here - City of Northfield
Transcription
here - City of Northfield
6:30 PM – City Hall – View New Fire Truck Prior to Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL MEETING & WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER ____Graham ____DeLong ____Ludescher ____Nakasian ____Peterson White ____ Pownell ____Zweifel APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES PRESENTATIONS REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS CONSENT AGENDA Public Comments: Persons commenting on consent agenda items only may use this opportunity to speak. Speakers must identify themselves by providing their name and address and completing a comment card. Comments are limited to two (2) minutes. Agenda items below are approved by one motion unless a Council member requests separate action. All items approved by majority vote unless noted. 1. Motion – Review of City Disbursements 2. Items Related to Ordinance No. 955: a. Ordinance No. 955 - Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards b. Motion – Approve Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 955 c. Motion – Direct Planning Commission & Staff to Develop Incentives Related to Dwelling Units Per Acre 3. Resolution 2013-133– Certification of Delinquent Accounts to 2014 Taxes 4. Resolution 2013-134 - Accept Wellhead Protection Grant 5. Motion – Approve Purchase of Equipment for Public Works Department 6. Meadows Property Farmland Lease a. Motion - Review and Approve Request For Proposals for Lease of Meadows Property Tillable Acres b. Motion - Review and Approve of Draft Farmland Lease Agreement 7. Resolution 2013-135 - Approve Purchase Agreement for 512 Ninth Street 8. Resolution 2013-136 – Accept Feasibility Report and Call for Improvement Hearing Sixth Street Reconstruction Project 9. Resolution 2013-137 – Accept Feasibility Report and Call for Improvement Hearing Sixth Street Reconstruction Project OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons may take one opportunity to address the council for three (3) minutes on a topic not on the agenda. No notification of the mayor is required. However, speakers are asked to complete a comment card. Persons wanting a response to a question must submit the question in writing to the recording secretary. Questions must include name, address and phone number. REGULAR AGENDA Please submit name and address to the recording secretary before the meeting or prior to the start of the regular agenda. The Mayor will ask you to speak after the staff report on the item. Please be respectful of the public’s and the council’s time. Members of the public wishing to speak may be asked to: Speak only once for no more than two (2) minutes on the topic unless the speaker is addressed by the council; To identify your relationship to the topic (interested citizens included); To have a spokesperson or two for your group to present your comments. 10. Motion –Approve Granicus for Electronic Agenda Management Process 11. Motion- Approve Convention & Visitors Bureau Budget for 2014 12. Information - TIF District #4 update 13. Resolution 2013-138 – Approve Presidential Commons Interfund Loan 14. Items related to Tiger Trail a. Resolution 2013-139 – Accept Bids and Award Contract for Tiger Trail b. Resolution 2013-140- Approve the Amended Tiger Trail Grant Agreement 15. Motion – Fire Services 16. Information - Update on Police Project ADJOURN TO WORK SESSION 17. Charter Commission – Ethics 18. LMC Rules of Conduct Note: The City Council may take a five minute break during the meeting. ADMINISTRATORS UPDATE ADJOURN NOTE: All regular City Council meetings end at 10:00 pm unless a 5/7 majority of the City Council vote to extend the time. If you require special services to attend or participate in a public meeting, please call the City's Administration Office at (507) 645-3001 or e-mail Deb Little, City Clerk, at [email protected]. TDD users can call (507) 645-3030. Please call 24 hours before the meeting, if possible. SPECIAL NEEDS: Meeting: Special City Council Meeting Date: November 12, 2013 Members present: Location: Council Chambers Start Time: 7:00 p.m. Adjourn Time: 10:14 p.m. Mayor Dana Graham, Council Members David DeLong, David Ludescher, Suzie Nakasian, Jessica Peterson White, Rhonda Pownell, and Erica Zweifel Members Absent: None Others present: Helen Medin, Don McGee, Lee Runzheimer, Victor Summa, Dale Gehring, Gerry Franek, Jeff Machacek, Tom Nelson, Interim Finance Director Melanie Schlomann, Public Works Director/City Engineer Joe Stapf, Community Planning & Development Director Chris Heineman, City Attorney Chris Hood, City Clerk Deb Little, City Administrator Tim Madigan, Northfield News and other interested citizens. Item Discussion/Conclusions Call to Order At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Graham called the meeting to order. Approval of Agenda The agenda was amended by moving items 1 & 4 from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Approval of Minutes Action A roll call was taken of members present and a quorum was declared. A motion was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. Peterson White to approve the agenda as amended for November 12, 2013. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. Pownell to approve the Special City Council meeting minutes for October 29, 2013. All in favor. Motion carried. Presentation None. Reports From Council Members C. Nakasian – Attended the Minnesota Transportation Futures Conference. Reported on the Transit Initiative Meeting today. Will provide a written summary of the meeting. C. Peterson White – None C. DeLong – None C. Zweifel – Reported on the Transit Initiative meeting. Noted positive transportation improvements that are taking place. C. Ludescher – None C. Pownell – None Mayor Graham – Reported on the recent business visit to Neuger Communications. Consent Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda City Administrator Madigan introduced the items on the consent agenda. Resolution 2013-129 Approve the Canvass of Votes Cast at the November 5, A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Peterson White to APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 1 – November 12, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Canvass Votes 2013 Special Election for Ward 4 Resolution 2013-130 2014 Fees & Charges Ordinance No. 954 Approve 2014 Fees and Charges Action Approve First Reading Of Ordinance No. 954 - Amending Northfield Code, Chapter 66 - Special Assessments, Article III. Determination Of Benefit And Assessment Rates, Section 66-25. Determination Of Benefit Public Comments Open Public Comments Don McGee, 710 Highland Ave., spoke regarding the Tiger Trail bids that were opened last week. Provided written questions to the Council regarding the project. Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., asked the Council why they haven’t asked questions of the nature that Mr. McGee posed regarding the Tiger Trail. Spoke regarding the trail design and questions that citizens have. Noted an October 23 article regarding the tunnel under Highway #3 in Rosemount. Regular Agenda Motion M2013-116 Disbursements City Administrator Madigan introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Interim Finance Director Schlomann answered questions posed by the Council. Resolution 2013-131 2014 Utility Rates Interim Finance Director Schlomann introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Ordinance No. 955 LDC Amendments Community Planning & Development Director Heineman introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Richard Schulte, Planning Commission Chair, spoke regarding the Planning Commission’s lengthy discussion of lot widths and complex calculation used by developers. Noted that the number that was used is arbitrary rather than a mathematical satisfying rule. Noted that the town wants flexibility and market driven development and noted that the Planning Commission was looking for a way to respond to that. Resolution 2013-132 Disapproval of E-mail & Acceptance of Apology Councilor Pownell requested that staff provide a motion on the next regular agenda that directs staff to bring back to the Council options to incentivize a density goal of 4-6 units per acre. Council Member DeLong introduced this item. Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., spoke regarding the importance of the situation. Challenged the Council to set a higher bar for conduct. A motion (M2013-116) was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Peterson White to APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS TOTALING $1,548,392.07. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. DeLong and seconded by C. Ludescher to ADOPT UTILITY FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2014. Yes votes: C. Ludescher, C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel, and Mayor Graham. No votes: C. DeLong. Vote is 6-1. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. DeLong and seconded by C. Pownell to approve FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 955 AMENDING NORTHFIELD CODE, CHAPTER 34 – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell and Mayor Graham. No vote: C. Zweifel. Vote is 6-1. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. DeLong and seconded by C. Ludescher to APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013-132 – EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL CONCERNING AN EMAIL AND FORMALLY ACCEPTING APOLOGY. Asked to discuss at retreat. Page 2 – November 12, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Action A motion was made by C. Ludescher and seconded by C. Zweifel to AMEND RESOLUTION 2013-132 TO DELETE ALL WHEREAS STATEMENTS EXCEPT FOR LAST WHEREAS IN THE RESOLUTION. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Nakasian and C. Zweifel. No votes: C. Peterson White, C. Pownell and Mayor Graham. Vote is 4-3. Motion carried. Recess Adjourn to Work Session Department Budget Reviews Fire Services Process The following Department Budget Reviews were provided: • Finance • Liquor • Motor Vehicle City Administrator Madigan reviewed the options related to the governance and operation of the Northfield Fire Department. Vote on Resolution 2013-132 as amended. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. No votes: C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White and C. Pownell. Vote is 4-3. Motion carried. Mayor Graham called for a five minute recess at 8:44 p.m. The City Council adjourned to a Work Session. None Administrator’s Update None Adjourn Adjourn the meeting Submitted by: The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m. __________________________________ Deb Little, City Clerk Attest: _________________________________ Dana Graham, Mayor Page 3 – November 12, 2013 City Council Minutes CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Mary Grant, Accountant Subject: Disbursements Action Requested: The Northfield City Council approves disbursements totaling $405,988.21 Summary Report: Disbursement Description Date 11/08/13 AP Ck’s 11/08/13 Total Public Safety Center portion of A/P is $2,525.00. They are within the limitations of the approved budget and resources available. Attachments: 1. Disbursement Lists Amount 405,988.21 $405,988.21 CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Chris Heineman, Community Planning and Development Director Subject: Ordinance No. 955 – Second reading of an Ordinance Amending the Northfield Code, Chapter 34 Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Approving Summary Publication, and Directing the Planning Commission and Staff to Develop Density Incentives. Action Requested: a) The City Council approves the second reading of Ordinance No. 955 amending the text and tables of the Land Development Code (LDC). b) Motion – Approve Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 955 c) Motion – Direct Planning Commission and staff to develop incentives to achieve objective of 4 to 6 dwelling units per net acre in the N2-B zoning district. Summary Report: The City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 955 amending the text and tables of the LDC on November 12th, 2013. The amendments address a City Council recommendation from April 16th directing the Planning Commission to review and bring back a recommendation for additional amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) as noted in the excerpt from the minutes below: M2013-035 - A motion (M2013-035) was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Zweifel to DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND BRING BACK FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: • 5’ SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR R1-B; • GARAGE PLACEMENT ON UNPLATTED LOTS; • GARAGE MASSING (3) (ii) 80’ IN WIDTH OF PROPERTY IN ORDER TO HAVE A 3 CAR GARAGE. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, Mayor Graham. No votes: C. Ludescher and C. Zweifel. Vote is 5-2. Motion carried. The Planning Commission met nine times over the last five months in regular meetings and work sessions to review these issues and consider additional amendments to the LDC. As these issues were explored in further detail, several additional concerns related to LDC Development Standards became evident. The LDC amendments recommended by the Planning Commission included in proposed Ordinance 955, address these concerns and attempt to provide greater flexibility to the existing code while maintaining the broad policy goals of the Northfield Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments primarily focus on regulations for new residential development in the N2-B (perimeter growth) zoning district and garage regulations for 1-3 unit residential buildings. According to the Land Use (Chapter 4) section of the Comprehensive Plan, the goal for future land use is to achieve “an efficient use of land resources that emphasizes strategic development, redevelopment, and land intensification, preserves environmentally significant areas and agricultural resources, preserves a strong and vibrant downtown, preserves a sense of place, and promotes sustainable planning practices.” This goal was carefully considered as the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes to the LDC. One of the recommended changes to the current regulations for the N2-B zoning district is related to the maximum lot width. The existing code states that the maximum width of a singlefamily lot is 75 feet with the provision that 20 percent of the lots in a given subdivision could be up to 100 feet wide. Members of the Planning Commission stated that the lot width regulation was intended to prevent areas of large lot development and promote a variety of housing costs, styles and demographics. The “smart growth” principals of higher density housing and compact development also promote fiscal sustainability for the public sector. The amended language includes an overall residential neighborhood density target of 4-6 units per net acre rather than a specific maximum lot width. While infrastructure costs for utilities, roads and sewers and ongoing service costs for police and fire are major budget items for the City of Northfield, increased residential density, which lowers the cost of these services, can be achieved by other means than regulating lot width. Residential lot width regulations are rarely found outside of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). When applied across an entire community, specific lot width regulations reduce the flexibility of a developer to be able to make creative design choices and maximize the development potential for a subdivision or Outlot. By establishing a neighborhood residential density target, developers will have greater flexibility and achieve the same result in the N2-B zoning district. Residential density targets are typically found in Comprehensive Plans as a broad policy goal rather than in the Land Development Code. If the Northfield Comprehensive Plan were amended to include this density target, it would better define the stated goal of achieving efficient use of land resources. Through consistent application of the Comprehensive Plan and enforcement of the Land Development Code, Northfield will continue to promote the following beneficial characteristics: A contiguous development pattern and gradual return toward the design principles of traditional Northfield A mixture of residential densities and housing types in the N2-B district including singlefamily, townhouses and apartments Narrower streets with sidewalks and trees, and a better visual connection between the sidewalks and the house Continued commercial growth in locations served by existing roads and utilities Continued infill and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and protection of the traditional (R1-B) low density neighborhood Continued investment in the historic downtown (C1-B) zoning district Side Yard Setbacks Another recommended change that addresses the specific concerns listed in Motion 2013-035 is regarding side-yard setbacks in the R1-B residential zoning district. The current language for this area is based on average of adjacent property setbacks. All new development or expansion of an existing building must meet the average side-yard setbacks of the two adjacent buildings on either side of the property. In theory, this regulation protects the existing fabric of the traditional neighborhood by basing the setback on the surrounding properties. In practice, however, the mix of housing and lot sizes in the R1-B zoning district make this a very difficult code to enforce and create random setbacks that unfairly limit certain property owners from improving their property. The recommended language is to establish a minimum side-yard setback of 5 feet. Garage Size The remaining changes are related to garages in residential zoning districts. The regulations for garages are currently found in Section 3.5 of the LDC. Staff is recommending that these sections be deleted from Section 3.5 (Neighborhood Compatibility Standards) and a new table be created in Section 3.2 (Site Development Standards). This change clarifies these regulations and places them adjacent to other important residential development standards. Many hours of discussion and staff time have been invested on these proposed amendments. The Planning Commission has reviewed at least eight versions of a table of proposed amendments, and the resulting recommended language is found on a new table (Table 3.2-3). The proposed language includes greater flexibility for garage placement on smaller lots (less than 65 feet wide) by allowing a garage to be placed up to 12 feet forward of the primary façade. The proposed language also increases the maximum width of a garage to 32 feet and 50% of the width of the entire building. The current LDC limits the width of a garage to 28 feet if it does not exceed 50% of the width of the home and garage and the property is at least 80 feet in width. This compromise will allow 3-stall garages to be developed if architectural treatments are included that diminish the visual impact of the vehicle entrance door(s). LDC Amendment Process The process for a zoning text amendment follows the Type 4 Development Review Procedure, which is outlined in Table 5.4.1 of the LDC. This process includes holding a public hearing at the Planning Commission level, recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, and review and approval by Ordinance by the City Council. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on August 15th to receive public input on the proposed amendments. Due to the public input received, the Planning Commission decided to table the proposed amendments and take action on a recommendation to the City Council at a future meeting. Following the Public Hearing, staff met with a group of builders and developers to discuss the amendments in further detail and reported their concerns with the draft language to the Planning Commission at the regular meeting in September. The Planning Commission scheduled a work session with local builders and developers on October 10th to discuss the details of the proposed LDC amendments, and several key changes were recommended. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments once again on October 18th. The Planning Commission grouped the amendments into five separate motions and voted on each of the motions independently. Each of the amendments was approved unanimously. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the LDC. Alternative Options: Take no action or amend the proposed language and approve as desired. Financial Information: The proposed amendments will create no immediate financial impact for the City of Northfield. Timelines: If the City Council chooses to approve the first reading of Ordinance 955, a second reading will be scheduled for Tuesday, November 19th. The amendments will take effect thirty days after publication in the Northfield News. Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 955 2. Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 955 ORDINANCE NO. 955 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AMENDING NORTHFIELD CODE, CHAPTER 34 – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD DOES ORDAIN THAT (new material is underlined; deleted material is lined out; sections which are not proposed to be amended are omitted; sections which are only proposed to be re-numbered are only set forth below as to their number and title): SECTION 1. Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Section 3.2 Site Development Standards, Subsection 3.2.2 Residential Site Development Standards, Paragraph (B) Table 3.2-1, is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) Table 3.2-1 establishes the sited development standards for the residential districts. Table 3.2-1: Residential District Site Development Standards R1-B R2-B R3-B R4-B N1-B[5] Permitted Density Permitted Density Controlled by Lot 8.1 to 15 units per 15.1 to 25 units per See Section Width and Lot Depth acre (Gross) acre (Gross) 2.9.12(E) Controlled by Lot Width and Lot Depth Build-to Line Front Street See Section 3.5.4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable See Section 3.5.4 Side Street See Section 3.5.4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 15 Feet Not Applicable 30% Building Area Ratio Building Area Ratio 25% Not Applicable Not Applicable Building Setbacks Front See Section 3.5.4 Average of adjacent to within 5 feet See Note [1] Below See Note [1] Below See Section 3.5.4 Side See Section 3.5.4 5 feet See Note [1] Below See Note [1] Below 5 feet interior, 15 feet corner Dev. Agr. or 5 feet Corner Side 15 feet See Note [1] Below See Note [1] Below Rear 30 Feet See Note [1] Below See Note [1] Below 30 Feet Between Buildings Not Applicable 10 Feet 10 Feet Not Applicable See Section 2.9.12(E) Dev. Agr. or 5 feet Lot Depth Max. Lot Depth 150 Feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 150 FeetNone Minimum and Maximum Lot Width Single-Family Dwelling 50-75 Feet Not Applicable [2] Not Applicable [2] 60-85 Feet Not Applicable [2] Not Applicable [2] Three-Family Dwelling 75-105 Feet Not Applicable [2] Not Applicable [2] Multi-Family Dwellings Not Applicable Not Applicable [2] Not Applicable [2] As determined by the planning commission Not Applicable [2] in the CUP review Not Applicable [2] Two-Family Dwelling Other Forms Min.: 50-75 Feet or Dev. Agr.[3] See Section 2.9.12(E) Min.: 60-85 Feet or Dev. Agr. Min.: 80-105 Feet or Dev. Agr. Not Applicable Min.: 105 to 150 Feet or Dev. Agr. As determined by the See Section planning commission 2.9.12(E) in the CUP review Building Height Maximum Building Height See Section 3.5.4 See Note [4], below See Note [4], below See Section 2.9.12(E) 30 Feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Parking Lot Setbacks Parking Lot Not Applicable Setbacks Ten feet along Ten feet along property lines and property lines and public rights of way public rights of way NOTES: [1] Building placement requirements for one, two, and three unit residential structures are found in Section 3.5.4, Standards for Development in R1-B, R2-B, R3-B, N1-B. Building setback requirements for four or more unit residential structures are 30 feet from any property line. [2] Minimum and maximum lot widths for lots zoned R2-B and R3-B shall be the lot widths as part of the official lot of record. [3] Lot widths of 40 feet shall be allowed on lots where access is provided by an alley as permitted in Section 3.11.3(B)(12), Alleys and Private Streets or for single family lots with shared driveways. [4] Building height requirements for one, two, and three unit residential structures are found in Section 3.5.4, Standards for Development in R1-B, R2-B, R3-B, N1-B. The building height requirement for four or more unit residential structures is 30 feet, but buildings may exceed 30 feet in height if for each additional ten feet of height, the building is set back an additional five feet from all adjacent buildings and lot lines. [5] Setbacks for N1-B should follow the development agreement on file; if there is no official development agreement on file, follow the setbacks as shown in the table above. Table 3.2-2: Site Development Standards for N2-B District [1] One, two, or three residential units Four to Nine or Neighboreight more hoodresidential residential Live/Work serving Civic units units Rowhouse Live/Work Rowhouse Commercial Uses [2] Building Placement Front Street Setback 20-25 Feet on local streets; 5 Feet on 15-25 Feet 25-30 20 Feet arterial, [5] collector streets and alleys 5-15 Feet on local streets; 5 Feet on arterial or collector streets, or alleys 2 5-20 Feet 5-15 Feet on local streets; 5 Feet on arterial or collector streets, or alleys 5-7 Feet 25-30 Feet Side, Interior (Minimum) [3] 5 Feet 10 Feet 15-25 Feet Not Applicable 5 Feet Not Applicable 10 Feet 15 Feet Rear (Minimum) [3] 30 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 30 Feet 30 Feet 20 Feet 30 Feet 10 Feet 15-20 Feet Not Not Applicable Applicable Not Not Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable 60 Feet Not Applicable Side, Corner 20-25 Feet 20-25 15 Feet on local or equal to the streets; 5 front setback of Feet on 15-25 Feet an adjacent arterial, house facing collector that side street streets and alleys 5-15 Feet 5-15 Feet on local on local streets; 5 streets; 5 Feet on Feet on 10-15 Feet arterial or arterial or collector collector streets, or streets, or alleys alleys Building Area Ratio Building Area Ratio Not Not Applicable Applicable Not Not Not 30% Applicable Applicable Applicable Lot Depth Max. Lot Depth Not Not Not 150 Feet 150 Feet Applicable Applicable Applicable Minimum and Maximum Lot Width Minimum Lot Width 1: 40 Feet 2: 60 Feet 3: 75 Feet For single-family lots, see Note 4 below; 60-85 Feet for two-family; and 75-105 Feet for three family Objective: Minimum Achieve 4 to 6 and dwelling units Maximum per net acre in Lot Width the N2-B District. Net=total minus wetlands, streams, ponds, parks, undevelopable slopes and arterial ROW 25 Feet Not Corner: 45 Applicable Feet 25 Feet minimum; Not 45 Feet for corner lots. Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not 50 Feet 50-85 Feet Not Not Applicable Applicable Applicable 3 60 Feet Minimum; 100 Feet Maximum Not Applicable Building Height Building Height 40 Feet 30 Feet 40 Feet 40 Feet 30 Feet 40 Feet (Maximum) (Maximum) (Maximum) (Maximum) (Maximum) (Maximum) [5] 20 Feet (Minimum) 30 Feet (Maximum) 50 Feet (Maximum) Street Type Driveway Allowed on which street type Local or collector streets, or alleys Arterial, collector, local streets or alleys Arterial or collector streets, or alleys Local, arterial or collector streets, or alleys Arterial, collector streets, or alleys Local, arterial or collector streets, or alleys Arterial or collector streets, or alleys Arterial or collector streets, or alleys NOTES: [1] Unless otherwise noted, building placement requirements are a minimum and maximum distance from a property line. [2] Civic uses are principal uses in Table 2.7-1, including cultural institutions, public and semipublic buildings, religious institutions, and schools. [3] Building placement requirements for side (interior) and rear yards are minimum requirements. [4] Lot widths of 40 feet shall be allowed on any single family lot where access is provided by an alley as permitted in Section 3.11.3(B)(11), Alleys and Private Streets or where single family lots have shared driveways. Where an alley is not permitted, the minimum lot width for a single family home is 50 feet. , and the maximum lot width for a single family home is as follows: • At least 80% of lots within a subdivision shall be 50'-75' in width • Up to 20% of lots within a subdivision may be between 75' and 100' in width [5] A height of up to 50 feet is allowed for a building with nine or more residential units, but the impact of the building shall be mitigated according to the standards of Section 2.9.14, Multi-Family Dwellings. (C) Garage Placement and Size in the Residential Districts. Table 3.2-3 presents the dimensional regulations for garages in the residential districts. (1) (2) Purpose and Intent. The intent of regulations on the setback, width and relative proportion of attached or detached garages is: (a) To ensure that there is a physical and visual connection between the living area of the home and the street; (b) To ensure that the location and amount of living space of the home, as seen from the street, is more prominent than the garage; (c) To prevent garages from obscuring the main entrance from the street and ensure that the main entrance for pedestrians, rather than automobiles, is the prominent entrance; (d) To provide for a more pleasant pedestrian environment by preventing garages from dominating the views of the neighborhood from the sidewalk; and (e) To enhance public safety by preventing garages from blocking views of the street from inside the house. Dimensional Regulations. Dimensional regulations for attached and detached garages for 1-, 2- and 3-family buildings are presented in Table 3.2-3. 4 Table 3.2-3: Garage Regulations for One-, Two- and Three-Unit Buildings R1 N1 N2 Attached Garages If the lot is less than 65 feet wide: Garage may be forward 12 feet; and if 3 stalls wide: o Third stall must be set back an additional 2 feet o Garage must include one of the following: Windows in the vehicle entrance door(s) One or more windows above the vehicle entrance door(s) Other architectural treatment that diminishes the visual impact of the vehicle entrance door(s). May be forward if on platted lot and consistent with 50% of others in the subdivision. If 1 or 2 stalls wide: 4 feet behind primary façade Even with the primary façade* if there is a covered porch along at least 10 feet of the front façade of the house. If three stalls wide, the third stall must be set back an additional 2 feet. Front Setback Exemptions: See Note 1. If 3 stalls wide, must include one of the following: Windows in the vehicle entrance door(s) One or more windows above the vehicle entrance door(s) Other architectural treatment that diminishes the visual impact of the vehicle entrance door(s). 30 Feet If the garage is turned or angled, the garage may be even with the primary façade if the side facing the street has windows or other features that mimic the living portion of the house. The garage may be forward of the primary façade if a variance is granted. 5 If the lot is 65 feet or wider and: If 1 or 2 stalls wide: o 4 feet behind the primary façade o Even with the primary façade if there is a covered porch along at least 10 feet of the front façade of the house If 3 stalls wide, the third stall must be set back an additional 2 feet If 3 stalls wide, must include one of the following: o Windows in the vehicle entrance door(s) o One or more windows above the vehicle entrance door(s) o Other architectural treatment that diminishes the visual impact of the vehicle entrance door(s). Regardless of lot width, if the garage is turned or angled, the garage may be set forward if the side facing the street has windows or other features that mimic the living portion of the house. Interior Side Setback 5 Feet 8 Feet 5 Feet Corner Side Setback 15 feet or the same as the front setback of an adjacent house facing that side street. 15 Feet 15 feet or the same as the front setback of an adjacent house facing that side street. 30 Feet 35 Feet 30 Feet Rear Side Setback Width Floor Area Max. (sq. ft.) Driveway Max. Width at Curb Line Front Setback Interior Side Setback Corner Side Setback Rear Side Setback Width Floor Area Max. (sq. ft.) Maximum: 32 feet and 50% of the width of the entire building. Maximum: 32 feet and 50% of the width of the entire building. A storage area without a vehicle entrance door but with a façade that matches the house will not be counted as garage width. A storage area without a vehicle entrance door but with a façade that matches the house will not be counted as garage width. 864 864 864 20 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet Detached Garages Same as attached garages 30 Feet Same as attached garages 5 Feet 8 Feet 5 Feet 15 feet or the same as the front setback of an adjacent house facing that side street. 15 Feet 15 feet or the same as the front setback of an adjacent house facing that side street. 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet 32 Feet 32 Feet 864 864 864. NOTES: [1] Exemptions: Setbacks for N1 should follow the development agreement on file; if there is no official development agreement on file; follow the setbacks as shown in the table above. [2] Primary façade means the plane that runs through the most forward insulated wall facing the street, not counting minor projections less than 8 feet wide. SECTION 2. Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Section 3.2 Site Development Standards: With the addition of a new Table 3.2-3 in Section 1 of this ordinance, renumber existing Table 3.2-3 in Subsection 3.2.3 C1-B District Site Development Standards, as Table 3.2-4, and renumber all subsequent tables and cross references to tables in Section 3.2 accordingly. 6 SECTION 3. Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (B) Design Standards for One, Two and Three Family Dwellings in R1-B, R2-B and R3-B, Clause (2) Building Placement, is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Building Placement. (a) Front yard. For new development or expansion of an existing building, the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed building will meet the average front yard building placement of the two adjacent buildings on either side of the subject property, as shown in Figure 3-16, to within five feet. (b) Side yard. All new development or expansion of an existing building shall demonstrate that the construction meets the average side yard setbacks of the two adjacent buildings on either side of the subject property as shown in Figure 3-17, but in no instance shall the building be located less than five feet from an interior side yard property lineThe minimum side yard setback shall be 5 feet. (c) Rear yard. All new development or expansion of an existing building shall comply with the rear yard setback requirements of the applicable district The minimum rear yard setback shall be 30 feet. (d) Corner yard. For corner lots, all new development or expansion of an existing building shall meet both the average front and corner yard building placement of the two adjacent buildings on either side of the subject property (see Figure 3-17), to within five feet. SECTION 4. Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (C) Design Standards for One, Two and Three Family Dwellings in N1-B., Clause (1) Building Placement, is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Building Placement. (a) Front yard. Proposed new development or building expansion in the front yard shall be placed within five feet of the setback established in the official development agreement on file for that property, but in no case may be closer than 15 feet to the front property line. If no development agreement exists, the front setback shall be 25—35 feet. (b) Side Yard. Proposed new development or building expansion in the side yard shall comply with the setback established in the official development agreement on file for that property. If no development agreement exists, 7 the side yard setback shall be five feetIf no development agreement exists, the minimum side yard setback shall be 5 feet. (c) Rear Yard. All new development or expansion of an existing building shall comply with the rear yard setback established in the official development agreement on file for that property. If no development agreement exists, the rear yard setback shall be 30 feet. (d) Corner Yard. For corner lots, all new development or expansion of an existing building shall comply with the setback established in the official development agreement on file for that property. If no development agreement exists, the corner side yard setback shall be 15 feet Proposed new development or building expansion on a corner lot shall comply with the setback established in the official development agreement on file for that property. If no development agreement exists, the corner side yard setback shall be 15 feet. SECTION 5. Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. Development Standards, Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (E) Design Standards for Attached Garages, is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Design Standards for Attached Garages. (1) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of design standards for attached garages is as follows: (i) To ensure that there is a physical and visual connection between the living area of the home and the street; (ii) To ensure that the location and amount of living space of the home, as seen from the street, is more prominent than the garage; (iii) To prevent garages from obscuring the main entrance from the street and ensure that the main entrance for pedestrians, rather than automobiles, is the prominent entrance; (iv) Provide for a more pleasant pedestrian environment by preventing garages from dominating the views of the neighborhood from the sidewalk; and (v) Enhance public safety by preventing garages from blocking views of the street from inside the home. (2) Garage Placement. Attached garages must be set back at least six feet from the primary façade of the principal structure with the following exceptions: (i) Side loaded attached garages provided that the side of the garage facing the front street has windows or other architectural details that mimic the features of the living portion of the home. 8 (ii) (3) An attached garage may be constructed to be in line with the primary façade of the principal structure if a minimum eight-foot deep covered porch is constructed in front of the primary home façade. (iii) The front of an attached garage on a proposed home may be located forward of the primary home façade if the proposed home will be constructed on a lot that has been approved as part of a final plat prior to the effective date of this LDC and homes with forward located garages have been constructed on more than 50 percent of the lots in the final plat. Garage Massing. The width of an attached garage is limited to 24 feet, except: (i) If the garage has two separate front vehicle entrance openings, the width of the garage may be extended to 28 feet; or (ii) A garage may be extended beyond 28 feet in width if the existing property is at least 80 feet in width, and the garage does not exceed 50 percent of the width of the façade of the home and garage. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Northfield, Minnesota, this 19th day of November, 2013. ATTEST: ____________________________ City Clerk First Reading: Second Reading: Published: VOTE: _____________________________ Mayor 11/12/13 ______________ ______________ ___ GRAHAM ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ NAKASIAN ___ LUDESCHER ___ DELONG 9 SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF CITY OF NORTHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. 955 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AMENDING NORTHFIELD CODE, CHAPTER 34 – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Summary: An ordinance amending Northfield Code, Chapter 34 – Land Development Code, Article 3. – Development Standards by (1) amending Section 3.2 Site Development Standards, Subsection 3.2.2 Residential Site Development Standards, Paragraph (B), Table 3.2-1: Residential District Site Development Standards and Table 3.2.2: Site Development Standards for N2-B District, and adding a new Paragraph (C), Garage Placement and Size in the Residential Districts, and Table 3.2.3: Garage Regulations for One-, Two- and Three-Unit Buildings; (2) renumbering all subsequent tables and cross-references in Section 3.2 accordingly; (3) amending Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (B) Design Standards for One, Two and Three Family Dwellings in R1-B, R2-B and R3-B, Clause (2) Building Placement; (4) amending Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (C) Design Standards for One, Two and Three Family Dwellings in N1-B., Clause (1) Building Placement; and (5) deleting Section 3.5 Neighborhood Compatibility Standards, Subsection 3.5.4 Standards for Residential Development, Paragraph (E) Design Standards for Attached Garages. The complete text of Ordinance No. 955 may be obtained at no charge at City Hall or from the City’s website at www.ci.northfield.mn.us. CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Melanie Schlomann, Interim Finance Director Subject: Approval of Certification of Delinquent Accounts to 2014 Taxes Resolution 2013-133 Action Requested: The Northfield City Council approves the attached resolution that certifies delinquent charges to the 2014 tax bills. Summary Report: Each year staff determines delinquent utility and other charges as of October 1st. Any balances outstanding for 90 days or more as of October 1st (June 30th balances) constitute the initial list of charges subject to certification to the following year’s tax rolls. In early October letters (letter template attached) are sent to property owners advising them of the certification process and that payment was required by early November in order for certification to be avoided. The table below summarizes the history of amounts certified to taxes for the last several years. Certified Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Amount $208,158 $191,673 $195,956 $203,598 $168,126 Change from Prior Year - 8% +2.2% +3.9% -17.4% The totals shown above do not include additional fees charged for certification or any delinquent special assessments. The total shown for 2013 is as of November 13th. Finance staff will continue to work with customers up until the time the data is transmitted to the counties, which is required by December 15th. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Resolution 2013-133 Delinquent Account Listing – attachment to the resolution Delinquent Account Letter template CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION #2013-133 CERTIFYING DELINQUENT CHARGES TO TAXES PAYABLE 2014 WHEREAS, pursuant to the proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed delinquent special assessment charges for the improvements of sewer, water, storm sewer, curb, gutter and surfacing; delinquent charges in the water, sewer, storm drainage, and garbage funds; and delinquent weed mowing and other charges. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and adopted shall constitute a special assessment against the lands described, and each tract of land is hereby found to be benefited in the amount of the assessment levied against it and such amount is found to be reasonable under the City’s regulatory authority. 2. Each assessment shall be payable in one single installment bearing interest at the rate of ten percent per annum after the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The Finance Director shall forthwith transmit a certified copy of said assessment roll to the County of the county and such assessments shall be collected and paid in the same manner as property taxes, if not paid prior to the time for certification. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST _______________________ City Clerk VOTE: ________________________ Mayor ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL Account 1‐00301‐02 1‐00621‐02 1‐00731‐01 1‐01591‐01 1‐02591‐01 1‐03434‐02 1‐03444‐04 1‐04414‐03 1‐04434‐01 1‐04634‐01 1‐04764‐02 1‐05004‐02 1‐05154‐01 1‐06744‐03 1‐09297‐00 1‐09307‐00 1‐09311‐00 1‐09327‐00 1‐10861‐00 1‐44261‐00 1‐44601‐00 1‐44757‐00 1‐44821‐01 1‐45091‐00 2‐00291‐02 2‐00431‐00 2‐00451‐06 2‐00551‐07 2‐00661‐00 2‐01041‐00 2‐01241‐01 2‐01271‐06 2‐01372‐01 2‐01401‐01 2‐01521‐02 2‐01551‐00 2‐01891‐03 2‐02011‐01 2‐02231‐01 2‐02351‐01 2‐02401‐01 2‐02671‐03 2‐02681‐02 2‐02711‐01 2‐02801‐00 2‐02901‐03 2‐03081‐03 2‐03241‐03 2‐03331‐01 2‐03371‐00 2‐03431‐01 2‐03491‐01 2‐03861‐02 2‐03891‐01 2‐03941‐05 2‐04061‐03 2‐04071‐01 2‐04241‐02 2‐04571‐01 2‐04671‐02 2‐04871‐03 2‐05131‐03 2‐05181‐00 2‐05211‐02 2‐05261‐01 2‐05731‐06 2‐06151‐00 2‐06581‐01 2‐06871‐02 2‐06881‐00 2‐07561‐00 2‐07601‐01 2‐07651‐02 2‐07791‐05 2‐08061‐02 Name PHILLIP M ZRIMSEK MICHAEL VIOLA DEAN PAXTON VICTOR EBERT TRICIA BROWN BROGAN INDUSTRIES MARK WESTBLADE DAN HANSON CENTRAL BLOCK BUILDING, LLC STEPHEN G. MCKINSTRY ALETON, LLC BERNIE HOREJSI STATE FARM INSURANCE MARK & STEVE OLSON GREH INC GREH INC GREH INC GREH INC (MAINT) HERITAGE SRC MARK /BECKY NELSON MICHAEL ERICKSON MICHAEL J CARLISANO SCOTT/SARA KOEHLER MIKE&SHANNON HARREN PETE LEE WILLIAM FOSSUM JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC CORRIE ERICKSON EDWARD NOONAN BRUCE THOMPSON CHARLES REZAC CLAUDIA JIMENEZ LAURI OTTING DAVID TREBELHORN JASON SCHWARTZ LEONARD MUCKEY THOMAS TATE ROBERT HRUZA THOMAS MUKINA TAL LAUSENG ROBERT SHIMEK DEAN & TAMMY MORKASSEL US BANK NA SCOTT MORRISON GARY PETERSON ERIC ANDRINGA KATHERINE KES‐PICK SAMANTHA ROBERTSON PHILIP DANIEL ROBERT M JOHNSON SHAWN NUEBEL BRENDA LONEY RONALD LOVOLL JONATHAN ODELL MIKE KOPPENBERG PETER J LEE WADE J CANEDY DAVID TSCHANN MICHELLE L JOHNSON BRUCE ERICKSON ZACH HOLLANDER DEBORAH E CLARK DEANNA MAZUREK MARCELLA FRAZIER MICHAEL GARLITZ KIRK WALKER MRS PRITCHARD WM & VICKI ROSSMAN JOSEPH M DOKKEN PATRICK D BULLARD KATHRYN J DEGROOT AARON CUSTARD TWYLA KUHA LEONARD HOREJSI GARY MORSTAD Service Address 619 5TH STREET E 411 OAK STREET 315 OAK STREET 504 4TH STREET E 410 UNION STREET 517 WATER STREET S 507 WATER STREET S 407 DIVISION STREET 1/2 401 DIVISION STREET S 111 4TH STREET E 315 DIVISION STREET S 1000 DIVISION STREET S 107 3RD STREET W 1001 HWY 3 S 88 AC BK2 LT 3 43 AC BK 2 LT 1 2240 HWY #3 ‐BICKEL 6 AC OUTLOT B 2 2018 JEFFERSON ROAD 1607 GOLDENROD COURT 822 MAYFLOWER COURT 601 TURNBERRY COURT 1704 GOLDENROD CIRCLE 1804 CREEK LANE 315 8TH STREET W 410 8TH STREET W 419 8TH STREET W 410 9TH STREET W 908 POPLAR STREET S 1012 LINDEN STREET S 1015 LINDEN STREET S 309 WOODLEY STREET W 907 LINDEN STREET #2 S 311 9TH STREET W 809 SPRING STREET S 801 SPRING STREET S 1104 SPRING STREET S 1101 POPLAR STREET S 1016 WATER STREET S 201 LINDEN PLACE 301 LINDEN PLACE S 1002 DIVISION STREET 1010 DIVISION STREET S 102 FREMONT STREET W 1204 DIVISION STREET S 104 SUMNER STREET E 1012 WASHINGTON STREET 806 DIVISION STREET 819 DIVISION STREET S 102 9TH STREET E 916 WASHINGTON STREET 116 WOODLEY STREET E 1107 UNION STREET 1106 COLLEGE STREET 315 FREMONT STREET E 908 COLLEGE STREET 910 COLLEGE STREET 910 WINONA STREET 709 WASHINGTON STREET 800 COLLEGE STREET 405 8TH STREET E 706 UNION STREET 707 WASHINGTON STREET 702 WASHINGTON STREET 607 WASHINGTON STREET 506 6TH STREET E 920 5TH STREET E 304 5TH STREET E 2 FAREWAY DRIVE 4 FAREWAY DRIVE 17 PARK DRIVE 9 PARK DRIVE 614 7TH STREET E 15 BUNDAY COURT 1003 COLLEGE STREET Total to Certify 827.65 291.67 1,024.10 619.85 331.67 322.87 465.80 363.55 864.45 509.54 649.35 1,285.33 3.74 121.83 310.85 322.91 330.48 177.94 175.97 3,113.76 66.70 20.55 430.96 1,248.91 855.48 759.74 176.20 618.60 882.05 898.28 954.04 373.91 54.41 1,876.47 769.58 940.41 451.23 1,200.47 972.38 171.95 1,266.89 706.86 629.18 1,069.30 1,071.73 78.99 83.55 294.16 786.21 58.95 918.35 750.92 1,041.47 40.94 35.99 1,009.83 658.63 1,002.42 820.53 1,212.76 534.48 688.48 152.50 1,102.33 1,029.50 1,299.87 435.89 944.72 1,195.93 909.41 1,041.02 671.86 197.66 258.13 767.97 PID 2206126018 2206126036 2206126001 2206200027 2206225055 2201100017 2201100015 2206225033 2206225032 2206225013 2231350046 2206326032 2236475040 2201425002 2211154003 2211154002 2211154001 2211154004 2211176003 2205328001 2205253019 2205200004 2205275006 2205301019 2201175032 2201175007 2201151008 2201175045 2201151020 2201151027 2201401002 2201151034 2201175058 2201175055 2201175021 2201175019 2201403001 2201402003 2201400008 2201404012 2201403030 2206326033 2206326034 2201400001 2201400039 2206328003 2206326029 2206250058 2206250052 2206250069 2206250075 2206326023 2206326060 2206326067 2206326008 2206276052 2206276053 2206276063 2206250026 2206276045 2206276022 2206250031 2206250025 2206250011 2206225117 2206200096 2206125010 2206225062 2206151016 2206151017 2206151007 2206151011 2206277001 2206277015 2206302002 2‐08141‐01 2‐08191‐01 2‐08601‐03 2‐08771‐02 2‐09641‐01 2‐10131‐00 2‐10361‐01 2‐10691‐01 2‐10851‐01 2‐11781‐02 2‐11851‐01 2‐11971‐01 2‐12202‐09 2‐12301‐03 2‐14011‐00 2‐14021‐00 2‐14081‐03 2‐18391‐00 2‐18761‐00 2‐19021‐00 2‐19041‐00 2‐19892‐00 2‐20192‐01 2‐20342‐04 2‐20571‐02 2‐20731‐02 2‐21041‐00 2‐21811‐03 2‐22271‐01 2‐22281‐06 2‐22331‐02 2‐22351‐02 2‐22591‐07 2‐22651‐02 2‐23032‐01 2‐23112‐02 2‐25352‐00 2‐25532‐00 2‐25692‐00 2‐26531‐00 2‐28091‐03 2‐28201‐01 2‐30034‐98 2‐30277‐00 2‐30792‐00 2‐40382‐03 2‐40542‐02 2‐40572‐01 2‐40837‐00 2‐50061‐01 2‐50661‐07 2‐50881‐00 2‐50981‐00 2‐52321‐00 2‐52651‐00 2‐52691‐00 2‐60591‐03 2‐70244‐00 2‐80501‐01 2‐81161‐00 2‐81281‐03 2‐90131‐05 2‐91341‐00 2‐91351‐00 2‐91401‐05 2‐91471‐00 2‐91471‐00 2‐91511‐01 2‐91561‐04 2‐91621‐01 2‐92031‐01 2‐92331‐04 2‐92371‐01 2‐92421‐00 2‐92911‐01 2‐93361‐01 TODD G BABCOCK KEVIN KEANE PAUL NESS LEROY SWARTS III STUART KING ROBERTA LOWTHROP BECKY KRIPPNER DAVID BOLSTAD‐CHAPMAN JOHN/MARY LANGAN ROBERT MCGOWAN THOMAS DICKERSON SONDRA BREILAND HODGSO RUTHIE GILBERTSON HARRY WILLIAMS KIM KUIVINEN DAN THRUN JERAMIE GRUBER DAN DUNPHY JOE GASIOR LORI JOHNSON LINDA BRANDENBURG CONNIE LARSEN BETTE QUINNELL ELIZABETH A STREEFLAND PATRICK RODER DUSTIN/CATHY PRODOEHL JAMES ENFIELD JAY FUTHEY CHRIS & LISA LAW JASON THIMSEN NICOLE WEITZEL GARY BICKEL JENNIFER SIMPSON‐DAHL JEFFERY IVERSON TODD &MISHIA EDWARDS JEROMY/JENNI LYMAN DARLENE MELING SCOTT MOE GAREN/AMANDA VICKNEY EVELYN COUGHLIN BRENT HOLMES LUIS SISON JR GENE JASNOCH HERITAGE RC CHARLOTTE O. SWENSEN DAMIEN J BUECKSLER TIMOTHY ALMENDINGER STEVEN HODGSON JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC KARL LEAR DUSTIN B ALLEN RUSSELL ZABEL DAN HANSON BRIAN CARSON JEFFREY HALES ROGER THOMPSON EDWIN & SHELBY OSTER SCHILLING BUSINESS PARK CONDO SEAN & MARY STANCHINA HUPPERT, N PAULSEN, MIKE BENJAMIN STRIMPEL JAMES HINDMAN BONNIE THOMAS JENNIFER WHITSON BERNARD STREET MIKE ATKINSON JA GULLICKSON INC MALLORY JERMELAND WYATT E HALVERSON SUSAN WARRING BRIAN DWYER KARIN LICHTSINN TIM BABBINI T & K PROPERTIES TATE F RUNNING TRICIA NELSON 1117 COLLEGE STREET 312 SUMNER STREET E 1200 ARCHIBALD COURT 1112 WINONA STREET 840 WOODLEY STREET E 1000 ELM STREET 703 SIBLEY DRIVE 706 SIBLEY DRIVE 728 BIRCH LANE 1250 PRAIRIE STREET 924 PROSPECT COURT 1209 LIA DRIVE 1106 LIA COURT 1021 FREMONT CIRCLE 1324 ARCHIBALD STREET 1400 ARCHIBALD STREET 1424 ARCHIBALD STREET 1708 EAST RIDGE COURT 809 ALDRICH DRIVE 810 ST LAWRENCE DRIVE 902 ST LAWRENCE DRIVE 2009 LAKE DRIVE 1828 COOLIDGE COURT 1704 HUMPHREY COURT 1513 EISENHOWER COURT 1605 MONROE COURT 1809 TRUMAN COURT 505 CARTER DRIVE 1700 MCKINLEY DRIVE 1801 ROOSEVELT DRIVE 1811 BUCHANAN COURT 1815 BUCHANAN COURT 1856 KENNEDY COURT 1844 KENNEDY COURT 1506 PHEASANTWOOD TR 1507 PHEASANTWOOD TR 1309 CONSTITUTIONAL DR 1412 PRESIDENTIAL DR 1515 PRESIDENTIAL DR 1808 JEFFERSON ROAD 2106 GRANT DRIVE 2019 GRANT DRIVE 2014 JEFFERSON ROAD ‐B 2010 JEFFERSON ROAD 2007 HIDDEN VALLEY RD 1204 HERITAGE DRIVE 1110 HERITAGE DRIVE 1104 HERITAGE DRIVE 1116 PETERSON DRIVE 1704 ARCHIBALD STREET 1912 SIBLEY VIEW LANE 1901 SIBLEY VIEW LANE 2105 SIBLEY VIEW COURT 104 ANDERSON DRIVE 107 SUNNY VIEW DRIVE 2016 SUNNY VIEW LANE 1909 WASHINGTON STREET 1401 HERITAGE DRIVE 2309 VALLEY COURT 1320 HONEYLOCUST DRIVE 2417 PEPPER RIDGE CT 1300 DIVISION STREET S 405 BUNKER DRIVE 409 BUNKER DRIVE 501 BUNKER DRIVE 609 BUNKER DRIVE 609 BUNKER DRIVE 625 BUNKER DRIVE 1905 WILCOX BLVD EAST 404 BUNKER DRIVE 2615 OAK LAWN DRIVE 2421 ELIANNA DRIVE 2405 ELIANNA DRIVE 2308 ELIANNA DRIVE 1009 ABBEY ROAD 623 BUNKER DRIVE 274.43 915.55 11.03 866.03 386.64 711.79 1,037.78 847.92 1,382.81 1,265.18 1,072.94 505.87 895.70 843.40 1,478.91 129.32 998.86 1,246.62 1,091.88 804.60 446.83 227.91 1,061.72 33.29 982.69 1,703.77 1,064.35 1,094.04 1,661.70 1,140.45 1,121.27 841.15 1,130.71 1,899.98 1,078.75 1,023.51 250.35 1,074.46 795.81 991.44 325.30 788.35 329.03 175.97 781.83 1,088.30 811.24 455.44 18.68 703.45 129.83 1,355.07 888.43 1,076.37 1,570.65 1,120.93 1,116.69 605.78 1,398.83 169.93 1,334.16 101.57 541.57 1,519.77 54.10 261.06 261.06 749.17 458.87 684.68 1,331.30 156.27 1,122.08 13.29 128.39 1,189.83 2206302009 2206332003 2206332009 2206302013 2206426055 2206426074 2206426144 2206426176 2206451015 2206426126 2206426119 2206426199 2206426029 2206426039 2206352002 2206352003 2206352009 2207126009 2207128017 2207101049 2207101051 2207151006 2212201024 2212202004 2212201148 2212201165 2212201198 2212201077 2212201117 2212201139 2212201136 2212201134 2212201240 2212201246 2201378056 2201378048 2201451009 2201451031 2201451060 2212227009 2212276021 2212276010 2211176003 2211176003 2212252012 2212253011 2212251039 2212251037 2212251011 2207226008 2207228021 2207228011 2207251005 2207252010 2207253012 2207253016 2207230008 2211179001 2212330005 2212328010 2212329021 2201475001 2207276019 2207276018 2207276012 2207276005 2207276005 2207277002 2207276030 2207276023 2211476048 2207426038 2207426034 2207426028 2207426007 2207277001 2‐95542‐01 2‐96042‐00 2‐96171‐01 3‐00551‐00 3‐00611‐01 3‐00771‐00 3‐01021‐04 3‐01051‐00 3‐01241‐01 3‐01361‐02 3‐01522‐08 3‐01533‐03 3‐02061‐02 3‐02291‐00 3‐02461‐01 3‐02841‐04 3‐03121‐00 3‐03221‐10 3‐03371‐04 3‐03421‐04 3‐04131‐06 3‐04701‐05 3‐05161‐04 3‐05381‐06 3‐05511‐01 3‐05701‐01 3‐06381‐02 3‐07251‐00 3‐07541‐02 3‐09371‐00 3‐10252‐04 3‐10292‐98 3‐11151‐01 3‐11841‐02 3‐12101‐04 3‐12341‐00 3‐12381‐00 3‐13291‐02 3‐25061‐06 3‐25181‐00 3‐25261‐00 3‐25682‐02 3‐25701‐01 3‐25722‐06 3‐25742‐02 3‐30205‐00 3‐90097‐01 6‐00095‐00 6‐00106‐00 6‐00114‐00 6‐00115‐00 6‐00123‐00 6‐00124‐00 6‐00130‐00 6‐00131‐00 6‐00138‐00 6‐00140‐00 6‐00149‐00 6‐00150‐00 6‐00159‐00 6‐00168‐00 6‐00174‐00 6‐00175‐00 6‐00181‐00 6‐00182‐00 6‐00196‐00 6‐00200‐00 6‐00212‐00 6‐00215‐00 7‐00071‐00 7‐00076‐00 7‐00096‐00 7‐00098‐00 7‐00099‐00 7‐00195‐00 7‐00227‐00 MICHAEL NITZ ERICK MULLENMEISTER JASON ALDORFER EDWARD KUHLMAN TK PROPERTIES OF NFLD, LLC LAWRENCE GABLE RICHARD OZMUN ROBERT SEITZ, JR. NELSON FINSTAD MARK MADSON TERESA SWENSON TERESA SWENSON KENT KRAMER REBECCA WEBER KATHY PESHECK JOHN MCMENAMIN ALLEN STORLIE JORIE BEYER CYNTHIA JONES TIM & TONI FOSTER LIESA IRWIN MICHAEL SMITH TEDD WEST STEVEN GEGG TERESA SWENSON PETER HAMMER WILLIAM ROSS DEBRA GROENEWOLD PHILLIP BOEHNE JOHN PRICE PAMELA HOFFMANN ERHAN ONAL ANNA CLIFT BRIAN MARTIN BRUCE & MARCINE KING DAVE NORBERG DIANE &BRYAN NEAD MELISSA HEGG JAY & ANITA CORWIN DEAN HUSCHLE PETER GILLISPIE MARY HANSON CHI & NGOC NGUYEN GLENN JACKSON BEV ZARTWELL JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. JON PAULSON BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC JASNOCH CONSTRUCTION INC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC CHRISTINE HAGER TRUST LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP GREH INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH SCHILLING BUSINESS PARK CONDO CMC HEARTLAND PARTNERS LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP 528 SOUTHBRIDGE DRIVE 1924 RED MAPLE LANE 2126 ERIE DRIVE 1120 FOREST AVENUE 1100 FOREST AVENUE 701 3RD STREET W 312 PLUM STREET S 400 PLUM STREET S 207 POPLAR STREET S 410 POPLAR STREET S 419 3RD STREET W 417 3RD STREET W 324 LINDEN STREET N 413 1ST STREET W 104 PLUM STREET N 819 1ST STREET W 913 2ND STREET W 719 2ND STREET W 111 PLUM STREET S 504 2ND STREET W 205 ORCHARD STREET N 1012 ST OLAF AVENUE 115 MADISON STREET N 607 ST OLAF AVENUE 407 ST OLAF AVENUE 304 WATER STREET N 904 GREENVALE AVENUE 427 PLUM STREET N 317 SPRING STREET N 1212 GREENVALE ROAD 1146 HIGHLAND AVENUE 1138 HIGHLAND AVENUE 804 IVANHOE DRIVE 772 LATHROP DRIVE 929 JUNIPER AVENUE 800 JOANN COURT 808 JOANN COURT 947 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE 800 HEADLEY COURT 700 HEADLEY COURT 707 HEADLEY COURT 833 HEADLEY COURT 827 HEADLEY COURT 831 HEADLEY COURT 829 HEADLEY COURT HYDRANT METER TREE FARM 2835 OAK LAWN DR 2318 VALLEY DRIVE 2611 OAK LAWN DR 2304 VALLEY COURT 700 CARTER DR 2308 VALLEY COURT 2804 OAK LAWN DR 704 CARTER DR 0 OUTLOT E ‐ LOCUST DE 708 CARTER DR 712 CARTER DR 2413 PEPPER RIDGE COURT 2414 VALLEY DRIVE 2406 VALLEY DRIVE 2664 OAK LAWN DR 2402 VALLEY DRIVE 2660 OAK LAWN DR 2322 VALLEY DRIVE 2644 OAK LAWN DR 2640 OAK LAWN DR 2612 OAK LAWN DR STORMWATER PARCEL 0 WOODLEY ST E‐STORM W 1925 RED MAPLE LN STORMWATER PARCEL SHILLING BUSINESS PK STORMWATER PARCEL STORMWATER PARCEL 1923 RED MAPLE LN 112.23 323.55 1,175.28 884.69 36.28 118.23 1,276.98 319.03 1,040.47 1,402.58 1,003.06 1,934.64 43.77 606.65 687.09 895.43 960.81 1,397.57 1,017.70 1,677.47 176.78 702.41 1,069.92 43.16 2,221.31 600.05 1,474.64 345.61 568.96 200.41 543.54 100.68 685.40 1,315.09 496.08 2,101.01 241.52 832.99 1,634.18 972.02 1,111.44 968.48 609.18 133.16 715.84 224.73 781.61 20.33 21.19 27.10 18.27 25.23 18.05 36.04 25.23 327.23 28.60 33.56 30.25 20.74 18.34 15.18 18.34 16.62 19.76 18.68 16.92 14.39 181.15 37.30 13.64 197.65 71.12 3.49 11.81 15.58 2207301041 2207130027 2207176053 2236351039 2236351045 2236451094 2201126015 2201126027 2236451067 2201126039 2236451115 2236451115 2236402005 2236451040 2236451024 2236378005 2236375025 2236451087 2236451047 2236451052 2236429012 2236300025 2236351018 2236452003 2236451013 2231325011 2236275004 2236427002 2236402017 2236250004 2236255009 2236255027 2236282002 2236276014 2236277008 2236277016 2236277018 2236201029 2236176005 2236176011 2236176016 2236176035 2236176032 2236176036 2236176021 2211176007 2236150010 2211476051 2212330020 2211476049 2212330017 2212276030 2212330016 2211476035 2212276029 2211476004 2212276028 2212276027 2212329020 2212329005 2212329003 2211476022 2212329002 2211476021 2212329001 2211476017 2211476016 2211476009 2211476005 2206426054 2207130016 2211154011 2211176008 2211176009 2201126043 2207130015 7‐00234‐00 7‐00235‐00 7‐00241‐00 7‐00250‐00 7‐00288‐00 7‐00292‐00 7‐00293‐00 7‐00294‐00 7‐00312‐00 7‐00314‐00 7‐00315‐00 7‐00320‐00 7‐00332‐00 7‐00333‐00 7‐00334‐00 7‐00344‐00 7‐00346‐00 7‐00347‐00 7‐00357‐00 7‐00358‐00 7‐00359‐00 7‐00365‐00 7‐00366‐00 7‐00370‐00 7‐00373‐01 7‐00398‐02 7‐00418‐00 7‐00419‐00 7‐00420‐00 GREH INC SCHILLING BUSINESS PARK CONDO EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP GREH INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH SCHILLING BUSINESS PARK CONDO LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP GREH INC SCHILLING BUSINESS PARK CONDO EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP GREH INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP GREH INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH GREH INC GREH INC EUGENE E & SHAR JASNOCH GREH INC LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP KRISTEN Q. COE TRUST LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP LOCUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLP Total Certifications to Rice County STORMWATER PARCEL STORMWATER PARCEL 2002 GRANT DRIVE 1927 RED MAPLE LN 1921 RED MAPLE LN STORMWATER PARCEL 1403 HERITAGE DRIVE TB#1 STORMWATER PARCEL 1919 RED MAPLE LN STORMWATER PARCEL STORMWATER PARCEL 2003 GRANT DRIVE 1917 RED MAPLE LN STORMWATER PARCEL 1405 HERITAGE DRIVE TB #2 MEADOWVIEW DRIVE STORMWATER PARCEL 1403 HERITAGE DRIVE‐HOUSE OUTLOT E MEADOWVIEW 1403 HERITAGE DRIVE TB #1 STORMWATER PARCEL STORMWATER PARCEL 2007 GRANT DRIVE STORMWATER PARCEL DECLARATION ST 158 WATER ST N #1 2125 DECLARATION STREET 2165 DECLARATION STREET 2150 DECLARATION STREET 3‐14201‐01 3‐14282‐01 3‐14501‐03 3‐14572‐02 3‐20521‐00 3‐20781‐01 3‐23222‐01 ROBIN JONES BRENT KIVELL DAVID WEBB CHRIS WILSON MARION PHELPS C. YALE PFOUTZ APPLEMAN, D SCHMIT, JOHN Total Certifications to Dakota County 512 NELSON COURT 600 GILL LANE 700 COVEY COURT 703 COVEY COURT 1229 WOODLAND TRAIL 1123 WOODLAND TRAIL 1216 HAWTHORNE COURT Total 2013 Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills 123.82 63.15 23.88 15.58 15.58 415.43 21.10 13.67 13.64 301.18 2.85 21.70 15.93 2,511.64 62.47 50.61 379.30 2.51 35.99 21.10 1,272.78 1,313.19 20.52 919.95 991.16 6.49 51.23 46.02 244.76 $159,874.48 520.94 501.24 378.64 1,102.54 349.71 4,792.57 606.56 $8,252.20 $168,126.68 2211154010 2211176007 2212276015 2207130017 2207130014 2211154009 2211176909 2211179003 2207130013 2211154008 2211179002 2212276014 2207130012 2211154007 2211176006 2207130011 2211154006 2211176908 2207130010 2211176913 2211275002 2211200003 2212276013 2202450001 2211476067 2236480001 2211180002 2211180003 2211180004 435210021002 435210107002 435210006001 435210001201 431640026000 431640039000 432250011001 <Date> <name> <Address> <City>, <State> <ZipCode> Dear <Name>: Re: Delinquent Utility Charges Our records show that there are unpaid utility charges against your property as follows: Account #: Service Address: Parcel #: Amount Due: The amount due must be received in the Finance Department at City Hall no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. If unpaid after this date, the amount due plus an additional 10% penalty / administrative fee will be certified to your property taxes payable in 2014. The due date for payment is firm as the City is required to transmit the certification data the following week. Please return this letter with your payment. Sincerely, City of Northfield Finance Department City Hall 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057-2598 507.645.3015 fax 507.645.3055 e-mail:[email protected] CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Jasper J. Kruggel, GIS & Engineering Technician\Wellhead Protection Manager Subject: Acceptance of the Minnesota Department of Health Source Water Protection Grant Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution accepting a $10,000 Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Source Water Protection Grant. Summary Report: The City of Northfield was awarded a $10,000 grant from the MDH for the purpose of upgrading technical aspects of our water delivery system and to locate and evaluate private wells located within the City’s Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). This was a competitive grant that requires no City match of funds. One portion of the grant ($6,000) is to be used to upgrade our drawdown system to incorporate transducers and the other portion ($4,000) is to be used to locate and collect information about existing wells located within our DWSMA. This data will then be added to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Potential Contaminated Source Inventory. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2013-134 2. Source Water Protection Grant CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-134 ACCEPTING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SOURCE WATER PROTECTION GRANT WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Northfield City Council accept the $10,000 Source Water Protection Grant offered by the Minnesota Department of Health; and, WHEREAS, it is proposed that the grant guidelines be followed through in the year of 2014. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: The proposed Source Water Protection Grant offered by the Minnesota Department of Health for the amount of $10,000 which requires no City match is accepted by the Northfield City Council. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST ___________________________________ City Clerk VOTE: ___________________________________ Mayor ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Brian Erickson P.E., Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer T.J. Heinricy, Streets and Parks Supervisor Subject: Approve Purchase of Equipment for Public Works Department Action Requested: The Northfield City Council approves the purchase of a 2013 Bobcat S650 Skid Steer Loader from Matejcek Implement Company of Faribault, MN, for a net cost of $22,421.91 plus tax, to be used by the Streets and Parks Division of the Public Works Department. Summary Report: The Council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a 2013 Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader. This purchase is a replacement of a current skid steer loader that has reached its planned lifecycle. The machine being replaced is a 2003 Bobcat S-250 Skid-Steer Loader. This existing piece of equipment is of an age where the frequency and cost of repairs will begin to increase and the trade-in value decreases. Replacement at this point provides cost efficiencies in the management of the City’s equipment. The purchase of this piece of equipment is included in the 2013-2022 Capital Equipment Plan and was estimated at $35,000. Staff requested quotes from Matejcek Implement and Titan Machinery, and the table below shows a breakdown of those quotes. As part of the quote the vendors were asked to provide a trade-in value for the loader and several attachments. Those attachments include the bucket, pallet forks and a snow plow. It is important to note that while it first appears that the Matejcek quote is only slightly lower in net price, Titan did NOT include in its quote new pallet forks or the specified snow plow attachment. Titan has advised us they do not make or market a snow plow attachment, and simply declined to bid on the pallet forks. While it would be possible to purchase after-market pallet forks and/or snow plow that would most likely be considerable additional cost if we accepted the Titan quote. Lastly, the Street and Parks Department “demoed” both machines. The consensus of the equipment operators was the Bobcat skid steer bid by Matejcek was the preferred unit because of the control system design and comparative ease of operation. A detailed breakdown is shown in the table below: Matejcek Titan Quote $ 39,441.91 $ 42,725.00 Trade-In Total $ (18,020.00) $ 21,421.91 $ (21,000.00) $ 21,725.00 Lights and Decals $ 1,000.00 Total Equipment Purchase (Matejcek) $ 22,421.91 Funding per Capital Equipment Plan $ 35,000.00 Below Budget $ 12,578.09 The Matejcek quote most closely meets the specifications, and is the lower cost of the two submitted. Staff therefore recommends award of purchase of the new skid steer loader for the Streets and Parks Department to Matejcek Implement Company of Faribault, MN. Alternative Options: The purchase could always be postponed, and the current piece of equipment could be retained for use for a few more years; however, the repair and maintenance costs associated with aging equipment will begin to increase, and downtime will increase. This skid steer loader is very useful during the snow removal season, and downtime is more problematic during that period than any other. Trade-in value will also diminish with age. Financial Impacts: The 2013-2020 Capital Equipment Plan estimated $35,000 for the replacement of this skid steer loader. The proposed purchase is well within the budgeted amount, even including the estimated cost for other required items such as decals and beacons, which would be paid as part of the overall equipment purchase. Staff discussions have indicated at this time that the sales tax exemption for municipalities is much narrower than initially indicated. The Minnesota Department of Revenue has issued information indicating that only emergency vehicles are exempted from the sales tax. As result there will be no sales tax savings in waiting to purchase this vehicle, and in fact, an increase in cost is likely because delaying purchase would likely require the purchase of a 2014 model year vehicle. Attachments: 1. Quote from Titan Machinery 2. Quote from Matejcek Implement CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Farmland Lease for Meadows Property Action Requested: The Northfield City Council approves the attached Request for Proposals (RFP) for leasing the tillable acreage of the Meadows Property, and authorizes the release of the RFP, and its advertisement. Summary Report: At its October 1, 2013 meeting, the City Council adopted the task force report recommending a series of eight measures to address the short to medium term stormwater management issues for the tax forfeiture-acquired Meadows Property in the southeast corner of the City of Northfield. Number seven of those eight measures was negotiating a one year lease of the tillable acreage of the property. Toward that end, staff has prepared the attached Request for Proposals for soliciting from area farmers lease proposals for the approximate 30 tillable acres within that property. This RFP includes as a condition of the lease the establishment of a buffer strip a minimum of 30 feet in width along the northerly edge of the farmland area, as well as establishing a grass-lined waterway from the box culvert under Hall Street and continuing westnorthwesterly across the property to the stormwater pond. The approximate location of these two features is shown on the attached map. The RFP also is written around the expectation that either corn or soybeans will be planted on the property, although there is no restriction in that regard. Another key feature of the proposed lease of this property is that it provides for up to two one year lease renewals. The main reason to consider leasing this property is it will provide some modest revenue for the property tax jurisdictions (Rice County, Northfield School District, and City of Northfield) as opposed to totally removing the property from the tax rolls, and it reduces the City’s maintenance responsibility. The total tax liability for this property last year was $7,450; of that amount, $2,906 was payment of the City of Northfield storm water utility fee. Without leasing the property, the City would most likely find it necessary to mow the acreage at least three, and perhaps as many as four times, during the growing season. Doing so on a contract basis would cost the City at least $15 to $20 per acre per mowing, or perhaps as much as $3,000 per year. Response(s) to the RFP are due on December 2, 2013. If there is to be a special meeting on December 10, 2013, the Lease Proposals would be presented to the City Council at that time. Failing that, the matter would have to wait until the meeting of January 7, 2014. Attached for future reference is the draft farmland lease agreement, which was prepared by the City Attorney. It reflects the conditions contained in the RFP. Alternatives: The alternative would be the City Council could decide to NOT lease the property. Financial Impacts: The lease of this property, based on the 2013 lease agreement held by Rice County, could generate $300 per acre or approximately $9,000 per year. However, that lease was established when the price of corn was around $7.30 per bushel, and soy beans stood at about $16.50 per bushel. Currently, the price of corn is hovering around $4.20 per bushel, and soybeans are at about $12.70. That decline in crop prices will very likely reduce the amount of rent farmers are willing to pay for this property. While the potential gross rental income should not be trivialized, neither should the cost avoidance associated with not having to mow the weeds that will inevitably takeover the property if left unattended. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Request for Proposals for lease of the Meadows farmland, and release of same. Attachments: 1. Request For Proposals 2. Draft Lease Agreement 3. Eight Measures Status Summary 4. Map REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Meadows Property Farmland Lease Contents: A. Purpose of Request B. City of Northfield Contact C. Submittal Requirements D. Contract E. Insurance F. Subleasing G. Payment H. Attachments Contact: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Northfield 801 Washington Street Northfield, Minnesota 55057 507-645-3020 [email protected] 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (Farmland lease) NORTHFIELD, MN CITY OF NORTHFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT November 19, 2013 A. PURPOSE OF REQUEST The City of Northfield seeks to enter into a minimum 1 year contract to lease the tillable acreage of Outlots C & D, Fargaze Meadows. In addition to the one year lease, the City will entertain an option for two additional one year lease extensions. The purpose of leasing the property is to effectively have it maintained in a manner which will be at no cost to the City, while the City of Northfield is evaluating longterm options for this property. In addition to the actual lease of the tillable acreage, Respondents shall include in their proposal the necessary grading, tillage, and seeding to establish the grass lined waterway and buffer strips shown on the attached map. The grass lined water way and buffer strip are intended to reduce runoff from the field into the back yards along the south side of Ford Street, and to reduce sedimentation into the Fargaze Meadows Upper Pond. These grass lined strips are to be established with the input of the Rice County Soil and Water Conservation District. At some point between the commencement of the lease period and the 2014 planting season, the City of Northfield also expects to have graded into the area just south of and adjacent to the buffer strip a swale to carry runoff from the field over to the area in the vicinity of Brogan Drive where it is stubbed south from Ford Street. At that location there is a 48” diameter storm sewer that is dead-ended below grade to the south, but which collects stormwater from four nearby catch basins and drains into the southwest corner of the nearby pond. Presuming that swale is graded as described, it will most likely include some of the anticipated buffer strip. It is the City’s intent to have the lessee seed this proposed swale along with the buffer strip described above. The grading of the swale, however, will be performed by others under separate contractual arrangements made by the City of Northfield. The lessee shall coordinate his or her activities as necessary with that future grading contractor employed by the City of Northfield. This work is all intended to enhance the ability of the City of Northfield to manage the stormwater runoff from this area. The Respondents are expected to include consideration for all work as described herein in their respective proposals. B. CITY OF NORTHFIELD CONTACT The City of Northfield Project Manager is Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer, assisted by Brian Erickson, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer. Day-to-day Contact shall be through Streets & Parks Supervisor, T.J. Heinricy, at (507) 645-3032 (work), or (612) 282-7560 (cell). The City’s Project Manager will provide direction to the Contact, as the need arises. 2 C. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS General Information 1. Submission of Proposal. The proposals shall be submitted in writing to Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., with a copy to Deb Little, City Clerk, on or before 2:00 PM, local time, by Tuesday, December 12, 2013. The address for submittal is: Northfield City hall 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 2. Proposal Format. Proposals shall be prepared on 8-1/2” x 11” format, and if more than one page, all pages shall be sequentially numbered throughout or by section (i.e., Page 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, etc.). All text and exhibits should be succinct and relevant to the RFP requirements. The Respondents shall provide some narrative detail explaining their respective proposals, and shall indicate the per acre rental rate to be paid under the terms of their proposal. The total ultimate rent payment(s) shall be based on the actual field measurement of the area being tilled. Of the approximate 41 acres total in the two parcels, there has been previously determined to have been 33 acres tillable. Evaluation of the respective proposals will be in part based upon a total lease area of 33 acres. It is possible, however, that the future tillable area will be reduced due to some grading related to storm water management measures that may be implemented in the future. The actual measurement of net tillable acres will be applied to the approved rental rate established by the Lease Agreement to determine the rent amount to be paid in any given lease year. 3. Examination of RFP. By submitting a proposal, the Respondent represents that he or she has thoroughly examined and is thoroughly familiar with the terms of the RFP, and that they are fully capable of complying with the terms of the Lease Agreement that will ultimately be executed between the lessee, and the City of Northfield, as the lessor. 4. Addenda/Clarifications. The City will make any necessary changes to this RFP through a written addendum. No verbal modification will be binding. 5. Exceptions and Deviations. Any exceptions to the requirements in this RPF must be in writing and included in the proposal submitted by the Respondent. Any such exceptions shall be segregated as a separate element of the proposal under the heading “Exceptions and Deviations.” The degree to which a Respondent takes exception to any requirement may have bearing on the City’s award decision. 7. Lease Award. Issuance of this RFP and receipt of proposals do not commit the City to the awarding of the Lease Agreement. The City reserves the right to postpone opening for its own convenience, to accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP, to negotiate with other than the selected Respondent (should negotiations with the selected Respondent be terminated), to negotiate with more than one Respondent simultaneously, or to cancel all or part of this RFP. 8. City Rights. The City may investigate the qualifications of any Respondent under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the Respondent, and require additional evidence of 3 qualifications, to fulfill the lease terms under the Lease Agreement and as described in this RFP. The City reserves the right to: a. Reject any or all proposals if such action is deemed to be in the public interest; b. Cancel the entire Request for Proposals; c. Issue a subsequent Request for Proposals; d. Remedy technical errors in a Request for Proposals process; e. Appoint evaluation committees to review the proposals; f. Establish a short list of Respondent eligible for interview after evaluation of proposals; g. Negotiate with any, all, or none of the RFP Respondent; and h. Reject and replace one or more Respondents. 9. Independent Price Determination. Respondents are held legally responsible for their information. Respondents are not to collaborate for the purpose of restricting competition with other Respondents or competitors in developing lease proposals. 10. Independent Contractor Status. The Respondents will be independent parties, and this RFP and Lease do not constitute a joint venture or partnership between the lessor and lessee. Further, nothing contained in any lease agreement awarded shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee between City and the Respondent, or the Respondent’s employees. The Respondent or their employees are not entitled to receive any of the benefits as City employees, and are not eligible for workers’ or unemployment compensation benefits through the City of Northfield. 11. Contract Type. The City of Northfield’s lease agreement will be executed between the City of Northfield and the selected Respondent. The Letter of Submittal shall include: 1. Name, address, phone number, and fax number of the Respondent; 2. Acknowledgement of receipt of RFP addenda, if any; 3. Name, title, address, telephone, fax numbers, and email address of contact person during the period of evaluation; 4. A statement to the effect that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 60 days from the date of submittal; and 5. Signature of a person authorized to bind the offering firm to the terms of the proposal. Questions regarding this RFP and the project should be directed to Joseph L. Stapf, P.E. at 507-645-3020 ([email protected]). D. CONTRACT The term of the Lease Agreement to be awarded under this RFP will be from the date executed by all parties, and will continue for one calendar year from the date of execution. A copy of the required Lease Agreement is attached. The selected Respondent must be willing to sign the attached Lease Agreement. E. INSURANCE Proof of insurance shall be provided by the Respondents as part of their respective proposals. At the time of execution of the Lease Agreement, the lessee shall provide Certificates of Insurance meeting the insurance requirements contained in the attached Lease Agreement. 4 1. Lessee shall obtain insurance policies from insurance companies having an “AM BEST” rating of A- (minus); Financial Size Category (FSC) VII or better, and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota 2. An Umbrella or Excess Liability insurance policy may be used to supplement the Lessee’s policy limits to satisfy the full policy limits required by the Lease Agreement. 3. Lessee shall provide a certificate of insurance showing evidence of workers’ compensation coverage or provide evidence of qualification as a self-insurer of workers’ compensation. If Minnesota Statute 176.041 exempts Lessee from Workers’ Compensation insurance or if the Lessee has no employees, Lessee must provide a written statement, signed by an authorized representative, indicating the qualifying exemption that excludes Lessee from Minnesota Worker’s Compensation requirements. The Lessee’s insurance agent must forward a certificate of insurance to the City naming the City of Northfield as an additional insured before any work begins under the terms of the Lease Agreement. Notice of cancellation will be delivered in accordance with the insurance policy provisions. See attached example certificate of insurance. Please send all insurance related items to: Deb Little, City of Northfield, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057; e-mail: [email protected] F. Subleasing Subleasing under this Lease Agreement WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. G. Payment The Respondent as Lessee shall submit lease payments bi-annually (twice per year). The first payment shall be made on the date of execution of the Lease Agreement, and the second payment shall be made six months thereafter. H. ATTACHMENTS Location Maps Example of Certificate of insurance Lease Agreement 5 AGRICULTURAL LAND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Lease” or “Agreement”) dated this _____ day of _________________, 20____, by and between the CITY OF NORTHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “Landlord”), and __________________________________ (the “Tenant”), (collectively the “Parties”). In consideration of the terms and conditions of this Lease, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE Definitions and Terms As used in this Lease, the following terms shall have the specific meanings set forth below: 1.1 “Landlord” means the City of Northfield, having as its address for notice purposes 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057-2565; Attention: City Administrator. 1.2 “Tenant” means ____________________, having as its address for notice purposes _______________________ Minnesota, 55____________. 1.3 “Commencement Date” means ___________, 20____. 1.4 “Expiration Date” means ____________, 20____. 1.5 “Premises” means the real property owned by Landlord located at ____________________________________ in the City of Northfield, legally described as _________________________________________________ and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO Demising Clause 2.1 Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord the Premises on the terms and conditions contained in this Lease. 2.2 Tenant shall have the nonexclusive right to use the Premises for agricultural purposes as provided herein. ARTICLE THREE Term and Possession 3.1 Term. This Lease shall be for a term one (1) year, beginning on the Commencement Date and ending on the Expiration Date, unless terminated prior to the Expiration Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, termination of the Lease prior to the Expiration Date requires mutual agreement by the Landlord and Tenant. Tenant shall be entitled to possession on the Commencement Date and shall give up possession on the Expiration Date. 3.2 The Parties shall have the option of renewing the Lease for two additional one (1) year periods. Renewal shall occur only upon Tenant’s delivery to Landlord by 60 days prior to the Expiration Date, a written request to renew the Lease for the additional period. Upon said delivery, Landlord shall have until 30 days to provide written notice of its acceptance or rejection of Tenant’s renewal offer. If Tenant fails to deliver such renewal notice, the Lease shall terminate at the end of the initial term; conversely, if Landlord fails to notify Tenant in writing of its decision, the Lease shall automatically renew for the additional period. ARTICLE FOUR Rent 4.1 Tenant shall, for the entire Lease Term, pay to Landlord without demand, annual rent in the amount of $________ per acre of land tilled (the “Rent”). The annual rent amount shall be paid in two installments with the first payment due upon the Commencement Date of this Lease Agreement. Tenant shall deliver payment of the second installment of rent by the first day of the month six months following the Commencement Date at the address specified for Landlord herein. A late penalty of 5% of the payment due will be assessed on all late payments. Tenant agrees and acknowledges that the late penalty is necessary to compensate Landlord for lost interest, the opportunity cost of renting the property, and any legal fees or expenses incurred in enforcing its rights pursuant to this Agreement. 4.2 Prior to taking possession of the Premises, Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a security deposit of $5,000.00. ARTICLE FIVE Payment of Taxes 5.1 Landlord shall pay all taxes, assessments and governmental charges (collectively referred to as "Taxes") that accrue against the Premises during the Lease Term with the exception of those taxes that are directly attributable to agricultural or other production and sales based activities being conducted by Tenant on the Premises. 5.2 Tenant shall be liable for all taxes levied or assessed against any personal property or fixtures placed on the Premises, whether levied or assessed against Landlord or Tenant. 5.3 If Landlord accepts an offer for a renewal term, the annual rent for the renewal term shall be adjusted using the CPI for the Minnesota region in the year of renewal as an index and the first year of Lease as a base year (as set forth by the Government of the United States. The rent shall not decrease during the renewal term, such that if the CPI is zero or negative, the rent shall remain the same as the prior year. ARTICLE SIX Permitted Use 6.1 Tenant shall use the Premises for agricultural purposes only and all activities incidental thereto, including: 2 a. To till all of the tillable land in a husband-like manner. b. To grade as necessary, till, plant, establish and maintain the buffer strip and grass-lined waterway, and future drainage swale shown on the attached map of the premises. c. To work with the Rice County Soil and Water Conservation District to control soil erosion and storm water runoff. d. To harvest and remove all crops in due season. e. To keep all ditches cleaned of weeds and debris. f. To mow roadsides and fence rows. g. To destroy all noxious weeds and grasses and nuisances in compliance with State Law. 6.2 Tenant shall not cause, maintain or permit any nuisance in, on or about the Premises. More specifically, Tenant shall not use or store any noxious chemicals on the Premises. Tenant shall not commit or allow to be committed any waste in or upon the Premises. ARTICLE SEVEN Utilities 7.1 Tenant agrees to pay in a timely manner any and all utilities for use of the Premises, including, without limitation, electricity, fuel oil, gas services, telephone, trash collection, snow plowing, lawn mowing, water, sewer service, cable or satellite television reception, internet connection fees, and any other such services associated with the Tenant’s use or enjoyment of the Premises. Landlord shall not be providing any services to the Premises other than specified herein. ARTICLE EIGHT Subletting and Assignment 8.1 Tenant shall not assign its interest in this Lease and shall not sublet any portion of the Premises, or any right or privilege provided under the Lease or use of the Premises, or suffer any other person to occupy or use any portion of the Premises. ARTICLE NINE Quiet Possession and Subordination 9.1 Landlord covenants that Tenant, upon paying the Rent and performing the covenants under this Lease, shall peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the leased Premises for the term of the Lease. 9.2 This Lease is subject and subordinate to all present or future financial encumbrances on the Premises, and is further subject to all present and future easements, conditions and encumbrances of record, and to all applicable laws, ordinances and governmental rules and regulations. Such subordination shall be self-executing without further act on the part of Landlord or Tenant; provided, however, that Tenant shall at any time hereafter, at the request of Landlord or any lien holder, or any purchaser of the Premises, execute any instruments that may be required, and Tenant hereby irrevocably authorizes Landlord to execute and deliver in the name of Tenant any such instrument if Tenant fails to do so. ARTICLE TEN 3 Landlord’s Reserved Rights Landlord reserves the following rights: (a) to take any and all measures necessary or desirable for the operation, safety, protection or preservation of the Premises, including repairs, alterations, decorations, additions or improvements, whether structural or otherwise, in and about the Premises or any part thereof; and (b) to enter to verify use of the Premises. Landlord may enter upon the Premises and may exercise any or all of the foregoing rights without being deemed guilty of an eviction (actual or constructive) or disturbance of Tenant’s use or possession and without being liable in any manner to Tenant and without abatement of Rent or affecting Tenant’s obligations hereunder. ARTICLE ELEVEN Alterations and Improvements 11.1 Landlord has made no promise to alter, remodel, repair or improve the Premises and has made no representation of the condition of the Premises or the suitability of the Premises for the purpose stated herein other than what is contained in this Lease. 11.2 Tenant shall not make material alterations or improvements to the Premises without the written consent of Landlord. Consent shall be obtained by submitting a written description to Landlord of the proposed improvement, including its location, size, proposed use, and whether the improvement is to be severed from the property at the termination of the Lease or is to be left on the property, and any other information that may be required by the Landlord. Landlord may approve, disapprove, require more information, or require certain modifications to the proposed improvement in its sole judgment and discretion. Tenant’s final written proposal including a clear indication of Landlord’s assent and signed by Landlord shall constitute written consent of Landlord. Unless otherwise agreed by both parties, approved improvements shall be at the sole expense of Tenant. 11.3 Tenant shall allow no mechanic’s liens to be incurred or filed against the Premises. Tenant shall promptly pay for all alterations and improvements, which it may make under this Lease that are approved by Landlord, and shall save and hold harmless Landlord from any and all losses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by reason of mechanic's liens or other claims for skill, labor or material furnished or performed, or claimed to have been furnished or performed, on account of any such alteration or improvement made by Tenant hereunder. Tenant may contest any such mechanic's liens and prosecute all proceedings for the purpose of such contest pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 514.01, et seq. Tenant shall indemnify Landlord against any loss or liability by reason of such contest. 11.3 Landlord. Tenant shall not place or maintain any signs on the Premises, without authorization by ARTICLE TWELVE Repairs and Maintenance 12.1 Tenant, at its expense, shall keep the Premises in a safe and tenantable condition based on the purpose of this Lease. If Tenant does not do so, Landlord may (but need not) restore the Premises to a safe and tenantable condition, and Tenant shall pay the cost upon being billed by Landlord. This Article shall not apply to damage or destruction otherwise provided for in this Lease. 4 12.2 Tenant shall be responsible for all major and minor maintenance, repairs, or replacement of any and all alterations or improvements to the Premises made under Article 11. Improvements made under Article 11 that are capable of severance may be removed by Tenant at any time or within 30 days after termination of the Lease even though they may be fixtures, provided that Tenant leaves in good condition that part of the Premises from which such improvements are removed. 12.3 Improvements not capable of severance shall become the property of Landlord at termination of the Lease without compensation to the Tenant. ARTICLE THIRTEEN Destruction or Damage 13.1 Tenant agrees: a. That it will obtain all necessary state and local permits for its operations as necessary. b. That it will operate in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. c. That it will be solely responsible for security of the Premises, including crops and equipment, and for any loss, damage, or destruction thereof. d. That it will keep the Premises in such repair as at the commencement of the said term or may be put in during continuance thereof, reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire or extended peril coverage perils only excepted. e. That it will not injure, overload or suffer to be injured or overloaded the Premises or any part thereof. f. That it will not make or suffer any unlawful, improper or offensive use of the Premises or any use thereof contrary to any law of the State or any ordinance of the City now or hereafter made, or which shall be injurious to any person or property or which shall be liable to endanger or affect any insurance on the said Property. ARTICLE FOURTEEN Hold Harmless 14.1 Tenant shall defend, indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from any liability, loss, cost, and obligations, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of the use of the Premises by Tenant, Tenant’s employees, officers, agents, clients and invitees. Landlord shall defend, indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from any liability, loss, cost, and obligations, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of negligent or willful acts by Landlord, its employees, officers, agents, clients and invitees in meeting Landlord’s obligations under this Lease. 14.2 Tenant knows, understands and acknowledges the risks and hazards associated with using the Premises and hereby assumes any and all risks and hazards associated therewith. Tenant hereby irrevocably waives any and all claims against the Landlord or any of its officials, employees or agents for any bodily injury (including death), loss or property damage incurred by Lessee as a result of using the Premises and hereby irrevocably releases and discharges the Landlord and any of its officials, employees or agents from any and all claims of liability. 5 ARTICLE FIFTEEN Holding Over 15.1 If Tenant without the consent of Landlord retains possession of the Premises or any part thereof after termination of the Term, then Landlord can elect to recover possession of the Premises by pursuing its rights under this Lease or at law. In such event Landlord shall further be able to recover in damages for the period Tenant holds over an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Rent payable for the month immediately preceding the commencement of said holding over computed on a daily basis until Landlord receives possession of the Premises and in addition thereto, Tenant shall pay Landlord all direct damages sustained by reason of Tenant’s retention of possession. Alternatively, Landlord can elect to retain Tenant on a month to month tenancy, terminable in accordance with law, at a Rent equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the rate payable hereunder, commencing the month immediately preceding the commencement of said holding over and computed on a per month basis for each month or part thereof that Tenant remains in possession. 15.2 Landlord shall exercise its election of one of the above described alternatives by delivering a written notice thereof to Tenant within thirty (30) days after the first day of Tenant’s retention of possession beyond the Term. In the event that Landlord fails to exercise its election as provided above, then Landlord shall be conclusively presumed to have elected to retain Tenant on a month to month tenancy, terminable in accordance with law at a Rent as provided in this Article. ARTICLE SIXTEEN Surrender of Possession 16.1 Upon the termination of the Lease Term, Tenant shall immediately surrender the Premises (together with any alterations and improvements that are not severable) to Landlord in good order, repair and condition, ordinary wear and fire or casualty losses for which Tenant is not responsible excepted, and shall remove all equipment, trade fixtures and other items of Tenant’s property from the Premises. Tenant shall pay Landlord upon demand the cost of repairing any damage to the Premises caused by such removal. Tenant shall leave the Premises in its pre-Lease condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. If Tenant fails or refuses to remove Tenant’s property from the Premises, Tenant shall be presumed to have abandoned the property and Landlord may dispose of the property without incurring liability, at Tenant’s expense. ARTICLE SEVENTEEN Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations 17.1 Throughout the Term of this Lease, Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, shall promptly comply with all present and future laws, ordinances, orders, rules, opinions, directives, regulations and requirements of all federal, state, city and other local governments. Throughout the Term of this Lease, Landlord shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations with respect to its management and operation of the Premises. 6 17.2 Tenant shall likewise observe and comply with, or shall cause to be observed and complied with, all the requirements of all policies of comprehensive general liability, fire and other insurance at any time in force with respect to the Premises. ARTICLE EIGHTEEN Insurance 18.1 In addition to the following, Tenant shall maintain, at Tenant’s expense, insurance on Tenant’s property located in and upon the Premises, and shall assume the risk of loss to such property on the Premises. 18.2 Required Insurance. Tenant agrees to maintain, at Tenant’s expense, the following insurance policies in the listed amounts: Worker’s Compensation Statutory Limits Employer’s Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Comprehensive General Liability $2,000,000 property damage and bodily injury per occurrence $4,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations Aggregate $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles) Umbrella or Excess Liability $1,000,000 All policies listed above shall be written on an “occurrence” form (“claims made” and “modified occurrence” forms are not acceptable). With the exception of the Worker’s Compensation policies, all policies listed above shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Tenant under this Lease, and shall name the Landlord as an additional insured under the policy. All polices listed above shall contain a provision that coverages afforded thereunder shall not be canceled or non-renewed, nor shall coverage limits be reduced by endorsement, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY. 7 ARTICLE NINETEEN Default and Remedies 19.1 If Tenant shall default in the payment of any installment of the Rent or in the payment of any other sum required to be paid by Tenant under this Lease and such default shall continue for fifteen (15) days after written notice to Tenant, or if Tenant shall default in the observance or performance of any of the other covenants or conditions in this Lease, which Tenant is required to observe or perform, and such default shall continue for thirty (30) days after written notice to Tenant, or if a default involves a hazardous condition and is not cured by Tenant immediately upon written notice to Tenant, or if the interest of Tenant in this Lease shall be levied upon under execution or other legal process, or if any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or for corporate reorganization or any similar relief shall be filed by Tenant, or if any involuntary petition in bankruptcy shall be filed against Tenant under any federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency act and shall not have been dismissed within thirty (30) days following the filing thereof, or if a receiver shall be appointed for Tenant or any of the property of Tenant by any court and such receiver shall not be dismissed within thirty (30) days from the date of appointment, or if Tenant shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if Tenant shall abandon or vacate the Premises, then Landlord may treat the occurrence of any one or more of the foregoing events as a breach of this Lease and thereupon at its option may, without notice or demand of any kind to Tenant or any other person, terminate this Lease and immediately repossess the Premises, in addition to all other rights and remedies provided at law or in equity. The provisions of this section shall survive any termination of this Lease. 19.2 In the event the Lease is terminated due to the default of Tenant: a. All obligations of Landlord under this Agreement shall cease. Landlord shall take reasonable measures to lease the Premises to another tenant for a comparable term and rent. b. Until Landlord enters into a new lease Tenant shall continue to pay the applicable rent until the end of the Lease Term. Landlord may retain a portion of the security deposit to cover its costs of re-letting the Premises. c. Rental payments received by Landlord from a new tenant will reduce the amount for which Tenant is liable to Landlord. d. Upon termination, Tenant agrees to yield possession of the Premises within 90 days of the date of notice of default, reserving the right to re-enter the Premises solely to harvest any crops that are the personal property of Tenant and are growing at the time of default. 19.3 In the event the Lease is terminated due to the default of Landlord: a. All obligations undertaken by Tenant under this Agreement including the obligation to pay rent shall cease. 8 b. Upon termination, Tenant shall yield possession of the Premises in a timely manner, reserving the right to re-enter the Premises solely to harvest any crops that are the personal property of Tenant and are growing at the time of default. Landlord shall remit an amount equal to two times the Tenant’s security deposit as liquidated damages and here agrees that such an amount is a reasonable approximation of the costs incident to moving a farming operation. ARTICLE TWENTY Notices 20.1 All notices required under the terms of this Lease shall be deemed to have been properly served or given three (3) days after their deposit in the United States mail if sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or two (2) days after deposit in a nationally recognized overnight courier service, addressed to Landlord or Tenant at the addresses identified in Article One or to such other address within the continental limits of the United States and to the attention of such party as the parties may from time to time designate by written notice to the other. ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE Miscellaneous 21.1 Voluntary and Knowing Action. The parties, by executing this Lease, state that they have carefully read this Lease and understand fully the contents thereof; that in executing this Lease they voluntarily accept all terms described in this Lease without duress, coercion, undue influence, or otherwise, and that they intend to be legally bound thereby. 21.2 Authorized Signatories. The parties each represent and warrant to the other that (1) the persons signing this Lease are authorized signatories for the entities represented, and (2) no further approvals, actions or ratifications are needed for the full enforceability of this Lease against it; each party indemnifies and holds the other harmless against any breach of the foregoing representation and warranty. 21.3 No Partnership, Joint Venture, or Fiduciary Relationship. Nothing contained in this Lease shall be interpreted as creating a partnership, joint venture, or relationship of principal and agent between the parties, it being understood that the sole relationship created hereby is one of landlord and tenant. No third party is entitled in any way to rely upon any provision in this Lease. This Lease is intended solely for the benefit of Landlord and Tenant and no third party shall have any rights or interest in any provision of this Lease, or as a result of any action or inaction of the Landlord in connection therewith. 21.4 Records—Availability and Retention. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Tenant agrees that the Landlord, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Tenant and involve transactions relating to this Lease. The Tenant agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this Lease. 9 21.5 Governing Law. This Lease shall be deemed to have been made and accepted in Rice County, Minnesota, and the laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern any interpretations or constructions of the Lease without regard to its choice of law or conflict of laws principles. 21.6 Data Practices. The parties acknowledge that this Lease is subject to the requirements of Minnesota’s Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.01 et seq. 21.7 No Waiver. Any party’s failure in any one or more instances to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and conditions of this Lease or to exercise any right herein conferred shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of that right or of that party’s right to assert or rely upon the terms and conditions of this Lease. Any express waiver of a term of this Lease shall not be binding and effective unless made in writing and properly executed by the waiving party. 21.8 Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Lease shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. Any invalid or unenforceable provision shall be deemed severed from this Lease to the extent of its invalidity or unenforceability, and this Lease shall be construed and enforced as if the Lease did not contain that particular provision to the extent of its invalidity or unenforceability. 21.9 Headings and Captions. Headings and captions contained in this Lease are for convenience only and are not intended to alter any of the provisions of this Lease and shall not be used for the interpretation of the validity of the agreement or any provision hereof. 21.10 Survivability. All covenants, indemnities, guarantees, releases, representations and warranties by any party or parties, and any undischarged obligations of Landlord and the Tenant arising prior to the expiration of this Lease (whether by completion or earlier termination), shall survive such expiration. 21.11 Exhibits. The exhibits attached to this Lease are considered an integral part of it as if fully set forth within it. 21.12 Entire Agreement. All prior understandings, letters of intent, discussions and agreements are merged in the governing terms of this Lease, which is a complete and final written expression of the intent of the parties. 21.13 Modification/Amendment. Any alterations, variations, modifications, amendments or waivers of the provisions of this Lease shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, and signed by authorized representative of the Landlord and the Tenant. 10 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, as of the day and year first hereinabove written the parties have executed this Lease. LANDLORD: CITY OF NORTHFIELD BY:________________________________ Its Mayor BY:_______________________________ Its City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RICE ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________________, 20___, by ________________ and by __________________, respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Northfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. _________________________________ Notary Public TENANT: ____________________________ BY:_________________________________ Its ______________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RICE ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________, 20____, by _____________________________, the ______________________of _________________, a Minnesota ____________________, on behalf of the corporation. _______________________________ Notary Public 11 EXHIBIT A Depiction of Premises 12 Eight Measures Status Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Estimated Cost Status (11/11/2013) TBD No cost TBD $ 15,000.00 $ 3,850.00 75% Complete Description Remove 3,000 cubic yards of material for fill at well field site Remove 4,000 cubic yards for the repair of the Armstrong Road culvert Remove the balance of the dirt pile 49,000 to 53,000 cubic yards Excavate and grade the Interceptor Swale Topographic survey a. Fieldwork b. Prepare drawing Update Spring Creek Watershed Analysis One year lease for farming purposes Clean out excess vegetation from Spring Creek waterway complete 50% $ $ 50,000.00 (7,700.00) RFP Drafted TBD ERIE DR RD BROGAN DR Y Fargaze Meadows Outlot D 2207426001 SPRING CREEK RD HARBOR DR ELIANNA DR FORD ST E Grassed Waterway 1.06 ACRES Fargaze Meadows Outlot C 2207426073 HALL AVE MAPLE ST S BE AB 30' Grassed Buffer 1.9 ACRES FARGAZE MEADOWS OUTLOTS C & D GRASSED BUFFER AREA (PROPOSED) Fargaze Meadows Outlots C & D Parcel Boundary City of Northfield City Limits Proposed Grass Buffer Areas (2.96 Acres) 400 200 0 Feet 400 CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Proposed Acquisition of 512 Ninth Street from Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to adopt the attached Resolution No. 2013-135 approving the attached Purchase Agreement with the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund for the City of Northfield’s acquisition of the property located at 512 Ninth Street. Summary Report: Over the past year there has been discussion with the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund concerning the city’s purchase from the Fund of the parcel addressed 512 Ninth Street. This parcel is shown on the attached map. The Veterans Fund acquired this parcel several years ago, and demolished a house that was located there at the time of acquisition. Throughout those discussions the Veteran’s Fund (represented in those discussions by Wil Broz and Larry Turner) has been seeking both payment in an acceptable amount, AND assurance that the Veterans Fund will not be assessed for any street improvements for the parcel it owns on Poplar Street. That parcel is also shown on the attached map. Discussions this past week have resulted in a tentative agreement on a negotiated purchase price of $30,000.00. The Northfield Veterans Memorial Fund also agrees to pay the future assessments associated with 812 Poplar Street, a parcel owned by the Veterans. The 2014 Street Maintenance Project is expected to result in estimated assessments levied against this parcel in the amount of $4,455. Also reflected in the Purchase Agreement are two other minor requests, namely development of some parking spaces along the street and two drive approaches into the Poplar Street parcel. Because of the community use of Veterans Memorial Park, development of those parking spaces is not an issue, but rather something we thought was warranted. The drive approaches can easily be installed as part of future construction. Given the size of the parcel, two drive approaches also seem warranted. Alternative Options: There is always the Do Nothing alternative. Financial Impacts: The $30,000 cost to purchase would be spent from the Park Fund, as recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. That recommendation was for payment of $25,000. While there was discussion about the PRAB supporting the Veterans Fund request to reduce the future assessment, that was not part of the motion made at the PRAB meeting. Timelines: The Veterans Fund would like to close on this acquisition by the City within 30 days. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Resolution 2013-135 Draft land Purchase Agreement August 31, 2012 Letter from the Veterans Fund City Council meeting minutes for January 15, 2013 Affidavit of Business Entity Warranty Deed Response from Veterans Fund Attorney Veterans Park Area Map CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-135 A RESOLUTION BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Northfield (“City”) desires to acquire certain real property (PID 22.01.1.51.006) located at 512 Ninth Street in Northfield, Minnesota, legally described as: The South 66 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, in Hoskins’ Addition to the Town (now City) of Northfield, Rice County, Minnesota, referred to herein as the “Property”; and WHEREAS, the owner/seller of the Property is willing to sell the Property to the City for $30,000.00, including $3,000.00 earnest money; and, WHEREAS, a draft purchase agreement has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the attached draft purchase agreement, the owner/seller and City expressly understand and agree that the purchase of the Property is contingent upon approval by the City Council of the City of Northfield; and, WHEREAS, if any transaction approval as provided in the purchase agreement is not obtained by the closing date stated in the purchase agreement, the purchase agreement shall then be null and void, without further obligation by either party. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: The City Council hereby approves the attached purchase agreement and authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the purchase agreement substantially in the form hereby approved and such other documents as are necessary to close on the purchase of the Property by the City of Northfield and record the same in the Office of the Rice County Recorder. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: The funds shall come from Park Fund in the amount of $30,000. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November, 2013. ATTEST ______________________________ City Clerk ____________________________ Mayor VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ NAKASIAN ___ LUDESCHER ___ DELONG 1 Northfield City Council MEETING MINUTES RECORD Meeting: City Council Meeting & Work Session Date: January 15, 2013 Members present: Location: Council Chambers Start Time: 7:00 p.m. Adjourn Time: 11:09 p.m. Mayor Dana Graham, Council Members David DeLong, David Ludescher, Suzie Nakasian, Rhonda Pownell, Jessica Peterson White, Erica Zweifel Members Absent: None Others present: John Munnings, Jane McWilliams, Steve Rholl, Helen Medin, Wil Brosz, Tim Isom, Drew Weis, Mary Ann Polley, Christian Hakala, Carmen Pomponio, Betsy Busa, Sherry Carter, Mary Witt, Alice Kivell, Dale Gehring, Victor Summa, Don McGee, Jon Denison, George Kinney, Mike Clark, DLR Group, Library & Recreation Services Director Lynne Young, Director of Community Planning & Development Chris Heineman, Community Development Coordinator Michele Merxbauer, Finance Director Kathleen McBride, Public Works Director/City Engineer Joe Stapf, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Brian Erickson, Interim Police Chief Chuck Walerius, Sergeant Scott Johnson, Sergeant Monte Nelson, Karen Mangold, City Clerk Deb Little, City Administrator Tim Madigan, City Attorney Chris Hood, Northfield News and other interested citizens. Item Call to Order Approval of Agenda Discussion/Conclusions At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Graham called the meeting to order. Action A roll call was taken of members present and a quorum was declared. A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. DeLong to approve the agenda for January 15, 2013. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made C. Ludescher and seconded by C. DeLong to reconsider the approval of the agenda by moving item #8 to after #10. Yes votes: C. Ludescher and C. Nakasian. No votes: C. DeLong, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. Vote is 2-5. Motion failed. A motion was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. Ludescher to reconsider the agenda to move item #5 to the regular agenda. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Nakasian C. Peterson White, C. Pownell. No votes: C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. Vote is 5-2. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. DeLong to move item #5 to the regular agenda to become 6A. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. Ludescher and seconded by C. Zweifel to approve the City Council meeting minutes for January 8, 2013. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 1 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Action Presentation None Reports From Council Members C. Pownell – Attended the Fire Relief Association meeting. Noted that they reviewed open meeting law requirements and fund balances and are currently fully funded. C. DeLong – None C. Zweifel – Distributed copies of the objectives from the Fire Services Task Force. Reminded members of the Intergovernmental Meeting on January 23. Noted that the group will be discussing the Fire Services Task Force objectives and have asked that participants come with prioritized objectives. Requested that the Council discuss this at the next work session. C. Ludescher – None C. Peterson White – None C. Nakasian – Reported a positive response to the website open houses and review of the website. Noted that additional dates have been added Mayor Graham – None Consent Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda City Administrator Madigan introduced the items on the consent agenda and answered questions posed by the Council. M2013-006 Disbursements M2013-007 NCRC Lease Agreement Approve disbursements totaling $301,241.24 Resolution 2013-005 Roofing Project Final Acceptance Resolution 2013-006 2013 Street Projects Design Services Public Comments Open Public Comments A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Nakasian to approve the consent agenda. All in favor. Motion carried. Approve the attached lease agreement with Minnesota Workforce Development, Inc. for rental of Room HS124 in the Northfield Community Resource Center (NCRC) Accept Public Improvement and Approve Final Payment for Roof Replacement Project FACL2012M06 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Bolton & Menk for Design Services on the 2013 Street Projects Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., spoke regarding the short amount of time given for items including the police station and the public needing time to understand what the revisions are and buy into them. Ray Cox, 500 Ivanhoe Avenue, noted that he sent a letter to the Council regarding the police station and asked the Council to consider using precast concrete walls. John Munnings, 919 Cannon Valley Drive West, spoke regarding ownership and possession of weapons. Noted that he is willing to present his ideas to the City Council. Page 2 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Public Hearing & Related Items Public Hearing Maple & Prairie Street Improvements Discussion/Conclusions Action Public Works Director/City Engineer Stapf and Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Erickson introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Mayor Graham opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Nakasian to close the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried. Mary Ann Polley, 1012 Maple Street, read letter from the Lockner’s at 1011 Maple Street. Spoke regarding issue of trees and sidewalk on Maple. Referred to article in Star Tribune regarding suburban landscape. Tim Isom, 1021 Maple Street, spoke regarding timing and reclamation. Spoke against the sidewalk and suggested that the sidewalk be delayed until a full reconstruct is done. Noted significant issues with topography on the east side of the street that may require retaining walls or significant landscaping to maintain lots. Drew Weis, 1117 Maple Street, noted that he was the lone dissenter that didn’t sign the petition. Spoke in favor of the sidewalk. Noted that he has kids that have to walk in the street or cross the street with fast moving traffic. Stated that the safest option is to walk down the sidewalk to the crossing guards at the school. Christian Hakala, 1210 Maple Street, spoke against narrowing the street. Spoke regarding the assessment amount. Suggested fines for contractors that don’t get work done and that this money goes to homeowners. Carmen Pomponio – 1115 Maple Street, spoke regarding property valuation and the assessment. Doesn’t believe there will be a benefit from the project. Spoke in favor of minimum expenditures. Spoke regarding safe routes to school and noted that there are mostly senior citizens in the area. Betsy Busa, 1201 Maple Street, asked about utility poles and guide wires. Questioned whether stop signs and speed bumps would help. Sherry Carter, 1200 Prairie Street, stated that they were not informed that a sidewalk is being considered on Prairie Street. Asked how much this will cost. Resident, 1114 Maple Street, asked for clarification on whether the sidewalk is for sure. Spoke against spending money to narrow the street. Alice Kivell, 1000 Maple Street, spoke against Page 3 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Action installing a sidewalk on the east side. Stated that most of the kids come from the north. Mary Witt, 1106 Maple Street, asked if assessments will be reduced if sidewalks aren’t installed. Noted that there is a sidewalk on one side. Spoke regarding shared bike lanes and kids and noted that she would rather have them bike on sidewalks. Regular Agenda M2013-008 Board/Commission Appointments C. Nakasian spoke regarding EDA appointments. A motion (M2013-008) was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. Peterson White that THE NORTHFIELD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY APPROVES THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS: PHILIP SPENSLEY REAPPOINTED TO THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. DAPHNE MCCOY APPOINTED TO THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION TO COMPLETE A VACANT TWO-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014. DALE GEHRING APPOINTED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A SIX-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2018 TODD BORNHAUSER APPOINTED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE A VACANT ONE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2013. DAVID LUDESCHER APPOINTED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO THE VACANT COUNCIL POSITION FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2016. RYAN REDETZKE APPOINTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 SUSAN DEMALIGNON REAPPOINTED TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 STEVE WILMOT REAPPOINTED TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 Page 4 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Action M2013-009 Veteran’s Park Property Library & Recreation Services Director Young introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Wil Brosz, 1100 Nevada Street representing the Veteran’s Memorial group, spoke regarding the investment in property and noted that the parcel CHARLOTTE CARLSON REAPPOINTED TO THE LIBRARY BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 ADRIENNE FALCON APPOINTED TO THE LIBRARY BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 DAVID HVISTENDAHL REAPPOINTED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 GRACE CLARK REAPPOINTED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FOR A THREEYEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 RICHARD SCHULTE REAPPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 JOE GASIOR APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 FRANK BALSTER APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 DON MCGEE REAPPOINTED TO THE RENTAL HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 KENNETH MALECHA REAPPOINTED TO THE RENTAL HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 All in favor. Motion carried. A motion (M2013-009) was made by C. Peterson White and seconded by C. Pownell to DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND LOCATED AT 512 WEST NINTH ST., ADJACENT TO THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. Page 5 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions should be part of the park. Spoke regarding future assessments and the desire to negotiate assessments on their 9th & Poplar Street property. Thanked the Park Board, City Council and staff for the support for the Veteran’s Memorial. Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf, stated that he was confused regarding amount and noted that the Veterans are benefitting the community by what they have done. Spoke in favor of the purchase. Recess Resolution 2013-007 Police Facility Plans & Specifications City Administrator Madigan introduced this item, Interim Chief Walerius presented information regarding the facility and needs, Mike Clark, DLR Group, provided information on how the project meets the needs of the Police Department, and Finance Director McBride presented information regarding the budget. A motion was made by C. Ludescher and seconded by C. DeLong that Mr. McGee be allowed to speak up to 10 minutes. Mayor Graham noted that he had already called for public comment and the motion was out of order. Mayor Graham ruled the motion out of order. Action A motion was made by C. Ludescher and seconded by C. DeLong to MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO PERMIT THE PARK & RECREATION BOARD TO SPEND UP TO $30,000 FOR THE PROPERTY. Yes votes: C. Ludescher No votes: C. DeLong, C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. Vote is 1-6. Motion failed. Vote on M2013-009 – All in favor. Motion carried. A five minute recess was taken at 9:09 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:16 p.m. A motion was made by C. Zweifel and seconded by C. Pownell to APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013-007 AUTHORIZING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY. Yes votes: C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. No votes: C. Ludescher and C. DeLong. Vote is 5-2. Motion carried. Don McGee, 710 Highland Ave., challenged remarks made at the last meeting regarding $5 million amount. Asked what tax payers are getting for an additional $2 million dollars. Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Avenue, asked if we need $7 million worth of building to meet the needs. Stated that council has not been provided enough information on what they are getting for the money. Extend Meeting Extend Meeting Resolution 2013-008 Environmental Cleanup RFP for Q Block City Administrator Madigan introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. At 10:00 pm a motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Nakasian TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:30 PM. Yes votes: C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. No votes: C. DeLong and C. Ludescher. Vote is 5-2. Motion carried. At 10:29 p.m. a motion was made by C. DeLong and seconded by C. Ludescher TO EXTEND THE MEETING ANOTHER 15 MINUTES. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. Zweifel and seconded by C. Nakasian to APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013-008 – AUTHROZING PREPRATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED Page 6 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes Item Discussion/Conclusions Ordinance No. 943 Board/Commission Term Limits Action City Clerk Little introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Jon Denison, 1108 Highland avenue, spoke against this item and how it came about. Noted that the Library Board passed a motion to downsize the board from 9 to 7 members. Asked about immediate need of this ordinance. Discussion Skate Park Funding Options Finance Director McBride introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council. Council members asked that staff bring back options for funding including the Park Fun, TIF fund and excess LGA. Item was not discussed. Discussion CVB Structure Discussion Council Retreat City Administrator Madigan introduced this item. Council Members were asked to send any additional items they want included. Council discussed the format and completing a DISC assessment prior to the retreat. TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP OF THE CITY-OWNED PARCELS LOCATED IN THE Q BLOCK. All in favor. Motion carried. A motion was made by C. Zweifel and seconded by C. DeLong to HAVE THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 943 – AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TERM LIMITS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Yes votes: C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel and Mayor Graham. No votes: C. Ludescher and C. DeLong. Vote is 5-2. Motion carried. No action. Discussion only. Moved to January 22 work session. No action. Discussion only. Administrator’s Update None Adjourn Adjourn the meeting Submitted by: A motion was made by C. DeLong and seconded by C. Ludescher to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m. __________________________________ Deborah Little, City Clerk Attest: _________________________________ Dana Graham, Mayor Page 7 – January 15, 2013 City Council Minutes (Top 3 inches reserved for recording data) AFFIDAVIT REGARDING BUSINESS ENTITY STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RICE ) ) ss. ) Lawrence Turner, being first duly sworn on oath says that: 1. He is the President of the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Business Entity”), named as Seller in the document dated May ___, 2013 and filed for record (month/day/year) as Document Number ____________, in the office of the County Recorder of Rice County, Minnesota. 2. The Business Entity’s principal place of business is at 516 Division Street, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, and the Business Entity’s principal place(s) of business during the last ten (10) years has/have been at: (identify addresses, if any) 3. There are no: a. Bankruptcy or dissolution proceedings involving the Business Entity during the time period in which the Business Entity has had any interest in the premises described in the above document (“Premises”); b. Unsatisfied judgments of record against the Business Entity nor any actions pending in any courts, which affect the Premises; c. Tax liens filed against Business Entity; except as herein stated: (identify bankruptcies, judgments, or tax liens, if any) 4. Any bankruptcy dissolution proceedings of record against business entities with the same or similar names during the time period in which the Business Entity had any interest in the Premises, are not against the Business Entity. 5. Any judgments or tax liens of record against entities with the same or similar names are not against the Business Entity. 6. There has been no labor or materials furnished to the Premises for which payment has not been made. 7. There are no unrecorded contracts, leases, easements, or other agreements or interests relating to the Premises except as stated herein: (identify document, if any) 8. There are no persons in possession of any portion of the Premises other than pursuant to a recorded document, except as stated herein: (identify document, if any) 9. There are no encroachments or boundary line questions affected the Premises of which Affiants have knowledge. Affiants know the matters stated herein are true and make this Affidavit for the purpose of inducing the passing of title to the Premises. Affiant Lawrence Turner, President Signed and sworn to before me on May ___, 2012, by Lawrence Turner, as President of the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Seller. (seal) Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: FLAHERTY & HOOD, P.A. 525 Park Street, Suite 470 St. Paul, MN 55103-2122 Voice: 651-225-8840 Fax: 651-225-9088 (Top 3 inches reserved for recording data) WARRANTY DEED Business Entity to Business Entity DEED TAX DUE: $[_________] DATE: May ____, 2013 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Grantor”), hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Northfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Grantee”), real property in Rice County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: The South 66 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, in Hoskin’s Addition to the Town (now City) of Northfield, Rice County, Minnesota together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: [_____________________] Check applicable box: The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document or has been electronically filed. (If electronically filed, insert WDC number: [_______________].) I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells on the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate. ECB-1019 Grantor NORTHFIELD AREA VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND By: Lawrence Turner Its: President Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RICE WARRANTY DEED ) ) ss. ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on May ___, 2013, by Lawrence Turner as President and of the Northfield Area Veterans Memorial Fund, Grantor. (Seal, if any) (signature of notarial officer) Title (and Rank): My commission expires: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: FLAHERTY & HOOD, P.A. 525 Park Street, Suite 470 St. Paul, MN 55103-2122 Voice: 651-225-8840 Fax: 651-225-9088 (month/day/year) TAX STATEMENTS FOR THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE SENT TO: Finance Director City of Northfield 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057-2565 Y POPLAR ST S H W 3 3 S HTH ST W EIG 512 9TH ST W 2201151006 NINTH ST W Veterans' Park Area Parcel of Interest 60 30 0 Feet 60 3 HW Y 3 S EIGHTH ST W PARCEL NUMBER 22.01.1.51.003 PARCEL NUMBER 22.01.1.51.006 POPLAR ST S LINDEN ST S NINTH ST W 246 WOODLEY ST W Veterans' Park Area O PR N IO S S FE AL DR Parcel Boundary 140 70 0 Feet 140 CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Brian L. Erickson, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Accept Feasibility Report for Sixth Street and Call for Improvement Hearing Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report and calling for the improvement hearing for the Sixth Street Reconstruction Project (STRT2014-A16). Summary Report: The feasibility report has been completed and finds that the Sixth Street Reconstruction Project (STRT2014A16) is necessary, feasible and cost effective. See attachment 2 for the project location map. A link to the Feasibility Report appears below: http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=902 The next step in moving this project forward is for the City Council to receive the feasibility report and call for a public hearing on the improvements. On October 29, 2013 the City Council passed Council Resolution 2013-124 which ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for this project. This report analyzed the potential for reconstruction on Sixth Street from Washington Street to the eastern dead end as well as College Street between Fifth Street and Seventh Street; Winona Street between Sixth Street and Seventh Street and Nevada Street between Fifth Street and Seventh Street. There has been one neighborhood meeting which was held on October 24, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was informing the affected property owners of the improvements being considered and gathering input and comments from the impacted residents. Existing Conditions The properties adjacent to the project area consist of single-family homes. The corridors are fully developed and in many areas there are mature trees. Sidewalks exist in portions of the project, but are missing in several areas. All streets within the project area are classified as local roadways and experience low volumes of traffic. Along with public utilities in the project area, other private utilities include overhead and underground power, gas, telephone and cable television lines. Streets All the streets in the project area are bituminous with a majority of it having curb and gutter. The widths vary from 33’ to 40’. All streets are aged and exhibit wear and distress to different degrees. The pavement is generally in fair to poor condition with significant transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, potholes, and rutting. Some street segments have significant settlements, which allow water to pond, infiltrate and weaken the subgrade. This has led to frost heaving, and additional transverse cracking during freeze-thaw cycles. Water As-built information indicates that there is currently 4” watermain throughout most of the project corridor. It should also be noted that Winona Street does not have watermain. The current city standards call for a minimum of 8” watermain constructed of ductile iron pipe along each street. This new watermain—four times larger in cross section—will substantially improve the flow of water through the piping network, decreasing pressure fluctuation, and improving fire flows in the event that need occurs. Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer mains again exhibit a mixture of materials, sizes and ages. The sizes range from 6” to 8” and are constructed of VCP (vitrified clay pipe) or limited amount of PVC (polyvinyl chloride). Current city standards call for PVC piping of appropriate sizing. Televising of the system has been completed and in some areas there is deterioration including cracks, leaking joints and offsets. Additionally, the televising indicated the existence of non-standard and difficult to maintain service connections. VCP sewer mains are prone to tree roots drawn to a source of water and nutrients, so replacement will reduce the likelihood of blockages that are causes by roots. Storm Sewer Due to the elevation of the project corridor, with Sixth Street being the high point of the area, the existing storm sewer is a very basic system. Storm sewer lines and structures exist on both Winona Street and Nevada Street from Sixth Street to Seventh Street, and consist of 12” – 15” corrugated metal piping. The structures in this area consist of block and brick structures that show significant signs of age and wear. A main purpose in installing a basic storm sewer system in the area is to provide a means to serve the perforated underdrain that is normally installed under and along new curb and gutter to assure good positive subsurface drainage which preserves the life of the new street pavement. Proposed Improvements Based on the detailed review from the feasibility report the following recommendations are presented for Sixth Street and the three intersecting streets. Sixth Street Full depth reconstruction is planned with replacement of all underground utilities. Narrowing the street width to 32’ from Union Street to the dead end while keeping the 40’ width from Washington to Union due to the proximity of downtown is also recommended. The construction of a cul-de-sac at the east end of Sixth Street is recommended to allow for an easier turn around at the end of Sixth Street. Reconstruction of existing sidewalks on both sides of the street is recommended. Installation of new watermain will allow for looping the water mains and improved reliability. Replacement of the storm sewer system will provide a more effective, efficient and reliable method for managing the storm water. Finally, replacement of the sanitary sewer system will bring this area up to the current city standards. Cross Streets Full depth reconstruction is planned with replacement of all underground utilities. Narrowing the street width 32’ is recommended. Installation of water main will allow for looping the water mains and improved reliability as well as correcting some non-standard services. Construction of curb and gutter in this area will improve the storm water management. Finally replacement of the sanitary sewer system will bring this area up to the current city standards. Sidewalks Reconstruction of existing sidewalks as well as construction of new sidewalks on both sides of the street will complete the sidewalk system in this area, in keeping with City Policy indicating the City shall install sidewalks on both sides of residential streets during reconstruction when sidewalk exists on both sides of the streets. This policy could be subject to some interpretation, however, as sidewalk does not exist on both sides of every street at every location. However, there are scattered pieces of sidewalk throughout the area on both sides of the streets in the general neighborhood. This policy was established by the City Council’s approval of Resolution 202-329 on November 18, 2002, and was reviewed at a City Council Work session on December 10, 2007. The City of Northfield’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, dated November 17, 2008 also speaks to the importance of sidewalks, and the Safe Routes To School Plan also identifies certain areas where sidewalk is important. As a result of the anticipated construction activities and based on the forthcoming forester’s report it is anticipated that there may be some tree removals are recommended. Additionally, staff anticipates that there will be some recommended pruning performed due to the size of the construction equipment that will be used and the excessive tree damage that could be caused. As in the past, the design will make efforts to keep the tree impacts to a minimum. The proposed narrowing of the streets, besides reducing the impervious area, will also better able preserving trees worthy of saving, and will also better accommodation of new sidewalk in those areas where it is currently lacking. Project Cost The estimated construction costs for the 2014 6th Street Reconstruction Project are detailed below: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 6th Street Cross Streets Direct Construction Street Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Watermain Private Services (as needed) Subtotal Construction Contingency (10%) Total Construction Overhead (20%) Total Cost Estimate $ 863,022 $ 68,548 $ 140,240 $ 226,125 $ 80,000 $ 1,377,935 $ 137,793 $ 1,515,728 $ 303,146 $ 1,818,874 $ 505,143 $ 34,255 $ 71,271 $ 137,065 $ 72,000 $ 819,734 $ 81,973 $ 901,707 $ 180,341 $ 1,082,048 TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,368,164 102,803 211,511 363,190 152,000 2,197,668 219,767 2,417,435 483,487 2,900,922 These estimates are based on detailed planning estimates and costs from recent reconstruction projects that have been completed in the City of Northfield. Actual costs of the project could vary significantly depending on the project scope, site conditions, project elements selected in the final design. Project Funding This project would be funded through a variety of sources including assessments, enterprise funds, and other City sources such as bonding. At the City Council meeting of October 29, 2013 staff proposed using the adopted 2013 assessment rates and for planning purposes staff has used those 2013 adopted assessment rates. Additionally, the special assessment estimate includes the replacement of private services to each residence/property. In the project funding table below, the special assessments were based on the following calculations: Reconstruction (Residential) – Estimated at $75 per front foot of reconstruction plus an estimated $2,000 per residence to account for private water and wastewater services. PROJECT FUNDING Special Stormwater Sewer Fund Water Fund Assessments Fund Reconstruction 6th Street Reconstruction Cross Streets TOTAL Bonding / Other TOTAL $ 300,173 $ 90,483 $ 185,117 $ 298,485 $ 944,616 $ 1,818,874 $ 260,220 $ 45,217 $ 94,078 $ 180,926 $ 501,608 $ 1,082,048 $ 560,393 $ 135,700 $ 279,195 $ 479,411 $ 1,446,224 $ 2,900,922 Project Process Attachment 3 details the project process for the Reconstruction Project. This process has been developed and refined over the course of the last several years. It accounts for all the required actions by City Council to insure that Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 procedures are followed so that assessments for local improvements may be levied to abutting benefiting properties. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2013-136 2. Project Process 3. Project Location Maps CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-136 SIXTH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER STRT2014-A16 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to Council Resolution 2013-124 adopted October 29, 2013, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the Sixth Street Reconstruction Project STRT2014-A16; and, WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Sixth Street between Washington Street and the eastern dead end; College Street between Fifth Street and Seventh Street; Winona Street between Sixth Street and Seventh Street and Nevada Street between Fifth Street and Seventh Street as part of the 2014 Street Reconstruction Project STRT2014-A16; and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, costeffective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as a proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council will consider such improvements, in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $2,900,922. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 3rd day of December, 2013 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, at 7:10 p.m., and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST ___________________________________ City Clerk ___________________________________ Mayor VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL Sixth Street Reconstruction Project Process (STRT2014-A16) The following actions detail the required 429 process track for local improvements. Date1 Project Step Purpose of Step October 24, 2013 Hold Neighborhood Meeting The intent of this meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the upcoming project and seek input on the improvements, which will be summarized for City Council. October 2013 Arborist Report A trained forester or arborist will evaluate the trees along the project corridor and make recommendations for project consideration. October 29, 2013 Order preparation of Feasibility Report Ordering the Feasibility Report is a required step in the 429 process. November 19, 2013 Accept Feasibility Report and call for Improvement Hearing December 3, 2013 Improvement Hearing The engineer will present the Feasibility Report, the proposed project, an initial cost estimate and potential assessments. As part of the meeting the City Council will also set the date and time for the Improvement Hearing as required by the 429 process. The purpose of this hearing is for the City Council to discuss a specific local improvement before ordering it done. The Council considers all the information in the Feasibility Report and any other information necessary for Council deliberation. At the Improvement Hearing interested persons may voice their concerns, whether or not they are in the proposed assessment area. A reasonable estimate of the total amount to be assessed and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels must be available at the hearing. If the Council rejects the project, it may not reconsider that same project unless another hearing is held following the required notice. The project may be ordered any time within 6 months after the Improvement Hearing. It is not advisable to change project parameters after ordering the improvement. Upon ordering the improvement construction drawings and specifications are prepared. Any changes to the project scope after this point will require redesign effort with additional cost and staff time as a result. This also has the potential to delay the project. January 7, 2014 Order Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications January 22, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting This meeting will provide an update to the neighborhood on the design direction provided by City Council as well as an update on the project process and assessments. February 18, 2014 Approve Plans and Order Advertisement for Bids This step is a requirement of the 429 process. February 26, March 5 & 12, 2014 Publish Ad for Bid in Northfield News A step in the bidding process. The project will also be advertised on the MnDOT e-Advert website. February 26, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting Present the final detailed plans and specifications to the neighborhood. Also hold a more detailed discussion on what will happen during construction as well as a tentative timeline for events. March 17, 2014 Bid Opening – 10:00 A.M. April 1, 2014 Accept Bids and Award Contract Final step in the bidding process. Bids are opened by staff and tabulated. From here staff will make a recommendation to the City Council for award. This step is a requirement of the 429 process and allows for the project to move forward with beginning the actual construction process. Council Action2 Staff Action3 Mail notice: October 14, 2013 Field Work Planned for November 12, 2013 Resolution 2013124 Resolution Mail notice: November 22 , 2013. Public Hearing Ad in paper: November 23 & 27, 2013. Resolution Mail notice: January 10, 2014. Resolution Mail notice: February 17, 2014. Resolution November 14, 2013 1 – Dates in grey text indicate actions that have taken place. Dates in bold text indicate the next planned step. Dates in italics denote tentatively scheduled future actions. 2 – Motions will be used for those items that are not necessary for the 429 process. Resolutions are required for those steps that are part of the 429 process. 3 – Staff actions to insure that proper timelines are followed in the 429 process. May 2014 Neighborhood Tour May – November 2014 Construction July 2015 Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment Prior to the start of construction a walking tour of the project corridor will be taken. Individual meetings with property owners will be scheduled to go over the details of construction and document existing conditions. Once the project is awarded staff manages the day-to-day contract execution. Typically a Resident Project Representative is on-site to make sure the project is constructed in accordance to the plans and specifications. Communications between the contractor and city is primarily through the City Engineer, Project Manager and Resident Project Representative. Significant changes will be brought to the City Council for approval prior to the work being executed. Minor changes and field directives are authorized by the City Engineer in advance to maintain the project schedule. All contract changes must be approved by the City Council. Adjustments to estimated quantities occur during the final acceptance of the improvements. The City Engineer recommends to City Council when the final payment should be made to the Contractor. The City Council may accept the work by resolution; however, if the city fails to pay the amount due within 30 days of a monthly estimate, or 90 days after the final estimate, the city must pay interest on the past due amount as prescribed by law. The following actions detail the required 429 process track to assess benefitting property owners for local improvements. Date1 Project Step Purpose of Step The City Council will set the date and time for the Assessment Hearing as required by the March 18, 2014 Call for Assessment Hearing 429 process. April 15, 2014 May 6, 2014 Assessment Hearing The purpose of this hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express concerns about the actual special assessment. At the Assessment Hearing the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in writing. Adopt Assessments The City Council has some flexibility before it adopts the assessment roll and may change, or amend, the proposed assessment as to any parcel. City Council must, by resolution, adopt the same as the special assessment against the lands named in the assessment roll. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become liens against the properties listed. Resolution Council Action2 Staff Action3 Resolution Public Hearing Resolution Mail notice: March 28, 2014. Ad in paper: March 29, 2014. Mail notice of adoption on May 7, 2014. November 14, 2013 1 – Dates in grey text indicate actions that have taken place. Dates in bold text indicate the next planned step. Dates in italics denote tentatively scheduled future actions. 2 – Motions will be used for those items that are not necessary for the 429 process. Resolutions are required for those steps that are part of the 429 process. 3 – Staff actions to insure that proper timelines are followed in the 429 process. Sixth Street Reconstruction FOURTH ST E NEVADA ST S WINONA ST S SIXTH ST E COLLEGE ST S WASHINGTON ST S UNION ST S FIFTH ST E SEVENTH ST E EIGHTH ST E 2014 CITY OF NORTHFIELD ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Legend Reconstruction 0 0.05 0 250 0.1 500 0.15 Miles 750 Feet CONSENT Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Brian L. Erickson, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Accept Feasibility Report 2014 Street Reclamation Project and Call for Improvement Hearing Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report and calling for the improvement hearing for the 2014 Street Reclamation Project (STRT2014-A19). Summary Report: The feasibility report has been completed and finds that the 2014 Street Reclamation Project (STRT2014-A19) is necessary, feasible and cost effective. See attachment 2 for the project location maps. A link to the Feasibility Report appears below: http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=903 The next step in moving this project forward is for the City Council to receive the feasibility report and call for a public hearing on the improvements. On October 29, 2103 the City Council passed Council Resolution 2012-125 which ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for this project. This report analyzed the potential for reclamation on the following streets: Winona Street between Woodley Street and Ames Street Nevada Street between Fremont Street and Ames Street Fremont Street between Winona Street and Maple Street Ames Street between the western cul-de-sac and Maple Street Festler Court between Ames Street and the cul-de-sac Sheldahl Road between Fremouw Avenue and the northern dead end Schjelmile Lane between MN Trunk Highway 3 and the eastern dead end Poplar Street between Eighth Street and Woodley Street Eighth Street between Poplar Street and Linden Street Ninth Street between the western dead end and Linden Street There has been one neighborhood meeting which was held on October 24, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was informing the affected property owners of the improvements being considered and gathering input and comments from the impacted residents. In addition, the property owners (largely industrialists have been notified of the proposed reclamation projects for Sheldal Road and Schjelmile Lane, and were advised of an open invitation to come into the office at a time of their convenience to learn about the projects. So far, we have had contact with Multek. Existing Conditions The properties adjacent to the project areas consist of single-family homes in the South Woodley and Veteran’s Park areas and industrial parcels on the Multek (northern) section. The corridors are nearly fully developed and in many areas there are mature trees. All the streets are of bituminous construction, and sidewalks exist in portions of the project, but are missing in several key areas identified in the 2009 Safe Routes to School Study (SRTS Study). South Woodley Neighborhood The streets in this area range between 32’ and 36’ in width and the entire section has curb and gutter which is generally in good condition. All streets are aged and exhibit wear and distress to different degrees. The pavement is generally in fair to poor condition with significant transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, potholes, and rutting. Some street segments have significant settlements, which allow water to pond, infiltrate and weaken the subgrade. This has led to frost heaving, and additional transverse cracking during freeze-thaw cycles. Currently, there is only sidewalk along the south side of Ames Street from the Sibley School entrance west to Archibald Street. Multek Area Sheldahl Road is 24’ in width with 8’ gravel shoulders. Schjelmile Lane is 44’ in width and has curb and gutter. The street pavement shows clear signs of age and distress. Overall the pavement is in fair condition and there is some transverse and longitudinal cracking, some alligator cracking, potholes and areas with minor settlement. The curb and gutter is in good condition overall; however there are some locations with minor settlement. There is currently no existing sidewalk on Sheldahl Road, and there is a portion of sidewalk along the north side of Schjelmile Road. This walk is in fair to poor condition Veteran’s Park Neighborhood All the streets in this area have a rural section and exhibit signs of significant distress. Overall the streets are in poor condition with transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, potholes and areas of settlement. Due to the condition of these streets maintenance effort has significantly increased in recent years. Proposed Improvements Based on the detailed review in the feasibility report the following recommendations are presented for each section. South Woodley Neighborhood Full depth reclamation is planned for the streets in the South Woodley Neighborhood. No change in horizontal alignment is planned and the curb and gutter, which will have as needed sport repairs, will remain in place. It is also proposed to construct sidewalk along the west side of both Winona and Nevada Streets from Sumner Street to Ames Street. Additional sidewalk is also recommended along the south side of Sumner Street from College Street to Nevada Street based on the SRTS Study. The actual final location of the sidewalk will be based on final survey data and an effort will be made to avoid impacting the trees in the area. Multek Area A full depth reclamation would be performed for the streets in this area. No additional curb and gutter would be installed; however, existing curb and gutter would receive as needed spot repairs. Existing sidewalk would receive spot repairs, but no additional sidewalk would be installed with this project. Veteran’s Park Neighborhood This section will have a modified reclamation performed along with a base and wear course of bituminous pavement constructed. No construction of curb and gutter or sidewalk is proposed on this section of the project. Project Cost The estimated project cost for the 2014 Street Reclamation Project are detailed below: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS South Veteran's Woodley Multek Area Park Neighborhood Neighborhood Section Construction Construction Contingency Total Construction Overhead Total Cost Estimate $ $ $ $ $ 511,280 51,128 562,408 112,482 674,890 $ $ $ $ $ 184,000 18,400 202,400 40,480 242,880 $ $ $ $ $ 208,244 20,824 229,068 45,814 274,882 TOTAL $ 903,524 $ 90,352 $ 993,876 $ 198,775 $ 1,192,651 These estimates are based on detailed planning estimates and costs from recent reconstruction projects that have been completed in the City of Northfield. Actual costs of the project could vary significantly depending on the project scope, site conditions, project elements selected in the final design. Project Funding This project would be funded through a variety of sources including assessments, municipal state aid and other city sources such as bonding. At the City Council meeting of October 29, 2013 staff proposed using the adopted 2013 assessment rates and for planning purposes staff has used those 2013 adopted assessment rates. In the project funding table below the special assessments were based on the following calculations: Reclaim – 2013 adopted assessment rate = $53 per front foot of project length. Modified Reclaim –20132 adopted assessment rate = $43 per front foot of project length. South Woodley Multek Area Veteran's Park Total Funding PROJECT FUNDING Special Capital Project MSA Assessments Fund $320,019 $354,870 $0 $106,000 $136,880 $0 $133,090 $91,792 $50,000 $559,109 $583,542 $50,000 TOTAL $674,889 $242,880 $274,882 $1,192,651 Considering the nature of both Schjelmile Lane and Sheldal Road being dead end roadways this may be an instance whereby one of the alternate methods of assessment should be considered—that being dividing the assessable portion by the number of abutting parcels, rather than following the front footage assessment method. More information in that regard will be provided at the City Council meeting during our presentation. Project Process Attachment 3 details the project process for the Maintenance Project. This process has been developed and refined over the course of the last several years. It accounts for all the required actions by City Council to insure that Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 procedures are followed so that assessments for local improvements may be levied to abutting benefiting properties. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2013-137 2. Project Process 3. Project Location Maps CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-137 2014 STREET RECLAMATION PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER STRT2014-A19 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to Council Resolution 2013-125 adopted October 29, 2013, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the 2014 Street Reclamation Project STRT2014-A19; and, WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the following streets: Winona Street between Woodley Street and Ames Street Nevada Street between Fremont Street and Ames Street Fremont Street between Winona Street and Maple Street Ames Street between the western cul-de-sac and Maple Street Festler Court between Ames Street and the cul-de-sac Sheldahl Road between Fremouw Avenue and the northern dead end Schjelmile Lane between MN Trunk Highway 3 and the eastern dead end Poplar Street between Eighth Street and Woodley Street Eighth Street between Poplar Street and Linden Street Ninth Street between the western dead end and Linden Street; and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, costeffective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as a proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council will consider such improvements, in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $1,192,651. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 3rd day of December, 2013 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, at 7:10 p.m., and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST ___________________________________ City Clerk ___________________________________ Mayor VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL 2014 Street Reclamation Project Process (STRT2014-A19) The following actions detail the required 429 process track for local improvements. Date1 Project Step Purpose of Step October 23, 2012 Hold Neighborhood Meeting The intent of this meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the upcoming project and seek input on the improvements, which will be summarized for City Council. October 29, 2013 Order preparation of Feasibility Report Ordering the Feasibility Report is a required step in the 429 process. November 19, 2013 Accept Feasibility Report and call for Improvement Hearing December 3, 2013 Improvement Hearing The engineer will present the Feasibility Report, the proposed project, an initial cost estimate and potential assessments. As part of the meeting the City Council will also set the date and time for the Improvement Hearing as required by the 429 process. The purpose of this hearing is for the City Council to discuss a specific local improvement before ordering it done. The Council considers all the information in the Feasibility Report and any other information necessary for Council deliberation. At the Improvement Hearing interested persons may voice their concerns, whether or not they are in the proposed assessment area. A reasonable estimate of the total amount to be assessed and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels must be available at the hearing. If the Council rejects the project, it may not reconsider that same project unless another hearing is held following the required notice. The project may be ordered any time within 6 months after the Improvement Hearing. It is not advisable to change project parameters after ordering the improvement. Upon ordering the improvement construction drawings and specifications are prepared. Any changes to the project scope after this point will require redesign effort with additional cost and staff time as a result. This also has the potential to delay the project. January 7, 2014 Order Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications January 22, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting Present the final detailed plans and specifications to the neighborhood. Also hold a more detailed discussion on what will happen during construction as well as a tentative timeline for events. February 18, 2014 Approve Plans and Order Advertisement for Bids This step is a requirement of the 429 process. February 26, March 5 & 12, 2014 Publish Ad for Bid in Northfield News A step in the bidding process. The project will also be advertised on the MnDOT e-Advert website. February 26, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting Present the final detailed plans and specifications to the neighborhood. Also hold a more detailed discussion on what will happen during construction as well as a tentative timeline for events. March 17, 2014 Bid Opening – 10:00 A.M. April 1, 2014 Accept Bids and Award Contract May 2014 Neighborhood Tour Final step in the bidding process. Bids are opened by staff and tabulated. From here staff will make a recommendation to the City Council for award. This step is a requirement of the 429 process and allows for the project to move forward with beginning the actual construction process. Prior to the start of construction a walking tour of the project corridor will be taken. Individual meetings with property owners will be scheduled to go over the details of construction and document existing conditions. Council Action2 Staff Action3 Mail notice: October 14, 2013 Resolution 2013125 Resolution Mail notice: November 22, 2013. Public Hearing Ad in paper: November 23 & 27, 2013. Resolution Mail notice: January 10, 2014. Resolution Mail notice: February 17, 2014. Resolution November 14, 2013 1 – Dates in grey text indicate actions that have taken place. Dates in bold text indicate the next planned step. Dates in italics denote tentatively scheduled future actions. 2 – Motions will be used for those items that are not necessary for the 429 process. Resolutions are required for those steps that are part of the 429 process. 3 – Staff actions to insure that proper timelines are followed in the 429 process. Once the project is awarded staff manages the day-to-day contract execution. Typically a Resident Project Representative is on-site to make sure the project is constructed in accordance to the plans and specifications. Communications between the contractor and city is primarily through the City Engineer, Project Manager and Resident Project Representative. May – November 2014 Construction July 2015 Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment Significant changes will be brought to the City Council for approval prior to the work being executed. Minor changes and field directives are authorized by the City Engineer in advance to maintain the project schedule. All contract changes must be approved by the City Council. Adjustments to estimated quantities occur during the final acceptance of the improvements. The City Engineer recommends to City Council when the final payment should be made to the Contractor. The City Council may accept the work by resolution; however, if the city fails to pay the amount due within 30 days of a monthly estimate, or 90 days after the final estimate, the city must pay interest on the past due amount as prescribed by law. The following actions detail the required 429 process track to assess benefitting property owners for local improvements. Date1 Project Step Purpose of Step January 2013 Benefit Appraisal Report Based on the City of Northfield assessment policy, a benefit appraisal report will be completed to determine the assessment rates. March 18, 2014 Call for Assessment Hearing The City Council will set the date and time for the Assessment Hearing as required by the 429 process. Assessment Hearing The purpose of this hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express concerns about the actual special assessment. At the Assessment Hearing the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in writing. Adopt Assessments The City Council has some flexibility before it adopts the assessment roll and may change, or amend, the proposed assessment as to any parcel. City Council must, by resolution, adopt the same as the special assessment against the lands named in the assessment roll. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become liens against the properties listed. April 15, 2014 May 6, 2014 Resolution Council Action2 Staff Action3 Contact Appraiser Resolution Public Hearing Resolution Mail notice: March 28, 2014. Ad in paper: March 29, 2014. Mail notice of adoption on May 7, 2014. November 14, 2013 1 – Dates in grey text indicate actions that have taken place. Dates in bold text indicate the next planned step. Dates in italics denote tentatively scheduled future actions. 2 – Motions will be used for those items that are not necessary for the 429 process. Resolutions are required for those steps that are part of the 429 process. 3 – Staff actions to insure that proper timelines are followed in the 429 process. 3 Y 3 S EIGHTH ST W HW HW Y 3 S Vets' Park Reclamation 3 POPLAR ST S LINDEN ST S NINTH ST W PROFESSIONAL DR 246 WOODLEY ST W 2014 CITY OF NORTHFIELD ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Legend Modified Reclaim 0 0 0.04 200 0.08 400 0.12 Miles 600 Feet SHELD A Sheldahl Rd/Schjelmile Ln Reclamation VIKING T E RD HL M O NTESSORI CT 3 FR EMO UW A VE H W HW Y Y AVE N 3 3N DRESDE N VIKING T ER VI KIN R G TER VIKING TER VIKING TER VIKING TER SCHJELMILE LN 2014 CITY OF NORTHFIELD ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Legend Reclamation 0 0 0.06 250 0.12 500 0.18 Miles 750 Feet Ames St/Winona St/Fremont St/Winona St Reclamation WINONA ST S NINTH ST E WOODLEY ST E COLLEGE ST S 28 UNION ST S NINTH ST E FREMONT ST E MAPLE ST S NEVADA ST S SUMNER ST E WINONA ST S WASHINGTON ST S FREMONT ST E ARCHIBALD ST AMES ST SIBLEY DR 2014 CITY OF NORTHFIELD ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Legend Reclamation New Sidewalk 0 0 0.06 250 0.12 500 0.18 Miles 750 Feet REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Deb Little, City Clerk Loren Lovehaug, IT Strategist Subject: Proposal for Electronic Agenda Management Process Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby approves Granicus to provide the electronic and agenda management solutions and authorizes staff to enter into a contract. Summary Report: Per the City Council’s input at their August 6, 2013 meeting, staff has proceeded with selecting electronic and agenda management solutions. Staff recommends Granicus as the proposed solution to provide an integrated process for the City’s agenda management and online media delivery needs. This solution will address the City’s initiatives by: Creating and managing agenda workflow electronically Streaming live and on‐demand content Providing a solution that all committees and departments can work within Providing a paperless agenda Granicus provides a comprehensive managed services package through a hosted infrastructure with unlimited bandwidth, storage and the highest security standards through a cloud-based platform. Granicus has over 35 years of government-focused experience, with over 1,000 clients in all 50 states at every level of government, including 59 in Minnesota. Granicus offers unlimited content storage and distribution, open architecture, archived video editing & indexing, citizen web portal, live and on-demand streaming to mobile devices and creates a paperless agenda environment. As part of the IT Roadmap and City Council goals, staff has been working on finding a solution for the agenda management software/paperless agenda process. The goals and objectives for this project include: Legal compliance and efficient and convenient archival storage and retrieval for official use. Cost and labor savings related to the assembly and distribution of agenda and packet information (reduced paper consumption, copier costs, labor). Improved use of staff time and efficiencies. Integration with current systems (document management system) and processes Transparency and ease of access for citizens and elected officials. Sophisticated and searchable, yet easy to use, interface to allow the public to access public meeting information (agendas and minutes) as well as linkage to associated audio/video content. Support for easy electronic reference and annotation by council members and other meeting participants using computers and mobile devices. The next steps in the process include: Technical review process to ensure that all the correct components and solution elements are in place (networking environment, audio/video equipment, existing internet connections, workflow processes and existing formats). Creating an implementation plan and project timeline Installation Training Testing Go Live! Alternative Options: One of the options is to do nothing and continue with the current processes. There may be less expensive electronic software options on the market, but none of them provide the comprehensive time saving, fully integrated with existing electronic document management systems or unlimited storage solutions that are provided by Granicus. Financial Information: Funding for this project will come from the IT Fund, which will include the costs for hardware, software, licensing and web streaming. A breakdown of the proposed costs is as follows: One-time Upfront Costs Item Web Streaming Hardware & Software Agenda Management System with Laserfiche Integration Total Annual Costs (2014) Item Web Streaming Service / Support / Storage Agenda Management Service / Support / Storage Total Cost $4,475 $19,250 $23,725 Cost $8,100 $3,984 $12,084 Note: There is a current promotion for a 50% discount on the annual costs for the first six months of service (excluding web streaming) as reflected above in the 2014 annual costs. The annual costs for service, system support, storage and web streaming for 2015 and beyond would be: $16,068 Potential additional one-time costs for devices for Council (if needed) could be up to an additional $4,200. Staff will work with Council to determine the right device solutions in a separate discussion during the implementation phase. Timelines: A timeline will be created as part of the implementation plan as noted in the next steps above. A 60-90 day implementation timeframe will be needed. Attachments: Return on Investment Information Granicus Legislative Management Suite Yes/No Yes Return On Investment No For the City of: Prepared by: The City of Northfield, MN Michelle Cooper Thinking about your typical Council agenda process… Answers What is the average number of pages for each Council Agenda (Including attachments)? 100 Do you have a review/ approval process? Yes If Yes, How many items are reviewed for each meeting/agenda? 12 1400 3 How many approvers are usually involved? Yes Do they require their own printed copies for review? 180 How many Council members do you have? 2 7 How many Council members get a paper copy of the agenda w/attachments? 7 If you print extra agenda copies for a meeting, how many? 6 600 If you print revisions, what is the avg # of revision pages? 10 130 How many person-days does it take to prepare an agenda? 5 How many staff hours to distribute packets each meeting (including hand-delivery to council members)? 4 How many Council meetings per month? 10 How many public or internal information requests do you get per month? 20 1 What is the average number of staff hours spent per request (inc printing)? Yes Do you ever work late to get an agenda prepared on time? So, based on your answers, here is a picture of what your current costs are for a basic agenda workflow for just the City Council, and what you might save. Monthly 0 ### Annually The estimated number of pages that are printed for the agenda, multiple copies, and printing associated with the review and approval process. 2,330 27,960 Total trees saved. Based on a study by conservatree.org, it requires the equivelent of .6 trees to produce 1 carton (10 reams) of copier paper. 0.28 3.36 Based on a 2011 study by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (www.moea.state.mn.us) analyzing paper handling, printing and reprinting, the average cost to print a sheet of paper is 31 cents. $722 $8,668 104 1,248 $3,640 $43,680 The total number of staff-hours your office spends each month on redundant clerical work tasks and paper handling associated with just the City Council agenda workflow process. Average hourly staff pay rate (incl insurance, benefits, vacation/sick time, etc) $35 Total avoidable preparation and packet production costs per month / year: Proposed Legislative Management System 1st year up-front cost: Proposed System MMS: First year cost: First year return on investment (ROI): Subsequent Year return on investment (ROI): System will pay for itself in approximately: $4,466.30 $53,595.60 $23,725 $1,007 $17,786.60 $41,511.60 8.0 $23,725 $12,084 $35,809 In Savings! In Savings! Months! * * The configured Granicus Legislative Management System will pay for itself in less than one year ! …and the value of not having to work late preparing an agenda the night before… Priceless !! All information and calculated results are estimates only based on averaged assumptions and minimal information that may be available. No guarantees are made or implied of any exact cost savings or return on Investment (ROI) that may be realized. REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: 11/19/2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Michele Merxbauer, Community Development Coordinator Tami Ford and Brad Ness, Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Subject: Annual CVB Budget Report Action Requested: The Northfield City Council approves the 2014 budget for the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB). Summary Report: Tami Ford, CVB staff person and Brad Ness, CVB Chairperson, will be presenting the highlights of the 2013 marketing efforts, as well as reviewing the 2014 CVB budget. As per the 2013-2015 CVB Consultant Services Contract, the CVB is required to submit an annual operating budget to the Council for the next calendar year, detailing how anticipated lodging tax proceeds for the subsequent year are intended to be used in meeting the Scope of Services to be performed by the CVB under this Contract. Alternative Options and Financial Information: According to the signed contract, the submitted budget shall be subject to review, modification and approval by the City Council and no proceeds of the lodging tax for the subsequent calendar year shall be distributed to the CVB until the budget for that year has been approved by the City Council. Delay in payments to the CVB may result in a gap of services. Timelines: It is preferable to approve the CVB budget prior to the end of 2013 in order to avoid gaps in service from the CVB staff. Attachments: 1. 2013/2014 CVB Budget 2. 2013 CVB Work-plan 3. Scope of Services 2014 CVB budget created by CVB board 2014 CVB board 2013 budget approved RESERVE FUNDS (CDs)* INCOME Lodging Tax 95% Interest $85,000.00 $300.00 $0.00 $78,500.00 $100.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $89,300.00 $82,600.00 $300.00 $10,000.00 $300.00 $5,000.00 $19,550.00 $19,550.00 $4,000.00 Grants Miscellaneous Promotional Items Advertising/Sponsorships Music City MN Festival TOTAL RESERVE/INCOME EXPENSES Staffing Workers Comp Insurance Professional/Contract Serv (accounting, social media, photography, graphic design, copy writing) Tourism traffic staff (phones, walk-ins, brochure requests: one 3/4-time person; includes ) Tourism traffic staff non-statutory benefits Tourism manager $0.00 $6,700.00 $6,700.00 (website, press releases/media, group travel, bookkeeping, manage traffic staff: one 20%-time person) Tourism manager staff non-statutory benefits Program director $0.00 $13,300.00 $13,300.00 (coordinate vendors & partners, buy/place media, budgets & financial, manage board & tourism staff) Program director staff non-statutory benefits (one 25%-time person) $0.00 $39,550.00 $500.00 $500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $400.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $2,800.00 $5,000.00 $400.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $3,300.00 $2,800.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $2,000.00 Business owners insurance $7,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,650.00 Telephone/Fax $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $500.00 $500.00 $900.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $100.00 $1,700.00 $150.00 $900.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $100.00 $1,700.00 $150.00 $89,300.00 $82,600.00 Meetings/Travel Shows Mileage, travel exps Dues and Subscriptions Marketing PR Advertising Visitors Guide/brochures Website Funding requests Rent (CVB occupies 2/3 of 1700 sq ft) Property tax (CVB occupies 2/3 of 1700 sq ft) Xcel gas & electric (CVB occupies 2/3 of 1700 sq feet) Internet Service Postage Supplies Miscellaneous Office Equipment Postage machine TOTAL EXPENSES NET RESERVE/LOSS Reserve balance per 12/31/2012 balance sheet (checking, savings, CDs) Above lodging tax revenues based on historical projections. If lodging tax collected does not meet projections, board will consider use of reserve funds to make up revenue deficit. 2013 reserve funds earmarked for multi-year campaign to be created by $0.00 $174,920.81 $1,650.00 contracted public relations firm. Estimate investment similar to 2012 New Ulm campaign "Germans have more fun" of $50,000. Northfield Convention and Visitors Bureau Notes and Plan for Northfield City Council November, 2013 The Northfield Convention and Visitors Bureau’s purpose is to promote tourism to Northfield. The goal is to provide efficient marketing of the Northfield community. Funds from lodging tax dollars are used to encourage overnight stays and repeat visits to Northfield. The intent is to continue and expand work with tourism partners and stakeholders to raise awareness of Northfield as a travel destination. Marketing and Promotion Activities to use the ‘This is Northfield’ campaign imagery to brand Northfield. The advertising will be strategic in order to draw more visitors to Northfield and encourage overnight stays. Visitors guides and brochures being created for 2014 (including electronic versions); being redesigned to match new campaign The following is free media earned in 2013. We will continue to contact media outlets and work on Northfield features. o Star Tribune, Best Small Town for a Weekend o Midwest Living (Article Highlighting Northfield in Spring 2014 Issue) o Better Homes & Gardens (Northfield in the School Spirit Article, October 2014) o Wall Street Journal (Minnesota Historic River and College Town Ready for a Closer Look - This Is Northfield!) o WCCO (Noon News Story and Feature) o Kare11 (Kare11 @4 Interview with Pat Evans) Print advertising being placed for 2014 o Minnesota Meetings + Events o Midwest Living, Best of the Midwest o Group Tour Magazine o Minnesota Monthly – Ultimate Guide to Summer Travel, Southern Minnesota Fall Drives Issues o Explore MN – Group & Packaged Guide (distributed outside of Minnesota) Coordinating with partners and providing financial support to events by funding and/or sharing cooperative advertising where appropriate and likely to increase lodging Ongoing use of social media for drawing attention to events, points of interest and activities 2014 redesign of website to match new campaign; create portal for tourism partners to submit information on events Through August 16, consider the following year-over-year statistics: Site visits are up 39%, unique visits are up 38% Pageviews are up 111% Visits from Google are up 23%, Bing is up 22% and Yahoo is up 13% Direct visits are up 222% You received 22,075 visits from Google or 52% of your total visits. Roughly 60% of your visits come from search. - Mobile use was up 113% and tablet use up 133%. 29% of your total traffic now comes from these devices. - The site is #1 in Google for searches related to Northfield and Hotel, Motel, Lodging, Vacation, Visit and many others. It is #2 or #3 for general Northfield Mn, Minnesota and Minn searches. o 2014 creation of email newsletter to capture interest of people already familiar with Northfield and encourage visit or return visit Group Sales – Solicit group tour operators to choose Northfield as a destination for group itineraries. Coordinate with regional partners to increase length of stays. o Cannon Valley Winery o Faribault o Lakeville/South Metro o Nerstrand Big Woods 2014 greater coordination with regional advertising and promotion for tours o Minnesota Association of Convention and Visitors Bureau o Southern Minnesota Tourism Association 2014 CVB will take lead on group travel coordination in Northfield to ensure group tours have positive experiences and maximize Northfield opportunities Meetings – Promote Northfield as a meeting destination for businesses and organizations. 2014 will continue to promote Northfield’s conference/dining/hotel spaces for meetings 2014 Northfield article to run in Midwest Meetings (free publicity) 2014 will continue to identify and coordinate potential meeting/conference sites Visitor’s Center Operations Direct walk-in traffic to restaurants, lodging, activities and shopping. Answer phones, online and e-mail visitor requests for information; mail or electronically send information as requested Respond to travel inquiries from Explore MN, paid-advertising leads, and websites requests. Continue to work with colleges/events to get most current information available for visitors’/students’ use. Education Create learning materials and share with stakeholders and partners how to best use new campaign in their promotions, thereby leveraging campaign impact Educate stakeholders and partners how to best use redesigned website, links, and social media opportunities Work with tourism stakeholders to market Northfield as a destination with cooperative advertising opportunities, free publicity and social media Work with organizations interested in hosting new events in Northfield. Collect venue information, follow-up with inquiries, provide them with contacts to make their event successful. Partner with community groups to market existing events and support creation of new events. Oversight Oversight of the CVB is provided by an Advisory Board Current composition: 1. City of Northfield – (Staff) Michelle Merxbauer 2. City of Northfield (Council) – Jessica Peterson White 3. Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce Board – Beth Ayotte-Naumann 4. Hotel – Paul McGuire, AmericInn 5. Art/History/Festival – Brad Ness, DJJD 6. Colleges – Michelle Egeness, St. Olaf Under consideration (applications received and to be reviewed at next meeting): 7. At Large – Ruthie Gilbertson, Professional Pride Realty 8. Retail – Cynthia Gilbertson, Northfield Yarn 9. Restaurant - soliciting 10. Outdoor/Sport – Tom Bisel, Fit To Be Tried 11. Art/History/Festival – soliciting Performance Measures Marketing Benchmarks Group Sales and Events Coverage in local, regional and national media Northfield Visitors Center o Walk in visitors o Phone and web visitor requests count o Reply to reader response inquiries from advertising and Explore Minnesota Quantity and reach of brand marketing campaigns Quantity, frequency and reach of niche marketing programs Anecdotal attendance figures when available from partners and stakeholders Social Media Benchmarks Email Newsletters Open rate and click-through for articles and advertisements Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest Fan counts/Followers Level of engagement of posts TIMELINE for non-routine activities November 2013 Southern Minnesota Tourism Association Meeting (November 14, Pipestone) Begin rebranding of website December 2013 Work with changes to website Redesign and creation of annual visitor guide January Publish 2014 visitor guide in print and on website; distribute to travel centers and local outlets Finish website rebranding/functions Work with other Northfield guides, maps and brochures to get ThisIsNorthfield campaign promoted February Promote launch of new website Attend Explore MN Tourism Conference (February 4-5 in Duluth) March Work with events partners (DJJD, Riverwalk Market Fair, colleges, etc.) to get summer promotions set Begin educating tourism stakeholders/partners on how to use new campaign, website and social media opportunities April Work with events partners on funding requests and cooperative advertising Begin email newsletter promotion May, June, July, August (Heaviest tourism traffic) Coordinate tour groups on site September Follow-ups with tourism partners/stakeholders on events, tourism and use of campaign/social media/website October Begin planning for 2015 advertising, visitor guides Budget Notes: changes from 2013 budget to 2014 budget Reduction of lodging tax revenue projected – conservative projected revenue is based on estimates from City Finance Department. Reduction of $5000 in Professional Contract Services – The reduction in the Professional Contract Services is $5000. Several of the previously-contracted services are now being performed by the Marketing and Tourism Coordinator. Increase in Visitors Guides/Brochures of $3300 – Visitor guide will need significant revisions to rebrand it to the “This Is Northfield” campaign. Reduction of $5000 in Funding Requests – funding support for activities/events will be used from the fund balance instead of the general budget. Exhibit 1 Northfield Convention and Visitors Bureau Scope of Services Attached to Consultant Service Contract Dated August 8, 2013 Between the City of Northfield And The Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce The Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) shall perform the following services pursuant to a Contract between the Chamber and the City of Northfield (“City”). These services are provided pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 469.190 and Chapter 74, Article II of Northfield City Code, copies of which are attached to this Exhibit 1. The scope below is based on the 2013 Strategic Plan created by the CVB board. 