Loading...
1-8-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 9996 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER I. SPECIAL MEETING WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S NIGEL FINNEY, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT, AND STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING MEMBER SUE SANDAHL, TO DISCUSS DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 1 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS is AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1995 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 1995 PRESENTATION OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. INTRODUCTION OF CITY'S FINANCE MANAGER, CHRIS REGIS 3. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING 1996 HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICE WITH THOSE AGENCIES FUNDED BY CITY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 2 0 AGENDA APPROVAL 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 5. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER EQUIPMENT AT BOTH 12TH AVENUE AND 77TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE AND 77TH STREET C.L. 3 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING JANUARY 22, 1996 AS PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF NEW ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR D F & R OPERATING COMPANY, INC. D /B /A DON PABLO'S, 980 WEST 78TH STREET C.L. 4 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CITY'S XEROX 1500 COPIER IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $10,590 C.L.5 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REAPPOINTMENT OF VERN LUETTINGER TO TWO YEAR TERM AS HEARING EXAMINER C.L. 6 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING MAY 6, 1996 FOR 1996 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING C.L. 7 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF BID MINUTE TABULATION AND REJECTION OF BID OF E -Z GO CONTRACTORS IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $28,285 FOR LEASING GOLF CARTS IN 1996 -1998 AND AUTHORIZATION TO READVERTISE FOR CONTRACT C.L. 8 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR POLYMER FOR USE AT WATER PLANT FROM NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $10,720 C.L. 9 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR RICH ACRES CLUBHOUSE FLOORING FROM BARBARA - LEONARD SPECIALTIES IN AMOUNT OF $12,284.51 C.L. 10 I. SECOND AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR ROUTE AND SEAL OF CRACKS IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT; BERGMAN COMPANIES INC. OF WISCONSIN; $15,028.61 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING 1996 LICENSE RENEWALS: • AAGARD SANITATION: GARBAGE HAULER, 4 VEHICLES • AIRPORT & AIRLINE TAXI: 50 VEHICLES • AIRPORT BOWL: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, CIGARETTE RETAIL, BOWLING ALLEY, ON -SALE NON INTOXICATING - MALT LIQUOR, FOOD - VENDING MACHINES • BOONE TRUCKING INC.: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE • BROWNING- FERRIS IND.: GARBAGE HAULER, 12 VEHICLES • C &J ROLL OFF SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE • DICK'S SANITATION SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 3 VEHICLES • EDDIE'Z SOUTHDALE CAR WASH: CAR WASH, CIGARETTE RETAIL, FOOD - RETAIL, SOFT DRINK • GODFATHER'S PIZZA: SOFT DRINK, FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, FOOD - VEHICLES, ON -SALE NON - INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR • KINHDO RESTAURANT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, ON -SALE NON - INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR • LARIAT LANES: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, BOWLING ALLEY, ON -SALE NON - INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR • QUALITY WASTE CONTROL, INC.: GARBAGE HAULER, 6 VEHICLES • PAUL'S RENTALS & SALE: TRAILERS AND TRUCKS RENTAL • RICHFIELD - BLOOMINGTON HONDA: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER • RICHFIELD SENIOR SUITES: ROOMING HOUSE • SUBURBAN TAXI CORPORATION: 80 VEHICLES • VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL INC.: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE • VINA RESTAURANT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, ON -SALE NON - INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR • WALLY MCCARTHY'S OLDS INC.: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER • WALSER BUICK: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER • WALSER IMPORTS: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER • WASTE MANAGEMENT - SAVAGE: GARBAGE HAULER, 25 VEHICLES • WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 6 VEHICLES PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR ADDITION OF SECTION 811 - PRIVATE USE OF BOULEVARDS; AND, CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTABLISHED 1996 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 11 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP WITH RESPECT TO REALIGNMENT OF 77TH STREET AND CONSEQUENT CREATION OF SPLINTER PARCEL AT 76TH STREET AND EMERSON AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 12 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF 6432 -15TH AVENUE AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE TO HRA COUNCIL LETTER NO. 13 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 9. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER REGARDING OATH OF OFFICE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 14 RESOLUTIONS 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION INVOKING RULES REGARDING COUNCIL MEMBER ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 15 11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO ORDINANCE BILL NO. 1995 -17 APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 1995 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 16 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 AFL /CIO FOR 1996 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 17 13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR 1996, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF COLLATERAL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 18 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 14. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR NEW COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR VETSMART PET HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, 1100 WEST 78TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 19 15. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF MAYOR PRO TEMPORE FOR 1996 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 20 16. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1996 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 21 17. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1996 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 22 18. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATION OF COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS FOR 1996 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 23 AIRPORT BUSINESS 19. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 20. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 21. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 22. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 23. 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 Council Letter No. 23 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Designation of Council liaison appointments for 1996. Background: Members of the City Council serve as the City's representative on various metropolitan agencies and the City's Board /Commissions. Each year, the Council appoints Council Members to serve on the various agencies. Recommended Motion: Designate representatives for the various boards and agencies. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City needs representation on these boards and agencies. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the designations until a future Council meeting. Discussion /Decision Mode: 40 This item has been placed on the January 8, 1996 Council agenda for consideration. Re ec ully submitted, evic Acting City Manager SLD:cak • r AGENCY 1995 LIAISON ASSOC. METRO MUNICIPALITIES RUSS SUSAG, REP. JIM PROSSER, ALT. SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION DON PRIEBE, DIR. JIM PROSSER, DIR. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. STEVE DEVICH, ALT. NOISE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MASAC RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT STOREFRONTNOUTH ACTION ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH COMM. SERVICES COMMISSION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION MICHAEL SANDAHL, REP. DON PRIEBE, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, REP. JAMES PROSSER, ALT. DON PRIEBE, REP. JAMIE VERBRUGGE, REP. MICHAEL SANDAHL, ALT. JAMES PROSSER, ALT. SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP. MICHAEL SANDAHL, ALT. JACK ERSKINE, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. DON PRIEBE, LIA. RUSS SUSAG, ALT. RUSS SUSAG, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. RUSS SUSAG, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. RUSS SUSAG, ALT. RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP. SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL NO ALTERNATE 18--1 1996 LIAISON f17 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 22 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Designation of official newspaper for 1996. Background: The Richfield Sun - Current, published by Minnesota Sun Publications, has been the City's official newspaper for many years. Attached is a copy of a letter from Minnesota Sun Publications requesting that they be designated the official newspaper for the City of Richfield for 1996. The 1996 legal advertising rate is approximately 7% higher than the 1995 rate. The rate structure for legals is as follows: Column Width $1.09 per line - first insertion $0.55 per line - subsequent insertions The City will submit legal notices to the Sun Newspaper via modem, therefore for a 10% rate discount. Recommended Motion: Designate the Richfield Sun - Current as the official newspaper for the City of Richfield for the year 1996. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The paper is delivered to nearly all residences in the City, thereby providing City- wide coverage of legal notices to residents. 2. The paper has served well as the official newspaper for many years. 3. The paper has expressed a desire to continue to provide this service. 4. The cost for legal publications is reasonable. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not make a designation and request the City Clerk's office to check into using another publication, such as the Minneapolis StarTribune, however, this would be much more costly. • l/)-I Discussion /Decision Mode: The City publishes legal notices on a frequent basis, therefore, this item has been placed on the January 8, 1996 City Council agenda so that a designation can be made for 1995. submitted, Acting City Manager SLD:cak • • i(PIA l60 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 8, 1995 Issue Statement: Council designation of Acting City Manager. Background: It is necessary to designate a person to serve as the Acting City Manager for those times when the City Manager is absent from the City. The Director of Administrative Services has previously been designated as the Acting City Manager. Recommended Motion: Designate Steven L. Devich, Director of Administrative Services, as the Acting City Manager. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This appointment is necessary to ensure continuation of City operations during the absence of the City Manager. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. Defer this appointment to a later Council meeting. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the January 8, 1996 Council agenda for Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, n . De&-- Acting City Manar 4 SLD:cak %5- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 20 Agenda January 8, 1995 Issue Statement: Council designation of Mayor Pro Tempore. Background: It is necessary to designate a Council Member to serve as the Mayor Pro Tempore for those times when the Mayor is absent from the City. Past Mayor Pro Tempores include: 1995 Mike Sandahl 1994 Mike Sandahl 1993 Mike Sandahl Recommended Motion: Designate a Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore for 1996. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This appointment is necessary to ensure continuation of City operations during an absence of the Mayor. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer this appointment to a later Council meeting. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the January 8, 1996 Council agenda for Council consideration. Z c tf Ily submi ed, . De Acting City Manager SLD:cak • Iq CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 19 • Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new commercial kennel license for Vetsmart Pet Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street. Background: On November 15, 1995, Vetsmart Pet Hospital and Health Center submitted an application for a new commercial kennel license. They will be located in the "Shops at Lyndale" complex in the Petsmart portion of the building, between Sportsmart and Best Buy. A question has been raised as to whether Vetsmart is eligible under Minnesota State Statutes to operate a veterinary clinic in the State of Minnesota. While this is an issue the Council may wish to consider, it is one that may have to be dealt with in court. The City Attorney will be available to provide additional information regarding this issue at the City Council meeting. It is staff's recommendation to issue a commercial kennel license at the location which may cover a number of activities to include the offering of veterinary services. The applicant has been notified, however, that if the license is granted, it is subject to compliance with all Minnesota Statutes. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved provided that it is in compliance with all Minnesota State Statutes, City ordinances and applicable rules. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has been made aware of the City codes pertaining to a commercial . kennel license. 2. Staff has discussed with Petsmart/Vetsmart officials the possibility that they could be prosecuted for failure to comply with Minnesota State Statutes if they should practice veterinary services after the license is issued. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. Discussion /Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a new commercial kennel license for Vetsmart Pet Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street, provided that it is in compliance with all Minnesota State Statutes, City ordinances and other applicable rules. Res a tf Ily submitt , Steven . Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds /8 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 18 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 1996, including the approval of collateral. Background: In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 475.66 and 118.005, the City of Richfield must designate financial institutions annually. The institutions must pledge the collateral over and above the amount of federal insurance, as public depositories. For the year 1996, two institutions have fulfilled this requirement and will be considered as depositories for the City's Deputy Registrar, payroll and vendor accounts and all savings deposits in excess of $100,000. They are Richfield Bank and Trust Company, pledging collateral of $1,318,636; and Firstar Bank of Richfield, pledging collateral of $1,000,000; Norwest Bank Minnesota is also an official depository for the City, however, balances in this institution do not exceed $100,000 and thus collateral is not required. A resolution designating this institution as an official depository is attached to the Council Letter. • Richfield Bank & Trust and Firstar Bank have received a community reinvestment rating of "satisfactory." Norwest Bank has received a community reinvestment rating of "outstanding." Some of the factors considered when the institutions are evaluated are community marketing, workshops, contributions, housing /small business loan programs, and community education. Another resolution must be provided annually, designating certain savings and loan associations and banks as official depositories for savings and loan associations and banks as official depositories for investment of certain City funds. With approval of these official depositories, the City will be able to invest funds in these institutions, not exceeding the federal insurance of $100,000. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions designating official depositories, with the understanding that the City could not invest in any of the depositories beyond the level of insurance coverage of the pledged collateral. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City is required by Minnesota Statute 475.66 and 118.005, to designate as a depository of funds, insured banks or thrift institutions as defined in Section 518.01, Subdivision 3, Minnesota State Statutes. Any collateral so deposited is accompanied by an assignment pledged to the City in the amount specified in the attached resolutions. 13-/ 2. The City has worked with the institutions recommended in the past and has found to have a good working relationship with these institutions. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could solicit other financial institutions for official depositories, but past relationships with the depositories recommended have proven satisfactory for the City. Discussions /Decision Mode: Action of the City Council is desirable at January 8, 1996, City Council meeting so that the City may invest funds in the approved financial institutions for the year 1996 immediately. Re c ully submitt ev r Acting City Manager SLD:cak • • / 3 °(:�_ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRSTAR BANK - RICHFIELD A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS OF THE CITY RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 1996 AND APPROVING COLLATERAL BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66 and 118.005, the Firstar Bank - Richfield be, and hereby is designated a depository of the funds of the City of Richfield, subject to modification and revocation at any time by said City, and subject to the following terms and conditions: The said depository shall not be required to give bonds or other securities for such deposits. provided that the total sum thereof shall not at any time exceed in any depository the sums for which its deposits are insured under the Acts of Congress of the United States relating to insurance of bank deposits; but not in case such deposits in any such depository shall at any time exceed such insured sum, said depository shall immediately furnish bonds or other security for such excess according to law, approved by the City Council of said City. That said depository shall pay on demand all deposits therein; and shall pay all time deposits, at or after the end of the period for which the same shall be deposited, on demand. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a general account in which shall be deposited all monies from liquor, golf, swimming pool /ice arena operations and City permits. Checks on this account shall be signed by the following officers or their facsimile signatures: JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH, TREASURER BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a City payroll account. There shall be issued a single check biweekly for an amount equal to the biweekly City payroll, payable to the Treasurer for deposits in such payroll account. Thereafter, the Treasurer is authorized to issue payroll checks on said accounts for all wages or salaries included in said biweekly payroll. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be a daily interest bearing checking account. All interest earned shall be transferred to the Investment Trust Fund. /3,3 • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that collateral in the amount of $1,000,000, is deposited for safekeeping at the Firstar Bank - Milwaukee, Wisconsin is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 13-L) 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NORWEST BANK - RICHFIELD A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS OF THE CITY RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 1996 AND APPROVING COLLATERAL BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66 and 118.005, the Norwest Bank - Richfield be, and hereby is designated a depository of the funds of the City of Richfield, subject to modification and revocation at any time by said City, and subject to the following terms and conditions: The said depository shall not be required to give bonds or other securities for such deposits provided that the total sum thereof shall not at any time exceed in any depository the sums for which its deposits are insured under the Acts of Congress of the United States relating to insurance of bank deposits; but not in case such deposits in any such depository shall at any time exceed such insured sum, said depository shall immediately furnish bonds or other security for such excess according to law, approved by the City Council of said City. That said depository shall pay on demand all deposits therein; and shall pay all time deposits, at or after the end of the period for which the same shall be deposited, on demand. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a daily general checking account in which shall be deposited all monies for City licenses. Checks on this account shall be signed by the following officers or their facsimile signatures: JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH, TREASURER Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • /3 -S RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE RICHFIELD BANK AND TRUST COMPANY A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 1996 AND APPROVING COLLATERAL BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66 and 118.005, the Richfield Bank and Trust Company be, and hereby is designated a depository of the funds of the City of Richfield, subject to modification and revocation at any time by said City, and subject to the following terms and conditions: The said depository shall not be required to give bonds or other securities for such deposits provided that the total sum thereof shall not at any time exceed in any depository the sums for which its deposits are insured under the Acts of Congress of the United States relating to insurance of bank deposits; but that in case such deposits in any such depository shall at any time exceed such insured sum, said depository shall immediately furnish bonds or other security for such excess according to law, approved by the City Council of said City. That said depository shall pay on demand all deposits therein; and shall pay all time deposits, at or after the end of the period for which the same shall be deposited, on demand. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a general account in which shall be deposited all monies from the water, sewer, and storm sewer operations and not otherwise specifically provided for. Checks on this account shall be signed by the following officers or their facsimile signatures; JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH, TREASURER BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be a daily interest savings account. All withdrawals from said account will be for transfers to the general checking account. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that collateral in the amount of $1,318,636, is deposited for safekeeping at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor / ,5-( RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND BANKS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66 and 118.005, municipal funds may be deposited in any Savings and Loan Association or Bank which has its deposits insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and WHEREAS, the amount of said deposits may not exceed the FSLIC /FDIC insurance covering such deposits which insurance amount is presently $100,000; and WHEREAS, the deposit of City funds in Savings and Loan Associations and Banks would provide greater flexibility in the City's investment program and maximize interest income thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the proper management of City funds that various Savings and Loan Association and Banks be designated as additional depositories for City funds for 1996. 2. It is further found and determined that the purpose of such depository designation is to facilitate the proper and advantageous investments of City funds and that such designation is not exclusive nor does it preclude the deposit of any City funds in other officially designated depositories of the City. 3. The Treasurer and Finance Manager are hereby authorized to deposit City funds in various depositories up to the amount of $100,000, or such other amount as may be subsequently permitted by law, such deposits to be in the form of demand accounts for Public Unit Savings Certificates purchased by the City, payable to the City of Richfield on the signatures of the City Treasurer of Finance Manager. Such deposits may be made and withdrawn from time to time by the Treasurer or Finance Manager as his best judgment and the interests of the City dictates. 4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted in accordance with established policies of the City regarding the investment of City funds. %3 -9 0 5. The following investment firms are being used to service depositories outside the metropolitan area AVD Investments 2942B Wanamaker Drive Topeka, Kansas 66614 Kansas National Investments 2942B Wanamaker Drive Topeka, Kansas 66614 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk OR • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 17 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1996 Labor Agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 and the City of Richfield. Background: City staff has completed negotiations on a labor agreement for the year 1996 with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 unit, subject to Council approval. The bargaining unit consists of approximately 40 City employees including Community Service Workers, Mechanics and Water Plant Operators. The significant changes which have been negotiated for the year 1996 are as follows: • A 2% adjustment over 1995 wage rates effective the first payroll in 1996, and another 2% adjustment effective July 1, 1996, for all classifications. This is a total cost increase of percentage increase of 3% for the Unit and falls within the 1996 adopted budget. • A $10.00 monthly increase in the City's contribution for dependent health insurance for a maximum of $345.00 /month. This maximum contribution is identical to General Services and Management employee groups for 1996. • An increase in the maximum accrual of Personal Leave from 160 hours to 180 hours. • Reimbursing employees who choose to purchase prescription safety glasses or safety shoes /boots up to $25 per year. The term of the Labor Agreement is from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor Agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 unit for the year 1996. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City has met and negotiated with Local 49 for the settlement of the 1996 Labor Agreement and has agreed upon a tentative settlement as outlined in this Council Letter. 2. Wage and benefit settlements are comparable to other City of Richfield employee groups. 3. The Local 49 employees have voted on the issues and have given their approval /a- I Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the Labor Agreement, requiring further negotiations and /or arbitration. Discussion /Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records and enact the new pay rates retroactive to January 1, 1996 as soon as possible, it is recommended that the City Council act on January 8, 1996 to adopt the attached resolution providing for the adoption of the 1996 Labor Agreement, effective January 1, 1996. R p ;;. ully submi ed, ael Steve ievich Acting City Manager SLD:cak • 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 AFL /CIO FOR THE YEAR 1996 WHEREAS, the City Manager has reached an agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the year 1996; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the year 1996 and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 10-4 • 1 , { , v � N .O U b Y % .. N i � r '� d d. i d n p n? C N 1 •� " _ d 3 Y•u -�U 1 b = d r L a 1 WK y J r'. W n V U Q 1 ' p O� N eCi .w �� A C_ • i� ; N Ilk un „ t a U iA u. W M G C O 1 � Q�' .., .. 'UO -dr G- as J" A` 'V CU Ou.V 1i • T q lJ L. + :� `' �� � i p ^ y � r O G r O • C_ r.'. in ,f e O "• N ... •J N O _ L Y � J � Y M V .I• � �• � G � O - " (i ou"o o P N �� 1 at= z<0::, } X a� J ci u O L �t �X Q v o J a � I u 1 N u Lij } W Z LW T n G I l I X l u O x } :OR �: ZZO u } A_ ■� �OrL O ° N -_ un ryJ ►l H v S ti yy F H 00 1 c ^ J tn cc I Z W.J i t r I 01% _ V CJ N 1 lf1 was _ C- r Ln 5C r � � I/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 16 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution on various issues related to Ordinance Bill No. 1995 -17 approved December 11, 1995 amending section of the code of ordinances regarding lawful gambling. Background: On December 11, 1995, the Council conducted a public hearing and second reading to approve an amendment to an ordinance that would change the qualifications required for the City to consider in consenting to a lawful gambling permit. At the request of a Council Member, this item is being returned to the Council for further discussion and consideration of the attached resolution. Recommended Motion: Review, discuss and approve the attached resolution. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City has received inquiries from a number of constituents on this ordinance amendment. 2. Further discussion and study on any ordinance change relating to lawful gambling may be appropriate. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do nothing. Allow the ordinance that was approved December 11, 1995 to go into effect on January 20, 1996. 2. Provide staff with other direction. Discussion /Decision Mode: Consider and approve the attached resolution which will rescind Ordinance Bill No. 1995 -17 which will then provide for more in depth study on the issue. Ily submitted, 41 evi Ok Actingty Manager f 0 SLD:cak 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PREMISES PERMITS FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the City Council did on December 11, 1995 give second reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would change the qualifications required for the City to consider consenting to a State issued premises permit to engage in lawful gambling ( "Bill No. 1995 -17 "); and WHEREAS, Bill No. 1995 -17 was published in the official newspaper of the City on December 20, 1995, and would have become effective on January 20, 1996; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the second reading approval of Bill No. 1995 -17, this Council has concluded that further inquiry and study is necessary in order to fully analyze and understand the impact of any amendments to the City's regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, among the issues which merit further study are: 1. The types of establishments which are suited to have lawful gambling conducted on their premise. 2. The number of premises permits which should be authorized at any given time. 3. The amount of detail which should be present in any regulation versus the amount of flexibility which should be available to the City in reviewing any premises permit. WHEREAS, this Council believes that the full and complete review and consideration of these and other issues are of vital importance to the public health, safety and welfare and in the best interests of the residents of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the action of approving Bill No. 1995 -17 is hereby rescinded. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish notice of such recision in the official newspaper of the City. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to commence a study and investigation regarding conditions which might reasonably and appropriately be placed upon the City's consideration of premises permit applications. Such / I -a. study is to include the issues described above. 4. The City Manager will report periodically to the City Council concerning the progress of the study; and will, not later than June 3, 1996 submit to the Council a report and recommendation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 10 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 15 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution invoking rules regarding Council Member attendance at Council meetings. Background: Richfield City Code Subsection 205.15 establishes rules for attendance at Council meetings, the operation of which may be invoked by resolution of the Council. Subsection 205.15 provides that, when invoked, the rules are effective only for the calendar year in which the resolution is adopted. The City Council Members have requested that a proposed resolution to invoke the rules for calendar year 1996 be considered at the January 8, 1996 meeting. The proposed resolution restates the rules provided in Subsection 205.15 and establishes fines for unexcused absences from regular and special business meetings of the Council. Subsection 205.15 allows a fine of up to $75 per unexcused absence for Council Members and up to $100 per unexcused absence for the Mayor. The proposed resolution provides for fines of $25 and $50, respectively, for the Council 40 Members and Mayor. No fine is recommended for unexcused absences from special meetings called for informational or ceremonial purposes. Recommended Motion: Consider the attached resolution of rules invoking rules regarding Council Member attendance at Council meetings. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Richfield City Code establishes attendance rules, which may be invoked for any calendar year by Council resolution. 2. Council Members have requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for consideration at the January 8, 1996 meeting. Alternative Recommendation: The Council Members may consider a number of alternatives including the following: Increasing or decreasing the fine, within the limits allowed by the Richfield City Code. 2. Eliminating the fine. 3. Imposing a fine for unexcused absences from special informational or special ceremonial meetings. 0_I Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the January 8, 1996 City Council agenda for consideration. Respectfully submitted, 0 • St e Acting City Manager SLD:cak 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING ATTENDANCE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the attendance of Council Members at meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members; and WHEREAS, member presence to participate in hearings, deliberations and decisions of the Council is essential to the proper discharge of the member's official duties; and WHEREAS, recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present at all meetings and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters, occasional absences are excusable; and WHEREAS, Subsection 205.03 of the Richfield City Code establishes rules for attendance at Council meetings that may be invoked by resolution of the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Richfield, Minnesota that • the following rules apply to absences of Council Members from meetings during calendar year 1996: A member of the Council may not be absent from any regular or duly called special meeting unless excused by a majority of the Council. Regular meetings are those defined as in Section 205.01 of the Richfield City Code. Special Council meetings are those called pursuant to Subsection 205.03 of the Richfield City Code. For purposes of this resolution, special meetings are further categorized as: a) Special business meetings: Special meetings called to conduct official business of the City where the Council considers action requiring a vote of the City Council. b) Special informational meetings: Special meetings called for the City Council.to receive information or to participate in discussion but where no official action of the City Council is taken. c) Special ceremonial meetings: Special meetings called for ceremonial activities but where no official action of the City Council is taken, including ribbon cuttings, community celebrations and similar activities. 2. Notices of special meetings shall be deemed properly addressed if addressed to the address shown on the member's voter registration. /33 0 3. Any member of the Council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible, give advance notice to the City Manager stating i) the meeting at which the member will be absent; ii) the member's reason for being absent; and iii) the member's location during the meeting. 4. At the beginning of each regular, special business or special .informational meeting, the Clerk shall call the roll. If a member is absent, the City Manager shall report any communication from the absent Council Member regarding the reason for absence. The Mayor shall request the Council Members to determine whether the absence is excusable or unexcusable. 5. For each unexcused absence from a regular or special business meeting, the absent member shall be penalized by a fine of $25 and the Mayor, if absent, shall be penalized by a fine of $50. The fine shall be automatically deducted from the next Council Member payment unless otherwise directed by a majority of the City Council Members present. No fine shall be imposed for an unexcused absence from a special informational or special ceremonial meeting. 6. This resolution remains in effect until December 31, 1996, unless revoked prior to that date by resolution of the Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk n �J Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 14 Agenda January 8, 1996 • Issue Statement: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amending the Richfield City Charter. Background: The Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to the City Charter. The amendment would provide the following changes in the City Charter: Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon the duties of b+s office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of * "��e the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Richfield and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and ability." Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of this ordinance to amend the City Charter and schedule the public hearing and second reading for February 26, 1996. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Charter Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to amend the Charter. 2. The adoption of the ordinance amendment requires the affirmative vote of all the Council in order to pass. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to request that the Charter amendment be submitted to voters for approval. 2. The Council may decide to recommend modifications to the Charter and send the question back to the Charter Commission. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the January 8, 1996 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, L. evi Acting City Manager • SLD:cak Copy: Richfield Starleaf, Charter Commission President Attorneys at Law "OBERT A. ALSOP ONALD H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BUBUL JOHN B. DEAN DANIEL J. GREENSWEIG DAVID J. KENNEDY CHARLES L. LEFEVERE JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. LONG JAMES M. STROMMEN CORRINE HEINE THOMSON December 7, 1995 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337 -9300 Cheryl Krumholz City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL 337 -9217 &CEIVE Nc y 10. JAMES J. THOMSON, JR. LARRY M. WERTHEIM BONNIE L. WILKINS JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929 -1991) OF COUNSEL BRUCE M.BATTERSON ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON WELLINGTON H. LAW CURTIS A. PEARSON T. JAY SALMEN RE: Ordinance Amending Section 13.02 of City Charter Dear Cheryl: Enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending Section 13.02 of the City Charter. The • charter commission has recommended the adoption of the enclosed ordinance, which requires the unanimous vote of the council in order to pass. The ordinance requires two weeks' published notice, and the public notice is enclosed also. Please call me if there are any questions. • Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson Enclosure cc: John Dean (w /enc) CAH97663 RC145 -17 BILL NO. q- C�l AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT: . AMENDING SECTION 13.02 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background: findings: authority. 1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 13 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 2.02. 1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on , 1996 by the City Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public hearing. • 1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted. Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing. 2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted. 2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows: Section 13.02 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon the duties of #+s office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of *"mate the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the Citv of Richfield and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and ability." 2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. 2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • • 0 MAY 9,1995 MINUTES Present: Richard Starleaf, Dorothy Holstrom, Thomas Ticen, Shirley Johnson, Gordon Anderson, Inger Palm, Jane Hagen Hendrickson, Joe Novak, Gordon Herrboldt, Russell Kennedy and Annette Margarit. Absent: Robert Doebler and Thomas Tjornhom Excused: Nancy Lindberg and Winthorp Zocher Approved February 71 1995 Minutes with additions 9 -4 Winthorp Zocher: Examined Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington City Council pledges. They were nearly identical to each other. They include a pledge to the laws of Hennepin County and at least Bloomington's included a pledge to Bloomington Ordinance. Richfield's oath at §13.02, page A.32 of the Richfield Charter was examined. Motion by Margarit to include a pledge to uphold the Charter and ordinance of the City of Richfield, Seconded by Ticen. Change in oath is superfluous - Kennedy Amended motion and second to amend the oath to include a pledge to uphold laws of the U.S. and Minnesota, Richfield Charter and ordinances. A vote was taken to approve the following language: Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon the duties of office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of 4biq the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Richfield, to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and ability." (Bill 1990 -13) 09- 10 -90. Unanimously approved. Send the oath to City Attorney to be enacted by Council as ordinance. NEW BUSINESS Attendance - Members should call one of officers to be excused. Two unexcused absences may cause the member to be dismissed. Motion to adjourn, Passed. 505 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 13 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of ordinance for the sale of property at 6432 -15th Avenue to the HRA, and authorization to enter into a license agreement with the HRA. Background: At the November 13, 1995 meeting, the City Council authorized the acquisition of 6432- 15th Avenue and held the first reading of an ordinance authorizing sale of the property to the HRA. The City used federal CDBG funds to acquire the property. Upon sale to the HRA, the property would- be developed under the New Home Program by Hennepin Technical College. HUD rules require that the City purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA, who in turn will sell it at the appropriate time. The process has been followed by the City Council on several other occasions. Sale of the property to the HRA could occur late in February if the second reading of the transitory ordinance is approved at the January 8, 1996 meeting. The seller is • currently living in senior housing. The HRA is responsible for any holding or maintenance costs incurred at the property after acquisition by the City. A license agreement between the City and HRA would be entered into to allow the HRA to perform site work, as necessary, prior to the transfer of the property to the HRA. Site work may include property maintenance, demolition of the existing structure, environmental evaluation and survey work. The new home, to be developed during the 1996 -97 school year by Hennepin Technical College, would be a single family home, featuring a complementary design which is similar to neighboring homes, incorporating interior features desirable in today's market. The new house will be sold to a qualified first -time buyer. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Authorize sale of 6432 -15th Avenue to the HRA following a public hearing. 2. Conduct a second reading of the transitory ordinance authorizing the publication of the ordinance as read. 3. Enter into a license agreement with the HRA to allow property maintenance and site is preparation work prior to transfer of the property to the HRA. 2-') • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA has identified this property for a New Home Program project and authorized staff to acquire the property from the City. 2. The City Council has authorized the acquisition of 6432 -15th Avenue and the property has been purchased. 3. The HRA proposes to develop a new single family home, providing a quality and affordable first buyer opportunity. 4. A finding has been made by the Planning Commission that acquisition and disposition of the property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The adoption of a transitory ordinance is necessary to effectuate a sale of City owned property. 6. Notice of hearing was published December 27, 1995. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not authorize sale of the property to the HRA. 2. Do not enter into a license agreement with the HRA for site work. 40 These actions would not be consistent with prior City Council actions and would negatively impact the proposed development of the site. Discussion /Decision Mode: Timely sale of the property from the City to the HRA requires publication of a transitory ordinance following the January 8, 1996 meeting. Z ctf lily submitted, d �ic Acting City Manager JDP:ds • 01 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN LAND WHEREAS, the City has considered the purchase of 6432 -15th Avenue with federal CDBG funds on behalf of the Richfield HRA for $55;000. The property is further described as: Address: 6432 -15th Avenue Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 3, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Girard Parkview Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (The "City ") proposes to sell the real property to the HRA for $1.00 in furtherance of HRA housing programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the City is authorized to sell its Property following a public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance for which notice was published not less than ten days before such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City has held a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance regarding the sale of the land to the HRA for $1.00. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish the transitory ordinance in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor g-3 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (6432 -15TH AVENUE) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lot 9, Block 3, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Girard Parkview Addition Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this 8th day of January, 1996 by the Richfield City Council. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 12 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, with respect to a re- designation of the splinter parcel at 76th Street and Emerson Avenue. Background: The realignment of 77th Street created two splinter parcels to the north of 77th Street at Emerson Avenue. Before 77th Street was realigned, the larger of the two parcels was part of the Cloverleaf site. The Cloverleaf site is designated "freeway strip" in the Comprehensive Plan. "Freeway strip" allows for hotel, dining, retail, wholesale, office and multi - family uses. With the realignment of 77th Street, the subject parcel became part of the residential neighborhood to the north of 77th Street. "Freeway strip" is not an appropriate classification for a residential neighborhood. The neighboring residential parcels are designated "medium density /buffer" which allows from single family to four -plex dwellings and convenience commercial. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is proposing to purchase the splinter parcel and develop single family housing through the Richfield Rediscovered program. Single family housing is not an allowable use in the "freeway strip" classification. Single family housing is an allowable use in the "medium density /buffer" classification. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Map to re- designate the splinter parcel at 76th Street and Emerson Avenue from "freeway strip" to "medium density /buffer," with the following stipulation: 1. That the Metropolitan Council give approval of the amendment before it becomes effective. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The realignment of 77th Street changed the relative location of the parcel making the "freeway strip" designation inappropriate. 2. An amendment would allow for timely development of the parcel. 3. The "medium density /buffer" classification is an appropriate designation for the parcel given its location in the residential neighborhood. �' 0 4. On December 12, 1995 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to adopt the resolution. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 1996. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Re c ully submi , e Acting City Manager SLD:ds • • RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP WITH RESPECT TO THE REALIGNMENT OF 77TH STREET AND CONSEQUENT CREATION OF SPLINTER PARCEL AT 76TH STREET AND EMERSON AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with respect to the realignment of 77th Street and the consequent creation of a splinter parcel at 76th Street and Emerson Avenue; and WHEREAS, as shown in Attachment A hereto, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates the splinter parcel at 76th Street and Emerson as "freeway strip ", which allows for hotel, dining, retail, wholesale, office, and multi - family uses; and WHEREAS, the realignment of 77th Street created a barrier between the subject parcel and the primary "freeway strip" area, it is appropriate to re- designate the land at 76th Street and Emerson Avenue to "medium density /buffer" which allows single family to four -plex dwellings, open space, buffer yard and residentially scaled convenience commercial; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map on December 12, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan to Land Use Map to re- designate land pursuant to Attachment "B" attached hereto. Adopted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor CL ji — F_,= cn x � 03 :1 L-7 IL fF Z CL Q O uj > LU cn W ui (n ui LU z z < < < LU LU LLJ uj Z z x x x < anal uj M 0 W L) U z 74 LU < > Q z 1—Z ui m < 0 z - 0 W LL IL LU > LL LU W~Q LU uj 3 ch CL E N > (n > ca 0 z LU cn -i _lz LLI z uj LLI W x uj IL) m L6 LU uj UJI I, a1 w � M .�r•1 w _r y> ry W .•I.,l w wac Z > W •p.l .. cc CL W .. . c p c Z i r >: E t Y C M yT >�P C E U r ri. L U 0 w r j J J W Z ,,..:.. W w w Z X_ _X _j Boom j •.. dy LU W W U 0 Q Vi w m U) ......... O y J Z ,. _. cn J a w LIJ CL Z w w n. J h' N w O w ... W N w L6 >- > n r W N LAJ JJJ I z a c r .. +� Ch x >. �,.. > co N Z W I—Z Z cr W i w x a .»-., W JU LL. } lial W O I. J W Q CL w W H Z J a W JJ J JJ J '3A`d NOSH3W3 '3AV '3Ati UtlHlilrJ 1 '3Ad 31VC3NAI MSE-1 me o) H O z 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 11 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of Ordinances for the addition of Section 811 - Private Use of Boulevards and consideration of resolution amending established 1996 license, permit and miscellaneous fees. Background: City staff has difficulty regulating the placement and maintenance of private amenities on publicly owned boulevards. These problem amenities have included retaining walls, fences, hedges, rock gardens and off - street parking places. In the most severe cases these privately built amenities have caused difficulties with snow storage. In most cases these privately built amenities expose the City to potential liability. In some cases the object has been allowed to deteriorate and to become a clear safety hazard to the public. In order to assist in keeping such nuisances from becoming a City problem and /or liability, the attached proposed ordinance requires homeowners to get prior approval for placement of features such as rocks, fences, walls, hedges, gardens and the like. To summarize, the ordinance amendment would: • Require that anyone installing a private amenity on City boulevard receive advanced approval from the Director of Community Services. • Provide adequate space for storage of snow plowed from streets and sidewalks. • Give City staff clear authority to cause the removal of private amenities from boulevards if it is determined that a potential safety hazard exists. • Require that such amenities be installed in as safe a manner and design as is possible. Council questioned, at the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment, whether an appeals process is available. Denial of a permit by City staff can be appealed to the City Manager for a hearing before an appeals panel. This language has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance amendment under section 811.07 Subdivison 4. To notify the public of this ordinance amendment, should the attached proposed language or something similar be adopted by Council, information would be made available through Status and Information, Your City, RAMA, and utility billing. It will take three months to reach all of the residences through utility billing but it is unlikely, should an ordinance amendment be adopted, that placement or maintenance of private amenities on public boulevards would be significant before April or May, whenever the spring weather arrives. Staff further recommends that, should the ordinance amendment be adopted, a fee be established to help defray the cost of reviewing such permit requests, issuance of permits and periodic inspections to make sure that the private amenity is being maintained in accordance with the conditions contained in the permit. The attached resolution would amend Appendix D of the Richfield City Code to establish a fee of $20 for "Application for Permit to Install a Private Amenity on Public Boulevard." Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of the ordinance amendment to add a new section to the ordinance related to private use of public boulevards and approve the attached resolution establishing a fee for the required permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City ordinance does not currently provide specific powers of enforcement to the City to control the placement of amenities on City owned right -of -way by owners of adjacent private property. 2. Placement of such private property on public right -of -way causes problems for the City's snow clearance forces. This is especially true when a retaining wall is placed immediately behind the curb or immediately behind the sidewalk. 3. Such private amenity also poses a potential risk of injury to City personnel as they plow streets and sidewalks. 4. Bodily injury or damage to private vehicles caused by a collision with these privately installed amenities also could place the City at legal or financial risk. 5. Each application will require a staff review of the proposed amenity, the issuance of the permit and periodic inspections of the installed feature. A fee of $20 will help defray the cost of reviewing the application and issuing the permit. 6. First reading was on November 27, 1995. The public hearing and second reading were then scheduled for Janaury 8, 1996. There has been required public notification of the proposed ordinance amendment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not amend the ordinance and allow the unapproved or unauthorized placement of privately owned amenities on public right -of -way. 2. Do not amend Appendix D. 3. Council could modify the proposed amendment and /or resolution as it deems necessary. d Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing and second reading are scheduled for the January 8, 1996 Council meeting. Council could continue the hearing if additional information is needed. However, if the public is to be notified of any ordinance amendment related to private use of public boulevards prior to spring 1996, action by Council to adopt or deny should be taken soon. Re ct ully submitted, A � O // De ich Acting City Manager SLD:ds is 6-2 0 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VIII "STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS" OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION RELATED TO PRIVATE USE OF BOULEVARDS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter VIII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets, Alleys and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by adding the following: Section 811 - Private Use of Boulevards 811.01. Boulevard defined. For the purposes of this section, a boulevard means that area within the public right- of -way, located between the back of street curb and the nearest lot line of privately owned land. 811.03. Maintenance responsibility. A private property owner is responsible for maintenance of the boulevard directly abutting the owner's property. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, mowing grass and removing weeds. 811.05. Private use of boulevards. With a boulevard, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow except the following_ (a) grass and /or flowers (non- noxious varieties only): (b) trees authorized under Section 810 of this code: (c) excavations for installation of essential services, driveways, and curb cuts (or related improvements) authorized under Section 800 of this code;. (d) those features authorized under Section 811.07 of this code: and (e) those improvements erected, placed, or planted on the boulevard by, or under contract with: (1) the City; (2) Hennepin County along County owned roads: or (3) Minnesota Department of Transportation along State owned roads. 811.07. Certain features. Subdivision 1. The City realizes that in certain instances a private property owner may wish to erect, place, or plant certain features within the boulevard abutting their land. Such features include, but are not limited to, fences, retaining walls, privacy walls, hedges, berms, sidewalks, pavement, planters, statues, irrigation systems. rock and landscaping is (hereinafter "feature "). • Subdivision 2. Permit required. No person shall erect, place, or plant any feature within a boulevard abutting their private property without first obtaining a permit from the Community Services Director. In addition, any existing feature which does not hold a valid permit shall require a permit at the time of any reconstruction or repair, or earlier if required by the City. If the abutting boulevard is owned by Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a permit may also be required by such jurisdiction. Subdivision 3. Application and fee. A person reauestina a permit under this subsection shall submit an application on forms provided by the City. together with the fee established in Appendix D. The application shall be accompanied with scale drawings of the boulevard and proposed feature, as well as a written description of the materials and construction methods to be used. Subdivision 4. Review of application. The Director may deny any application if the Director determines that the feature would cause, or could cause in the future, any inconvenience to the public. In review of an application, the Director considers factors including, but not limited to, the following 40 (a) effect of the feature on snow plowing and snow storage: (b) effect of the feature on public safety, including traffic visibility and pedestrian safety; (c) effect of the feature on public land and public or private utilities; and ,(d) the public necessity and utility of the feature and the availability alternate locations for the feature. To appeal the denial of a permit application. the aaarieved applicant must submit a written request for hearing to the City Manager within seven days following receipt of the decision of denial. Appeals will be heard within 30 days after receipt of the written request by a panel consisting of the City Manager. the Director of Public Safety, and the Director of Community Development, or their designates. The decision of the appeal panel is final. Subdivision 5. Permit revocation. The City reserves the right to revoke any permit at any time. Subdivision 6. Maintenance of feature. The abutting landowner shall be responsible for the maintenance of any feature located within the boulevard. Subdivision 7. Damage to or by feature. The City will assume no responsibility and the abutting landowner shall assume all responsibility for any damage caused to or by any feature located within the boulevard. & -5 Subdivision 8. Removal requirement._ Anv feature not holdina a valid permit is deemed to be a public nuisance and is subject to abatement according to Subsection 925.07 of this code. The City may bill the property owner for the cost of abatement or assess the cost of abatement against the abutting property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 or other applicable law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 6-� • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTABLISHED 1996 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be stated in Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield. 2. The following shall be added to Section 2. Construction and related permit fees and charges: Type of Permit Section or License Requiring Private Use of 811 Boulevard Fee Placement of Private Amenities $20 in Public Boulevard Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. io Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for clubhouse flooring for the Rich Acres clubhouse. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The existing flooring in front of the Pro Shop, Concession Stand and in the men's washroom is worn and in need of replacement. The new flooring will be the same as the existing flooring in the clubhouse. Quotes were requested from three vendors. The following quotes were received: Clubhouse Floor Men's Washroom Barbara - Leonard Specialties' $8,650.55 $2,884.20 Architectural Sales of MN, Inc. $19,460.00 $3.340.00 0. The Schneider Company $10,860.00 $3,400.00 Recommended Motion: Approve the 1996 purchase of flooring from Barbara - Leonard Specialties in the amount of $11,534.75 plus $749.76 tax for a total of $12,284.51 for the Rich Acres Golf Course. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The contractor is reputable. 2. The flooring needs replacement because it is at the end of its life cycle. 3. There are sufficient funds in the golf course enterprise fund to cover this purchase. 4. This improvement has been approved as part of the 1996 budget process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could choose not to purchase new flooring and continue to use existing flooring which is extremely worn. 2. The Council could select another supplier though they are more costly. 3. The Council could direct staff to look for alternatives, although staff believes this is • the best choice as the 10 year warranty is very desirable. 5W1 0 Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the January 8, 1996 regular City Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval at this time so that installation can occur prior to the season opening. Respp(ofully submitted, Acting City Manager SLD:ck • is -414 • • 6-& CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 9 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of purchase in excess of $5,000 for polymer for use at the Water Plant. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Polymer provides coagulation for the turbidity removal. Turbidity is the "snowflake" lime particles in the water after softening. The City uses approximately 8,000 pounds of polymer per year. Council approved a purchase order to Fremont Industries at the December 11, 1995 Council meeting. Since then a lower quotation was received from Nalco Chemical of Naperville, Illinois. Nalco Chemical, one of the companies originally requested to provide a quotation, has only one sales person in the upper Midwest. This sales person did provide a quotation when he was in this area. The quote is $.25 per pound or approximately $2,000 less per year than the quotation from Fremont Industries. The four quotations the City has now received are: Vendor Nalco Chemical Fremont Industries Hawkins Chemical Anderson Chemical Unit Price $1.34 /pound 1.59 /pound 1.65 /pound 2.03 /pound Estimated Yearly Total $10,720 /year 12,720 /year 13,200 /year 16,240 /year Recommended Motion: Rescind a 1996 master purchase order to Fremont Industries for the purchase of approximately 8,000 pounds of polymer for an estimated yearly total of $12,720 and authorize a 1996 master purchase order to Nalco Chemical Company for the purchase of approximately 8,000 pounds of polymer for an estimated yearly total of $10,720, a savings of approximately $2,000 per year. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Ploymer is an essential chemical needed to coagulate lime to prevent "snowflakes" in potable water. 2. Nalco Chemical has now submitted the lowest quotation. 3. The 1996 Proposed budget includes sufficient funds for the chemical purchase. 5 &-1 0 4. The City does not have a contract with Fremont Industries, only a master purchase order, which City has the authority to rescind. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and require new quotes be obtained. However, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action is requested at the January 8, 1996 Council meeting. 2 veectf Ily submitte n L. De ch Acting City Manager SLD:cak 0 • F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 8 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of rejection of bid for Rich Acres Golf Course cart lease contract. Background: Golf carts are leased by the Rich Acres Golf Course facility for rental to golfers each season. On December 20, 1995 bids were opened for a new lease period of 1996 through 1998. The specifications included 20 current year model golf carts for the period March 15- November 15 for each of the contract years and 20 used golf carts for the period of June 1- October 1 for each year of the contract. The City provides public liability and property damages insurance and coverage except for accidents resulting from mechanical failure or improper cart maintenance. The vendor provides all parts, labor and maintenance including necessary lubricants. At the December 20 bid opening, only one qualified bid was submitted. The bid that was submitted by E -Z -GO Textron (Upper Midwest) provided for a $28,285 annual cost and included all appropriate documentation. One other bid was submitted; however the bidder did not provide appropriate bid security. In addition, another vendor representing Minnesota Golfcar, informed the Administrative Services Director that he did not receive a bid specification package that he had requested. He stated that he did not bid because he did not receive the bid package. Since only one bid was received and because one of the vendors indicates that they requested a specification which they did not receive, it is the opinion of staff that the golf cart lease contract be rebid. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids each time the City goes out for formal bids. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minute tabulation and reject the bid of E -Z -GO Contractors in the amount of $28,285 /annually for leasing golf carts in 1996, 1997 and 1998 as detailed in the bid proposal of December 20, 1995 and authorize readvertising for the contract. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Only one bid was submitted in compliance with the bid specifications. 2. One additional bid was submitted without bid security. 3. One additional vendor stated that they requested a bid specification from the City which they did not receive. tT i 0 4. The City has the legal right to reject any and all bids and readvertise pursuant to bid specification documents. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Accept the bid submitted. However, the bid does represent only one vendor and does not address the issue of the vendor that insists they requested bid specifications which they did not receive. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the January 8 City Council agenda so that immediate action can be taken to readvertise for bid opening at the soonest date possible. z ct ully submitted evi g City Manager SLD:ds �111 40 r • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening December 20, 1995 10:30 a.m. Golf Car Rental for Rich Acres Golf Course Bid No. 95 -24 5F Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for golf car rental for Rich Acres Golf Course, Bid No. 95 -24, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 15, 1995. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Darrel Harman, Community Services Manager The following bids were submitted and read aloud: E -Z -GO Textron Cashier's 1996 -1998 $875.00 1996 -1998 $900.00 St. Louis Park, MN Check 1995 -1997 $450.00 1995 -1997 $500.00 Part III new Utility Car 3 yr. season 1996 $1,260.00 /season Part IV A Golf Car 1996 $2,392.92 /season $2,428.92 /season Utility Car $600.00 /yr Metro - Forklift Inc., None 1996 -1998 $1,158.99 1996 -1998 $1,162.13 Maple Grove, MN 1995 -1997 $ 978.87 1995 -1997 $ 979.37 Part III new Utility Car 3 yr. season 1996 $2,169.24 Part IV A 1996 Golf Car $1,158.99 $1,162.13 B 1996 Utility Car $2,169.24 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 8, 1996 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 7 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Setting a date for the 1996 Local Board of Review. Background: Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that the County Assessor shall establish a date for Local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each respective city in Hennepin County. The meetings are to be held between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Review must complete its work within 20 days of the first local Board meeting each year, unless a longer period of time is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. However, the Commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31. The County Assessor has recommended Monday, May 6, 1996 as the date of the 1996 Local Board of Review meeting for Richfield. The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. The City of Richfield has typically held its Board of Review meeting the last 49 Monday in April or the first Monday in May. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board of Review meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council Members on the Board of Review process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County Assessor's selection of Monday, May 6, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. for the 1996 Board of Review meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The County Assessor coordinates the scheduling of all Local Boards of Review in Hennepin County. He has recommended Monday, May 6, 1996. 2. This meeting date allows ample time for the City to conclude its Board business. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select another date for the Local Board of Review Hearing and submit the date to the County Assessor. 0 Discussion /Decision Mode: Hennepin County must make a schedule of Local Board of Review hearings to facilitate the County Board hearings and to ensure that needed information has been compiled prior to the Local Board of Review meetings. Notification to Hennepin County should be made as soon as possible, especially if an alternative day is requested. Re `e tf lly submitted, i n . Devic Acting City Manager SLD:cak L-1 40 • 40 • z`�Memo DATE: December 5, 1995 TO: Thomas P. Ferber, Richfield City Clerk FROM: Donald F. Monk, Hennepin County Assessor SUBJECT: 1996 Local Board of Review Dates Monday May 6 1996 Day of the Week Date RECEIVED DEC 0 6 1995 City Of Ridli ield Ray"P4* Minnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review Meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confirm the date set out or call Tom May at 348 -3046 with your alternative date by December 29, so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00, or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your official notice for posting as required by law. Please return to JoDee Nelson, A -2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 Municipality: Date: Time: Place: CONFIRMATION Confirmed by For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful J� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 6 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: City Council confirmation of City Manager's appointment of a Hearing Examiner. Background: The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where unique circumstances would cause undue hardship. The ordinance provides for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City Manager subject to confirmation by the City Council. The term appointment of an existing Hearing Examiner, Vern Luettinger, expired in December and he has indicated a willingness to continue. Recommended Motion: Confirm the City Manager's re- appointment of Vern Luettinger to a two year term as a Hearing Examiner. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Mr. Luettinger's current term expired on December 31, 1995. 2. Mr. Luettinger has experience, training and knowledge as a Hearing Examiner and warrants re- appointment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer confirmation to a later Council meeting. 2. Deny confirmation of the appointment. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar for January 8, 1996. Respe�tfglly submitted, J en . ev h Acting City Manager SLD:ds 0 11 • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 5 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Approve the purchase of maintenance services for the City's Xerox 5100 copier in an amount estimated to be $10,590 annually. Background: In July of 1994 the City Council authorized the purchase of a high speed, high volume Xerox copier. The copier is located in the central supply room at City Hall and is used by all departments. The City now needs to issue a purchase order for Xerox copier maintenance for 1996. The estimated amount of this purchase is $10,590. The City is currently charged a flat monthly amount of $260, plus $0.0083 per copy made. Staff estimates an annual volume of 900,000 copies. Charges are based on rates negotiated each year by the State of Minnesota and can change on July 1 of each year. Recommended Motion: Authorize the purchase of Xerox service for 1996 in the estimated amount of $10,590. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Maintenance service is necessary to keep the copier operational. 2. Xerox's service is timely and of high quality. 3. Funds for copier service are included in the 1996 Central Services Division budget. Alternative Recommendation: Staff does not have an alternative recommendation as the service is necessary for continued use of the copier. Discussion /Decision Mode: Authorization is requested at the January 8 City Council meeting as this purchase order should be issued in January. Res a ul y submitted, err evic Acting City Manager SLD:cak W CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 4 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearing for consideration of a new on -sale liquor license for D F & R Operating Company, Inc., d /b /a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street. Background: An application for a new on -sale liquor license for D F & R Operating Company, Inc., d /b /a Don Pablo's, has been received by the City. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license applications. The restaurant will be located in the "Shops at Lyndale" complex in an independent building just slightly southeast of the Best Buy building complex. The Don Pablo's restaurants offer a Tex Mex menu with a family oriented emphasis. They currently have 43 other Don Pablo's restaurants in 10 states. A background investigation found that the overall background of D F & R Operating Company, Inc. is very favorable. They appear to operate very clean and respectable establishments, and the company's executives handle their business in a professional and responsible manner. Recommended Motion: Set January 22, 1996 as the date for public hearing to consider a new on -sale liquor license for D F & R Operating Company, Inc. d /b /a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A public hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. 2. Conducting the public hearing on January 22, 1996 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. 3. The applicant has been made aware of the City codes pertaining to an on -sale liquor license. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action to schedule the public hearing on January 22, 1996 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearing. RespeI tfu ly submitt , evic Acting City Manager SLD:cak EVA MIM CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 3 Agenda January 8, 199ZG Issue Statement: Approval of expenditures to install traffic signals at 12th Avenue and Portland Avenue at 77th Street. Background: Two new traffic signals were installed as part of Phase II of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project in the fall of 1995. The signal controller equipment for new signals is provided by Hennepin County apart from the construction contract for 77th Street. The County provides standardized signal controller equipment and agrees to maintain it for the City of Richfield under an existing signal maintenance agreement with the City. The cost of the signal control equipment including installation for the signal at 12th Avenue and 77th Street was $9,624.88. Costs for installation of the traffic signal at Portland Avenue and 77th Street are expected to be similar to those recently received for the signal at 12th Avenue and 77th Street. is Funding to pay for this signal equipment will either be from the federal highway demonstration funds at 80% of the cost, 15% from Minnesota Trunk Highway funds and 5% Municipal State Aid Streets funds (gas tax money), or it will be covered using 75% Minnesota Trunk Highway funds and 25% Municipal State Aid Streets funds if the first option is not available. Recommended Motion: Approve payment for the purchase and installation of traffic signal controller equipment at both 12th Avenue and 77th Street and at Portland Avenue and 77th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City purchases its signal equipment from Hennepin County via a unified County Purchase Agreement. 2. The purchase is consistent with an existing traffic signal maintenance agreement with Hennepin County that stipulates that the City will use standardized signal equipment to simplify maintenance duties for County staff. 3. The signal controller equipment is essential to operate the two new traffic signals. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. 5-P-1 • Discussion /Decision Mode: Approval is needed to authorize the City to pay for the installed signal controller equipment. Re p c ully submitted, d very . Devic Acting City Manager SLD:ds r� • 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: 1. Consideration of a resolution approving the 1996 Human Service Agency funding recommendations. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements for service with those agencies funded by the City. Background: In 1986, the City established a Social Service Agency Committee to review requests of various agencies seeking funding assistance. The Committee is currently comprised of members of the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council. Grant applications totalling $99,841 were received. The amount of funding available in the 1996 budget for these agencies is $85,760. The committee interviewed the applicant agencies on November 27, 1995 at a public meeting and formulated their recommendations. See attachment regarding process used to arrive at funding recommendations. • Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution providing funding of certain human service agencies in the following amounts: Amount Amount Recommended Requested Lutheran Social Services Share -A -Home $1,000 $1,500 Senior Community Services, Senior Outreach $7,000 7,990 Cornerstone Advocacy and Intervention Program $12,390 12,500 Advocacy Program $2,390 Intervention Program $10,000 Senior Resources, Senior Linkage Line $800 $943 VEAP (Volunteers Enlisted To Assist People) $4,000 $5,000 Storefront/Youth Action $60.570 $61,908 TOTAL $85,760 $89,841 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Committee carefully considered the individual request of each agency and has addressed the community needs and merit of each request. It should be noted that in 1995 the Human Services Planning Council implemented an improved application for funding and this application was used again for 1996 funding. -i • 2. Every agency is anticipating a reduction of funding from almost all sources in 1996. The concern voiced by all is the tremendous challenge ahead with the prospect of having to serve more people with a steady decline in financial resources. 3. Cornerstone requested $10,000 for a new program it wanted the City of Richfield and other cities to fund in 1996 - -a Relationship Abuse Prevention Program. The RCHSPC declined to review this request for two reasons. One was that the committee did not see how it could recommend a new program to the City Council with little if any prospect of funds being available in the 1996 City budget. The second was some ambiguity as to whether this was or should be a Storefront/Youth Action program and whether sufficient collaboration and dialogue took place between these two agencies regarding the way this program should be provided. The RCHSPC suggestion to the two agencies was they should consider getting together and discuss the future of this program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the recommendation of the RCHSPC. The City Council would then make their own decisions. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed in the Presentation Section of the January 8, 1996 City • Council agenda. Members of the Planning Council will be present to respond to any questions from the Council. Resp ctf Ily submitted, Steven . evi Acting City Manager SLD:ds • '3 aC;L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REVISION OF THE 1996 BUDGET FOR OTHER AGENCIES DIVISION WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1996 budget document on December 11, 1995 appropriating funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested revision of the 1996 budget appropriation in accordance with Charter provisions for determining the specific allocation of $85,760 of unallocated funds for the Legislative Department- -Other Agencies Division of the General Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: Lutheran Social Services Share -A -Home $1,000 Senior Community Services, Senior Outreach $7,000 Cornerstone Advocacy and Intervention Program $12,390 Advocacy Program $2,390 M Intervention Program $10,000 Senior Resources, Senior Linkage Line $800 VEAP (Volunteers Enlisted To Assist People) $4,000 Storefront/Youth Action $60.570 TOTAL $85,760 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute contractual agreements with the above -named agencies summarizing services to be provided to Richfield residents. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • • • 1996 HUMAN SERVICE FUNDING PROCESS 1) Date for City to send RFP letter and application to provider agencies 2) Date for provider agencies to return RFP application 3) Date for RCHSPC to meet with provider agencies 4) Date for memo from Camillo DeSantis, Chair RCHSPC to Jim Prosser, City Manager for recommendations regarding 1996 Human Service Funding 3-3 October 9, 1995 November 6, 1995 November 27, 1995 December 15, 1995 5) Date for City Council to review RCHSPC recommendations January 8, 1996 6) Date contract for services is to be sent to providers for January 22, 1996 signatures CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 1 Agenda January 8, 1996 Issue Statement: Special meeting with Metropolitan Airports Commission's Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning & Environment, and State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning member Sue Sandahl, to discuss the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Background: The Minnesota State Legislature enacted the Dual Track Airport Planning Process in 1989. The legislation mandated Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and Metropolitan Council to analyze aviation projections at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) over the next 30 years. Based on those assumptions, MAC was further required to develop and evaluate plans for an expansion of the existing airport footprint, construction of a new airport, and a no -build alternative. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which details the preliminary environmental consequences of MSP Alternative 6, the New Airport Alternative, and the No Action Alternative, was released in December 1995. Mr. Finney will provide a brief presentation on the history of the Dual Track, as well as some of the findings in the DEIS, the Economic Impact Study, and the Dual Track Financial Analyses prepared to date. Mr. Finney made a similar presentation to most of MSP's neighboring communities as part of the public review that is so vital to the EIS process. In addition to the Council's anticipated comments for Mr. Finney, staff will prepare written comments to be included in the official documents before the February 13 deadline. The original timeline was for the final environmental documentation to be released in March 1996, and a recommendation from MAC regarding which track to pursue was to go to the legislature in July 1996. Recent events, however, have dramatically affected the timing of the decision process. Governor Carlson recently called for an immediate termination of the Dual Track study. The Governor cited preliminary economic analysis, which seemed to indicate that no clear regional economic benefit will be derived from building a new airport, as justification for ending the study and moving forward with the environmental work necessary for expansion at MSP. Senator Ted Mondale also opposes continuation of the Dual Track and is planning to introduce legislation on the first day of the 1996 session that will terminate the Dual Track process, prohibit future planning or landbanking in Dakota County for a new airport, prohibit construction of a new terminal, develop a dedicated transit system from downtown Minneapolis to the airport to the Mall of America, allow construction of a north -south runway only after all airline fleets are fully Stage III integrated, and require MAC to spend at least $160 million for offsite noise mitigation by the year 2002. At this time, it is uncertain who will be authoring a companion bill in the House. Northwest Airlines (NWA) also opposes a new airport. The airline, which accounts for roughly 84% of all operations at, MSP and therefore makes NWA responsible for a large portion of the project costs, has stated that any move toward a new airport will result in NWA relocating over 10,000 jobs that are not directly related to aviation operations. Most of these jobs are in reservations, maintenance, and administration. This announcement was made fairly late in the process and, consequently, skews much of the economic impact studies that assumed continuity in NWA employment figures. Mr. Finney may be able to provide updated information on what impact this would have on local economies, income taxes, and many other economic indicators. NWA has also said that a new airport would cause them to reduce their operations (hubbing activity, most likely) by as much as 15 %. Based on those announcements, MAC commissioners voted at the December meeting to accelerate the Dual Track process. A recommendation from MAC is expected at the regular Commission meeting on Monday, March 18. This will allow the legislature an opportunity to act on the issue during the 1996 session, if they so choose. The recent positioning against the new airport does not necessarily mean, however, that MSP Alternative 6 (north -south runway /west terminal) is going to be implemented as planned. As mentioned, Sen. Mondale opposes construction of a new west terminal at the existing airport. NWA has also spoken strongly against a new terminal. The airline opposes a new terminal for essentially the same reasons they oppose a new airport. A new terminal is a $1 billion -plus investment for which NWA would foot the bill. It is their position that an expanded Lindbergh Terminal Building will provide a world -class airport at a more reasonable expense. Based on NWA's position, MAC commissioners directed their staff to look at plans for an Alternative 6A. Again, information on this alternative is scant due to its recent release by NWA consultants. 6A would still include a north -south runway. The terminal would be expanded by 3 gates on the gold concourse and 12 gates on the green concourse -- the location for NWA Airlink, a sky bridge connecting the green and gold, and a people mover running the length of the green concourse with two end -point loading /unloading stations and one mid -point station. NWA projects cost estimates for 6A, using the same forecast assumptions as MAC is using for the Dual Track, at roughly $600 million. MAC staff is beginning their review of the NWA proposal. There are some questions as to whether future development needs, e.g. - additional gates and runways, can be accommodated under the NWA proposal. It is also unclear whether an operational delay due to ground traffic congestion may be a factor, since NWA has yet to conduct a SIMMOD analysis (a computer simulation that runs peak and non -peak ground traffic based on future operational forecasts). Attached is a preliminary draft of comments on the DEIS from transportation consultant Cindy Fish, president of Fish & Associates, Inc. The City has retained Ms. Fish, formerly a transportation planner at Met Council now operating out of Chicago, to review the DEIS. She is familiar with both the broad metropolitan issues and Richfield's specific airport concerns. In addition to the document as a whole, the issues of concern to Richfield which Ms. Fish has been specifically requested to review are: • Noise impacts on east Richfield - Noise projections in the DEIS purport to minimize the impact on east Richfield as a result of the north -south runway. A major concern for Richfield is that ground level noise (specifically, takeoff rolls and run - ups) does not seem to have been adequately addressed within the documentation. • Environmental and economic impacts of removing Rich Acres Golf Course - The golf course currently provides a natural noise buffer for east Richfield. The report does not provide information regarding how the loss of that open space and its environmental benefits will be mitigated. The City is also concerned with the potential of losing an extremely popular recreational area that serves a large constituency not comprised strictly of Richfield residents. • Induced development - A new west -side terminal would create a new "front door" to the airport, providing Richfield an opportunity to consider redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue corridor to more airport compatible land uses. Expansion of the existing terminal may limit the City's redevelopment options. Transition of the Cedar Avenue corridor to airport compatible uses would help mitigate ground noise impacts on neighboring residential areas. Failure to adequately reduce ground noise impacts from the north -south runway could have any number of adverse effects on the immediately adjacent east Richfield neighborhoods. Again, however, because the DEIS inadequately addresses ground level noise, there is not enough information to determine the extent of impact or the proper mitigation approaches. • Noise mitigation - The DEIS contains very little information pertaining to the collaborative planning effort known as the Community Protection Concepts package. The only mitigation that is discussed for MSP Alternative 6 refers to sound insulation within the 65 LDN Noise Contour. Other alternatives or concepts are not discussed. • North parallel runway option - There is no discussion in the DEIS of the north parallel runway option other than figures provided in Appendix B. The Alternative Environmental Document (AED), released in early 1995, detailed the various MSP alternatives. Although Alternative 6 was selected as the preferred alternative, there was inadequate discussion in the AED as to why the north -south runway was preferable to the north parallel option. MAC and NWA have stated that because of future operation forecasts and capacity demands the north parallel runway (from Alternatives 1 and 2) remains a development option after the year 2020. And yet, there is no mention in the DEIS of the north parallel and its potential benefits. In addition to Mr. Finney's presentation and discussion, Sue Sandahl will brief the Council on the activities and findings of the State Advisory Council for Metropolitan Airport Planning ( SACMAP). SACMAP was created by the legislature at the outset of the Dual Track as an advisory body to elected state officials. The group is comprised of citizen representatives, state senators and representatives, and technical advisers. SACMAP has visited Denver International Airport, Atlanta - Hartsfield International, and Phoenix Sky Harbor on fact finding missions regarding new airport and airport expansion. Recommended Motion: Discuss issues and options relating to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is important for the Council to provide staff direction in preparing City of Richfield comments and positions on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. 