The URL can be used to link to this page

10-08-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion related to on-street parking ban in Richfield (Deferred ftom September 24 City Council Worksession) Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked 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. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special Concurrent City Council, HRA and Planning Commission Meeting of September 16, 2002; (2) Special City Council Meeting of September 17, 2002; (3) Special City Council Worksession of September 24, 2002; (4) Regular City Council Meeting of September 24, 2002; (5) Special City Council Meeting of September 25, 2002; and (6) Special City Council Meeting of October 2, 2002 PRESENTATIONS 1. Acknowledgement of donations from Richfield/Bloomington Eagles #3208 and Richfield Firefighters Local 1215 to Richfield Fire Department for purchase of three defibrillators 2. Annual meeting with Planning Commission Notes: COUNCIL•DISC~ISSION 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 ._ -• A. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for November 5, 2002 General Election S.R. No. 229 B. Consideration of approval of resolution regarding off-street parking permit at 7715 Fourth Avenue S.R. No. 230 C. Consideration of approval of purchase of estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt for 2002/03 winter season from Cargill Incorporated Deicing Technology in amount of $27.97 per ton, plus tax S.R. No. 231 D. Consideration of multi-animal residential kennel license renewals: • 7301 Wentworth Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 232 . • 6428 Knox Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 233 • 7144 Oliver Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 234 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARING 6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform to State Statute 462.357 and Sections 536.11, 536.17, 536.19, 536.21 and 536.25 to clarify rules regarding planned unit developments Staff Report No. 235 RESOLUTIONS 7. Consideration of resolution authorizing agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation and Hennepin County for replacing traffic control signals on Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494 Staff Report No. 236 8. Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of three apartment buildings at 6238, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue; Airport Acquisition Noise Program area (Tabled from September 12, 2002) Staff Report No. 237 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of proposal from W.D. Schock Co. Inc. for. disposeion of homes in Airport Noise Acquisition Program area Staff Report No. 238 Notes: 10. City Manager's report , i~ Notes: 11. 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 asked to complete a speaker`s form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow s~cient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address fire Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: 12.Adjoumment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. o~toA~r zoos City of Richfield "`~°"~eptem ~ ~ 7:00 PM Human Rights M T w T F s s ~ Commission 7:00 PM Special City Council Meeting 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 35W Solutions Alliance Legislative 9 to I1 t2 13 14 is ; Candidate Forum 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ~a 30 3 5:30 PM Special Council 7:00 PM Special City Council 1~ Worksession Meeting ~~ 6:30 PM City Council League of Women Voters sponsored =~~ ~ i ~ Meeting City Council Candidate Forum @ Gramercy `„ ;~,. -;, 7:00 PM Planning Commis- 7:00 PM Community 6:30 PM Special City Council :30 PM FOWL Board @ a; `r: sion Study Session Services Commission Meetin~ WLNC @ WLNC League o Women Voters sponsored 7:00 PM Friendship City ~ City Council Candidate Forum @ Commission z Council Chambers P; F 5:30 PM Advisory Board '~~ of Health 5:30 PM Special Council Worksession 6:30 PM Special City Council Meeting X7:00 PM HRA Meeting 6:30 PM City Council ~~ Meetin g G Centennial Elementary School,. 7315 Bloomington Avenue (east side neighborhood meeting re: airport ~ ~ , issues) , ,. a ~;~ - ; . ~ ~ % '~ ~~ ¢`. ~~~~y~ ~~ ~ r- '5:00 PM RCHSPC "No ems ~~7:00 PM Planning i i C ~ M T W T F, 2 3 -~ ~. ~~ ' ss on omm ~~, ~, a 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~~~ aA" g 7:00 PM Mayors Hour s !_a ~ ~ .~? I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 *~ ,; 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~e^;^9 s. ~ ~:~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 ~, ;~, :: .,. ~ ~ . . .. _ ,. :, 'M n ~" y~F ,~~~ ::, . „ x. ~ ~ , "- Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 10/2/2002 CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AND • REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent Meeting of City Council, HRA and Planning Commission September 16, 2002 Council Members Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Gertrude Ulrich; and Sue Sandahl. HRA Members Present: Thomas Harms; Kristal Stokes; Joan Helmberger; Michael Sandahl; and Dan Linnihan. Planning Commission Members Present: Gordon Hanson. Staff Presenfi Samantha Orduno, City Manager; Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director/Acting City Clerk; Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment Manager; .and Katia Medvetski, Redevelopment Specialist. The Mayor, City Council Members, HRA Members and Planning Commission Member present attended a reception for the decertification of the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Tax Increment Financing District, which was held at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, September 16, 2002. Date Approved: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Bruce Palmborg Acting City Clerk Samantha Orduno City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Members Present: Members Not Present: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting September 17, 2002 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Gertrude Ulrich; and Sue Sandahl. John Enger. The City Council Members present attended a tour of the Best Buy Construction Site held at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 2002. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Samantha Orduno City Manager < i. ~, .~.~: CALL TO :ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Worksession September 24, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl at 5:05 p.m. Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl stated that Mayor Kirsch would be approximately 15 minutes late because of a prior commitment. ROLL CALL Members Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor (arrived at 5:20 p.m.); 'Susan Rosenberg; Gertrude Ulrich; John Enger; and Sue Sandahl. Staff Present: Samantha Orduno, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, Dan Scott, Public Safety Director; Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director, Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to City Manager, John Stark, Community Development Manager; Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. :,. Item #I DISCUSSION RELATED. TO NOISE WALL AT ?TTH STREET NEAR c `` °t :`P'ORTLAND AVENUE City Manager Orduno stated Council Member Enger requested discussion regarding the noise wall at 77th Street near Portland Avenue because of safety and security concems at Roosevelt Park. She said staff is awaiting City Council direction on the removal of the wall from the south edge of the park. Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl stated neighbors in the area expressed security concems because the wall restricts seeing park activities and there have been recent safety incidents. She asked the cost of removing the wall and the cement pillars. Public Works Director Eastling said approximately $5,000 to $10,000. He said the pillars would need to be repaired if the wall is repositioned. Mr. Eastling discussed the park ranger program used last year, but was discontinued this year because of budget cuts. Council Member Enger discussed an incident when concession stand workers were fearful for their safety and no options to contact Public Safety were available. He said problems appear to be from activities at the basketball court. Mr. Enger added the parking lot and playground area need to be in view. He said he is not in favor of removing the entire wall, but removal of the section by the park will make it more secure. Mayor Pro Tempore Sandahl said that as a result of the incident at the concession stand, Public Safety supplied a cell phone on site, which will be available again next year. She suggested Special Worksession Minutes -2- September 24, 2002 contractors be contacted to receive estimates on the wall removal, but possibly leaving the pillars in place. She expressed interest in Public Safety opinion if the wall removal expense is justified. Council Member Enger stated he believed the former Police Chief did not support the wall and asked staff to contact him to get his comments. Mayor Kirsch arrived. Recreation Services Director Top'~tzhofer stated a meeting will be held with the Little League Board and Public Safety to discuss the safety concerns and prevention of future incidents. Council Member Ulrich stated agreement with obtaining Public Safety's opinion, getting the cost estimates for the full and partial removal of the wall and its re-installation elsewhere, and the expenses related to the Park Ranger patrol person. She expressed a preference for the involvement of people and a Park Ranger versus the driving by of the Police. Council Member Enger asked for an explanation of the Park Ranger's role. Public Works Director Eastling explained the role of the ranger in the parks. Council Member Enger requested that he be invited to the meeting with the Little League. Council Member Sandahl requested that the entire City Council be notified of the meeting. The City Council requested a City Council Worksession be scheduled after the meeting with the Little League to further discuss this issue. Item #II DISCUSSION RELATED TO ON-STREET PARKING 8AN IN RICWFIELD Council Member Enger requested discussion of this item follow Item III. because the 17th Avenue neighborhood group was present. The City Council agreed. ,:. - ~. s t: ~~ Item #III DISCUSSION RELATED TO RICHFIELD'S AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM STRATEGY - - ~ ~ ~=1` ;f, ~,- City Manager Orduno stated discussion of this item was scheduled at the request of Council Member Sandahl. She added that Jean Biever, a resident on the 6700 black of 17th Avenue, has asked the City Council to reconsider its acquisition strategy for purchasing property in the Airport Noise Acquisition Program area. Council Member Sandahl explained that at the September 12,2002 City Council meeting she tabled action on the purchase of the three apartment buildings on Cedar Avenue and requested a City Council Worksession to discuss policy issues and property purchasing strategy for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program. She stated she did not want to change the policy currently in place and to buyout the 17th Avenue homes, but rather to preserve the neighborhood. Jean Biever, 6701 17th Avenue, representing the residents on the 6600 and 6700 blocks of the east side of 17th Avenue, read a statement related to the impacts their neighborhood will experience due to the proposed new roadway connecting Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue at 67th Street. Ms. Biever stated she spoke with Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director, that afternoon who said he was willing and able to support the 17th Avenue buyout if thq City Council voted to take single family homes. She said that based upon what the City has been saying, their top priority is to the homeowners versus the apartments. Special Worksession Minutes -3- September 24, 2002 Residents representing the following addresses spoke to the City Council to express what they believe will be their neighbofiood impacts, including increased traffic, safety issues, lack of privacy, increased air and noise pollution, decreased property values and increased crime. 6601 17th Avenue 6621 17th Avenue 663917th Avenue 672717th Avenue 6721 17th Avenue 6609 17th Avenue 6627 17th Avenue 6709 17th Avenue 6733 17th Avenue 6745 17th Avenue 661517th Avenue 663317th Avenue 6715 17th Avenue 673917th Avenue Council Member Sandahl reviewed the properties to be acquired in the program. Public Works Director Eastling reviewed the estimated future traffic flow, volume and impacts on 18th Avenue. Council Member Enger asked about the current°traffic count on 18th Avenue. Public Works Director Eastling said a typical residential street is 300 - 500 vehicles per day. He added that it is estimated that 18th Avenue could have approximately 5,000 vehicles per day related to the connection with Cedar Avenue. Ms. Biever asked the reason for the removal of the 18th Avenue homes south of 67th Street. Public Works Director Eastling explained that some of the homes on that block would have to be removed to create a cul-de-sac and that because some of the homes in the 6700 block were needed to construct the street, the City requested the entire block be taken. Assistant to City Manager Dmytrenko stated everyone in the 87dB noise contour is suffering airport noise impacts. She explained the commitments already made and the constraints of the funding and contract. She added that trying to amend the agreement may affect the outcome of the remaining $10 million. Council Member Rosenberg asked why Mr. Hamiel stated he would work with the City if the agreement were amended. City Manager Orduno stated mixed messages were received from MAC. She said staff worked on the agreement with Nigel Finney and MAC legal counsel Tom Anderson, not Mr. Hamiel, and Mr. Finney was adamant about following program guidelines. Council Member Rosenberg stated the acquisition of the apartments was part of the ongmal agreement. She asked how many homes on 17th Avenue would need~to be purchased and if there was adequate funding to purchase them if the apartments were not acquired. Assistant to City Manager Dmytrenko answered there are 16 homes on 17th Avenue and there would be remaining funds after their purchase, but not enough to acquire the apartments on Cedar Avenue. Council Member Rosenberg stated she was not certain that the apartments should be acquired before the homes because many poor people may be displaced. She asked about the impacts for the west side of 17th Avenue. Ms. Biever said the west side is not in the 87d6 and they were not informed of any buyout. City Manager Orduno stated staff would clarify with Mr. Hamiel his statement to Ms. Biever. Council Member Sandahl clarified that the apartment tenants are eligible for relocation costs which may assist them to purchase a house. Mayor Kirsch stated that the City has spent millions on airport impacts. He said it is very important not to pit one neighborhood block against another. He said the acquisition of the apartments would make it easier for a developer to purchase the refraining homes and redevelop the area. He urged the residents to speak with their Legislators about providing funding assistance to Richfield. Special Worksession Minutes -4- September 24, 2002 City Manager Orduno asked Ms. Biever to repeat her conversation with Mr. Hamiel. She said it is frustrating because local FAA, National FAA and MAC all say something different. Ms. Orduno stated FICAN reviewed the low frequency noise study and invalidated the entire study so, in the eyes of the FAA, low frequency noise does not exist. She said the FAA has no plans to develop national standards and the 87d6 contour lines mean nothing to the FAA or MAC. Ms. Biever stated her conversation with Mr. Hamiel included that he is very up-to-date on what's going on and is following it closely; she needs to have the City Council vote in her favor and he is willing to y~ork with that. Ms. Biever also stated Glen Orcutt from the FAA drove around her neighborhood. Council Member Enger suggested that since Mr. Hamiel expressed to Ms. Biever his willingness to re-address the agreement, the City should pursue this option. He said the City.s original intent was for acquisition of all affected single family homes and duplexes before businesses and apartments. He added the homeowners were most impacted, not the apartments which may be eligible for the Part 150 insulation program. Mr. Enger stated ~ the situation could not be handled, the State of Minnesota should be held accountable for keeping the airport at its current location. He suggested a noise study with noise monitoring equipment be implemented along 18th Avenue before the new runway is operational to obtain the difference in impacts. Council Member Ulrich stated the pressure needs to be kept on the Legislators to provide assistance. She announced two upcoming Legislative candidate forums and urged residents to attend. Council Member Rosenberg requested the City Council be notified of staff s discussion with Mr. Hamiel regarding his comments to Ms. Biever. ' Council Member Enger referenced the September 10, 2001 City Council staff report regarding the use of funds for airport mitigation purposes, emphasizing traffic impacts. City Manager Orduno referenced a letter from Nigel Finney dated September 18, 2002 regarding the use of funds and roadway impacts. Due to the need to begin the Regular City Council meeting, the discussion regarding the on- street parking ban in Richfield was deferred to the next City Counctl Worksession. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:39 p.m. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor - Samantha Orduno City Manager `~, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ~ Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting September 24, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirsch at 6:46 p.m. ROLL "CALL ` Members Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Gertrude Ulrich; John Enger, and -Sue Sandahl. Staff Present: Samantha Orduno, City Manager; Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director, Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director,-Dan Scott, Public Safety Director; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Kevin McGinty, Fire Services Director; AI Payne, Facilities Manager, Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary; and Comne Thomson, City Attorney. OPEN FORUM `. No one was registered to speak. PRESENTATION OF COLORS;AND PLEDGE`'OF ALLEGIANCE '~ Mayor Kirsch led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of September 12. 2002. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- September 24, 2002 ~m Item #1 ~ PRESENTATION,OF PROCLAIVIATI01~1°DE~SC ~ ~~ ~ ~ AY~T= WEEK,;SEPTEMBER 23-29~-2~ ~ ' ~.~,~ ,s ;~ - l ~.' Council Member Rosenberg read and presented to Michele Thompson, representing Women of Today, the proclamation designating September 23-29 as 2002 Women of Today Week in Richfield. Michele Thompson and Connie McDonald thanked the City Council for this recognition and their continued support. Item #2 PRESENTATION QF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING „ '~: ~. , -WEEK IN RiCH1=1ELQ, aCTI,BER 6-1 Z 2002 ~ :" ~ ~ ~ '~ , Council Member Ulrich read and presented a proclamation designating Fire,Prevention Week in Richfield, October 6-12, 2002 to Fire Services Director Kevin McGinty. COUNCIL D15CUSStON ~ _ Council Member Rosenberg requested a City Council Worksession be scheduled to discuss the budget because she has questions. She added that she hoped Council Member Enger would agree to a Worksession. Council Member Enger said he concurred with Council Member Rosenberg regarding a Worksession on the budget. He clarified that he did not vote against the property tax levy decrease at the last City Council meeting because he did not support a decrease, but rather that the decrease wasn't deep enough. City Manager Orduno suggested the Worksession be held on a different night than a City Council meeting so there are no time constraints. Council Member Sandahl requested that Council Member Enger and Council Member Rosenberg provide their budget issues and additional reduction suggestions in advance so the City Council can be prepared for discussion. Council Member Sandahl stated the school district is holding meetings regarding their upcoming referendum on October 3 at the Richfield Middle School, October 10 at the Elliot Education Center and October 24 at the District Office Board Room. - Council Member Sandahl clarified that Best Buy was not responsible for the closing of the St. Richard's Day Care Center. She said Blessed Trinity is now operating the day care center. Council Member Ulrich requested Special City Council meeting notices be posted for. • October 9, 7:00 p.m. City Council candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters at Gramercy • October 16, 6:30 p.m. City Council candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters at the Richfield City Hall Council Chambers Council Member Ulrich provided a report as the representative on the AMM Transportation Committee; including • Change in local consent to roads passing through cities • Transportation funding Council Meeting Minutes -3- September 24, 2002 • MnDOT staff changes • Mass transit funding • Project timeline changes Council Member Enger said it is important to ask Legislators about their stand on transportation funding. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL ~F AGENDA M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch to add as Item 6A a resolution regarding transportation issues. Motion carried 5-0. M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl to aagrove the amended agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 ! CQNSENT CALENDAR A. Approved resolution appointing additional election judges for November 5, 2002 General Election S.R. No. 220 RESOLUTION NO. 9231 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9231 in Resolution Book No. 74. B. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 5. C. Approved resolution amending membership listing of South West Fire League Mutual Aid Association S.R. No. 222 RESOLUTION NO. 9233 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE TO EXHIBIT A OF THE SOUTHWEST MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9233 in Resolution Book No. 74. D. Approved resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to County Auditor S.R. No. 223 RESOLUTION NO. 9234 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9234 in Resolution Book No. 74. Council Meeting Minutes -4- September 24, 2002 E. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 5. F. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 5. G. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 5. Council Member Enger asked to remove Item 46, 4E and 4F from the Consent Calendar and place it on the regular agenda as Item 5. Council Member Rosenberg asked to remove-"Item 4G ftom the Consent Calendar and place it on the regular agenda as Item 5. M/Sandahl, S/Rosenberg to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carved 5-0. ,t r., -," _~ .. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF""ITEMS,3F ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT GALENDAR~~~. " t . ",. 1~ . 1. t~ ~' Item 4B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN FOR ELIGIBLE CITY OF RICHFIELD EMPLOYEES S.R. NO. 221 Council Member Enger stated he contacted the State of Minnesota regarding the eligibility of elected officials to participate in the Health Care Savings Plan. He requested staff work out the details for elected official's participation. Administrative Services Director Devich explained that the employee unit participation is mandatory and contributions are at the same level. Council Member Ulrich asked if a unit meant the entire City Council. Administrative Services Director Devich said yes. M/Ulrich, S/Enger that the followin4 resolution be adopted that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 9232 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A POST RETIREMENT HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT "EMPLOYEES Motion carved 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9232 in Resolution Book No. 74. Item 4E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT S.R. N0.224 Council Member Enger asked what was done to abate the nuisance. Administrative Services Director Devich explained the property was vacant and incurred costs are related to ensuring security on the property. Council Meeting Minutes -5- September 24, 2002 Council Member Enger stated all City costs need to be recovered on any abatement including employee time, vehicle use, paperwork, etc. M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl that the followina resolution be adopted, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0.9235 RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9235 in Resolution Book No. 74. Item 4F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW EVAPORATIVE CONDENSER FOR RINK ONE AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA FROM GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG. INC. IN AMOUNT OF $42,034.85 S.R. N0.225 Council Member Enger asked if the purchases approved for Rink Two at the last City . Council meeting went out for bids. He also asked if tonight's purchase for Rink One went out for bids. He requested to see the bids so the City Council can make the final determination. Facilities Manager Payne said Rink Two bids will be provided to the City Council and that the bid went to the lowest bidder. He said the bids for the Rink One purchase were attached to tonight's Staff Report and went to the lowest bidder. Motion carved 5-0. Item 4G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE LICENSE FOR ANNE THURBER, 7515 LIPTON AVENUE S.R. N0.226 Council Member Rosenberg asked if the neighbors were notified of this business coming into their area because of potential traffic impacts. Public Safety Director Scott said the neighbors were not noted because of federal requirements that cities may not discriminate against a disabled person related to zoning issues. Barb Kuhn, Disability Law Center, representing the applicant, stated the applicant had spoken with some of the neighbors, but not all of them. Council Member Enger stated. support for notifying the neighborhood and providing them with an opportunity to comment to the City Council. City Attorney Thomson asked the applicant's representative if the applicant is willing to agree to the extension of time. Ms. Kuhn said yes. , Public Safety Director Scott said contiguous neighbors would be notified. Council Member Rosenberg said the neighbor notification is a matter of courtesy and that she does support the applicant. Council Meeting Minutes -t3- September 24, 2002 Council Member Sandahl stated support for the applicant and clamed that even if neighbors disagree with-the license, the City is required to make the accommodation for the disability. Motion carried 5-0. - . _ . -_ Item #6 'CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DEGERTIFYI G ILY~dD_~ T B ~ NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINAIIICING,.DISTRlCT:S:..~ C ~x ~ ;'~ ` ,r ~ - - City Manager Orduno reviewed Staff Report No. 227 regarding a resolution decertifying Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Distnct. Council Member Sandahl explained the impact of the decertification and the resulting developments from the TIF District. She commended prior City Councils for their foresight. Mayor Kirsch expressed support of the TIF District and the resulting developments. He acknowledged the foresight of others. . Council Member Ulrich stated this TIF District did not come easily; there were many hours spent trying to help citizens understand tax increment financing. Council Member Rosenberg stated support for the vision of how this commun'~ty could and. can prosper. The City Council rebroadcast the comments of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Chair Harms at the September 16 HRA meeting where the HRA approved the resolution decertifying the LHN TIF District. Administrative Services Director Devich presented data related to the property tax levy impact on Richfield homes with the LHN decert~cation based upon current tax law. M/Kirsch, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0.9236 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DECERTIFICATION OF THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9236 in Resolution Book No. 74. Item #6A RESOLUTION SUPPOi~TiNG THE ~HOMEOWNERS_ON GiRAf2D AND `" .: HUMBOLDT:AVENUES AND OPPOSING THE.TA1{1NG OF ANY HOMES rFOR THE:1-494J1-35W TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ~ - ''' 4' ? Council Member Sandahl referenced a Fremont Park Neighborhood News flyer recently distributed that questioned the City Council's stance on the 76th Street/I-35W north bound ramp. She said the Ci Council had taken no formal action on this matter because, when it was last before the City ~ouncil, this project was not on MnDOT's long-range plan. She added that this project still has along-time frame. M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch that the followina resolution be adopted, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: Council Meeting Minutes -7- September 24, 2002 RESOLUTION N0.9230 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE HOMEOWNERS ON GIRARD AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES AND OPPOSING THE TAKING OF ANY HOMES FOR THE I-494/1-35W TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Council Member Sandahl requested the resolution be sent to MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. Mayor Kirsch stated that preliminary maps presented by MnDOT were unacceptable because it included the taking of Girard/Humboldt homes. He said ~ is hopeful that MnDOT can be creative enough to accommodate the City's needs. Council Member Rosenberg stated this resolution was needed because it shows a consolidated and accountable action to maintain neighborhood stability. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9230 in Resolution Book No. ~. 74. "~_ . Item #7 CQNSiDERATI4N_OFAESIGNATING CITY OF RICHFIELD OFFICIAL VOTING`, DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE FOR NATIONAL LEAGUE~,_ OF CITIES ANNUAL'CQNGRESS-aF'CITIES BUSINESS MEETING ON -~": ~' ;~ DECEMBER 71N 5AL'1' LAKE `CITY, UT S.R. NO: 228 '" ~ "_~ ~. . ~ City Manager Orduno reviewed Staff Report No. 228 regarding designating a City of Richfield official voting delegate and alternate voting delegate for the National League of Cities annual Congress of Cities business meeting on December 7 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Council Member Ulrich stated that due to budget constraints, conference travel is more limited. She added that travel and conference attendance needs to be fairly distributed between the City Council. She also stated attendees should provide to the City Council follow-up reports on the conference. Motion carried 5-0. M/Sandahl, SlKirsch Motion carried 5-0. Council Member Ulrich requested a future discussion of a policy regarding out-of--state travel, including the obligation to report back to the City Council. Item #8 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No report. .'? Councii Meeting Minutes -8- September 24, 2002 OUEtN The Regular City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p:m. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary MarAhn J. Kirsch .Mayor Samantha Orduno City Manager .• --- _ ._ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting September 25, 2002 Members Present: Members Not Present: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor; Gertrude Ulrich; and Sue Sandahl. Susan Rosenberg; and John Enger. The City Council Members present attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting held at the Ft. Snelling Officers Club, Post Road and Highway 5 at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, September 25, 2002. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Samantha Orduno City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting October 2, 2002 Members Present: Members Not Present: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor; Gertrude Ulrich; and Sue Sandahl. Susan Rosenberg; and John Enger. The City Council Members present attended a 35W Solutions Alliance Legislative Candidate Forum held in the Council Chambers at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 2, 2002. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Samantha Orduno City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # 229 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERIC Nate TITL& ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the November 5, 2002 General Election. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the General Election on November 5, 2002. III. BACKGROUND ~ Minnesota Statute 204B.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. Also Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 provides that a student enrolled in a high school in Minnesota who has attained the age of 16 is eligible to be appointed as a trainee election judge (without party affiliation) in the county in which the student resides. The student must meet qualifications for trainee election judges specified in rules of the Secretary of State. A student appointed as a trainee election judge may be excused from school attendance during the h~iurs that the student is servrng as a trainee. election judge if the student submits a written request signed and approved by the student's parent or guardian to be absent from school and a 1008ELECTIONS NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK certificate from the appointing authority stating the hours during which the student will serve as a trainee election judge to the principal of the school at least ten days prior to the election. The pnnctpal of the school may approve a request to be absent from school conditioned on acceptable academic performance and the requirement that the student must have completed or be enrolled in a course of study in government at the time of service as a trainee election judge. The City utilized high school student trainee election judges in the 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 elections. The City Clerk's office again has worked with Richfield High School and the Academy of Holy Angels to facilitate student participation in the High School Student Trainee Election Judge Program for the November 5, 2002 General Election. The City Clerk's office has received a list of students who are eligible and able to serve as student trainee election judges for the Tuesday, November 5, 2002 General Election. III. BASIS OF RECOIVIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. • The proposed resolution contains names of high school student trainee election judges for the November 5, 2002 General Election. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • If the City Council does not appoint high school student trainee election judges, the conduct of the election would be hindered. C. FINANCIAL • Student Trainee Election Judges are paid $7.25 per hour. D. LEGAL • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2048.21, Subd. 2 regarding election judges. • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 204B.19, Subd. 6 regarding high school student trainee election judges. • The General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002. Therefore, the City Council should appoint student trainee judges to serve at this election. TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) I The City Council could choose not to appoint the students who are named in the resolution to serve as student trainee fudges. I V. ATTACHMENTS I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002 WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following are hereby appointed as high school student trainee election judges for said election: Amanda Bandur Elizabeth Noble Kevin Davy Rachel Schneider Maryah Wilson Kormassa Jaryan Natalia Walton Laura Mlynorek Nate Krantz Eric Westlund Gina Bandith Sarah Benson O. J. Holman Sarah Whiteley Joann Htut Mandy Schwenn Brian Bielke Bre Violet Loni Plinski Bob Fiedler Joanna Zacarias Eric Sabouneh Develle Belfrey Meriecia Wright Sunny Singh Tiffhanle Chan ~~ Chris Mazrarka Amy Orth Andy Berg Jakob Wartman Octavius Crawford Dan Bittmann Parker Martz Tamou Miller Kim Jensen Ahmed Mohamed .Gentry Griemann Brandon Lueder Laura DeRung Amanda Greeter Mat Schulte Heather~Michaelsen Janell Brown Tamara Cohen Craig Emst Kristine Lacy Meagan Kavanaugh Takawi Peters Dharti Bhakta Dhruti Bhakta Jesse Voltin Cate Gaertner Melissa Sack Erin Severson Melissa Jungers Andy French Megan Petrik Erin Petrik Matt Freeman PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of~~ October, 2002. . Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4B REPORT # 230 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMII~IISTRATOR NMI TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Nat+~ TITLE /x.''91 U ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7715 Fourth Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: . By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7715 Fourth Avenue. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union (Credit Union) is requesting an off-street parking permit for its business at 345 East 77th Street.. ~ Currently, the Credit Union has 32 parking spaces available on its parcel at 345 East 77th Street and an additional ten spaces at an unimproved (gravel) parking lot across the street at 7715 Fourth Avenue. The Credit Union's request is to improve the parking lot at 7715-Fourth Avenue by removing a detached garage and installing an enlarged and paved parking lot with 22 spaces. Parking on Fourth Avenue will be used by employees to keep the parking stalls on 77th Street which are closer to the Credit Union-open for customers. This additional parking is needed in anticipation of the Credit Union adding a second story to its current building. The expanded building will have 8,880 square feet. City parking lot standards require one~parking stall per 250 square feet of space for uses such as the Credit Union, or 36 total spaces for 1008-0 S P-7715-4thAve the expanded building. With this improved surface lot at 7715 Fourth Avenue, the Credit Union will have a total of 54 spaces between their two parking areas. The applicant has passed site plan review with staff, where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site plan: The parking will be adequate relative to anticipated need. • Adequate traffic control devices and safety features have been incorporated into the design of the parking lot. • Stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping are adequate. The impact on nearby streets and intersections will be negligible. The parking lot meets parking lot standards, for drive aisle width, stall dimensions, landscaping, and the provision of handicapped spaces. The Public Works Department and the applicant are finalizing details for the design and width of the driveway entrance. The parking lot meets setback requirements on the east, west, and south sides but does not meet City standards for setbacks on the north side, where it is adjacent to a parking lot for an apartment building. City standards require a 15-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to residential uses; however, such a setback would make it impossible to improve this parcel as desired. Therefore, City staff has recommended that a 5-foot setback be allowed on the north side of the parking lot. When taken in combination with the 5-foot setback that the residential parking lot already has, there will be 10 feet of separation between the two parking lots, which will. be sufficient for snow storage and landscaping. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a permit after determining that"the requested parking area will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A . C. FINANCIAL • The Credit Union has deposited $1,000.00 in an escrow account. This escrow will be returned to the Credit Union after the landscaping improvements at the improved parking lot have been completed. D. LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was received on September 20, 2002. Decision must be gnren to applicant by November 19, 2002 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up #o a maximum of fi0 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOIVIlVIENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACI~IlVIENTS • City Council resolution • Cert~cate of Survey • Site Plan • Ariel photo showing the proposed parking lot in context with the surrounding area VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Larry Klement, Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 7715 FOURTH AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an Off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 7715 Fourth Avenue, legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1 Blaylock Plumbing Addition; and WHEREAS, the requested Off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff and meets city requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the Off-Street Parking permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That an Off-street parking permit for 7715 Fourth Avenue is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the site plan entitled "Site Plan-Richfield- Bloomington Credit Union Off-Street Parking", and drawn by the BKV Group, Inc. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk \~~~\~~\ ~ a~Pe ~ ~ ~~J.... _ _ ~ -g ~ z ~ 8NI 1 r - x n ~ M ~~~ ~ ~~ v ~ I ~~ N 1 ~~ ~~ 1 ~ I r: rs- c r I i ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ~`1 I N NW \~ \ ~~ ~~ \ 1 ~. WI ~ ~\~ I \~ z m ~/ / \ ` \ a~ ~~ 5 M ~1 J I FV- '~ R / ~ d ~ r0 ' ~ / ~" I, 1 \ ~ ~., 1 w I _ i~~~-- ~3 1 ~ ~o ~ 1 ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~• . ~ 0 m ~' O 1 I s\ ~ ~ 1 ~ ,0~ LL .0' bbl \ U~ ~ F- ,J Z I p I ,I GW O I ~I ~ 1 f~/ ~£~ I M ~ c: a~ 1 ~ _ ~ °'~ - i 's ~~ ~ s315 a _ ~^.:tf _ a 4.. I .~~ 1 ~D c p O 11 r :: .. t j ~. t0 •. N ,: a ~~ -~ !~ - `~ o-,Lz N ~ ~ O W ~ ~ .O~,L£ ~N ZW ~~ N~ x BKV G R O U P y~o Architecture ~ ~ I ' Interior Design ~~__ ~", ~~ ~~ + ~ i ~ Engineering .a~ ~~ „ ~~--~~ ~ ~ I Boorman ,r,--~ c~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I Kroos I ~ ~ ~~ c ~~EI~ ~_ I Vogel + I ` ; ~~ ~ ' Group I `~-: ~ d ~ , ~ ~ Inc. ° ~ iv ~ I ' ~ ~B~ ~ d ~ rth Second Street ~ ~ 222 No ' ~~E~ ~~ ~ _ ~ " ea ol•~s, MN 55401 o, Mrnn p ,, „.~ ° -a- - °--'~ '`- Telephone: 6 f 2.339.3752 .. Y X E~ M O'+ ~ - = ~, Facsirrule: 612.339.6212 I_~ .www.bkvgroup.com r7 ' T M7 ~~~ `' -~ `_C a.F. .- In 1 I CONSUIiANfS M \\ \\\\~ ~i ~~ t ~_ ` _ 0 X ~~ VJ ~ \ \ ~` ~ t7 PROJECT VILE ~~\~~ ~ ~ RICHFIELD ,~ y\~\~ ,~ ~ BLOOMINGTON - - - - I ~J ~ CREDIT UNION >, ' R ~o OFF- STREET ~ p - PARKING U -----~ ~ t ~ 11 / ~ ^ ~~~ RICHFtEID, MINNESOTA ~~ ~/ + • ,-. sNEE1Tn~E "/:~ 1 Z' m ~ 671 I ~~ N o~ ~/ MII I c ` N v / .0-,bl II 11 ~0~~~ 11 III+~II ~ ~ _I : I M ° ~ ~ , ~1Z'9£ l ~i L ~1.Z'9£ L x ~9L'S£ l ~~S£ l H1(10~ ~(1N~~`d Hl~b ~~g£: xG 9£l . + x CER11FlGTR7N I hs~bY ~ tl~a diM Plan. aropalwm Pub by m~ erutls mr dy~7wpav6kn and p~ollamed~Ar flaailpd ArChileet 1UdR m.low, a u+s sroro a Mwewm. JaCif 60OIIRCff re C1 o ~, ~-~ SiDEbvALK EXTErJ51f7N 1.1.i 4 ~. 136.94-' PROPERTY LeNE r .r r .~ r ...~.~~• •. - r I ~ NEW PARKINta LOT 22 SP. ~~ -- ---~ N ~ - EXIST - - ~ t ~ - - - ;~ ~ ExtSTING ~ AIZ G~ ; . t i, ~ REM vE} ~ i t ~' __ IL - - -~- 4L - .~ .. ~... «... . ~~7.7~~ I ~ N `= iv PLO PO S E D ~ S9TE PLAN ,~ ~ ~ ^~ i,' ~~ ____ ~~ 0 1 PRoPER't~ NE~ 109.4' ~ ~ ~ +~ scac.~: 1'=2v' i p1~TE ~ 10.2.02 --~-.t N Roosevelt Park ~ ~~ ~'°°°°°' .;~-. n~ ~. ~, 77th St ~~ ~. ~~~ ~ F ~` ~ _., ~ .~, p ~~Q ,~, ~ **S _ '+# C~'edht' '~ ~~ .}' ,, ~G~tS ,~ , Union ~ ~ ~. --- .__,_____ _~ ~f ~ ~ ''~ ~ -~ ~;, w ~ ~.,~ ~ j~~ ._~, I,Apts'~~ ~~, ,~ ;~ ~ ~ jr '~ ,~ ,: ~~ ~~ ~:~, y r ~ `jar y ~ ?/ ^' ~ ~, r: ,~ E ~ ~. t '~' 7$tlc~ St _~..y.~~ ~.~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ f~'r. Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union Off Street Parking Permit Application Q October 8, 2002 ~ N V ~8 ~~ ~+1 ~' . j '~. +"~~ ~=,~ 50 0 50 Feet October 8, 2002 At3ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGi;rInA ITI~i # 4C REPORT # 231 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DAVE ZELAZNY, STREET SUPERVISOR N.lu~ 77rie MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~~ . ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt for the 2002/2003 winter season -from Cargill Incorporated Deicing Technology,. North Olmsted, Ohio at the price of $27.97 per ton, delivered, plus sales tax. II. BACKGROUND Each year the City purchases rock salt, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of Minnesota. • The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase agreement. 1008sa1t A. POLICY • When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. B. CRITICAL IS$UES • The City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount, and may purchase up to 120% of the agreed amount, in accordance with the contract. C. FINANCIAL • A recent history of prices for this product is: Year Base Price Vendor 98/99 25.32/ton I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas 99/00 24.02/ton Cargill Inc. -Salt Division, North Olmsted, Ohio 00/01 26.33/ton Cargill Inc. -Salt Division, North Olmsted, Ohio 01/02 39.02/ton I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas • Funding for this purchase is included in th 200' and 200 operating budgets for street maintenance. ~ D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose to discontinue the use of rock salt to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. However, staff is not aware of a more effective means of provided the safest road condition possible under icy conditions. Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount for the 2002/2003 winter season, further participation in the cooperative State bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned: V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AdENnA SECTION: CONSENT AdENDA ITEM # 4D REI~RT# 232 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMIlJISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAt~ Ti7zE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY Nan~fE, TiTCE ." DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Jane Noll West, 7301 Wentworth Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: •' By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal. residential kennel license for Jane Noll West, 7301 Wentworth Avenue. II BACKGROUND I On July 16, 2002, Ms. West submitted an application for the renewal of her residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Her application is complete and ~, contains the signatures of three contiguous property owners. -~~ti"~°G`~ Public Safety staff have not received any complaints regarding this residential kennel license renewal. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 5, 2002. There were no apparent problems found with the exterior premises at that time. It appeared to be free of feces and odor. 0924 West Multi-Animal Residential Kennel Renewal The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this address. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff did not receive any calls regarding this application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Deny the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Jane West; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS ' None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jane Noll West AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT# 233 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~, BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAM&, T/7ZE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NarrE, Ti7zs ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Sarah Delon and Tim Fahe , 6428 Knox Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey, 6428 Knox Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On July 15, 2002, Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey submitted an application for the ,~ renewal of their multi-animal residential kennel license. They own three dogs. ~;~~, Their application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Public Safety Staff have not received any complaints regarding this residential ~,~ ~~~~ kennel license renewal. There was, however, a caller indicating concern for future y,~,,~,~ barking dog issues. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection Qf the property on August 8, 2002. There were no apparent problems. found with the exterior premises at that time. It appeared to be free of feces and odor. 0813Delongand FaheyKennelLicense The Environmental Health Division has not received any complaints for this address in the past year. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential kennel license. Staff received one call regarding this application. $. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey AGENDA SECTION: COATSENT AGENDA ITEM # ~D REPORT # 234 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER Nat~E TiTt.E DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY N.fME. TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: •' By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal .- residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue South. II BACKGROUND ~ I On July 25, 2002, Suzanne and Thomas Erickson submitted an application for the renewal of their multi-animal residential kennel license. They own three dogs. Their application contains the- signatures of three property owners nearby. According to the applicant, an incident took place a few years ago involving one of their dogs °nipping" at a neighbor. This neighbor has property adjacent to Erickson's and is a contiguous property owner to Erickson's property. The animal did not break any skin and no reports were filed with the Public Safety Department. Furthermore, this property owner has not signed this application as a contiguous property owner in previous years as well. A privacy fence has been constructed between the two properties, which appears to be in very good condition. Therefore, the signatures on their application are not all contiguous property owners. It should 1008Erickson Multi-Animal Residential Kennel Renewal also be noted that the neighbor involved in the incident did not respond either way to our letter of notification regarding this license request. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 5, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The exterior of the property appeared to be in good condition with no odors or feces present. The Community Service Officer noted that the dogs were very quiet and obedient. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints for this address in the past year. The most recent complaint received was in 1997 regarding the need to obtain a residential kennel license. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III, BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors sun-ounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff did not receive any calls regarding this application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES NIA C. FINANCIAL NA D. LEGAL N/A IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVVIENDATION(S~ Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS _ I None VI PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Suzanne and Thomas Erickson AGENDA SECi'ION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 235 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMIlVISTRATOR N.anrs, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NaMt; TiztE -- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading for the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zonino Code Sections 536.11; 536.17; 536.19; 536.21; and 536.25. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform with State Statute 462.357 and Sections 536.11, 536.17, 536.19, 536.21, and 536.25 to clarify rules re ardin Planned Unit Develo ments. I. BACKGROUND Section One-Chanaes in Resaonse to Last Year's Chanaes in State Statutes. During the 2001 legislative session, the State of Minnesota amended State Statutes regarding the procedures municipalities must follow when approving a rezoning. Specifically, State Statute Section 462.357 was amended to require local aoveming bodies (City Councils) to approve zoning changes in certain prescribed cases by a simple majority rather than requiring atwo-thirds vote. The revised State Statutes do still require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the City Council for any rezoning which "changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from 1008-2ndRead-OrdRevision-PUDs.doc residential to either commercial or industrial..." In essence, the State of Minnesota requires city councils to approve most zoning changes by a simple majority vote, while still requiring a `super majority' vote for rezonings that change residential properties to commercial or industrial uses. Last year, the Richfield City Council amended Zoning Code Section 536.17, subdivision 3 (regarding votes to approve new proposals for Planned Unit Developments (PUD)); Section 536.19, subdivision 1 (regarding votes to approve new final development plans and conditional use permits fora PUD); and 546.07 (regarding votes to approve rezonings) so these sections conform to the new State Statute 462.357. Two changes are still necessary to make Richfield's PUD regulations consistent with State Statutes: 1) Section 536.19 regarding votes needed to approve a final development plan and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development must be further modified by removing the reference to voting requirements in Section 546.07 and 2) Section 536.25 regarding votes needed to approve amendments tv a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development must be modified to remove the two-thirds voting requirement. The proposed changes are explained below: 1) The first change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards Section 536.19. Section 536.19 currently refers to Section 546.07, subdivision 4 which outlines voting requirements for rezonings. The City Attorney has determined that the voting requirements for rezonings do not apply to voting requirements for approving final development plans and CUPS and so the reference to Section 546.07, subdivision 4 must be removed. 2) The second change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards Section 536.25. Currently, Section 536.25 states "Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote of the Council." The City Attorney has determined that using this voting requirement for approving amendments to a final development plan and conditional use permit for a PUD is in conflict with State laws. Specifically, to make Richfield's regulations conform with State Statute, Section 536.25 must be rewritten so that amendments to final development plans and conditional use permits for PUDs require only a simple majority to approve. Section Two-Other Changes Identified by Staff to Imarove PUD Regulations. In addition to the changes recommended above in Section One, staff is recommending the following changes to improve Richfield's zoning code as it relates to Planned Unit Developments: 1) References to "Original District" X536 01 Subds. 4 & 6 and 536.17 Subd. 4(c)1. j Currently, the Zoning Code defines (536.01 subd. 4) and makes reference to [536.01 subd. 6 and 536.17 subd. 4(c)] the "Original District" for a PUD.. The `original district' is defined as the "zoning district from which land is proposed to be rezoned to a PUD" (subd. 4). Subdivision 6 states that the "various zoning regulations and requirements...which apply to the original district should be considered as guidelines... in the approval of any PUD..." Lastly, 536.17 subd. 4 (c) states that a proposed PUD must be in `substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the `original district'. While it appears in subdivision 6 that the 'original district' is to be considered when reviewing a proposed PUD, it is unclear whether or not subd. 6 requires reference to the `original district' in the review process of modifications in use and building regulations (height, set-back, etc...) after the PUD has been approved and established. In either case, reference to the `original district causes two problems. A) First, referring to the `original' district when a proposed PUD would allow completely different uses than the `original' district is irrelevant. For example, the Urban Village/Richfield Bank PUD is a commercial PUD on many parcels that were originally residential. Reference to' the `original district' is meaningless when reviewing a proposed PUD in this situation. B) Second, referring to the `original' district after a PUD has been approved (for example, when a new use is proposed) is administratively difficult for staff. For example, Market Plaza was rezoned to a PUD in the early 1980s. When a proposed new use is suggested for Market Plaza, referring to the `original district' would require staff to consult with how Market Plaza was zoned 25 years ago to determine whether or not a newly proposed use is allowable. This process is complicated in PUDs, such as the Market Plaza example that incorporated multiple parcels with multiple zoning designations. To correct this situation, staff is recommending that all references to the `original district' be eliminated. Also; Section 536.11 will be modified so that when reviewing proposed PUDs, current zoning regulations for `guiding districts' will be referenced for guidelines for the proposed PUD district in question. For example-current C-2 rules would be used as guidelines when reviewing proposed commercial developments in a proposed PC-2 district. Also, Section 536.11 will be modified so that after a PUD is approved and established, questions regarding allowable uses and building regulations will be evaluated using the current rules for the `guiding' zoning districts that correspond to the PUD in question. (This would be in addition to referring to the specifications of the final development plan and conditional use permit.) Lastly, Section 536.17, subd. 4 (c) will be modified so that guiding districts will be referenced, rather than `original' districts, for required findings when reviewing a PUD application. 2) Clarification of minor versus maor aroposed chances to a final development plan and conditional use permit and how each such chance is reviewed and aaaroved (Administrative vs Council review) 536.25-Plan Amendments. Currently, Section 536.25 states that'Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote of the Council." As explained above, staff is recommending that the two-thirds voting requirement be mod~ed to conform with State Statutes. A further recommendation from staff regarding this section is to differentiate between minor amendments to an Final Development Plan/Condition Use Permit (FDP/CUP) and major amendments to an FDP/CUP, and to allow the former to be reviewed and approved administratively while still requiring the latter to be reviewed by the Council. An example of minor amendments which could. be administratively reviewed and approved would be proposed signage or landscaping changes in a PUD. Rather than requiring the property owner or applicant to take these types of `minor' requests to the City Council for review and approval, administrative review would be allowed. Minor amendments will be outlined in a summary list. Staff decisions on those items deemed to be `minor' changes could be appealed to the City Council. Fees for a minor amendment to a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit will be established in Appendix D of the Richfield City Code. The current fee fora "PUD plan amendment" is $500. Staff recommends that the fee fora "minor FDP/CUP amendment" be $250. Minor Amendments to a Final Development Plan will include: • Signage changes • Landscape changes • Parking lot configuration changes (not change in number of spaces) • Less than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure • Less than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings • Less than five percent change in the ground area covered by the project • Less than a five percent change in the number of residential units • Less than a five percent change in the number of parking spaces The Director of Community Development will have the option of determining if a particular request, even if it is included in the list of `minor' amendments, should be considered a `major' amendment and referred to the Planning Commission and City Council. (Example-a request for a billboard would be a `sign' change but would be considered `major' enough to go to the Council.) With regards to the last bullet point in the list above, at first reading of this proposed ordinance amendment the City Council requested details about existing PUDs in the City and what a five percent change in the number of parking spaces would look like. The table below outlines the existing PUDs and their available parking, and shows how many parking spaces would be affected with a five percent change: Name of PUD # of Parkin S aces 5% HUB 920 46 HUB West 258 13 Woodlake Center . 1,072 ~ 6412 L ndale 243 12 Woodlake Villa a 80 4 Market Plaz~llage Shores 6501 Wood Lake Drive 497 25 Woodlake Point 6500 Wood Lake Drive 136 7 Lake Shore Apartments 6615 Lake Shore Drive 206 10 Gramercy Co-op 6711 Lake Shore Drive 168 8 VFW 6715 Lake Shore Drive 61 3 Sheridan Court 2500 W. 66th Street 15 1 Decision One 6636 Cedar Avenue 375 19 Best Buy (7601 Penn Avenue) Ramp = 6,700± Surface = 325 Surface Tem = 476 7,501 375 Meridian Crossin s 1 & 2 1,204 60 Emerson Congregational Church 7601 Girard 92 5 Sho s at L ndale 1,098 55 7601 Lyndale (110 surface), 7645 L ndale 137 ara e 247 12 7601-15-25-45 Garifeld Ave. :56 3 Clarify the relationship between approvina major chanaes to an FDP/CUP and the possible need to rezone the underlyina PUD district. (Reference and/or clarify votes needed to approve various PUD rezoninas e.a.: from residential to commercial versus from commercial to residential.... 