2011-03-15COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION AGENDA
• Tuesday, March 15, 2011
7:00 pm
Richfield Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave)
II i I I�
Commission Members Staff
I Reed Bornholdt I Greg Man,$old I Michele Thom son Jim Topitzhofer (Staff Liaison)
Gerry Charnitz (Chair) Adan Nelson Sarah Till (�� John Evans (Secretary)
Dan Edgerton Bob Shotwell LuAnn Werner Jason Eisold (Rec Programs Sprvsr)
David Geoner Joe Springer
Approval of Minutes
❑ Regular Meeting: February 15, 2011
2. Public Comment
❑ Items not printed on the agenda
Introductions/Welcome New Members
❑ Tom Rublein, Planning Commission Liaison
4. Staff Reports
❑ Mini -Golf Agreement (Topitzhofer)
❑ Heredia Park Reconstruction (Topitzhofer)
5. Action Items
❑ Pool Fees and Fee Structure (Klement)
❑ Private Property Diseased Tree Removal Program (Link)
❑ Augsburg Skate Park Design Recommendation (Topitzhofer/Mangold)
6. Discussion Items
❑ Organized Garbage Collection (Mangold)
7. Committee Reports
❑ Transportation Commission (Shotwell)
❑ Bike Task Force Group (Gepner)
❑ Community Bandshell Planning Group (Bornholdt/Edgerton/Rublein)
❑ FOWL Board (Werner)
❑ Honoring All Veterans Memorial, Inc (BornholdUTopitzhofer)
❑ Planning Commission (Springer)
❑ Arts Commission (Thompson)
❑ Waste Hauling Study Group (Greg "Mr. 19" Mangold, Werner)
8. Next Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
7:00 pm
Richfield Community Center
9. Adjournment
Liaisons
Fred Wrope (CounciP i
Tom Rublein (Planning Com)
1
DRAFT MINUTES UNTIL APPROVED BY THE CSC.
February 15, 2011
REGULAR COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave)
CSCMembers o , yam,, ,, v vy .I— y..I.., I . I1, 1,11�, �a a , 1„ 1%�Vu
Michele Thompson, Arlan Nelson, LuAnn Werner, Dave Gepner
Staff I Jim Topitzhofer, John Evans, Jason Eisold
Council Liaison I Fred Wroge
I Call to Order/Approval of Minutes I
Charnitz called the regular CSC meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Thompson moved, seconded by Werner, to approve the minutes of the regular
January meeting. Approved, ayes all.
Introductions I
New members were welcomed and members and staff introduced themselves.
I Elections/Appointments I
Nelson nominated Charnitz, seconded by Shotwell. Approved, ayes all. Charnitz nominated Till for Vice Chair. Approved, ayes all. Other
appointments were as follows: Transportation Commission: Shotwell, Bike Planning Group: Gepner, Community Bandshell Planning Group:
Bornholdt & Edgerton, FOWL Board: Werner (alternate: Gepner), HAVM, Inc: Nelson, Mangold, & Bornholdt, Planning Commission: Springer &
Shotwell, Arts Commission: Thompson & Till, Waste Hauling Study Group: Mangold & Werner. All appointments approved, ayes all.
Staff Reports I
Mini Goff Update
Topitzhofer told the group that the operation of the mini golf course would be outsourced to a private company, who will also rent bikes (and
City staff plans to make improvements to trails at Vets Park). The City will earn a percentage of the revenue. He said that the group has
worked with the Minneapolis Park Board and has a good marketing presence in South Minneapolis. Chamitz told new members that it had
been discussed to move mini golf over by the pool to consolidate staff.
Tier -One Skate Park
Topitzhofer said that the selection committee reviewed the four proposals and favored one design from a company called Hardcore Design.
He said that the group will meet with Hardcore to see if the design can be altered slightly to better incorporate it into the landscape of the park.
Gepner asked if there was controversy with the Council; Topitzhofer said that the Council delayed the project when it was first brought forward
two years ago because the operating budget was going through deep cuts and they felt that the project was not appropriate in such a budget
climate.
I Action Items I
Athletic Facility Reservation Policy
Topitzhofer introduced Eisold, who manages athletic facility usage. Eisold said that the policy has been revised to provide clearer information
to potential users of the fields and function as a working document for issuing permits. He reviewed the user classifications (resident, non-
resident, etc) and the associated fees. He reviewed some new procedures, like having permits clearly posted at facilities, switching from a per -
game rate to a per -hour rate, etc. He said that fees were based on past rates, as well as the rates and structures of surrounding communities.
