08-10-2004 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their commenf period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the
agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the
meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of July 26, 2004; (2) Special
City Council Worksession of July 27, 2004; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of July 27,
2004; and (4) Special City Council Worksession of July 27, 2004
PRESENTATION
1. Annual meeting with Arts Commission
2. Recognition of Landscape Award volunteers
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
3. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
4. City Manager's report
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action
is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed
from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion
and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and
authorizing purchase of apartment building at 6520 Cedar Avenue; Airport Noise
Acquisition Program S.R. No. 131
B. Consideration of approval of resolution designating polling places and appointing
election judges for September 14, 2004 Primary Election and November 2, 2004
General Election and increasing election judge pay S.R. No. 132
C. Consideration of approval of canceling Regular City Council Meeting of August 24,
2004 S.R. No. 133
Notes:
7. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
8. Consideration of new 2004 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for MDM
EAR, Inc. dba The Backyard Bar and Grill, 1500 East 78th Street
Notes:
Staff Report No. 134
9. Consideration of Transportation Committee recommendation to approve final layout
of Interstate 35W and Trunk Highway 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction
Project
Notes:
Staff Report No. 135
10. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time
for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on
the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to
the meeting,
Notes:
11.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must
be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-
9702.
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 135
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
i
AUGUST 10, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 32, 33
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO
36
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KRISTIN ASHER, PROJECT ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM F R LJN IL N IDE TI N:
Consideration of Transportation Committee'recommendation to approve the final layout of the
Interstate 35W and Trunk Hi hwa 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction Project.
I. RECOMMENDED CTION:
By Motion: Approve the final layout for the Interstate 35W and Trunk
Hi hwa 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction Pro'ect
~ II. BACKGROUND
un Hprii ~~, 1uu4 the Minnesota Department of Transportation submitted the final
layout for the Interstate 35W and. Trunk Highway 62 Crosstown Commons Project
for City Council approval. According to state law the City has a right to review and
approve the State's highway project layout. If a City does not approve of the
Mn/DOT layout, the State has. a specific process they must follow in order to appeal
the decision. In most cases, the State will work with the municipality to come to an
agreement.
According to state statute, comments on the layouf should focus on the number of
traffic lanes, shoulders, approximate right of way limits, access points and closures,
noise walls, transit considerations, interchange locations and types, traffic volume,
location of municipal utilities, and estimated cost. (See Attachment.)
0810Crosstown
The current layout has successfully eliminated all the dangerous weaving
movements and moved the westbound TH 62 access from Portland Avenue to
Lyndale Avenue. The plan shows three (3) lanes for SB I-35W, three (3) lanes for
both EB & WB TH 62, and five (5) lanes for NB I-35W into Minneapolis. There is
also the extension of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along I-35W from I-494 to
46th Street to promote transit use.
The public was given several opportunities to comment on the final layout. Most
recently, the Transportation Committee held an open house on June 15, 2004, then
the City Council conducted a public hearing the same night. The Transportation
Committee has recommended that the final layout be approved. A letter from
Thomas O'Keefe of MnDOT is attached for Council information.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City's Comprehensive Plan supports increased capacity and
safety improvements to the freeway network including the
35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons Section. Access to westbound
Highway 62 is moved from Portland Avenue to Lyndale Avenue.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The design of this highway segment will have a profound impact on
the future of the City's development for the next fifty years.
C. FINANCIAL
• Approval of the final layout will not have an impact on City finances.
D. LEGAL
• The City must submit its written comments on the final layout by
September 14,.2004.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the final layout as unacceptable to the City. However, the proposed
layout addresses Richfield's concerns for improved safety and capacity.
• Reject the final layout with qualifications. However, the proposed layout
already provides for pedestrian/bike. crossings at Nicollet Avenue and
Lyndale Avenue, noise walls along Highway 62 from 35W to Penn Avenue
and improved safety and capacity on 35W as Richfield has requested.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Map of 1-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons from Minneapolis Star
.Tribune
• Minnesota Statutes Sections 161.162 to 161.165 Municipal Consent
• Letter dated July 19, 2004 from Thomas O'Keefe, Area Manager, ,Minnesota
Department of Transportation
• Staff report to Transportation Committee and public hearing comments of
June 15, 2004 on final Jayout
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Thomas O'Keefe, Area Manager of MnDOT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING I-35W & TH 62 CROSSTOWN COMMONS
RECONSTRUCTION (SP 2782-281) FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received the final layout for the I-35WlTH
62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction Project for review; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Transportation Committee has held a public open
house on June 15, 2004 on the final layout for the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Commons
Reconstruction Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has held a public hearing on June 15, 2004 on
the final layout for the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction Project; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Transportation Committee has unanimously
recommended approval of the final layout; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has the authority under Minnesota Statutes
Sections 161.161 to 161.167 to approve or disapprove the final layout for improvements
to a state trunk highway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield hereby approves the final layout for the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Commons
Reconstruction Project (SP 2782-281).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
August, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
..
a
i
E/? ~
c ~ ~ .a°
o '~ .a ~
~ .a.d
~ ~ ~
~ S
~ i i O ~4 $~
`'`~ ~ ~f~E`' ~`' ~ C ~. ~ ~ ~,~'b' ;, , 1,
\, ~+ ~ ;
~'
~ ~ ' ', ~I~
•~ . \"•.
~ "' ~'~
~ ~ ~ ~
,`
~ ~~
.~
.~
P
^®
1
9P~
~ '~ I.L') ~ ~ „ r
~iff ;;
~ X16. !,. ;, llf;'f
A, ~ ~. ' f! ! ~ ! I
•7 ~ f
.. \ ~
~p J~° I i
.„ ~.
f, i f
ill: % ~~ i
if~ !I
•i f
•, ,~f i
f! ! ; i
` i.
/i 1 i
/, / •
ifl /~~ /'
i.
If' . ' ' i
f! /~i .I 't
!'! /~`.
f!f i/ 't~,i
f li i/
r %, ~~.
fi
.i+.
i,f/' fi . i
f! i~.
i
! i!' ~ .t ,
fife i;~ `.~~~ ~\~
!I
.• !!i, .
\\ !i if
!' !,
f !
i,
i !
! . ! •,
~ \,
~~ \~ ~~,
~~ ~;~ ~
4 \\ \
~` ~.
~~ t~~
` .
~ ~` ~ ~.
U ~....., ~~.
~ ~~•
.3 O ~ •..
C ~ ,~ ~
~ ~ ~ -:'~
O ~~*'
..AV-~~.
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
+-~
C
~ U
O ~ i..l.
~ ~ ~
C ~ .~ .
C 'C N
Q. ~
~ ~
U CQ 1-
~ H ~
Cn O (n
~~
O
Minnesota Statutes 2003, 161.162
I~-Ziiulesota Staturtes 2003, Table of Cha~aters
Table of contents for Chapter 161
161.162 Definitions.
Subdivision 1. Applicability. The terms in sections
161.162 to 161.167 have the meanings given them in this section
and section 160.02.
Subd. 2. Final layout. (a) "Final layout" means
geometric layouts and supplemental drawings that show the
location, character, dimensions, access,' and explanatory
information about the highway construction or improvement work
being proposed. "Final layout" includes, where applicable,
traffic lanes, shoulders, trails, intersections, signals,
bridges, approximate right-of-way limits, existing ground line
an proposed-grade line of the highway, turn lanes, access
points and closures, sidewalks, proposed design speed, noise
wa~Is, transit considerations, auxiliary anes, interchange
Socations, interchange types, sensitive areas, existing
right-of-way, traffic volume and turning movements, location of
stormwat_er drainage, location _of municipal utilities, project
schedule and estimated cost,~and the name of the project manager.
(b) "Final layout" does not include a cost participation
agreement. For purposes of this subdivision "cost participation
agreement" means a document signed by the commissioner and the
governing body of a municipality that states the costs of a
highway construction project that will be paid by the
municipality.
Subd. 3. Final construction-plan. "Final
construction plan" means the set of technical drawings for the
construction or improvement of a trunk highway provided to
contractors for bids.
Subd. 4. Governing body. "Governing body" means the
elected council of a municipality.
Subd. 5. Municipality. "Municipality" means a
statutory or home rule charter city.
HIST: 2001 c 191 s 3; 2002 c 364 s 3
Copyright 2003 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes,. State of Minnesota.
http://www.revisor.leg. state.mn.us/stats/ 161 / 162.htm1
Page 1 of 1
07/13/2004
Minnesota Statutes 2003, 161.164
l~~Iiiuzesota Statutes 2003. Table of Chapters
Table of conteizts for Chester 161
161.164 Final .layout approval process.
Subdivision 1. Submission of final layout. Before
proceeding with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement
of any route on the trunk highway system lying within any
municipality, the commissioner shall submit to its governing
body a final layout and project report covering the purpose,
route location, and proposed design of the highway. The final
layout must be submitted as part of a report containing any
supporting data that the commissioner deems helpful to the
governing body in reviewing the final layout submitted. The
supporting data must include a good faith cost estimate of all
the costs in which the governing body is expected to
participate. The final layout must be submitted before final
decisions are reached so that meaningful early input can be
obtained from the municipality.
