Loading...
08-13-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call Discussion of Fourth of July activities 2. Discussion related to issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street, Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is 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: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of July 17, 2002; and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of July 23, 2002 PRESENTATIONS ~ ~ 1. Presentation from I-494 Corridor Commission 2. Presentation of Richfield HRA's Annual Tax Increment District status update Staff Report No. 195 Notes: 3. Annual meeting with Friendship City Commission 4. Presentation of proclamation designating September 2002, Pedestrian Safety Month in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for September 10, 2002 Primary Election and November 5, 2002 General Election S.R. No. 196 B. Consideration of approval of canceling Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, August 27, 2002; and rescheduling Tuesday, September 10, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting to Thursday, September 12, 2002 S.R. No. 197 C. Consideration of approval of Letter of Understanding with League of Minnesota Cities for participation in development of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Guide Plan in amount of $5,000 S.R. No. 198 D. Consideration of approval of two-year printer services agreement with Artcraft Press for printing Your City newsletter in amount of $23,730 annually S.R. No. 199 E. Consideration of approval of new motel license for ELR Hospitality, Inc., d/b/a Americlnn Motel & Suites, 1200 East 78th Street S.R. No. 200 F. Consideration of approval of commercial kennel license renewal for Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., 710 West 66th Street S.R. No. 201 G. Consideration of approval of multi-animal residential license renewals: • 7201 Logan Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 202 • 6430 Logan Avenue; four cats S.R. No. 203 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARING 8. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance vacating unimproved north-south alley in 6300 block of Colfax and Dupont Avenues Staff Report No. 204 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 9. Continued consideration of issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street (Public hearing conducted and closed on July 23, 2002) Staff Report No. 205 Notes: 10. Consideration of traffic calming measures for neighborhood between 66th Street and 76th Street and Penn Avenue and I-35W Staff Report No. 206 Notes: 11. Update on Joint Airport Zoning Board activities Staff Report No. 207 Notes: 12. City Manager's report Notes: 13. 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: 14.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 AUGUST 13, 2002 OTHER BUSINESS 11 207 REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~~/, I~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Update on the Joint Airport Zoning (JAZ) Board Activities. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to the JAZ Board representatives regarding the Council's position on the draft MSP Airport Zoning Ordinance amendment. II. BACKGROUND Last year, the Joint Airport Zoning (JAZ) Board was reconvened. The Board consists of two representatives from all the cities that border the MSP airport and two representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The Board's mission was to update the 1984 Airport Zoning Ordinance that governs the land use zones around the airport. The update was necessary due to the major changes at MSP, including the addition of Runway 17-35, the future extension of Runway 4-22 to the northeast and changes to the displaced landing threshold on the 4-End of Runway 4-22. Attached is the Summary of Major Tasks that was provided Board members in August 2001 (Attachment A). While these tasks seem ominous, the most critical activity that impacted Richfield f"-~ was the determination of the lengths of the required RPZ, Safety Zones A and B. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the State's governing body for determining the Standards for Airport Zoning. It is the Commissioner of Transportation that is the final authority in the approval of a new ordinance. The required airport zones have been determined by MnDOT to be: The RPZ -the Runway Protection Zone is generally the. area at the ends of a runway in which structures are removed and certain improvements such as highways and streets are allowed only on a case by case basis. This is sometimes referred to as the "crash zone". Safety Zone A -Under MnDOT's Standards, no buildings or structures are allowed and permitted uses are restricted to agriculture, raising livestock, light outdoor recreation, .parking and cemeteries. Existing commercial buildings and structures are made non-conforming uses and an exemption is made for established residential neighborhoods and low-density residential structures. Safety Zone B -Under MnDOT's Standards, this Zone can have a maximum population density of 15 persons/acre, building footprints are limited to'/4 to 'h of the parcel, depending on size of the parcel, and prohibited uses include churches, hospitals schools, theaters, hotels, places of public or semi-public assembly. Exemptions are for established residential neighborhoods and low-density residential structures. Strict adherence to these rules would have placed a significant portion of the commercial areas of 77th Street and Cedar Avenue is well as residential areas in Zone A or B. Attached is the map that indicates strict adherence to the MnDOT Rules and the impacts on Richfield - Attachment B . III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State law provides a legal basis for departure from MnDOT's Airport Zoning Standards. Both the Airport Zoning Act and the Administrative Procedure Act provide a legal basis for a Zoning Board to adopt amendments to the MSP Zoning Ordinance that deviate from the Standards. Among the considerations to deviate from the Standards are the economic impacts to the areas surrounding the airport of restrictive zoning. • The Board struggled with defining several critical elements related to airport safety, instrument landings, crash data and the socio-economic impacts of the MnDot Standards to the cities around the airport. Most of the cities presented information regarding the current impacts and possible future impacts based on highest and best use scenarios as allowed under current City zoning authority. Richfield's report is included herein as Attachment C. • The Board has not taken official action on a draft ordinance at this point, but a draft ordinance (Attachment D) was provided at the last JAZ Board meeting that includes the following language beneficial to Richfield: '' ~~ "RUNWAY 4-22 AND THE 35-END (Bloomington) OF RUNWAY 17-35: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in Section VI.B. and to the general restriction contained in Section V.B.1., all land uses are permitted in Safety Zone B for Runway 4-22 and the 35-End (Bloomington) of Runway 17-35, except for the following uses which are specifically prohibited: hospitals, ,~ _~ schools, amphitheaters, stadiums, nursing homes, and ponds or other features which might attract waterfowl or other birds." • The most recent map indicates that no Richfield properties are now in Zone A and a much smaller area of Richfield is now in Zone B (Attachment E). • While the Board has discussed height restrictions, there is far less the Board can do to deviate from state and federal standards in this area. At the next meeting of the Board, maps will be presented that will indicate clearly the height restrictions in Zones A and B. • The City of Bloomington has..requested_that_the.JAZ_B.oard.consider.,adding language to the draft Ordinance that would preclude new residential uses except for infill or replacement housing in established residential neighborhoods. I have been working with Walter Rockenstein (Board's legal counsel) to draft language that will satisfy Bloomington's desire to restrict new housing developments in their designated Zone B, but provide Richfield with the opportunity to redevelop should the need ever arise. • At this point, it is unknown to what extent the LFN levels will impact residential neighborhoods at the far southern end of Cedar and 77th Street. While we have no plans to ever redevelop those residential areas, it is prudent to keep options open. If, in the future, noise levels prove to be incompatible with existing single- family structures or redevelopment efforts in the future include mixed-use residential/commercial developments in the southeast quadrant of 77th Street, we need to have land use flexibility. • The language and other language changes to the draft ordinance have been included as Attachment F. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The new A and B Zones enable the airport to continue to operate runway activities in a safe manner yet not so negatively impact Richfield's ability to regulate its own land use decisions within reasonable airport zoning restrictions. • Height restrictions will impact Richfield's future development opportunities in the new Zone B (if approved as such by the Board and MnDOT's Commissioner) However, it is likely that the height restrictions may not be dramatically different than the height restrictions of the current ordinance. C. FINANCIAL • Strict Adherence to MnDOT's Standards would have made rendered current businesses as non-conforming uses and prevented future expansions, redevelopment of properties in Zones A or B. D. LEGAL ~_~, The next step for the Board is to approve a draft Ordinance for presentation via the Public Hearing process. It is expected that the Public Hearing on the draft Ordinance could take place this fall. The Board will conduct two public hearings, one on the draft ordinance -~. and another on the final ordinance that will be prepared after the initial public hearing. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ No formal action is required of the Council at this time, but staff requests that the Council direct the Board representatives to continue to pursue an ordinance that both protects the safety and well-being of the users of the airport, those on the land surrounding the airport and also provides Richfield with fair and reasonable control over its own land use decisions. V. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Summary of Major Tasks Facing The Reconvened Joint Airport Zoning Board • Attachment B: Map indicating RPZ, Zones A and B according to MnDOT's Standards Attachment C: Richfield's impact summary Attachment D: Draft Ordinance provided at the July meeting of the JAZ Board • Attachment E: Most recent map of Zones (July 2002) • Attachment F: Memo from Walter Rockenstein with revisions to the draft ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None Attachment A M E M O R A N D U M To: Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board Members FROM: Mark Ryan Walter Rockenstein CC: Nigel Finney Thomas Anderson DATE: August 9, 2001 Sus.rECT: Summary Of Major Tasks Facing The Reconvened Joint Airport Zoning Board As you know, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is reconvening the Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board (the "Board") to update the Minneapolis - St. Paul (Wold Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance adopted on January 18, 1984 (the "MSP Zoning Ordinance"). This memorandum briefly summarizes the major tasks which the Board will need to undertake when it meets in September. Some tasks are specific to certain MSP runways; others apply to all. The memorandum addresses the task by runway and also divides them between airspace tasks and land use tasks. 1. New Runway 17-35 LI Airspace Tasks 1.1.1 Establish a new Primary Zone over the runway 1.1.2 Establish a new Precision Instrument Approach Zone at each runway end 1.1.3 Establish two new Transitional Zones at each runway end (for a total of four new Transitional Zones) 1.1.4 Modify the existing Horizontal Zone 1.1.5 Modify the existing Conical Zone 1.2 Land Use Tasks 1.2.1 Establish a new Runway Protection Zone at each runway end 1.2.2 Modify State Safety Zone C to match the modified Horizontal Zone n~~ a x N y Q N E m C } J''" /~~ Draft Jan.21, 2002 ~ Parcel ~ Safety Zone A !;~ Municipality ~+~' Safety Zone B Map 2 ~ i N ~ Zone designation changes B to A ~ Airport Boundary ~ Additions to Zone 6 ,_ ~ .~"'~-. ~ Additions to Zone A ~ ~ t~ s Miles ~ ~~' RICHFIELD MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH SO:ju Enclosure CITY COUNCIL JOHNENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH CITY MANAGER SAMANTHA ORDUNO Attachment C July 2, 2002 Jenn Unruh Secretary - Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Ms. Unruh: City Manager's Office Enclosed is additional information from the City of Richfield regarding the revisions to the airport zoning ordinance. Please distribute the information to the Joint Airport Zoning Board.. Thank you. Since Samant a Ord no City ager The U'r•hcrn Honreto-+~rr 8700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 www.ci.richfieltl.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 812.881.9700 FAX: 812.881.9749 RICHFIELD City Manager's Office July 2, 2002 Mary Hill Smith, Chair Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board MAYOR 6040 28th Avenue South MARTIN J. KIRSCH Minneapolis, MN 55450 cITY couNCIL Dear Ms. Hill Smith: JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG The City of Richfield would like to submit additional information to the Joint Airport Zoning SUZANNE M. SANDAHL Board regarding the proposed revisions to the airport zoning ordinance. It is critical that the GERTRUDE ULRICH ordinance find an appropriate balance between safety needs and the economic and social CITY MANAGER costs to Richfield and the other surrounding communities. The recommendations contained SAMANTHA ORDUNO in the May 9 memorandum from Nigel Finney seem to find this appropriate balance. The enclosed information supports departing from the strict application of the Airport Safety Standards as recommended by Mr. Finney. The information is organized to conespond to the table of evidence Walter Rockenstein proposed in his May 9 memo to the Board. I would also like to respond to one point that the City of Bloomington makes in its May 29 letter to the Board. In reference to Runway 17/35, Bloomington suggests that dwellings, apartment houses and congregate residences be added to the list of uses prohibited in Safety Zone B. This same prohibition should not be applied to Safety Zone B of Runway 4/22. The City's future plans call for protecting existing residential neighborhoods by removing housing located near the airport (some of which is in Safety Zone B) and replacing it with commercial and high density residential uses. Higher density housing must. be reconstructed in this area to provide a transitional buffer for the existing residential neighborhoods and to replace some of the population that the City has lost over the years to airport expansion. The City is very concerned that any housing reconstructed in this area be compatible with airport operations and is currently in the process of working with an acoustical architect to develop building standards for these high-impact areas. We believe these efforts can ensure that any new housing would be compatible with all impacts -noise as well as safety -from this infrequently used runway. As the enclosed information indicates, the City's economic and social health is dependent upon successful mitigation of airport impacts. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and urge the Board to adopt a balanced ordinance. Sinc , t Sama a Or uno i y Manager SO:ju Enclosure The Urban Hontefoii•n 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RtCHFIELO, MINNESOTA 55423 812.881.9700 FAX: 612.881.9749 www.ci.richfield.mn.us AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS IMPACTS.ON RICHFIELD 7.1 EXISTING LAND USES There are currently 52 apartment units located within proposed Safety Zone A and 195 apartments and 181,500 square feet of commercial space in proposed Safety Zone B. There are 8 duplexes and 9 single family homes located within proposed Safety Zone A and 7 duplexes and 101 single family homes located within proposed Safety Zone- B. (see attached map) Strict interpretation of the Airport Safety.. Standards would make the. apartments and commercial space nonconforming, which will encourage disinvestment in the buildings resulting in obsolescence, blight and eventual removal. 7.2 LAND USE CHANGES SINCE 1984 The safety zone area has seen little change since 1984; however, since 1984, the airport has begun construction on the 17/35 runway which is expected to have a significant impact on residential uses in east Richfield. A mitigation plan has been developed that would .lead to significant land use changes in an effort to mitigate those impacts on the community. 7.3 ANY RELIANCE ON MSP ZONING ORD. REFLECTED IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Again, little change has occurred in this area since the adoption of the MSP zoning ordinance in 1984. 8.1 POPULATION IN EACH ZONE AND DESCRIBE ANY RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS There are 225 people living in Safety Zone A according to 2000 U.S. Census data. Approximately 145 of these people live in the apartments, which would become nonconforming under a strict interpretation of the standards. There are. 832 people living in Safety Zone B with approximately 500 people living in apartments. 8.2 SUMMARIZE EXPECTED POPULATION CHANGES The City's mitigation plan calls for removing much of the existing housing in the area and replacing it with commercial and higher density residential land uses. The higher density residential would create an important transitional buffer for the existing residential neighborhoods as well as replace some of the City's lost population. Housing with approximately 566 people in it would be removed from this area under the City's mitigation plan. Up to 375 people could be added back to the area through '~ replacement housing called for in the mitigation plan. Strict interpretation of the Airport 07/01/02 Page 1 AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS IMPACTS ON RICHFIELD Safety Standards would prevent the City from carrying out the mitigation plan in this area and regaining population. 9.1 COMP PLAN AND ZONING Maps showing the zoning and mitigation plan for the area are included as attachments. 9.2 DESCRIBE EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TYPES, DENSITY, VALUE AND CLEAR AREAS REMAINING The City's mitigation plan calls for 1.1 million square feet of commercial development and 213 apartment/townhome units to be developed in the safety zone area. The planned development has an estimated value of $126 million. 9.3 DESCRIBE ANY SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS When the decision was made in 1996 to expand facilities at the existing Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), the City of Richfield began to assess the impacts of those improvements. Of greatest impact was MSP's proposal to construct a new "north/south" runway. In order to make way for this runway, 428 houses (with a population of 943 people) plus Richfield's Rich Acres golf course were acquired and removed. In essence, Richfield was called upon to bear the brunt of progress for the metropolitan area. While Richfield was trying to deal with the loss of 943 members of the community, the realization was reached that the property owners remaining near the runway would be facing new and potentially severe impacts from low frequency noise. Some existing properties would be as close as 660 feet from the new runway. Although Richfield was fully developed long before the advent of jet aircraft, the community had eventually adapted to overflight noise. The community was now faced with a new type of noise in low frequency noise. The City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) worked hard to understand the characteristics and impacts of low frequency noise. Eventually, a study, which was: authored by noise experts retained by the City of Fichfield and the MAC, was released on April 25, 2000. This study determined that at least twenty blocks in Richfield would experience low frequency noise exceeding 87 decibels once the new runway becomes operational. Furthermore, the study concluded that most of the structures in this area would be unable to withstand the vibration and acoustical impacts associated with 87 decibels of low frequency noise and that "soundproofing" practices would be insufficient in mitigating those impacts. The end result: another 260 properties (houses, apartment buildings and ~~ commercial properties) would have to be acquired in order to accommodate airport growth. Knowing that most of the properties adjacent to the airport would need to be cleared due to the impacts of the new runway, Richfield began planning for the future. Through a highly participatory process with local residents and businesses, the City of Richfield, planning firm RLK-Kuusisto, architects Elness, Swenson & Graham and the Ryan development firm created a master plan concept for the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area (CARA). The CARA plan calls for retail, office and hotel uses immediately abutting Richfield's border with the airport. In 07/01 /02 Page 2 AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS IMPACTS ON RICHfIELD total, the CARA plan calls for 24 acres of retail development, 17 acres of new hotel development, 48 acres of office development and 43 acres for new high density residential development. Implementation of the CARA plan is underway. The City of Richfield (with the support of the MAC, the FAA, the Minnesota Department of Trade & Economic Development and the state and federal legislatures) has already acquired and cleared 56 properties in the low frequency noise impact area (> 87 db). Within a year, another 30 properties will have been purchased. The next step in implementation is the redevelopment of the impacted area. City staff is in the process of reviewing a development proposal which includes 380;000 sq. ft. of retail space and has a market value of over $30 million. As part of Richfield's continuing efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of our proximity to the new runway, a nationally recognized acoustical engineer will be working with the City for the creation of "Low Frequency Noise Impact Area Design and Land Use Standards.° These standards will determine the appropriate land-uses, massing and height of buildings, construction methods and building materials for the area. The criteria ident~ed in these standards will help insure that new development can withstand the impacts of low frequency noise and protect the existing single family homes located beyond. Unfortunately, at the same time the community is attempting to mitigate the negative impacts of the airport, a new threat is emerging. This new threat is more strictly applied airport safety zoning standards. Strict application of the standards would have tremendous consequences on Richfield's attempt to redevelop land bordering the 4-22 runway of the MSP airport. The redevelopment of 203,000 sq. ft of commercial space in Zone A as well as 880,500 sq. ft. of commercial space and 213 housing units in Zone B (see the attached map) would be prohibited by strict application of the standards. This represents a loss of over $126 million in potential property values in this area of Richfield and translates to a loss of $1.1 million in potential property taxes to the City each year. Even if the area weren't planned for redevelopment, the proposed safety zones would have a profound effect on the community. Almost 250 apartment units and 181,000 square feet of commercial space would become non-conforming land uses; a designation that leads to obsolescence of buildings, blight and eventual removal The City of Richfield is very concerned about the health and safety of the community. Threats to that health and safety can come from a variety of sources. Among these threats are the inherent dangers of aircraft disaster as they approach and leave nearby runways, but also the threat of the economic drain of an area in the community that is uninhabitable due to low frequency noise created by airport operations, yet undevelopable due to airport zoning regulation. A recent study by the HNTB Corporation identifies extremely low levels of usage of the 4-22 runway (fewer than 1/10th of 1 % of all arrivals and departures in 2010) and an insignificant `~ statistical probability of aircraft disaster on this runway (one accident every 128,000 years in Safety Zone A or B in Richfield). Based on these statistics, it seems that there is no more 07/02/02 Page 3 AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS IMPACTS ON RICHFIELD threat to public safety from aircraft disaster than there would. be at any given location in the metropolitan area. Yet this area is at a very high risk of obsolescence, blight and economic decay if it cannot be redeveloped into airport compatible uses. 12.1 DESCRIBE ROAD AND STREET INVESTMENT 12.2 CHANGES SINCE 1984 The City's 77th Street was constructed during the 1990s to serve in combination with 80th Street in Bloomington as a reliever route for 1-494. Significant federal, state and local resources were committed to this project. A final phase to the 77th Street project, yet to be constructed, includes a tunnel under TH 77 to connect 77th Street with 24th Avenue. If the mitigation plan cannot be implemented within the safety zone area, the City would lose much of its need for the tunnel and the reliever route would remain incomplete. 14.1 ESTIMATE FORGONE DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF DENSITY AND VALUE The City's mitigation plan calls for 1.1 million square feet of commercial development and 213 apartment/townhome units to be developed in the safety zone area. The planned development has an estimated value of $126 million. 14.2 ESTIMATE LOST PROPERTY TAX BASE The inability to develop the City's mitigation plan in the airport safety zone would result in an annual loss of $1.1 million in property taxes (2002 dollars). 14.4 ESTIMATE VALUE OF STRANDED PUBLIC UTILITIES 14.5 ESTIMATE VALUE OF STRANDED ROADS AND STREETS The streets and utilities located within the airport safety zone would be abandoned or; at the very least, underutilized if the state safety standards are strictly interpreted. The value of these roads and utilities can be calculated at $300 a lineal foot for the standard roads (and utilities underneath) and at $350 a lineal foot for 77th Street (and utilities underneath). This results in a total value of nearly $4 million in abandoned streets and utilities. The City's utility system is also impacted by the loss of population and commercial structures. The infrastructure (e.g. water treatment plant) is in place fio provide services to a city of up to 50,000 people. The continual decline in the City's population and commercial tax base places the burden of maintaining the utility infrastructure on fewer people and businesses. 07/02/02 Page 4 AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS IMPACTS ON RICHFIELD 15.1 DESCRIBE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS (SOCIAL COSTS OF RESTRICTING LAND USES) Section 9.3 describes the past neighborhood and community-wide impacts Richfield has experienced from airport expansion and the need for the City to continue to mitigate impacts in the future. Strict interpretation of the airport safety standards will prevent the City from mitigating impacts in this area and further threaten the City's vitality. The losses the City has suffered in the past have also impacted the school district. Every time a house is removed because of airport impacts, the City .not only loses population and tax base, it loses school children (those currently attending as well as the possibility of new school children who might reside in that housing in the future). There are 33 school children located in the proposed Safety Zone A and 211 school children in proposed Safety Zone B who could be impacted by strict application of the safety standards. A decline in school enrollment means a decline in funding, while capital costs for maintaining the school's infrastructure remain fixed. This negative impact on the vitality of the school system reverberates through the community as a whole. 15.2 ESTIMATE JOB LOSSES Job losses can be estimated by applying the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards to building use and square footage. If the existing commercial uses within the safety zone area were removed, the following job losses would occur:. Lost existing jobs in A: 0 Lost existing jobs in 6: 336 If the City is not allowed to develop its mitigation plan, the following expected jobs -jobs to be located within the 1-494 beltway -could be lost: Lost anticipated jobs in A (in the mitigation plan): up to 890 Lost anticipated jobs in B (in the mitigation plan): up to 3,640 07/02/02 Page 5 N S N N C 7 r d h _a _ ~ •~ U W ~ ~ V . C ~ ~ ~ ~~~ GNC V 8 h~ p C ~c~g~~c~a~iOtla~> ~~1111~111111~J ~ ---- ~ ~ ~~: , ~ ~ `` N to ~f ' .~ >, J O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .- ~ = U ~ Ri ,~,~ .- ,i Q' ~_ ~ "a •X O ~ 1, Sea Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~°Q~ y~a~ O O •- ~ O ~ U Q~~~ i. U ~ t6 ----- ~-- I i~, ~ w+ ~ i ~ ! i L ~ ICI ~ ~a I i it I ~ I i ~ , I , -- + i i~ ~ ~ ,~ d ~: ~ 4 ~ ~~T ~ ~n I ~ .~ i. \ I~LI ~ wwmr ~ ~i I ~_ I ~ ~ I I ~ _ ~N C~_ i ! I i i I t ~ I I I ~~ I •G I ~4+ ... I ' I 1 i i j. N~• N ~ r L__` ~ ~' ~s ~ ~ ~ I ~ I III ~~ ~ ~ ! I r7-~--,--~~ N~~ ~~ ~~' ~-gin ~ ~ ~r-?-r-~-~ n rTr- ~ ~~-i ~ ~ ~ ~ a v~ ~n I rrTr7-'i~ ~~ rn~o~ ti \`~ \. ~~~ ~~ `~ ~, ~ ~-~~ ~ `~~ ~~ ..:' V1 ; ,i r---'~` t j~t ~J ~ ~ ~ i U ~ ~ ,_ 'a. ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ U O U a ~' r ~ L~JJ_11~_L_U I, ,-~~ C ~__L_L~_~_1.~ i ~ .~ ~~ !\ ~ ~ L1J_J_1_LLJJ N 8 N rn c .N o c' ~ ~tN i ~~ ~ ~~ -o a~_v c f ~ ~:=~ n X02=w ~ LL "'LJ aQ. - Q~' Qoye . Q~- ~o ~a~ - . ' Q ~y . ~~~ u d n, . o J m ~ w M 1L ~ ~ rc Q ~; ~ - O ~ L ~' V > 'v ~ a°'i c E u ~ a°o_cc m $ > d ~ Y d N ~ O i~+ V ~ N 'c , ~- C. t ~ d' ~r~r ... O.NODiN i ! N / ~{ l ` d / V 7 if '`. i :` i d +=' C C U y~QO ~Q'•y ~ a~~= 0~~. ~ _ ~ V ~ d N ~ ~ ~ ~ C Ofp=~ ~ ~ ._ y ~Nlh N-!! ~ ~ ~ ~V~~~~ N I~III ^VJ W N V ~ Q~oQ oye ~~~ Q~ ~ ~ U RS ~ 'a-, ~ = p ~.- ~; Ii!Ii;!iJi~ Q N U ~~ ~~;~ I~~Illl,il ., i i ii, ~ ~. ~, ~.. L ~ ; I SiW i I I' ; (' T ~; ~ i! i I ' _ ~i ~ ~ I ;.~--.~ -) I ~ z' i 5 3~v IW ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ I ~_ 6 3W IW ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ l i l ~~ I ~ i I ~: _~_ ~ _ i ~' ''' i i ~ I ~ I ! I I ~ I ~ '' ~I i I ' ~ i i i i ( i I, I I I I i am ~us~ 3nr 1 i' I i i I ~ i I III' ~! _~-~ ~ ~ _ ~ i I -~ s, s snr ~s a.r 4ti ,~ .. p k 1 ~ ° ~- ; -~~---~-j K ~. . x ~. ~~ ' I r-,-, E ~ s air ~ue~ _ ~~ I: i~~ i I ~ i ~~ ~~- '. ~ I i I ~^i MEMORANDUM TO: Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Boazd FROM: Mazk J. Ryan, MAC DATE: July 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Draft Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Included with the memo is a Draft of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance Amendment dated July 25, 2002. This Draft is the product of discussions that have occurred at a series of Joint Airport Zoning Board Meetings conducted during the past several months. Five Exhibits and 22 Plates.. pertinent to the runway ends will be delivered to Board members on Monday, July 22, 2002. This Ordinance Amendment closely follows the recommendations presented to the Board in a Memorandum from Nigel Finney, MAC's Deputy Executive Director, to the Boazd on May 9, 2002 as well as input from the other communities represented on the Board. Both Height and Land Use issues are addressed by the draft Ordinance. Board Action requested at the July 25, 2002 meeting will be that the Board direct that a public hearing be held on the Draft Ordinance. ~ ~Nr ~ ~ ~< MEMORANDI;~IVI ~i ~ a ~',~ d~ R~ TO: Joint Airport Zoning Board Members and Counsel FROM: Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel (612-726-8178) SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution of Defense and Indemnification concerns DATE: July 19, 2002 Participating members of the Joint Airport Zoning Board ("JAZB") have asked MAC to agree to fund the defense and indemnification of any individual Board member sued as a result of the JAZB process and to indemnify all participating entities if the ordinance contains provisions acceptable to MAC. MAC staff and counsel have reviewed these suggestions and have the following responses. All provisions are being proposed with the understanding that they would be subject to approval by the MAC Board of Commissioners. 1. MAC would fund the defense and indemnification of any individual JAZB member sued as a result of the JAZB ordinance adoption process. This defense and indemnification would only cover individuals and would be subject to exceptions for malfeasance, self dealing and the like. This position is based on the belief that there is absolute immunity for. public. officials when enacting legislation. However, these individuals are .not acting under the control of MAC and the policy decision of whether this indemnification would be granted is up to the MAC Commission. 2. Any ordinance adopted by the JAZB would continue to contain a severability provision if the ordinance is found unconstitutional. 3. MAC staff would recommend that MAC indemnify all participating entities for the act of adopting the ordinance if the JAZB proposes an ordinance .that is acceptable to MAC (including any changes proposed by the Commissioner of Transportation). MAC would provide .comments on the draft ordinance so that its position is a matter of record. Page 2 Until MAC knows precisely what ordinance is being adopted, it is impossible to assess the risks associated with the indemnification of the; participating JAZB entities. 4. MAC would agree to defend and indemnify participating entities and zoning administrators for administration of the ordinance, assuming the ordinance that is adopted is acceptable to MAC and the administering entity properly follows the provisions of the ordinance. However, MAC would-not be responsible -for a city's actions if the city does not properly follow the requirements set forth in the ordinance. A Cooperation/Indemnification Agreement will be drafted and circulated for comment and appropriate action. Prasmus/memos/JAZB legal counsel from Tom -July 2002.doc DRAFT ;~ JULY 25, 2002 Minneapolis-~ St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Proposed and Adopted by Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board o n __________, 2 0 0 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION I RUNWAY DEFINITION ---------------- II. AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION ZONING A. Airspace Zones -------------------- 1. Primary Zone ------------------- 2. Horizonal Zone ------------------ 3. C o n i ca I Zone ------------------- 4. Precision Instrument Approach 5. Transitional Zone -------------- 6. One-Engine-Inoperative Depar B. Height Restrictions -------------- III. LAND USE SAFETY ZONING ---- A. Safety Zone Boundaries --------- 1. Safety Zone A ------------------~ 2. Safety Zone B ------------------~ 3. Safety Zone C ------------------• IV. ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGH V. Technical Correction ------------------• VI. Technical Correction ------------------• VII. Use Restrictions -----------------------• B. Use Restrictions -----------------• 1. General ------------------------• 2. Safety Zone A ------------------ 3. Safety Zone B -----------------• VIII. Boundary Limitations ------------------- IX. Airport Zoning Limits and Official Zor A. Airspace Zone Limits ---------- B. Safety Zone Limits ------------- C. Official Zoning Maps .---------- X. Effective Date --------------------------- =------------------------------1 ------------------------------ 2 -------------------------------2 ------------------------------- 2 ------------------------------- 3 ------------------------------- 3 Zone ---------------------- 3 ------------------------------- 4 ure Zone ------------------4 ------------------------------- 4 ------------------------------- 5 ------------------------------- 5 ------------------------------- 5 ------------------------------- 7 ------------------------------- 8 B O R H O O D S -------------- 8 ---------=--------------------- 9 ------------------------------- 9 ------------------------------- 9 ------------------------------- 9 ------------------------------- 9 ----------------------------- 1 0 ------------------------------11 ----------------------------- 1 4 i n g Maps ---------------- 14 ----------------------------- 1 4 ----------------------------- 1 4 ----------------------------- 1 4 ----------------------------- 1 5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN 1984 ("MSP ZONING ORDINANCE") THAT REGULATES AND RESTRICTS THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS OF NATURAL GROWTH, AND OTHERWISE REGULATES THE USE OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD); TO INCORPORATE ZONING FOR THE NEW RUNWAY 17-35 AND THE EXTENSION OF THE 22-END (MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL) OF RUNWAY 4-22; TO REFLECT THE REDESIGNATION OF RUNWAYS 11 L - 29R AND 11 R - 29L; TO INCORPORATE THE ONE-ENGINE INOPERATIVE SURFACE; TO MAKE TECHNICAL. CORRECTIONS; AND TO UPDATE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE MSP ZONING ORDINANCE. IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 360.061 - 360.074, THAT CERTAIN IDENTIFIED SECTIONS OF THE MSP ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. RUNWAY DEFINITION The definition of "Runway" in Section III. of the MSP Zoning Ordinance is amended to read: "RUNWAY" means any existing or planned paved surface or turf-covered area of the airport which is specifically designated and used or planned to be used for the landing and/or taking off of aircraft. The individual runways at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) are referred to in this ordinance based on the com ass direction of landin aircraft as follows -1- Runway 12R-30L: A 10 000 foot runway. The 12R-End is the end closest to the city of Minneapolis. The 30L-End is the end closest to the city of Eagan. :.~~ Runway 4-22: An 1 1,006. foot runway with a planned extension to 12,006 _. feet. The 4-End is the end closest to the cities of Bloomington and Richfield. The 22-End is the end closest to the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Runway 17-35: An 8,000 foot runway. The 17-End is the end closest to the city of MinnPannlic w Tha 3.ri_Fncl is tha anri r.lncart to tha city of Bloomington. \~~ SECTION II. AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION ZONING Section IV. A. of the MSP Zoning Ordinance is amended to read: A. AIRSPACE ZONES: to order to carry out the purpose of this Ordinance, as set forth above, the following airspace zones are hereby established: Primary Zone, Horizontal Zone, Conical Zone, Approach Zone, Precision .Instrument Approach Zone, a-p-d-Transitional Zone and One-Engine-Inoperative Departure. Zone and whose locations and dimensions are as follows: 1. PRIMARY ZONE: All that land which lies directly un er an imaginary primary surface longitudinally centered on a runway'~extending 200 feet beyond each end of Runways 12L - 30R, 12R - 30L, 4 - 22, and 17 - 35, and having a width of 1,000 feet subject to zoning authority limits in Section VI. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. -2- 2. HORIZONTAL ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary horizontal surface~~T~~t above the eta-f3,~hed air~ert elevation er~.- #ei-Q#f-e~ that is 991 feet above mean sea level, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs.- subiect to zoning authority limits in Section VI. The radius of each arc is -a-10,000 feet for Runways ~~- 29F~,-rr-~rzv~zrna 4-==. 12L - 30R 12R - 30L, 4 - 22, and 17__- 35. 3. CONICAL ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary conical surface extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet as measured radially outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface- subiect to zoning authority limits in Section VI. 4. PRECIS-ION INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary precision instrument approach surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at each end of Runways ~~'}~T,°-=96 and~l 22. 12L - 30R, 12R - 30L, 4 - 22, and 17 - 35 subiect to zoning authority limits in Section VI. The inner edge of the precision instrument approach surface is at the same width and elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the. primary surface. The precision instrument approach surface inclines upward and outward at a slope of 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet expanding uniformly to a width of 4,000 feet,. then continues upward and outward for an additional horizontal distance of 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 16,000 feet. -3- 5. TRANSITIONAL ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary transitional surface extending upward and outward at right angles to the runway centerline and centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the. primary surfaces and from the sides of the approach surfaces until they intersect the horizontal surface or the conical surface, subject to zoning authority limits in Section VI. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision instrument approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet .measured horizontally from the edge of the precision instrument approach surface and at right angles to the extended precision instrument runway centerline. ~l ~.. authority limits. B. HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, and except as necessary and incidental to aAirport operations,. no structure or tree shall be constructed, altered, maintained, or allowed to grow in any airspace zone created in Subsection IV. A_ so as to project above any of the imaginary airspace surfaces described in said Subsection IV_ A_ hereof. Where an area is covered by more. than one height limitation, the more restrictive limitations- shall prevail w -4- SECTION III. LAND USE SAFETY ZONING Section V. A.1 subsections 1, 2 and 3 of the MSP Zoning Ordinance are amended to read: A. SAFETY ZONE BOUNDARIES: In order to carry out the purpose of this Ordinance, as set forth above and also,. in order to restrict those uses which may be hazardous to the operational safety of aircraft operating to and from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field), and furthermore to limit population and building density. in the runway approach areas, thereby creating sufficient open space so as to protect life and property in case of an accident, there are hereby created and established the following land use safety zones: 1. SAFETY ZONE A: All land in that portion of the precision instrument approach zones of a runway, as defined in Subsection tV_ A_ hereof, w~#+s#-beginning at the end of the primary surface at a width of .1 ,000 feet and. extending outward d-i~~a„~~-s-h ~'~b-e c'°f'•^°'' as follows: . a. RUNWAY 4-22 a-(1) 4-END (Bloomington/Richfield): a distance of 4500 feet :and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 1 750 feet (which is coincident with the FAA -5- Runwav Protection Zone) for the 4-End (Bloomington/Richfield) of Runwav 4-22; ~~ 22-END (Minneapolis/St. Paul): a distance of 4;-6-i3-X2.500 feet oQtv:ard ,frem a--rceint 20-9 feet eu# ~-the 'I;7 a,°^'°^°,a +hr°^h^',~ f^r °„^.•~°„ "'and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 1..750 feet (which is coincident with the FAA Runwav Protection Zone for this Runwav) for the 22-End (Minneapolis/St. Paul) of Runwav 4-22; ~b RUNWAY 12L-30R: (1) 12L-END (Minneapolis): a distance of 4,667 feet d frnm +h° °nr! l,f +h° n morv c~~~rfrJ^° fr.r ~~~nur~+~i ~ ~ ~ and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 2.400 feet for the 12L-End Minneapolis) of Runway 12L-30R: e-~ 30R-END (Mendota/Mendota Heights): a distance of 4,667 feet 2-9~and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 2.400 feet for the 30R-End (Mendota/Mendota Heights) of Runway 12L-30R~ RUNWAY 12R-30L: (1) 12R-END (Minneapolis): a distance of 4.667 feet y-1-PCand . expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 2,400 feet for the 12R- 'End (Minneapolis) of Runway 12R-30L; (2) 30L-END (Eagan): a distance of 4.,667 feet t'"' °^d r`f ±!'~ rri^'ury ~~rfn~_o~ f^r o ~ooand expanding -6- uniform) to an ultimate width of 2,400 feet for the 30L-End Eagan) of Runway 12R-30L; mod. RUNWAY 17-35: (1) 17-END (Minneapolis) a distance of 4,667 feet and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 2,400 feet for the 17- End (Minneapolis) of Runway 17-35; and (2) 35-End (Bloomington) a distance of 2,500 feet and expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 1,750 feet (which is coincident with the FAA Runway Protection Zone for this Runway) for the 35-End (Bloomington) of Runway 17-35. 2. SAFETY ZONE B: All land in that portion of the precision instrument approach zones of a runway, as defined in Subsection IV_ A_ hereof, which extends outward from Safety Zone A for the following distance, begins at the same width as the end of Safety Zone A, and expands uniformly town ultimate width of 3,1.00 feet . a. RUNWAY 4-22: a-~ 4-END (Bloomington/Richfield): 500 feet for the 4- End (Bloomington/Richfield) of Runway 4-22: b-:~ 22-END (Minneapolis/St. Paul): 2-33-X4.500 feet for the 22- End (Minneapolis/St. Paul) of Runway 4-22; b. RUNWAY 12L-30R: d--(1) 12L-END (Minneapolis): 2,333 feet for the 12L-End Minneapolis) of Runway a-1-12L-30R; -7- e-~ 30R-END (Mendota/Mendota Heights): 2,333 feet for the 30R-End (MendotalMendota Heights) of Runway ~12L-30R; c. RUNWAY 12R-30L: (1) 12R-END (Minneapolis): 2.333 feet for the 12R-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 12R-30L; ~j2) 30L-END (Eagan): 2,333 feet for the 30L-End (Eagan) of Runway Z`~J~'7"Y12R-30L; d. RUNWAY 17-35: (1) 17-END (Minneapolis): 2.333 feet for the 17-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 17-35; (2) 35-END (Bloomington): 4.500 feet for the 35-End SBloomington) of Runway 17-35. 3. .SAFETY ZONE C: All that land which is enclosed within. the perimeter of the horizontal zone, as defined in Subsection IV_ A_ hereof, and which is not included in Safety Zone A or Safety Zone B. SECTION IV. ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS [In Section V. A., Subsection 4 will be modified to account for. all additions and deletions of affected residential neighborhoods at both ends of Runway 4-22 and the 17-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 17-35. Legal descriptions are being prepared by URS/BRW and will be available for the public hearing.] -8- SECTION V. TECHNICAL CORRECTION In Section V. A., Subsection 4. of the MSP Zoning Ordinance, the heading for b. is amended to read: 12L-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 12L-30R.°,-~.~T~, S-e"+~~ ~- SECTION VI. TECHNICAL CORRECTION In Section V. A., Subsection 4. of the MSP Zoning Ordinance, the heading for c. is amended to read:12R-End (Minnea polis ) of Runway 12R-30L.-°~NaT-11 F~~, c,,,,+tie~~f SECTION VII. USE RESTRICTI^O~QN~S (~ " Section V. B., Subsections 1, 2 and 3~amended to read: B. USE RESTRICTIONS: 1. GENERAL: Subject at aaall times to the height restrictions set forth in Subsection IV, B_, no use shall be made of any land in any of the safety zones defined in Subsection V_ A_ which creates or causes interference with the operations of radio or electronic facilities on the aAirport or with radio or electronic communications between aAirport and aircraft, makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between aAirport. lights and other lights, results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the aAirport, impairs .visibility in the vicinity of the aAirport, or otherwise endangers the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft. -9- 2. SAFETY ZONE A: a. RUNWAYS 12R-30L, 12L-30R AND THE 17-END (MINNEAPOLIS) OF RUNWAY 17-35: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in Subsection IV_ B_ and to the general restrictions contained in Subsection V_ B_ 1_ areas designated as Safety Zone A for Runways 12R-30L, 12L-30R and the 17-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 17-357 shall contain no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar above-ground land use structural hazards, and shall be restricted to those uses which will not create, attract, or bring together an assembly of persons thereon. Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agriculture (seasonal crops), horticulture, animal husbandry, raising of livestock,. wildlife habitat, light outdoor recreation (nonspectator), cemeteries, and auto parking. b. RUNWAY 4-22 AND TH_E 35-END (Bloomington) OF RUNWAY 17- 35: Subiect at all times to the height restrictions set forth in Subsection IV. B.. and to the general restrictions contained in Subsection V. B. 1., areas designated as Safety Zone A for Runway 4-22 and the 35-End (Bloomington) of Runway 17-35 shall contain no buildings. #emporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar above-ground land use structural hazards or trees or other vegetation that is of a size and thickness sufficient to interfere with aircraft moving along the ground. Uses shall be restricted to those land uses and structures approved by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. -10- 3. SAFETY ZONE B: a. RUNWAYS 12R-30L 12L-30R AND THE 17-END (Minneapolis) OF RUNWAY 17-35: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in Subsection IV. B_, and to the general restrictions contained in Subsection V_ B_ 1_, areas. designated as Zone B for Runways 12R-30L 12L-30R and the 17-End (Minneapolis) of Runway 17-35 shall be restricted in use as follows: a-(1) Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres. ~-:(2) Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of the site acreage. s-(3} Each-site shall have no more than one building plot upon which any number of structures may be erected. d-(4) A building plot shall be a single, uniform and non-contrived area, whose shape is uncomplicated and whose area shall not exceed the following minimum ratios with respect to the total site area: Site Area But Less Ratio of Site Building Max. Site at Least Than Area to Bldg. Plot Area Population (acres) (acres) Plot Area (sq. ft) (15 persons/A) 3 12:1 10,900 45 4 12:1 4 10:1 17,400 60 6 10:1 g 8:1 32,700 90 10 8:1 10 6:1 72,600 150 -11- '~ Site Area But Less Ratio of Site Building Max. Site "" at Least Than Area to Bldg. Plot Area Population (acres) (acres) Plot Area (sq. ft) (15 persons/A) 20 6:1 20 and up 4:1 218,000 300 e-t5 -Density, Site Population Transfer Both allowable building area lot coverage and allowable site population may be transferred from adjacent parcels, within any given Safety Zone BQ~; ~, where the Zoning Administrator finds said parcels to be in permanent open space use. Land determined by the Zoning Administrator to be in permanent open space shall be subject to the use restrictions set forth in Subsection V. B. 2. For the purposes of this provision, the permanent open space for the ~^~~~°~~ 2~30R-End (Mendota/Mendota Heights) of Runway 12L-30R shall be designated as indicated in "Exhibit A~". ~~ Determination of Transferable Building Area For the purposes of the administration of this section, all of the acreage determined to be in permanent open space use shall be considered as a single site. The ratio set forth in Section V_ B_ 3_ d, shall then apply to determine the transferable building plot area. In no case shall the transfer of building plot area result in a development which -12- exceeds the maximum lot coverage and/or floor .area ratio set forth in the underlying zoning district. ~2- Determination of Transferable Site Population ~' As in Subsection above, the entire developable area found to be in permanent open space use shall determine the site area for the determination of transferable site population. The maximum site population standard of 15 persons per acre shall be applied to determine the transferable site population. ~3-- Distribution of Density Transfer Distribution of density transfer shall be apportioned _-~ by the Zoning Administrator based upon the proportion of a particular parcel to the total developable .acreage within any given Safety Zone B ° ~ ., ., o ~,-.~. 5 #-~ The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone B: ~a ~1,1~•t' Churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums hotels E''~ e~ t%'- and motets, trailer courts, camp grounds, and other places b.g- ,/, L ~,~~~ r ~. ,I Y i of frequent .public or semi-public assemt?ly. C~'~ RUNWAY 4-22 AND THE 35-END (Bloomington) OF RUNWAY 17- 35' Subject at all times to the height• restrictions set forth in Section VI. B and to the general restriction contained in Section V.B.1. all land uses are permitted in Safety Zone B for Runway 4- 22 and the 35-End (Bloomington) of Runway 17-35, except for the following uses which are specifically prohibited: hospitals I` -13- ~~ U.r~~' G'~'~ schools, amphitheaters stadiums nursing homes and ponds or other features which might attract waterfowl or other birds SECTION V111. BOUNDARY LIMITATIONS Section V. C. of the MSP Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Boundary Limitations" is deleted. SECTION IX. AIRPORT ZONING LIMITS AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS Section VI. of the MSP Zoning. Ordinance is amended to read: A. AIRSPACE ZONE LIMITS: No airspace zone as established by Section IV A shall extend more than two miles from the Airport Boundarv under the precision instrument approach surface or more than one and one-half miles from the Airport Boundarv outside the precision instrument approach surface Exhibits B and C hereto show these limits. B. SAFETY ZONE LIMITS: No safety zone as established by Section V A. shall extend more than two-miles from the Airport Boundarv under the precision instrument approach surface or more than one-mile from the Airport Boundarv outside the precision instrument approach surface. Exhibits D and E hereto show these limits. C. OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS: The several zones herein established are shown on the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Map '~~~~~'+ ^~ consisting of twenty-one plates t-wFe-sheets , rrcn.,roa h„ ,- ~+ ,prepared b~ URS/BRW. Inc., dated 2002 attached hereto and made a part. -14- hereof, which map, together with such amendments thereto as may from time to time be made, and all notations, references, elevations, data, zone boundaries, and other information thereon, shall be and the same is hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance. SECTION X. EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as herein amended, all the provisions of the MSP Zoning Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. B. This Ordinance Amendment shall take effect on the ___________ day of ____, 2002. Copies thereof shall be filed with the Commissioner of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, State of Minnesota, and the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed and adopted after public hearing by the Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board this _____________ day of Prasmuss/JAZB/JAZB Amendment Draft 7-25-02.doc 2002. -15- ~` , _•, • y > ~ ~~r~' ~ / / / ~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ / / / ~~~ ~ / / ~ / ~ ~ / i i ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ / ~ / / ~ Centerline Rwy 4 ~ % ~ _ ' ' ~' ' ~ ~~ -fi- - - -~ - ~" - - - - - - ,~,--~; ;; , ; ; , ~ ~. / ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1 i //i i i /~ ~ i --- i / i~ rp t Boundary ; ;~~,` ~; - -. _, ;' ~ ~" n ,. ?~~QOUS agiyTA } ~~. i z 0 o ~ tg q O~-r t ~ Off. 9N'~IRPORtg O NORTH 0 250 500 1000 SCALE IN iEEi l Attachment E 1 ~`_ 1 ~.-- W d' c~ O. y= V .. O ._ O O ~~, O N c~ Draft July 25, 2002 ~~ BRW, inc E 0 N O O N N 6 !-- G .l ~~ ~~~ ~y ~~ ~~ ^. T~~ ~/ •.a ~y >' ~~ i • S ~~ `_ ~ ~_ `. ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ._~ `\` e/ ~. Attachment F FAEGRE & BENSON T T .P MINNEAPOLIS MEMORANDUM TO: Pamela Rasmussen ~ ~ _ FROM: Walter Rockenstein DATE: August 7, 2002 .. SUBJECT: Suggested Amendments To The Exemption. For Established Residential .Neighborhoods In Built-up Urban Areas The Joint Airport Zoning Board has directed us to revise the Safety Zone B restrictions to allow all uses except a limited list of prohibited uses which includes all residential uses. The Board has also instructed us, however, to allow both existing residential uses and residential development in Established. Residential Neighborhoods In Built-up Urban Areas or areas immediately adJacent thereto. As I looked through the MSP Zoning Ordinance to see how to accomplish this, I noted that several sections of the Ordinance will need to be changed For example, the definition of Established Residential Neighborhood In A Built up Urban Neighborhood also includes substantive langua~ about what will be considered a conforming and non-conforming use. Section V.A.4. both lists the Established Residential Neighborhoods and has substantive language about what is restricted , in them.. Then Sectical V.B.S. further defines the restrictions in them. These sections not . only violate numerous good ordinance drafting practices, but the result nearly defies: interpretation. So I have tackled the larger job and rewritten all these sections . The recommended language below uses the font and type size of the draft Amendment to facilitate your pasting it into the draft Ordinance Amendment. I hope it makes sense. I also added a definition of FAA because we use it to reference the FAA Runway Protection Zone. ~ . (~ SECTION i. CHANGES AND ADD1T10NS TO DEFlNITIONS A. The definition of `Established Residential Neghborhood In A Buiii;-up Ucban Area' in Section 111 is amended to read: `ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN A GUILT UP URBAN AREA' ~~ 1. ~ ~~ ,~~"' _._ ~.._ ._ wii+~rt!-O~/$te~ e{}•BF-~~;A{e e~FJ~Y ~ ~ g~A (7(j n~hnr 1 nil ~ cn~\ ~h.~ll .. nnn '.~Inrnii w nnnfn - ~~ 41,x+ hall nn1 F~dn~ nvnnr~} c n~n~ rlcii F~ In n \/ O C. ~YC6ADTIr1A1Q CCTAQI ICL'CI'1 c*Taa~cwTr~rrvr~P-Bfet~~orcccr-oocvcvc av o~v the areas fisted on E=xhibii A and shown on Piate of the Zonin Ma which have been designated based on the following criteria aoolied to each listed neivhborhood as it existed on June 30. 1979: (1) Location of the airport; (2) Nature of the terrain with Safety Zones A and B; r?~ cm,5~ Sand ass a~ character' eaf the ~eigfat a~und the Girt; . (4) Population of the community; (5) That the average population density. in all areas within one mr~e of any point on a runway be equal to or greater than one dwelling unit per acre; (6) Population density near the airport compared with population density in other areas of the community; (7) The age and the economic, political and social stability of the neighborhood and the community as a whole; . (8) The proximity of supporting school, commercial, religious, transportation and other fadlities and their degree of integration with residential land .uses; (9) Presence or absence of public utilities inducting, but not limited to, public sanitary sewer system, electric service and gas mains; (10) Whether or not the factors listed in subparagraphs (8) and (9) above tend to make the community surrounding the airport ase~f-sufficient unit; (11) Whether the areas within one mile of the perimeter of the airport property would be considered primarily residential in character, and (12) Other material factors deemed relevant by the governmental unit indistinguishing the area in question as established, residential, urban and built-up. B. Anew definition of `FAA' is added to read: `FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. C. The definition of 'Runway in Section III is amended to read: [Use the language in the August 15 draft O~nance Amendmer>t.) D. Anew definition of 'Zoning Map' is added to read: "ZONING MAP" means the Minneapolis-St Pau( International Airport (Wold Chamberlain Field) Zonino Map as set forth In Section Vi C SECTION VII. USE RESTRICTIONS -2- ~r --°~. [Use the new language in the August 15 draft Orclinance Amendment for Section V. B. 2. but replace the ,, language for Section V. B. 3. wdh the following (which means you should ignore my August 6 mark up of Section V. B. 3.) Subiect at all tirrtes to the height restrictions in Section IV B and to the General restrictions in Section V. B 1 all land uses are permitted in Safety Zone B for each end of Runways 12l__3QR. 1 ZF2~3Q1_, 4-22 and 17 35 except for the following uses which are specificall}~prohibited~ -amphitheaters hospitals, nursing homes residential uses (including low medium and high density residential uses), schools, stadiums and ponds or other features which might attract waterfowl or other birds. SECTION IV. ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Section V. A., Subsection 4 is amended to delete .the entire section and to transfer the list. of Established Residential Neighborhoods in Built up Urban Areas to a new Exhibit A. (The current list will be modfied to account for all additions and deletions of affected residential neighbofioods at both ends of Runway 422 and the 17-End of Runway 17-35. Legal.. descriptions are Ming prepared by URS/BRW and will be available for the public hearing l'CDTI(lf\IC {`TART ICLIC~l C~CCI('1CnITIA 1 I..iR(1C?N(1r1t1 The-fnllniarine 4. €~~~~ -.,or.~-€-v->Try-r~~-.-~LOT~~~,-Q-,-n-rL---a,- S, ...,... d :k2 :.iCC oCCTDII`TI(1n~C _. _____.._ _ _ +-.., _-__.~ - .-.~ ~~= e ~ ro :.~2 ~~ Q~ in~ero.r A Alnr+hc~c+ A nnrn~ch_ ... . , .r.r,...,,....., R~+ a++'c Cir + Arlr-li+inn Rtnr~b 'I in+c 1 St_ 7 RInrL 4 1 n+c '1_il RInnL Z 1 n+ F 7i iharF' Cnr r+h rio~t.r (`~rr7nnc 1 c+ A~i _ i+in Rlnr•t~ 1 1 n+c '1 _S2 0 7~~hor+ t r nr~c Cn~ +h~rio !•`~rrtonc Oct AArli+inn ~a~u r-~ccarsvvr-i ~rwcr-~~rrv r~ 7 n+c `2_'1 F RInrL 4 1 n+c ~ _it RfnnL 'i f n+c '1 _'f tl e Rlnrls ~2 I n+c 1 _F 7~ ~hnr}~c Cn~ ~+h~riai~r (`~rrlone i1+h Arl~i+inn -3- X70 GTrOT CGTJ ~~ - dC' . 4~3 ~~-~i~~65~Af N~~4-'~~-?~~~d~t"yA~~ Datcrh'c ~ rirlitinn ~Bzt-emu 1 '~ '~ ~n~ G,` i nt A ~~ pRtl--orvvli.~cT7 r --~1$Ef c-t `~ ! nzZ +vcrs-v-fir QInrL 1A E ntc `2 nnrt it -${9C-{4- ~~ R I-vr" rvc~rv )=rtnoini~tor nn hlnlrnmic 'ZrA A rJA Rtnrti 'f - ntr '2 'f h' RlnrLc '~ ~nr~l Z i-v~`ry e~tor nn (~InLnmic G`th 4 r4~ Frlnau~~tar nn AlnLnmic Qth d~r1 Fpn~~~xi~tor nn M~Lymi~ 7~h ~rl rt .....ti,~ ..~ ~ ~ ucr hntvrs-~i-v .. CLF~n~ xin~_er Ln Ain.Lvmiri ~i~ttt7'Ytfti- d--d~~ ~ of f~i '{~7 ft of Trnrt D AI C Aln 7Q vr~r. - -r--rc~r-r-rcrcc7-c~~ rcz~7~~vv-iv -6- ~+ i 77 Cn~ ~+i-~~Rioc+ Llnnrn~_r~j . ... , .~.r...__.. Ctlnr4 '1 1 n+e F_7'I SECTION VIII. EXEMPTIONS-ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL' NEIGHBORHOOD Section V. B., Subsection 5 is renumbered to be Subsection 4 and new Subsection 4. a. is amended to read: a A fow density residential structure or isolated low density residential building lot in an Established Residential Neighborhood Jn A Built-up Urban Area sha!! be subiect to the height restrictions of Section iV. B. and the general restrictions of Section V. B. 1. but shall not be subiect to the Safety Zone A restrictions of Section V. B. 2. or the Safety Zone B restrictions of Section V. B. 3. In addition. such structure or lot shall be deemed a conforming use under this Ordinance. b In Safety Zone B in an Established Residential Neighborhood In A Built-up Urban Area or in an area immediately adiacentto such a Neighborhood, existina.low, medium and high -7- density residential uses may be improved and expanded and new low medium and high density residentia! uses may be developed a!1 subject to the height restrictions of Section IV. B. and the general restrictions of Section V. B. 1. EXHIBIT A -ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL. NEIGHBORHOODS IN BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS Add a new Exhibit A to read as follows: EXHIBIT A ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS The following described lands are each designated as an Established Residential Neighborhood !n A Built-up Urban Area 1. ?~-End of Runwak4-~2 ' Bassett's First Addition, Block 1, lots 1 & 2 Zubert's Southview Gardens 3rd Addition Block 1, Lots 1-4 Block 2. Lots 1-9 . Black 3, Lot 5 Zubert's Southview Gardens 1st Addition Block 1. Lots 1-8 Block 2, Lots 1-8 Zubert-Larsons Southview Gardens 1st Additian Lots 3-15 Carson's Southview Garden 1st Addition Block 1. Lots 1-4 Carson's Southview Gardens 2nd Additian Black 2, Lots 1-10 Block 3, Lots 1-5 Zubert's Southview Gardens 4th Addition - 81ock 1, Lots 1-4 Registered Land Survey #734 Tracts A-H Registered Land Survey #868 Tract A Southview Addition Block 2. Lots 6-9 . John Enberg 4th Addition Block 1. Lots 1-13 Registered Land Survey #1003 _ Tracts d & E -8- --~ Metes/Bounds Description S 150 Ft. ofithat part of 1/4 of N 1/4 of NE 114 of SE 114 Lvinq E of W 1 53 13/1 00 FT thereof Ex Road Metes/Bounds Descrption that part of the E 114 of N 1/2 of S 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 Lvinq E of Zubert's South View Gardens 4th Ex Road Metes/Bounds Description that part of the S 1/Z of N 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 Lvinq E of Zubert's South View Gardens Third Addition Ex Road Metes/Bounds Description S 75 Ft of W 153 OS/100 Ft of E'/ of N 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SE 114 Ex Road Metes/Bounds Description N 75 Ft of 5 150 Ft of W 153 051100 Ft of E 114 of N 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 Ex Road MeteslBounds Description N 1/3 of W 132 Ft of that part of N'/4 of SE 1/4 of SE 114 Lvinq S of N 30 Ft thereof and E of E Line of 18th Ave S Extended Siv Metes/Bounds Description S 112 of N 213 of W 132 Ft of that part of 1!4 of SE 1!4 of SE 1!4 Iving S of N 30 Ft thereof and E of E Line of 18th Ave S Extended Slv MeteslBounds Description S 113 of W 132 Ft of that part of N'/ of SE 114 of SE 1/4 Lvinq S of N 30 Ft Thereof and E of E Line of 18th Ave S extended. Sly Metes/Bounds Description that part of SE 1 & 4 Lvinq E of the SIy Extension of the E Line of 18th Ave S as laid oui in the plat of Larsons South View Gardens 2nd Addition N of E 77th St and S of N 10 acres thereof Ex Hwv. Metes/Bounds Description that part of E 518 of SE 1/4 of SE'/~ ~vint~ W of the S4y Extension of E Line of 18th Ave S as laid out in the plat of Larsons South View Gardens 2nd Addition and N of E 77th St MeteslBounds Description that part of the N 1 80 26/1 00 Ft of S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 114 Lvinq E of the W 722 Ft Thof Ex Road and Hwv Metes/Bounds Description that part of S 1J2 of SE 114 of SE'/4 Lvinq S of the N 180 261100 Ft Thot and E of the W 630 Ft Thof Also the N 180 261100 Ft of E 92 Ft of W 722 Ft of S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1l4 Ex Road and Hwv 2. 12L-End of Runway 12L-30R a. ZONE A Sanders 2nd Addition 61ock 3. tots 6 and 7 Morris Park Fourth Addition Block 4. Lots 16-20 Block 5. Lots 24-30 ~ - Skallerud Additian Block 1 Block 2: Lots 1-6 and 8-12 S 10 acres of N22 acres of NW 114 of SE 114 ex sts and hwy. (St. Kevins) SE 1/4 of NE 114 ex sts and ayes. (Bossen Field) Nokomis Sout1~ Shore 2nd Addition Blocks 1-3 Block 4 Lots 6-18 Blocks 5-8 ,;-°~ Nokomis South Park Addition Block 6. tots 9-~8 I -9- Black 7. Lots 9-25 Stock 8. Lots 16-18 City and State Right-of-wav b. ZONE B Nokomis South Park Addition Block 4, Lots 12-21 Block 5 Block 6, Lots 2-30 Nokomis South Shore 2nd Addition Block 3, tots 26-3fl Block 4. Lots 1-13 and 16-30 Block 5. Lots 28-30 Nokomis South Shore Addition Blocks 1-7 Black 8. Lots 1-11 and 16-30 Block 10 Block 11, Lots 1-6 and 9-14 Block 12, Lots 1-4 and 12-14 Lake Nokomis Shores Block 8 Block 9. Lots 5-27 Blocks 10 and 11 Lake Amelia Park. Blacks 3-5 Stock 6, Lots 1-14 and 17-28 Reag't of Nokomis Lakeside Park Block 1, Lot 1 Amelia Lakeside Park Blocks 3 and 4 Block 5; Lots 1-10 and 20-28 Block 6, Lots 1-7 That portion of Nokomis Parkway lying northwest of Woodlawn Blvd N. 73 ft. of S. 493 ft. of E. 185 ft. of NE 1/4 (5796 Cedar Ave} Petsch's Addition Lots 1. 2, 3 and 6 Hotiands Addition Lot 4 3. 12R-End of Runway 12R-30L a. ZONE A N 130 ft. of E. 164.5 ft. of SE l4 except ROA (5800 Cedar Ave) Tingdale Bros Portland wav Block 17, Lots 1-4" -10- b. ZONE B Mother Lake Addition Block 2. Lots 7-9 Block 3. Lots 3-20 Mother Lake 2nd Addition Block 1 Block 2 Scarsdale Park Addition Blocks 1-3 Edgewater on Nokomis Add. Stock 9, Lots 12-2d Block 10, Lots 4-23 Block 11 Block 12, Lots 5-15 Block 14. Lots 3 and 4 Block 15 Block 16 Edgewater on Nokomis 3rd Add. Block 1, Lots 3-16 Blocks 2 and 3 Edgewater on Nokomis 6th Add. Edgewater on Nokomis 9th Add. Edgewater on Nokomis 7th Add. Lots 4-6 Edgewater on Nokomis Fourth Add. . . Edgewater on Nokomis Fifth Add. S. 59th ft. of N. 177 ft. of Tract A RLS No. 28 (5925 14th Av. S.) That part of Tract A Tying S. of N. 177 ft. thereof incl. adi. 1I2 vac alley, RLS No. 28 (5931 14th Ave. S.) N. 59th ft. of Tract A, RLS No. 28 j5917 14th Ave. S.) . S. 59th ft. of N. 118 ft. of Tract A. RLS No. 28 (5921 14th Ave. S.) Edgewater on Nokomis Second Addition Block 17, Lats 1-19 Block 18, Lot 12 Block 20, Lots 10-12 Block 21, Lots 1-21 Block 22 Tingdale Broftters Portland Way Block 4 Block 5, Lats 1-12 and 15-24 Block 6, Lots 1-8 and 10-16 Block 7, Lots 1-5 and 13-16 Block 8, Lots 1-3 and ~15-16 Block 9. Lot 1 Block 17. Lots 1-3 and 22-23 -11- 4. 4-End of Runway 4-22 High View Park Block 1. Lots 5-21 W.H.R. II M1:903498.01 -12- AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 2OC STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MICHAEL EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r Y ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approving traffic calming measures for the neighborhood bounded by 76th Street, Penn Avenue. 66th Street and 35W. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve traffic calming measures for the neighborhood between 66th Street and 76th Street and Penn Avenue and 35W. II. BACKGROUND On October 22, 2001, the City Council appointed residents of the neighborhood between 66th Street and 76th Street and between Penn Avenue and 35W to serve on an advisory committee to prepare recommendations to Council on possible traffic calming measures. The Committee began meeting monthly in November 2001 and completed its work at a meeting on June 20, 2002. The Committee held a public information meeting to receive public comments on the committee's proposed recommendations on May 21, 2002. Attached to this report are the list of people who agreed to serve on the advisory committee and their recommendations including maps showing possible traffic control signs. - ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan supports traffic calming where needed in residential areas. Residents along Humboldt Avenue submitted a petition for traffic calming study and several residents on Oliver Avenue and on 70th Street raised similar concerns. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Traffic calming is not generally supported by all residents. Of those people who oppose it, some believe there is no traffic problem while others do not agree with the proposed solutions. • Several residents asked that some measures be postponed until after the Best buy Campus is opened and changes in traffic patterns have occurred. • Traffic calming has been performed on atrial basis in other cities. If certain measures prove ineffective, they can be removed or revised. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed traffic calming measures will cost $4,500. This cost will be funded from the General Fund. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions at the meeting. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Postpone certain traffic calming measures until after the Best Buy Campus opens and an evaluation of new traffic patterns indicate a need for traffic calming. • Reject all proposed traffic calming measures because traffic problems are not perceived to be serious enough to warrant corrective measures. V. ATTACHMENTS • Recommendations of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee • Maps showing proposed traffic calming measures. • Comments received on proposed traffic calming measures. • List of residents who served on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING -` • David Davenport, Chair of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and other residents of the affected neighborhood. ~, Traffic Calming Recommendations for the Area Between 66th Street and 76th Street and Between Penn Avenue and I-35W Submitted by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee August 13, 2002 ^ Basket Weave Stop Signs. The Committee favored basket weave stop signs as a way to reduce speeding and improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and residents. ^ Modify Basket Weave Pattern on 67th Street and 68th Street. The Committee supported modifying the stop sign pattern because of the irregular street design but all intersections would be stop controlled. ^ Traffic Control along 75th Street. The Committee favored stop signs on the T of a T- intersection on Logan, Morgan and Newton Avenues. In addition, they supported posting 25-MPH Speed Limit signs on 75th Street from Humboldt Avenue to Oliver Avenue. This was recommended because the street serves both a city park and a school. ^ Hill on 70th Street at Irving Avenue. The Committee recommended no action be taken at this location. The 35W noise wall is high enough for motorists to see that the street ends at Humboldt Avenue. ^ Focus on a Limited Number of Streets or Locations with Identified Traffic Problems. The Committee did not support this suggestion because they wanted consistent traffic control within the neighborhood. A motorist may be misled by some intersections being uncontrolled. ^ Connecting Humboldt Avenue to New Traffic Signal at 76th Street and Knox Avenue. The Committee recommended against connecting Humboldt Avenue to the traffic signal at 76th Street and Knox Avenue. They believed that this would discourage Best Buy employees and others from entering the neighborhood. ^ Support Certain Turn Restrictions Now. Based on current traffic counts, the Committee favored the following turn restrictions: No Left-Turn westbound on 66th St. at Humboldt Avenue from 7-9 AM; and, No Right Turn westbound on 76th St. at Oliver Avenue from 3-6 PM. ^ Delay Certain Turn Restrictions Until after Best Buy Opens and Their Commuter Patterns Become Apparent. The Committee supported performing traffic counts before Best Buy opens and then redoing them after Best Buy opens to evaluate possible traffic impacts on the neighborhood. For this reason the following turn restrictions were not supported: No Left-Turn westbound on 66th St. at Newton Ave.; No Left Turn westbound on 66th Street at Oliver Avenue from 3-6 PM; No Left Turn eastbound on 76th St. at Logan Avenue from 3-6 PM; and, No Right Turn northbound on Penn Avenue at 67th Street from 3-6 PM. ^ Closing 200-foot Section of Lakeview Ave. South of 67th Street. The Committee determined that this was not part of their charge. The affected neighbors could pursue this on their own. ^ Enforcement of Speeding and Stop Signs. The Committee encourages enforcement of stop signs and speed limits within the neighborhood, especially in the -'~ two to three months after the Best Buy Campus opens. ^ Comments received on the proposed traffic calming measures are attached. OTHER TRAFFIC ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE STUDY ^ On the 62 Crosstown Design The Committee did not take a position on the Highway 62 Crosstown Design. Committee members believed that this was beyond the charge of the Committee, although members believed the new design would reduce traffic on 66th Street and Penn Avenue. ^ On the 76th Street Ramp to I-35W. The Committee did not take a position on this issue although they asked that the Council provide public notice to the neighborhood when this issue is discussed and that representation be from the community as a whole when the design is discussed. Revised Basket Weave Stop Signs 66TH 69TH 72ND 76TH ZZ o0 W~~Z ~~mQ w z > >~ O Q ~ ~ a O z~~ Y -, ~ i c~ v U 00 00 ~~ 9~ ai ~o!I~.. II.~~ 11. Jl_'_ 9 ~n~ X W z a ~~~, ~~r1~.1 ~~I I~ O ~ ~ o 0 Z ~ N W E s LEGEND •\ ~j • Proposed East-West'Stop Signs `; ~ Proposed North-South Stop Signs /_~ Existing North-South Stop Signs. j O Existing East-West Stop Signs Traffic signal ,`~ a 0 a ~,~~~ 0 1000 2000 Feet Richfield Engineering Division I:GIS/PublicWorks/Staff/Tom F/Projects/ Calming 66th-76th June 20.apr July 17, 2002 Measures For Cut-Thr~ nd 25 MPH Speed Limit ZZ ~ O Q z > ~ ~ ~ O ~ a O Z ~ ~ Y ~ Hugh Traffic o n 75th Street 0 ~ ~ N Z m Q _ ~ W E ~u~u~u~uuu~~ _ s 66TH 66TH ]d 00~ d C !{~ ~~ ~ NO LEFT 69TH p TURN 00 7-9 AM ~ M-F 2 -) z z w a ~ __ 72ND ~~~ ;" NO RIGHT ~ ~ i ~ ~ TURN 3M ~M z~~ z~~~ ~ O ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 0 Y ~ Z ~ SPEED 75th SPEED LIMIT LIMIT 25 25 7 ~~ ~~ . 1000 2000 Feet I:GIS/PublicWorks/Staff/Tom F/Projects/ Calming 66th-76th June 20. RICHFIELD ENGINEERING DIVISION 2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: May 21, 2002 TO: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Comments Received on Proposed Traffic Calming Martin E.W. April 12, 2002 Letter sent to Police Chief Dan Scott regarding the Luther 6941 need for stop signs at intersections along 70th Street from Morgan Ave.and Humboldt to Penn Avenues. They are concerned with accidents at Nuala Galbari intersections on 70th Street. 6945 Morgan Ave. Geff and Nuala April 13, 2002 Letter sent to Police Chief Dan Scott noted Galbari 6945 increased speed of drivers on 70th Street, especially during the Morgan Ave. hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. They request speed limit signs on 70th Street in addition to stop signs. They have noticed traffic speeding on 76th Street between Penn Avenue and York Avenue. John Gamoke May 7, 2002 Wanted to know if Committee decided about i 6645 Humboldt connecting Humboldt Avenue to the new Knox Avenue traffic Ave. signal. Rod Culmith May 8, 2002 He supports the Basket Weave stop signs. Logan Ave. Tom Stanley May 8, 2002 Wanted to know why calming was needed. Ms. Bernie Smith May 9, 2002 The left-turn restriction on 66th Street at Humboldt will cause serious back-ups on 66th Street. People try to turn left now at both Humboldt And Irving Avenues. It could get worse with the turn restriction. Julie Windier May 13, 2002 Wants stop signs on Morgan And Newton Avenues 7515 Newton Ave. at 75th Street. There are bushes that obstruct the view of cross traffic. Randy May 14/2002 Calming is a good idea. He supports the turn Rasmussen restriction at 67th Street on Penn Avenue to reduce cut through 6608 Oliver Ave. traffic and speeding on Oliver. Rick Jabs 5/15/2002 Called to comment on (1) opposed to removing the N 6805 Knox Ave. stop signs at 68th/Irving. He would support afour-way stop at this intersection because he is concerned about speeding next to Monroe Park. (2) Suggests 4-way stop at Humboldt/68th Street. (3) By Donaldson Park suggests stop signs N-S on Humboldt at 75th [I:PubWorks/Traffic/Calming/CitizenLog OS-21-02] May 16, 2002 Page 2 to discuourage through traffic on 76th Street from using Humboldt. (4) Suggests E-W stop signs at 75th/Logan to reduce speeding by Donaldson Park.(5) Wants to receive notice of Committee's decision as if he attended. James Weydt May 17, 2002 The proposed stop signat 67th and Lakeview is a 6644 Knox Ave. good idea. I also think you should consider closing the 200-foot stretch of Lakeview just south of 67th Street. I have discussed this with all my neighbors in the immediate area and all agree. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic between Monroe and Fairwood parks. This would connect the two parks and stop a lot of the cars that drive fast and zig-zag through this street. Several residents Asked why was traffic calming needed. Kristin Melendez May 17, 2002 She and her husband support the Basket Weave 7134 James Ave. Stop Signs. She believes motorists do not use caution at j uncontrolled intersections and many of them do not know the rule f of yielding to the car on the right. Jay Anderson May 21, 2002 The proposed E-W stop signs at 67th Street and 6654 Newton Ave. Newton Avenue are confusing. There is a driveway nearby that may pose a conflict. He would prefer a stop sign on the north leg of this T-intersection. People use Newton to shortcut around the traffic signal at 66th/Penn. He pointed out that in both the existing and proposed conditions there is no stop control for cut-through traffic along the route of 67th St. and Newton Avenue. He suggested four- way stop signs at Oliver And 67th Street for some control on 67th Street. He suggested a No Left-Turn sign at 66th Street and Newton for both morning and evening rush hours. People use this route whenever the traffic backs up on 66th Street from the Penn Avenue signal at 66th St. He proposed N-S stop signs at Knox Avenue instead of the E-W signs that are proposed. Jeremy Kidd May 21, 2002 He thinks the stop signs are a good idea. However, 1701 W. 72nd St. the proposed E-W stop signs at 72nd St. and James Avenue are at (near James Ave.) a T-intersection and will stop a through street while the stop sign should control traffic on the T-leg of the intersection. This leg carries low traffic volumes. There is on-street parking at the intersection. Also, An existing street sign post could serve to hold a stop sign.He moved here last December and tells friends to watch out for cross traffic because they aren't familiar with uncontrolled intersections. David Singer May 21, 2002 Please don't implement this plan that solves a 6628 Oliver Ave. problem that doesn't even exist! This Basket Weave Plan is bad and only increases pollution and wear and tear on cars, and doesn't even solve the speeding problem! Please don't implement the "No Right Turn", "No Left Turn" solution on Oliver and 66th, and on Penn And 67th. It makes getting home for people in my neighborhood impossible! I'll have to travel through more local streets to get home! May 16, 2002 Page 3 Jan Wahl May 21, 20002 Sight obstruction Drapery Place van at the corner of 7301 Newton Ave. 73rd and Penn. When the van is parked directly in the corner- people in cars (SUN'S are higher) can't see down Penn Ave. Please consder targeting problem areas and not necessarily every area. Also, be aware of need for salt on all stop sign (locations) in j the area in winter. Steve Mitchell May 21, 2002 Like overall plan, support it. A couple of points for 7213 James Ave. improvement: (1) change to correct symbol at Humboldt and 72 1/2. (Meaning the proposed stop sign should be E-W, not N-S as shown on map. (2) 72nd and Humboldt- busy, side intersection, suggest three-way stop. (3) 68th and Irving- Make afour-way stop. Brad Olson May 21, 2002 My comment has to do only with the intersection of 6805 Irving Ave. 68th and Irving. It is the only intersection where the proposal calls for removing stop signs..These two stops signs, if removed, would be an invitiation for commuters traveling from 69th to 66th to exclusively use Irving Ave. as "the street of choice" for travel from 66th to 69th, and vice versa, because it will be the only two block straight away between Penn And the freeway going north annd south. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you wish to make the intestsection a four-way stop, I am okay with that, but it want take a commuter a long time to find the new two-block "runway." Tom Vipond May 21, 2002 Pro-Basket Weave. 6636 Humboldt Ave. Maureen Soller May 21, 2002 Why are we looking at this "problem" so narrowly. 2101 W. 67th St. Make it as easy as possible to get to the freeways and the "problem" is solved. Build a bridge over Knox Ave. from Galyan's to Southtown. The Best Buy people will have a straight shot to 35W via 82nd St. Problem solved. Leave our neighborhood alone. Tom Soller May 21, 2002 (1) If the real problem today is speeding, put stop 2101 W. 67th St. signs on the major streets that have the problem today. (2) Don't solve the Best Buy "problem" until you see if there is one and, if so, what it is. (3) Do not implement a global solution until the problem is clear. Steve Robinson May 21, 2002 Connect Humboldt Ave. at Knox. As proposed alt 7309 James Ave. traffic eastbound on 76th will cut through Oliver and 75th St to get Newton to go east. The traffic should stay on Humboldt. Tracey Dixon May 21, 2002 I would like you to try the turn restriction signs before 6638 Morgan Ave. the basket weave is put in place. There are a couple of intersections that need a stop sign due to a blind corner. Traveling east on 67th St. at Logan. There is also one on Oliver at 72nd there is a hill there. I don't have any traffic issues on my street. Jeff Rundgren May 21, 2002 I believe that Basket Weave stop signs are a 6837 Logan Ave. punishment to good drivers- bringing us down to the lowest common denominator- the bad driver. I am not convinced that bad drivers are going to drive more carefully, I believe the basket weave May 16, 2002 Page 4 will cause more aggravated bad drivers! I brought this issue up at ~ every committee meeting. No Name May 21, 2002 If there's a problem with traffic on Humboldt Ave. solve it! Don't make the rest of us suffer! John Walstrom May 21, 2002 Routing Humboldt Av. traffic to 75th up to Logan on 7200 James Ave. to 76th will create another substandard housing area and ruin another neighborhood. Karen Paris May 21, 2002 I recommend we go with Tom Foley's proposal for 6635 Oliver Ave. stop signs and "No Turns" during rush hours. Gordon Griffith May 21, 2002 Yes, I support the Tom Foley proposal. 6635 Oliver Ave. Jeannie Sprat May 28, 2002 Concerned that a proposed stop sign at 73rd and 7245 Morgan Ave. Morgan will result in a large tree being cut down. Joseph & Carole May 17, 2002 Their letter is attached. They describe driver Busch, 1700 W. behavior well. They want to know why No Parking signs are posted 70th St. on the south side of 70th Street. Jeane M. Spratt June 27, 2002 Letter was received. Recently you have held two 7245 Morgan meetings in regards to traffic control in the neighborhood as a direct Avenue and result of Best Buy. Some of my neighbors as well as myself have twenty-two other not been able to attend these meetings due to other commitments. residents on 7200 In light of this we are sending this to you requesting that you do not and 7300 blocks implement the basket weave stop signs down 73rd Street for the of Morgan Avenue following reasons: (1) At this point there is not a traffic problem that requries attention. Let's wait and see what happens with traffic when Best Buy is in full swing. (2) Basket weave will only create a problem for the people who live in the area. Those who live on the corners will now have to put up with the constant stop and start of vehicles disturbing an otherwise peaceful area. (3) Major wear and tear on vehicles for those of us who live in the area. Please include these concerns with others raised in your final decisions. Thank. you. We have also discussed and agreed upon the fact that temporary speed bumps on 73rd Street between Humboldt and Penn Avenues would be a great help in controlling traffic and traffic speeds in this neighborhood. Attachments TFF:ttf 2101 West 67'" Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423 June 17, 2002 Thomas Fofey Transportation Engineer City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Sir I was enoour~l to Hate in your oorr>rrter~t #3 (in the package Baked June 1Z, 2002) tt~t there would be no need to place a stop sign in the middle of rrry driveway in order to irr~lerrrerrt the #~aeicet weave proposal. 1 also agree that there is Hat enough traffic today to cacase a blockage of either my driveway or my rteighbw's driveway (depending on trove it is tirrpl} d a stop stcfr- were t4 be placed to the west of my d»veway. l believe thak this observation reinkxoes rry ootrter>tion thak thane is r'lt7t enax,~h traffic to merit a stop Stign at all. Regarding the various proposals for tom restrictions on Penn and 67~' andtor on 66~' and Newton: • I agree with the comment that such restrictions wilt make it more difficult for those of us in the neighborhood to get home_ I have had the gpportunrty to observe the traffic on 67~' and Newton at aft times afi the day and the only time that tf~e is a problem with traffic volume is when the Cnosstowrt Highway tx~mes to an extended stop and people switch or>fa 66~' causing a major traffic jam there, as welt. !n these situations, people wilt da what they have to in order to bypass the jam tom restrictions or not. • In general, a tom rest-ic~ion an one block wiA simply move the toms t4 the next block. to summary, from rrry viewpoint, impiemerrting tom restrictions today is another example of solving a problem that we don't yet have. ~' these proposals are simply intended to put something an the shell far the tirrre that traffic vdumes dilate such extr~rre steps, all welt and goad. tJthervuise, I vote against taking such restrictions forward to the Caunal. Sincerely, Th~ ~~ Ja~ ~ ~ ~Q~ r- 6941 MORGAN SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, JUNE 14, 2002 MR. THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF RICHFIELD, 6700 PORTLAND AVE., RICHFIELD, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Foleys I was pleased to receive your letter of June 12 thanking me for my participation at the neighborhood meeting in Richfield Middle School oa May 21 to discuss local traffic issues. In it you invited me to yet another "traffic calming" meeting on June 20 to discuss "the previously suggested proposal i.n light of the input received", but I shall not attend. The meeting on May 21 only strengthened my opinion that,"as the old saw has it, "A committee is a group that individually can do nothing and that collectively decides that nothing can be done." I re~bieain convinced that the regulation of traffic flow and the establishment of controls is not a proper ffunction of local democracy. We properly elect those who govern us, but it is then their duty to appoint traffic and safety engineers to study how the safety of lives and property can be best promoted. These decisions should never be political or motivated by the conveniences, whims, or fancies of individuals. My own suggestion regarding stop signs obviously is included.- Let the traffic engineers study the patterns, the accident reports, the reported ins, and then decide . Indivdu.ais, left to themselves matters, .will never aigree on an optimum result. Unfortunately, no pattern of regulation is worth a tinker's dam if it is not properly enforced. "B~:t3." drivers will always disobey the rules unless the rules are enforced - and, in my experience, the number of willing violators is growing. Conclusion: Forget all the committee meetings of "concerned" individuals with various axes to grind and spend whatever is necessary to make our streets safer. If this involves hiring mare experts and paying them to make a scientific study, so be it. If it involves hiring more police, so be it. Tf it i~-eans putting up more traffic signs, traffic lights with cameras.(!) ~o be it. The safety of life and property should come first. and foremost in the establishment of traffic patterns and reg- ulations_ Personal driving convenience should be dead last, because - if it is not - we well may be. Sincerer, ~-~ ~' ~ ~__ ~~ i~~~ f r in R:W. Luther ~BY: _._ (copies of this letter to all participants) ._ Members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee On Traffic Calming for the Area Between 66th Street a nd 76th Street, and Between Penn Avenue and I-35W NAME ADDRESS CITYSTATE Mary Lesmeister 6727 Irving Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 David Davenport 7138 Knox Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Jason Stokes 6800 Morgan Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Vicki Forslund 6624 Morgan Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Bryan McKamey 6820 Humboldt Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 Robert Hall 7309 Oliver Ave. S. Ron Anderson & Pat Peterson7308 James Ave. S. Dean Karau 7027 Oliver Ave. S. Carl Guggenberger 6832 Humboldt Ave. S. John Vipond 6636 Humboltd Ave. S. Steve Robinson 7309 James Ave. S. Joe Atwood & Lyn Laffrity Hudson Richfield, MN 55423 R.B. Jensen 2011 W. 67th St. Jonna Crosby-Gerdes 6821 Humboldt Ave. S. Richard Strand 7315 Oliver Ave. S. Mark & Kim Otness 2635 University Ave. W. Ste St. Paul, MN 55114-1060 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 6630 Humbolt Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 1.90 Colony Apts. STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Other Business 9 205 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DNISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ra; SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continued consideration of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street. Public hearin conducted and closed on Jul 23, 2002 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve or deny the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street. (Public hearina conducted and closed on Julv 23, 2002) II. BACKGROUND On January 4, 2002, the City received the new application and other required documents for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc. The Public Safety staff has reviewed the application for compliance with all applicable state and local requirements. The following technical requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied: 1. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees; 2. The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety has been submitted; 0813PH Taco Morelos New Liquor Licenses 3. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Milbank Insurance Company as affording the required coverage; and, 4. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The Public Safety staff has also reviewed the application for compliance with the eligibility criteria set forth under state law and City ordinances. Most of those criteria are objective in nature (e.g., the applicant must not have had a liquor license revoked within five years and may not also be a manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicating liquor). The applicant has satisfied all objective criteria for eligibility under state law or local ordinances. Both state law and local ordinance also require that a person is ineligible for a liquor license if the person is "not of good moral character or repute," which is a subjective criterion that is left to the determination of the City Council In the case of a corporate applicant, the City ordinance requires that both the stockholder of the corporation and the manager satisfy the eligibility criteria in order for the corporation to be eligible. Gaspar Rey Perez is the President and sole owner of Taco Morales II, Inc. His wife, Lucila Sanchez Perez, is the Secretary for the corporation. The on-premises manager is Lorenzo Ariza. The background investigation on Mr. Ariza and Lucila Sancha Perez did not reveal any prior convictions for either of those individuals. The Public Safety background investigation of Gaspar Perez revealed the following: Gaspar Perez's criminal history check revealed charges of a gross misdemeanor DUI offense, driving after suspension, refusal of a breath test, illegal transportation of a firearm and the possession of a pistol without a permit, all committed in Ramsey County in 1999. Mr. Perez was convicted of the gross misdemeanor DUI. All other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to one year with a $3000 fine, which was reduced to a 30-day sentence, two years probation and a $500 fine. He was also required to undergo a chemical evaluation and agree to random urinalysis tests. Mr. Perez has a prior DWI conviction from December of 1996. Mr. Perez did not disclose the 1999 or 1996 convictions on his current application. However, he had previously submitted an application in January 2001, which he subsequently withdrew, and on that application he had disclosed "DWI" without disclosing the year of the convictions or the fact that there had been two DWI convictions. Public Safety staff had discussed the DWIs with Mr. Perez in connection with the first application and believes that Mr. Perez knew that Public Safety staff was already aware of the DWIs when he submitted the current application. Within the last week, the Public Safety staff updated its criminal history check on Mr. Perez, and it appears that Mr. Perez has been involved in proceedings with the City of Bloomington, with court appearances in December 2001 and January 2002. Staff was unable to complete its investigation of those matters prior to the date of this report but will do so prior to the Council meeting and will provide the Council with an updated report at the meeting. Gaspar Perez also owns Taco Morelos I, 1426 W. 26th Street in Minneapolis, and ~~ Sabroso Restaurant, 1120 First Avenue in Shakopee. Taco Morelos I is a standard restaurant with no service of alcohol, and the city of Minneapolis has reported that there have been no significant problems found with the operation of the restaurant. Sabroso Restaurant is afull-service restaurant, which includes the service of alcohol. Public Safety staff has determined that Sabroso Restaurant has had three violations for the service of alcohol to underage youth. The first violation occurred in September 1999. The establishment was fined a penalty of $1000. The second violation occurred in May 2001. The violation resulted in a $2000 fine and atwo- day suspension of their license. The third offense occurred in November 2001 and resulted in a $2000 fine and aten-day suspension of their license. There have been no further violations since that time. The property being leased by Taco Morelos II, Inc. is owned by Heritage Property I.T., Inc. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Taco Morelos in the past year. The complaint was regarding afood-related matter. The Bloomington Health Department was notified and no further complaints. have been received. There was one police contact with Taco Morelos in the past year. The call was in regards to a disturbance. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9204, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. The Council had inquired whether state law or local ordinances impose any distance restrictions that liquor establishments must maintain from schools. The City has no distance requirements in its liquor ordinance, and the only requirements in state law relate to state universities and training schools under the supervision of the Commissioner of Corrections, which are inapplicable to this property. The notice of public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on July 10, 2002. On July 23, 2002, the City Council conducted and closed the public hearing and tabled action on this license request due to concerns relating to the suspension of the liquor license at the Sabroso Restaurant that is owned by Mr. Perez in Shakopee. Further discussions concerning this will occur at the August 13, 2002 Worksession with a request for a decision on this license request to be made during the regular August 13, 2002 City Council meeting. ~~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Liquor licenses must comply with all applicable requirements of City ordinances and State statutes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicant has satisfied objective eligibility requirements and technical requirements under the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • The City Council must determine whether it is satisfied that the applicant meets the "good moral character and repute" eligibility requirement and whether the proximity of the establishment to a public school is of concern. • That the requirements in Resolution No. 9204 are met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Council has broad discretion to determine whether or not to issue or renew a liquor license, but the Council may not act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The applicant must be provided an opportunity to address the Council regarding the license and to respond to any concerns that the Council may have. The City Council must treat license applicants equally and may not deny the license if it has approved a license for a different applicant under substantially similar circumstances. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gaspar Perez, Owner • Lorenzo Ariza, Manager AGENDA SECTION: Public Heating AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR N~ TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~i~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating the unimproved north- south alley in the 6300 block of Colfax and Dupont. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating the unimproved north- south alley in the 6300 block of Colfax and Dupont. III. BACKGROUND ~ Residents of the 6300 blocks of Colfax and Dupont Avenues have submitted a petition requesting the vacation of the unconstructed north-south alley located between Colfax and Dupont Avenues. Please see attachment `A' for a map of the alley in question. • There are five parcels and four homes abutting this alley-one home occupies two parcels. • The owners of three of the homes and four of the properties have signed a petition asking that the alley be vacated. 0813-VacateAlley.doc • The owner of the fourth home and fifth parcel-Mr. George Holter-withdrew his request that the alley be improved and has informed Community Development staff that he is not opposed to the alley vacation. • The alley to be vacated has never been constructed or improved so that there is no pavement or vehicle access. Rather, there is an alley easement at the rear of the adjoining property owners' yards. By vacating the alley, this alley easement will be converted from public to private land and the adjoining property owners will be able to combine their property with the portion of the alley that it abuts. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Charter Section 13.05 specifies procedures for the City Council to vacate a street or alley. • Richfield City Code section 820.05 states that the Council "shall by resolution acknowledge receipt of any petition. The Council shall also set the date for a public hearing on any proposed street vacation. No vacation may be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so and only after a hearing preceded by two weeks published notice." B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds and Titles and all relevant public utilities have received notice of this alley vacation request and have been asked to identify any electric or telephone poles or lines; -~ gas or sewer lines; water pipes, mains, or hydrants; and any other cables or utilities in the alley to be vacated. • Three utilities have responded by stating that they wish to maintain easements for facilities they have in the alley-way: Qwest, Xcel, and Time Warner Cable. The transitory ordinance provides for maintaining easements for these utilities. • The City Council reviewed the petition requesting that the alley be vacated and determined it to be adequate at its June 25, 2002 meeting. • The City Council conducted a first reading of this transitory ordinance at its June 25, 2002 meeting. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A TERNATIVE • uenv the va V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council Transitory Ordinance to vacate the alley • Attachment `A'-map showing alley to be vacated VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Ray Ahrndt, petitioner. BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (6300 Block between Colfax and Dupont Avenues South) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The following described lands are subject to the easements as described below for alley right -of--way purposes ("Alley Area"): That part of the north-south alley which abuts Lots 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13, all in Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County Sec. 2: The City of Richfield has received a petition for the vacation of the alley easement over the Alley Area, and the City Council has determined the petition to be adequate by Resolution No. 9199. Sec. 3: The Alley Area has not been opened to public travel and is not required for access to the abutting properties. Although there is a garage located on Lot 12, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION that could use the alley for access if it were improved, access to that garage is currently obtained over the adjacent Lot 11, Block 4, which is held in common ownership. The owner of Lots 11 and 12, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION has verbally indicated his consent to the vacation of the alley easement over the Alley Area. Sec. 4. There are no City-owned water or sewer facilities located within the Alley Area. The City has notified the service providers for gas, electric, telephone, and cable communications services of the proposed vacation, and the following facilities are reported to be located in the Alley Area: 1) Qwest has buried cable in the alley; 2) Time Warner Cable has an aerial line in the alley; and 3) Xcel Energy has east-west facilities running along the north and south portions of the proposed vacation. Sec. 5: The Council finds that there is not a public need for an easement for public alley purposes over the Alley Area but that there is a continuing need for an easement for public utility purposes over the Alley Area. Sec.6: The alley easement over the Alley Area is vacated reserving, however, to the public an easement for public utility purposes over the entire Alley Area. Sec. 7: The vacation of the Alley Area is effective 30 days following publication of this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, as appropriate. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION ui a 0 D 50 0 63RD ST. 301 - 6300 305 63 4 __ 63 8 EXISTING IMPROVED ALLEY 101 1008 1000 1020 MILDRED DR. u.i a a J O V UNIMPROVED ALLEY N 50 100 150 Feet 6-1402 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Consent 6G 203 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Linda Kollman, 6430 Lo an Avenue South. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Linda Kollman, 6430 Lo an Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On July 10, 2002, Linda Kollman submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns four cats. Ms. Kollman's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received one phone call in reference to this multi-animal residential license request. The caller indicated that they did not have a problem with the applicant, but had concerns about the cats roaming around the neighborhood. The caller said that they would like her to keep them confined to her yard. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 27, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. In addition, the animals appear healthy and well cared for. 0813KoIImanMultiAnimalLicenseRenewal ,- Public Safety/Police has not received any phone calls regarding this address in the past year. However, Environmental Health staff received one complaint for this address. The complaint was regarding a garbage can being left out. The property owner was notified and no further complaints have been received. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license. Staff received one call regarding this application indicating their concern that the cats roam in the neighbor and he would like to see them confined to the yard. • Although this application is for four cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Linda Kollman AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Consent 6F 201 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ,.,1L (,,~-~]( SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Petco Animal Su lies, Inc., 710 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Petco Animal Su lies, Inc., 710 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2002, Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. submitted an application for the renewal of their commercial kennel license. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 8, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health staff has not received any complaints for this address in the past year. There were no police reports on or contacts with Petco during the past year. 0813 Petco Commercial Kennel License III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. • The City has previously issued a commercial kennel license to Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Consent 6G 202 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ _ ~~~~ (~' SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~C~ ~~~ /~ O ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Brian and Jody Mesko, 7201 Lo an Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Brian and Jody Mesko, 7201 Logan Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2002, Brian and Jody Mesko submitted an application for the renewal of their multi-animal residential license. They own three dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Mesko's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 9, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year and Environmental Health staff has not received any complaints for this address. 0813 Mesko Multi-Animal License III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A . IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Brian and Jody Mesko; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian and Jody Mesko AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Consent 6E 200 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® „j,~ [[ (( SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new motel license for ELR Hospitality, Inc., d/b/a Americlnn Motel & Suites, 1200 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request of a new motel license for ELR Hos italit ,Inc. d/b/a Americlnn Motel & Suites, 1200 East 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: On July 29, 2002, Riley Hospitality Inc., submitted an application for a new motel license. The application was completed and all fees were paid by Patrick J. Riley, the manager for ELH Hospitality. He has no known criminal history. This location is currently operating as Americlnn Motel & Suites and will continue to ~ operate under this name. The new owner is ELR Hospitality, Inc., and will be managed by Riley Hospitality, Inc., who will make mortgage payments to Community National Bank. All mortgage payments are scheduled and they did not anticipate any problems. 0813Americl nnNewOwnerLicense The applicant has contacted a Bloomington health sanitarian and has complied with all the requirements for this license. The Environmental Health staff has received no complaints for the address in the previous year. There were twenty-four Police and Fire contacts for this address in the past year. The contacts were as follows: two public assists, seven suspicious activity/persons calls, two disturbance calls, three theft reports, two medical/fire calls, two warrant arrests. Police responded once for a threat, drunkenness, narcotics, loud party, animal at large and afollow-up investigation. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all the provisions of the City application process. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • NIA C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for a new motel license for ELR Hospitality, Inc.; however, the Public Safety department has not found any basis for denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Patrick Riley, Manager STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NAME TITLE _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of two-year printing services agreement with Artcraft Press for Your City newsletter. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve atwo-year printer services agreement with Artcraft Press for the Your City newsletter in amount of $23,730 annual) . III. BACKGROUND ~ Staff was directed to obtain quotes for the printing of the Your City newsletter. The current newsletter publication schedule is 6 issues per year. Therefore, the printing quote is based upon three, 8-page issues and three, 16-page issues per year. The 16-page issue includes the quarterly Recreation Services Catalog. The quote also includes the newsletter preparation for bulk rate mailing and delivery to the bulk rate mail center. Staff requested printing quotes from. five printers. The annual quotes provided include: Vendor Total Accu Forms Printin $25,506.80 Artcraft Press $23,730.00 Bruce Printin Inc. $24,870.00 Li htnin Printin ,Inc. $34,488.00 Minncor Printin $30,145.23 CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT & JOHN HOLTER, IT TECHNICIAN AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6D REPORT # 19 9 NAME, TITLE SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER 0813YourCity The printing estimate determined by staff was $30,550 for six issues of the newsletter. Artcraft submitted the lowest quote, therefore staff is recommending the approval of Artcraft Press as the designated printer for the Your City. The printing agreement will be effective for two years, January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • Artcraft has a 10-year established working relationship with the City. They have printed not only the Your City and Recreation Services Catalog but also the Water Quality brochure, Youth Athletics Catalogs, Concerts in the Park brochures, New Housing brochures, etc. This long-term relationship has enabled Artcraft to develop a very streamlined work flow which keeps the printing process smooth, trouble free, and cost and time efficient. • Artcraft provides excellent customer service. City staff has found their staff to be resourceful, experienced professionals. • Artcraft has been in business since 1948 and has a solid reputation producing consistent quality work. They provide services to similar public/government customers such as City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Public Library, University of Minnesota and Dakota County. • Artcraft is conveniently located to Richfield. Their close proximity permits the timely completion of picking up orders, delivery of proofs, delivery to the bulk mailing office, etc. A. POLICY • Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the City Charter stipulates: Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property, where the amount involved is more than the dollar amount contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, Subd. 3 shall be let only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible bidder. For purchases of $50,000 or more, sealed bids are solicited by public notice and Council considers the award of contract. If the amount of the contract or purchase exceeds $10,000 but does not exceed $50,000, the contract or purchase may be made either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible and without advertising for bids. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A printer for Your City will need to be selected for 2003 if the Council wishes to continue publishing the newsletter. • The printing services of Artcraft will ensure a continued smooth work flow and comfortable, familiar working relationship. -_~ C. FINANCIAL Funding for the Your City is provided by the Cable TV budget. There are sufficient funds in the budget. D. LEGAL • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council may select another printer. • The City Council may direct staff to seek quotes from other printers. • The City Council may wish to discontinue the Your City newsletter. V. ATTACHMENTS • Agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Deborah Skoog, Artcraft Account Manager -~~, PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES AGREEMENT August 13, 2002 This Printing and Mailing Services Agreement ("Agreement"), which includes the vendor's quote dated July 22, 2002 as an attachment, is between the City of Richfield ("the City") and Commers Printing/Artcraft Press ("Artcraft") of Coon Rapids, Minnesota. The Agreement governs services provided for atwo-year period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. Scope of Agreement Artcraft agrees to produce printed materials and coordinate mail and fulfillment services, as specified in the attached quote, for the following publications: • Your City Newsletter • Recreation Services Catalog Artcraft agrees to consistent pricing for these items for the duration of this agreement as specified in the attached quote. Artcraft has the right to pass on material cost increases during the agreement period and to revise costs based on changes to quantity or print specifications made by the City prior to or during the production process. Artcraft must inform and receive prior approval from the City's representative who submitted the affected job of any such cost changes. Termination Either party to this agreement may terminate it by providing a 90 day written notice. Such notices shall be deemed effective when sent by certified mail to: City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave Richfield MN 55423 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY: City of Richfield Authorized Signature, Title Date Vice President Commers Printing/Artcraft Press 8560 Cottonwood Street NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Commers Printing/Artcraft Press Authorized Signature, Title Date Attachment: Commers Printing/Artcraft Press quote dated July 22, 2002. ~' To: John Holter Information Technologies Technician /` ~~,~ I i ~l :l City of Richfield ~ ~ From: Deb Skoog 610 South Tenth Street Minneapolis Re: price Quote Minnesota 55404 612.332.2381 pate: July 22, 2002 800.663.7137 612.332.1801 fae . YOUr City Newsletter www.art~aftpress•eom sales~artcraftpress.mm Specifications: Size: 17 x 11 flat, 82 x 11 finished size on 16 page option 8 2 x 5 2 finished size on 8 page option # of Pages: 8 pages or 16 pages, self-cover Stock: 60# White Plainfield Opaque Smooth Inks: 2 PMS + Black (soy based), 2 sided, bleeds Proof: Dylux Prep: Composite Adobe PageMaker 6.5 file provid S titch the 16 a e Finishing: Trim, nesting for the 8 page version, saddle p 9 version, fold Mailing: Bundle, tray, print Postal tags, complete Postal reports for carrier route sort mailing Shipping: Drop at Post Office Deliver 250 samples to City of Richfield office Quantity: 16,867 Price: $2,865 8 page version $5,045 16 page version Should graphic design be needed, services would be billed at $65.00 per hour. Thank you, John! Please call me with any questions. Estimated prices are based on loose specifications that are provided to Artcrnft Press. Final costs will be ~~ evaluated after all artwork is provided and reviewed. The estimate includes nlf operations and materials that are Specified in the written quote nmd are based on standard trade customs. Estimates are valid for thirty days unless specified otherwise. At the time a project becomes live" all provided artwork and materials will be checked against the previously provided information. Any changes in specifications are subject to additional charges. During the production of a job, any customer alterations or corrections are subject to additional charges. Terms are net thirty days. Embossing Engraving Foil Stamping Letterpress Lithograph Thermography AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # E C REPORT # 19 $ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JIM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER NaMC, TiTGC MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, Tircr: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approve and sign Letter of Understanding with the League of Minnesota Cities for participation in the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Guide Plan preparation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Letter of Understanding with the League of Minnesota Cities in which the City of Richfield will participate in the development of the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Guide Plan at a cost of $5000. III. BACKGROUND ~ The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have implemented measures to control pollution transported in storm waters and improve the water quality in our surface waters as required under the Clean Water Act. In the early 90's, rules were established under Phase I of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The Phase I program required operators of "large" Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), those that serve populations of 100,000 or greater, to implement a storm water management program as a means to control polluted discharges from these MS4s. Minneapolis and St. Paul are covered under the Phase I rules. 0813NPDESPhasell The NPDES Phase II program is now being implemented. Phase II covers operators of small MS4s located in urbanized areas. This includes the City of Richfield along with over a 130 other cities or entities in the state. The Phase II Rule defines a MS4 storm water management program as a program comprised of six measures that, when implemented together, are expected to result in significant reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving waterbodies. The six minimum measures of the program are Public Education and Outreach, Public Participation/Involvement, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, Construction Site Runoff Control, Post Construction Runoff Control, and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping. The deadline for the submittal of the final NPDES Phase II permit application, as being drafted by the MPCA, is March 10, 2003. A group of about 70 cities has expressed interest in working together with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to develop a Guide Plan. A Consultant will be hired by the LMC to prepare the Guide Plan for the participating cities. The Guide plan will be a tool for cities to help prepare their Phase II permit application. The Guide Plan will have a number of elements for cities to use in preparing their permit that will satisfy the six minimum measures required under the Phase II program. The attached Letter of Understanding explains in detail how the Guide Plan will be developed and the information it should contain. City Staff recommends participating with the LMC in the development of the Guide Plan. The required activities are yet another example of a federal unfunded mandate. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Public Works Department on behalf of the City of Richfield has always sought to improve the management of its stormwater. The City has a comprehensive storm water management plan and has already adopted ordinances to help reduce pollutants transported in storm waters. The NPDES Phase II rules will be a continuation of the City's storm water management plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This agreement needs to be signed and returned to the League of Minnesota Cities by August 15, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • Cost of participation with the League of Minnesota Cities and approximately 70 other cities will be $5000 per city. Any monies in excess of the cost of the Guide Plan preparation plus contingencies will be remitted back to the participating cities. • The cost to complete and submit the final Phase II permit by March 10, 2003 is estimated to be between $15,000 and $30,000. Funding for the permit preparation will come from the 2002 - 2003 Storm Water Utility Fee. D. LEGAL • Implementation of the Phase II rules are required by the USPEA and the MPCA. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None recommended. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter of Understanding VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~~ 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 League of Mittuesota Cities Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD (651) 281-1290 L'ities promoting excen¢nce July 15, 2002 Letter of Understanding Re: NPDES Phase II Stormwater Guide Plan -Letter of Understanding Dear Jim Olson, Project Engineer Thank you for your city's interest in joining with other communities and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to build the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Guide Plan (Guide Plan). The goal of the Guide Plan is to provide your city with a tool to allow it to complete 50°Io - 65% of your NPDES Phase II Notice of Intent and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan using in-house resources. Based on the significant number of cities responding to the LMC's June 7, 20021etter, -~ we are moving ahead to have the LMC Board approve a contract with a consultant to develop the Guide Plan. Due to the time sensitive nature of this project, please sign and return one copy of this Letter of Understanding to the LMC no later than August 15, 2002. LMC will not enter into an agreement with a consultant until it has received sufficient written city commitments to cover the cost of the project. This Letter of Understanding is intended to describe the scope and nature of the project. The Guide Plan elements will include the following: - permit application components meeting the six minimum measures required by the USEPA and MPCA; - a permit task check list; - a check list for existing city programs; - a list of acceptable Best Management Practices (BMPs); - ordinances; - employee training; - educational materials & programs; - access to state and county programs, and requisite contact information; - form letters and agreements for outside providers; and - details and options for funding mechanisms to comply with this regulatory program. ~- , Estimates to develop the Guide Plan range from approximately $100,000 to $350,000. This cost assumes that a large portion of the work plan will be coordinated by and implemented through League staff. By approving this Letter of Understanding, your city agrees to contribute $5,000 to help make the Guide Plan a reality. The process for developing the Guide Plan will include the following components. Steering Committee: The Steering Committee consists of 15 voting members, all of who are city officials and were selected as volunteers to represent their communities. The first meeting of the Steering Committee is July 16, 2002. The Steering Committee will make a recommendation regarding a consultant for the project and will provide direction for the project as it moves forward. There will be asub-committee of the Steering Committee that will help LMC short-list firms for interview. Request for Qualifications /Statement of Qualification: The LMC issued a modified Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on July 12, 2002. The LMC targeted the RFQ to firms that have expressed interest in the project. Additionally, the project was noticed to the City Engineers Association of Minnesota and to the American Council of Engineering Companies of Minnesota Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) are not to exceed 15 pages, however, if necessary appendix materials including resumes may be unlimited. Firms are asked to provide 10 - , copies that LMC can have delivered over-night to key the Steering Committee members. Since the RFQ was mailed out on July 12, 2002, the SOQs will be due July 26, 2002, giving firms atwo-week turn around. LMC Board Action: The LMC Board will review and approve the suggested process at their July 25, 2002 Board Meeting. Interview /Selection of Consultants: Based on the SOQs, the sub-committee of the Steering Committee will develop a short list (3-5 firms) of eligible engineering firms that will be invited to make presentations during the week of August 5, 2002 to the full Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will then make a recommendation to the LMC Board. At its July 25 meeting, the LMC Board may choose to delegate to its Executive Committee the authority to select and contract with the consultant. LMC enter into contract /Deliverable October 15, 2002: On behalf of the participating cities in the Guide Plan project, the LMC will enter into a contract with a selected consulting firm to produce the final copywritten Guide Plan. The budget has not yet been set, but we anticipate the cost to be about $200,000. It is anticipated the contract will be let in early August, 2002. The Guide Plan will be due no later than October 15, 2002 and will have a "not to exceed" clause based on the number of communities that agree to participate in the project. In the event the project is completed and delivered for less than the estimated $5,000 per community, the LMC will make an equitable remittance to all participating communities. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .~ Training /Construction of Permit Application: The Steering Committee will meet at least two times in person with the selected consultant to review the Guide Plan's progress and the final draft. We anticipate the Steering Committee and all participating cities will be given weekly or bi-weekly updates prepared by LMC staff and the consulting firm. Upon delivery of the Guide Plan, it is our expectation that the consulting firm will provide at least two training and education opportunities to participating cities in the use and implementation of the Guide Plan. Ownership: The final Guide Plan will be the property of LMC, although all participating cities will receive copies of the completed Guide Plan. LMC may provide a copy of the completed Guide Plan to non-participating cities upon payment of an appropriate fee, as determined by LMC. Revenue from the sale of the Guide Plan shall belong to the LMC, to compensate it for the cost and staff time involved in coordinating this project. The LMC Board of Directors understands the importance of using your city's resources wisely. We support your desire to collaborate with other communities to develop the Guide Plan. As indicated above, LMC will not enter into an agreement with a consultant until it has received sufficient written city commitments to cover the cost of the project. You may include your $5000 contribution with the signed Letter of Understanding or we will invoice your city for the amount. If you have any questions about this project or the contract, please contact Remi Stone at - ~ (651) 281-1256 or email: rstone@lmnc.org; or Tom Grundhoefer at (651) 281-1266 or email: tgrundho@lmnc.org. Sincerely, ow+'«.o ~ ~~ ~~X-~llhJ James F. Miller Executive Director Agreed to on this date Attest: Mayor Clerk ~~ by the city of AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 3 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6B REPORT # 19 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~-y b~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of canceling the City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 and rescheduln the Cit Council meetin on Tuesda , Se tember 10, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Cancel the Regular City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 2002; and • Reschedule the September 10, 2002 Regular City Council meeting to Thursday. September 12, 2002. II. BACKGROUND The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Tuesday evening of each month. Items for the second monthly Council meeting on Tuesday, August 27 can be carried over to the first Regular City Council meeting in September. Therefore, it is suggested that the Regular Council meeting scheduled for August 27 be canceled. The first City Council meeting in September is scheduled for Tuesday, September 10 which is the primary election. The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on the day an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city or town. Therefore, staff suggests that the Regular Council meeting be rescheduled to Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. 0813meetings In addition, conducting the City Council meeting on September 12 will fulfill State Statute and Richfield City Charter requirements of canvassing the primary election. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. • State Statute 204C.03, Subd. 1 establishes that no special taxing district governing body, school board, county board of commissioners, city council, or town board of supervisors shall conduct a meeting between 6 p.m. and 80 p.m. on the day that an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city, or town. • Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 establishes 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. • State Statute 205.065, Subd. 5 establishes that within two days after the State primary, the governing body of the municipality shall canvass the returns. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council business from the end of August can be carried over to the first meeting in September 2002. • The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet on an election day. • Canvassing of primary election results must be conducted not later than September 16, 2002, as required by State Statute and Richfield City Charter. • This item has been placed on the August 13 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made. C. LEGAL • City Charter and State Statute provide that the City Council declare the results of the election. TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Do not cancel the August 27 Council meeting. Cancel the first regular monthly Council meeting in September and schedule a Special City Council meeting to canvass the primary election. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 Consent 6A 196 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK E, TITLF. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~"~ ~` SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the September 10, 2002 Prima Election and the November 5, 2002 General Election. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the September 10, 2002 Primary Election and the November 5, 2002 General Election. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statute 2046.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. The City Clerk's office has completed updating and verifying the City's election judge availability list. All individuals who have previously served as an election judge, were on the list submitted to the County Auditor by the major political parties, - or have expressed an interest in serving as an election judge were sent a questionnaire to: 0813ELECTIONS 1. Determine whether or not they wished to remain on the election judge availability list. 2. Verify existing file information regarding address, political party, etc. 3. Receive an indication of availability to work at the 2002 scheduled elections. The attached resolution contains the names of all of the individuals on the updated election judge availability list. Appointment by the City Council will allow them to serve as election judges at the Primary Election, the General Election or both elections. Election judges will be assigned to the precincts based on availability, party balance, and the number required for each election. The General Election will require assignment of the greatest number of available judges. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council is required by state statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. • The proposed resolution contains names of those qualified individuals who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the September 10, 2002 Primary Election and the November 5, 2002 General Election. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the conduct of the election would not be valid. C. FINANCIAL • Election judges are paid the following compensation: Chair $8.00 per hour Assistant Chair $7.50 per hour Judge $7.25 per hour D. LEGAL • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2 The Primary Election will be conducted on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 and the General Election. will be conducted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002. Therefore, the City Council must appoint election judges to serve at these elections. The names come from a list of people who have indicated their interest in serving as an election judge to the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 2046.21 subd. 1 and those who have previously served or indicated interest in serving. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not named in the resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Resolution designating polling places and the appointment of election judges for the State Primary Election on September 10, 2002 and the General Election on November 5, 2002. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. -~ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 AND THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002 WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 and a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that said elections shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified: Precinct No. 1 Ward 3 Precinct No. 2 Ward 2 Precinct No. 3 Ward 1 Precinct No. 4 Ward 1 Precinct No. 5 -~ Ward 1 Precinct No. 6 Ward 2 Precinct No. 7 Ward 2 Precinct No. 8 Ward 3 Precinct No. 9 Ward 3 Mt. Calvary Education Building 6541 16th Avenue St. Peter's Catholic Church 6730 Nicollet Avenue Sheridan Hills School 6400 Sheridan Avenue St. Richard's Catholic Church 7540 Penn Avenue Richfield Middle School 7461 Oliver Avenue Central School Building 7145 Harriet Avenue Hope Presbyterian Education Facility 7132 Portland Avenue Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Avenue and, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said elections: James Alagna H. Duane Edberg Clyde Anderson Marlys Bergstrom Carol Mortenson Bernt Houghland Kathryn Breeggman Erva Brown Phil Mortenson Bunkhean Chhun Jeff Rundgren Kenneth Vevea Virginia Quist Marilyn Randle Martha Obenchain Connie McDonald Bev Kenealy Donna Fischer !~ Jette Floberg Claire Larson Ernest Ackerly Adrian Athey Nancy Garwick Beverly Gerber Gregory Frost William Grampre Betty Kamps Lillian Carlson Joan Olinger Elaine Carlson Kathleen Barta Emily Day Liz Ekholm Veronica Fashant Rosemary Koelln Beatrice Frankus Elaine Wetsch Betty Elenbaas Allan Henjum Donald Houlding Vernon Knudsen ~~ Eleanor Maanum Jerald Quist June King Donna Mercer JoAnn Holt Fern Oreck Mary Swanson Claire Todd Ray Johnson Elaine Kaibel Pat Steller Marion Thompson Martha Prottengeier Richard Morey Joseph Kovach Lois Kovach Patricia Medley Robert O. Olson Dorothy Lace Ruth Pafko Doris Liedtke Nancy Lindberg Jeanette Lofstrom Dorothy B. Lowe Carolyn Moe Janet Oldowski Don Ludwig Mae Hermansen Ilene Holen Jill Horowitz Pearl Weitbrecht Danette Kamrath Carolyn Ring Dorothy A. Peabody Marilyn Nienkerk Bernadette Lais Susan Lewis Jeanne Lindstrom Lorraine Maki PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: .presentations AGENDA ITEM # 2 REPORT # 19 5 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, .TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ©' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Presentation of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. III. BACKGROUND ~ At their special meeting on August 5, 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) accepted the annual tax increment district status update. The annual tax increment project status update was especially challenging this year. The action of the legislature had a severe negative impact on tax increment financing (TIF) cash flows. As a result there were many questions that arose about the administration of TIF projects that required answers from the State Department of Revenue. The State was inundated with request from all over the State to provide them with update information. Consequently it has taken our financial consultants some time to obtain the required information from the State and prepare this report. 0815TIFstat Sid Inman, with help from others at Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Community ,^ Development staff, has recently completed the report. The results are gratifying and an indication of the excellent quality of the policy direction provided by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Commissioners, the work by Sid Inman and Ehlers since 1990 and staff. Below is a summary of the major conclusions of the report. The attached Annual Tax Increment District Status Update is a more detailed discussion of the conclusions along with the related cash flows. 1. The HRA will be able to meet all of its tax increment obligations: • The HRA will be able to meet all of its Pay As You Go Note Obligations; and • The HRA will be able to meet all of its General Obligation Tax Increment Bond Obligations. 2. The Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) TIF redevelopment project can be decertified by the end of 2002. This will result in approximately $425,000 annually in tax revenue to the City, beginning in 2003. 3. Other taxing jurisdictions may receive approximately one million dollars annually as a result of ending of the LHN TIF project. 4. The funds borrowed from the City to initiate the Richfield Rediscovered Program have been paid back with six percent interest. 5. To reduce costs, the 1999 Temporary General Obligation Bond financing for Richfield Rediscovered should now be converted to a fixed rate to take advantage of low interest rates.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The update is provided annually to the HRA. Because of the significant conclusions the report is being presented to the City Council. The delay in presenting the update was a result of legislative actions related to property tax changes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The update indicates that the HRA will be able to meet all of its obligations related to TIF projects in spite of the property tax changes which resulted in a 30 percent to 40percent reduction in tax increment. C. FINANCIAL • A recommendation of the update is to decertify the LHN by year's end. This will result in the distribution of approximately $1.4 million annually to the taxing jurisdictions including $425,000 to the City beginning in 2003. • The HRA will be taking formal action on the decertification at their September 16, 2002 meeting. • The City Council will be asked to consider a decertification resolution on September 27, 2002. • A second recommendation which the HRA is pursuing is to convert ~_, the temporary bonds sold in 1999 to support Richfield Rediscovered to fixed rate financing to take advantage of current low interest rates. . This action will not provide additional revenue for the program but will take advantage of current low interest rates. D. LEGAL • The recommendation related to the LHN decertification and the Bonds of 1999 are being made by the HRA's financial consultant and bond counsel. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay the report presentation. • Refuse to have report presented. V. ATTACHMENTS • Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. will present the update. t z RICHFIELD HRA ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STATUS UPDATE Dated: August 2002 FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC ~~ ~ Prepared by Ehlers/Publicorp, Inc N:\Minnsota\Richfield\UPDA2000. WPD OVERALL DISTRICT UPDATE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA State property tax law changes have significantly reduced available tax increment cashflows to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. However, due to prior planning and anticipation of these changes, the HRA continues to be able to operate and pay all of its obligations. The 2002 State property tax law changes resulted in a reduction in the tax capacity class rates and a removal of the education tax rate from the normal property taxes. These changes resulted in a 30% to 40% reduction in the tax increment that the HRA has to pay its obligations. The HRA has two types of obligations. The first type of obligation is Pay As You Go Revenue Notes. All of these Notes pledge to the holder a certain percent of the available tax increment from the specific district. Having less tax increments results in a lower Pay As You Go payments. However, the HRA will be able to meet all of its Pay As You Go Revenue Note obligations. The second type of obligation is General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds. Two years ago when the State --~ Legislature starting considering the above mentioned law changes, the HRA started reserving cash to prepare for the changes. Also, the 2002 tax law changes allows the HRA to share tax increment (pooling) from all tax ' increment districts to help pay General Obligation Bond obligations. As result, the HRA will be able to meet all of its General Obligation Tax Increment Bond obligations 2. ASSUMPTIONS All projections are based on the most conservative assumptions. The calculations do not include any interest on invested cash. They also do not include any assumptions for inflation on property market values. ~~ LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET (LHN) DISTRICT UPDATE 1. Starting in the year 2001, the LHN District, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, received full tax increment from the county but could only spend tax increment revenues exclusively for debt issued prior to April l , 1990. 2. The LHN District has two small bond payments left for pay 2003 and 2004. We recommend that the HRA pre-pay the remaining bonds and consider closing the LHN at the end of 2002. In pay 2003, the LHN will return approximately $1.4 million in taxes back to all the taxing jurisdictions. Approximately $425,000 of the $1.4 million will be returned to the City of Richfield as annual property tax revenue. Depending on levy limits, this may result in increased tax revenue for the City or a reduction in the City's overall levy. As previously discussed, the City Council could evaluate abating a portion of the new revenue for continued funding of the Richfield Rediscovered program. ~ Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 3 INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) DISTRICT UPDATE The ILN District has four Pay As You Go Revenue Obligations (Shops at Lyndale and Meridian Crossings) and two General Obligation Bonds. In 2000, the City sold bonds based on the Candlewood Motel tax increment. The proceeds were used to assist the Lyndale Gateway project with land acquisition. In 1996, the City sold bonds (the LHN/ILN pooled bonds of 1996) for various HRA projects. The HRA continues to be able to meet all of its Pay As You Go Revenue Note and General Obligation Bonds obligations. The ILN Tax Increment District has a cash balance of $1,220,576. The cash balance will be used to pay the ILN Bonds. ~-~ ,~ Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 4 ,- CEDAR AVENUE BUSINESS AREA (CABA) DISTRICT UPDATE CABA was an economic development district that ended in 1996. No more increment will be received from this District. 2. All accounting transactions to close out the District were completed by December 31, 2000. Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 5 PENN AVENUE AND SIXTY-SIXTH STREET (PASSS) DISTRICT UPDATE The PASSS TIF District was established in 1989. The PASSS TIF District was terminated in 1996 due to a lack of feasible redevelopment opportunities. ~ Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 6 INTERCHANGE (GALYANS) DISTRICT UPDATE I . The Interchange District is comprised of the Galyans Trading Company Store. 2. The Galyans Project began generating full taxes for taxes payable in 2000. 3. Tax increments are pledged to Galyans Trading Company to assist with acquisition of property. 4. The Interchange District has a cash balance of $165,995. The cash balance will be used to pay the ILN bonds. ~~ Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 7 PRE~1999 RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED DISTRICTS UPDATE Funds in the amount of $762,550 were advanced to the Richfield Rediscovered Program in 1990 from the City and HRA to establish abuy/sell program for the construction of new, contemporary, single-family housing. The balance of the remaining District debt has been repaid with tax increment and land sales. 2. At the end of 1999, the City sold tax increment bonds to fund new Richfield Rediscovered and Richfield Rediscovered II Projects beginning with the year 2000. Fifteen percent (1 S%) of the funds from the Pre-1999 Districts will be used to pay debt service on those bonds. Additional funds from the Pre-199 Richfield Rediscovered Districts will be used to pay obligations for the Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts. 3. The Pre-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts have a cash balance of $] 35,129. The cash balance will be used to pay the ILN bonds. -~ Annual Richfield I-IRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 8 POST-1999 RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED DISTRICTS UPDATE In November of 1999, the City sold tax increment bonds to fund the new Richfield Rediscovered Projects. Fifteen percent (15%) of the funds from the Pre-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts will be used to pay debt service on these bonds. In addition, al] land sale proceeds will be used to pay off the bonds. The remainder of the debt service will be paid back from the Housing Fund and tax increment from the Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts. The purpose of the revenue is to fund a variety of housing needs for the community, including but not limited to new construction single-family homes, townhomes, single-family home renovation and rehabilitation, and apartment rehabilitation. 2. In 1999, the City issued a Temporary G.O. Bond to fund the Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered. activities. Given the low interest rates, it is recommended that the temporary financing be converted to a fixed rate in August, 2002. 3. Due to class rate compression and the inability to utilize Housing Fund revenue from the eliminated Interchange West TIF District, cashflows available to the Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Program have ~ been severely reduced. Therefore, it will take all cashflows to pay the debt service on the permanent financing. Currently, no other funding has been identified for future Richfield Rediscovered activities. ~''~ Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 9 URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT UPDATE 1. The Urban Village District is comprised of mixed-use (retail and housing) redevelopment projects. 2. The Urban Village District will begin generating full taxes in 2002. 3. Tax increments are pledged to the projects to assist with acquisition of property and excess site development costs. 4. Fifteen percent (15%) of the funds from the Urban Village District will be used to fund the Housing Fund. ~, Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 10 GRAMERCY PARK DISTRICT UPDATE'' 1. The Gramercy Park Senior Housing Cooperative Project will begin generating full taxes in 2002. 2. Tax increments are pledged to Gramercy Park to assist with acquisition of property and to the Housing Fund. 3. The second component of the District, namely the City Bella Project, is currently in a planning stage. At this time, based on certain assumptions, full taxes for City Bella will not be generated unti12004. 4. Fifteen percent (15%) of the funds from the Gramercy Park District will be used to fund the Housing Trust Fund. * Gramercy Park District currently encompasses the Gramercy Park Senior Co-op and VFW as well as the site for the proposed City Bella Project. Upon final project approval, the site area for City Bella will be removed from the Gramercy Park District. Annual Richfield. HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 11 LYNDALE GATEWAY DISTRICT UPDATE The Lyndale Gateway District is comprised of the Twin Cities Christian Home Senior Housing Project, Ron Clark Townhomes, and a proposed retaiUhousing project. 2. The Lyndale Gateway Project will begin generating full taxes in 2002. Tax increments are pledged to the Lyndale Gateway Project to assist with site assembly activities. Annual Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 12 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT 1 LHN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PROJECTIONS Coun District # 1250 PAYMENT Existing Bond Net Tax i -~ p~TE Gross Tax Administration Payments Increment EndOtYear 'MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 1994/1997 3ALANCE 477 264 8/1 2002 709,411 (70,941) (845) , 2/1 2003 709,411 (70,941) (20,845) 882,102 8/1 2003 709,411 (70,941) (430) 1,520,142 2/1 2004 709,411 - --- - ~ 70,941 20,430 •---,,,.. ,.,. ~~,.. 2,138,182 2-138.182 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation ILN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PROJECTIONS Goun ulstnct u ~~~~ PAYMENT Pooling C.S.M. C.S.M. TOLD TOLD Candle Wood Existing Bond Net Tax DATE Gross Tax Tax Administration Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Bond Payments Increment MT YEAR Increment Increment 0.00% PAYG PAYG PAYG PAYG 2000 1996 End Of Year BALAN CE 1,220,576 8/1 2002 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (34,376) (87,759) 1,292,500 2/1 2003 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854} (195,096) (188,206) (144,376) (272,759) 1,069,424 8/1 2003 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (31,901) (81,839) 1,149,743 2/1 2004 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (146,901) (281,839) 915,062 8/1 2004 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (29,256) (75,439) 1,004,426 211 2005 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206} (154,256) (290,439) 753,790 8/1 2005 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (26,288) (68,451) 853,110 211 2006 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (156,288) (298,451) 592,430 8!1 2006 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (23,168) (60,976) 702,345 2/1 2007 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (158,168) (305,976) 432,261 8/1 2007 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (19,894) (53,014) 553,412 2/1 2008 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (164,894) (318,014) 264,564 8/1 2008 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (16,341) (44,269) 398,013 2/1 2009 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (166,341) (329,269) 96,462 8/1 2009 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (12,629) (34,650) 243,242 ~ 2/1 2010 741,601 75,000 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (172,629) (339,650) 22 %8/1 2010 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (8,629) (23,975) 161,477 2/1 2011 741,601 172,100 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206} (173,629) (353,975) 33 8/1 2011 741,601 0 0 (86,386) (77,854) (195,096) (188,206) (4,463) (12,425) 177,204 2/1 2012 741,601 175,700 0 86,386 77,854 195,096 188,206 179,463 367,425 76 14,832,020 422,800 0 1,727,720 1,557,080 3,901,920 3,764,120 1,823,888 3,700,593 76 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7!29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT Interchan a -Gal ans Coun Distrct #1277 ; PAYMENT Galyans Pooling Net Tax - ~" 1TE Gross Tax Administration Tax Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% PAYG Increment End Of Year 165,995 BALAN CE 995 165 8/1 2002 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 , 165 995 2/1 2003 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 , 995 165 8/1 2003 67 888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 , 2/1 2004 , 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8l1 2004 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2005 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8/1 2005 67 888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2006 , 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8/1 2006 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2007 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8/1 2007 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2008 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8/1 2008 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2009 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 8/1 2009 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 165,995 2/1 2010 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) (75,000) 90,995 8/1 2010 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 90,995 2/1 2011 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) (90,995) 0 8/1 2011 67,888 (6,789) (61,099} 0 0 Z1 2012 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 811 2012 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 2/1 2013 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 8/1 2013 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 2/1 2014 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 8/1 2014 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 2/1 2015 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 8/1 2015 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 2/1 2016 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 8/1 2016 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 Z/1 2017 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 8/1 2017 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 s-- ~2/1 2018 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 0 0 ,8/1 2018 67,888 (6,789) (61,099) 0 2/1 2019 67,888 6,789 61,099 0 0 2, 308,196 108,621 2, 077, 377 165, 995 0 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 2 Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 ' 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT 3 RIGHF•ItLUKtUIJi.VVtnw -ne- ~aaa Net Tax - ;AYMENT Post 1999 Pooling Increment ATE Gross Tax Administration RR Bond Tax End Of Year i~MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% Increment 135,129 BALAN CE 172 689 8/1 2002 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 210 249 2/1 2003 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 809 247 8!1 2003 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 369 285 2/1 2004 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 929 322 8/1 2004 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 360 489 2/1 2005 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 049 398 8/1 2005 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 609 435 2/1 2006 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 473 169 8/1 2006 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 510 729 2!1 2007 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 289 548 8/1 2007 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 849 585 211 2008 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 409 623 8/1 2008 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 660 969 211 2009 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 698 529 8/1 2009 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 736 089 2/1 2010 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 649 773 8/1 2010 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 730 104 2/1 2011 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) (81,105} , 767 664 8/1 2011 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 , 524 629 2!1 2012 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) (175,700) , 8/1 2012 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 667,084 2/1 2013 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 704,644 8/1 2013 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 742,204 2/1 2014 080 50 (5,008) (7,512) 0 779,764 8/1 2014 , 080 50 (5,008) (7,512) 0 817,324 2/1 2015 , 50 080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 854,884 8!1 2015 , 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 892,444 2!1 2016 080 50 (5,008) (7,512) 0 930,004 8/1 2016 , 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 967,564 2!1 2017 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 1,005,124 8/1 2017 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 1,042,684 2/1 2018 50,080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 1,080,244 i8/1 2018 50;080 (5,008) (7,512) 0 1,117,8D4 '~ 2/1 2019 50 080 5,008 7,512 0 1,155,364 , 1,702,720 80,128 255,408 256,805 1,155,364 ACSI IMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT 4 PAYMENT Debt Housing Net Tax ~ °'ATE Gross Tax Administration Payment Pool Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00 % End Of Year r3ALANCE 0 8/1 2002 6,247 (625) (32,500) 26,878 0 2/1 2003 6,247 (625) (32,500) 26,878 0 8/1 2003 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2004 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2004 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2005 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2005 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2006 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2006 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2007 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2007 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2008 8,333 (833) (32,500} 25,000 0 8/1 2008 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2009 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2009 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2010 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2010 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 211 2011 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2011 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2012 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2012 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2013 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2013 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2014 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2014 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2015 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2015 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2016 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8!1 2016 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2017 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2017 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 - 211 2018 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 r ~ `8/1 2018 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 ~ !2!1 2019 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2019 8,333 (833} (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2020 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2020 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2021 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2021 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2022 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2022 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2023 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2023 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2024 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2024 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2025 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2025 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 2/1 2026 8,333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 8/1 2026 8.333 (833) (32,500) 25,000 0 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT - Coun DlStriCt # 728U - DAYMENT Housing Local Payment Payment Net Tax ~ ~~TE Gross Tax Administration Fund March A B Increment ~~MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% 5.00°/ PAYG PAYG End Of Year . 0 BALANCE 0 8/1 2002 258,473 (25,847) (38,771) 12,924 (113,766) (93,012) 2/1 2003 258,473 (25,847) (38,771) 12,924 (112,496) (94,282) 0 8/1 2003 249,821 (24,982) (37,473) 12,491 (111,226) (88,631) 0 2/1 2004 249,821 (24,982) (37,473) 12,491 (109,956) (89,901) 0 8/1 2004 220,979 (22,098) (33,147) 11,049 (108,686) (68,097) 0 2/1 2005 220,979 (22,098) (33,147} 11,049 (107,416) (69,367) 0 8/1 2005 227,599 (22,760) (34,140) 11,380 (106,147) (75,932) 0 2/1 2006 227,599 (22,760) (34,140) 11,380 (106,877) (75,202) 0 8/1 2006 234,351 (23,435) (35,153) 11,718 (105,551) (81,930) 0 2/1 2007 234,351 (23,435) (35,153) 11,718 (104,225) (83,256) 0 8/1 2007 241,238 (24,124) (36,186) 12,062 (102,899) (90,092) 0 2/1 2008 241,238 (24,124) (36,186) 12,062 (101,573) (91,418) 0 8!1 2008 248,263 (24,826) (37,239) 12,413 (100,247) (98,363) 0 2/1 2009 248,263 (24,826) (37,239) 12,413 (98,921) (99,689) 0 8/1 2009 255,428 (25,543) (38,314) 12,771 (99,595) (104,748) 0 2/1 2010 255,428 (25,543) (38,314) 12,771 (98,213) (106,130) 0 8/1 2010 262,737 (26,274) (39,411) 13,137 (96,831) (113,359) ~ 0 2/1 2011 262,737 (26,274) (39,411) 13,137 (95,449) (114,741) 8/1 2011 270,192 (27,019) (40,529) 13,510 (94,067) (122,086) 0 2/1 2012 270,192 (27,019) (40,529) 13,51 0 (92,685} (123,468) 0 8/1 2012 277,796 (27,780) (41,669) 13,890 (91,303) (130,933) 0 2/1 2013 277,796 (27,780) (41,669) 13,890 (91,921) (130,315) 0 8/1 2013 285,552 (28,555) (42,833) 14,278 (90,483) (137,958) 0 2/1 2014 285,552 (28,555) (42,833) 14,278 (89,045) (139,396) 0 8/1 2014 293,463 (29,346) (44,019) 14,673 (87,607) (147,163) 0 2!1 2015 293,463 (29,346) (44,019) 14,673 (86,169) (148,601) 0 8/1 2015 301,532 (30,153) (45,230) 15,077 (84,731) (156,495) 0 2/1 2016 301,532 (30,153) (45,230) 15,077 (83,293) (157,933) 0 8/1 2016 309,763 (30,976) (46,464) 15,488 (83,855) (163,955) 0 2/1 2017 309,763 (30,976) (46,464) 15,488 (82,361) (165,449) 0 8/1 2017 318,158 (31,816) (47,724) 15,908 (80,867) (173,659) 0 ~ ~2/1 2018 318,158 (31,816) (47,724) 15,908 (79,373} (175,153) 0 18/1 2018 326,722 (32,672) (49,008) 16,336 (77,879) (183,498) 0 2/1 2019 326,722 (32,672) (49,008) 16,336 (76,385) (184,992) 0 8/1 2019 335,456 (33,546) (50,318) 16,773 (74,891) (193,474) 0 211 2020 335,456 (33,546) (50,318) 16,773 (75,397) (192,967) 0 8!1 2020 344,365 (34,437) (51,655) 17,218 (73,847) (201,645) 0 2/1 2021 344,365 (34,437) (51,655) 17,218 (72,298) (203,195) 0 8/1 2021 353,453 (35,345) (53,018) 17,673 (70,748) (212,015) 0 211 2022 353,453 (35,345) (53,018) 17,673 (69,198) (213,565) 0 8/1 2022 362,722 (36,272) (54,408) 18,136 (67,648) (222,530) 0 2/1 2023 362,722 (36,272) (54,408} 18,136 (66,098) (224,080) 0 8/1 2023 372,177 (37,218) (55,826) 18,609 (66,548) (231,194) 0 2/1 2024 372,177 (37,218) (55,826) 18,609 (64,942) (232,800) 0 8/1 2024 381,820 (38,182) (57,273) 19,091 (63,336) (242,120) 0 2/1 2025 381,820 (38,182) (57,273) 19,091 (61,730) (243,726) 0 8/1 2025 391,657 (39,166) (58,749) 19,583 (60,124) (253,202) 0 Z/1 2026 391,657 (39,166) (58,749) 19 583 (58 517) (254 808) 0 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflaiion Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT GRAMERCY PARK TAX INCREMENT -County oistnct rt usi _ 'AYMENT Housing Payment Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration Fund A Increment End Of Year ,'MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% PAYG 0 3ALAN CE 0 8/1 2002 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2003 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2003 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2004 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8l1 2004 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 2/1 2005 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2005 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2006 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8!1 2006 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2007 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2007 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2l1 2008 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2008 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2009 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2009 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2010 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2010 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 0 2/1 2011 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 8/1 2011 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2012 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8l1 2012 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2013 182,554 (18,255} (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2013 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2014 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2014 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2015 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2015 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2!1 2016 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2016 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2017 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2017 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 12/1 2018 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 0 X8/1 2018 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 2/1 2019 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2019 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2020 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2020 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2!1 2021 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2021 182,554 (18,255) (27,383} (136,916) 0 2/1 2022 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2022 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2023 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2023 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2024 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8/1 2024 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2025 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 8!1 2025 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136,916) 0 2/1 2026 182,554 (18,255) (27,383) (136 916) 0 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7!29/2002 LYNDALE CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT INCREMENT -County District # ,~--°4YMENT Payment Ives tax increment ,TE Gross Tax Administration A End Of Year - AMT YEAR Increment 10.00°/ PAYG 0 BALANCE 8 371 8/1 2002 12,320 (1,232) (2,717) , 16 743 2/1 2003 12,320 (1,232) (2,717) , 150 41 8/1 2003 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 557 65 2/1 2004 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 964 89 8/1 2004 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 371 114 2/1 2005 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 138 778 8/1 2005 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 163 185 2/1 2006 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 187 592 8/1 2006 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 999 211 2/1 2007 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 406 236 8/1 2007 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 260 813 2/1 2008 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 220 285 8/1 2008 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 627 309 2/1 2009 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 334 034 8l1 2009 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 441 358 2/1 2010 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 382 848 8!1 2010 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 407 255 2/1 2011 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) , 662 431 8/1 2011 35,919 (3,592) (7,920} , 2/1 2012 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 456,069 8l1 2012 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 480,476 2/1 2013 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 504,883 8/1 2013 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 529,290 2/1 2014 35 919 (3,592) (7,920) 553,697 811 2014 , 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 578,104 2/1 2015 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 602,511 8/1 2015 35,919 (3,592) (7,920) 626,918 2/1 2016 35,919 (3,592) (6,440) 652,805 8/1 2016 35,919 (3,592) 0 685,132 2/1 2017 35,919 (3,592) 0 717,459 8/1 2017 35,919 (3,592) 0 749,786 ~ X2/1 2018 35,919 (3,592) 0 782,113 8/1 2018 35,919 (3,592) 0 814,440 , 2/1 2019 35,919 (3,592) 0 846,767 8/1 2019 35,919 (3,592) 0 879,094 2/1 2020 35,919 (3,592) 0 911,422 8/1 2020 35,919 (3,592) 0 943,749 2/1 2021 35,919 (3,592) 0 976,076 8/1 2021 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,008,403 2/1 2022 35,919 (3,592} 0 1,040,730 8/1 2022 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,073,057 2/1 2023 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,105,384 Sl1 2023 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,137,711 2/1 2024 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,170,038 8!1 2024 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,202,365 2/1 2025 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,234,693 8/1 2025 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,267,020 2/1 2026 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,234,693 8/1 2026 35,919 (3,592) 0 1,267,020 2/1 2027 35,919 (3,592) _ 0 1,299,347 TIF NOT USED FOR PAYG NOTE IS PLEDGED TO THE PROJECT ON WEST LYNDALE No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT LYNDALE GATEWAY TGCH TAX INCREMENT - coun utstrtct ~ ~zs~ ?AYMENT Payment Net Tax aTE Gross Tax Administration A Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00°/ PAYG End Of Year BALANCE 0 8/1 2002 149,011 (14,901) (134,110) 0 2/1 2003 149,011 (14,901) (134,110) 0 8/1 2003 128,168 (12,817) (115,351) 0 2/1 2004 128,168 (12,817) (115,351) 0 8/1 2004 110,798 (11,080) (99,718) 0 2/1 2005 110,798 (11,080) (99,718) 0 8/1 2005 114,541 (11,454) (103,087) 0 2/1 2006 114,541 (11,454) (103,087) 0 8/1 2006 118,396 (11,840) (106,556) 0 2/1 2007 118,396 (11,840) (106,556) 0 8/1 2007 122,367 (12,237) (110,130) 0 211 2008 122,367 (12,237) (110,130) 0 8!1 2008 126,457 (12,646) (113,811) 0 2/1 2009 126,457 (12,646) (113,811) 0 8/1 2009 130,669 (13,067) (117,602) 0 2/1 2010 130,669 (13,067) (117,602) 0 8/1 2010 135,008 (13,501) (121,507) 0 2/1 2011 135,008 (13,501) (121,507) 0 8/1 2011 139,477 (13,948) (125,529) 0 2/1 2012 139,477 (13,948) (125,529) 0 8!1 2012 144,080 (14,408) (129,672) 0 2/1 2013 144,080 (14,408) (129,672) 0 8/1 2013 148,822 (14,882) (133,939) 0 2/1 2014 148,822 (14,882) (133,939) 0 8/1 2014 153,705 (15,371) (138,335) 0 2/1 2015 153,705 (15,371} (138,335) 0 8!1 2015 158,735 (15,874) (142,862) 0 2/1 2016 158,735 (15,874) (142,862) 0 8/1 2016 163,916 (16,392) (147,524) 0 2/1 2017 163,916 (16;392) (147,524) 0 8/1 2017 169,252 (16,925) (152,327) 0 2/1 2018 169,252 (16,925) (152,327) 0 8/1 2018 174,749 (17,475) (157,274) 0 2!1 2019 174,749 (17,475) (157,274) 0 8/1 2019 180,410 (18,041) (162,369) 0 2/1 2020 180,410 (18,041) (162,369) 0 8/1 2020 186,241 (18,624) (167,617) 0 2/1 2021 186,241 (18,624) (167,617) 0 8/1 2021 192,247 (19,225) (173,023) 0 2/1 2022 192,247 (19,225) (173,023) 0 8/1 2022 198,434 (19,843} (178,590) 0 2/1 2023 198,434 (19,843) (178,590) 0 8/1 2023 204,806 (20,481) (184,325) 0 2/1 2024 204,806 (20,481) (184,325) 0 8/1 2024 211,369 (21,137) (190,232) 0 2/1 2025 211,369 (21,137) (190,232) 0 8/1 2025 218,129 (21,813) (196,316) 0 2/1 2026 218,129 (21,813) (196,316) 0 8/1 2026 225,091 (22,509) (202,582) 0 2/1 2027 225,091 (22,509) (202,582) __ 0 TIF NOT USED FOR PAYG NOTE IS PLEDGED TO THE PROJECT ON WEST LYNDALE No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation ~~. Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 7129/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT LYNDALE LYNDALE Net lax iAYMENT >TE LHN ILN GALAYNS RR RR URBAN GRAMERCY GATEWAY GATEWAY Increment i~MT YEAR Pre 1999 Post 1999 VILLAGE RON CLARK TCCH End Of Year 0 3ALAN 8/1 CE 2002 70 941 0 6,789 5,008 625 24,982 18,255 1,232 14,901 142,733 2/1 2003 , 70 941 0 6,789 5,008 625 22,098 18,255 1,232 14,901 139,849 8/1 2003 , 941 70 0 6,789 5,008 833 22,098 18,255 3,592 12,817 140,333 2/1 2004 , 70 941 0 6,789 5,008 833 22,760 18,255 3,592 12,817 140,995 8/1 2004 , 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 22,760 18,255 3,592 11,080 68,317 2/1 2005 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 23,435 18,255 3,592 11,080 68,992 8/1 2005 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 23,435 18,255 3,592 11,454 69,367 2/1 2006 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 24,124 18,255 3,592 11,454 70,055 8/1 2006 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 24,124 18,255 3,592 11,840 70,441 2/1 2007 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 24,826 18,255 3,592 11,840 71,143 8/1 2007 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 24,826 18,255 3,592 12,237 71,540 2/1 2008 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 25,543 18,255 3,592 12,237 72,257 8/1 2008 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 25,543 18,255 3,592 12,646 72,666 2/1 2009 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 26,274 18,255 3,592 12,646 73,397 8/1 2009 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 26,274 18,255 3,592 13,067 73,818 2/1 2010 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 27,019 18,255 3,592 13,067 74,563 s/1 2010 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 27,019 18,255 3,592 13,501 74,997 2/1 2011 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 27,780 18,255 3,592 13,501 75,758 8/1 2011 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 27,780 18,255 3,592 13,948 76,205 2/1 2012 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 28,555 18,255 3,592 13,948 76,980 8/1 2012 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 28,555 18,255 3,592 14,408 77,441 2/1 2013 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 29,346 18,255 3,592 14,408 78,232 8/1 2013 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 29,346 18,255 3,592 14,882 78,706 2/1 2014 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 30,153 18,255 3,592 14,882 79,513 8/1 2014 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 30,153 18,255 3,592 15,371 80,001 2/1 2015 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 30,976 18,255 3,592 15,371 80,824 8/1 2015 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 30,976 18,255 3,592 15,874 81,327 2/1 2016 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 31,816 18,255 3,592 15,874 82,167 8/1 2016 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 31,816 18,255 3,592 16,392 82,685 2/1 2017 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 32,672 18,255 3,592 16,392 83,541 8/1 2017 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 32,672 18,255 3,592 16,925 84,075 2/1 2018 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 33,546 18,255 3,592 16,925 84,948 !8!1 2018 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 33,546 18,255 3,592 17,475 85,498 2/1 2019 0 0 6,789 5,008 833 34,437 18,255 3,592 17,475 86,389 8/1 2019 0 0 0 0 0 34,437 18,255 3,592 18,041 74,325 Z1 2020 0 0 0 0 0 35,345 18,255 3,592 18,041 75,234 8/1 2020 0 0 0 0 0 35,345 18,255 3,592 18,624 75,817 2/1 2021 0 0 0 0 0 36,272 18,255 3,592 18,624 76,744 8/1 2021 0 0 0 0 0 36,272 18,255 3,592 19,225 77,344 2/1 2022 0 0 0 0 0 37,218 18,255 3,592 19,225 78,290 8/1 2022 0 0 0 0 0 37,218 18,255 3,592 19,843 78,908 2/1 2023 0 0 0 0 0 38,182 18,255 3,592 19,843 79,873 8/1 2023 0 0 0 0 0 38,182 18,255 3,592 20,481 80,510 2/1 2024 0 0 0 0 0 39,166 18,255 3,592 20,481 81,494 811 2024 0 0 0 0 0 39,166 18,255 3,592 21,137 82,150 2/1 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,255 3,592 21,137 42,984 8/1 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,255 3,592 21,813 43,660 2/1 2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,255 3,592 21,813 43,660 8/1 2026 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,592 22,509 26,101 211 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,592 22,509 26,101 283,764 0 230,820 170,272 27,915 1,348,066 876,259 174,875 800,975 3,912,947 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2 .~ 7/29/2002 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2002 STATUS REPORT PAYMENT SATE 'MT YEAR URBAN VILLAGE GRAMERCY Post 1999 RR Bond Payment Net Tax Increment End Of Year '..BALANCE 0 8/1 2002 38,771 27,383 (26,878) 39,276 2/1 2003 38,771 27,383 (26,878) 39,276 8/1 2003 37,473 27,383 (25,000) 39,856 2/1 2004 37,473 27,383 (25,000) 39,856 ~! 8/1 2004 33,147 27,383 (25,000) 35,530 2/1 2005 33,147 27,383 (25,000) 35,530 ~ 8/1 2005 34,140 27,383 (25,000) 36,523 2/1 2006 34,140 27,383 (25,000) 36,523 I 8/1 2006 35,153 27,383 (25,000) 37,535 ', 2/1 2007 35,153 27,383 (25,000) 37,535 8/1 2007 36,186 27,383 (25,000) 38,568 2/1 2008 36,186 27,383 (25,000) 38,568 8!1 2008 37,239 27,383 (25,000) 39,622 2/1 2009 37,239 27,383 (25,000) 39,622 8/1 2009 38,314 27,383 (25,000) 40,697 2/1 2010 38,314 27,383 (25,000) 40,697 8/1 2010 39,411 27,383 (25,000) 41,793 2/1 2011 39,411 27,383 (25,000) 41,793 8/1 2011 40,529 27,383 (25,000) 42,912 2/1 2012 40,529 27,383 (25,000) 42,912 8/1 2012 41,669 27,383 (25,000) 44,052 2/1 2013 41,669 27,383 (25,000) 44,052 8/1 2013 42,833 27,383 (25,000) 45,216 2/1 2014 42,833 27,383 (25,000) 45,216 8/1 2014 44,019 27,383 (25,000) 46,402 211 2015 44,019 27,383 (25,000) 46,402 8/1 2015 45,230 27,383 (25,000) 47,613 2/1 2016 45,230 27,383 (25,000) 47,613 8/1 2016 46,464 27,383 (25,000) 48,847 2/1 2017 46,464 27,383 (25,000) 48,847 8/1 2017 47,724 27,383 (25,000) 50,107 2/1 \ 2018 47,724 27,383 (25,000) 50,107 ~ 8/1 2018 49,008 27,383 (25,000) 51,391 2/1 2019 49,008 27.,383 (25,000) 51,391 8/1 2019 50,318 27,383 (25,000) 52,701 2/1 2020 50,318 27,383 (25,000) 52,701 8!1 2020 51,655 27,383 (25,000} 54,038 Z1 2021 51,655 27,383 (25,000) 54,038 8/1 2021 53,018 27,383 (25,000) 55,401 2/1 2022 53,018 27,383 (25,000) 55,401 8/1 2022 54,408 27,383 (25,000) 56,791 2/1 2023 54,408 27,383 (25,000) 56,791 8/1 2023 55,826 27,383 (25,000) 58,209 2/1 2024 55,826 27,383 (25,000) 58,209 8/1 2024 57,273 27,383 (25,000) 59,656. 2/1 2025 57,273 27,383 (25,000) 59,656 8/1 2025 58,749 27,383 (25,000) 61,131 i 2/1 2026 58,749 27,383 (25,000) 61,131 8/1 2026 0 0 0 0 2/1 2027 0 0 0 _ 0 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 10 Prepared by Ehlers Pro2002-2