1. Create brand awareness for visiting Northfield Utilizing the expertise of a public relations firm, the CVB will initiate and manage a campaign to promote the City as a tourist destination and convention site. The public relations firm and the CVB will obtain information from stakeholders to ensure that the campaign speaks to the different activities, festivals, areas of interest and businesses involved in tourism and conventions. o o o o o o o Will carry out branding through new and existing websites (www.thisisnorthfield.com and www.visitingnorthfield.com ), social media, advertising (web, print and radio) to create a cohesive, and consistent message and brand. Will use the campaign to continue outreach to potential visitors, public relations and media to maximizing branding investment for several years. Will market branding through creative efforts meant to capture attention of individuals and local, regional, and national media. Will market branding through visual goods, such as t-shirts, posters, postcards, bumper stickers, buttons. Will work with partners to make the visual goods available. Will provide outreach at different events to make campaign known to the general public and visitors. Will educate and encourage tourism partners to engage, interact with and utilize branding to maximize visual and message impact and to encourage cooperative advertising and promotion spending, thereby stretching advertising monies. Education will take place with one-on-one meetings and a tourism-partner training session. Stakeholders will be encouraged to adapt and make the branding “their own” so it can be cross-promoted in many ways. 2. Increase visitor spending Encourage visitors (tourists, college students, parents of students, recreational visitors) to stay longer and spend more money while in our community. o Will create sample itineraries to outline activities and interests visitors could use. Will share itineraries via web site, social media and through targeted print advertising. o Will work with seasonal or one-time activities to encourage people to try Northfield for a short visit, then offer opportunities for other activities they may enjoy. Suggestions will be made with call-in and walk-in traffic as well as through social media. o Will promote Star Tribune’s award of “Best Small Town for a Weekend Visit” to encourage Minnesotans (and those within recognition reach of Star Tribune) to visit for a weekend or longer, or to visit again. o Will target visitors who enjoy history, recreational activities, performing and visual arts, festivals, boutique shopping, dining, and colleges. Will target demographics (age, geographical location, interests) through: o social media posts, contests and ads placed advertising online, in print, and on radio information distribution; making information accessible and in formats each group is most likely to use Groups targeted include: current and potential college students, parents of students, college and high school alumni, day-trippers, young families, “girlfriend” outings, romantic get-aways, tour groups. Targeting will include encouraging overnight visitors when lodging establishments typically have vacancies. Will create play-and-stay packages for different interest groups, coordinating with hotels, restaurants, activities, and retail opportunities. Will promote packages on web site and through social media and other appropriate outlets. 3. Market Northfield as a recreation destination Will market to potential visitors who are not currently utilizing our recreational amenities (biking, crosscountry skiing, kayaking, sports facilities, hiking) by promoting outdoor activities and venues on websites and in promotions. o Will create awareness of recreational opportunities by promoting events, outdoor amenities and business resources that may be useful to recreational enthusiasts. o Marketing will take place on web sites, social media, ads and with printed materials such as hiking/biking guides, waterway information and maps. o Will coordinate tourism opportunities with organized sporting event organizers (such as tournaments) to encourage visitors to explore other areas of community and take part in other events or sites, during the sporting event or in the future. 4. Move from traditional media to contemporary outreach approaches Utilize more internet, social media and media influencers to attract and interact with current and future visitors o Will optimize facebook, twitter, and pinterest sites with regular and relevant posting. Will interact and respond to interested parties through social media to answer questions and provide more information, filling requests and providing additional options. Will collaborate with stakeholders to provide their information via posts and links. o Will create marketing materials that are easily sent via email or downloadable from website, reducing costs of traditional print and advertising. o Will seek free publicity through social media, guerilla events (created by public relations firm), magazines, video, and television writers/producers. o Will work with Explore Minnesota online opportunities to feature Northfield events, attractions and businesses as well as promote branding and connections to other websites/social media. o Will enhance and maintain online calendar of events, seeking out upcoming events and attractions to feature. Will promote linkages to events, festivals, and tourism stakeholder sites. 5. Increase group travel The CVB will attract more travel groups (organized and organic) to explore and re-visit our area. A grant from Explore Minnesota was received to aid in this effort in 2013. o Create marketable itineraries, encouraging travel groups to take in an array of activities, dining and shopping. Will market itineraries through group travel publications and on websites. o Provide information and support to tour operators, including parking options, dining and lodging contact information, ideas for activities inside and around Northfield, and ideas for special areas of interest. Will promote capabilities from leads generated by group travel publications, online contact form, and from interested parties who’ve contacted our tourism partners. o Educate and coordinate with other regional tourism partners to inform their contact circles about Northfield tour opportunities. Will enhance itineraries with day-trips to other interesting venues while encouraging tour groups to lodge in Northfield. Services performed day-to-day: 1. The CVB shall provide informational services to potential, current and future visitors to Northfield by a. Answering inquiries from phone, walk-in traffic, email and social media requests; sending out information verbally, via email, web links or post. b. Fulfilling information requests from lead-generating agencies such as Explore Minnesota and Explore Southern Minnesota. c. Providing information about current and upcoming activities on the web site, through social media and through public relations efforts. d. Gathering and providing information about attractions, festivals and events. e. Creating and distributing marketing materials featuring annual events, maps and target-interest publications. Collecting materials created by tourism partners and networks to give to on-site and potential visitors. f. Seeking out and distributing places for marketing materials, including travel centers, lodging establishments and high-traffic tourism sites. 2. Meet with tourism partners to understand upcoming events a. Seek updates and timely information to provide to potential visitors through website, social media and distribution of printed materials. b. Collaborate with tourism stakeholders on cooperative advertising opportunities to promote/brand Northfield as a whole as well as special events or attractions. c. Become aware of advertising/promotions being placed by tourism partners so to support but not duplicate efforts. 3. Seek, solicit and provide materials (press releases and updates) for earned media (publicity) and informational news coverage through online and direct contact. 4. Create advertising and promotions with appropriate outlets. 5. Seek new and update information with Explore Minnesota (state website/organization). Utilize grant received from Explore Minnesota to promote group travel. 6. Work with partners locally and regionally to maximize cooperative advertising and promotional efforts. 7. Plan itineraries for group travel and longer-stay guests. Create and update stay-and-play packages on website and social media. 8. Participate in tourism organizations to promote Northfield to other communities’ representatives and to learn and employ best practices in tourism industry (Southern MN Tourism Association, Minnesota Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus). 9. Work with conference planners to find meeting spaces, lodging, dining and free-time activities for attendees. REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: TIF District No. 4 Mayor’s Streetscape Task Force Project List Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to review and discuss the updated recommended Mayor’s Streetscape Task Force Project list. Summary Report: This past Tuesday morning (November 12, 2013) the Mayor’s Streetscape Task Force met and discussed the status of the recommended Project List, (or Project Matrix as some call it), and the status of the TIF District No. 4 funds. Also in attendance at the meeting was Interim Finance Director Melanie Schlomann, who updated the group on the available funds. Ms. Schlomann also reviewed with the group what needs to be done in order to retain those funds for their intended purpose beyond the expiration date of the TIF District. To continue to have those funds available for the many various identified and recommended projects, the TIF District plan narrative needs to be updated to specifically reflect each of the various projects, and that revised plan needs to be approved by the City Council by December 31, 2013. The Mayor’s Streetscape Task Force list of recommended projects should be in agreement with the TIF District Plan narrative, and vice versa. Ms. Schlomann indicated that the City’s Attorney for TIF matters (Ms. Jenny Boulton) is preparing that revised plan to be presented to the City Council at its December 10th meeting. After hearing from Ms. Schlomann, the Task Force began its discussion, and came to the consensus that while there are some significant anticipated projects (such as the two separate sums identified for “Parking Improvements”—$500,000 and $144,000, respectively) on the list, all of those items should remain because those are still seen as high priorities for the possible use of the TIF District fund. However, the Task Force also recognized the obstacles to those projects have delayed any real expectation of near term implementation, and the possibility in the end those projects (or at least some of them) may turn out to be unrealistic. The thought was that additional projects should be added to the list to make them eligible for TIF District funding—essentially that the available funding should be “overobligated”—because some of the projects will probably eventually drop out. Projects from the list that are currently underway, or will soon include the Master Planning for Bridge Square, the Division Street Streetscape update and Lighting Analysis, and the TH 3 Decorative Street Light Replacement. Two examples of such additions would be to add streetscaping elements for the upcoming (2016) reconstruction of Division Street from Sixth to Eighth and Seventh from Washington to Water. Another possibility is to reimburse the Project fund for appropriate portions of the the cost for this year’s Sixth Street Improvements. TIF District 4 funds were not included in this project financing because we thought at the time the fund was already overcommitted, and no funds were really available. That Sixth Street contract is still open, and a number of streetscape elements have now been completed—some just this past week. All of these type items have been funded with TIF funds elsewhere in the downtown area since the TIF District was formed. The existing Project List is attached. Task Force member Dan Bergeson (The Keeper of the List) is preparing an updated version Alternative Options: Leave Plan as is, and return substantial funds to the various taxing jurisdictions. Financial Impacts: The expectation is that the amended plan for the TIF District will assure ultimate and lawful expenditure of all of the TIF District Funds on projects for which it was intended. Timelines: The amended TIF District Plan must be finalized and adopted by the City Council by December 31, 2013. Attachments: 1. Current Project List 2. Proposed Project List Mayor's Streetscape Task Force Project Name Project Description Northfield, MN Recommended Projects For Master Development Fund updated 4/19/2013 Project Lead MSTF Status Council Status East River Trail Paving Paving of the east side Cannon River trail between Northfield and Dundas that will be constructed in 2011 with DNR and Staff rotary grant funding. Recommended Funds Allocated Transit Hub Local Share Local share of potential transit hub funded by Federal Transit Staff dollars Recommended Tiger Grant cost share Bike/Ped bridge over railroad at Greenvale Ave. and traiil to Water St. crossing; additional trail along the Cannon River from St. Olaf Ave. to 2nd St. Staff Design of dumpster enclosure. Planning 2011Construction 2012 12 Planning 2012-13 Construction 2013 Estimated Unit Cost Number of Units Units Total Project Cost X Lump Sum $50,000 Funds allocated X Lump Sum $69,000 Recommended Funds allocated X MSTF Discussed Proceed with planning Discussion and agreement with users for cost sharing on project. Staff Discussed Work with Historical Society on installation of historical plaque design and installation for Lyceum Building. MSTF Recommended Develop project parameters for additional historical markers and information areas. MSTF discussed Establish location and design of newspaper box corrals and amend ordinance language; develop possible permitting process. Staff Discussed Construct decorative surface mounted railing similar railing used in downtown area. Staff Discussed Parking Improvements Purchase of property and site development of same to address inadequate parking supply in the Downtown District MSTF Recommended Bench additions Locate and install benches in the downtown, gaining property MSTF and owner support Staff Additional wayfinding signage in downtown area for both walkers and drivers. City maps in simple vandal resistant frames that are easily accessible for map revisions. Enhance wayfinding signage at archways to Riverwalk including the addition of “ To River Walk”. Garbage Dumpster Corrals Historical Places Signage Newspaper Vending Corrals Additional Wayfinding Signage ` FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED PLANNING HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED X $2,000 X X X Proceed with planning X This is matching money to a DNR grant which will fund a part of this project. Project partially completed in 2011. Further progress depends on approval by Army Corps of Engineers. Staff is exploring optons for the location and construction of a transit hub. More information will be presentedwhen it becomes available. $250,000 Tiger Grant project share Lump Sum 1 $2,000 Design to be used at multiple sites. Staff Hours 40 $10,000 Cost sharing. Priority projects 4th & Washington/3rd & Washington.* $350 Per Sign 1 $350 Prototype is being researched $350 Per Sign 4 $1,400 $5,000 Lump Sum 1 $5,000 Design is being researched X Proceed with planning Comments and Next Steps X X $200 LF 70 $14,000 Assumed 5 corrals holding 5 vending units at 14 feet per corral Proceed with planning X X $500,000 Lump Sum 1 $500,000 City Council has established a parking subcommittee Recommended Proceed with planning X X $1,800 Per Bench Installed 5 $9,000 MSTF and Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $3,000 Per Pedestrian 2 Style Sign $6,000 Assumed 2 signs for this evaluation MSTF and Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $3,000 Per existing Archway $6,000 One at each existing archway $ 369,000 $ 553,750 2 11/14/2013 Mayor's Streetscape Task Force Project Name Project Description Project Lead MSTF Status Council Approval Planning 2011Construction 2012 12 Planning 2012-13 Construction 2013 X Gateway Corridor Construction of infrastructure and landscaping suggested in MSTF and Enhancements Planning the 2012 Gateway Corridor Enhancements master plan Staff and Implementation Recommended X Phase 1 - Design of trail and identification of trail easement at MSTF and on the west side of the River south of the 2nd St. bridge Staff Recommended X Addition of linking trail nd from 2 Street to River Walk, west side of Cannon Northfield, MN Recommended Projects For Master Development Fund updated 4/19/2013 Phase 2 - Purchase of Easement and Trail Construction (Grant Staff Dependent) X Estimated Unit Cost Units Number of Units Total Project Cost Comments $190,000 Recommend implementing project 5A in the Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan: Improve the intersection of HWY 3 at 3rd St. with updated signilization and signage $35,000 Priority for discussion as a tie-in to the Tiger Grant project $30,000 Bridge Square Master Plan and Preliminary Design MSTF Recommended X $20,000 Several Northfield organizations currently discussing future possibilities; the timing is right for this study Division Street Enhancements Master Plan and Design Standards MSTF Recommended X $20,000 Includes street-lighting study and design on Division St. between 2nd and 8th Streets Discussed X X $29,200 solicit a partnership with Econofoods X X $106,000 X X $144,000 City Council has committed $500,000 to parking expansion. This is the remainder of the funds in the original parking expansion estimate. $10,000 This is a council-initiated suggestion. Downtown Enhancement Projects Planning Private/Public Urban Edge Enhancements Cost sharing program for subsidizing additional cost to use the City’s streetscape elements along the edges of private properties to create a cohesive look within the district. MSTF and Develop template of elements that qualify for program and Staff define process for approval. Funds in this area would also be availabel for cost sharing of additional trash enclosures City/Business partnership. Replace light poles of Decorative TH3 Street Lights The street lights lining TH3 between Greenvale and 5th St. are defective and pose a public safety threat. 12 have failed and Staff fallen over to date. They should be replaced before anyone gets injured. Recommended Parking Improvements Purchase of property and site development of same to address inadequate parking supply in the northern portion of MSTF the Downtown District Recommended 3rd St. Bridge Enhancements Purchase a tent for use by community groups on 3rd St. Staff Bridge and install lighting on the bridge railings and supports Discussed TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Must be dispersed or encumbered by contract by December 31, 2013 NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION Discussed $1,506,950 $ All costs are estimated at the planning level. Actual costs will be determined upon initiation and development of individual projects. 584,200 11/14/2013 Mayor's Streetscape Task Force Project Name Northfield MN Recommended Projects For Master Development Fund updated 11/12/2013 Project Description Project Lead MSTF Status Council Status Planning 2013-14 Construction 2014 Total Project Cost East River Trail Paving Paving of the east side Cannon River trail between Northfield and Dundas Staff that will be constructed with DNR and rotary grant funding. Recommended Funds allocated X $50,000 Q Block Transit Hub/Depot Site Development Local share of transit hub funded by Federal Transit dollars and assistance for site development to accommodate the Depot reolocation to Staff the Q Block Recommended Funds allocated X $115,000 Tiger Grant cost share Bike/Ped bridge over railroad at Greenvale Ave. and traiil to Water St. crossing Staff Recommended Funds allocated X $250,000 Fink Water Street Property Purchase of the bulding at 219 S. Water Street and site expenses for future development option. Staff Downtown Enhancement Projects Planning Bridge Square Master Plan and Preliminary Design MSTF Downtown Enhancement Projects Planning Division Street Enhancements Master Plan and Design Standards MSTF The street lights lining TH3 between Greenvale and 5th St. are defective Replace faulty light poles of decorative and pose a public safety threat. 12 have failed and fallen over to date. They Staff TH3 Street Lights should be replaced before anyone gets injured. Comments and Next Steps Project partially completed in 2011. Extend existing trail from Village School south to Dundas Tiger Grant project share Funds allocated X $80,000 Recommended Funds allocated X $20,000 Several Northfield organizations currently discussing future possibilities; the timing is right for this study Recommended Funds allocated X $15,000 Includes street-lighting study and design on Division St. between 2nd and 8th Streets Recommended Funds allocated X X $106,000 Parking Improvements Purchase of property and site development of same to address inadequate MSTF parking supply in the Downtown District Recommended Proceed with planning X X $650,000 City Council parking subcommittee has recommended 3 possible sites:Washington St between 2nd and 3rd, corner of Hwy 3 and 2nd, Premier Bank corner Garbage Dumpster Corrals Design a dumpster enclosure for replication at multiple sites. Provide matching funds for interested businesses. MSTF Recommended Proceed with planning X X $15,000 Priority projects are parking lots at 4th & Washington/3rd & Washington Historical Places Signage Work with Historical Society on historical plaque design and installation for 5 locations in historic district MSTF Recommended Proceed with planning X X $2,000 Newspaper Vending Corrals Design and build 5 vending corrals with a 5 box capacity Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $20,000 Bench additions Locate and install benches in the downtown, gaining property owner support MSTF and Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $10,000 Additional Wayfinding Signage Additional wayfinding signage in downtown area for both walkers and drivers. City maps in simple vandal resistant frames that are easily accessible for map revisions. MSTF and Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $6,000 Assumed 2 signs for this evaluation Additional Wayfinding Signage Enhance wayfinding signage at Division St. archways btween 3rd and 4th MSTF and to Riverwalk including the addition of " River Walk”. Staff Recommended Proceed with planning X X $6,000 One at each existing archway FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED PLANNING HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED $ $ 636,000 709,000 Establish location and design of newspaper box corrals and amend ordinance language; develop possible permitting process. 11/14/2013 Mayor's Streetscape Task Force Project Name Gateway Corridor Enhancements Planning and Implementation Northfield MN Recommended Projects For Master Development Fund updated 11/12/2013 Project Description Project Lead MSTF Status Council Status Planning 2013-14 Construction 2014 Total Project Cost Comments and Next Steps Construction of infrastructure and landscaping suggested in the 2012 Gateway Corridor Enhancements master plan MSTF and Staff Recommended X X $190,000 Recommend implementing project 5A in the Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan: Improve the intersection of HWY 3 at 3rd St. with updated signilization and signage Design of trail and identification of trail easement on the west side of the River south of the 2nd St. bridge MSTF and Staff Recommended X X $35,000 Priority for discussion as a tie-in to the Tiger Grant project MSTF and Staff Recommended X X $40,000 Original part of the Crossing development X $25,000 West Riverwalk access to 2nd St. Trail linking 2nd St. with St. Olaf Ave. on west side of Cannon Install bituminous trail between the Crossing and the Cannon River Division St./Historic District Lighting Enhancement Initial construction phase following adoption of Division St. Master Plan MSTF and Staff Discussed Private/Public Urban Edge Enhancements Cost sharing program for businesses to use the City’s streetscape elements along the edges of private properties to create a cohesive look within the district. MSTF and Staff Discussed X X $145,000 Enhancements of downtown links to Bridge Square in support of traffic generating public events Install lighting and pavement anchors for securing moveable structures MSTF and Staff Discussed X X $10,000 3rd St. Bridge Enhancements Purchase a tent for use by community groups on 3rd St. Bridge and install Staff lighting on the bridge railings and supports Discussed X X $10,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Must be dispersed or encumbered by contract by December 31, 2013 NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION $1,800,000 $ Possible partners: Econofoods; Forget-Me-Not Florist; Witt Bros. Also encompasses 6th St. and S. Water St. modifications This is a council-initiated suggestion. All costs are estimated at the planning level. Actual costs will be determined upon initiation and development of individual projects. 455,000 11/14/2013 Updated Financial Projection ‐ Municipal District #4 Date: Revenues & Expenditures 11/13/2013 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Actual & Projected 2014 Projected 2015 Projected Taxes Intergovernmental Interest on Investments Interest on Loans Miscellaneous Revenue Loan Payments Received Transfers In 550,247 3,870 21,490 3,004 850 8,619 86,099 551,260 5,578 42,297 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 552,086 ‐ 13,659 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 548,507 ‐ 10,503 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,500 7,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Revenues 674,179 599,135 565,745 559,010 11,000 Other Professional Services: Administration‐related 2,242 5,029 Known or anticipated expenditures: Projected Expense 15,000 15,000 47,194 7,526 Development Loans Issued: 11,808 84,000 14,000 Projects: Water Street Downtown Enhancement projects Transit Hub East River Trail paving Light Poles Other Improvements ‐ 11,635 368,284 8,346 Transfer Out (debt service) for 2001B TIF Refunding Bond (final) for 2008B TIF G.O. Bonds (5th & Water Sts.) for Tiger Trail Additional Transfer Subtotal 160,327 202,674 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 10,728 3,500 7,500 11,000 56,000 24,000 35,000 115,000 50,000 106,000 709,000 62,000 148,000 141,721 Net 250,000 11,500 395,422 250,000 461,526 486,721 170,323 97,484 724,000 Revenue over (under) Expenditures 131,518 287,451 170,323 97,484 (475,721) (713,000) Fund Balance ‐ Jan 1 Fund Balance ‐ Dec 31 833,438 964,956 964,956 1,252,407 1,252,407 1,422,730 1,422,730 1,520,214 1,520,214 1,044,493 1,044,493 331,493 REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Melanie Schlomann, Interim Finance Director Subject: Interfund TIF Loan for Presidential Commons Action Requested: Requesting that the Council pass resolution 2013-138, allowing TIF District #4 to loan money to Presidential Commons TIF district. Summary Report: Presidential Commons is a TIF district established in 1999 between the HRA for the City of Northfield, and Northfield WNS Inc. The district was used to finance a townhome development. Due to market conditions over the past few years, revenue has fallen below what was originally anticipated when the agreement was made. This has caused less revenue coming in, than expenditures going out for bond payments. Presidential Commons will have a negative fund balance at the end of 2013. We anticipate this will resolve itself as the market value continues to rise and the housing market continues to recover over the next several years. There is also a “shortfall guarantee” in the original contract with the developer that is being looked at. In the meantime, it would appear a shortfall of approximately $40,000 a year will be incurred. We would like a resolution allowing up to $250,000 to be loaned from TIF District #4, to be able to keep the fund balance positive over the next few years, while market conditions work themselves out. It is expected Presidential Commons will pay TIF district #4 back the original loan amount, plus 3% interest. Alternative Options: Loan Presidential Commons money from the General Fund. Financial Information: A copy of the 2012 balance sheet and 2013 income statement for the Presidential Commons fund is attached. Timelines: If we wish to loan Presidential Commons money from another TIF District, we must pass a resolution before the negative cash balance occurs. Once a negative cash balance is reported, we lose the ability to reimburse the negative amount from tax increment. Attachments: Resolution 2013-138 Presidential Commons Financial Information CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-138 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO 1-1 WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Northfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City has heretofore approved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1, Presidential Commons (the "TIF District") within the Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and has adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City has determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of land/building acquisition, site improvements/preparation, public utilities, streets and sidewalks, other housing improvements, bond and loan principal and interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City funds available for such purposes. 1.03. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City is authorized to advance or loan money from the City's general fund or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan"). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City hereby authorizes the advance of up to $250,000.00 from the municipal #4 TIF fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The City shall reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 3% and will not fluctuate. 2.02. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date"), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the City Administrator, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.03. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the City Administrator, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City by Rice County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre-payable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.05. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.06. The City may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT The City hereby authorizes the advance of up to $250,000.00 from the Municipal #4 TIF Fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The interest rate shall be 3% and will not fluctuate. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November, 2013. ATTEST ______________________________ City Clerk VOTE: ____________________________ Mayor ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL 11-13-2013 04:28 PM CITY OF NORTHFIELD PAGE: 1 BALANCE SHEET AS OF: DECEMBER 31ST, 2012 379-PRESIDENTIAL COMMONS TIF ACCOUNT # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BALANCE _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ASSETS ====== 379-1010 Cash -Presidential Commons TIF 41,441.78 379-1030 Funds Held By Bond Trustee 0.09 379-1050 Taxes ReceivableCurrent 433.06 379-1154 Misc Interest Receivable 0.43 41,875.36 TOTAL ASSETS 41,875.36 ============== LIABILITIES =========== 379-2000 Accounts Payable-Presidential 431.26 TOTAL LIABILITIES 431.26 EQUITY ====== 379-2920 Unreserved Fund Balance 81,769.63 TOTAL BEGINNING EQUITY 81,769.63 TOTAL REVENUE 66,912.19 TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES 107,237.72 ( 40,325.53) TOTAL EQUITY & REV. OVER/(UNDER) EXP. TOTAL LIABILITIES, EQUITY & REV.OVER/(UNDER) EXP. 41,444.10 41,875.36 ============== 11-13-2013 04:29 PM CITY OF NORTHFIELD PAGE: 1 REVENUE & EXPENSE REPORT (UNAUDITED) AS OF: SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2013 379-PRESIDENTIAL COMMONS TIF FINANCIAL SUMMARY % OF YEAR COMPLETED: 75.00 CURRENT CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TOTAL BUDGET % YTD BUDGET PERIOD ACTUAL ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REVENUE SUMMARY Taxes Intergovernmental Other Revenue Other Financing Sources TOTAL REVENUES 76,000 0.00 33,059.53 0.00 42,940.47 43.50 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76,800 0.00 33,059.53 0.00 43,740.47 43.05 850 12.00 717.33 0.00 132.67 107,316 0.00 107,316.25 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Debt Service CHARGES FOR SERVICES DEBT SERVICE TRANSFERS TOTAL Debt Service 0.00 ( 0.25) 84.39 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 108,166 12.00 108,033.58 0.00 132.42 99.88 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 108,166 ( 31,366)( 12.00 12.00)( 108,033.58 74,974.05) 0.00 132.42 99.88 0.00 43,608.05 239.03 REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: SP 149-010-009; Northfield Modal Integration Project; (TIGER Trail Bids) Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to review the bids for the TIGER Trail Project, and to consider options related to award of contract. Summary Report: On November 7, 2013, bids for the TIGER Trail Project were received, and opened. The detailed bid tabulation is available at the following link: http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=551 and is summarized in the table below: Bidder 1 Engineers Estimate 2 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 3 Global Security Contractors, Inc. 4 Duininck, Inc. 5 Minnowa Construction, Inc. Amount $ 1,918,537.37 $ 2,707,002.57 $ 3,121,507.90 $ 3,160,913.40 $ 3,495,235.85 The table below summarizes the current Project Budget, as amended, at the City Council meeting of September 17, 2013: Amended Budget, as of 09/17/2013 Original Federal Grant Original Local Contribution Capital Improvement Fund TIF District #4 Subtotal, Original Local Contribution Supplemental Federal Funds thru MnDOT Supplemental Local Budget Amendment 20% Match of Supplemental Fed Funds Balance of Shortfall (as of 9/17/2013) Contingency, 5% of est. Const cost Subtotal, Budget Amendment, 09/17/2013 Total Project Budget, 09/17/2013, as amended $1,066,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $500,000.00 $596,452.52 $119,290.50 $58,399.35 $95,926.87 $273,616.72 $2,436,069.24 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., is a reputable contractor fully capable of completing this project. Using that low bid of S.M. Hentges, the total estimated project cost calculation compared to that estimated for the City Council meeting of September 17, 2013 appears below: Based On Estimate 1,918,537.37 195,000.00 60,605.00 41,000.00 125,000.00 Total Construction Cost Design Engineering Costs Right of Way Costs Union Pacific RR Inspection Agreement Anticipated Construction Engineering Costs $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 2,340,142.37 $ 3,168,607.57 5% Contingency $ $ Total Budget required $ 2,436,069.24 95,926.87 $ $ $ $ $ Based On Bid 2,747,002.57 195,000.00 60,605.00 41,000.00 125,000.00 137,350.13 $ 3,305,957.70 Ignoring the need for a project contingency (not recommended by staff), the proposed project cost is $828,465.20 higher than had been estimated at the meeting of September 17, 2013. Factoring in a contingency that is 5% of the proposed Construction Contract amount (recommended) requires a total budget amendment of $869,888.46. An in-depth analysis identifying the areas of the greatest differences between the estimate and the low bid is presented below: TIGER Trail Bid Analysis Mobilization Drainage Items (total) Trail, Fencing, & Landscape Subtotal, above items Structural Walls and Bridge Prefabricated Bridge Structural Concrete Reinforcement Structural Excavation Architectural Surface Treatment Temporary Sheet Pile Modular Block Wall Subtotal; Struct., Walls, & Bridge Engineer's Bid Estimate Amount Difference $ 50,000.00 $ 244,135.00 $ 194,135.00 $ 78,950.00 $ 90,688.35 $ 11,738.35 (Numerous Items) $ 53,136.00 $ 259,009.35 $ 190,000.00 $ 380,750.00 $ 86,266.00 $ 42,740.00 $ 53,472.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 52,670.00 TOTAL "Big Three" Items* * Retaining Walls, Bridge, & Mobilization $ 205,500.00 $ 678,650.00 $ 107,041.00 $ 70,800.00 $ 104,354.00 $ 184,730.00 $ 107,297.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 297,900.00 $ 20,775.00 $ 28,060.00 $ 50,882.00 $ 129,730.00 $ 54,627.00 $ 597,474.00 $ 856,483.35 $ 791,609.00 Following discussion with officials of MnDOT’s Office of State Aid in the Rochester District 6 Office, I have submitted an email to those various and appropriate officials to determine whether any additional funding assistance is available for this project. If any additional funding does become available, it is probable the City of Northfield will be required to provide matching funds in some amount—perhaps twenty percent of whatever additional amount is identified, if any. In that same email, I asked if some lessor portion of the Project could be still constructed (depicted on the attached map), and lastly, if the City Council ultimately decides to forego the project, what must we do to shut down the project. Also attached is a draft Amended Grant Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, which must be approved if this project is to move forward. This document amends (where appropriate and necessary) the Grant Agreement that was approved by the City Council at its meeting of December 4, 2012. Regarding the possible reduced scope project, as this is written, we have not yet completed an analysis of the potential cost reduction, as we have not yet received word if this will even be considered. It is possible we will have this information available for the City council meeting. Alternatives: The City Council could delay a decision on awarding the project contract until we hear from MnDOT if they will allow a reduction in project scope, or fund the extra $870,000 needed for the project. Financial Impacts: The financial impact of awarding this contract and approving the amendment to the grant agreement will result in the expenditure of $1,662,007.57 more than what was originally contemplated when the original TIGER Grant application was considered. To date, approximately $300,000 of local funds have been spent on this project. Recommendation: I cannot recommend building this project at the cost reflected in the low bidder’s bid proposal. The project cost is 36%, or about $870,000 over the most recent overall project estimate. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Resolution 2013-139 Resolution 2013-140 Proposed Amended Grant Agreement Map of Alternate TIGER Project CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-139 NORTHFIELD MODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT SP No. 149-010-009 (TIGER Trail) ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for SP No. 149-010-009, Northfield Modal Integration Project, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to the law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Bidder 1 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 2 Global Security Contractors, Inc. 3 Duininck, Inc. 4 Minnowa Construction, Inc. Amount $ 2,707,002.57 $ 3,121,507.90 $ 3,160,913.40 $ 3,495,235.85 AND WHEREAS, it appears that S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA: 1. The bid of S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota, in the amount of $2,747,002.57 for the construction of said improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications and advertisement for bids is the lowest responsible bid and shall be and hereby is accepted, contingent upon approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota in the name of the City of Northfield for the construction of NORTHFIELD MODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT, SP No. 149-010-009 (TIGER Trail), according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. PASSED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Northfield this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST _____________________________ City Clerk VOTE: ______________________________ Mayor ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013-140 NORTHFIELD MULTIMODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Northfield in the fall of 2011 was awarded a grant in the amount of $1,060,000 by the Federal Highway Administration for the construction of a non-motorized trail connecting the north and westerly portions of the City to that which is east and south of Trunk Highway No. 3 and the Cannon River; and, WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 6, 2012, the Northfield City Council approved Resolution 2012-009 approving the Project Term Sheets the purpose of which was to form the basis for the preparation of the formal Grant Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Northfield; and, WHEREAS, this Agreement entitled GRANT AGREEMENT UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-055, NOV. 18, 2011), FOR THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM (FY 2012 TIGER DISCRETIONARY GRANTS) was approved by the Northfield City Council at its meeting of December 4, 2012; and, WHEREAS this agreement must now be amended to reflect changes in funding and scheduling. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: The proposed GRANT AGREEMENT UNDER THE FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 2011, (DIVISION B OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011 (PUB. L. 112–10, APR. 15, 2011)), FOR THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM (FY 2011 TIGER DISCRETIONARY GRANTS), CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA, NORTHFIELD MULTIMODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT; FHWA FY 2011 TIGER Grant No. 19 Amendment #1 is hereby approved BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT: the Mayor, City Administrator and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any minor revisions to said agreement which may be forthcoming after further review of the Agreement by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Federal Highway Administration. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 19th day of November 2013. ATTEST _____________________________ City Clerk VOTE: ______________________________ Mayor ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL GREENVALE AVE HW Y 3 NV AL E PL HWY 3 N EE N GR WATER ST N SPRING ST N 3 FIRST ST W LINDEN ST N New Sidewalk New Multimodal New Bike Lane WATER ST N TIGER TRAIL CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 01 WATER ST N SPRIN G ST N ST OLAF AVE 150 75 0 WATER ST S Potential Future Expansion WATER ST S Existing Sidewalk SPRIN G ST S Crosswalk Feet 150 SECOND ST W ATTACHMENT C ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET Cost P = Planned A = Actual Activity Project Development Engineering Multi-Use Trail Retaining Wall Pedestrian Bridge Sidewalk 6ft RR Xing Improvements Chain Link Fence TOTAL Percentag e of Total Project Cost FY 2011 TIGER Funds Other Federal Funds $500,000 P 22% $0 $ 1,144,233.9 $844,016.59 $529,721.26 P 35% $131,512 P P 26% 17% $44,207.48 $99,280.96 P P $48,570.16 $ 3,210,030.35 City of Northfield Funds $500,000.00 $22,366.93 $494,496 $348,400 $1,012,721. 9 $289,875.44 $145,534.17 1% 4% $13,192 $55,740 $19,086.45 $34,594.19 $11,929.030 $8,946.770 P 3% $16,660 $21,472.25 $10,437.900 P 100% $1,060,000 $596,451.52 $649112.88 $59,645.15 $35,787.09 The costs on this page do not add up because the bids exceed the estimate, and staff is uncertain at this time (November 14, 2013) what, if any, additional funding (federal, state, or local) may become available, or if the contract is going to be awarded. REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tim Madigan, City Administrator Subject: Fire Services Agreement Options Action Requested: The Northfield City Council act to choose which option for the management of the Fire Department should be pursued in negotiations with the City of Dundas and surrounding townships and authorize the process for negotiations. Summary Report: The City Council in work sessions on October 22 and November 12 reviewed the three main options for development of an agreement for management of Fire Services serving the Northfield area. The three options are: 1. Contract with the City of Northfield by the townships and Dundas for Fire Services, with or without an advisory committee made up of representatives from the funding units. This option allows Northfield to manage the Fire Services and charge the other entities based on an agreed upon formula. If an advisory committee is used, the other local entities would have a voice in the policy issues related to the fire services, but not day to day operations or personnel matters. 2. A joint powers agreement (JPA) that would set up an independent authority to manage and operate the fire services. The governance board would have full operational and policy decision making authority over the Fire Department. 3. A taxing district with a governing board would be a separate legal authority authorized by the State Legislature to manage and operate fire services. The governance board would have full operational and policy decision making authority. Negotiations for an agreement – now that the Fire Task Force has presented their final report to the local units of government involved and completed their work; there is a need for the City Council to decide how it should negotiate a new arrangement for the Fire Service, assuming there is a desire to do so. This is a process that requires both policy direction and technical expertise on legal, financial and management topics. o I suggested at the October 22 Council meeting a two-step process: The Council provides general policy direction on some of the major issues related to an agreement on Fire Services. That the mayors of Northfield and Dundas form a work group with Glen Castore representing the townships to work with staff and legal counsel in drafting an agreement. The work group should touch base on a regular basis through the process with the governing bodies involved. City Council action on the options and process will allow the next phase of the Fire Service transition to move forward. REGULAR Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Walerius, Interim Police Chief Melanie Schlomann, Interim Finance Director Subject: Update on the New Police Building Action Requested: The City Council to review the progress on the new police building. No action is needed. Summary Report: Attached is a spreadsheet showing the dollar amount of the draw requests from our bond agent for payment of invoices related to the safety center construction project. We have requested Reimbursement of $1,535,186.90 to date. This is approximately 24% of the amount bonded for. Currently the facility is approximately 30-40% completed, and is still on schedule for a late spring, early summer completion date in 2014. Also, keep in mind that the owner is commonly billed for materials that have been ordered and received by the contractor or sub-contractor, but have not yet been installed in the construction process. The process established for billing approval has been scheduled on a monthly basis during the construction process. The individual invoices are first approved and sent from Met-Con to the architect DLR Group, where they are accumulated and billed on a monthly basis. DLR Group examines the invoices to make sure they are correct and in-line with the construction process, and approves them before sending them to the owner (City of Northfield). The monthly billing includes a complete itemized breakdown of all expenses including materials and labor as they are consumed in the construction process. They are then sent to (Interim) Chief of Police and project manager Chuck Walerius who also examines them for accuracy and relevance to the project. The billing is then sent to City Administrator Tim Madigan who also approves them for payment. They are then forwarded on to (Interim) Finance Director Melanie Schlomann who also approves them and processes them for payment. Essentially, the monthly billings are approved by five different sources before payment is authorized. A master file of all construction documents are kept by project manager Chuck Walerius, and are available for review at any time. During this process, project manager Chuck Walerius has numerous conversations with both the contractor and the architect as the construction takes place. Chuck Walerius also has contact with the contractor, sub-contractors, and the architect at bi-weekly on-site construction meetings who are also attended by Assistant City Engineer Brian Erickson and Bernie Shakal from Public Works. Chuck Walerius also makes daily site visits to document the construction process and meet with the project superintendent as well. Currently we have also approved approximately $46,000 in change orders that have been needed to keep the project on schedule. Most of the change orders have been necessary due to unforeseen changes made by Xcell Energy in bringing electrical and gas supplies into the building. All change orders $10,000 or more are brought to city engineering staff and City Administrator Tim Madigan for explanation and approval before being receiving final approval by project manager Chuck Walerius. The facility is still well within budget and is expected to come in well under as earlier anticipated. The Council will continue to be informed as to project status when requested or at any intervals specifically requested by the council. An update on the City Hall project will be provided at a future Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Sheet showing total bond issue minus YTD draw requests 2. Change Order Log Safety Center Reimbursement Requests Certificates of Participation Series 2012B $6,280,000.00 Draw #1 3/15/2013 66,159.89 Draw #2 10/25/2013 790,478.17 Draw #3 10/25/2013 678,548.90 Balance $4,744,813.04 CHANGE ORDER LOG Project Contractor Architect Northfield Police Facility Project No. Met-Con Contract No. Base Contract Amount DLR Group CO Class Approval # # Date 1 4.2 8/9/13 2 4.2 9/5/13 3 4.4 9/30/13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.3 4.3 10/15/13 11/7/13 Description Add additional curb and gutter at the request of city engineering in order to mitigate drainage issues and erosion control. Add Rip-Rap to end of culvert at the request of city engineering for erosion control of storm water and drainage issues. Various plumbing and electrical changes and/or additions to garage and Sallie-Port area Variation to electrical service to the building as required by Excel Energy Gas Meter relocation as required by Excel Energy Date of Last Entry: 11/14/2013, 3:15 PM $4,775,000.00 Time Ext. CO $ Cum CO (# Days) Amount $ Amount Change Class: 4.0 Error 1 $14,218.82 $14,218.00 4.1 Omission 0 $7,210.89 $21,428.89 4.2 Unforeseen Site Conditions 1 $7,088.88 $28,517.00 4.3 Regulatory Requirements 0 0 $10,180.12 $7,651.41 $38,697.89 $46,349.30 4.4 Owner Requested Changes 4.5 Materials or Equipment Unavailable Page 1 of 1 (Utility) Construction Mgmt. 703.04L - 10/06 WORK SESSION Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tim Madigan, City Administrator Subject: Visit with the Charter Commission Action Requested: The City Charter Commission has asked for the opportunity to visit with the City Council in work session to discuss their initiative for an amendment to the City Charter related to ethics. WORK SESSION Date of City Council Meeting: November 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Council Member Rhonda Pownell Subject: Statement of Values & Code of Conduct Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to discuss the attached LMC Model Code of Conduct and Statement of Values and provide direction on whether to adopt one or both. Summary Report: The League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel created the attached LMC Model Code of Conduct and Statement of Values. I requested that they be put on a November agenda for Council discussion/direction on whether to modify and adopt one or both of them. Attachments: LMC Model of Statement of Values LMC Template Code of Conduct Model Statement of Values Preamble The proper operation of democratic government requires that decision-makers be independent, impartial, and accountable to the people they serve. The City of _____ has adopted this Statement of Values to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government. All (select: elected and appointed officials, City employees, and volunteers) are required to subscribe to this statement, understand how it applies to their specific responsibilities, and practice its (number) core values in their work. Because we seek public confidence in the City's services and public trust of its decision-makers, our decisions and our work must meet the most demanding ethical standards and demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in following this statement. The Values As a Representative of the City of _____, 1. I serve the public interest. 2. I fulfill the duties and responsibilities of holding public office. 3. I am ethical. 4. I am professional. 5. I am fiscally responsible. 6. I am conscientious. 7. I communicate effectively. 8. I am collaborative. 9. I am forward thinking. 10. I am ____________. Value examples/expressions 1. I serve the public interest. In practice this value means that: a. I provide courteous, equitable, and prompt service to everyone. b. I am attuned to, and care about, the needs and issues of citizens, public officials, and city workers. c. I am interested, engaged, and responsive in my interactions with constituents. d. I recognize and support the public’s right to know the public’s business. 2. I fulfill the duties and responsibilities of holding public office. In practice this value means that: a. I observe the highest standards of integrity in my official acts and undertake my responsibilities for the benefit of the greater public good. b. I faithfully discharge the duties of my office regardless of my personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest is my primary concern. c. I uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state, and municipality and thus foster respect for all government. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 d. I comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the City. e. I recognize my obligation to implement the adopted goals and objectives of the City in good faith, regardless of my personal views. f. I conduct myself in both my official and personal actions in a manner that is above reproach. g. I do not use my position to secure for myself or others special privileges or exemptions that are different from those available to the general public. h. I understand and abide by the respective roles and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials and city staff and will not undermine them in their work. i. I am independent, impartial, and fair in my judgment and actions. 3. I am ethical. In practice this value means that: a. I am trustworthy, acting with the utmost integrity and moral courage. b. I am truthful, do what I say I will do, and am reliable. c. I am accountable for my actions and behavior and accept responsibility for my decisions. d. I make impartial decisions, free of influence from unlawful gifts, narrow political interests, and financial and other personal interests that impair my independence of judgment or action. e. I am fair, distributing benefits and burdens according to consistent and equitable criteria. f. I oppose all forms of harassment and unlawful discrimination. g. I extend equal opportunities and due process to all parties in matters under consideration. h. I show respect for confidences and confidential information. i. I avoid giving the appearance of impropriety and of using my position for personal gain. 4. I am professional. In practice this value means that: a. I apply my knowledge and expertise to my assigned activities and to the interpersonal relationships that are part of my job in a consistent, confident, competent, and productive manner. b. I approach my job and work-related relationships with a positive attitude, contributing to a supportive, respectful, and non-threatening work environment. c. I keep my professional knowledge and skills current and growing. d. I am respectful of all city staff, officials, volunteers, and others who participate in the City’s government. 5. I am fiscally responsible. In practice this value means that: a. I make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into account the long-term financial needs of the City, especially its financial stability. b. I demonstrate concern for the proper use of City assets (e.g., personnel, time, property, equipment, funds), follow established procedures, and do not use public resources for personal gain. c. I make decisions that seek to preserve the financial capacity of the City to provide programs and services for City residents. d. I provide full disclosure of any potential financial or other private conflict of interest. I abstain from participating in the discussion and vote on these matters. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 e. I prevent misuse of public funds by establishing, maintaining, and following strong fiscal and management controls. f. I report any misuse of public funds of which I am aware. 6. I am conscientious. In practice this value means that: a. I act in an efficient manner, making decisions and recommendations based upon research and facts, taking into consideration short and long term goals. b. I follow through in a responsible way, keeping others informed, and responding in a timely fashion. c. I am respectful of established City processes and guidelines. d. I prioritize my duties so that the work of the City may move forward. e. I prepare for all meetings by reviewing any materials provided ahead of time. When I have materials to contribute, I make sure all others involved have ample time to review these materials prior to the meeting. 7. I communicative effectively. In practice this value means that: a. I convey the City's care for and commitment to its citizens. b. I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded, and willing to participate in dialog. c. I engage in effective two-way communication by listening carefully, asking questions, and responding appropriately which adds value to conversations. d. I do not interfere with the orderly conduct of meetings by interrupting others or making personal comments not germane to the business at hand. e. I follow up on inquiries in a timely manner. f. I encourage and facilitate citizen involvement in policy decision-making. g. I am respectful in disagreements and contribute constructively to discussions on the issue. 8. I am collaborative. In practice this value means that: a. I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals, working together in a spirit of tolerance and understanding to accomplish common goals. b. I share information with others in a timely manner so that, together, we can make informed decisions. c. I work towards consensus building and gain value from diverse opinions. d. I accomplish the goals and responsibilities of my individual position, while respecting my role as a member of a team. 9. I am forward thinking. In practice this value means that: a. I promote intelligent, proactive, and thoughtful innovation in order to advance the City's policy agenda and provide City services while considering the broader regional, state-wide, national, and international implications of the City's decisions and issues. b. I maintain consistent standards, but am also sensitive to the need for compromise, creative problem solving, and making improvements when appropriate. c. I am open to new ideas and processes, adopting them as they conserve resources and provide efficient and effective service. d. I consider the potential long-term consequences and implications of my actions and inactions. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 Template Code of Conduct ___.01. Purpose. The city council of the City of _____determines that a code of conduct for its members, as well as the members of the various boards and commissions of the City of _____, is essential for the public affairs of the city. By eliminating conflicts of interest and providing standards for conduct in city matters, the city council hopes to promote the faith and confidence of the citizens of _____in their government and to encourage its citizens to serve on its council and commissions. ___.02. Standards of Conduct. Subd. 1. No member of the city council or a city board or commission may knowingly: a. Violate the open meeting law. b. Participate in a matter that affects the person’s financial interests or those of a business with which the person is associated, unless the effect on the person or business is no greater than on other members of the same business classification, profession, or occupation. c. Use the person’s public position to secure special privileges or exemptions for the person or for others. d. Use the person’s public position to solicit personal gifts or favors. e. Use the person’s public position for personal gain. f. Except as specifically permitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.895, accept or receive any gift of substance, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably expected to influence the person, the person’s performance of official action, or be intended as a reward for the person’s official action. g. Disclose to the public, or use for the person’s or another person’s personal gain, information that was gained by reason of the person’s public position if the information was not public data or was discussed at a closed session of the city council. h. Disclose information that was received, discussed, or decided in conference with the city’s legal counsel that is protected by the attorney-client privilege unless a majority of the city council has authorized the disclosure. i. Represent private interests before the city council or any city committee, board, commission or agency. (optional) Subd. 2. Except as prohibited by the provisions of Minn. Stat Sec. 471.87, there is no violation of subdivision 1 b. of this section for a matter that comes before the council, board, or commission if the member of the council, board, or commission publicly discloses the circumstances that would violate these standards and refrains from participating in the discussion and vote on the matter. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a contract with a member of the city council under the circumstances described under Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.88, if proper statutory procedures are followed. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 ___.03. Complaint, Hearing. Any person may file a written complaint with the city clerk alleging a violation of the standards of conduct in section .02. The complaint must contain supporting facts for the allegation. The city council may hold a hearing after receiving the written complaint or upon the council's own volition. A hearing must be held only if the city council determines (1) upon advice of the city attorney, designee, or other attorney appointed by the council, that the factual allegations state a sufficient claim of a violation of these standards or rise to the level of a legally-recognized conflict of interest, and (2) that the complaint has been lodged in good faith and not for impermissible purposes such as delay. The city council’s determination must be made within 30 days of the filing of the allegation with the city clerk. If the council determines that there is an adequate justification for holding a hearing, the hearing must be held within 30 days of the city council’s determination. At the hearing, the person accused must have the opportunity to be heard. If after the hearing, the council finds that a violation of a standard has occurred or does exist, the council may censure the person, refer the matter for criminal prosecution, request an official not to participate in a decision, or remove an appointed member of an advisory board or commission from office. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009