844, 6845, 6900, 6901, 6908, 6909, 6914, 6915, 6920, 6921, 6926, 6927, 6932, 6933, 6938, 6939, 6944, 6945, 7000, 7001, 7004, 7005, 7025, 7029, 7030, 7033, 7034, 7035, 7038, 7039, 7044, 7045, 7048, 7049, 7100, 7101, 7104, 7105, 7110, 7111, 7114, 7115, 7120, 7121, 7124, 7125, 7128, 7133, 7134, 7138, 7139, 7144, 7145, 7203, 7211, 7217, 7223, 7229, 7237, 7245, 7247, 7431, 7441, 7445, 7503, 7511, 7517, 7523, 7527, 7531, 7537, and 7545 18t" Ave; 522, 600, and 610 W 64t" St; 910, 912, 920, 924, 926, 1008, 1012, 1014, 1016 1615, 1617, 2010, 2112, 2405, 2412, and 2702 W 66t" St; 7 E 70t" St; 805E 71St St; 420 and 424E 73rd St; 2215, 2917, and 2923 W 74t" St; 1605 W 75t" St; 6525 and 6533 Bloomington Ave; 6800, 6808, 6814, 6820, 6826, 6832, 6838, 6844, 6900, 6908, 6914, 6920, 6926, 6934, 7000, 7300, 7320 and 7334 Cedar Ave; 6617 (6611), 7100, 7104, 7107, 7108, 7115, 7121, 7127, ~~~ 7137, and 7145 Chicago Ave; 6614 and 7106 Elliot Ave; 6345, and 6701 Lyndale Ave; 6402 Nicollet Ave; 6612 Oakland Ave; 7412, 7420, 7426, 7434, 7444, 7500, 7514, 7520, 7530, 7536, 7544 Oliver Ave; 6824, 6936, 6944, 6945, 7301, 7413, 7421, 7427, 7435, 7445, 7501, 7515, 7521, 7527, 7533, 7545, and 7620 Penn Ave; 6744 Pillsbury Ave; 6729, 6737 and 6745 Pleasant Ave; 6613 and 7244 Portland Ave; 6531 and 6535 Queen Ave; 901, 903 and 905 Rae Dr; 7401 and 7403 Washburn Ave. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during request by calling the Community 861-9760. normal business hours or upon Development Department at 612- Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk r ^ F m ~ z z ^ r z ¢ Z z O r. ~~ ~e~®n i n 0 m U ^ ¢ ^ m ~XWy S W Q 5 R R) W Z ~ f C7 Q X ~ Z m ~ ~ Z > ~ (9 0 ~ O 0 i aa a' O I¢d. Q !Y O IL K Z m N N J W ~ r J 0 z ~ ~¢ ~ 0 ~ ~ C/_ 0 ¢ ~ _ S ~ w W 6 2 a T. 2 ~ 2 W J Ul d d z Q a 7 ~ X ~> a r m a d o- d ,: S J Y = ~9 J W a J } ^ Z 4: 0! J W z D: Y K ¢ ~ a d a J } ¢ ¢ ~ J J W J d N F, q q J L t' d ¢ ¢ w^ U m¢ J U' 2 0 a a 3 m z .- m N n U v N n O n ~ ^ 2 J O r - U U W L N C7 ~ N J (0 f~ W . . . ,- m ,- ~ ,- ~ ~ r ~~~~~J~~~~i-~~~,~~°~~~ J~~~'° ~~~~~1~~°ll~l ~~ I~ ~J~( Ii 1~ CROSSTOWNH ~_ ..mmmnmmrn?-~'1 u6th I~~Fi-I~~k~~'-I'' __. . Will ~~tot be ro~oned Gomp ~I~n Amondrr~ent ko follow 69th 70th 701h 112 71st 71st 112 72nd N 78th ~-494 62nd 63rd 641h 65th h 7th Gam 09th 701h 71st 72nd 73th 74th 75th 761h p®sed Z®nin ®itri~t ~~ ~ L-- -_- --° ,,~ 1.,~ ~-~ ~~--~-~ °~ ~_s__. ~.:. .~wta~- mot-1 t~.~-'~' _ _.__ C-1 - Neighbdrh®®r9 ~®r~r~ePCial C-2 e General ~~amrn~rcial N N s s s N N N s N s s s N N N s m o N .- .- s s ~ .- r s o - s m m s° r r ~' ° p a N g o N g g„ a M v g °° n m m o s M ~- ~' ~- ~ ~- m z~ z m W~ W~ g z ^ J z z a W W w> r_ z z x m 0 ¢0 aU' ~~ ° r^ Z ~ r[ t° z Z O r x r 2 w^ O LL¢ U ¢ w r- ^~ ¢ w Z >- I J 7 ~ ~u r- m ~" z~ m` O y c^^ Y m 0 r r c c r r Z {~ ° ~Ir>gie i=ari~oiy Re~adenf~ai m d a 0 ~ y 0 a J ~ tX O Y¢ ~ 0~ O ~ } C _ ^ LL a J} a a m m 0 ^ J `~ > N i° a ° Q z a 7 a 0 o c N n a r 0 W ~ Z 7 y ¢ r W 0 d O ~ lil 0, J - m~ ~ w W ~ W ^ 7 O ~ J Z K ^ ¢ ~ ~ tt ¢ (9 ~~ _ r4 N ~ ~ ~ O W Z J ~ d mg U i U :~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 1. r Ni~t~~ ~ I~u~i:i~°~a~ui9y~ ~c~id~~iial ~0 0 15 D 3 U 5 ® ~ 1 ~ ~ a 3 m ~ ~) ° ° o . . . . , 0 Rev. i il`E~~l1f~ i _ _~~- ~ ~ ~ ~,_ ~ :-- __~ ~~-~Ndil~~ M6~~3 ~ ~ligh ®cnsity, Mule°~ae~ily - ---: _~ _ __ . -.:--T -.. _ __- _ --_- _- ___ - A9 `-_. -. .-. .~.,.. _--_ V l 0 S - ~~ ABBREVIATIONS KEY Zoning SO -Service Office C-1 -Neighborhood Commerical C-2 -General Commerical R -Single Family Residential MR-1 -Two-Family Residential PMR-1 -Planned Two-Family Residential MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential MR-3 -High Density, Multi-Family Residential 1997 Comp Plan NC -Neighborhood Commericial CC -Community Commercial CCO -Community Commericial/Office OFFICE -Office RCO -Regional Commercial/Office SFR -Single Family Residential (up to 5 units per acre) SFRHD -High Density, Single Family (up to 15 units/acre) MFRMD -Medium Density, Multi-Family (up to 24 units/acre) MFRHD -High Density, Multi-Family (over 24 units/acre) 2008 Comp Plan NC -Neighborhood Commericial CC -Community Commercial CCO -Community Commericial/Office O -Office RCO -Regional Commercial/Office LDR -Low Density Residential (1-6 units/acre) MDR -Medium Density Residential (7-12 units/acre) MHD -Medium-High Density Residential (12-24 units/acre) HDR -High Density Residential (24+ units/acre) ADDRESS Zoning 2997 Comp Plan 2p08 Comp Plan New Zoning 6613 11TH AVE S C-2 SFRHD MHD MR-2 6539 14TH AVE S C-2 SFRHD LDR R 6309 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6315 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6321 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6327 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6333 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR.. MR-3 6339 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6345 16TH-AVE S R SFR. HDR MR-3 6401 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6409 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6415 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6424 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6427 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6433.16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6439 16TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 644516TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6501 16TH AVE S R SFRHD RC C-2 s - ia- 1 } ADDRESS Zoning 1997 Comp Pl~lf `. 2(i0~.C6mp Plan: NeW' onin ~: 6509 16TH AVE S R SfR ~tE ` G-~ 6314 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6320 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR - MR-3 - 6326 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 16332 47TH AYES R SFR. - - " -~- "-HDR __ MR-3 6338 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6344 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6400 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6408 17TH AVE S R . _ SFR - - - ,:.. HDR' -- MR`~3 , 6414 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6420 17TH AVE S R _ SFR ~l-1DF~ MFZ-3 6426 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6432 17TH AVE S R SFR- . HDR: MR=3 6438 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6444 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR=3 6621 17TH AVE S R SFR O C-2 X6627 17TH AVE S R SFR O ~ ~:2 6633 17TH AVE S R SFR O C-2 6639 17TH AVE S R SFR O> C-2 6645 17TH AVE S R SFR O C-2 6701 17TH AVE S R SFR - HDR- MR-3 6709 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6715 17TH AVE S R __ SFR ~ HDR MR-3 6721 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6727 17TH AVE S R SFR ' _. HDR- MR=3 6733 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 673917TH AVE S R- SFR WDR MR-3 6745 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 $801 17TH AVE S R' SFR HDR'. MR-3. - 6809 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6815 17TH AVE S R - SFR°' HDR - -- - MR=3 .,.. 6821 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6827 17TH AVE S R __ - SFR:, HDR- MR-3 6833 17TH AVE S R .SFR HDR MR-3 6839 17TH AVE S R SFR ` HDR MR-3 6845 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6901 17TH- AVE S R SFR' HDR MR-3 6909 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6915 17TH AVES R SFR HDR- _• __ MR-3 6921 17TH AVE S R SFR _ HDR - MR-3 6927 17TH AVE S R _ 'SFR` HDR ° MR-3 6933 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 6939 17TH AVE S R __ _ - -SFR _ HDR MR=3 6945 17TH AVE S R SFR HDR MR-3 7001 17TH AVE S R SFR - " NC C=4- "_ 7009 17TH AVE S R SFR NC C-1 7015-17TH AVE S R ___ SFR NC C=1 6620 18TH AVE S R SFRHD CC C-2 6626 18TH AVE S R . - SFRHD ~ _ , - . CC - -_ -- C-2 6632 18TH AVE S R SFRHD CC C-2 s--~ ADDRESS Zonin 1997 Comp Plan .2008 Comp Plan New Zonin 6638 18TH AVE S R SFRHD CC ' C-2 6644 18TH AVE S R SFRHD CC C-2 6700 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6703 18TH AVE S MR-1 RCO O C-2 670818TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6711 18TH AVE S MR-1 RCO O C-2 6714 18TH AVE S R ____ SFRHD HDR MR-3 6715 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 672018TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6721 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6726 18TH. AVE S R SFRHD HpR MR-3 6727 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6732 18TH AVE S R SFRHD. HDR MR-3 6733 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6738 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6739 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 674418TH AVE. S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6745 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6800 1STH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6801 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 680818TH AVE S R ' SFRHD HDR MR-3 6809 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6814 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6815 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6820 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6821 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6826 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6827 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6832 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6833 