536.25. Currently, Richfield's Zoning Code Section 536.25 outlines the procedure for amending an FDP/CUP, but only briefly and ambiguously refers to the rezoning of the underlying PUD district. Staff is recommending that this section be amended to add information stating that proposed major changes in use may require the underlying PUD district to be rezoned in addition to the FDP/CUP being amended. (A related amendment will be to reference other sections of the code regarding how many votes are required for such a rezoning.) For example, a developer proposes amixed-use residential development with some retail uses. The parcel is rezoned to PMR and the developer receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer retums with a request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is primarily office with a secondary residential component. In this scenario, in addition to requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PMR to a commercial PUD district, such as PC-1 or PC-2. In this scenario, atwo-thirds vote of the Council would be required to rezone the property from a residential to a commercial PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would require a simple majority of the Council to approve. A second example would be a developer that proposes a commercial development with some residential: The parcel is rezoned PC-2 and the developer receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer retums with a request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is primarily residential with some office/retail space. In this scenario, in addition to requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PC-2 to a residential PUD district, such as PMR or PMR-1. In this scenario, a simple majority of the Council would be required to rezone the property from a commercial to a residential PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would also require a simple majority of the Council to approve. The proposed ordinance revision clarifies if/when a proposed amendment to a FDP/CUP triggers the need for the PUD to be rezoned, and references the section of the City Code that specifies the number of votes necessary to approve such a rezoning. ~~ II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield's zoning codes must be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes to prevent confusion about `which rules apply'. By adopting the recommended City code revision, Richfield's zoning code will include the same requirements for approving zoning changes as State Statues. • Richfield's zoning codes should be clear to understand and easy to administer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Richfield City Code adopted amendments to other sections of the zoning code in 2001 to make Richfield's Zoning Code consistent with State Statutes. The current proposed amendments were overlooked at that time and must be adopted now so that all sections of the Richfield zoning code are consistent with State Statute. C. FINANCIAL • Anew fee will be added to Appendix D for `Minor Amendments to PUD ,~ plans and FDP/CUPs. D. LEGAL • Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached zoning ordinance amendment. • The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its August 26th, 2002 meeting. • Four votes are required to approve this recommended amendment. III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections -536.19 and 536.25 to conform with adopted State Statutes, and to further amend Section 536.01, subdivisions 4 and 6; Section 536.11; 536.17, subdivision 4(c); and Section 536.25 to make regulations regarding PUDs more clear and consistent. IV. ATTAC~IlVIENT$ • Ordinance Amendment V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ ar~,,,~' )Aa~t . ~~ t ~ ~~. ~a BILL NO. ~-ooa-a-a- AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE SECTIONS 536.01 Subdivisions 4 and 6; SECTION 536.11 Subdivision 1; SECTION 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c); 536.19 Subdivision 1; 536.21 Subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and 536.25 Subdivisions 1 and 2. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: 1. Section 536.01 Subdivision 4 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is deleted as follows: 2. Section 536.01 Subdivision 6 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is deleted as follows: 3. Section 536.11 of the zoning code of the Ciiy of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.11. PUD districts: guiding districts .Subdivision 1. The following table denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such ~....... PUD districts, and the "^~•• "'° ~ ~ ° •••~*"~^ °"^" D1^ '"°~'`^` guiding districts PUD DISTRICTS ABBREVEATION - GUIDI G~=DISTRICTS 3 Planned Residential PR R &.R-1 Planned Two-Famil Residential PMR-1 MR-1 Planned Multi-Famil Residential PMR MR-1 MR-2 & MR-3. Planned Nei hborhood Commercial PC-1 C-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2 & C-3 Planned Industrial PI I 4. 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c) of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.17 Review of PUD application. Subdivision 4 (c) the development is insubstantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the er~at uidin district, and departures from the eFi~al• uig dma district regulations are justified by the design of the development. 5. 536.19 Subdivision 1 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.19 Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Penmit. Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the PUD application and rezoning, but prior to the commencement of any construction or development of land, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional use permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent with the PUD application. _ _ _ __ _. ., as follows: 536.21 Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Changes. The development of a PUD district shall. be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional . use permit. afea- Subdivision 2 Minor Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP. defined. Minor amendments to a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are: Subdivision 3 Major Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP, defined. area. Subdivision 4• Proaosed Minor amendments to be reviewed administratively. 6. Section 536.21 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read Subdivision 6: Building Permits. (no changes to this section other than the subdivision number changes from 2 to 6...) 7. Section 536.25 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.25 Any major amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall Council. Any major amendment sha~~ require a ~s malonty vote or me Council. The Council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend a final development plan and conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held. The Council may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing the conditional use permit therefor, as well as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, or general welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighborhood. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Subdivision 5• Proposed Major amendments to be reviewed by the Council. Subdivision 2 Determinin4 if Underlvinc,LPUD District Must Be Rezoned. AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT# 236 STAFF REPORT COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NMI TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAA~ TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution authorizing approval of agreement wifh the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Hennepin County for replacing the traffic control signals on the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~ By motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Minnesota Transportation Department Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 82378R among the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Hennepin County and the City ~of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND The Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 is being reconstructed and includes a new traffic signal on the Bridge. Any new traffic signals or modifications to existing signals require a construction cooperative agreement to be signed among Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and cities where the signals are located. In this case an agreement is needed between the State, the County and the City and Richfield. 0611 HennCoSignalAgmt MnDOT has prepared a signal agreement for the removal of existing signals and the installation of a new signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, signal interconnect wiring and signing on the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 that is being installed as part of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. This project is included in the City's 2001 capital improvement budget III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 Project is identified in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. • Formal agreements are required for the State and County to maintain traffic signals built or modified by cities. • The agreement is consistent with the City's existing agreements with MnDOT and Hennepin County regarding the construction, operation and maintenance of signals. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The traffic signals along Penn Avenue will have increased spacing, the result of replacing two existing signals at the 494 ramps with a traffic signal in the center of the new Penn Avenue Bridge.. This will improve traffic flow and provide increased storage space for vehicles traveling on Penn Avenue. C. FINANCIAL • Council approved monies in the 2001 Capital Improvement fund for the ~ Penn Avenue Bridge Project containing the signal improvements ~~' described in this report. ®v Funds for the new traffic signal are part of the funding for the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. These funding sources include Best Buy funds, Federal High Priority Project funds, Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan funds and Minnesota Department of Transportation funds. D. LEGAL • The-City Attorney will be present at.Xhe Council meeting and available to answer questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION S ^ The Council may defer action on this item to a later meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS ^ Resolution authorizing approval of agreement with MnDOT. ^ Minnesota Transportation Department Agreement No. ~82378R. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ^ None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT N0.82378R WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, the State of Minnesota, and Hennepin County have been working to bring about improved traffic signals on the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and its consultants have prepared the necessary plans and specifications for the State Project No. 2785-328, State Project No. 157-020-20, Federal Project No. HPP MN 10 (102)., County Project No. 0021 and City Project No. 401-30-521; and WHEREAS, the County has indicated its willingness to approve said .plans and specifications and participate in the maintenance of said projects as they affect Penn Avenue (CSAH 32); and WHEREAS, it is contemplated the said parties under~the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59 carry out that said work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing traffic control signals and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in accordance w~h the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 82378R, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL ' AGREEMENT NO. 82378R BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE~COUNTY OF HfENNEPIN . AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO Remove the existing Traffic Control .Signals and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency 'Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect-and Signing on Trunk~Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. S.P. 2785-328 S.P. 157-020-20 and 27-632-22 F.P. HPP MN 10 (102) County Project 0021 City Project CP401-30-521 Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECENABLE City of Richfield 510 000 00 • AMOUNT ENCUMBERED None Otherwise Covered PARTIES _ THIS AGREE~2ENT is entered iato by the Minnesota ~~"- ,Department of Transportation, (State}, and the County of __ ~ . Hennepin, (County), and the City of Richfield, (City). RECITALS Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system. The parties desire to remove the existing traffic control signals and install a new traffic control signal including street lights, interconnect and signing (Traffic Control Signal) on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue). The City requests and the Sate agrees to the installation of an Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System, (EVP System), as a part of the new Traffic Control Signal installation. It is in the public's best interest for the State to provide a new cabinet, (State-furnished Materials) for said new Traffic Control Signal. ~. r 82378R -1- It is considered in the public`s best interest for the County to provide a new controller (County-furnished Materials) for said new Traffic Control Signal. The County, City and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. ' CONTRACT 1. The City will prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal, (Preliminary Engineering). The State will perform all necessary construction inspection, (Engineering and Inspection). 2. The City with its own resources or by contract will remove the existing traffic control signals and install the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) pursuant to the plan and specifications for State Project No. 2785-328, State Project No.'s 157-020-20 and 27-632-22, Federal-aid Project No. HPP MN 10 (102), County Project 0021 and City Project CP401-30-521. The State's cost participation for the new Traffic Control Signal and~EVP System for this project will be covered in the Municipal Agreement, between the parties. 82378R -2- 3. The County will furnish•the County-furnished _ Materials to be installed with the City work provided in _:_.~: .Paragraph 2, all at the cost and expense of the City. •_: • 4. The State will furnish materials to be installed with the City work provided in Paragraph 2. Estimated cost for • the State-furnished Materials is $10,000.00. City's share is ~-. 100 percent. 5. Upon execution of this agreement and receipt of State's written request, the City will make an advance payment to the State of its share of the estimated costs as specified in Paragraph 3. 6. After the State determines the actual costs for State-furnished Materials, if the amount of the funds advanced by the City exceeds the City's share, the excess will be promptly returned to the City without interest. If the amount of funds advanced by the City is less than the actual costs, the City will promptly pay the balance to the State. 7. The City will be responsible for the cost and application to secure an adequate power supply to the service•'pad or pole. Upon completion of this project, the City will thereafter pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. .~ 82378R -3- 8. Upon completion of this project, the responsibility for the new Traffic Control Signal is as follows: -a) The County will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the new traffic control signal; and (2) clean and paint the new traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; b) The City will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (2) relamp the street lights; and c} The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other new traffic control signal and street light maintenance, which all is to be performed by the County on a reimbursable basis. 9. -The EVP System will be installed, operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a) It shall be the Skate's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the EVP System which is to be performed by the County on a reimbursable basis. b} Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, Subdivision 5. Authorized emergency vehicles ,~ 82378R -4- may use emitter units only when responding to an emergency. The City will provide the _ State's Assistant Division Engineer or his/her designated representative a list of all vehicles with emitter units. c) Malfunction of the EVP System must be reported to the State inunediately. d) In the event the EVP System or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this Paragraph, all of~its parts and components. become the property of the City. e) All timing of the EVP System will be determined by the County's Traffic Engineer. 10. The County will maintain and keep in repair the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP~System. The County will operate the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, including timing, as specified in Paragraphs 8 and 9. The County will 82378R -5- defend and indemnify the State from any claims arising out of the _ performance or non-performance of the County's obligations under . this paragraph. The County's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable .law. 11. The County will invoice the State annually for the actual costs it incurs in maintaining and keeping in good repair the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, as specified in Paragraphs 8 and 9 excluding the following: Maintenance of the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; relamping the new traffic control signal and street lights; and cleaning and painting the new traffic control signal, cabinet, and luminaire mast arm extensions, assigned to the County or City by this Agreement.. The invoice must be submitted, in quintuplicate to the State's Office of Maintenance - Electrical Section. The invoice must include a detailed itemization of costs and be'signed by a responsible _ County official, attesting to the validity of the expenses. Subject to State's approval of the expenses and encumbrance of funds, the State will promptly pay the invoice. The invoice,~and any supporting documents are subject to audit by proper. State officials, for a minimum of six years. 12. All timing of the new Traffic Control Signal will be determined by the County's Traffic Engineer. 82378R . __----- . -.. . -6- 13. Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. The State's liability is governed by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736. Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for any Workers Compensation Claims. 14. The State~or the County may terminate the terms and conditions covering maintenance and operation contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, upon providing 30 days notice to the other parties. The County's termination must be accomplished • by a resolution of the County Board. The State's termination must be accomplished by a letter from Mn/DOT's Assistant Commissioner. Upon termination, responsibility for the Traffic - Control Signal and EVP System will be as follows: a} The County will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the traffic control signal; and (2) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; b) The .City will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (2) relamp the street lights; and c) The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. In addition, all timing of the Traffic Control 82378R -7- Signal and EVP System will be determined by the State, and no changes may be made except with the approval of the State. 15. Upon execution and approval by the County, the City and the State and•completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement will supersede and terminate Agreement No. 71587, dated July 11, 1994, between the County, the City, the City of Bloomington and the State. ' 16. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 17. If the State fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 18. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 19. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for •. all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 82378R -8- 20. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C.05, .Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the parties. 82378R -9- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: • • By _DeputylClerk of the County Board Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By. Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: By: . Chair of its County Board - Date: And: - Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator, Public-Works and County Engineer Date: By: Assistant County Attorney Date: (County Seal} FOR APPROVAL: Sys Director, Transportation Department Date: This certifies that the s3.gaatories_for the • County have lawful authority, by virtue of board resolution, to bind the County to the terms of this Agreement. - 82378R -10- APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF RICHFIELD .City Attorney By: ' Mayor Date: (City Seal) ut,. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Assistant Division Engineer j City Manager Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Assistant Commissioner r>> t o . COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By: Date: ATTORNEY G~RAi. As to form and execution By: Date: ., 82378R -11- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing traffic control signals and install a new traffic control ..signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 82378R, a copy of which was before the . Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of. the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Richfield I hereby certify that. the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted~by the Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk (Seal) AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 237 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME 1tTt6 ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of three apartment buildings located at 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue; Airport Noise Ac uisition Pro ram abled from.Se tember 12, 2002 . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program). On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations. Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue were identified for first prionty ,purchase with the funds because they would be directly impacted by the diversion of traffic from Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue at 67th Street. This traffic diversion is necessary in order to accommodate the expanded 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 intersection, which will be constructed by MAC and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The remaining funds were identified in the Agreement for use to purchase as many of the apartment buildings north of 66th Street as possible, beginning with the northernmost building and moving south. Enough single family and duplex homgs have been purchased or purchase offers signed to give staff an indication of t~-e funds available for apartment purchases. The City Council ~is being asked to establish just 1008justcomp compensation for three of the seven apartment buildings (representing 26 of the 88 total units) at this time. This item was originally placed on the September 12, 2002 Council agenda. In response to the concerns of homeowners on the east side of 17th Avenue, however, Council Member Sandahl asked to delay consideration of this item so that additional discussion could take place regarding the acquisition strategy. Council directed staff to put the item back on the Council agenda at a later date after discussion. At the September 24 City Council Worksession additional discussion focused on the criteria for phasing buyouts in the Low Frequency Noise Area particularly with the use of the $10 million grant from the MAC. Fourteen homeowners from the east side of the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 17th Avenue made public comment that they felt their properties would be negatively impacted by the diversion of traffic from Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue at 67th Street. These homeowners further asserted their belief that the City had an obligation to acquire their single-family homes prior to purchasing any apartments. There are a number of reasons for continuing the acquisition of the apartments on Cedar Avenue, as directed in the Agreement approved by the City Council on March 26, 2002. Much of the rationale was descnbed in Council Memo Number 113 (distributed prior to the Sept. 24 Worksession). The following is a brief reiteration of the rationale for continuing with the apartment acquisitions: • Written and verbal commitments have been made to the owners and tenants of the affected apartments that the City is planning on acquiring their properties; • More than $50,000 of the available grant funds have been expended on appraisals and title commitments for the apartment properties; • An agreement has been signed with the MAC, with the required FAA approval - this agreement identifies the apartments as properties to be acquired; • The FAA has communicated to the City that it expects the apartments be acquired because they clearly meet the funding cnteria of being located within the 65 DNL overflight noise area and not receiving noise insulation -whereas the homes on 17th Avenue do not meet both of these funding criteria; • Unlike the homes on 18th Avenue (onto which Cedar Avenue traffic will be diverted north of 67th Street), it may be extremely difficult to persuade the MAC and FAA to consider the homes on 17th Avenue as an area that would be affected by "direct airport impacts;" O Design features can be implemented in the Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue diverter route that would greatly diminis~i, if not eliminate, any negative effect on 17th Avenue; • The apartment acquisition, when combined with the properties that the City has already acquired north of 66th Street, would result in a more marketable development parcel than could be achieved south of 66th Street with the purchase of homes on 17th Avenue; • The ongoing discussions with a potential developer for the area north of 66th Street have presumed City acquisition of at least four of the seven apartment buildings on Cedar Avenue -without this City acquisition, the financial feasibility of the developer's proposal becomes even more difficult to establish; • There are nearly 90 residential properties remaining in the Low Frequency Noise Area, each with varying degrees of impact from the airport. The buyout strategy has been based on the Council's desire to move from north to south, with houses receiving greater priority over apartments or commercial properties. The sources of funding, however, have included specific criteria which has sometimes altered the Council's strategy. If it is ultimately determined that the MAC grant can be used to purchase properties other than the apartments which have already been identified, then there may be other single-family blocks which would take precedence over 17th Avenue. A~ftlitionally, at the September 24 Council Worksession, a concern was raised about the ability of tenants in the apartments on Cedar Avenue to find affordable housing if the apartments are acquired. If the apartments were acquired, then the tenants would be eligible for relocation benefits. Included in these benefits is sufficient funding to ensure that no household has to spend in excess of 30% of their monthly income on rent and utilities for a period of 42 months. If a decision is made to reject the acquisition of the apartments on Cedar Avenue so that an effort to purchase single-family homes can be pursued, there are a number of activities that would follow. These activities include: identification of single-family homes with the greatest degree of "direct airport impacts"; negotiations with the MAC to amend the Agreement to include those homes, and; an indication from the FAA (who is the ultimate source of the funding) that the amended Agreement is in conformance with their funding criteria. It is not definitively known how long this process would take and if any amended Agreement would be approved. If the Council's decision is to continue with the apartment acquisition, the next step is to begin making offers to purchase the properties. Offers would be based upon appraisals, which have been completed, on the apartment buildings. The appraisals have been reviewed by the City's review appraiser who has made a recommendation to the Cit)r and MAC. MAC concurs with the review appraiser's opinion and is recommending just compensation for three apartment buildings in the following amounts: Pro a Address Fair Market Value 6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000 6344 Cedar Ave S 605 000 6400 Cedar Ave S $302 000 TOTAL 1 523 000 Once offers have been considered by these apartment owners and the amount of relocation benefits for which tenants are eligible has been determined, then staff can identify the remaining balance of the MAC grant and, hopefully, progress with the acquisition of subsequent apartment buildings. If there are remaining funds after the apartment buildings are acquired, staff will consult the MAC and City Council on the appropriate use of such funds. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and MAC have ident'~fied certain properties for purchase for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the Agreement. • The properties are within the 87dB low frequency noise contour identified by the City Council as a high priority acquisition area, and only 1200 feet from the new North/South: Runway. More importantly, the properties meet the criteria for AIP funds because they have not been insulated and are within the 65 DNL. • Uniform acquisition procedures are being followed. • The airport noise acquisition strategy has not changed since recent discussions with 17th Avenue residents, the MAC and FAA. Therefore, it is important to move forward with the apartment acquisitions if the current strategy is to be maintained. • It is highly unlikely that the MAC and FAA would approve any changes to the Agreement which remove the aircraft noise mrtigation element. • Design features can be implemented in the diverter route that can preserve the 17th Avenue neighborhood and protect the residents. • Conworth, Inc. will make purchase offers immediately to property owners upon the City Council's approval of just compensation. • After sufficient progress has been made in purchasing these three apartment buildings and if funds remain, the Council may be asked to establish just compensation for additional apartment buildings. C. FINANCIAL • Attempting to amend the Agreement may jeopardize the receipt of the remaining funds. • The MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the Agreement. • The MAC has reviewed the fair market values of the properties and has recommended that the City Council approve just compensation so that purchase offers can be made to the property owners. D. LEGAL • There are no pending legal issues at this time. E. 'TnvtnvG • The City's acquisition agent, Conworth, Inc., and legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, will coordinate settlement issues with property owners. • If a property owner accepts a purchase offer, a settlement closing could occur within a 90-120 day period. • Tenants will be provided with a 90-day notice to vacate and a determination of relocation benefits once a purchase offer has been accepted by the property owner. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOIVIlVIENDATION(S) I • Delay approval of just compensation. He a significant delay may invalidate the appraisals. • Do not approve dust compensation and property acquisition. • Defer action on this item to a future Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties. • October 3, 2002 letter from Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director • September 18, 2002 letter from Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Director • Two letters from FAA commenting on the Agreement PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • Nigel Finney, Director of Planning & Environment, MAC ~~ • Property owners and residents located within the Low Frequency Noise Impact Area. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6328, 6344, 6400 CEDAR AVENUE AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition strategy for residential property m the airport mkigative area, using $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City,of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations; and WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property listed within Exhibit A is identified for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, qualified review appraisers for the real property have certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with professional appraisal standards, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, Appraisal Spec cations (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and WHEREAS, the fair market values, as recommended by the review appraisers and approved by MAC, are listed within Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amounts in Exhibit 6 are hereby approved. 2. That the City's acquisition/negotiatioNrelocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is authorized to present purchase offers of said amounts listed in Exhibit B to the respective property owners. . . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Pro a Address Le al Descrl tlon 6328 Cedar Ave S Lot 3 and the North 40 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto 6344 Cedar Ave S Lot 1 and the South 60 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto 6400 Cedar Ave S Lot 6, Block 2, Iversons 3rd Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto EXHIBIT B Pro a Address Fair Market Value 6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000 6344 Cedar Ave S $605,000 6400 Cedar Ave S $302,000 M~TROPOLTTAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ro*~,S S4jti, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport ar * 9` 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 3 o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612} 726-5296 =* + S ~ N `~ ~y Office of Executive Director 9ry AiRPORty October 3, 2002 Samantha Orduno City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Dear Ntm'o: The Metropolitan Airports Commission has received a request from residents of Richfield who live on 17th Avenue regarding acquisition of their property due to airport related noise impacts caused by the redevelopment of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 66th- Street. While the Metropolitan Airports Commission understands change in the vicinity may result in different traffic flows, the improvements agreed upon by the City of Richfield, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Airports Commission provide an accommodation in the best interest of all three parties. As you know, the FAA has made funds available for the acquisition of noise impacted properties in Richfield. FAA's priority is acquisition of noise impacted areas. We and the City have jointly agreed to: acquisition of both noise impacted properties as well as properties affected by traffic impacts associated with the interchange construction. It is our understanding this includes multi-family residential units located north of 66th Street on Cedar Avenue. Additional single- family homes were also acquired or approved for acquisition as part of this agreement. Finally, some funding has been set aside to deal with noise impacts caused by airport related traffic as a result of the reconstruction of the intersection of 66h' Street and Cedar Avenue. Ms. Jean Beaver has specifically requested that her property on 17th Avenue be acquired as an airport related traffic impact. Her request is contrary to existing agreements between Richfield, the FAA and MAC. In discussions with her, I indicated that she should first contact representatives of the City and express her concern for the current plan. She also has indicated that she will present her position before the Planning and Environment Committee of the Metropolitan Airports Commission on October 8 at 1:00 pm. ; The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AiRi.AKF. • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN It is my understanding that the FAA is unlikely to approve changes to the existing agreement that would reduce the acquisition of the number of noise impacted properties. This was a difficult and prolonged negotiation and it is unlikely that any substantial changes will be made. The MAC's concern is primarily focused on acquisition of properties that are impacted by aircraft noise located within the 65 DNL noise contour. While we are sensitive to trafi'ic related impacts, we continue to support the original agreement unless other signatories believe there is substantial rationale for modification. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director -Planning and Environment, as f will be unavailable until after October 15. cerely, Jeffr Hamiel Executive Director Hamiel: Orduno-acquisitJon requests D1-15•DZ ~ 20:Oi Froe-KENNEDY i GRAVEN j, v s oepiiini+w~ a~ ~~~~~ .lanuary 7.,2002 t61Z3371310 T-160 P 03~u~ r•~~u . , ~.:. 60Z~ 280 /-'r~INre s°"d- ._ AEC~~- ---•-._ - -•--- _. .IAI~l4 ~ '~ ..-. .: . N~ D. F•~y pEPUTY EXEC: D1R. ~~ i~~b~ pirectat Plannur9 ~ ~nvaonment ssior- McVopolitan q~rparls Commi • 6oao - 28th ~ ~~~ 5 45o-2799 [N;nneapdis . • bear Mr• ~;nney. field Draft Agreement petwean MAC and R~+ rwnlty to review the Oecemper 7.2001. draft agraa~nt Thank you for the oPP~ ~~unission and the GtY of Richfldd ~rdn9 p61ween the l~AettoAdtitsn Airports ion of airpoK impaas within Richf noted ct shave some coms~~ . m~ugat document ~ concerns perta-nin4 to the @~ that the federal funds in ragre4h nn page 1 eu99 Nee within Richt~ew- ~ , The first "W HER~~' ~ Rr~f"~e-d to acquire proPe A1P-64 are availaote for use dy ban, the federe- funds are for sound This is not the case. Per the grant descnp ~. However. ~ AIP-Sa grant insulation of same 807 ~~ m I~hnne po- nd up to S10M of airport uud19 the NIAC to spd ~ n ' e~ vr~n wntains a cpecia- condition reRs ~ airport neiss: rraD9 P p~~gatlon revenue funds {not federal fund ~fles onto say st-zt Such r ~ e edible Richfield. Tt1e 5per~al cpr+ditian g praiects within the City vemernf iPro9mm b 'FAA and ~ ~y ~ it MpC under tho 6yrport Impro l cotldit~ was . purpo~ of this lalrsr sentenr~ ~ s the AtP egigia~ prelee~ tl~ to A1P eligible pros Rict+tield and ri s only . ver, >~ o~ tedato~ward f~Gn9 thk spet~ cortdiuon. Maw would be usdi K ravel'-w ~ Pew reclude Mp-C f rom usit-9 tted . •_ condition does not P revenue use poi'~- rojeets in Richfield that are no ~~ ~~ FAA's ~ ~ . . Fuses of airport revenue fund puolished in the FstNuary 18.1999. Federal Reg-~r- e ae mad a e 1 states: •Acquisil~ shs~ ~ with 2. Tne last ssntet+ce in Item #1 on Dd A Mfiich era ctra~ssn not eras shown on ExM _ Of the p Way ~p~ements " "tP~e roadways ~~~d ~ ~ ly serve alrpoR ~'c and therefore ~~ her ~,~ we der . ;mprovements would not tee considered AIP e1' Vie. ~ ~~ oandition dd~ noise mlugauan. ~ noted them to ~ ~°h ~in9 airport revenue funds for those roadway • not preduds MAC from ort it it's ~aistent wish Oda F~ s ~~ improvements ass0ast$d with the a-rP - ~ . - 01-16-02 20:01 FrorIfENNEDY i GRAVEN •61233x1310 T-16D P.04/Ot ADO 2 revenue use policy, but it's only coots that are cart~idered bojft noise ttutlgation ~ end AIP elig~bte that can bs canned tawanls fulfiNing ttte special oorMition. 3. The first sentence pct Item 63 on page 2 again indlcatas.that Ribtfield tws use of the grant proceeas. As indicated in Comment 67 above, Done of the federal funds in the grant are intended for Richfield. Also. ss indicated In C tit . • . above, acquisition d sitlgie-farn~yy tiotnes in the 6600 sr~ 8700 biodcs oi' 18'" .... - _-- - --- .. Avenue to affable ott>•r roadway imProvemettts would not be wnsidered asAIP - . _ eligible noise ttlitgatiort costs and therefara3 wouM not fall under the ~ttent of the ~ - ~ -- _ ~__ . . special ondition. We suggest that first priority for use of tfie:10 ntilCiat should . . be AIP eUgible noose rrafigatibn, such as acqul6it~ott of the apartment buildings on CedarAvenue. 4. The first sentence in Item ilr4 on page 3 indicatet- Richfield may sell' any of the - parcels acquired. but nothing appears to requite them to do so. How Does MAC consider perrnitting Rleltfieeld to t>stiln fee olio to propergl acquired with 2:tpoR ttinrenue turxia as being content with the Febniary 16.1658, airpoR re~eriue use po!i~r? ?he ~±me question would apply to "remnants' discussed m Item tF70 on page 4. 5. tram #5 on page 3 addresses the use of sale proceeds. What happens to the proceeds if no fuller mitigailan can be identified that is'wlthin the intent of the Grant Of[er"T We suggest revising it m indicate the pracal+eds can either be used for further ttliti~tion of airport ease impede as jointly determined by MAC and RichfielO (with first prrority to those that are AIP eligible) ar retumeq is MAC in the event tnere is no further airport Hass mltigatiarl possible. Also, rattler than Indicate -within the intent of the Grant Oflet" it may be ballet to say 'wittun ~ •i ~ intent of the speerel condition" ar to make it more liberal it could be opened up to laith~rl the intent at the FAA's 2/16x99 Airport Revenue use patty. 6. Item lib on page 3 discusses up to an additional 3800,000 of additional furtdlnQ for r'•~ght-of-way and other necessary cysts related to the 66'" Street Bridge Project. As noted above, only costs that are AIP eligible noise mitigation costs . Ntip be credited as fu~iNing the special condigon. The 66°' Street Bridge Project costs are Hat likely to meet the provisions of the special condition for the same ..reason sled in Comment e2. -- _ . N you nave any questions regaroing our comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely. //~~ c~ ~ ~ ~'°'~-w- Robert A. Huber . ~ Assiztant Manager - - ~.~. ~J ~~ us. c~pann+vnt yr TrantgoKoaon mat J-vkeion Adn+inisha~la+ February 27.2002 MY^NapOr~ Aiiport+ D~ftiC! Olbce r~ia+ssov, wbooe~+ Nigel D. Finney t?eputy ~cecutive D'aeetor Planning and Environment Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040.28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-799 Dea.~ Mr. Finney: 'rv . /~ .~~ Revised Draft Agreement between MAC and Richfield _) Thank you for the opportunity to again review the February 4, 2002. revised drag agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Cwnmission (MAC) and the any of Richfield regarding miti~gaativn of airport impede within Richfeld. Subject to~he following we find the' revised draft agreement to be acceptable for the purposes of implementing the temps of Specsai Condition No. 2 of 741P Grant 3.27-0059-64: 1. Paragraph No.1 indicates that properties needed in connection with y improvements will be acquired first. That deasion is totally within the purview of the MAC and the Cky of Richfield. However, we again want to r~eitetate that because the costs of those properties are not AIP eitgible and are not related to noise mitigation those costs have no reletitanae toward saitsfyin9 the Special Condition. 2. Paragraph Na 4 which is lttled "Resale and Developnwnt Controls" only indicates that Richfield will utilize its best efforts to resell the parcels. In the event those e".or'w wRg not success ~ ~ w9 wou~ .exi.any r~eruSe of tho Property to be in accordance with FAA's February 16.1~39.'Poticy and Pnxedures Concerrdng the' Use of AirpoR Revenue". If you have any questions regarding our conuneras please don't hssibte tD OOntad me. sincerely. A Q Robert A. Huber Assistant Manager ,y .~ JL(. 10• ~vul ~~Y7rn~ hin~ LA~Ltiw~++~`YL~~Ntf ibt r~ ,~~c nilv~.fli70 ~. L: 1 j~'jii A 1~~~L1 l~l, ~~~ -? CO~~ili't~7~iJ11 -*t .` t \J s "t ~ ~ • r o ~ a4 t `ot September 18, 2002 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Aii<porc 6040.28tb Arenue South • Niinaeapolis. MTt S54SU-2799 phone (6l2) 726-8100 Samantha Ordure City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue' Richfield, MN 55423 ~~ Dear PQs~rB~rdi~o: At our meeting last Monday you indicated that the .City has had requests frond residents to defer acquisition afithe• apartment uni~.~dentif+ed.in the-WIAC-Ci1)t aQt~eement and to transfer these funds to additional single-famt~y acquisition south of 66~' Street,. • As you recall, the funds being used for this program .were made available by the FAA for' acquisition' of-el'igibie noise impacted properties. Foc a_number of. reasons, it was determined •~ that the FAA funds should be used for the Part 150 -Residential lr~uaation Pr~oeram• with ~ equivalent amount' of MAC-• funds. allocated to- the acquisition ptograut in Richfield. The acquisition of properties that had not yet been sou~ned, but ware located .wkhin the 1996 65 DNL contouF were- cor~siderect an• eNgibie- ~tse- of • these fu~ads~ the muttir- apartments north of 66'" Street on Cedar Avenue meet this criteria. The MAC and the C6y of Richfield also jointly determined that a-tx~mber of single family hometsorSf- of 66'" Street shauid.be acquired with these funds as they would be direcdly impacted ~y an airport related improvement. This } impact is created by-thE~neect to divert traffic from Cedac ~to• 18'° Avsnue which +eill probably result in an increase in traffrc on 113' Avenue. thereby fmpadin9 those fiomes front 18"` Avenue in that'area: When F1~A reviewed the kflftC-City agreement. theta •expres-sed il~ view. or. rwro separate occasions, that Shi<! fur-.d~ Shoulc}tie used primarily for noise mitigation , purposes rather than airport retaied traffic impacts. I do not believe tiRa~rarramerximent to~t~ ~'. agreement that wauld eliminate the noise mitigation acquisition element of the program would be acceptable io FAA. sincerely, Nigel D. Fnney Deputy Executnre Director Planning and Environment Irk ARauopubtan Attpurb Can+mi.sKr+ i+.r- aN~twe actlun w~ptoycr; ..•rw.a~spairputt,cem Achcr~a wupnrec A1R1J1KH • ANOKA COUNTY/I1L~rNE • CR~lSr~kL • 13.17NG CIAUD • L11CE ELMit) • 9AT1~TT TAULA0INM~N AGENDA SECTION: nTHF.R RI~STNESS AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # 2~$ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JOI~v STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAMF„ 7'CfLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a proposal from W. D. Schock Co., Inc. for disposition of homes in the Airport Noise Ac uisition Pro ram ANAP area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the terms of a proposal from W. D. Schock Co., Inc. for disposition of-homes in the Airport Noise Acquisition Program (ANAP) area and authorize execution of an agreement. II. BACKGROUND City staff requested proposals from two companies for services related to the disposition (moving and/or demolition) of the 22 houses in the Airport Noise Acquisition Program (ANAP) area. The two firms who were asked to provide proposals, W. D. Schock Co., Inc. and URS Corporation, were idenfified by staff as being the only two such firms with the ability and experience to provide the requested services. URS is pro osing a cost of $64,650 for their services, while W. D. Schock is proposing 24,090. W. D. Schock and URS differ to some degree in the tjrpes of services they typically perform. URS is a full service engineering firm that could perform some of the necessary environmental mitigation while W. D. Schock is experienced in managing 1008schock such processes but does not perform them. This being the case, the scope of services that has been proposed by each firm differs. Attachment A shows the services that each firm is proposing. Essentially, the main difference is that URS is proposing that their cost would include the drafting of two Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (one for a commercial property and the other for the conglomeration of houses) and asbestos surveys while W. D. Schock would manage the process of identifying and supervising the work of outside environmental consultants. Staffs experience with hiring environmental consultants for asbestos surveys is that a typical cost is $550 per house. Further, an environmental engineering firm has indicated that Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments on the affected properties should be approximately $20,000 to $25,000. Therefore, if the proposal with W. D. Schock were approved, it should cost an additional $32,000 - $37,000 to conduct the environmental work that is included in the URS proposal; even with these additional costs, the results is that the W. D. Schock proposal is the more cost effective. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the City of Richfield's contract with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the City is responsible for environmental mitigation and site clearance of properties purchased with the $10 million grant being provided by MAC. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City now owns many of the 22 homes in the ANAP area and staff is anticipating complete ownership by the end of the year. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of professional services relating to disposition of homes in the ANAP area is an eligible expense for the use of MAC grant funds. Additionally, it is hoped that the sales proceeds from house moves will cover the costs of such services. D. LEGAL • There are no significant legal issues. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) J • Select UR5 for similar services. • Direct staff to seek out alternative proposals. ATTACHMENTS • A comparison of the tasks included in the proposals submitted by W. D. Schock and URS. • W. D. Schock's proposal. • URS' proposal. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ Attachment A Scope of Services Being Proposed Task W. D. Schock URS 1. Conducting Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment X 2. Managing Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment X X 3. Conducting Asbestos Surveys X 4. Managing Asbestos Surveys X X 5. Abating Asbestos 6. Drafting Bid Specs for Asbestos Abatement X X 7. Supervising Asbestos Abatement X X 8. Determining Houses Suitable for Moving X 8. Drafting Bid Specs for Moving X X 9. Managing the Bidding & Selection Process for House Movers X X 10. Supervising the House Move Process X . X 11. Drafting Bid Specs for Demolition X X 12. Managing the Bidding & Selection Process for Demolition Contractors X X 13. Supervising the Demolition Process X X 14. Supervising the Site Preparation Work (rough gradin ,seeding, etc.) X X City of Richfield Disposal of Improvements Low Frequency Noise Mitigation Program Introduction The City of Richfield (City) is in the process of acquiring approximately twenty two single family houses and one commercial building for purposes of noise mitigation adjacent to the MinneapolislSt. Paul Irnernational Airport. The City will require all buildings and other improvemerns to be removed from each parcel of land. Removal methods will be either by sale of buildings or by demolition, which ever method is more efficient and cost effective. The City is requiring a project management firm to oversee the removal and disposal efforts. W. D. Schock Company, Inc. (WDSCO) is able to provide such services necessary to facilitate this project. Below summarizes the proposed work scope and may not be limited to what is stated- below. Scope of Services Task 1-Project Management 1.1 WDSCO shall provide overall project managemern for the disposal of all buildings and site improvements, either by sale or demolition, as directed by the City. 1.2 WDSCO shall assist the City in selecting additional consulting and-work services and if so directed by the City shall subcontract said services. 1.3 WDSCO shall assist the City in managing a~ntractors directly contracted with the City. 1.4 WDSCO will, at least once a mornh, submit invoices to the City for services rendered including any subcontractor services. 1.5 WDSCO shall provide periodic status reports and attend meetings required by the City, relative to each property to be disposed. Task 2 -Environmental Remediation 2.1 Assign Environmental Engineer to conduct Environmental Site Assessments (ESA's) on all parcels and its buildings to identify any and all environmental concerns. Each ESA shall recommend to the City appropriate means of mitigation and if necessary the estimated costs involved. Such environmental concerns may include, but not be limited to, asbestos, wells, above ground and underground storage tanks, septic tanks, etc. . P e 1 of 4 W.D. Schock COmDanV. Inc. ~~ 2.2 Any identified and confirmed Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM's) located on a parcel and/or in its buildings shall be abated according to state and federal requirements. 2.2.1 WDSCO shall require the Environmental Engineer to test and confirm all ACM's and recommend appropriate methods for abatement. 2.2.2 WDSCO shall select a qualified asbestos abatement contractor based on qualifications and/or costs to perform any asbestos abatement. The contractor may be contracted by either the City or WDSCO. 2.2.3 All abatement work must be completed prior to disposal of any buildings. 2.2.4 Upon completion of any asbestos abatement, WDSCO, the Environmental Engineer and the asbestos abatement contractor shall certify the work is completed. 2.3 Any identified and confirmed water wells located on a parcel and/or in its buildings shall be abandoned according to local, state and federal requiremems. 2.3.1 WDSCO shall select a qualified well abandonment contractor based on qualifications and/or costs to perform any well abandonmem. The cornractor may be contracted by either the City or WDSCO. 2.3.2 All well abandonment work must be completed prior to disposal of any buildings. ~" 2.3.3 WDSCO shall ensure the appropriate documentation complies with and is submitted to the 1Vlinnesota Depamnern of Health. 2.4 Any other identified and confirmed environmental concerns located on a parcel and/or in its buildings shall be mitigated according to local, state and federal requirements. Task 3 -Building Sale 3.1 WDSCO will determine the feasibility of moving or demolishing each building and recommend to the City an appropriate actson. 3.2 WDSCO will manage the sale of each building. Buildings will be sold by obtaining competitive price quotes from qualified house movers. 3.2.1 In collaboration with the City, WDSCO shall identify the available buildings to be sold and preferably group them in batches for sale. 3.2.2 WDSCO shall prepare the quote packages to be mailed to qualified house movers. Quote packages shall include a description of each building, a quote sheet and sample performance contract. 3.2.3 WDSCO shall coordinate and make available all buildings to be sold for inspection prior to quote submittals. 3.2.4 All quotes will be received by WDSCO. WDSCO shall determine the highest quote from the most responsible house mover for each building and will recommend to the City acceptance of the quote. 3.2.5 Upon the City accepting a quote, WDSCO shall obtain the funds from the sale, performance contract and bond and shall provide to house mover a bill of sale issued by the City and will then issue a notice to proceed. sy Page 2 of 4 W D. Schock Comvanv. Inc. ~~ Task 4 -House Removal Oversight 4.1 Upon house movers receiving a notice to proceed, WDSCO shall monitor their moving activities and shall ensure strict adherence to performance contract requirements. 4.2 Prior to each building move, WDSCO shall schedule or require to be scheduled the disconnection of all utilities that serve each parcel. Utilities include, but limited to, sewer and water, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and cable television. 4.3 During each building move WDSCO shall be available to inspect each site when requested by a house mover for scheduled inspection pursuant to the performance contract. 4.4 Upon completion of all site work WDSCO shall verify that all buildings and site improvements are completely removed from each site and that the house mover has restored the site to its desired condition. 4.5 When material violations of performance contracts occur WDSCO shall inform the house mover to correct the violation and also shall inform the City along with a notice of any fine. 4.6 Upon the successful removal of each building and site.restoration, WDSCO shall inform the City and request the refund of the house mover's performance bonds. 4.7 Should a house mover not complete all of the teams and conditions of the performance contract resulting in a need for the City to receive liquidated damages, WDSCO shall assist the City in receiving any damages due. Task 5 -Demolition of Remaining Buildings and Other Improvements 5.1 Where sale of buildings is determined not feasible, WDSCO will recommend to the City demolition of the building or any other such site improvements the City requires to be removed. 5.? When it becomes prudent to demolition remaining buildings and other site improvements WDSCO shall obtain quotes from qualified demolition contractors. for the removal, disposal and restoration of each site. 5.3 WDSCO shall prepare the quote packages to be mailed to qualified demolition contractors. Quote packages shall include a description of the work to be performed, a quote sheet and sample performance contract. 5.4 All quotes will be received by WDSCO. WDSCO shall determine the lowest quote from the most responsible demolition contractor for each site and will recommend to the City acceptance of the quote. 5.5 Upon the City accepting a quote, WDSCO shall identify the cost to the City for the work to be provided, submit a performance contract and bond and shall provide a notice to proceed. 5.6 If not already done so, prior to each demolition of buildings, WDSCO shall schedule or require to be scheduled the disconnection of all utilities that serve each parcel. Utilities include, but limited to, sewer and water, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and cable television. ,, . P e a of 4 W D Schock COmDanv. Inc. ~d 5.7 WDSCO shall provide demolition oversight to ensure compliance with demolition work scope. 5.8 Should a demolition contractor not complete all of the terms and conditions of the performance contract resulting in a need for the City to receive liquidated damages, WDSCO shall assist the City in receiving any damages due, or may assist the City in obtaining other means of correcting any issues of non- compliance. Estimated Project Cost Task 1 -Project Management Task Z - Enviromnental Remediation Task 3 -Building Sale Task 4 -House Removal Oversight Task 5 -Demolition of Remaining Buildings and Other Improvements $4,290 1,760 7,480 3,520 7.040 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $24,090 Pa e 4 of 4 W.D Schock Comnanv._In~. Mr. John Stark, AICP Manager Richfield Community Development 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 554 RE: Proposal-for Engineering and Environmental Consulting Services Richfield Community Development Airport Noise Acquisition Program (2002-2003) URS Proposal No. E01-109 Dear Mr. Stark: URS Corporation (URS) is please to provide this proposal to provide the necessary consulting services to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Transaction Screen, asbestos surveys and hazardous building materials assessments; prepare project plans and specifications for asbestos and hazardous building materials abatement and house moving/building demolition; and perform observations and documentation for the properties targeted for acquisition as part of the 2002-2003 Airport Noise Acquisition Program. The following description of our work effort summarizes the scope of this proposal: SCOPE OF SERVICES Task I - Phase I Environmental Site Assessments URS will perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the commercial building (American Family Insurance) and one Transaction Screen for the 22 residential properties in general conformance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice far Environmental Site Assessment documents. The Scope of Services for.the Phase I ESA and Transaction Screen will include and be limited to the following tasks: • Historic Activities Review and Records Search; • Site Reconnaissance; • Interviews with site owners and local authorities; • Review of Environmental Setting; • Environmental Incident and Regulatory Agency Review; and • Regulatory File Review. Deliverables: Phase I ESA and Transaction Screen reports will be prepared for this task. Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis. MN 55415-1199 612.370.0700 Tel 612.370.1378 Fax Mr. John Stark September 5, 2002 Page 2 Task 2 Asbestos Surveys and Hazardous Building Materials Assessments for Demolition Minnesota Rules and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) guidance require that thorough pre-demolition surveys be perfornted for asbestos and hazardous building materials. URS will perform pre-demolition surveys in a1123 buildings proposed for demolition or moving. The surveys will be performed in accordance with the applicable rules and guidance documents, and will include an inventory of the following: • Types, locations and estimated quantities of asbestos-containing building materials; • Types, locations and estimated quantities of mercury-containing electrical components; • Types, locations and estimated quantities of suspected (non-labeled) PCB-containing electrical components; • Locations and estimated quantities of fluorescent light tubes and ballasts; • Locations and estimated quantities of refrigerant-containing equipment; • Locations and estimated quantities of lead-based paint in poor condition; and • Locations and estimated quantities of other hazardous materials. Five hundred (500) bulk asbestos samples and 100 paint samples have been budgeted. Deliverable: Asbestos Survey and Hazardous Building Materials Assessment reports will be prepared for the each property. The reports will be suitable for inclusion with the Project Plans. and Specifications described in Task 3. Task 3 -Plans and Specifications Bidding and Contracting Assistance Independent project plans and specifications will be developed for the following. contractor activities: • asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, • house moving; and • demolition. The plans and specification packages will be suitable for use in obtaining comparable contractor bids for the specified work. URS will assist the City in obtaining contractor bids for work specified in the project plans and specifications. URS will conduct pre-bid site walkthroughs, solicit and answer written questions regarding the work to be bid, prepare necessary addenda, and will assist the City in conducting the bid openings. Following receipt of contractor bids, URS will assist the City in evaluation of the bids, and will provide recommendations to the City regarding contractor adherence to the bidding documents. During and following completion of the project, URS will review progress payment requests, and work with the City and the contractor to ensure that proper payment amounts are approved for work completed. Deliverables: Deliverables under this task will include the following: • Project Plans and Specifications package; • Submittal of Project Plans and Specifications packages to local plan rooms (e.g. F. W. Dodge, Builder's Exchange); • Providing Project Plans and Specifications packages to contractors upon request; ,• Mr. John Stark September 5, 2002 Page 2 • Written answers to submitted questions to all plan holders; • Preparation and submittal of specification addenda as needed; • Assistance with execution of contract between City and selected contractor, • Review of contractor payment requests; • Contract closeout documentation. Task 4 -Construction Observations and Documentation URS will perform contractor oversight during the abatement, demolition and house moving to monitor contractor activities and document compliance with project plans and specifications. URS will serve as the liaison between the contractor and the City regarding contract compliance and potential unforeseen conditions encountered during performance of the work. URS will prepare necessary change orders for review and approval by the City. We have budgeted twenty days of a full time inspector and fifteen percent project management time for this task. Deliverable: A written report detailing URS's contractor observations will be prepared for this task. PROJECT BUDGET URS has prepared the following project budget/cost estimate based on the scope of services and the schedule of charges in our existing agreement with the City. The mope of services will be performed on a time and materials, not-to-exceed basis. Task 1-Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Transaction Screen Professional Services Subcontractors Expenses Subtotal Task 1: $5,000 $500 l50 $5,650 Task 2 Asbestos Surveys and Hazardous Buildin,~Materials Assessments for Demolition Professional Services Expenses Subtotal Task 2: $22,000 $1.000 $23;000 Task 3 -Plans and Specifications Bidding and Contractive Assistance Professional Services Subcontractors Expenses Subtotal Task 3: $9,500 $7,500 1.000 $18,000 Task 4 -Construction Observations and Documentation Professional Services Expenses Subtotal Task 4: $17,000 $1.000 $18,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL: $64,650 Mr. John Stark September 5, 2002 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Richfield Community Development. We can initiate services immediately upon receipt of your authorization. Please contact me (612) 373- 6873 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, URS Corporation ~~ Chris G. Bratsch, P.E. Senior Project Engineer F= cc: Julie Urban, City of Richfield Community Development •