Loading...
01-22-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002 SPECIAL CICITY HALLIL MEETING HEREDIA ROOM 5:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call Interview of persons interested. in serving on City's advisory commissions Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call Discussion of ordinance amendment regarding bus shelters/courtesy benches II. Discussion of State budget deficit impacts on Richfield Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to staff member. Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession on January 4, 2002.; (2) Special City Council Worksession of January 8, 2002; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of January 8, 2002; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of January 10, 2002 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation from Jeff Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission Executive Director, regarding December 1998 agreement and MAC activities 2. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from Government Finance Officers Association to Finance Manager Chris Regis COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance at community meetings Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR `- 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action.. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of establishing Tuesday, April 30, 2002 for 2002 Local Board of Equalization S.R. No. 23 B. Consideration of approval of resolution designating increase in City's contribution toward health. insurance premiums for International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 S.R. No. 24 C. Consideration of approval of resolution pertaining to filing Pay Equity Report for Hennepin South Services Collaborative with MN Department of Employee Relations S.R. No. 25 D. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Remodeling Fair at Richfield High School, 7001 Harriet Avenue, on January 26, 2002 S.R. No. 26 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 5. Consideration of resolution determining adequacy of Supplemental Environmental ~--~ Impact Statement and approving Record of Decision for Best Buy Campus ~, Staff Report No. 27 Notes: 6. Consideration of resolution calling for sale of $1,460,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2000A Staff Report No. 28 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions Staff Report No. 29 Notes: (~ 8. City Manager's report Notes: 9. Claims and payrolls Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others, Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Notes: (''~ 10.Adjournment t, _! 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: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING i~ JANUARY 22, 2002 ADMIN. REPORTS 7 29 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MARTIN .1. KIRSCH, MAYOR NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Appoint persons to fill the expiring or vacant terms on the Cit advisor commissions II. BACKGROUND Several terms of City commission members expire on January 31, 2002. In addition, there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations that need to be filled. Vacancies were advertised in the Richfield Sun-Current, cable television channel 16, the message board outside City Hall, the City's web page, and as a feature article in the December Your City. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. Terms are for three-years and are staggered. Several terms expire on January 31 annually. The Council directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies. Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. These Council meetings were posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. 0122appointments B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings on January 16, 17, and 22 2002. • Terms of several commission members expire on January 31, 2002 • There are mid-term vacancies which need to be filled. • In order to ensure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made on January 22, 2002 C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Defer appointments to a later Council meeting. • If appointments are not made at the January 22 meeting, quorums may not be present at future meetings. V. ATTACHMENTS Commission vacancy list. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~'~ } None expected. N O O n W_ V Z a U a z 0 N _~ U M' ~ lf~ ~ M ~ ~ Lf') Li') M M Lf) Lf~ lf~ ~ N lf} lf~ ~ Ltd ~ Ln N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ M M M r M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M MMM M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ M M M ~ ~ ~ M M M r' f~ (0 f~ ~ ~ ~ R3 ~ (~ (C f6 (6 (6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f6 (6 (6 (6 f~ (~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f6 f~ (0 ~ ~ 7 fa (a (a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C C C CCC C C C C C C C O C C C C C C O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q N ~U C f0 U ca M 2 I-- W 2 i-+ t+ LL ~ ~ O~~ ~ '~'a a~~ m `.`. 0 a >+ U C U r i Z N CN C V W V w J U ~U C (0 U (~ Z N_ V ~ N W U .~ ~~ W~ ~~ H z U (~ U (0 O T iii N U C U (tf O i Z O L L a~+ V •Q•Q. ycc _~~ z a C L a~ 0 .~ ~U C (6 U (~ M Z 'O v/ O z z z J a U C U (if O N ~U C (~ U f0 M Z CN G V V a_ 0 z W_ C L 0 a .~ AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 28 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution calling for the sale of $1,460,000 General Obligation Ca ital Notes, Series 2000A. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution calling for the sale of $1,460,000 General Obli ation Ca ital Notes, Series 2000A. II. BACKGROUND In a response to the new Omnibus tax laws and imposed levy limits, the City is issuing General Obligation (G.O.) Capital Notes. With the new tax laws and levy limits, and the need to increase equipment rental rates to a market level, the General Fund was no longer in a position to internally absorb the increased rates. Therefore, in an effort to present a balanced budget and remain within statutorily imposed levy limits, the City, as part of the 2002 budget process approved the issuance of Capital Notes (Equipment Certificates) to purchase capital equipment. These certificates are short-term borrowing supported by a separate tax levy above imposed levy limits. The use of certificates will have the effect of reducing charges _ _ from Internal Service Funds to General Fund departments. 0122equipcerts III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY The issuance of the Series 2002A Capital Notes is the first time for the City of Richfield. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL The Capital Notes will be financed by tax levies in 2002 and 2003: The tax levy amounts will be $774,425 in 2002 and $754,555 in 2003. The Capital Notes are proposed to be sold as non-rated and non- callable. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ None. `/ V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Calling for the Sale of $1,460,000 G.O. Capital Notes, Series 2002A. Note Sale Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING .Ehlers & Associates, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $1,460,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION ~~- CAPITAL NOTES, SERIES 2002A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $1,460,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2002A (the "Notes"), to finance the acquisition of new equipment consisting primarily of public safety equipment, maintenance equipment and other capital equipment having an expected useful life at least as long as the term of the Notes; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Notes and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Notes. 2. Meeting;. Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal for the purpose of considering sealed- proposals ~ for, and awarding the sale of the Notes. The City Clerk, or designee, shall open ~- 'j proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Notes and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the Note Sale Report and are hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Notes and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk NOTE SALE REPORT $1,460,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2002A City of Richfield, Minnesota ~*Sub ject to Change January 22, 2002 ~_ r ~ Y ~ Ehlers & Associates, Inc. OVERVIEW This report describes. the proposed plan for the City of Richfield to issue $1,460,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2002A. This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, in consultation with City Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with: • Purpose and components of the issue. • Structure of the issue • Other considerations in issuing municipal obligations. • Market conditions. • Issuing process. PURPOSE ~ The $1,460,000 General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 2002A are being issued under the l i authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 410.32 and 412.301 and Chapter 475, to finance the acquisition of new equipment consisting primarily of public safety equipment, maintenance equipment and other capital equipment having an expected useful life at least as long as the term of the Notes. Financing these projects requires an issue in the amount of $1,460,000. The proposed finance plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds: Sources Par Amount of Notes $1,460.000 Total Sources $1,460,000 Uses Total Project Costs $1,425,744 Discount Allowance 10,950 Finance Related Expenses 19,600 Contingency 3,706 Total Uses $1,460,000 ~ ~ STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT The Notes are general obligations of the City of Richfield and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. The Notes would be sold February 12, 2002 and be dated March 1, 2002. The first interest payment on the Notes will be August 1, 2002, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1. Principal on the Notes will be due on February 1 in the years 2003 and 2004. The Notes would be offered without option of prior redemption. The projected debt service and flow of funds can be found in Exhibit 1. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Following is a summary of key factors in the finance plan: • We will allow the underwriters to bid a premium for the Notes, with the ability to adjust the issue size, if necessary. • We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt issued in the City's name by 501(c}3 corporations will not issue more than a total of $10,000,000 in tax-exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Notes to be designated as bank qualified. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates. • Because the City does not expect to issue more than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt obligations during calendar year 2002, the debt will qualify for the small issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate. • The Notes will be global book entry with a bank designated as the paying agent. As "paperless" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond printing and annual registrar charges. The Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/bransfer agent services provided by the bank. • The City currently has a Moody's Investors Service "Aa3" rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds. We recommend these Notes can be sold non-rated because the size of the issue is not sufficient for the rating fee to be cost effective. • Current regulations ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more. Because the aggregate amount of this issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has more than F J a~ + n $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanduzg, you will be obligated to comply with ~" Full Continuin Disclosure re uirements as re uired b ara ra h b 5 of Rule 15c2-12 g 4 q Yp g P ~)~) promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data relating to the City annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events. The specific nature of the Undertaking, as well as the information to be contained in the notices of material events will be set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate that you will enter into at the time of closing for this issue. You are responsible for reporting any of the material events listed below and in the Undertaking. 