Loading...
11-02-88 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING WITH FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION II. 7:30-7:35 P.M. YMCA PRESENTATION III. 7:35-8:05 P.M. REPORT FROM 1-35W SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE AND DISCUSSION OF PENDING ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 48 IV. 8:05-8:50 P.M. DISCUSSION OF SENIOR/ELDERLY CONCERNS BY RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 49 V. 8:50-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 50 9:00 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 861-9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 50 Agenda November 2, 1998 Issue Statement: Status of airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following: • Runway 4/22 At October's MAC meeting, the full commission voted to proceed with the extension of 4-22 including the "temporary" extension of the south parallel. Even though it is unclear at this time whether or when these extensions will be used, the MAC will proceed to invest millions of dollars into questionable runway lengthening. • Proposed Runway 17/35 Richfield/MAC Agreement - The biggest area of discord this month was dispelling a misunderstanding that the City of Richfield and the MAC reached agreement on a plan to protect residents from the adverse impacts of airport expansion. The Metropolitan Council and MAC have presented a proposal which still does not substantively address Richfield's chief concerns and provides no assurances that residents will be protected by the adverse impacts of airport expansion. Unlike the agreement MAC negotiated with the wildlife refuge, MAC's proposal for Richfield does not contain promise or commitment of a specific dollar amount being spent to mitigate low frequency noise impacts in Richfield. The proposal also contains language that takes away any rights for Richfield to seek relief from the court system. [Dayton Response to Agreement - Attachment A ] Richfield needs to participate in mediation that addresses in detail, the following areas: • Mitigating the noise impacts of a runway that is built two blocks from residential neighborhoods; • Protecting against possible air and water contamination from a new runway; • Providing needed improvements to arterial streets, interchanges and local streets to keep non-residential traffic off local streets; • Combating the disintegration of the community's appearance due to loss of the golf course and recreational facilities; • Replacement of two parks, a golf course, ball fields, community gardens, a bluebird restoration project, and an archery range; and, • Compensation for the loss of residents and loss of tax base. As stated at the City Council meeting on October 26, Richfield is serious about coming to an agreement with the MAC regarding mitigation of low frequency noise impacts the city will receive as a result of the new runway. Litigation was always, and will remain, a last resort in the assurance of protection for the citizens of our community. The City Council remains optimistic that an agreement that is beneficial to both parties can be developed. On October 27, Mayor Kirsch sent a letter to the Environmental Quality Board, Metropolitan Council, and MAC stating that the draft agreement Met Council brought forth does not provide adequate assurances that residents will receive appropriate mitigation from adverse impacts of Runway 17/35. The letter included that the format for the mitigation discussions did not foster the type of considerations necessary to resolve all issues and requested that a formal mediation process be facilitated by a certified neutral mediator. The letter concluded by stating that the City of Richfield truly believes that mediation on an interest-based level could produce an agreement before the EQB meeting on November 19. [Attachment B] EQB Technical Meeting - The MAC has taken some interesting positions in relation to Richfield's concerns about the new runway. In addition to MAC previously stating that the FAA precluded discussions of low frequency noise in its Environmental Impact Statement, Jeff Hamiel claimed at the October 15 EQB Tech. Rep. meeting that • Richfield asked for noise measurements to be made in an A-weighted scale; • MAC was unaware that low frequency noise was a component of ground level noise; • Richfield never previously stated that the MAC should analyze low frequency noise (as opposed to ground level noise). Richfield considers these statements to be inaccurate. EQB Regular Board Meeting - On Monday October 26, the City of Richfield went before the Environmental Quality Board to presented its case regarding the inadequacy of the MAC's Environmental Impact Statement. John Himle, MAC member, and Nigel Finney, Deputy, spoke on behalf of the MAC; and Charles Dayton, Environmental Attorney; Steve Pflaum, Special Airport Counsel; and Dr. Sanford Fidell, noise consultant, presented Richfield's case. EQB members expressed understanding of Richfield's issues. One Board member even included that a representative from the PCA found the EIS for the new runway project to warrant a "grade" of a C-. Richfield officials asked that the EQB not approve the EIS because of its failure to provide any low frequency noise mitigation for up to 3,000 east Richfield residents who live parallel to where a new North-South Runway would be constructed. EQB members were continually reminded that the new runway would be constructed just blocks away from residents. The City of Richfield presented the EQB with two options to consider before an adequacy decision was made: • • that a contested case hearing would be held before an administrative law judge who would forward a recommendation to the EQB; or that • a panel of noise experts would be convened to study Richfield's issue of low frequency noise impacts and provide a record of finding to the EQB. Neither of these options were acted upon. Instead, the Board's decision was to delay action on the EIS until its next meeting on November 18. Rod Sando, Chair of the EQB, said the Board needed a higher level of understanding regarding Richfield's issues. The MAC was visibly upset by the EQB's uncertainty about the runway project. John Himle stated that it was a political risk to delay the construction. He was vehement in stating that there is not a problem with the adequacy of the new runway, it is the fault of the FAA for not letting MAC identify and divert airport revenue to address the impact of low frequency noise. Candidate Forum The candidate meet-and-greet event on October 20 at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course went very well. The "airport issues" event was co-sponsored by the Richfield CARE Team and the City of Richfield. Most candidates attended the event while some had representatives available for questions. The sheer number of residents (400-500) at the event showed the candidates the importance of the impact of the new North- South Runway on the community. MAC's refusal to mitigate for negative noise impacts dominated discussions. • AMM Policy Committee Richfield and Minneapolis' Noise Mitigation Policy passed through the AMM Board with one small inclusion that, "This policy is not intended to impact airport development or construction decisions." Bloomington voiced opposition to the policy as a whole. [Attachment C] • MASAC Meeting The October 27 MASAC meeting consisted of three main items. X Approved and forwarded at the meeting was a new field rule on run ups, which would bring the rule into line with other operational procedures. [Attachment D] During a discussion of ground noise impacts a possible answer to some of the noise occurring was brought up... the use of Northwest Airlines' test cell facility (which is used around the clock) to test engines. NWA promised to bring back usage information on how the cell is used and will forward it to the MASAC Operations Committee. X Informational discussion about Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP). MASAC was presented with information portraying planes flying in the close-in profile and distant profile and comparing the RMT noise levels for both flights. Fuhrmann stated that the purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the procedure had been implemented off Runways 30L and 30R, as was recommended by MASAC. It was also stated that the noise benefit was inconclusive because of • variables, but that the close-in procedure did produce a benefit the farther you are from the airport. There is approximately a 400-foot gain in altitude at each gate for the close-in procedure relative to the distant procedure. X The meeting also consisted of a presentation on the effectiveness of Mendota Heights corridor crossing. X In other business, the City of Richfield's Council Resolution was forwarded to the operations committee. Because of the contentious nature of the issues discussed, the meeting was quite heated at times. 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 another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of November 2, 1998. 0, ResAectfglly submitted, jStev, Devich ty Manager SLD:cak 0 1998 14:15 FR 15 FLOOR 6123351657 TO 98619749 P.02 Attam matt 9 =EMORANDUMj TO: James Prosser Dawn Weitzel Steven Pflaum Sanford Fidell Kathy Hahne FROM: Charles K. Dayton RE: Problems With Richfield/MAC Proposed Noise Mitigation Agreement DATE: October 28, 1998 FE LE NUMBER : 18638-17412 1. MAC agrees to expedite and update the part 150 program to revise the "DNL contours." The DNL contours do not help with respect to low frequency noise, because they are based upon the "A-weighted" scale. 2. MAC agrees to Richfield's flexible use of funds associated with the noise mitigation within the DNL 60. However, there are no additional funds to mitigate low frequency noise, so Richfield would simply have to spread the existing funds more thinly, and shortchange people who should be receiving overflight noise mitigation funds. 3. MAC agrees to request FAA to revises the Record of Decision to allow "flexibility" in the use of funds. However, no additional funds are committed. 4. MAC agrees to complete an evaluation of low frequency noise and aircraft noise through a panel of three experts. The experts will make a technical recommendation which will have no binding effect. Also, the experts should not render a technical opinion only, but should recommend criteria for determining the areas of Richfield in which low frequency noise mitigation must be provided. The process can be done in three months. While MAC is "committed" to study the issue and to provide LFN mitigation if appropriate, MAC has disclosed its true position in its brief filed for the October 26 EQB meeting. That position is: a) No mitigation is needed for low frequency noise outside of the 65 DNL contour, pg. 9; and • 1732090.01 .3 1998 14:15 FR 15 FLOOR 6123351657 TO 98619749 P.03 b) The standard mitigation which is provided for overflight noise is sufficient to mitigate low frequency noise, pgs. 9, 10. Neither of these things is true as Richfield has repeatedly demonstrated. MAC's position, taken after the tentative agreement of two council members of October 23, 1998 demonstrates clearly that Richfield cannot rely on MAC to recognize the need for my mitigation of low frequency noise. The agreement is, therefore, revealed to be a charade to induce Richfield to withdraw its objections to the FEIS without receiving any actual LFN mitigation. 6. MAC makes the following empty promise: MAC agrees to incorporate impacts into the part 150 program and to pursue federal funding for mitigation, should the FAA formally recognize low frequency noise/vibration. "Impacts" is not defined. More importantly, unless the FAA formally recognizes low frequency noise/vibration as a policy matter in a nation-wide policy change, MAC is not obligated to do anything. In the Baltimore experience, FAA said that each case must be decided on its own, and specifically avoided setting a national policy, although they did permit the use of federal funds for low frequency noise mitigation. The Richfield matter should be handled on an adhoc basis as well, since this is a unique case, a new runway in a densely populated urban area immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 7. The agreement provides that "Richfield agrees not to pursue litigation or other measures that would delay or have the effect of delaying the north-south runway or any part of the MSP airport expansion plan in the ROD totaling 1.0 billion." MAC is asking Richfield to accept on faith the possibility that (a) MAC will decide that low frequency noise mitigation is needed; and (b) either federal or state funds will be provided for that purpose, and to allow the runway construction to go forward before any of these questions are answered. At the same time, MAC has formally taken the position in its brief to MEQB that no additional mitigation is necessary to deal with low frequency noise impacts other than the mitigation already being provided for overflight noise. 8. The agreement provides that the "provisions of the agreement are subject to federal law regarding revenue diversion." This may be a big problem, according to Sanford Fidell. .J 173209o.o1 2 Atw,,hw-&+- g City Manager's Office October 27, 1998 Mr. Ron Sando CITYMANAOER MN Environmental Quality Board JAMES D. PROSSER 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL SUSAN ROSENBERG MICHAEL SANDAHL KRISTAL STOKES RUSS SUSAG E Mr. Neil Peterson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Mr. John Himle Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040-28th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Gentlemen: VIA FAX AND MAIL Mr. Curt Johnson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Mr. Steve Cramer Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040-28th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55450 At our October 26, 1998 meeting, the Richfield City Council concluded unanimously that we would be unable to support the draft agreement forwarded for our consideration. The agreement in its present form does not provide adequate assurances that our residents will receive appropriate mitigation from the expected impacts of Runway 17/35. The uncertainty of mitigation is particularly problematic in light of the deletion from the draft agreement of Richfield's proposal for a tolling agreement that would preserve Richfield's ability to seek redress in court if mitigation is not ultimately obtained. Although the current draft agreement is unacceptable, the Richfield City Council remains strongly committed to continuing discussions that may lead to a settlement in this matter. To that end, we have a proposal that we believe would facilitate the successful conclusion of those negotiations. The Richfield City Council recognizes and appreciates the considerable efforts of Curt Johnson to achieve resolution to this ongoing dispute. Thanks in no small part to his efforts, significant progress has been achieved. However, we believe that the format for the discussions to date did not foster the types of discussions necessary to resolve the remaining issues. The Urban Honletox•n 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 W-6.rlenli61d.mn.u2 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • October 27, 1998 Page 2 We, therefore, respectfully request your consideration of the following: • Continued discussions between the City of Richfield and MAC, utilizing a formal mediation process facilitated by a certified neutral mediator. Enclosed is a list of individuals whom we believe may qualify to provide this mediation service. However, we would be willing to consider other certified mediators that may be proposed by MAC, Met Council or EQB. • Agreement that the continued discussions between the City of Richfield and MAC would be conducted on an interest-based as opposed to position-based format. We believe that discussions focused on the parties' respective interests, as opposed to discussions tied to pre-formulated positions, are more likely to produce creative solutions that the parties will find mutually acceptable. The City believes that these mediation sessions could produce an agreement between now and November 19. In order to accomplish that objective, the City would be willing to meet any time, any day, and as long as necessary during any session. Sincerely, Martin J. Kirsch Mayor MJK:cak Enclosure Copy: Richfield City Council James D. Prosser, City Manager Michael Sullivan, EQB Executive Director Jon Larsen, EQB Principal Planner • MEDIATION SERVICES i Brian Short Howard S. Bellman 123 East Mains Madison, WI 53701-3315 608-255-9393 FAX: 608-255-9593 Mediation Center Hamline University 1536 Hewitt Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 651-523-2880 FAX: 651-523-2967 John Harens Moore, Costello & Hart Transportation =' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role (V-F) The AMM supports continuation of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), a majority of local elected officials membership on the TAB itself and the TAB process, which was developed to meet federal requirements for designation of the Metropolitan Council as the Metropolitan Planning Organization that is responsible for the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metro area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the ISTEA Act of 1991 and the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). • Motion Imaging Recording System (M.I.R.S.): Traffic Law Compliance (V-G) The AMM requests legislative action authorizing utilization of motion imaging recording system technology for governmental units, including cities, on streets and highways to assist promotion of safety and traffic law compliance enforcement. The technology has been proven and is currently used for law enforcement by numerous states, municipalities and other countries. The state should consider a pilot project on municipal streets in the metropolitan area. Airport Noise Mitigation (V-H) In 1996, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was charged with developing a mitigation package for legislative consideration in 1997, but the package was never developed: Costs associated with noise mitigation should be borne by the airport (MAC) and the state since the airport is considered a statewide facility. Noise mitigation programs need to be enhanced to beyond the current 60 DNL contours for existing and future impacted areas. Impacts, including environmental and low frequency noise, must be identified at all MAC airports and applicable mitigation measures implemented by MAC. By the year 2000, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) should establish guidelines for airport noise (including low frequency) in consultation with the MAC, Metropolitan Council, MSP Noise Mitigation Committee and affected cities. This may include expansion of the sound insulation program to the 55 DNL. 1999 Legislative Policies 31 Transportation The MAC should establish a plan to assure funding for required • environmental impact mitigation for legislative action by the conclusion of the 2000 Session and levy a property tax on MAC- owned and leased property if it is not approved. Due to an operations increase of 27 percent by 2010, noise impact fees should be created to encourage conversion to real stage III aircraft. This policy is not intended to impact airport development or construction decisions. Road Access Charge (V-1) In order to fairly provide for major street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the legislature should authorize cities to establish at their option a road access charge to be levied on an area or per lot basis at the time that subdivisions are approved or at the time building permits are issued similar to park dedication fees. • on 1999 Legislative Policies Amai.,vnet?_t c) METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WOLD-CHAMBERLIN FIELD OFFICE OF THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR [Date] NOTICE TO: ALL AIRPORT USERS FROM: Airport Director, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport SUBJECT: FIELD RULE: AIRCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP PROCEDURES The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in consideration of aircraft maintenance requirements and the desire to reduce aircraft noise, has revised its run-up procedures FIELD RULE. The following new rules for maintenance run-ups are effective this date, [date] and supersede all previous Field Rules regarding this issue. 1. All run-ups must be scheduled in advance with MAC Operations by calling 726-5111 or API 65111. The following information is required at the time of the request: • Type of aircraft and aircraft tail number • Proposed start time • Proposed end time • Reason for run-up 2. Approved run-up hours will be from 0600 - 2230L daily. Except for the provisions of paragraph #8, run-ups will not be authorized during quiet hours 2? - 0600L daily). Any engine run for any purpose other than aircraft movement during quiet hours will be restricted to idle power only. 3. Radio contact with FAA ground control is required for approval of movement to/from a run-up area. Aircraft shall monitor ground control at all times during the run-up. 4. In consideration of the noise impact on neighboring communities and to prevent damage to surrounding parked aircraft, equipment and vehicles, run-ups in the MAC run-up pad are restricted to specific headings. If wind conditions do not allow a run-up to be conducted, the run-up should be postponed. The following headings will be used according to type/size of aircraft: • Jet aircraft: • Winds less than 8 kts use 300°headin • Winds 8 kts or greater and less than 15 kts headings clockwise 270°- 090° • Winds greater than 15 lets, headings according to manufacturer specifications • Prop aircraft; no restriction In addition, road guards will be required to stop vehicular traffic on the cargo roadway immediately west of the tun-up pad whenever the following aircraft are running full-power at the indicated headings: • B747 aircraft; headings 070° - 090° • DC 10 aircraft; headings 045° - 090° 5. If wind conditions prevent the use of the MAC run-up pad during regular tun-up hours and a scheduled departure will be delayed, an alternate site may be requested from MAC Operations. The approach end of runway 04 may be available as an alternate run-up location during non-RUS (Runway Use System noise abatement procedures) hours. Any run-up on runway 04 is subject to immediate termination for operational needs. Run-ups on runway 04 will not be authorized during quiet hours. Note: Changes are Underlined and Italic 6. The runway 22 run-up pad is available during regular daytime hours for turboprop run-ups if runway 22 is not an active runway; no heading restrictions. Run-ups on runway 212 will not be authorized during quiet hours. 7. Aircraft "powerbacks" are prohibited during quiet hours. 8. Absolutely no run-ups will be authorized between the hours of midnight and 0500L daily. During the remaining quiet hours, nut-ups will only be approved by MAC Operations if a scheduled departure time cannot be met without the turf-up. Documentation of the after-hours run-up must be maintained by the supervisor making the request and such information will be made available to the Metropolitan Airports Commission immediately upon request: • Flight number • Scheduled gate time • Scheduled departure time • Reason for after hours nm-up • Name of supervisor or manager making request All other requirements of the field rule must still be met when requesting an after-hours run-up. This FIELD RULE contains provisions for efficient aircraft nut-up scheduling and safety during run-up performance with minimum noise impact on the surrounding community. It is essential that each company emphasize to their aircraft maintenance employees, the need to comply with the FIELD RULE. is Tim Callister, AIRPORT DIRECTOR Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport SUPERSEDES RUN-UP FIELD RULE DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1992 E Note: Changes are Underlined and Italic. Richfield Complaint/Question Log: October • • Date Name and Address Concern Person is considering buying home and is 1 1-Oct 7214 S. 13th wondering if it will receive sound insulation. 2 5-Oct A senior at 6704 Noise is getting terrible, her plates vibrate. Safety issues - with aborted landings on the 3 5-Oct Richfield Resident new runway. Wondering what the time frame was going to 4 7-Oct Resident at 6814 Cedar be for the 17/35 - wants to remodel. At 3:15 a.m. a plane was evening with her bedroom window, which is lower then her 5 8-Oct Resident at 75 and 17 trees. 6 15-Oct Richfield Resident Airport questions 7 15-Oct Richfield Resident Question about what was going on. Received CARE Team postcard - who started 8 16-Oct Richfield Resident this? Richfield Resident -6938 He is buying a house and is wondering what's 9 19-Oct 17th going on with the area. Wanted to know the result of the EQB meeting 10 26-Oct Richfield Resident and what she could do to help? Richfield Resident at 11 26-Oct 6322 Grand Question re: soundproofing Comments on the EQB meeting - Mad at 12 27-Oct Rlchfeild Resident Himle Resident just moved in and was wondering if 13 29-Oct resident at 64 & 14 the home was eligible for sound insulation? Page 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 49 Agenda November 2, 1998 Issue Statement: The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) has been reviewing senior/elderly concerns for over two years and has come to the conclusion that a well planned, concerted, community-wide effort is needed to benefit this age group and the community as a whole. Background: Population projections indicate that the senior/elderly population will increase over the next couple of decades but remain relatively constant at 17-18% of the total population. This on-going significant portion of the Richfield population makes contributions to the life, well-being and economics of the community. They also have special requirements such as socialization, health care and housing suited to their particular needs. During 1997 in cooperation with the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA) two forums were held with representatives of a variety of agencies and organizations which serve the elderly. These forums were well attended Those participating were eager to share their experiences and concerns. . 0 The issues and concerns varied but the following items were dominant: • The elderly population in Richfield will continue to increase especially for the over 80 years of age group. • Some elderly remaining in their homes will continue to need support services such as housekeeping, health care and home maintenance. • Elderly residing in Richfield high rise apartments and condominiums are aging in place. Some are finding it difficult to remain in these facilities, and the management of these facilities are struggling how to serve this segment of elderly population. • Many Richfield residents desire to remain in Richfield but residential options such as assisted living, adult day care, nursing homes, etc. are limited. • Those who attended the forums expressed a desire to meet periodically and to continue to develop ways in which senior issues could be discussed and efforts made toward recommendations and resolution. There was agreement that those serving the elderly were not in communication with each other and more contact would be beneficial for improved services to the elderly. A particular concern was for the elderly who are frail, live alone and are isolated from neighbors and the community. Recommended Motion: i Discuss the formation of a community wide study group under the auspices of the RCHSPC and the Richfield Community Council for the purpose of identifying and analyzing senior/elderly issues, needs in service, and develop short and long term recommendations. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The elderly population is projected to remain relatively constant over the next 10-12 years at 17-18% of the total population up to about 2010. (Source: SHeRPA, June 1998) 2. During this period, seniors 85+ will be a growing share of this age group placing a greater demand on social service providers. (Source: City of Richfield residential survey; Decision Resources, Ltd.; 1997) 3. After 2010, the number and share of seniors are expected to grow in number and share of the total population as baby boomers move into the 65+ age bracket. (Source: SHeRPA, June 1998) 4. While some senior/elderly needs are being addressed and future plans being developed, a comprehensive, collaborative plan for meeting the on-going needs of this age group is lacking. 5. Organizations and agencies serving the senior/elderly population in Richfield have expressed considerable interest in developing an approach to serving the elderly more efficiently and collaboratively. 6. The City can play a vital role in assisting and developing 'a plan and framework to address the needs of this age group while at the same time benefiting the community as a whole. 7. The senior/elderly population contribute economically, culturally and socially to the Richfield community providing vitality and resources and will do so for the foreseeable future. 8. Richfield seniors have a strong desire to want to continue to live in Richfield and have expressed an interest in more local options to do so, especially in housing choices. (Source: City of Richfield residential survey; Decision Resources, Ltd.; 1997) 9. It appears that SHeRPA would be in a good position to assist in this effort since it has been involved in Richfield on this issue. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Ask a coalition of agencies/organizations to undertake this effort on their own. This poses conflict of interest issues and also whether the resources for support and implementation would be present. 0 2. Consider the Program Committee of the Community Center taking such a task. This group has a history of concerning itself with the Community Center, its programs and the elderly who attend and use services there. It may not be sufficiently connected with all the entities in the community needed for such a comprehensive approach. 3. Leave things as they are hoping senior/elderly issues will be addressed. Some issues will be addressed in the open market place because this is a significant population group. (This is evident by CSM and RBT proposals for various forms of senior housing). This would be a hit and miss approach left to chance. It lessons the potential for an as orderly way as possible for the elderly to move through various phases of their lives. (Wellness to lessened capabilities; move from single family homes to other options freeing up homes for recycling, Rediscover; etc.). Discussion/Decision Mode: The RCHSPC would hope for a favorable resolution of this request so this effort can begin as early as possible in 1999. Official action on this matter would have to be taken at a regular City Council meeting. R c ully submi d, is Acting City Manager SLD:cak 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 48 Agenda November 2, 1998 Issue Statement: Report from 1-35W Solutions Alliance and discussion of pending issues. Background: The 1-35W Solutions Alliance (Alliance), composed of representatives of the south metro cities and counties of Burnsville, Bloomington, Lakeville, Richfield, Dakota County, Apple Valley, Minneapolis, Savage and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, was formed in 1989 to address the alternatives available for improving I-35W. Since the formation of the Alliance, the 1-35W Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed, the preferred EIS alternative rejected and a scaled back version of the 1-35W plan advanced. Since initially joining the organization, Richfield has, from time to time, contributed about $2,500 toward promotion of the organization's positions. The Alliance continues to address issues of common concern along I-35W. Most recently the group is focusing attention on extending the Diamond Lane from 1-494 into Minneapolis, Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT), transit in the 1-35W corridor, and the 1-35W/1-494 interchange reconstruction. Minneapolis Council Member Steve Minn, representative of Alliance members, and Bob Tennesson, consultant, are expected to attend the November Richfield City Council Study Session to discuss with Council the issues of common concern now before the Alliance. Recommended Motion: No action required. Council is encouraged to ask questions related to the 1-35W Solutions Alliance and issues of common concern. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Richfield has been a member of the 1-35W Solutions Alliance since 1989. 2. Representatives of Alliance members will be present at the Study Session to discuss issues of common concern for the Alliance members. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for 7:35 p.m. at the November 2, 1998 Richfield City Council Study Session. R pe tfully submi d, 4:?7 Ste L. Devich 4i Acting City Manager fe SLD:cak