Charnitz asked about pickup game policies; he said that pickup games will hopefully not be discouraged. Eisold said that pickup sports will not
be deterred and it will be clearly stated that organized athletic events require a permit. Eisold said that the next step would be to consider
recommendation of approval to the City Council. Gepner asked if fee revenue exceeds expenses. Topitzhofer said that it covers
administrative fees, but not maintenance fees. Gepner asked if people who work in Richfield would be considered for the resident rate.
Topitzhofer said that it could be considered; he said that team rosters are used to verify 75% residency. Charnitz said that the roster could be
defined as residency if it consists of 75% players who live or work in Richfield. Gepner agreed that it may instill pride in Richfield for
employees. Eisold asked if a team sponsored by a Richfield business should get the residency rate; Charnitz said that the business would
have to pull the permit. Mangold agreed. Thompson moved to recommend Council approval of the Athletic Fee and Field Usage Policy with
the revision that residency be defined in the fee schedule as living or working in Richfield, seconded by Edgerton. Approved, ayes all.
I Committee Reports I
Transportation Commission: Shotwell provided the report. Bike Planning Group: Gepner provided the report.
FOWL: Bornholdt provided the report. Honoring All Veterans Memorial., Schmidt provided the report.
Planning Commission: Springer provided the report. Arts Commission: Thompson provided the report.
Waste Hauling Study Group: Mangold provided the report. He talked about new member, Jeff Bender, and his new grassroots organization,
Richfield Green. He said that his hope is to talk with the CSC more about the idea of organized hauling and express an opinion about their
interest in adopting such a policy. Charnitz said that he'd be interested in seeing pros and cons, various fees, etc. Thompson said that,
although many residents may not like the lack of choice, she likes the idea of leveraging lower fees. Shotwell suggested that the CSC vote on
a recommendation at the March or April meeting. Mangold said that the CSC would be considering a resolution of intent to pass on to the
Council; if they approve it, a 180-day discussion period would be set into motion before further decision could be made on the change. Gepner
said that data on the effect on the increased longevity of the life of our roads would be useful to make a decision. Werner said that a survey of
other cities who have considered organized hauling would be useful. Charnitz asked if the parks garbage pickup could be an added service to
a single contractor. Shotwell said that he predicted that it will be a controversial issue and will occupy much of the commission's time.
February 15, 2011
Next_Meeting/Adjournment
Regular March Meeting
Tuesday, March 15, 7:00 pm, Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave)
Springer moved, seconded by Gepner , to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:57 pm.
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date March 15, 2011
Agenda Item Agenda Section
Pool Fees and Fee Structure Action Items
Attachments Staff Contact
None Brandon Klement, Facilities Manager
The number of seasonal pool passes sold has steadily decreased for the last three years. In
response, staff is recommending a change in fee structure, specifically with how we charge families.
Seasonal pool passes are currently structured on a per person basis only. Thus, families pay a per
person flat rate for every member of their family. The flat rate charged last year was $51.25 per
person for residents and $55.93 for non-residents, not including tax. For example, a resident family
of three paid $153.80 for their passes last year and a family of seven paid $358.87.
Staff is recommending to discontinue a flat rate per person to a rate that reduces the per person
charge as the number of people in the family increases. The proposed fees for seasonal passes for
2011 areas follows:
Individuals $51.25
Families
Two Passes $97.87
Three Passes $144.48
Four Passes $186.43
Five Passes $233.04
Six Passes $279.64
Seven Passes Plus $326.25
Notice that the proposed individual fee is the same fee as last year and that proposed fee for multiple
passes sold to a family is less than last year. To make up the difference in lost revenue, staff
recommends lowering the early bird discount from $6 to $3 for those purchasing their season passes
before opening day.
Brandon Klement, Facilities Manager will present additional information at the meeting including
historical data, proposed fees for 2011, and a summary of our competitors fees and fee structure.
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of proposed pool fees for 2011.