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies; 2. Non-payment related defaults; 3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; 5. Substitution of credit of liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; 6. Adverse tag opinions or events affecting the tag-exempt status of the securities; 7. Modification to rights of holders of the Securities; 8. Securities calls; 9. Defeasances; 10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the Securities; 11. Rating changes; 12. Failure to provide annual financial information as required; and 13. Other material events. REFUNDING OPPORTUNITIES We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are no immediate refunding opportunities for the City at this time. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City and alert you to any future opportunities. ~ x MARKET CONDITIONS The Bond Buyer's 20-year G.O. Index (BBI) currently stands at 5.16%. The chart below illustrates trends in tax-exempt interest rates since 1998. ISSUING PROCESS Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process. January 2Z, 2002 City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale of the Notes Week of January 28, 2002 Distribute Official Statement February 12, 2002 Note sale March 7, 2002 Note closing (estimated) N:uvlinnsota~Richfield~BISUM~2002$1460m.march(GO Cap Notes)~PreSale RepoR.wpd AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 Resolution 5 27 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Best Buy Campus ro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution determining adequacy and approving record of decision for the Best Buy Campus Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, make the findings of fact and conclusions contained in Exhibit A, and approve the conditions of approval identified under the Le al Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared for the Best Buy Campus project to study the effects that the closure of Highway 62 (the Crosstown) might have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project. ~ The following events occurred prior to the preparation of the SEIS: 1 December 11, 2000: the City Council found the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Best Buy Campus project to be adequate. • January 9, 2001: Walser Auto Sales, Inc. (Walser) filed a lawsuit challenging the adequacy decision. 0122SEIS • January 17, 2001: Walser requested that the City prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the project listing the traffic impacts of the Crosstown `-' Reconstruction Project as one reason for supplementing the Final EIS. • February 12, 2001: the City Council denied Walser's request for a SEIS. • March 9, 2001: Walser filed a lawsuit challenging the denial of its request. • July 3, 2001: Judge Allen Oleisky of the Hennepin County District Court upheld the adequacy decision on the Final EIS and rejected all grounds for supplementing the Final EIS, except for the issue of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. Judge Oleisky specifically ordered as follows: That the Defendant [City] shall prepare a supplement to the Best Buy Final EIS concerning the effects that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project. The original Crosstown Reconstruction Project called for parts of the Crosstown to be closed throughout the 52-month reconstruction period; however, the 2001 Legislature placed a moratorium on the reconstruction and required the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to reevaluate the project. This evaluation was conducted at the same time that the SEIS was prepared. A Draft SEIS was prepared and distributed on October 15, 2001. Public comments were received through November 14, 2001. An informational meeting was held on October 30, 2001. The Final SETS was distributed on December 10, and comments were accepted through December 26, 2001. A summary of the SEIS findings is included as Attachment A. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The SEIS indicates that traffic volume increases from the Crosstown Reconstruction project will be most noticeable at the Penn and 76th Street intersection. Noise levels just north of this intersection would also increase four decibels. • Air quality would not exceed state standards. • The mitigation measure expected to have the greatest impact on traffic operations would be the redesign of the Crosstown. Reconstruction Project. The Council should support a redesign that minimizes closures. • Other mitigation measures, such as implementing TDM, revising signal timing and making other road improvements, would improve overall traffic operations but not enough to return operating conditions to the way they were prior to the closures. • Best Buy has developed a draft Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan, and approval of a final plan is required as a condition of the final development plan/conditional use permit. This requirement, which is already in place, will improve traffic conditions. • The Council should require that new businesses prepare and implement appropriate TDM plans and submit status reports on their implementation. The City should require that Best Buy submit a final TDM plan for approval by the City and submit a status report to the City Council showing Best Buy's progress in implementing the plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. • The implementation of the Interchange West Transit/TDM Study, being presented to the City Council this evening, would also improve traffic conditions. • The Council should direct staff to work with the appropriate organizations to revise signal timing. • The Council has already authorized the construction of an additional right turn lane at the West Ramp of I-35W at 76th Street in 2002. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Preparation of the SETS followed a process similar to that used to prepare the FEIS. The SEIS was reviewed by state agencies and opportunities were given for public input. Copies of the SEIS documents were mailed to all parties who commented on the EIS. • Two parties submitted comments on the Scoping SEIS, five parties submitted comments on the Draft SETS, and one party submitted comments on the Final SEIS. Three state agencies, including MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources, submitted letters stating that they had no comments on the SEIS. • MnDOT reevaluated the Crosstown project at the same time that the SEIS was being prepared. Consequently, MnDOT was consulted throughout the SEIS ,~ process to ensure that accurate information was used. ~ J On November 14, 2001, MnDOT presented alternatives for the Crosstown reconstruction to an advisory committee. The alternatives would shorten total construction from 52 to 42 months and eliminate any long-term closure of the Crosstown. MnDOT estimates that if closures were required, they would. be no longer than two to eight weeks. These alternatives will be presented to the Legislature in 2002. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and found it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations. • The three standards necessary for making a finding of adequacy on an SEIS have been met by the Best Buy Campus SEIS: 1. The SEIS addresses the potentially relevant and significant issues and alternatives raised in scoping so that all significant issues for which information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed. 2. The SEIS provides responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft SEIS review concerning issues raised in scoping. 3. The SEIS was prepared in compliance with the appropriate procedures. • Conditions of approval: 1. That the City require that any businesses who have drafted approved TDM plans submit status reports on their implementation. 2. That Best Buy submit a final TDM plan for approval by the City and submit a status report to the City Council showing Best Buy's progress in implementing the plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. That staff work with the appropriate organizations to revise signal timing. 4. That staff continue to participate in the Interchange West TransitlTDM Study. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Determine that the SEIS does not meet the three standards for determining the adequacy of an EIS. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A: Summary of SEIS findings • Attachment B: Record of Decision VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from the-city attorney's office will be available to answer questions. • Rick Nau from URS/BRW and Walter Rockenstein, from Faegre & Benson, LLP, will be at the meeting to answer questions. RESOLUTION NO. ~ RESOLUTION DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL J IMPACT STATEMENT AND APPROVING RECORD OF DECISION BEST BUY CAMPUS WHEREAS, Best Buy Corporation is the Proposer of a 42-acre office development located between 76th and 78th Streets and between Penn and Knox Avenues in the City of Richfield ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 1.59 million square feet of office space and total parking of 7,500 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 2001, Judge Allen Oleisky of the Hennepin County District Court ordered as follows: That the City of Richfield ("City") shall prepare a supplement to the Best Buy Final EIS concerning the effects that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project; and WHEREAS a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared by the City with assistance from the Proposer; and WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of Decision in the SEIS for the Project for consideration by the City Council ("Record of Decision"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable tatutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council ~pprove the Record of Decision and determine that it adequately studies the traffic impacts of the project as ordered by the Hennepin County District Court; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that the SEIS is adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Best Buy Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Best Buy Campus project is adequate. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: ~'~Vancy Gibbs, City Clerk Best Buy Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Attachment A Summary of Findings The SEIS evaluates three alternatives with respect to the effects of the closure of the Crosstown. Alternative 1 assumes a completed Best Buy Campus and the originally proposed Crosstown closure schedule provided by MnDOT, with aone- year delay to account for the delay required by the Legislature. Alternative 2 assumes a shorter closure period. Alternative 3 assumes no closures in either direction. • The cumulative traffic impacts of the Crosstown reconstruction and the Best Buy Campus will result in some intersections operating at worse conditions than reported in the Final EIS (FEIS). Traffic volume increases will be most noticeable at the Penn and 76th Street intersection. The increases occur during Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Crosstown closures, with each phase expected to last approximately 18 months. Under Alternative 2, the impacts from closures would be for a shorter period of time. Under Alternative 3, there would be no impact related to closures because there would be no closures. Air quality levels would continue to meet state and federal standards for carbon monoxide levels. • Noise levels along Penn Avenue north of 76th Street would increase four decibels (three decibels is perceptible by the human ear) as a result of the Crosstown reconstruction. Noise levels at all other receiver sites are not forecast to change significantly (less than three decibels). Potential mitigation measures include the following: implement the Best Buy Travel Demand Management Plan, implement measures identified in the Interchange West Transit/TDM Study, establish effective detour routes, revise signal timing, provide Best Buy Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Attachment A Summary of Findings construction transit service, delay occupancy of some part of the Best Buy Campus, and redesign the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. The implementation of mitigation measures such as the TDM Plan or signal timing revisions would improve overall traffic operations but not enough to return operating conditions to the way they were prior to the closures. • The mitigation measure expected to have the greatest impact on traffic operations would be the redesign of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. The completion of any of the following roadway improvements before 2004 would also improve traffic operating conditions: Lyndale Avenue bridge, 79th/80th Street Bridge over 35W, additional right turn lane at the West Ramp of I-35W at 76th Street, improvements at 76th Street and York Avenue. Attachment B ADEQUACY DETERMINATION AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 22, 2002 ,, ~ This document constitutes the City of Richfield's Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision For The Best Buy Campus Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS. Adequacy Decision). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Best Buy Campus (SEIS) includes both the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus published on October 15, 2001 (Draft SEIS) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Best Buy Campus published on December 10, 2001 (Final SEIS). 1.0 PROJEC'T' DESCRIPTION Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy) is building its new corporate headquarters campus (Best Buy Campus) on a site located north of Interstate 494 (I-494) between Penn and Knox Avenues and south of 76th Street in the City of Richfield (City). The Best Buy Campus is currently under construction and includes four office buildings (two of 6 stories and two of 8 stories) connected by a hub building and attached to a central parking ramp (Project). The development includes approximately 1.58 million square feet of space and is designed for a maximum of 7,500 employees. The first building is scheduled to be completed and ready for occupancy in early December 2002. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 1 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision n The remainder of the Best Buy Campus description remains the same as that published in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus on August 21, 2000 (DEIS), and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus on October 30, 2000 (FEIS) with the exception that the maximum development scenario of 1.9 million square feet, 9,500 employees, and 9,500 parking spaces is no longer being considered. 2.0 APPLICANT, RGU, AND CONSULTANTS Best Buy is the proposer of the Best Buy Campus and has made application for various permits and approvals related to the Project. The Best Buy Campus is being constructed in the City, and the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), prepared the Notice Of Preparation And Scope Of Supplemental EIS For Best Buy Campus Project (SEIS Notice), the Draft SEIS, and the Final SEIS for the Project in accordance with the Environmental Review Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). See Minn. Rules Chapter 4410 (MEQB Rules). The following firms assisted the City in preparing the Scoping Document, Draft SEIS and Final SEIS: URS/BRW, Inc. and Faegre & Benson LLP. 3.0 SEIS REVIEW PROCESS 3.1 Reason for SEIS Preparation On December 11, 2000, the Richfield City Council adopted the Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision For The Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement (EIS Adequacy Decision). By this action, the City found the FEIS to be adequate. On January 9, 2001, Walser Auto Sales, Inc. (Walser) filed a lawsuit challenging the EIS Adequacy Decision. The major allegations of the lawsuit relevant to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (SEIS) were: • That the FEIS failed to include the required consideration of alternatives and that the limited consideration of alternatives was artificial; • That the FEIS failed fo consider all the environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts, and in particular failed in its traffic analysis to consider the Mall of America expansion; and • That the FEIS failed to identify reasonable mitigation measures for the environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts of the Best Buy Campus. In mid-January 2001, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) announced its plans for reconstruction of the Trunk Highway 62 (TH 62) /Interstate 35W (I-35W) interchange involving I-35W from 46`" Street to 66`" Street and TH 62 from Highway 121 to Portland Avenue (Crosstown Reconstruction Project). According to MnDOT's four phase construction schedule, TH 62 was to be closed in both directions between Penn Avenue and Portland Avenue for 2 months in Phase 1, for 18 months in Phase 2, and for 18 months in Phase 3, for a total Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 2 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 closure time of 38 months. I-35W was to remain open during the entire Crosstown - Reconstruction Project. On January 17, 2001, Walser requested that the City prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Best Buy Campus. The reasons given by Walser as demonstrating a need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement were: • That the Mall of America expansion was not considered in the FEIS; • That redevelopment plans in the Airport South District would significantly exacerbate impacts from the Best Buy Campus; • That an Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process being conducted for the Airport South District may significantly affect the impacts from the Best Buy Campus; • That the planned Crosstown Reconstruction Project and diversion of traffic to I-494 constitute new information and circumstances enhancing the potential environmental effects from the Best Buy Campus; and • That the cumulative effects of new information and new circumstances presented by Walser required preparation of a supplement. On February 12, 2001, the Richfield City Council denied Walser's request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. On March 9, 2001, Walser filed a lawsuit challenging the City's denial of its request. The lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the FEIS and the lawsuit challenging the denial of Walser's request for preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement were consolidated for hearing before Judge Allen Oleisky of the Hennepin County District Court. On July 3, 2001, Judge Oleisky issued an order upholding the EIS Adequacy Decision and rejecting all grounds for supplementing the FEIS, save one. Specifically, Judge Oleisky ordered: That the Defendant [City] shall prepare a supplement to the Best Buy Final EIS concerning the effects that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project. Judge Oleisky's Order at page 2. A copy of the Order is included as Appendix A in the Draft SEIS. In response to Judge Oleisky's Order, the City has prepared the SEIS to determine "the effects that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy Campus." 3.2 Scoping Document In conformance with the MEQB Rules, the City prepared and distributed a Notice Of Preparation And Scope Of Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Project (SEIS Notice). The SEIS Notice was published in the EQB Monitor on August 6, 2001. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 3 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 The scope of the SEIS, as defined by Judge Oleisky, was limited to "...the effects that the -- closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project." Order, p.#2. The SEIS Notice further defined the SEIS scope by delineating three alternatives for the Crosstown Reconstruction Project and the expected impacts to traffic flows on I-35W and I-494. For each alternative, the SEIS Notice indicated that the issues to be addressed in the SEIS would be traffic, air quality and traffic-related noise. Written comments on the Scoping Document were received from two parties. These comments were considered by the RGU, and written responses were provided in Appendix D of the Draft SEIS. 3.3 Draft SEIS Notice of availability of the Draft SEIS was published on October 15, 2001 in the EQB Monitor and in an advertisement taken by the City in the October 24, 2001 issue of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. The Draft SEIS was circulated for review to public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules and to all parties who had commented on the DEIS and FEIS. The Draft SEIS was also made available through City offices and the local library. The City hosted a public information meeting regarding the Draft SEIS on October 30, 2001 (Appendix C). After a presentation on the Draft SEIS, the public was invited to comment. No one chose to comment. The public comment period ended on. November 14, 2001. During (or shortly after) the Draft SEIS comment period, eight written comments were received. All comments, including those received after the close of the comment period, were considered by the RGU, and written responses were provided in Section 11.0 of the Final SEIS. 3.4 Final SEIS Notice of availability of the Final SEIS was published on December 10, 2001 in the EQB Monitor, a press release was issued on December 8, 200.1, and an article regarding availability of the Final SEIS was printed on December 19, 2001 in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper (Appendix C). The Final SEIS was circulated for review to the public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules. The Final SEIS was also made available through City offices and the local library and to all parties who had commented on the DEIS, the FEIS, the SEIS Notice, and the Draft SEIS. The 10-day public comment period on the Final SEIS commenced on December 11, 2001, and. closed on December 26, 2001. During (or shortly after) the Final SEIS comment period, three written comments were received (see Appendix B). All comments, including those received after the close of the comment period, were considered by the RGU and written responses are provided in Appendix A. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 4 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 3.5 Determination of Adequacy On January 22, 2002, the Richfield City Council considered the SEIS and all comments and responses, made the findings in Section 4 of this SEIS Adequacy Decision and determined that the SEIS was adequate. 4.0 FINDINGS After considering the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS, the comments and responses to comments on these documents and the SEIS Notice, other documents referenced in these- documents, the reports of its staff, and public testimony, the Richfield City Council makes the following Findings with regard to the alternatives studied, the significant environmental effects that the Crosstown Reconstruction Project will have on the Best Buy Campus, and potential mitigation measures identified to reduce or eliminate those effects. 