Northfield City Council Agenda

CITY COUNCIL MEETING & WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014 6:15 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS

WORK SESSION – 6:15 PM

1. Presentation/Discussion Green Steps Program

CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 7:00 PM

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. Motion – Approve Board/Commission & Council Appointments

3. Resolution 2014-019 – Approve Final Payment for Maple Street/Vets Park

4. Resolution 2014-020 – Accept 2013 Gifts to the City

5. Motion – Approve Request For Proposal Process for Legal Services

6. Motion – Approve Cleaning of City Trails in the Winter

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.

7. Motion – Endorse Concepts for Mayor’s Youth Initiatives

8. Resolution 2014-018 – Tiger Trail Project Direction

9. Resolution 2014-021 – Approve 2013 Budget Amendments

10. Motion – Approve Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property by HRA

11. Ordinance No. 956 – First Reading of Stormwater Ordinance Amendments

12. Information – Update on Police Building Project

13. Motion – Approve 2014 Council Rules of Business

14. Discussion – 2014 Work Plan & Priorities

ADMINISTRATORS UPDATE

ADJOURN

Note: The City Council may take a five minute break during the meeting.

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.

SPECIAL NEEDS: 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.

Meeting: City Council Meeting

Date: January 21, 2014 Location: Council Chambers Start Time: 7:00 p.m. Adjourn Time: 10:18 p.m.

Members Present: Mayor Dana Graham, Council Members David DeLong, David Ludescher, Suzie Nakasian, Jessica Peterson White, Rhonda Pownell, and Erica Zweifel

Members Absent: None

Others present: Cindy Nelson, Noah Cashman, Jon Denison, David Hvistendahl, Laurie Hoheisel, CC Linstroth, Don McGee, Victor Summa, Northfield Firefighters, Northfield Patrol Officers and Sergeants, Karen Mangold, Police Chief Monte Nelson, Public Works Director/City Engineer Joe Stapf, Community Development Coordinator Michele Merxbauer, Community Planning & Development Director Chris Heineman, Finance Director Melanie Schlomann, City Clerk Deb Little, City Administrator Tim Madigan, Northfield News and other interested citizens.

Item Discussion/Conclusions Action Call to Order At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Graham called the meeting to order. A roll call was taken of members present and a quorum was declared. Approval of Agenda Mayor Graham noted the items on the green sheet. A motion was made by C. Pownell and Council members moved #4, #6, & #12 from the consent seconded by C. Nakasian to approve the agenda to the regular agenda. agenda as amended for January 21, 2014. All in favor. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Nakasian to approve the City Council meeting minutes for January 7, 2014. All in favor. Motion carried. Presentation Oath of Office City Clerk Little swore in Police Chief Monte Nelson and Firefighters Steve Noreen, Justin Raabolle, Samuel Severtsgaard, Chad VanZuilen. Reports From Council Members C. Nakasian – Reported on the Climate Summit and the Martin Luther King celebration. C. Peterson White – None. C. DeLong – None. C. Zweifel – Attended Climate Summit. Noted that NorthfieldSustainability.org has information. Reported on the HRA meeting. C. Ludescher – None. C. Pownell – Reported on the last two Planning Commission meetings. Participated in a LMC Webinar regarding Council Member roles. Reported on the LMC Board meeting. Noted that she is also attending Library Board meetings. Mayor Graham – Attended Mayor’s Youth Council meeting. Presented Living Treasure Award at Arts & Culture meeting. Attended Fire JPA meeting.

Page 1 – January 21, 2014 City Council Minutes

Item Discussion/Conclusions Action Consent Agenda Approval of Consent City Administrator Madigan introduced the items on the A motion was made by C. Pownell and Agenda consent agenda. seconded by C. Peterson White to APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. All in favor. Motion carried. Motion M2014- 010 Approve Disbursements totaling $685,811.84 Disbursements Motion M2014-011 The Northfield City Council hereby approves the Board/Commission following appointments: Appointments  Ashley Tabery appointed to the Environmental Quality Commission to fill a vacancy for a term ending December 31, 2015.  Jayne Hager Dee appointed to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a five-year term ending December 31, 2018.  Jon Denison reappointed to the Library Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2016.  Valerie Enfiejian-Hoekstra appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2016. Resolution 2014-010 Adopt schedule for City Council meetings. 2014 Meeting Schedule Motion M2014-012 The Northfield City Council approves the Consultant Link Center Contract Service Contract with Growing Up Healthy and Healthy Community Initiative for the Link Center. Resolution 2014-013 Establish the Hauberg Park Fund Hauberg Park Fund Resolution 2014-014 Establish the Arts and Culture Fund Arts & Culture Fund Motion M2014-013 The Northfield City Council hereby approves a St. Dominic School temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for St. Temporary Liquor Dominic School for an event to be held at 216 Spring License Street North on February 22, 2014 subject to successful completion of background checks. Resolution 2014-015 Approve Submission of MnDOT Landscaping Garden Club Partnership Grant Application Landscape Grant Application Resolution 2014-016 Adopting and Certifying Unpaid Charges to Taxes Certify Delinquent Payable 2014 Charges Public Comments Open Public Don McGee, 710 Highland Ave., spoke regarding Comments Martin Luther King. Read poem written by Victor Summa that Martin Luther King had put in the archives.

Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., spoke regarding Martin Luther King and other important figures in history. Regular Agenda Resolution 2014-001 City Administrator Madigan introduced this item. A motion was made by C. Nakasian and seconded by C. Pownell to APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-001 – APPROVING CONTRIBUTION OF CITY FUNDS TO

Page 2 – January 21, 2014 City Council Minutes

Item Discussion/Conclusions Action THE YMCA FOR A SIDEWALK/TRAIL. Yes votes: C. Nakasian, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel. No votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Peterson White and Mayor Graham. Vote is 3-4. Motion failed. Discussion Planning & Community Development Director None. 219 Water Street Heineman introduced this item and answered questions posed by the Council.

Council members discussed demolition of the property, moving the trash enclosure, possible future use and possibly issuing an RFP in the future for the property. Motion M2014-014 Planning & Community Development Director A motion (M2014-014) was made by C. 303/305 Water Street Heineman introduced this item and answered questions DeLong and seconded by C. Nakasian posed by the Council. City Administrator Madigan that THE COUNCIL DIRECTS STAFF answered questions posed by the Council. TO WORK ON PROPOSED OPTION 5 IN PREPARING A DEVELOPMENT Developer David Hvistendahl reviewed the proposal and AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE COUNCIL asked Council to support the development proposal. CONSIDERATION AND THE STREET DESIGN ISSUES REVIEWED BY THE HPC TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

A motion was made by C. Pownell and seconded by C. Peterson White to AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE HPC LOOK AT THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. Yes votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher, C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell, C. Zweifel. No votes: Mayor Graham. Vote is 6-1. Motion carried.

Vote on Motion (M2014-014) as amended that THE COUNCIL DIRECTS STAFF TO WORK ON PROPOSED OPTION 5 IN PREPARING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE REVIEWED BY THE HPC TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. All in favor. Motion carried. Resolution 2014-018 Public Works Director/City Engineer Stapf introduced A motion was made by C. Zweifel and Revision of Tiger this item and answered questions posed by the Council. seconded by C. Peterson White to Trail Plans & Specs APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-018 – Noah Cashman, Northfield, asked council to vote against SELECTING ALIGNMENT the resolution and start over by redoing the application ALTERNATIVE NO 1 AND DIRECTING and agreement before proceeding. Spoke against STAFF TO PROCEED WITH REVISION narrowing the Greenvale Ave. bridge, asked council to OF THE PLANS AND get movement counts at Greenvale & Highway 3, and SPECIFICATIONS AND REBIDDING noted an alternate route behind Dairy Queen. OF THE NORTHFIELD MODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT, SP 149-010- Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., spoke in support of 009.

Page 3 – January 21, 2014 City Council Minutes

Item Discussion/Conclusions Action Council Member Peterson White’s remarks on the Water Street issues. Asked Council for objectivity and relevance with this project. Spoke against design and the project.

Don McGee, 710 Highland Ave., stated that the alternatives for the project do not cut costs, the costs are just deferred.

Larry Walsh, north side of town, stated that he was pleased that the process has evolved and is happy with the proposal to facilitate safety. Noted that he is not concerned with the circuitous route. Extend Meeting During discussion of the Tiger Trail item, a motion was A motion was made by C. Peterson White made to extend the meeting. and seconded by C. Zweifel to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. 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. Extend Meeting During continued discussion of the Tiger Trail item, a A motion was made by C. Peterson White motion was made to extend the meeting. and seconded by C. Nakasian to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Yes votes: C. Nakasian, C. Peterson White, C. Pownell and C. Zweifel. No votes: C. DeLong, C. Ludescher and Mayor Graham. Vote is 4-3. Motion failed. The meeting was adjourned. Note: requires 5 votes to pass. Adjourn Adjourn the meeting The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

Submitted by: ______Attest: ______Deb Little, City Clerk Dana Graham, Mayor

Page 4 – January 21, 2014 City Council Minutes

CONSENT

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: City Council City Administrator

From: Mayor Graham

Subject: Board/Commission & Council Appointments

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby approves the following appointments:  Tim Vick reappointed to the Arts & Culture Commission to fill a vacancy for a term ending December 31, 2014.  Larry Fowler appointed to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year ending December 31, 2016.  Jessica Peterson White to the Convention and Visitors Bureau  David DeLong to the Fire Relief Board  Dana Graham as the Hospital Board Liaison  Peggy Prowe reappointed to the Mill Towns Trail Board for a one-year term ending December 31, 2014  David Ludescher, Suzie Nakasian and Jessica Peterson White to the NCRC Subcommittee  Suzie Nakasian to the Rice/Steele 911 Center Board  David Ludescher, Jessica Peterson White and Rhonda Pownell to the Council Finance Policy Subcommittee

Summary Report: The City Council is being asked to approve the appointments as noted above. Additional appointments will be made at the upcoming meetings. I am recommending the following individuals be appointed to serve the City at this time.

Arts & Culture Commission Mr. Tim Vick reappointed to the Arts & Culture Commission. Mr. Vick has just completed his first term on the Library Board.

Human Rights Commission Mr. Larry Fowler appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Fowler is deeply committed to protecting citizens human rights as a member of the ACLU.

Mill Towns Trail Board Peggy Prowe reappointed to the Mill Towns Trail Board. In addition to the City’s two elected officials, an ex-officio citizen member can be appointed for a one-year term.

ATTACHMENT: Council Appointments List COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS (Updated February 11, 2014)

Convention & Visitors Bureau Jessica Peterson White

Council Finance Policy Subcommittee David Ludescher Jessica Peterson White Rhonda Pownell Economic Development Authority – 2 1. Rhonda Pownell (Term Expires 2014) positions. Voting members. Term consistent 2. David Ludescher (Term Expires 2016) with council term

Fire Relief Board David DeLong

Hospital Board Liaison Dana Graham

Housing and Redevelopment Authority – 1 Erica Zweifel (Term Expires 2016) position. Voting member. Term consistent with council term

Mill Towns Trail 1. Erica Zweifel (Term Expires 2016) Per bylaws: 2. Suzie Nakasian (Term Expires 2014)  2 elected officials; terms consistent 3. Peggy Prowe (Term Expires 2014) with elective terms  1 ex-officio citizen member 1 year term; max 6 consecutive terms

NCRC Council Subcommittee David Ludescher Suzie Nakasian Jessica Peterson White

Rice/Steele 911 Center – 1 elected official - Suzie Nakasian voting member

CONSENT

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator

From: Brian Erickson, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Sean Simonson, Engineering Technician Coordinator

Subject: Accept Improvements and Approve Final Payment for 2013 Street Maintenance Project

Action Requested:

The City Council is being asked to approve Resolution 2014-019 accepting the public improvements and approving the final payment for STRT2012-A14 – 2013 Street Maintenance Project.

Summary Report: The City Council is being asked to accept the public improvements for the STRT2012-A14 – 2013 Street Maintenance Project. Additionally, Council is being asked to approve the final payment in the amount of $93,604.61. The construction contract was awarded to Heselton Construction, LLC of Faribault, MN at the June 4, 2013 City Council meeting in the amount of $887,365.75. Through the course of construction there were no modifications to the contract; however there are some quantity adjustments that were required to complete the project. That change is detailed in the table below.

Construction Project Costs Item Amount Comments Original contract $ 887,365.75 Bid price Quantity $ 22,902.83 Quantity adjustments Adjustments Total Project $ 910,268.58

Quantity adjustments are typical with construction due to field conditions and differing site conditions that can affect the actual final cost of the project. These changes can result in either increased or decreased costs to the project. In general, these changes to overall quantities are the result of field adjustments necessary to accommodate unknown or unforeseen site conditions. For this particular project, the increase came about due to additional retaining wall, curb & gutter and sidewalk repairs. There was also additional paving performed near some intersections due to the presence of poor pavement. These increases were partially balanced by a reduction in estimated quantities of excavation. The net increase of $22,902.83 represents an increase of 2.6% over the original contract.

This project has been reviewed by the Public Works staff and is recommended for acceptance. The Certificate of Final Acceptance is shown in attachment 2, and the request for final payment is shown in attachment 3.

This project was funded through a combination of special assessments, bonding and state aid. The table below shows the final project funding.

PROJECT FUNDING REVISED FUND AMOUNT State Aid $ 499,360 Special Assessments $ 308,664 Bonding $ 258,689 TOTAL PROJECT $ 1,066,713 FUNDING

Staff is recommending approval of the final payment on this contract since all required work has been completed. Any pending warranty issues that may result would be covered by a one year warranty on the project.

Attachments: 1. Resolution 2014-019 2. Certificate of Final Acceptance 3. Final Pay Request CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2014-019 2013 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT STRT2012-A14

WHEREAS, pursuant to the contract between the City of Northfield and Heselton Construction, LLC of Faribault, Minnesota as approved by City Council on June 4, 2013 all work has been satisfactorily completed on STRT2012-A14 – 2013 Street Maintenance Project in accordance with said contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved.

2. The city clerk and mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for final payment on said contract in exchange for the contractor’s receipt evidencing payment in full.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 11th day of February 2014.

ATTEST

______City Clerk Mayor

VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL

CONSENT

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator

From: Melanie Schlomann, Finance Director

Subject: Acceptance of gifts and donations given to the City of Northfield in 2013 – Resolution 2014-020

Action Requested: The City Council is being asked to officially accept the gifts and donations given to the City during 2013. Minnesota Statute 465.03 provides that acceptance of gifts of real or personal property by the City shall be by resolution and approved by a two-thirds majority vote.

Summary Report: The details of individual gifts are listed on Exhibit A, which is made part of the resolution. Overall, the City received $194,194.01 in specific gifts or general donations. This total does not include all of the in-kind donations of time, supplies or materials contributed.

Attachments: 1. Resolution 2014-020 2. Exhibit A Detail of Gifts

CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2014-020

A RESOLUTION BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA ACCEPTING GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD IN 2013

WHEREAS, the City of Northfield received numerous gifts in 2013; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council expresses its gratitude for the gifts given to the Northfield community.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT:

The City Council of the City of Northfield hereby accepts with great appreciation the gifts given in 2013 as shown in Exhibit A to this resolution.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 11th day of February 2014.