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 15, 2011
Agenda Item Agenda Section
Changes to Private Property Diseased Tree Removal Practices Action Items
Attachments Contact
None Chris Link 612-861-9174
City Forestry Staff is contemplating changes to the current Private Property Diseased Tree Removal
practices. The items to be addressed are:
• Elimination of City Secured Private Contractor
• Recommending Tree Contractors
• Initiating a Permit/License Fee to work in the City
Elimination of Private Contractor
Under current practices, staff will advertise for bid a contract for removal of diseased trees on private
property on an annual basis. This gives the resident a starting point on deciding if they would like to
use the City's contractor or find their own. Staff recommends eliminating this practice because of the
majority of residents which do not use the City's contractor.
Recommendina Tree Contractors,
If City Council decides to no longer arrange a bid for removal of diseased trees, staff would like to
discuss the merit of selecting a number of qualified contractors, based upon defined selection
criteria, which residents can contact and select on their own.
Permit/License Fee
Many other Cities have started charging contractors a license fee to work inside city boundaries.
This has been seen as a method to protect property owners from unqualified contractors.
Recommended Action
Eliminate the practice of offering the public a staff selected contactor for removal of diseased
trees based upon competitive bids. Discuss the following:
• Should staff select a number of recommended contractors for the public to choose and if
so what selection criteria should be used?
• And/or, should the City consider establishing a permit/license application and fee for
contractors working in the City?
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agenda Item
Skate Park Design Proposal
Attachments
None
Meeting Date March 15, 2011
Agenda Section
Action Items
Staff Contact
Jim Topitzhoier
The Skate Park Design Selection Committee is recommending the below concept design as presented by
Hardcore Shotcrete Skateparks, Inc.:
s
The structure is attached to the basketball court located in Augsburg Park with the assumption that the
existing court would be used for skateboarding as a starting point to enter the structure and for future
expansion of the facility. The new structure would be constructed in the northwest corner of the basketball
court and would face north going downhill. The new structure is constructed with poured -in -place concrete
including stainless steel railings and coping. The dimensions of the structure are 24 ft. x 32 ft. There are
no drains needed in this design. The design will require the removal of one mature oak tree located off
the north side of the basketball court.
Cost of the project, including soils amendment, soils report and site survey, is $70,000 and is included in
the approved Capital Improvement Budget. Construction is scheduled to be completed by the end of
summer, pending contract approval from City Council. Staff will provide additional information at the
meeting regarding Hardcore's design proposal.
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend City Council execute a contract with Hardcore
Shotcrete Skateparks, Inc. based upon their submitted design proposal.
r
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
li I I Meeting Date March 15, 2011
Agenda Item Agenda Section
Organized Garbage Collection Discussion Items
Attachments Staff Contact
Greg Mangold's Report Jim Topitzhofer, Director (612-861-9394)
Greg Mangold has prepared the attached report summarizing his arguments for recommending the
City to adopt an organized municipal solid waste collection system. Greg and Jim Topitzhofer will also
present plans to establish a promotional event for composting and use of rain barrels.
Recommended Action: Discuss Greg Mangold's recommendation to adopt an organized
municipal solid waste collection system.
REPORT TO CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN ORGANIZED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION SYSTEM
By
Gregory Mangold
March 8, 2011
Introduction
At our February 15, 2011 Community Services Commission Meeting, the Commission asked me to
prepare a report summarizing my arguments for recommending that the city of Richfield adopt an
organized municipal solid waste collection system. Using information contained in the "Analysis of
Waste Collection Service Arrangements" produced in 2009, by Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
(Foth), a consultant retained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; I attempt to describe three
potential advantages for Richfield was it to progress to an organized collection system of municipal solid
waste.
Three Potential Advantages
1. Lower Prices
Our household's February 15, 2011, invoice from Allied Waste for solid waste pick-up and recycling
services totals $58.91. We are billed every two months, for a monthly cost of $29.45 per month. We
have a small trash cart (32 gallon) and a 60 gallon recycle cart. The bill is split about evenly between
trash pickup $14.45 per month and recycling $15.00 per month. Literature on the subject suggests that
the cost of the trash collection component can be cut as much as one-half when private household
contracts for waste hauling are supplanted with an organized system. For us that would mean a savings
of about $7.22 per month.
Some would say that saving about 50% is too high. Let us assume the savings is only 30%. This would
mean our household would save about $4.34 per month or about $52.00 per year. Depending upon
your economic situation this may not be a big deal. But for some people, especially those on a fixed
income, this could be significant. Given our Midwestern ethic to pay our bills there could be retired
seniors, who if they had to choose, might choose paying the solid waste bill rather than buying a
prescription drug. If the savings from organized collection were closer to 50% or about $86 per year,
again using our bill as an example, then there would be even more money available for our citizens to
meet other financial obligations.
