Loading...
061411completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 • RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW CONFERENCE ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Consideration of City of Richfield Key Financial Strategies (Council Memo No. 54) Notes: 2. Consideration of 63rd Street greenway concepts (Council Memo No. 55) Notes: • Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. • Notes: Presentation ofi Colors by Honor Guard • Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of May 10, 2011 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of May 10, 2011 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by Richfield Optimists Club related to `No Kids Left Inside' (Council Memo No. 56) 2. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda • CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 925.02, relating to vacant building regulations and scheduling second reading for June 28, 2011 S.R. No. 108 B. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring adoption by City Council of Ten Performance Measures as developed by Legislative Council on Local Results and Innovation S.R. No. 109 C. Consideration of approval of bid/tabulation and award of contract to Atlas Roofing Company for replacement of roof and related work for municipal liquor store #1, 6444 Lyndale Avenue, in amount of $94,000 S.R. No. 110 D. Consideration of approval of first reading of amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and scheduling second reading for June 28, 2011 S.R. No. 111 E. Consideration of approval of Joint Powers Agreement between City of Richfield and City of Edina regarding provision of utility services to customers in both cities S.R. No. 112 F. Consideration of approval of amendment to site lease agreement at 6700 Portland Avenue between City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum regarding location of • antenna system S.R. No. 113 G. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting contributions in 2010 and 2011 from various groups and individuals for police events and toward police equipment • H. S.R. No. 114 Consideration of approval of Creative Services Agreement with ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC to conduct fundraising services for Wood Lake Nature Center S.R. No. 115 I. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for 2011 curb and gutter and miscellaneous concrete repair in amount of $98,850 and authorizing Public Work Director to approve additional contract work not to exceed $65,000 S.R. No. 116 J. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $396 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 117 K. Consideration of approval of submission of Safe Routes to School grant application for various infrastructure projects identified in 2009 Richfield Safe Routes to School Study S.R. No. 118 L. Consideration of approval of resolution calling for public hearing on July 26, 2011 regarding: • Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; • Proposed establishment of Lyndale Garden Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District; relating to redevelopment of former Lyndale Garden Center at 6400 Lyndale Avenue; and • Adoption of associated tax increment financing plan S.R. No. 119 Notes: • 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 7. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing planning, design and rehabilitation of Water Plant clarifiers/baffles and chain room piping/pumps and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 120 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 8. Disciplinary hearing regarding resolution imposing civil enforcement on establishment in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance check conducted by Richfield Public Safety and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth Staff Report No. 121 • Notes: 9. Consideration of resolution consenting to process for consideration of Housing Tax • Increment Finance District for Pillsbury Commons development project proposed at north portion of former City Maintenance Facility property Staff Report No. 122 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Consideration of option agreement with Ron Clark Construction and Design for sale of north portion of former Public Works Maintenance Facility Staff Report No. 123 Notes: 11. Review of franchise fee ordinance amendments 2010-6 and 2010-7 and consideration of allocation of franchise fee funds to Street and Forestry uses as recommended at April 26, 2011 City Council Worksession Staff Report No. 124 • Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. City Manager's report Notes: 13. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 14. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. richfield: June 2011 Page 1 of 1 City of Richfield Calendar • Calendars Net Navigate: 2010 Jan Feb Mar ?~ Mav Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 June 2011 • C J Monde Tuesda Wednesda Thursda Frida 30 May 31 1 dun 3 City Administrative 8:OOa Civil Service 7:OOp Transportation 7:OOp Arts Commission CITY ADMINISTRATIVE Offices closed -- Commission Meeting Commission @ 6335 Portland Ave OFFICES CLOSED -- Memorial Day observed (Police Briefing Room) CANCELED MOVING TO NEW MUNICIPAL CENTER - REOPENJUNE 6 g 7 8 9 10 6 PM Special City 11:30a Richfield Tourism Council/HRA/Planning Promotion Board @ Commission 6601 Lyndale Ave, Suite Worksession regarding 106 Lyndale Garden Center 7:OOp Human Rights @ Oak Grove Lutheran Commission @ Church, 7045 Lyndale Community Center Avenue 13 14 15 16 17 7:OOp Planning 5:30 PM Special City 7:OOp Friendship City Commission Study Council Worksession Commission in Heredia Session Room in Municipal 7 PM Regular City Center Council Meeting 0 1 22 23 4 6:OOp Advisory Board of 7:OOp Community 7:00 p.m. Transportation Health Services Commission @ Commission 7:OOp Housing and 7000 Nicollet Ave Redevelopment Authority (HRA) 7 8 9 30 1 Jul 5:30p Human Services 5:30 PM Special City Planning COuncil Council Worksession 7:OOp Planning Commission 7 PM Regular City 6 PM Special City Council Meeting Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession regarding Lyndale Garden Center site @ Oak Grove Lutheran Church, 7045 Lyndale Avenue Display: Year Month Week l~ Block List Condensed Abs 51ide caienaars: searcn Add Events: Daily Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar All meetings held at City Hall (6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise Calendars Net free online interactive web calendars http://www.my. calendars.net/richfield 6/9/2011 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 9, 2011 Council Memorandum No. 54 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Key Financial Strategies (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 ) Council Members: At the June 14, 2011 Special City Council Worksession, staff will present to the City Council the annual Key Financial Strategies financial plan. This will serve as a preliminary discussion on the plan. Information will be distributed at the meeting. If you have questions, please contact Chris Regis or myself. ._~_. SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Finance Manager Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 9, 2011 Council Memorandum No. 55 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: 63`d Street Greenway (Worksession Agenda Item No. 2 ) Council Members: Staff will present information on greenway concepts and how they could be implemented in the 63`~ Street corridor between Taft Park and Veterans Park. Topics to be discussed include: PI • What is a greenway? • ~ What are the benefits of a greenway in this location? • What would the greenway look like? • How would the City go about designing and constructing the greenway? contact Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions. SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant to the City Manager City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota • ~ Special City Council Meeting Advisory Board/Commission Applicant Interview May 10, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS • The City Council conducted an interview of the following applicants for appointment to City Advisory Boards and Commissions: Elizabeth Morrissey Rosemary LeBlanc ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: May 10, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting May 10, 2011 • CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Chief; Robert Hintgen, Utility Superintendent; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; Christopher Link, Street Maintenance/Supervisor; Kristin Asher, City Engineer; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of April 26 2011 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of April 26, 2011. • Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 10, 2011 • Item #1 PRESENTATION BY RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL Kathy Luebbe and students from the Richfield Dual Language school presented a brief vocal concert. Item #2 ANNUAL MEETING WITH CIVIL SERVIC COMMISSION Marc Sullivan, Civil Service Commission president, reported on the 2010-11 commission accomplishments. Item #3 PRESENTATION REGARDING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Public Works Director Eastling made the presentation regarding Public Works Week. Street Maintenance Supervisor Link reported on the Tree City USA - 2010 Growth Award received by the City. Public Works Director Eastling was recognized as one of the American Public Works Association Top 10 Public Works Leaders of 2011. Item #4 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Sandahl provided an update on the Step To It fitness challenge. Council Member Fitzhenry acknowledged the death of Richfield resident, Odell E. Brown. Council Member Fitzhenry announced he is a member of a State Airport Planning Commission group to study airports. Council Member Fitzhenry provided an update on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program. Council Member Fitzhenry requested there be a Color Guard presentation of the flags at the June 14 City Council meeting in the new Richfield Municipal Center. Mayor Goettel acknowledged Comcast's 10 year anniversary in community volunteer service. Mayor Goettel reported on the success of the Cinco de Mayo event. Council Member Sandahl discussed Liberty Mutual "Bring Back the 4th"sponsoring grants • towards July 4 events. Council Meeting Minutes -3- May 10, 2011 • Item #5 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Goettel moved Consent Calendar Items B and C to Item 7 for separate consideration. M/Wroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing 2011 Specialized Pay Plan to reflect zero percent increase to overall pay plan and adjustments to different pay grades for certain seasonal and intermittent staff and adjustment to step increase process S.R. No. 93 RESOLUTION NO. 10510 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE JULY 2011 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10510. • B. -Moved to Item #7. C. Moved to Item #7. D. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $12,508 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 96 E. Consideration of approval of resolution adopting Bureau of Criminal Apprehension new master joint powers agreement with Richfield Public Safety/Police S.R. No. 97 RESOLUTION NO. 10513 RESOLUTION APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10513. F. Consideration of approval of bids and award contract to JC Environmental & Demolition Inc. for Richfield City Hall abatement project in amount of $83,000 S.R. No. 98 G. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Pearson Bros. Inc. for 2011 Pavement Management Project sealcoating work in amount of $388,539.08 S.R. No. 99 H. Consideration of approval of community garden plots lease agreement with Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission S.R. No. 100 I. Consideration of approval itinerant places of amusement, temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and temporary food licenses for Church of St. Richard's carnival on June 3, 4 and 5, 2011 S.R. No. 101 • M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -4- May 10, 2011 • Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 94 and 95. Council Member Wroge expressed his concern regarding the current property owners not being responsible for the contamination clean-up. Council Member Elliott stated it was difficult to find the owner at fault. Beth Pfeifer, Cornerstone Group, explained these grants cannot be awarded to who caused the contamination. She added funds are not received from both agencies. City Manager Devich stated these grants from the State are provided to assist developers with the clean-up of sites to make them into a productive use. M/Goettel, SM/roge that the following resolutions be adopted and that they be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10511 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING CITY'S STAFF SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION AND COMMITTING LOCAL MATCH AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT SIGNATURE TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DEED) FOR CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE • ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS FOR 6400 LYNDALE AVENUE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10511. RESOLUTION NO. 10512 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING CITY'S STAFF SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT SIGNATURE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT GRANT FUNDS FOR 6400 LYNDALE AVENUE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10512. Motion carried 5-0. Item #8 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMENDED SKATE PARK CONCEPT FOR AUGSBURG PARK AND CONSIDERATION OF PROCEEDING WITH NEGOTIATING CONTRACT WITH HARDCORE SKATEPARKS, INC. TO DESIGN AND BUILD TIER ONE SKATEBOARD FACILITY IN AUGSBURG PARK (STAFF REPORT NO. 102) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 102. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer discussed the Community Services Commission recommendation, including the site selection criteria and scoring and change in the skate park's Council Meeting Minutes -5- May 10, 2011 orientation in the park. He continued that the contract is not ready for execution because of the dissatisfaction with the design. • Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer stated that with the orientation change, he is more comfortable with the location in Augsburg Park. Gwen Riedel, 6944 Blaisdell Avenue, expressed concern about having more concrete, the need to retain green space and the potential for more unsupervised teenagers damaging the park. Nick Thompson, 7327 Pillsbury Avenue, spoke in support of the skate park because it provides a place for correct skateboarding and would likely not cause any more park damage by teenagers. The meeting was suspended at 8:12 p.m. due to severe weather warnings. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m. Roger Schmidt, 7504 Aldrich Avenue, stated he was present to answers questions the City Council may have regarding the skate park. He said Augsburg Park is the best fit for the skate park and is a different use than the basketball court. Ken Fairbairn, 7020 Stevens Avenue, expressed concern regarding the location of the skate park because he did not believe the notice to the public was clear that the basketball court was being replaced by the skate park. He added the Heredia Park may be a better place because it is being re-landscaped anyway due to the construction of the new municipal center. • Sherry Case, 7205 Blaisdell Avenue, questioned that the majority of residents benefit from the money spent for a skate park. She expressed concern about bike users damaging the park, the need for public safety, visibility of the skate park and extra traffic. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the skate park is not designed for BMX bike use but it may be used that way, but does change the insurance coverage requirements. Rick Jabs, 6805 Knox Avenue, expressed support for the skate park as an alternative recreational use and its central location. M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to close public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the basketball court would be discontinued and become part of the skate park. There are other basketball facilities in the City and this was believed to be a good trade-off because it was used less. Council Member Wroge stated he favored a skate park and youth activities but did not support the Augsburg Park location. He reviewed the selection criteria and considered it flawed. He stated Roosevelt Park would be a better location. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the criteria is from about two years ago and Roosevelt Park should have scored higher and is another good location. However, the Community Services Commission returned to Augsburg Park due to its location. Council Member Wroge responded the location is arguable and also expressed concern regarding removing the basketball court. Council Meeting Minutes -6- May 10, 2011 Council Member Sandahl expressed comfort with the Community Services Commission • recommendation and that the skate park adds to Richfield's image of supporting youth activities. Mayor Goettel agreed and added her support for the location and visibility. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that the city proceed with negotiating a contract with Hardcore Skateparks Inc to design and build tier one skateboard facility in Augsburg Park. Motion carried 4-1. (Wroge opposed) Item #9 ~ CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF: FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PLANNING, DESIGN AND REHABILITATION OF WATER PLANT CLARIFIERS/BAFFLES AND REPLACEMENT OF CHAIN ROOM PIPING/PUMPS AT ESTIMATED COST OF $1,480,000 AND SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR JUNE 14, 2011; AUTHORIZING HIRING SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT OF PROJECT FOR FEE NOT TO EXCEED $151,925 WITHOUT FURTHER WRITTEN STAFF AUTHORIZATION; AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPROVE CHANGES IN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT UP TO MAXIMUM OF $25,000 WITHOUT FURTHER CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION (STAFF REPORT NO. 103) • Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 103. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that this constitutes the first reading of an ordinance authorizing planning design and rehabilitation of water plant clarifiers/baffles and replacement of chain room piping/pumps at estimated cost of $1 480 000 and scheduling public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance for June 14 2011 ~ authorizing hiring Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. to provide engineerinq services for planning design and construction oversight of project for fee not to exceed $151 925 without further written staff authorization; and authorizing staff to approve changes in engineerinq services contract up to maximum for $25 000 without further City Council authorization. Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR RECONDITIONING OF LOGAN AVENUE WATER TOWER, 7420 LOGAN AVENUE AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO TMI COATINGS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $796,000 EFFECTIVE MAY 23, 2011 (STAFF REPORT NO. 104) Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 104. M/Elliott, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: Council Meeting Minutes -7- May 10, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 10514 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR THE RECONDITIONING OF THE LOGAN AVENUE WATER TOWER (7420 LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH) AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO TMI COATINGS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $796,000.00 EFFECTIVE MAY 23, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10514. Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF OPTION AGREEMENT WITH SHERMAN ASSOCIATES DBA SKYLARK APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR SALE OF SOUTH PORTION OF FORMER PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONTINGENT UPON THE HRA AND SHERMAN ASSOCIATES ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT (STAFF REPORT NO. 105) Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 105. • Community Development Director Stark suggested the recommended action include "contingent upon the HRA and Sherman Associates entering into a contract for private redevelopment." Ryan Sailer, Sherman Associates, explained the MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) funding timeline. He added that if MHFA funding is not received in October 2011, Sherman Associates would release the property and return to the HRA again in May 2012 if it's still on the market. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to authorize the execution of option agreement with Sherman Associates dba Skylark Apartments Limited Partnership for sale of south portion of former Public Works Maintenance Facility contingent upon the HRA and Sherman Associates entering into a contract for private redevelopment. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS (STAFF REPORT NO. 106) Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 106. M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry to make the following appointments: ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Name Rosemary LeBlanc Term Expires January 31, 2012 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION • Name Term Expires Elizabeth Morrissey January 31, 2014 Motion carried 5-0. • Council Meeting Minutes -8- May 10, 2011 Item #13 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF WAYNE KEWITSCH AS FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR/FIRE CHIEF FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD, EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 2011 (STAFF REPORT NO. 107) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 107. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to appoint Wayne Kewitsch as Fire Services Director/Fire Chief for City of Richfield, effective June 30, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. C: Item #14 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich stated this was the last City Council meeting in this Council Chambers in the current City Hall building. The next City Council Meeting is June 14, 2011 in the new Council Chambers in the new Municipal Center. Item #9 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 5/10/2011 A/P Checks: 203253-203627 $ 1,315,386.16 Payroll: 74719-75030 41850-41851 $ 525,276.07 TOTAL $ 1,840,662.23 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:27 p.m. • Date Approved: June 14, 2011 Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 9, 2011 City Manager Council Memorandum No. 56 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Council Meeting Presentation - No Kids Left Inside Fundraising Event (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: The Richfield Optimist Club and Refuge Friends, Inc. jointly conducted a fundraising dinner on April 9, 2011 entitled `No Kids Left Inside'. The event raised about $20,000 to benefit local organizations that provide opportunities for kids to be active in the out of doors. Grants were awarded to the following five organizations, with each receiving $4,000: Fraser School, Girl Scouts Second Wind, Refuge Friends Blue Goose Bus Fund, Richfield Optimist Youth Foundation, and Wood Lake Nature Center. Steve Sutter, President of Richfield Optimist Youth Foundation, will be presenting a check to each recipient at the upcoming City Council meeting on June 14, 2011. R Ily sub ed, i (.~. .D SLD:cak AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SA REPORT # 108 r1 L J ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAA~', L~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance relating to regulation of vacant buildings. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 925.02, relating to vacant building reaulations, and schedule second reading for June 28, 2011. II. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2011, the City Council adopted an ordinance that requires vacant buildings to be registered and that establishes regulations for the maintenance and repair of such buildings. In preparing for the implementation of the ordinance, the City staff has determined that some ordinance provisions could increase administrative burdens or create confusion when read m conjunction with other applicable code requirements. The staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to reduce those administrative burdens and to cross-reference rather than re-state other applicable code requirements. The proposed ordinance is attached, together with a copy of subsection 925.02, in its entirety. The latter attachment shows the changes in their context and provides a brief explanation of why each change is recommended. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 061411 -Vacant Buildings • A. POLICY • The City desires to address the public health and safety concerns raised by vacant buildings in a manner that does not present undue administrative burdens. • The public interest is served by correcting code provisions that are repetitive or potentially inconsistent with other applicable code provisions. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The vacant building ordinance took effect on April 29, 2011. Buildings that have been vacant for 90 days or more must be registered, which means that implementation of the ordinance will begin July 28, 2011. • It would be desirable to have the ordinance adopted prior to the implementation date for the vacant building registration requirement. C. FINANCIAL, • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance. • E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACIIIVVIENTS • Ordinance. • Code section 925.02, with amendments shown in context. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • 061411 -Vacant Buildings 5A -~ • BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VACANT OR ABANDONED BUILDINGS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 925.02 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 2, paragraph (f) is repealed. Sec. 2. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 5, paragraph (a), is amended by adding a clause to read as follows: (9) If the property is abandoned or the owner or responsible party fails to complete the registration process, the property will be administratively registered as a vacant property. Sec. 3. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 5, paragraph (b) is amended to read as follows: (b) Property Plan: The property plan identified in subsection 925.02, subd. 5(a)(6) must meet the following requirements: • (1) General provisions - The plan must comply with all applicable regulations and meet the approval of the compliance official. It must contain a timetable regarding use or demolition of the property. The plan must be submitted with the Vacant Building Application. (2) Maintenance of building -The plan must identify the means and timetable for addressing all maintenance and nuisance- related items identified in the application. Any repairs, improvements or alterations to the property must comply with the applicable building codes and City regulations. (3) Plan Changes - If the property plan or timetable for the vacant building is revised in any way, the revisions must meet the approval of the compliance official. (4) Demolition Required - If a building has remained vacant for a period of three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days, and the compliance official has not approved an alternative schedule in the property plan, the owner tyYt~Jt • 061411 -Vacant Buildings s~-a tfv~PiFr~°n+ n~ we.~F°a~vrppL-pTBvp°~am9vv-~v~cl~ • ~ may be required to demolish the building in accordance with City code and State Statutes 463.15 - 463.26. Sec. 4. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 5, paragraph (f), relating to fee waivers, is repealed. Sec. 5. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 5, paragraph (g) is amended to read as follows: (g) Assessment: If the registration fee e~-a~--per~ie+~ is not f paid within 60 days °~~r h-.~,",m;g following the annual registration due date, or within 60 days after any appeal becomes final, the City Council may certify the unpaid cost against the property in accordance with the process set forth in this code. Sec. 6. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 5, paragraph (h) is amended to read as follows: (h) Issuance of Permit: Upon completion of the registration process and payment of the fee, the City will issue a Vacant Building Permit to the owner. The owner must securely post the permit on the vacant • building on a side or rear entrance door that is not generally visible from the public street. If no side or rear entrance door is available, the permit must be securely posted on another available entrance door on that vacant buildin . f il~ +n nn ete-tl~t~Fe9i'-sirattBri--pi~~. ~~te--~e~erF.i i~ri~~ h° ,QUmini~+rr++iv°hi rc~nic•+°r°rl ~~ ~ v~n~n+ nrnn°ri~i Sec. 7. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 8, paragraph (d) is amended to read as follows: (d) Plumbing Electrical Lighting Heating: Owners of vacant buildings must comply with applicable city and state code provisions for the maintenance repair or removal of plumbing, electrical, lighting, and heating facilities or equipment. p'' ~^~ ".~^,~ f-,;~t~r~a: D1~ ~mhinn fi~~+~ ~r°~ nnnn°n+°rl +n ~n ~+nnrn~i°~ ~~i~~i~+°m ~n ~nnrn~r°~J rrntrn~a-wrrrTCOZCC~c~arr- ~~-rr~ an-war^ . Sec. 8. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 8, paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) are • repealed. 061411 -Vacant Buildings Z S/~-3 925.02. Registration and Regulation of Vacant Buildings. Subdivision 1. Policy. The • purpose of this subsection is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by establishing a program for the identification and regulation of vacant buildings within the City. Subsection 925.02 also determines the responsibilities of owners of vacant buildings and provides for administration, enforcement, and penalties associated with the same. Subd.2. Findings. (a) Vacant buildings have become a major cause of and source of blight in residential and non-residential neighborhoods, especially when the owner or responsible party of the building fails to actively maintain and manage the building to ensure they do not become a liability to neighborhoods and the community. (b) Vacant buildings may attract transients, homeless people, trespassers, and criminals, including drug abusers. Neglect of vacant buildings, as well as use of vacant buildings by transients and criminals, creates a risk of fire, explosion, or flooding for the vacant building and adjacent properties. (c) Vacant properties are often used as dumping grounds for junk and debris and are often overgrown with weeds and grass. (d) Vacant buildings that are boarded up to prevent entry by transients and • other long-term vacancies discourage economic development and retard appreciation of property values. (e) There is a substantial cost to the City for monitoring vacant buildings regardless of whether those buildings are boarded or not. This cost should not be borne by the general taxpayers of the community but rather these costs should be borne by those who are responsible for vacant buildings. It is a responsibility of property ownership to prevent property from becoming a burden to the neighborhood and community and a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. ~fl manner +h~„ , ~..,,.~o .,~.,.,er+„ ,,,.,.,or. . [This paragraph is deleted because it would require staff to establish an owner registry and to verify status of other owner properties before writing citations. Because each properly will be subject to independent penalties, the prospect of multiple penalties should provide incentive for owners to comply with the ordinance. This provision will be • 061411 -Vacant Buildings 5~ ~4 revisited if experience shows that owners with multiple vacant properties are less • compliant than owners with only one vacant property.] Subd. 3. Adoption of State Law. Minnesota State Statute 463.251, in its entirety, and any future amendments to said statute are adopted by reference. Subd. 4. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this subsection: (a) Compliance Official -means the City Manager or the manager's designee. (b) Building - means a building or structure designed for business use or human use or occupancy. (c) Owner -means those shown to be the owner or owners on the records of the Hennepin County Department of Property Taxation; those identified as the owner or owners on a vacant building registration form, a holder of an unrecorded contract for deed, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, a mortgagor or vendor in possession, an assignee of rents, a receiver, an executor, a trustee, a lessee, other person, firm or corporation in control of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein. An owner also means any person, partnership, association, corporation, or fiduciary having a legal or equitable title • or any interest in the property or building. This includes any partner, officer, or director of any partnership, corporation, association or other legally-constituted business entity. All owners shall have joint and several obligations for compliance with the provisions of this subsection. (d) Responsible party -means an owner, occupant, entity or person acting as an agent for the owner who has direct or indirect control or authority over the building or real property upon which the building is located. Any party having a legal or equitable interest in the property. Responsible party may include, but is not limited to, a realtor, service provider, mortgagor, leasing agent, management company or similar person or entity. (e) Vacant building - means a building or structure in which no person or persons actually and currently conducts a lawful business or lawfully resides or lives in any part of the building on a permanent, non-transient basis in accordance with city code; or, is occupied by unauthorized persons for any amount of time. (f) Premises -means any real property and any appurtenant building or structure. (g) Dwelling -means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of residence on either afull-time or a part-time basis. A 061411 -Vacant Buildings 2 ,~ -5 • Sec. 9. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 8, paragraph (i) is amended to read as follows: (i) Signage:-C-~bemete-~:,;~~e~erinr ~inr,~ ^,y,,~~.,i., h riJ~~i ro m~ ~ ~ ho r i+~iarl I..I~~loc ^~p ne~a~i~ycl--~ua~t!° r~rnr~cr cr.~r-o ~re~v'rca--rrvti~ crrc rln~nn4_~~e^rt61~-t1~ h~ ~ilrlir,n rv,~ ~c4 h^ ror,.~irorl roci~aoorl r»in}er) nr ~ ~ vtt'Fen~--r-vvici~atie~e~ nnmr~•+~ihl^ ~~ii+ ~~~~h~ ~ilrlinn c ~ ~n^o, 411 c inr~ m~ ~~~ h^ r n~ior• ~~ii~n ~cc /'2\ rl~~ic fr~llp~jn~ +hE~: OWnerS Of ,Tracer-vcz2F~vv~T rr ~~vrr"~~~~ ~y--cry vacant buildings must comply with Citv Code Section 549 with respect to signage on the grope Sec. 10. Subsection 925.02, subdivision 11 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 11. Appeal. Any person or responsible party aggrieved by a decision under sections of this chapter may appeal to the City Council. The appeal must be in writing, must specify the grounds for the appeal, and must be submitted to the compliance official within ten business days of the decision that is basis of the appeal. Section 11. This ordinance shall be effective as provided in Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted this 28th day of June, 2011. By: Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 061411 -Vacant Buildings 3 5l~ -lo dwelling may be apart of amulti-dwelling ormulti-purpose building, or a • manufactured home as defined in this code or State Statutes. Subd. 5. Vacant Building Registration. (a) Application: The owner or responsible party must register a vacant building with the City no later than ninety (90) days after the building becomes vacant. The registration must be submitted on a form provided by the City and shall include the following information supplied by the owner: (1) The name, address, telephone number, and email address, if applicable, of each owner or the owner's representative; (2) The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, if applicable, of all known lien holders and all other parties with any legal interest in the building; (3) The name, address, telephone number, and email address of a local agent, maintenance company, or person responsible for managing or maintaining the property; (4) The legal description, tax parcel identification number, and street address of the premises on which the building is situated; (5) A description of the premises, including the common address of the property; (6) The date the building became vacant, the period of time the building is expected to remain vacant, and a property plan and timetable for returning the building to appropriate occupancy or use and for correcting code violations and nuisances, or for demolition of the building; (7) The status of water, sewer, natural gas and electric utilities; (8) The owner must notify the compliance official of any changes in information supplied as part of the vacant building registration within fifteen (15) days of any change. (9) If the property is abandoned or the owner or responsible party fails to complete the registration process, the property will be administratively registered as a vacant property. This provision is not new but was moved to this location from subd. 5(h).] (b) Property Plan: The property plan identified in subsection 925.02, subd. 5(a)(6) must meet the following requirements: 061411 -Vacant Buildings 3 S/~ -~ • (1) General provisions -The plan must comply with all applicable regulations and meet the approval of the compliance official. It must contain a timetable regarding use or demolition of the property. The plan must be fegistefed submitted with the Vacant Building Application. [Change will reduce administrative burdens.] (2) Maintenance of building -The plan must identify the means and timetable for addressing all maintenance and nuisance-related items identified in the application. Any repairs, improvements or alterations to the property must comply with the applicable building codes and City regulations. (3) Plan Changes - If the property plan or timetable for the vacant building is revised in any way, the revisions must meet the approval of the compliance official. (4) Demolition Required - If a building has remained vacant for a period of three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days, and the compliance official has not approved an alternative schedule in the property plan, the owner m~ ~~+ iJcmnlic h +ho h~ ~ihJinn nnr) roe+n ro +ho nrn~ ~nrl If +he n~~mor rlnoc+ nn+ rlomnlic h +ho h~ ~ilrlinn +ho (~i+v , • may be required to demolish the building in accordance with City code and State Statutes 463.15 - 463.26. [Change reflects circumstances under which City would require demolition.] (c) Non-compliance and Notification: If the owner does not comply with the property plan or maintain or correct nuisance items, the City may commence abatement and recover its costs for correction of those items in accordance with City code and State Statutes. In the case of an absent owner and ongoing nuisance items, the City need not provide notice of each abatement act to the owner. A single notice by the City to the owner that it intends to provide ongoing abatement until the owner corrects the items will be sufficient notice. (d) Exemption for snow-birds: Those persons who leave their residential buildings on a temporary basis for vacation purposes or to reside elsewhere during the winter season in excess of ninety (90) sequential calendar days, and have the intent to return within one hundred eighty (180) days, are exempt from the registration requirement as follows. Exemption as a "snowbird" will be granted with proper verification and a local agent contact or a no fee vacant building registration form with applicable contact information provided to the City. • 061411 -Vacant Buildings 4 5/~-$ (e) Fees: The owner must pay an annual registration fee. The • registration fee will be in an amount adopted by resolution by the City Council. The amount of the registration fee shall be reasonably related to the administrative costs for registering and processing the registration form and for the costs of the City in monitoring the vacant building site. The fee must be paid in full prior to the issuance of any building permits or licenses, with the exception of a demolition permit. Th° r°rric~r~~inn f°° mw h° ui~iv°iJ if +h° nuin°r nr °r of C°° ('/ ~ : hl h rI°w+nli~inn uei~hin ~ n°rin e r) nF tim° rl°°m°ra r°~c nn~ ° fn + ° /'~\ ~° nr ch° is in nrnn°cc of rI°m~+li~inn r°h~hili~~~inn rc7- rrtkle-prvvc.~~vrcr~'rrvrrcrvrr,-~~crrunmrcrcrvrr e ~ f • (Change is recommended in order to remove potential for numerous waiver requests and the consequent administrative burdens. This provision will be revisited if experience in administering the ordinance shows more specific circumstances where waiver maybe appropriate.J (g) Assessment;: If the registration fee a is not f~ paid within 60 days °~~ following the annual registration due date, or within 60 days after any appeal becomes final, the City Council may certify the unpaid cost against the property in accordance with the process set forth in this code. Change will reduce administrative burdens.] (h) Issuance of Permit: Upon completion of the registration process and payment of the fee, the City will issue a Vacant Building Permit to the owner. The owner must securely post the permit on the vacant building on a side or rear entrance door that is not generally visible from the public street. If no side or rear entrance door is available, the permit must be securely posted on another available entrance door on that vacant building. nrr+n°rhi will h° ~rlminic.~r~4iv°hi r°nio~°r°rl ~c~ ~ v~n~n4 nrnncrt~,. [Stricken language was moved to subd. (a)(9).] • 061411 -Vacant Buildings 5 s~ -~ Subd. 6. Change of Ownership. Anew owner(s) must register or re-register a • vacant building within fifteen (15) days of any transfer of an ownership interest in a vacant building. The new owner(s) must comply with the approved property plan and timetable submitted by the previous owner. Any proposed changes in the property plan must be submitted and approved by the compliance official. Subd. 7. Inspections. The compliance official may inspect any vacant building in the City for the purpose of enforcing and assuring compliance with this chapter and other applicable regulations. Upon the request of the compliance official, an owner or responsible party must provide access to all interior portions of the building and the exterior of the property in order to complete an inspection. If the owner or responsible party is not available to provide access to the interior of the building, the City may use any legal means to gain entrance to the building for inspection purposes. Prior to any re-occupancy, a vacant building must be inspected by the City and found to be in compliance with the City Code and all other applicable regulations. All application and re-inspection fees must also be paid prior to any re-occupancy of the building. All such fees are set by Resolution of the City Council. Subd. 8. Maintenance of Vacant Buildings. The owner must comply with and address the following items in the property plan: (a) Appearance: All vacant buildings must be so maintained and kept that they appear to be occupied. • (b) Securing: All vacant buildings must be secured from outside entry by unauthorized persons or pests. Security must be by the normal building amenities such as windows and doors having adequate strength to resist intrusion. All doors and windows must remain locked. There shall be at least one operable door into every building and into each housing unit. Exterior walls and roofs must remain intact without holes. Vacant buildings shall be boarded when the building can no longer be secured against intrusion by the closing and locking of doors and windows in accordance with this chapter. (1) Architectural (Cosmetic) Structural Panels -Architectural structural panels may be used to secure windows, doors and other openings provided they are cut to fit the opening and match the characteristics of the building. Architectural panels may be of exterior grade-finished plywood or Medium Density Overlaid plywood (MDO) that is painted to match the building exterior or covered with a reflective material such as plexi-glass to simulate windows. (2) Temporary Securing -Untreated plywood or similar structural panels or temporary construction fencing may be used to secure windows, doors and other openings for a maximum period of 14 • days. 061411 -Vacant Buildings 6 S~-~o • (3) Artistic board-up -With prior approval of the compliance official, artistic options may be utilized to secure a vacant building. (4) Emergency securing -The compliance official may take steps to immediately secure a vacant building at his or her discretion in emergency circumstances. (c) Fire Safety: Owners of vacant buildings must comply with the Minnesota State Fire Code (d) Plumbing, Electrical, Lighting, Heating_ Owners of vacant buildings must comply with applicable city and state code provisions for the maintenance, repair or removal of plumbing, electrical, licihting, and heating facilities or equipment. D1i "c~,,,~g~~Et~N"~: D1~ ~mhinn fi..+~ roc nnnnon+orl +n ~n ~r,nr m~~n~r nrccnrihor~l by ~nnlin~hlo nnrleo Tho h~~ilrlinn~c ~~i~for c~ic+orv+_ m~~o+ ho r,.,..........,.~...,~ ,,.r,r.,...,......,~ .,.....~.. ....~ ...,.........~ - ------• -~-- nrn+on+ei+ frnm froo-sine (e) 1=Ion+rin.+1: Clon+rin.~l ceniino linos uiirinn n~ ~+lo+c nr fiv+nrcc nn+ ..~........ ~.....,.............................,• .......y, .............. .........,......._ s • ;6a~le-F~6~2S: (f~ 1 iryh+inn- All ov+orinr Iinh+inn fiv+~~reo m~~e.+ ho mein+e~inorl in nnnrl \'/ ~iyr~im~-Crrcicccrtv~~ryrrsrrry"n7ccar .~ .......~~ .......................... ... y....... c~+rv~o m•+nnor .+o nrnvirler) .~+ +ho +imo +he h~ ~ilrlinn ~~i~o L~c+ nnn~ ~ninrl /~ ~nlc (g) nom+inn• 4Jc~+inn fnnili+ioc. nr how+inn cn~~inmcn+ in_v~nan+ hN~:lrl:nivc ~.~...y....,.,.,....y ..,..,......,., .,............. y ..., ~. r................,......... .. ~- > > aisable-cedes--[Paragraphs above were amended to avoid possibly repetitive or inconsistent language with other applicable code provisions.] (h) Termination of utilities: The compliance official may require that water, sewer, electricity, or gas service to the vacant building be terminated or disconnected. Prior to the termination of any utility service, written notice must be given to the owner if possible, or posted directly at the property, unless an imminent hazard exists because of the utility. No utility may be restored until consent is given by the compliance official. Utilities may be discontinued at the request of the owner or responsible party as part of the approved vacant building property plan. The compliance official may authorize immediate termination of • utilities at his or her discretion in emergency circumstances. 061411 -Vacant Buildings 7 s~-~~ • (i) Signage: signs fho h~ ~ilrlinn m~ ~~f ho rcr~ ~irora roo~ ~rfr~nor) r»ir~~orl nr n~hnr~xii~n_7lfnraid fn ho . All cinnc rr+~~c4 ho m~in4~inorJ in nnnr~ . Owners of vacant buildings must comply with City Code Section 549 with respect to signage on the property. /'Paragraph amended to avoid possibly repetitive or inconsistent language with other applicable code provisions.] Q) Exterior maintenance: The owner must comply with atl applicable property maintenance regulations and City codes including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Public nuisances -The owner must eliminate any activity on the property that constitutes a public nuisance as defined by City code. (2) Grass and weeds -Any weeds or grass must be no greater than six (6) inches in height. (3) Exterior structure maintenance -The owner must maintain the vacant building in compliance with City code and building codes as determined to be necessary by the code official. (4) Abandoned or junk vehicles -The owner must remove abandoned and junk vehicles from the property. The City may impound such vehicles consistent with the requirements of the City code. (5) Storage and disposal of refuse -The storage and disposal of refuse must comply with the requirements of the City code. (6) Animals -The owner must ensure that all animals are removed from the property and handled in a humane manner. (7) Diseased, dead or hazardous trees -The owner must remove diseased, dead or hazardous trees or branches from the property in accordance with the City code. (8) Graffiti -The owner must remove all graffiti from the property in accordance with City code. 061411 -Vacant Buildings 8 5/k-la- (9) Abandoned pools -Swimming pools must be maintained, drained, emptied, and/or secured in accordance with City code. (k) Removal of garbage and refuse: The owner of any vacant building, or vacant portion thereof, must remove all garbage, refuse, rubbish, swill, filth, or other materials from the vacant building and the property upon which the building is located. (I) Police and fire alarm systems: The owner must properly maintain all alarm systems in any vacant building or portion thereof in operating condition; or, discontinue their service unless such service is required by code. (m) Loitering and/or criminal activities: Loitering or engaging in criminal activities is not allowed in the vacant building or on the real property upon which the vacant building is located. The owner or responsible party must not allow these activities and take immediate actions to eliminate these conditions once notified by the City. (n) Emergency Abatement: The compliance official may authorize immediate abatement of any public nuisance or maintenance item if, in the discretion of the compliance official, emergency circumstances exist that present an imminent threat to the public health and safety. (o) Other Codes. A plan for compliance with all applicable provisions of City code and other applicable regulations. Subd. 9. No Occupancy or Trespass. No person may trespass, occupy or reside in, on a temporary or permanent basis, any vacant .building without the owner's consent. Subd. 10. Vandalism or Removal of Items Prohibited. No person may vandalize or remove items from a vacant building or the property upon which it is located, including, but not limited to, appliances, fixtures, electrical wiring, copper, or other similar items without the owner's consent. Subd. 11. Appeal. Any person or responsible party aggrieved by a decision under sections of this chapter may appeal to the City Council. The appeal must be in writing, must specify the grounds for the appeal, and must be submitted to the lis compliance official within ten business days of the decision that is basis of the appeal. Amended to correct error.] Subd. 12. Penalties. Any person or responsible party who violates any provision of this subsection is subject to a misdemeanor penalty and any administrative fees as provided under City code and this subsection. Imposition of such penalties, however, is not deemed to impair other remedies or civil penalties available to the City under this code or state law. 061411 -Vacant Buildings 9 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SB REPORT # 109 C7 C: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r~' d CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Adoption by resolution by the City Council of the Ten Performance Measures developed by the Legislative Council on Local Results and Innovation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution declaring adoption by the City of the Ten Performance. Measures as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. II. BACKGROUND In 2010, the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation (the Council). In February 2011, the Council established a set of ten performance measures for counties and ten performance measures for cities. The goal of the establishment of the performance measures will be to aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficiency of counties and cities in providing services, and measure residents' opinions of those services. • The Council, by February 2012, must create a comprehensive performance measurement system for cities and counties to implement in 2012. Participation in the performance measure program by a city or county is voluntary Cities and counties that choose to participate in the program may be eligible far a • reimbursement in LGA, not to exceed $25,000, and exemption form levy limits. Cities and counties participating in the program will be required to communicate the results of the measures to their residents the following calendar year. Methods of communication can be through publication, mailings, posting on the City's website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Annual reporting by on the progress of the program will be required by the City to the Office of the State Auditor. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Adoption of the Performance Measures program by the City Council must be reported to the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The amount of LGA reimbursement for the City of Richfield is estimated to be $4,900.00. • Participation in the program will allow the City to be exempt from levy limits. • There may be costs incurred by the City in implementing some of the established performance measures. D. LEGAL N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ The City Council can decide to not participate in the Performance Measure program. If the City does not participate, it will subject to any levy limits adopted by the legislature. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting the 10 Performance Measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. Model Performance Measures for Cities • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 56-1 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Declaration by the City Council Adoption of the Ten Performance Measures as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation WHEREAS, the Legislative Council on Local Results and Innovation has established a standard set of ten performance measures for counties and ten performance measures for cities; and WHEREAS, participation in the program by a city or county is voluntary; and participation by the City may make the City eligible for a reimbursement in Local Government Aid and exemption from levy limits; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield chooses to participate in the program NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby declares adoption and approval of the ten performance measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 2011. • Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk r~ LJ 58-~ Model Performance Measures for Cities • The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for cities, with alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by local city officials. General• 1. Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) 2. Percent change in the taxable property market value 3. Citizens' rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Police Services: 4. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, D. U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.) • OR Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) Output Measure: Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first officer on scene.) Fire Services• 5. Insurance industry rating of fire services (The Insurance Service Office (ISO) issues ratings to Fire Departments throughout the country for the effectiveness of their fare protection services and equipment to protect their community. The ISO rating is a numerical grading system and is one of the primary elements used by the insurance industry to develop premium rates for residential and commercial businesses. ISO analyzes data using a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.) • OR Citizens' rating of the quality of fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, • good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Fire response time (Time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are dispatched as a possible fire). Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response time (if applicable) (Time it takes from dispatch to arrival of EMS) Streets• 6. Average city street pavement condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system program/type. Example: 70 rating on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI)) OR Citizens' rating of the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly good condition, many bad spots) 7. Citizens' rating the quality of snowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey.• excellent, good, fair, poor) • Water• 8. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally- provided system) (Citizen Survey.• excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped/produced (centrally-provided system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons pumped/1, 000, 000)) Sanitary Sewer• 9. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided system) (Number of sewer blockages on city system reported by sewer utility / (population/100)) Parks and Recreation: • 10. Citizens' rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, park buildings) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) 56-3 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SC REPORT # 110 • J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. FILLMORE, LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of bid/tabulation and award of contract to Atlas Roofing Company for replacement of roof and related work for municipal liquor store #1-(6444 Lyndale Avenue) in the amount of $94,000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid/tabulation and award the contract to the low bidder, Atlas Roofing company in the amount of $94,000 for replacement of the roof and related work for the municipal liquor store #1 at 6444 Lyndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND A comprehensive assessment of the liquor operations infrastructure was performed by the city's building maintenance staff and one of the key items was replacement of the roof components at the municipal liquor store at 6444 Lyndale Avenue. Replacement was discussed by the city council and staff was instructed to remedy current conditions at the Lyndale location that were deficient at the annual goal setting session in January. WOLD Architect/Engineering staff prepared the specifications for the project that were advertised in the invitations to bid. 0614LiquorRoof As per State Statutes, the notice for invitation of bids for roof replacement was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on May 5, 2011 and a formal bid opening • was held on May 24, 2011. The lowest bid was received by Atlas Roofing in the amount of $94,000, well below the budget estimate of $125,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City expenditures exceeding $100,000 require advertising for invitations to bid through public notice. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Immediate action by the City Council at the June 14, 2011 meeting would ensure a timely coordination with the HVAC installation project currently scheduled for late June and the possibility of potential interior damage from heavy rainstorms. C. FINANCIAL • Liquor proceeds are earmarked for capital improvements and a portion of liquor proceeds have been reserved for infrastructure projects roof replacement was a scheduled Capital Improvement project and funds are available. D. LEGAL • Bid advertisement and public bid opening were in accordance with legal requirements. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could reject bids, however the bid amount was well below budget estimate and coordination with scheduled HVAC project will ensure proper installation of both projects. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • Bid List. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. r~ ~J 5~ - ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Bid Opening May 24, 2011 2:00 p.m. Richfield Liquor Store 2011 Re-Roof Bid No. 11-06 Pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Richfield Liquor Store 2011 Re-Roof (6444 Lyndale Avenue South), as advertised in the official newspaper on May 5, 2011. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Dave Conrads, Building Maintenance Supervisor Mike Klass, WOLD • The followina bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bid Bond Addendum 1 Total Atlas Roofing X X $94,000 Ellsworth, WI Rosenquist Construction, Inc. X X $118,875 Minneapolis, MN Berwald Roofing Co., Inc. X X $127,912 North St. Paul, MN Commercial Roofing and Sheet Metal Inc. X X $105,400 Little Canada, MN Nieman Roofing Co., Inc. X X $120,000 New Prague, MN Interstate Roofing and WTP., Inc. X X $138,667 Onalaska, WI McPhillips Bros. Roofing Company X X $137,000 St. Paul, MN Stock Roofing Co. X X $104,560 Fridley, MN Excel Companies X X $116,250 Anoka, MN Lake Area Roofing and Construction, Inc. X X $116,887 Blaine, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 14, 2011 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SD 'REPORT # 111 • J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: %~ ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an amendment to the Gity Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Conduct a first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting reference to Minnesota Statutes and Rules; and, 2. Schedule second reading for June 28, 2011. II. BACKGROUND The City Attorney has recommended to amend Section 100.07 (Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances) to reflect the adoption of the most current State Statutes and Rules. This change will update a section of the City ordinance code that should be periodically updated. Section 100.07 currently references Minnesota Statutes 2009 and Minnesota Rules in effect on August 1, 2009. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • • Section 100.07 is an ordinance section that references Minnesota Statutes and Rules. These Statutes and Rules should be the most current and therefore, readopted periodically. 0614statute B. CRITICAL TI1ViING IssUEs • There is no critical time issue, but the amendment should be made as soon as possible to reflect the most current law. • C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact associated with this change. D. LEGAL • Amendment to Section 100.07 will keep the City ordinance in accordance with State law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACffiVIENTS • Proposed City Administrative Ordinance Code. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. n U • s©- ~ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.07 • OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 100.07 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances" is hereby amended: 100.07. Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutes are to Minnesota Statutes 20809, Minnesota Statutes, 208911 Supplement and Laws of Minnesota 208911, unless otherwise provided in this code. References in this code to rules and regulations of state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities are to those documents in effect on August 1, 2008911 unless otherwise provided in this code. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of June, 2011. • Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SE REPORT # 112 • D STAFF REPORT • CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Richfield -and The City of Edina with regard to the provision of utility services to customers in both Richfield and Edina. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the joint powers agreement between the City of Richfield and the City of Edina with regard to the sale of utility services to customers in both cities. II. BACKGROUND State statute provides that unpaid water, sanitary sewer and storm water charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill In both Richfield and Edina there is a small number of utility customers where Richfield sells water and sewer services to Edina customers and Edina sells water and sewer services to Richfield customers. • However, state statute does not provide for the certification of unpaid utility services for a City that bills these services to a property in an adjoining City. Accordingly, if a customer in Edina that buys water from the City of Richfield is delinquent in payments to the City of Richfield, the City of Richfield does not have the statutory authority to certify the unpaid charges. The proposed Joint Powers Agreement would allow the cities of Richfield and Edina to certify delinquent utility bills on behalf of each city and then remit the proceeds to the respective city. 0614Richfield Edina Utility Joint Powers Agreement III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State statute and Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provide that unpaid water, sanitary sewer and storm water charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None. C. FINANCIAL • The Joint Powers Agreement will allow each city to collect on delinquent utility bills that otherwise would not be collectible. D. LEGAL • Minnesota.Statute 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into agreements to jointly cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting Cities or any similar power. • Minnesota Statute Chapter 444 allows the certification of delinquent utility bills. • The Joint Powers Agreement will be heard by the City of Edina City • Council on June 7, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Joint Powers Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~' JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE CITY OF EDINA THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Richfield") and the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Edina"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Cities." RECITALS A. Edina sells water and sewer service to customers in Richfield and Richfield sells water and sewer service to customers in Edina. B. The Cities wish to memorialize their longstanding agreement concerning the sale of water. C. Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting Cities or any similar power. NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. This Agreement shall establish the responsibilities of the Cities concerning the sale of water and sewer service by one city to customers in the other city. 2. SALE OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE. Edina and Richfield will continue to sell water and sewer service to customers in the other city in accordance with existing practices except as modified herein. Usage of water and sewer service by customers shall be subject to the same usage rules imposed upon customers in the city providing the water and sewer service including sprinkling regulations. 3. BILLING. Edina will bill customers in Richfield for water and sewer service Edina sells to customers in Richfield. The billing rate will be the same as charged Edina customers. If the customer fails to pay a bill, Edina will notify Richfield. Upon receipt of such notification Richfield will certify the unpaid bill to taxes in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 444. Richfield shall remit the proceeds to Edina. Richfield will bill customers in Edina for water and sewer service Richfield sells to customers in Edina. The billing rate will be the same as charged Richfield customers. If the customer fails to pay a bill, Richfield will notify Edina. Upon receipt of such notification Edina will certify the unpaid bill to taxes in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 444. Edina shall • remit the proceeds to Richfield. 156958v02 RNK:r04/28/2011 sc_ -~. 4. WATER METERS. The Cities shall provide water meters at their customary charge for customers in the other city using the meter of the party supplying the water and sewer service. Each party shall be responsible for any necessary testing and replacement of the meters which they provide. 5. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 24 months advance written notice to the other party. Dated: ,2011. CITY OF EDINA BY: AND James Hovland, Mayor Scott Neal, City Manager Dated: ,2011. CITY OF RICHFIELD • BY: AND • 156958v02 RNK:r04/28/2011 Debbie Goettel, Mayor Steven Devich, City Manager 2 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SF REPORT # 113 • ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Site Lease Agreement at 6700 Portland Avenue between the City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum with regard to the location of an antenna system. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the amendment to the Site Lease Agreement at the 6700 Portland Avenue location between the City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum, LP. II. BACKGROUND On April 26, 2001, the City of Richfield entered into a Site Lease Agreement with Sprint Spectrum LP (Tenant) at the 6700 Portland Avenue location. The Site Lease Agreement allowed the Tenant to erect a cellular telephone antenna system on the communications tower located at the 6700 Portland Avenue location. As a result of the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center, the existing communications tower and equipment platform will be need to be relocated and replaced by a new communications tower and equipment platform. • Accordingly, Sprint has made certain requests related to the communications tower relocation that require additional costs to be incurred as part of the project. The lease provides that any improvements made for the Tenant's benefit shall be at Tenant's expense and the amendment clarifies the improvements that have been made or will be made at Tenant's expense. 0614City Hall Antenna Lease Amendment III. BASIS OF RECOIVIMENDATION A. POLICY • N/A B. CRITICAL TIlVIlNG ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The following additional costs incurred by the City as a result of certain requests made by Tenant as related to the communications tower relocation will be reimbursed to the City: 1. Costs to relocate electrical power to the Chiller area of the project - $10,864.00 2. Costs to increase the height of the new communications tower - $13,685.00 • In addition, the Tenant acknowledges and agrees that it will be solely responsible for the following costs: 1. The contacting and construction of a new communications platform. 2. The costs involved in moving Tenant's existing equipment from the current communications tower and facility to the newly constructed communications tower and #acility. • The City collects an annual rental payment from the Tenant based on the Site Lease Agreement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the amendment to the Site Lease Agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • Amendment to the Site Lease Agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. U 5F - ~ FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE • AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 26, 2001 BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD, STATE OF MINNESOTA AND SPRINT SPECTRUM LP This First Amendment to Site Lease Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "First Amendment") is made and entered into effective as of the day of ,-2011, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("City") whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, and Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, successor-in-interest to Sprint Spectrum LP, a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a Sprint Nextel ("Tenant") whose address is 6391 Sprint Parkway, Mailstop KSOPHT0101-226506391, Overland Park, KS 66251-2650, RE: MS25XC751. WITNESSETH: A. City and Tenant have entered into that certain Site Lease Agreement dated as of April 26, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"); B. The City has undertaken a construction project ("project") that will require • the communications Tower and Leased Premises to be relocated on the Property as part of the project and City and Tenant mutually desire to continue the Lease; C. Sprint Nextel has made certain requests related to modification to the relocated communications Tower relocation that require additional costs to be incurred as part of the project; and D. The Lease provides that any improvements made for the Tenant's benefit shall be at Tenant's expense, and this First Amendment clarifies the improvements that have been made or will be made at Tenant's expense. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged., the parties agree as follows: 1. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as expressly amended by the provisions hereof, the terms and provisions contained in the Lease shall continue to govern the rights and obligations of the parties, and the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 2. DEFINED TERMS. Terms defined in the Lease have the same meaning in this First Amendment unless such term is specifically modified in this First . Amendment. Other terms not defined in the Lease but defined herein have sF-a the meanings ascribed thereto. Terms capitalized herein shall have the . same meanings ascribed thereto in the Lease unless specifically amended hereby. 3. RENEWAL TERMS. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4 of the Lease, the term of the Lease will be extended for one(1) additional renewal term of five (5) years each ("Additional Renewal Terms"), commencing upon expiration of the last remaining Renewal Term of the Lease, under the same terms and conditions as are set forth therein, and as otherwise amended. The Lease will automatically be extended for each successive Additional Renewal Term unless Tenant sends written notice to City of its intention not to extend at least 90 days prior to each Additional Renewal Term. 4. RELOCATION. Within 30 days following the completion of the new communications Tower to be constructed on the Property by City, Tenant shall complete construction of a new communications platform on the Tower (both in the locations depicted on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto), and shall complete relocation of the Leased Premises from the location on Exhibit B to the Lease to the new location ("Alternate Premises") as depicted on Exhibit B-1 ("Relocation"). The relocation of Tenant's Antenna Facilities to the Alternate Premises shall be accomplished by Tenant. In order to avoid an interruption in Tenant's service during such Relocation, • Tenant has the right to install temporary Antenna Facilities comprised of a temporary cell on wheels ("COW"), together with a telescoping, guyed or functional equivalent, at such location on the Property, if available, as is mutually agreeable to Tenant and City. 5. LEASED PREMISES. Following completion of the Relocation contemplated in Paragraph 4 above, references in the Lease to the Leased Premises shall be deemed to be references to the Alternate Premises, and the attached Exhibit B-1 shall replace and supersede Exhibit B to the Lease. References to Exhibit B in the Lease shall refer to and mean Exhibit B-1. 6. ADDITIONAL COSTS. The following additional costs incurred by the City as a result of certain requests made by Tenant as related to the communications Tower Relocation as part of the project will paid or reimbursed by Tenant to the City within thirty (30) days of City's provision of an invoice evidencing such costs. If City does not receive reimbursement or payment within the thirty (30) day time period, interest at a rate of 1 % per month will be imposed on the outstanding balance: A. Tenant's portion of City incurred costs to relocate electrical power to the "Chiller Area" of project - $10,864.00. SF -3 n U B. City incurred costs to increase height of new communications Tower to accommodate Tenant's installation - $13,685.00. 7. RELOCATION COSTS. In addition, Tenant acknowledges and agrees that it will be solely responsible for contracting for construction of a new communications equipment platform as depicted in Exhibit B-1, and for all associated costs involved in moving Tenant's existing equipment from the current communications Tower and Building Addition to the newly constructed communications Tower and communications equipment platform shown in Exhibit B-1. Tenant also agrees to only use the City's approved roofing contractor in the construction of the new communications equipment platform. 8. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. A. This First Amendment may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original. B. Each of the parties represents and warrants that it has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its respective obligations under this First Amendment. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the day of , 2011. City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, LP, a Delaware limited partnership By: By: Its: Mayor Its: AND AND By: BY~ Its; City Manager Its: • 5F-y • EXHIBIT B-1 sc-~ - 5 • • • ~, ~. en. s a ___~..._______._._ ~ ;~ 92 , c is. H~k' ~~ . Il;i' r a ~ r: i' M ,~ n ` . ~~ f ..: 1 a 1'. e h n 3 -r.,SDltl. ~~ ~.. ..'98( f~~~u ;'- C.Pro• .............................._..__......_._~ i y~ ~! ~~~ k+oR .m ~x~xx- ce;.+xK; ~` .. i t _ ~~ ... ~.. .. ~k, „. -tee - .rx st rz> ~ ~. ~r- !o DETAIL OF CONSTRUCTION O MINNESOTA . ILLnvOI3 ~ MICHIGAN COLORADO n f J N~`' SPPR E,Q P5K TO H 1/~1.~1 MINNESOTA OFFICE W LD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS ~---j 305 ST. PEr>£R ST. . AUL, MINNESOTA SSI02 I.za3.5646 TEL. 651.zz7.7773 2'-6" 0 NT LOADS 1850 LB EACH 3/32". = 1'-O" ~ROJECT: NEW GIN HALL, POLICE ,4ND FIRE WINDOW TREATMENT PACKAGE ATE: 11/11/Oq COMMISSION NO: 0~1204~ib ~gK## REVISIONS: ~ PR #32 REV. DATE: 8/10/10 G.tRevit Projut}iles\Gf-RichField 082169(vbengt5on).rvt q/2a~7Alo n:aB~O AM Gantrel: \WinnB50t6\StPaul\GhRichfield\082169Vtevit\GI-Richfield 082169.rvt -~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ E a~ w~ ~s ~ . ~ > a . a Via„, ~ ea ~ tl1ss ~" F ~ W. ~~_ ~3 r~~"n ~ a€ ~ ~ w s ~ ~ - ~ Q-t -l ~ _ ~ ~ n ~ ~'x N z _ .Fi 3 , ,.~~~ ~~~~ ~~e~1m ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ a ° Q m r again •r o L ~.. ~ m~-rm '~~° ~ g ~~ ~ ~~m = S ~ - ~ ~' b. _ ~I) a r ."'-w 111 W V ~~w~ _ ~: 3 -z ~wa~ ~ _ a U H N p r ~ ~ a N~ ~s W ~ ~k'LL ~ F~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (XU ~ v y N l ~ 3 a ~- u o ~ a e J B • o--- ~-- ~--w ~--- ~------ ~- -- i I C I I o---~-- -i--~--r-rt oo ~ ~_-- I i t---i---- -- i i win i i w~ i ~_"~ ~ ~o~ o-_ o--- -- - - ~- _ - - X- ---rim i----- --- -- -- i ~o~ I - i--- --~~~ i - -- I I -i---i---- --- o-__ - --- i i '~ - i~ i i i' o--- ~-- I--- ~~ _ -_ __ ~ i i i ,~i____ --j -~~~ i - ~o ~ ~m~ o--- !- i-- ! - i ~ - --_~ =!-- - - ~ x=o w~~ ! ! ! ! - -- - - o--- I I I I i _ i i i b~ b b b b b b a y~y11 ~~ ~~ m ~ID J 5F-S • • m X 3 3 3 x N ~~ z w"-' -°~ ~ ~' e ~ ~ Nee g ~ ~ &`~b`~~ ~ ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~yy^~ U1 Z F ~ ~ N~ . ~ m .F e,~m ~~~go3"~ ~ z H t ~ = m U o zC ~ ~ Q "+ _ ~' ~ =w o } ~ N a _£ u ~ = r~ LL ~ a ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~=~~~ ~ a s a ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~~ ~ ~ , w ~ ~ a o ~ a U ~~ _~ a3µsµ~ m W m V m a m a a' ~m ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ p~"~~a o u w ~' t0 ~ok' aO , aQ~a c~?m$w ~ w o ~ j ?ate n ~~~ ~Q ~~ a~ mO '~1$ ~ ~~m~w p _ ~figgj w `(g~' w ~ ~aL~ Z p~ O~i~ ~~ Uw ~-'~? Om ~Sm~r O ~~~ ~a ~ ~~ W~~~ ~'~ uau UY ~~~ ~Q~ y ~~ a¢~'~ ~~ ~o~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ \`~\"~\` zu ~ ww Dp8 ~~ wa f~C1Q~~ ~Q ~~da~ FZm J~4n yO . II \\\\\\\\\ m O O VV6 ~¢g mU~ '~~ ~Q ~1~$ m~~ ~ ~LL~ 3~ b `~"~ `~ y~ 3 0 (~ Iluu 0 ~ m ~' 'ct < ~I ``\\`\\\\ ~ g p ~ ~ a3U m LL~ ~p~ m~ ~~ ~.~ a2.2 ~~U ~ ~~ QI O m(1 O '3 a R' Q 111~~m` ~;4~ ~~ Q $m~ °_-wa ~ ma~~a~ LL~ wau w~~m ~~ ~~ ~ u ~~~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~LL ffi~ N~~~~~~ ~~ o~~ ~ a w 0- CD ~ ~w a'~ m a~~~ mao ~ ~°w0~wmy~~ °a Z ~~ '~ ~ JmUa w~~ ~ 1]V U ~p m".Qm ~ ®®w ~~3z~0 O ~~'i ; ~~ rI H~aYi ~U~~ mm ~~ ma~~ w~¢ ~U w~i~aiO Sy OO w _ a 66 a~Q~ :.4-a (~/~~- ao ~ l1 ~~1~~1 ~aUZymj~~w~ O m~ .~~~'3LL }-Q~~' a ~a a~ a ~-;zde dm~sll}l~o~m~ o~~~`w _ FN ~ - M'R~OO'£ ~-aa r~U ei~ d;° .riU~U'~ i V_ n viva s x.-~-~-3 ,.L-.9 ~ W w W03Ei f113N ~ ~ ~ ~- A-~E .L-,E f ~ 1f19i~i XVW zz m 4 Wt+30 WP30 7 p Y J +6-.L NIW ~ w U ~i Ip .E-,1 x9-,Z ~0 ~ \ . 1- -' WQW .9 0 y ~~-1 1 W Z ~___________________ u¢u~~z ~~~ it ~m~ ~~ I wy 1 mu a ~------------------- -' ----- --------- x ~ ~~ r----------------r m=Qza O I I mQLm .o • 0W . .p - ~~ ~" I I I I I ~Q ~ ~f "~~ II II I I I m3 °~•---- ---' -'~ a ~ tj ~~ rr~ I Qa i _ __"_-- 1 __~ - I ~~ L~J I 3 a ' a u ~ ----- ---- L-----~----- 1 m ~9,r 1 ~ ~m ~-- ---------------7 ~ ° Om = O ~ ~ II 0 I I I m ~ E- ~0 .p ~® ~-N I ~~el m m ~z w~ ~ u ~~~~ ~1 Q i i ~ u ~b~ , , ~ . ~ m ~~ ----- u a ~ zm I LJ Ii O i~pw izd ~' U' C~ h~~________________li N m~ wwE Y! ____ _'~'Y w O ~ O I L I J r~ N xI~WWI= E m a3w L-3--=-=------------ JE a~ J ' mSY a Y m ^a x. .~.3 \7S - W XO ~ z w U iq ~ ----it~ x9-.G ~ >I I A W I ?Z __ ___________ ____ S~ m ~~ I `\\ 3N ~ -__-__- _ ~p f{ p I ~` WU 0 ~ I)L--___~5---- =WW~ .L O1 ~5'v.S~v -~- aZL~ I \ a~Q PaEk 3 w I ~ O U .4-.4 .m-~I ~ ~ ~i -- -----J I ~~~ AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SG REPORT # 114 • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: TODD SANDELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/DEPUTY DIRECTOR NaNrc, Tircc DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: t ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of contributions received for various police events and towards police equipment for years 2010 and 2011. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to accept contributions from various groups and individuals towards police events and aroarams, and towards police equipment. IL BACKGROUND Throughout the year 2010 and up to this point in 2011, Richfield residents and businesses have given donations to Richfield Public Safety/Police. Listed below are the events and programs that these monetary donations were designated for by the contributors. These donations were for the most part, solicited by Richfield employees in the case of specific events; however, there are also unsolicited contributions as well. The donations are combined in this report to simplify the approval process. In addition, approval is sought for the 2010 donations that were inadvertently overlooked in the previous year. 061411 Resolution Accepting Contributions for Police Events and Programs. Cinco de Mayo 2010 • Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union $ 500 Martin Costello, Attorney $ 100 Partnership Academy $ 100 Quetzalli Maria Salas De Hernadez $ 25 The Richfield Foundation $1,500 Richfield Vision $ 150 The Storefront Group 50 $2,425 Cinco de Mavo 2011 Cinco De Mayo Mercado $ 100 Farmer's Insurance $ 85 House of Prayer Lutheran Church $ 200 Jeffrey O'Neill, Dentist $ 50 Martin Costello, City Attorney $ 50 Oak Grove Lutheran Church $ 250 Richfield/Bloomington Credit Union $ 750 Richfield Foundation 750 $2,235 Various 2010 Richfield Public Schools Foundation • Richfield Youth Action Crew Face2Face Event $ 200 Wal-Mart Stores Richfield Canine (K-9) Program $1,000 Best Buy Purchasin_q LLC Safety Day $ 500 Minneapolis/Richfield American Legion Post #435 Safety Day $ 100 Richfield Rotary Foundation Safety Day $ 550 Residential Mortgage Group Refer aFriend/Build Your Community in name Of Mr. Luis Calderon Police Vest Fund $ 100 Richfield Target Richfield Police Explorers 1 000 $3,450 ,] III. BASIS OF RECONIl~IENDATION • A. POLICY • Businesses, organizations and occasionally residents wish to show that they are proud of the law enforcement programs and accomplishments in Richfield because the programs and quality of service add to their sense of safety and security as they live and work in Richfield. To ensure that programs continue, they will offer to contribute to specified areas, such as protective vests for officers or the K-9 unit, or to general police programs like the Cinco de Mayo event. • When donations are received without making specific designations, Public Safety accepts the donations with the understanding that the funds will be used for programs affecting the department as a whole. • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • • Approval by the Council needs to be obtained, especially for the funds received in 2010, to update financial records. C. FINANCIAL • All funds collected were used as specified by the donator; when not specified, funds are put in the police vest account. D. LEGAL • NIA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOI~~IlVIENDATION(S) • Council could disapprove the requests; however, funds would have to be returned to those who have donated. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ s~ - ~ RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES PAID IN 2010 AND UP TO MAY 19, 2011 WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department/Police Division, through its Director/Chief, received checks from various individuals and businesses designated to Richfield Police and Police events; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council; WHEREAS, contributions of food and equipment were used for the events specified; and, WHEREAS, the donated funds have been used towards the purchase of equipment and items for police officers and for events specified by the donators. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Public Safety has accepted the donations and distributed the funds and materials as designated by the contributors. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SH REPORT # 115 • ~~ STAFF REPORT JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TI7ZL' :7 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CITY COUNCIL MEETING d ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of the attached Creative Services Agreement with ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC to conduct fundraising services for Wood Lake Nature Center. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: To approve the attached Creative Services Agreement with ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC to conduct fundraising services for Wood Lake Nature Center. II. BACKGROUND After 17 consecutive goofy golf FOWL Ball Classics, Friends of Wood Lake Nature Center (FOWL) will no longer be offering the annual golfing fundraiser. The FOWL Ball Classic will be replaced by a more potentially financial lucrative golf event to be held at the prestigious Olympic Hills Golf Course in Eden Prairie, MN. The reason for the change is that the FOWL Ball Classic produced marginal proceeds of about $5,000 per event and the new event has the potential to generate more proceeds estimated at $10,000 because of the greater opportunities for sponsoring and greater participation. The new golf event will be named Birds & Birdies - Minnesota's Best Green Golf Tournament and it will be the first such "green" event to the region, setting it apart from other golf fundraising events. The help insure a successful event, FOWL's fundraising committee will enlist the help of an experienced promoter, ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC. ChalkTalk will provide consulting services related to event logistics, participant promotion and hole 06 14 11 Creative Services Agreement in one contest in return for purchase of the player kits provided to participants (goodie bags) with a minimum order of $8,900. ChalkTalk will also provide help • with sponsorship solicitation for a fee of 10% of the total sponsorship proceeds raised by ChalkTalk. . The new event is scheduled on September 19, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Contracts and agreements of this type are typically reviewed and considered by City Council. B. CRITICAL TIMING IssuEs • Birds & Birdies is scheduled on September 19, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated proceeds of the first event are $10,000. Proceeds will benefit Wood Lake Nature Center. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Birds & Birdies will be a green event, employing practices such as using materials that are either recyclable, reusable, or compostable, providing organic food, and paperless promotions and registration. Every aspect of the event will be considered in an effort to leave a gentle footprint on the environment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Staff believes that the attached agreement with ChalkTalk Promotions is reasonable and necessary in insuring a successful fundraising event. However, the Council may chose not to approve the Agreement and discontinue a golf fundraising event or continue the FOWL Ball Classic. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • Creative Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None .7 S~- -~ ~ CREATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT • This Creative Services Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, by and on behalf of Wood Lake Nature Center, located at 6710 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ("Wood Lake"), and ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, located at 12912 Farnham Avenue, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 ("ChalkTalk"). A. Wood Lake is a 150-acre natural area located in Richfield, Minnesota, and is dedicated to environmental education, wildlife observation, and outdoor recreation. B. Wood Lake will hold a "green" golf event with a name that is currently to be decided, at Minnesota Valley Country Club in Bloomington, Minnesota, in mid-September, 2011 (the "Golf Event") (the Golf Event was formerly going- to be called "Friends of Wood Lake Golf Classic," and was formerly going to be held at the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina, Minnesota). The Golf Event is intended to be a fundraiser for the benefit of Wood Lake. C. ChalkTalk provides creative services in the nature of event production services and promotional items for such events. D. Wood Lake wishes to receive, and ChalkTalk wishes to provide, the Services (as defined herein) and the Deliverables (also as defined herein) on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and all attachments hereto. NOW THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Performance of Services and Deliverables. 1.1 Services. During the Term of this Agreement, Wood Lake engages ChalkTalk to provide the following services in relation to the Golf Event (the "Services"): • (a) Promotion Consulting Services. In exchange for the fees described in Section 2.1(a) hereof, ChalkTalk shall provide Wood Lake at Wood Lake's reasonable request, promotion consulting services in relation to the Golf Event, including how to put together and promote the Golf Event as a "green" event, and how to incorporate a risk contest into the Golf Event as described in Section 1.3 hereof (the "Promotion Consulting Services"). (b) Fundraising Services. In exchange for the fees described in Section 2.1(b) hereof, Chalk Talk shall provide Wood Lake with fundraising services for the Golf Event (the "Fundraising Services"). The Fundraising Services are further described on Attachment 1.1(b) hereof. 1.2 Deliverables. In exchange for the amounts described in Section 2.4 hereof, ChalkTalk shall provide Wood Lake with the Deliverables. Wood Lake hereby agrees that ChalkTalk shall be the exclusive provider of all Deliverables for the Golf Event. "Deliverables" is defined as all of those items listed on Attachment 1.2 hereof. 1.3 Risk Contest. Wood Lake hereby agrees to incorporate into the Golf Event a risk contest such as a "hole-in-one" contest. 2. Fees. 2.1 Wood Lake shall pay ChalkTalk for the Services as follows: (a) ChalkTalk shall provide the Promotion Consulting Services to Wood Lake at no • charge; provided, however, that notwithstanding the foregoing, if Wood Lake uses another provider other than or in addition to ChalkTalk as a provider for the Deliverables for the Golf Event, Wood Lake shall pay a flat fee of $625 for up to five (5) hours of Promotion Consulting Services (the "Promotion Consulting Services Fee"). In the event that Wood Lake uses another provider other than ChalkTalk as the provider for the Deliverables for the Golf Event, ChalkTalk s~ -a~ shall be under no obligation to provide any more than five (5) hours of Promotion Consulting Services for the Golf Event. The Promotion Consulting Services Fee (if any) shall be due and • payable in cash or check at the address listed for ChalkTalk on the first page of this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of the date of invoice provided by ChalkTalk to Wood Lake. (b) ChalkTalk shall provide the Fundraising Services to Wood Lake in exchange for an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of any amounts raised by ChalkTalk through its Fundraising Services (the "Fundraising Services Fee"). The Fundraising Services Fee shall be due and payable in cash or check at the address listed for ChalkTalk on the first page of this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of the date of invoice provided by ChalkTalk to Wood Lake. 2.2 All proceeds from the risk contest (the "Risk Contest Proceeds") shall inure to the benefit Wood Lake. The Risk Contest Proceeds (if any) shall be due and payable in cash or check at the address listed for ChalkTalk on page one of this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of the date of invoice provided by ChalkTalk to Wood Lake. 2.3 Wood Lake shall pay ChalkTalk for the Deliverables in the amount listed on Attachment 1_2 hereof; provided, however, that in no event shall the Deliverables Fee be less than $8,900 (the "Deliverables Fee"). In addition to the Deliverables Fee, in the event that Wood Lake uses another provider of Deliverables for the Golf Event such that ChalkTalk is not the exclusive provider of all Deliverables for the Golf Event, ChalkTalk shall also be entitled to receive an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total amount payable by Wood Lake to such other provider of Deliverables (the "Other Fee"). ChalkTalk shall have the right to access, review, and copy all invoices and related documentation of such other provider of Deliverables to Wood Lake for the Golf Event. Wood Lake acknowledges that it would be impossib-e to measure the damages suffered by ChalkTalk in connection with Wood Lake's breach of Section 1.2 with regard to ChalkTalk not being the exclusive provider of all Deliverables for the Golf Event, and that its payment of the Other Fee under this Section 2.3 is a reasonable estimate of ChalkTalk's loss for not being the exclusive provider of Deliverables for the Golf • Event. The Deliverables Fee and the Other Fee shall each be due and payable in cash or check at the address listed for Cha-kTalk on page one of this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of the date of invoice provided by ChalkTalk to Wood Lake. 2.4 The Promotion Consulting Services Fee, Fundraising Services Fee, Risk Contest Proceeds, the Deliverables Fee, and the Other Fee may be referred to herein collectively as the "Fees." 3. Term and Termination. 3.1 This Agreement is effective as of _ continues until such time that it is terminated as under the terms herein ("Term"). ("Effective Date"} and provided herein, or the Services are fully performed 3.2 Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Upon termination, any Fees already paid to ChalkTalk shall be not be refunded to Wood Lake. Wood Lake shall be obligated to pay all Fees for Services already performed, Deliverables already delivered, or for the risk contest if Wood Lake notified ChalkTalk in writing that it did not desire to incorporate a risk contest into the Golf Event, on the date that ChalkTalk receives Wood Lake's written notice terminating this Agreement. 3.3 The following provisions shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement: all Sections and subsections of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 4. Proprietary Rights. Wood Lake acknowledges and agrees that during the Term of this Agreement, ChalkTalk may produce, provide, or use work product, whether tangible or intangible, . including concepts, ideas, text, programs, photographs, video, multi-media items, or other works of authorship whether or not shown or described in writing or reduced to practice (whether or not patentable and including those which may be subject to trademark or copyright protection) (collectively, "Work Product"). Client agrees that all Work Product and all intellectual property rights in such Work Product, 51~ -3 including any patents, trademarks or copyrights, shall belong solely to ChalkTalk, and Wood Lake shall have no ownership of or license to such Work Product, and such Work Product shall not be considered a • "work for hire" under United States copyright laws. In the event that Wood Lake creates any Work Product in relation to the Services or the Deliverables ("Wood Lake Created Work Product"), unless set forth explicitly in writing to the contrary in an amendment to this Agreement that is executed by Wood Lake and ChalkTalk, such Wood Lake Created Work Product and all intellectual property rights in such Wood Lake Created Work Product, including any patents, trademarks or copyrights, shall belong solely to ChalkTalk. Wood Lake agrees to execute any additional documents necessary to vest in ChalkTalk and/or assign to ChalkTalk the intellectual property rights relating to any Wood Lake Created Work Product. Wood Lake hereby grants to ChalkTalk a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce and otherwise use Wood Lake's trademarks, copyrighted materials, and other intellectual properties provided to ChalkTalk by Wood Lake in connection with rendering Services or in relation to or on the Deliverables. 5. Warranties. ChalkTalk makes no warranties or representations concerning the Services or Deliverables, or any results to be achieved through use of the Services or the Deliverables. 6. Indemnity. 6.1 ChalkTalk shall assume responsibility for and defend and hold Wood Lake, including its directors, officers, governors, managers and employees, harmless from any loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) or damage from: (a) any claim for personal injury, death, or property damage resulting from or related to ChalkTalk's performance of Services except to the extent the same arise out of or result from the negligent or intentionally malicious act or omission of Wood Lake or any of its employees or agents other than ChalkTalk or its subcontractors; (b) any claim for payment of compensation, salary, retirement benefits, or any other fringe benefits asserted by an employee of ChalkTalk; or (c) any claim arising from or related to any breach or alleged breach by ChalkTalk of any • promise or covenant made by ChalkTalk herein. 6.2 Wood Lake shall assume responsibility for and defend and hold ChalkTalk, including its members, governors, managers and employees, harmless from any loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) or damage from: (a) any claim for personal injury, death, or property damage arising out of or resulting from the negligent or intentionally malicious act or omission of Wood Lake or any of its employees or agents; (b) any claim for payment of compensation, salary, retirement benefits, or any other fringe benefits asserted by an employee of Wood Lake; or (c) any claim arising from or related to any breach or alleged breach by Wood Lake of any promise or covenant made by Wood Lake herein. 7. LIMIT OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT SIGNED BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST REVENUES, OR LOST PROFITS, LOST PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, WHETHER FORESEEABLE AND WHETHER OR NOT BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY CLAIMS OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM ANY PERFORMANCE OR FAILURE TO PERFORM UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND EACH PARTY HEREBY RELEASES AND WAIVES ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY REGARDING SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY'S LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE FEES PAID BY WOOD LAKE TO CHALKTALK PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT. ANY PAYMENT OF THE OTHER FEE SHALL NOT BE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. IT IS AGREED THAT THESE LIMITATIONS ARE AN ESSENTIAL BASIS OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT. s~ - 4 8. General. • 8.1 This Agreement may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of each party with express mention thereto of this Agreement. Neither Wood Lake nor ChalkTalk may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. 8.2 This Agreement shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties and supersede all previous agreements or representations, written or oral, with respect to the matters described herein. 8.3 This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota law, without reference to its choice of law principles. In addition, the parties agree that the federal and state courts located in Minnesota are the exclusive proper venue for any litigation between the parties relating to this Agreement, and the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. 8.4 Any provision herein which requires written notice or approval can be satisfied by any form of verifiable written communication, including hand-delivered written notice, certified letter, verifiably received fax, or verifiably received a-mail. 8.5 No term or provision of this Agreement may be waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or consented. No waiver of a breach shall be deemed to be a waiver of a different or subsequent breach. 8.6 The headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be deemed a part of this Agreement. 8.7 Should any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof, to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application thereof other than those provisions to which it shall have been held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby and shall • continue valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law or equity. 8.8 This Agreement may be executed in duplicate and each copy is treated as an original for all legal purposes. 8.9 Each party hereto is acting hereunder as an independent contractor. The parties hereto are not entering into, and nothing herein shall be deemed to create, a partnership or joint venture agreement or arrangement. Wood Lake acknowledges and agrees that ChalkTatk may render other or similar services to other persons or entities, and that such services shall not constitute a violation of ChalkTalk's obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives. ChalkTalk Promotions, LLC ("ChalkTalk") City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of Wood Lake Nature Center ("Wood Lake") Brett Franks, President Date: By: Printed Name and Title: Date: 4904953 ,~N - 5 Attachment 1.1(b) • Fundraising Services Fundraising for the Golf Event shall be a collaborative, joint effort of Wood Lake and ChalkTalk. The Fundraising Services shall include: a. Soliciting sponsorships from current ChalkTalk business partners; b. Soliciting sponsorships from current Friends of Wood Lake partners (with such contacts to be provided by Wood Lake to ChalkTalk); c. Soliciting sponsorships from other persons (e.g., local businesses and organizations) via "cold calls;" d. Answering sponsorship inquiries generated from blind periodical advertisements. The costs of any such blind periodical advertisements shall be borne by Wood Lake. Prior to the Fundraising Services commencing, ChalkTalk and Wood Lake shall agree upon a comprehensive fundraising plan to ensure that Wood Lake's fundraising activities and ChalkTalk's Fundraising Services complement and support each other, and to track whether donations were raised by Wood Lake or by ChalkTalk for purposes of calculating the Fundraising Services Fee to be paid to ChalkTalk pursuant to Section 2.1(b). Such comprehensive fundraising plan shall be executed by each of ChalkTalk and Wood Lake and shall be attached to this Attachment 1.1(b) and shall be a part of and subject to this Agreement. • • -1- s~ -~ Attachment 1.2 • Deliverables All player kits ("goodie bags"), shirts, signage, banners, and awards/prizes for the Golf Event. The exact items to be included in the Deliverables, and the quantity of such items, shall be decided on by Wood Lake and ChalkTalk after the execution of the Agreement, and shall be executed by both parties, appended to this Attachment 1.2, and shall be considered an amendment to this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement or otherwise, in no event shall the Deliverables Fee (as defined in Section 2.3) be less than $8,900. 4904953 • • -1- r~~. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SI REPORT # 116 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 • REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for the 2011 Concrete Curb and Gutter Repair. II I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for 2011 Curb and Gutter and Miscellaneous Concrete Repair to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. in the sum of $98,850.00. 2. Authorize the Public Works Director to approve additional contract work provided it does not exceed $65,000. II. BACKGROUND Each year the City awards a contract to replace cracked and heaved curb and gutter, and other concrete as necessary. This year's concrete contract includes: removal, replacement and appurtenant work for concrete curb and gutter at various locations. The contract specifications are written early in the year when not all 2011 concrete needs have been identified. Therefore, the contract provides for an increase/decrease in quantities to meet the required amount of work based on available budget. • A bid opening was held on May 24, 2011 with four plan holders attending. Four bids were received. Ron Kassa Construction Repair submitted the lowest bid. 061411 SideCurbGutter ~• , III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program. • The City follows a competitive bid process and should award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Regular maintenance, such as replacing cracked and heaved curb and gutter is done prior to sealcoating the street. Work is concentrated in the 2011 sealcoat area. Other repairs are safety or drainage problems located by staff and resident calls. C. FINANCIAL • A recent history of prices for curb repair (remove and replace) is: Year Bid Price Cost der Year Contractor 2008 $14.96 $71,744 Create Construction 2009 $18.00 $105,588 Ron Kassa 2010 $19.00 $60,582.5 Ron Kassa 2011 $21.00 TBD Ron Kassa • Funding for the purchase of concrete repairs is in the 2011 Street Maintenance Budget, line item 6315 (Other Contractual Services) • rD. LEGAL • When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $100,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City. • The advertisement for bid for this contract was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on May 12, 2011 and in the Construction Bulletin on May 16, 2011. • The contract has a provision to be renewed for two additional years with a cost increase cap of 3% per year: Cost increase request are subject to final approval by the City. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to reject the bid and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the prices received for this work are fair, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. • Council may choose to not do the work. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. s~ - ~ • • • a W Z CZ G 0 J _W LL O V ~ N t6 ~~ ~ Q N r ~ ~O m ~ ~ 0 N .~ NN I..L C (a U Y N ti :~ o ~ ' N ~ N v Z c o~ Um Y L U ~ ~~ ~~ U ~ NU .~ Y .Q ~ C~ ~ ~+ N U "~ C (6 Z .~ .~ ~ U N O ~U U ~ ~ O f6 ~_ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~_ ~ •~ .~ ~ ~ ~ QN ~ ~ N O j ~ ~ U ~ L 0 (~ Q ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ _~ ,~ ~? O ~ ~ Z E ~ C N U O ~ O 0 N 0 /yam ~ ~ L.L Q O Q ~ N ~ ~ N c~ .a ~ ~ N U .`_' O = ~ ~, ~ a c c~ ~ ~ ~ ~' o ~ a ~ C7 C N N N N AteA'' W .~ .~ ~ W N ~ ~~ ~U U U a vi ~ N L (~ Y Q U ~' U C ~ 'L ZU~ c m N a '~ 0 cts N N N .3 O 0 a~ H O O ~ ~ O ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6F} r ~ m -p O O m n- a U C ~ U C to Z O v cn ~ ~ L N ~ L N ;~ O ~ "' m U ~Z ~ m Z ~ ~ Y ~ _ ~ oY ~~ ~ w v~ c a~ a~ ~U C O U U 0 N r N C N L A~ W L .~ C U C t6 c6 N 3 ~_ .Q N L L N U C 0 C C f~ Y N U .,~+ U a~ H Y N U .~ U .Q ~_ U Z AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SJ REPORT # 117 ~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d d PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: • Accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of $396 in items included in the project budget. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Municipal Center change order report for an aggregate net effect of $396 in items included within the aroiect budget. II. BACKGROUND Resolution No. 10309 provides the City Manager the authority to approve change orders for all contracts awarded by the City Council for the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center subject to the following limitations: • Up to an aggregate of $25,000 for non-budgeted items • Up to an aggregate of $100,000 for items within the project budget Following the approval of such change orders, the City Manager must report this information to the City Council. Attached is the list of the approved project change orders since the May 10, 2011 City Council meeting. Some change orders represent an increase to the originally awarded contract and some represent a decrease. The aggregate net effect of the change orders before the Council on June 14, 2011 is $396. 0510change orders All of the change orders are budgeted items. Total net project change orders to- date is $291,818. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In order to maintain the construction schedule of the Richfield Municipal Center project and respond to change order requests in a timely manner, the City Council has authorized (Resolution No. 10309) the City Manager to approve change orders up to an aggregate value of $100,000 for budgeted items and up to an aggregate value of $25,000 for non-budgeted items. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City Manager must report approved change orders for the Richfield Municipal Center to the City Council at the next Council meeting. • These change orders have already been approved and, in most cases, implemented. C. FINANCIAL • The change orders before the Council for review on June 14, 2011 represent a net effect of $396 for budgeted items. • Total net project change orders to-date is $291,818. D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Richfield Municipal Center Change Order Log VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • S~ -1 • • H i O v ea L .Q L ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ C ..O.I ~ 0 (q U U ~ Y U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ C p~ ~ O _ U U ca O N N ~ W . ] tL ~ U 2 Y _ *+ c 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 °o °o G d' 00 O M M h N t0 O O 00 M O ~ O O N r 00 CO r OD O ~ O M a N N r ~ M _ ~ ~ ~ I 6 O C C U C Cp O v ~ t 0 ~ m O Q ~ Q r > •L ~ N ~ U ~ C ~ ~ ` °0 d ~ U N Q a i ~ L y Y °O r ° 0 - ~ O N ~ C O ~ L O L C ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ _c U N o ~ o ~ L O U y ~ O ~ LL ~ y s.. 0 Q ~ ~ ~ O c N ~ ~ ~ w N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ N c o ~ '~ ~ 2 N O C ~ Q c ~ m 0.. a c . is ~ O ~ ~ O 0 U ~ ( to ~ `o ° p U ~ 0 ~ a+ Z A ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ r ~ rn O co N oo E M 1~ ~n O v O co O rn O o O I ~ ~ j i O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r ~ V ~ 7 a J L O Ci t V AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SK REPORT # 118 r1 L_J ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of submission of a State grant application under the Safe Routes to School Program. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the submission of a Safe Routes to School grant application for various infrastructure projects identified in the 2009 Richfield Safe Routes to School Studv. II. BACKGROUND Program Information The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program was created in Section 1404 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU). The legislation was signed into law on August 10, 2005 providing State DOT's with five federal fiscal years (FY2005-FY2009) of funding for the SRTS program. In 2010 a Continuing Resolution provided more funds for the program. The Safe Routes to School program provides communities with the opportunity to improve the built environment and promote bicycling and walking to school with • infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. The goals of the program are threefold: • To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; 061411 SRTSGrantApplication JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER • To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active • lifestyle from an early age; and • To facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. Identified Infrastructure Projects The SRTS Study completed in 2009 identified many opportunities for improvements on and around school properties in Richfield. Staff has selected several of these improvements to include in the grant application. The following projects, which will be prioritized in the application due to the possibility of a partial funding award, are also identified on the attached map: • 73rd Street, Cedar Avenue to 17t" Avenue -Construct sidewalk to connect Cedar Avenue to Centennial Elementary School. • 64t" Street and Russell Avenue -Extend sidewalk along north side of 64th Street to end at Russell Avenue instead of mid-block. This will allow Sheridan Hills Elementary School students to cross at a marked crosswalk. • 74t" Street at Wilson Pond -Construct path along north side of Wilson Pond to connect 14t" Avenue and 15t" Avenue and allow a more direct route for students to reach Centennial Elementary School. • 68t" Street, Lyndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue -Construct sidewalk along north side of 68t" Street. Construction of this identified gap • would allow for sidewalk access to Blessed Trinity Catholic School (K- 8) and the Academy of Holy Angels. It would also connect to the sidewalk along Harriet Avenue that leads to Richfield High School. • 73rd Street Pedestrian Bridge over I-35W -Construction of ramp access to the bridge to allow for easier bike access and ADA compliance. • 73rd Street, I-35W Pedestrian Bridge to Lyndale Avenue -Construct sidewalk to connect the pedestrian bridge to the Lyndale Avenue and 73rd Street East sidewalk network. Neighborhood Involvement Process Should the City receive funding for any of the above projects, staff will conduct neighborhood meetings in the area of each respective project to ensure that residents concerns and comments and accounted for. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The identified projects are consistent with the City's Safe .Routes to School Study. • Transportation Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies • - improvements to non-motorized and pedestrian travel. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Applications are due by June 15, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact by applying for the grant. Awarded grants have no match requirement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available for questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose not to approve the grant application. V. ATTACHMENTS • Sidewalk Survey Map . VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • City of Richfield Sidewalk Map 64th St & Russell Ave Sidewalk Gap ~~ AT ~~ - JIII~~ ~ o .IIf)rs~~, a~ Yii(5 N 4 ~ I ~ > ~ I~ ~~~ /17fi ~ I I' ~~I -I Y W I I IG,~J ~ ~ II~..__III ~ ao oo~ z ~ N w i ^~O~ ~~ ~ ~ ?r)r~: rte C 1 Iry'FI 1. ~ I `117~I)^\\ fllt,{ K If,i ] N~ 73rd Street Pedestrian Bridge ADA Compliance a Nos W I EA;N'S ~ w ftll7. N w > N Q RaRR" j Q z j ~._...... C N G Q N T R ST . v, z ~~ a z i ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ n~^ 4T ST C1 w„~ UOA~3LOSflh' P.IRI N W E S ~~, '~' j ~~~~ _.,~~ ~~ ~~ -~~ --~" 5yQ'- Y`om' ~~ ATEHWYN062 ~ STE '~~•~ N c INTERSTATE HW~N83 'h~-tiu- ¢ < 4 ~ ~ %l;~ w ~ ~~z ~,~\~ % ~~a 'T.{TT Y.d HI 1M F F ~ ® ~ ()17PT > Q 1 Z W 0 ~ w /'-IRM1 f~ Q F N / J~ F `bREODR~ J ~ w K ~ ~ z F VTTERll1'Si2c~ionlnk /~ > - ~J _ ~~ /n( w Q ,:~ ~~ ~ -. i Q av ~ z I ~..~~ ~, ~ I a1GA10RIAI~j ~ z r a w I. OIL I ~J a p z HiL{field 1 a e ~~' ~ ~__ ~ f;, hPr d.' PARK ~ ~ ~ t~ i/ V _~.~ - 65THLS 0n - `~ ~ ~ 1111 ~~ a® ~~~ ~'. ~ ~r.161seil Y~3 G ~ - r~ D L~ ~ ^ ~ ~ I•IG~~ ~ I ~ m ~II ~ w ~ ..!rs Z O ~'~ _uU t~ ZIH~SL.. o ,us l! J ~ Q ~ m N 3 f.~ N m ° ~ " ~ _ - ~.,~ ~_ oB ,f F nr, ~ Legend ~ ~ ~- W L ~ ~ Q -1" fiu I ~ ~ -o ~~ ') o ;e ~ Sidewalks ~~ = I ~ ~ 74th Street l` ~ %~ ~ L~ "`~`' Class ~, ~ North Side of Wilson Pond R°~ ~ lr ~J Y 9T ST 1 ,. Ped Connection Gap Arterial ~ / ~~'r ~r .n ,,f,N ~,{ , w n: 'J~~ li'aod Lake ~ ~ w ~ 1 j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I-H N I// ~ i > ~ ~' 68th Street ~ ~ ~~s _',, ,ST Residential ~r ~ 0 ~ ~~`"''~~ Lyndale Ave. to Nicollet Ave. o ~ ~ schools YF ~ ~~~ ~ ~ (a9 2 ST w ~ ~~ ~ > boo )REo>, o Sidewalk Gap ~ _ __~ ~HN ~~ ~~n nn a n ~ Q _ N nnn ~ ~ ~(~~ n a a > ~{nr ~.ess'en vril' Z z a FII II 73rd Street I-35W Ped Bridge to Lyndale Ave. 7T ST Sidewalk Gap ~~ Y _.... aSTATE ' 4 ~~~~ ~ ~ - - I 0 '~ w 3 w m > , > u, a z a W ¢ ~ Q I:er~ m N m m J ~ Q ~ ~ j Q (I ~ w N ® ® ~ F L~77VYJ ~ ~ ~ J S 2 w ~~~ 73rd Street ~ ~ ¢~ i1 ~I I~ ~ a RIJOSEIELT ] ~ a ~ 1I I~~I JI Yaks _ Cedar Ave. to 17th Ave. ~~ - ~®~' _ ~^ ~ ~~=78TH Sidewalk Gap ~~ TERSTAT• 'NY NO ~~\ "I~ HNN; ~'- _ / ~\ ~K-1 ~i LlGISICore Datalprojectslsidewalks.mxd AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SL REPORT # 119 • C J J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KAREN BARYON, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TI"!'LE ,, _ '~ SIGNAT(/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Call for a public hearing on July 26, 2011 for the: 1. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; 2. Proposed establishment of the Lyndale Garden Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District; relating to the redevelopment of the former Lyndale Garden Center at 6400 Lyndale Avenue, and 3. Adoption of the associated tax increment financina plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on July 26, 2011 to consider: 1. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; 2. Proposed establishment of the Lyndale Garden Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District; relating to the redevelopment of the former Lyndale Garden Center at 6400 Lyndale Avenue; and 3. Adoption of the associated tax increment financing plan. II. BACKGROUND • In March of this year The Cornerstone Group (the Developer) entered into a purchase agreement for the acquisition of the former Lyndale Garden Center site at 6400 Lyndale Avenue. The Developer is scheduled to close on the property in August of this year. 06142011 Call for Public Hearing - LGC The site is approximately 10 acres. The Developer is proposing amixed-use • development that will include redevelopment and reuse of the former garden center building to provide retail, restaurant, and community uses. The development will eventually likely include multi-family rental housing as well. The Developer has contracted with the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) to conduct public workshops to help guide the vision for the future redevelopment of the site. The first of these workshops was held on June 6, 2011 and was attended by approximately 65 residents. Until that process is complete and a more comprehensive development plan is established, the exact amount of tax increment needed to make the development feasible will not be known. Given that, the Developer is currently seeking up to 85% of the available Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Calling the public hearing does not commit the City Council to approve the establishment of the TIF District. The decision whether or not to approve the TIF District can be made only after the Council has had an opportunity to fully consider the matter with public input at the public hearing. If the call for a Public Hearing is approved, the next steps would be: a) To inform the County, School. District and other taxing jurisdictions of the • proposed TIF District and give them an opportunity to comment; and, b) For the Planning Commission to determine whether the establishment of such a district would be consistent wifh Richfield's Comprehensive Plan; and c) For the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to consider modifications to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; and Establishment of the Lyndale Gardens TIF District; and finally d) The holding of a public hearing by the City Council on July 26, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required for the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Ares and for the creation of a TIF District. • .The City Council is the body that must hold a public hearing to consider approval of the proposed modifications to a redevelopment plan and establishment of a TIF District. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The HRA is scheduled to consider a resolution recommending that the City Council call for this public hearing at their June 20, 2011 meeting. • State Statute requires that the County, School Districts and other • affected taxing jurisdictions receive notice of the proposed Tax Increment Plan and other information on fiscal impacts related to the modification/establishment of a Redevelopment Project Area and/or TIF District at least 30 days prior to that hearing. • The Planning Commission must determine whether the establishment of such a district would be consistent with Richfield's Comprehensive • Plan; this is tentatively scheduled for the July 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. • The tinning of~this consideration would allow for the prospective developers to maintain their tentative acquisition and construction schedule (if the project is ultimately approved). C. FINANCIAL • The developer is .seeking up to 85% of the available TIF. • The assistance will provide gap-funding and allow the project to be financially attractive to investors. • Without the tax increment financing, this project would unlikely come to fruition. D. LEGAL •. The City's legal counsel has been involved in all staff discussions relating to tax increment financing for the proposed project. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The project will incorporate numerous "green" building and sustainability components. • The proposed project will-also incorporate active living principles and • encourage physical activity on the site and in attracting people to the site. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay the call for a public hearing to a later City Council meeting in order to seek further information. • Do not adopt the attached Resolution. • Adopt the attached Resolution with modifications that meet the desires or concerns of City Council members. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Colleen Carey, The Cornerstone Group • 5~. - t RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LYNDALE GARDENS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on July 26, 2011, at approximately 7:00 P. M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, the proposed establishment of the Lyndale Garden Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates to prepare a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Garden Tax Increment Financing District and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing • jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to July 26, 2011, and to place a copy of the Plans on file in the Community Development Director's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 2011. _ Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 120 .7 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: .. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and rehabilitation of the Water Plant Clarifiers/Baffles and the Chain Room Piping/Pumps. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: 1. Approve the second reading of the transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and rehabilitation of the Water Plant Clarifiers/Baffles and the Chain Room Piping/Pumps. 2. Approve resolution for summary publication of the transitory ordinance. IL BACKGROUND The Water Treatment Plant was built in 1963. In 1994 the treatment plant went through a renovation from a single train to a dual train treatment system. -The clarifiers that were installed in 1994 are showing significant signs of deterioration. The deteriorated sections of the clarifier will be replaced with a corrosion resistant material while other sections will be rehabilitated. The motors and drives that were installed in 1994 have become obsolete and are in need of replacement. • The Chain Room Piping and Sludge Pumps were also installed in 1994. The lime softening process produces an abrasive high pH liquid by-product. Through these pumps and piping, this by-product is transferred from the treatment plant to the 061411 Waterplant sludge building for dewatering. These pumps and piping are all in need of replacement. • Both areas are vital in the overall functioning of the water treatment plant. The Engineer's estimated cost for the planning design and rehabilitation of this capital improvement project including the engineering services is $1,480,000. On May 10, 2011, the City Council: • Approved the first reading of the Transitory Ordinance • Set the public hearing for June 14, 2011. • Approved the proposal from Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. to provide the engineering and inspection services in an amount not to exceed $151,925. III. BASIS OF RECOMI~~NDATION Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated cost exceeds $500,000. Pursuant to Section 8.05 of the City Charter, notice of the public hearing was published twice in the Sun Current fourteen days prior to the hearing. Publication dates were on June 2, 2011 and June 9, 2011 B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • If the improvements are not completed, the Water Utility infrastructure • could possibly face equipment failures and interruptions in operations. C. FINANCIAL • At the April 12, 2011 City Council Meeting, Council approved the sale of $1,490,000 G.O Water Revenue Bond, Series 2011A for the capital improvements at the Water Plant. • Proceeds from the G.O Bonds will fund the replacement of Water Plant Clarifiers/Baffles and the replacement of Chain Room Piping/Pumps. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and summary publication resolution. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Water is an essential resource to the community and needs to be provided in a safe manner. TERNATNE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Council may choose to take no action at this point, ~ V. ATTACHIVIENTS ~ Transitory Ordinance Resolution for Summary Publication • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None -~ _ , TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings. 1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. 1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project on City owned property located at the Water Treatment Plant (6221 Portland Avenue South). 1.03, The capital improvement project consists of rehabilitation of the Water plant Clarifiers/Baffles and the Chain Room Piping/Pumps. 1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, including design and engineering costs, is $1,480,000. 1.05. A public hearing was held on June 14, 2011 after due notice as required by Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. • 1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Project be approved. Sec. 2. Approval: effective date. 2.01. The Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law. 2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed with the Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Project to any individual or entity. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Project or to modify elements of the Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest. 2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Adopted this 14th day of June, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk C. -~ -a RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND REHABILITATION OF THE WATER PLANT CLARIFIERS/BAFFLES AND THE CHAIN ROOM PIPING/PUMPS PURSUAINT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL N0.2011 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND REHABILITATION OF THE LOGAN AVENUE WATER TOWER PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 • This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance authorizes a capital improvement project for the planning, design, and rehabilitation of the Water Plant Clarifiers/Baffles and the Chain Room Piping/Pumps. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, including design and engineering costs, is $1,480,000.00. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent at 612-861-9165. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 121 • STAFF REPORT JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME. TIT/ E DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~~ ~j REVIEW: ~ ~i~,c .l /~n~. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CITY COUNCIL MEETING ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for an establishment in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling tobacco to underage outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and approve the attached resolution: 1. Suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; 2. Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400 for a second time violation; and, 3. Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two consecutive davs that the license will be suspended. II. BACKGROUND On April 23, 2011, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance checks at all of the establishments in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were assisted by two underage youth that were 17 years of age. These compliance checks were the first checks conducted in 2011. 061411 Tobacco Compliance Violation for Gas Plus On April 23, 2011, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In six instances, tobacco was sold • to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on April 23, 2011 are: • Super America - 2913 W 66th St. • VFW - 6715 Lakeshore Dr. • Super America - 7500 Lyndale Ave. So. • Super America - 7720 Nicollet Ave. So. • Walgreen's - 12 W 66th St. • Gas Plus - 7744 12th Ave. So. This is a first offense for Super America, 2913 West 66th Street. Technically, it is a fourth violation; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered a first offense. Their license will not be suspended, nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. Past failures occurred on October 31, 2004; March 20, 2008; and October 30, 2008. This is a first offense for VFW. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. VFW has had no prior failures. • This is a first offense for Super America, 7500 Lyndale Ave. So. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. Super America, 7500 Lyndale Ave. South, had one prior failure on August 4, 2001. This is a first offense for Super America, 7720 Nicollet Ave. So. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. Super America, 7720 Nicollet Ave. South, had one prior failure on May 21, 2003. This is a first offense for Walgreen's. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. Walgreen's had one prior failure on October 30, 2008. This is a second offense for Gas Plus. Technically, it is a sixth violation; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered a second offense. They will be fined $400, and there will be a two (2) day suspension. Past failures occurred on May 25, 2004; November 1, 2004; April 19, 2007; March 20, 2008; and, April 9, 2010. At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented their IDs, if requested, and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were • of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If tobacco was not sold to the • underage youth, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell tobacco within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and alcohol education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code, Section 1146 specifies certain improper conduct of tobacco license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of tobacco to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment, Gas Plus, levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. B. CRITICAL TIlVIING ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell tobacco to underage youth. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing a tobacco compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in City Code 1146. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for Gas Plus. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from Gas Plus is expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement. • • g-t RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR GAS PLUS, 774412TH AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Gas Plus ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2011, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and. WHEREAS, this is technically their sixth failed tobacco compliance check; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered their second offense; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the City Council on June 14, 2011 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: • 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $400 is hereby imposed. On or before July 14, 2011, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $400. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June 2011. Debbie Goettel ,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 122 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 C] REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NaMZ, TI"!'Lb' DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: `-' sw ' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Resolution Consenting to the Process for Consideration of a Housing Tax Increment Finance District for the Pillsbury Commons development project proposed at the north portion of the former City Maintenance Facility property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Resolution Consenting to the Process for Consideration of a Housing Tax Increment Finance District for the Pillsbury Commons development project proposed at the north aortion of the former City Maintenance Facility aroaerty. • II. BACKGROUND Ron Clark Construction and Design (Ron Clark) has presented development proposals for housing on the north portion of the former City Maintenance Facility property to both the Richfield City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on several occasions beginning in 2009. The most recent proposal, which was presented to the City Council on April 12, 2011, includes 70 units of affordable housing on the majority of the north portion of the former City Maintenance Facility property (see attached plans). It is Ron Clark's intention to pay the fair market value of the land to the extent that such a payment is economically feasible. In their current projections, however, the payment for this property (when combined with other project costs) results in a sizable financing gap. In order to fill that gap, and also in order to show an element of "local financial 061411 Ron Clark TIF Resolution support" as required by their primary funding source, Ron Clark is asking that the City and HRA consider the creation of a Housing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) • District for this project. The attached proposal outlines a timeline for the consideration of a TIF District and provides a statement of support for continuing discussions on this project. This resolution only consents to undertaking the process for the consideration of a TIF District; it does not imply that the City Council or HRA will or will not ultimately approve the creation of a TIF District nor does it indicate any specific amount of TIF that may be available to the development. By approving this resolution, the City Council would be directing staff, legal counsel and financial consultants to undertake the analysis required to determine the feasibility of creating a Housing TIF District and the funding that such a District may be able to generate. The Preliminary Development Agreement approved between the developer and the Richfield HRA at their March 21, 2011 meeting requires the developer to pay for costs incurred in this process. This resolution, if it were approved, would also demonstrate the City's willingness to continue consideration of this project to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), (their primary funder). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has received numerous presentations of Ron Clark's development proposal for this area and had, to date, expressed support for the project. • On April 12, 2011 the City Council approved aRight-of-Entry and Standstill Agreement with Ron Clark for the proposed project. • On March 21, 2011 the Richfield HRA entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Ron Clark for the proposed project. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The attached resolution would demonstrate the City's willingness to continue consideration of this project to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (their primary funder). Their application for MHFA funding is due June 14, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The attached resolution only consents to following a process for consideration of a TIF District, not a pledge of any public funds. • In accordance with their Preliminary Development Agreement with the Richfield HRA, Ron Clark is responsible for paying legal and • consulting costs associated with analyzing and establishing a TIF District. • D. LEGAL • Legal staff reviewed the attached resolution. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The site in question does have suspected environmental contaminants, but this resolution does not address that issue. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Adopt an amended version of the attached resolution as needed to address Council concerns. Do not adopt the attached resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Proposed development plans and renderings VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives of Ron Clark Construction; • Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates. • Q-I RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE PROCESS FOR THE CREATION OFA HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED PILLSBURY COMMONS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174-469.1799 et. seq., as amended, the City acting through the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("HRA") is authorized to use tax increment financing to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby; and WHEREAS, a proposal has been made by R.E.C., Inc. d/b/a Ron Clark Construction and Design (the "Developer") to construct 70 units of multifamily housing at 211 West 76th Street near Pillsbury Avenue in the City of Richfield, which project is to be known as Pillsbury Commons and 100% of the units will be affordable to persons with incomes at 60% of the area median income (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project would be located on land that is currently owned by the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City on or about the date of this resolution has approved an Option Agreement with the Developer for the sale of the land upon which the Project is intended to be built; WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted its development proposal to the City and the City is supportive of continuing further consideration of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support the Project and directs staff to work with the Developer to take the steps necessary to create a tax increment financing district for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the City supports the Project and, pending final determination of project eligibility, required reviews, public input, notices and hearings, and without surrendering its legislative discretion, hereby authorizes staff to proceed with the steps required to establish a tax increment financing district for the Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City staff, in connection with the activities required to be undertaken by the City and the HRA, continue its analysis of the Pillsbury Commons project, negotiate the terms and conditions of a development contract with the Developer or an affiliate whose general partner is controlled by the Developer, and prepare a development plan and tax increment financing plan for the Project, all subject to final determination of project eligibility, required reviews, public input, notices and hearings; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council supports implementation of the attached timeline for the Project (Attachment 1): q -~. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • a-3 Attachment 1 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PILLSBURY COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a housing district) Draft, as of June 8, 2011 June 14, 2011 Council considers option agreement. June 20, 2011 HRA meets at 7:00 p.m. and requests the City Council call for a public hearing on the proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed establishment of the Pillsbury Commons TIF District. • June 28, 2011 City Council meets at 7:00 p.m. and calls for public hearing on the proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed establishment of the Pillsbury Commons TIF District. June 30, 2011 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions, detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, list of sources and uses of funds, and estimated fiscal impacts of the project public improvements and on fire and police protection) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers. July 5, 2011 Ehlers confirms with the City .whether building permits have been issued on the properly to be included in the TIF District. July 6, 2011 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential housing tax increment financing district establishment (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice.) [Ehlers will fax and mail on or before July S, 2011.) July 8, 2011 Project information submitted to the County Board for review of county road impacts if necessary* (at least 45 days prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF Plans to determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax increment financing districts will not require unplanned county road improvements, the TIF Plans will not be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the County Board could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. • E H_L E R S t TJ lHS IK YU9l-C ~IfIn NC! ~ -u C SCHEDULE OF EVENTS -PAGE TWO RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • • FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PILLSBURY COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a housing district) July 22, 2011 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax & mail on or before July 21, 2011.) July 25, 2011 Planning Commission meets at 7:00 p.m. and reviews TIF Plan to determine that it is in compliance with the City's comprehensive plan. August 1, 2011 Ehlers conducts internal review of Modification and TIF Plan. August 6, 2011 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Sun Current publication deadline, August 4, 2011 by 2:00 P.M. -Ehlers will provide notice and map to the newspaper via email by August 3, 2011.) August 15, 2011 HRA meets at 7:00 p.m. and .considers the Modification and TIF Plan and passes resolution adopting the Redevelopment Plan Modification and TIF Plan. August 23, 2011 City Council holds a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Pillsbury Commons TIF District and considers a resolution approving the Redevelopment Plan Modification and TIF Plan. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the City on or before August 16, 2011.) 2011 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF District. 2011 Ehlers files TIF Plan with the MN Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor, and requests certification of the TIF Districts with Hennepin County. EHLERS_ -_L~S JEXS ~M1 ~'UUI-C ~IElwtlCt ;I I ~I _r__ _-- _ ~ j _~ _ __ I i i _ ~ ~I ~ ~ I -- ~ ----, - ! -- ~I ------- i --- - ~ I ~ i ~ ( I I I ~ ~~ - ~~ WI I ~ EXISTING ' MULTI FAMILY I ~ ~ I Q ~ U I _ SINGLE FAMILY APARTMENT I ~- z -~----! 110MES _ _ ~ _ _ _ _BUILDINGS_ _ _ - -- _ _ NCI ~ o ~ Q I i ~ i 0 ~' I ~ I ~ ~ ~i ~° ~ __ _ - __ --_ , I I I ~. I ~~ ' --J i~---- EXISTING J ~ SINGLE FAMILY ' f10ME p OUTLOT `~ 4 i_ ~~ ~-- °~~°" ~~ J o - ~t oN i ~~ ~ ~~J ~ ~ ~~g ~~ 505URrACE PARKIN05PACE5 6 1 ,, a ~ c s 8 CN 5. REE7 5°ACES 6 ~ .1 ,~, r ~ ', o4 i~-'", PIAYGR JA D ~ d~ 5 ~ ~~'~~~~~~~Pf1A5E I ? 70 UNITS-s N ~~!~ ~ ~~`~73 GARAGE STALLS Q 77Th STREET w Q e -a ---- ~i I ------ I ~ ~ ;, --_I _ --- I _- -- ----~-- , ----- --I ~~ ~I j i ~ I ~~_ i , r- ~ I ~ ~ ~ i I EXISTING '~ ! SINGLE FAMILY -- ~ ' u 110MES ~ I- _ ~ ~ i~ -I _ ' ' I ~ , -- - I i I, - i;- I ~, I f- __ I ~, . I - - - -i i ~ I I ..... I _. ..... i ~ 1 I ~ L ~ ~ _{ - - _- REMCVE SOJND WA I _ - -- -° v, ~ -j ~ ! _ - - _ '\ ~ui~ 7 U S H I E MOI~'TGOMEGS' A RC FLIT ECTS ~, -5 Richfield, Minnesota June 6, 2011 '! BUILDINGABEA (GROSS SF) _ -NAME ~ AREA GARAGE 30009 5F FIRST FLOOR 30019 SF SECOND FLOOR 296485E THIRD FLOOR 176385E FOURTFI FLOOR 17631 5F Gland total 124944 5F BUILDING UBE RATIQS (NET 5F) 1ST FLOOR; 27 IXCLUDING VERTICAL CIRCUlAT10N 2ND FLOOR USE AREA PERCENTAGE I BED I 719 5F I BED 1 714 5F 2 BED C I 915 SF '2 BEDD I 9425E 2BEDA I 1 963 5F 28ED6 2 10975E 3 BED B 4 i 241 5F 3 BEO A 2 1322 SF UNIT MI%BY FLOOR NAME COUNT AREA I ST FLOOR I BED 1 714 5F I BED I 714 57 2 BED C I 915 5F' 28EDD I 9425P 2BEDA 10 963 5F 2 BED B 2 1097 5F 3BEDB 3 I Z4I 5F~ 3 BEDA 2 13225E CIRCULATION 9748 5F 8.3 0 COMMON SPADE 59005E S.U;o GARAGE 273685E 23.3 a l ~ae c~ SERVICE 21895E 1.9 ~ n wrar UNIT 721105E 61.50 Grand tota'~ 1173145E 100,0`b 2ND FLOOR: 23 3rd Floor UNIT MI%BY TYPE I BED i 714 5F UNIT COUM PERCENTAGE 28EDC I 915 SF 2 BED D I 942 5F I BED 6 9 2BEDA 6 963 5F 2 BFD 45 64 a 3 BED B 2 1241 5F 3 BED 19 27 0 3 BEDA 2 1322 5F GranG total 70 10070 3rd Floor 13 4th Flocr I BED I 7145E PARKING SUMMARY 28EDC I 9155E i1PE REQUIRED PROVIDED 2 BEDD I 9425F~ 2 BEDA 6 963 5F 3 BED B 2 1241 SF 3 8f~ A 2 1322 5F 4th Flocr: 13 Grand tobP. 70 GARAGE FLOOR SCALE 1116' = I'-0' -, Pillsbu Commons ~ ~ Construction & Design Richfield, Minnesota / ~ n~ m n A _.. STAR I BED ~ ~~ 2BEDA I. - ~ _ / `' . .-i 'c '' p ~. p F -__ 4 I _ _ _ r 2BEDA 2BEDA _ l i i - ~ L i F' 9635E pN _ i~ - 2BEDA ~ E~ •~ ~ 2BEDA ~_., ., .,. oN . <. ~~ i , ~ 9. t I _ ~ 1 ffi DB pz 3BEDB ', e ~ o _ 7l D J r _ A' - ;_ U 75 O•~~ ~ Of~jA E T5 VEST. 3 BFD A I BED 2BEDA 2BEDA OFFICE MECN. I ELEC ' ~ '3223F ST AIR %:-SF -_-- ~.% ~ FITNESS ~ _~ ~ m '. ~~ - I i ~ -- ~ ~ ~ j w p BTAIR - _ ~ ~~ ~ ENTRY ' - -_ ~ ~ -i _ ~ OFFICE LOBBY , UNIBIX iRASN V 2 BED D ~ Q - -- - ... „- CORRIDOR i~ ~. ., C ~' S , C o 1. C i ~ ~b, } ]L ~ c o ~ q } ~oBEDC P ' Gq --r ~ Q -; COVMUNITY ROOM ~~ ~ 3 BEDA 2BEDA 2BEDA 2BEDA 3BEDB i3-2S n - o~g= _ _ _..= I b I ST FLOOR G SCALE Ill6"= 1'~0' -- T U S H I E MONTGOMERI ARCHITECTS June 6, 2011 SURFACE PARKING 2stallsluntx 70 wts 140 505wtace Parpng Stalls I~ Mass Tr3nst Redact or :40-I4 (I ~1= 126 GAf,/ ~F PA~lKINC- PI//r 73 Stalls Tota. Parhna 126 123 ~' v North Elevation SCALE 1116' = I'-0 South Elevation SCAIP l 116" = I'-0' West Elevation SGAIf III 6" = I'-6' East Elevation =caiF I„c~~- h_~, ~. Pillsbu Commons ~ ~ Construction & Design Roof 39' - 0' 4th Floor 3d-0' _3rd Flaor n 26-G V 2ND FLCCR /~ IO-0' ll I ST FIDCK n ti V 35-C 4th Floa 3d-C' 3rd poor 20-0" 2ND FLCCk 10-0' IST FLOOk /~ 0 V Root n 39 0 _ 4th Flocr n 3d-0 _ 3rd Floo- 20-0' _ 2ND FtOCR /~ IO-d" V 1 ST FLOOR n G V _ Rao! n 39-0' V _ hth Floor n 3d-0' V __ _ 3rd Flea 2d 0 _ 2ND FLOO~ iti o` isr F~co~ G ~~ T LI S H I E bIONTGOMERI' ARCHITECTS Iii E Richfield, Minnesota June 6, 2011 5 I If i i rrl ~ ~~ / i_, ~ 1;~ n Exterior Perspective A ~ SCALE J Exterior Perspective B ~, Pillsbu Commons ~ ~ Construction & Design Richfield, Minnesota .Z~` _-- J June 6, 2011 T L~ S Ii I E NIO NTGOD7E R1 A ItCHIT ECTS l J E n ~g AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 123 • ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST \ NAME, T/TLC ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Option Agreement with Ron Clark Construction and Design for the sale of the north portion of the former .Public Works Maintenance Facilit . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve and authorize execution of attached Option Agreement with Ron Clark Construction and Design for the sale of the north portion of the former Public Works Maintenance Facility. II. BACKGROUND Ron Clark Construction and Design (Ron Clark) has presented development .proposals for housing on the north portion of the former City Maintenance Facility property to both the Richfield City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on several occasions beginning in 2009. The most recent proposal, which was presented to the City Council on April 12, 2011, includes 70 units of affordable housing on the majority of the north portion of the former City Maintenance Facility property. It is Ron Clark's intention to pay the fair market value of the land to the extent that such a payment is economically feasible. Staff has ordered an appraisal for all of • the publicly owned property (both City-owned and HRA-owned) in between 76th and 77th Streets and between Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues. While the final appraisal report is not yet complete, the appraiser verbally indicated a value of $769,000. The Option Agreement, however, only reflects the sale of a portion of the 061411-Option Agreement with Ron Clark.doc City-owned property that Ron Clark would be developing. This would result in the City retaining ownership of a "remnant parcel" of approximately 13,769 sq. ft. This • remnant property could later be developed as a second phase (or independently) as a combined property with the. HRA-owned properties to the north. The adjusted appraised value (based on the appraiser's verbal report) of the portion of the property subject to this Option Agreement is $419,723. The Option Agreement is for a period of seven (7) months (expiring on December 31, 2011) and requires Ron Clark to make an initial payment of $2,000. The Agreement can be extended until June 30, 2013 by Ron Clark if they make an additional payment of $5,000. These payments would be applied to the purchase price of the property at closing. If Ron Clark ultimately does not purchase the property, the City's costs associated with the Option Agreement would be deducted from these payments and any remaining funds would be returned to the developer. The Option Agreement is contingent upon Ron Clark receiving funding from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and the eventual approval from the HRA for a Contract for Private Development at a later date. If these, and other contingencies, are not met, the City would retain ownership of the parcel. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY _ • The City Council has received numerous presentations of Ron Clark's development proposal for this area and has, to date, expressed support for the project. • On March 21;` 201.1 the Richfield HRA entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Ron Clark for the proposed project. Ron Clark's Preliminary Agreement with the HRA for the north portion of the former Public Works Maintenance Facility precludes the HRA from entering into any agreements with another party related to the property, soliciting any proposals for the development, or selling this property for a period of 15 months from the date of the Preliminary Agreement (May 16, 2011), and is subject to an automatic additional six (6) month extension if Ron Clark has made application to MHFA Housing Tax Credit program. This Preliminary Agreement is intended as a preliminary step prior to drafting and executing a Development Agreement. • On April 12, 2011 the City Council approved aRight-of-Entry and Standstill Agreement with Ron Clark for the proposed project. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Ron Clark is required to have agreements pertaining to site control and public financing in place prior to making application to the MHFA for Tax Credits on June 14, 2011. • • If Ron Clark does not receive funding from MHFA the City will still retain ownership of the parcel. C. FINANCIAL • • The Option Agreement requires Ron Clark to pay the fair market value of the property, $419,723. • The fair market value of $419,723 in the Option Agreement serves as a `placeholder' since at the time of this report we have not received the final appraisal report. The Option Agreement allows for this value to be adjusted when the appraisal is received. • Ron Clark will make an initial deposit to the City of $2,000 upon the effective date of the Agreement and an additional $5,000 if they choose to extend the Option. D. LEGAL • The HRA's legal counsel drafted the proposed Option Agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • There are environmental contaminations on the site that will require clean up before any redevelopment of the site could move forward. • The City will assist in applying for any environmental grants related to assessment -and clean-up of the site. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Approve the Option Agreement with added provisions or modifications. • Do not approve the Option Agreement. • Continue the consideration of the Option Agreement to a later meeting date. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Option Agreement with Ron Clark Construction and Design. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives of Ron Clark Construction and Design. /o_~ OPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2011, by and between City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter called "Seller"), and R.E.C., Inc. a Minnesota Corporation DBA Ron Clark Construction and Design (hereinafter called "Purchaser"). 1. Seller hereby irrevocably grants and conveys unto Purchaser the exclusive right • and option from the date of this Agreement and continuing until December 31, 2011 (the "Option Period"), to purchase that certain land situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Subject Property"). In consideration of the granting of this option, Purchaser shall, with its execution of this Agreement, deposit with Seller, an initial option money payment (the "Initial Option Deposit") in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). In the event this option is exercised, and closed, the Initial Option Deposit shall be applied as a credit on the purchase price hereinafter provided. If the option is not exercised, or if once exercised, the matter does not close, the Initial Payment will be returned after first deducting amounts equal to the City's costs incurred in connection with this transaction. 2. The consideration for the purchase of the Subject Property shall be the total sum of Four Hundred Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three Dollars ($419,723), which includes the Initial Option Deposit. 3. [Blank]. 4. At any time, and from time to time during the Option Period, and between the 386665x4 JBD RC125-292 1 ~o_a. exercise of this option and the closing, Purchaser shall have, and Seller hereby gives and grants • unto Purchaser, the right of Purchaser, Purchaser's employees, agents, and representatives to enter upon the Subject Property, or any part thereof, with workmen, tools, materials, and equipment, and to make such examination, surveys, and tests, by drilling or otherwise, of said lands as Purchaser may deem desirable to determine the suitability of said premises for Purchaser's purposes. Prior to entry, Purchaser shall give Seller at least 24-hour advance notice of its intention to do so. Such notice will also, if requested by Seller, be given to anyone named by Seller as being in occupation or possession of the Subject Property at the time of the entry. In the event this option is not exercised, or is exercised but not closed, Purchaser shall be obligated to restore the lands to its prior condition, repair and restore all fences damaged as a result of such operations, and compensate Seller for any actual damages done to the lands resulting from the operations provided for in this paragraph. Purchaser shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless • from any costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney fees) which Seller could incur as a result of Purchaser exercising its rights to go upon the Subject Property. In the event this option is exercised and closed, Purchaser shall not be liable for any damage done to said lands or to fences resulting from such operations. 5. In the event the option is not exercised, of if not closed following exercise, the Additional Option Deposit, and the Initial Payment, except as limited in Section 1, shall be returned to Purchaser, and neither party shall have any further claim against the other, except as provided in Section 4. 6. The option hereby granted may be exercised by Purchaser by written notice to Seller given at any time before the expiration of the Option Period. Such notice shall be deemed sufficiently given if and when it is addressed to Seller as provided in Section 20 below and either • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 2 10-3 (a) delivered personally to Seller, (b) deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, • with postage prepaid, (c) deposited with an overnight delivery service for next day delivery, or (d) telecopied. 7. Notwithstanding any title commitment that Purchaser may have received previously, Seller shall cause to be delivered to Purchaser, within thirty (30) days of the date this Agreement is fully executed, a current ALTA form commitment for title insurance, in an amount equal to the purchase price, covering the Subject Property, setting forth all exceptions from the title insurance coverage, and enclosing copies of all documents of record recited in such commitment. Purchaser shall have thirty (30) business days from receipt of: (i) said commitment for title insurance, and (ii) an ALTA survey which the Purchaser may at its own cost order not later than five (5) days after exercise of the option, to examine the commitment and survey and, in its sole discretion, provide written notice to Seller that it: (a) objects to the title and conditions • its purchase of the property upon the removal of specified exceptions ("Purchaser's Title Objections"), (b) objects to matters disclosed in the survey, or (c) rejects the same. In the event Seller is unwilling or is unable to cure any matters set forth in Purchaser's Title Objections, Seller shall, within 15 business days of receipt of Purchaser's Title Objections, notify Purchaser in writing of the matters that Seller is unwilling or unable to cure, it being understood and agreed that any outstanding mortgages, liens or other instruments identifying financial obligations must be satisfied by Seller either prior to closing or with proceeds provided at closing. Purchaser may then either waive such objections or terminate and cancel this agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, specifying the unacceptable exceptions, and Purchaser shall be entitled to a refund of the amount paid to Seller. Exceptions to title not timely objected to or later waived by Purchaser in writing are herein referred to as "Permitted Exceptions." Title to the Subject ,] 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 3 to -4 • Property shall be conveyed by Seller by Quitclaim Deed free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, restrictions, and easements, except for the "Permitted Exceptions." As soon as is possible following the closing, Seller shall cause the title company to furnish, at Purchaser's sole expense, an ALTA Extended Coverage Form policy of title insurance, dated as of closing date, insuring title to the Subject Property vested in Purchaser, free from all encumbrances except "Permitted Exceptions." 8. Closing of title shall take place by June 30, 2012 or upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to Seller from Purchaser, given at any time after Purchaser has exercised the option and has notified Seller in writing that title is acceptable to Purchaser (the "Closing Date") Purchaser shall have the further right, in its sole discretion, and assuming Purchaser is not in default of any of its obligations hereunder, to extend the Closing Date to not later than June 30, 2013 by notifying Seller in writing of such election, and depositing with escrow agent an • additional option deposit of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) (the Additional Option Deposit"). Such election and deposit must be made not later than June 30, 2012. The Additional Option Deposit will be applied as a credit on the purchase price at closing. 9. The Seller agrees to pay the real estate taxes and assessments payable in the year prior to the year of closing, and all prior years' taxes. Real estate taxes payable in the year of closing shall be prorated to the closing effective as of the closing date. Seller shall pay on or before closing all special assessments levied or pending as of the date of closing. 10. Seller warrants there will not be at closing any contracts relating to the Subject Property. 11. This Option Agreement is specifically contingent upon, among other things, the following conditions being completed or satisfied in Purchaser's sole discretion: • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 4 io-S (a) Soils encountered after subsurface investigation are compatible with the proposed • development and no adverse environmental problems exist or are discovered, (b) The parties have agreed: (i) to an allocation of the costs of demolishing structures and abating any contamination on the Subject Property to a level required for the proposed use, (ii) the timing and nature of any grants or other funds available to pay costs related to any required abatement, and (iii) whether any required abatement or demolition would take place before or after closing. (c) Purchaser shall have obtained satisfactory financing for the proposed housing development, (d) Purchaser shall have obtained all necessary governmental approvals, including, without limitation, any required comprehensive plan amendments and any rezoning and land use approvals, and • (e) If required by a lender, an appraisal equal to or greater than the purchase price of the Subject Property. (f) Purchaser has determined, in its sole discretion, that its proposed development of the Subject Property is economically feasible. If these contingencies are not satisfied, or if the closing does not occur for any reason, the Initial Option Deposit, the Additional Option Deposit and the Part Payment, except as limited in Section 1, will be returned to Purchaser. In the event that Purchaser determines that any contingency is not capable of being satisfied or otherwise waived or.released by Purchaser before the Closing Date, Purchaser shall, within 30 days following making such a determination, notify the Seller whereupon this Agreement will be null and void, except as provided in Section 5. • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 5 !o - to • The parties acknowledge the Subject Property is being purchased in an open market and Seller does not know of any condemnation or eminent domain proceedings involving the Subject Property. 12. [Blank] 13. [Blank] 14. Possession of the Subject Property shall be delivered by Seller to Purchaser at the time of the closing. 15. The terms "Seller" and "Purchaser" as used herein shall include the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto, respectively. It is acknowledged that this agreement may be assigned by Purchaser to an entity formed by Purchaser to acquire the Subject Property. Such assignment does not relieve Purchaser of its indemnification obligation under Section 4 . unless the Seller determines that the assignee is capable of such indemnification. 16. [Blank] 17. Each party shall be responsible for paying the fees or commissions of any broker retained by that party. 18. Time is of the essence of this agreement. 19. Each party shall, at the request of the other, and subject to the exercise of its legislative judgment, execute acknowledge (if appropriate), and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other acts, as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this agreement. 20. All communications, notices, and demands of any kind which either party may be required or may desire to give to or serve upon the other shall be made in writing, and such notice shall be deemed sufficiently given if and when it is addressed to then other party as • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 6 I b -7 • provided below and either (a) delivered personally, (b) deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, with postage prepaid, (c) deposited with an overnight delivery service for next day delivery, or (d) telecopied: To Seller: City of Richfield, Minnesota Attention: Mr. John Stark, AICP, Director of Community Development 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 Fax: (612) 861-8974 To Purchaser: Ron Clark Ron Clark Construction and Design 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 Fax: 952.947.3030 21. Seller represents that it is the actual owner, in fee simple, of the Subject Property, and that no other party holds any actual or beneficial ownership interest in the Subject Property. . 22. Seller represents that the Subject Property has legal access to afully-improved public right of way. 24. This agreement and the transaction herein contemplated shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of Minnesota. • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 7 ~0-8 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. By: SELLER: City of Richfield Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager By: Debbie Goettel Its: Mayor • By: PURCHASER: Ron Clark • 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 g l0-9 • EXHIBIT ~~A" SUBJECT PROPERTY This option agreement covers the following property: Lot 3, except the north 75.00 feet thereof, Lot 4, and Lot 5, except the south 39.00 feet thereof, all in Block 4, C. S. SOENS ADDITION according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Note: Conveyance will be subject to compliance with all applicable platting, subdivision regulations, and all requirements of the Registrar of Title. • ,] 386665v4 JBD RC125-292 A-1 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 124 • J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS LINK, OPERATIONS MANAGER STREET/FORESTRY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ J~~~~~ ~~ REVIEW: _ REVIEWED BY CITY ~/~ /f~-- /~ MANAGER: / % / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Review of Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments 2010-6 and 2010-7. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review of Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments 2010-6 and 2010-7 and by motion: Allocate Franchise Fee funds to Street and Forestry uses as recommended by staff at the April 26, 2011 Study Session. II. BACKGROUND May 25, 2010, City Council Meeting City Council approved the Ordinance Amendment 2010-6 modifying the gas franchise fee and the Ordinance Amendment 2010-7, modifying the electric franchise fees. Attached are both approved fee schedules. Both amendments include the following subdivision: Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2011 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. April 26, 2011 Council Studv Session The review process began when staff presented the following Current Uses, Changing Needs, and Staff Recommendations for future allocation of Franchise Fee 061411 FranchiseFees funds at the April 26, 2011 Study Session. Staff also recommends no increase or decrease in current rates at this time. • Current Uses At the current rate of $2.05/month/meter for residential customers, the Franchise Fees collect approximately $895,000 per year. Franchise Fees are used primarily for Pavement Management needs, but have been updated recently to include items for Forestry. They are: Pavement Management Forestry • Mill and Overlay • Replacement Boulevard • Sealcoat • Dutch Elm Disease Blvd Removals • Route and Seal • Emerald Ash Borer Treatments • Curb and Gutter Repair Two-Lined Chestnut Borer Treatments Changing Needs For reasons stated below, changes to the Franchise Fee structure are being recommended. • Pavement Management Due to the uncertainty of oil prices Staff has prepared a long term Pavement Management Program Outlook (attached). Future prices along with future needs show the need to carry a cash balance to keep up with anticipated pricing and continuing with the Six-Year Pavement Management Program. • Forestry The needs for some of the items funded by Franchise Fees are diminishing. The number of elm trees on the boulevard are becoming less and less each year. Also, Two-Lined Chestnut Borer treatments on Augsburg Park oaks will not be needed after 2012. Additional needs to Right of Way maintenance were also addressed at the April 26tH Council Study Session. These needs are Sidewalk Repair and Retaining Wall Repair. • Sidewalk Repair Sidewalk repair is listed as PW Goal #3 at the recent Council Goal Setting Session. The elimination of trip hazards along with full panel replacement is needed throughout the sidewalk system. • Retaining Wall Repair/Replacement There are over 60 retaining walls currently on City property. Many are in need of repair or replacement. Additional Consideration The City is in the process of trying to completely wean itself off of dependence on Local Government Aid (LGA) by the 2013 Tax Levy year. This of course, places a great strain on City revenues for 2012 and 2013, considering that the 2011 certified LGA amounted #o $2.2 million. The loss of franchise fees would create a $900,000 • hole in the 2012 budget, if we are to continue toward the goal of financial independence from LGA and the current Pavement Management and Forestry programs. Staff Recommendations • Franchise Fees have become a positive funding source for Pavement Management and Forestry needs that are outside of the General Fund and not subject to any Local Government Aid cuts. Staff recommends the following: • No increase or decrease in current rates • Maintain a cash balance for future Pavement Management needs • Add Sidewalk Repair and Retaining Wall Repair/Replacement to current uses An attached graphic reflects the current uses and proposed recommended changes. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, removal of diseased trees and the purchase of new trees. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Council's approval of recommended franchise fee funds allocation will determine current budget amounts. • At the current rate of $2.05/month/meter for residential customers, the Franchise Fees collect approximately $895,000 per year. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fees, the Council shall give Xcel and Centerpoint at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. • Continue to use franchise fee funds for only pavement management and forestry and not allocate the funds to include sidewalk repair and retaining wall repair/replacement. ~ V. ATTACIIMENTS ~ • vas and t~ectnc ree 5cneduies • Graphic of Pavement Management Program Outlook • Graphic of Targeted Uses of Franchise Fees • Portion of the 4/26/11 Council Study Session Presentation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • FEE SCHEDULES CENTERPOiNT GAS FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential Comm-A Commllnd-B Comm/Ind-C SVDF-A SVDF-B LVDF 2.05 2.05 6.33 14.08 14.08 14.08 14.08 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Residential Sm C & I -Non-Dem Sm C & I -Demand Large C & I Fee Per Meter 2.05 6.33 14.08 91.51 ~~-a • N N N N N N N N N N -~ 0000000000 (p N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C9 00 ~1 O Cal -P GJ N ~ ~ ~ N N CD ~ LU ~ O O ~ ~ ,-+ r+ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ - _ ~ o sv ° o ~ ~ ~ o ~. ~ • O O . N -o a a ~ ~ ~' m Z A ~ ~~ ~~ N "V ~ • ~ 4 a N oN ~(D ~ CD ~ CD ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r+ r+ r-~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0o cn -p ul rn ~ ~wrn~~~ cn-~c~a~cr~ Cal -P N ~1 ~I C31 Cfl N C)0 -~ C~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~_ Cy ~. C7 C7 ~ ~ ~ r+ ,--t- CD ~~~~ n c~ilwrn~ o c~ oo Cal O C~ N ` O O ~! GJ O O O O f~~69 {~} {f3 ~9{-~ff3 f~ {f~ {~ ~I O N ~ ~ O O N Cr ~ ~ ~ ~ C3l W Cal GJ C~ ~ ~ ~ C~0 ~ n Cal O IV ~ O Cal O C~ C~0 C~J C~ C~ ~! ~ ~ C9 -~ O O ~ ~ O ~1 ~ O O O O O O W n CD N CD CQ CD CD ~_ !' ~% O ^^~ Y~~+ O ~--~ O O 11-3 ~~ ~, a ~~ ~s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a 0 0 .1 R.1 A v 1~ ~~ 1 V ;L~i `a 1 I'~:. ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 ~ i1]' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~. S?~ ~ C.~J ~ ~_ Q (f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {p fD ~ ~ s - ~ ~ fp ~ _ ~, ~ ~ C] '~ r-. ~ ms fD ~ (U ~ s - ~ ~ -r fd V l V i LJ J V J ~ 1 '~ ~--1 _-._._.. , / ~ , ~ y ~ ~ lJJ lJ J ry ~ [~ r ( ~ {{~~ ~ V ~ ~ V ~ v Q ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ Ill ~ ~ 4 ~ ~. ~ , ~ ~ , , ., ~ , ~ ~ , * ~' '~. , 5'f ~' ' ' fG ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ C}'7 t~ Gl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~. C7 C~ ~ { F~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ 0 m f~~/~ V/ ~~~p~ L! / T~1 ' • 1 rJ~ 'V~' y~! • Y e 1 ~~ n l~ LJ Streets The good, the bad, and the ugly. Meeting Goals 1. Update Council on: • Status of Pavement Management Program • Franchise Fees • Capital Improvement Program 2. Discuss Funding of Capital Improvement Projects .vw.*i ~ n;myp. Paveme 2010 Asphalt Pavement Condition p 0.G% 3.G% 35.3% I ~ 66.6 % ® Poor: 0.6 Miles ^ Fair: 4.1 Miles ~ Good: 69.4 fVc'les ^ Excellent: 40.4 Miles i~-u Pavement Management Program • Paved during the mid 1970s • Sealcoat - 6 year rotation • Mill & Overlay -averaging 2 miles/year • Route & Seal - as needed ($10k/year) • Concrete Curb & Gutter Replacement /Repair • Sidewalk Replacement/RepairiPw~oai#a~ • Retaining Wall Replacement /Repair .~ J ate. Mill & Overlay Needs 8 Si ~ I ~ ~!I ~ I ~ ~I .~ x. x.. i I'% ~~'~- nl.xw .. _.. "~L i L I x ~ r _ _ ~~ I I • II ~ I '~ ~ ___ t ~ I• ,~ ~ )< i I i, I k i Ix ~ ~. n i i i ~ i ~ # x.. - i .. 1 It-s Retaining Wall Replacement x € ~ - i G~ ~ - •: ~ u~ __ t !• '~- .mss a_ 'w A /~ ~ . •...°I ~ j ue ~:- r 4F ~ '+ ., .. '~. ry _.3~ '. Y - .-. City Responsibilities: - ~ i;= ~`` • Sidewalks ~ ~Q ~. 1. • Retaining Walls 50/50 Split E ad '~ `~ ~ J . Citv Sidewalk Maintenance ~~m _ i ~'~ II 'ng trip hanrds .~ ~~. 2008 County Road Ratings ~o~ 5i I I sc ~ ~ a . a ~ _ __ 35 ~ 5.i - rr6T-5]a SOF Z3 H_ 4c] 5 _ tn_ xirof 53 n~u c.U£5 Y ~a E _ Et,T-R ~F S,~~C c AGf AaVemeit COndliion lridex Hvers:~-v^t ices ~ -r Hennepin County Average 2.96 64 62 2a~E,', =~ie,~ ~ Richfield Average 2.70 42 4H nce • Franchise Fees -Pavement Management (curb-to-curb) -Forestry • General Fund -Sidewalk Repair/Replacement ($20k) • For consideration -Retaining Wall Repair/Replacement -2012 Purchase of Paving Machine ($100k) .~s~ro. •i • 2 • • • Franchise Fee Approved Uses $600,000- Sealcoat and Mill & Overlay $100,000- Curb & Gutter and Route & Seal $99,000- DED Boulevard Removals $71,000- EAB & TLCB Treatments 25 000- Replacement Trees $895, 000 Anticipate Collecting $860,000 .~ J rar~yv. Dutch Elm Disease Boulevard Removals - 2009- $94,400 - 2010- $50,100 Emerald Ash Borer Treatments - 2010- $22,900- 600 trees - Additional Treatments Needed Two-Lined Chestnut Borer Treatments - 2010- $18,650 - 2011- No Treatment Necessary - 2012- One Additional Treatment Recommended . v,•wtr savor nimmn•u• ~" Franchise Fee Recommendation • Continue 6 year Pavement Management Rotation • Carry over a Cash balance to accommodate Mill & Overlay cycle (6 Year Rotation) • Maintain current rates • Shift forestry $'s to Pavement Management Program as items sunset • Expand program to include sidewalk repair/replacement, retaining wall repair/replacement .p,o„e~s•,w~v aklr y J '~•i - ~ Pavement Management Program Outlook Year Maint Type Cosl ° FF Cash Balance '" ' 2011 Sealcoat $418,230 $181,770 ' 2012 Sealcoat $369,870 $411,900 2013 Sealcoat 5430,060 $581,840 2014 Overlay $951,500 5230,340 2015 Sealcoat $764,560 $65,780 2016 Overlay $665,780 $0 2017 Sealcoat $586,710 513,290 2018 Sealcoat $463,280 $150,010 2019 Sealcoat $534,420 $215,590 2020 Overlay $815,590 $0 "Estimates using 20'10 p rices* "'"$60Q000/year .~ Franchise Fees Targeted Uses • Pavement Management Program • Mill & Overlay • Sealcoat • Route & Seal • Curb and Gutter Replacement • Sidewalk Repair/Replacement (PW Goal #3) 'nev.+ • Retaining Wall Replacement "ne•.^+ • DED Boulevard Removals • EAB/TLCB Treatments • Purchase of Replacement Trees .~ J rtie:nr,• tAonlhly Franchise Fee sz.cD s1.so 51.00 so.so ~, EAB Treatment 550,000 DED Removal 550,000 Replacement Boulevard Tree szs,oco Pavement Management Sealccat, MITI & Overlay, Sidewalk Repair I Replaceme Retaining Wa!I Replacement sno,ooo Proposed Targeted Uses of Franchise Fee Total Franchise Fee ssss,oco.~ sso,coo se4s,oooC S50,CDO s~ss,ooo~_ szs,ooo sT~o,oco% 3 sa 2D09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014