2. Because of the nature and import of this public issue, Metropolitan Airports Commission staff is interested in hearing the opinions and concerns of neighboring communities. 3. The Dual Track Airport Planning Process is an issue of significant importance to the residents of Richfield. This discussion will provide residents information and give concerned parties an opportunity to raise issues important to them. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay discussion until a later date. Discussion /Decision Mode: This is an agenda item for consideration at the special City Council meeting of January 8, 1996. Respectfully submitted, City Manager SLD:cak • • • ©ISH & ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Jamie 'Verbrugge City of Richfield j FROM: Cindy Fish I Fish & Associates DATE: January 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Review of Dual Track Airport DEIS Per your request, I have reviewed the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), For your meeting tomorrow with the other cities, I am transmitting my initial review comments. Based on the results of your meeting, should other items arise or further analysis be needed, please give me a call. I have organized my comments according to the layout of the EIS and have included page references for your convenience. In some cases, specific information was not included in the DEIS, but referenced in a separate report. Depending on the issue and its importance to Richfield, those documents may also need to be reviewed. Purpose and Need The Airport Adequacy Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council indicated that, because of physical and environmental constraints, Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) may not be capable of expanding to the degree necessary to meet the region's long -term air transportation needs. (p.I1 -1) Forecasts of both operations and passengers are provided, with passengers to increase by 3.4 percent annually, and operations to increase by 2.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2010, (p, II -7 -8) Peak -hour demand during instrument conditions currently exceeds the capacity of the existing runway /taxiway system, (p, 1I -9) The actual capacity of the airport is not provided in the DEIS, which would indicate when operations are over capacity, by how much, when excess capacity is available, and when timing of improvements may be critical. Alternatives For the MSP alternative, six options were considered. (p, III -1) In your cover memo, it was stated that Richfield's preferred alternative is for a new north parallel runway. No information is provided in the DEIS (other than figures provided in Appendix B) regarding the comparison of alternatives, This analysis is provided in the Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) and the Alternative Environmental Document (AED), The DEIS does state that the MSP alternative would experience 8.9 million originating passengers, 16.7 enplaned passengers, and 520,400 total aircraft operations. (p, III -2) Without information on the actual capacity at MSP, no conclusions can be drawn regarding long -term capacity. �j I I 6351 W Montrose =:305 - Chicago. Illinois 60634 • 312.283.4455 (prone) - 312,283.6445 (fox) Environmental Consequences Air (duality Impacts Those areas located to adjacent to major links of the regional highway network that carry airport - related traffic can be impacted by motor vehicle emissions. An air quality analysis (microscale carbon monoxide analysis) for off - airport sources (motor vehicles) was conducted for those intersections which meet Metropolitan Council screening criteria of 2,400 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour of which at least 480 (20 percent) are airport - related traffic. (p. V -2) The preliminary analysis prepared for the LTCP AED showed that concentrations adjacent to at- grade intersections near MSP were below the 9 ppm eight -hour standard for carbon monoxide (CO). (p, V -5) However, the DEIS states that traffic flows on the regional network have been revised and the results of that study may not be comparable with the analysis included in the DEIS. (p_ V -6) The DEIS only analyzes the one intersection that meets the Metropolitan Council screening criteria: TH 55 at TH 62. Only this intersection meets the criteria since almost all travel to MSP takes place on limited access roadways with no at -grade intersections. (p. V -9) The DEIS analysis shows that the maximum CO concentrations fall below the federal one -hour standard of 35 ppm and the state standard of '30 ppm (p. V -10) Since a number of roadway improvement are proposed as part of the MSP alternative (as discussed under Transportation Access), it would be prudent to conduct an air quality analysis for each intersection and interchange in the impacted area, such as 66th Street at TH 77, TH 62 at TH 77, 62nd Street frontage road access points, and the airport's western access entrance. No mention was made regarding sensitive receptors such as hospital/medical facilities or schools_ An air quality analysis should also be considered for those in Richfield located near TAI 77. Additionally, air quality analyses are generallly conducted for the design year, time of completion year, and time of completion plus 10 years. The DEIS isn't clear about year has been analyzed. Economic Impacts Rich Acres Golf Course is currently leased by MAC to Richfield. Under the lease agreement, Richfield pays the MAC 33 1/3 percent of net revenues. (p, V -71) If the MAC retakes possession, they must pay Richfield the amount of unamortized capital investment, which is currently $1,030,343. However, $58,000 invested by the City is not amortized and would not be reimbursed. The larger economic issues which are not adequately addressed in the DEIS include: 1) the annual revenues the City receives from the golf course, about $50,000 after expenses and amortization; 2) the replacement cost and the lack of space in Richfield to replace, 3) the buffer that the golf course provides between the city and the airport, which will negatively impact the redevelopment potential of the west side of TH 77. 0 2 Induced Socioeconomic Impact The MSP alternative can be anticipated to induce approximately 60,000 sf industrial and 40,000 sf office development annually from 2005 to 2020. (p, V -113) However, this development is most likely to occur in South Minneapolis, Bloomington, Mendota Heights, and Eagan, This should also be compared to the lost tax capacity. Richfield will lose 5302,040 annual tax revenues, 1.07 percent of total tax capacity, compared to 2.34 percent for Bloomington and 0.20 percent for Minneapolis. (p. V -70) Land Use Impacts The DEIS states that the acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres Golf Course (both located east of TH 77) has begun and is not considered an impact of MSP expansion. (p.V -122) Rich Acres Golf Course is identified as an economic impact related to the MSP alternative. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to address the compatibility issues generated by the additional runway and the western terminal access. However, no mitigation measures have been identified in the DEIS. The DEIS does not discuss the location of sensitive land uses, Light Emissions Residential areas in east Richfield near TH 77 and 66th Street will impacted by new roadway . Iights, increase traffic lights, airport building lights, and induced development lights. (p. V -127) No mitigation measures are proposed_ Noise Impacts Aircraft Noise The DEIS presents the following impacts to north and south Richfield compared to the no action alternative: • North Richfield South Richfield MSP Alt, No Action MSP Alt. No Action Population DNL 75+ 0 0 0 0 DNL 70 -75 70 0 0 0 DNL 65 -70 500 240 0 680 DNL 60 -65 1740 1870 640 1580 TOTAL 2300 2110 640 12240 • Dwellings DNL 75+ 0 0 0 0 DNL 70 -75 30 0 0 0 DNL 65 -70 210 90 0 330 DNL 60 -65 700 770 320 740 TOTAL 940 860 320 1070 According to the DEIS, aircraft noise predictions below 65 DNL can be less accurate and should be interpreted with caution. (p. A.3 -5) The largest changes based on the above table occur in the DNL 60 -65 contour. (Figures Q and Q3) The Minnesota noise standard is based on Llp metric. The sound level should not exceed L1065 in the worst daytime hour (between 7 A.M. and 10 P.M.). The L,o65 contour depicts points around the airport that experience noise levels of 65 dBA or greater for 10 percent of the work hour (6 minutes). Figure Q4 shows that north Richfield is included in the L,,,65 contour from the parallel runways, used 38 percent of the time. Southeast Richfield is in the L,065 contour from Runway 4 -22 used one percent of the time. however, the eastern half of Richfield is in the L1065 contour for combinations of all runways. This area is much greater that the 65 DNL contour. The DEIS does not reconcile these differences. The DEIS analysis of Time Above 85 dBA (TA 85) threshold and peak sound exposure levels (SEL) analysis was only conducted for selected noise sensitive locations. (p. 'V' 136 -137) • According to past information from Walt Gi fillan, both are important to consider. 85 dBA is often used for airport planning, but is an extremely high threshold. If 75 dBA were also examined, exceedences would reach out further from the airport. The DEIS also reports the development of new north -south runway 17 -35 would bring aircraft taxiing and run -up operations closer to the residential areas of eastern Richfield. (p. V -138) This should be combined and analyzed with noise from existing and proposed roadway improvements. Mitigation of ground operations noise was stated to "likely" be part of the proposed highway design. (p. V -138) 2. Surface Transportation Noise The MSP alternative would increase the number of residences exposed to surface transportation noise level Lio70 from 462 to 513, and increase of I 1 percent and L1065 from 1,272 to 1,497, and increase of I8 percent (along both Th 77 and Th 62),) Mitigation proposed is noise barriers. (p. V -161 -162) This section does not address the cumulative impact of roadway noise and noise from airport ground operations. It may also be worth examining roadway and ground operation noise during an off-peak, nighttime hour, such as 10 P.M. or 6 A.M., as the noise standards are more sensitive for nighttime hours. 40 4 • • Social Impacts Construction of highway improvements to serve the west terminal would require removal of residences and businesses. (p. V- ISO) Figure T -1 shows that displacements along TH 62 between Portland and TH 77 incudes 31 homes (both north and south of TH 62) and displacements along TH 77 in Richfield include 17 businesses, 3 homes, and 2 apartment building (28 units). This relates back to the economic impacts of lost tax revenue if the residents are not relocated in Richfield. Also, the loss of businesses eliminates a buffer between residential areas and TH 77 and the airport. Transportation' Access Proposed roadway improvements to handle changes induced by a. western access and other related changes include; Ramps, SB 1-35W to EB TH 62 and WB TH 62 to NB I -35W: Add lane in each direction, TH 62, from TH 77 to I -35W; Add lane in each direction. TH 77, from TH 62 to I -494; Add lane in each direction. Acquisition of additional land for right -of -way to improve TH 77 would be required. (p. V -213) The ;following roadway volume changes are forecast: (Table W -21, p. V -233) Roadway Segment 1992 AADT 2020 AADT 2020 AADT Change No Action MSP Alt, TH 62 1-35W 152,000 203,000 210,000 +7,000 Common TH 62 Portland - 81,000 98,000 116,000 +18,000 TH 77 TH 77 66th St. - 54,000 73,000 71,000 -2,000 I -494 Currently, TH 62 is a 4 lane urban freeway, which, according to the DEIS, can carry 72,700 at LOS D. (p, V- 206 -207) The proposal is to add one lane per direction to a six lane urban freeway, which can carry 109,100. TH 62 will be at capacity when opened as a six lane facility, since the forecast volume is 116,000 AADT. TH 77 is an urban freeway with 4 to 6 lanes. A 4 lane urban freeway can carry 72,700 at LOS D. The forecast volume is 71,000 AADT, if the roadway %Till operate at LOS D in 2020 with the existing configuration, there is limited basis for adding an additional lane and acquiring residences and businesses. 5 • • Truck traffic volumes are currently 5 to 6 percent of the total traffic. (p. V- 208). With an additional runway and airport capacity and the proposal for new cargo buildings on the west side, truck traffic could increase. The DEIS does not address future truck volumes. A regional modeling process was conducted to generate year 2020 volumes. However, to determine the specific impacts to Richfield, more detailed information from a subarea traffic analysis is needed, which should include: • Analysis of other major streets, such as 66th Street 0 Geometrics • Capacity analysis • Delay Intersection LOS • Need for new or improve traffic signals This information should also be used in the carbon monoxide air quality analysis for each roadway improvement. Additionally, the TH 77 segment from TAI 62 to 66th Street was not included in the DEIS analysis, but yet is recommended for an add lane improvement. The need for this improvement has not be documented. N