ATTEST:

______City Clerk Mayor

VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL

EXHIBIT A 2013 GIFTS AND DONATIONS

GIFT DONOR PURPOSE General Fund: $ 50.00 Vetrans of Foreign War Fire Department 250.00 Perkins Specialized Transportation DARE Program 388.86 High School Boys & Girls replace ice arena plexi glass 777.78 St Olaf Men's & Women's replace ice arena plexi glass 100.00 Vetrans of Foreign War Fire Department 76,000.00 Carleton College City Services 76,000.00 St. Olaf College City Services $ 153,566.64 Total for General Fund

Park Fund: 10,000.00 Southeastern Minnesota Arts Council Sidewalk Poetry

$ 10,000.00

Hauberg Park Fund: $ 1,025.00 See attached detail

Library $ 10,796.05 See attached detail

Mayor's Youth Council $ 7,049.83 See attached detail

Mayor's Task Force on Youth Alcohol and Drug Use $ 11,756.49 See attached detail

GRAND TOTAL $ 194,194.01

In-kind Donations - no value assigned: Garden Club Flowers and plant maintenance for Bridge Square and surrounding area Cannon River Tree Service Supervisory assistance with spring tree planting Men of Northfield Spring tree planting Knecht Nursery Tree and plant donation for parks; tree maintenance

Northfield Youth Baseball Association Help maintain Sechler Park Northfield Soccer Association Help maintaining Spring Creek Park, mowing, striping, etc. Waste Management Donation of pilot Organic composting program at the Compost Facility Farmers Mill & Elevator, Inc. Labor and fertilzer for the Vets Memorial at Riverside Park Midwest Water Specialties of Dundas Cleaning of pool at the Northfield Community Resource Center, also cleaned up two acts of vandalism in the downtown area

Exhibit A 456-36230 Last Name First Name City, State, Zip Donation Hauberg Allen Greenville, OH 45331 25.00 Hauberg Marguerite Seattle, WA 98116 305.00 Cash - Various donors Rogotzke Albert & Kathy Charles City, IA 50616 25.00 Anderson J Northfield, MN 55057 20.00 Nasby Alice Northfield, MN 55057 40.00 Kruse Dr. Brian & Ann Greene, IA 50636 100.00 Burroughs Bruce 50.00 White Barbara & Thomas Lakeville, MN 55044 25.00 Salls Lila Ortonville, MN 56278 40.00 Siemens Brian & Katherine Hastings, MN 55033 25.00 Burns Donna & Gregory Sturgeon Lake, MN 55783 25.00 Fredrickson Margit Northfield, MN 55057 50.00 Peterson Hazel Northfield, MN 55057 15.00 Wee A. Dewayne Northfield, MN 55057 30.00 Thomas Evelyn Northfield, MN 55057 20.00 Burroughs Kent Greene, IA 50636 20.00 Anderson Dr. Donald & Cynthia Northfield, MN 55057 15.00 Kriesel Douglas & Patricia Northfield, MN 55057 25.00 Halverson Diane Northfield, MN 55057 50.00 Halverson Marlene Northfield, MN 55057 50.00 Allen MD & LK Northfield, MN 55057 20.00 Rivers Morgan Des Moines, IA 50310 50.00

TOTAL 1,025.00 NORTHFIELD PUBLIC LIBRARY Gifts and Grants Received in 2013

GIFT Estimated Value of FROM FOR non-cash donations $75.89 Friends of the Library History Day Hullabaloo expenses $100 Frank Wright Library Collection $140.00 Friends of the Library Debby Nitz Tech Conference $1000 Northfield Area Foundation Children’s Garden GRANT Grace Whittier Fund $202. Friends of the Library Jim Beardsley – Speaker fee $170.00 Friends of the Library Volunteer Appreciation cupcakes $338.92 Friends of the Library Food Stuffs for Lynne’s retirement $100.00 John & Virginia Street Undesignated $50.00 Cannon Valley Lions Club First Steps 700.15 TAB - Garage Sale TAB Activities Book And still $22.95 Author Betty Wall Library Collection flying… 577.98 Friends of the Library Ipad, Cover, Charger, service plan 210.00 5th bridge/Susan Couture Purchase ebooks for our e-readers garage sale Book “A delicate $28.95 William Cloherty Library Collection Truth” $100.00 William Cloherty Cynthia Close Cloherty Endowed Books Fund $200. C Rogers and Ruth Close Cynthia Close Cloherty Endowed Books Fund 186.49 Friends of the Library Benjamin Bus for First grade tours $79.72 Friends of the library Plants for the library grounds. $404.98 Friends of the Library Laptop/mouse/ $72.00 Friends of the Library Summer reading program prizes

Northfield Public Library 2013 Gift List 02/06/2014 1 of 4

NORTHFIELD PUBLIC LIBRARY Gifts and Grants Received in 2013

$200.00 C. Rodgers & Ruth Close Cynthia Close Cloherty Endowed Books Fund $225.00 Friends of the Library SRP Prizes – Gift Cert. $300.00 Bill DeJohn Estate His MLA award donated to us State bird and $14.99 Rose Marie Werner Donated by the Author state flower Quilts – Identification Guide $40.00 Melinda Burnett Donated her deposit for equipment borrowed $55.00 Friends of the Library For mileage for Jamie to go to training in Wayzata $125.43 Friends of the library For mileage for Kathy N to go to MAL in St. Cloud 1818.30 Friends of the library Zinio Content for 2014 50.00 Carlson Capital Management Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 30.00 Robert & Barbara Bonner Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 25. David & Joan Halvorson Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 50. Steven & Mary Schier Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 25. Gail & Willard Huyck Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 200. Jean Leslie Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 25. Lauren & Nancy Soth Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 150. LJ & Patti Haskins Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 50. Frank Wright Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 15. Nadine Kivens Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 36. Elaine B Schwartz Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 50. Ronald & Bettye Ronning Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 200. Ronald & Bettye Ronning Not designated 50. Cathy Yardell & Mark McNeil Memorial for Marilyn Schuster

Northfield Public Library 2013 Gift List 02/06/2014 2 of 4

NORTHFIELD PUBLIC LIBRARY Gifts and Grants Received in 2013

100. James Finholt Not-designated 50. Carol & Eric Fure-Slocum Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 171.30 Friends of the Library Food for Winter walk volunteers 10.00 Robert Will Cash was brought in from Sy Schuster given to him in memory of Marilyn. 50. Chuck Carlin & Carolyn Memorial for Marilyn Schuster Sanford 117 DVD’s $1755 Victoria Morse, Bill and Emily For the Library’s Collection North 75.00 Vern & Marilyn Bailey For the Library’s Collection 40.00 Lynne Young Memorial for Marilyn Schuster 50.00 Lynne Young Memorial for Leota Stewart Other gifts of Varies Varies books and miscellaneous items used for the library’s collection or sold. VALUE of non- $1821.89 cash gifts and expenditures on the Library’s behalf VALUE OF $8974.16 CASH GIFTS TOTAL $10,796.05 VALUE OF DONATIONS TO THE

Northfield Public Library 2013 Gift List 02/06/2014 3 of 4

NORTHFIELD PUBLIC LIBRARY Gifts and Grants Received in 2013

LIBRARY

Northfield Public Library 2013 Gift List 02/06/2014 4 of 4

CONSENT

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Tim Madigan, City Administrator

Subject: Approve RFP’s for City Attorney Services

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby approves the attached request for proposals for city attorney services to provide civil legal services and criminal prosecutorial services and hereby approves the appointment of Mayor Graham and Mayor Pro Tem Zweifel to serve on the interview panel, with City staff.

Summary Report: The RFP provides a detailed description of the services to be provided, as well as an outline of the proposal requirements, proposed timeline and review process. The City will consider proposals for providing civil legal services, criminal prosecutorial services or both. Preference will be given to those submittals demonstrating experience in those areas of municipal law. The successful applicant(s) are required to possess sufficient resources to ensure that the demands for the City’s legal needs will be met on a timely basis. The relationship would be on a consulting or contractual basis, as opposed to a staff position. The proposal is for a three-year contract, with two one-year renewal options for these services.

Firms will be requested to submit fee information for two options. The first option includes a retainer plus hourly fees and the second option is for hourly fees for all work without a retainer. The City intends to award a contract to the respondent(s) best qualified to perform the work for the City and which furthers the best interest of the City. Staff is developing scoring criteria to be used to evaluate the proposals and firms.

Staff will provide notice of availability of the RFP as follows:  A letter will be sent to all law firms in Northfield  Advertisement in the Northfield News  Advertisement with the League of Minnesota Cities  Notice posted on the City’s website

The proposed interview panel will include:  Mayor & Mayor Pro Tem City Council Member  City Administrator  City Clerk  Police Chief  Public Works Director/City Engineer

CONTRACTING LAWS AND POLICIES There are two elements a city must consider to determine if the competitive-bidding law applies to a particular contract: the type of contract and its estimated price.

Under the competitive-bidding law, the definition of the term “contract” is broad, but it does not include all contracts. The competitive-bidding law applies to:

 Contracts for the sale, purchase or rental of supplies, materials or equipment.  Contracts for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property. Professional services, such as those provided by engineers, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other services requiring technical, scientific or professional training are exempt from competitive bidding requirements.

Alternate Options: The City Council could amend the RFP’s and the timeline or delay action on this process.

Financial Impacts: Unknown at this time.

Timelines: Action Date City Council Approval of RFP February 11, 2014 Advertisement of RFP begins February 14, 2014 Deadline for RFP March 14, 2014 – 4:30 p.m. Interviews Week of March 31 * Update to City Council at Work Session April 08 * Consideration of approval of selected firm and May 06 * award of contract by the City Council New contract begins July 01

* Tentative dates

Attachments:  RFP for Civil Legal Services  RFP for Criminal Prosecutorial Services

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

CIVIL ATTORNEY LEGAL SERVICES

February 2014

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CIVIL ATTORNEY LEGAL SERVICES

February 2014

The City of Northfield is soliciting proposals for civil attorney services from qualified law firms. Preference will be given to those submittals demonstrating experience in this area of municipal law. The successful applicant(s) shall possess sufficient resources to ensure that the demands for the City’s legal needs will be met on a timely basis. The relationship would be on a consulting or contractual basis, as opposed to a staff position. The City will be awarding a three-year contract, with two one- year renewal options for these services.

Included in this RFP are a more detailed description of the services to be provided, an outline of the proposal requirements, a description of the proposal review process, and a description of required contract ethics.

In order to ensure a fair review and selection process, firms submitting proposals are specifically requested not to make other contacts with City staff or City Council regarding these proposals. Failure to comply with this request may result in disqualification of the proposal. If there are questions regarding this process, they should be directed to: Tim Madigan, City Administrator, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057 (507) 645-3009 or [email protected]. Written questions regarding this RFP may be sent via e-mail to [email protected] prior to the submission deadline. Responses to the questions will be shared with all interested responders who have requested an RFP.

Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. It is neither the City of Northfield’s responsibility nor practice to acknowledge receipt of any proposal. It is the responder’s responsibility to assure that a proposal is received in a timely manner.

The City will not reimburse any expenses incurred by the responder including, but not limited to, expenses associated with the preparation and submission of the response and/or attendance at interviews.

The City of Northfield reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive irregularities and informalities, to request additional information from all respondents, and further reserves the right to select the proposal which furthers the best interests of the City.

Public Records and Proprietary Material Respondents are required to complete the attached Form Of Consent For Release Of Response Data (Exhibit “A”). Respondents should be aware that any records they submit to the City, or that are used by the City even if the respondents possess the records may be public records. The City will promptly disclose public records upon request unless a statute exempts them from disclosure. Proponents should also be aware that if even a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, generally, the rest of the record must be disclosed. Exemptions, including those for trade secrets and "valuable formula," are narrow and specific. Proponents should clearly mark any record they believe is exempt from disclosure.

Upon receipt of a request for public disclosure, the City will notify the proponent of any public disclosure request for the proponent's submittal. If the proponent believes its records are exempt from disclosure, it is the proponent's sole responsibility to pursue a lawsuit to enjoin disclosure. It is the

1 proponent's discretionary decision whether to file such a lawsuit. However, if the proponent does not timely obtain and serve an injunction, the City will disclose the records, in accordance with applicable law.

COMMUNITY/POSITION HISTORY

Northfield is a growing, full service city of approximately 20,515 people located within a forty-five minute drive of downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul. Northfield is a Charter City under Minnesota State Law. The City Council, which governs the city, is made up of a Mayor and six Council Members; each have one vote on the City Council and each serve a four year term with two Council members being at large and four being ward representatives. The City Administrator reports to the City Council and is responsible for managing the operations of the city.

The city employs approximately 91 full time/part time benefited employees and approximately 30 part time/seasonal non-benefited employees. Police protection is provided by 23 licensed peace officers and fire protection is provided by 30 paid on-call firefighters. Unionized employees are represented by four (4) separate bargaining units.

The total 2014 budget for the City is $28,521,159, with the General fund budget at $10,853,839.

The City has 14 boards and commissions including an Arts & Culture Commission, Charter Commission, Economic Development Authority, Environmental Quality Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, Hospital Board, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Human Rights Commission, Library Board, Park & Recreation Advisory Board, Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, Rental Housing Board of Appeals, Mayors Youth Council, and Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Alcohol & Drug Use.

2 SECTION ONE: SCOPE OF GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES

The law firm/attorney(s) are required to be knowledgeable in a variety of legal areas, including but not limited to:

 General municipal laws  General state and federal laws relating to municipal government  Zoning, housing, annexation, subdivision and land use law  Economic development activities including development, redevelopment, enforcement, and property/real estate law  Legal activity relating to general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, tax increment bonds, tax exempt bonds, and other bonding and financial processes  Ordinance and resolution development and interpretation  Government Data Practices  City Charter and City Code issues  Contract law  Environmental law  Franchise law  Municipal leases  Eminent Domain  Trial activity  Criminal Prosecution

CIVIL SERVICES COVERED BY RETAINER - Except as specifically limited below, the services and qualifications that are required by the City for civil law services covered by a fixed retainer fee include, but are not limited to, the following areas:

General 1. Meetings and/or telephone conversations with and advising Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator, Department Managers and other staff on general legal matters. 2. Research and submission of legal opinions on municipal or other legal matters requested by City staff or City Administrator; availability to answer staff questions by telephone. 3. Legal consultation and general support for Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator, Department Managers and other staff on general legal matters. 4. Provide high level of customer service by responding in a prompt manner.

Meetings: 5. Attend, as requested, regular City Council meetings and advise the Mayor, Council Members and City Administrator on matters of parliamentary law and procedures of a general matter. 6. Attend such special City Council meetings as the Council or the City Administrator directs. 7. Attend such meetings of boards or commissions as the City Administrator directs. 8. Attend such other meetings, planning sessions, conferences and/or departmental meetings as requested by the City Administrator. 9. Attendance at any 24 meetings during a calendar year, as described under items #5-8 above, shall be included in the retainer fee. Meetings attended in excess of 24 in any calendar year, shall be billed and paid at the previously agreed to hourly contract rate. 10. Review of City Council and Planning Commission agenda packets and minutes as requested. 11. Limited consultation with Charter Commission.

3 Legal Documents 12. Prepare such resolutions as the City Administrator or the City Council shall direct, except resolutions relating to the responsibility of the fiscal consultant or bond approving attorney. 13. Review of municipal contracts, including contracts for public improvements, developments, subdivisions, joint powers agreements, construction, purchase of equipment, and the like for content, form, legality and execution as requested. 14. Examine and advise regarding the legality of all proceedings and actions of the City Council and other boards or commissions. 15. Render written opinions on law when requested, including interpretation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations. 16. Drafting of ordinances, ordinance amendments, resolutions, developer agreements and contracts, subdivision agreements and correspondence as requested. 17. Review ordinances as requested. 18. Review bonds, deeds, securities and insurance requirements required by or for City contracts or activities. 19. Prepare small business assistance loan documents and related materials. 20. Review data requests and related documents and advise staff regarding release and redactions.

Public Improvements 21. Examine all petitions for improvements for validity. 22. Assist the city engineer in preparing preliminary report as to legal costs, easement costs, assessment methods, and assessment area. 23. Assist staff with special assessment processes and procedures. 24. Prepare or review such routine legal notices for posting, publishing or mailing as required by the statutory assessment process.

Real Estate Sale and Acquisition 25. Review acquisition requirements with appropriate departments, evaluate any special legal or cost problems, develop acquisition timetables, make preliminary cost estimates and obtain or develop proper legal descriptions. 26. Examine title to each parcel as requested by the City Administrator. 27. Prepare documents necessary for routine land purchases and/or sales. All such transactions shall be deemed to be routine unless the Attorney contacts the City in advance and obtains the City's approval that the transaction contemplated is non-routine. Any such non-routine transactions shall be billed at the previously agreed to hourly contract rate.

Zoning 28. Provide legal advice to staff, City Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council regarding zoning code matters. 29. Represent the City in matters related to the enforcement of city building, subdivision, maintenance and zoning codes.

CIVIL SERVICES COVERED BY HOURLY RATE - The services and qualifications that are required by the City for civil law services that shall be covered by a previously agreed to hourly rate shall include items not otherwise covered in this agreement and those listed below:

Public Improvements 30. Represent the City in the acquisition of properties for public improvements, easements, parks and the like as needed.

4 31. Perform all legal work in connection with financing, not usually performed by the fiscal consultant or bond counsel. 32. Receive and evaluate all assessment appeals and try cases in District Court or recommend amendments to assessment if warranted. 33. Handle all legal matters under construction contracts and any resulting litigation.

Land Acquisition and Sale 34. Represent the City in condemnation proceedings for public improvement projects, etc. 35. Initiate annexation proceedings at the direction of the City and follow through with all necessary documentation and presentation to the State Boundary Adjustments Division.

Economic Development 36. Representation of the City on Economic Development related issues, including developer agreements and tax increment document review as needed. Finance tax abatement and other forms of public finance assistance. Public financing assistance in public/private partnerships.

Claims Against the City 37. Where no insurance coverage is provided, make appropriate evaluation of claims for legality, investigate facts, and make recommendations to the City Council. 38. Defend in court all litigation where no insurance coverage is available. This includes but is not limited to: (1) human rights claims; (2) condemnation; (3) zoning and land use regulation matters; (4) permits and administrative actions; (5) administrative citations; (6) code enforcement issues; and (7) labor and employment matters. 39. Assist in resolving claims not resulting in litigation.

Claims By the City 40. Investigate and evaluate all claims by the City against others and recommend appropriate course of action, including, but not limited to: code enforcement issues and administrative citations. 41. Attempt collection of all proper claims including litigation where necessary and authorized by the City.

Intergovernmental Relations and Disputes 42. Provide such services as requested by the City regarding contractual dealings with Federal, State, County, Township, Municipal, and Special Districts by the City, including Joint Powers Act Public Improvements. 43. Handle disputes between the City and other governmental units, including litigation.

Zoning 44. Represent the City in litigation on zoning matters; i.e. rezoning, variances, special permits, subdivisions.

5 SECTION TWO: INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1. Proposals should be submitted to Deborah Little, City Clerk, City of Northfield, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057. Proposals should be received no later than 4:30 p.m. on March 03, 2014. 2. One (1) electronic copy (pdf) of entire proposal and two (2) paper copies of each proposal should be submitted. 3. All proposals submitted must provide complete information as indicated in this request. Any other information that the respondent wishes to include for evaluation and consideration by the City as part of the proposal may also be included. 4. Questions regarding this request should be directed to City Administrator Tim Madigan, City of Northfield, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, MN 55057, 507-645-3009 or [email protected]. In order to ensure a fair review and selection process, law firms submitting proposals are specifically requested not to make other contacts with City staff or City Council regarding their proposals.

SECTION THREE: REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS

1. Title Page - Show the RFP subject: Provision of Civil Attorney Legal Services, the name of the respondent’s firm, address, telephone number, e-mail, name of contact person, and the date.

2. General Information

 Provide a brief background history of the firm, and number of attorneys employed. An organizational chart or description of office organization would be helpful.  Designate the primary contact, and identify those who would be working in more specialized areas. Describe the current principle responsibilities for the individual designated as lead attorney.  Include a current resume for each attorney who will be primarily assigned to City of Northfield. This information should include relevant academic training and degrees, description of prior experience in law areas described in the scope of services, number of years with the firm, areas of responsibility with the firm, and other background or experience which may be helpful in evaluating your proposal.  Provide information as to how many attorneys are knowledgeable about municipal law and related fields as described in the scope of services.  Indicate the location of the primary office and attorneys assigned to service this account. Provide the address, phone number(s), e-mail address, and FAX number(s) of the firm.  Provide information regarding the number of paralegals by their specialties, and the number and position titles of support personnel, specifically those who may be providing services to the City of Northfield.  Provide an assessment of the availability of the attorney and other professional staff to be assigned to a contract with the City of Northfield. This includes availability of back-up attorneys in case of illness, turnover, or other loss of personnel.  Provide a statement of how the workload of the City of Northfield would be accommodated and what kind of priority it would be given. Be sure to address items outlined in the scope of services section. The proposal should expand upon each item and set forth the firm’s approach/ability to carry out each activity. Include a description of the proposed allocation of

6 work between the attorney(s) and support personnel identified (i.e. who will be the lead attorney and what work will be handled by junior partners, associates, or paralegals).  Describe your legal library and research capabilities, with specific emphasis on municipal law publications, computer links, and the firm’s capability to maintain a proposed response time for legal reports and memorandums.  Describe malpractice insurance coverage: carrier, limits, and exemptions

3. Knowledge and Experience - Provide information demonstrating the knowledge and experience of the primary attorney that will be assigned to the City of Northfield in the following areas:

a. General municipal laws b. General state and federal laws relating to municipal government c. Development Issues i. Zoning, housing, annexation, subdivision and land use law ii. Platting and Land Development Issues iii. Eminent Domain iv. MSA 429 Projects (Procedures and Appeals) d. Economic development activities including development, redevelopment, enforcement, and property/real estate law e. Municipal Financing – Specify whether the firm is a recognized bond counsel and plans to serve in that capacity in the proposed representation i. Minnesota tax increment law; ii. Municipal bonds: General obligation bonds, revenue bonds, tax increment bonds, tax exempt bonds, and other bonding and financial processes iii. Demonstrate knowledge of collection law and municipal finance and purchasing. f. Ordinance and resolution development and interpretation g. Government Data Practices h. City Charter and City Code issues i. Contract law j. Environmental law k. Franchise law i. Interpretation of cable television franchise authority ii. Water/wastewater, electric and other miscellaneous utilities, and related laws/regulations. l. Municipal leases m. Trial activity p. Municipal Litigation - Describe any municipal litigation handled in the last five years. Indicate the types of cases tried.

4. Specialized Issues - Any areas of specialty that may relate to municipal law may be outlined in this section.

5. References - Provide a reference list of three (3) recent (within five years) municipal clients. If municipal clients are not available, other major clients may be submitted. Particular attention will be given to municipal client references. Please provide contact information including, address, phone number and e-mail address.

7 fees to be submitted with two options: Options “A”: retainer plus hourly fees and Option “B” hourly fees for all work without a retainer.

OPTION “A” – RETAINER + HOURLY FEES: RETAINER – Please quote a retainer fee to be charged for civil attorney services and the items noted herein that are to be covered by the retainer. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.). Clearly note any “retainer” items listed above that your firm would not provide as part of the retainer duties and prefer to bill on an hourly basis. Please be specific.

HOURLY BILLING – Please quote the dollar amount of fixed and/or hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for providing legal services to the City of Northfield covered by your proposal that fall outside the duties covered by the Retainer. For the hourly fees portion of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of each attorney and support personnel. Identify the minimum increment of time billed for each service, e.g. phone calls, correspondence, personal conference.

OPTION “B” – HOURLY FEES ONLY: HOURLY BILLING – Please quote the dollar amount of fixed and/or hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for providing legal services to the City of Northfield covered by your proposal. For the hourly fees portion of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of each attorney and support personnel. Identify the minimum increment of time billed for each service, e.g. phone calls, correspondence, personal conference. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.).

The City requires detailed monthly billing statements that shall include but are not limited to the following items:

a. Itemize the date of services b. Identify the attorney and/or support personnel providing the services. c. List the time spent for each service or activity by tenths of an hour. d. Provide a detailed description of the services performed. e. State the fees for those services. f. Organize billing for general corporate work by department, type of services, and/or project. g. Itemize all associated costs and expenses related to the services performed.

8 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

 Indicate whether your firm currently represents, or has represented any client where representation may conflict with your ability to serve as City Attorney for the City of Northfield.  Indicate if your firm currently represents any real estate developers doing business with, or anticipating doing business with, the City of Northfield.  Indicate whether you currently represent any other local units of government having jurisdiction within, or contiguous to the City of Northfield.  Indicate what procedures your firm would utilize to identify and resolve conflicts of interest.

SECTION FOUR: SELECTION PROCESS/PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

The City intends to award a contract to the respondent best qualified to perform the work for the City, cost and other factors considered. The City of Northfield reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive irregularities and informalities, to request additional information from all respondents, and further reserves the right to select the proposal which furthers the best interest of the City.

The approval of the firm selected and the contract award will be made by the City Council.

A contract will be developed based on the information in the Request For Proposal.

Once a contract is awarded, the term of contract duration shall be subject to ongoing review and evaluation by the City Council and City Administrator.

Timeline

Action Date City Council Approval of RFP February 11, 2014 Advertisement of RFP begins February 14, 2014 Deadline for RFP March 14, 2014 – 4:30 p.m. Interviews Week of March 31 * Update to City Council at Work Session April 8, 2014 * Consideration of approval of selected firm and May 6, 2014 * award of contract by the City Council New contract begins July 1, 2014

* Tentative dates

SECTION FIVE: CONTRACT ETHICS

1. No elected official or employee of the City who exercises any responsibilities in the review, approval, or implementation of the proposal or contract shall participate in any decisions, which affects his or her direct or indirect personal or financial interest. 2. It is a breach of ethical standards for any person to offer, give or agree to give any City employee or council member, or for any City employee or council member to solicit, demand, accept, or

9 agree to accept from another person or firm, a gratuity or an offer of employment whenever a reasonably prudent person would conclude that such consideration was motivated by an individual, group or corporate desire to obtain special, preferential, or more favorable treatment than is normally accorded to the general public. 3. The firm shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the City. 4. The firm shall not accept any client or project that places it in a conflict of interest with its representation of the City of Northfield. If such a conflict of interest is subsequently discovered, the City shall be promptly notified.

Exhibit A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FORM OF CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF RESPONSE DATA

______, 2014

City of Northfield City Clerk 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057

Re: Request for Proposal: Attorney Services

Consent for Release of Response of Data

______, on behalf of ______, hereby consents to the release of its proposal in response to the Request for Proposals for Attorney Services and waives any claims it may have under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 against the City of Northfield for making such information public. The foregoing consent and waiver does not extend to financial statements, if any, submitted under separate confidential cover. Such information provided under separate cover may be public data, but will be treated by the City consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.

______Signature

______Printed Name

______Title

11 Exhibit B REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) PROPOSED FEES

OPTION “A” – RETAINER + HOURLY FEES:

RETAINER – Please quote a retainer fee to be charged for legal services and the items noted herein that are to be covered by the retainer. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.). Clearly note any “retainer” items listed above that your firm would not provide as part of the retainer duties and prefer to bill on an hourly basis. Please be specific.

2014 2015 2016 Retainer fee (monthly amount) Hourly Rate for Primary Attorney Hourly Rate for Other Attorneys (Please name):

Hourly Rate for Support Personnel (Name or title):

Itemized fees (please describe):

Minimum increments of time billed for each service (list):

Feel free to attach additional sheets to note:  Any “retainer” items that will not be provided as part of the retainer fee but rather billed on an hourly basis  Description of other costs items, if needed  Any other items related to fees that you feel are pertinent in the consideration of your proposal

12 OPTION “B” – HOURLY FEES ONLY:

HOURLY BILLING – Please quote the dollar amount of fixed and/or hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for providing legal services to the City of Northfield covered by your proposal. For the hourly fees portion of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of each attorney and support personnel. Identify the minimum increment of time billed for each service, e.g. phone calls, correspondence, personal conference. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.).

2014 2015 2016 Hourly Rate for Primary Attorney Hourly Rate for Other Attorneys (Please name):

Hourly Rate for Support Personnel (Name or title):

Itemized fees (please describe):

Minimum increments of time billed for each service (list):

Feel free to attach additional sheets to note:  Description of other costs items, if needed  Any other items related to fees that you feel are pertinent in the consideration of your proposal

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

CRIMINAL PROSECUTORIAL LEGAL SERVICES

February 2014

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTORIAL LEGAL SERVICES

February 2014

The City of Northfield is soliciting proposals for criminal prosecutorial services from qualified law firms. Preference will be given to those submittals demonstrating experience in this area of municipal law. The successful applicant(s) shall possess sufficient resources to ensure that the demands for the City’s legal needs will be met on a timely basis. The relationship would be on a consulting or contractual basis, as opposed to a staff position. The City will be awarding a three-year contract, with two one-year renewal options for these services.

COMMUNITY/POSITION HISTORY

The total 2014 budget for the City is $28,521,159, with the General fund budget at $10,853,839.

2 SECTION ONE: SCOPE OF GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES

The law firm/attorney(s) are required to be knowledgeable in a variety of legal areas, including but not limited to:

 General municipal laws  General state and federal laws relating to municipal government  Ordinance and resolution development and interpretation  Government Data Practices  City Code issues  Trial activity  Criminal Prosecution

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SERVICES COVERED BY RETAINER - The services and qualifications that are required by the City for criminal prosecution services covered by a fixed retainer fee include, but are not limited to, the following areas: General 1. Meetings and/or telephone conversations with and advising Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator, Police Chief, and other authorized staff on general criminal legal matters. 2. Research and submission of legal opinions on municipal or other criminal legal matters requested by City Administrator, Police Chief or other authorized staff; availability to answer staff questions by telephone. 3. Legal consultation and general support for Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator, Police Chief and other authorized staff on general criminal legal matters. 4. Provide high level of customer service by responding in a prompt manner. 5. Prosecute all petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and statutorily delegated gross misdemeanor offenses committed within the corporate limits of the City. This includes all such cases initiated by any law enforcement agency and citizen complaints including, but not limited to, traffic violations, DWI cases, theft and City Code violations. 6. Provide advice, consultation and training where required to the City's Police Department and to all other departments of the City in the interpretation and enforcement of statutes, ordinances and investigations of violations in connection with the prosecution of criminal cases. 7. Prepare criminal complaints where facts warrant. 8. Evaluate all cases where a plea of not guilty is entered and prosecute where warranted. 9. Prepare appropriate pre-trial notices as required. 10. Seek such additional investigation as required. 11. Negotiate and enter plea bargains where deemed advisable. 12. Represent the City at all pre-trial motions. 13. Perform all legal research and prepare briefs when required. 14. Try all jury and court cases. 15. Examine, evaluate and provide representation for all appeals to Appellate Courts. 16. Draft ordinances, ordinance amendments, resolutions, and correspondence as requested. 17. Review ordinances as requested. 18. Render written opinions on law when requested, including interpretation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations. 19. Ensure proper notification and preparation of police officers and staff for trial. 20. Investigate and evaluate all claims by the City against others and recommend appropriate course of action, including, but not limited to: code enforcement issues and administrative citations.

3 21. Attempt collection of all proper claims including litigation where necessary and authorized by the City. 22. Defend in court all litigation where no insurance coverage is available. This includes but is not limited to: (1) administrative actions and administrative citations; and (2) code enforcement issues. 23. Assist in resolving claims not resulting in litigation.

4 SECTION TWO: INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION THREE: REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS

1. Title Page - Show the RFP subject: Provision of Criminal Prosecutorial Legal Services, the name of the respondent’s firm, address, telephone number, e-mail, name of contact person, and the date.

2. General Information

5 work between the attorney(s) and support personnel identified (i.e. who will be the lead attorney and what work will be handled by junior partners, associates, or paralegals).  Describe your legal library and research capabilities, with specific emphasis on municipal law publications, computer links, and the firm’s capability to maintain a proposed response time for legal reports and memorandums.  Describe malpractice insurance coverage: carrier, limits, and exemptions

3. Knowledge and Experience - Provide information demonstrating the knowledge and experience of the primary attorney that will be assigned to the City of Northfield in the following areas:

a. General municipal laws b. General state and federal laws relating to municipal government c. Ordinance and resolution development and interpretation d. Government Data Practices e. City Code issues f. Trial activity g. Criminal Law i. Experience as a prosecuting attorney prosecuting criminal complaints on behalf of a unit of local government ii. Knowledge of Police Authority issues h. Municipal Litigation - Describe any municipal litigation handled in the last five years. Indicate the types of cases tried.

4. Specialized Issues - Any areas of specialty that may relate to municipal law may be outlined in this section.

6. FEES - Identify in your proposal the amount your firm proposes to charge for the following: Please provide billing information for a period of three years on the attached form. Fees for the two one-year extensions will be negotiated. Please note that the City of Northfield is requesting fees to be submitted with two options: Options “A”: retainer plus hourly fees and Option “B” hourly fees for all work without a retainer.

OPTION “A” – RETAINER + HOURLY FEES: RETAINER – Please quote a retainer fee to be charged for criminal prosecutorial services and the items noted herein that are to be covered by the retainer. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.). Clearly note any “retainer” items listed above that your firm would not provide as part of the retainer duties and prefer to bill on an hourly basis. Please be specific.

The City requires detailed monthly billing statements that shall include but are not limited to the following items:

7 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

SECTION FOUR: SELECTION PROCESS/PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

The approval of the firm selected and the contract award will be made by the City Council.

A contract will be developed based on the information in the Request For Proposal.

Once a contract is awarded, the term of contract duration shall be subject to ongoing review and evaluation by the City Council and City Administrator.

Timeline

* Tentative dates

SECTION FIVE: CONTRACT ETHICS

8 agree to accept from another person or firm, a gratuity or an offer of employment whenever a reasonably prudent person would conclude that such consideration was motivated by an individual, group or corporate desire to obtain special, preferential, or more favorable treatment than is normally accorded to the general public. 3. The firm shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the City. 4. The firm shall not accept any client or project that places it in a conflict of interest with its representation of the City of Northfield. If such a conflict of interest is subsequently discovered, the City shall be promptly notified.

Exhibit A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FORM OF CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF RESPONSE DATA

______, 2014

City of Northfield City Clerk 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057

Re: Request for Proposal: Attorney Services

Consent for Release of Response of Data

______Signature

______Printed Name

______Title

10 Exhibit B REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) PROPOSED FEES

OPTION “A” – RETAINER + HOURLY FEES:

2014 2015 2016 Retainer fee (monthly amount) Hourly Rate for Primary Attorney Hourly Rate for Other Attorneys (Please name):

Hourly Rate for Support Personnel (Name or title):

Itemized fees (please describe):

Minimum increments of time billed for each service (list):

11 OPTION “B” – HOURLY FEES ONLY:

HOURLY BILLING – Please quote the dollar amount of fixed and/or hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for providing legal services to the City of Northfield covered by your proposal. For the hourly fees portion of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of each attorney and support personnel. Identify the minimum increment of time billed for each service, e.g. phone calls, correspondence, personal conference. Also state separately the rate for any other cost items proposed to be itemized and billed (i.e. photocopying, Westlaw, or Lexis fees, overhead factor, etc.).

2014 2015 2016 Hourly Rate for Primary Attorney Hourly Rate for Other Attorneys (Please name):

Hourly Rate for Support Personnel (Name or title):

Itemized fees (please describe):

Minimum increments of time billed for each service (list):

Feel free to attach additional sheets to note:  Description of other costs items, if needed  Any other items related to fees that you feel are pertinent in the consideration of your proposal

12 CONSENT

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator

From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

Subject: Snow Removal on Northfield Trails System

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby approves a motion to remove snow from all City trails, as described in Option Three, below.

