Loading...
020811completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY HALL EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:45 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Interview of person interested in serving on City advisory commissions (Council Memo No. 12) Adjoumment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE -6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding therapeutic massage licensing in residential settings (Council Memo No. 13) Notes: Adjoumment 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 sufficienf 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 Meeting of January 25, 2011; (2) Special City Council Worksession of January 25, 2011; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of January 25, 2011 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to City of Richfield Finance Manager Chris Regis (Council Memo No. 14) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL. 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar.has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary, However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding from Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 8,2011 S.R. No. 26 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 changing zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1 (Two-Family Residential) and MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) . respectively, to C-2 (General Commercial) to bring properties into conformance with Richfield Comprehensive Plan S.R. No. 27 C. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Section 1105 adding new subsection related to criminal background checks on certain license applicants and scheduling second reading for February 22, 2011 S.R. No. 28 D. Consideration of approval of resolution supporting submittal of application to Hennepin County for Transit Oriented Development Program Grant for redevelopment acquisition associated with Lyndale Garden Center redevelopment project S.R. No. 29 E. Consideration of approval of 2011 contract with City of Bloomington using federal grant funds for public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism services and development of response system S.R. No. 30 F. Consideration of approval of continuation of agreement with City of Bloomington for provision of public health services for City of Richfield for 2011- S.R. No. 31 G. Consideration of approval of hiring Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. for engineering services for repair and reconditioning of Logan Avenue water tower for fee not to exceed $69,600 without further written staff authorization; authorizing staff to approve changes totaling up_ to $15,000 without further City Council authorization; and resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from proceeds of bonds to be issued by City for this project S.R. No. 32 H. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $23,962 in items included in project budget S.R. No. 33 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 6. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 544.13 related to minimum parking requirements for Class IV (take-out only) restaurants Staff Report No. 34 Notes: 7. Consideration of second reading of Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 35 Notes: 8. Consideration of second reading of amendment to City Code Section 310.39, Subd. 6, Bereavement Leave for City employees, to include Registered Domestic Partners Staff Report No. 36 Notes: 9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending City Code Subsection 305:05, Subd. 3 reducing membership of Planning Commission from nine to seven members Staff Report No. 37 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Consideration of plans and authorize advertisement for bids for construction of West Connection Bicycle Route and East Connection Bicycle Route as recommended by Transportation Comrrfission Staff Report No. 38 Notes: 11. Consideration of settlement agreement with Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. for right-of--way taking at 6600 Portland Avenue in amount of $405,000 and full and final release settlement agreement with- Kennedy and Graven, Chartered in amount of $190,000 Staff Report No. 39 Notes: 12. Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions Staff Report No. 40 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 13. City Manager's report Notes: 14. 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: 15.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. J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting Advisory Board/Commission Applicant Interview January 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:10 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS The City Council conducted interviews of the following applicants for appointment to City Advisory Boards and Commissions: Philip Lowe, Jr. William Falwell Anthony Bradford Gerry Charnitz Julie Bagby ADJOURNMENT Lall Ram Rick Jabs Peter Easterlund Kristina Nesse The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:13 p.m. Date Approved: February 8, 2011 Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES _ ^ Richfield, Minnesota Special Worksession January 25, 2011 CALL TO DRDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:19 p.m. ROLL CALL t Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry. Staff Presenfi: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Kristin Asher, City Engineer; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING RICHFIELD PARKWAY NORTH CONNECTION Jupe Hale, WSB Project Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director and Kristin Asher, City Engineer, discussed the progress ofi the North Richfield Parkway Connection design study. Discussion included: • Goals and Criteria selection and rankings • Overview of design and public input process • Design alternatives • Public input • Long term Parkway and redevelopment visions Public Works Director Eastling discussed the potential funding options by Three Rivers Park District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Council direction was to pursue the option of including all of 17th Avenue north of the 66th Street and 17th Avenue roundabout in the project if it would bring additional outside funding.. Staff should partner with Three Rivers Park District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine the financial contributions to the project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:56 p.m. Special ~Worksession Minutes Date Approved: February 8, 2011 Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary -2- January 25, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting January 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Dave Conrads, Building Maintenance Supervisor; Todd Sandell; Police Deputy Director/Chief; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Elliott to approve the minutes of (1) Special Citv Council Worksession of January 7 2011 ~ (2) Special City Council Meeting of January 8. 2011; and (3) Regular Citv Council Meeting of January 11, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 25, 2011 Item #1 RECOGNITION OF DARRIN MAENKE, MAENKE BROS. OUTDOOR, FOR CONTRIBUTION OF SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES AT HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL Len Gudmundson, representing the Honoring All Veterans Memorial, presented a certificate of appreciation to Darrin Maenke. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS The City Council acknowledged the success of the recent Richfield Remodeling Fair. Council Member Fitzhenry announced the January 31 open meeting regarding the preferred Revitalization Plan for the 66~" Street Corridor. Council Member Sandahl acknowledged the City's 100% timeliness of submitting workers' compensation claims to the MN Department of Labor and Industry. Council Member Sandahl acknowledged the Richfield Water Division's recent upgrades to equipment at the water plant highlighted by Xcel Energy due to the resulting rebates and energy savings. Council Member Elliott stated that at a recent meeting he attended, contractors expressed their pleasure working with City staff. Mayor Goettel stated that during her meetings with businesses and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, several businesses expressed their appreciation for the quick and professional responses by Richfield Public Safety. Mayor Goettel reported on a recent Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) class she attended. Mayor Goettel stated she would not be holding Mayor's House on January 28. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a change to the fee for Public Works Section 3, Subsection 10 and to move the fees to the Appendix D resolution S.R. No. 14 Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 25, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 10473 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2011-1 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10473. B. Consideration of approval of first reading of an ordinance amending Subsection 305.05, Subd. 3 of the City Code to reduce the number of appointed Planning Commissioners from nine to seven members S.R. No. 15 C. Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Traffic Signal Optimization along 1-494 in Bloomington, Richfield and Edina S.R. No. 16 RESOLUTION NO. 10474 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO Mn/DOT CONTRACT NO. 97459 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE OPTIMIZATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG I-494. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10474. D. Consideration of approval of a resolution requesting an advance payment of 2012-2013 Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds S.R. No. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 10475 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADVANCE OF 2012-2013 MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUNDS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10475. E. Consideration of approval of a purchase order to Elk River Ford Inc. in the sum of $45,993.28 plus tax for two new squad cars S.R. No. 18 F. Consideration of approval of a purchase order for an unmarked Public Safety vehicle to Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet for $17,518.41, plus tax & license fees S.R. No. 19 G. Consideration of approval of the purchase of two single axel dump trucks for use by the Street Maintenance Division in the amount of $150,841.24 to Astleford International Trucks for chassis and $156,529.12 to Towmaster Truck Equipment for box, hydraulics and snow fighting equipment S.R. No. 20 H. Consideration of approval of a resolution accepting a donation of $50 to the police safety vest fund from Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Auxiliary #435 S.R. No. 21 RESOLUTION NO. 10476 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETYIPOLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $50 FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY UNIT 435 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10476. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 25, 2011 Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND CONSIDER SETTING SECOND READING FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2011 (STAFF REPORT N0.22) Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 22. Council Member Fitzhenry stated he preferred a resolution supporting a domestic registry to submit to the State because it was a State responsibility. He added there did not appear to be any real benefit on a City level except on the cost of some City services. Council Member Sandahl agreed it should be established at a State level but, in the meantime, the registry should start at the local level. She added that it could help with benefit eligibility with some employers. Mayor Goettel expressed support for the ordinance and that Representative Slocum requested an ordinance, not a resolution, to assist with moving the registry forward at the State. Council Member Wroge expressed agreement with Council Member Fitzhenry. He discussed conversations he had with representatives from Best Buy, the Mayor of another city who has the registry, Fairview Southdale Hospital and Glenwood MN Hospital and concluded that State and Federal regulations are followed, not a local domestic partner reglstry. He added the registry should be on a State level so every community is fair and equitable. He also stated he believed the discussion was negotiating employee benefits at an open meeting when they typically are not. Council Member Elliott stated he believed the independent research by Council Member Wroge and Council Member Fitzhenry was misguided. He said he didn't care about other communities or businesses in relation to a domestic registry. He expressed support for the ordinance because human rights is an entitlement to everyone and recognizes partnerships. M/Elliott, S/Goettel that this constitutes the first reading of a domestic partnership registration ordinance and sets a second reading for February 8, 2011. Mayor Goettel requested a roll call vote. Elliott, Sandahl, Goettel aye. Wroge, Fitzhenry nay. Motion carried 3-2. (Wroge, Fitzhenry opposed.) Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 310.39, SUBD. 6, BEREAVEMENT LEAVE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, TO INCLUDE REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERS AND CONSIDER SETTING SECOND READING FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2011 (STAFF REPORT N0.23) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 23. Council Member Wroge questioned the negotiating of benefits at an open meeting. Council Meeting Minutes -5- January 25, 2011 City Manager Devich explained if the ordinance is approved at second reading, upon its effective date, General Services and Management employees will be eligible for this bereavement policy. Bargaining units will negotiate the policy. Item #8 CONSIDER DIRECTING WOLD ARCHITECTS TO INITIATE A PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR A SOUND MASKING SYSTEM FOR THE NEW RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER (STAFF REPORT N0.24) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 24. Mike Klass, WOLD, discussed the soundmasking performance standards. Their recommendation is to have soundmasking in the open areas and exclude private offices and conferences at this time. M/UVroge, S/Goettel to initiate a Proposal Reauest for a Sound Masking system for the new Richfield Municipal Center. Motion carried 5-0. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS (STAFF REPORT N0.25) Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 25. ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to make the following appointments: Name Term Expires Kirsten Johnson January 31, 2014 ARTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Brianna Eicheldinger January 31, 2014 Claire Plank January 31, 2014 William Falwell January 31, 2014 CIVIL SERVICE Name Term Expires Phil Mortenson January 31, 2014 Anthony Bradford January 31, 2013 Motion carried 3-2. (Wroge, Fitzhenry opposed.) Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 25, 2011 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Name Gerry Charnitz Greg Mangold David Gepner LuAnn Werner Term Expires January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Name Lall Ram Philip Lowe, Jr. Julie Bagby Kristina Nesse Term Expires January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION Name Dennis Schuller Rick Jabs Term Expires January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Name Beth Roberts Sara Nutter Peter Easterlund Term Expires January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Item #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 1/25/2011 A/P Checks: 200687-200996 $ 2,281,463.35 Payroll: 72486-72806 $ 549,366.39 TOTAL $ 2,830,829.74 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM Council Meeting Minutes -7- None. ADJOURNMENT January 25, 2011 The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:12 p.m. Date Approved: February 8, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # 26 ~' ~ STAFF REPORT ~~ F~~~~r;~E~ ~~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING -----~. FEBRUARY S, ZO11 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER x~ ~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: '~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the S ecial Revenue Fund. ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~ By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and second reading for March 8, 2011. II. BACKGROUND • At the December 14 2010 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital improvements in 2011. • Included in the $450,000 are: • $100,000 for Richfield Municipal Center Funding (Dispatch Center) • $110,000 Purchase of Park Land Loan Payment • $50,000 for Major Park Maintenance Projects • $45,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan • $105,000 Taft Park Outdoor Lighting • $25,000 Veterans Park Monument Sign • $15,000 Community Center Air Conditioner In addition, the 2011 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. • The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2011 so that the capital .projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. • In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 8, 2011 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the March 8, 2011 City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL • While the total 2011 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $9,446,380 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the.Special Revenue fund is $ 450,000. Richfield Municipal Center Funding 100,000 Purchase of Park Land Loan Payment 110,000 Major Park Maintenance Projects 50,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan 45,000 Taft Park Outdoor Lighting 105,000 Veteran's Park Monument Sign 25,000 Community Center Air Conditioner 15,000 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. • The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue funds. N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTACHMENTS • An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~~ r 1 BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Richfield Municipal Center Funding (Dispatch Center) $ 100,000 Purchase of Park Land Loan Payment $ 110,000 Major Park Maintenance Projects $ 50,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan $ 45,000 Taft Park Outdoor Lighting ~ $ 105,000 Veterans Park Monument Sign $ 25,000 Community Center Air Conditioner $ 15,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8~" day of February, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4B REPORT # 27 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1 (Two-Family Residential) and MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) respectively, to C-2 (General Commercial). The proposed ordinance amendment will bring the properties into conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: First reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1 and MR-2 resaectively. to C-2. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Statute (473.864 Subd. 2) requires that cities prepare and review a comprehensive plan at least once every 10 years. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan (Plan) was adopted by the City Council on June 23, 2009. It contains information regarding the City's vision and provides specific recommendations for future land use, housing, parks, utilities and transportation. In addition to the requirement to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive plan, State Law requires that cities amend zoning regulations to comply with that plan. On November 23, 2010, the City Council approved the rezoning of approximately 300 properties throughout the City in order to meet this requirement. The properties at 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue were inadvertently missed when that large rezoning action came before the Council. 7410 Cedar Avenue is currently 020811 - 1st Reading 7410, 7420 Cedar Rezone Tl i. ir- Trr.rr a duplex and 7420 Cedar Avenue is a 10-unit apartment complex. These properties are designated as "Office" in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment changes the zoning designation of the properties from "Two-Family Residential" (7410 Cedar Avenue) and "Multi-Family Residential" (7420 Cedar Avenue) to "General Commercial" in order to align with the "Office" designation. As is the case with all nonconforming properties, the existing uses may continue as they are indefinitely. 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. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The Metropolitan Council is aware of the fact that Richfield is working to comply with State Law. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2011. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and sent to all owners of property to be considered for rezoning and property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties. No members of the public spoke at the hearing. • A second reading is scheduled for February 22, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Direct staff to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to comply with State Law. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Planning & Zoning Maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Property owners in and around the subject area. y~3 - i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING 7410 AND 7420 CEDAR AVENUE FROM TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraphs after paragraph (18), the new paragraphs to read as follows, and by now renumbering all following paragraphs accordingly. (19) M-18 (Cedar Ave, S of 74t") Lot 2, Block 1, Bassett's First Addition. (20) M-18 (Cedar Ave, N of 75~') The south 150 feet of that part of the east 1/4 of the north 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying east of the west 153.15 feet thereof. Sec. 2. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 11, paragraph 38 and Section 12, paragraph 29. Sec. 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 7410 & 7420 Cedar Avenue -Rezoning 1/2011 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Comp Plan Designations C-2 R R R C-2 R G1 R R R M 74TH STREET R R R R R R R R R R R R G2 R MR•1 ROPOSED: -2 W Z R W > Q MR-2 Q R PROPOSED: D: C-2 0 F - M T W G2 U C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 75TH STRE MR-3 R -Single Family Residential MR-1-Two Family Residential MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential C-1-Neighborhood Commercial 0 112.5 225 C-2 -General Commercial N A H HDR H R HDR H R H R HDR H R HDR H HDR HD HDR HDR HDR DR 0 0 O 0 u~ Z 0 Z ; O Q = 0 7420 Q O U 0 HD O 0 0 HDR 0 0 R 0 0 HDR HDR 0 74TH STREET 7408-7410 ~u Q ~ ~ ~ 1 1 W T 0 0 75TH STREET HDR HDR -High Density Residential 0 -Office ~ 450 675 900 ~ Feet AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4C REPORT # 28 REPORT PREPARED BY: CORRINE HEINE, CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLG ~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SlGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance requiring criminal background checks for certain licenses. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: - 1. Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Section 1105 by adding a new subsection related to criminal background checks on certain license applicants; and, 2. Schedule second reading for February 22. 2011. II. BACKGROUND The City has historically performed criminal background checks in connection with applications for various licenses. The police department performs the background checks through the Bureau:of Criminal Apprehension database. Under state law, local law enforcement agencies are authorized to have access to the criminal history database only to perform duties required by law. The BCA requires that any non-criminal background checks (e.g., for employment or licensing purposes) must be expressly authorized by state law or local ordinance. In the most recent BCA audit, the BCA noted that the City did 020811 First Reading of Ordinance Amendment on Licenses Requiring Criminal Background Checks not have an ordinance that authorizes criminal history background checks for certain licenses. The BCA may require the City to discontinue the use of its database for background checks until an ordinance is adopted. If that occurs, the City can have the BCA perform the background check, although there is a $15 charge and a time delay to obtain the search. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The BCA restricts the use of its database for non-criminal purposes to background checks that are performed by law enforcement agencies pursuant to a state law or local ordinance. • The Public Safety Department believes it is in the public's interest to conduct criminal history background checks for the following licensees: taxicab and taxi drivers; itinerant activities; pawnbrokers and secondhand goods dealers; massage therapy establishments and massage therapists; adult establishments; and establishments for tattoo, body piercing, body branding and body piercing. B. CRITICAL T`IlVIIl~TG ISSUES • The Public Safety Department will not be able to perform background checks on certain licenses until the proposed ordinance is adopted. • Background checks can be performed by the BCA, although in some cases that may result in a time delay. C. FINANCIAL • The BCA charges 15 for each background check that it performs. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared the proposed ordinance. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A. IV. -ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS} • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 4~-t BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR CERTAIN CITY-ISSUED LICENSES; AMENDING SUBSECTION 1005.11 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 1005.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a subdivision as follows: Subd. 1a. Background investigation. The purpose and intent of this subdivision is to establish regulations that will allow law enforcement access to the state computerized criminal history database for specified licensing background checks. a. The Public Safety Department is required, as the exclusive entity within the city, to perform a criminal history background investigation for the following licenses within the City, issued pursuant to the chapters of this code as identified below. License T e Code Cha ter Li uor establishment 1202 Li uor server 1208 Taxicab 1170 Taxi driver 1175 Itinerant activi 1181 Secondhand goods dealer 1186 Pawnbroker 1187 Massage therapy enter rise 1188 Massa a theta ist 1188 Adult establishment -1196 Tattoo, body piercing, body branding or body aintin 630 b. In conducting criminal history background investigations under this subdivision, the Public Safety Department is authorized to access data maintained in the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) computerized criminal history information system in accordance with BCA policy. Any data that is accessed and acquired must be maintained within the department under the care and custody of the Public Safety Director, or his or her designee. A summary of the results of the computerized criminal history data may be released by the Public Safety Department to the licensing authority, including the 4C-~ City Council, the City Manager, or other City staff involved in the license approval process. c. An applicant must authorize the Public Safety Department by prior written consent to undertake a criminal history background investigation. The written consent must fully comply with the provisions of applicable data privacy statutes regarding the collection, maintenance and use of the information. d. Except for the positions set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 364.09, the City will not reject an applicant for a license on the basis of the applicant's prior conviction unless the crime is directly related to the license sought and the conviction is for a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor with a jail sentence. If the City rejects the applicant's request on this basis, the City will notify the applicant in writing of the following: 1. The grounds and reasons for the denial. 2. The applicant complaint and grievance procedure set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 364.06. 3. The earliest date the applicant may reapply for the license. 4. That all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be considered upon reapplication. Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of February, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT # 29 RIC-1FlELD E STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY g, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution supporting the submittal of an application to Hennepin County for a Transit Oriented Development Program Grant for redevelopment acquisition associated with the Lyndale Garden Center redevelopment project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution supporting the submittal to Hennepin County for a Transit Oriented Development Program Grant for redevelopment acquisition associated with the Lyndale Garden Center redevelopment project. II. BACKGROUND The development firm, The Cornerstone Group, is currently negotiating a preliminary purchase agreement with the property owner of the former Lyndale Garden Center site. The Cornerstone Group is proposing a development that would not only have a housing element but also space for community events as well as commercial tenants. As such, the developers have submitted a grant request to Hennepin County for funding through the Transit Oriented Design program (TOD). Their application is in the amount of $850,000 for costs which would be incurred in the acquisition of property in the Lyndale Garden Center area for the purpose of removing blight and developing awell-planned, pedestrian and bike-friendly development. 020811-Hennepin County TOD Grant App.doc DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST In order to consider the grant request, Hennepin County requires a resolution affirming local support for the grant application. Hennepin County staff will bring their recommendations to the Hennepin County Board in June for final awarding of grant funds. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is appropriate to seek and assist developers with outside funding whenever possible. • Hennepin County requires a resolution affirming local support before considering grant applications. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Hennepin County staff must receive an executed resolution prior to February 24, 2011 in order to consider this grant application. C. FINANCIAL • A local match is not required to apply for Hennepin County's Transit Oriented Development Grant. • Successful receipt of grant funds would allow for the addition of transit oriented improvements to the proposed plan. D. LEGAL • The program guidelines for the grant require the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the application. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The intended use of the grant funds is to have a positive influence on transit ridership thereby decreasing pollution and traffic associated with the single occupancy vehicle. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny authorization and direct staff to withdraw participation with the developer in trying to obtain funding from outside sources. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~iD - I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CORNERSTONE GROUP'S SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within Hennepin County and is therefore eligible to access the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant; and WHEREAS the City had identified the property at 6400 Lyndale Avenue (Lyndale Garden Center) for redevelopment as part of the Lakes at Lyndale redevelopment master plan area; and WHEREAS The Cornerstone Group has proposed a redevelopment project at 6400 Lyndale Avenue (Lyndale Garden Center) for redevelopment; and WHEREAS the City recognizes the need for, and benefit of, transit oriented improvements as part of this proposed development. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council supports and otherwise afhrms and ratifies the submittal of application (in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 383B.77, Subd. 3.), for the Transit Oriented Design Program Grant administered by the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute any agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4E REPORT # 30 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NaMr:, Tircc DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration and approval of a 2011 contract with the City of Bloomington for Public Health Emergency Preparedness/Bioterrorism services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the 2011 contract with the City of Bloomington, using federal grant funds, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the development of a response system. II. BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota has received funds from the federal government (Centers for Disease Control) fio be used in developing agencies' public health emergency preparedness/response to bioterrorism. This is part of a nationwide effort to respond to serious public health emergencies. There are specific requirements in the grant in the areas of coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response surveillance, Health Alert Network, risk communication and training. The City of Richfield will receive $25,593 for the grant cycle, which runs from August 10, 2010 to August 9, 2011. The contract with the City of Bloomington for this same period of time for public health emergency preparedness is in the amount of $20,473, with a second amount of $9,127 being passed through directly to Bloomington to meet the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) which is intended to be used metro wide to regionally fund public health emergency preparedness planning, 0208 Renewal of Public Health Emergency Preparedness Contract for 2011 exercises, training and activities. A remaining amount of $5,120 is retained by Richfield for staff time, training, planning and exercises in public health emergency preparedness activities. Richfield continues to pool these federal grant dollars with Bloomington and Edina with a portion of these funds used to support a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the three cities. Lisa Brodsky, Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, is representing the Tri City area (Bloomington, Edina and Richfield) and has been regularly meeting with Richfield and Edina health staff to plan and develop the requirements of the grant funds. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield became a Local Public Health Agency (LPHA) in 1977, which makes the City eligible to receive these grant funds to use in the development of a public health emergency response system specific to Richfield and its needs. B. .CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • These funds are part of a nationwide effort by the Federal govemment to respond to serious public health emergencies, to include threats of bioterrorism. C. FINANCIAL • Funds being used are those given to Richfield as a LPH agency, from the federal govemment, to develop a system for responding to public health emergency preparedness-and bioterrorism threats. D. LEGAL • The City must comply with the requirements of the grant in order to receive grant funds. • The City Attorney has reviewed the contents of the contract and has approved it. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The City Council could decide not to approve the contract with the City of Bloomington for the services of a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator in developing a public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism plan. This would mean that the City would have to hire a staff person to assume some of the grant's responsibilities, which cannot be met with can-ent City staffing levels and would result in a budget increase. ATTACHMENTS ~ • 2011 City of Bloomington Public Health Preparedness/bioterrorism contract. I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I ~~~. - ~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TO BIOTERRORISM THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of , by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable-federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington`s Division of Public Health provides public health emergency preparedness services to respond to bioterrorism, infectious diseases, and other threats to public health including, but not limited to coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response, surveillance, Health Alert Network (HAN), and training (hereinafter referred to as "PH Emergency Preparedness Services"); and provides services and activities to improve the mass dispensing of medicines and medical supplies through the Cities Readiness Initiative (hereinafter referred to as "CRI Duties"); and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing public health emergency preparedness, and Cities Readiness Initiative planning activities, and to contract with Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such .services to residents of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: A. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from August 10, 2010 through August 9, 2011 provided that either party may terminate the same by sixty (60) days' written notice to the other. In the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and `f ~ 'dam Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of Bloomington's invoice. B. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with the following PH Emergency Preparedness Services: Standing Duties 1. Bloomington shall, on an ongoing basis, maintain necessary mutual aid agreements, memorandums of understanding, or other documents to ensure a timely and appropriate all-hazard response to public health emergencies including natural or man-made disasters, incidents or events. 2. Bloomington shall plan and coordinate preparedness and response efforts at the local and regional level with hospitals, healthcare providers, Emergency Medical Services, emergency management and other response partners to share expertise, coordinate training and exercises, and evaluate response to incidents. 3. Bloomington shall be familiar with regional distribution node plans and be prepared to receive stage, store, track, distribute, dispense and account for public health assets in preparation for or during a public health emergency. 4. Bloomington shall reply to all STATE Health Alerts and Health Alert Updates within one (1) hour of receipt. Bloomington shall transmit the STATE'S Health Alerts and Health Alert Updates to local HAN recipients as requested by the STATE within one (1) hour of receipt. 5. Bloomington shall reply to all STATE Health Advisories and Health Advisory Updates within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. Bloomington shall transmit the STATE Health Advisories and Health Advisory Updates within twenty four (24) hour of receipt. 6. All exercises developed by Bloomington shall be in accordance with Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP) standards. Bloomington shall `1~'3 submit an After Action Report and Improvement Plan (AAR/IP) to the OEP (Office of Emergency Preparedness) Exercise Coordinator for each exercise conducted at any level with federal funds. The notification form is located on the MDH Workspace and shall be submitted at the time of the initial planning conference and not later than a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the exercise. The AAR/IP shall be completed in accordance with HSEEP standards and Bloomington shall monitor, implement and re-test by exercise all corrective actions for each exercise. 7. For all exercises, Bloomington shall: . a. Submit the exercise notification data online no later than 30 days before the exercise to this address: http://www. health.state. mn. us/oep/surveys/exercises.cfml b. Follow the HSEEP guidance to plan, conduct, and evaluate the exercise. c. Complete an after action report and improvement plan following the HSEEP format within 60 days of the exercise and send an electronic copy to the Exercise Coordinator in the OEP. [elizabeth.tangwall@state.mn.us] d. Monitor the completion of the corrective actions from the exercise improvement plan and retest. 8. For significant public health incidents as determined locally, Bloomington shall: e. Submit the incident notification data no later than two weeks after the start of the incident. ~http://www.health.state.mn.usloep/surveys/exercises.cfml f. Complete an after action report and improvement plan following the HSEEP format at the end of the incident and send an electronic copy to the Exercise Coordinator in OEP. [elizabeth.tangwall@state.mn.us] g. Monitor the completion of the corrective actions from the incident improvement plan and retest. 4~ ~4 9. Bloomington shall designate a MN Responds Medical Reserve Corp Administrator; and coordinate with regional healthcare system preparedness efforts to recruit, train, and deploy the volunteers in accordance with state and federal law. Programmatic Duties 10. Bloomington shall submit a plan for updating the local jurisdiction's pandemic influenza operating plan by 30 November 2010. 11. Bloomington shall conduct a minimum of two (2) Staff Alert and Notification tests with staff assembly. One test must be completed before November 30, 2010 and the second test before May 30, 2011. The test can be a drill or an exercise, or it may be demonstrated by a response to a real incident. This duty can be met using a real incident. One of the two tests must be unannounced and conducted outside of business hours. For each test, Bloomington shall: a. Notify the public health agency senior management staffs, who are individuals that can respond and make decisions about appropriate response and interaction with partners. b. Convene the senior management staff within one (1) hour of the notification. 12. Bloomington shall conduct a minimum of two (2) HAN exercises that include (but are not limited to): hospitals, clinics, long term care, emergency managers, veterinarians and those, according to agency discretion, apparent and necessary to ensure an efficient response to any public health emergency. Bloomington shall monitor the acknowledgement response times and each exercise must achieve a rate of 90% or more from each of the partner organizations within one (1) hour. One exercise must be conducted before November 30, 2010 and the second before May 30, 2011. This grant duty can be met using a real incident. 4~-5 13. Bloomington shall have a Health and Medical Plan that includes the supportive documentation for Mass Prophylaxis Dispensing and supply distribution that is consistent with current state guidance posted on the STATE Workspace and federal requirements that are detailed in the Local Technical Assistance Review (LTAR). Bloomington shall address deficiencies from the 2009-2010 STATE review of local mass dispensing plans. 14. Bloomington shall conduct ongoing capacity building training specific to functions of implementing a mass prophylaxis campaign. Bloomington shall attend Real Opt training for computer modeling and other mass prophylaxis related training provided or directed by the STATE. Bloomington shall incorporate information from the training into the Mass Prophylaxis Plan. 15. Bloomington will make supporting documentation/plans available for review by the STATE. 16. Bloomington shall participate in the development of a Minnesota-based approach to comprehensive hazard vulnerability assessment, including attention to documenting response needs assessment, and a resource assessment for local jurisdictions. This may include one or more of the following activities as directed by the STATE: serving on an advisory committee, participating in piloting the assessment tool, providing feedback on the proposed plan, or attending a training session. CRI Duties 17. Bloomington shall schedule a local CRI assessment with the OEP CRI Coordinator on or before 1 March 2011. Bloomington shall submit the local CRI Plan to the STATE a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the scheduled assessment. Plans shall be written and formatted as directed by the STATE. Plans shall be in PDF format and shall be submitted on a CD by certified mail as directed by the STATE. Paper copies will not be accepted. ~-r ~ (o 18. Bloomington shall participate in an annual assessment of the local CRI program using the LTAR tool to be conducted by either the STATE or federal Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) program staff. The assessment is to be completed by 30 April 2011. 19. Bloomington shall obtain and maintain a passing score of 79% or higher on their CRI assessment. If Bloomington receives a score of less than 79% will participate in a technical visit with the CRI Public Health Preparedness Consultant to address problem areas. 20. Bloomington shall complete a minimum of three (3) Division of Strategic National Stockpile (DSNS) drills and one (1) regional full-scale or regional functional exercise during the grant pertormance period of 10 August 2010 to 9 August 2011 in accordance with the following: a. Bloomington must conduct a minimum of three (3) different DSNS drills during the period of 10 August 2010 to 9 August 2011. Each drill shall be of a different type. Bloomington may not complete the same type of drill more than one (1) time. There are two (2) suites of separate modular drills from which the Bloomington shall conduct the three (3) drills. Bloomington shall consult the CDC website for specific drill information and requirements. i) The first suite of drills consists of resource allocation game, distribution tool intended to be used as a tabletop exercise, and decision-making evaluation tool. ii) The second suite of drills consists of staff call down, site activation, facility setup, and dispensing and/or modeling of throughput. b. Bloomington shall conduct or participate in at least one (1) regional full- scale or regional functional exercise that tests key components in mass/prophylaxis dispensing plans in the CRI Metropolitan Statistical yF, --t Area (MSA) that includes all pertinent jurisdictional leadership and emergency support function leads, planning and operation staff and all applicable personnel. c. Bloomington shall submit the resulting applicable exercise data collection worksheet(s) and after action report(s), to the DSNS Program Preparedness Branch (PPB) mailbox (sns_ppb@cdc.gov) by 9 November 2011. All scheduled exercises and documents should be posted to LLIS or NEXS (if access is available). 21. Bloomington shall participate in other activities including serving on designated committees relating to the SNS or the CRI as directed by the STATE or CDC. 22. Bloomington shall participate in planning and evaluation meetings and other activities required for the postal distribution plan. 23. Bloomington shall complete the STATE exercise requirements which include Notification and After Action Report/Improvement Plan for all CRI Drills in addition to submission of exercise report data to CDC. The Notification form and AAR/IP shall be submitted to the OEP Exercise Coordinator. C. Payment. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington $20,473 for PH Emergency Preparedness Services, and $9,127 for CRI Duties during the term of this Agreement, for the total amount of $29,600, paid in quarterly installments of $7,400, according to the following terms: a. Bloomington shall quarterly bill Richfield for PH Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Duties. Payment shall be made within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Richfield of Bloomington's invoice. b. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of PH Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Duties by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for ~~, -8 inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 24. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render PH Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Duties under this Agreement. 25. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to PH Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Duties to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as they request. 26. At Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and PH Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Duties rendered under this Agreement. 27. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of $1.5 million dollars ($1,500,000) per occurrence and $1.5 million dollars ($1,500,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. D. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 28. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. ADA. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a y~-q violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740. b. Human Rights. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363A. c. Non-Assignment. The parties agree this Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of both parties. d. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. e. Data Practices. Each party will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. yF - ~o 29. Indemnification. a. Richfield shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Richfield's (including its officials, agents, employees or volunteers) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Richfield. b. Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Bloomington's (including its officials, agents, employees or volunteers) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. c. Liability for Richfield and Bloomington shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Nothing in this Section is intended or shall operate as a waiver of any defenses or limitations on liability available under the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The provisions of this Section are not intended for the benefit of any third party. In the event of any claims or actions filed against either party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed yE _ ~~ to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability caps from the individual parties. 30. Mediation. The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the dates written below. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: Its City Manager Dated: By: Dated: By: Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD: Its Mayor Its City Manager 0208 Second Reading of Amendment to Richfield City Code 310.39 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4F REPORT # 31 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, 77TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the Ci of Richfield for the ear 2011. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for the year 2011. II. BACKGROUND In 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act which transferred the responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions. The state also provided funds for the program and encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of their programs by grouping together whenever it made sense to do so. Richfield entered into a contractual agreement with Bloomington at the time and the program has been administered under a contract with them since then. The Act was revised in 2003 and is now referred to as the Local Public Health Act. The contract amount for providing public health nursing services in 2011 reflects a 0% increase over the 2010 contract amount. Bloomington staff wages were also frozen due to budget related issues so the typical increase we can see to cover salary and benefit increases was not present. The contract amount for 2011 is $193,284 which is identical to the 2010 contract amount. 0208 Renewal of Nursing Contract with Bloomington for 2011 In 2004, changes were made to the Public Health Act at the State level to make reporting and accountability recordkeeping more efficient. Those changes also "regrouped" a large number of funding sources into one, which gives more personalization of the funds for the best specific use of dollars within the community to be used in conjunction with subsidy guidelines. It is now referred to as the Local Public Health subsidy. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of public health services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluation of their services has shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner, and that Richfield residents receiving their services are very satisfied. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own public health nursing services. The cost of hiring the nursing staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures and would require a budget increase. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2011 Bloomington Public Health Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 4F- ~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community health services, including, but not limited to public health nursing services (including home visiting), public health clinics, health education, health promotion services, disease prevention and control, health planning, and program administration; and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing community health services such as health education, communicable disease programs, public health nursing services, health assessment, counseling, teaching, and evaluation in the community, home and clinic setting at a nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.04, Subdivision 5, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, Subdivision 10, to provide community health services and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by Bloomington of community health services to residents of Richfield; and ~F-a WHEREAS, through this contractual arrangement the provision of community health services will enable Richfield to document progress toward the achievement of statewide outcomes, as stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.10, Subdivision 5. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with community health services (hereinafter called "Health Services"), which includes activities designed to protect and promote the health of the general population within a community health service area by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability, and preventable death through the promotion of effective coordination and use of community resources, and by extending health services into the community. 2. In addition, Bloomington will also provide Title V Maternal Child Health (MCH) services to women of childbearing age, infants, children and adolescents, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) services to qualifying women and children. The required services, reports and documentation for these programs are the responsibility of Bloomington and payment of these services is made directly to Bloomington from the Minnesota Department of Health. These grant dollars are not a part of this agreement. In 2011, the Title V MCH grant award is $34,663 and the TANF award is $39,995. 3. Bloomington agrees to provide community health services to the residents of Richfield utilizing the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment and facilities as health services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington. 4. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 5. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this CIF - 3 Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield, Bloomington, or any other municipality. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of Health Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto. 6. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows: a. The annual sum of $193,284 shall be paid in quarterly payments of $48,321 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph 6.B hereof, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph 6.C hereof. b. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 2011 and on January 15, 2012, Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certified by the person in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct, and covering the period of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield shall reasonably require, the numbers of persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations where such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield shall reasonably request. c. Should any dispute arise over this Agreement, Richfield shall pay for any undisputed charges for the three month period. 7. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. ~F - ~f 8. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. 9. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments shall request. All reports relating to the providing of Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield. 10. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. The annual report shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report acquired by Paragraph 6.B hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement. 11. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of $1.5 million dollars ($1,500,000) per occurrence and $1.5 million dollars ($1,500,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. If requested, the City of Bloomington will provide a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage. Upon request, Richfield may be named as an additional insured on Bloomington's comprehensive general liability insurance only. ~.s 12. Bloomington shall further require personal medical malpractice insurance coverage by its physicians and other licensed professionals with whom Bloomington has a contract for professional services. 13. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, provided that either party may terminate the same by one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the provisions of Paragraph 12 hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such termination, a report in the form of, and in lieu of, the annual report required by Paragraph 10 hereto, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of both such reports. 14. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants, matching funds, and payment of all kinds from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall belong to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement. 15. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to an officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To Bloomington: 1800 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Attention: City Manager CIF - to To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: City Manager Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as herein provided. 16. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740. b. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363A. 17. Non-Assi, ny ment. The parties agree that this Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of both parties. 18. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter 4~- 7 hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 19. Each party will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 20. Liability for Richfield and Bloomington shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Nothing in this Section is intended or shall operate as a waiver of any defenses or limitations on liability available under the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The provisions of this Section are not intended for the benefit of any third party. In the event of any claims or actions filed against either party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability caps from the individual parties. 21. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St.. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its City Manager ~lF-$ Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD: By: Its Mayor Dated: BY~ Its City Manager AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA TI'EM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 CONSENT 4G 32 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TIT/.E DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,~ ,SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of: 1. Hiring Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to prepare plans, and perform construction services for the repair and reconditioning of the Logan Avenue Water Tower and 2. A Reimbursement Resolution for this project. I. RECONIMENDED ACTION: ~y Motion: 1. Approve the hiring of Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. for the Engineering Services for the repair and reconditioning of the Logan Avenue Water Tower for a fee not to exceed $69,600 without further written staff authorization. 2. Approve staff approved changes totaling up to $15,000 without further City Council authorization. 3. Approve resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City for the reaair and reconditioning of the Logan Avenue Water Tower. II. BACKGROUND The one million gallon Logan Avenue Water Tower at 7420 Logan Avenue South (near Donaldson Park) was built in 1963. The last reconditioning for this water tower occurred in 1996. 020811 Iogantower In September 2010 KLM Engineering performed a routine evaluation of the overall condition on the water tower. Based on their observations, the water tower was found to be in need of reconditioning within the next one to two years. This type of reconditioning if applied and maintained properly has a life span of 15 to 20 years. The Engineering firm of Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) submitted a proposal to provide the engineering and inspection services for the Logan Avenue Water Tower Reconditioning Project in an amount not to exceed $69,600 without further written staff authorization. City staff will be authorized to approve changes totaling up to $15,000. SEH is in the City's Engineering Consultant Pool and are an experienced engineering firm that also completed the plans, specifications and construction services oversight on the Penn Avenue Water Tower reconditioning in 2007. Upon approval the attached Reimbursement Resolution, the Council can authorize certain expenditures (such as Engineering costs) for the 2011 Water Utility Capital Expenditures to be eligible for reimbursement in anticipation of approval of an issuance of utility revenue bonds. The approval of the resolution does not commit the City to bond for the projects. The City Council may chose to use existing fund balances, instead of bonding, depending on the status of the Water Utility Fund balance at the time the construction contracts are being considered. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Council approval is required if Council's decision results in expenditures over $50,000. • Once the consultant is hired, staff will begin the competitive bidding process as required under the State Statues for contracts in excess of $100,000.00. B. CRITICAL TI1vLdVG ISSUES • Based on the 2010 inspection data, the recommended repairs should be addressed within the next one to two years. C. FnvANCIAL • The expenditure for this project is in the 2011 CIB/CIP. • The approved 2011 Water Budget contains $750,000 for this repair - and reconditioning (line item 51000-7350).. - . • The reimbursement resolution makes project costs eligible for reimbursement from the proceeds of utility revenue bonds. , D.. LEGAL - _ - - • The City Attorney drafted the Resolution for:Reimbursement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS - • Water is an essential resource to the community and needs to be provided in a clean and safe manner. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose not to hire SEH _and do a request for proposal for another engineering firm to provide their services for this project. However staff believes that SEH is best qualified to perform the work at a reasonable cost. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Resolution • Proposal from SEH VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None y(,-t RESOLUTION - DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, - WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of ofFcial intent ("Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City proposes to undertake certain capital improvements to the City's Logan Avenue Water Tower located at 7420 Logan Avenue South (collectively, the "Project"), including but not limited to the following: Logan Water Tower Renovation Water Plant Clarifier & Battle Replacement Water Plant Chain Room Pipe/Pump Replacement 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of $2,400,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60.days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of bonds, .except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) "preliminary expenditures" up to an amount. not in excess bf 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected. by the City to finance the project for which the preliminaryexpenditures were incurred. The-term "preliminary expenditures" includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance,. and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or SA340-1 y~ -~ rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the afFrmative: The following voted against: Councilmember was absent. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of February, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SA340-1 4G -3 J~ SEH January 13, 2011 Mr. Robert Hintgen Utility Superintendent City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Hintgen: RE: Logan Tower Reconditioning City of Richfield, Minnesota SEH No.RICHF 115273 The City of Richfield is in need of Engineering and Inspection Services for the reconditioning of their 1MG gallon elevated water storage facility. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH appreciates the opportunity to submit a proposal to provide this service. This proposal includes our approach to this important project; including scope of work, key personnel and project fee. Our team's many advantages include extensive water tank construction and coatings inspection experience throughout the Midwest region. In addition, SEH is unique among Minnesota engineering consultants ~in that we employ in-house Protective Coatings Management personnel who work within the SEH Water Practice Center. This expertise has translated into numerous awards from the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), related to tower reconditioning. Project Understanding Based on the information derived from the September 22, 2010 report completed by KLM Engineering, the following is our understanding of the Project Scope: 9,QOg000-gallon Logan Water Tower • Complete reconditioning -interior bowl and wet riser • Partial reconditioning -Identified interior dry surfaces • Complete reconditioning --exterior • Structural modifications Project Team All proposed services will be completed by SEH. Miles Jensen, PE has 26 years of experience and will.: ` . ::.:..:.:~.. ` . continue to serve as your Client Service Manager. The Project Manager will be Dan Zienty who brings : ~ ~ , : . more than 15 years of experience and specializes in protective coatings application. The Project Engineer.: .:::.: _ ; ' :.: will be Chris Larson, PE with 15 years experience in water distribution planning. Bryon Jensen and his ` SEH colleague, Andy Roman, are certified as Coatings Inspectors through the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE International) and or Society for Protective Coatings {SSPC). All inspections will be completed by either Bryon or Andy Roman. Additional team members include Nathan Klopp, PE a structural engineer with five years of experience; and lead technician Cory Schouten. Short Elliott 1-iendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paui, MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer i www.sehinc.com ~ 651.490.2000 ~ 800.325.2055 ~ b51.490.2150 fax 4~ -y Logan Tower Reconditioning January 13, 2011 Page 2 Project Approach SEH will work directly with City Staff to implement the outlined recommendations. Our initial meeting will focus on the following concerns that are specific to this project: • 'Project schedule • Facility Upgrades • Resident notification • .Emissions control, and • Coordination of Telecommunication Tenants Project Schedule SEH proposes a 12 -week schedule for your water tower reconditioning project and will begin work based on the City's ability to remove this facility from service without detriment to your water distribution system or residents. It is our understanding that the City desires to have the tank in service for summer 2011 distribution, therefore SEH will develop its schedule based on that premise. It is our experience that weather, in the form of lower temperatures, can be an issue with early or late season projects. Lower temperatures (50 degrees and below) shorten the coating application window, and affect the curing of the protective coating. In an effort to assist in achieving proper cure, as applicable to the required. interior work, and to provide a monolithic application of the coating system, our approach will require,the use of dehumidification equipment. Tasks that will affect the overall project schedule are those involving, developing the contract documents, and the bidding process. It is important that these tasks, with the assistance of Utility Staff, are completed prior to the (to-be-scheduled) pre-construction meeting, so that project commencement can coincide with the projected end date. That being said, SEH recommends that contract documents be completed far enough in advance to allow for the maximum number of qualified contractors to bid on the project, with the intent to attract the best costs for the. City. Additionally, SEH will work with the City to establish qualification criteria for contractors to ensuring an end product that will meet the City's ultimate expectations. Scope of Work L ©esfgn Service The deliverables and work tasks for this section shall include: • Facility Evaluation - Pre-design meeting to confirm the City's intent to follow the recommendations prescribed in the aforementioned SEH report. - Establish overall project requirements and objectives related to contractor procurement and schedule...`: ; . ~, :::.~.: ~.. - Tenant notification /meeting Specifications & Contract Documents - Assist the City in developing resident notification referencing the removal of the existing paint system - Prepare contract documents, drawings, and specifications, including both general conditions and technical sections, including Telecommunications. - Meet with City staff to review plans and specifications - Submit contract documents (seven copies) to the City for review and approval • Bidding Admiunistration - Prepare advertisement for bid and submit to required publications 4~-5 Logan Tower Reconditionirng January 13, 2011 Page 3 - Provide response to bidder questions - Issue addenda as applicable - Attend bid opening and prepare a tabulation of the bids - Review bids and prepare letter of award recommendation to the City - Prepare Notice of Award, prepare and distribute contract documents li. Gonstructfon Services • Construction observation and daily record keeping will be provided by a NACE Certificated Coatings Inspector. In accordance with the Request for Proposal, SEHproposes to provide Critical--time inspection for tliis project at the prescribed duration (36 hours/week). * Critical inspection places an emphasis of observation time on operations related to surface preparation and prime-coat application. During the project, SEH will perform the following tasks: - Prepare and file copies of construction activity reports - Coordinate and monitor field testing - Work directly with residents and property owners, responding to construction related issues - Prepare a weekly status report reflecting project activity, and confer on-site weekly with City staff - Prepare "Punch List" at Substantial Completion - Prepare letter of "Final "acceptance - *Coordinate reinstallation of tenant equipment • Construction Administration - Review submittals and other pertinent documentation associated with the plans/specifications - Coordinate/facilitate pre-construction meeting - Prepare change orders, as required - Review monthly pay requests - Prepare letter of final review and acceptance in coordination with the on-site inspector Proposed Cost of Engineering Services SEH proposes to complete the tasks identified under Design Services and Construction Services, for an estimated fee of $69,600. Additional services may be provided as authorized by the City of Richfield based on current hourly rates. {Attached) 1. Design $15,600 '~ Pre-Design $3,000 Spec cation & Contract Documents $9,000 Bidding Administration $3,600 II.Construct/on Serv/ces $54,000 .. Contract Administration $8,000 Inspection (Critical) $46,000 Total Cost $69,600 ~16'~ Logan Tower Reconditioning January 13, 2011 Page 4 Design services will be billed as a lump sum. Construction Services (Contract Administration and Inspection) will be billed hourly, plus direct expenses. As outlined under Facility Evaluation, Design Services, SEH will coordinate tenant notification for this project and facilitate a meeting to discuss tenant issues with respect to the scope of the project, in accordance with their lease. The City should note however, that referenced in the KLM report were a number of installation issues. SEH believes it is in the best interest of the City to have these issues addressed during completion of the project. As these issues may include additional engineering design, separate from the scope identified above, SEH will document and invoice for services related to installed telecommunication tenants separately. The City can, depending on the structure of their lease, invoice the tenants for these services. SEH estimates a fee not-to-exceed $6000 without authorization of the City of. Richfield. Finally, this project will require that the contractor provide the City of Richfield with a 2-year warranty for the completed work. SEH will provide notification to the City for completion of a Warranty Inspection six (6) months prior. However, the cost for said inspection is not included in the above fee. Summary This Letter Agreement and the Professional Services Agreement dated, Apri125, 2006, shall serve as the basis of work for the project described herein. If you are in agreement with the teams, please execute both copies of this Letter Agreement with proper signatures and return one copy to our office and keep one copy for your files. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or the information contained herein, please contact Dan Zienty at 651.490.2160. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continuing our working relationship with the City of Richfield. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. M ~' 4 it Dan Zienty, Miles B.. sen, PE Associate ~ Project Manager Associate ~ Regional Practice Center Manager S:1FAH\Hudso\Com~tmnlCamdchael ProposaPCmmtchael Water Tower ReCon Proposal Letterdocx Accepted this day of 2010 City of Richfield, Minnesota Accepted By: Title: Accepted By: Title: 4~-~ ~~~ FIOUriy aUable Rafi~ Rage C/~~S9~C~fB®i'9 l/l~bl~ ft~~te~~~ Office Staff Principal $135.00 - $199.00 Project Manager $100.00 - $196.00 Senior Project Specialist $105.00 - $199.00 Senior Project Engineer $120.00 - $185.00 Project Engineer $90.00 - $145.00 Staff Engineer $75.00 - $98.00 Senior Project Architect $120.00 - $185.00 Project Architect $100.00 - $120.00 Staff Architect $65.00 - $105.00 Senior Project Scientist $100.00 - $165.00 Project Scientist $70.00 - $90.00 Staff Scientist $60.00 - $80.00 Senior Project Planner $120.00 - $155.00 Project Planner $70.00 - $105.00 Staff Planner $65.00 - $80.00 Project GIS Analyst $90.00 - $120.00 Lead Technician $90.00 - $135.00 Senior Technician $77.00 - $115.00 Technician $54.00 - $95.00 Word Processor $55.00 - $90.00 General Clerical $55.00 - $90.00 Graphic Designers $79.00 - $95.00 Field Staff Licensed Land Surveyor $90.00 - $115.00 Lead Project Representative $90.00 - $125.00 Senior Project Representative $80.00 - $105.00 Project Representative $60.00 - $85.00 Survey Crew Chief $65,00 - $110.00 Survey Instrument Operator $55.00 - $70.00 c~~ The actual rate charged is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to the project. The rates shown are subject to change. Effective; January 1, 2011 Expires: December 31, 2011 SEH seh hourly billable rate range AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4H REPORT # 33 D STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY g~ 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ASSISTANT TO ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of $23,962 in items included in the project budget. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Municipal Center change order report for an aggregate net effect of $23,962 in items included within the ro'ect 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 January 11, 2011 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 January 11, 2011 is $23,962. All of the change orders are budgeted items. Total net project change orders to- date is $166,792. ozoeco~s 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. C. FINANCIAL • The change orders before the Council for review on February 8, 2011, represent a net effect of $23,962 for budgeted items. • Total net project change orders to-date is $166,792. D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIMENDATION(S~ • None _ V. ATTACHMENTS • Richfield Municipal Center Change Order Log VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Change Order Log COR # PR # Description Amount Subcantractor(s 1058 24 Transfer Duct Main Level Area 'A' 2,095.00 Thelen, Vinco 1071 30 Exhaust Fan Revisions 1,695.00 Thelen, ~nco 1074 33 Stoop at Door A003B 473.00 Grasser, Hollenback, Imperial 1075 34 Revision to Electrical Room A002 811.00 Hollenback, Kendall 1078 36 Generator Floor Drain 1,410.00 Egan, Thelen 1080 38 Canop Revision at Grid 12 between 'N' and'Q' 1,612.00 Division V, RTL 1081 39 Transformer Location Revision No. 2 666.00 Imperial Developers, Unco 1091 42 Revisions at Police Patio 4,052.00 AIW, AME 1092 43 Lighting, Power, and Systems Revisions to Firing Range 1,338.00 Action Target, ~nco, Sonus 1094 46 Revisions at Retainin Wall -North of Exhaust Tower (4,418.00) Grasser, AIW, AME 1096 47 Shaft Wall Revisions at Stairways ~ (1,516.00) RTL 1103 - Patch on 67th, sidewalk, entrance to tennis court, gravel parkin 6,535.00 T.A. Schifsk & Sons 1104 - Raise 2 Duct Openings in Apparatus Bay Mezzanine 1,188.00 Hollenback 1107 SI 34 Revisions at public corridor soffits & cop /mail A137 149.00 RTL, AIW, AME 1111 55 "Rope wicks" at window, SF ~ CW sills 2,546.00 WL Hall 1116 57 Sall Port Door Hardware Revisions - Kendeii, vinco, Crossroad 1123 58 Canopy Drainage Modifications 1,644.00 RTL, Div V, Egan, BL Dalsin, Crossroad 1131A 65 Generator Room Fire Protection ITEM 65.1) 5,514.00 Breth Zenzen, ~nco, Egan , 1133 69 Gypsum Board Column Enclosure and Soffit Revisions (859.00) RTL, Steinbrecher, Sonus 1136 71 Revise Computer Rack Locations & Add V/D in C231 377.00 Vinco 1139 - Extra Concrete Cutting to Move Cooling Tower 882.00 Thelen 1140 72 Wall Addition at Office A211 4,278.00 e en, mco, fain re er, a , Kendall, Crossroad 1141 - Option to Hot-Fluid-Applied in-lieu-of Self-Adhering Sheet Membrane 5,960.00 Kremer & Davis 1143 75 Stora a Room 6204 Associated with PR #60 646.00 ~nco Net Change Orders 23,962.00 AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 34 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance related to parking requirements for take-out only restaurants. The ro osed ordinance will reduce the number of arking spaces required. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 544.13 related to minimum parking requirements for Class IV (Take-Out Only) Restaurants. II. BACKGROUND City staff continually monitors and notes areas of the Zoning Code that may require review. This review may be the result of changes in State Law or its interpretation, changes in social norms, new technology or direct experience with a particular regulation. Staff is currently researching and reviewing a number of possible ordinance changes that are anticipated to come before the Planning Commission over the course of the year. The first of these issues relates to parking requirements for Class IV (Take-Out Only) restaurants. There are additional parking-related items that staff is currently investigating and had planned to bring all of these items before the Commission at once; however, a specific application that includes atake-out only restaurant component has accelerated staff s need to research this item and present a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. 020811 - 1st Reading Class IV Restaurant Parking Currently, the Zoning Code requires the same number of parking stalls for take-out restaurants as for full-service restaurants. There are a number of operational differences between the two types of restaurants that bring into question whether or not the same parking ratio is appropriate, e.g. duration of customer stay, percentage of business devoted to delivery of food, number of employees and/or delivery drivers. Staff examined the requirements of surrounding municipalities and considered American Planning Association documentation as part of this review. Nearby municipalities reported the following requirements: Bloomington -Considered on a case-by-case basis examining the number of employees on a maximum shift, number of delivery drivers, anticipated customer demand, etc. Edina -One per employee on the maximum shift. St. Louis Park -1 space per 25 square feet of customer floor area. Regulations across the country varied considerably, however nearly all municipalities required fewer spaces than Richfield.. None of the above-listed regulations seemed to address all of the necessary considerations. For instance, Richfield currently uses the St. Louis Park standard of 1 space per 25 square feet of customer area for bakeries. Unlike typical take-out only restaurants, bakeries do not have a heavy delivery component. In the opinion of staff, that difference makes this ratio inadequate. The following parking standard is proposed for Class IV (Take-Out Only) Restaurants: 1 space per 25 square feet of customer area, plus 1 space per delivery vehicle on the maximum shift. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The adequacy of available parking relative to anticipated demand is one of the primary factors to be considered in the course of development review. • While parking minimums and maximums are generally prescribed by the Code, there are a number of tools available for staff and developers to use if a minimum is considered excessive for a particular project (parking demand studies, transit reductions, shared parking agreements, etc.). B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • An applicant has requested approval of a take-out only restaurant within the City. A decision on that application must be made by March 7, 201.1 in order to meet the 60-day requirement. C. ~ FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2011. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment (4-1; Schuller dissenting, Hall abstaining). • A second reading is scheduled for February 22, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Excessive parking requirements can be detrimental to the environment by reducing available landscaping area and increasing stormwater runoff. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with additional changes. • Recommend denial of the proposed amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~p~l BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 544.13 RELATED TO MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS fOR CLASS IV {TAKE-OUT ONLY} RESTAURANTS THE CITY OF .RICHFIELD DOES- ORDAIN: Section 1 The "Restaurants" portion of Subsection 544.13, Subdivision 6 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Restaurants Class I; and II 10 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Class III (Fast food /convenience) 17 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Class IV (Take-out only) 1 per 25 square feet of customer floor _ area plus lamer delivery vehicle on the maximum shift. Sec. 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 35 ~. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER Nance REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Consider second reading of attached Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance; and • Consider a resolution authorizing summary publication of domestic partnership registration ordinance. III. BACKGROUND ~ ~n January z~~~, the Kicntie~a human a Richfield resident and requested the Partnership Registration Ordinance. Commission (HRC) was contacted by explore the possibility of a Domestic After researching the issue, hosting a public information session, and consulting with commissions of neighboring cities, the Richfield HRC has decided to move. forward with a recommendation of a Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance to the City Council. The Domestic Partnership Registry is a voluntary means by which un_ married, committed couples who reside or work in Richfield and who share a life and home together may document their relationship. The Domestic Partnership Registry may provide a basis for some employers to offer certain employee fringe benefits which would cover registered domestic partners. First reading was held on January 25, 2011 and second reading of the ordinance was scheduled for February 8, 2011. 0208Dinessfic Partnership Registration Ordinance III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance does not create rights, privileges, or responsibilities, that are available to married couples under State or Federal law. • If adopted, the City Clerk would provide a Registered Domestic Partnership Registry application. - - If the applicants meet the definition of a Registered Domestic Partnership as defined by the ordinance, the City Clerk would issue a Domestic Partnership Registration Certificate. • -The City Clerk would keep record of all registrations of Domestic Partnership, amendments to registrations and notices of terminations. • The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Edina have adopted such Domestic Partnership Registry ordinances. B. CRITICAL TnvmvG ISSUES • The Human Rights Commission has requested that this matter be presented fo.r City Council consideration as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL - The City Council may set a fee to be collected by the City Clerk for the processing of the registration. • Staff recommends that if the ordinance is adopted, a fee be enacted that covers all of the costs of administration of the ordinance. D. LEGAL • The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination notices shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. • There is no Minnesota state law governing this matter. Cities may establish such registry ordinances by City if they choose. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S) • The City Council may decide not to approve second reading of the Domestic Partnership Registry Ordinance. • The City Council may decide to postpone second reading consideration of the Domestic Partnership Registry Ordinance. • The City Council may decide to consider a resolution endorsing State of Minnesota consideration of the Domestic Partnership Registry matter. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Ordinance. • Resolution: PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • Members of the Richfield Human Rights Commission 7~ BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CIVIL RIGHTS; ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY; AMENDING CHAPTER 1OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD .DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a section to read as follows: Section 120: Domestic Partnerships 120.01 Purpose. The City of Richfield authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples who reside or work in Richfield and who share a life and home together may document their relationship. Richfield's domestic partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights, privileges, or responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law. The City of Richfield cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants and registrants may wish to consult with an attorney for such advice including, but not limited to: wills, medical matters, finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, medical, health care and employment benefits. 120.03 Definitions. Subdivision 1. The following words and phrases used in this Code have the meanings given in this section. Subd. 2. Domestic Partner. The term "domestic partner" means any two adults who meet all the following: a. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state. b. Are not married under the laws of this state. c. Are competent to enter into a contract. d. Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life. e. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities. f. Do not have any other domestic partner(s). g. Are both at least 18 years of age. h.. At least one of whom resides in Richfield or is employed in Richfield. Subd. 3. Domestic Partnership. The term "domestic partnership" shall include, upon production of valid, government-issued documentation, in addition to domestic partnerships registered with the City of Richfield, and regardless of whether partners in either circumstance have sought further registration with the City of Richfield: ~ -a a. Any persons who have acurrently-registered domestic partnership with a governmental body pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration. The term domestic partnership shall be construed liberally to include unions, regardless of title, in which two individuals are committed to one another.as married persons are traditionally committed, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities. b. Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in another local, state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota law. 120.05 Registration of Domestic Partnerships. Subdivision 1. Application. The city clerk shall accept an application in a form provided by the City to register domestic partners who state in such application that they meet the definition of domestic partners. Subd. 2. Application fee. The city clerk shall charge an application fee for the registration of domestic partners and shall charge a fee for providing certified copies of registrations, amendments, or notices of termination. The fees required by this subsection shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council and set forth in Appendix D to this code. Subd. 3. Certificate. The city clerk shall provide each domestic partner with a registration certificate. The registration certificate shall not be issued prior to the third working day after the date of the application. Subd. 4. This application and certificate may be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic partner relationship. Subd. 5. Records. The city clerk shall keep a record of all registrations of domestic partnership, amendments to registrations and notices of termination. The records shall be maintained so that amendments and notices of termination are filed with the registration of domestic partnership to which they pertain. Subd. 6. Data. The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination notices shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 120.07 Amendments. The city clerk may accept amendments for filing from persons who have domestic partnership registrations on file, except amendments that would replace one of the registered partners with another individual. 120.09 Termination of Domestic Partnership. Domestic partnership registration terminates when the earliest of the following occurs: a. One of the partners dies; or b. Forty-five days after one partner: 1) sends the other partner written notice, on a form provided by the City, that he or she is terminating the _ partnership; and 2) files the notice of termination and an affidavit of service of the notice on the other partner with the city clerk. 120.11 Benefits. Subdivision 1. This section does not create any rights, privileges, or responsibilities for domestic partners other than those expressly provided in this section. 7-3 Subd. 2. City Fees for Services. If the City offers a family fee, family membership or family registration for any City-provided program or service, domestic partners are entitled to the same family fee, family membership or family registration. Subd. 3. Other code provisions. Domestic partners shall be entitled to rights or benefits as expressly provided by this code for registered domestic partners. Sec. 2. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City- Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Y 7-y 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 RELATING TO CIVIL RIGHTS; ESTABISHING A DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY; AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE On February 8, 2011, 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. The ordinance establishes a voluntary program by which unmarried, committed couples who reside or work in Richfield may register as domestic partners. The ordinance establishes criteria and procedures for couples~to register- or to terminate their registration. The ordinance does not create any rights, privileges or responsibilities for domestic partners except that domestic partners .qualify for any family fees/memberships/registration offered by any city program or service. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861- 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 8~" day of February, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: - Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # - 36 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: STAN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: _ Consideration of amending City Code Section 310.39, Subd. 6, Bereavement Leave, to include Registered Domestic Partners. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By .Motion: Consider second reading of an amendment to the Richfield City Code 310.39, Subd. 6, Bereavement Leave for City Employees, to include registered domestic partners. II. BACKGROUND In January 2010, the Richfield Human Rights Commission (HRC) was contacted by a Richfeld resident who requested the HRC explore the possibility of a Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance. In addition, it was also requested that the City Code be amended to include registered domestic partners in the Bereavement Leave benefit section of the City Code. The Richfield HRC is now requesting the City Council to amend City Code 310.39, Subd, 6, Bereavement Leave to include registered domestic partners as defined by the Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance. First reading of the amendment was held on January 25, 20.11 and second reading was scheduled for February 8, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0208 First Reading of Amendment to Richfield City Code 310.39 A. POLICY • Amending City Code 310.39, Subd. 6 would give registered domestic partners the same bereavement leave benefit now provided to an employee/employee's spouse. • To date neither the City Ordinance code nor Richfield Collective Bargaining Agreements contain any benefit provisions for registered domestic partners. B. CRITICAL'I'Il~~IING ISSUES • The Human Rights Commission has asked that this matter be placed on an agenda for City Council consideration as soon as ,possible, along with the Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance. C. FINANCIAL • Without-knowledge of the number of employees that would register for domestic partnership,'it is difficult to determine the impact on the City budget; however it is anticipated to be minimal. • While this benefit alone may not be a significant financial burden, if the registered domestic partner is included in other City benefits, the cost and administration of those benefits could potentially be significant. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendment. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may decide not to approve the proposed amendment to City Code Section 310.39, Subd. 6 to include registered domestic partners for bereavement leave. I. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance amendment to City Code Section 319.39, Subd. 6 V. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Members of the Richfield Human Rights Commission g- I BILL NO. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.39 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.39, Subdivision 6 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Bereavement Leave" is hereby amended: Subd. 6. Bereavement Leave. Employees eligible for personal leave shall also be eligible for bereavement leave. Eligible employees may be granted up to a maximum of twenty-four hours of bereavement leave for the death of the employee's spouse or registered domestic partner, as well as the following employee's, or the spouse's, or the registered domestic partner's family members; i.e., parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, stepparents and/or legal guardians, and stepchild/foster child. The City Manager may approve exceptions to this list. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 37 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:- MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an ordinance amendment reducing the number of appointed Planning Commissioners from nine to seven members. I. RECONA~NDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an ordinance amending Subsection 305.05, Subd. 3 of the City Code to reduce the membership of the Planning Commission to seven -members. II. BACKGROUND In response to a mid-term vacancy, the Planning Commission recently discussed the appropriate size of the Commission itself. As part of this discussion, staff reported that 17 of 24 (71 %) area communities reviewed had seven-member planning commissions. Five of the others (21 %) had nine-member planning commissions and one community had afive-member commission. The Planning Commission identified a number of positives and negative to becoming aseven- memberplanning commission, including: Positives (of reducing to aseven-member commission) ^ Easier to fill vacancies given the trend of declining applications. ^ Easier to accommodate/manage -especially in the context of combined meetings with the City Council and/or Housing and Redevelopment Authority. ^ Resource conservation resulting from fewer copies, etc. 020811 - 2nd Reading Planning Commission Fewer res participants in public decision making. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus regarding the preferred size, but agreed that they would be open to either seven or nine members -depending on the availability of applicants and the desires of the City Council. This issue was discussed by the City Council at its goal setting session in early January. For reasons similar to those discussed by the Planning Commission, the Council directed staff to pursue an amendment to the Code reducing the number of planning commissioners from nine to seven members. However, the Council indicated that existing Planning Commissioners should be allowed to complete their maximum allowable term (if they so choose). This will likely result in an interim situation in which the Planning Commission would have eight members. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council. • Commissioners are appointed by the Council to serve for terms of three years. • The proposed ordinance change will reduce the appointed number of commissioners from nine to seven. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • A first reading was held on January 25, 2011. • A public hearing is not required for this item. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • A reduction in the number of commissioners will also reduce resource consumption related to copying. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Maintain anine-member commission V. ATTACI-IMENTS VI. PRIN~Il'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ None q- l BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 305.05 SUBD. 3 RELATED TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMPOSITION THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 305.05, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Composition of the commission. The commission consists of rifle seven members appointed by the council to serve for terms of three years, with terms of members to be staggered so that as nearly equal number of terms as possible shall exryire each year. Terms begin the first day of February. The city manager, the superintendent of schools for Independent School District No. 280, one council member and one other representative of the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 280 designated by the district are ex officio officers and members of the commission without voting rights. Sec. 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of February 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 38 STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,n<. ~~~ FEBRUARY 8, 20 ~ 1 REPORT ~REPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAtv1E'. TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:. REV1EwED BY CrrY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of plans for two bicycle routes as recommended by the Transportation Commission. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve plans and authorize the advertisement for bids for the . construction of the West Connection Bicycle Route. ' 2. Approve plans and authorize the advertisement for bids for the construction of the East Connection Bicycle Route. II. BACKGROUND The City received Federal grants in 2008 under the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot (NTP) Program for the creation of two bike routes within Richfield. The final routes and street sections proposed in the project plans are a result of public input, transit considerations, existing traffic patterns, and Transportation Commission and consultant recommendations. Transportation Commission Recommendation At their July 7, 2010 meeting, the Transportation Commission recommended both the West Connection Bicycle Route and the East Connection Bicycle Route for Council approval. 020811 NTPbikeroute West Connection Route Originally referred to as the Oliver Avenue Bike Route, the proposed West Connection uses a combination of paved paths and loop roads along the T.H. 62 noise wall to provide an east/west route from Penn Avenue to Girard Avenue. The north/south portion of the route uses a combination of Girard and Humboldt Avenues to connect to the east/west route to the future Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75t" Street. Public Input Meetings Three public meetings were held for the West Connection Route on the following dates: (Summary of comments attached.) 1. February 24, 2010 at Richfield Middle School 2. April 22, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) 3. June 23, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) Key Connections Identified At the February 24, 2010 meeting, several key connections were identified: o Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail / 76t" Street o Planned Metro Transit Bus Rapid Transit station at 66t" Street & I-35W o Proposed Metro Transit Park & Ride near Penn Avenue & T.H. 62 o Penn Avenue Bridge into Minneapolis. Parking Restrictions The preliminary plan that was shared for public input used the recommended Mn/DOT design standards for bicycle facilities which restricted parking to one side of the street on Humboldt Avenue and Girard Avenue. There was considerable public objection to the parking restrictions and both staff and the consultant felt that the low traffic volumes made it possible to implement a successful route without implementing full parking restrictions. Subsequently, staff consulted with the administrating agency and a `bicycle boulevard' design was selected for the route. The new design allows for parking to remain directly in front of residential properties. There are limited areas on the route where parking restrictions are still proposed in the plan. These areas are: o Loop roads along T.H. 62 o Along the I-35W noise wall (east side of Humboldt Ave only) o South of 73~d Street (non-residential) Excessive Vehicle Speeds Data collected confirmed the public perception of excessive speeds on Humboldt Avenue near Donaldson Park. Bicycle boulevard design features include large on- street emblems and signage which increase awareness to motorists that there are other users on this route and have also been shown to be a beneficial traffic calming technique. Staff also recommends increased Public Safety enforcement in this area. East Connection Route Originally the Richfield Parkway Trail, plans for the East Connection propose on- streetfacilities on Bloomington Avenue, Diagonal Boulevard, 73~d Street, and 12t" Avenue. Public Input Meetings Three public meetings were held for the West Connection Route on the following dates: (Summary of comments attached.) 1. March 3, 2010 at Mt. Calvary School 2. April 22, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) 3. June 23, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) Key Connections Identified At the March 3, 2010 meeting, several key connections were identified: o Minneapolis' planned `Southern Bike Connection' route via the Bloomington Avenue Bridge o Metro Transit Bus Stops on Bloomington Ave. and on 66t" Street o Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 76t" Street Parking Restrictions o Using the recommended Mn/DOT design standards for bicycle facilities, parking will need to be restricted to one side of the street on Bloomington Avenue between 66t" Street and Diagonal Boulevard (3 %2 blocks). After consulting with Bike Walk Twin Cities, a design exception similar to the West Route was not recommended in this case to due higher vehicle traffic volumes. o There was minimal response on this issue at the public meetings. Therefore, on August 31, 2010 staff visited the residents on Bloomington Avenue in the blocks where parking would be restricted to one side of the street. Of the 54 properties visited, 17 were home at the time. A flyer with information and contact info was left at every house. A summary of the visits and comments received is attached. o After the project delay, staff again visited residents on Bloomington Avenue on January 20, 2011. This time contact was made with 18 of the residents. A follow up visit was made on February 1, 2011 to further emphasize the request for comment on the proposed project. A summary of the January & February visits and comments received is attached. Additional Considerations The City's 2010 Mill and Overlay operation coincided with the proposed route and has created a favorable riding surface. The proposed 10' travel lanes on Bloomington Avenue required a design exception be granted before Mn/DOT plan approval. Due to the time required in this process, striping will not be integrated with the overlay paving as originally desired but will instead be ground into the pavement surface. Three River Park District's long term plans include anorth/south Regional Trail connecting the east/west Regional Trail on 76t" Street to the Minneapolis bikeway system. The trail is proposed to be located on or near the Old Cedar Ave corridor. Estimated construction is 2014. A copy of the full plan set is available in the Engineering Department and will be available at the City Council Meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Both routes have previously been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Appendix 6E & 6F) B. CRITICAL T'IlVIING ISSUES • .The project.plans and project memos must be submitted to Mn/DOT for review and approval by Mid-February, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The design and construction costs of the projects are covered by federal grants in the following amounts: • West Route - $105,500.00 • East Route - $112,900.00 • If the Council chooses not to move forward with one of either of the projects, the design costs of approximately $10,500 to date for each respective project may be the responsibility of the City. • On going maintenance cots of street markings and signage. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to not approve the plans. This would result in the return of the grant dollars to the NTP Program. V. ATTACHMENTS • Graphic of Proposed Routes • Partial Plan Set • Summary of Open House Comments Received • West Route Traffic Study and Consultant Memo • East Connection Resident Visit Summary -August 2010 • East Connection Information Flyer -August 2010 • East Connection Resident Visit Summary -January 2011 • East Connection Information Flyer -January 2011 • East Connection Follow Up Flyer -February 2011 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jack ~Broz, H.R. Green i ~r®~~sed R~eh~ie~d West ~®nfl~ect~a~ ~~Y~e 13®~te ~/, f l I '~~w J~ N f v WOUiY L,::P<e i5VY 1 ~'' • ~, 1 i ~ ,_. .~ i ~. ..~. P~°®~®se~ ~~l~~el~ ~~st ~®~I~eet®~° ~Il~e ~®~ate iI~7 ~T ~. 1 1 wlinr In-rc- ldold - 494 U Ib- ~ re~1m mioaoeovv o ~ _ >< ~ ( ~I ~ - ~, ~.I I Ij °i l c _ i o i ~. ~~\~~ n , o ~ o ~~ - o y T p o z _ p .~ z - ~~ _~ _; D D -i ~ rl rri J= D n p -0 -O ~ ~ :J 'J c_ L G G G O fJl U1 i7 ( I tai n r> ~ ~~ o ci in u, v' rl fn O n r=n ~i__'. i _I - 1: - ::~-I,: !.1 .,` 1. (7 U C __ l7 L T-- Y Y - V~ 0 0 0 0 o v o o C _ 00000000 ~'; zzzz z~ - ~ ~_- , ~ ~ ~, C .y F, ~..'. ~~ h ~C'>~w,x.N.>,~',Q 0 ' ' ,_i,p ~ Ol:~:yl~ ~ - ~.:i ,~-~ ~ 1N. ,r-i ,f~l', ~~ ~ L) ~_ _ '~N', ~ ~1~. r ~ ,O ~J ~~1 ~3J ~ ~A 7J SJ f ~ 1 000000_ O_ O_ :'.~ -- .. ] ~ ~ ip~'~hG71v~ :~ ~'_' - ~ ~ ~ ~:'~YyS~,TF- .~. • ~ .J ' fem. __ rf ~~I.nD y_ , N ~ P ~ - Cu ~ - ~. , i~1 '~ F=~ - '00 1 ° 000 00,0 mo,~~~'o ~ m N 'f•~ N.~ v, ;l i ;m un; ~~~ - ~r _ ~. 6 _i - ~, ai ~ R ~ oL ~ ~ L~ - p , ~ - ~~ ~ . - ~ - zv ~ z CJ ~ ~ C _ _ _ __ __ r~ A~ '.an 1~ u~ '~ '~~ _ fTl ~ fn ~ _- - „n_ ,U ~ ~ m v _ ~ ~~ ~ I \ - N ~ .,, Z _~ z ~ N r. to ~V O i ~ ~ ' . _,. ,,~ - - e,..1n,~.,:~,re.r.a~o:cooce oncnrino._r~_~'~eo2omoo:om_s~.~;, ,. _-.~_ ~ _ ~ _.^ m r z~i p p o o ~ ~ D - m w c~ Y p O -" ' ~ D r~c~~ -i vmv~ ~ -i .. in fn Z - i~ i- m n off'-z ~ D ~zz D =Cl 2 ~' r iii O ~ rcZii ~ z > z ' U x ° ~ c' o i -~ o ~;p ,o ~G~ a ~ ~ •~oo :m ~ z m p ;p p o, O ;tYi " Ui ,^J , m m y N V :p ~,0 n ~ ~~ .O .O .U N .l0 ~i .N n j n~ N ' N N /~, N ~~- 3 ~i ; i.._, ,...n~ ..n-~.o n..r.,,FSm=~~t==~~amcmeoncnc,re~~a n~:-~a,o~scoxomcocow i:m.c,,o Vj- \~ ~ / Il ~, D ~::: ~ z ~ n ,, - ~ (J ~ o Z O ~7 ~ W O CO Z C "' _ m-<N ~_ ~ G n " ~ D r ~m ~~~ '~ `~~`' m ~ = ' om G C ~~ ii ~ p - nr o ti ~ "' 0 w o -o o v In z ~ I L - ,~C" y z n .I fill 0 ~ ~n ~i -i r- - m m ~7 c ~ omrn ~mv r,n 7p C I ~ ~i 0 o c~-:m ~O Ul ._ G TI ~ tr O O oc~,~ ~- -- -- i I -°~~'= i v.-_r- ~ ~L7O r~~ ~i z r*~ ~~ , ~ zoo _ - o _ _= v _ Dc~ ~ '- -~ o i I -, ~ m - ~ ° s ' i -` ' ' ~ . n _ ~ ~ _ N p' c~ -~~ o '~ ~ of r>o - ~, .o ~ nom- o m ~ " c,T;D ~ ~ I 'z ~ I ~ I m 0 -1 q m! z p c.~ _ r A7~ O . -I ~ _ ~ 1 p ~ n Tv n, ~ n inm L' ' -_ D O - m c r C: ~ ~T -!OJ L "! "~ r- ~~ i (.'t I a fj~~ ~.__.~ \ .,1 •~ i ij----~ ~-0 7 `~-1' ./ U ~l~ m om C,-, i r~~- __I m<~ (~ - nr ~m 0 om C~_~ rp~~ ~----~~, m -~ -i (7 nr om 0 O 0 m 0 O m 0 I C r -I lU ~ m '~ m r-~~ N~ - nmly m -o n m X ,_ rvto ~ F ~~ ~. m _ ~ ~ I ~ lI~ H -+~, ~ ~ ~=m r,._ n vvl-i i-~~ vmN -i~-, ;~ z~ . m -o -I ~ v p - i ~° T H ~ C ~,~-~ n~o ~=r o ~ p N v~v ~ < j1- vr*'^~ v'TCncn --..i ~-_-~ - z ~ m c = ~ ~ v I°~iln o ~ ._ ~-~ ~ I c » a, ~ ~ ` D .. I Sm-icr z ~l VJZ fT'i o ~ n "w ~-, SJ ~ -I i-. -I _I ~:.., nm_J O O n =0e- ~ v oc, z i ~ pn ~m~ -~ -~ S vIEST SrDE - SECTION i RJ. 62PJD ST - GIP,ARD AVE S. 70 PEl~lhl AVE S. (2°' F-F 1 EXISTING 14.5' 14.5' DP,IVE/PARK DP,IVE/PARK LANE LANE r ,r~', I ~di~ ~/ fl PROPOSED PROPOSED 14.5' 14.5' S' 10' BICYCLE BICYCLE BIKE DRIVE 1~' ~'IICE 7' BOULEVARD BOULEVARD LANE LANE OUTSIDE LANE PARKING NO ~ i \ N!0 Np ~ ! "". PAP,KING II ~xf,\ PARKING PARKING ~ ~~ _~~ t, ~ ~ I F- ~~~~`' ~~~ BIr.E WNE ~} ~j%~• 'J ~ Gti'~ SHARE \~'I a :% ~T~ THE II'' ~~I SHARE ~ .511 1 THE O ~N51 \~~ \1 SHARE P.OAD \~. ~~ 1~ ,.. ROAN I I TeE 0' TP.AIL ,% - fJGISEV+%ALL / I 1 ~~~ IfJSE I :~ (ivIUL I I-USE LATH > RINSE I A. ::i:.~.:::: NE!N BITUMII"lOUS TRAIL ~=0' 91EAR COURSE aLONG HUlY 62 NOISE h1aALL ~ LVIVE45030B F^GP,4 NEYlTOt! AVE :, 10 PEIdiJ i~!!C S o AGGREGATE 3ASE CLASS 5 -~- I~ D _IG~rO CVe C I 1 FEB CC I .,T I C E]L T -. -~ -_.. ._ _-_i __ lf'. _^i LC.1 ~i_I,ILS LF ..-'i~c DF L., ~ ....' --- I I ~!o i~Da ~ I -u .' o. ins 1 _ 7E` ISID'n -~' 3 I P7. 0,^.iF jI /ID:1D I"fl~_ _..._'-i it ... _ ':~ LLI.`. L..L', G=i:ll. I D..i: _~' " _.~.r-.~I EAST SIDE - s~c1loN 1 12TH AVE S - E. 76TH ~T Tn ca 73T1 ST ?6' F-~ EXI;;I li~!G 14' LANE 14' LANE PAR ~TNG j~ ' \ PARKING fJ ~ II i/ J NOTE° 1 . "1EaSUP,EIUICNTS MADE FR01`~{ ~ ACE OF CURE TO FACE OF CUR'S (F -F ) RFFCR TD SIG~AING AND PAVFAIEIJI IvIAR<ING PI_A"•!~ ANF% DL~~,rLs FUR SIGNI AND PA\/EP4EN1 P;IAP,I<ING PLACEi,AF_NT. Ctl'~ GT PIChFILLD 15..,.x. 1Ci-091-OS' i`IOi~I-~070Rii D PILOT 'P,OGRAn`I I S.A P. 167-091-GG I I YPICAL SECTIOI~IS SPIFFY 2 OF 3 !__.._7 _ ?•^ I EAST SIDE SFC1 IOf~l 2 3 4 E. l3RD ST - PORTLAPdD AVE S. TO 12TH AVE S. DIAGONAL BLVD - i2TH AVE S. 10 BLOOiviING10N A~•iE S BLOOIvIIPlGTCfJ AVE S. - E, 6bTH ST TO F, 52ND ST (44' F-F) EXISTING 14' LAND 14' LANE PARKING (~ PA.RI<ItJG I I I'. it ~; PP,OPOSED 5' 10' ]0' 5' BIKE DP,rvE DRIVE BIKE LANE Lr1NE LANE LANE ~' PARKING ~I~ r n i.; %\ r' Pp. P,K.ING l + \'~ I ~. z ~~~J al¢E LANE / ~~~~ 1 ~ ~ Z'~ J!`J ~ O y~: ff!eE LarE I {I ~N 1 .I II~ I r,; .41, ,l LhM(~ ~'1~ =AST SIDE - SECTIGN 3 E1LO~S~iT'.IGT011 A.VE S. -- DIAGOIV.4L 6'_VG TO =. 667'-I ST (35' F-F) EXISTING 18' 18' DRIVE/PAP.I< DRIVE~PARI< LANE LANE '. _ f 'r ---, -- - -~--~ PP,OPOSED 5' 10' BII:E DRIVE 14' 'HIDE 7' LANE LANE OUTSIDE LANE PARKING NO i'~ PARKING ~ ~ I. ,°-~ ~ ~, i ~L.?~ ~"f l , , ~~ L~ ~~ O a r ~ i ~ I ~ III' I / ~ J I ~ SH~EE I _ ~ I ROAD _. -. ______- -i In is rto u I I caa c ~ t r I L ~ 5 _c r Ic i _ _ I ~ x~ - z o a ..i - - - .: ~; --_ - I I _!L I ~_ao Feu ~ - - -0 ~- _' I - , '.' i_I .c. ~. I I .. _ _ .-__ _ ~ L J. aS. In.._ Winn izoiccc ~ a~ ~ o _ . a.l. - - - c ~.. t.'.-. aoTE !, '~'EASUP,E~IEI•JiS I.'A.DE FROid FAC_ 0= CURB TO FACE DF CUF.5 tF-FV _. REFER Til SIGiv L:•;G Ai~D ?'Vc,V-i~!T +.IARK iNG PLANS 4NU DETAILS FOR SiGP: AND PAVFlgc nlT p,IA.P!:ID!G PL ACE ~AEP!T. ---- Ci Y C~ TC:-Lt~D is,:_er S "_P. 15 -OS1-OS '~ i~l0i~l-wOTORI[CD PiLG i FRGCRAioi ~ 8 S.A ° 157-0,I-05 I TYPICAL SECTiOi~!S 24 SKEET 3 OF 3 S ~5 S = 1" :: ~',iAP.IC TNGS t-0~ 3iKE_L.?NES :.,.',510'.15 _, .... I :l"_i"f? I LIIEC O I Eo C . I l'~ C I C Lfl : 5 _. '_ __. : ::c ..! "' :c L.::S C - S::tiE 0 .:~T.l. I I ~ II- - ~t r 3.33. ~ IutAP, I:iNGS fOR BICYLE ROUTES (POLY PRE-FORSIJ ~ CITY OF R1CHr1ELD 5...P, 157-OS1-05 ~ _-'OiJ-i~-i010RiiED PILOT PROGR;~iyl SA.P.157-OS1-06 PAS/EiviEi~II ~~iARI<iI~IG DE T.4iLS ~ SHE'cT ? OF ~i -- 22 I ~- 24 - ~_~ ,_ .,tar-;r,ii•ws -oR sF~a~EO iAn!Es =' EROf'.Ei°I YELLO~.' CENTERLIi9E =~-\\ c~ Q // /FACE OF CURB c~T// I l Q NOTES: Q PLACE SHARE THE ROAD SYiv1BOL 5'MIN FP,OP,I FACE OF CURB Y~IITH NO PARKING LAME LINE OR 12' P4I PI FROM FACE OF CURB PJITH PARICIAIG LAIaE OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. ~/~ APPP.OXIMATELY 300'SPACING OR AS OIREC TED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. I - i a~ i 3~ ~'I -~~ _~ ., TYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING LAYOUT - SHAPE THE P,OAD ~4°BROREN YELLO'r9 CENTEP.LINE ° _ -~-p FACE Of CUP,B _ X300' NOTES: O ORA 12'<StIN RFRO!vIEF A~EDOF YCURB PSiII ~H nIPAR:~7~NGF LANE ~ORC ASB DIRECTED BYRRHE E~GINEERIEN THE FIELD. (~ APPP,O%iMATELY 300'SPACIPIG OR AS DIRECTED 8Y THE ENGINEER IPI THE FIELD. I TY?dCAL P;1t!EwiENT t,.;aRKING LAYOUT - B'r.<E LANE _ I c e _o , _~ C11Y GF r'iC;FI Ln _. '- --- ~- :.~„ ...,~.__ oar.=_L;~ ~_s~;.r c _a-:~. ~ ~ _ I -- -.._-- 23 _-- I ~ ~r. aao~EO ~ ~I S ~. P. '~ -091-~5 ' ~0~?- OTORI= D -!LOTE?RCGR-~~, _--1 I - ~ '' __---_ .. _ I ~ i oa '.~ -IC.~.o. '~'s c '7 ~`.;-,;. ~ S.A-P. 157-09?-O6 ', Pd\rEivlEi~IT `vIAR'<7h~G DE I ~,II C E IS~0:.5 -~~ /0 :1 ,. ~E ILI. L.-.i.':: : .:-_ .. I 7~~ .l: i=. ~ _ -" pig P(.'. [~ 6 ~ ` -.-.___ _1 ... , - - -_-_-- I Sh:EEi 3 OF. Oo ,O ~ _ -. ~~ ,~ ~ ': o~'~ - - FACE OF CURB 300' ~ 300' NOTES: 'I ~ CENTER B1;cE BOULEVAP,D SYd;IBOL IN THE ROADIVAY OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENG WEER IN THE FIELD. 1 ® ALIGN 6L:E 60ULEVAP.D SYt•+.BOL TOC:AP.pS TRAFFIC ENTEP,tNG THE ROADR~AY OR AS DiP,ECTED BY THE ENGINEER 1N THE FIELD. C3) APPROXiNtATELY 300'SPACJNG OR AS DrRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. TYPICAL PAVEiV1ENT MARKING LAYOUT -BIKE BOULEVARD ~EV:510..~ i cY .. ~., ~ °o I E .i'.~ L __. ~.. a G ~~_ _ E C aJ~.-. c: o 0 1 I I ! -::: s .i - ~.e:c ~c. , ,. ~., ~1 a c.:.u. ..E v-_ i _,. .. , S.A.P. 157-091-05 `i0i~l- UTOR1tG ? ---- -I 24 ~ PILOT i-ROG! vivi PAVEiblEidl ',•A?'<ir~G GET~~ILS °' SHEET ~ OF -. 24 ~b ~q Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project ~c~~~~~ o Q J c~~~~o~~~~r~c~ ~~~~~C~~~ g Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new multi-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75t"176t" Street 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or commuting? If yes, for what purpose? • Yes -Exercise, relaxing bike ride. • Yes -Commuting & exercise (bike). • Yes - To get exercise, to go shopping, going to a restaurant. • Yes -Commute to work and train for triathlons. • Yes -For local trips. • Yes -For recreational biking and exercise. • Yes -Bike commute on Bloomington and 66t"/Lyndale. Bus routes 4,18, 515. Bike recreationally with kids. • Not enough sidewalks or sidewalks too close to busy streets. • Yes -Bike commuting to work. 2. Are there existing safety concerns that factor into your decision to use alternate transportation modes (walk/bike/transit) within the Richfield community? • I use stop lights as much as possible. • Yes -Getting out of Richfield to Minneapolis or Bloomington results in using sidewalks or entering busy intersections. • Crossing busy streets. Sidewalks are dangerous in winter. • East/west routes are limited to 66t" or 76t" Streets across I-35W. 66t" being particularly troublesome. • Going between east Richfield and west Richfield is a major issue. • No • Motor vehicle traffic. • Difficult to cross 66t" Street at a traffic signal without using high traffic route (i.e. Penn Ave). 3. What are the things that add value to your quality of life? Why do you choose to reside in Richfield? • Safety, ease of biking and walking safely. • Location, location, location. • Small town feel, good schools, lots of destinations within walking distance. • Proximity to Mpls, small town feel, schools. • Easy access to variety of destinations. • Small community feel, a lot of parks, good schools. • I only work in Richfield, not attractive for residency to me because of lack of pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure. • Convenience to entire metro area. 4. What do you consider destination points within the Richfield community? Veterans Park, Richfield Middle Schooi, Woodlake Nature Center. • Parks, Grocery Stores, Target, Trail Connections. • Woodlake, Richfield Lake, HUB, 66'" & Penn area. • Woodlake Nature Center, Schools, Augsburg Park and Library. • Work location. • Schools, Woodlake Nature Center, Augsburg Park and Library. ~o-~o 5. Are there examples of non-motorized trail systems you find attractive or successful? Why? • Minnehaha Creek Trail System. • Midtown Greenway, Park/Portland Bike Lanes in Mpls. • Walking paths at Woodlake and Richfield Lake. • Midtown Greenway • Generally direct routes that discourage vehicle traffic and allow safe cross streets. • East River Road in St. Paul. • Midtown Greenway & Grand Rounds in Mpls, Cycling infrastructure in Davis, CA. • I like separated bike lanes. Additional Comments: • There is a lot of traffic on Logan Ave in morning and evening. • After walking the different proposed routes, Humboldt seems to make most sense...less traffic, less houses and less parked cars. • We are very concerned about the possibility of a Bicycle Route running down Logan between 65th and 66th Street. Our street is already very narrow. If cars are passing each other, they already have to take turns getting down the street. Garbage trucks also have problems getting through on Thursday. Another reason we are opposed to this is that cars are constantly racing by our house from 65th and Logan at high speeds in order to make the abnormally long light on 66th and Logan. I timed the light one day and it took almost two minutes to change. Logan would not be a good block to choose for the bicycle route! • Between 65th and 66th streets, this stretch of Logan is the narrowest street in the neighborhood. Additionally, this section of street is often the site of speeding, as people try to reach the light at 66th and Logan, particularly since that light is very slow in turning. NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 2/24/2010 at the Richfield Middle School. Two of the additional comments were received by email. j6- II Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project ~~~~~~o Q~~~~~o~~~~~~c~ ~~~a~~~~ g Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new mufti-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75tH/76tH Street 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or commuting? If yes, for what purpose? • Yes -Occasional bike commute, walking and jogging. • Walk to work and for recreation/exercise. • Yes -From Richfield to Nokomis for exercise. • Yes -Bike for exercise, use 12tH, 66tH and Cedar for commute by car. • Yes -Walking on Bloomington Ave sidewalk. • Yes -Bike to Lake Nokomis, vehicle to Bloomington via 12tH Ave. • Yes -Both exercise and commuting. • Yes -For recreation and exercise I ride with the Richfield Senior Bike Group. 2. Are there existing safety concerns that factor into your decision to use alternate transportation modes (walk/bike/transit) within the Richfield community? • No. • No. • Yes -Safe bike connections to MOA or Airport area. If 66t" Street was bike friendly I would bike to retail locations. • Buses and bicycles sharing the same roadway. • Safety concerns with buses, traffic, street width. • No • Definitely Yes, I avoid major streets like Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland & 66tH 3. What are the things that add value to your quality of life? Why do you choose to reside in Richfield? • Location. Parks are wonderful. • We have lived here for over 40 years, Good place to raise kids, I can walk to work, I have friends here. • Small, quiet, hometown feel with quick connections to city life. Love the community activities (farmers market, 4tH of July). Easy access to parks & community areas. • Peaceful neighborhoods, schools, shopping • Good place to live, community feel. Bigger yards, close to airport & shopping, close to lakes for biking. Good schools, great and fast snow plowing. • Location, Good home prices. • Location, Close to all metro, Close to shopping areas, clinics and other services. Good Water! Fast snow removal. 4. What do you consider destination points within the Richfield community? • HUB, Cedar Point, Southdale Area, High school/Augsburg Park area. • Work, Church, Shopping. • HUB, Target, Parks, Lakes, Trails. • Home Depot, Target, HUB, Rainbow Foods. • Parks. • Airport, Mall of America, Rainbow Foods, Shopping on 66tH Street. • HUB, Rainbow Foods. ~~ ~ is • Augsburg Library, HUB area, Community Center, Farmers Market • Lunds/Aldi, City Hall, Swimming Pool, HUB 5. Are there examples of non-motorized trail systems you find attractive or successful? Why? • Minneapolis Loop Trails. • Veterans Park and Lake Nokomis Trails, easy access, nice trails. • Path along Mississippi from Mendota to St. Paul, wide and smooth blacktop. • 1 like paved paths. • Cedar Lake Kenilworth Trails, Trails around Chaska. Additional Comments: • 12t" is too busy, do not take property from people. • Stay away from Bloomington Avenue, use Cedar or 12tH • Use 63`d to 12t". I think 12t" is wider and has less traffic. NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 3/3/2010 at the Mt. Calvary School. I~-13 Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new multi-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75t"/76t" Street Study Areas West Connection ,-- ~~~ I ~ ~~ ~: East Connection Uartrony _. •._- _ JL-.~._.~._ E.791h St _ . Iii -. The City of Richfield's Non-Motorized Transportation Project consists of two separate study areas; the "West Connection" and "East Connection". The "West Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 from Penn Avenue to Girard Avenue, and extends southward from 62"d Street to 66`" Street. The goal of the West Project is to provide connectivity between the proposed Penn Avenue Transit Station and the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75~" Street. The "East Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 near Bloomington Avenue and extending southward through Richfield. The goal of the East Project is to provide connectivity between Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington and also connectivity to the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75~"/76t" Street. The City wants to hear from you on the best possible ways to provide these non- motorized connections. Please take a few minutes and let us know your thoughts - we welcome your comments and suggestions. If you need more space, please attach additional sheets. A completed questionnaire may be mailed, faxed, or emailed to: Jack Broz HR Green Company 2550 University Avenue, Suite 400N Saint Paul, MN 55114 Fax: 651.644.9446 Jbrozna.hrct reen.com The survey is also available to complete electronically at the following web site: http•//www ci richfield mn us/PublicWorks/index htmhttp'//www dot state mn us/d4/projects/dlstudy/SUrveV html ~a - IU 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or commuting? if yes, for what purpose? • Walking (on the road, as there are no sidewalks), commuting sometimes by car and by bus, • Yes, both exercise and some commuting, but these are not dedicated bike trails and biking feels unfriendly and unsafe in Rich. • Yes, mostly for biking (recreational and some commuting). We ride on the sidewalk most of the time. • Yes all of the above. • No • Yes, commuting and exercising. • Yes, for exercise. • Commuting -parking (issue) -walking • There are no sidewalks or bike lanes in my neighborhood. I would like a designated bike path or a means to get to a bike trail more easily. • Yes, sidewalks and pathways for walks only. • Yes, biking, walking, and dog walking. • Yes, driving and bicycling. • Yes, I bike commute in Richfield year round. I also ride for pleasure with children in Richfield. • Yes, exercise, commuting, parking. • Yes, exercise and commuting. • Exercise and some commuting. • Yes, I use the existing infrastructure for commuting, walking to 66t" Street to catch a bus. • Yes, I walk in the roadway mostly on Humboldt and on 67`" to go to Monroe Park. Or I walk on 67`" to Girard to walk down the cul-de-sac. We don't have sidewalks so I like to walk in the parks. And I walk down Humboldt and Girard to go to a bus. 2. Are there any concerns about vehicles sharing the roadway with bikes? If so, what are they? • Yes, with roadway sharing. Cars use Lake Shore Drive/Humboldt/Girard as a shortcut from Best Buy to 66`" and cars go fast and don't stop at stop signs. Also, pedestrians must use the road, as there are no sidewalks. • Yes, the rudeness and indifference of too many motorists towards others. The narrowness of the shared route. • Just impatience on the part of cars. • Yes, I feel that having a bike lane on Humboldt is a dangerous route due to traffic. • Yes • There are always concerns when vehicles and bikes share roadways. • Unmarked intersections where there are no stop signs or only stop signs for part of the intersection. • Don't think it very safe. With biker if they will be obeying rules with for car or biker. Don't mind biker route. Parking issue, biking path not issue. • Bikes and cars increasingly share the road. My only concerns would be biker visibility in the evening and narrowness of neighborhood roads. • Yes - Safety of bike rides. Street traffic from cars and buses Streets are not wide enough to permit vehicle parking on both sides of streets, plus bus traffic and bike lanes. • Only the narrowness of Lake Shore/Humboldt between 69`" and 76`". Two cars could not pass if a bike lane were added. • Vehicles travel too fast even with young children. • Awareness. Respect from vehicles for cyclists. • Yes, safety of bikers and kids in the existing neighborhoods. Commuter bikes go fast; average biker goes 18 miles per hour -that is the conservative estimate. • Yes, if traffic is not controlled, there is a dangerous speed difference. • Yes -definitely buses, trucks. • Vehicles share the roadway with walkers and bikers now. If walkers stick close to the curb and if bikers avoid rush hours, it works. ~G-IS 3. What issue(s) do you feel is the most critical to address and resolve to consider the non-motorized trail connection project a success? • Parking -Safety. Homeowners concerns -How will this affect our property values (bikes and no parking)? As a senior who is about to sell my house -this is critical. We pay high taxes for living on Lake Shore Drive despite the fact that we look onto a huge wall. Parking and general sedentary lifestyles of homeowners. • Practicality - I am a biker but also want a plan that makes sense -parts of Humboldt are very narrow -also have concerns over the crossing at 66`" • Do not eliminate parking on any streets 68`" & Humboldt. • Richfield in general is older with many homes having single car garage and single car width driveways. There is no place to park except the roads when households have multiple drivers and vehicles. • Crossing 66`" Street -even with a traffic light, there is too much traffic on 66`" due to Hwy. 62 construction. • Street not wide enough -too many cars park on west side of street already. Biking path ok, parking issue. • I think painting the roads with symbols and/or putting up signs indicating that it's a bike route would help raise awareness, but it seems aimed at bike commuters, and the route goes out of the way of common destinations - Best Buy, along Penn. DO NOT take away my on-street parking. It is not fair to me as property owner and might be for nothing if few bikers use the route. • Amount of traffic on primary north/south streets; biker who does not obey traffic signs and traffic lights. They tend to always ride through stop signs without stopping. • Only the narrowness of Lake Shore/Humboldt between 69~h and 76`h. Two cars could not pass if a bike lane were added. • Safe intersections and crossings. • Safety, usage. • Commuting path or lanes are best on most direct arterial roads. Recreational trails are best when off road. • That these pathways are for both the professional bikers as well as for the kids and seniors. • My critical concern is losing the ability to park on the street. Restricted parking is major concern. • I don't think many bicyclists and surely walkers will feel safe enough if the street gets more crowded or confusing. There are little kids who take a school bus on Humboldt that dash off the bus and cross to their homes and there are often many cars tooling along. 4. Do you use on street parking along the proposed non-motorized trail connection route more than 4 times per week? If so, in what general area? • No, because our garage is on Irving, but the front of our house is on Lake Shore Drive with the front door- That is where guests should come and people will lose that. Others do not have the option the two blocks on Lake Shore do (parking behind our house on Irving). • No, but we're on Lake Shore Drive where nobody ever has parked. • Yes - 68`" and Humboldt. • Yes, friends visit and I try to park on my property most of the time. Sometimes I need to park on the street. • Yes, 67-69 Humboldt. • Yes, front of home. Parking would be issue, not bike path. • No • Humboldt has many houses with single stall garages and narrow driveways. Homes today often have multiple cars and drivers. On street parking is our only option. Taking that away on ANY LEVEL is wrong and will force me to fight this and any organization/council that supports it. Bike riders can go around parked cars. • Yes, sometimes. Intersection of Bloomington and 70`" Street • No one who values their car parks on Lake Shore. • No, please make if no parking along the bikeway. • NO! B/C I'm a c r~ CIISt and as much ire as there is re: parking along these routes, there is also no bicycle parking. • Yes, seven days a week in front of my house. • Yes, Girard north of 66`" Street. • No • Yes, I use the street parking when I have company. Soon I will have a teenage driver and will definitely need the off street parking. • With the proposed parking reduction on one side of 67`" and one side of Humboldt, I would be left with no parking on the north or west side of my house -except across the street. And I live with a blind person who would have to cross the street. Mostly we can park in my driveway BUT friends and relatives would have to park across the street. ~ o - I to 5. Are there times during the day, week, or year that finding a parking space along the proposed route is a problem? If so, when? • Not on Lake Shore Drive. Not on our section but elsewhere - on Humboldt and Girard -sure. • Yes -when we have company over to the house - BUT I would be happy to give up one side of the street parking to make our community more biker friendly. • Yes winter and snow removal street cleanings. • Yes, when kids are home from college, when neighbors are having events with guests, etc. • No • Holidays • Evenings, weekends, and holidays there are multiple cars parked along Humboldt. • Along Bloomington Avenue parking is always a problem through the year. • Only at holidays. • NO! B/C I'm a cyclist and as much ire as there is re: parking along these routes, there is also no bicycle parking. • Unknown? • Generally not a problem. Only issue is occasionally when a neighbor has LOTS of company. NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 4/22/2010 at the Richfield Community Center. lb-1"l N __ ~ ^~ _ ^ - 5/26-28/10 a > ~, ' > Southbound ^ z ~ ~ Q w a ~ -31 -mph 5/20-21110 a ^ ~ ~ ~ -512 -ADT Southbound ~ ° o i `~ ~ aT s ~ -28 -mph ORED DR a z Northbound ~~ J ~ > ~ -83 -ADT ~, ' z -31 mph z ~ w -206 ADT Q z Northbound ~ o ~ Q -30 mph ~ 5/17-19/10 5/20-21/10 T ° -302 ADT ~ '_~ Southbound ^ Southbound - ~ ~ -33 -mph 65 _ DQ^~ ~ a ~n 224 ADT ° ° ° ° ° ° ~ a o -385 -ADT D iQ a 5/17-19/10 `~ Northbound i~ Northbound W Southbound -30 mph Fs D -32 mph ~ -30 -mph -- ~ -574 ADT tio~, _ -479 ADT ~ -42 -ADT ~ ,~ ~ F ~ a ~, w Q ~~ > Northbound w O z -31 mph w 5/17-19/10 °- w -125 ADT 5/17-19/10 ~ ~ 3o2uthrbohnd z a ; ~ Southbound ~ ^ ~ -116 -ADT ~ Q X w -34 -mph ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~ -272 -ADT J w ° o z Q O~ ^ ~ 33 mbhund ~ o Northbound p -35 mph ~i ~ -124 ADT ~, ~ 1sT T -414 ADT ~15_L;iL1~l~ o ~ 711/2STW w J 5/10-12/10 ~K y Southbound z ~~ SyaRE o> ~, -30 -mph ~ 5/10-12/10 > -136 -ADT ~ 5/10-12/10 oPK Southbound Q 73R ST Q Southbound ~^ 3R -33 -mph ° Northbound ^^^ a w -39 -mph -226 -ADT ~ -33 mph ~ -276 -ADT > ~ aT -178 ADT Northbound a > Northbound -41 mph ~ -34 mph -464 ADT -178 ADT Q z T `~ `~ Q 75T ST ~ ¢ ¢ > ~ O > ~ o a ¢ Q Q / ~- c~ z ~ w O ~ W W ~ ° ~ w ~ ~ Q > TH T W ~ z ~~./I = 77T ST w U P ~ Ox 77 1 /2 ST W z i T W ~ Y 78TH ST _ V ~b-IS RGreerl ~®~-~®torizeci f~i9®~ P~®go'asa'a ~igv of Richfi~is~ ®RAF~ ~ Traffic. Count Summary June, 2 2010 Humbolt Ave Girar Ave -- -- Time 73rd St - 75th St --- ~ 70th St - -- _ _ 71th St ~ 67th St - 68th St ~ 66th St 67th St ~ 65th St - 66th St 12:00 AM 1 4 5 1 2 - - 1:00 AM _ 1 _, 1 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 2:00 AM 1 3:00 AM 4 0 1 0 0 - 4:00 AM -__-- 15 1 0 1 1 ' 5:00 AM - -- '14 6 2 1 1 6:00 AM 13 7 2 3 5 __ 7:00 AM - ].9 31 12 "10 11 8:00 AM ] 9 15 13 6 13 9:00 AM 25 14 15 4 10 -- - - -- 10:00 AM - 17 22 7 2 24 11:00 AM 34 18 18 3 19 12:00 PM 41 19 13 3 23 1:00 PM 56 23 21 ---_ 6 __ 28 -- -_- 2:00 PM 68 29 39 6 31 _ _ _ 3:00 PM 64 26 31 8 ---.-- 25 _ - - --- - 4:00 PM 35 _ 35 - 37 1 _ 23 5:00 PM -- 33 51 - - - 42 13 27 6:00 PM 21 35 - - 40 _ - 9 - - - 15 7:00 PM 16 36 23 10 11 8:00 PM 8 _ 22 27 6 17 -- 9:00 PM - 5 18 18 9 13 10:00 PM 2 10 12 3 6 -- --- 11:00 PM 1 - 7 5 2 6 > 35MPH Summa Humbolt Ave Girard Ave -1 Time - ---- --- 73rd St - 75th St - _ 70th St - 71th St - ------ 67th St - 68th St 66th St --67th St 65th St - 66th St 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 -- - 2:00 AM _ 1 0 0 0 1 --- 3:00 AM 1 _- _ 0 --- 0 0 _ 0 c 4 4:00 AM 10 0 - 0 - ---- - ---_ 5:00 AM __ - 6 1 ~ 6:00 AM 9 2 - D -- -- - 7:00 AM _ 12 _ 6 _ - 1 - ~ S 00 AM 9 - - , 2 - --- 0 --- p 9 00 AM ice ' 13 -- 3 - -- -~ 1 ----- - - -- - s 10:00 AM - _ 20 5 ~ _ __ 11:00 AM 17 - 3 - 0 --_. _ ~ - --- ` 12:00 PM 19 1 - _ - 1 __ --- r 1:00 PM 31 _ _ _ 3 1 ___ 2:00 PM ?8 3 - _ 2 _ -- 3:00 PM ~l 2 1 4:00 PM 1 5 2 5:00 PM 17 _ 7 -_ _- 1 -- 6:00 PM -, 2 --_- 5 Z - - 7:00 PM - 9 --- 5 - - 1 8:00 PM 4 3 1 9:00 PM 3 3 _ _ 1 _ _ - - - 10:00 PM 2 1 _ 0 _ i; 11:00 PM 1 3 0 0 0 -. 0 0 ---- 0 0 -- - - - - 0 1 0 _ -- - 0 - - 0 1 -- -- -- 1 2 - - - - ---- 0 1 -, -- - - -- 0 1 - _- --, - 1 1 --- -- 2 0 ------ 0 0 1 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - -. 0 - ~ -- _ - , 1 0 --- ~_ 0 ~__ \\hrgspnas\data\20100008.01\Design\Traffic\Cou nts\calc-2010.06.02-Count_Speed_Analysis.xls;; ~o-i9 ~HRGreen E® gash ~a~e~ - Ci~~ of Richfio9si C~6or~~h~o~o~ize~ Pi9oit ~~°oetrarn Prooec~ W 66i" St ~ Logan Ave S. # of F~ crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of E3 crashes: 1 # of C crashes: 3 # of F'D crashes: 7 Total # of crashes: 11 Intersection ADT: 25400 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.24 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.70 Severity Rate: 0.35 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 1.0 W 66`" St o: Girard Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 0 # of C crasher: 2 # of PD crashes: 3 Total # of crashes: 5 Intersection ADT: 25000 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.11 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.20 Severity Rate: 0.15 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 0.31 Kev: F =Fatal A =Incapacitating B = f~on-Incapacitating C =Possible PD =Property Darnage Crash Rate: (# of crashes)(1 million) (# of years)(ADT)(365) Severity Rate: [5 . +4 A y3(S)-~2(A)-;-1(PD)1 ('I million) (# of years)(ADT)(365) E 66t" St & Bloomington Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 2 # of C crashes: 4 # of PD crashes: 9 Total # of crashes: 15 Intersection ADT: 14550 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.56 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.70 Severity Rate: 0.87 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 1.0 E 73~d St & Portland Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 3 (1 left turn, 2 right angle) # of C crashes: 5 (2 rear end, 3 right angle) # of PD crashes: 8 Total # of crashes: 16 Intersection ADT: 11650 # of years: 5 Gash Rate: 0.75 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.20 Crltiical C~as~u Rate: 0.67 Seve~oty late: '1.27 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 0.31 _f,_ (~ ~'_~ : ~ .'~'_ °j~~:f:~: c ~=,a? f- L'K ~ ~ ~' ~L ~ L`{_ I C1L~ ''s_. °w-' C~;~ :~' ALL i _...~..---__.. ~---- i ~_.r_._-3 ~__..._._._~_..~-_ y~_.~_~____ i ~o~ao ILE LE~4® ~'" , ~ F -, ~ _ r~ ,. ,~"~ ~. :_ ~ T . :. 2 i ~ c~ 1 x f'~f v r ~ X N r y~~ - t ~ ~ F~Y~S -,. 1 ~ _, YG Y ~ S ~~/.y, ~ "F' { ~y .;r is 2}gt _ asp. ` ~ x ~ ~~: t ~~ . ~ :~:: ~~. . ~~~, i `,.4. t `= EAST CONNECTION -AUGUST 31, 2010 RESIDENT VISIT Visit Summary Total Houses Visited: 54 Contacts Made: 18 Unanswered: 33 Appeared Unoccupied: 3 Informal discussion at the time of visits revealed that resident response to the proposed bike route was about 1/3 negative, 1/3 positive, and 1/3 indifferent. Residents were encouraged to send in their formal comments via the contact info on the flyer. Comments Received Since Visits (as of 9/7/10) NAME COMMENT Edward Kane 7124 Bloomington Ave. "We do not want the bikes in front of our house. We already have buses and that's enough." Visit Map Legend ®Proposed 'No Parking' Area (West Side of Bloomington Ave.) Unoccupied ~ No Answer -Flyer Left ~ Contact Made -Flyer Left O~ m ~O ~9! e~L 15TH AVE S O ~ ~~: "~~~`-~'~}-l`--~" "~~ BLOOMINGTON ~~ ~~ 16TH AVE S -~~ ~~ 16TH ~y ~~a g/3 ( /I O Richfield Non Motorized Transportation Connections Project )o - ~. Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with transportation mode choices and encourage healthy activity by building a portion of the City's bicycle network identified in the Comprehensive Plan Project Goal • To enhance and raise awareness of bicycle connections through the City as well as connections to the future Three Rivers Park District regional trail along 75t"/76`" Street and the proposed bike routes in Minneapolis. Study Area East Connection sz ::. <~~-.,~ z f.^r.r~r .I a.. ,V n ~~ .~ St =n -r- f_ ~i0tl~ 5~ ,~ ~• • '' w • Cni~oirl F 1 ~~ t ~csn st • I~ a Project Details The goal of the "East Connection" is to provide connectivity between Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington and also connectivity to the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75'"/76t" Street. Minneapolis is currently planning a bicycle route that will cross over T.H. 62 and into Richfield on Bloomington Avenue. To provide continuity with the Minneapolis plan, Richfield's "East Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 near Bloomington Avenue and extending southward through Richfield. n • ~, m ,~~~~~` , ~~ ,~ I k ~,:,',! 77 The bike route would consist of paint and signage only. No street pavement or curb would be moved or reconstructed with this project. However, preliminary plans call for restricted parking in limited areas. This means that parking would be banned on the west side of Bloomington Avenue from 66t" Street to Diagonal Boulevard. The detailed plans for your block can be found on the back of this page. Public Input The proposed route and preliminary plans are the result of input at three public meetings, analyzation of current vehicle and bicycle traffic patterns, the connection of key destinations, and Transportation Commission comments. The Transportation Commission recommended the approval of this plan at the July 7, 2010 meeting. The City Council is expected to consider the approval of the bike routes at the September 14, 2010 meeting. Please take a few minutes and let us know your thoughts - we welcome your comments and suggestions. Comments and questions may be mailed, phoned, faxed, or emailed t0: The blue dotted line represents the proposed East Connection bike route with the pink areas representing areas of proposed restricted parking. The red dashed line is the location of the Regional Trail that will be completed in 2011. Jeff Pearson Richfield Public Works 1901 66t" St East Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612.861.9791 Fax: 612.861.9796 J Pearson(a~cityofrichfield.org THANE YOU for your comments! ~ ® ~ 0 8 • 0 B ~ e o ® ® • • : • EAST SIDE - SECTION 3 BLOOMINGTON AVE So - DIAGONAL BLVD TO Eo 66TH ST ( 36' F-F ) EXISTING 18' 18' DRIVE/PARK DRIVE/PARK LANE LANE PROPOSED 5' 10' BIKE DRIVE 14' WIDE 7' LANE LANE OUTSIDE LANE PARKING PARKNG ~ 0J0 ~ ~ BIKE LANE bJ, ~ ~~~ SHARE 311~~ I THE I ROAD NOTE: 1. MEASUREMENTS MADE FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB (F-F) 2. REFER TO SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS AND DETAILS FOR SIGN AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLACEMENT. ~iL°'~( EAST C®NNECTION -JANUARY 30 20~ 1 RESIDENT VISIT 1~isit ~a I-, -~C~eCld Proposed 'No Parking' Area (West Side of Bloomington Ave.) ~. Unoccupied ~ No Answer -Flyer Left ~ Contact Made August- Flyer Left ~ Contact Made January -Flyer Left _ , I ~ I i I ~ ~ - - _- - ~I 1' _' I' ~~j~ ~-' - Fornal C®mments Received Ar ~ttache~o to -~ Formal Comments Deceived. (as of 02/02/2011) FROM COMMENT I received the flyer regarding the proposed bike route which would Bruce Nielsen also ban parking on Bloomington Ave. I live at 7004 Bloomington 7004 Bloomington Avenue so the street in front of my house would be affected by the no parking ban. I am fully OK with since I have ample driveway parking for myself and this would actually benefit me to avoid having random strangers parking in front of my house unwanted or excessive neighbors vehicles straying in front of my house. The only concern I would relay would be that I end up with a large ugly "no parking" or "bike route" sign in my yard. I take pride in my yard and would ask that at minimum any signs be placed on lot lines, and be kept at a minimum to maintain the beauty of the neighborhood. I would assume most markings would consist of street painting within the bike trail anyway? Is there a map available showing proposed signage placement? As an avid biker I welcome this improvement as long as it is done tastefully as well as for the safety of the bikers and homeowners. We are opposed to the proposed bike route/lane and parking ban in Daryl House front of our home. Bloomington Ave as you are aware is a Metro 6714 Bloomington Transit bus route and has a fair amount of traffic already. Just this morning as I was attempting to pull out of my driveway, there were 7- 8 bicyclers riding as a group which was an example to me as of the additional traffic being directed down our way. And, to ban parking along our side or any side of the street that already has a metro transit bus route traveling in both directions, is not fair to us as homeowners, and families with small children. Bloomington Ave., as you mentioned to me, is not as wide as Portland Ave, so to include it as an official bicycle route and ban parking is not a good idea. Why not direct this connection down a slower street like 12th Ave or 16th Ave to Diagonal Blvd or 76th St? We have an increased number of children in our neighborhood, including my own, and with a Metro Transit bus route already utilizing Bloomington Ave., to increase the amount of traffic with an official bicycle route with a parking ban for our own vehicles is not in favor with us. In my opinion, it should be one or the other...Bike or Bus, but not both. - We also believe that if a bike lane and parking ban is approved, it will reduce our properties already declining value. If a bike lane was in place with a parking ban in front of this home prior to us buying this home 2 years ago, we would have strongly considered NOT buying this house in this location...and there is not doubt if we feel this way, it will reduce the number of potential buyers/families that would consider purchasing our home if/when we decide to sell/move. To whom it may concern, please do not implement this bicycle lane with parking ban on Bloomil~gton Ave. and increase the traffic in front of our family's home. D -02(0 Richfield Non Motorized Transportation Connections Project Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with transportation mode choices and encourage healthy activity by building a portion of the City's bicycle network identified in the Comprehensive Plan Project Goal • To enhance and raise awareness of bicycle connections through the City as well as connections to the future Three Rivers Park District regional trail along 75t"/76`h Street and the proposed bike routes in Minneapolis. Study Area East Connection E r9m S! ,_ i~ ii ~, t ~~~ Project Details The goal of the "East Connection" is to provide connectivity between Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington and also connectivity to the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75th/76`h Street. Minneapolis is currently planning a bicycle route that will cross over T.H. 62 and into Richfield on Bloomington Avenue. To provide continuity with the Minneapolis plan, Richfield's "East Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 near Bloomington Avenue and extending southward through Richfield. The bike route would consist of paint and signage only. No street pavement or curb would be moved or reconstructed with this project. However, preliminary plans call for restricted parking in limited areas. This means that parking would be banned on the west side of Bloomington Avenue from 66t" Street to Diagonal Boulevard. The detailed plans for your block can be found on the back of this page. Public Input The proposed route and preliminary plans are the result of input at three public meetings, analyzation of current vehicle and bicycle traffic patterns, the connection of key destinations, and Transportation Commission comments. The Transportation Commission recommended the approval of this plan at the July 7, 2010 meeting. The preliminary design was then sent through a required design review. The City Council is now expected to consider the approval of the bike routes at the February 8, 2011 meeting. Please take a few minutes and let us know your thoughts - we welcome your comments and suggestions. The blue dotted line represents the proposed East Connection bike route with the pink areas representing areas of~proposed restricted parking. The red dashed line is the location of the Regional Trcril that will be completed in 2011. Comments and questions may be mailed, phoned, faxed, or emailed by Thursday, January 27 to: Jeff Pearson Richfield Public Works 1901 66t" St East Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612.861.9791 Fax: 612.861.9796 JPearson~cityofrichfield.orcl ,r ~~ _~,: ~~ `'~ _:~ l_NA V O 4-' H L•! 4' r ~ ~~, ~'~ Y i`~T u~ ~•~ Z ~~~ V 4+v 4'~ _ r ~l~ ~~u X ~.~ [Z, I -.`£ 1: S CL LJ ~~v~ _, G x i ~~ r;., ac.~~ ! e--~ F-1 ~ L_ i t-a _ r ~ t u 6y~'s GV .1 ~ ~W ~ u - ~' ~, C~ V,f~ 4~. ,--~~- t~ G t4 d ~' L.LI L1. ~ "i ~ ~.~ ~. a i i ~e .~ ~~. ~m~ ~- ,1 ~~~ ~v.± ?~. =S ~ li~{_ 3:1 'i_yY 1 ~' J +~. d _2 2C - ~' ~ 2 -3 ~>>~= ~' i,a a~u 3~c v! W_W u;it ^~ ~S u. a ~~ URGENT!! YOUR RESPONSE IS NEEDED!! On Thursday, January 20th the attached flyer was left at your home. The flyer describes the proposed bicycle route project for Bloomington Avenue. The proposed design calls for No Parking on the even side of Bloomington Avenue from 66t" Street to Diagonal Blvd. Parking would be allowed only on the odd side of the street. The back side of the attached flyer includes the street section that is proposed. -PLEASE RESPOND AND PROVIDE COMMENT- The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider this bike route at their February 8, 2011 meeting. In order for staff to accurately reflect the opinions of residents on Bloomington Avenue we need to hear your comments. Do you currently park on the street? Do you like what is proposed? Are you opposed to the plan? Please, take a few minutes to tell us. Send comments to: Jeff Pearson Richfield Transportation Engineer Phone: 612-861-9791 Email: Pearson@cityofrichfield.org AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # D STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 OTHER BUSINESS 11 39 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER Nance T7TZE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a settlement agreement with Sinclair (6600- Portland) and a release settlement a reement with Kenned & Graven. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve a settlement agreement with Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. for the right-of-way taking at 6600 Portland in the amount of $405,000 and authorize attorney Tom Scott to sign the stipulation of settlement. 2. Approve a Full and Final Release Settlement Agreement of $190,000 with Kennedy & Graven, Chartered. II. BACKGROUND ' The agreements for consideration are presented as a follow up to the January 11, 2011 Council Meeting discussion. The mediated settlement for the right-of-way taking at 6600 Portland (Sinclair) is $405,000; Kennedy & Craven's. insurer has agreed to contribute $190,000 towards the settlement amount. If the stipulation. of settlement with Sinclair is not approved, it is Likely that the-City will go to a jury trial to determine the settlement amount. A jury trial would likely occur sometime this summer. 0208Sinclair The condemnation commissioners awarded damages in the amount of $180,000. Sinclair is entitled to interest of approximately $18,000 on`°'the award. Sinclair is also making additional substantial claims for damages for loss of the going concern value of the business or alternatively loss of driveway access. The City will incur substantial additional attorney's fees, appraisal costs and consulting engineering fees if the matter proceeds to trial. The city's contribution to the settlement is $215,000. The overall settlement of $405,000 reflects the fact that Sinclair has a substantial claim for reimbursement of attorney's fees, appraisal costs and engineering fees, together with its claim for loss of driveway access. The K&G insurer contribution to the settlement covers these items. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY - • Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed. B. CRITICAL TIlVIIlVG ISSUES • -This settlement should be completed as soon as possible to conclude the mediation. C. FINANCIAL • Mediated Settlement Amount $405,000 Kennedy & Graven Portion $190,000 City Portion $215,000 • $135,000 of the City's $215,000 was paid previously. The remaining $80,000 will be paid using .Municipal -State Aid funds. D. LEGAL • Tom Scott, from Campbell Knutson, P.A., special counsel for the city on this matter has prepared and/or reviewed the agreements and will be available to answer questions. ~E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The Council may choose not to approve either settlement agreement and direct staff on how to proceed. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Stipulation of Settlement as to Parcel No. 23 (Sinclair) • Settlement Agreement -Full and Final Release (K&G) ~ V 1. YRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED, AT MEETING ~ • Tom Scott, Campbell Knutson, P.A. b SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT -FULL AND FINAL RELEASE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("City") retained Kennedy & Graven, Chartered to perform legal services in connection with the City's acquisition of certain parcels of land near the intersection. of Portland Avenue South and 66~' Street East, Richfield, Minnesota in connection with a road improvement project ("Roundabout Project"); and WHEREAS, the parcels at issue include without limitation property owned by Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and Timothy M. Teachout and Luanne M. Teachout d/b/a T&T Automotive; and WHEREAS, the City presented a claim for alleged legal malpractice to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, which has not been put in suit, but which is currently pending; and WHEREAS, by this Agreement, the City desires to resolve and settle all matters against the Released Parties, as that term is defined below, related to and/or arising out of the Roundabout Project, including issues that were or could have been asserted, without regard to whether or not they have been asserted to date and/or which may be discovered in the future ("the Claim"); and WHEREAS, by this Agreement the City intends to adopt, by way of compromise and accord, a full and final settlement relating to the Claim with the understanding that the Released Parties have agreed to pay the consideration set forth herein strictly as a business accommodation to avoid the uncertainty and expense of litigation and resolve~the Claim.without any admission of liability; ~i-a- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms stated herein; the City agrees as follows: 1. The Released Parties shall cause to be paid to the City the sum of One Hundred Ninty Thousand Dollars ($140,000} by draft within 21 days of their receipt of this fully executed Settlement Agreement and Full and Final Release ("Agreement"). The settlement check shall be made payable to the City of Richfield. 2. For and in consideration of the undertaking set forth hereinafter and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City agrees and does hereby release, forever discharge, defend, indemnify and hold harmless, and covenant not to sue Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, its agents, officers, directors, attorneys, employees, shareholders, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns and insurers, including without limitation Navigators Pro (collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") from and for any and all injuries, losses, liabilities or claims of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising or alleged to have arisen or which may hereafter arise out of the Claim, including, without limitation, all past, present and future claims of damage. 3. The acceptance by the City of the terms described herein is in full accord and satisfaction of the Claim, and the entering into this Agreement is not to be construed in any way as either an admission of liability, such liability being expressly denied by the Released Parties. It is understood and accepted by the City that the settlement terms are intended to be~and area _ . commercial accommodation between the City and the Released Parties and shall not be considered as an admission of liability by the Released Parties, who respectfully continue. to deny liability and responsibility. 2 I~-3 4. The City warrants that no promise or inducement has been offered except as set forth herein and that this Agreement was executed by them without reliance upon any statement or representation concerning the underlying facts regarding the Clairn, the nature or extent of any damages, injuries, losses or liabilities therefore, and that they are legally competent to execute this Agreement and accept full responsibility therefore and assume the risk of any mistake of fact as stated herein. 5. The City acknowledges that it may hereafter discover causes of action or facts in addition to or different from those that it now knows or believes to exist with respect to the subject matter of the Claim and this Agreement which, if known or suspected at the time of execution of this Agreement, may have materially affected the settlement embodied herein. The City nevertheless agrees that the general release set forth in this Agreement shall apply to any such additional or different causes of action or facts. 6. The City agrees that this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to conflict of law provisions. 7. This Agreement is the product of informed, arms-length negotiations and involves compromises of the parties' previously stated legal positions. The City has read this Agreement completely and has had the advice and legal assistance of counsel other than Kennedy & Graven, Chartered. In the event that ambiguity exists or is deemed to exist in any provision of this Agreement, such ambiguity is not to be .construed by reference to any doctrine calling for ambiguity to be construed against the insurer or against the drafter of this document. 8. The City shall cooperate and demonstrate to a Court, should it be necessary, that this Agreement was negotiated and implemented in good faith. .The City further agrees . to execute such fixrther documents and to take such further. action as may be reasonably required 3 II-4 under the circumstances to accomplish the purpose as set forth in this Agreement, including, without limitation to cooperate with the Released Parties. 9. The City acknowledges and agrees that they will bear their own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses arising out of or in connection with the dispute that is the subject matter of this Agreement, the negotiation, drafting and execution of this Agreement and all matters arising out of or connected therewith. 10. This Agreement. shall- be forever binding upon the City, its assigns or successors- in-interest and those holding claims deriving therefrom, and shall enure to the benefit of the Released Parties, and its respective successors and assigns. 11. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the City as to the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior discussions, agreements. and understandings. No amendments or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by all parties hereto. 12. This Agreement is intended to confer rights and benefits only on the City and the Released Parties and is not intended to confer any rights or benefits upon any other person or entity. No person or entity other than the City and the Released Parties shall have any legally enforceable right under this Agreement. A11 rights of action for breach of this Agreement are hereby reserved to the City and the Released Parties. 13. The person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that they have. the necessary and proper authority.to execute the Agreement and that the execution and delivery of 4 ~i- s this Agreement has been approved, as necessary. CAUTION: THIS IS A FULL AND FINAL RELEASE. READ BEFORE SIGNING. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor - Debbie Goettel By Its City Manager- Steven L. Devich Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2011. Notary Public 7669526.1 5 ti~-b LEVANDER, GILLEN 8L MILLER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Established in 1929 TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON 'KENNETH J. ROHLF °STEPHEN H. FOCHLER pJAY P. KARLOVICH ANGELA M. LUTZ AMANN •KORINE L. LAND ANN C. O'REILLY 'DONALD L. HOEFT DARCY M. ERICKSON DAVID S. KENDALL BRIDGET McCAULEY NASON DAVID B. GATES February 2, 2011 HAROLD LEVANDER 1910.1992 ARTHUR GILLEN 1919-2005 Mr. Thomas M. Scott Campbell Knutson, P.A. 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 Eagan, MN 55121 VIA E-MAIL AND AND U.S. MAIL RE: City of Richfield vs. Portland Holding Company, LLC, et al. Our File No. 18675.27000 Court File No. 27-CV-10-14393 Dear Mr. Scott: ROGER C. MILLER 1924-2009 'ALSO ADMITTED IIV WISCONSEV °ALSO ADMITTED IN NORTH DAKOTA °AISO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS °AISO ADMITTED IN OKLAHOMA Enclosed please fmd four (4) original copies of the final Stipulation of Settlement as to Parcel No. 23 (Sinclair). I have executed all four (4) copies of the Stipulation on behalf of my client. Based upon our correspondenc , it is my understanding that the Stipulation will be presented to the Richfield ty Council nex uesday, February 8, 2011. Upon approval of the final Stipulation by the City, pl aye forward two (2) fully executed original copies of the Stipulation. Thank you. VeI~ truly J. DJB/so Enclosures c: Scott K. Mayeda, Esq. (w/enclosures) Ann C. O'Reilly, Esq. (w/enclosures) Jay P. Karlovich, Esq. (w/enclosures) Rod Krass, Esq. (wfenclosuxes) 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET • SUITE q.00 • SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 • 651-451-1831 ' FAX 651-45-7384 OPFICE ALSO LOCATED IN WISCONSIN • WWW.LE'VANDER.COM i~--, STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Condemnation City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. Portland Holding Company, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Peoples National Bank, nka People's Bank of Wisconsin; Mr. Tire LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Cornerstone Advocacy Service, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; County of Hennepin; Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Timothy M. Teachout and Luanne M. Teachout; The Uno-Ven Company; 'The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, National Association and Lese Amato, as Trustees; Bremer Bank, National Association; Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Ronald G. Cornwall and Dean M. Akins; City of Richfield; all other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the Subject Property described herein together with unknown heirs, devisees or spouses, if any, Respondents. Court File No. 27-CV-07-789 Judge John Q. McShane STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AS TO PARCEL N0.23 (SINCLAIR) The Petitioner City of Richfield above named, by and through its undersigned counsel and Respondent Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 117.185, hereby stipulate that they have negotiated a settlement for the acquisition of easements as set forth in the attached Final Certificate. 1. The City will pay a total amount of $405,000.00 to Respondent Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. (Parcel No. 23) in settlement of any and all claims relating to the 155691v] It-g acquisition by Petitioner of easements involved in these proceedings, including reimbursement for appraisal costs, interest, attorney's fees, right of first refusal pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.226, costs and disbursements, loss of going concern pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.186 and loss of driveway access pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.186, Subd. 4. 2. The amount payable to Defendant Sinclair under Paragraph 1 herein shall be reduced by the following amounts: (1) $49,000.00 which represents the Petitioner's approved appraised value for the property identified as Parcel No. 23, said amount was paid to Sinclair on or about September 13, 2007; and (2) $86,000.00 which combined with the $49,000.00 approved appraised amount, represents three-fourths of the award of damages set forth in the Report of Commissioners paid on June 30, 2010. 3. Within ten (10) days of the City Council's approval of the settlement, the City will issue a check in the amount of $270,000.00 payable to "Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc." which shall constitute full payment of the balance of the settlement amount. Said check shall be mailed to Ann C. O'Reilly, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A., 633 South Concord Street, Suite 400, South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075, attorneys for Respondent Sinclair. 4. Upon payment of the amount due hereunder, the City may file its Final Certificate, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and upon filing said Final Certificate these proceedings shall be concluded. 5. The parties through their respective attorneys will execute and file with the District Court a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice and without costs in Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-10-14393. 6. This Stipulation of Settlement contains all the terms and conditions of the parties' agreement. 155691v1 2 i ~-q CAMPBELL KNLJTSON Professional Association Date: , 2011 By: LE` Date: ~ ~, 2011 By: Thomas M. Scott, #98498 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 651-452-5000 Attorneys for Petitioner GILLEN~~ MILLER, P.A. South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075 Attorneys for Respondent Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. baniel J. ees n, #6142 Ann C. O' eil y, #269815 633 South cord Street, Suite 400 155691v1 3 ~~ _ ~o EXIIIBIT A TO STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Case Type: Condemnation City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. Portland Holding Company, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Peoples National Bank, nlca People's Bank of Wisconsin; Mr. Tire LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Cornerstone Advocacy Service, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; County of Hennepin; Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Timothy M. Teachout and Luanne M. Teachout; The Uno-Ven Company; The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, National Association and Lese Amato, as Trustees; Bremer Bank, National Association; Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Ronald G. Cornwall and Dean M. Akins; City of Richfield; all other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the Subject Property described herein together with unknown heirs, devisees or spouses, if any, Respondents. FINAL CERTIFICATE AS TO PARCEL N0.23 (SINCLAIR) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES FINAL CERTIFICATE AS TO PARCEL 23 SINCLAIR MARKETING OF MINNESOTA, INC. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. 27-CV-07-789 Judge John Q McShane 155691v1 4 By authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 117.201, I hereby certify that the rights herein described have been taken by the City of Richfield in eminent domain proceedings in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 117 of said statutes; that the Petitioner and Respondent Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota; Inc. have negotiated a settlement determining full compensation for damages sustained by the Petitioner's taking; that all damages have been paid by the City of Richfield to Respondent Sinclair; that said proceedings, as they relate to Parce123 (Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc.) in the above matter, are now complete and that the City of Richfield now holds permanent and temporary easement interest in the lands situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. Dated: ~ , 2011. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: Thomas M. Scott, #98498 Attorneys for Petitioner 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan., Minnesota 55121 155691v1 5 it-ia THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE IS HEREBY APPROVED AND THE COUNTY RECORDER AND/OR REGISTRAR OF TITLES IS HEREBY ORDERED TO ACCEPT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME FOR FILING WITH THE RECORDS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, OR CERTIFICATES OF TITLE COVERING THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, IF ANY. Dated: , 2011. BY THE COURT: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 TMS:cjh The Honorable John Q. McShane Judge of District Court 155691v1 ~~- t3 EXHIBIT A TO FINAL CERTIFICATE PARCEL 23 -Sinclair Marketing of Minnesota, Inc. 155691v1 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 40 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHER~,KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointment(s) to City advisory commissions. I. RECONIlVIENDED ACTION: By motion: Appoint person(s) to fill the expiring or vacant term(s) on the Ci advisory commissions. II. BACKGROUND Several terms of City commission members expired on January 31, 2011. In addition, there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations that need to be filled. Several advisory commission appointments were made at the January 25, 2011 City Council meeting. However, vacancies remain on some commissions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY _ • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. Terms are for three-years and are staggered. Several terms expire on January 31 annually. The Council directs the City Manager's ofFce to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies. _ Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. These Council meetings are posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. B. CRITICAL'TIlVIING ISSUES • Applicant(s) were interviewed at Special City Council meeting on February 8, 2011. 0208commission • Terms of several commission members expire on January 31, 2011. A. LEGAL • The Special City Council Meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Defer appointments to a later Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Commission vacancy list VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 2:12 PM 02/01/11 COMMISSION VACANCIES ' ~ Term Expires ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH - 2 mid-term January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 ARTS COMMISSION - 2 full-term; 1 mid-term January 31, 2014. January 31, 2014 January 31, 2012 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION -2 full-term; 3 mid-term January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2013 January 31, 2012 ' January 31, 2012 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 4 mid-term January 31, 2013 • January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION - 1 full-term January 31, 2014 Vacancies2011 ~ --.