Subd. 2. Governing body action.. (a) Within l5 days
of receiving a final layout from the commissioner, the governing
~~ body shall schedule a public hearing on the final layout. The ~~
• governing body shall, within 60 days of receiving a final layout
from the commissioner, conduct a public hearing at which the
Department of Transportation shall present. the final layout for
the project. The governing body shall give at least 30 days'
notice of the public hearing.
(b) Within 90 days from the date of the public hearing, the
governing body shall approve or disapprove the final layout in
writing, as follows:
(1) If the governing body approves the final layout or does
not disapprove the final layout in ,writing within 90 days, in
which case the final la.~out is deemed to bedroved, the
commissioner may continue the project development.
(2) If the final construction plans contain changes in
access, traffic capacity, or acquisition of permanent
right-of-way from the final layout approved by the governing
body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final
construction plans where changes were made to the governing body.
The governing body must approve or disapprove the changes, in
writing, within 60 days from the date the commissioner submits
them.
(3 ) If ~the__~overning _bo~ disapproves the final layout, the
commissioner may make modifications requested by the
- - _ _ - l ,
municipality, decide no_t to proceed with the project, or re e_r E
the final layout to an appeal board. The appeal board shall
consist of one member appointed by the commissioner, one member
appointed by the governing body, and a third member agreed upon
by both the commissioner and the governing body. If the
commissioner and the governing body cannot agree upon the third
member, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint a
third member within 14 days of the request of the commissioner
http://www.revisor.leg. state.mn.uslstats/ 161 /164.htm1
Page 1 of 2
07/13/2004
Minnesota Statutes 2003, 161.165
lylimiesota Statutes 2003, Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 161
161.165 Commissioner action; interstate highways.
Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies
to interstate highways.
Subd. 2. Action on approved final layout. (a) If the
appeal board recommends approval of the final layout or does not
submit its findings and recommendations within 60 days of the
hearing, in which case the final layout is deemed approved, the
commissioner may prepare substantially similar final
construction plans and proceed with the project.
(b) If the final construction plans change access, traffic
capacity, or acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the
final layout approved by the appeal board, the commissioner
shall submit the portion of the final construction plans that
shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or
disapproval under section 161.16, subdivision 2.
Subd. 3. Action on final layout approved with changes.
(a) If, within 60 days, the appeal board .recommends approval
of the final layout with modifications, the commissioner may:
(1) prepare final construction plans with the recommended
modifications, notify the governing body, and proceed with the
project;
(2) decide not to proceed with the project; or
(3) prepare final construction plans substantially similar
to the final layout referred to the appeal board, and proceed
with the project. The commissioner shall, before proceeding
with the project, file a written report with the governing body
and the appeal board stating fully the reasons for doing so.
(b) If the final construction plans: contain changes in
access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of
permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the
appeal board or the governing body, .the commissioner shall
resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows
the changes, to the governing body for its approval or
disapproval under section 161.16-~, subdivision 2.
Subd. 4. Action on disapproved final layout. (a) If.,
(within 60 days, the ap eal board recommends disa~roval of the
ifinal layout, the commissioner may either:
(1) decide not to proceed with the project; or
to
gov
pro
sha
(2) prepare final construc_t_ion plans substantially similar
the final layout referred to the appeal board, notify the
erningMbody and~the appeal board, and groc~eed with the
ject. Before proceeding with the project, the commissioner l`_
11 file a written report with the governing body and the
Yage 1 of 2
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/ 161 /165.htm1 07/14/2004
1~Iirinesota Statutes 2003, 161.164 Page 2 of 2
to appoint the third member.
Subd. 3. Appeal board. Within 30 days after referral
of the final layout, the appeal board shall hold a hearing at
which the commissioner and the governing body may present the
case for or against approval of the final layout referred. Not
later than 60 days after the hearing, the appeal board shall
recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, or
recommend disapproval of the final layout, making additional
recommendations consistent .with state and federal requirements
as it deems appropriate. It shall submit a written report
containing its findings and recommendations to the commissioner
and the governing body.
HIST: 2001 c 191 s 5
Copyright 2003 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/164.htm1 07/13/2004
~N"~ry
tia Minnesota Department of Transportation
~F'~~FtRaNs~~~ Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
July 19, 2004
Mr. Michael Eastling, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CITY OF RICHFIELD
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Eastling;
Subject: I-3SW & TH 62 Crosstown Cotnnions R:,consttuctio.~~ ~Sp 2?~2_281)
,Municipal Consent
As you know, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
reconstruct the I-35W & TH 62 "Crosstown Commons" area.( Pr pOosed project limgts
include I-35W from 66th Street to 42nd Street, and TH 62 from Penn Avenue to Portland
Avenue. The proposed project layouts and reports were submitted to the City of
Richfield on April 16, 2004 for Municipal Consent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Sections 161.162 to 161.167.
Preliminary design of the proposed project has been coordinated with the Ci of
Richfield and other agencies since project inception. This coordination has ntinued in
the period following the Municipal Consent submittal. As a result of ongoing
coordination and design refinement it is Mn/DOT's intent that .certain details of the
project design, affecting the City of Richfield, vary slightly from the details illustrated on
the layouts submitted for Municipal Consent.
It is the purpose of this letter to clarify Mn/DOT's current intent with respect to selected
design details affecting the City of Richfield, as discussed in the following sections.
Deferral of Loop Street Construction
The Municipal Consent layout includes construction of loop street connections where
Richfield city streets terminate at TH 62. The loop streets would replace existing street
connections that will be removed due to proposed highway improvements.
Owners of three homes, acquisition of which would likely be necessary for loo street
construction, have expressed interest in remaining in their homes. The homes in question
are located at the following addresses:
• 6215 Humboldt Avenue South
• 6221 Pillsbury Avenue South
• 6220 Wentworth Avenue South
An equal opportunity employer
City staff have advised that it maybe acceptable to the City to defer construction of these
particular loop streets, but note that responsibility for costs of constructing these streets
should remain with Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT is exploring a process whereby loop street
construction could be deferred for a certain specified penod of years. If the homes were
acquired by the City during that period, it would be agreed that Mn/DOT would then
participate in the construction cost of the loop streets. Mn/DOT would also participate in
costs of relocating those residents. Mn/DOT is currently preparing a draft Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for the City's consideration in this matter.
Accommodation of Pedestrians and Bicyclists at Highway Crossings
The Municipal Consent layout includes construction of pedestrian sidewalks at the
Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue crossings beneath I-35W and TH 62. Slight
revisions have been proposed to the typical sections for these two streets since the
Municipal Consent layout was submitted.
At Lyndale Avenue, the Municipal Consent layout illustrated 10-foot sidewalks along
each side of Lyndale Avenue under the highway bridge. The revised typical section
continues to illustrate 10-foot walks, but also includes 12-foot shoulders adjacent to the
traffic lanes on each side of Lyndale Avenue.
At Nicollet Avenue, the Municipal Consent layout illustrated a 52-foot-wide, four-lane
street with 6-foot sidewalks along each side of Nicollet Avenue under the highway
bridge. The revised typical section remains as a 52-foot, four-lane street but illustrates
10-foot walks on each side. We note that Nicollet Avenue currently operates as a two-
lane street with parking/shoulder area north of TH 62, and as a four-lane street with no
shoulders south of TH 62.
Mitigation Measures for Loss of Parkland
The Municipal Consent layout illustrates construction of pedestrian and bicycle paths in
the northerly portion of Madison Park, as partial mitigation for right of Way acquisition
from the park area. Additional paths are proposed in other areas as further mitigation.
In addition to pathways shown on the Municipal Consent layout, an additional se ent of
path has been proposed along the southerly TH 62 right-of--way to connect Humbo dt and
Irving Avenues.
Coordination is continuing between the City and Mn/DOT with respect to determining
the character and extent of appropriate mitigation for parkland loss. The City may
determine that path construction, while representing appropriate mitigation, would most
advantageously be performed within a different timeframe than that proposed for the
highway reconstruction. In this case, funding participation by Mn/DOT may be
preferable to actual construction. It is Mn/DOT's intent to continue coordination with
the Cityin the matter of mitigation.
Maximize Capacity of I-35W and Highway 62
Mn/DOT is committed to maximizing the capacity of I-35W and TH 62 while balancin
impacts to communities and highway users. The project proposes to extend a High g
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction along I-35W through the project area.