Summary Report: Included with this report are two maps. One shows the Northfield Parks, Open Space, and Trails System, and the second shows the snow removal performed on those various segments of trail and sidewalk. Some trails are not cleared of ice and snow, such as the trail through Char Carlson Park, Hidden Valley Park, a portion of the Sibley Swale Park trail, the East Cannon River Trail including the Peggy Prowe Bridge, and others.

When referring to the trails and sidewalks snow removal, the term used by the Streets and Parks personnel is “plowing the outbounds.” The outbound program includes all of the sidewalks abutting City owned property (such as City Hall, the Library, City Parks, etc.), and the aforementioned trails.

According to more senior staff members, in part it is a “this is the way it has always been done” issue, but there have been some minor modifications from time to time. The most significant changes occurred about five years ago when staff looked at the trails plowing program relative to the Safe Routes to School Study. We also have a “handshake” agreement with the Northfield School District maintenance personnel whereby they plow some areas beyond which they are technically obligated to plow, and we plow some of theirs. This is because it simply makes sense for both not to jump around but to plow the segment that may be in between two stretches each are required to plow.

Two substantial potential future additions to the outbound system are the TIGER Trail and the rest of the East Cannon River Trail. Combined, these two potential additional facilities would add about 2.8 miles of trails to the outbound system.

Each winter in recent years, staff fields calls from residents asking why we do not clear certain trails. Usually, the comments are something to the effect of “It wouldn’t be any big deal to add a few hundred more feet, would it?—why don’t you just do it?”

Option #1 - We could just do it, but with each little addition, before long we will have added a lot more, and if we are to maintain the current level of service we will have to discuss purchasing another piece of snow removal equipment and hiring another full time equivalent, or perhaps paying more overtime.

Option #2 - Would be to simply put the entire Outbound Program out for bid to have the work performed by a private contractor.

Option #3 – Simply plow the Outbounds using the personnel and equipment we already have, except everyone needs to understand it will take longer to finish the Outbounds, and the streets will remain the highest priority in snow removal. Currently we plow BOTH streets and the established Outbound routes simultaneously; once the drivers of the snowplows are done with their routes, under this third option they would use whatever equipment remains and some would start on the additional Outbounds. This third alternative is the simplest to implement. However, the level of service may not be up to everyone’s expectations in that some trail segments may not be cleared until the day after or even the second day after the snowfall.

The purpose in presenting this matter to the City Council is to have the Council provide direction to the staff as we head into budget preparation for the coming year.

Alternative Options: Leave the outbound snow removal program as is, or modify it.

Financial Impacts: Cost impact is undetermined at this point, but depends on the revision(s) made.

Timelines: To allow staff to more accurately and reasonably prepare the 2015 Budget.

Attachments: 1. Map of Parks, Open Space and Trail System Plan 2. Outbound Snow Removal Program

NORTHFIELD PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN Trail Classifications Park Classifications Future Park Development Neighborhood Park Trail Classifications Future Park Reserve Land Search Area Community Park Destination Trail - Core Athletic Complex Future Neighborhood Park Search Area, Inside Priority Growth Area Linking Trail - Core Greenway/Conservation Area/Public Open Space On-Street Bike Lane Open Space Future Neighborhood Park Search Area, Outside Priority Growth Area On-Street Bike Lane (One direction only) Natural Greenway Corridor On-Street Bike Route School Site Transit Hub Local/Neighborhood Trail Pond Northfield - 2008 Corporate Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Local/Neighborhood Trail (proposed connection) Wetland Priority Growth Area Feet Grade-Separated Crossing Miles Bridge 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

NEIGHBORHOOD FUTURE PARK RESERVE NORTHERN CORRIDOR PARK #7 LAND SEARCH AREA 47

NEIGHBORHOOD 23 PARK #8 3 MILL TOWN TRAIL - OPTION 'A' HAUBERG ALIGNMENT (PREFERRED) WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK #5 THYE PKY

THYE CT

FREEDOM CT

LIBERTY PRAIRIE PARK QUIE LN HILLS PARK GILL LN LUPINE DR NORTHFIELD G.A. NEIGHBORHOOD NO PROPOSED PARKS HOSPITAL RYSGAARD SHOWN IN THIS AREA PARK PARK #6 DUE TO CARLETON JOHN COLLEGE LAND NORTH OWNERSHIP 80TH ST E NORTH AVE PARK STANTON B LVD VIKING TER 19 HWY 3 N MILL TOWN TRAIL - OPTION 'B'

CEDARAVE GREENVALE ALIGNMENT SUMMERFIELD DR PARK DRESDENAVE DRESDEN

EAVES AVE ELEMENTARY HILLS HEEOAKSTHRE DR DIVISION ST N

FALKAVE PARK LINDEN ST N SCHJELMILE LN

LASHBROOK IVANHOE DR EDWARD LN NO PROPOSED PARKS PARK IVANHOE AV E SHOWN IN THIS AREA DUE TO CARLETON MILL TOWN TRAIL - OPTION 'C' COLLEGE LAND ALIGNMENT HIGHLAND AVE OWNERSHIP

WESTERN CORRIDOR 43 GREENVALE AVE

LINCOLN ST N NEIGHBORHOOD LONS DALE B LVD E NO PROPOSED PARKS HALLAV E PARK #4

SHOWN IN THIS AREA LINDEN ST N DUE TO ST. OLAF COLLEGE LAND

PLUM ST N OWNERSHIP CHERRY ST CHERRY GOULD LN OLIN DR PARK SPRING ST N

MA NITOUST N

ORCHARD ST N ST OLAF AV E

WATER ST N

1S T ST E 1S T ST W 1S T ST W 19 WAY PARK 2ND ST W 2ND ST E EBERT CT LONGFELLOW

WATER ST S

SCHOOL 3RD ST W 3RD ST E UNION ST S FOREST AVE DIVISION ST S CENTRAL WALL STREET RD 90TH ST E

90TH ST E WALDEN PL PARK 4TH ST W 4TH ST E ODDFELLOWS BRIDGE OAK ST S PARK AMESSQUARE PARK 5TH ST W TRANSIT 5TH ST E ELM S T S HUB MEMORIAL 6TH ST W 6TH ST E PARK INDUSTRIAL DR RIVERSIDE 7TH ST E NEIGHBORHOOD LIONS PARK DR

WASHINGTON ST S INDIGO LN PARK 8TH ST E PARK #9 BANEBERRY CT WASHINGTON

BABCOCK PRAIRIE ST SECHLAR PARK RD PARK PARK

9TH ST W WATER ST S 9TH ST E 9TH ST E DIVISION ST S HEYWOOD CANNON RIVER CORRIDOR WOODLEY ST E WOODLEY ST E BABCOCK WOODLEY ST W PARK ARMSTRONG RD EASTERNCORRIDOR SECHLAR ATHLETIC CREEK LN ATHLETIC COMPLEX FREMONT ST E PARMEADOW COMPLEX PARK COLLEGE ST S PROSPECT DR

ELM S T S SUMNER ST E 100TH S T E POPPY CT

MA PLE ST S MN 3 SERVICE RD SPRING ST S SUMAC LN 78 MARVIN LN SECHLAR SIBLEY PARK AMES ST SWALE GRANT PARK 28 PARK CAMPOSTELLA SIBLEY PARK LIA DR JEFFERSON RD NORTHFIELD ELEMENTARY NEIGHBORHOOD HIGH SENATE LN SIBLEY BIRCH LN PARK #3 100TH S T E SOCCER HWY 3 S SCHOOL MILL TOWN TRAIL FIELDS SPRING HARRISON CT

ALDRICH DR CREEK SPRING CREEK RD (EXISTING) ARCHIBALD ST RIVERVIEW DR PARK JEFFERSON PKWY W AFTON DR JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RD PARK TRUMAN BRIDGEWATER LA KE DR CANNON LN PARK ELEMENTARY ESTATE LN PETERSON DR JEFFERSON PKWY E

HONEYLOCUST DR HIDDEN TYLER SPRING HALLAV E MICHIGAN DR VALLEY ADAMS S T PARK CREEK PARK JOHNSON CT SOCCER ERIE DR

NORTHFIELD ASPEN ST COMPLEX BLUFF LN UNNAMED HERITAGE DR ROOSEVELT CARTER DR MIDDLE ASPEN SUPERIOR DR FUTURE PARK PARK PARK SCHOOL DUNDAS BLVD HERITAGE PARK ROOSEVELT SOUTHBRIDGE DR CANNON RD RIDGE ABBEY RD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK

HARBOR DR PARK #2 NEIGHBORHOOD FORD ST E CHAR PARK #1 COUNTY RD 1 E CARLSON NORTH ST PARK COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AREA WITH TRAIL ENDWOOD TRL

CONNECTIONS DENNISON BLVD

SCHILLING DR 2ND ST N HESTER ST E 246 3RD ST N 1S T ST N

FARRELL WAY 110TH ST E

FOX AVE STAFFORD RD N FARRELLAVE 1 20 SOUTHERN CORRIDOR 22

1S T ST S

Based on the Northfield Parks, Open Space and Trail System Plan Updated Oct. 8, 2008 96 23 96 47

19 59 79

1 1 81 246

8 TRAIL PLOWING MAP Legend 20 Trails Currently Plowed (8.4 miles) On-Street Bike Route City Hospital 22 Destination Trail - Core Local/Neighborhood Trail82 City Property Linking Trail - Core Local/Neighborhood Trail (proposed connection) Open Space On-Street Bike Lane Grade-Separated Crossing Park On-Street Bike Lane (One direction only) Bridge 30 Corporate Limits

Feet 4,000 2,000 0 844,000 REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: City Council City Administrator

From: Mayor Graham

Subject: Mayor’s Youth Initiatives

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby endorses the following Mayor’s Youth Initiative concepts:  Junior City Council  Youth Representatives on City Boards & Commissions  Internships/Employment Opportunities

Summary Report: During the City Council Work Session on January 14, 2014, several proposed youth initiatives were introduced and discussed. It is intended that these initiatives will be modeled and developed similar to the process that was used in the creation of the Mayor’s Youth Council in 2006. I will come back to council with information regarding framework and additional details for the groups as the concepts evolve. This is first step in the process and I welcome input, feedback and participation by Councilors in developing these initiatives. Northfield can learn from and build on youth engagement experience in other communities nationwide while becoming a model for Minnesota.

Since the initial discussion of the initiatives, I have received positive feedback from the Northfield School District, Northfield Hospital, chairs of the Arts & Culture Commission, and Park and Recreation Advisory Board, and leadership from both Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges. One of the best ways to build support for youth initiatives is to have clear expectations that the City is in it for the long haul. It is intended that this process be as inclusive as possible. The current Mayor’s Youth Council members will be used to help get the word out to interested students. Outreach efforts will also be made to students at Arcadia Charter School and home school students.

A brief summary of the proposed youth initiatives is listed below:

Junior City Council:  Provide opportunity for additional youth to become involved in City government  Agenda and information on the City’s website  HCI and Northfield High School will be the group liaisons/partners in this initiative

Next Steps:  Work with Mayor’s Youth Council on promotion and recruitment  Accept applications from interested youth  Approval of appointments

Youth Representatives on City Boards/Commissions:  Youth Representatives will be initially proposed for the groups listed below. Additional boards/commissions will be added later in the year: o Arts & Culture Commission o Library Board o Human Rights Commission o EQC o Park & Rec Advisory Board  Representatives will be voting members  Representatives will be appointed for one-year terms  There will also be an ex-officio non-voting youth member appointed to each group  Age group – High School 9th – 12th graders  These will be additional positions on the boards/commissions  It is intended that the youth would serve as liaisons to the Junior City Council and work closely with this group to make sure that the youth perspective is being represented

Next Steps:  Letters will be sent to all boards/commissions regarding this initiative. Discussions have already taken place with the Arts & Culture Commission and Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Chairs. As noted above, the feedback has been positive from the chairpersons of these two groups.  Review City Code for proposed amendments that may be needed  Work with Mayor’s Youth Council on promotion and recruitment  Accept applications from interested youth  Discuss/create mentors for the youth representatives on each group

Internships/Employment Opportunities:  Ads for City seasonal employment posted at the High School  Internships (unpaid) for Youth with the City

Next Steps:  Work with the City Administrator to create a workable structure

The National League of Cities (NLC) Institute for Youth, Education and Families (YEF Institute) created a guide for Authentic Youth Civic Engagement. They have created a framework to support cities as they work to promote youth civic engagement. Through a year-long process, the YEF Institute has brought together the strongest theory and the best practices of localities to provide guidance on the elements that make youth engagement in government meaningful and sustainable. Much of the information below is part of the guide.

Across the country, municipal leaders are discovering one of their greatest assets: the youth of their city. Increasingly, youth are working with elected officials and other city leaders to tackle the important issues of local government. More and more young people are also discovering that their voices matter to their communities, and that they can make their communities better places to live.

Elected officials and civic leaders find that when they offer meaningful opportunities for youth to be engaged in their communities, more young people participate and encourage their peers to do the same.

In addition engaging the next generation of civil leaders, cities already using this approach have realized many of the following benefits:  Budget savings and revenue generation  Increased support for City initiatives  Improved policies and programs for youth  Identification as a youth-friendly community  Improved indicators of well-being among youth

To welcome youth in government we need to:  Acknowledge youth as active civic participants  Create youth-friendly municipal processes  Listen to youth voices and open strong lines of communication  Promote youth leadership

Youth participation not only strengthens communities, it benefits youth by providing experience and is a great resume builder.

The YEF Institute Authentic Youth Civic Engagement framework presents four critical elements for successful initiatives:  A setting in which the civic climate of the community is welcoming and inviting to youth, acknowledging their role in public policy, planning and decision-making.  A structure in which the organization and system that supports youth civic engagement meets both the needs of the local government and the interests of the young people.  A strategy that offers a wide range of activities and provides youth with a breadth and depth of meaningful opportunities for participation in location government.  Support from adult allies, both within and outside local government, which enables the young people involved in youth civic engagement efforts to have a real impact on issues that concern them.

Voices from around the Country on Youth Civic Engagement:

“This generation of young Americans wants a chance to serve and learn simultaneously. The least that we can do is open the door and say, this way please and thank you.” Tom Brokaw

“I couldn’t believe during my freshman year of college that the kids from other cities had never met their mayor. I was the only one who had ever heard of a Comprehensive Plan.” Youth, Virginia

“I learned that I may not always agree with the choices of others, but I can understand that our differences stem from our experiences.” Youth, Washington

“We must give youth the same credibility as other community groups and legitimize their participation.” Elected Official, Colorado

“Kids ask why. This makes adults verbalize support for or opposition to issues.” Dana Graham

Financial Impacts: Anticipated to be minimal. HCI will be primarily responsible for staff liaison duties to the Junior City Council.

Timelines: Action Date Work Session Discussion of Mayor’s Youth January 14, 2014 Initiatives Council Endorsement of Concepts February 11, 2014 Letters to Boards/Commissions February 14, 2014 Promotion & Recruitment Mid February – Ongoing Mayor along with HCI & School representatives Mid February - Ongoing work Mayors Youth Council to create focus, structure and activities Board/Commission Ordinance Revisions As Needed Appointment of Members March 18, 2014

* Tentative dates

Attachments:  Minnesota Cities Magazine Article “Who Will Replace Us”

As I See It: Who Will Replace Us?

Minnesota Cities & Governing & Risk Legislative Action Training & More The League Managing Management Center Conferences ▼

Resource Library Issues & Trends Inquiries & Assistance City Action Examples Other LMC Programs & Services

View the May-June 2013 Issue (pdf)

Your LMC Resource

As I See It: Who Will Replace Us? Jim Miller Executive Director By Jim Miller (651) 281-1205 or (800) 925-1122 Former State Demographer Tom Gillaspy has often heard this question: “When should we have seen the [email protected] impact on the workforce now being felt by the retirement of the baby boomers?” His answer: “Sixty-five years ago, when they were born.” Browse by Department Of course, we knew that, but we nevertheless haven’t prepared especially well for how we will transition to a workforce that now has over 10,000 people retiring daily. Select a department to view both current & past stories. For government, it’s about more than numbers. Government, especially good government, requires competency, but also commitment to our democratic principles and belief in government as being fundamentally important to the quality of life we all seek. Will we be able to find adequate numbers of talented replacements who share a passion for making a difference Features through government service? As I See It Minnesota is also becoming, and will continue to become, more ethnically diverse. Many of these new citizens, along with Bits and Briefs the youth who were born here, will be needed to fill vacant elected and appointed positions in our communities. But will they even know about, much less consider, such choices? Will they have role models to inspire them to public service? Two-Way Street

I recall how I accidentally came to work in the public sector through an interview with the city manager in my hometown Ideas in Action when I was a senior in high school. I did this to fulfill a civics class assignment, but not because of any interest in or curiosity about local government. Regardless, that interview changed my life. From the Bench

I still remember how seriously he took that interview. I could tell local government was important to him and I quickly saw Letter of the Law the passion he felt for his career. He believed in what he was doing, and that he was making a difference. It was also apparent that he could have made other, more lucrative, career choices, but he was obviously committed to public service. Let's Talk At the end of the interview, he offered me an internship, which I accepted. I was hooked—I knew then what career to pursue. Ask LMC

I am quite sure this is neither a unique nor remarkable story. Many people have undoubtedly had their careers similarly shaped. I also suspect that many of these encounters occur by accident. I happened to interview this city manager. To my knowledge, no one else did the same before or after me. What similar impact might he have had on others provided with Minnesota Cities that same opportunity? Magazine

A few years ago, the Council for Excellence in Government surveyed 455 young people about their interest in public service and their views on role models. On the positive side, the primary reason young people cited for considering a public service Minnesota Cities magazine is career was to help people. However, the survey also found that only one-third saw government as an appealing career published bimonthly by the League of Minnesota Cities. choice. Subscribe to Minnesota Respondents distinguished between “public” and “government” service, expressing interest in helping people, but not Cities (pdf) necessarily through working for government institutions. More disconcerting was that they were least drawn to elected Advertise in Minnesota office; only one in 10 saw that aspect of public service as attractive. It is unlikely that a survey conducted today would Cities produce better results.

There may be many explanations for such a lack of interest in public service, but one of the primary considerations appears For editorial questions: Contact Claudia Hoffacker to be lack of role models. In this survey, only 5 percent listed mayors or other local officials as role models. In part, this Web Content & Publications finding was no doubt influenced by another survey finding—that only about one-fourth had ever been asked to consider a Manager career in local government, down from 35 percent when the survey was conducted only two years prior. (651) 215-4032 or (800) 925-1122 Clearly, there are many important issues commanding the daily attention of those in public service, and the job is not [email protected] getting easier. One of our most important challenges, however, must be cultivating the next generation of city officials. Some, like me, may stumble into public service, but that is not an adequate answer.

The legacy of those of us in public service today won’t only be the budgets we managed or the projects we completed, but also how well we have nurtured the next generation of competent, passionate, public servants. Are you doing your part?

http://www.lmc.org/page/1/AISIMayJune2013.jsp[1/31/2014 9:10:33 AM] REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator

From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

Subject: TIGER Trail Update

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council is being asked to pass Resolution 2014-018 – Selecting Alignment Alternative No. 1 and Directing Staff to Proceed with Revision of the Plans and Specifications and Rebidding of the Northfield Modal Integration Project.

Summary Report: On Monday afternoon, January 13, 2014, a meeting was held in the Northfield City Hall Council Chambers to discuss the efficacy of various options that have been identified for the TIGER Trail Project. This meeting was arranged by Fausto Cabral, MnDOT District 6 State Aid Engineer.

In attendance were:

 Fausto Cabral MnDOT District 6 State Aid Engineer  Merry Daher Office of MnDOT State Aid Local Transportation  Brian Homan MnDOT State Aid Bridge Office  Dave Conkel MnDOT State Aid Bridge Office  Don Sterna WSB & Associates  Tim Madigan Northfield City Administrator  Joe Stapf Northfield Public Works Director/City Engineer  Brian Erickson Northfield Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer  Jasper Kruggel Northfield GIS & Engineering Technician

In addition, calling in and on speaker phone were:

 Dave Scott FHWA Assistant Division Administrator  Tim Anderson FHWA Local Programs Engineer

Fausto Cabral opened the meeting, and asked me to provide a brief summary of what has transpired with the project and where we are today, including describing the alternatives that have been proposed since the bids were rejected on December 10, 2013.

Essentially three alternatives have been proposed for discussion, each of which is summarized below:

Alternative No. 1

Eliminate the bridge over the railroad tracks, and instead, route the trail along the south side of Greenvale Avenue from Spring Street utilizing the existing vehicular bridge over the railroad to near the intersection with TH 3, then southerly, more or less, following the originally proposed alignment. This would require some reconfiguration of the sidewalk section on the south side of the existing bridge, widening it to a total of 14 feet, which will allow a ten foot trail width, plus a two foot “reaction strip” on either side.

By utilizing the existing bridge which has a 22 foot clearance over the railroad tracks below, and a clear span that is narrower than what had been required of the new bridge, we will effectively lower the trail’s high elevation over the railroad tracks, improving (flattening) the grades for both approaches, thereby reducing the amount of grading (fill) required to establish the trail profile in this area. This improvement in grade will also result in lower cost. The positive impact resulting from reducing the “wet cast” retaining wall component will still further lower the construction cost.

The potential cost reduction identified by an analysis of the November 7, 2013 low bid could be as much as $750,000.

Alternative No. 2

This alternative proposes a substantially different alignment for the project. The trail would have the same starting and end points, with the northerly point still being the intersection of Spring Street and Greenvale Avenue, but from there would continue south along Spring Street to near the entrance to St. Dominic’s Church and School. From there the trail would turn eastward, running along the north edge of St. Dominic’s property, then turn southerly along the east edge of St. Dominic’s property where it adjoins the railroad right of way. At St. Olaf Avenue, the trail would turn east, running along the north side of St. Olaf Avenue, across the existing railroad tracks, then swinging northward far enough to accommodate the construction of an underpass under TH 3, then out the east side, swinging down to the St. Olaf Avenue/Water Street intersection. Once across Water Street, the trail would follow the alignment of so- called Segment 4 as originally proposed (behind the Crossings) continuing to the originally proposed endpoint at Second Street.

Alternative No. 3

This alternative would follow much of the proposed modified alignment of Alternative No. 1 along the south side of Greenvale Avenue, but instead of turning south at the SW corner of the Greenvale Avenue/TH 3 intersection, trail traffic would be routed across TH 3 using an at grade crossing. From there, trail traffic would continue east to Water Street, then south along the west side of Water Street to just across the railroad tracks. From there, the trail would follow the originally proposed alignment all the way to Second Street.

Alternatives Analysis and Discussion:

Alternative No. 3 was eliminated from further discussion, because as pointed out by the FHWA representatives, it did NOT meet the main objective stated in the grant application—that being establishing a grade-separated crossing of TH 3.

That left Alternatives 1 & 2 for further discussion.

Fausto Cabral reported he had discussed the possibility of constructing an underpass at this location with MnDOT personnel in the St. Paul office, who reviewed geotechnical reports from the previous construction activity in that same area of interest, and high water table, springs, and unstable soil conditions were identified. MnDOT found these conditions more than likely precluded the installation of an underpass at this location, at least one that was affordable.

In addition, pursuing this alternative at this stage ignoring the subsurface soil conditions would require significant time to prepare the proper analysis. The extended time for review required by the different sections within MnDOT meant that turnaround would likely mean the project could not be built this season. Even after that review was completed the findings would very probably be to reject this alternative because of the soil conditions.

Alternative 2 was essentially rejected.

That left Alternative 1 still on the table. Don Sterna and I both pointed out that Alternative No. 1 as described did not get the cost down to within the $1,918,537.37 estimated construction cost from the last project cost estimate. It was still about $150,000 to $200,000 short, based on the estimates.

Dave Scott then suggested we consider removing Segment 4 from the Base Bid, and instead set it up as Additive Alternative No. 1. The group further discussed the possibility of an additional alternative, which would involve the landscaping elements, and perhaps even the proposed lighting. After further discussion the group indicated the lighting should stay in the base bid as that was related to trail security. However, the landscaping elements, including the entrance monument at the intersection of Greenvale and TH 3 could be established as Additive Alternative 2.

Dave Scott then offered clarification of the FHWA’s use of Alternates in the bidding process. Additive Alternates must be set up in order of priority such that No. 1 is the first selected, then Alternative No. 2, and so on. That way, the bidders will submit bids knowing which Alternatives, if any, will be added, and in what order, and can calculate their bids accordingly.

Considering the project would still contain several elements identical to the previous bid, bidders would have already available information previously obtained for bid preparation. A three week advertising time should be adequate, thereby accommodating a potential award of contract decision by the City Council at its first meeting of April.

Summary/Recommendation

The recommended action is the preparation of a revised plan reflecting the modified trail alignment described in Alternative No. 1, above, and shown on the attached map. This revised plan would then be bid with a Base Bid and two Additive Alternates. The Base Bid would consist of revised Segment 1 and Segment 2, less the non-rain garden landscaping elements for the project. Additive Alternate 1 will consist of Segment 4; Additive Alternate 2 will consist of landscaping elements for the project.

Reworking the plans and specifications as described for Alternate No. 1 will require some additional time and expense on the part of the consultant, WSB & Associates, as well as review time by MnDOT and FHWA.

Don Sterna has indicated the cost will be approximately $48,000. Once authorized, he estimated one month would be required to complete the work. MnDOT and FHWA representatives indicated the review turnaround would be comparatively quick—perhaps no more than a week or two. A bid advertisement could be published as early as March 19, 2014.

Financial Impacts:

Based on an estimate prepared from the low bid of November 7, 2013, it is believed the cost of construction of that portion of the work included within the Base Bid amount will be within the established project budget. It is also possible that one or both of the Additive Alternates can be included. In any case, structuring the bid in this way will allow for an informed decision at that time. See attached Project Revenue/Expense Budget which reflects the proposed additional $48,000 expense for design services.

Timelines:

Revision of plans and specifications should be completed by March 5th, and review by MnDOT and FHWA by March 11th. A mandatory three week advertising time is required for federal and state aid projects, which means bids could be opened as early as April 7, 2014. That would give adequate time for review of the bids by all parties, and an award decision to be made by the Northfield City Council at its April 15, 2014 meeting.

An alternative option for the timeline would be for the City Council to require the revised plans be brought back to the City Council for review and approval. This would delay the advertising by as much as two weeks, and potentially push back the award of contract to May 6, 2014.

Attachments:

1. Resolution selecting Alternative No. 1 for revising the scope of the TIGER Trail Project 2. Project Revenue/Expense Budget 3. Maps of three (3) alternatives

CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2014-018 SELECTING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE NO 1 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH REVISION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND REBIDDING OF THE NORTHFIELD MODAL INTEGRATION PROJECT, SP 149-010-009

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Northfield, Minnesota on December 10, 2013 formally rejected the bids for the Northfield Modal Integration Project, State Aid Project Number 149-010-090, also known as the TIGER Trail; and,

WHEREAS, Northfield City Council directed staff to work with the City of Northfield’s design consultant, MnDOT, and the FHWA to revise the scope of the project to reduce the cost to an acceptable amount yet still achieve the goal of a grade-separated crossing of Trunk Highway 3 for non- motorized traffic; and,

WHEREAS, at a January 13, 2014 meeting with officials from MnDOT and FHWA, City Staff and the City’s design consultant reviewed three alternatives for the project, ultimately recommending Alternative No 1; and,

WHEREAS, the City’s design consultant, WSB & Associates, has indicated the additional work can be completed within the next month for approximately $48,000.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT:

The City Council of the City of Northfield hereby directs staff and WSB & Associates to proceed with revision of the plans and specifications for the TIGER Trail project based on said design Alternate No. 1, and an additional payment to WSB & Associates up to an amount of $48,000 is hereby authorized.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT:

Upon completion of the plans and specification revisions reflecting Alternate No.1, they shall be submitted to MnDOT and the FHWA for review, and upon approval shall be advertised for bid.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 11th day of February 2014.

ATTEST

______City Clerk Mayor

VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN

___ PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL

TIGER TRAIL- REVENUE AND EXPENSE-PHASE 2

Revenue

Resolution 2012-008 establishes the Tiger Grant Capital Projects Fund 2/2012-General Fund $250,000 250,000 2/2012-TIF #4 $250,000 250,000 9/17/2013

Resolution 2013-113 amends the 2013 budget 9/2013-Transfer Out from General Fund 273,617

FHWA Initial Grant Award 1,066,000

MnDOT Funding 596,453

Total Revenue 2,436,070

Expense from June 25th Total Construction Costs 1,918,537 Design Engineering Costs 243,000 Right of way costs 55,455 Union Pacific Railroad inspection agreement 41,000 Anticipated Construction Engineering Costs 125,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 2,382,992

DIFFERENCE (contingency) $53,077.63 GREENVALE AVE

GREENVALE PL

HWY 3 N

SPRING ST N

WATER NST

ST OLAF AVE

SPRING ST N TIGER TRAIL CORRIDOR

FIRST ST W ALTERNATIVE 01 WATER ST N

New Multimodal WATER ST N

LINDEN ST N New Bike Lane Crosswalk Existing Sidewalk

WATER ST S

SPRING ST S Feet 150 75 0 150

SECOND ST W GREENVALE AVE

GREENVALE PL

HWY 3 N

3 St. Dominic Church

SPRING ST N

WATER NST

ST OLAF AVE

TIGER TRAIL CORRIDORSPRING ST N ALTERNATIVE 02

FIRST ST W CULVERT WATER ST N

Underpass WATER ST N

LINDEN ST N New Multimodal Crosswalk Existing Sidewalk

WATER ST S

SPRING ST S Feet 150 75 0 150

SECOND ST W GREENVALE AVE

GREENVALE PL

HWY 3 N

SPRING ST N

WATER NST

ST OLAF AVE

TIGER TRAIL CORRIDOR

SPRING ST N ALTERNATIVE 03

FIRST ST W New Sidewalk WATER ST N

New Multimodal WATER ST N

LINDEN ST N New Bike Lane Crosswalk Existing Sidewalk

WATER ST S

SPRING ST S Feet 150 75 0 150

SECOND ST W Kate Josephson

From: Joe Stapf Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 4:57 PM To: Tim Madigan Subject: RE: Tiger Trail question Attachments: Joseph Stapf P E .vcf

According to the 1979 as built plans, the roadway portion (face of curb to face of curb) is 44 feet wide. The walkways on each side, between the back of curb and the bridge rail is 6 feet wide. Between the bridge rails, then, the bridge is 56 feet wide. If we widen the walkway on the south side to, say, 16 feet to allow 10 feet for the trail, a two foot wide reaction strip on each side, and then another two feet on the vehicular side for some type of rail or barrier, we will still have about 34 feet of width available for what amounts to two lanes of traffic, which is what the bridge carries now.

Joe Stapf, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Northfield, MN 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN 55057 507‐645‐3020

This e‐mail may be subject to exemptions or confidentiality requirements under Minnesota Public Records Law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication may be prohibited under federal law. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then please delete it. Thank You

 Please consider the environment before printing this email..

From: Tim Madigan Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:13 PM To: Joe Stapf Subject: FW: Tiger Trail question

Joe – can you answer this question?

From: Rhonda Pownell Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:44 PM

1 To: Tim Madigan Subject: Tiger Trail question

Hi Tim,

Welcome back!

I did have a question on the width of the Greenvale Bridge after widening the sidewalk on the south side for the trail.

We were told it is 44 feet wide. Is that just the driving lanes or does that include the sidewalks? What would the driving lane width go down to with the trail?

Thanks! Rhonda

2 REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council Tim Madigan, City Administrator

From: Melanie Schlomann, Finance Director

Subject: Approve 2013 Budget Amendment

ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution that amends the 2013 budget initially adopted on December 4, 2012. This is the third amendment made to 2013 budget. The first amendment was made on July 16, 2013; the second amendment was September 17, 2013.

SUMMARY REPORT: Not all fund budgets require adjustment. Only those funds needing modification are included in the resolution. The General Fund had four retirements of long term employees in 2013 which is creating the majority of the budget increase request. The remainder is primarily from above average snowfall. Following are brief explanations of the budget adjustments requested:

GENERAL FUND

General Fund Revenues - Intergovernmental revenues increase by a total of $650,649 and is made up of recognition of the remainder of Local Government Aid ($650,649) that the City has received this year.

The net change to the overall budget is reflected in the increase in the use of appropriated fund balance of $96,755. Originally the budget used $152,397 of fund balance. Throughout the year, we had two budget amendments for an additional $307,617 of expense. Total additional expense of $556,769 has been added to the budget with the inclusion of this budget amendment. Final numbers from the year-end close / audit process will very likely show an amount of fund balance used less than this. Even at this point in the year, a number of variables exist and it is difficult to estimate a year-end result within more than 2%.

General Fund Expenditures – General Government departments decrease by a net of ($99,245). By individual department the changes are as follows:  Mayor and Council – reduction of ($48,175) to distribute the allotment for Community Events back to the departments incurring the costs.  Administration – reduction of ($50,000) that accounts for a decrease to legal fees.  City Clerk – No change  Elections – total decrease of ($17,500) a temporary election worker was not hired ($7,500) and equipment was not purchased that was budgeted for (10,000).  Finance – ($15,000) net decrease due to salary lapse from personnel shortage.  Information Technology – zero net increase with higher personnel costs from an additional staff member, offset by lower spending in the supply accounts.  Human Resources –net increase $31,430 with higher personnel costs due to a director retirement, salaries increase $20,763, Medical/Dental Increase $32,667.25, offset with reduction in professional services ($10,000) and training costs ($12,000).  Community Development – increase of $25,500, with salary cost due to personnel retirement $20,000, and part time salary to hire a temporary employee $2,000. Also a $3,500 increase for vehicle allowance not originally put into the budget.  Planning – decrease of ($25,000) due to lower professional services costs.  General Government Bldg – No change

Public Safety departments decreased by a total of ($100,000). Individual department changes are as follows:  Police – net decrease of ($60,000), from lower personnel costs due to several salary lapses from personnel shortages.  Fire – net decrease of ($30,000), due to lower personnel costs.  Building Inspections – net decrease of ($10,000), due to lower supply costs.

Public Works departments increase by a total of $175,000. Individual department / division changes are as follows:  Engineering – No change  Streets – net increase of $195,000 due to higher personnel costs. $68,000 due to staff member retirement and labor for snow removal, and additional snow and ice control supply costs $97,000. Additional supply costs of $30,000 which includes Motor fuel and lubricants, Equipment Maintenance, Paint Striping, and Traffic Signals and Signs.

 Street lighting – No change  Facilities – zero net decrease ($20,000) made up of higher personnel costs offset by savings in professional services costs.

Culture and Recreation departments increase by a total of $21,000. By division, the changes are as follows:  Ice Arena – net increase of $33,000 due to higher electric costs $19,000, and higher salary cost $15,500, due to extended ice during the summer. Offset by lower Gas expense ($1,500).  General Parks – net decrease of ($40,000) due to trail maintenance expense not being used.  Outdoor Pool – net decrease of ($25,000), decrease of part-time salaries.  Recreation Administration – net decrease of ($10,000) due to lower salary costs.  Library – net increase of $63,000 as a result of director retirement in 2013. Higher personnel costs of $59,000, higher supply costs of $3,200, and increased charges of $800.

Other Financing Uses – the other category increases by a net of $100,000 as a result of the elimination of the ($100,000) budget contingency and the increase of $200,000 transfer out to the City Hall Remodel project. This was not included in the original 2013 budget for the general fund, but was included in the project plans presented to council on 5/07/13, 8/29/13 and on 01/07/14.

Special Revenue Funds The Cable TV Fund adjustment provides for an increase of $50,000 in appropriated fund balance. The Other Professional Services account was over budget due to scanning old documents in City Hall, to make room for the new engineering department.

Component Units The EDA Fund –no change The HRA Fund-no change

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2014-021 Amending the 2013 Budget 2. Revenue and Expense Summary of General Fund (unaudited)

CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MN

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2014-021 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE 2013 BUDGET

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council adopted the 2013 budget on December 4, 2012; and

WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the budget;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT the budget is amended as follows:

YTD Final Amended Change Amended General Fund Revenues by Major Category: Property Taxes 5,156,637 - 5,156,637 Other Taxes 82,000 - 82,000 Licenses & Permits 368,280 - 368,280 Intergovernmental 2,237,462 650,649 2,888,111 Charges for Service 1,503,585 - 1,503,585 Fines & Forfeitures 148,805 - 148,805 Other Revenue 417,625 - 417,625 Transfers In 334,888 - 334,888 Total Revenues 10,249,282 650,649 10,899,931

Expenditures by Major Function: General Government 2,258,053 (99,245) 2,158,808 Public Safety 3,584,230 (100,000) 3,484,230 Public Works 2,157,247 175,000 2,332,247 Culture & Recreation 2,015,403 21,000 2,036,403 Other 390,746 100,000 490,746 Transfers Out 303,617 - 303,617 Total Expenditures 10,709,296 96,755 10,806,051 Revenues less Expenditures (460,014) 553,894 93,880

Appropriated Fund Balance 460,014 553,894 93,880 Budget Balance -

Special Revenue Funds - Revenues: Communications Fund 489,936 - 489,936 Total Revenues 489,936 - 489,936

Expenditures: Communications Fund 489,936 50,000 539,936 Total Expenditures 489,936 50,000 539,936

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Northfield on this 11th day of February, 2014.

ATTEST

______City Clerk Mayor

VOTE: ___ GRAHAM ___ DELONG ___ LUDESCHER ___ NAKASIAN ___PETERSON WHITE ___ POWNELL ___ ZWEIFEL

Kate Josephson

From: David Ludescher Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:55 PM To: Tim Madigan; Melanie Schlomann Cc: Deb Little; Dana Graham Subject: RE: Budget Amendment - Council Agenda Item

Tim,

The replies do not address my concerns.

David

From: Tim Madigan Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:20 PM To: Melanie Schlomann Cc: Deb Little Subject: FW: Budget Amendment - Council Agenda Item

David – below please find the answers to your budget amendment questions that Melanie and I put together. Hope this addresses your concerns. Tim

From: David Ludescher Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 5:21 PM To: Tim Madigan Cc: David Ludescher; Dana Graham; [email protected] Subject: RE: Budget Amendment

Tim,

Sure.

First, I wonder about the propriety of going back to amend the 2013 budget. I think it is too late. The budget year is closed. Each year the City does two budget revisions to address unexpected changes in the departmental budgets through the year, about mid-year and year end. This process not only cleans up some of the budget details, it also acts as a communication process with the Council on the budget implementation. The City Auditor and Attorney has been consulted on this process to ensure the City is following State, GASB and Charter provisions.

Of course when the final 2013 financial reports are completed the auditor will present the financial statements for 2013 to the Council.

Second, why weren't we notified of a possible budget "overrun" before now? It seems to me that we knew or should have known that there was going to be an overrun as soon as we hired the new personnel. Staff does not normally bring the smaller and routine budget adjustments, e.g. retirements, to the Council individually. Any large or sensitive adjustments we would bring to the Council’s attention separately.

Third, I don't see much sense in doing a budget amendment to cover money that has not only been spent, but has been "approved" for spending by the council. One of the guidelines for the budget adjustments is that most of the changes of adjustment to line items be covered by a decrease to other line items or new revenue.

Fourth, every request for approval of disbursements indicates that the amounts being spent "are within budget", or some other indication that it has been reviewed and approved. If this sort of thing can happen, does that mean that "are within budget" is not reliable? They are within the fund budget, but a line item may need adjustment. 1

Fifth, can we get the budgets for the areas that went over budget, and see how they went over budget, and why? We can provide Councilors with the detail line items for fund or department budgets. Melanie’s memo to the Council addresses the budget adjustments and the reasons for them.

Sixth, I think this points to the dire need to have better monitoring and reporting on the budget. It still irritates the heck out of me that we get a 30 page list of disbursements for as little as $1.00, yet we don't even have a hint that we might be overrunning the budget. Again we can provided as much detail as the Council desires. I should point out that with multimillion dollar budgets for a wide range of services, some budget adjustment will be needed. A budget is a projection of revenue and expenses, which then is adjusted as needed throughout the year.

The Council’s work plan calls for the development of new finance policies with a Council subcommittee and staff. This will help get everyone on the same page in terms of finance guidelines.

I think you find as Melanie has more time to implement her finance quality controls that there will be an improvement in the budget process.

Lastly, with the inclusion of the TIGER trail monies (which I still don't understand how that made it into the 2013 budget when no money was spent) and these amendments, we went over budget, which I don't think we can do under the charter. If the revenues received are less than the amount expended, then we can't do a budget amendment.

Thanks, David

Melanie and I would be happy to visit with you or any councilor on the budget or finance issues and details. Tim Blind Copy Mayor and City Council

From: Tim Madigan Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:21 AM To: David Ludescher Subject: Budget Amendment

David – just wanted to follow up with you on the 2013 Budget amendments you asked about at the last Council meeting. It is rescheduled for Feb 11 Council meeting. Do you have budget questions you want staff to be prepared to address before the meeting or at the meeting? Thanks. Tim

Tim Madigan Northfield City Administrator 801 Washington St Northfield, MN 55057 507.645.3009 [email protected]

REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: City Council City Administrator

From: Michele Merxbauer, Community Development Coordinator

Subject: Acquisition of tax forfeit property

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby authorizes the HRA to submit the Application by a Government Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax-Forfeited Land for parcel 2212252012, for use as affordable housing.

Summary Report: Staff was alerted by the Rice County Auditor that a parcel has become available for acquisition by the City of Northfield or another public entity. The parcel in forfeiture is Parcel 2212252012 (2007 Hidden Valley Road), located near Jefferson Road and Heritage Drive. Under MS 282.01, Rice County is requesting the City Council or other public entity to approve the parcel for public auction, or auction to adjacent owners, or the City/public entity may request a conveyance to the City/public entity for public use. This parcel is a townhome property that may be an appropriate property for the HRA to utilize as an affordable rental property.

The HRA met on January 14th to discuss this opportunity and passed Resolution 2014-01, indicating an interest in the property for use as an affordable rental property and intitially recommended the City Council to request acquisition of this parcel from the State of Minnesota Trust for use as affordable housing. After further review of the State Statute and Department of Revenue regulations, and confirmation from the Rice County Auditor/Treasurer Department, legal counsel determined that the HRA could request the parcel directly as they are a recognized public entity.

The HRA shall request acquisition of the parcel from the Rice County Board of Commissioners under the option of “Remove blight/provide affordable housing.” These means are summarized below: MS 282.01 (d) Nonconservation tax-forfeited lands may be sold by the county board to an organized or incorporated governmental subdivision of the state or state agency for less than their market value if: (1) the county board determines that a sale at a reduced price is in the public interest because a reduced price is necessary to provide an incentive to correct the blighted conditions that make the lands undesirable in the open market, or the reduced price will lead to the development of affordable housing; and

(2) the governmental subdivision or state agency has documented its specific plans for correcting the blighted conditions or developing affordable housing, and the specific law or laws that empower it to acquire real property in furtherance of the plans.

If the sale under this paragraph is to a governmental subdivision of the state, the commissioner of revenue must convey the property on behalf of the state by quit claim deed. If the sale under this paragraph is to a state agency, the commissioner must issue a conveyance document that releases the property from the trust in favor of the taxing districts.

The HRA must utilize this property for affordable rental property. A household income level and set rent amount would be placed on the unit. The definition of “affordable” varies depending upon state or federal program; the HRA would not set rent above HUD’s recommended Fair Market Rate, which for federal fiscal year 2014 for a three bedroom unit in Rice County is capped at $1,231. The rent could also be set at a lower amount, based on local poverty rates. For example, the Spring Creek Townhomes have a rent of $725 for a three bedroom unit; this is considered affordable at the 60% area median income for Rice County for a family of four. The HRA has also discussed the option of sub- letting the unit to a third party, such as Three Rivers Community Action or the Northfield Community Action Center, for transitional housing.

The HRA has determined a need for affordable rental units still exists in Northfield. The 28 three and four bedroom townhomes in Spring Creek leased up before the units were completed, and the vacancy rate for larger sized rental property continues to be very low. The HRA had a four-bedroom townhome available for rent last fall and receive 8 applications in 5 days, four of which were from families of six persons or more; two of those households were living in 2-bedroom units at the time of application. By obtaining this rental unit, the HRA can continue to provide affordable rental opportunities for larger households. Also, all rental units owned by the HRA pay property tax at a higher, non-homestead rate. If this tax forfeit unit is obtained by the HRA, it also will be a tax-generating property.

The HRA may acquire this parcel for less than fair market value if it used for affordable housing. Current market value, according to the Rice County Assessor’s Office, is $116,300. The HRA is requesting a purchase price starting low but not to exceed a purchase price of $68,000. This is still below fair market value; it should also be assumed that the property will need some basic maintenance, repairs or upgrades before it may be rented to a household.

Alternative Options: The City may indicate an interest in the property and offer full market value for the unit. This would allow the City to either keep it for a rental property or other use.

The City could also indicate an interest in the property for less than full market value and donate it to a separate organization with a legal condition that it must be used for affordable housing. Examples of this could be Habitat for Humanity or use as transitional housing by Three Rivers Community Action or the Community Action Center.

Timeline: The City of Northfield or the HRA must indicate its intent in writing by February 17, 2014. Failure to submit a written document will be indication that the City of Northfield is not interested in the property

and gives authorization for the County Board of Commissioners to offer the property for public auction.

Attachments: 1. Location Map

Tax Forfeit Property: Hidden Valley Road

Disclaimer: This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Property data from Dakota & Rice Counties is approximate and not legally binding. Map created on Jan 14, 2014 4:03. Contact the appropriate county with property corrections. © 2014 City of Northfield, All Rights Reserved REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator

From: Joseph L. Stapf, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

Subject: Storm Water Regulations

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council is being asked to adopt Ordinance No. 956, which revises and updates the City of Northfield’s Storm Water Regulations, which are included in the City Code in Chapter 22 Environment, Article VI.-Surface Water Management, Division 2. Stormwater Management.

Summary Report: As we have discussed with the City Council on two previous occasions over the past year, on nearly every development and redevelopment proposal staff has been working with the above referenced section of the City Code to achieve appropriate implementation and compliance. The challenge for staff, and for all developers, is to identify and include in their proposals a means to achieve the compliance with:

1. Water quality requirements, 2. Level of flow control (rate of runoff), and 3. Volume control.

There are six key features to the stormwater ordinance that will be changed: 1. A stormwater management plan will not be required if the project results in less than one (1.0) acre of new impervious area, unless it is located in a shoreland area. 2. Any impervious change up to 3000 square feet shall pay a stormwater availability charge. 3. Developments that increase impervious area between 3000 square feet and one (1.0) acre has the option to pay the stormwater availability charge (SWAC) or prepare a stormwater management plan. 4. If there is no net increase in impervious area, no stormwater availability charge (SWAC) will be required. 5. The 24-hour storm event precipitation totals have updated to reflect the NOAA Atlas 14 data. 6. Infiltration rates have changed from the first 0.75 inches of precipitation to the first 1.0 inches of precipitation.

For expansion/redevelopment, the runoff must not exceed current runoff. The new Police Facility for example, would be interpreted as expansion, as it is “in-fill” within a developed area. For property on the outskirts of town (i.e., that is currently under cultivation) such as the recently acquired Fargaze Meadows property, anything proposed there would be considered new development.

In the case of all new development and all development in the Rice Creek Watershed, the post development runoff water quality, rate of flow, and volume requirements must meet PRE-SETTLEMENT conditions. For expansion/redevelopment (in the rest of the City), the water quality, rate of flow, and volumes must not exceed what is already existing. As one might conclude, the pre-settlement condition is much more restrictive, and therefore more difficult to achieve. There are identified multiple conditions that must also be analyzed, including the 1, 2, 10 and 100 year storm events, and the 100 year, ten-day snow melt event (a predictor of spring flooding). A comparison of how Northfield stacks up to other communities was prepared by Bolton & Menk. For your ready reference, that memorandum from Lani Leichty, P.E., is attached.

Storm Water Management Plan Threshold

The most obvious difference between most other ordinances and that of Northfield is that Northfield has no minimum area of increased impervious surface allowed below which the storm water management regulations do not apply. The MPCA General Permit and the requirements of Elko/New Market, Empire Township, and the Vermillion River JPO all allow up to 1 acre of new impervious area before storm water management regulations are brought to bear.

While the Cannon River carries a designation as an Outstanding Value Resource Water, the Vermillion River is a designated trout stream. It is obviously environmentally sensitive. The Vermillion River carries a much lower volume of flow, as well. The draft Cannon River’s soon to be completed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis is not significantly different from that of the Cannon River, so staff questions the necessity of Northfield having in place restrictions that are much tighter than those implemented for the Vermillion River. While Northfield certainly can implement more restrictive regulations, it places a disparate burden upon Northfield property owners and developers compared to their counterparts within the Vermillion River Watershed. Some relaxation of the regulations should be considered if we are to address the concerns heard over and over regarding the unfriendliness (perceived or real) toward growth and development.

Even though the Northfield Ordinance is silent on a minimum increase in impervious area, it appears that administratively the practice has been in Northfield to initiate storm water management ordinance requirements using a threshold of 500 square feet, which is roughly the equivalent of 2 parking stalls. I believe such obviously important criteria should be unequivocally established by City Ordinance adopted by the City Council.

Council is also reminded that in August, 2012, there was developed and adopted Resolution 2012-075, which established an Interim Storm Water Accessibility Charge (SWAC) in cases where the first three of the options identified in Section 22-302 c(5) were impossible to achieve, such as for downtown properties. Most recently, we just applied the SWAC to the Cardinal Glass expansion, whereby their impervious area will be increased by 3,800 square feet.

This 3,800 ft² of impervious area was calculated to be equal to 1.1 Equivalent Residential Units; Cardinal Glass was therefore charged a SWAC of $910.00 (1.1 X $850).

At our last discussion of this issue, I had suggested the Council give consideration to modifying the existing ordinance such that a one acre threshold was established at which the storm water management planning requirement was brought to bear. In view of the reservations expressed by Councilors at that suggestion, I have revised my proposed Ordinance revision. It would still establish a one acre threshold for a required storm water management plan, but would require the payment of the SWAC charge for all proposals creating any increase of LESS than one acre of new impervious area. It would also still allow a developer proposing less than one acre of new impervious area to submit a storm water management plan in lieu of paying the SWAC.

