07-06-99 agenda•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1999
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION
II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RELOCATION OF 130 TREES FROM
RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE TO VETERANS MEMORIAL
PARK
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 22
C
III. 7:45-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PLACING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
UNDERGROUND
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 23
IV. 8:00-8:20 P.M. STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 24
V. 8:20-8:40 P.M. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS FOR
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 25
VI. 8:40-8:45 P.M. UPDATE FROM ACTING CITY MANAGER
8:45 P.M. 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.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 22
Agenda July 6, 1999
Issue Statement:
Discuss the relocation of 130 trees from Rich Acres Golf Course to Veterans Memorial
Park.
Background:
Staff requests feedback on a plan to relocate 130 trees from Rich Acres Golf Course,
which will be displaced by airport expansion, to Veterans Memorial Park. The trees are
currently being inventoried with intent to move the trees in October.
In August, staff could hold a public meeting to discuss the replanting plan with residents
and gather input on the project. Staff could stay in close contact with the group of
residents who have expressed interest in being involved in replanting efforts at Veterans
Memorial Park.
In January, the Council approved the hiring of Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, Inc. to develop
a Master Plan for the redevelopment of Veterans Park. Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, Inc.
could be asked to assist staff in coordinating this tree replanting project with Short Elliott
Hendrickson, Multi-Purpose Community Center architectural consultant, to prevent any
conflict with the proposed site for the new facility.
Recommended Motion:
Discussion only.
Basis of Recommendation:
The replanting of Veterans Memorial Park has been an issue of keen interest in
Richfield and will require active discussion and feedback.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Council is asked to provide feedback on this plan. Staff plans to solicit input from
residents and hold an open-house discussion at Veterans Memorial Park in August.
City Manager
SLD:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 23
Agenda July 6, 1999
Issue Statement:
Discussion of placing overhead utility lines underground.
Background:
The attached memorandum from Jim Strommen of Kennedy and Graven and the
attached letter written by Jim Gates of the Bloomington Public Works Department
outline several important issues that surround the financing of placing private utility lines
underground at the request of a city. They are:
Undergrounding as the standard for utility lines.
100% cost recovery from city ratepayers.
The pricing of the cost recovery rate.
City staff also wants to obtain Council Members' thoughts on different strategies to deal
with the subject. Staff is considering the role of the Suburban Rate Authority as it
relates to the City, joining some other group with interests similar to Richfield's, or going
it alone to assure the City's interests at upcoming hearings of the Minnesota
Department of Public Service.
Recommended Motion:
This is for discussion purposes only.
Basis of Recommendation:
The undergrounding of private utilities will continue to be an issue in Richfield.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Minnesota Department of Public Service will hold a public hearing on the rate
structure proposed by Northern States Power Company (NSP) on July 7, 1999. Council
may want to comment on the proposed method to finance the placement of private
utilities underground.
Re ctf Ily submitt ,
. De
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
Enclosures
JUN-21-1999 12 09 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.04i09
•
JAMES M. STROMMFN
Attomcy at l1w
Dircct Dul (G12) 337-9233
etnnil: isitommrnG~kcnnedy-~ven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: SRA City Managers/Administrators!Directors/Alternates
FROM: Jim Strommen
DATE: June 8, 1999
RE: Potential SRA Positions in NSP Surcharge Piling
On July 7, the SRA must file comments on the NSP Special facility surcharge
. filing in which NSP seeks to recover the cost of undergrounding when ordered by a city
under the Oakdale authority. There are a number of issues that must be addressed to
protect cities exercising their right to require undergrounding. Some of the issues require
input from different cities to establish a consensus SRA position. For that reason I am
sending this memo to all city managers/directors so that the SRA executive committee
and I will be comfortable asserting a position that represents a consensus of cities with
varying states of overhead and underground distribution lines.
The following is an outline of the issues raised by the NSP filing and some of the
possible ramifications of and positions that could be taken on issues. Please pass on your
reactions to these matters, either to the executive committee (list and phone numbers
attached) members or me. I am also inquiring regarding the interests of other cities to
intervene in this proceeding and as to support from and position of the League of Cities.
BACKCROL>rTD
This is a filing by NSP to recover from ratepayers within a given city, the
additional costs of undergrounding overhead lines when ordered by that city. Since the
Oakdale case the law provides that such costs cannot be recovered from the city or its
taxpayers but must be recovered from ratepayers.
There is no issue that NSP is entitled to petition the PUC for recovcry of such
costs. They are clearly operating expenditures that are recoverable by a regulated utility.
An unregulated business would pass on such costs to its customers.
•
J M$. t G4431
SU1G0-3
JUN-21-1999 12;10 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.05i09
• It is also beyond question that the PUC is the proper forum to decide the recovery
of utility expenses from ratepayers. Thus, the SRA must convince the PUC of the
appropriate rate design. Once that is decided by the PUC, not only NSP but all other
electric utilities will have the same rights in their tariffs.
ISSUES
1. Undergroundin~ as the Standard. The premise on which a surcharge is
requested for undergrounding is the standard of overhead distribution lines (the right of a
city. to requirc undergrounding of transmission lines has not been tested yet). If
underground distribution lines were the standard of installation, there would be no need
for a surcharge from any particular group of ratepayers. The cost of undergrounding
installation would be spread throughout the entire customer base as the "standard" of
installation.
For this proceeding, cities are stuck with the previously established overhead lines
standard. To challenge the overhead line standard cities would need to present evidence
that undergrounding is a longer lasting, more cost effective and reliable service. That
would require a study to counter NSP's previously submitted study criticizing
undergrounding in those respects. Clearly underground lines are safer but NSP asserts
that underground lines require more care, are more expensive to maintain and do not
necessarily last longer. Unless the cities were willing to engage a technical expert at
considerable cost, the evidence is lacking in this proceeding to change the long
established overhead standard.
2. One Hundred Percent Recovery From City 1Ratepavers. The NSP
proposal allows it to recover 100% of the additional cost from the ratepayers within the
city ordering the undergrounding. NSP proposes a "tracker" account keeping a total of
the unpaid additional cost. The NSP-proposed rate design provides:
a. Recovery sought over athree-year period or less.
b. Surcharge that is equal. for all customers of any class. Thus, a small
residential homeowner pays the same as, e.g., a large industrial customer. (See
below. )
c. The typical-proposed amount would be between $0.25 and $1.00 per
month, per customer, until the recovery is complete.
d. A surcharge greater than $1.00 per month would be applied if necessary to
recover within three yeazs.
e. NSP would be entitled to a carrying charge equal to the rate of return
authorized by its last rate case.
An essential issue is whether the SRA should argue that, e.g., a limit of 75% of
the additional cost should be recoverable from city ratepayers under certain
circumstances. The balance should be paid by perhaps county residents, other than the
city ratepayers. This is arguably appropriate in a situation involving heavily traveled
city, county or county state aid thoroughfares. It is clear the benefit of undergrounding in
•
.1MS.u~aait
SUiGO.3
Jl~1-21-1999 12 10 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
such thoroughfares goes well beyond city residents. It would be impossible to establish
what percentage of the use is non-city residents-ratepayers. It is fair to assume, however,
that 25% is not unreasonably high, and may be low particularly in some azeas.
If accepted, the surcharge tariff would be limited to 75% of the cost. This would
remove some of the disincentive to a city council to order undergrounding. It would
recognize the overall benefit and good public policy of undergrounding. On city streets
carrying only local traffic, the case for a sharing is more difficult. While every street
could be traveled by non-residents, the benefiting public in anon-through .street area
would be almost entirely the local residents of the city.
There is precedent in PUC rate designs fora 75%-25% share. In the Extended
Area Service telephone petitions {"EAS"), the new EAS service. areas .pay 75010 of the
cost incurred for establishing local service to the Metro area and the remaining 25°k is
spread out aver the Metro call areas: If municipalities or MnDOT have statistics on who
travels on major thoroughfares, perhaps a case can be made for higher percentages of
shazes, e.g., 60%-40% or even 50%-50%.
I am interested in your feedback on that concept. Now is the time for cities to
make the argument for less than 100%. At some point, however, it would appear that
cities largely undergrounded already would not be in favor of having their ratepayers bear
the cost of. an aggressive undergrounding program in a neighboring city. That is the
reason it is important to hear from as many SRA cities as possible now to establish a
consensus on what is fair. Of course, the PUC may not consider anything less than 100%
to the city ratepayers.
3. County or State Requested Undergroundina. NSP's tariff is not clear
on the surcharge rate design if a county or state requests undergrounding. The state has
exclusive authority to dictate undergrounding issues for state trunk highways. It is less
clear whether the county has authority to require undergrounding in the county scale aid
and county highways. But if it does, if you use a "benefiting" customer analysis the
75%-25% or other sharing is still intact. If you recognize that it is a different governing
body requiring the undergrounding, alesser percentage of the surcharge should be paid
by the city ratepayers where the undergrounding occurs. It should be acounty-wide
ratepayer expense. When MnDOT requires undergrounding, perhaps the entire customer
base of the utility should bear the cost, though obviously ratepayers in remote areas of
NSP's customer base do not benefit from all undergrounding, except in a general sense.
4. City as Customer v. City as Retmlator. NSP's tariff has never been
clear in distinguishing the city when acting as a customer (e.g. lift stations, street
lighting) or that of a regulator carrying out concerns of health, safety and general welfare.
1 propose to seek clarification of that treatment in the tariff. The Oakdale case dealt with
the city as a regulator and provides that the police power does not require the city to
reimburse the object of that power. Yet, when a city is acting as a customer and
requesting a particular "special" facility, it should be treated in the same way as other
•
P.06i09
JMS.1G4431
$UIG()-3
JUN-21-1999 12 11 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.O7iO9
• customers requesting a specific facility. The tariff has always held that the customer
pays. Cities, like businesses, have the ability to spread the cost to the ratepayers or
taxpayers serviced. Again, this would be limited to specific requests made because the
city has specific needs as a customer.
5. Rate Design. As noted, NSP seeks to recover an identical amount from
each ratepayer in the city regardless of its size or class. This results in a very regressive
surcharge that would weigh heavily against residential customers. Further, to argue that a
large business along the heavily traveled thoroughfare .benefits no_more than a single
family dwelling owner is weak. There may be hundreds of employees who use a
highway with undergrounding daily to travel to and from work. Also, the business has
the ability to pass on the costs to its customers.
In telephone rates, the PUC has established athree-to-one rate policy. Businesses
pay a rate that is-three time that of residential ratepayers. In electricity, the power used is
measured and the variation in rates can be handled accordingly. The large users also
have demand. rates that compensate the utility for use during high-demand times.
NSP's justification for an equal surcharge for each customer is that this is not an
energy-related act. The SRA should oppose this rate design. What specific alternative
rate design is appropriate will likely be a matter for the Department of Public Service. I
would.welcome any specific suggestions you may have. Clearly, the commercial-
industrial class should pay more than the residential class.
5. Bi11Gng Information. NSP has proposed that a line item on the bill be
added and be entitled "City Requested Facilities Surcharge." This is undoubtedly
inserted as a disincentive to councils to order undergrounding. The most neutral phrase
would be "Facilities Surcharge Rider." That tends to beg the question as to what the
surcharge is for and who required it. This issue gets into pointing the finger at the agency
requesting the undergrounding, i.e. forcing NSP to incur the additional cost.
1 am interested in your thoughts on how such a surcharge could be characterized
to provide information to the ratepayer without casting a negative light on the city
ordering the undergrounding.
6. Tarif! Limitine Police Powers. I note certain provisions in the tariff that
I believe illegally limit the city's police power. For example, a tariff provision that has
existed since 1975 limits the tight of a cityto require relocation at NSP's expense if it is
within five years of the last relocation. This is the type of provision that has been
negotiated in franchises between the utility and some cities. It is not an appropriate
provision to be unilaterally imposed by NSP in a tariff. If a city has a police power
rationale for relocation within five years, the law allows it to do so at the expense of the
utility.
•
CMS-164431
SU 160.3
JUN-21-1999 12 11 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
•
CONCLUSION
This rate matter merits considerable thought because cities will have to live with this
tariff when adopted. Please discuss this with interested staff ar your council. The
executive committee will be acting on the SRA positions before the end of the month.
P.08i09
JhLS-164431
SU160-3
_ _ ~~_ :,:~ _ . ~ n:: _. _. _ . _ _ _ _.
JUN-21-1999 12 12 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.09i09
• EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LIST OF PHONE NUMBERS
Name Phone Namber
John Wallin 927-8461
Ron Case 949-8304 or 975-7300
Jim Keinath 784-5898
Jim Gates 948-8730
Steve O'Malley 895-4400
Mark Hanus 472-0600
Matt Fulton 651-638-2041
•
)MS-1!,4431
SU1G0-3
TOTAL P.09
JUN-21-1999 12 09 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P. 02109
c~tty of
~~ Bloomington, minnesota
2215 Wast Old Shakopee Road ^ Bloominpton MN 68491-30!16 • (612) 048.6700^ FAX: a46-0754 ^ TDD: 848-8740
June 21, 1999
James M. Strommen
Attorney at Law
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Potential SRA positions ier NSP surrlrarge frliag
Dear Jim:
The following are some comments regazding the issues outlined in your memo of June 8, 1999,
discussing the potential SRA positions in the NSP surcharge filing.
Issue #1:
Undergroundiag as the standard
NSP previously conducted their own analysis of underground vs. overhead installation, optration,
and maintenance. NSP made a presentation at a seminar attended by one of our employees that
overhead is their "standard" but there was not overwhelming proof or clear definition that
undergrounding was indeed more expensive or more difficult to maintain and operate. It is my
opinion that the PUC should request an independent analysis of underground vs. overhead before
this whole situation moves forward. It is suggested that NSP and other suppliers of power fund this
analysis of an independent agency along with some possible sharing by the Department of Public
Services. With NSP funding the previous study and analysis, it seems to be a clear case of "the fox
and the hen house." I personally don't believe overhead is aclear-cut standard.
Issue #2:
100% recovery from city ratepayers
There are a number of concerns with this-recovery proposal. It is not clear whether the
recovery for an undergrounding project would be cumulative if two or more projects are
done within the same city in a year for example. There has to be a cost to recalculate rates
for a municipality.
It is also not clear who would be the overseer of the costs and material specifications
required for an undergrounding project. NSP may charge the ratepayers for a Cadillac
when only a Chevrolet i5 needed. Without clear oversight by some body or entity, the cost
of an undergrounding project maybe more than is actually the most economical and cost
effective installation. This may be remedied with the coming of deregulation, although at
the present time, it doesn't seem to be on any particular "radar screen" either national or
local.
. DepstUnent of Publlc Works Phone: (612) 94d-eTTT
Public Works Administration Fax: (812) 948-3666
An Aftlnnatlvo Aellon/Equal OpportunlNes Eenployar
. ,x
JUN-21-1999 12 09 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.03i09
James M. Strommen
June 21, 1999
Page 2 .
When one considers the carrying charge NSP seeks to recover, this could become a
windfall of monies to NSP with the ratepayer somewhat powerless to control the costs. I
don't believe NSP is collecting a carrying charge for existing facilities. It is my
understanding that when NSP expends their own capital and resources, at the present, the
rates we currently pay are reflective of those investments. It would seem that the
investment in underground lines would be similar to the investment in overhead lines or a
vehicle fleet to maintain those lines or any other similar investment.
Regarding the 75/25 cost share; it is suggested that a percentage be used for the cost of
undergrounding if indeed this proposal moves forward. It is assumed that NSP could
calculate the revenue received from a particular municipality or area for that matter. This
could be in the .5 to 1 percent range depending on the project.
Issue #3
County or State requested undergrounding
It is not clear to me that if a county or state requires uadergrounding of the present system that this
is not part of the overall ratepayer cost structure that exists today. It is assumed that it is part of the
existing rate structure. It is also not clear that if the state requires undergrounding and the most
logical location for that undergrounding is within the corporate limits of a municipality, who would
pay the cost of such a project. Again there is the eoneetn of what actually goes into that
undergrounding project.
Issue #S
Rate Design
It is suggested that a percentage be added to the ratepayer's bill based on the cost of a particular
project and use the overall income from a particular municipality as the base to measure against for
the percentage cost of a particular project. 'T'hen with the calculation of the percentage, each
ratepayer would pay the fair share of an underground project. This percentage could be labeled
"cost recovery for underground installation" on a particular customer's bill.
These are some thoughts regarding the NSP surcharge filing. One of the most important issues is to
define the cost of installation for overhead vs. underground by an independent consultant or company.
The "standard" would then be clearly defined and one could move forward on the other issues
pertaining to the proposal.
Sincerely,
m Gates, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
]BG/bac
r1
L__J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
,~ Study Session Letter No. 24
Agenda July 6, 1999
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues including the following:
4-22 Usage
City staff originally anticipated that southeast Richfield residents would be receiving
many more flights over their homes due to the increased use of Runway 4-22 (the
crosswind runway). Flights were to be routed to the crosswind runway because the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) began reconstruction on the southeast end of
the south parallel runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport on April 5. But instead of
receiving complaints from southeast Richfield, residents on the north end are
complaining that there are louder, low flying aircraft heading over their homes.
During reconstruction, it was estimated that 4/22 traffic would increase dramatically as it
did in 1998. When reading the runway use report for May 1999 is clear that much of
the traffic has not been routed to 4/22 as anticipated. In May 1998 42% of air traffic
arrived and departed off Runway 22 (heading toward southeast Richfield and
Bloomington). In comparison, May 1999 showed that only 13.6% of all air is arriving
and departing off Runway 22. (See exhibit A)
This means that even with a much shorter runway, the south parallel runway is being
used a greater extent of the time. Residents complain that there. are numerous flights
occurring after 11 p.m. and that the planes are flying much lower than normal.
Redevelopment Due to Runway 17/35
MAC's cooperation of mitigation funding has been non-existent. According to the
Richfield/MAC Agreement:
Mitigation
2. MAC agrees to flexible use, at Richfield's discretion and consistent with the revised
Part 150 Program, of funds associated with proposed soundproofing within the DNL 60
in Richfield.
3. MAC agrees to pursue amending the Runway 4/22 Record of Decision (ROD) to
permit flexibility in the use of funds identified for mitigation of Runway 4/22 Runway Use
System impacts in Richfield by Richfield at their discretion and subject to FAA approval
at a point in time when MAC is assured that there will be no delays caused by Richfield
in constructing the North/South Runway.
•
Good Faith
1. MAC agrees to use its best efforts to secure approval of this agreement from the
FAA and other decisionmakers with authority or an interest in these matters.
Richfield staff is very frustrated by the MAC's avoidance of its obligations under the
agreement. When questioned about their cooperation in securing needed funding,
Dave Dombrowski (MAC lobbyist) stated that the commission is aware of their
obligation to this under the agreement.
John Dean, City Attorney, will speak about the status of the .Richfield/MAC Agreement
to the City Council on July 12.
A 1,800 piece "Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area" mailing was sent out to residents
and businesses to Richfield's east side (14th Avenue and east to Cedar Avenue) on
June 26. Staff was waiting for hundreds of phone calls to come into the City regarding
the redevelopment letter, Q&A, and map, but received less than 50 calls the following
three days. Most residents wanted to know about the timeframe of events that will take
place. (See exhibit B)
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC)
The LFNPC met on June 23. The meeting consisted of three reports by the expert
panel on draft chapters of their report. The first report by MAC Consultant Andy Harris
was on noise reduction measurements of homes with and without sound insulation.
Harris reported that measurements taken at 19 homes in Richfield, Minneapolis, and
Bloomington showed several things, they are:
• That there is no significant difference in noise attenuation among the siding types
tested. The types of siding tested were stucco, brick, shakes/aluminum, and
brick/shakes.
• That there is no significant noise reduction at low frequency levels (25 to 80 Hz)
between homes treated under the Part 150 program and untreated homes.
• That treated homes did have a four to five dB reduction over untreated homes at
higher frequencies.
The second presentation portrayed existing levels of low frequency noise in the
community. This work was related to the LFNPC as a work in progress. The expert
panel plans on adding additional measurements of nighttime ambient levels to this
chapter before its completion.
The third report was a preliminary report by Dr. Sandy Fidell on the social survey that
BBN conducted recently in South Minneapolis. The analysis was not complete at the
time of the meeting. Fidell did report that they were pleased with the number of
respondents and that he hoped to provide a more detailed analysis at the next meeting.
The next meeting of the LFNPC will be held on July 22 at 4 p.m.
MASAC
The regular monthly MASAC meeting was held on Tuesday, June 22. The group
.focused on the new MAC web page. This page will incorporate the.existing MAC
environment department web page www.macavsat.orq/ with the MAC web page
www. mspai rport. com/Ta rget=.
The new combined web site will offer several interactive sections that will allow users
access to the Environment Departments database. These interfaces will allow users to
perform their own queries of noise related events in conjunction with aircraft operations.
This will allow staff and residents the opportunity to correlate personal operation with
flight operations and recorded noise events.
MASAC also established a communications committee. The purpose of this committee
will be to work with MAC's public information and environment departments to develop
communication pieces for residents and policy makers in the effected communities.
Richfield MASAC member Mark Hinds was named to the communications committee.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues:
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to future date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of July 6, 1999.
Re ctf Ily submitt d,
to . De is
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
Mevopolitan Airports Commission
All Operations
Runway Use Report May 19 9
0.8%
Note: Pen:entage of actual arrival or departure
operations from ANOMS data.
Runway
~part~re .
Count .
Percentage May 1998
Count May 1998
Percentage
04 A 217 1.1% 173 1.0%
12L A 6044 30.6% 5617 31.3%
12R A 4812 24.4% 3904 21.7%
22 A 145 0.7% 117 0.6%
30L A 3498 17.7% 3593 20.0%
30R A 5039 25.5% 4555 25.4%
Total Arr. 19755 1000/0 17959 100%
04 D 154 0.8% 125 0.7%
12L D 6125 31.8% 4861 27.7%
12R D 3691 19.1% 1250 7.1%
22 D 2488 12.9% 7269 41.4%
30L D 2395 12.4% 388 2.2%
30R D 4446 23.0% 3661 20.9%
Total Dep. 19299 100% .17554 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days.
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
iZICHEIEE[_)
i'
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
cmr couNaL
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M.SANDAHL
KRISTAI STOKES
RUSS SUSAG
~x h'~ hi -~--
June 17, 1999
Dear Richfield Resident:
I am writing to update you on what has happened at the Legislature regarding the Cedar
Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area.
Richfield has received a commitment of.funding from the Legislature to help pay for
redevelopment on Richfield's east side. The Legislature agreed that $30 million in
Metropolitan Airports. Commission (MAC) bonding should be<used to help fund the
redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue Corridor Airport Redevelopment Area.. In providing the
funding, the Legislature agreed with the previous findings of the Metropolitan Council, MAC
and. noise experts that a new North/South Runway will make existing homes and apartments
from both sides of 16~' Avenue to Cedar Avenue uninhabitable.
The City has fought hard to protect its residents from the impacts of a new runway. In 1996,
the Minnesota Legislature directed the MAC to expand the Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport at its current site rather than build a new airport. While the decision saved the State
more than $2 billion in construction costs, it placed a terrible burden on neighboring airport
communities impacted by new levels of noise by the North/South Runway.
Redevelopment of this magnitude is very difficult. If there were any other solutions to noise
and vibration problems that would make the homes in the redevelopment area livable, the
• City would. pursue them. Having to leave your home and move elsewhere is exceptionally.
disturbing and stressful. The City understands that this will be a long and difficult process
and we will be doing everything in our power to make the redevelopment process as easy
and comfortable for people as possible.
We do not know when the redevelopment process can begin. The MAC is not required to
provide the bonding for redevelopment until January 30, 2000. You will be contacted directly
as soon as we are certain that the redevelopment process will proceed and residents can
become involved.
Residents outside of the redevelopment area will not be forgotten. A committee studying the
negative impacts of low frequency noise is scheduled to release a report in August identifying
other neighborhoods around the airport that will be impacted by low frequency noise. Their
report will identify noise protection measures for homes located west of the redevelopment
project area. It will be the job of a Governor's task force to identify ways to fund those
recommended noise protection measures.
At this point, there are still many more questions than answers. In an attempt to answer
some of the most commonly asked questions, we are enclosing a Q8~A and a map which
outlines the redevelopment area. Thank you for your patience.
•
Sincerely,
. ~~~°~!
~~
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Enclosure
The Urban Hontetotii•n
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
www.ci.rknfiNd.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLQYER
AIRPORT UPDATE
JUNE 9, 1999
REDEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS &
ANSWERS
Q. Why does the City have to redevelop the CedarAvenue Corridor Airport Impact
Area?
A. The new North/South Runway at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport will be
just two blocks from homes. That is believed to be the closest any airport has
located a runway to existing residences in the last 25 years. The Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and noise studies all agree
that the noise impacts from the new runway will make existing homes and
..apartments uninhabitable that are located in the first four blocks west of Cedar.
Avenue from. Crosstown Highway 62 to Interstate 494.
Q. What type of noise impacts will be caused by aNorth-South Runway?
A. Low: frequency noise. from aircraft taxiing, landing or taking off on the North/South
Runway will cause a deep, thunderlike rumbling that will shake and rattle walls,
windows and objects on the walls in nearby homes. While this may not seem to be
bothersome, this type of negative airport impact will occur with each of the 300-400
daily flights and last about 45 seconds for every flight.
Q. How big is the redevelopment area?
A. The redevelopment area runs from Crosstown Highway 62 to Interstate 494 and from
Cedar Avenue to both sides of 16th Avenue. Refer to the map, which shows the
area identified for redevelopment based on noise studies and the direction of the
Minnesota State Legislature.
Q. What about the homes just beyond the redevelopment area?
A. A committee studying the negative impacts of low frequency noise is scheduled to
release a report in August identifying other neighborhoods around the airport that will
be impacted by low frequency noise. The committee is made up of voting
representatives from the MAC, Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis and is basing
their recommendations on testimony by three noise experts. Their report will identify
noise protection measures for homes outside of the redevelopment area. It will be
the job of a Governor's task force to identify ways to fund those recommended noise
protection measures. The task force will report its findings to the Legislature and
Governor in January 2000.
Q. How soon will redevelopment begin?
A. The City is not yet certain when redevelopment can begin in the Cedar Avenue
• Corridor Airport Impact Area. Redevelopment money is not secured at this time.
The total cost of the redevelopment is expected to be about $145 million. Of that
amount, $30 million would come from land sale to developers, $30 million would be
provided through-MAC bonding (authorized by the 1999 Minnesota Legislature --
payable in January 2000), $30 million has been agreed to by the MAC within the
Richfield-MAC agreement. Richfield is also seeking $30 million from the federal
government. The remaining $25 million would be sought through the use of tax
increment financing (TIF). Although Richfield did not secure TIF assistance. in this
legislative session, the use of TIF has not been ruled out.
Q. if the redevelopment is phased, could a first phase of redeye/opment begin
before all the funding is secured?
A. Yes. The redevelopment will be phased. and a first phase could begin sometime after
Richfield has received the first $30 million from MAC. A master plan for the area
would determine the phasing'of development, the timing of the phases and land uses
in the various locations.
Q. l have received a solicitation in the mail inquiring about the purchase of my
home. Has the City begun. to schedule acquisitions?
A. No. The City has not contacted homeowners in the redevelopment area to purchase
their homes. No acquisitions can occur before redevelopment funding is secured.
Once funding is secured, the City will not begin acquisitions until open houses or
community meetings are held for property owners and tenants in the area. The
redevelopment process, including acquisition and relocation, will be explained at that
time. Any solicitations being sent to homeowners at this time are not a part of the
S City's redevelopment efforts.
Q. When will the City know more about the timing of the redevelopment?
A. The City is hoping that more will be known within several months. Clearly,
acquisition .and relocation cannot begin this year.
Q. In the meantime, should I make repairs on my home?
A. The redevelopment process will be lengthy, stretching over many years. It is
important for both the occupant, and for the future value of the home, that the home
is properly maintained and does not fall into disrepair.
Q. 7f I make improvements to my home, will l be compensated when my home is
bought out?
A. Homeowners are compensated for improvements that add value. For repair items or
improvements that add little value, there is little compensation. Receipts for work
performed should be saved for evaluation on a case-by-case basis. It is important to
remember that putting off a repair could result in other, more serious damage to a
home, which might reduce its value.
Q. l have a question not addressed in this Q&A. How can I get an answer?
A. .The City will be attempting to answer commonly asked questions in newsletters and
Q&As in the coming months. In some cases, the City may not be able to answer
your question because there is no answer right now. If you have questions, you can
• call Mark at City Hall at 612-861-9708.
` ~ LEGI8LATIVELY DEFINED AIRPORT IMPACT ZONE
III 16TH AVE.
17TH AVE.
.J
+~
piERMEp EY THE CITY OF RICREIEID EROIREEllRl6 OM&OR
CREATED BY V.E.M
~J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Study Session Letter No. 25
Agenda July 6, 1999
Issue Statement:
Discussion of communication mechanisms for redevelopment areas.
Background:
At the June 28 City Council meeting, a Council Member requested an agenda
item for the July 6 Study Session related to City communication with residents
and businesspeople within redevelopment areas and the broader community.
A variety of communication materials are used with regard to redevelopment with
in the City, including:
• Newspaper articles and press releases in the Sun-Current;
• Feature articles and information "bites" in Your City, which is distributed
to every household in the community monthly;
• Formal (include text and graphics) and informal (a page or two of text)
project newsletters sent to residents and business owners in
redevelopment areas; and
• Open houses and informational meetings.
At amid-winter City Council meeting, a homeowner who resides in the Urban
Village redevelopment area appeared. The resident indicated a complete lack of
knowledge of the redevelopment process until a few weeks preceding the
particular Council meeting at which they appeared. The Council requested the
Community Feedback Network (CFN) to examine the situation. In preparation for
the CFN meeting, staff undertook a case. study of the various ways in which
information had been presented to the occupants of the redevelopment site and
the larger community. The study found that between January 1997 and January
1999, there were approximately 36 information pieces/events which had been
utilized including:
• Two articles in the Sun-Current,
• Informational booth at the 1997 Richfield Remodeling Fair to answer
questions regarding Richfield Lake;
• Seven articles in Your City;
• Five Richfield Lake Area newsletters;
• Three informational meetings for residents and business owners in the
RLAP area;
• Three open house events; and
• 15 letters to RLAP residents, some of which were directed specifically to
the Urban Village site.
This case study illustrates the difficulty of developing an effective communication
• program. Another element in an effective communication program is the
recipient. When recipients, receive this information -- what choices do they
make? Many of them receive much mail. Which do they read and which do they
only glance at? How much time do they spend reading it?
Another aspect of communication is the very individual way in which recipients
assimilate information. Some people assimilate information much more
effectively by listening while others are more effective at reading. There is also
the possibility that the recipient will be overwhelmed with information on a
particular topic and not be able to make sense out of it.
Attached is a report from CFN that identifies some issues and recommendations,
and also a possible future role for CFN (Exhibit A). Additional data is provided
from the 1997 random survey conducted by Decision Resources, Inc. (Exhibit B).
Aimee Gourlay of the Mediation Center, the ombudsperson for redevelopment,
will be present at the Study Session to participate in the discussion. Attached is
a copy of a .recently designed information piece (Exhibit C) which will be
distributed in redevelopment areas at the appropriate time.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss communication about the redevelopment and provide direction to staff
regarding future activities.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is appropriate for the Council to discuss this matter.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay the discussion.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Redevelopment is an ongoing process and a discussion of an effective
commy,pication program is very appropriate.
Res tf y submitted
e . Devic
Actin City Manager
SLD:cak
Attachments
•
EXHIBIT A
Community Feedback Network
S Richfield Redevelopment Communications Report
Issues & Recommendations
June 1999
The Community Feedback Network reviewed Richfield redevelopment communications at its
April 7 and May 5 meetings. Community Development Director Bruce Palmborg discussed the
City's communications efforts in redevelopment areas. He was joined by Aimee Gourlay of the
Mediation Center who has assisted the City on public participation/resident contacts in
redevelopment. The Community Feedback Network heard about the many ways in which the
City communicates with residents and businesses in redevelopment areas. The group identified
questions and some recommendations for the City to consider as it reviews ways it can improve
redevelopment communications. The following report highlights the issues identified and
recommendations made by the Community Feedback Network and the ways in which the City is
acting on those recommendations.
Issues:
• Some people don't understand written materials, need someone to listen to them or help
them understand and articulate their questions, and find answers. Some people read
information emotionally or need one-on-one contact to absorb information.
• Language in written communications needs to always be simple and clear, not jargon, so
that people can understand.
• People need to better understand the "why" of redevelopment and how redevelopment is
going to benefit the community. It appears to some that the City has not effectively and
clearly communicated to people why redevelopment must occur.
• People in redevelopment areas need to receive as much information as is available as
.early as possible, especially as it relates to their need to understand whether to make
improvements on their homes and what plans to make for the future.
• When no new information is known, then the City should still inform community
members by explaining what is and is not known, and when more details will be known.
People need a better understanding of the redevelopment process they will face.
• City communications need to acknowledge the difficulty and disruption that
redevelopment causes in people's lives, and not avoid mention of it.
•
• Communications pieces need to be coordinated so that all audiences are receiving the
• same messages about a redevelopment project, process and timing.
Residents in redevelopment areas need to have contact with their City Council
representatives during the process.
Recommendations
1) The Richfield Housing & RedevelopmentAuthoriry (HRA) should hire an
"ombudsperson" to work with people one-on-one who need more information, need to
talk to someone, or don't understand the information that's been provided
Action -- The HRA has contracted with Aimee Gourlay of the Mediation Center to act as
the redevelopment "ombudsperson". The City has also begun to publicize the
ombudsperson's role and availability to those in redevelopment areas. (May Your City,
targeted publications.) April/May `99
2) The City's communications efforts need to acknowledge the difficulty and
disruptiveness of redevelopment in people's lives.
Action -- The City is working with staff to ensure that the difficulty and disruptiveness of
redevelopment is consistently acknowledged and articulated in both oral and written
communications. In addition, the HRA has hired an ombudsperson to not only work with
residents in redevelopment areas, but also to provide feedback to City staff from the
community. May/June `99.
3) The Ciry slaould better articulate to residents the need for redevelopment and the
benefits that the community receives from redevelopment.
Action -- The City has. produced a video "Richfield -- The Growing Urban Hometown"
and a written companion piece which explains why the City needs to redevelop. The
written piece was distributed in the June Your City. Copies of the videos, companion
pieces, and comment cards were distributed to community leaders, including elected
officials, board and commission members, and department heads. The video has been
playing on cable TV (Channel 16) and has been shown at events such as the Realtor
Workshop. The City will be producing fact sheets for new redevelopment areas that
•
include practical as well as policy information, such as why the City needs to redevelop,
• and tax increment finance (TIF) and taxbase explanations. April-July `99.
4) .The City should direct those responsible for redevelopment communications to
coordinate their information and messages in the various pieces they are publishing.
They need to consistently simplify language and avoid jargon.
Action -- The City staff responsible for redevelopment communications are being
encouraged to do a better job of communicating on an understandable level and
coordinating their project communications among audiences. April/May `99.
S) People in redevelopment or potential redevelopment areas need frequent
communication and wizen information is unavailable, they should be given a better
understanding of when information will become available.
Action -- A standard sheet is being developed for redevelopment projects which would be
sent out with every written communication which will forecast the various steps in a
redevelopment process, their time frame and show residents what has occurred to date.
July/Aug. `99.
Action -- Fact sheets are being developed that deal with a typical redevelopment process,
improvements to make or not make if your home is in a redevelopment area, tax
increment finance and tax base information, and why the City redevelops. The City also
plans to produce a short video on the acquisition/relocation process. Summer/Fall `99.
Action -- In the airport impact area, residents will be receiving a regular one-page
newsletter updating them with information and letting them know where to get
information. The newsletter will begin as soon as funding is secured.
6) The City Council needs to work even harder to reach out and communicate with their
constituents in redevelopment areas.
Action -- This recommendation, along with the others, will be communicated to the City
Council for their review.
•
• The Future of the Community Feedback Network
Final Report -- June 1999
In June 1998, the Richfield Community Feedback Network (CFN) was created. The group was
created after a community survey showed strong support for the City by its residents. CFN was
developed to ensure that the City continues to stay connected to community members and that
community members continue to be connected to Richfield's vision for the future. Membership
was open to everyone and the group's creation was advertised in the Your City newsletter.
Community organizations were contacted to solicit names of individuals who would be
interested in participating. A mailing list of about 50 community members was developed from
that process.
The group met from June 1998 through May 1999. CFN members participated in an initial
working session to set their future direction and they agreed to hold information sessions to
become more familiar with the various aspects of the community. Speakers included:
• Mayor Martin Kirsch, Planning Commission Chair Dan Linnihan, Gertrude Ulrich
• Pastor Mark Wegener, Woodlake Lutheran Church, Interfaith Action
• Bill Morris, Decision Resources
• Dr. Barbara Devlin, Superintendent of Richfield Schools
• Dan Scott, Director, Richfield Public Safety Department
• Jennifer Verbrugge, Richfield Public Safety
• Ken Mikle, Richfield Public Safety
• Dennis Johnson, Richfield Human Services Planner/Coordinator
• Leslie Kerkhoff, Richfield FamiLink Coordinator
• Bruce Palmborg, Richfield Community Development Director
• Aimee Gourlay, Mediation Center.
CFN was awarded the "Innovations: Bright Ideas in Local Government" Award from the Board
of Government Innovation and Cooperation in February 1999. At the direction of the City
Council, CFN .met in April and May to review redevelopment communications and has issued
recommendations to the City Council.
At their meeting May 5, CFN members discussed the future of CFN. The group felt the City of
Richfield could best be served by transforming the CFN concept as outlined below. The current
CFN group would no longer continue to meet.
A series of focus groups of Richfield community members should be held annually with
the goal of determining and ensuring effectiveness of City communications.
• Each focus group would be held with residents from a specific quadrant of the
community. Initial groups would involve people who have been homeowners in Richfield
two years or less. The focus groups could target other groups as well, such as new
business owners or new apartment dwellers.
• Focus group attendees could be randomly selected and personally invited. The would be
asked to address a limited number of open-ended questions. The groups should be small
enough to be effective, have an agenda, a specific time frame and the sessions should be
structured to be effective.
At each of the sessions, a limited number of City Council members and staff could be
present to observe and hear first-hand the perspectives of community members.
Feedback should be shared with other city officials and staff and provide insights helpful
in the City's communication efforts.
•
•
EXHIBIT B
•
232. Do you recall receiving the City YES ................
78~C
newsletter, titled ~~Your City,rt ...
NO.. .25~
~
during the past year? KNOW%g~~g~,,,,.?~
DON-T
IF "YES, " .ASK: (N~313 )
233. Do you or any members of your YES. .gT~C
household regularly read it? NO ......... ...........9~
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0~
234. Do you tend to keep it around KEEP IT AROtJND........45~
for later reference or toss TOSS ..................48&
it after you have read DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....
7~
through it? .
235. How effective is the city VERY EFFECTIVE........27~
newsletter in keeping you in- SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE
.
59~
formed about activities in ..
.
NOT TOO EFFECTIVE......8~r
the city -- very effective, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE...1~r
somewhat effective, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5~r
effective, or not at alI ef-
fective?
236. Does your household currently re- YES.
58~r
~
~
~
ceive cable television? .
NO.....
...
...,
,,..
42~
.
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0~
IF "YES, " ASK: (N=232)
237. During the past six months, YES. ,Zg~
~ ~~ ~~~ ...
have you watched telecasts of NO.......
72~k
the Richfield City Council .
DON'T KNOW/ItEFtTSED.. ~ .O~k
Meetings?
•
ZO
~.J- 1 LG ..rr` rr 71 .J• rO
238. Do you own or have aeees• to a YES ...................40~
modem-equipped pereoaal computer? NO/YES ................ii~
(IF "NO," ASR:) Do ..you expect to NO/NO............ „ qgt
have acceee in. he near future? DON'T KNOW/REP'ITSED.....1
IF "YES" OR "NO "
/YES, ASK: {N=Z03)
239. Would yvu be interested in YES ...................dg~
reoeiving city iaform:tion NO.. ........ ,a4t
through computer on-line DON'T IINOW/REP'USED.....7~
aervieee?
•
21
H
P~1
H
W
^
'~t
~.. O
C
~j ~
rJ ~
~
~ ~
_Q
i ~ ~
' O L
~ ~ •
~ ~
O
~ ~ ~ T
~S O L
,~~`~~
CCII Q~
~ Q
J
.Q C
,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ m
O t' O ~ ~ V my
5 es v o~s3
0 ~;
~rn
~~= ~a
Z
• • • ~
U2=
• ~OLSS NW 'Inad ~uies
anuany ~innaH 9£5l
~isaaniu~ aui~uaeH
uoi~n~osaa a~nds~Q ao~ aa~ua~ uoi}eipaW
}, ._.
~ ~ '~ c
~
~
c
~
~
~
~• - ~ .c
~ RS - ~ +r Y
O ~ •~ ~
~ *+: ~ ~
~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~+''O ~ Q
~ N ~i
~ ~ .~
O ~
"
E C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
O ~ O
~
~ O ~
~
(~ ~ N
Y
~ +:
~
•~
A C
O
~
N
~
~
o-E °'~ ~
a~ ~ c Qai o C ~ ~ E v
o ~
~~.o~~~~~ ~s o ~ ~~
~ (t1 R C N
t O ~ ' N
p ~ . O O ife N p
~ to O > F- .~ +-~ C cn ~ ~ i2 Qj Q. .= O N +-• •~ O
*Q ~ p ~ ~
~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ O' ~ c ~ >
~ ~
Q ~
(~ ~' O p (~ N ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ a
~ '~ ~ ~ N
N ~ ~ "O
~
a
air '~ ~
i "O ~' cCS •~ ~ O ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .cn ~" ~ Q ~ N •~ N
fJ,t ~ >~~~`~'~cN~ ~~Ua ~~ ~ Q~ Q om' (n "a Q~
~' ~ ~ ~ ~ O j ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~e .C C ~
~ ~ L C ~i:
~ Q UO ~.~ ~.~ tCS~. ~ a3~ I- o ~
~ +~
N
Q
N
~
O
~
~
......................................................
•, z ~
..........................................................................
_O N ,
....
.......
I~ ?
a>
tLf O ~
Q N
E ~
c
d p
:• ~.
~.
~ _
-
~
0
-
N
n.
O
-
t!
O
A
t
.
iia' L ~
N
N +~
.::::
....
::::::
..:....
....
.._
.. _ ._
to L ~ > C :::: ._
:::::• ' - - - Cdr....
::::
oo-:~;
.....
.....
... ::::::.
rrr:.r:
......
......
.....
'
...
.....
.
.
.....
....
~::::
.....
..::::
.
::::::
......
7 _
.
~
~ ~
~
~ ..::. ::::::
~ O
spy ~ ~
~pp W _ t:{. ~~.,
:n::Y
~~
~I i/ ~
,y~/
aQ WO!
~3 ~y T_2 p (/~
V~ '~'~
U (n ~ ~ ~
~n
vI /L~ '/~~'
W V ~
~n
vI ~
~ ~
~ ~ x::
:....
O ::~i'r
t' :~::.:: :~:'viS'r
......
Y`?'~ °f "~
te.-._.
:.i:~i::: ~____.......
,
.___.1
.. ..
-'•_..
y~
_ ~ - ~ r
_ __
__:
__
:r:~:~:~ :~:~:: ~ ~ .. ___+......~_.._. _
;:.;:.
..... ;:.::..;. eo
...... ,
....
' m
~-d lallo~lN ~
~
.
...}..
~~+d ~P~1
'&Id Uil2d .
~~d sawax -