Design of this lane adjacent to the general-purpose lanes and without bamer separation
provides flexibility for Mn/DOT to manage the roadway for maximum capacity including
prioritizing use by transit vehicles and HOV vehicles with designated minimum number
of occupants. This also provides the option to allow designation as a HOT lane.
Remnant Parcels
As illustrated in the Municipal Consent submittal, property acquisition for highway right
of way purposes will be required within the City of Richfield. If excess acquisitions or
uneconomic remnants are acquired through negotiations with the property owners, and
are not required for Trunk Highway purposes, Mn/DOT intends to convey, as requested,
the surplus lands to the City in accordance with governing laws and regulations.
In closing, we would like to reiterate that Mn/DOT is committed to a continuing
partnership with the City in this and other projects. We look forward to continuing
project development in a spirit of close coordination and cooperation.
Sincerely, / ~,(
/J~~ ~f ' 1 Aor.~.s ~~j~~
Thomas O'KeefVev V
Area Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: July 12, 2004
TO: Transportation Committee
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: 35W/TH 62 Crosstown Project
Committee Recommendation
The Committee is being asked to submit a recommendation on the final layout of the
35W/TH 62 Crosstown Highway Project. The City Council will consider your
recommendation at its August 10, 2004 meeting. The Community Services Commission
and the Planning Commission may also comment on the layout.
Under the Municipal Consent. Process, the City of Richfield has three options:
• Approve the final layout;
• Reject/disapprove the final layout with qualifications; or,
• Reject/disapprove the final layout.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the final layout.
Features of Mn/DOT's Final La
Capacity
• 3 lanes to the east on Highway 62
• 3 lanes to the west: on Highway 62
• 3 lanes to the south on Highway 35W (inc. HOV lane in the middle of 35W for
transit and carpools)
• 5 lanes to the north on Highway 35W(inc. HOV lane in the middle of 35W for
transit and carpools)
• 2-lane entrance ramps from east and west Highway 62 to northbound 35W
Safety
• Weaves eliminated by separating 35W traffic from Highway 62 traffic
• Some access removed to improve safety
Access Changes
• Loss of access from Lyndale Avenue to northbound 35W
[R:\PubWorks\35W\35W-62 Redesign\Transp Com Recommendations.doc]
July 12, 2004
Page 2
• Westbound access to Highway 62 moved from Portland Avenue to Lyndale
Avenue
• Loss of access from Portland Avenue to southbound 35W
Right of Way in Richfield
• One commerical building (2 businesses)
• One apartment building (18 housing units)
• Thirteen single-family homes
• Mn/DOT has agreed to preserve side yard set-backs on homes adjacent to the
project.
Right of Way in Minneapolis
• One commerical building
• Nine single-family homes
Park Impacts
• Loss of 10,500 square feet of parkland from Madison Park
• New walking/bike paths along 35W/Highway 62
Stormwater
• The project introduces more run-off to the Richfield- Lake area. As part of the
reconstruction a secondary treatment pond will be added around Richfield Lake.
Noisewall
• Add new walls from Penn Avenue to Portland Avenue on Highway 62
• Replace existing noisewalls on 35W
Road Closures During Construction
• Two-week to eight-week lane closures
closures ,previous design had 2 to 4-year lane
Remaining Issues and Public Common#s
STAFF SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. BE CONSIDERED:
^ At the following locations allow the homeowners the option of staying and not
building a loop street until the homeowners choose to sell. Until that time, the streets
would remain stub-ended.
^ 6215 Humboldt Avenue South
^ .6221 Pillsbury Avenue South
^ 6220 Wentworth .Avenue. South
^ Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, with sidewalks and rideable shoulders at
all crossings along I-35W and Highway 62: '
^ Mitigation measures for loss of parkland shall include the following at a minimum:
July 12, 2004
Page 3
^ Cost of construction of sidewalk/bikeway trails along southern wall where
no loop road is planned for construction.
^ Replace parkland loss in-kind, or compensate the value of land lost.
• Replace any features lost, including lighting.
^ Maximize capacity of I-35W and Highway 62 by requiring 2+ minimum carpools for
HOV use. At a later date, if HOV lane becomes congested, increase requirement to
3+ carpools.
^ Require remnant parcels be returned to Richfield for use in replacement housing,
parkland and providing hiking/biking trails along freeway.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
^ Advantages for transit are provided with the proposed HOV lanes. However, the
proposed 46t" Street transit station is not funded. (City staff suggests a comment
that funding for the 46t" Street transit station be included so the transit station can be
built at the same time as the freeway.)
^ City Council had asked for but the final layout does not provide: noisewall on
Highway 62 from Xerxes Avenue to Penn Avenue; and, Lyndale Avenue access to
northbound 35W.
^ Request financial assistance to rebuild 66t" Street and Portland Avenue intersection
if defined as part of a detour route.
^ Additonal comments provided by Planning Commission or Community Services
Commission or written comments from citizens.
^ Resident comments, received as of July 2, 2004, are attached.
TFF: ttf
I-35W cP~ TH 62 Crosstown Open House/Public Hearing
Sign-in Sheet and Official Comments
Page 1
Agenda Item No. 4
Sign In Sheet
I-35W & TH 62 Crosstown Open House and Public Hearing
Richfield City Council Chambers
June 15, 2004
Name
Carol Farnham Address
Brad &Che 1 Rynerson 6244 3rd Avenue South
Eugene Tedamonson 6204 Lo an Avenue South
Art Fisk 6227 Stevens Avenue South
Jennifer Radnich 6239 Clinton Avenue South
Derrick Strom 6245 Clinton Avenue South
Carol Thom son 6224 Portland Avenue
Gertrude Ulrich 6221 Girard Avenue South
Michelle Leonardson Council Member
Nicole Leonardson 6214 Irvin Avenue South
Gerald P. Mark 6214 Irving Avenue South
La Wozniczka 6240 Harriet Avenue South
Ga Ness 6744 Wentworth Avenue
Rita Boulay 1611 W. 72nd Street
David Boula 6316 Grand Street
Patrick Kirby 6316 Grand Street
Roberta Hackett-Rose 3629 Towndale Ct., Bloomin
Bill Kilian 6315 Knox Avenue South
Robert Leonardson 6620 17th Avenue South
Emanual & C stab Jordan 6214 Irvin Avenue South
6210 4th Avenue
Barb Kritzman
Dean & Colleen McFarlane 6408 Pillsbu Avenue South
Laurie Hovland 6215 James Avenue South
Jim Thomas 6233 Colfax Avenue South
Che 1 Isensee 6315 Oliver Avenue South
Suzanne Sandahl 6232 Colfax Avenue South
Rich and Mar Carlson 7601 Br ant Avenue South
Stan Bonnema 6148 Mor an Ct
Ken and Gail Janes 6326 2nd Avenue South
Steve Lind ren 6216 3rd Avenue South
7141 Oak Grove Boulevard
R:\PubWorks\62 Crosstown\PublicHearingComments.doc
a~
O ~ ~ a~
a~
N H ~' ~'
Q.o o'er ° ~ ~' w ~ ° ° ° ~~~~''' +' x
.~ ~ ~ tti O ~ ~ ~ ~ v0 ~, ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~O ,-~0"~ ~ ~ ~ ice., ~ ~ ~ "" N ^--~ ~ • ,~"~ x
+-~ o °
O" ~ ~ f-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, U N ~ M N
cCi
~ o ~ ~ .. tin ,~ ~, ~ o ~ .~ °~' ~ w ~ '~ -~ '~ °
~ ~ ° ~ ~
~ O ~ ~ ~ "t7 ~ 'C3 ~ ~ O N ~ N ~ cd cd ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,.may N V] ~, ~ ~ U +~., O Sr bA ~ N.~"-+ N .S-i" ~ ~ `~"~
U ~ ~Oi +'~.+ bhp p ,-~ '+~-~ V O ~ ~ ~ ._~ ~ •.~+ N ~ ~ ~ ~ r~"+ „ • 'C3 ~
N .may ~ ~ ~ +-~ O ~" f~i .^ := ~ ~ ,V.., ~°.' ~ ° U ri ~ ~ Cr' ~ • ..
TJL+ cC3 O ..O O ~ ^-~ ~ 4-i 'i"'~ ~ ~ N ..O S"" W G~ N
~ O ~ O O ,~ ~ S~, O O N O sue. "~ ~ _N .,.., ~ O V •-~ M N ~ `.-~ ~ N
~ .'.,
~ i
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o
r~ ~
U ~ U ~ ~ ~ p ~ a~> ~ ~ ~ ~° ~
Cti ~ V'~ ~, a3 ~ c~ ~ ~ r~~r pp ~ ~ ~ N N ,.~ ~
~ '~ ~ ~ E'er.., ~O ~ ~, ''~ ~ ~ z a, axi U n oO°o c~ ~ ~ s~' . '' ~ W ~ ~ ~..