4.1 Alternatives Studied The Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS evaluated three alternatives with respect to the effects that closures of TH 62 caused by the Crosstown Reconstruction Project will have on traffic flows on I-35W, I-494 and local streets, and how they will in turn affect the Best Buy Campus area traffic. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, assumes a completed Best Buy Campus for 7,500 employees as described in the FEIS and the originally proposed closure schedule provided by ~__ ~ MnDOT, except that the closures would be implemented one year later than originally planned. These closures are referred to in the Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, and this SEIS Adequacy Decision as the Phase 2 (2004) Closures and the Phase 3 (2006) Closures. Because MnDOT is reevaluating its construction plans and schedule for the Crosstown Reconstruction Project, two other alternatives were analyzed. Alternative 2 assumes a shorter closure period. Alternative 3 assumes no closures in either direction on TH 62. 4.2 Traffic 4.2.1 Impacts The cumulative traffic impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project in conjunction with the traffic generated from the Best Buy Campus will result in some intersections operating at worse conditions than reported in the DEIS and FEIS. The differences are shown in Tables 4.7 through 4.10 of the Draft SEIS. Increases in traffic volume will be most noticeable at the Penn and 76~' Street intersection. 4.2.2 Mitigation The analysis documented above explored potential traffic impacts due to the Crosstown Reconstruction Project at some intersections serving the Best Buy Campus. The traffic operations being analyzed represent short-term changes to commuting patterns due to the - Phase 2 (2004) Closures and the Phase 3 (2006) Closures. Under Alternative 1, the Phase 2 Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 5 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 conditions are expected to last approximately 20 months, the Phase 3 conditions approximately 18 months. When the Crosstown Reconstruction Project is complete, traffic operations and commuting patterns should return to normal, pre-construction conditions, although with additional traffic due to the Best Buy Campus and continuing growth in the metropolitan area. (The additional traffic resulting from metropolitan area growth was considered in the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS.) a. Potential mitigation measures A number of potential actions could be taken to reduce the traffic impacts associated with the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. In developing these mitigation measures, programmed roadway improvements were assumed. Other revisions to the roadway geometry were not considered. The potential mitigation measures identified are: • Implement The Best Buy Travel Demand Management Plan; • Implement Measures Identified In The Interchange West Transit/TDM Study; • Revise Signal Timing; • Provide Construction Transit Service; • Delay Occupancy Of Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus; • Delay Occupancy Of Other Projects on I-494; and • Redesign The Crosstown Reconstruction Project. b. Evaluation of mitigation measures (1) Implement The Best Buy Travel Demand Management Plan. This mitigation measure would reduce both AM and PM peak hour trips associated with the Best Buy Campus by,450 to 750 trips. Best Buy and the City working with other agencies could implement this measure. (2) Implement Measures Identified In The Interchange West/TDM Study. This mitigation measure would reduce traffic at intersections in the Best Buy Campus area by 6% to 15%. The City working with Hennepin County and other agencies and private property owners would implement this measure. (3) Revise Signal Timing. This mitigation measure would minimize delay times and optimize traffic flow. MnDOT working with the affected cities could implement this measure. (4) Provide Construction Transit Service. This mitigation measure would provide an alternative for delayed drivers. MnDOT working in conjunction with other government bodies, or employers or commercial businesses could implement this measure. (5) Delay Occupancy of Some Part of the Best-Buy Campus. This mitigation measure would Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 6 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 potentially reduce the impact of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project on some intersections and mainline segments. This measure would be implemented by the City and Best Buy. (6) Delay Occupancy of Other Projects on I-494. This mitigation measure would potentially reduce the impact of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project on some intersections and mainline segments. This measure would be implemented by the Cities of Bloomington and Richfield. (7) Redesign the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. This measure could shorten or eliminate the closures and associated traffic impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. MnDOT and the Legislature is currently reviewing the feasibility of this mitigation measure. Mitigation measures 1 through 6 above would not individually mitigate all of the Crosstown Reconstruction impacts. Measure 7, if funded and implemented by the Legislature, would fully mitigate the Crosstown Reconstruction impacts. c. Evaluation of combined mitigation measures Because most of the mitigation measures studied above would not be suffcient taken individually to completely mitigate all traffic impacts, additional evaluation was performed on two combinations of mitigation measures in the Final SEIS. The following summarizes the findings. (1) Combining Implementation Of The Best Buy TDM Plan And Delayed Occupancy Of Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus To Reduce AM And PM Peak Hours By 1,000 Trips. Mitigation measures which reduce Best Buy Campus trips generally result in a small improvement in intersection level of service but not enough to eliminate the impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. (2) Combining Implementation Of The Best Buy TDM Plan, Delayed Occupancy Of Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus To Reduce AM And PM Peak Hours By 1,000 Trips, And Revised Signal Timing. Mitigation measures which reduce Best Buy Campus trips coupled with signal optimization generally result in an improved level of service at most intersections. Only the second combination of mitigation measures, which reduces Best Buy Campus trips and optimizes traffic signal operation, improves the level of service at most intersections. However, due to the assumption of random vehicle arrivals and optimization of signal timing on a system- wide basis the level of service forecast in the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS decreases for some traffic movements and intersections, compared to the previous forecast analysis in the DEIS and FEIS. In optimizing signal timing, the model attempts to minimize total vehicle delay throughout the signal system. Therefore, while the level of service at certain intersections goes down, the total vehicle delay throughout the road system is improved. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 7 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 The results of the previous analysis conducted for the EIS without the Phase 2 (2004) and Phase 3 (2006) Closures indicated that with the addition of the Best Buy Campus trips to the study area, the traffic operations could be adequately mitigated with roadway improvements. However, with the addition of the temporary rerouting of traffic through the study area due to the Closures, the implementation of mitigation measures, such as implementing the TDM Plan or optimizing the signal timing, while improving the overall network operations, would not be enough to return the operating conditions to the way they were prior to the Closures. The mitigation measure expected to have the greatest impact on the traffic operations would be the redesign of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. The level and duration of impact expected would be less if the Crosstown were not closed, or if any closures were to occur for a more limited time period than described for Alternative 1. d Impacts from other roadway projects There is the potential that one or more of the programmed roadway improvements programmed within the Best Buy Campus area, as discussed in Section 2.3 of Appendix F of the Draft SEIS, could be completed prior to the Phase 2 (2004) Closures or the Phase 3 (2006) Closures. The expected result, if any or all of these roadway improvements were completed prior to the Crosstown Reconstruction Project, would be an overall improvement in traffic operating conditions compared to the results presented in the Final SEIS. 4.3 Air Quality 4.3.1 Impacts The air quality analysis completed for the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS has concluded that all applicable State regulations will be satisfied. Traffic from the Best Buy Campus and the Crosstown Reconstruction Project will not cumulatively cause exceedances of state and federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) levels at reasonable worst-case locations, under reasonable worst-case conditions. 4.3.2 Mitigation No air quality mitigation is required. Any measures employed to mitigate traffic impacts, however, will likely result in corresponding improvements in air quality. 4.4 Traffic Noise 4.4.1 Impacts The analysis indicates a significant (greater than 3 dBA) increase in traffic noise levels along Penn Avenue north of 76th Street. As documented in the traffic analysis, traffic volumes on Penn Avenue north of 76th Street are forecast to increase significantly as a result of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. Peak hour noise levels along Penn Avenue north of 76th Street are forecast to increase by approximately 4 dBA compared to the No Closure conditions. Noise levels at of the other receiver sites are not forecast to change significantly (less than 3 dBA) relative to the No Closure conditions. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 8 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 4.4.2 Mitigation Reductions in traffic noise levels at Penn and 76~h Street could be accomplished through: • Travel demand management programs that reduce traffic volumes; • Detour routes that direct traffic off Penn Avenue; and/or, • Restricting truck traffic on Penn Avenue. ~, 4.5 Permits and Approvals Based on the Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, agency comments and City requirements, the following permits and approvals will likely be required for Project completion. Table 4.1: Permits Required UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS ;State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination S stem Permit PDES Approved Indirect Source Permit ISP A roved Registration Permit for emergency enerators To be applied for if needed Sewer Extension Permit Submitted for review Minnesota Department of Trans ortation MnDOT Off-site Road Improvements Approved Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Permit A roved (MnDH) Abandonment of Water Wells In rocess Well Permit/Re istration Not re uired ;.Local City of Richfield Sco in Decision A roved EIS Ade uac Decision A roved Com rehensive Plan Amendment A roved Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezonin Approved Final Develo ment Plan A roved Conditional Use Permit A roved Utilit Vacations and Permits A roved Ri ht of wa Vacations A roved Prelimin Plat A royal A roved Final Plat A royal A roved Demolition Permit A roved Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision Page 9 January 22, 2002 UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS City of Richfield, cont. Buildin Permits A roved Certificates of Occu anc To be a lied for Ado tion of Official Ma for I-494 Com leted Final Transportation Demand Mana ement Plan To be submitted Richfield Housing & Business Subsid A reement Com leted Redevelopment Authority Contract for Private Redevelo merit Com leted Tax Increment Financing Plan and Public Financin Completed Re Tonal - Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Gradin and Draina a Permits A roved Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Submitted for review Designating I-494 for RALF loan funds Approved Com rehensive Plan Amendment A roved 5.0 DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In determining the adequacy of the SEIS, the City Council has considered the three criteria specified in Minn. Rules 4410.2800, subp. 4, which are discussed below. 5.1 The SEIS Must Address Potentially Significant Issues And Alternatives Raised In Scoping So That All Significant Issues For Which Information Can Reasonably Be Obtained Have Been Analyzed In Conformance With Minn. Rules 4410.2300, Items G And H. The Draft SEIS, Final SEIS, the responses to comments on these documents and the SEIS Notice, and other documents referenced in these documents, address the alternatives and all the potentially significant issues set out in the SEIS Notice. A thorough discussion of the significant environmental impacts of each alternative has been provided. This information is summarized in Section 4 -Findings, in Section 11.0 -Responses To Comments of the Final SEIS and in Appendix A -Responses to Comments of this SEIS Adequacy Decision. The Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, and the responses to comments evaluate mitigation measures that could reasonably eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project as described in the SEIS. The key mitigation measures are set out in Section 4, Findings of this SEIS Adequacy Decision. A combination of these mitigation measures could be used to address the Crosstown Reconstruction Project impacts in the area of the Best Buy Campus. The City will coordinate with MnDOT and Best Buy to determine the appropriate combination of mitigation measures to Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Page 10 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 implement, taking into account the Legislature's action on MnDOT's Crosstown Reconstruction plans. 5.2 The SEIS Must Provide Responses To Substantive Comments Received During The Draft SEIS Review Concerning Issues Raised In Scoping. All comments on the Draft SEIS were responded to in Section 11 of the Final SEIS. Copies of the comment letters are attached to the Final SEIS as Appendix H. The Final SEIS was distributed to everyone who commented on the Draft SEIS along with those on the MEQB distribution list. All written comments received on the Final SEIS are responded to in Appendix A of this SEIS Adequacy Decision. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. 5.3 The EIS Must Have Been Prepared In Compliance With The Procedures Of The Act And Parts 4410.0200 To 4410.6500. The environmental review requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the MEQB Rules have been met by the SEIS and related documents prepared for this Project as detailed in Section 3, Environmental Review Process of this Record Of Decision. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION The City Council hereby determines that the Best Buy Campus SEIS meets the three criteria set forth in the MEQB Rules and is adequate. Supplemental EIS For T'he Best Buy Campus Page 11 Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision January 22, 2002 Appendix A Response to Comments Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Appendices Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ON FINAL SEIS This section provides responses for all written comments received on the Final SEIS from agencies and individuals. Comment letters are included in Appendix B. Written comments on the Final SEIS were received from the following agencies or individuals: A) Metropolitan Council B) Minnesota Department of Transportation C) Robert Hall A. Metropolitan Council CommentAl: The Metropolitan Council's review has concluded that the Final SEIS is complete. Therefore, the Council will take no formal action and waives further review. Response Al: Comment noted. B. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Comment Bl: Please note that MnDOT's comments contained in our November 1, 2001, September 27, 2000, October 17, 2000 and November 16, 2000 letters concerning the draft, final and draft supplemental EIS are the same for this final supplemental EIS Response B1: Comment noted. The MnDOT comments provided in the referenced comment letters were responded to in the Final EIS and EIS Adequacy Decision in 2000. C. Robert Hall Comment Cl: In general, the responses to comments do not seem to be responsive to the commentor's previously stated observations. Response C1: Comment noted. The comments provided in the referenced comment letter were responded to in the Final SEIS document in December 2001. Comment C2: Less than S00 (20%) of the current 2, S00 Best Buy employees responded to the survey about traffic mitigation measures. The commentor does not recall a study that indicated a 25% interest in participation (in alternative transportation). Further, the 10% reduction (of trips) appears to be based on current levels rather than levels when 7, 500 are employed at the site. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Appendices Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision Response C2: The fact is, as documented in the Draft SEIS, Appendix G, Page E-3, the (~ ~ Best Buy Employee Survey had approximately a 30% response rate. Best Buy sent out approximately 4,000 surveys and received responses from 1,313 employees. The Employee Survey yielded responses of "likely" or "most likely" to try alternative modes of transportation as follows: • 23% or approximately 300 current employees willing to try car pool • 16% or approximately 210 current employees willing to try the bus • 25% or approximately 330 current employees willing to try a van pool -Given that nearly a third of the employees responded to the survey, it is reasonable to project the response results to the fu117,500 employee workforce for planning purposes. A similar response rate from 7,500 employees would represent approximately 2,400 employee responses when the Best Buy Campus is fully staffed. Therefore, projected interest in trying alternative modes of transportation would be up to 552 (carpool), 384 (bus) and 600 (vanpool) employees, respectively. Existing Best Buy employees have been encouraged to form carpools/vanpools at their current Eden Prairie locations. Best Buy has hired a full time Transportation Coordinator for the express purpose of implementing the various components of the TDM plan and generating and maintaining interest in employee participation in alternative transportation modes. The new campus site in Richfield will create additional advantages for alternative transportation use (on-site daycare, bus stop on-site, closer to more transit ~ facilities, most employees in one work location) not currently available at the existing site ~__;' that should lead to increased employee interest and participation in the Best Buy TDM program. The goal of the Best Buy travel demand management plan is to reduce the number of peak hour trips generated at the Richfield campus by 450 to 750 trips with the anticipated campus employment of 7,500. Comment C3: It is preposterous to contend that the northbound access off 76th Street to I-35 is not related or affected by the Best Buy Project. If it is not related, why are the movements noted on the figures? Response C3: The Best Buy Draft SEIS showed that traffic generated by the Best Buy development would be adequately handled by the existing northbound 76t" Street entrance ramp to I-35W. The need for a new northbound ramp at 76t" Street is driven by the new design for reconstructing the I-494/I-35W interchange. The proposed 76t" Street ramp was first shown as part of the I-35W Draft EIS in March 1992 and the reconstructed northbound access to I-35W from 76~' Street was proposed by MnDOT as part of the I-494 FEIS in November 2001 (Appendix D). The reconstructed northbound access is an independent project and is not proposed as part of the Best Buy Campus Project or the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Appendices Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision l` J Comment C4: The Response to Comments in the Final SEIS did not dispute or refute the commentor's previous comment that the projected raw numbers for each peak trip shows three to four riders. Three to four riders is not realistic. Response C4: Neither the Best Buy Campus EIS nor the SEIS stated that each Best Buy trip will accommodate 3 to 4 riders. The EIS estimated the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the Best Buy Campus in the peak traffic hour (2,620 AM and 2,000 PM). As evidenced by studies of other corporate office developments (Trip Generation Manual, 6~' Edition), employees tend to arrive and depart over an extended period in the morning and afternoon, not all during the same one hour period. Therefore not all Best Buy employees were projected to arrive or depart in a single hour and the majority of peak hour trips were assumed to be single-occupant vehicles. The proposed Best Buy Campus TDM plan was not figured into the projected peak hour trips. The TDM plan is intended to reduce the number of trips projected during the peak hours. Comment CS: The Response to Comments in the Final SEIS did not dispute that the Draft SEIS used current employee numbers to speculate on traffic impacts. The document claims that 720 employees currently use I-494. Is it not likely that the employees (a larger number?) who currently live west of the new campus will use I-494? The Final SEIS did not address how one can predict patterns for 7, S00 employees using numbers for 2, 571 employees. Response C5: Page 2-11, section 2.9, Appendix F of the SEIS states, "Approximately 720 employees (28 percent of the total number of employees) currently use I-494 to travel to/from the existing Best Buy office buildings in Eden Prairie." The estimate of 720 existing Best Buy employees currently using I-494 was not used directly in the future year analysis. This is the same method used in the EIS analysis. Forecasts of future traffic volumes on I-494 associated with 7,500 Best Buy employees at the Richfield site were made based on the methodology described beginning on Page 2-1 of Appendix F, Traffic Impact Study of the Draft SEIS. Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Appendices Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision Appendix B Comment Letters Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Appendices Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision 1JeC c / U1 UC: U /p a.unrtunt ~ t ucvct-a~ vas-ooa -ca.,.z rl.~tic t;xuwlli IUz l-uz 1LiY'(/U1 11:9 MAa Eial 6UL lti'i~? ^ ~ Metrnpoittau t;onnc~ (~~ '~]/ gunding cvrrtnaanities that work llecemt>Cr G /, lUU L John Stark, AlCP Yro)ect~vlanager City of Richfield 670U Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: The City of Richfield Environmental Impact Statement- Best isuy l:ampus t•ro~ec[ Metropolitan Cotmcil District 5 Metropolitan Council Referral Filc No. 18260-8 Dear Mr. Stark: The Metropolitan Council has conducted a review of the rtnal Supplemental lrnvtronmental Impact Statement {Final S>;IS) received by the Council on llecember lU, lUU l • 1 tie b~mal ~b1J revtew for the Best Buy campus project located in the city of Richfield is to detemlme the eftects of tratttc on the campus if Hif!hway 62 closed. The Fins) SEIS review requires the Council to detemune its adequacy ann aeeuracv in addressing regional cvncems. The Council's review has concluded that the rtna! ,l;Lti is comtslete. Therefore, the Council will take no formal action and waive iilriher review. It you have any Questions or need further information, please contact Christy Stark, Principal Reviewer at 651-6UZ-I75U. \__ Sincerely, t;aren l,~ewar Deputy of Regional Administratron ca: Phil Blueness, Metropolitan Council Distract 5 1a:li Cooper, MCCD Direc[or, Planning and Growth Management Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Ylattntng/ lecnntcal Hssts[ance Christy Stark, Planner, Planning/'}'echnicai Assistance Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Coordinator, Ptarmmg/ '1'ectuttcat Assistance r-~ A1- www.metroeouncU•org metro truo une uu~-taoo 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Mi:,r,eaota 66101-1646 • (6611602-1000 Fax 602-1550 • 71Y 29t•il904 nn Stunt opport~.rt+tY EtnDbyr ~~~~~ '~ ~ Minnesota Department of Transportatwn ~i,. Metropolitan Division °"'~ Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 62 .Roseville, MN 55113 December 19, 2001 Mr. John Stark, AICP City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Subject: Best Buy Campus FSEIS-ivln/DOT Review EISO1 002A Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 494 and Penn Avenue Richfield, Hennepin County Control Section 2785 Dear Mr. Stark: ~, i SEC 2 6 2001 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). Please note that Mn/DOT's comments Bl contained in our November 1, 2001, September 27, 2000, October 17, 2000 and November 16, 2000 letters concerning the draft, final and draft supplemental. EIS are the same for this final supplemental EIS. Please address all future con-espondence for development activity such as plats; site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Paul Czech Mn/DOT -Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, J fifer Chaput CP Senior Transportation Planner Copy: Rob Wied, Hennepin County Bob Byers, Hennepin County Walter Rochenstein, Faegre & Benson Beth Kunkel, URSBRW Inc. Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 2785 Mn/DOT LGL -Richfield An equal opportunity employer -----Original Message----- -- From: HALLSetal@aol.com [mailto:HALLSeta1@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 4:55 PM To: Jstark@ci.richfield.mn.us Subject: FSEIS responsef Mr. John Stark, AICP Project Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So Richfield MN 55423 Mr. Stark: - This are my comments with regard to the FSEIS for the Best Buy Campus: In general, your comments do not appear to be responsive to my I C1 previously-stated observations. As I recall, less than 500 (200) of the current 2,500 Best Buy employees responded to the survey about traffic mitigation measures. I recall no study indicating 25~ CZ interest in participation. Further, your 10$ reduction appears to be based on current traffic levels rather than levels when 7,500 are employed at the site. It is preposterous to contend. that the northbound access off 7bth Street to ' I35 is not related to the Best Buy project. If not related, it is certainly affected. C3 If it is not, why are traffic movements noted on your figures? Even if it is not, it certainly should be. With regard to peak trips, you did not dispute or refute my statement that you are projecting that each trip will accommodate 3 to 4 riders. Instead, you told C4 of methodology you used. The raw numbers show 3 to 4 riders, and that is unrealistic. Again, you did not dispute that you used current employee numbers to speculate what the traffic. You claim a conservatively low number by stating that 720 currently use I494. Is it not likely that .the employees (a larger number?) who currently live west of the new campus will use I494? You did not address how you can predict patterns for 7500 employees by using numbers for 2,571 employees. I thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Robert L. Hall 7309 Oliver Ave So. C5 Via Email 12/26/01 Appendix C Public Notices Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision Appendices ~ub~ s~,r;ct ~~-2~ -ut ~ v~-t u,~ Si,{..v1.-~~- Whar Informational meeting on the Best Buy Campus Draft Supplemental ~ Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The SETS studies the ernironmental impacts of the proposed Best Buy project as they relate to the potential closure of portions of Trunk Highway 62 (the crosstown) during construction and identifies ways to mitigate impacts. , When: 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 30, 2001 Where: Council Chambers Richfield City Nall 6700 Portland AvenueSouth ~_ _,' How: Citizens can attend the meeting and provide comments on the Best Buy SETS. Written comments on the .Slohln Starkiso be submitted by November 14, 2001 to: Community Development Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield MN 55423 ~~ Copies of the SETS are available for review at Richfield City Hall, the Augsburg Park Community Library (7100 Nicollet Avenue S.) and the Southdale Branch Library. ~- try ~•-- - .._.. - - Hwy. 62 plan on Best Buy traffic probed City of Richfield develops supplemental report to EIS By Jvhn Klun Sun Newspapers The combination of the clo- sure of Minnesota Highway 62 . for improvements and increased traffic from the Best Buy campus will have an impact on traffic at 7~~,Street and Penn Avenue, b(\ ~~ and noise quality is not a concern; according to a recent study mandated by wort order. During an Oct. 22 work ses- sion, the Richfield City Council reviewed a supplemental study to the Best Buy project's Envi- ronmental impact Statement (EIS). Based on a lawsuit filed by Walser Automotive and a subse- quent July decision by Judge Allen Oleisky of Hennepin Coun- ty District Caurt,. the city had to prepare a supplement to the Best . Buy final EIS "concerning the ef- fects that the closure of Highway 62 will.have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project." The Best Buy campus, locatr ed along Iaters#ate 494 between Penn and Knot avenues, is al- ready under construction. The 1.58 million-square-foot campus will ultimately house up to 7,500 employees.Thefirstoffice build- ing in the complex.is scheduled for occupancy in December. 2002. Highway 62 is also•scheduled for reconstruction, and portions of it are expected to be closed for periods ranging from 18 to 38 ths. The closures are likely ~ert traffic onto 1-494 and . field city streets. BEST BUY: Tb Psge 7A ~. www.rnn5un.oonr - ~.i ... .. ... - a - _,s~~~~- Bey:'--Snpp~lemental.stud y -~ ~~ includes ~ two•recorYline~.~~• From page `IA ' .: . - .. creased traffic volumes expected from the _ clos' of Highwa 62. - . 'Recent Iegislation'forbids conatruc- flop on the highway until May • 1, 2002. The actual start date has`yet to be deter- mined by the Minnesota Department of 7Yansportation. According to John Stark, a project manager_for the~city, the.findings.of the supplemental EL5 reveal no concerns for sir or noise quality. "They are so far from being issues that" they're non-issues,' Stark said. One problem area discussed in the supplemental report, prepared by the consulting firm "1JRS and paid for by Best• Buy, is the intersection of Penn Avenue . and 76th Street. This intersection:is the only one the study cites ss h'kely to oper- ate under "poor" or `~'ailingA conditions. This condition is expected to exist is 2004. The study suggests that mitigating . measures could be t8isen by MnDOT, Richfield and Best Buy to reduce the im- pact on the intersection. According #o the - report, two measures would improve the. intersection's level of service to "acxept- able" or better. • Adjust the timing•of the intersection signal to better accommodate tlie.in-. .~. .... t~ _ : Lo... ~ Y • Reduce the number of trips to ~aad from the campus through the compagy's Travel Demand Management- (TDM) plan. The TDM plan promotes practices in- tended to reduce the trafc e$'ects of the ..campus. It includes the use of alternatiYe modes of transportation such as telecom- ranting, staggered work hours and flees- • ble work hours for Beat Buy employees. • As.part ofthe plan, Best Buy conducted a • survey of its employees, of whom 1,300Ar 30 percent responded."Aeco~ding to the survey results, 23 percentsaud they were willing to try carpooling,' 16 percent said . they were willing to try the bus, and 25 percent said they.were willing to try a vanpool Walser Automotive's attorney Carolyn Wolski, of the Iaw firm I;eonard, Street and Deinard, said her client had not yet read the supplemental EIS and'had ao continent on it as of F~•iday. - The report is open to.public input i{i the form of written comments until Nov 13: The City Council is scheduled to vote vn the supplemental information .in" January °~ .. . ___-.... _.~_ :Y •'. ~. ::': ~:~ • ,c ;: .7~ ~,1 <.<;; :: r Impact .of . Ja3rl lU uG uc: iup gCHOOL DISTBiIC'CBALLO'r @vESTION 1 ~ a R' w ° pi ox ~-- sl v R>I;v~ uM . 11:15 am No. ~gp (RiehfieW) has proQoeed w incense its geaenl wives ~~d th schoslmard eflndepmd~t ~ ~• ~Cet The sdaitional revenue will be need w Snsaea spool open _ ioa1 rorimateb a: f ~ :00 am 1 5eIN1ce - 8 app ~ r jg97.83 per reQdentm m estimated referendum tax me o vendtrm rev- ta= pasOoa LLezn°F n ~ai~ls;a 2002. the ftnt Tear it is to be levied.'Phe .~ oft6e srhod od ~' ~°" sus~mlesa artloerwise revoked or reduced as n t f i ~~ ' y e or e avtm+smtrw- would be sppypb the revenue propn+ed by the board oflndepeadent School D~trict Na 280 be approved? i / \ tt :YES Sha11 the incense - . _ nrs k Wegenm k Rath NO•. - _ srvornvG'1rESe oN Tilzs a-LLOT eUESTioN. • -- i U ARE VOTDdd FOB A PROPERTY TA]C INCRt!'-•CF_ ~ Sa+~E YO 76thSMsatat ~ SCHOOLDiSTItICTSALLOTQUESTIONY ;OVAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND B3fiUS j • " ~ Oirar Ave. So. APPI ~'. AND DOWN P/p(N>II'1'1' LEVY / ~ ~ 866'd419 l Srltod D'utritt No. 28D (RicltfieM) has proposed a pro)ea'for phased preO'em of r upgrading. equiPPmg aod.mns~ lboarddIndePmdeo vation h h ~Y~ . t . so e reno 3esr loo a~ betterment-of school sites end fsu7itin,~ htduding tm~oved sefaty sectufty schod dutsict. sites awl facilit+es: sell the acquisition a~ talla~ ~f m a ~y 3E OF 1YER~-~ . 'ERAN " silo Ave. S. dlefd flax Ship 45 a.m. 9:00 am' illr Ua' yCirrey ryercom ~. ku ~) 3.ID. }~'2,~, abk sale' '~I . '~ chby. ~n ELCA) mue •854•d638 90 alas am Jl Fott® 6laad RO'QQe°v r'O v1IIO~ district faclities. The estimated ~~~Cht7dtm. ~• •°mmd tedinolo~ systems in oa:iotte~•Oelioot review and comment from the Comm ~ppp, •~ p~eet has reeeivsds P0d1~ . W issue obligatioaachool bniW- - To psovide foods for a poation~ofths proiectecst+. thsboasd has pmP~ a ofthe p2ojeetcosta. the seboo] binds is anatoouat act to exceed i16',;50.000.1b provide foods for the ~s°_ •ng br proposed a down payment ~vY i~_~ smo~t ot3.2096 times the net tax ca icy of the srhot ~i w bs levied. a~od pPvauc+w S770.000 for Lures payebte io 2 .the 4ras ymr . does payment levy w11 raise a `atety be sofhsrised fix ten years. eat by the board ' YES Shall iesrisace of the oblig pon telwol building bonds down Paym 1M' W°D°~d i of Iadepeadent School Distnd No. ~ be approved? b No ~ SY VOTBiG'YEg" ORN TIIIS QIJE$I•ION, ' YOU ARE VdTQ1G FQ TA1C'INCRSASE. . served by thax Po~in6 D~~ will be as follows: The combined polling piseas for this election sad the 'p+RECD~GT POLLING PLACE t \ ADDRESS ~ Mount Calvary Education Bldg.. `.6641- IBth Avenue South ~ 1 St. peteeh Catholic Church Q720 Nimllet Avenue South .2 Sheridan H-Ils School 6400 Sheridan Avenue Seuth 3 St. Richard's Catholic Ch 7540 Pena Avenne Sonth 4 746I~Oliver Aoenua South_ 5 Richfield Id'iddle Sehml Junior High) 7145 Har'riet' ~- ~~ ~ 7152 p~tlnaa g Ih-dfield Intern ate School 7020 - 12Nr A 9 Centennial ~~ 7316 Bloom Any eligible voter residing~n the ar]tao] district may vote at said electi~m pQecmct in whielt he or shE resides. The polls for acid elecnoa trill open a pm. as the date of a jaeled+oa. A voter moat bs ~tered to vote W be eligible to vote in this election. Act the polling place on eleetioa day.. Dated: ~Seyfc~m~er4.2001 gypRDER pF TIC SCHOOL BOARD i Paaabla B. Dmytrenlca Clerk was Avenue South ' at the polling place d ated above for the ?:00 o clock a.m. and will clogs at e:00 daodr ~n.evietered individual taayregister to vote st . (Os3._+v e. oe ?o0t)n9l~Spec ESect280 City of Richfield l01leiai Publi¢ston) CITY OI- RICHF>ELO. • S Meeting Notice City CoupMeeting on October ~' 20D1 REGARDING: The Ridifiekl City Cmma7 will hold a special meeting to provide information Fe the public oa the Best $uy DraR ~DP~~w ~~ Impose- Statemeai (SE15) sad to receive publireommenta. Copies of Llie SEIS are available at City Hell. the Augsburg Park Community Li- brary (?100 Nicollet Avenue) and the Soythdak btanrh h- bnry for.the public to review. • . WHEN: Tuesday:October 30, 2001 7:00 p.m. vvI°~lE: ~ Richfteld City hell - Counol Chembus. . ~ 6700 Porflaud Avenue South QUESTIONS: merit. Manager Cohtaet Jahn Stark. Community Develop acs12-ssl.s7so . NANCY GIB85 City perk AUl~.1ARY AIDS FOR II~TDIVIDUALS Wi1i3 DISABfY• IT'iF.S ARE AVAII.ABLE UPON RFRUE-~ RRl:@IIESTS - IIUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOVB9 IIQ ADVANCE TOTAEADMIIJLSTRATIVESERMCES DIRECTOR AT• 612-861.4?02. ~ (October 24, 200DD2/Sest say Drag. ~d reviewed two eammendstions. •d~theaoia~ap ~rtgula~mtoeeongofiYl7-01. rd fiyrlisbvrseaeots ofOctober 1, 2001 m the i52q.23L11. ed'ths tinl3om sate On the 2001-02 erhoal Year 6. ell the Annual Report on Curriculum. Instruc- udent Ferfe:manos- . election fudges for the a resohisioa,aPPmn~ 6, 2001 elechoa. d s donation of 51,000 from Richfield. Opti- pat so Il0 in the squ. ~ SANDY Bgl,if3+,NGREN O SOHN L. EASTERWOOD O DAVID) LAMBERGER waste ur, any 0 write ta, any ~ waste ur, my The pmineu and the PolUng Places for ~ pRE~CT POLLING P Fduceti. 1 IdouotCaMsry 2 St pear s Catholic Chi s Sheridan Hi11s School 4 St. RL4iard'! catholic C 6 RiehfieM bLddls Srhoo. 6 Central School 7 Hooppi~ C~~htue6 g Rie65dd Intermedistr g centennial School Any eligible voter residing in the school Precinct m whidi he or she resides. Thr p.m. oat the dam of said election. A voter must be registered to vote to be e the polling phiee on eleccioa day. Dated: Sep~mbert7.2W1 BY pRDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD Pamela B. Dmperedra Clerk PERSONNEL (a- roved unanimoiisly 1. Approved time certified positio lion for 2001 acbool year' for Carole amend guagclpart-dmetofull-fir School al Worker. Bonnie hlueller. may, I Wair~ Industrial Technot 2. proved fu11-time certifitd Positia tpti for 2001.02 school year for Cliristin Mary Education lparrtime Title I to full ye foi Deborah Herby Ele nentars E~ TiUoT to full-time demearary). 4. Accepted the full-time certified rot Radel, Scholl Social Worker • Central effective 9-18.01: c sndiar~i~ed a leave of absence Ict lot ar probeuoa Eor 2001-02 seh G• Elementary Title I; ann. Lu oalw ea 7. Ap the part-cline certified probation 2001-02 school year for Fteach. Global ant pnrt)Avpvrpth J e Sp eta ~ 5 ~mTeu Grounds 8~ ~•tio~n f~l~i er - Intermediate 1, effective 9-4• S0. ADPto+'~GQact'~e'dassifed po for Christine uttermea, iaatruaiom atcvetioaai/mansgerial assistant - Se g.iZ.O1: Lsdaise R Rudd, instruction taps -Senior High. affective 9.4-01: atructionaVmaa+ger+el assistant - Lu 9.26-01.and.3essiea VewlerhoraR in risl assistant- ISi~dle School. effettiv t f)ISin Regular MeetinY of the Board~ef Education Independent School District 880. Richfield Public Sch poWber 1, 2001 The regular meeting of the Board of Educati of Inddr! pendent Scbao] District 280• Heaaepi*i County, Minnesota, was held oo Mondav October 1, 2001, llii Board o! Education Room. Admix •r~vas t °$~ert~ HarrietAveoueSwth. The meeting _ the chair at 7 PM with the following memtiersD~ aRorie, dente: Dmytrmtco, Freeman, Lambergei: and Rowley. 'Absent- None. Superiatwderft Devlin sad the following direcbrs ware also Pn4eat;~'Bradley. Rood, and Swan.9on. REPORTS AND INFORMATIO FROM SCii00L SOURCES ar~''ad1eY preeeated as ex- t. Easiness Manages James' tr,,,,d,i,a,.,.liiefsua- F-•'• t .,a.. ... ~_ __---~- r•^ .:~': :1Z~lease = Richfield:::C:oric~.m~rU- ~ :~-=' ~. r,,,.:~, . Development ~~~~,_; For more information, call: Julie Urban or John Stark 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612-861-9760 FAX: 612-861-8974 For Release: December 8, 2001 Date: December 8, 2001 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTYL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BEST BU CAMPUS,. Notice is hereby given that a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SETS) on the Best Buy Campus project is available. The SElS studies the environmental impacts of the proposed Best Buy project as they relate to the potential closure of portions of Trunk Highway 62-:(the Crosstown) during construction and identifies ways to mitigate impacts. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SETS) consists of the minor changes to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS), the written comments received on the Draft SETS and the responses to those comments. The Final SETS is available for review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota and at Augsburg Park Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicol{et Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and at the Svuthdale Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7001 York Avenue, Edina, Minnesota Comments on the Final SETS are invited from the public during the official comment period which ends on December 26, 2001. Comments should be in writing and should be addressed to: Mr. John Stark Community Development Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Comments can be mailed to Mr. Stark or dropped off at Richfield City Hall. Questions about the FEIS or the comment process will be answered by Mr. Stark or Julie Urban, Community Development Specialist, at 612/861.-9760. ### r i ~. m as tlit~ ~~ °~w a ~ o ca q ~~ m°~'~ _~ a` 3m ' ~ b ~ o ~ .a ao m G4 0 .~ •~ ~~ S ~p ~ ~~ o m m a b -.~ °3~ ~ m . ~c m / *~ .Q ~ o ~ o•o o c~V~ .~ ~ o m ~ +~ y d ~ O ri~ N 14 ~p~ra~j~ ~ ~ Ad ~~ ~~ ~z m o~ -~ ° ~ ~U ~ H.~mC ~ ~ oa0_~ C3~ m ~ ii ~ T.iQy °0 ~ y0 R +i r.. ~p 0 ° L L m O~~ ~~,~~ m~ d~ ~~ F ~ .. ra ~ ~ ~ F4/g ~ m b b O R d 0~0 ~~ .off r•••~ ~,rRR~p~'o~ ~~~3~~ a ~a O ~ao m~,m °~W ss B~~GRm !~ ~ Amd~m'~~m'bfi~b ~b~ ~ ~ V ~s3 yV ~ omi ~~ ~ > mug m'~~.~~ m~ .~•~ ~ m G~ .d m o ~ %8 ~'' b m •o •o',~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ m . .., o m~ N~ ~ °~q'y~v ~ N c m ~m~~ ~m.~o~axi a°c o Dc''"O ~ `' ~ ~ p m m~ m °° a ~ w b CI O Qt m •o ~ o ~ ~ '~ sm.. ,~ •L+ .aa `s~~~~ b0 a~~5~ama~U~~ h+~ ~ R•~ c~ ~ w ,• m ~CfiF.~c wa p~~ PC~ti°' p O M ~ O ~ O G y .wmr .O ~ ~ m ~? p ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ,ra 3 ~~~ ~b ~,~ wmS and .. mW g~g G~ v~ ~ ... o W • ~w~•~v m~m'!!@ ~ ado R~ m ~,,,,~a~m mo~~wb m A•s~j m m a~ ~~ ,:3o a~~~ it •• m ~ • .a ~ m ~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ .o .+ a~ y _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ > ~ t4 ~ i ~~ Q'b ~'$ °a. o'e! pq"~~ m d y m a~ ~ m °$ m m m .~.R m~jp+~.~ pq ~~ ~ a 5 ~B ws' ~~ w~z~ Appendix D Letter Regarding the 76th Street Entrance Ramp to I-35W /J Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision Appendices r. Public Works Department May 10, 2001 Ms. Vicki Groth 7221 Humboldt Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: I-494 Final Environmental Impact Statement Including the 76th Street Entrance Ramp to I-35W Dear Ms. Groth: The Richfield City Council commented on the Draft I-35W Environmental Impact " Statement (EIS) on June 9, 1992. At that time the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) had proposed Light Rail Transit or a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane in the median of I-35W and an additional lane in each direction, and other altematives. The first two altematives would have required significant right of way acquisition including .all the homes along Humboldt Avenue from 76th Street to the Wood Lake Nature Center. The Council favored the High Occupancy Vehicle altemative and opposed the Light Rail Transit altemative. MnDOT chose not to pursue either altemative. Instead, a scaled. back design was proposed in December 1996 that added just the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane without adding any additional lanes for general purpose traffic. The Addendum to the Final I-35W Environmental Impact Statement dated December 1996 did not discuss any changes in the right of way impacts along Humboldt Avenue from the. original Final I-35W EIS dated January 1995. In February and March 2001 MnDOT held public information meetings in communities affected by the proposed reconstruction of 1-494. These meetings were held to inform the public of the preferred layout to be included in the Final I-494 EIS. According to MnDOT the document is scheduled to be published some time this spring. The Final I-494 EIS is needed before. MnDOT can begin to reconstruct the freeway. The 76th Street entrance ramp to northbound I-35W is a part of the reconstruction of I-494. The design of the ramp is affected by the design of the I-494/1-35W - interchange.. MnDOT's preferred layout for the ramp will require the acquisition of homes on Humboldt Avenue south of 73rd Street to 76th Street. This is a reduction in the number of homes originally identified in the Final 1-35W EIS dated January -- 1995. 8700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 Vicki Groth May 10, 2001 Page 2 Our Council has not been asked by MnDOT to comment on the preferred layout being included in the Final I-494 EIS. However, based on comments from Council members and the public at the public information meeting held in Richfield, MnDOT staff has agreed to explore several design alternatives that may reduce the amount of right of way needed along Humboldt Avenue. This will be done in the summer after MnDOT staff has completed design work needed elsewhere along 1-494. Please call me at 612-861-9791 or Chris Roy, MnDOT Project Manager for I-494, at 651-582-1305 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer Public Works Department TFF:ttf Copy: Chris Roy, Minnesota Department of Transportation AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,~ JANUARY 22, 2002 CONSENT 4D 26 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE y DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ ^ A ~~ ~ ~~~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL~C-$1CISIDERATION: Consideration of a request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, for the Richfield Remodeling Fair to be held January 26, 2002 at the Richfield High School, 7001 Harriet Avenue: I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Richfield Remodeling Fair to be January 26, 2002 at the Richfield High School, 7001 Harriet Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On January 16, 2002, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the activities scheduled to take place at the Richfield High School on January 26, 2002. The Richfield Optimist Club will be handling all food concessions, serving such items as hot dogs, hamburgers, cookies, nachos, chips and soda. The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with 0122Remodeling Fair Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request by Visions, Inc. for itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Richfield Remodeling Fair. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food ~ preparation, on January 22, 2002. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # Consent 4C 25 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE `~ %' REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DAWN WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER S L. DEVICH, >T$,ATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution pertaining to filing of the i'ay Equity Report for Henne in South Services Collaborative with Minnesota De artment of Em to ee Relations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution pertaining to filing of the Pay Equity Report for Hennepin South Services Collaborative with Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statutes require that every municipality file a report with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) once every three years to indicate equitable pay relationships between male and female employees. The data compiled for the report is done in accordance with strict standards determined by DOER and is reported in a summary format for submission to DOER. Pay equity reporting for City of Richfield employees was submitted and approved in 2001, pay equity reporting for Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC) is due by January 31, 2002. HSSC follows Richfield's personnel policies and procedures; payroll and benefits are administered by the City; and Pay Equity reporting is completed by the Human Resources Division every three years. The City has completed its work on the Pay Equity Report for the period ending December 31, 2001 and is ready for the report to be signed by the Mayor and sent to DOER. The preliminary summary results would indicate that HSSC continues to be in compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act. However, DOER will make an official determination after the report is analyzed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All cities, and political entities such as HSSC, must file a report with the State once every three years to comply with the Pay Equity Act. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The report has been completed and seems to indicate that HSSC's male and female pay relationships are in compliance with the Pay Equity Act. C. FINANCIAL • Any reports not postmarked on or received by DOER on or before January 31, 2002 will be found out of compliance and subject to a penalty. The penalty is a 5 percent reduction in state air payments, or $100 per day, whichever is greater. , D. LEGAL • Richfield, on behalf of HSSC, must file a report with DOER on or before January 31, 2002 based on data as of December 31, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The report is based on actual data and must be filed with the State in accordance with the statutory timeline. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Pay Equity Statistical Findings VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO FILING OF THE PAY EQUITY REPORT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WHEREAS, State statutes require that every municipality file a report with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations once every three years to indicate equitable pay relationships between male and female employees; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is submitting a pay equity implementation report to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations as required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act, Minnesota Statutes 471.991 to 471.999; and WHEREAS, this report has been completed and seems to indicate that for the Hennepin South Services Collaborative male and female pay relationships are in compliance with the Pay Equity Act; and WHEREAS, Richfield must file a report with DOER on or before January 31, 2002 based on data as of December 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall accept the findings of the Pay Equity Report and forward it to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Jurisdiction: City of Richfield Date: January 15, 2002 Contact: Dawn Weitzel, HR Manager Phone: 612 861-9716 C O M P L I A N C E R E P O R T (~JThe statistical analysis, salary. range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general information from your Pay Equity Report data. Parts II, III, and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each test, refer to the guidebook. I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION Male Female Balanced All Job Classes Classes Classes Classes # Job Classes 1 4 0 5 ## Employees 1 4 0 5 Avg. Max Monthly Pay per Employee 4,532.52 3,537.31 3,983.15 II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 86.9* Male Female Classes Classes a. # at or above Predicted Fay 14 10 b. # Below Predicted Pay 28 33 C. TOTAL 1 4 ~} d. o Below Predicted Pay 66.67 76.74 (b divided by c = d) *(Result is o of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay.) B. T-TEST RESULTS Degrees of Freedom(DF) = 226 Value of T = 4.222 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $ 56 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for femal e jobs = $ -111 III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 83.62% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 4.04 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 4.83. IV. EX CEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST = 83.720 (Result is B divided by A) A. o of male classes receiving ESP 50.00* B. o of female classes receiving ESP 41.86 * (If 200 or less, test result will be 0.00) Version 3.0 (1993) AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # AFB REPORT # 24 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 n DAWN WEITZEL REPORT PREPARED BY: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH REPORT PRESENTER: ~ ISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR N E, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW : ~ 1 ' Q SIGNATURE ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached. resolution approving an amendment to the 2000-2002 labor contract with the International Union of O, eratin En ineers, Local 49. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating an increase in the City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for the International Union of Operatin En ineers, Local 49. II. BACKGROUND The City pays the full individual employee premium for those employees choosing single coverage, and for employees covered under the Local 49 contract, the City is contributing $475 for dependent care coverage. Those employees covered under the General Services and Management- Pay Plans are currently receiving $495 for dependent health. care coverage. It is recommended that the City increase its dependent coverage from $475 per month to $495 per month. These changes would affect those employees represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49. The increase is requested so that these employees are offered the same insurance contribution levels already given to non- union employees. 0122Local49 I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City is a LOGIS board member and has participated in the process of receiving the best possible health insurance rates. • The City continues to provide adequate insurance protection for all employee groups. B. CRITICAL ISSUES In order to remain competitive in today's job market, the City needs to make adjustments to its benefit's package. C. FINANCIAL • Fifteen full-time employees would receive an increase in City contribution level to health insurance. This would cost the City approximately $300 a month. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested health insurance contribution changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for employees covered by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the current 2001 funding level. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Letter of Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None l` RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 49 WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and IUOE Local 49 have a signed bargaining agreement covering a three year period ending December 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and WHEREAS, the City has. historically provided the same level of health insurance contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and WHEREAS, the current health insurance benefit for IUOE Local 49 employees is $20 per month below the $495 contribution given to non-union City employee groups; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $495 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective February 1, 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk i6-Jan-2002 04:51 pm From-Local d9 Jan i6 02 03:30p T-038 P.002/002 F-025 LETTER OF AOR~EMi=NT BE'ryYEEN THE GiTY OF i~fOiiFiEi_G AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF pP~RATING ENGINEERS ilUOEp L©CAL N0.49, AFL-GIO i he 21boVe nameU parties t~~reby agree to administer the provisions of Article 26.1 - Ittsurance, in accordance with the terms set forth below..., The terms of this Agfeefrtent are as faiioWS: ARTlGLE ~G !N ;UFfRNCE 26.9 The ENi?LQYleR will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred ninety five dollars (~49v~ per month per eniNluyee tar graup health cover~pP heflinninA February 1.2002. The undersigned do hereby agree tF-is day of Far the City: 2A~2. p.2 \ / AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR ~A 23 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ~ f REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: .TINE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Setting a date for the 2002 Local Board of Equalization. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Establish Tuesday, April 30, 2002 as the date for the 2002 Local Board of E ualization. II. BACKGROUND State Statutes provide that each County Assessor establish a date for local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property :within each respective city in the county. These meetings are to be held between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Review (Equalization) must complete its work within 20 days of the first local board meeting each year, unless the Commissioner of Revenue approves a longer period of time. However, the commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31. 0122boardofequal STEVEN L. DEVICH The county Assessor has recommended Tuesday, April 30, 2002 as the date of the 2002 Local Board of Equalization meeting for Richfield. The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council Members on the Board of Equalization process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has historically held its Board of Equalization meetings on either the last Monday of April or the first Monday in May of each year. ' B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Richfield's date should be established by the City Council in January to enable the County Assessor to complete the scheduled calendar of local board dates as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that County Assessors establish Board of Equalization dates for local boards within their respective jurisdictions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Select a different date, if it is available. • Postpone consideration of setting a date to a future meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Memo from Hennepin County VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None n n ~~fiM To: Nancy Gibbs, Richfield City Clerk From: Thomas May, Hennepin County Assessor Date: December 7, 2001 --- -- ~ - Re: 2002 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Dates - _- .~;~ r ~to~[ TOESDAY ~ ~ APRIL 30, 2002 Day of the Week ~ Date Minnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confirm the date set out or call Bill Effertz at 348-3388 with your alternative date by January 18, so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your ofFicial notice for posting as required by law. Please return to JoDee Schinkel, A-2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 CONFIRMATION n Municipality: .. ... , Date: Time:... Place: -" , . ~ _ :: For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful