Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-07-00 agenda
1 --C~~- c CITY OF RICHFIELD '• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2000 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF SECOND GENERATION COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) AND BOUNDARY CHANGE BETWEEN MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 1 11. 7:30-7:50 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIGHEARING REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET PROJECTS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 2 III. 7:50-8:10 P.M. DISCUSSION TO EVALUATE TRANSIT NEEDS AND IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENTS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 3 IV. 8:10-8:30 P.M. STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT NO.4 V. 8:30-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO COUNCIL SALARIES STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 5 VI. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DEVELOPMENT UPDATE 9:05 P.M. ADJOURNMENT AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT .LEAST 96 HOURS 1N ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 612-861-9702. AGENDA ITEM # I REPORT # 1 • J STAFF REPORT COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NanrE, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR .._ NAn~ TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of second generation Comprehensive stormwater Management Plan(s) and boundary change between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Richfield- Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This is a discussion item. III. BACKGROUND I Following 1991 Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approval of the Richfield- Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (R-BWMO) plan, and direction that the member cities administer the plan, the stormwater management efforts of each City were prepared for and incorporated into the City code of each municipality. Richfield completed their City-wide stormwater management plan and had it approved by the Richfield City Council on February 27, 1995. u The R-BWMO has submitted an application for a Planning Grant available from the BWSR for the second generation Watershed Management Plan. The second generation State mandated plan for the R-BWMO is to be completed by January 1, 2000 pursuant to Minnesota State Rules. However, the R-BWMO requested an extension of eight months, to September 1, 2000, for a revised plan completion date. The City of Bloomington is in the process of completing their City Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan and AUAR study and an EIS for the Airport South Area. The extension would allow the plans in progress to be at or near completion prior to the final 0207StormwaterPlan draft of the R-BWMO plan being completed thus allowing for coordination between the various plans. -The second generation Plan final draft is expected to be ready for Agency review by June 1, 2000. For the past several years City staff has been discussing a boundary change with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The boundary change is the formal recognition that, with the outlet that was constructed from Richfield Lake to Wood Lake, Richfield Lake flows into the R-BWMO rather than the MCWD. The MCWD Board has approved the petition to the BWSR for the boundary change. The R-BWMO Board will be asked to approve the same petition at their March 27 meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, which requires enactment of related ordinances. • The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization, which .has members of the Richfield City Council and the Bloomington City Council serving as the Board of Directors, must develop a second generation Stormwater Management Plan. • The R-BWMO has discussed the proposed boundary change that would move Richfield Lake from the MCWD to the R-BWMO. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City of Richfield anticipates that the ordinances would be developed and adopted by June 30, 2000. • The second generation State mandated plan for the R-BWMO is to be completed by January 1, 2000 pursuant to Minnesota State Rules. However, the R-BWMO requested an extension of eight months, to September 1, 2000, for a revised plan completion date. C. FINANCIAL NA D. LEGAL . NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ one. This is a discussion item. V. ATTACHMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Pete Willenbring and Todd Hubmer, engineers with WSB and Associates, Inc., will be . present to discuss the City of Richfield ordinances related to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, to discuss the R-BWMO second generation Stormwater Management Plan, and the proposed boundary change moving Richfield Lake from the MCWD to the R-BWMO. J STAFF REPORT COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: NAA~, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME; TITLE MICHAEL EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of Public Hearing regarding Capital Improvement Budget projects I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This is a discussion item. III. BACKGROUND ~ At the December 13, 1.999 regular Council meeting, the Council approved Resolution 8833, which adopted- the 2000 Capital Improvement Budget, and Resolution 8834, which adopted the 2001-2205 Capital Improvement Program. City staff is now beginning the process of preparing the proposed 2001 Capital Budget and the proposed 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program. A Charter provision mandating an ordinance to authorize certain City projects over $500,000, or with design and/or engineering fees over $75,000, took effect on July 21, 1998. City staff suggests that one public hearing be held for all projects in the Budget year which have estimated costs in excess of $500,000 or with design/engineering fees in excess of $75,000. Any projects meeting the criteria that may arise later in the year would have individual public hearings. AGENDA ITEM # I I REPORT # 2 0207CIBhearing III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City desires to provide the public with a variety of opportunities for input and comment on proposed capital improvement projects. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Preparation and execution of Capital Budgets and Capital Improvement Projects are an on-going process. Establishing a schedule for public input and comment will add definition and clarification to the process. It also will enhance the City's chances at applying for certain federal grant programs where Council approval of the Capital Improvements Budgefi-is a requirement. • The time needed to provide first reading, publication, second reading and public hearing can be critical in preparing for construction of an improvement project. • If Council approves, the Council will hold a public hearing annually in late fall for the following year's proposed Capital Improvement Budget. Council will be asked to approve the Capital Improvement Budget at the same time. C. FINANCIAL NA D. LEGAL • A Charter provision mandates an ordinance to authorize certain City projects over $500,000, or with design and/or engineering fees over $75,000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ None. This is a discussion item. V. ATTACHMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. AGENDA ITEM # I I I REPORT # 3 J STAFF REPORT COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DATE: n FEBRUARY 7, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAn~', TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: © !~ ~ ~~~- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion to evaluate transit needs and identify improvements. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only. III. BACKGROUND There is renewed interest in the metro area to improve transit service. This offers the City the opportunity to evaluate its transit needs and identify improvements. • Several factors have led staff to conclude that a transit study would be advisable: • Governor Ventura has proposed a new source of regional funding to support transit service. • Metro Transit has undertaken a review of its Regional Transit Plan and will be . developing recommendations soon. • Reconstruction of 494 and the 62 Crosstown Commons will reduce the capacity of the regional highway network for a number of years. • Airport expansion has enabled Richfield to propose significant changes in land use and transit. 0207TransitPlan • Major redevelopment is poised to be built in Richfield and will need both a Travel Demand Management component as well as good transit service. • Southwest Transit has initiated a new east-west. transit service along 494. Major road improvements will greatly improve this transit route over time. • A transit plan will .provide detailed recommendations on transit improvements that are not contained in the current City Comprehensive Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council. has long expressed interest in improved transit. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • With major redevelopment occurring, it will be important to provide guidance on the kind of development Richfield desires and its compatibility with transit service; i.e., the proximity of buildings to the street for the convenience of transit users. Urban versus suburban design differs in the setback requirements of buildings. Transit, to succeed, needs to have the entrances to buildings close to the street. Ample parking in front of buildings does not promote transit usage. • An analysis is needed to identify gaps or weaknesses in existing service. Also, the possibility exists that transit service is inadequate for trips internal to .Richfield, while regional transit service is fairly good.. The growth of new transit hubs has created opportunities to explore new transit options: • Discussion is needed on the types of trips best served by transit. C. FINANCIAL • Financial considerations will accompany any recommendations produced by the study. D. LEGAL NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ -None. This is a discussion item. V. ATTACHMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING one. • AGENDA ITEM # IV REPORT # 4 • STAFF REPORT ~_ ~ _.-. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ~~ ~ FEBRUARY. 7, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: - NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MARK-HINDS, SPECIAL PROJECTS AIDE - SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Update of Airport Issues I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Update of Airport Issues II. BACKGROUND Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force On Wednesday, January 12, the Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force met for the last time. The Task Force has been charged with identifying potential funding sources for unfunded mitigation projects. The Task Force is recommending that the State create a mitigation account that will collect and redistribute funds to be used by impacted communities for mitigation projects. The Task Force report is included as [attachment A]. To be eligible for funding from the mitigation account, impacted communities would have to prepare a mitigation plan, such as the one Richfield prepared in 1998 for the Cedar Avenue • area and have it approved by the State. The Task Force is recommending funding for the mitigation account from several different sources. The first among them is to capture a portion of the sales tax .generated at the airport. The second is an increase in the Auto Rental Sales Tax. The Task Force's report also supports several modifications to TIF law for airport impact zones that will make it easier for cities that will need land use conversion. Open Houses. for the Cedar Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area (CAARA) On January 8, 11, & 13 the City held open houses for comment on the draft Master Plan Concept for the Cedar Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area (CAARA). Over 600 residents attended the three open houses, [attachments B] contain a summary of residents feedback. Staff is currently compiling additional resident feedback and will be mailing a letter summarizing the feedback to residents who attended-,the open houses. Using feedback from council and residents, staff is currently. reviewing the draft Master Plan Concept and identifying which areas of the plan should receive.. priority for further refinement. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee On Monday, January 10 the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee met to hear a report on the findings of their Expert Panel. The Expert Panel has been charged with completing a technical report on the impacts of low frequency noise at the airport. While determining the best way to construct low frequency noise contours, the Expert Panel found that reverse-thrust noise was going to play a larger role then previously thought. This analysis is the reason for the delay in the final Expert Panel report. At the meeting, the Expert Panel showed a map with a band that will contain one of the mayor contours. The area encompasses roughly the first two blocks of Cedar Avenue. This will not be the only contour the Expert Panel will construct, nor is it the only area that will be negatively impacted by low frequency noise. The Expert Panel's final report is expected to be delivered at the February 7 meeting of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. Council should be aware that there have been several statements have been made by people other then the members of the expert panel that indicate the Expert Panel Report may show less impact in Richfield then previously thought. At this time there is nothing that staff has seen to back this up, it appears that as the City had previously stated the first two blocks off of Cedar will be incompatible with any type of residential and that the following two blocks will need to be redeveloped because of there reasons, they are: • The noise impacts within the area • The need for replacement housing from the redevelopment of the first two blocks • To create a transition area between the commercial and office uses and the existing residential land uses The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee held a meeting on the afternoon of February 7, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. in the main terminal. A verbal report will be given at the work session. :Legislative Update Senator Dave Johnson and Representative Dan Larson have introduced legislation supporting the conclusions and recommendations of the Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force. The Legislation was introduced on February 7, 2000 [attachment C]. If passed the Legislation would create a mitigation account administered by the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DYED). The account and the review process with it would allow communities impacted by the airport to prepare mitigation plans, similar to the process • that Richfield has undertaken, and to apply for funding. The mitigation account would be funded by the increment in sales tax generated at the airport since 1996, a general state appropriation, and by changes in TIF that would allow added flexibility to cities that need to do land use conversion. On January 25, 2000 the STARR Group adopted a set of legislative proposals [attachment D] that supports the Governor's Task Force's Conclusions and Recommendations. Part 150 Update At the Friday, November 12 MASAC Operation meeting MAC and HNTB presented the preliminary 2005 unmitigated contours [Attachment E]. These contours were presented as a part of presentation for the 2005 fleet mix. The fleet mix is used to determine what types of aircraft operations will be taking place at MSP during 2005. These contours, when finalized, will serve as the base contours for determining which homes will receive insulation for overflight noise. The contours will be finalized during the spring after the base case for 2000 is complete. HNTB indicated that the final contours will be done using INM version 6.0, these contours were done using version 5.2. The difference in versions is significant because different versions of INM tend to produce slight variations in the size of the. contours. An important addition to this map is the 60 DNL contour.- Homes within the 60 DNL are being included as possible candidates for overhead insulation in this part 150 update, as a result of 1996 legislative action. It is not clear whether MAC will be able to use airport revenues to fund insulation for homes between the 60 DNL and 65 DNL contour. MASAC intends to release the 2005 contours for mitigation sometime this spring and to finish and submit the Part 150 update to the FAA this fall. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • N/A B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIMENDATION(S~ .Discuss Airport Issues at another time. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force report B. Summary of residents comments from the Cedar Avenue open houses C. Copy of legislation introduced by Senator Johnson and Representative Larson D. Copy of STARR Group's 2000 legislative priorities E. Copy of preliminary 2005 unmitigative contours VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING C Cedar Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area Land Use Planning Issues Based on Questions Raised at Open Houses on January 8,11, and 13 1. How do we attract families to-the area given the kind of higher density housing that we are proposing, and need, to make the tax increment work? Apartment units won't do it directly. We are going to have to strengthen our linkage program to single family homes. 2. We have said that we want to wait on housing redevelopment to see what the noise is really like. But, some residents want to stay close and move into replacement housing as they move out of their homes. To accommodate their wishes, we would have to build some replacement units early in the°process. 3. What land uses are most compatible with the single family homes that will remain in the neighborhood? Some say townhouses or low-rise apartments are the best transition between the commercial uses along Cedar and the neighborhoods that will remain. Others say they prefer offices or office showroom uses. 4. Should we try to redevelop the Christian Park frontage? Again, some say "yes" while others say "no." 5. What do we do with Bethany Church 16~` and 66th? The parkway goes through part of the property? Do we "bend" the road or take the property? 6. Which roadway/parkway alternative should we use? 7. Which buildings are we going to try to keep? It looks like Decision One(CDP) is a keeper. But, what about the Transmission Shop and some other commercial uses in the area? Do they have to betaken? 8. Why not develop all the way to Bloomington? Bloomington Avenue owners are concerned that their backyard privacy is going to be severely impacted by townhouses or apartments located across their back property lines. 9. How can we do development along the freeways so that it presents the best image for the City of Richfield? 10. Pedestrian crossing of Bloomington Avenue to get to Taft Park will be perceived as dangerous for kids. Is there anything that we can do about that? 11. How much emphasis should we put on developing bike paths along the parkway? Some of said that it is a waste of money because the environment will be so noisy that people will not want to ride there. Cedar Avenue Airport. Redevelopment Area Response Themes Based on Comments Place on Flip charts at Open Houses on January 8, 11, and 13 The open houses included five stations where attendees could make comments about what was presented. The information at each station is described below along with the major themes expressed by those who commented. Station 1 included background information on the need for redevelopment and activity to date in the Cedar Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area Comments could be summarized by the following themes. • People still want to know when all the activities are going to take place. • Some folks do not want to leave and would prefer that Richfield aggressively pursue making the airport less noisy and less smelly. • People are angry with the MAC for expanding the airport at this location and at the City for not fighting in court more aggressively. Station 2 included master plan concept displays that showed land uses and design alternatives. Comments could be summarized by the following themes. • Alternative Plan #3 got a few more favorable comments than alternative 2. • People also like the parkway plan in alternative 3. • Some do not like the housing element in the plan. They believe that the housing will not be attractive over an extended period. • However, there are others who would like to have priority in moving into new units that might be built in the area. . Station 3 included pictures of amenities and design displays illustrating concepts for transportation, transit provisions, open space and parks. Comments could be summarized by the following themes. • There were a few more comments against building adjacent to Christian Park than in favor of clustering park activities there. • People were concerned about the Taft Park redesign and the heavy traffic that is likely to be next to it. • Several businesses want to stay in the area. • People had mixed feelings about the cost of the new housing. Some were concerned that it would be too cheap. Others were concerned that it would be too expensive for them to move into. Station 4 included housing displays illustrating new housing concepts and explanations of why residential construction will be able to withstand noise impacts. Comments could be summarized by the following themes. • New housing needs to be compatible with existing housing. • Residents next to the redevelopment area want to make sure that their noise proofing needs are not ignored. • People were concerned about whether new housing will really "work" in this location. Station 5 included funding, acquisition, and relocation displays and on the status of funding and timing of the project, in addition to the standard process used for acquisition and relocation. Comments could be summarized by the following themes. • There are lots of staging and timing questions and no answers at this point. • People still want to know the details of the relocation process. • They also want to know how the price of their homes will be established. • 01-31-00 21:18 t:rom-KENNEDY 6 GRAVEN +fi123319310 T-311 P.0411fi f-fi53 SUIDIMAItY~QF AIRP+9~,RT IMPACT BILL pvcrview The 1999 legislature established the Governor ~ Airport ~nnx~rtunny Stabilization Funding Task Fore and directed it to analyze financing for measures to mitigate. the impacts of expansion at the Minneapolis-St. Paul lnternationaP Airport. This bill implements a portion of the recommendations made by the Task Force in its final repon. The hilt provides two major tool+ to arcomplish this: 1) creation of "airport impact pones," ana special tax inerernent financing dastncts; and ?) creation of a state "mitigation fund" `administered by the Department of Trade and Economic Development, funded by increases in sales taxes imposed on businesses at the Minneapolis- St. Faul International Airport and general fund approprtattons. Section-by-Section Summary Section I. Findings. Airport mitigation measures :are made for airport purposes and public purposes. Sreiion 2. I?efinitions. v;trious terms defined. "City"- means any of the caries of Btoomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Menduta Heights, Minneapolis, Richfield ;and St. Paul. "School district" means any ,chool district whose ~urisdictidn includes .all or any portion of the named cities. Section 3 Airport impact 1Vlitigatian Planning. Describes ttie planning process for studyingairport mitigation and planning for mitigation measures. Subdivision 1. A city must first prepare an airpurt impact repon, taking into account airport noise impacts along with environmental', transportation and economic impacts associated vuith airport expansion. Subdivision 2. A city then prepares :tn airport impact mitigation plan drsrribing the boundaries of a proposed "airport impact zone," rrrcomtriended impact measures, the bound:uies of any proposed airport impact tax increment financing district, proposed housing replacement activities, estimated costs, and estimated autouatof_bonds. The. plan. must.be initially appxoved.the city council after public hearing, then submitted to the commissioner of trade and economic da:veloprrrent for approval, with notice and comment 6y the metropolitan airpons commission nerd the metropolitan council_ The review period is 60 days. Oi-31-00 21:18 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-311 P.05/16 F-653 Section 4. Airport impact TaX increment 11 !Wanting Dist>Ficts. Each city is authorized to create one or more TIF districts within an airport impact zone designated under a mitigation plan. TIF rules C~ubdivision 2~: leach TIh district rrea[ed under the act is supject to the following special rules: The district is considered a redevetbpment district. R city must make the ,;ime findinl;s as for such districts under general law, except that in lieu of finding that more than SU% of the bwldings are structurally substandard, the city must find that such buildings currently (or upon airport expansion ue reasonably expected to} experience airport impacts to a degree rzquiring land use conversion in ordzr to accommodate airport-compatible uses. • 7S'~o of the tax increment must Ix spent within the boui~darizs of the district (as under general law), ur within any -othar airport impact tax incremen[ district in the same city. The ?S% spendable outside the district may be used only to pay administrative costs or for housing replacement activities located anywhere in the city. • As under general" Taw, 90' percent of increments must li¢ used to correct the conditions that allow designation of airport imp;ict districts. Mitigation measure, in an approved mitigation plan will-rrieet this requirement. • The district is exertipt from state aid loss if the city chooses either or both of (T) the 5% IocaT match option available under generaT-~aw; or (2} a special housing replacement. account option, which requires the city to dedicate IS% of tax increment for housing replacement activities anywhere in the city. • The district is exempt from the .fiscal disparities provisions of chapter 473F~,~ which is similar to the treatment of pre-I9T3 districts under general law. ` Section 5. Airport Impact Mitigation Fund. ~uGdivisian I: The fund is created in the state treasury, administered by the commissioner of OTFD. Sialidivision Z. The amount by which'saies tax at the airporr¢xceeds $12,000,000 in each year is appropria[ed to the mitigation fund. (That incremental amount is currently estimated co be approximately $~4,?SO,000U per yc:u.) Subdivision 3. $2,000,000 fiom the state general fund is appropriated to the mitigation fund in 2000. The legislature aJ~o decT:ires its in[gtit to appropriate an :idditiona! ~ 18,000,000 over the next nine years. subdivision 4. Amounts in the miiigauon fund m;i~r be u~ad only to pay: sisi-inssa~~ RCt45-341 2 • Oi-31-00 21:18 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN +6123379310 T-311 P.06/16 f-653 principal .and- titeresc on bonds issued by citic, to fund mitigation measures, ' • mitigation measures by cities not funded with bonds; • school districts for declining eniollmem std associated with mitigation me:,sures, and • DT~A administrative costs. Suti~livision 5: DTED must adopt rules for dtshursementfrom the fund. The rules must pravidr that disbursements for deb[ service on bonds issued by cities under the act will have the first priariry. The ~econd~priority is payments far non- bond funded mitigation ;utivitirs, disbursed pro rata based on the aggregate request+ submitted each year. Subdiviibion 6: The mitigation fundtertninates when aIl~citias and school districts notify A'T>;D that all mitigapon costs hove been paid, but no later than 2030. Section 6. iQands. Subdivision 1. 1r3ch city may issue general obligations tQ finance mittgaaon measures to tts airport impact zany. ThC bonds may be secured by any combination of tax increments, abatements, mounts disbursed from the Litigation fund, or other revenue.. Votrr approval is not required and net debt limits do not apply. Sub vision ~: Ol}i-igations issued by a city may be secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the metropalitan council if the commissioner of DTED approves and artier pledged revenues aze estimated to tie xufficient to pay 105% of debt servicC an the obligations. Vo[er approval is not required and net debt hmtts do noc apply. The pledge would~Yequire the council tQ levy property taxes in the seven-counry- metropolitan area if neres~,try to rovCr deficiencies in revenues pled~ed to the obligations. Sertiun 7. EYfective !late. The act -s effective on June ], 2000, except the tax increment provisions to section 4. which rryuire approval by each atfecred ctry, counry and school aistrirt. sJ[t•~75af~r 3 RCIaS•3a; 01-31-00 21:18 From-KENNEDY a GRAVEN +6123378310 T-311 P.07/16 F-653 A bill for an act irlating to state and local government; rhr impact of expansion of the tl~finneupolis-Si. tau! tnrrrnartonal" Arrpfirt; r{uthorizing airport mitigation plunnir:g, rite establtshmrnt of airport impact :r)nr5 unc! tu,c increment jinancirtg drstrirts in rhr cities of Bloomington, Burnsville. J~'ugun, Mendota Nrights, Mireneapoli.s, Richfield, and St. Paul; creating an airport impue•r mirigariort fund in the state treasury and apprupriuring numry thrrrro~ aurhnriJng c•rrruin related activities by the drpartrnenr of uudr and economic• development. SE~ IT- ENACTED BY~ THE T:EGISLATURE OE THE STATE. OF _ MINNESOTA: ~eccion I. [FINDTIVG~:Y Tlie Ii+bisIaiure finds that (u) tha araa included within the airpott impact zones defined in this act will cxpcricnrc significartt advcrsc environmental and sncio-economic imgae[~ associated wuh rt{r opzra[ion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul IntemationaT Airport; (b) wtii•chcr funded directly 6y the metropolitan arrports rummission or by other means,-expzttdittit~s for mitigation of chose :airport-created ~mpact+ involve an aspect of thin airport'"s capitat and operating expenses and will be made fear airport parpose~ and fir 3 public purpose; and (c) appropriate measures. to mitigate'those Adverse impacu include, but are nor limited to, redevelopment ;end housin7 tRplacement activities. Scc.2. [DEFINITIONS.] Subdivi~iun I . [APPLICATION:) ~ For the purposex of this act, terms defined in this section have the {Weaning given them. Subd. 2. [AIRPORT IMPACT DISTRICT.] "Airport impact district" means an airport impact tax ineremera financing district described to aection 4. SJB•17Su59~? RCiaS•343 01-31-OD 21:19 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN +6123376310 T-311 P.06/16 F-653 Subd_ 3. [AIRPOI:T~ItiIPAC'C'~ZO1~lF.j "Airport Impact cone" means a contiguous or nonconriguous geographic area designated by a city and approved by the commissioner as pan of a mitigation plan under section 3. Subd. 4. [AII~PaIZ'T~ S~A>rES:J "Airport sales" ~ means sales that are taxable under chapter 297A and occur on property owned" iiy the rttetropolran airports commission at the Minneapolis-Sr. P;iuT IniarnationaI Airport including without limitation parlang, vehicle rental, food and Beverage, vending, merchandise; and. Ray telephones. `' AirpQn ,ale, do nor include sales of goods or taxablC services purcFiased- by the metropolitan airports. c®anmis~ion or. by persolns or entities condurting a private trade or business on property owned by the meaopolitan airports commission`at the Minneapolis- St. Paui International Airport. Subd. S. [CITY:] '•~iy" meanx the cities of Bliiumingfon, Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, MmneapolTS,-Ricfifi~td; ant! St. Paul or dny of them. Subd. b. [C4MMISSTON~~J~ "Commissioner" means the commmssioner of trade • and economic development. Subd. 7. [DEPARTMENT.] "pepartmant"~ means the dgpartment of trade and economic development. Subd. 8. [OOVERN11~lC,r $ODYj "Governing body"`means the city council of a c1ty. Subd_ 3: [l~I4USING~" KEPLAt/EIViENT AC"TIVITIES.] ~~ousing replacement activities" means rehabilitation, acquisition, relocation assistance, reloc:ttioa of existing dwelling units, and construction of~new dwelling units, for-the purpose of replacing dwelling units eliminated by airport mitigation activities. S7(i- ~ 75"isa..3 2 • xC,~S•3a3 01-31-00 11:19 From-KENNEDY 6 GRAVEN +6113379310 T-311 P.09/i6 F-653 Subd. 1D. [LVIPAC'f Rl?PORT.) "Impact report" means a vYritten report identifying ;airport impacts adopted bey a city under section 3. Subd. 11. [MITIGATION FUND.j "Mitigation -fund" means the airport impact mitigation fund establi.hed under section 5. Subd. 12. [M1TIGATION PirAlv:j "Mitigation plan"~ mean+ :~ plan for airport impact mitigation developed by a city.. and approved by the commissioner under section 3. Subd. 13. [6$LIGATI4N.7 "Obligation" has the meaning-given- it in ~Mianeso[a~ Statutes, section 475.31, subdivision -3: The term includes obIigetion~ issued to refund prior obligations issued under this at.t. Subd, 14. [SCHOOL DlST1~ICT:J- "School district"-means. a school district whose jurisdiction includes altor,:uiy por[ion of a ri[y. Sec. 3. [AIRPORT IMPACT M1T1GAT10N PLANNING.) Subdivision 1. (IMPACT REPORT_)- A city is authorized tcj study and identify airport impacts and the scope of those iiitpacts on the city. ~t the conclusion of an impac[ study, acity -must adopt a report ofthe tmpact+ on -the-eiry. In studying airport impacts and preparing areport, acity -must tale into account airport noise irnpaets and additional environmental, transportation, and economic impacts associated with expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Iiiiernational Airport. A city must also consider and incorporate the overhead noisy guidelines -establishad~ by the Federal Aviation Commission and the l..ow Frequency Noise Porcy Committee's Expert Panel report- concerning none impacts. Subd. 2. [MITTGATION PlAN:) (a} After adopting an airport tmpact report, a city must develop an airport mitigation plan for an airport irripact Zone in the city. In sits-,~sosa~a 3 • RCi as- ~s3 01-31-00 21:19 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN +612331A310 T-311 P.10/16 F-653 developtng the mitigation plan, a city muse peek to dCterntine thrmost effective measures for mitigating the impacts identified in tfie impact report. A cit~ may con,ider any measures for mitigating airport imparts including without limitation noise insulation of re~iden[ial and commercial buildings, Iand use conversion, deveto~ment of housing to replacr units lost through mitigation activities, and the maintenance of property valuea. The miiigaribn plan must inrl"ude (1) designated fiounctarics tsf th~'~ airport impact, zone; (Z) description of recommended impact miuganon measures; (3r, if the plan includes. establishment of one or more airport impact tax increment financing districts, the proposed boundartes o2 eacCt district, consixtenCwith tlje iet'tt2s~~of•sec[ion 4; (4) if the plan includes conversion of residenuaI- Iand- use, a description olf proposed housing rrplaeement activities; (5) estimates of eostc of the recommended mitigation meaaurea and posstble financing sources; (6) an analpsis ofifie feasibility of property t:cx abatement under sections 479.1813 to 469.1S15~as a financing source; and (7j~he estimated amount of obhgattons, if any, to be issued under thts act, including a description of the propuscd ,rrurit;y for the obligations. (b) ixtior to initial approval of'a ntitigation plan, a city must conduct a public heartng after notice published in a newspaper of generai~ctrcuration in the city at least cen days 6cfore the hearing. The hearing notice must state that the mitigation plan and the ntitigation report are available for review in the administrative offices of the city. After initial approval of the mitigation plan by the governing body, the city must submit the mitigation plan and the mitigation report to the commissioner-far-appruval, and must also submit copies to the metropolitan council and the metropoltan aitpoTtrcommission for.. review and comment. Not more than 60 days after rrcript of th~ city's submission, the spa- ns~s~.a q • RC1aS•3ai 01-31-00 21:19 From-KENNEDY 6 GRAVEN +6123379310 T-311 P.il/16 F-653 commu~ianrr most approve, disapprove or otherwise comment on the mitigation plan. Failure by the commissioner to approve or comment within 6D days is deemed approval of the mitigation plan. An action described in a mitigation pFan may not be financed by the mitigation fund or an airport impact district until~iFie mitigation plan hay fiat been approved by the commissioner and then fin:~tiy approved by the governing body. (c) A mitigation plan may ~ modified afier-tile notica, hearing and approvals required for apprvvaI of the original- plan. Modification is required only' to (l) incre;ue the total estimated cast of mitigation activi[ies; (2) igcre;ue IF1C iotal~ estimatCd-amotrttt-of-- obligations- to lie issued; -(3) sectire any olilightions Iiy dli~ pled-go describes) in section. 6, subdivision 2 if such pledge was not included in the original plan; (4) expand the boundaries of an airport impact zone; (S) create of expan~t tlie-boundarie, of an airport impact district; or (6) add mitigation activities beyond"the srope-of activities described in the ariginal plan. Szc. 4. [AII~aRfiTAX-INC.1Z~lvi61VTFIlsi'~1VCIIVG DISTRICTS.] Subdivtston 1. [AUTH4RIZATI6N:r Acity may esta5lish one or mutt airport impact tax increment financing districts within an airport impact zone, provided that the boundariie. ufcacti strict are described in a mitigation plan. Subd. ?. [SP);CIA!- RUI-fiS.] (a) An airport impact district is considered a redevelopment district within the meaning of, and i~ +uiijret to, Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.17x3, except as otherwist provided in ~tiis subdivision. For the purpose of section 469~.I74, subdivision 8, the term project" means an airport impact Zone described in section 3 of [his act. >>B-~7i0iav. 5 RC~nS.aa; 01-31-00 21:20 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123378310 T-311 P. 12/16 F-653 (b} For the purposes of sectiom453.t~4, subdivision I(T, the governing body must find that parcels consisting of 74 percent of- the area of tfie -district are occupied by buildings, streCts, utilities, ur other improvements and- more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, currently or upon complttipn of airpon expansion are reasonably expected to experience airport impact, identified rn the mitigauon plan to a degree reyuiring land usn conversion in order to accommodate-uses compatible-witlr the airport- This finding may be made at the time of approval of the maigation plan. (c) For the .purposes of Minnesota ~iatutes, section 469:)?b3, subdivisron 2, the °'in-district"percentngz'" is 75 percent, excepe`tltat ahy~expend~itttFes within the boundaries of any other airpon impact tax increment financing district wtthm the city are considered activities within the disuict, and the 2S% "pooping prreentage'° n~ray be used only to pay for administrative expenses and housing replacement activities. W) For the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 4b9-1.76; -sutrdrvi~on 4j,~ the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of`crie airport impact district includes [he cost of a miiigation mrasure described in an approved mitigation plan. (e) Minnesotae Statutes, sections 273:1399- and 4b9~:I7~?, subdivision 1 do not apply to the district if the city elects eYtlier or both of the following: (1} the exemption under Minnesota Statute+, section 273.1349, subdivisron b, paragraph (d); or (2) at least 15 pen:ent of the revenue generated fiom tax increment from the airport impact district in any year is deposited in the housing replacement account of the city and spenrfor housing replacement aetivit~es described in the mitigation plan. s]6•nsusa~z b • RC~3i•3a~~ OI°31-00 21:20 From-KENNEDY Ir GRAVEN +6123379310. T-311 P.13/16 F-653 (f} Housing reglacertient activities tnay be located in Ele~ity within or outside the ~irpott impact distract. ' (g) Chapter 473E does not apply to property within an a{rpon impact di+trict commencing in the first year in which tax increment is paid to the city and continuing until decertification of the district. Tax increment from-the district is calculated in' accordance with section 4b9.177, subdivi~iun 3-, clause (a) without. regard to the. focal disparitizs provision of chapter 473F. Sec. 5. [AIRPOhT-I1VIPACT1C~i~TIGATION FUND.J Subdivision-1. [FUNA CREATED; SOlJRCES.) 'phe airport. impact anittgation fund i, established in the stare treasury- ThC mitigation fund is administered by the commissioner for tCie purposes described in this section. Subd. ?. [INCREMENTAL AIRPORT SALES TAX.J Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 297A.44, to the -extent revenues-derived from sales taJCes tmposrd under chapter 24TH on attpoR sales exceed $I-2~,Otld:'0~6-irr anp~ ftscxi-}~ar• sueh~ excess revenues aze appropriated annually to the mitigation fgnd commencing in the fiscal year ending in 200 r and-ending with the fi~eal year ending in ?025. Subd. 3. [GENERAI. FUND APPR~PRTATION: j {a) Tlie sum of $2,000,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the mitigation -fund: Tit -appropriation is available until expended. (b) In order to insure adegudtC funding to meet long,tcrm airpon mitigation needs under this act, the I~gislaturc derlarr3 as policy its intent ro-appropriate-$4,000,000 to each of the following four biennia (061-ZOD? through 2007-2UU8) and 52,000,000 in SJ8-!7$054x2 7 Rcla~-Ja3 01'31-00 21:20 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-311 P.14/i6 F-653 the first yCar of the ?009-2U10 biennium, for a total of $20;06Q,000 appropriared over that ten-yCar period; including the appropriation in paragraph (a). Subd. 4. (USE OF R~VfiTTU1rS:j- Amounts in the-mitigation fund may be spent only for th4 following purposes: (a) to pay principal of, interest on and redemption premium, if any, on obligations is~uedby a city undzr this act.. (b) to ply or reimburse a city for costs incurred tb implement :- mitigation plan, including without limit:~tion costs of preparing the impact sport and mitigation plan; (c) to pay a ~chhol district declining enrollment aid to mitigate decreases to student population created by tnitiganon activiii~s of a city under the city's midgation plan; and (d) by the department to pay the costs of udmini'stcring the mitigation fund. Subd. 5. [PAYMENT PROV1St~NS:j- Tf~e departtlient must adopt rules governing the disbursement of moneys in the mitigation fungi to cities and school districts. The .rules must provide that disbursements from thrr~ mi{romion Mind, after dedueuons for administration costs of the department, will tnadt in the following priorities: (a) first, for the payment of .principal of,' ~iiiterest on and redemption pretnium, if any, of obligations secured in -whole or in part by dt,iiursements from the mitigation fund; and (b) second, to thL extent feasible, for payment or reimbursement to cities and school districts pro r:+ta based on the aggregate amount dzscribed in subdivision 4. pazagraphs (b} stid (c) certified to the ct3mmissioner m any year. spa-~~~~s~.a 8 RCr35-?az O1y31-00 21:10 From-KENNEDY i GRAdEN +6113379310 T-311 P.15/16 F-653 Subd. b. ~TERMiNATiON OF MITIGATION-FUND:] The mitigation fund tzrminates on the earlier of (a) the date by which alI cities and school districts have notified the commissioner that alt costs payable tfom the mitigation fund under this act have been paid; or (b) the end of the fical year ending in 203if: 'T'he balance of amounts in the mitigation fund upom ins termination are credited the state general fund. Scc. 6. [t3QNDS; SECURITY.) Subdivision 1. (Trans.] A city tray issue obligauons secured by tax inerements, sba[eniants, :,mounts disbur.ed from the airport mitigation fund, any other revenues available co the city. undea l:~w,, or any cotiabina3ion of si~cfi r~+Fenl~gs. 'I'l~e proceeds of obligations must be uaed to pay or reimburse any co~ts~to iinptement a mitigation plan. including withrut limitation costs of preparing t}ie ii~ipact report and the mitigation plan. The governing body may provide by resulation tliat the u6iigations are additionally secured by the full -faith and credit of the city. Notwithstanding sny other-law ~or-4harter. - provi~iun votzr appruvaI is not required and'net-debt limits do--not apply to obligations issued under this section. Obligations secured'in whole or in parr, wnh tax increments from an airpun impact district must be issued in accordance with section 469.175 and this act. Subd. 2. jMETRQPC3LITAN AREA P)r)DGE:j ` Obhgation; issued by a city under this act will be secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit and taxing power of the metropolitan council if (a) the city so requests and the commissioner approves that pledge as pan of thr city's mitigation plan, and (ti) e~timattsd-~ collections . of other-- revenues pledged for payment of -the obhgations will ~prodnce ac least five percent in excess of the aniount needCd to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the s,s-17so54~3 9 RC 145-343 01L31-00 21:21 From-KENNEDY Z GRAVEN +61233TA310 T-311 P. 16/18 F-653 obligations. The pledge must be made by resolution of the city council of the city. Voter approval of obligations secured by the pledge described"in this subdivision is not required and net debt limjcs do not apply. In the event of any defici~ac~ in revenues pledged to the obligations, the metropolitan council'rriust levy a tax against all taxable pruptny in the .metropolitan area and remit tfia proceed"s of such levy to thF city for deposit in the deb[ service fund -for the obligations. The ctty mint reimburse Ehe mttropolitaat counctl for such advances from and to the extent the deficient revenues are lacer collected. Taxes levied by the metropolitan council by ceason of the pledge du not affect the amount ur rate of taxe, chat array be levied ~y eounetT for other purposex and a>s~ not subject to limit as to rate or amount. Sec.?. [EFFECTIVE 13AT):: j ~ lJiider IVtinnesota ~~Statutes, section 645.023, subdivision I, clause (a), sections I, 2,~3, 5"and6take effect without local approval on lure 1, 2000. Section 4 is effective as [o each city upon eomptiancz with Minnesota Statues, section 464.1782, subdivision 2. Sts-i7wsa.a 10 ltCiaS•;33 • • ~~ C .~ Gto ~~ STARR Group Legislative Priorities for the 2000 Legislative session: 1. The STARR Group urges the Minnesota State Legislature, with all due haste, to provide the funding assistance needed to address the impacts of airport expansion on the people of Richfield. 2. The STARR Group urges the Minnesota State Legislature to adopt the conclusions and recommendations of the Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force. 3. The STARR Group urges the Minnesota State Legislature to protect the property values of Richfield Residents impacted by the expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. 4. The STARR Group urges the members of Richfield's Legislative Delegation to communicate to the FAA and Minnesota's Congressional Delegation the seriousness of Richfield's situation and to urge them with all haste to free the money appropriated by the 1999 Minnesota State Legislature to the City of Richfield. The STARR Group is committed to help the members of Richfield's Legislative Delegation in any way on this matter and is thankful for their continuing hard work and dedication to the people of Richfield. Adopted by the STARR Group on the 25th day of January in the year 2000. Attest Bill Duffee - Co-c~~r Audrey D ee - ' g Recording Secretary • ~.... ti_. AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 7, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: i V 5 CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NnME, TrzLs ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: .Discussion of whether or not an ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries should be prepared and scheduled for first reading on February 14. II. BACKGROUND Mayor Kirsch has requested that discussion relating to Council salaries be placed on the February 7, 2000 Study Session agenda. Council Memorandum No. 7, which was distributed on January 21, 2000, provides background information related to Council salaries. The 2000 salary adjustment for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3%. • 0207salaries.doc III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed: by December 1 of each year in which an election is held. • The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The policy statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would be used as a guideline. The salary increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3% in 1998, 3% in 1999 and 3% in 2000. C. FINANCIAL • Preparation of the 2000Revised/2001 Proposed budget will begin in a few months. The Council's decision on a salary adjustment will be necessary to provide adequate funding, should an adjustment be approved. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. However, budget preparation timelines should be considered. V. ATTACI-IMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. •