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6838 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6839 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6844 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6845 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6900 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6901 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6908 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6909 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6914 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6915 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6920 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 !6921 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 692618TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6927 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6932 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR_ MR-3 6933 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6938 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 6939 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 6944 187H AVE S R SFRHD HDR- MR-3 6945 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 s-~u - ADDRESS Zoning 199 Co~ip „ Plan 8 omp.' Plan' New Zarin 700418TH AVE S R _ SFRHD' NC C-1 7001 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 7004 18TH AVE S R SFRHD- NG ~ G.-1 . . 7005 18TH AVE S R RCO O C-2 7025 18TH AVE S R NC O C-2 7029 18TH AVE S R NC O C-2 7030 18TH AVE S R __ SFRHD __ HDR MR-3 7033 18TH AVE S R NC O C-2 7034 18TH AVE S R =-_ :SFRHD- HDR iVlR=3 7035 18TH AVE S R NC O C-2 7038 18TH AVE S R SFRHD. HDR MR-3 7039 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7044 18TH-AVE S R: SFRHD. H{)R _ , MR>3 . 7045 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7048 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 . 7049 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7100 18TH AVE S __ R _ _ SFRHD HDR. N!R-3 7101 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7104 18TH AVE S R SFRHD: HDR NIR-3 7105 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7110 18TH AVE S R -- SFRHD:- . :. HD~t __ MR-3 7111 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7114 18TH AVE S R ' ~ ~RHD~ - _. HDR- _ MR3 7115 18TH AVE S R C. 'CE O C-2 7120 18TH AVE S R SFt~2HD --- HDR- MR-3 7121 18TH AVE S R OFFICE O C-2 7124 18TH AVE S R SFRHD_ __. HDR N1R-3 - 7125 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE _ O _: C-2 7128 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR - . IVIR-3 - 7133 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O C-2 7134 18TH AVE S R _ SFRHD - __ _ . HDR __ MR-3 7138 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 7139 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE _ O - G~2 7144 18TH AVE S R SFRHD HDR MR-3 7145 18TH AVE S R OFFICE ' ' O' _ C-2 . 7203 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O C-2 7211 18TH AVE S - MR__1 __ QFFICE:. _- 0 -- C-2 7217 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O C-2 7223 18TH. AVE S ___ MR-1 _ __ OFFICE- . O C-2 7229 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O __ C-2 723718TH AVE S MR-1 -OFFICE :O> _ C-2 ~ , 7245 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O C-2 7427 18TH AVE S MR-1 - _. OF~LCE . O = C-2 ' 7431 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE _ O C-2 7441 18TH AVE S MR-1 _ OFFICE _ _ 0 _ __ C-2 7445 18TH AVE S MR-1 OFFICE O C-2 7503.18TH AVE S ` MR=1` ` MFRHD htDR MR-3 7511 18TH AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 751.7 18TH AVE S MR-1': MFRHD' HDR: MRS 7523 18TH AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 s-17s ADDRESS Zoning 1997 Comp Plan. -`2008 ~~Qmp Plan New ZonnnS 752718TH AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7531 18TH AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7537 1'8TH AVE S NIR-1 MFRHD HDR ' MR-3 7545 18TH AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 6601 5TH AVE S C 2 SFRHD LDR - R 522 64TH ST W MR-1 MFRMD MHD MR-2 600 64TH ST W MR-1 MFRMD MHD- MR-2 610 64TH ST W MR-1 MFRMD MHD MR-2 91066TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 912 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 920 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD_ HDR MR-3 924 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 926 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 1008 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 1012 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 1014 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 1016 66TH ST W PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 1615 66TH ST W MR-2 SFRHD LDR R 1617 66TH ST W MR-2 SFRHD LDR R 2010 66TH ST W C-1 OFFICE LDR R 2112 66TH ST VN MR-2 NC NC C-1 2405 66TH ST W MR-2 RCO CCO C-2 2412 66TH ST W MR MFRHD HDR MR-3 2702 66TH ST W MR-1 MFRMD MHD MR-2 7 70TH ST E C-1 SFRHD 'LDR R 805 71ST ST E MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 420 73RD ST E MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 424 73RD ST E MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 2215 74TH ST W MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 2917 74TH ST W MR-2 SFR LDR R 2923 74TH ST W MR-2 SFR LDR. R 1601 75TH ST W C-2 SFR HDR MR-3 6525 BLOOMINGTON AVI C-2 SFR LDR R 6533 BLOOMINGTON AVI C-2 SFR LDR R 6800 CEDAR AVE S~ R RCO O C-2 6808 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6814 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6820 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6826 CEDAR AVE S ' ~ R RCO O C-2 6832 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6838 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6844 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6900 CEDAR AVE S R ° RCO O C-2 6908 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6914 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6920 CEDAR AVE S R RCO O C-2 6926 CEDAR AVE S MR-1 RCO O C-2 6934 CEDAR AVE S MR-1 RCO O C-2 7000 CEDAR AVE S MR-3 NC O C-2 7300 CEDAR AVE S MR-3 OFFICE O C-2 *Proposed Exception -l~ 7320 CEDAR AVE S 7334 CEDAR AVE S 6617 CHICAGO AVE S 7100 CHICAGO AVE S 7104 CHICAGO AVE S 7107 CHICAGO AVE S 7108 CHICAGO AVE S 7115 CHICAGO AVE S 7121 CHICAGO AVE S 7127 CHICAGO AVE S 7137 CHICAGO AVE S 7145 CHICAGO AVE S 6614 ELLtOT AVE S 7106 ELLIOT AVE S 7526 GARFIELD AVE S 7532 GARFIELD AVE S 7538,GARFIELD AVE S 7544 GARFIELD AVE S 6345 LYNDALE AVE S 6701 LYNDALE AVE S 7401 LYNDALE AVE S 7421 LYNDALE AVE S 6402 NICOLLET AVE S 6941 NICOLLET AVE S 6944 NICOLLET AVE S 6945 NICOLLET AVE S 6949 NICOLLET AVE S 7001 NICOLLET AVE S 7005 NICOLLET AVE S 6612 OAKLAND AVE S 7412 OLIVER AVE S 7420 OLIVER AVE S 7426 OLIVER AVE S 7434 OLIVER AVE S 7444 OLIVER AVE S 7500 OLIVER AVE S 7514 OLIVER AVE S 7520 OLIVER AVE S 7530 OLIVER AVE S 7536 OLIVER AVE S 7544 OLIVER AVE S 6800 PENN AVE S 3824 PENN AVE S 6901 PENN AVE S 6936 PENN AVE S 6944_ PENN AVE S 6945 PENN AVE S 7301 PENN AVE S 199TCoi~np 2~ Camp wnrng roan gran rvew Gornng MR-3 OFFIG~ O C-2 MR-3 OFFICE O C-2 C-2 SFRHD MDR MR-2 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 C-1 MFRHD HDR MR=3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 C-1 MFRHD - HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD =. HDR MR=3 __ MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD_ HDR MR-3 . MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 G-2 __ - SFRhID MDR: __ ~ MR-2 - MR-2 SFRHD LDR R R CCO: CCO C-2 *Proposed Deferral R CCO CCO C-2 *Proposed Deferral R: ' CCO: = CCO= C-2 *Proposed Deferral R CCO CCO C-2 *Proposed Deferral C-2 MFRMD MHD ~ MR-2 C-1 SFRHD LDR R C-2 MFRMD MHD MR-2 *Proposed Deferral C-1/C-2 _MFRMD MHD MR-2 *Proposed Deferral C-1- GC GG ~ "Unnecessary MR-2 CC CC C-2 SO -SFRHD LDR R *Proposed Exception C-1 SFRHD LDR R *Proposed Exception SO SFRHID LQR R *Proposed Exception C-1 SFRHD LDR R *Proposed Exception C-1 _ SFRHD.. = LDR R *Proposed Exception C-1 SFRHD LDR __ _ R __ *Proposed Exception C-2 CC LDR: - R MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR=2 - MFRHD: HE)R- - ~IVIR-3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 - MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR 2 - .MFRHD. --- HDR MR-3 C-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 MR-2 - MFRHD.- }. HDR MRS MR-2 MFRHD- HDR MR-3 C-2 SFRHD` -LDR R *Proposed Exception C-2 SFRHD LDR R MR-2 SFRHD LDR R *Additional Action Mfi~ SF-l~kk9: #~ *Unnecessary MR-2 SFRHD LDR R MR-2 SFRHD: LDR R C-1 SFRHD LDR R C-1 ' SFRHQ LDR _ R s-~~ I .ADDRESS Zonin 1997 Comp Plan 2048 Comp, Pian ~~ New Zonin 7413 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7413 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7421 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7427 PENN AVE S MR-2 _ MFRHD HpR MR-3 7435 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7445 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7501 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7515 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7521 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7527 PENN' AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7533 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7545 PENN AVE S MR~2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7545 PENN AVE S MR-2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 7620 PENN AVE S MR-3 RCO RCO C-2 6744 PILLSBURY AVE S MR-2 SFR LDR R 6729 PLEASANT AVE S MR-2 SFRHD -LDR R 6737 PLEASANT AVE S MR-2 SFRHD LDR R 6745. PLEASANT AVE S MR-2 SFRHD LDR R 6613 PORTLAND AVE S C-2 CC MDR MR-2 7244 PORTLAND AVE S MR 2 MFRHD HDR MR-3 6531 QUEEN AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 6535 QUEEN AVE S MR-1 MFRHD HDR MR-3 901 RAE DR PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 903 RAE DR PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 905 RAE DR PMR-1 SFRHD HDR MR-3 7401 WASHBURN AVE S MR-2 SFR LDR R 7401 WASHBURN AVE S MR-2 SFR LDR R 7403 WASHBURN AVE S MR-2 SFR LDR R AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 219 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the use of the residual assets of the Police and Fire Pension Refund Fund for police and fire expenditures related to the Richfield Municipal Center. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the use of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Pension Refund Fund residual assets for police and fire expenditures related to the Richfield Municipal Center. II. BACKGROUND • During the 1999 legislative session a bill was passed that provided for the early return of certain excess pension assets of over-funded Police and Fire Consolidated Funds. • Prior to the payment of the "residual assets" to the City of Richfield, the City Council was required to hold a public hearing, adopt a plan for the expenditure of these residual asset amounts and file that plan in the form of a resolution with the State Auditor. • The original amount received in 1999 by the City was $7,621,322, with $5,341,580 attributed to Police and $2,279,742 attributed to Fire. • During the planning process of the Richfield Municipal Center, it was decided by the City Council to utilize the assets of the Police and Fire Consolidated Funds to help fund the project in the amount of $7,621,000. • At the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution adopting a change in the original plan to allow the expenditure of principal and interest, in amounts to be determined by the City Council, for the 1123Police Fire Pension Transfer of Fund NAME, TITLE purpose of funding the police and fire portion of the Richfield Municipal Center. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The original plan adopted by the City Council has been modified to allow the expenditure of principal and interest for the purpose of funding the police and fire portion of the Richfield Municipal Center. • The amount of the principal and interest to be used for the Richfield Municipal Center will be determined by the City Council. • The use of the Police and Fire pension residual assets is a budgeted funding source in the construction of the Richfield Municipal Center. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The construction of the Richfield Municipal Center is underway and this funding source will soon be needed. C. FINANCIAL • The budget for the funding of the new Richfield Municipal Center called for the use of $7,621,000 of the residual pension assets. Of this amount, $5,341,580 is attributed to Police and $2,279,420 is attributed to Fire. The current balance of the residual pension assets is $7,749,493, with $5,431,456 attributed to Police and $2,318,037 attributed to Fire. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Utilize the entire current balance of the residual pension asset amount of $7,749,493 plus 2010 interest earnings for funding of the Richfield Municipal Center. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE REFUND FUND RESIDUAL ASSETS FOR POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Richfield received a refund of over funded residual assets from the closed Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Fund; and WHEREAS, the City's approved plan for the funds, as amended, permits the City Council to use principal and interest from the fund, in amounts as it may determine, for the Richfield Municipal Center; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The expenditure of $7,621,000 of Police and Fire PERA residual assets for the purpose of funding the police and fire portion of the Richfield Municipal Center. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: ancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGF,NDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 220 j STAFF REPORT ~~ ~. CITY COUNCIL MEETING i l " ~ ~ ~ ~ NOVEMBER 23, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~. FRANCIE FLETCHER, H. R. COORDINATOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Mana ement emplo ees. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating the City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ The City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. Full-time Management and General Services employee contributions are discussed within this staff report as well as contributions toward health insurance for part-time regular General Services employees. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. LIFE A $35,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all full-time Management and General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance. The rate for 2011 will remain at $3.33 per month per employee. DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services employees is aself-funded group dental insurance. In 2010, the City contributed $37 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. For 2011, the City's contribution will increase to $38 per month per employee. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which will be $42 per month for 2011 - a two dollar increase from 2010. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative 11-23-10 Ins Benefits and benefit payout cost data. Analysis of the dental fund performance for the past three years indicates that a rate increase is necessary. HEALTH INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES The third type of insurance coverage available to full-time Management and General Services employees is group health coverage. The Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) group will again offer HealthPartners Health Insurance. LOGIS is currently in the process of going out for bids for 2012 health insurance. In 2011 the City will continue to offer employees a choice of three open access HealthPartners plans including two plans with a co-pay for services and one high deductible plan that includes a Health Savings Account (HSA.) In an effort to remain flexible and keep rate increases as low as possible, LOGIS will continue to offer afour-tier system, giving employees the choice of employee only, employee plus spouse, employee plus child(ren) and family option. By providing this four-tier rating system some employees are able to benefit by choosing the employee plus spouse option or employee plus child(ren) option. The City will continue to pay the full individual employee premium and provide an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. The Health insurance premium increase for 2011 is 10.12%. Staff is proposing that the City increase its 2011 monthly contribution by $60 for dependent coverage. The 2011 City monthly contribution would then be $915 for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $965 for the family coverage tier. Full-time employees have the option to waive health insurance coverage through the City if they prove they have coverage elsewhere. Employees electing to waive coverage will receive an additional $50 per month on their pay check. This $50 will be taxed as regular income. The City's contribution for Management and General Services employees as a percent of premium over the past several years is shown in Attachment 7. The 2010 and 2011 monthly premium costs of the health plans are: 2010 HP 2011 HP 2010 HP 2011 HP 2010 HP 2011 HP Open Open Distinctions Distinctions $2500 Ded. $2500 Ded. Access Access with HSA with HSA Employee Onl $ 666.75 $ 734.10 $ 621.16 $ 683.89 $ 438.07 $ 484.14 Employee Plus $1,418.74 $1,562.16 $1,325.16 $1,459.12 $ 934.16 $1,032.52 S ouse Employee Plus $1,344.21 $1,480.10 $1,251.93 $1,378.49 $ 882.55 $ 975.48 Child ren Famil $1,755.49 $1,932.99 $1,635.02 $1,800.32 $1,152.50 $1,274.10 HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PART-TIME REGULAR_EMPLOYEES The City will continue to contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part- time regular employees. The City will also continue to pay one-half of what it pays for fulltime employees towards dependent coverage. That 2011 amount will be $457.50 per month for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $482.50 for the family coverage tier, based on the $60 increase. Part-time employees may opt out of health insurance altogether. LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD) The fourth type of insurance provided to all employee groups is long-term disability insurance (LTD). LTD is provided through a group policy secured by the City. The LTD rate for 2011 remains at 34 cents per $100 of covered payroll. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City continues to provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. • By providing the same coverages, greater benefit equality is achieved between female classes found in Management and General Services groups and male classes found in the contracted labor units. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 1, 2010. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated in December. C. FINANCIAL • The funding necessary to provide for the premium contributions as recommended will be addressed in the 2011 Revised Budget and within the current proposed 2011 tax levy. • With the increase recommended, Richfield's contribution will be about average with those of comparable metro cities. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested insurance benefit changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating the City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council may decide to increase the City contribution to dependent health insurance by an amount other than $60. • The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the current 2010 funding level. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. ~ !' RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City employees; and WHEREAS, aself-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City Management and General Services employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $965 per month for family health insurance to full-time employees, and in any event, said contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall give to full-time employees not participating in the City's health plan, a sum of $50 per month, which will be taxed as regular income. For all full-time Management and General Services employees, the City shall also pay the $38 monthly premium for the offered dental insurance plan, and the $3.33 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan, for a total possible maximum 2011 insurance premium contribution of $1,006.33 per month. The City shall contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part-time regular employees and a maximum of $482.50 per month towards dependent coverage. Part-time employees shall also receive a portion of short-term disability insurance dependent upon hours worked. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2011. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for full-time Management and General Services employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Attachment 1 ~ The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF COST PREMIUM 2007 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $1039.84 $705 68% * Employee + Children $ 982.32 $705 72% * Family $1283.22 $750 58% Elect Option * Employee + Spouse $ 949.85 $705 74% Employee + . Children $ 897.31 $705 79% * Family $1172.75 $750 64% Low Option * Employee + Spouse $ 926.35 $705 76% * Employee + Children $ 875.10 $705 81 * Family $1143.75 $750 66% 2008 HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1057.86 $730 69% * Employee + Children $1002.29 $730 73% * Family $1308.91 $780 60% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $ 988.09 $730 74% * Employee + Children $ 933.50 $730 78% * Family $1219.10 $780 64% High Deductible HSA * Employee + Spouse $ 757.10 $730 96% * Employee + Children $ 715.27 $730 102% * Family $ 934.04 $780 84% 2009 HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1226.94 $780 64% * Employee + Children $1162.48 $780 67% * Family $1518.16 $830 55% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1146.01 $780 68% * Employee + Children $1082.68 $780 72% * Family $1414.98 $830 59% Hirsh I~arliirtihla HSA ~115f1 2010 2011 * Employee + Spouse $ 868.94 $780 90% * Employee f Children $ 820.92 $780 95% * Family $1072.05 $830 77% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $ 807.87 $780 97% * Employee + Children $ 763.24 $780 102% * Family $ 996.69 $830 83% HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1418.74 $855 60% * Employee + Children $1344.21 $855 64% * Family $1755.49 $905 52% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1325.16 $855 65% * Employee + Children $1251.93 $855 68% * Family $1635.02 $905 55% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $ 934.16 $855 92% * Employee + Children $ 882.55 $855 97% * Family $1152.50 $905 78% HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1562.16 $915 59% * Employee + Children $1480.10 $915 62% * Family $1932.99 $965 50% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1459.12 $915 63% * Employee + Children $1378.49 $915 66% * Family $1800.32 $965 54% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $1032.52 $915 89% * Employee + Children $ 975.48 $915 94% * Family $1274.10 $965 76% ~ -3