M ~~ O ~r'N °oN ~°~ •~M~N ~~oo ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
ti~rY V ~,~lp UlNO\O W~~O ~N~~ OMB ~N~ ~ ~_N ~~_N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~
o ~ o ~ ~
N ~ N ''''
4
O
h a> +'
' 0
~ ~
~
~
~
. ~
:-k ,-~ a3
~~., .~ -~ 4a ~
O
I; ~ ~ -~' N ~ '+~
~ ~/ ~y~,O,(,
~
S-.I `~ T3 W `..
~ ~
O ~ ~ U
ai
O N
x ~ ~ O U
O o ~
~.
4O ~
~ O U ~
N
~' .--r
,.D •~-~ ~ U V1
.r
~ '~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
O
~
~ ~ ~ .
~
O
~z O ~ ~ Q
~.~
N U
.~ o ~ «3 N ^" ~
U ~ ~
~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~
,
N ~ O ~+ V
--~
x ~ „ ~ U
~ ~ " ~
, ,
~ ~'
x ~ °
'
~ H
.
.U a~
~
~°
O ~ ~ ~+..5;
s-~ O O
r-+ ~-' .~ ~
4-' ''-' ~
..O O ~
U
,.
,
~ y,~ U ~ ~ c~ O v~
ti i-+ G~
~ O O "C ~ O
N
~
W •~
N
o ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ ,
o a z'"' ^
o
~ ~~
°' +' ~ ~ ~' ' ~'' ~ 3
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
~ ~ C)
~ ~ O O ~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~''
ti
~ ~-+
I
~o
~ ~
~ ~
~ U
~
~
~
~ U
~, ~ V (~ > vv ~ ~ ~
o
~ ~
g ~ ~
4~ ~ °~ .~
Z
~ ~ 4~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ d ~ ~
,.
s. '~
.~ ~ [~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ V ~
~O ~ ~ ~
i Lei
~i ~
~F'
O
O
N
M
N
ti
~bA
~_
d-
0
0
N
~~
~o
~o
~ N
~ O
~+ M
N ~
..fl ~
.~'' N
~ ,.D
~ O
...
~ o
0
'~
~ U
N
O
O
d1
'~ ~
~~
.~ ~
O N
U ^'
~ ~_
~ `~
o ~
p~~' ~
`+1 U
~~ ~
~ ~
ha
a
0
fi
C
~fi
X
0
y
0
U
b
C
O
w
ti
M
ti
S_\
bq
~l
~'~
~U
~ ~
5 ~
~ ~
O~ .~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
o~
..p ~ M
•~ .C
rr^^ W
vl
ti :x • ~ ti '~ ~"' cd
~ ~ ~ N
~
~ 4-i ~ ~
3 ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
~~ -~
~ ~~
~~
~ ~
~
o
~ ~ ~
~~
Q„
o ~ ~ ~
~ ~ o Q,
~ ~
. ~ o ~, ~ .~
~ ~ ~ ~ U U
O N
x ~ O ~ ~
`
o ~ ° °
~
.~ ~ ~ ,~ O N
~+ ~
U ~
Q N
~
.'
_O
~
" U
~ ~ U ~
~
~
'
~
~ ~ O
~
+~ p
~ ~ ~ ~i
z ~~
~~
U ~
U ~~~
~
~
. U . O
~ o
~ ~ N
x
~~. t~. S".
~ ~ O +r'-i s..
~ N
~
.~
p '
~ ~ }' ,~ O `~ U i
xa ~ ~ ~~
,
~ ~
'~ O ~ ~
N ~ ~
_
"
~
~
+-' '-~ .~ ,~ ~ ,
,
~ O
~ U
O ~ O ~
~ S:
" x ~
c~ a"' N
~ ~ .
~ O ~., U ; `~
5-i ~
i--
~
~
y O ~
~ Q~
~
~ ~ x ~ ~
+ ~
~
~. ,
.~ r--'
'~
~ U N O ~ N O
i-4 .1 3~i ~ ~ Vl ~ O
i
1
i
~
rr
_1
~
t
~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~
Q ~' .~ ~ O N
~ p ~ ~ ~ S
y ~ '~' ~ ~ ~ U
~ C
.
H N ~ F~
-I
W O jj
~ ~ •
HN
C ~
N
N ~ ~ ~ -O
,~-
~ c
`
^
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
^
~ W
d'
'~
'r1
'V
V
~~
a~ ~
N
~~
~ OM
~ ti
~ ~
D 4~
n ~
~i
J
N O
o
~,
~ U
Ny.~
U i-i
H O
~ U
yr
N
H ,~1
y~
3
J rti
y QQ
> N
`-'
~ ~
H
V
i O
N
N
N
a py
Page 1
Additional Public Comments Received
'~ At the July 23, 2004 Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment
on the 35W/62 Crosstown Commons Project
The full record of comments made at the July 23 Public Hearing will be available
for review of the August 10 City Council meeting. The following comments are
abbreviated and only cover issues affecting Richfield:
Glen Markegard, 6040 James Avenue, Minneapolis- There are no pedestrian
connections between Richfield and Minneapolis along Highway 62 between Penn
Avenue and Lyndale Avenue. Moreover, the Penn Avenue Bridge over TH 62 is
not conducive to bike or pedestrian corossing. The project offers a once in a
lifetime opportunity to include a pedestrian and bicycle bridge somewhere
between Penn Avenue and Lyndale Avenue over Highway 62.
Lezlie Vermillion, 6344 Knox Avenue, Richfield and member of Richfield
Transportation Committee-The biggest single environmental impact of the
project is the reduction of regional traffic on Richfield local streets. We believe to
expect to drop 5,000 cars a day on 66t" Street alone. Safety of our users is a
major concern. Stormwater treatment strategies outlined in the project will
substantially improve existing conditions. Designers have been flexible to allow
redevelopment near Richfield Lake.
_ Marv Bjugan, Chair, Governmental Affairs Committee of the Richfield
Chamber of Commerce- The need to move forward on this reconstruction
project is evident to the membership of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. We
are also aware of the public safety considerations for both our customers and
employees.
Suzanne Sandahl, Council Member and Council Liaison to the Richfield
Transportation Committee, and Vice Chairman of the I-35W Solutions
Alliance- The project will take traffic off local streets, particularly 66t" Street;
safety conserns are satisfied; pond at Richfield Lake helps environment and
redevelopment; and, Richfield Transportation Committee unanimously
recommended approval- don't delay reconstruction. Her letter is attached.
Greg Peterson, Owner of Peters Billiards, 6150 Lyndale Avenue,
Minneapolis- As we previously have said, we can see no benefit to the
neighborhood of a new entrance ramp to westbound Highway 62. It will cause
unwanted traffic in our neighborhood and will make our business be unable to
stay in the city of Minneapolis.
Carol Ann Sudile, 6308 Third Avenue South, Richfield- I want to speak to the
new walkway that is going to be connecting Fifth Avenue and Portland Avenue,
it's a new walkway, there isn't one there now and I'd like that not to be put in. I
feel that we have. a safety issue that might present itself which we don't have now
Page 2
because between Nicollet and Portland there is no cut through all the way
through. There are walking paths and bike paths, but they don't connect
completely through Nicollet and Portland, and so I'd like that not to be connected.
I also am concerned with the house on the very end of Third Avenue (6216 Third
Ave.). It belongs to the Janes family, and I know there is a walkway, a bike path
there now and there is some right-of-way that is -that's on their side of the fence
and they have maintained that for years. They have made a beautiful garden
there. They have a boat port there. They have a tool shed there and I understand
now this belongs to the City of Richfield and the fence is going to come down and
all that can be destroyed and I would like that not to happen. It doesn't look like
it's necessary. It looks like the fence could basically touch where the walkway is
going to be, the new walkway will be put up, and I wish all that could be done
without destroying what they have done.
Richfield resident who wishes name to be kept private--Widen the Portland.
Ave. Bridge over Highway 62. Many motorists familiar with the area know which
lane to be in. Also, try to retain access from Portland Avenue to westbound
Highway 62. The difficulty going west on Highway 62 now is with tailgaters. It is
not difficult at night to make this move.
Fred Wroge, 124 East 70t" Street, Richfield- I would have liked to have seen
movement of the 62 Crosstown to the north. Leaving the road where it is
proposed now takes more houses out of Richfield. "Fair share" of 13 houses from
Richfield and 9 from Minneapolis doesn't sound fair.
