The URL can be used to link to this page

09-12-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WATER PLANT CONFERENCE ROOM 6221 PORTLAND AVENUE 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 a staff member. Speakers are a/so 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 of August 12, 2002; (2) Special City Council Worksession of August 13, 2002; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of August 13, 2002; (4) Special City Council Meeting of August 21, 2002; (5) Special City Council Meeting of August 21, 2002; (6) Special City Council Meeting of August 27, 2002; (7) Special City Council Meeting of August 28, 2002; and (8) Special City Council Meeting of August 28, 2002 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 2. 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-_~s-necessary-.~-#~owev~r.~~any~Co~ncil Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent~Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution determining results of City Primary Election held on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 S.R. No. 209 B. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the American Family Insurance building at 6700 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program) S.R. No. 210 C. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of three apartment buildings located at 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program) S.R. No. 211 D. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.11; 536.17; 536.19; 536.21; and 536.25 S.R. No. 212 E. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing Paul Skaiem to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board S.R. No. 213 F. Consideration of approval of itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc., for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 21, 2002 S.R. No. 214 Notes: 3. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar RESOLUTIONS 4. Consideration of approval of 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting 2003 preliminary property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing dates, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2002 budget of various departments, and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for police and fire expenditures Staff Report No. 215 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 5. Consideration of authorization of the purchase of new cooling tower in the amount of $28,423.78 and rebuilt compressor in the amount of $17,017.63 for Rink Two of the Richfield Ice Arena Staff Report No. 216 Notes: 6. Consideration of designation of a Richfield representative and alternate to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee Staff Report No. 217 Notes: 7. Consideration of appointment of Council representative to MOVE, an organization advocating increased funding to reconstruct I-494 and I-35W Staff Report No. 218 Notes: 8. Consideration of Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions Staff Report No. 219 Notes: 9. City Manager's report Notes: - 10. Claims and payrolls Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is 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: 11.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 OTHER BUSINESS 8 219 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MARTIN J. KIRSCH, MAYOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appointment persons to fill the youth terms on the City's advisor commissions. II. BACKGROUND The Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission and Friendship City Commission have youth term vacancies. Advertisements were placed in the Richfield Sun, on the Cable TV Community Bulletin Board, message boards outside City Hall and the Water Plant, and the City's web page. Notices were also sent to Richfield High School and the Academy of Holy Angels. Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2003. Applicants were interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on August 27, 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. The Mayor directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill expiring terms. 0912youthappts • Interviews of the applicants were conducted at a Special City Council ,_~ meeting. The meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings on August 27, 2002. • Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2003. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Defer appointments to another Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Vacancy list. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. YOUTH COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH - 1 vacancy HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 2 vacancies FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION - 2 vacancies August 31, 2003 August 31, 2003 August 31, 2003 August 31, 2003 August 31, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Other Business 7 218 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME TITLE MICHAEL EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointment to MOVE, an organization advocating increased funding to reconstruct I-494 and I-35W. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: (1) By Motion: Appoint a Council Member as the City's representative to the MOVE organization. (2) Discussion of policy differences among organizations advocating for increased state transportation fundina. III. BACKGROUND ~ At the August 13, 2002 Council meeting, Ross Thorfinnson, representing the I-494 Corridor Commission,. spoke about the formation of a new organization to lobby the state legislature for increased public transportation funding. The new organization, known as MOVE, would promote increased funding at both the state and federal level to advance the reconstruction of both I-494 and I-35W in the south metro area. MOVE would be open to membership by private businesses and individuals to increase the base of support for necessary transportation improvements. The new organization includes the I-494 Corridor Commission, of which Suzanne Sandahl serves as the City Council's representative to the Commission's Board of 0912MOVE494 Directors. Ross Thorfinnson asked the City Council to consider joining the new organization and appointing a representative to MOVE. On a related subject, City staff wanted the Council to be apprised of discussions occurring on positions taken by several organizations involved in lobbying for transportation funding. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has withdrawn its membership and the League of .Minnesota Cities has suspended its membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. Their decisions are based on the Alliance joining the Minnesota Transportation Coalition, a group of business and labor organizations, that was formed to lobby for additional transportation funding. Three Coalition positions are at odds with the interests of local governments: (1) compelling its participating members to conform to all Coalition political positions: (2) favoring the repeal of the municipal consent on state highway designs; and, (3) opposing two measures supported by local governments to raise transportation revenues. Correspondence on this subject is attached to this report and can be discussed further at the Council meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, reconstruction of both 1- 494 and I-35W can ease traffic problems in Richfield by removing through trips from local streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The I-494 Corridor Commission is severely limited in its ability to lobby for additional transportation funding and can not increase its membership. MOVE, the new organization, can broaden the support base for new transportation facilities by involving the private sector and can focus on lobbying efforts. • City staff is requesting guidance from Council on continued membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance and affiliated organizations. C. FINANCIAL • The appointment of a representative to MOVE does not involve any costs for the City of Richfield to become a member. D. LEGAL • Prior to signing any membership agreement, the City Attorney will review and comment on the agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ °~ • Council may choose not to join the MOVE organization. As in the past the City would continue to act with other units of local government through existing organizations to request increased transportation funding at the state and federal level. V. ATTACHMENTS • MOVE Question and Answer Sheet. • Correspondence from the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Minnesota Municipalities on disagreements over positions taken concerning transportation funding and policy. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. ~ ~tl7t ~,c .~ T~~ Q: Why was MOVE formed? A: MOVE was organized in the spring of 2002 in response to numerous requests from local business leaders and private individuals asking how they could become more involved in fmding a solution to the growing transportation problems in the south metro Twin Cities area. Because of a continued lack of adequate transportation system funding in the state, projects to add more lanes or fix bottlenecks on major local roads such I-494, I-35W, 169 and Highway 62 will be delayed or have been taken off the state's reconstruction list because of growing pricetags totaling several billions of dollars. In the next decade our cities will continue to grow by adding another 250,000 new residents, but our local and regional transportation system will get much worse unless a directed effort to infuse more transportation funding into the state's budget happens now. Most of the offers for assistance that came from businesses and individuals were directed at the I-494 Corridor Commission, a joint powers organization representing the transportation and congestion concerns of six cities along I-494-Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. The bylaws of the organization did- not allow for private business or individual participation or the lobbying of transportation issues, but the 494 Commission did realize that abroader-base constituency of businesses and taxpayers concerned about the lack of leadership on transportation funding issues could affect change for the future and influence state and federal officials in control of transportation system policies and funding. In the spring of 2002 the six cities of the I-494 Corridor Commission became the founding members of MOVE and directed Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., former Chair of the I-494 Corridor Commission, to act as the organization's Executive Director. A representative Board of Directors will be formed for the new nonprofit group. Q: Who are the members of MOVE? A: Any individual, business, nonprofit organization, city or county concerned about the lack of investment in the south metro's transportation system can become a member of MOVE simply by making an annual dues contribution to tl}e organization, which is a SOlc6 organization. The dues collected will provide the necessary funding for MOVE to lobby for targeted transportation system funding at the state and federal levels and to educate Local business and residents on the transportation needs in the south metro area and how they can help to relieve congestion and improve the local system by adding their political support to MOVE. Q: How is MOVE going to accomplish its goa/s7 A: MOVE will accomplish its goals by educating and organizing local citizens and business leaders on transportation issues and funding needs in the south metro area and by actively participating in policy-level discussions with U. S. Congressional and Minnesota State Legislative leadership both here in the Twin Cities and in Washington, D.C. Further, MOVE will seek a continued level of transportation funding on three levels-federal, state and local-to speed up the reconstruction of south metro roads and lead in the planning of new roads and transportation systems for the benefit of south metro residents and businesses. Q: What are the membership benejrts I receive when I join MOVE? A: MOVE offers the following benefits to its members based on the different membership categories: Individual Citizen Benefits - Latest, up-to-the-minute information on transportation issues in south metro area - Website access to provide feedback to policymakers on transportation needs and concerns - Quarterly membership meetings designed to educate and alert south metro citizens on how to work to improve the south metro transportation system - Grassroots organization that assists citizens in understanding transportation system funding, project delivery schedule and how to affect changes Business Benefits - Increasing and improving employee and customer access to your business - Reducing travel time for your employees - Speeding up freight and goods~ielivery to your customers - Transportation system plans and updates delivered to your employees and office via brown bag lunches, special e-alerts, newsletters - Liaison between local, state and federal government and private business ' Benefits to Develoaers. Property Managers - Specific area information on a regular basis that provides critical transportation updates to tenants, employees of tenants and customers - Liaison between local, state and federal government and private business - Keeping your tenants in your buildings and informed on future transportation projects - Quarterly membership events that focus on projects and topics of interest in the transportation arena; access to policymakers who can make funding happen Q: How does my membership in MOVE make a difference? A: Your membership in MOVE alone does not make a big difference in what happens next for the south metro transportation system. But your membership and participation in MOVE will accomplish many things-it will convince other citizens and business leaders that they too can help solve the problem, it will put our Congressional delegates and state legislators on notice that we want action now, and it will result in anewly-invigorated effort to find the funding we need to add lanes and put new transportation systems in place in the south metro area over the next several yeazs. There aze many ways in which you can participate in MOVE. A Board of Directors will be formed in the near future that will direct all activities of the organization, including public outreach, Legislative and Congressional visits and testimony, and other important grassroots and political activities. ff you or your company wishes to leazn more about these opportunities as a member of MOVE, please contact Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., MOVE Executive Director, at (612) 819-1743. 2 ~~>~,>~ THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION (This letter was sent to Mayors who are Alliance Members) See Page Three for a list of Cities August 30, 2002 Dear Mayor (personalized): RE: League of Minnesota Cities Correspondence Relating to The Minnesota Transportation Alliance and its Membership in the Minnesota Transportation Coalition Please find enclosed correspondence between the League of Minnesota Cities and the Alliance regarding their ongoing concerns about the membership of the Alliance in the Minnesota Transportation Coalition during the past eight months. As a member city of the Alliance, I felt it was important to make you awaze of this correspondence and Alliance efforts to resolve the issue of Alliance membership in the Minnesota Transportation Coalition. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance was approached by the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Alliance, following the 20001egislative session to work with them to increase the business community's involvement in transportation funding issues at the state legislature. A number of meetings were held with representatives ,from local chambers, transportation coalitions and corridor groups and other business organizations over the next year. In ;;august of 2001, these various organizations agreed to organize a Business Transportation .Coalition (later renamed Minnesota Transportation Coalition) with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce staffing the effort. Ron Lifson from LDI Fibres, Inc. was elected Chair of the Coalition. The Coalition established a set of principles and then aggressively sought out potential members to join the effort. The Alliance Boazd of Directors discussed membership in the Coalition at a Boazd meeting in December of 2001 and voted overwhelmingly to join the Coalition in January, 2002, for at least the 20021egislative session. The Board of Directors was concerned that the Alliance, as the state's leading transportation advocacy group, not be restricted in its advocacy efforts. The Board also understood that the Coalition would develop a transportation funding bill which the Alliance would support and that the Alliance would agree not to introduce competing legislation or support other comprehensive funding legislation. There was concern expressed by a number of Board members, including local government officials, that the Coalition principles were too restrictive and may not fully address the needs of the Alliance membership or include issues which the Alliance had long supported. The Board of Directors has long attempted to expand the involvement of the business community in the transportation investment and funding debate and felt this was an excellent opportunity to build that relationship. The Board members were also well aware of the fact that other states had been successful in passing transportation funding legislation when the business community was fully engaged. SEp 3 2002 iBY. ~:...-- _____--- _____-- 2515 Wabash Avenue • Suite LL2 • Saint Paul, MN 55114 • 651 /659-0804 • Fax 651 /659-9009 • WWW.TRANSPORTATIONALLIANCE.COM <~_ -August 30, 2002 ,rage Two As in all endeavors, the early steps are always somewhat tenuous and mistakes are made. The Coalition was no exception as it attempted to finalize a bill for introduction and invite others to join in the effort. Eventually over 180 organizations (mostly from the business community) but also including environmental groups joined the Coalition. Local government organizations apparently were not invited and did not join the effort during the 2002 legislative session. The Coalition bill was ultimately split into two bills - a funding bill and a policy bill. The funding bill did not include some of the elements long supported by the Alliance and included in the Senate transportation funding bill such as gas tax indexing and the local option sales tax referendum for the metro area. The Policy Bill included some streamlining language including local consent which the Alliance was not able to support and had believed .was not being .promoted by the Coalition, rather by some of its members. Since the end of the legislative session, the Alliance has been working with Coalition members to resolve these issues in an attempt to remove any bamers to the active participation of as many organizations as possible, including local governments. I believe that the Coalition understands that it will have to carefully consider not taking a position on issues where there is not a strong consensus among Coalition members and that the Coalition will need to resist the temptation to oppose legislative alternatives proposed by others and not included in the Coalition bill. I can assure you that the Executive Committee and the staff of the Alliance have devoted a great deal of time and effort to resolving the issue of future Alliance membership in the Coalition. As I have made clear in my response to Mr. McCauley, I have put in place a process to ensure that our membership and Board of Directors will be fully informed of the concerns raised by the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the Association of Minnesota Counties. I also intend to prepare a recommendation with the Executive Committee of the Alliance that will be presented to the membership at the annual meeting in St. Paul on October 10: The recommendation --~ and the comments of the membership will then be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their consideration later that same day. I hope that you or a representative of your city will be available to participate at the annual meeting. I also would encourage you to contact our Executive Vice President Fred Corrigan at the Alliance office (651.659.0804) or me at my office in Duluth (218.726.2585) to share your thoughts on this issue in the coming days. The summer has been a busy one at the Alliance as we prepare for the fall elections, the 20031egislative session and the reauthorization of TEA-21. Your input and involvement in all of these activities will ensure that the Alliance is , prepared to represent your transportation infrastructure needs in the coming year. Sincerely, Richard H. Hansen ~ . President Enclosures Cc: Alliance City Engineer Members or City Contact Michael J. McCauley, President, League of Minnesota Cities David Olson, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Gene Ranieri, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Commissioner Dennis Berg, Association of Minnesota Counties Carol Lovro, Association of Minnesota Counties Nancy Larson, Minnesota Association of Small Cities David Fricke, Minnesota Association of Townships ~~, August 30, 2002 Page Three Alliance City Members: City of Bemidji City of Blaine City of Bloomington City of Brainerd City of Brooklyn Center City of Brooklyn Park City of Buffalo City of Burnsville City of Cloquet City of Crookston City of Crystal City of Duluth City of East Grand Forks City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Fairmont City of Faribault City of Fergus Falls City of Fridley City of Golden Valley City of Hastings City of Hermantown City of Hibbing City of Hutchinson City of Kasson City of Lake Crystal City of Lake Elmo City of Lakeville City of Mankato City of Maple Grove City of Maplewood City of Marshall City of Montevideo City of New Ulm City of North Branch City of North Mankato City of Northfield City of Owatonna City of Red Wing City of Redwood Falls City of Richfield City of Rochester City of Saint Cloud City of Saint Louis Park City of Saint Michael City of Saint Paul City of Saint Peter City of Sartell City of Sauk Rapids City of Savage City of Shakopee City of Shoreview City of South Saint Paul City of Thief River Falls City of Vadnais Heights City of Waite Park City of Waseca City of Willmar City of Winona City of Worthington ~C 1 ASSO(IatI0110f Metropolitan Municipalities August 21, 2002 Dear AMM Member: ~ ~ ~~n r ~~ ~ b t ~ F h_.~... _... i___. _. . y_.. 4_ E ~,i~ ~ ~~=~ k ~ 2G32 r ~ ~_` ' AMM's Board of Directors has decided to discontinue AMM's membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA). While AMM's decision does not directly impact your city's membership in the Alliance, we wanted to let you know why we no longer believe membership in the Alliance is appropriate for an organization that represents metro-area cities. During the 20021egislative session, the Transportation Alliance joined the Transportation Coalition. In order to be a member of the Coalition, the MTA agreed to support only Coalition proposals. Some of these proposals are in direct conflict with AMM policy and previous MTA policies. For example, the Coalition opposed indexing the gas tax to inflation and ahalf--cent sales tax referendum for transportation funding in the metropolitan area. AMM policy supports both of these concepts. Additionally, the Coalition supported eliminating municipal consent for over 3,000 miles of major trunk highways-something AMM strongly opposes. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our letter to the MTA notifying them of the Board's decision. If you have any questions about AMM's decision to discontinue its membership in the Transportation Alliance, please feel free to call Roger Peterson at (651) 215-4002. Sincerely, Gene Ranieri Executive Director 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4~0 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm@amm145.org -. ~~ :~~ Association of Metropolitan Municipalities August 16, 2002 Minnesota Transportation Alliance Board of Directors C/O Fred Corrigan, Executive Vice President Minnesota Transportation Alliance 2515 Wabash Avenue, Suite LL2 St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Corrigan, At their August 14, 2002 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) decided not to renew AMM's membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) for 2003 and to immediately suspend participation in the MTA pending the outcome of a MTA Board of Directors decision pertaining to membership in the Minnesota Transportation Coalition for 2003. In joining the Transportation Coalition for 2002, the MTA chose to set aside the legislative positions adopted by its members and shift its advocacy resources to .support Coalition positions. This is problematic given the fact that several of the Coalition's positions directly conflicted with AMM positions and the interests of local governments. Specific issues of concern to AMM include: 1. Local Government Participation. In the beginning, local governments were not allowed to be members of the Transportation Coalition or participate in their policy development process. However, we have recently been told this has changed and local governments are allowed to join. The Coalition continues to prohibit non-members from attending their meetings... 2. Municipal Consent. The Transportation Coalition supported a change in the municipal consent appeal process that would give the. Commissioner of MnDOT the authority to ignore appeal board rulings for over 3,000 miles of major trunk highways in Minnesota. Currently the Commissioner has this right for Interstate Highways only. The AMM opposes this change. 3. Gas Tax Indexing. The Transportation Coalition opposed indexing. AMM policy supports gas tax indexing, and prior to joining the Coalition, MTA policy did as well. 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm@amm145.on~ 4. Half-cent sales tax referendum for transportation funding in the metro area. AMM policy supports this concept, however the Coalition, and therefore the MTA, does not. AMM feels it is inappropriate to belong to an organization supporting policy issues contrary to the interests of local government, and hereby suspends its membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. Sincerely, i~~GX.I~ Eugene Ranieri Executive Director CC: Blaine Eden Prairie Maple Grove Bloomington Edina Maplewood Brooklyn Center Fridley Richfield Brooklyn Park Golden Valley St. Louis Park Burnsville Lakeville Savage David Olson, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Association of Minnesota Counties League of Minnesota Cities Minnesota Association of Small Cities Minnesota Association of Townships Shakopee South St. Paul St. Michael 145 University Avenue West, St. Paui, MN 55103-2044 .League of Minnesofa Crfi¢s Phone: (651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 Cltie5 promoting excellence TDD (651) 281-1290 LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 • LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Web Site: http://www.hnnc.org August 7, 2002 Minnesota Transportation Alliance Board of Directors C/O Fred Corrigan, Executive Vice President Minnesota Transportation Alliance 2J 15 ~~Y [~LUt~..Jll ~"i Y elil.te Suite LL2 St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Corrigan, I am writing to inform you that the League of .Minnesota Cities (LMC) is suspending its membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) pending the outcome of an Alliance Board of Directors decision pertaining to membership in the Minnesota Transportation Coalition. The decision to suspend our membership is the result of a number of disappointments. Last year, LMC staff participated in the Alliance's policy adoption process. Subsequently, the LMC used communications resources to build grassroots support for the Alliance's agenda among our 819 member cities. Soon after the Alliance adopted its legislative platform, MTA leadership abandoned the plan to unilaterally support the agenda of the Minnesota Transportation Coalition, a group of business and labor xepresentatives backed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Notable among the Coalition's legislative initiatives is a proposal to limit community input on trunk highway projects. This proposal has caused concern among LMC members; and, because the Coalition's position on this matter is contrary to our primary mission of preserving local decision-making authority, the issue has consumed considerable League advocacy staff resources. As you know, the LMC is not a member of the Coalition. Although the Coalition does not expressly prohibit local units of government from joining, the rules governing membership in the Coalition are problematic. Prior to joining, Coalition members must commit to supporting only the Coalition's legislative platform. Members cannot advocate in opposition to any Coalition positions, nor can they develop independent initiatives. Finally, only Coalition members may attend Coalition meetings. This lack of flexibility creates an image of exclusivity that is foreign to public organizations and incompatible with grassroots advocacy. The Alliance's membership in the Coalition under these conditions does not serve the interests of the public members of the MTA. This is not to say that the business community's involvement in the transportation funding debate is unwelcome. The League recognizes the Coalition as a valuable ally in the effort to secure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER \ transportation dollars. And, together the Alliance and the Coalition represent a wide range of stakeholders. If the organizations are willing to collaborate on issues of common concern, they will make a powerful statement about the transportation needs in Minnesota. In the interest of cooperation, the League maintained its membership in the Alliance over the past year despite misgivings about use of Alliance resources to further the Coalition's agenda. On behalf of our members, we tried to facilitate a relationship between the Alliance and Coalition that would be more acceptable to public organizations. Through letters, phone calls, meetings and discussions, LMC staff conveyed concerns to Alliance board members and Coalition leaders. Unfortunately, the terms of the relationship between the Alliance and the Coalition have not changed to be more inclusive. The Alliance Board of Directors is now considering renewing the Alliance's membership in the Coalition. Although Alliance staff has recommended leaving the Coalition, many board members believe the benefits of the Alliance's membership in the Coalition outweigh the concerns of the League and other public organizations. On Monday of this week, the Alliance Board of Directors resolved to wait on making a decision regarding Coalition membership. The matter will be discussed at the Alliance's annual meeting in October and will be revisited by the board for a final decision in November. Please inform the LMC of the outcome of the November board meeting so the League's Board of Directors can make an informed decision regarding our long-term membership status in the Alliance. If you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact LMC Intergovernmental Relations Representative Anne Finn at (651) 281-1263 or a-mail afinn@lmnc.or~. incerely, ames Miller Executive Director cc: David Olson, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Association of Mi~inesata Counties Minnesota- Association of Small Cities Minnesota Association of Townships City of Bemidji City of Blaine City of Bloomington City of Brainerd - City of Brooklyn Center City of Brooklyn Park City of Buffalo City of Burnsville City of Cloquet City of Crookston City of Crystal City of Duluth AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER City of East Grand Forks City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Fairmont City of Faribault City of Fergus Falls City of Fridley City of Golden Valley City of Hastings City of Hermantown City of Hibbing City of Hutchinson City of Kasson City of Lake Crystal City of Lake Elmo City of Lakeville City of Litchfield City of Mankato City of Maple Grove City of Maplewood City of Marshall City of Montevideo City of New Ulm City of North Branch City of North Mankato City of Northfield City of Owatonna City of Red Wing City of Redwood Falls City of Richfield City of Rochester City of Saint Cloud City of Saint Louis Park City of Saint Michael City of Saint Paul City of Saint Peter City of Sartell City of Sauk Rapids City of Savage City of Shakopee City of Shoreview City of South Saint Paul City of Thief River Falls City of Vadnais Heights City of Waite Park City of Waseca City of Willmar City of Winona City of Worthington AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION August 8, 2002 Mr. James Miller Executive Director League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Dear Mr. Miller: I was sorry to receive your letter of August 7 advising me of your decision to suspend your membership in The Minnesota Transportation Alliance. LMC and the Alliance have had along and successful relationship in working on behalf of transportation policy and funding issues and it is my hope that we will be able to resume that partnership in the future. The Board of Directors of the Alliance, including its public sector members, have worked hard to build an inclusive alliance of those interested in the maintenance and improvement of Minnesota's transportation infrastructure. As you are well aware, there are times when friends disagree over the issues of common concern but with time and perseverance find agreement that strengthens their relationship. The Alliance is committed. to being an inclusive organization that allows its members the opportunity to develop a common agenda. Many members of the Board of Directors saw the participation of the business community in the transportation discussion at the state capital through our involvement with the Minnesota Transportation Coalition as an opportunity. The Board of Directors made a commitment to that relationship for the 2002 legislative session and will decide on our future involvement with the Coalition with the input of our members. As your letter states, the Alliance Board of Directors has asked that the issue of membership in the Minnesota ;Transportation Coalition be included in the agenda for our Annual Membership meeting on October 10 for discussion and the agenda of the next Board of Directors meeting later on the same day. The Board of Directors will review the motion approving membership in the Coalition that was overwhelmingly adopted by the Board of Directors at their January 2002 meeting. I do need to correct your statement that the Alliance staff recommended leaving the Coalition to say that the Alliance staff informed the Board of Directors that the rules of membership in the Coalition are not consistent with the motion passed by the Alliance Board of Directors in January and that the Board of Directors would need to resolve that inconsistency in any action relating to continuing our relationship with the Coalition. I was disappointed that you felt it was necessary to communicate your concerns with our city membership. The Alliance Board of Directors has extended an invitation to your representative to participate in their meetings as an Advisory Committee member for a number of years and would have expected this communication to be directed to them as the body taking the action to join the Coalition. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss your concerns in greater detail before our Annual Meeting. It would also be helpful for me to review any official action of the LMC Board of Directors relating to the Minnesota Transportation Coalition. Sincerely, Fred J. Corrigan Executive Vice President 2515 Wabash Avenue • Suite LL2 • Saint Paul, MN 55114 • 651 /659-0804 • Fax 651 /659-9009 • WWW.TRANSPORTATIONALLIANCE.COM -- THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION August 13, 2002 Mike Eastling City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave Richfield, MN 55423-2560 Dear Mike: I am writing to you in response to a letter that was recently sent to your city from the League of Minnesota Cities dated August 7, 2002 concerning the involvement of the Alliance in the activities of the Minnesota Transportation Coalition at the legislature this past year. The Alliance Board of Directors voted to join the Minnesota Transportation Coalition in January in an attempt to work with the business community topass atransportation-funding bill during the 2002 legislative session. The Board also asked that this action be reviewed after the session. The Alliance Board discussed the concerns of representatives of local government organizations at its annual Board retreat on August 5 and voted to continue the discussion with our membership at the Alliance Annual Meeting in October. The Alliance has worked with many of you in your communities to engage local businesses in the fight for transportation investments so they can better serve their customers and employees. While I wish I could control all of the statements and testimony made each year in the transportation debate at the legislature, I assure you that no representative of the Alliance has knowingly taken a position at the legislature in opposition to local government control or the needs of local overnment. While we respect the concerns of the League of Minnesota Cities as an individual member of the Alliance, your input is extremely important to us as we seek to find an appropriate balance between our local government membership and business interests. We encourage you to discuss the concerns of LMC and other local government organizations with their representatives and hope that you will contact Alliance staff and me in the coming weeks. As a local government official myself, and following elected and appointed officials who have served as President of the Alliance over the past decade including the ex-mayor of the City of Blaine, I can assure you that our local government members have been engaged and instrumental in the Alliance's activities and on its Board of Directors. This issue will be discussed at the Annual Membership meeting of the Alliance on October 10 and will be acted on by the Board of Directors later that day. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We regret any inconvenience or concerns this situation may have caused you. We will keep you informed as this discussion continues and look forward to your participation. Sincerely, ~~ ~_--- Richard H. Hansen President Attachments i,MC Letter Response to LMC AUG 1: ~ ~OQ2 E 2515 Wabash Avenue • Suite LL2 • Saint Paul, MN 55114 • 651 /659-0804 • Fax 651 /659-9009 • Email: CORRIGAN~TRANSPORTATIONALLIANCE.COM ~.- AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 21 ] ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Designate a Richfield representative and alternate to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appoint a representative and alternate to serve as vested representatives of the City of Richfield on the MSP's new Noise Oversiaht Committee. ~ II. BACKGROUND, On October 31, 2000 a majority of the airline users resigned from the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) citing concerns that the organization had become an unbalanced community advocacy group. After being in existence for over 30 years, MASAC was disbanded. A Blue Ribbon Panel was subsequently established by Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel, to develop a new framework for ;~ 1 an aircraft noise advisory committee. Three community representatives and three airline user representatives participated on the panel, which was facilitated by former MAC commissioner, John Himle. The panel completed its deliberations in NOC appointment June 2002 and issued a final report for the MAC's consideration. The full MAC Commission approved the report on August 19, 2002. The report outlines the framework for a Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) made up of 6 community representatives and 6 airport user representatives. Five of the communities would be permanent members based on their proximity to the 1996 - 65 DNL noise contour. Those communities are: Richfield, Bloomington, Minneapolis, Mendota Heights and Eagan. The sixth community representative would be an at-large member selected from either St. Paul, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake and St. Louis Park to serve a one year rotation. The NOC reflects the Blue Ribbon Panel's desire to provide a balanced, effective forum to discuss and evaluate noise impacts around MSP. The panel felt that such a committee is critical to the effective development and operation of a major urban airport like MSP. The main role of the NOC will be to identify and study noise issues and solutions and provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee. The NOC meetings will be held every other month, during business hours, at the MAC General Offices so that MAC staff can be available to answer questions and provide information. The MAC staff will also sponsor quarterly public comment meetings for the general public. Those meetings will be held in the evenings. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City was an active member of the former Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). However, MASAC had become ineffective and unbalanced, and it had lost its .previous ability to affect change. • As a community that experiences many impacts from its location next to the airport, the City has a strong interest in being able to participate in a regular dialogue with the MAC, airport users and other affected communities. • The NOC provides a replacement forum for communities and airport user groups to share noise concerns and work towards noise solutions. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is expected that the first meeting of the NOC will be conducted in late November. Therefore, it is important that Richfield have representatives in .place prior to the first meeting. • Staff is not aware that any of the other five communities invited to be permanent members on the NOC will refuse to participate. • The NOC appears to be the only organization that will provide affected communities and airport users with a forum to discuss and evaluate noise issues. The airport users have indicated they will not participate in any other type of organization that may get organized by former MASAC members. C. FINANCIAL • .None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Decide not to participate as a voting member on the MSP Noise Oversight Committee. However, there currently is no other_forum available, comprised of both airport users and community representatives, to provide the opportunity to discuss and guide airport noise-related policies. Participation on the NOC ensures the City of Richfield access to critical information from the MAC and an opportunity to influence and establish key noise policies that affect our community. V. ATTACHMENTS • Copy of MSP Aviation Noise Blue Ribbon Panel Report outlining the framework and elements of the new Noise Oversight Committee.. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None >~t'S,S°~ti> Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport ~ ?r t °c 6040 - 28th Avenue South ~ Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 t ~ ; o Phone (612) 726-8100 ~ Fax (612) 726-5296 n ~ t m `~ ~ '~~ ~ N t3ffice of Executive Director ° "` ~ F ' CH 41RPp Q~9 GO August 20, 2002 Richfield City Hall Attn: Ms. Samantha Orduno --City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Orduno: As I am sure you are aware, on October 31, 2000 ten of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) airport user members resigned from the Council. The airport users resignations were based on the perception that the group had become an unbalanced community advocacy group. The resignation letter stated, "...MASAC has become a community advocacy group and no longer provides a viable framework for a thorough and balanced review of technically complex issues with significant legal, environmental and economic implications for communities and the industry. " An eleventh airport user member resigned at a later date citing the same concerns. Soon after the airline resignations from MASAC, I proposed that a Blue Ribbon Panel be established to develop a new framework for an aircraft noise advisory committee. The community members participating on the Blue Ribbon Panel were Barret Lane - a member of the Minneapolis City Council, Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan's assistant city manager, and Jill Smith: -former member of the Mendota Heights City Council. The airport user members on the Panel were John DeCoster -Northwest Airlines Regional Director of Airport Affairs, Bob Johnson -member of the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association, and Pete Levermore -UPS Airport Properties Representative. John Himle, former MAC Commissioner, facilitated the group's deliberations. Upon completion of the Blue Ribbon Panel deliberations on June 18,.2002, a final report was unanimously approved by the Pnlei and forwarded to the MAC for consideration. On August 19, 2002 the MAC Full Commission approved the attached report outlining elements for the formation of a new MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). I would like to echo the sentiments of the Blue Ribbon Panel, in that I believe an MSP noise committee, which is a balanced composition of airport users and communities, is The Vfetropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. .. .. _ _.. , .. - , -.~ ~ ~,r.F- ~ ,-..~ ,~-.~.: -n1 a rvc , ~wc~r a ~ pr y*~i(= r''. ;l[ TD LAKE ELVtO ~ SAI~1T PAliL DOWVT041RV critical to the effective development and operation of a major urban airport like MSP. This proposal provides such an organization. As outlined in the NOC organizational framework, the City of Richfield is provided with a voting position on the NOC. Thus, I am requesting the City's appointment of a representative and alternate to serve on the NOC as vested representatives of the City. of Richfield. It is anticipated that the first meeting of the NOC will be conducted in late November 2002. The City's prompt response in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions with regard to the NOC and the associated request I have presented, please contact Chad Leqve -Manager, MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs at 612-725-6326. Thank you in advance for your prompt response, and I look forward to the on-going benefits this new cooperative effort will foster. m rely, eff Hamiel Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission cc: ,/r1~Is. Pam Dmytrenko -Assistant to City Manager Mr. Chad Legve -Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Attachment (1) Mgp Avia ion ois~ MSP Aviation Noise Blue Ribbon Panel Report to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Regarding a New MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)~Framework MSP Aviation Noise Blue Ribbon Panel June 18, 2002 glue Ribbon Panei CONTENTS Background Recommended Framework for a New MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOCI Organizational Mission Membership Procedures/Rules of Order Metropolitan Airports Conunission Role Staffing Roles and Responsibilities Reporting Relationship and Responsibility in MAC's Process Additional Elements MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Bvlaws Committee Mission Membership Powers and Duties of Membership Voting Rights of Membership Co-Chairperson Technical Advisor Technical Studies Committee Meetings Sub-Committees Procedures and Rules of Order Reporting Relationship and Responsibility in MAC's Process 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 BACKGROUND For more than 30 years at the Minneapolis - St. Paul International (MSP) airport the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) provided an airport noise forum comprised of an equal number of community and airport user representatives. On October 31, 2000, the airline members resigned from the Council citing concerns that the organization had become an unbalanced community advocacy group. Concerns focused on the Council's ability to address airport noise issues in a manner that considered all interests and applicable Federal policies. Due to the resignation of the airlines from the Council, the organization was disbanded. A Blue Ribbon Panel was established to develop a new MSP noise committee framework. Three community and three airport user representatives were appointed by their respective constituencies to serve on the Panel. The community mernbers on the Panel were Barret Lane - a member of the Minneapolis City Council, Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan's Assistant City Administrator, and Jill Smith -former member of the Mendota Heights City Council. The airport user members on the Panel were John DeCoster - Northwest Airlines Regional Director of Airport Affairs, Bob Johnson -member of the Minnesota Business Aviation Association, and Pete Levermore -UPS Airport Properties Representative. The Panel discussed several topics related to the specific elements associated -with a new organizational framework that addressed both airport user and community concerns. The Panel discussion focused on organizational mission, procedures/rules of order, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) role, staffing roles and responsibilities and the reporting relationship and responsibilities in the MAC's process. The Panel began their deliberations on December 18, 2001 and concluded on June 18, 2002. Throughout the course of six meetings, the Panel unanimously agreed that an MSP noise committee is critical to the effective development and operation of a major urban airport like MSP. The Panel developed the attached MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) framework and associated bylaws. 7 J Recommended Framework for the New MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) ~ Organizational Mission Provide a balanced forum for the discussion and evaluation of noise impacts around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport through the following functions: ^ Identify, study and analyze airport noise issues ^ Provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee and full Commission regarding airport noise issues ^ Monitor compliance with established noise policy at MSP ^ Ensure the collection of information and dissemination to the public. The above functions will be conducted in a manner that considers public and airport user concerns, taking into consideration public input/information from the following channels of communication: ^ MAC noise office ^ MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program Website ^ MSP Noise News newsletter ^ MAC noise complaint and information hotline ^ Governmental body official policy development processes ^ MAC public hearings ^ MAC informational meetings ^ Individual NOC members ^ MAC Planning and Environment Committee ^ Metropolitan Airports Commission meetings. 2 ~ Membership o The Committee will`- have twelve members with six airport user representatives and six community representatives.. The total Committee membership will never exceed twelve members, unless it is the unanimous position of the Committee. o Community representation will be defined as those communities (5) within or touched by the most recently developed and submitted Part 150 65 DNL contour. The Committee will also have one community member at large, to be selected from, and to represent, the cities of St. Paul, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake and St. Louis Park. o The airport user airline and pilot members will be determined by the MSP Airport Airline Affairs Committee (AAAC), with one vote to each of the following - a scheduled air carrier, charter carrier, cargo operator, a chief pilot of an operator at MSP and the Minnesota Business Aviation Association (MBAR). MBAA will appoint its representative. The Committee will also have one airport user member at large, selected by the MSP AAAC. o Both airport user and community representatives must be vested to represent their constituency and vote accordingly. o If a member vacancy occurs, the respective constituency will appoint a replacement. o An alternate member will be appointed by each member organization. Alternates will only be allowed. to represent their respective organization in the absence of the primary designee. o Members will be appointed for a term of two years. The two at-large members will serve for a year term with mandatory community at-large member rotation at the conclusion of a term. ~ Procedures/Rules of Order o Robert's Rules of Order will be the governing doctrine for conduct of business and membership participation behavior. The Committee may also. adopt other rules necessary for the governance of Committee's conduct of business. A rule can only be amended or suspended by a vote of two-thirds of the full Committee. o Meetings will be scheduled every other month, as determined by the Committee. Meetings will be held if workload business necessitates. Meetings shall be conducted quarterly at a nunimum, unless two-thirds of the members vote not to have a meeting. o Prior to every meeting, a Committee agenda review session will be conducted for Committee members only. Committee meetings will be open to the public. All decisions, staff direction and votes will be made during the public Committee meeting. o Meetings will be held during business hours at the MAC General Offices. o Agendas will be prepared with the consent of both of the co-chairs and distributed at least two weeks prior to the meeting. To vote on an item it must be on the agenda. Items can be added to the agenda for discussion by atwo-thirds vote of the members. o All votes required for the passage of a motion will require a quorum as defined by a majority (one greater than half) of both the community and airport user segments of the organization. o For the purpose of conducting business, at least half of the full Committee members must be in attendance. Attendance includes meeting .participation via conference call or by a designated alternate. o Sub-Committees will be established on an as needed basis as determined by the organization as a whole and shall be comprised of people with the expertise or vested interest in the area of discussion, with a date certain completion time. Sub-Committees shall be provided a defined task to accomplish and a timeframe within which to complete the task. The composition of Sub-Committees shall be an equal balance of airport user and community representatives. o Special meetings can be called by the Committee as a whole or by the mutual consent of the co-chairs. ~ Metropolitan Airports Commission Role o MAC staff shall act as a technical advisor to the Committee. o MAC Commissioners are invited to attend each meeting. and participate in discussions, but are not eligible to vote. o Annual work plans will be developed in consultation with the MAC Planning and Environment Committee. The work plan will be submitted annually to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for informational purposes. o MAC staff will sponsor quarterly public comment meetings for the general public. The meetings will be held in the evening hours at the MAC General Offices. MAC staff will brief monthly operations reports and the public will be welcomed to make comments. The meetings are not intended to be a discussion forum. Committee members are invited to attend these meetings. o A memo summarizing the comments from the public comment meetings will be provided to the Committee and the MAC Planning and Environment Committee on a quarterly basis. ~ Staffing Roles and Responsibilities o The MAC staff will receive direction from the Committee with regard to staff development of technical documents, analyses and information requests. 4 o MAC staff will .:provide administrative and technical support to the organization in an unbiased manner with equal access to all members. ~ Reporting Relationship and Responsibility in MAC's Process o Actions by the Committee will be forwarded to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review, and forwarded to the full Commission. o The co-chairs will provide a report to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee on an annual basis. o Each member will be responsible for reporting to his or her respective appointing authority. ~ Additional Elements o Co-Chairmanship: One primary representative from the user side and one from the community side will be selected by their respective constituencies to serve as co-chairpersons on the Committee. The presiding chairperson will alternate every other meeting. o Advisorv Functions: Advisory functions to .the Committee include the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Transport Association, .Minnesota Air National Guard, the U.S. Air Force and the Metropolitan Council. 5 s o 'sF, `o pt, ~~~. FRSiCHT COri~~~'C BYLAWS MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) ARTICLE I Committee Mission Provide a balanced forum for the discussion and evaluation of noise impacts around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport through the following functions: o Identify, study and analyze airport noise issues and solutions o .Provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee and full Commission regarding airport noise issues o Monitor compliance with established noise policy at MSP o Ensure the collection of information and dissemination to the public. The above functions will be conducted in a manner that considers public and airport user concerns, taking into consideration public input/information from the following channels of communication: o MAC noise office o MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program Website o MSP Noise News newsletter o MAC noise complaint and information hotline o Governmental body official policy development processes o MAC public hearings . o MAC informational meetings o Individual NOC members o MAC Planning and Environment Committee o Metropolitan Airports Commission meetings. ARTICLE II Membership 1. The Committee membership shall consist of twelve officially designated representatives or, in the absence of designated .representatives, the alternative representatives, with authority to act upon all matters within the purview of the Bylaws. 6 2. The airport users and communities shall have an equal number of members and votes on the Committee. 3. The MSP Airport and Airline Affairs Committee (AAAC) shall make airline and pilot appointments, except for the Minnesota Business Aviation Association (MBAR). 4. (a) Community representation will be defined as those communities within or touched by the most recently developed and submitted Part 150 DNL 65 contour. The following communities shall be entitled to one seat each on the Committee: Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis and Richfield and shall each appoint one primary representative and one alternate representative. Such communities shall be referred to as the "Designated Communities." (b) The following communities shall be entitled to share as a group, on a rotating basis, one seat on the Committee: Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, St. Louis Park, St. Paul and Sunfish lake. Such communities shall be referred to as the "At- Large Communities." The seat shall rotate among the communities in the following order: Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, St. Louis Park, St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. When .each community has held .the seat for one term of appointment, the seat shall pass to the community next in order, returning to the first community when the order is completed. The community which holds the seat shall appoint the At-Large Communities' primary representative. The community which is next in order to hold the seat shall appoint the At-Large Communities' alternate representative.. Absent contrary action by the appointing community, the alternate representative shall become the primary representative when the seat rotates. (c) Taken together, Designated Communities or their primary and/or alternate representatives and At-Large Communities or their primary and/or alternate representative shall be referred to as "communities" or "community representatives." 5. The respective appointing authority shall file with the MAC the designated representative and alternate, setting forth their names and mailing address. Thereupon, representation on the Committee will be confirmed by issuance of a certificate of membership to each such representative and/or alternate representative. 6. Primary representatives and alternate representatives of Designated Communities and Users shall be appointed to serve for two (2) years. The Primary representative and alternative representative of At-Large Communities and Users shall be appointed to serve for one (1) year. Alternate representatives will only be allowed to represent their respective organization in the absence of a primary representative. 7 7. The composition of the Committee is as follows: USER REPRESENTATION 1-Scheduled airline representative 1-Cargo carrier representative 1-Charter operator representative 1-Chief Pilot representative 1-Minnesota Business Aviation Association (MBAR) representative 1- At-Large Airport User representative, asselected by the MSP AAAC CITY REPRESENTATION 1- City of Minneapolis representative 1-City of Richfield representative 1-City of Mendota Heights representative 1-City of Bloomington representative 1-City of Eagan representative 1 - At-Large Communities representative The total Committee membership will never .exceed twelve members. Modification of total membership numbers must be by a unanimous vote of the Committee. 9. Input may be sought from organizations or agencies that deal directly with aircraft noise abatement programs to include: Air Transport Association of America (ATA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Minnesota Air National Guard, U.S. Air Force Reserve, MAC, Metropolitan Council and any other organization or agency with majority approval by the Committee. ARTICLE III Powers and Duties of Membership Subject to the voting provisions herein set forth, the membership shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Both airport user and community appointed members must be vested to represent their constituency and vote accordingly. . ARTICLE IV Voting Rights of Membership At all meetings of the Committee, attendance by four (4) airport user representatives and four (4) community representatives shall constitute a quorum for voting/action purposes. For the purpose of conducting meetings, at least half, six (6), of the Committee members must be in attendance. Attendance includes meeting participation via conference call. 2. There shall be equal representation of airport user and community membership on the Committee and, to that end, for purposes of voting on all matters requiring a vote of the Committee, each representative, both user and community, shall have one (1) vote, which in the absence of a representative may be his or her duly designated alternate representative. 3. These Bylaws may be amended or altered by the vote of a super majority of the membership present at any meeting, provided that notice of such proposed amendments shall have been given fourteen (14) days prior to a general membership meeting. ARTICLE V Co-Chairpersons The airport user and community segments of the Committee shall each select a Co- Chairperson who will serve at the pleasure of the appointing group. Each Co- Chairperson will serve for a two (2) year term or until his/her representation on the Committee terminates, or until replaced by the appointing group, whichever occurs first. The powers and duties of the Co-Chairpersons are as follows: 1. To review and approve agendas -approval by both of the co-chairs is required for agenda approval. 2. To preside over meetings -the presiding Chairperson will alternate every other meeting. 3. By the mutual consent of the Co-Chairpersons, special meetings may be called, or upon request of a majority of the Committee, four (4) users and four (4) community representatives. 4. To sign. as Co-Chairpersons of this Committee, all instruments in writing that may require such signature, unless the membership shall otherwise direct, and to perform such other duties and tasks as these Bylaws or as the membership shall from time to time prescribe. 5. Each segment of the Committee, by a majority vote, shall elect their respective Co-Chairperson. 9 ARTICLE VI Technical Advisor The Manager of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs office will act as the Technical Advisor to the Committee. The Technical Advisor shall perform the following functions: 1. To prepare the agenda for meetings of the Committee, which shall include any items for consideration proposed to him/her by any airport user or community representative with the consent of at least one Co-Chairperson. 2. To keep a full and complete record of the proceedings of the Committee and of the meetings of the members. 3. To maintain an up-to-date roster of Committee membership and of the representatives of each member corporation, association, governmental body and unit including the date of appointment and time of service of each representative. He/she shall inform each member as to the termination of the term of service of each representative, no less than sixty (60) days prior to such termination. 4. To make service and publication of all .notices that may be necessary or proper. In the case of absence of the Technical Advisor or the Committee's Designee to make service or publication of any notice then such notice may be signed, served and published by the Co-Chairpersons or, in the absence of one of the Co-Chairs, by one of the Co-Chairpersons, or by any person thereunto authorized by any of them or by the Committee. ARTICLE VII Technical Studies 1. The Committee at its own determination, by a majority vote, or at the request of the Technical Advisor, may retain the :services of independent technical experts and consultants as deemed necessary in the performance of the Committee's functions. 2. All services that are retained for the purpose of supporting Committee initiatives will be conducted within the budgetary limits of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Office. 3. In aid of the Committee's mission, the Committee may ask agencies, corporations, associations, and governmental bodies to make available to the Committee technical advice, and the services of their technical personnel reasonably required for the purpose of studies instituted by the Committee. 10 4. Studies and reports of technical personnel retained by the Committee for such purpose shall be available to the Committee in aid of its performance of its -~ functions but shall not constitute studies or reports of the Committee unless duly adopted by it. ARTICLE VIII Committee Meetings 1. Meetings will be scheduled every other month (odd numbered months) -day to be determined by the Committee. Meetings will be held if workload business necessitates as mutually determined by the Co-Chairpersons. If any regular meeting day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then the meeting shall occur on the next business day thereafter. Special meetings of the Committee shall be established through the mutual consent of the Co-Chairpersons or by a majority vote of the Conunittee. 2. Prior to every meeting, a Committee agenda review session will be conducted for Committee members only. Committee meetings will be open to the public. All decisions, staff direction and votes will be made during the public Committee meeting. . 3. The Technical Advisor or the Committee's designee shall distribute notice of general or special meetings of the Committee at least two (2) weeks `prior to the meeting to each representative at his/her mailing address currently on file with the MAC. Such notice shall set forth the agenda of the meetings and no matters requiring Committee action may be considered which are .not on the agenda unless the Committee, by a super majority vote of representatives in attendance, elects to consider such matters. Each Committee agenda will include a review of any comment trends, topics or .issues raised via the Committee's recognized channels of communication. 4. All meetings shall be held during business hours at the general offices of the MAC or at such other place or places as from time to time the Committee by majority vote of representation in attendance at a meeting determines. The place of meeting or alternative place of meeting shall be set forth in notices of meetings. ARTICLE IX Sub-Committees Sub-Committees will be established on an as needed basis as determined by the organization as a whole, and will be comprised of people with the expertise or a vested interest in the area of discussion, with a date certain completion time. Sub- Committees shall be provided a defined task to accomplish and a tirneframe within 11 which to complete the task. The composition of Sub-Committees will always be an equal balance of airport user and community representatives. ARTICLE X Procedures and Rules of Order Robert's Rules of Order will be the governing doctrine for conduct of business and membership participation behavior. The Committee may also adopt other rules necessary for the governance of the Committee's conduct of business. A rule can only be amended or suspended by a vote of two thirds of the full Committee. ARTICLE XI Reporting Relationship and Responsibility in MAC's Process 1. Annual work plans will be developed in consultation with the MAC Planning and Environment Committee. The work plan will be submitted annually to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for informational purposes. 2. Actions by the Committee will be forwarded to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review, and forwarded to the full Commission. 3. The Co-Chairs will provide a report to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee on an annual basis. 4. Each member will be responsible for reporting to his or her respective appointing authority. 12 AGENDA SECTION: ~'~"~ ,~jf,C$!' /~ .~ AGENDA ITEM # ,~ REPORT # ~„ j (p STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: AL PAYNE, FACILITIES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ' ~ ~ ,,,,;~ ~ ~,.~-~ D _ tJ _ ~ ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorization of the purchase of new cooling tower in the amount of $28,423.78 and rebuilt compressor in the amount of $17,017.63 for Rink Two of the Richfield Ice Arena. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the purchase of a new cooling tower in the amount of $28,423.78 and rebuilt compressor in the amount of $17,017.63 for Rink Two of the Richfield Ice Arena from Gartner Refriaeration & Mfq. Inc. III. BACKGROUND ~ The cooling tower and compressor for Rink Two at the Richfield Ice Arena have failed and are in need of immediate repair. This essential mechanical equipment was originally purchased during the construction of Rink Two over three years ago. To stay on budget at that time, used equipment was purchased at a saving of over $70,000. Late this summer, the cooling system began to leak freon and valves from one of the compressors failed, shutting the system down. 0912 arena Cooling Tower The cooling tower is similar to a car radiator, where the transfer of refrigerant heat is done through a series of coils. It was determined that the cooling tower coils were deteriorated to the point where repairs were no longer feasible. There are three options to consider in the replacement of the cooling tower: Option 1 -Replace only the coils at a cost of $19,393 (plus sales tax). Option 2 -Replace the coils (option 1) and the lower half of the cooling tower, including motors, fans and water recovery at a cost of $23,589 (plus sales tax). Option 3 -Replace the cooling tower (option 2) and upgrade the capacity of the coils for an additional $3,100, at a total cost of $26,689 (plus sales tax). Staff recommends this option because upgraded coils will increase the life and efficiency of the system. Compressor Rink Two has two compressors that create the pressure to move refrigerant through the entire system. The internal components of one of the compressors (cylinder liners, pistons, rings, valves and shaft seals) were found considerably worn out and in need of immediate replacement. Purchasing a readily available rebuilt unit is about 30% less cost than rebuilding the existing compressor of Rink Two, and reduces down time by three to four days. A brand new version of our model compressor is no longer manufactured. The cost of purchasing a rebuilt unit is $15,979 (plus sales tax). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This expenditure is unforeseen and unbudgeted, but is necessary for the proper functioning of the Ice Arena. • Because this item could not be budgeted, the purchase of new equipment will need to be authorized by the City Council at this time. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The cooling tower and compressors for Rink Two were purchased as used equipment. It is reasonable to expect that future repairs can be reduced if these mechanical components are replaced in their entirety. • Effective and reliable. refrigerant equipment is essential in arena operation. Loss of ice time causes lower revenues and customer dissatisfaction. • Rink Two will not operate during the upcoming skating season unless the equipment is replaced. Without immediate action on this matter, the Arena will lose a significant portion of its operating revenues. C. FINANCIAL ~~ City reserves are the source of funds for this unbudgeted expenditure. ^ Upgrading the cooling tower with increased capacity will improve efficiency, using less water and. energy to transfer heat. The pay back period for the $3,100 dollar expenditure to upgrade coil capacity is estimated at seven years. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • In addition to replacing the compressor, replace only the coils in the cooling tower (option 1), reducing -the cosf by' $7,296 plus tax. • In addition to replacing the compressor, replace the coils and the lower half of the cooling tower without upgrading the coils (option 2), reducing cost by $3,100 plus tax. V. ATTACHMENTS • Submitted quote. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None August 27, 2002 Quotation No.: 0802-8269-0 Richfield Ice-Arena 636 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Al Payne Subj: Rink 2 York Compressor Overhaul Dear Al, Gartner Refrigeration has inspected your York compressor model #RS64. Due to the extensive amounts of components that require replacement in the compressor, items that include cylinder liners, piston assemblies, piston rings, valves, main bearings, shaft seals, etc. it is our recommendation that we install a York remanufactured compressor. Therefore, Gartner Refrigeration proposes to remove your existing compressor, and in its place install a remanufactured compressor model #RS64. We will make the proper piping connections, control line connections, install your existing coupler, perform an alignment of the compressor and motor and place this compressor in operation. Once the compressor is up and running we will perform a sequence check of all the safety controls and ensure that the operating controls are performing properly. Richfield Ice Arena Net Price ....................................................................................$ 15,979.00 Terms & Conditions 1. Down Payment Purchaser shall pay a down payment of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total Purchase Price when Purchaser accepts this contract. 2. Invoice and Payment Equipment, material, supplies and labor are invoiced upon completion and shall become due in full 10 days from the date of invoice. 3. Past Due Charge All past due invoices will be subject to a service charge of one percent (1%) of the past due amount per month. 4. Service Charges and Possible Additional Charges Purchase Price Subject to Increase -The Purchase Price is subject to the price in effect at the time of delivery and any price increase in equipment shall be added to the amount of this Contract. 5. Additional charge for overtime/premium time work required beyond regular hours B:OOam - 4:30pm. 6. Taxes are NOT included. 7. Electric power and control wiring is not included. 8. All prices are FOB factory, customer is required to pay additional charge for freight and delivery. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg., Inc. Gary Bye Service Operations Manager This proposal is hereby accepted by on (date) under PO# .This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted in 30 days. ~~ Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\0802-8269-0 Richfield Ice Arena York Overhaul.doc August 27, 2002 Quotation No.: 0802-8264-1 Richfield Ice Arena 636 East 66t" Street Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Al Payne Subj: Rink 2 Condenser Dear Al, After reviewing the information on the evaporative condenser located at rink #2 we will propose one of the two following options. Option 1 Gartner Refrigeration proposes to replace the coil bundle located in your existing BAC condenser model # C1742K. We would pump down and reclaim the refrigerant in the condenser system, cut the hot gas, condenser drain and water supply lines loose, lift off the coil bundle, set the new bundle in place, relocate the mist eliminator section and assemble the condenser. We would weld up the fittings on the hot gas, condenser drain and water supply lines, perform a pressure test and evacuation of the coil bundle, recharge with refrigerant and place the condenser back in operation. The necessary labor, material, equipment rentals, crane for hoisting, and startup would be included Richfield Ice Arena Net Price ....................................................................................$ 19,393.00 Option 2 Gartner Refrigeration proposes to replace your existing condenser with an updated BAC model # VC 1-125. The necessary pump down, evacuation, refrigerant removal, resetting of the new condenser, welding, recharging the system with refrigerant, and evacuation would be performed. Once the evacuation is complete we will perform a startup, testing, and adjusting the new condenser in place. The necessary cylinder rental, permits, crane for hoisting, pipefittings, and installation labor would be included Richfield Ice Arena Net Price ....................................................................................$ 23,589.00 Should you wish to upgrade this new condenser for additional capacity to a model VC 1-13 5 that requires the same footprint there would be a net add of $3,100.00. Attached will be our "Scope of Responsibilities" which will become a part of this proposal. Terms & Conditions 1. Down Payment Purchaser shall pay a down payment of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total Purchase Price when Purchaser accepts this contract. 2. Invoice and Payment Equipment, material, supplies and labor are invoiced on completion and shall become due in full 10 days from the date of invoice. 3. Past Due Charge All past due invoices will be subject to a service charge of one percent (1%) of the past due amount per month. 4. Service Charges and Possible Additional Charges Purchase Price Subject to Increase -The Purchase Price is subject to the price in effect at the time of delivery and any price increase in equipment shall be added to the amount of this Contract. 5. Additional charge for overtime/premium time work required beyond regular hours _ 8:OOam - 4:30pm. 6. Taxes are NOT included. 7. Electric power and control wiring is not included. 8. All prices are FOB factory, customer is required to pay additional charge for freight and delivery. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me Respectfully submitted, Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg., Inc. Gary Bye Service Operations Manager This proposal is hereby accepted by on (date) under PO# .This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted in 30 days. Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\0802-8264-1 Richfield Arena Rink 2 Evap Cond.doc Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg., Inc. Attachment to Quotation No.: 0802-8264-1 Scope o Re~onsibilities Refrigeration includes refrigeration equipment, piping, valves, refrigerant, oil Gartner will furnish the following: • all equipment listed under Scope of Work • all refrigeration pipe and fittings • refrigeration control and stop valves • one year parts and labor warranty on above • skilled and unskilled labor necessary to install above items Purchaser will furnish the following: • none Electrical includes motor starters, wiring, controls Gartner will furnish the following: • none Purchaser will furnish the following: • all electrical power wiring • all 12OV control wiring • all low voltage control wiring • all other motor starters • skilled and unskilled labor necessary to install above items • technical assistance required for electrical engineering and design of control and power wiring Site Utilities includes jobsite trailers, electrical for welders, water, sanitation, lighting ~~ Gartner will furnish the following: • jobsite trailer • crew sanitation facilities • temporary hookup for electrical to trailer Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\0802-8264-1 Richfield Arena Rink 2 Evap Cond.doc Page 1 A Purchaser will furnish the following: • 48OV electrical power for welders • 12OV GFI electrical power for hand tools • lay down area for equipment and piping • interior lighting in work areas • access to all work areas • water Piing and Equipment Su~~orts includes pipe supports, condenser stands and catwalks, equipment pads Gartner will furnish the following: • none Purchaser will furnish the following: • none Mechanical includes water and drain lines, treatment systems, ventilation, pneumatic Gartner will furnish the following: • water piping at the condenser Purchaser will furnish the following: • none Roof and Wall Penetrations includes cutting, patching, flashings Gartner will furnish the following: • none Purchaser will furnish the following: • cutting of roof penetrations for pipes and ducts patching of roof penetrations • patching of wall penetrations • flashing of roof penetrations • cutting of wall penetrations for pipes and ducts General Conditions warranty, startup, sales tax, pumpouts, working hours, miscellaneous Gartner will furnish the following: ~~-~ • one year parts and labor warranty on all Gartner supplied equipment • prepaid freight to the jobsite • startup of all new equipment supplied by Gartner Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. Page 2A C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\0802-8264-1 Richfield Arena Rink 2 Evap Cond.doc • High Pressure piping permit and fees • tie ins necessary for installation of the new equipment Installation shall conform to Minnesota State High Pressure Piping Code • straight time labor for all installation and startup • travel and subsistence, when applicable Purchaser will furnish the following: • Minnesota Sales Tax (or valid exemption) • Extra costs of conformance with codes other than Minnesota High Pressure Piping Code • Removal and abatement of any asbestos, PCBs, or other hazardous materials existing in the plant which are necessary to be removed for completion of the project. • Pumpouts required for tie in of new piping to ammonia system Documentation design services, drawings, PSM, RMP Gartner will furnish the following: • refrigeration construction drawings • (3) System manuals • Mill Test Reports for all piping on job (on request) • weld Procedures used on the job • welder certification (on request) • MSDS Sheets for all hazardous substances supplied by Gartner Purchaser will furnish the following: • plant layout drawings • all other PSM and RMP services not included above ~1 Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. Page 3A C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\0802-8264-1 Richfield Arena Rink 2 Evap Cond.doc AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 4 REPORT # 215 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NanrE TizLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERIES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting 2003 preliminary property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing dates, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2002 budget of various departments, and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for police and fire expenditures. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: adopt the attached resolutions establishing the 2003 preliminary .property tax levy and proposed dates for Truth in Taxation hearings, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2002 budget of various departments, and authorizing the use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for Police and Fire expenditures. II. BACKGROUND ,,~ On August 12, 2002 at a special City Council Study Session a presentation and discussion of the 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed Budget and 2003 preliminary property tax levy took place. In addition, information known to date was presented to the City Council regarding the preliminary property tax levy and other non-tax 0912budgetres revenue information. However, as stated at that meeting, the Levy Limit, Fiscal Disparities Distribution and Tax Increment data was still not available. Since that meeting the majority of that information has been received. The City's levy limit as determined by the MN Department of Revenue was approximately $318,000 less than staff estimated. The City's new preliminary gross tax levy is now $9,594,416, which represents a 5.93% decrease from the 2002 gross levy. In anticipation of probable 2003 Legislative reductions to Local Government Aid and other state aid programs, a portion of the amount of LGA reported to the City by the State was held in reserve. It has been reported by numerous State agencies that the November revenue forecast could indicate a State general fund deficit of almost $3 billion. While not absolutely certain that LGA reductions will be made, State officials are telling cities that LGA will be on the table. They have also suggested that a complete revision of the LGA formula could take place in 2003. A large portion of the LGA funds held in reserve have now been used to balance the budget in light of the decreased levy limit imposed by the State. It is critically important to note that part of the levy limit formula took into account the increased LGA - an increase that is very unlikely the City will receive, yet it was factored in to lower our levy limit. In the event, our LGA is reduced, the City will be in a better position to absorb a portion of the reduction. If the aid reduction is greater than anticipated, additional reductions in the 2003 Budget will have to be made during the budget year. In addition, the City has also recently learned that the Fiscal Disparities distribution to the City of Richfield is approximately $435,000 greater than 2002. This Fiscal Disparities distribution will further reduce the impact upon local property taxpayers. As a result of these factors the City's tax capacity rate for 2003 is estimated to decrease from 51.73 to 42.08 or about 18.7% less than 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Charter establishes the first Tuesday in September as the last day for City staff to present a 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed budget to the City Council. While the Truth in Taxation Statute has overridden the Charter process for budget adoption, City staff still follows the Charter provisions, which are not in conflict with the Truth in Taxation statute. • As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (MS 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2003 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2002. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. • In addition, each "taxing authority" with a population of 500 or more, must certify to their County Auditor the dates that have been selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings by September 15, 2002. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the county ~' or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth in Taxation public hearing must be held between November 29 and December 20, 2002. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Along with the 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed budget and preliminary property tax levy, City staff is also recommending dates for this year's Truth in Taxation public hearings. It is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 6:30 p.m. Monday, December 2, 2002 with a continuation date of 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2002. As Council Members are aware, at these public hearings, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary tax levy, but not increased. • All official action concerning the preliminary tax levy and setting dates for the Truth in Taxation hearings must be concluded before September 15, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • A final resolution for consideration authorizes the revision of the 2002 budget to conform with the most recent 2002 revenue and expenditure projections. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could adopt either a greater or lesser 2003 preliminary property tax levy, or 2002 Revised/2003 Proposed budget or select other allowable Truth in Taxation hearing dates. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Adopting a Proposed Budget and Tax. Levy for the Year 2003 • Resolution Authorizing Budget Revisions • Resolution Authorizing Revision of 2002 Budget of Various Departments • Resolution Authorizing Use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund Refund Interest Earnings for Police and Fire Expenditures for 2002 Revised and 2003 Proposed Budget VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY ~ FOR THE YEAR 2003 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2002 and then recertified before December 31, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2003 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers `~~ TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 810, 830 1,086,970 6,671,810 2,442,380 245,110 3,360,280 1,578,430 15, 000 $16,210,810 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2003 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2003 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $16,210,810 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2002, payable in 2003 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT General Fund $9,086,2462 Debt Service 508,170 ~ Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2003 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2002, payable in 2003 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $270,825 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. 6. The Truth in Taxation. public hearings shall be set for 6:30 p.m. December 2, 2002 with a continuation hearing at 6:30 p.m. December 9, 2002 if necessary. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, th.e City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2002 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8977 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2001; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2002 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2003 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of .Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2002 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Community Development Public Safety Fire Services Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND DECREASE $ 810,670 1,077,730 247,270 6,610,390 2,288,030 3, 331,740 1, 543, 980 15, 000 15, 924, 810 $ 814,680 2. Estimated 2002 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2003 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $402,750 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. ,-~ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE FUND REFUND INTEREST EARNINGS FOR CERTAIN POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield received a refund of overfunded residual assets from the closed Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Fund; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a plan where only interest earnings on the principal of the residual assets are to be used for eligible expenditures; and and WHEREAS, all eligible expenditures be restricted to Police and Fire expenditures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Proposed 2003/Revised 2002 Police and Fire Expenditures using PERA funds 2002R 2003 Capital Improvement Budget 800 MHz Radio 45,000 20,000 General Fund Operating Expenditures Motor Vehicle 243,740 208,640 288,740 228,640 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ,~ AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2F' REPORT # 214 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ Q ~4~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 21, 2002, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc., for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 21, 2002, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On August 16, 2002, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for an itinerant amusement license for the activities scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park on September 21, 2002. The City has previously granted this license to Richfield Visions, Inc. for the Richfield Cattail Days celebration. The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with 0912Cattail Days Licenses 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 a lication rocess and meets the requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for a itinerant amusement license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 21, 2002. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Consent 2E 213 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Appointment to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution appointing Paul Skaiem to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for the unexpired portion, athree- yearterm ending December 31, 2003. III. BACKGROUND ~ On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of directors were also a part of the resolution. Currently there are five director positions on the Board. The term of each appointment is for three years and terms are staggered to maintain Board continuity. The current appointments to the Tourism Board and the ending dates of their terms are as follows: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAn~; TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH AD1~2131STIZATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Cathy Sulla, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending December 31, 2002. 2. Erika Hiestand, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31, 2003. 3. Shelly King, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2003. 4. Robyn Goolsbey, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2003. 5. Jerod Endersbe, General Manager of Motel 6, December 31, 2004. Shelly King, the former General Manager of Americlnn holds a position on the RTPB, which is set to expire on December 31, 2003. However, Ms. King is no longer with the Americlnn and has now been replaced by Paul Skaiem. Mr. Skaiem has expressed an interest in being appointed to fill the unexpired term of Ms. King. Prior to his selection as the General Manager of the Richfield Americlnn, Mr. Skaiem has served as the General Manager of Afton Alps ski resort and has managed several County Inns & Suites throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. He has also served on a number of tourism promotion boards in other communities. The Americlnn has been represented on the Board for the past several years and their representative has been a very active participant. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB. • Since inception, the RTPB has included hotel/motel representatives. • Mr. Skaiem, the General Manager of the Richfield Americlnn is interested in an appointment to the RTPB. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A vacancy on the RTPB exists as of September, 2002 and should be filled as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • There is no cost to the City. D. LEGAL • The appointment conforms to City Ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to appoint Mr. Skaiem to the RTPB. • The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Paul Skaiem. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or removal; and WHEREAS, the term of Shelly King, the representative for the Americlnn has been vacated due to her employment separation from the Americlnn; and WHEREAS, Paul Skaiem has replaced Ms. King as the General Manager of the Americlnn and is interested in appointment to the unexpired term. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows: Appoint Paul Skaiem, Americlnn; be appointed to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2003, replacing Shelly King. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Consent 2D 212 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.11; 536.17; 536.19; 536.21; and 536.25. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform with state statute 462.357 and Sections 536.11, 536.17, 536.19, 536.21, and 536.25 to clarify rules regarding Planned Unit Developments. II. BACKGROUND ~ During the 2001 legislative session, the State of Minnesota amended state statutes regarding the procedures municipalities must follow when approving a rezoning. Specifically, State Statute section. 462.357 was amended to allow local governing bodies (City Councils) to approve zoning changes in some cases by a simple majority rather than requiring atwo-thirds vote. The revised state statutes do still require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the City Council for any rezoning which "changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential 0912-1 stRead-OrdRevision-PUDs.doc NAAAF T/TI F to either commercial or industrial..." In essence, the State allowed City Councils to approve zoning changes to residential uses with a simple majority vote, while still requiring a `super majority' vote for rezonings that change residential properties to commercial or industrial uses. Last year, the Richfield City Council amended zoning code section 536.17 Subdivision 3 (regarding votes to approve new proposals for Planned Unit Developments); section 536.19, Subdivision 1 (regarding votes to approve new final development plans and conditional use permits for a PUD); and 546.07 (regarding votes to approve rezonings) so these sections conform to the new State Statute 462.357. Two changes are still necessary to make Richfield's PUD regulations consistent with State Statutes: 1) Section 536.19 regarding votes needed to approve a final development plan and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development must be further modified by removing the reference to voting requirements in section 546.07 and 2) Section 536.25 regarding votes needed to approve amendments to a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development must be modified to remove the two-thirds voting requirement. The proposed changes are explained below: 1) The first change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards section 536.19. Section 536.19 currently refers to Section 546.07 Subdivision 4 which outlines voting requirements for rezonings. The City Attorney has determined that the voting requirements for rezonings do not apply to voting requirements for approving final development plans and CUPs and so the reference to Section 546.07 Subdivision 4 must be removed. 2) The second change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards section 536.25. Currently, section 536.25 states "Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote of the Council." The City Attorney has determined that using this voting requirement for approving amendments to a final development plan and conditional use permit for a PUD is in conflict with state laws. Specifically, to make Richfield's regulations conform with state statute, Section 536.25 must be rewritten so that amendments to final development plans and conditional use permits for PUDs require only a simple majority to approve. Section Two-Other Changes Identified by Staff to Improve PUD Regulations. In addition to the changes recommended above in Section One, staff is recommending the following changes to improve Richfield's zoning code as it relates to Planned Unit Developments: 1) References to "Original District" [536.01, Subds. 4 & 6 and 536.17 Subd. 4(c)1. Currently, the zoning code defines (536.01 subd. 4) and makes reference to ,._,, [536.01 subd. 6 and 536.17 subd. 4(c)] the "Original District" for a PUD. The `original district' is defined as the "zoning district from which land is proposed to be rezoned to a PUD" (subd. 4). Subdivision 6 states that the "various zoning regulations and requirements...which apply to the original district should be considered as guidelines...in the approval of any PUD..." Lastly, 536.17 Subd. 4 (c) states that a proposed PUD must be in `substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the `original district'. While it appears in Subdivision 6 that the `original district' is to be considered when reviewing a proposed PUD, it is unclear whether or not subd. 6 requires reference to the `original district' in the review process of modifications in use and building regulations (height, set-back, etc...) after the PUD has been approved and established. In either case, reference to the `original district causes two problems. A) First, referring to the `original' district when a proposed PUD would allow completely different uses than the `original' district is irrelevant. For example, the Urban Village/Richfield Bank PUD is a commercial PUD on many parcels that were originally residential.. Reference to the `original district' is meaningless when reviewing a proposed PUD in this situation. B) Second, referring to the `original' district after a PUD has been approved (for example, when a new use is proposed) is administratively difficult for staff. For example, Market Plaza was rezoned to a PUD in the early 1980's. When a proposed new use is suggested for Market Plaza, referring to the `original district' would require staff to consult with how Market Plaza was zoned 25 years ago to determine whether or not a newly proposed use is allowable. This process is complicated in PUDs, such as the Market Plaza example, that incorporated multiple parcels with multiple zoning designations. To correct this situation, staff is recommending that all references to the `original district' be eliminated. Also, Section 536.11 will be modified so that when reviewing proposed PUDs, current zoning regulations for `guiding districts' will be referenced for guidelines for the proposed PUD district in question. For example-current C-2 rules would be used as guidelines when reviewing proposed commercial developments in a proposed PC-2 district. Also, Section 536.11 will be modified so that after a PUD is approved and established, questions regarding allowable uses and building regulations will be evaluated using the current rules for the `guiding' zoning districts that correspond to the PUD in question. (This would be in addition to referring to the specifications of the final development plan and conditional use permit.) ,~ Lastly, Section 536.17 subd. 4 (c) will be modified so that guiding districts will be referenced, rather than `original' districts, for required findings when reviewing a PUD application. ,~ 2) Clarification of minor versus major proposed changes to a final development plan and conditional use permit and how each such change is reviewed and approved. (Administrative vs. Council review) 536.25-Plan Amendments. Currently, section 536.25 states that `Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote of the Council." As explained above, staff is recommending that the two-thirds voting requirement be modified to conform with state statutes. A further recommendation from staff regarding this section is to differentiate between minor amendments to an FDP/CUP and major amendments to an FDP/CUP, and to allow the former to be reviewed and approved administratively while still requiring the latter to be reviewed by the Council. An example of minor amendments which could be administratively reviewed and approved would be proposed signage or landscaping changes in a PUD. Rather than requiring the property owner or applicant to take these types of `minor' requests to the City Council for review and approval, administrative review would be allowed. Minor amendments will be outlined in a summary list. Staff decisions on those items deemed to be `minor' changes could be appealed to the City Council. Fees for a minor amendment to a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit will be established in Appendix D of the Richfield City Code. The ^-. current fee fora "PUD plan amendment" is $500.00. Staff recommends that the fee fora "minor FDP/CUP amendment" be $250.00. Minor Amendments to a Final Development Plan will include: • Signage changes • Landscape changes • Parking lot configuration changes (not change in number of spaces) • Less than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure • Less than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings • Less than five percent change in the ground area covered by the project • Less than a five percent change in the number of residential units • Less than a five percent change in the number of parking spaces The Director of Community Development will have the option of determining if a particular request, even if it is included in the list of `minor' amendments, should be considered a `major' amendment and referred to the Planning Commission and City Council. (example-a request for a billboard would be a `sign' change but would be considered `major' enough to go to the Council.) .-~ 3) Clarify the relationship between approving major changes to an FDP/CUP and the possible need to rezone the underlying PUD district. (Reference and/or clarify votes needed to aeprove various PUD rezonings eg: from residential to commercial versus from commercial to residential.... 5~5. ,.~ Currently, Richfield's zoning code section 536.25 outlines the procedure for amending an FDP/CUP, but only briefly and ambiguously refers to the rezoning of the underlying PUD district. Staff is recommending that that this section be amended to add information stating that proposed major changes in use may require the underlying PUD district to be rezoned in addition to the FDP/CUP being amended. (A related amendment will be to reference other sections of the code regarding how many votes are required for such a rezoning.) For example, a developer proposes amixed-use residential development with some retail uses. The parcel is rezoned to PMR and the developer receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer returns with a request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is primarily office with a secondary .residential component. In this scenario, in addition to requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PMR to a commercial PUD district, such as PC-1 or PC-2. In this scenario, atwo-thirds vote of the council would be required to rezone the property from a residential to a commercial PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would require a simple majority of the council to approve. A second example would be a developer that proposes a commercial ~-. development with some residential. The parcel is rezoned PC-2 and the developer receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer returns with a request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is primarily residential with some office/retail space. In this scenario, in addition to requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PC-2 to a residential PUD district, such as PMR or PMR-1. In this scenario, a simple majority of the council would be required to rezone the property from a commercial to a residential PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would also require a simple majority of the council to approve. The proposed ordinance revision clarifies if/when a proposed amendment to a FDP/CUP triggers the need for the PUD to be rezoned, and references the section of the city code that specifies the number of votes necessary to approve such a rezoning. II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield's zoning codes must be in compliance with state statutes to prevent confusion about `which rules apply'. By adopting the recommended city code revision, Richfield's zoning code will include the same requirements for approving zoning changes as state statues. • Richfield's zoning codes should be clear to understand and easy to administer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES '~ • The Richfield City Code adopted amendments to other sections of the zoning code in 2001 to make Richfield's zoning code consistent with State Statutes. The current proposed amendments were overlooked at that time and must be adopted now so that all sections of the Richfield zoning code are consistent with State Statute. C. FINANCIAL • Anew fee will be added to Appendix D for `Minor Amendments to PUD plans and FDP/CUPs' D. LEGAL • Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached zoning ordinance amendment. • The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its August 26th, 2002 meeting. • 4 votes are required to approve this recommended amendment. III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform with adopted. state statutes, and to further _~ amend Section 536.01 Subdivisions 4 and 6; Section 536.11; 536.17 Subdivision 4(c); and Section 536.25 to make regulations regarding PUDs more clear and consistent. IV. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Amendment V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A BILL NO. ~ AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE SECTIONS 536.01 Subdivisions 4 and 6; SECTION 536.11 Subdivision 1; SECTION 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c); 536.19 Subdivision 1; 536.21 Subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and 536.25 Subdivisions 1 and 2. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: 1. Section 536.01 Subdivision 4 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is deleted as follows: re~r~r+oi-1 4~ .~ DI II'1 2. Section 536.01 Subdivision 6 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is deleted as follows: S~sestie+~. 3. Section 536.11 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.11. PUD districts: guiding districts .Subdivision 1. The following table denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such PUD districts, and the .guiding districts which correspond to each PUD district. The various zoning regulations and requirements ~e.q. use building setback, heiciht) which apply to the guiding district should be considered as guidelines when reviewing proposed PUD districts and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD to accomplish the purposed described in Subd. 5 of this Subsection. Furthermore, the guiding districts should be considered as guidelines when reviewing proposed_ uses in PUD districts once they are established/approved. PUD DISTRICTS ABB'REVEATION GUIDING DISTRICTS Planned Residential PR R & R-1 Planned Two-Family Residential PMR-1 MR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR MR-1, MR-2, & MR-3 Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 C-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2 & C-3 Planned Industrial PI 4. 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c) of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.17 Review of PUD application. Subdivision 4 (c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the ed~+nal~ uidin district, and departures from the erig+naf uig ding district regulations are justified by the design of the development. 5. 536.19 Subdivision 1 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.19 Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the PUD application and rezoning, but prior to the commencement of any construction or development of land, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional use permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent with the PUD application. ~~~evel<~p+~ e~r~e-#~sa~e-ae-t~-iese-set .Final development plans and conditional use~ermits will be processed according to the procedures established in 546.05 subdivisions 4 and 5. 6. Section 536.21 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.21 Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Changes. The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit. . .,.~ ~ ~ ~..~ .... ~...~ ..~ ~.... ~ r,.,..,......,...,...y........,... .,.....,.........~ _.._ _.. _ _._. _, rd\ rv~~re +h.~., fi..o r.ernen~ nh~nno in +he iv r~~ ~n~ r.re r. .+~.mre~.-~ h.. Oho h~ ~i lrlira v• i+r 0 a'r~e- Subdivision 2. Minor Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP, defined. Minor amendments to a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are: • Signage changes • Landscape changes ~, • Parking lot configuration changes (not change in number of spaces) • Less than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure • Less than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings • Less than five percent change in the ground area covered by the project • Less than a five percent change in the number of residential units • Less than a five percent change in the number of parking spaces Subdivision 3. Major Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP, defined. • More than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure • More than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings • Any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines; • More than five percent change in the ground area covered by the project • Any change in the ratio of off-street parking and loading space to gross floor area. Subdivision 4: Proposed Minor amendments to be reviewed administratively. Proposed minor amendments has specified in Subdivision 2 above) to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP shall be reviewed and decided by the Director of Community Development. Decisions of the Director of Community Development may be appealed to the City Council. The Director of Community Development may determine that a proposed `minor' amendment to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP is in fact a `major' amendment and may refer such proposed amendments to the Planning Commission and Council according to the procedure established in Section 536.25. Application fees to request a minor amendment to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP are established in Appendix D of this code. Subdivision 5: Proposed Major amendments to be reviewed by the Council. Proposed major amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as specified in Section 536.25. Subdivision 6: Building Permits. (no changes to this section other than the subdivision number changes from 2 to 6...) Section 536.25 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.25 Major amendments to Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. Subdivision 1: Proposed Major amendments to be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council. Any major amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall ,~ be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be considered by the City Council. Any major amendment shall require a ~s maJoritX vote of the Council. The Council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend a final development plan and conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held. The Council may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing the conditional use permit therefor, as well as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, or general welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighborhood. Subdivision 2. Determining if Underlying PUD District Must Be Rezoned. Proposed amendments to a final development plan and conditional use permit which would substantially change the use of the proposed development from one zoning classification to another will require that the parcel in question be rezoned to the appropriate PUD district. Voting requirements for rezonings shall comply with section 546.07, Subdivision 4. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT #. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Consent 2C 211 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of three apartment buildings located at 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program). II. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations. Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue ,~ were identified for first priority purchase with the funds. The remaining funds are to be used to purchase as many of the apartment buildings north of 66th Street as possible, beginning with the northernmost building and moving south. Enough single family and duplex homes have been purchased or purchase offers signed to 0912ANAPjustcompAPT give staff an indication of the funds available for apartment purchases. The City Council is being asked to establish just compensation for three of the seven apartment buildings (representing 26 of the 88 total units) at this time. ~-,. Appraisals have been completed on the apartment buildings. The appraisals have been reviewed by the City's review appraiser who has made a recommendation to the City and MAC. MAC concurs with the review appraiser's opinion and is recommending just compensation for three apartment buildings in the following amounts: Pro a Address Fair Market Value 6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000 6344 Cedar Ave S $605,000 6400 Cedar Ave S $302,000 TOTAL $1,523,000 The apartment tenants may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately once an offer is made to the property owner in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. Attached is the resolution for City Council consideration. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the Agreement. • The properties are within the 87dB contour. • Uniform acquisition procedures are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Conworth, Inc. will make purchase offers immediately to property owners upon the City Council's approval of just compensation. • After sufficient progress has been made in purchasing these three apartment buildings and if funds remain, the Council may be asked to establish just compensation for additional apartment buildings. C. FINANCIAL • The MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the Agreement. • The MAC has reviewed the fair market values of the properties and has recommended that the City Council approve just compensation so that purchase offers can be made to the property owners. ~ D. LEGAL • There are no pending legal issues at this time. E. TIMING • The City's acquisition agent, Conworth, Inc. and legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, will coordinate settlement issues with property owners. • If a property owner accepts a purchase offer, a settlement closing could occur within a 90-120 day period. • Tenants will be provided with a 90-day notice to vacate and a determination of relocation benefits once a purchase offer has been accepted by the property owner. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Delay approval of just compensation. • Do not approve just compensation and property acquisition. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6328, 6344, 6400 CEDAR AVENUE AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations; and WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property listed within Exhibit A is identified for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, qualified review appraisers for the real property have certified the -~ appraisal reports as being in conformity with professional appraisal standards, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Admirnstration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and WHEREAS, the fair market values, as recommended by the review appraisers and approved by MAC, are listed within Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amounts in Exhibit B are hereby approved. 2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is authorized to present purchase offers of said amounts listed in Exhibit B to the respective property owners. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Pro a Address Le al Descri tion 6328 Cedar Ave S Lot 3 and the North 40 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto 6344 Cedar Ave S Lot 1 and the South 60 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto 6400 Cedar Ave S Lot 6, Block 2, Iversons 3rd Addition , Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto --_,, EXHIBIT B Pro a Address Fair Market Value 6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000 6344 Cedar Ave S $605,000 6400 Cedar Ave S $302,000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2B REPORT # ~ i n STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE JOHN STARK, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the American Family Insurance building at 6700 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the American Family Insurance building at 6700 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program). III. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations. Additional funds were provided by the MAC to purchase the American Family building at 6700 Cedar Avenue to allow for a diverter road to be constructed between 18th and Cedar Avenues. The appraisals for the American Family property have been completed. The appraisals have been reviewed by the City's review appraiser who has made a 0912ANAPjustcompAF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER recommendation to the City and MAC. MAC concurs with the review appraiser's opinion and is recommending just compensation of $320,000. In addition to the above amount, the property owner may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately once an offer is made to the property owner in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. Attached is the resolution for City Council consideration. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the Agreement. • The properties are within the 87dB contour. • Upon completion of the new bridge and ramps at 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77, traffic will no longer be able to connect from Cedar Avenue to 66th Street. A diverter road is needed between 18th and Cedar Avenues at 67th Street to connect traffic on Cedar Avenue to 66th Street. • The American Family property has been identified as needed to construct the diverter road. • Uniform acquisition procedures are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Conworth, Inc. will make purchase offers immediately to the property owner upon the City Council's approval of just compensation. C. FINANCIAL • The MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the Agreement. • The MAC has reviewed the fair market value of the property and has recommended that the City Council approve just compensation so that a purchase offer can be made to the property owner. D. LEGAL • There are no pending legal issues at this time. E. TIMING • The City's acquisition agent, Conworth, Inc. and legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, will coordinate settlement issues with the property owner. • If a purchase offer is accepted by a property owner, a settlement closing could occur within a 45-60 day period. • Construction of the diverter road is expected to take place in spring/summer of 2003. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay approval of just compensation. • Do not approve just compensation and property acquisition; however, failure to do so may delay or prevent construction of the diverter road. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6700 CEDAR AVENUE AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations; and WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property listed within Exhibit A is identified for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, qualified review appraisers for the real property have certified the -~ appraisal reports as being in conformity with professional appraisal standards, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and WHEREAS, the fair market value, as recommended by the .review appraisers and approved by MAC, is listed within Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amounts in Exhibit B are hereby approved. 2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is authorized to present purchase offers of said amounts listed in Exhibit B to the respective property owners. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Pro a Address Le al Descri tion 6700 Cedar Ave S Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, Wexlers Addition Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, a urtenant thereto EXHIBIT B Pro a Address Fair Market Value 6700 Cedar Avenue S $320,000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 2A REPORT# 2~9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME, TITLE NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Resolution determining results of City Primary Election held on Tuesday, September 10, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution determining the results of the City Primary Election held on Tuesday, September 10, 2000. III. BACKGROUND I The City Primary Election was conducted on Tuesday, September 10, 2002. The City of Richfield office of Mayor was on the primary ballot because more than two individuals filed for that office. The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or special Council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election, but in no event later than the Monday next following, and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk. III. .BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The election judges have certified the returns of the election. 0912ELECTIONS • The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of the election. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council must take action by September 16, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • City Charter Section 4.07 provides that the City Council declare the results of the Election. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • N/A V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS • (Resolution determining the results of the September 10, 2002 Primary Election will be distributed on September 12, 2002.) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~~ N/A ~ ~~ CJYd<S~/a r ~~r. ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the Primary Election held September 10, 2002, the results are determined to be as follows: Votes cast for Mayor: Four Year Term Robert L. (Bob) Hall 1723 Marty Kirsch 1180 Randy M. Darling 279 Total number of voters in this election: 3498 Attached Attachment A is complete tabulation of results. Robert L. (Bob) Hall and Marty Kirsch are nominated to have their names placed on the General Election ballot. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said election: James Alagna H. Duane Edberg Betty Kamps Clyde Anderson Marlys Bergstrom Lillian Carlson Carol Mortenson Bernt Houghland Joan Olinger Kathryn Breeggman Erva Brown Elaine Carlson Phil Mortenson Bunkhean Chhun Kathleen Barta Jeff Rundgren Kenneth Vevea Emily Day Virginia Quist Marilyn Randle Liz Ekholm Martha Obenchain Connie McDonald Veronica Fashant Bev Kenealy Donna Fischer Rosemary Koelln Jette Floberg Claire Larson Beatrice Frankus Ernest Ackerly Adrian Athey Elaine Wetsch Nancy Garwick Beverly Gerber Betty Elenbaas Gregory Frost William Grampre Allan Henjum Donald Houlding Vernon Knudsen Don Ludwig Eleanor Maanum Jerald Quist Mae Hermansen June King Donna Mercer Ilene Holen JoAnn Holt Fern Oreck Jill Horowitz Mary Swanson Claire Todd. Pearl Weitbrecht Ray Johnson Elaine Kaibel Danette Kamrath Pat Steller Marion Thompson Carolyn Ring Martha Prottengeier Richard Morey Dorothy A. Peabody .~, Joseph Kovach Patricia Medley Dorothy Lace Doris Liedtke Jeanette Lofstrom Carolyn Moe Lois Kovach Robert O. Olson Ruth Pafko Nancy Lindberg Dorothy B. Lowe Janet Oldowski Marilyn Nienkerk Bernadette Lais Susan Lewis Jeanne Lindstrom Lorraine Maki PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 2002. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk City of Richfield September 10, 2002 Primary Election Unofficial Results s~^ Page 5 of 5 11:28 PM 9/10/02 Precinct Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NONPARTISAN BALLOT Hennepin County Sheriff (2 candidates to be nominated) Tom Fitzhenry 1114 31.8% 132 157 115 74 81 209 56 168 122 Juan Lopez 288. 8.2% 16 43 47 31 20 46 32 27 26 Pat McGowan 1459 41.7% 110 278 193 128 113 270 72 150 145 under orates 637 18.2% 50 12~r 81 51 67 106 41 52 65 Mayor of Richfield (2 candidates to be nominated) Randy M. Darling 279 8.0% 17 49 28 36 18 50 18 42 21 Robert L. (Bob) Hall 1723 49.3% 132 291 207 156 151 302 81 193 210 Marty Kirsch 1180 33.7% 128 185 161 67 82 239 77 135 106 under votes 316 9.0% 31 77 40 25 30 40 25 27 21 Minnesota Supreme Court -Associate Justice 3 (2 candidates to be nominated) Pau! N: ~`~~edefsus -., .1606 >. e.5 oai° 1 z4 ?~~ X22 12n 1-16. ?83 91 ~ 195 1591 Jack Baker 555 15.9% 43 90 51 52 41 105 32 __ 68 73 Allan W. Lamkin 423 12.1 % 36 58 54 33 33 84 21 60 44 under votes 914 26.1 % 95 168 109 79 91 159 57 74 82 1 TER TURNOUT ' Registered at 7AM 20136 1742 3068 2674 1990 1809 3257 1187 2348 2061 Registered on Election Day 165 18 42 12 7 12 31 7 28 8 Total Registered Voters 20301 1760 3110 2686 1997 1821 3288 1194 2376 2069 In Person Ballots 3314 94.7% 286 564 418 273 268 602 194 360 349 Absentee Ballots 184 5.3% 22 38 18 11 13 29 7 37 9 Total Persons Voting 3498 308 602 436 284 281 631 201 397 358 »> Voter Turnout 17.2% 17.5% 19.4% 16.2% 14.2% 15.4% 19.2% 16.8% 16.7% 17.3% ,'