2. Reduced Truck Traffic
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDot) uses a formula where the road impact of one
garbage truck is equivalent to 1,000 car trips. Foth states that most reference in different studies have
one garbage truck trip equivalent to a range of 857 to 1,429 car trips.
On June 5, 2010, my wife and I counted 19 "garbage" trucks passing in front our house at 6233
Washburn Avenue South. Three of the 19 trucks were yard waste trucks, which most likely do not weigh
as much as a garbage truck. This means that 16 trucks were either picking up municipal solid waste or
recyclables. Since we did not know their gross weight, to be somewhat accurate let us assume on
average they were one-half full and adjust the formula to 500 car trips for one garbage truck trip. This
means that on this Saturday (pushed back one day because of Memorial Day) there was the road impact
equivalent of 8,000 car trips (16 trips x 500) on Washburn Avenue in front our house. Assuming that
there are 16 trips each garbage day this means that in one year Washburn Avenue between 62"d and
64t" Streets experiences a road impact equivalent of at least 416,000 car trips from garbage trucks'trips.
I have heard that Richfield streets are designed to carry the weight of garbage trucks, which when fully
loaded weigh at least 40,000 pounds, or 10 tons per axle. Some, if not all, Richfield streets are marked
with signs that restrict axle weight to four tons. At some point, the city of Richfield must have
concluded that axle weights exceeding four tons are not desirable; a vehicle weighing over twice the
limit must be causing significant damage to the street — especially over a period of time and during the
spring thaw.
Foth states that the city of Roseville engineer estimated that the cost to reconstruct one mile of a 7-ton
road is $500,000. The engineer also estimated that a road would last five to 10 years longer if garbage
truck traffic were reduced. Foth further states that the city of Oakdale conservatively estimated that
going from five haulers to one hauler would reduce street maintenance costs by slightly over 4% or a
savings on a $3,000,000 budget from $120,000 to $300,000 per year.
The city of Richfield budgeted for 2011, $2,032,000 for the Public Works/Street Maintenance Division.
In addition, the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies $400,000 for mill and overlay
and $300,000 for sealcoat for each of the four years. (I assume that these costs are not included in the
$2,032,000 operating expenditure, but I am not sure.) But of even greater significance is that the CIP
identifies Portland Avenue and 66" Street East as streets to be reconstructed in 2013. Beyond 2014,
Nicollet Avenue and 76t" Street East are scheduled for reconstruction. It would be good public planning
to devise a strategy to protect these reconstructed roads from avoidable damage.
Fewer garbage trucks would increase the level of public safety. When children are walking to their
school bus stop in our neighborhood, they are sharing the same street with the big trucks that are in a
hurry to complete their routes. The trucks start to show up in our neighborhood at 7:00 a.m., at the
same time students are walking in the street to the bus stop at 64t" and Washburn. The threat to public
safety is even greater when students are walking in winter darkness. I can easily envision a situation
where a driver could be looking for addresses and not see a small child on a street. In an organized
collection system, there would be less competition for the use of the street and the drivers would not be
distracted trying to locate their customers because every residence would be a customer.
Other advantages of having less truck trips are a reduction in noise and air pollution. Granted, a lot of
people are gone during the day, but those who are left have to breathe the air polluted by diesel engine
exhaust and listen to the noise from engines and hydraulic equipment on what is normally a fairly quiet
street.
3. Community Control Over Decisions Relating to Waste Management
This is an area where I have the least to add of my own thoughts beyond that contained in Toth.
Examples of greater community control include (1.) enhanced ability to cooperate with other local
governments to best meet solid waste management and recycling objectives; (2.) enhanced ability for
communities to reduce energy impacts of public service; and (3.) more easily meet the requirements of
county ordinances and solid waste management plans as required under M.S. 115.94
Summary
In my view these advantages are compelling. We have an opportunity to lower municipal solid waste
collection costs for our fellow citizens, protect our streets and lower their maintenance costs , increase
public safety, safeguard the environment and have better local control of solid waste management
decisions by recommending to the council that the city of Richfield transition to an organized collection
of its municipal solid waste.