July 22, 2004
John Griffith
Area Engineer/Project Manager
Mn/DOT, Metro District
MAYOR 1500 West County Road B2
MARTIN J. KIRSCH Roseville, MN 55113
cmr couNa~
JOHN ENGER Re: Comments on the EA/EAW for. the Crosstown Commons Project
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M. SANDAHL
Dear Mr. Griffith,
GERTRUDE ULRICH
cmr MANa Thank you for the opportunity to. address the environmental concerns of the 1-35W/Highway
GeR
SAMANTHA ORDUNO 62 Reconstruction Project. As a member of the Richfield City Council, Vice Chairman of the
1_35/ Solutions Alliance, and City Council liaison to the Richfield Transportation Committee
,
I have been closely following the progress of this project over the past several years
This
.
project has a profound impact on Richfield.
PROJECT TAKES TRAFFIC OFF LOCAL STREETS
The single biggest local environmental effect of the project is the reduction of the pressure of
regional~traffic on Richfield local streets. We can expect a drop of 5,000 cars a day on 66th
Street alone in Richfield. This means a reduction of traffic cutting through our neighborhoods.
Much of Richfield's character and charm is related to its' central location in the Twin City
Metro. But, if the regional.traffic is not accommodated on the regional transportation system,
Richfield will be negatively impacted.
SAFETY CONCERNS SATISFIED
Safety of the user is a.major environmental concern. In certain critical areas within the
existing project area, crash rates and severity are double the Metro average. These high
rates are caused by weaving, sight restrictions, and congestion. All of these hazards will be
eliminated with the completion of this project. The improvements to finally remove these
dangerous conditions is .long overdue and should not be delayed. Even Richfield residents
who will lose their homes or were directly affected by the project testified that it needed to
move forward to solve the obvious safety issues.
POND AT RICHFIELD LAKE HELPS ENVIRONMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
Currently none of the storrriw~ter in the project area is treated before. entering receiving
waters. Treatment strategies outlined in the project will substantially improve existing
conditions. A portion of the stormwater runoff from the project will be handfed responsibly at
Richfield Lake. The stormwater solution at Richfield Lake not only cleans up the stormwater
from the project, but the stormwater from the entire Richfield Lake subwatershed will be
channeled through the new.stormwater pond.
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL- DON'T DELAY
1 have attended several of the open houses, public meetings and public hearings on
this project over the years and am convinced that the public is well informed and
The UYban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
www.ci.rlchfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(Griffith, Mn/DOT)
(July 22, 2004)
Page 2
anxious for the project to be completed. Richfield's Transportation (ci#izen advisory)
Committee has been following the project closely and voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the project. Please move forward with the much-needed
improvements.
Sincerely,
~.
Suz ne Sandahl
Richfield City Council Member
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
r~
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 10, 2004
Other Business
134
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
aND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
~~
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL `CONSIDERATION:
Consider a request for a new 2004 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for MDM
EAR, Inc. DBA The Back and Bar and Grill, 1500 East 7=3th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Consider a request for new 2004 on-sale intoxicating and
Sunday liquor licenses for MDM EAR, Inc. DBA The Backyard Bar and
Grill. 1500 East 78th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2004, the City received the application and other required documents for
a new 2004 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for MDM EAR, Inc. DBA
The Backyard Bar and Grill, 1500 East 78th Street, in the old Ground Round
building.
0810 Backyard Bar & Grill Liquor Licenses
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The Articles of Incorporation of MDM EAR, Inc. DBA The Backyard Bar and Grill,
that were filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State, along with the stock
purchase agreement, shows the owners of the business as follows:
President Mark Minogue
Vice President Elizabeth Rosvold
Vice President Craig Strowbridge
Secretary Elizabeth Rosvold
Treasurer Mark Minogue
• Ms. Rosvold has no known criminal record and is listed as one of two Vice
Presidents and also as Secretary.
Mr. Minogue and Mr. Strowbridge do have cri~~ninal history charges as follows:
• Mr. Minogue - Mr. Minogue's driver license shows a status of Cance -Inimical
to Public Safety. Minogue indicated on his application under the Personal
Information form that he had two DWI convictions, 10-15-03 in Dakota County
and 5-11-02 in Detroit Lake. He also had two other previous DWI convictions
but didn't list them as he thought the application asked for information from only
the last ten years. The other previous two DWI's were 4-4-86 and 1-31-91. Mr.
Minogue's driver license record and criminal history shows the following:
• He served one night in jail on 4-1-04 due to his conviction in his 10-15-03
DWI in Dakota County. A booking picture was taken of him on 1-12-04, but
that was the first time he appeared in court on the 10-15-03 charge and it is
normal procedure to have a booking photo taken. He did not spend a night
in jail at that time.
• He has a DWI conviction date of 1-31-91 in Washington County.
• He has a DWI conviction date of 4-4-86.
• He is currently on probation for 3~d Degree DWI. His probation officer, Stacy
Hughes, was contacted and she indicated that Minoque had not missed any
appointments with her. She was aware that Mr. Minoque was planning on
opening up the Backyard Bar and Grill in Roseville.
• In checking with the Roseville Police Department, Mr. Minoque had applied
for a liquor license with the City of Roseville for the Backyard Bar and Grill,
2100 Snelling Avenue North, Roseville, MN. The city of Roseville approved
Mr. Minoque's application for a liquor license with the following conditions:
that he refrain from managing or making operational decisions with regard to
the purchasing, storing, or selling of alcohol at this location and that he
refrain from providing any direct supervision to employees responsible for
selling alcoholic products. The Backyard Bar and Grill in Roseville is
scheduled to be open for business on 7-7-04.
• Mr. Minoque had indicated that he has fully cooperated in all cases and has
nothing to hide from anyone. He has provided staff with his attorney's name
and phone number and encouraged staff to contact him if they had any other
questions specific to his criminal history. Staff has not had a need to contact
his attorney. Copies of the police incidents that occurred in 10-15-03 and 5-
11-02 are attached for City Council's review and information.
Mr. Strowbridge - Mr. Strowbridge did not indicate on his application that he
had a DWI conviction on 3-31-90 or on 12-2-81. When asked about the two
convictions, he indicated that he hadn't disclosed them on his application
because he thought we were only interested in convictions within the last ten
years. Mr. Strowbridge explained that he was 16 at the time of the 12-2-81
conviction and was surprised that a juvenile conviction showed up on his adult
records. In April of 1985, Mr. Strowbridge was also charged with theft and motor
vehicle registration-intent to escape tax when he took a current license tab
sticker off a friend's license plate and used it on his plate to drive to another
state. When he came back to Minnesota to visit his mother, he got caught. He
explained that he was unable to obtain a sticker for himself at the time because
he did not have car insurance.
As this is a new business, there are no unpaid general sales and withholding taxes.
A.G.Bogen Co. owns the property and the real estate property taxes are paid and
current.
The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted.
The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received. Proof of
workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
As a result of this being a new request for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
licenses, there is no need for an accountant's statement to be submitted regarding
the food/alcohol ratio.
As this. is a request for a new license, there are no previous "calls for service"
contact records to compare this with.
Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the establishment
when it was previously open and operating under "The Ground Round."
On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners. of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9204, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been
given to the owner of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses.
The City Council has broad discretion to decide whether or not to issue or renew a
liquor license, but the Council may not act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The applicant
must be given an opportunity to address the Council regarding the license
application and to respond to any concerns.that the Council may have. The Council
must treat license applicants equally under substantially similar circumstances.
Under State Statute, the Council may deny a license to a person who is "not of good
moral character and repute," Minnesota Stat. 340A.402. However, the Council may
not deny a license based solely on an applicant's past criminal convictions, unless
the crime directly relates to the occupation for which the license is sought, Minn.
Stat. 364.03, subd. 1.
The Council could find that the current applicants' DWI convictions are not
necessarily directly related to running a liquor establishment and issue the license.
The Council could also lawfully conclude that such convictions are directly related.
The Council could find that an individual who has not shown personal responsibility
in the use of alcohol should not be given the opportunity to operate a business that
calls for the exercise of sound judgement and decision making relating to the use of
alcohol and protecting the public interest.
The City has previously issued licenses to individuals with DWI convictions. In
those instances, at least two years and up to three years had passed from the most
recent conviction to the date of the license. With the current application, the
individual's most recent conviction was in October of 2003.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has provided staff with all the information they have
requested in processing this license application request. The
applicant would like an opportunity to explain his criminal history
records, which include four DWI convictions.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The requirements of Resolution No. 9204 must be met.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to deny the license requests which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
liquor and Sunday liquor licenses.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Past Police Reports re: Mr. Minogue; one dated 05/11/02, the other 10/12/03.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Minogue
• Mr. Strowbridge
r1-laC J3/ JO
WHITE EARTH TRIBAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
BECKER CO CFS #: 02-002916
W.E.T.P.D. ICR #: 02-000834
DATE:OS/l ll02
TIl~iE: 2301 HI2S
LOCATION: ITVV'Y 59 1 MILE SOUTH OF THIa BUFFALO RIVER
OFFICER: ROBERT STRAND #$12
Cppy
OFFfiNSES: 3~ DEGREE DWI, OPEN CONTAINER, SPEEDING (75/55),
POSSESSION OF DRUG PAR.A.PHENAI.IA, POSSESSION SMALL
AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA IN A IvXOTOR VEHICLE
SUSPECT: MARK DEAN MIlVOGUB
6440 DAWN WAY EAST
IVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076
DOB 04/25166
DL #: M-520-585-139-318
SUSPECT VEHICLE:
1999 GREJEN, FORD F-350, 4-DR, MN LIC # YAMZ709,
REGISTERED TO ELIZABETH ANN ROSVOLD, 6440 DAWN V~AY
EAST, IlWER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076
At approximately 2254 hrs I heard the State Patrol Dispatcher give out a report of
a dtunlc driven ®outhbound on Hwy 59 from the MahAOmen/Becker Co. Line, Becker Co.
Dispatch then gave me the same information and informed:aae that the pickup had state
plates. A few minutes later I heard the State Patrol Dispatcher say that the pickup was
passing cars at a high rate of speed.
At approximately 2301 hrs while northbound on Hwy 59 on my way back from
the Becker Co. Jail I clocked a vehicle that was southbound on Hwy 59 at 75 mph in a 55
mph zone approximately 1 mile south from the Buffalo River. As the vehicle passed me
I noticed that it was a pickup. I turned on the vehicle and when I caught up to it I
activated my eAO~ergency lights. The vehicle stopped approxitately 2 miles north of CR
14 on Hwy 59.
I exited my squad car aad waiked up to the vehicle to explaua to the driver why I
had stopped him. As I was walking up to the pickup I noticed that the window. on the
back driver's side door was doyen along with the drivers window. I noticed an empty
beer bottle in the middle compartment of the back seat. I also noticed that there were two
cans of Miller Light in the cup bplders of the front seat that were open. While talking
with the driver I could detect a strong odor of att alcoholic beverage coming from the
vehicle. I asked the drivor if he knew why I had stopped him. He said, 'because, I was
speeding." I asked him for his dxivet's license. I identi£icd the driver as Mazk Dean
Minogue by his driver's license. While talking to Mazk I noticed that his eyes were
watery and bloodshot. I asked Mazk if he would shut the pickup off and if he would
step out of the vehicle, which he did.
I asked Mazk if he had any problems with his eyes. Ivlazlt said no. I explained the
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus to Mazk Mark said that he understood the test lluring the
test I had to tell Mazk bo keep his head still and just follow the pen with his eyes. Mark
lacked smooth pursuit, had mystagnaus at maximum deviation and prior to 45 degrees in
both eyes. I then. explained and demonstrated the Wa]k and Tum Test to Mark. Mark
started before instructed to do so, stepped offthe line several times to keep his balance,
stopped walking and made aD, improper turn.
I then asked Mark if he would consent to a PBT. Mark refused saying that he
would like to speak with his attorney. I then placed Mark under arrest For D.W.L at 2315
hrs. While patting Mark dawn I found a plastic haggle containing a green leafy substance
that looked and smelled like marijuana in his le8 inside coat pocket. Mark was placed in
handcuffs that were double locked behind his back.
I then went and searched the pickup incident to arrest. During the search I found
an Altnoid breath mint container in the center counsel containing a gold one hitter, which
contained a black residue, which I believed to burned marijuana, anal a green leafy
substance, which I be~eve to be marijuana. Iu the Huddle of the front seat was an open
I2 pack of Miller Light cans with approximately 4 cans missing. Pictures were taken of
the open containers and of the breath mint box containing the one hitter and marijuana.
Berry's Towing was called for the tow. While waiting for the taw Mark stated
several times that he should not have been. driving and there was no way he should have
been on the zoa~i. Mark said that he gave a buddy a ride to the bar in Waubun from
Pinehurst and he wag on his way back to Pinehurst. I explained to Mark that somebody
had called him in up by the Mahnomen/Becker Co. Line. Mark said, "somebody called
me ia, I shouldn't have been driving." I asked Mang i£he kneyv where he was at. Mark
said that yes, I asked him if he knew where Pinehurst was. Mark said yes and pointed to
Callaway. I told Mark that was Callaway and he was in $ecker Co. Marls said again I
shouldn't have been driving. I asked Mark when was the last time he smoked marijuana.
Mark said about three weeks ago.
I izansported nmar]c to the Becker Co. Jail. When we got to the jail I read mark the
Implied. Consent. Mark said that he wished to speak with an attozncy, Mark said that he
wanted to contact an attorney and tried relerttiessly to get a hold of his attorney out of the
Cities. Mark was unable bo get a hold of his attomoy but yeas able to make contact with a
local attorney. Mark theca said that he would take a bz~eath test. At 0103 hrs 11~ark had an
_ A.C. of .14_ Mark was issued citations for 3`~ Degree D.W.I., open container, speeding
(75/SS), possession of drug paraphernalia, and goasession small amount of marijuana in a
motor vehicle with niaadatary court on all the charges set for 06/03/02.
IVlazk was held tiiI ai least 0800 hrs and to be released to a sober party.
J UI • 11 ccler-r 10 • CJ 1 ~ LI"II~CV 1 LLC r . 1J . - y~~yrj~4tjyy r , ~~/Ui
LAKEV'~LLE POLICE DEPARTMENT CASE/INCIDENT NUMBER 0300686a
,Y POLICE REPORT
INCIDENT 3`~ Degree DUI OFF LVL G Misd CALL PATE 101203 CALL TIME 2233
~FICER 1 Ehrich, 4639 OFFICER 2 Haider, 4831 DUTY SGT S/O OCC DATE 1 D1203 oCC TIME Z~33
CATION County Road 5 at County Road 48 ~ ARE:r4 482D CLOSErD
INCIDENT SUMMARY; 1 observed a vehicle speeding and committing several moving violations. Vehicle was reported to
have been going the wrong way on the freeway. Vehicle stopped and driver was physically unable to perform field
sobriety tests. He submitted to a PBT and was arrested for DUI. Urine sample collected and subject detoxed,
NAME (Last) (First Middle) DOB A/J SEX RACE IN CUST
USPECT Minogue Mark Dean 042566 Adult Male White ^
ADDRESS- 6440 Dawn Way East, Inver Grove Heights, MN 5507'6
TELEPHONQ H (651)
NAME (Last) (Firs! M~dd~e) OOB A!J SEX RACE IN CUST
OMPLA/NANT McCabe Patrick Edward 042086 Juv Male ^
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE C (651)278-9705
NAME (Lsst) (First Middle) DOB A/J SEX RACE IN CUST
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE `~
,
NAME (Last) (First Middle) DOB A/J SEX RACE IN COST
ADDRESS ^
TELEPHONE
EHICLE 1
5T MN LIC YAM2709 , YR 99 MAKE Ford
VEHICLE 2 MODEL Pickup COLOR Green DMG 5
ST LIC
VEHICLE 3 YR MAKE MODEL COLOR DMG S
ST LIC
VEHICLE d YR MAKE MODEL COLOR DMG S
ST LIC YR MAKE MODEL COLOR DMG S
PROPERTY (O;Damage, L-Lost, S:Sto/en, F:Found
R:Recovered
P:Photo
8
8
d
,
, ,
:
urns
, E;EVidence, O:Other)
CODE QTY MAKE/DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE
MODEL NUMBER SERIAL NUM BER
L _ ,JDITIONAL PERSONSNEHICLES/PROPERTY LISTED IN NARRATIVE
FORWARD TO
^ ADDITIONAL REPORTS/FORMS ATTACHED
IMP® ,
IMP [~
IMP ~
IMP ^
EST VALUE
s
s
s
s
s
s
a
s
( -~ y
~,_ „~~ >;~rrre ~. ~ Sol ~°I ~ %'1~'~ ~ ;,~,C`,~r~ n'~ ``'' ~;~,'.,;
.,~~. 11 GC.IYJ'-} lp•VJ,,, LI-IY~CVILLC r. L. `J5~'Jci54'o'J9 P.03/e5
L~hCf~/ILLE POLICE DEP~IRTMENT cASE/INCIDENT NUMBER 03006854
POLICE REPORT
NARRATIVE/ELEMENTS:
I was driving back to Lakeville after having dropped a person off in Burnsville from an unrelated call.
1 was traveling east on 155' Street at about Krafton Avenue when I noticed a green pickup traveling south
on County Road 5. The truck locked up its brakes and come to a screeching stop in the middle of the
traffic lane. The car then accelerated at a very high rate of speed continuing south on CR5. As I turned
behind the truck I noticed it hit the curb on the right side of the road at a very high rate of speed. The truck
drove on the grass for a short distance then overcorrected to the left crossing the centerline. I caught up to
the vehicle and estimated its speed at around 60 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. I noticed the
car cross the right fog line one more time before it came to a quick stop for the fast approaching stop sign
at County Road 46.