Further clarification is added which allows conversion of the parking area to building footprint under redevelopment proposals. The recent NAPA Auto Center redevelopment involved replacement of pavement with building. Staff felt it necessary to conservatively interpret this as a change which required a storm water management plan analysis. Ultimately, a SWAC was assessed because the implementation of any storm water management plan provisions on the site was severely limited. Under the proposed ordinance revision, there would have been no SWAC charge, as long as there is no change in impervious area.

In the recent case of Cardinal Glass (cited above) they are proposing 3,800 ft² of new impervious area. It is less than one acre so no planning analysis would be required the recommended new ordinance language, but we would still collect the $910 SWAC fee. Cardinal Glass would still have the option of submitting the storm water management plan in lieu of paying the SWAC. However, in view of the relatively small amount of the SWAC, I suspect that would be very unlikely. Someone proposing 40,000 ft² of new impervious area, however, would be required to pay a SWAC of nearly $10,000. While still under the proposed 1 acre threshold, that amount of SWAC may be enough SWAC for a developer to consider preparing a storm water plan, instead.

Storm Water Infiltration

The current Northfield City Code requires the first 3/4” of rainfall be retained and infiltrated as part of a site’s storm water management plan. The State of Minnesota just recently raised this amount to 1” of rainfall. The appropriate code provision must be revised to match the state’s requirement.

Rainfall Data

One other important proposed revision to Chapter 22 of the City Code involves the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s release this past spring of its so-called Atlas 14 Point precipitation frequency estimates. This new information establishes updated guidance for storm water management activities of all types such as what amount of rainfall in any given duration of time constitutes what frequency of rainfall event. The link to the NOAA website appears below: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?lat=45.0000&lon=-94.0000

Once there, entering the coordinates 44.550, and -93.10 for lat./long. will bring up the information applicable to Northfield.

The following table compares the existing ordinance language to the new rainfall numbers:

inches Year storm Existing (24-hour event) city revised code data 1 2.3 2.46 2 2.8 2.8 10 4.25 4.16 100 6.1 7.37

Under the new NOAA Atlas 14 data, our old 6.1”-24 hour event is now considered about a 50 year event. To design future retention basins to the required 100 year storm, we must figure in greater amounts of rainfall. In the briefing I attended last January about this then-upcoming revision, we were advised the reason for the change is there are better and more widely reported rainfall data upon which to base this analysis that have been accumulated over the last 40-50 years. As I recall global climate change was not an issue in the discussion. To reconfigure our existing basins to accommodate the newly recognized 100 year storm events will be costly and most likely impractical where land for that purpose is not readily available. In most cases it is NOT available. One of the few ponds that could be expanded is that in the recently required Meadows Property (as we have discussed on other occasions). According to the Carleton College rain gauge station, the storm of July 13, 2013 was 4.7 inches, and it lasted 5 hours. According to the new Atlas 14 rainfall information, that storm was a 30 year-5 hour event. However, the water levels we saw on the Cannon River just downstream from the dam at Water Street appeared to be at or just above the 100 year flood event. That is because much greater amounts of rainfall occurred farther upstream in the Cannon River Watershed. Alternative Options: An obvious alternative is to do nothing, or perhaps for land development purposes, establish a different minimum threshold area for triggering storm water management review. In the case of the rainfall data, there really is no alternative. Failing to adopt the new numbers will result in inadequately designed future retention basins. I have been advised that MnDOT has already adopted the new rainfall data, and is now requiring storm water infrastructure for state highways to be designed accordingly.

Financial Impacts: This will not change the City of Northfield’s expenses/costs for storm water review because at present the developer/proponent pays for that. It may actually reduce developer costs, however, as it will result in a simple SWAC calculation. There will be less staff time involved in plan review and analysis.

Timelines: Staff has no time line for action by City Council

Attachments 1. Lani Leichty (Bolton & Menk) Memorandum 2. Proposed ordinance revision

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: October 15, 2012 To: DRC Members From: Lani Leichty, P.E. – Bolton & Menk, Inc. Subject: Storm Water Standards Discussion

At the September 9, 2012 DRC meeting, City staff asked for a table that compares agency storm water standards. In the tables below I have listed the current rate and volume control requirements for the MPCA, City of Northfield and several nearby governing bodies. I have also included the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as an example for discussion and excerpts from work sessions and advisory/community meetings.

The NPDES permit requirements for rate and volume control are not mandatory until one (1) acre or more of new impervious surface is created by a project. An NPDES permit is not required for projects that disturb less than one (1) acre of land. The water quality standards or more stringent in the NPDES permit when discharge from a project drains to special or impaired water within one mile of the site. There are two special waters in the City of Northfield:

• Cannon River is a Scenic And Recreational River • Spring Brook (aka Rice Creek) is a DNR Designated Trout Stream

AGENCY RATE CONTROL STANDARDS

AGENCY STANDARD RATE CONTROL NPDES (MPCA) >= 1 acre of new 5.66 cfs/ac pond surface area impervious area City of Northfield No change over 2, 10 & 100-yr, 24-hr storms; 10-day, 100-yr existing conditions (1) snowmelt Vermillion River JPO >= 1 acre of new 1 & 10-yr critical storms; 100-yr, 4-day impervious area storm Elko New Market >= 1 acre of new 1, 2, 10 & 100-yr, 24-hr storms impervious area (2) Empire Township >= 1 acre of new 1, 2, 10 & 100-yr, 24-hr storms impervious area Minnehaha Creek WD See Tables 1-4 below

(1) No minimum size threshold.

(2) Redevelopment is exempt unless the activity creates more than one-tenth (0.1) acre of new or additional impervious surface. AGENCY VOLUME CONTROL STANDARDS

AGENCY STANDARD VOLUME CONTROL NPDES (MPCA) >= 1 acre of new impervious area 0.5” City of Northfield Runoff from impervious surfaces, no 0.75” minimum amount Vermillion River JPO >= 1 acre of new impervious area 2-yr, 24-hr storm Elko New Market >= 1 acre of new impervious area 2-yr, 24-hr storm (1) Empire Township >= 1 acre of new impervious area 2-yr, 24-hr storm Minnehaha Creek WD See Tables 1-4 below

(1) Redevelopment is exempt unless the activity creates more than one-tenth (0.1) acre of new or additional impervious surface. The volume requirement applies only to new impervious areas.

NPDES Permit Rules:

REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES TO SPECIAL WATERS AND IMPAIRED WATERS

Additional BMPs together with enhanced runoff controls are required for discharges to special waters and impaired waters. The BMPs identified for each special or impaired water are required for those areas of the project draining to a discharge point on the project that is within one mile of a special or impaired water and flows to that special or impaired water.

Post construction. The water quality volume that must be treated by the project’s permanent stormwater management system described in Part III.C. shall be one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project. Where site conditions allow, at least ½ inch of the water quality volume must be infiltrated.

City of Northfield:

Runoff volume control criteria.

(1) New development and expansion/redevelopment projects. Projects must infiltrate the first 0.75 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces. (note: no minimum amount)

(5) Where achieving volume control standards through infiltration is not possible due to site limitations (see immediately preceding subsection), or where space limits opportunities for site redevelopment and expansion, the following steps will be considered in order of decreasing preference and approved by the city engineer:

a. Modifications to the site design to incorporate additional LID or "better site design" practices as described in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, to the extent practical.

b. Use of filtration practices.

c. Opportunities for storage and reuse of water on-site.

d. Purchase of volume-control capacity in a city owned facility through the payment of a stormwater availability charge (SWAC) in lieu of on-site volume control measures. 2

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Requirements, Tables 1-4

Table 1: Stormwater management requirements for new development

Site Size Impervious Surface Requirements < 1 acre N/A None ≥ 1 acre < 20% of site None ≥ 20% of site Phosphorus Control, Rate Control, and Volume Control

Table 2: Stormwater management requirements for redevelopment resulting in a decrease or no change in impervious surface

Site Size Site Disturbance Impervious Reduction Requirements

10% reduction in impervious None surface ≤ 1 acre N/A 0 - 9% reduction in impervious Incorporate BMPs surface

10% reduction in impervious None < 40% site surface disturbance 0 - 9% reduction in impervious Incorporate BMPs surface

1 - 5 acres 10% reduction in impervious None surface ≥ 40% site Volume control disturbance 0 - 9% reduction in impervious required for site’s surface impervious surface

10% reduction in impervious None < 40% site surface disturbance 0 - 9% reduction in impervious ≥ 5 acres Incorporate BMPs surface

Volume control ≥ 40% site N/A required for site’s disturbance impervious surface

Table 3: Stormwater management requirements for redevelopment resulting in an increase in impervious surface

Site Impervious Surface Site Size Requirements Treatment Scope Disturbance Increase ≤ 1 acre N/A N/A Incorporate BMPs N/A

< 50% increase in Additional < 40% site impervious surface Phosphorus, Rate impervious surface disturbance ≥ 50% increase in and Volume Control Entire site’s > 1 acre impervious surface impervious surface

≥ 40% site N/A Phosphorus, Rate Entire site’s disturbance and Volume Control impervious surface

Table 4: Stormwater management requirements for linear transportation projects

Impervious Project Type Requirements Treatment Scope Surface Increase

< 10,000 square New Linear None N/A feet Transportation ≥ 10,000 square Phosphorus Control, Rate New impervious Project feet Control, and Volume Control surface

< 10,000 square None N/A Linear feet Reconstruction ≥ 10,000 square Phosphorus Control and Additional Project feet and < 1 acre Rate Control impervious surface Phosphorus Control, Rate Additional ≥ 1 acre Control, and Volume Control impervious surface

Discussion Most rules require rate and volume controls for development when the 1 acre threshold has been reached. Currently, there are no thresholds mentioned in the City’s ordinance for rate and volume control for new development and expansion/redevelopment projects.

Recommended Next Step Discuss whether or not thresholds should be added to the stormwater ordinance for applying the rate and volume control criteria for development.

Background Information – Excerpts from Work Sessions and Advisory/Community Meeting Notes ------

June 9, 2010 Advisory and Community meetings Group 3 Discussion Notes

Policy questions for small group discussion

STORMWATER ORDINANCE QUESTIONS

Introduction: The City has developed a draft Stormwater Ordinance to manage stormwater runoff from developed sites after construction activity has ended. The Stormwater Ordinance applies regulations at the time of development activity through a variety of performance standards. Most of the performance standards are intended to be applied city-wide. However, anticipating that some land within the Rice Creek Subwatershed may be annexed in the future, the ordinance includes more restrictive performance standards for development in the Rice Creek Subwatershed. Feedback on the following questions from interested stakeholders will help the City refine the draft ordinance standards and requirements

1. The following redevelopment activities would require a site plan review and hence must comply with the requirements of the stormwater ordinance. Should these redevelopment/expansion projects be regulated by the stormwater ordinance or should they be exempt?

a. An existing downtown building is razed in order to construct a new building in its place

Yes, but look at tax base and details and encourage through incentives.

b. An existing downtown building is completely gutted and remodeled (but no grading is needed).

Opportunity to improve over current situation, but no if it discourages redevelopment. Try to avoid disparity with other cities and Dundas.

c. A new building is added to a parcel (anywhere in the existing city) that currently only contains a parking lot.

d. An existing building (anywhere in the existing city) expands its footprint by 10%.

For each of these we have an opportunity to address a lack of stormwater management (Assuming that stormwater requirements did not exist when the building was constructed). In each case the group found it difficult to give a definitive answer due to a lack of $$ for the fees. The group ultimately agreed that

with each option the fee (SWAC) or other costs to developer should be considered such that it encourages development appropriately. Specifically, the group felt that for a) they should be required to meet the requirements whether it’s through onsite practices or through a cash-in-lieu buy in. b) the line begins to gray, but there seems to be some opportunity to address issues with a complete gut and remodel (i.e. gray water system, green roof, etc.). A cash-in-lieu of fee could be set to encourage these practices. The group did discuss the difference between a complete gut and remodel and just a change in use where you might change a retail space from a pizza restaurant to a coffee shop. In this instance, there is little opportunity to address stormwater. c) Like the others, we have an opportunity to address stormwater however, the costs of the requirements need to be such that we don’t discourage or prohibit development increasing our tax base. ------

June 9, 2010 Advisory and Community meetings Policy questions for small group discussion

STORMWATER ORDINANCE QUESTIONS

a. An existing downtown building is razed in order to construct a new building in its place

YES, a change in site should trigger the SW Ordinance; however, it is important for there to be a menu of possible choices so that in cases where the site does not promote SW mgmt payment can be made in lieu of on-site facilties. When some parts of the city were planned and constructed (e.g., downtown), stormwater was not a major factor to be considered. Many of those sites will be challenges for on-site SW mgmt. Some members of group would like to see the in lieu of fee based on the amount of water leaving the site.

b. An existing downtown building is completely gutted and remodeled (but no grading is needed).

NO, if the work is only internal to a structure the SW Ordinance should not be triggered. If there is some way to permit some incentives for doing something under this scenario that would be a better approach.

c. A new building is added to a parcel (anywhere in the existing city) that currently only contains a parking lot.

YES, a change in site should trigger the SW Ordinance. See response to part a.

d. An existing building (anywhere in the existing city) expands its footprint by 10%.

YES, a change in site should trigger the SW Ordinance. See response to part a.

------City Council Work Session Date: June 22, 2010

Stormwater Management Policy Questions

1) Comparison to Other Cities

Background Ordinance language and specifications were determined by the following method: o Ensure compliance with state and federal regulations o Obtain input from Advisory Group and Public on positioning relative to other cities o Examine research available to support regulation specifications (e.g. thermal buffers) o Consider impact on city resources to implement and enforce o Consider whether the complexity of regulations is a barrier to development and/or compliance

Question Is the City of Northfield properly positioned on surface water management issues relative to other cities while meeting our water quality goals including compliance with federal and state standards?

Recommendation: The ordinance positions Northfield well relative to nearby cities. The TSC has ensured that the ordinance is in compliance with all existing state regulations and that it will likely comply with expected state and federal requirements to improve water quality in the Cannon River, Rice Creek, and Heath Creek. Input from the Advisory Group and the public indicated a desire for the community to exceed state standards but not to be so restrictive as to encourage

development to move to competing cities. In most parameters the ordinance is slightly more restrictive than Faribault while equal to or slightly below Farmington and Lakeville. (Farmington has an extremely restrictive infiltration standard that the TSC felt was beyond the point of diminishing returns as it pertains to cost and performance).

2) General Applicability to Redevelopment vs. New Development

Background The Surface Water Management Plan and the draft ordinance language recognize that there are different opportunities and challenges with meeting the stormwater performance standard on redevelopment sites versus new development sites. In many cases sites that are slated for redevelopment were originally planed and developed prior to any type of stormwater management regulation. Therefore, accomplishing stormwater management on site leads to space challenges that can be costly enough to discourage redevelopment in general. In following the Comprehensive Plan development priorities, there could be provision in the stormwater ordinance to incentivize redevelopment.

Questions

Question A. Should redevelopment sites be held to the same infiltration standards as new development? Recommendation Buy-in option if onsite mitigation is not possible

ORDINANCE NO. 956

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 - ENVIRONMENT OF CITY CODE RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 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 22 – Environment, Article VI. – Surface Water Management, Division 2 . – Stormwater Management, Section 22-300. Purpose, scope and definitions, paragraph (c), is hereby amended to read as follows:

(1) Any development or expansion/redevelopment project which results in less than one (1.0) acre of new impervious area, unless the development is located in a shoreland area. However, all development proposals having less than one (1.0) acre, but greater than 3000 square feet, of new impervious area shall pay a stormwater availability charge (SWAC) as described in Section 22-302, paragraph (c)(6).

(2) Any part of a subdivision if a preliminary plat for the subdivision has been approved by the city council on or before the effective date of this article.

(23) Any site plans approved on or before the effective date of this article.

(34) A lot for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this article.

(45) Emergency work to preserve life, limb, or property.

(6) Where there is no net increase in impervious area (e.g., converting existing pavement to building footprint). In such cases, no stormwater availability charge (SWAC) will be required.

SECTION 2. Northfield Code, Chapter 22 – Environment, Article VI. – Surface Water Management, Division 2. – Stormwater Management, Section 22-302. Post-construction performance standards for stormwater management, paragraph (b) Runoff rate control criteria, clause (2), Table 1, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 1. Precipitation for Different Storm Events

SCS Type II Precipitation 24-hour storm event 1-Year 2.32.5 inches 2-Year 2.8 inches 10-Year 4.254.2 inches 100-Year 6.1 7.3 inches SCS Type II 10-day snow melt 100-year 10-day snow melt 7.05 inches

SECTION 3. Northfield Code, Chapter 22 – Environment, Article VI. – Surface Water Management, Division 2. – Stormwater Management, Section 22-302. Post-construction performance standards for stormwater management, paragraph (c) Runoff volume control criteria, clause (1), is hereby amended to read as follows:

(1) New development and expansion/redevelopment projects proposing one (1.0) acre or more of new impervious area. Projects must infiltrate the first 0.75 1.00 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces.

SECTION 4. Northfield Code, Chapter 22 – Environment, Article VI. – Surface Water Management, Division 2. – Stormwater Management, Section 22-302. Post-construction performance standards for stormwater management, paragraph (c) Runoff volume control criteria, is hereby amended to add a new clause (6) to read as follows:

(6) For development proposals having less than one (1.0) acre of new impervious area, the developer must pay a stormwater availability charge (SWAC). In lieu of payment of the SWAC, the developer may submit a detailed stormwater management plan as required of proposals having new impervious area of one (1.0) acre, or more, demonstrating how the proposal is complying with the applicable provisions of this ordinance regarding filtration, volume and rate control for storm water discharge.

SECTION 5. Northfield Code, Chapter 22 – Environment, Article VI. – Surface Water Management, Division 2. – Stormwater Management, Section 22-302. Post-construction performance standards for stormwater management, paragraph (d)General performance standards, clause (1) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(1) For development proposals having more than one acre of new impervious area, aAll stormwater treatment must be designed to address the actual amount of impervious surface or the following impervious surface coverage amounts for the entire development site, whichever is higher.

a. Residential lots (one or two dwelling units)—40%. b. Commercial and industrial lots—85%. c. All plats in the Rice Creek watershed—65%.

SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its publication.

Passed by the City Council of the City of Northfield, Minnesota, this ____ day of December 2013.

ATTEST:

______City Clerk Mayor

First Reading: ______Second Reading: ______Published: ______

VOTE: ____ GRAHAM ____ DELONG ____LUDESCHER ____NAKASIAN ____POWNELL ____PETERSON WHITE ____ZWEIFEL

REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Monte Nelson, Chief of Police

Subject: Update on the New Police Building

Action Requested: City Council to review the progress on the new police building. No action is needed.

Summary Report: Attached is a document showing the dollar amount of the draw requests from our bond agent for payment of invoices related to the Police Facility construction project. We have requested reimbursement of $ 2,275,125 to date. This is approximately 36% of the bonded amount. 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.

Currently, the building is approximately 55 - 60% complete and the site is about 75% complete. The estimated completion is still May 2014.

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. The monthly billing includes a complete itemized breakdown of all expenses including materials and labor as they are consumed in the construction process. 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). They are then sent in succession to the Chief of Police, the City Administrator, and the Finance Director for review of accuracy and then for payment. Essentially, the monthly billings are approved by five different sources before payment is authorized.

During this process, project manager Monte Nelson has numerous conversations with both the contractor and the architect as the construction takes place. He also has contact with the contractor, sub-contractors, and the architect at bi-weekly, on-site construction meetings that are also attended by Assistant City Engineer Brian Erickson and Bernie Shakal from Public Works.

To date, we have approved approximately $49,243 in change orders that have been needed to keep the project on schedule; this amount is deducted from the Contingency budget of $240,000. All change orders of $10,000 or more are brought to City engineering staff and City Administrator Tim Madigan for explanation and approval before receiving final approval by project manager Monte Nelson.

The facility is still within budget and is expected to come in well under, as anticipated. The Council will continue to be informed as to project status when requested or at any intervals specifically requested by the Council.

Attachments:

1. Sheet showing total bond issue minus YTD draw requests 2. Change Order Log

Safety Center Budget Budgeted Expense DLR Group -6-4-13 Project Budget Budget allowance $ spent-to-date SITE PREPARATION 1/23/2014 Site Development see bldg constr see bldg constr CONSTRUCTION Site work/Utilities see bldg constr see bldg constr Building Construction 4,775,000 2,225,882 Construction Contingency (5%) 240,000 49,243 Change Orders Subtotal Construction 5,015,000 2,275,125

ADMINSTRATIVE COST Fees/Reimbursables 385,440 367,209 Testing/Survey/Environ.-by Owner 40,000 1,855 Bid/Advertising/Printing 15,000 1,554 Legal/Bonding Fees 125,000 112,744 Subtotal Administrative 565,440 483,362

OCCUPANCY COST Furniture, Fixtures, Equip. 143,250 0 Technology (AV/Equip., Fiber Optic, etc.) 50,000 0 Building security system and cameras (By Owner) 50,000 0 Subtotal Occupancy 243,250 0

SITE COST 622,037 630,801

PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS Excel Energy Rebates (10,692) 0 Interest Earnings (45,000) (1,285) Total Project Adjustments (55,692) (1,285)

PROJECT TOTALS Estimated Total Project Cost 6,390,035 3,388,003

Bonds 6,280,000 General fund contribution 500,000 Capital Reserve Fund 400,000 IT Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000 Total Funding 7,280,000 Northfield Police Facility Northfield Minnesota Project No. 40-13101-00 23-Jan-14 Northfield Change Order Breakdown

Change Order No. Description Total

Change Order No. 1: ASI # 1 - Add 4" drain tile behind curb $14,218.82 RFC #1/RFI #5 - Hydrant installation RFC #2/RFI #4 - Storm sewer location and MH #5

Change Order No. 2: RFC #4/ASI #3 - Erosion control $7,210.89

Change Order No. 3: $7,088.88

RFC #8/ASI #5R - Revise cabinetry, revise plumbing, add hose bib, modify electrical power and add wall-mounted phone outlet

Change Order No. 4: RFC #10/ASI #6 - Concrete duct bank $10,180.12

Change Order No. 5: RFI #9/ASI #4 - Credit for Best, Stanley, Precision Hardware $7,651.41 RFI #12/RFI #32 - Reader for Door #131 RFI #13 - Gas meter relocation

Change Order No. 6: RFI #14/ASI #7 - Evidence drop refrigerator receptacle $433.29

Change Order No. 7: RFC #15/RFI #41 - Add 1 course of 8" block to poured wall $1,272.07

Change Order No. 8: RFC #16/ASI #8 - Revise flooring finishes $1,512.68

Change Order No. 9: RFC #17/ASI #9 - Reconfigure floor plan -$325.15

$49,243.01

Original Contract Sum $4,775,000.00 Sum with Change Orders $4,824,243.01

Change Order as % of contract 1.03%

Contingency $240,000.00 Contingency Remaining $190,756.99 REGULAR

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Tim Madigan, City Administrator

Subject: City Council Rules of Business

Action Requested: The Northfield City Council hereby approves the attached Council Rules of Business.

Summary Report: During the January 14 and 28, 2014 work sessions, the Council discussed revisions to the current Council Rules of Business. As a result of Council input I have edited the Rules as follows:  Time limits do not include interpreter time.  Summary of meeting information for informal meetings added to the minutes section.  Recording and live streaming information for work sessions and special meetings held at City Hall.  Mayor to lead work session discussions and determine additional non-City resources that are needed.  Council members to be informed of discussions that are being held with organizations where they have been designated as the City liaison.

Alternate Options: The Council could choose to make no changes, approve some of the changes or include additional changes.

Financial Impacts: None.

Attachment: Council Rules of Business 02/11/14

City Council Rules of Business

City Council Meetings: Typically the City Council meets the first and third Tuesday of each month. If a Tuesday is a legal holiday, the meeting is held in combination with the next Tuesday’s work session. The City Council meeting schedule is adopted annually. The meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and are held in the Council Chambers of the Northfield City Hall, 801 Washington Street, Northfield. On occasion the City Council will call a special meeting or adjust the approved meeting schedule. All meetings will be posted and noticed as required. All regular City Council meetings end by 10:00 pm unless a 5/7 majority of the city council vote to extend the time.

The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the council. The mayor shall have a vote as a member of the council. The mayor shall act as chief spokesperson for the council and shall exercise leadership of the council in the formulation of policy. City Charter 3.8.

The City Council will be guided by the parliamentary procedures of the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. It is the intent of the Council that these rules will be used in a flexible manner with the goal of ensuring that the will of the majority is fulfilled and the rights of the minority are protected.

The main objective of the Council in the proper conduct of its meetings is to ensure the public’s business is conducted in an efficient manner with full opportunity for council members and the public to communicate their thoughts on the agenda items before the Council.

Preparation of City Council Meeting Agendas: The Administrator, in consultation with the Mayor, shall prepare the preliminary agenda for each council meeting. Charter 3.7. The deadline for all items to be submitted is 12:00 noon on Wednesday one-week prior to the meeting. The agenda is finalized by the City Administrator and Mayor Tuesday afternoon. An agenda is prepared with a "proposed consent agenda" which is published in the Northfield News on the Saturday prior to the Tuesday meeting. Citizens requesting items for an agenda may contact their elected representative or city staff to have their request considered. City Council Members may request items listed on the consent agenda be removed for discussion purposes.

There are two ways a Councilor can request an item be placed on a future Council agenda: submit a request to the Mayor or City Administrator or request by two or more councilors that an item be placed on an upcoming Council agenda. In either case, the Councilor’s request for an item to be placed on a council agenda should be in writing with the motion to be considered and some background information.

The order of agenda items is as follows:

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Notification of Quorum 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes Page 1

4. Presentations 5. Council reports 6. Consent agenda. a. Reading of the consent agenda. b. Public Comments on consent agenda items only. Persons commenting on consent agenda items 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. c. Items are approved by one motion unless a Council member requests separate action. All items approved by majority vote unless noted. d. Approval of consent agenda. 7. Open public comments - Persons may take one opportunity to address the council for three (3) minutes on a topic not on the agenda (not including interpreter’s time). 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. 8. Public Hearings – 7:10 p.m. or later (procedure listed below). 9. Regular agenda - Persons that wish to speak on a regular agenda item must register name and address with the recording secretary before the meeting or prior to the start of the regular agenda. The Mayor will ask for public input 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 must adhere to the following guidelines:  Speak only once for no more than two minutes (not including interpreter’s time) on the topic unless the speaker is addressed by the council;  Identify your relationship to the topic (interested citizens included);  Have a spokesperson or two for your group to present your comments. 10. City Administrator update 11. Adjourn.

Consent Agenda: The purpose of a consent agenda is to allow for routine motions, resolutions, and ordinances to be passed with one motion when no discussion is needed. Council Members may ask questions for clarification of an item. If a Council Member wants to discuss an item, it should be removed from the consent agenda during the approval of the agenda.

City Council Preparatory Packets: The council agenda is finalized the Wednesday afternoon the week prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. All information and reports to be included in the preparatory packet are due by 12:00 Noon Wednesday prior to the Tuesday council meeting. Preparatory packets are delivered to the City Councilors on Thursday prior to a City Council meeting. A complete City Council preparatory packet is also placed in the Council Chambers and at the Public Library on the Thursday prior to a City Council meeting for the public to review. Packet materials are posted on the City’s web site www.ci.northfield.mn.us. A meeting notice list and agenda are posted on the bulletin board outside the Council Chambers located at City Hall. An agenda is published in the Saturday edition of the Northfield News.

Page 2

Any supplemental packet materials received and shared with the Council prior to 12:00 noon on Monday, will be assembled and posted on the City’s website. Any additional materials will be available in paper form at the meeting. Items received after 12:00 noon on Monday or distributed at the meeting, will be posted on the City’s website within 48 hours after the meeting.

Public Hearing Procedure: A Public Hearing is used by the City Council to solicit the public's comments on various projects or city operation procedures.

A. The Chair will open the hearing by identifying the subject. B. Staff Presentation- staff will give a presentation on the subject.

C. Applicant's Presentation- if needed.

D. Questions of Clarifications from City Council - This section will be used when there are questions of the presenter on the facts on which the public hearing is being held.

E. Any material to be entered into the record shall be noted. Any written communication presented to the council during a council meeting shall be read into the record or summarized for the record or simply delivered to the council, as the council may determine. They shall then be recorded in the minutes by title and filed with the minutes in the office of the city clerk.

F. Public Input- The public will have the opportunity to speak for or against the issue. The public may ask questions, make comments, voice support, agree or disagree with the issue.

1. Chair will recognize speaker at podium and conversation will be between Chair and speaker; and Chair and Council Members. 2. At the podium the citizen must give their name, address, and if representing a business, must give the name of the business or corporation. If an attorney or consultant is representing a client, the client must be identified for the record. 3. Citizens will be allowed to speak a maximum of two (2) minutes per item (not including interpreter’s time). However, a citizen may speak more than once on a topic provided everyone has had an opportunity to speak and the person is recognized by the Chair. 4. Citizens who have material to be handed out to the City Council members will pass the material to the City Administrator. The City Administrator will then pass the information to the appropriate people. A minimum of twelve (12) copies are needed.

G. Motion to Close Hearing- The Chair will state if there is an extension of time for public input into the hearing. If not, the public hearing will be adjourned.

Assessment Hearing Procedures: Assessment Hearings are similar to the Public Hearing procedure except written notice of objection pertaining to your assessment is required prior to adjournment of the public hearing.

Council Report and Discussion Items: The Mayor and Council Members may provide comments on items of interest, public comments received.

Page 3

Council Recognition of Citizens/Groups Individual Council Members may recognize citizens or groups during the presentations portion of the Council agenda.

Citizen Participation: The Northfield City Council invites the public to express their views and comments on issues with the City Council through the following ways:

* Open microphone at City Council meetings * Meetings of various Boards or Commissions (i.e.: Park Board, DAB, HPC, HRA, EDA, etc.) * Phone calls, e-mails, letters and/or visits with Council Members or City Staff.

Record of the Council Meeting In order for items to be considered part of the official record, formal action needs to be taken in the form of a motion, resolution or ordinance.

Minutes The minutes of a public body are not a transcription of the proceedings of the meeting, but capture the actions taken during a meeting. Minutes will include: a) Time and place of the meeting b) Members present c) Summary of all decisions made d) Who moved and seconded each item e) Who voted for and against each item f) Names of all persons other than members who spoke at the meeting, and subject on which they spoke

Council meetings which are informal in nature e.g. retreats, special topic discussion, etc., do not need to be recorded or have formal minutes, but a summary of meeting purpose, council attendance, time, date, and location will be filed with the Council.

Recording Regular, work session, and special council meetings are live streamed, if held at City Hall, and recorded.

City Council Work Session: The work session is used by the City Council to discuss various upcoming issues and to give direction to staff. Comment from the public and staff can be requested by the City Council as needed. Decision items are forwarded to the regular City Council meetings for formal approval. Work Sessions are generally scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month. Work sessions are for discussion by the Mayor and City Council and City staff. The Mayor or City Administrator may arrange a presentation by an individual or group to the Council at a work session.

Page 4

Any councilor can make a request/recommendation to the mayor or city administrator concerning who to invite to the council table for discussion on work session agenda items. The Mayor will lead the work session discussions and determine which non-city resources to involve in the discussions.

Role of the city attorney related to individual city councilmembers. If an individual member has a question about a legal matter, the city attorney will attempt to answer it if the process will take an hour or less. The answer to the question will be shared with the City Council and City Administrator. If the matter will take more than an hour, the attorney will need direction from the council as a whole or the city administrator or another authorized staff member. The city attorney is available to help but does not represent any individual member’s opinion or decision; he/she represents the majority decisions of the City Council.

Role of City Administrator related to Council and employees The City Administrator coordinates activities of all city officials and supervises City department directors/managers, Charter 7.3. To assist the Administrator in these roles, the procedure for contacts and communications between the Mayor and City Council and city employees will be coordinated through the City Administrator. If an elected official wishes to consult with a city director/employee on City business they will contact the City Administrator.

It is understood that there are often informal discussions between elected officials and employees that are not business related.

Where discussions are being held with an organization to which a council member has been appointed as the City liaison, the council member will be kept informed of these discussions.

Please watch for publications in the Northfield News or the City’s Website for any changes in date and times of meetings and work sessions.

Please contact the City Administrator’s Office if you need special accommodations related to a disability while attending the City Council meeting.

Page 5

DISCUSSION

Date of City Council Meeting: February 11, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Tim Madigan, City Administrator

Subject: City Council 2014 Priorities

Action Requested: The City Council to review the tabulation of the attached list of projects and issues before the Council in 2014 and develop a consensus on the order of the projects and issues.

Summary Report:

This revised priority list format grew out of the Council discussions in January on how to establish its work plan for 2014. By a separate email councilors will be asked to rank the items on the attached list and return it to Administration for tabulation. The tabulation will then be presented at the Council meeting for Council’s review.

Attachments: Projects and issues matrix.

2014 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN ITEMS

Reoccurring Council Tasks – Rank All

Ranking Item Comments Budget Topics CIP Personnel – Employee Compensation Street Improvement Project

Projects – Issues expected to be completed in 2014, but started in 2013 – Rank Top Five

Ranking Item Comments Downtown Public Parking Electronic Council Packet Enterprise Park Process – ROI Financial Policies Fire JPA LDC Amendments NCRC Agreement Organic Waste Program Police Building Stormwater Issues TIF #4 Projects TIGER Trail 11 Bridge Square 303/305 Water Street, 219 Water Street

Easy to complete – Rank All

Ranking Item Comments Dan Patch Legislation Green Steps Program Step 2 LMC Statement of Values Vagrancy Regulations

Parks – Rank All

Ranking Item Comments Bridge Square Study Cannon River Study Dundas/Northfield River Park Meadows Land

New Projects

Ranking Item Comments Library Community Space Project

Projects Under Consideration, But Not a Priority – Rank All

Ranking Item Comments Dundas Sanitary Sewer Agreement Legal Services Non-motorized Transportation Plan Post Office Building Reuse