I was then able to read the license plate and noticed it was the same car I heard the Burnsville
Police Dispatcher air a few minutes prior as going the wrong way on the freeway. The truck turned. east on
CR46 then pulled over after I activated my lights.
I approached the driver, later identified as Mark Minogue, and was immediately able to detect a very ;
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the car. I noticed that Mark's eyes were bloodshot and
watery and he swayed side to side as he sat in his truck. I noticed that Mark's speech was slurred and I
could detect a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. I asked for his driver's
license as I opened his door to talk to him. Mark pulled a wallet out of his back pocket and it immediately
fell out of his hands onto the road. He then reached back into the same pocket and began digging around
for about thirty seconds despite it being obvious there was nothing in his pocket. 1 then pointed out to Mark
t~~t he dropped his wallet and he started falling out of his truck when he leaned over to look at it on the
~_,und. He grabbed his door at the last second to avoid hitting his head but his body fell completely out of
the cab of his truck, Ne then grabbed his wallet and put it back in his front pocket.
I again asked for his license and he began searching for his wallet in his back pocket. I informed
him that he just put it in his front pocket and he removed it. He then handed me some type of calling card
or credit card. I gave the card back to him and asked again for his license. He began searching all
through his wallet until I finally pointed out to him that it was the top card in an open part of his wallet. I
then explained to Mark why l stopped him and asked if he had been drinking. Mark said he had been
drinking but said he did not know how much he had, He later told me he had three beers. I asked Mark if
he would perform a series of field sobriety tests and he said, "I know I shouldn't be driving." I asked Mark if
he thought he was drunk and he said, "I don't know." I again asked Mark if he would perform field sobriety
tests and he said yes.
I asked Mark if he had any physical or mental disabilities or impairments and he said, "retardation."
I asked what he meant by that and he laughed and said, "I'm just kidding." I again asked if he had any
physical or mental disabilities and he said no. He also told me he had no i(Inesses or recent injuries. He
specifically told me he did not have diabetes.
The first test I asked Mark to pertorm was the HGN test. I first had him stand with his feet together
and hands at his sides. When he tried this he swayed considerably and lost his balance several times. I
finally allowed him to stand with his feet a few inches apart. I then asked Mark if he could see my finger at
the_tip of my pen which I held in front of him. He said yes. I then told him to keep his head still and follow
r yen with his eyes. He told me he understood but I attempted the test on him several times and each
time he turned his head or did not look at the pen at all. I tried six or seven times to explain the test to
Mark and tried to get him to follow my finger several times with his eyes but was unsuccessful. It was very
apparent Mark was not able to follow these simple instructions.
J VI \ i i-~r~e~•t t o• rJG LI-IY~C V 1 LLC r. li. 'J5~`~iti54~i`J- 9 P .04/05
- r The next test I asked Mark to perform was the walk and tum test. I tried for several minutes to get
Mark to stand with his right foot in front of his left as I was demonstrating for him but he told me he did not
understand. Each time he tried to stand as I was, he fell off balance. He continuously asked me to repeat
f ~e instructions and each time was not able to comply. On several occasions he responded with
c.....~~ments irrelevant to the instructions I was giving him. Once he said, "I can't do that. You're a
professionally trained officer." On another occasion I told him I wanted him to stand on the fog line so I
could demonstrate the test and give him the instructions. His response to this was, "I want to be known for
that line." It was again very apparent that Mark was not able to follow my instructions. I asked Mark if he
thought he would be able to perform the test and he said, "I know I shouldn't be driving. Why are we going
through this?"
then asked Mark if he wanted to attempt the one legged stand test, He said he did wish to try and
I began giving the instructions. He interrupted m® when I told him to lift one foot off the ground in front of
him and he said, "you're a professional officer. I can't do that." I asked if he wanted to try and he said no.
1 then asked if Mark wanted to try a PBT. He said he would and gave me a sample but in short.
quick blows. He abruptly stopped blowing and I was unable to activate the test while he was blowing,
However, l was able to get a reading of .172 despite the poor sample (PBT number 1091149-last
calibrated 10-01-03). I placed Mark under arrest for DUI and had Marek's tow his vehicle.
I transported Mark to the Lakeville Police Department booking area where at 2313 hours I activated
my recorder and read Mark the Implied Consent Advisory. Mark told me he understood everything I
explained to him and said he did wish to speak with an attorney. I stopped the tape at 2316 hours and
gave Mark several telephone books and a telephone. Mark asked me several times how to use the phone
and (explained it to him several times. At 2325 hours he told me he was ready to make a decision about
te~`~~g. He agreed to take a breath test but I discovered our Intoxilyzer machine was out of order. I then
a;__.:d if Mark would take a urine test and he agreed. Mark gave the sample and I mailed it to the BCA for
analyzing. 1 infom~ed Mark that charges would be pending the results from the test and released him to
Detox at 0105 hours. Mark was very cooperative. JAE/4839
3
"".,"~,~,,,y~'cr'v"r lv'r~C LHKtV1LLt I"'.ll.
1,A~s• ~/ILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUpP~t~MENT REPORT
~icER Ehrich, 4839
SATE 110303
TIME: 2145
9529854899 P.05i05
CASE/INCIDENT NUMBER 03006854 ~''
NARRATIVE/ELEMENTS: ~/~
I received a report from the BCA forensic science lab regarding the urine sample from Mr. Minogue. Forensic
Scientist Joseph Yoch's analysis revealed an ethyl alcohol concentration of .20 grams per 67 milliliters of urine. I
signed the implied consent form reflecting this result. JAE/4839
/gd
TOTAL P.05
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6C
REPORT # 133
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 10, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
CHERYL 1~ICUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST.
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRES$NTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of conducting a Regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2004.
I. RECOMMENDED CTION:
By Motion: Cancel the Regular City Council meeting scheduled for
Tuesda , Au ust 24, 2004.
II. BACKGROUND
The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Tuesday evening of each
month. Items for the August 24 (fourth Tuesday) Council meeting can be carried
over to September 16, 2003. Therefore, it is suggested that the regular Council
meeting scheduled for August 24 be canceled.
Note: The first Tuesday in September is the Primary Election and conducting a
meeting on that day is prohibited by State Statute. Therefore, the September 14
Regular City Council meeting is rescheduled to Thursday, September 16, 2004.
A Special City Council Worksession is tentatively scheduled for August 24, 2004
should continued discussion of the 2004 Revised/2005 Proposed budget be
necessary. That determination will be made at the August 18, 2004 Special City
Council Worksession.
0810cancel
In addition, a Special City Council Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September
8, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. to consider the adoption of the 2005 preliminary levy.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City
Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• City Council business can be carried over to September 16, 2004.
• This item has been placed on the August 10 City Council agenda so
proper notification can be made if the meeting is canceled.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not cancel the August 24 Council meeting.
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ( g
REPORT # 132
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 10, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2OZO GOAL(S) NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
NauE TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election
judges for the September 14, 2004 Primary Election and the November 2, 2004 General
Election and increasin election 'ud e a .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating polling places and
appointing election judges for the September 14, 2004 Primary
Election and the November 2, 2004 General Election and increase
election iudae
II. BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statute 2046.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a
municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that
the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election
judges will serve.
0810ELECTIONS
The City Clerk's office has completed updating and verifying the City's election
judge availability list. All individuals who have previously served as an election
judge, were on the list submitted to the County Auditor by the major political parties,
or have expressed an interest in serving as an election judge were sent a
questionnaire to:
1. Determine whether or not they wished to remain on the election judge availability
list.
2. Verify existing file information regarding address, political party, etc.
3. Receive an indication of availability to work at the 2004 scheduled elections.
The attached resolution contains the names of all of the individuals on the updated
election judge availability list. Appointment by the City Council will allow them to
serve as election judges at the Primary Election, the General Election or both
elections. Election judges will be assigned to the precincts based on availability,
party balance, and the number required for each election. The General Election will
require assignment of the greatest number of available judges.
Election judge pay in comparison to surrounding cities:
Richfield Eden Prairie Edina Bloomington St. Louis
(Current Pay) Park
Chair $8.00 per hour $10.00 $9.50 $10.00 $9.50
Assistant Chair $7.50 per hour $9.50 Don't use $9.50 $9.00
Judge $7.25 per hour $9.00 $8.50 $9.00 $8.00
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge
appointments at least 25 days prior to the election.
• The proposed resolution contains names of those qualified individuals
who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election
judge for the September 14, 2004 Primary Election and the November
2, 2004 General Election.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the conduct of the
election would not be valid.
C. FINANCIAL
• Election judges have had no increase in salary since 2000. The
proposed pay increase is as follows:
Proposed Pay
Chair $10.00 per hour
Assistant Chair $9.00 per hour
Judge $8.25 per hour
D. LEGAL
• Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2. The Primary
Election will be conducted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 and the
General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
Therefore, the City Council must appoint election judges to serve at
these elections. The names come from a list of people who have
indicated their interest in serving as an election judge to the County
Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 2048.21 Subd. 1 and those
who have previously served or indicated interest in serving.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not named in the
resolution.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION
JUDGES FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 AND THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2004 AND
INCREASING ELECTION JUDGE PAY
WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
and a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
that said elections shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified:
Precinct No. 1
Ward 3
Precinct No. 2
Ward 2
Precinct No. 3
Ward 1
Precinct No. 4
Ward 1
Precinct No. 5
Ward 1
Precinct No. 6
Ward 2
Precinct No. 7
Ward 2
Precinct No. 8
Ward 3
Precinct No. 9
Ward 3
Mt. Calvary Education Building
6541 16th Avenue
St. Peter's Catholic Church
6730 Nicollet Avenue
Sheridan Hills School
6400 Sheridan Avenue
St. Richard's Catholic Church
7540 Penn Avenue
Richfield Middle School
7461 Oliver Avenue
Central School Building
7145 Harriet Avenue
Hope Presbyterian Education Facility
7132 Portland Avenue
Richfield Intermediate School
7020 12th Avenue
Centennial School
7315 Bloomington Avenue
and, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said elections:
James Alagna William Andersen
Trish Anenson Delores Armstrong
Adrian Athey Carol Athey
Pat Bailey Kathleen Barta
Charles Bauer Jr. Marlys Bergstrom
Erva Brown Jim Butler
Elaine Carlson Darlene Clauson
Stanley Cromer Ellen Cutter
Marie Dallager Andrew Daniels-May
Gladys Denesen Joanne Dentinger
Carol DeVries Charles DeVries
Marguerite Dozois Sheila Duscher
Duane H. Edberg Dee Ann Edlund
Lisa Anderson
Doris Arnold
Cheryl Avenson
Elaine Baron
Linda Boyd
Pat Cantin
Geraldine Cooper
David Dahl
Emily Day
Delrose Desrosier
Robert M. Doebler
Denise Eckerman
Liz Ekholm
Betty Elenbaas Margaret Erickson Susanne Erickson
Mary Jo Fadell Veronica Fashant Donna Fischer
Sheila Fitzgerald Jette Floberg Beatrice Frankus
Gregory Frost Karen Garrett Nancy Garwick
Elayne Gilhousen Dennis Gillespie Joann Gleason
Earlene Goalen Judy Goebel Rebecca Guarino
Roger Guarino Dorothy Haffely Earl Hagen
Gladys Hamernes William Handt Char Hanson
Diane Healey Mae Hermansen Helen Hillstrom
Ilene Holen JoAnn Holt JeNee Honningford
Nancy Hoon Marion Horning Donald Houlding
June Houlding Bob Houlton Mary Lou Janco
John Jobe Norman Johnson Ray Johnson
Sita Johnson Elaine Kaibel Kalla Kalloway
Betty Kamps Danette Kamrath Thomas D. Keegan
Olga Kelash Bev Kenealey June King
Erica Klein Vernon Knudsen Rosemary Koelln
Joan Koepke Joseph Kovach Lois Kovach
Robert Laus Brian Kroulik Bernadette Lais
James Lewis Susan Lewis Doris Liedtke
Nancy Lindberg Jeanette Lofstrom Lester Loney
Dorothy B. Lowe Don Ludwig Eleanor Maanum
Lorraine Maki Cynthia Mandl David Martin
Norma Martin Paul Matuschek Karin McComb
Connie McDonald Clyde McRae Patricia Medley
Carolyn Moe Lee Monssen Richard Morey
Erich Morris Carol Mortenson Philip Mortenson
Eileen Muelken Helen Nachicas James Niemackl
Marilyn Nienkerk Dawn Nilsen Katherine Nordquist
Martha Obenchain Marlene Odegard Lee Ohnesorge
Janet Oldowski Joan Olinger Robert O. Olson
Lois Omlie Fern Oreck Blanche Otte
Ruth Pafko Dorothy Peabody James Pearson
Betty Peltola Betty Pemble Bradley Peterson
Monica Petrov LiGlian Phillips Richard Phillips
Rosanne Pingree Cindy Prince Martha Prottengeier
Sunny Ray Carolyn Ring Harriet Ring
Ward Ring Russ Rooney Jeff Rundgren
Sandy Schmidt Judy Schultz Anne Sheridan
Bradley Smith Margaret Smith William Snyder
Becky Spitzack Faye Sprecker William Stixrud
Jason Stroth Jean Swenson Anil Tandon
Ed Thom Myrtle Thom Marion Thompson
Claire Todd Pat Toney Phyllis Unger
Bernice Utter Beatrice Van Liew Kenneth Vevea
Helen Volz Tasha Waldron Pearl Weitbrecht
Elaine Wetsch Lorraine Widme DePaul Willette
Shirley Wold Marian Woolery Dorothy Wulf
Daisy Young Lu Ziebol Paul Roe
Donna Roe
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota hereby approve a pay increase for Chair Election Judges, Co-Chair Election
Judges and Judges as follows:
Chair Judge
Co-Chair Judge
Judge
$10.00 per hour
$9.00 per hour
$8.25 per hour
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
August, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # fiA
REPORT # 131 Q
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 10, 2004
Related to:
CITY CovrrclL GOAL(S) No. 36
AND/OR RICxF'IELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO
25, 29
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
T/TLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the
apartment building located at 6520 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just
compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6520 Cedar Avenue
(Airport Noise Acquisition Proaraml.
II. BACKGROUND
• On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of
Richfield to purchase properties that are, or will be, negatively impacted by
airport operations.
• Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue
were identified for first priority purchase with the funds. The remaining funds are
0810046520Cedar
to be used to purchase as many of the apartment buildings north of 66th Street
as possible, beginning with the northernmost building and moving south.
• Four apartment buildings, 6328, 6344, 6412 and 6444 Cedar Avenue, have
been purchased to date.
• Appraisals for 6520 Cedar Avenue were completed and reviewed in 2002
($565,000). The selected appraisal was recently updated to reflect current
market conditions ($620,000). MAC concurs with the appraisal.
• On July 13, 2004, the City Council approved just compensation of $620,000 for
the apartment building at 6520 Cedar Avenue and authorized staff to begin
negotiations to purchase the property. The property owners have made a
counter offer of $645,000 with the provision that they will continue to own and
manage the property until all tenants have vacated the property.
• The apartment tenants may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The
relocation benefits will be calculated separately in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Act once an offer is accepted by the property owner.
~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for
the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the
Agreement.
• The subject property is within the 87dB contour.
B. .CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of revised just compensation would relieve the City of
owning and managing the property while tenants are still living in the
building.
• The Agreement with MAC allows the City to negotiate a price that is
up to $25,000 or 10 percent greater (whichever is less) than the
appraised value.
C. FINANCIAL
• The counter offer is $25,000, or four percent, higher than the
appraised value.
• The current property owners will continue to own and manage the
property and collect the rental payments until all tenants have vacated
the property.
• Sufficient funds remain to purchase the property.
D. LEGAL
• There are no pending legal issues at this time.
E. TIMING
• Upon approval of revised just compensation, the City's acquisition
agent, Conworth, Inc. and legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, will
coordinate settlement issues with the property owners.
• The settlement closing will take place after all tenants have vacated
the property.
• Tenants will be provided with a 90-day notice to vacate in accordance
with the Uniform Relocation Act shortly after a purchase agreement is
signed.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Delay approval of revised just compensation.
• Do not approve revised just compensation.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING l
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING
PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6520 CEDAR AVENUE
AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition
strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal
funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement
(Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of
Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively
impacted by airport operations; and
WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property
identified for purchase is:
Property Address Legal Description
6520 Cedar Ave S Lot 4 and the south 71 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Iverson's Third
Addition
Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be
vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores,
appurtenant thereto
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property
within its corporate boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject property to be made by
qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate;
and
WHEREAS, the City has extended an offer of fair market value, as determined by
qualified independent professional appraisers, of $620,000 to the owners of real property
at 6520 Cedar Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the owners of real property at 6520 Cedar Avenue have presented a
counter offer to the City for the purchase of the property in the amount of $645,000; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to negotiate for the purchase of property and to
extend purchase offers to owners within 110 percent of the appraised value, up to
$25,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the just compensation amount of $645,000 for the purchase of 6520 Cedar
Avenue is hereby approved.
2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is
authorized to present a purchase offer of the approved amount to the property owners.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
August, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk