Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-12-96 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PRESENTATIONS . 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO CAROL KASZYNSKI, DATA PROCESSING TECHNICIAN, WATER MAINTENANCE DIVISION, FOR AWARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATE AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4. 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. 0 A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ON VOLUNTARY BASIS OF PROPERTY AT 6921 PENN AVENUE C.L. 330 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING MINNESOTA STATE LAWS OF 1996, CHAPTER 471, ARTICLE 7, SECTIONS 21 AND 22 WHICH ALLOWS USE OF HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN RICHFIELD C.L. 331 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AT 6334-11TH AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 332 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 115-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT CHRISTIAN PARK, 6900 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 333 • RESOLUTIONS 7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SALE OF $5,075,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1996 TO FUND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 334 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 335 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT BUSINESS 9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT 0 COUNCIL CHOICE 11. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 12. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 13. 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. 0 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 335 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premium for General Services and Management employees. Background: At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. Full-time Management and General Services employee contributions are discussed within this letter as well as proposed contributions toward health insurance for part-time regular General Services employees, a new benefit for this employee group. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. LIFE A $25,000 term life insurance policy is currently provided for all full-time Management and General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance, which is $4.25 per month per employee for 1996. DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1996, the City contributed $24 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which for 1996 was $31. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative and benefit pay-out cost data. No change is recommended for 1997. While the City does not contribute to dependent coverage for dental insurance, for informational purposes, the rate the employee will pay will remain at $31 per month. HEALTH The third type of insurance coverage available to full-time Management and General Services employees is group health coverage. Employees may select among three plans available through the LOGIS Health Insurance Program. The City pays the full individual employee premium and provides an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. The 1996 and 1997 monthly premium costs of the health plans are: i .................................................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................................. Group Health Inc. Individual $162.32 $152.85* -6.2% Family 443.32 417.43* -6.2% ?'l • MedCenter Individual $156.10 $151.80* -2.83% Family 464.63 451.86* -2.83% Medica Individual $187.16 $187.16 0% Family 449.05 490.85 +9.31 *With $10 office visit co-pay. In 1997, the City's contribution for Management and General Services employees will be increased by $20 to $365. The City's contribution for Management and General Services employees as a percent of premium over the past ten years is shown in Attachment 1. LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD) The fourth type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services employees is disability insurance. Short-term disability insurance is self-funded out of the current operating budget, similar to the manner in which sick leave costs are covered. Long-term disability insurance (LTD) is provided through a group LTD policy secured by the City. Currently, the City pays a premium rate of 37 cents per $100 of salary for covered employees. For an additional 3 cents per $100 of salary, the City can increase the coordination level of other benefits from 75% to 80% of regular salary. Although this increase still does not restore an employee to a regular salary level, this now-taxable benefit comes closer to bringing the value to its original, non-taxable level. PROPOSAL FOR_HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PART-TIME REGULAR EMPLOYEES This issue is included for information only and is not for consideration at this time. A proposal to provide health insurance benefits for part-time regular General Services employees has been included into the 1997 proposed budget at a cost of about $16,000 in 1997 for the City premium contribution. The final consideration of the health insurance benefit for eligible part-time employees will occur when the City Council adopts a final tax levy and 1997 budget. A separate resolution establishing the new health insurance benefit will be included for City Council consideration with the 1997 budget resolution packaged in December. If the health insurance for part-time regular employees is approved, it would be at the following levels: 4:4:4:•: »i :hiii:iiii:::ih::{:::i::iiiii::i::i::i::i::i::i::::i::i::i ::: :::i' :: ?. :'. '.. ?i:??.;.{.?('?}•i:: ::•i:iiTijii : ij;:j: ;';::'G:;i:;:?'.:::i:•:j/'i!i(:'}iif :iyyF:QiXj'ii:i::i::: Group Health Inc. Individual $152.85 $114.64 Family 417.43 182.50 MedCenter Individual $151.80 $113.85 Family 451.86 182.50 g'a • Medica Individual $187.16 $140.37 Family 490.85 182.50 Coverage would be effective January 1, 1997. Part-time regular General Services employees may opt out of health insurance altogether. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to the City's insurance contributions for Management and General Services employees: A. Life Insurance That the term life insurance remain at $25,000 with the same premium charge of $4.25 per month per employee. B. Dental Insurance That the per employee per month contribution remain at $24. As in the past, employees who desire dependent coverage would pay the full cost of such additional premium. C. Long-Term Disability Insurance That the long-term disability insurance increase coordination of the benefit from 75% to 80% all sources maximum with a premium increase of 3 cents to 40 cents per $100 of salary. D. Group Health Insurance That the City contribution be increased from a maximum of $345 per month to $365 per month per employee for dependent coverage. Basis of Recommendation: 1. To provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. 2. Greater benefit equality is achieved between female classes found in General Services and Management groups and male classes found in the contracted labor units. 3. The 1997 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for premium contribution increases recommended. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the • current 1996 funding level. 5.3 Discussion/Decision Mode: The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 8, 1996. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated in December. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Copy: Administrative Services Director Human Resources Manager 0 S-q RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City employees; and WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City Management and General Services employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $365 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall also pay the $24 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan, and the $4.25 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for Management and General Services employees, for a total possible maximum 1997 insurance premium contribution of $394.25 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for the Management and General Services employees' coverage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Attachment 1 The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF COST PREMIUM 1986 PHP $211.07 $140.00 MCHP $187.35 $140.00 72% GHI $183.05 $140.00 1987 PHP $221.62 $150.00 MCHP $196.70 $150.00 74% GHI $186.70 $150.00 1988 PHP $221.62 $160.00 MCHP $233.55 $160.00 73% GHI $204.65 $160.00 1989 PHP $266.00 $170.00 MCHP $291.25 $170.00 63% GHI $254.70 $170.00 1990 PHP $299.50 $210.00 MCHP $326.20 $210.00 68% GHI $290.67 $210.00 10 ,991 PHP $340.00 $240.00 MCHP $357.20 $240.00 70% GHI $321.46 $240.00 1992 MEDICA $399.00 $255.00 MCHP $389.35 $255.00 66% GHI $356.76 $255.00 1993 MEDICA $430.92 $285.00 MCHP $437.25 $285.00 68% GHI $397.48 $285.00 1994 MEDICA $449.05 $315.00 MCHP $478.35 $315.00 69.5% GHI $431.44 $315.00 1995 MEDICA $449.05 $335.00 MCHP $478.35 $335.00 72% GHI $465.86 $335.00 1996 MEDICA $449.03 $345.00 MCHP $464.63 $345.00 76% GHI $443.32 $345.00 1997 MEDICA MCHP $490.85 $451.86 $365.00 $365.00 81% GHI $417.43 $365.00 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 334 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution providing for the sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 to fund future redevelopment opportunities. Background: A special joint meeting of the HRA and City Council held on July 1, 1996 involved the review and discussion of development priorities in the community. Also discussed was the potential sale of taxable bonds to commit future tax increment resources from the LHN and ILN tax increment districts to future development opportunities. In order to allow for the future LHN and ILN tax increments to be pledged to the bonds, several approval actions must occur before the bonds may be sold. One action is the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and the modification of the LHN and ILN Tax Increment Financing Plans and their respective HRA and City Council approvals. This action provides for the authority to pledge the tax increments to the bonds from the two tax increment districts and allow for expenditure of the resources within the overall redevelopment project area. The second action is the approval of the bond sale followed by award of the sale of bonds by the Council. This action actually results in funds being made available On October 21, 1996, the HRA approved the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and the modification of the LHN and ILN Tax Increment Financing Plans. On November 25, 1995, following a public hearing, the Council will also be requested to approve these plans. At the November 12 meeting, the Council is being requested to approve the sale of the taxable revenue bonds. Approval of this action will allow.the City's financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates, Inc.. to solicit proposals for the sale of the bonds. The award of the bonds will be made by the Council on December 9, 1996. Attached to this letter is the Bond Sale Report which provides greater detail of the nature and structure of the bond sale. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution which provides for the sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Obligating future tax increment resources through the sale of taxable revenue 40 bonds will help preserve local resources. 7 -i 2. Ehlers/Publicorp and Kennedy and Graven have done a thorough analysis of options to preserve these resources and have determined that taxable revenue bonds issued by the City is a prudent strategy. 3. A bond sale prior to the end of 1996 should ensure that resources are available for future development opportunities. 4. On October 21, 1995, the HRA approved the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and the modification of the LHN and ILN Tax Increment Financing Plans which initiated the process for pledging future tax increments and implementing the bond sale. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer this proposal. 2. Choose not to sell the bonds. Discussion/Decision Mode: Authorization of the bond sale would allow for award of the bond sale before the end of 1996. Respectfully submitted, James #. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds RESOLUTION NO. P- RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $5,075,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1996 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of various improvements in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet on December 9, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 y, 0 BOND SALE REPORT $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 City of Richfield, Minnesota 0 October 28, 1996 0 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. • • • OVERVIEW This report describes the proposed plan for the City of Richfield to issue $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996. This report has been prepared by Ehlers and .Associates, in consultation with City Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with: • Purpose and components of bond issue. • Structure. • Other considerations in issuing bonds. • Market conditions. • Issuing process. PURPOSE The $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 475. The Bonds are being issued to fund various redevelopment and housing projects in the City. Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $5,075,000. The proposed finance plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds: Sources Par Amount of Bonds Interest Earned Total Sources Uses Total Project Costs Discount Allowance Capitalized Interest Finance Related Expenses Total Uses $5,075,000 50.000 $5,125,000 $4,885,650 91,350 105,000 43,000 $5,125,000 Page 1 9 STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT The Bonds are general obligations of the City of Richfield and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay the entire amount of principal and interest from a pledge of tax increments collected in the ILN and LHN Tax Increment Districts. The Bonds would be sold December 9, 1996 and be dated December 1, 1996. The first interest payment on the Bonds will be August 1, 1997, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1. Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 1999 through 2012. The repayment schedule has been structured to match anticipated collections of tax increment revenues. The projected debt service and flow of tax increment funds can be found in Exhibit 1. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Following is a summary of key factors in the finance plan: • We recommend the following call feature: Bonds maturing February 1, 2004 and thereafter will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2003 and any date thereafter. • Bidders on this issue may submit a bid which contains a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption. If the purchaser of the Bonds designates certain of the maturities as Term Bonds, subject to a mandatory call, the City will be responsible for providing a Notice of Call to holders of the Bonds at least 45 days prior to the call date. We can discuss with you the option of retaining a paying agent to provide the proper call notices to owners of the Bonds. Allowing potential purchasers the term bond option results in increased bidder interest in this issue and possible lower interest rates. • Because the Bonds are taxable obligations, they will be exempt from any arbitrage • rebate requirements. Page 2 E • • The Bonds will be global book entry with a bank designated as the paying agent. As "paperless" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond printing and annual registrar charges. The Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services provided by the bank. • Moody's Investors Service will be asked to rate this issue. The City currently has an "Aa" rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds. • New regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more. Because the aggregate amount of this issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data relating to the City annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events. The specific nature of the Undertaking, as well as the information to be contained in the notices of material events will be set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate that you will enter into at the time of closing for this issue. You are responsible for reporting any of the material events listed below and in the Undertaking. 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies; 2. Non-payment related defaults; 3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; 5. Substitution of credit of liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; 6. Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the securities; 7. Modification to rights of holders of the Securities; 8. Securities calls; 9. Defeasances; 10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the Securities; Page 3 11. Rating changes; 12. Failure to provide annual financial information as required; and 13. Other material events. MARKET CONDITIONS Interest rates have risen since February, 1996 after a steady decline from October, 1995. This trend recovers from a rapid rise in rates experienced during the last quarter of 1994. The graph on the following page shows the trends in the Bond Buyer's 20-Year G.O. Index (BBI) for the last 18 months. While interest rates have risen from historic lows in 1993, current rates still mirror conditions found several years ago. • Page 4 • • • N r Q M N r (q V (6 L6 L6 M N r Q 00 O N M R N r ? M a M 0 /y W `. 0 CD M N r ? N a G v M d N N ? M fr. N ax: R v V G? M ` ? ? LL Q •? N Z 0 O _ ry? W M Q N N k ?? mfo a O = M ? m c o I a d M N Z 1 L N R a M O N N a -Q o Co CD c o M N N N a CD 0 ° M N d a /y W M ? v O / 0 W N r ? Q M N Q N r ? -10 O O O O -.01 -.10 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M r C) U) M r q P,-? to M 7 ()? h Ln 1? 1? f? CO CO Cfl t0 0 to 0 to 0 0 v v v 0 ISSUING PROCESS Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process. October 21, 1996 HRA requests the City Council to call for a public hearing and approves the Plans (contingent upon approval by City Council and Planning Commission review and comment). October 24, 1996 Plans forwarded to School District(s) and County Board (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). October 28, 1996 City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale of the Bonds October 29, 1996 Planning Commission finds Plans to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. November 12, 1996 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). Week of November 18, 1996 Submit draft Official Statement and rating materials to Moody's Investors Service for credit rating November 25, 1996 City Council holds public hearing on the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the modification of the ILN and LHN Tax Increment Districts and passes resolutions approving the Plans. Week of November 25, 1996 Distribute Official Statement Week of December 2, 1996 Receive credit rating December 9, 1996 Bond sale Week of December 23, 1996 Bond closing December, 1996 Ehlers/Publicorp certifies Plans to county and state. P--? Page 6 DISTRIBUTION LIST FINANCIAL ADVISOR Sid Inman, Financial Advisor Mark Ruff, Financial Advisor Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 2950 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh St. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4100 BOND COUNSEL Steve Bubul, Bond Attorney Kennedy SL Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 CITY Chris Regis, Finance Manager Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423-2598 N.\MINNSOTA\RICHFIEL\BONDS96\PRESALE.FRM PHONE NUMBERS (612) 339-8291 (612) 339-0854 (fax) (612)337-9228 (612)337-9310 (fax) (612) 861-9700 (612) 861-9749 (fax) Page 7 • City of Richfield, MN Exhibit 1 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds $5,075,000 Tax Total Total Capitalized Increment Fiscal Date Principal Rate Interest M Annual Interest Revenue YOK 12/01/96 08/01/97 248,250.00 248,250.00 02/01198 186,187.50 186,187.50 434,437.50 104,165.50 330,272 1997 08/01/98 186,187.50 186,187.50 02/01/99 310,000 6.80 186,187.50 496,187.50 682,375.00 683,174 1998 08/01/99 175,647.50 175,647.50 02/01/2000 595,000 7.00 175,647.50 770,647.50 946,295.00 951,441 1999 08/01/2000 154,822.50 154,822.50 02/01/2001 1,385,000 7.05 154,822.50 1,539,822.50 1,694,645.00 1,697,609 2000 08/01/2001 106,001.25 106,001.25 02/01/2002 170,000 7.10 106,001.25 276,001.25 382,002.50 387,168 2001 08/01/2002 99,966.25 99,966.25 02/0112003 185,000 7.20 99,966.25 284,966.25 384,932.50 387,168 2002 08/01/2003 93,306.25 93,306.25 02/01/2004 200,000 7.30 93,306.25 293,306.25 386,612.50 387,168 2003 08/01/2004 86,006.25 86,006.25 02/01/2005 215,000 7.40 86,006.25 301,006.25 387,012.50 387,168 2004 08/01/2005 78,051.25 78,051.25 02/01/2006 230,000 7.50 78,051.25 308,051.25 386,102.50 387,168 2005 08/01/2006 69,426.25 69,426.25 02101/2007 245,000 7.60 69,426.25 314,426.25 383,852.50 387,168 2006 08/01/2007 60,116.25 60,116.25 • 02/01/2008 265,000 7.70 60,116.25 325,116.25 385,232.50 387,168 2007 08/01/2008 49,913.75 49,913.75 02/01/2009 285,000 7.75 49,913.75 334,913.75 384,827.50 387,168 2008 08/0112009 38,870.00 38,870.00 02/01/2010 305,000 7.80 38,870.00 343,870.00 382,740.00 387,168 2009 08/01/2010 26,975.00 26,975.00 02/01/2011 330,000 7.85 26,975.00 356,975.00 383,950.00 387,168 2010 08/01/2011 14,022.50 14,022.50 02/01/2012 355,000 7.90 14,022.50 369,022.50 383,045.00 387,168 2011 Notes $5,075,000 2,913 062.50 7,988,062.50 7,988,062.50 104 165.50 7,921 344.00 Dated: 12/01/96 Bond Years: 38,635.83 Interest Start: 08/01/97 Average Life: 7.612972085 Discount: 74,700.00 Average Coupon: 7.53979% Net Interest Cost: 7.73314% • Prepared by Ehlers and Associates I'll Council Member Resolution No. Exhibit 2 introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution Providing for the Sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of various improvements in the City; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet on December 9, 1996 at p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby • authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Council Members voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated this day of .1996. City Clerk (SEAL) 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 333 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 115-foot telecommunications tower at Christian Park (6900 Bloomington Avenue). Background: American Portable Telecom (APT) is proposing to construct a 115-foot telecommunications tower in Christian Park at the northeast corner of the existing tennis courts. The tower is of a monopole design and would replace an existing light pole that services the tennis courts. The lights would be reinstalled on the monopole. The tower would be located approximately 120 feet from the residential property to the west and approximately 410 feet from the residential property to the east. APT originally proposed to locate a 134-foot tower adjacent to the ball fields in the northern half of the park. Several neighbors suggested relocating the tower to the southern half of the park, adjacent to the tennis courts, where park activity is more contained. In the original location, the tower would have replaced an existing 80 foot light pole. A 40 foot . light pole is located in the proposed location. The Planning Commission recommended reducing the tower height to 115 feet, the minimum height necessary to accommodate a second user on the tower. Constructing a tower shorter than 115 feet would create a gap in APT's system and require an additional tower or towers to be constructed. The City Code requires a setback from residential property equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower (the distance from the site to the residential property on the west would be 173 feet rather than the 120 feet proposed). However, the Council, at its discretion, may reduce this requirement if the tower is being integrated into an existing structure such as a light standard. The accessory equipment (3 containers, 2 feet by 2 feet by 4 feet) will be located next to the tower and surrounded with an 8 foot high chain link fence to match the existing tennis court fence, which is 10 feet high. Fencing would also be placed over the top of the enclosure. The Planning Commission asked APT to explore burying the equipment to further eliminate intrusion on the park space. APT agreed to explore the alternative; however, staff is concerned with the impact the digging would have on the park. Two mature oak trees would likely be damaged if the equipment were buried. ?'l The neighbors have submitted a petition asking the Council to extend the moratorium on telecommunication towers. The moratorium expired on November 1 so a new moratorium would need to be enacted. The neighbors also submitted a list of their concerns and questions related to the tower which were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and are included here for informational purposes. The Planning Commission asked APT to explore placing the monopole at the Intermediate School because the property has a larger ground area than the park. APT has contacted the school district, but as of this letter writing has not given any indication to staff of any conclusions reached. The Planning Commission also passed a separate motion recommending that the Council. allocate the funds collected from tower leases to the parks in which they are located. Annual lease payments may be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit to allow construction of a 115-foot telecommunications tower in Christian Park, 6900 Bloomington Avenue, with the following stipulations: That final placement of the tower equipment be approved by the City Manager. 2. That placement of any future equipment related to an additional user be approved by the City Manager. 3. That the tower be constructed to accommodate a second user and APT permit a second user on the tower, if requested and technically feasible. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The tower will replace an existing light standard; the light fixture will be reattached to the tower. 2. The accessory equipment will be surrounded by fencing to address concerns of the neighbors that children could get hurt on the equipment. The fencing will match the existing tennis court fencing. 3. The Leisure Services Coordinator has reviewed the proposed plans and will approve a lease with APT if a conditional use permit is issued. 4. There are no existing telecommunications towers, buildings or other structures within the area that are of sufficient height to accommodate the antennas. 5. The proposed location is removed from the ball field area where the greatest number of activities take place. The location at the northeast corner of the courts is out of the way of the existing pathway. 0 6. The City tower and antenna ordinance permits towers to be placed in parks. 6a 0 7. The lease would contain liability insurance requirements of APT to help protect the City. 8. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the proposed tower and to other residents residing adjacent to the park. 9. On October 29, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the request with a finding that the proposed structure does not meet the setback requirements and its replacement of a light pole does not warrant a setback reduction. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 1996. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. A decision must be rendered by December 13, 1996 or a notice of an extension must be provided to the applicant. Respectfully submitted, Q0 James U -City Manager JDP:ds 0 i fff ? _ in (A D -"I m M II D o Z 14TH AVE 5 16TH AVE S 17TH AVE S 15TH AVE S C ai m 0 ' 0 TITLE: D z D C) PROJECT N0. _y 04463230 SITE NO.: Al 0039 SITE PLAN L5 SITE NAME: FLUOR DANIEL RICHFIELD Fluor Daniels Inc. CHRISTIAN PARK 3333 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92730 RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (714) 975-2000 APT DRAWN M. F PgTIU AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM . DESIGNED ar. 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue SAENRf CHECKED BY. Suite 1100 Chicago, Illinois 60631 PER COMMUNITY COMMENTS ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL SCALE. (312) 399-4200 4170 9 DESCRIPTION AS NOTED Fax (312) 39 - ?vU 0 z w o ?o C7 ?w U OO z W3 z a aw ?? a< as a CL 0 oo coo w OZ oZ zo oz. z(D LJ v o? aw wr dw NO m n-a Or r Or OD a0: a as as w? c) a aOw 0 N / ZO i CL 11 C) ' O I I ? Q - I I I I I I W .- C)::.. (o Q a J "' LLLI i i " i i 3 i z fi O fi r o fi O w r N W w fi v) v) r W= z i p O 04 wto rz o i W(o z wv) Zz ?< i® i zz raa zZ w z Q U W Z Q w W Z W 1W- Up JW i l...H O W H W J w N UO C7Q za_ i C7p v1Z Z Z Z ?Ll Nr-1Z i V1D a W v 0 _j U O O L _ r O xx xW x0 fi XQf wZ xx wa w? w? wa as wa i i ? I F • 0 0 v 3 w z w O J r J O o o N N O z U> m r z O w O LL) N LLJ r Q z z z w 11 z LLJ O CL Q w r LLJ a m O s O > Z F- z ¢ ¢ 0 . V N CD m O C 7 x w w r r r? r F W a a a a. a. ¢ M a T ® 3 a a 0 O O O O O O .mow O 0 LLI N LLI ? a w 0 Z O O O O az (L z az Q- CL Nz O O O O wQ zQ cQ crz z x0 a w w a a? aL, a6 as a wM Q- 13. ..O-;St t 0 O z N ° 0 ? II Q W -1 J L) W cn H N Q W 0 Z I 0 f""' II Q . W J J a W H N W 0 I o' N Z II O. w J Q Lj W VI J W Z F- IY O o Z 3 w z w U w O p J (L H z N z N a z Q N Q z z > U y z W p O 0 z W f" p w w a w z O w m a z O z a z a c? z a U `w x 3 w v Q w O a. < C as a a cn w m a a a a O't N ON p? p, O p Jw O O O O V 00 L N a°z ZI J CL a- N a°z N a C.7 O za -0 to o !n 0 0 to 0 V, 0 a- 0 v a OV 00 OV O v O w o It K K 0 0: Q.. t.. a? a¢ a4 Q. ? a s a a I 0 i 0 N Z II O c W a J > W N I W F- O -, SLt • • • 0 44f 'r e .; t ?J PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas withi he City of Richfield. Printed Name Signature Date S?z s Street address W a i t e S C' v L e ? ?? `o - 2co -q6 Printed Name Signature Date 7©° 1 / S T-?' tq vim. Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address ',? X11 r?NeS Printed Name SIgnature Date Street address cnG G (('SSe_ / Printed Name address Printed Name Street address ,4, c Signature io - Zo -'qC Date Signature Date Page / of /0 PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. Printed Name Sig Date Street address _ - ./'_1 Pr' ted Name Signature l D to `a Jt4 1-4 S treet address nted Name ignat Date Street address Printed Name Signat r Date j _ (T I S. S - -A Street address ,Eq Nte S I Printed Name Street address Printed Name Co!?QI • Street address i r- kC_ viL NseA) 3 Signature t, I f7U e Signature /D -Z?2/ - 9? Date Page 2 of /0 9? PETITION P0 This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. . Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address G? • Printed Name nature Dat Street address .(J V Q (/ - v1? ?? Printed Name ???/ & Signature Date Street address Printed Name Signature Date 1 93 7 / _?7 /d --",?0 - Street address Wz V -,,' /- G I?2A /Q itfD ?=?? a A/ c oy-1iL.Z4_,Gi_ G21-Za o! ,' /I - -24 - r Printed Name Signature Date so '::?" e-a-7 Street address Page 2 of l0 PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the . City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. I Printed Name ((?? Signature Date S, 1 1? 1 cJ Street address Printed me Signature Date Street address nted Name Signature ate -7 &-Crl 'e Street address 1 V fir: 4__ Printed Name Signature Date Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address Page r of / c PETITION • This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the developmeNt of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. Printed Name Signature D Ate Street address /6) Printed Name G Stre address I? Z Printed Name Street address Date ?R O tJL J ?e r n Z and-k / y/ l 9l !??' Printed Name ature Date Street address L) Y1 Printed Name Signature Date (D ?Ci ? ?lC''b7J7i6 t.,c rZ ?? Street address ?A R >G / zG c-?- Printed Name ''nn Signature Date Street address Date QEly i p; ..S. SignAiure Page .5- of " (o-13 PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the developmM of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. Printed Name / Signature Date Street address V Printed Name / Sid ture Date X _3 Street address 40 -?-? Printed Name c_(,- 1) r_- i -- Street address LG'(ke??Nz r Signature - a c Date Ch o r I e S E 4 Printed Name .} Signature Date Street address Printed Name ?Q ?-- Sign re ate Street address ,D /1 /" ` 0 H _ rnniCU rvainc Signature Date pry Street address Page 6 of !© PETITION l? l I This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. 1/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. -7 Printed Name Sign re Date 6111- L?o ?Y1 f ?,? V Street address zev Printed Name ignature Date Street address Pr1 ed Name L c;e,-- Street address c. 1 Lj-kx Printed Name Street address - Signature S?v D.- (,-y` Signature S 0 to ('?- Date Printed Name Signature Date Street address _ Printed Name Street address Signature Date 0/-:;;L If 14 Page 7 of /e r R '.7 r PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Paris neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. . `t Printed Name ( Sig ature Date 3 4 Street address Printed Name i ature Date Str t address ftf?i,c pftN N1 NU Printed Name / V/ 10 6 C7 -) /) ./ ?? Street address Signature Printed Name Signature =--= Date 1 ?? i 'r-- Sb Street address / At- x ?j 00r / 11-1 Printed Name Signatur Date fad ?y l ? Ave-- !90 Street address o - -7,f - ? Date Page g of / o Str et address PETITION This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. [/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. Printed Name Signature Date Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address , Printed Name i Signature Date Street address Street address Printed Name ??ff /-Signature Date is _g? Street address Page ? of /C,7 Street address PETITION r This petition is to show the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota the names and addresses of those residents who . support extending an existing moratorium on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City by 180 days. The reason this extension is being sought is to allow additional time to study issues related to tower locations, sharing of existing towers & structures, setback requirements for accessory structures and health-related standards. Also during the extended moratorium period, a citizens group in the Christian Park neighborhood will examine closely what effects the erection of a new 134-foot telecommunications tower in the park would have on the general welfare of the community including property values and visual aesthetics. I/We, the undersigned, support extending the current moratorium by 180 days on the development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the City of Richfield. . Printed Name Signature Date ' 4 VV- Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address is Printed Name Signature Date Street address • Printed Name Signature Date Street address Printed Name Signature Date Street address - Printed Name Signature Date Street address Page Zo of '/0 6A lof4 • CHRISTIAN PARK RESIDENTAL 'CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS We the residents of and around Christian Park have a number of questions and concerns which we feel:'.must be addressed prior to the RICHFIELD PLANNING COM,5ISSION submitting it's recommendation to the RICHFIELD CITY COUNIL reguarding the development and/or installation.of telecommunication towers and antennas within Christian Park. Our concerns and questions at this time are not limited to the proposed tower planned by American Portable Telecom ( APT ) but also to the two other companies which have bought PCS rights in the Twin City Metropolitan Area. They are Sprint Spectrum and Nextwave Personal Communications Inc.. Therefore, our questions and concerns are as follows, -We do:..not believe that any telecommunication tower should be built within the City of Richfield that does not comply with the 1.5 times setback requirement setforth by the City Council. -If a telecommunication tower is permitted to be built in Christian Park, what effect will it have on the homeowners property value to those homes that 2of4 • surround the park? We the residents feel that a study should be made to ansewer this question. -Is Christian Park zoned for light commercial use? assure the residents that no other commercial business will be permitted to build in the park? Remember, a • presidence would be set if approvel is granted to APT to lease property and install a tower in Christian Park. If not, is the Planning Commission planning to make a recommendation to the Zoning. Commission to do so? -If Christian Park is zoned for light commercial use, then what will be done by the Planning Commission to --The enviromental impact study sent by APT to the residents states that there is no health hazards to the residents to raido-frequency. This may be true for one tower, but what will the effect's be additional towers are installed? I believe that a new enviromental study is required to ansewer this question. • -Contained in the residents letter submitted by APT, it states that the proposed tower would be located approximately one mile west from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and have no effect on the Published instrument jj'aO 3of4 • procedures used during IFR conditions.As we the residents know, the airport property is located less than one-half mile from the proposed Christian Park tower and if the proposed north south is built,then we do not feel that APT study is complete and therefore we are asking 5?e Planning Commission to require a netd study. -Another Question asked at the neighborhood meeting was how many towers would be located in Richfield and where would they be? This question was not ansewered by APT and therefore, it should be addressed so the total impact=nn 0 oa Richfield can be evulated. -There was also a question brought up relative to water- shed because of the flooding that occurs within Christian Park.Again this question was not ansewered and therefore we feel that the Planning Commission should address this issue. -We the residents.are not in agreement with APT that the newly selected tower site by the tennis court is a viable alternative. We asked APT for a grid map showing all possible site locations including the airport property. The APT representative stated that MAC would not talk to them and we would like to know why MAC can refuse a tower request and Richfield can not? 4of4 -The liscenes that APT was granted expires June,2005, Therefore what will happen to the tower site? will it be removed? If so, who is responsible for the cost of removal? If the tower is sold, then who is responsible? Would this be in the contract? --What fee would be charged to legs the tower site? -What would the money be usedfor? -Is APT cover by insurance to cover any damages if the tower would fall? Is APT required to be insured if some child is injured by running into the tower-.and/or injured 0 while climbing on the tower? • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 332 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to vacate a drainage and utility easement at 6334-11th Avenue. Background: The property at 6334-11th Avenue has recently been sold. The buyer's mortgage lender has requested that the utility easement be vacated. The former owner and potential buyer are requesting that the City vacate a ten foot drainage and utility easement located along the northwestern and western property lines. There are no utilities in this area, and an easement is not needed for drainage purposes. A garage was constructed over the easement. The buyer's mortgage lender is requesting that the easement be vacated before the sale is finalized. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a • drainage and utility easement at 6334-11th Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There are no utilities located in the easement area. 2. By vacating the easement, the garage can remain, and the sale of the property can be completed. 3. The property abuts Veterans Park; if there is a need to place utilities in this area in the future, park land could be used. 4. The relevant utility companies were contacted and approved the vacation. 5. The Engineering Division supports the vacation. 6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. 7. First reading was held on October 14, 1996. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny the vacation. • 2. Refer the petition to the Planning Commission for review. 5-1 • Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading are scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on November 12, 1996. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 0 0 5-C;L • ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to a drainage and utility easement for public purposes: The northerly and westerly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Christian's Second Addition, according to the map or plat on file or of record in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 2. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for a drainage and utility easement over that portion of land as described in Section 1. Section 3. The drainage and utility easement over that portion of land, as described in Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk r? -4) NORTH SITE PLAN SCALE: V= 25' DATE: 10-2-96 q6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 331 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution which approves a special law which allows the use of a housing replacement program in Richfield. Background: Since 1990, the City and HRA have administered Richfield Rediscovered. This housing replacement program uses tax increment within a redevelopment district to acquire blighted property to provide higher value replacement homes. In 1995, Crystal, Fridley, Minneapolis and St. Paul developed their own version of the program as a special law. The law allows housing replacement districts instead of a redevelopment district. A comparison of the two approaches is attached. The 1996 legislature extended the 1995 program to Richfield and Duluth. To possibly utilize this program option in the future, the City Council is required to approve the special law by resolution and report its action to the Secretary of State before the end of 1996. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution which adopts Minnesota State Laws of 1996, Chapter 471, Article 7, Sections 21 and 22 which allows Richfield to have housing replacement projects. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. Approving the law reserves Richfield the choice to establish a program in the future. The City Council would review the formation of a tax increment housing replacement project proposed by the HRA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the law. 2. Defer approval to another meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City of Richfield must adopt the special law before the end of 1996. Respectfully submitted, 14 James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 41 46-1 0 • Comparison of Replacement Housing Programs Special Law, 1996 Richfield Rediscovered Type of housing impacted Blighted housing removal Blighted housing removal Replacement housing allowed Housing values may not exceed 150 percent of the average value in Richfield No limit on end values (they often exceed 150 percent of the average value) Number of houses allowed 50 homes; 10 homes the No restrictions first year, the balance over (approximately 10 to 15 a nine-year period homes are redeveloped each year) Local contribution A local match of 25 percent of project cost from non-tax increment sources No local match; no restriction on source of project resources Tax increment original net tax capacity Based on a zero value for the property Based on the value of the raw land 41 q6-c;L RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING LAWS OF 1996, CHAPTER 471, ARTICLE 7, SECTIONS 21 AND 22 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Laws of Minnesota 1996, Chapter 471, Article 7, Sections 21 and 22 regarding housing replacement projects requires the approval of the City in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021, Subd. 3 before it becomes effective. Section 2. Minnesota Session Laws 1996, Chapter 471, Article 7, Section 21, modifying Laws 1995, Chapter 264, Article 5, Section 44, Subd. 4 and Section 22, modifying Laws 1995, Chapter 264, Article 5, Section 45, Subd. 1 are hereby approved. Section 3. The mayor, clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State the certificate of approval of special law together with a certified copy of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1996. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, Clerk • qA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 330 Agenda November 12, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution setting just compensation and authorizing the purchase on a voluntary basis of property at 6921 Penn Avenue. Background: In furtherance of the Storm Water Capital Improvement Program in the 6901 block of Penn Avenue, the owner of 6921 Penn Avenue has responded favorably to the opportunity to sell her property to the City. Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution which sets just compensation and authorizes the purchase of 6921 Penn Avenue for $91,500. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The purchase would be funded from the Storm Water Utility Fund, with a loan from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. 2. The owner has been advised that the purchase would be voluntary without payment of relocation benefits. 3. A review appraiser has certified the property value at $91,500. 4. This property is impacted by storm water. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Reject the concept of purchasing the property. Discussion/Decision Mode: The owner is anxious to enter into a purchase agreement before winter. Two houses remain occupied by their owners. Given the location of each house at either end of the block face, it is difficult to proceed with stormwater and housing projects. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds T/'_1 RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION IN THE 69TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE AREA WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property impacted by storm water said real -property being described as follows: 6921 Penn Avenue Lot 18, Block 10, Tingdale Bros', Lincoln Hills Second Addition WHEREAS, said acquisition is contingent upon the voluntary sale of the property by owner who would waive any and all potential relocation benefits; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City's storm water utility fund is the revenue source for the acquisition of the project parcels; and WHEREAS, the City has caused an appraisal of the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation for 6921 Penn Avenue is $91,500. 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute appropriate agreements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9 0 U) 133.5 1 3.5 N m ?$?) Z W _ 31.5 v .......... 2 Q !33.5 - -- Q - - 3 f (52) S? 133.5 4 (53) 13 S 69 S 5; (54) 59 133.5 ?•_ (55) 53 f 33 5 133.5 (56) 133.9 ':3 e s:: (57) 133.3 X. X b3 9 (58) Si 133,5 133.5 10 (59) 133.5 _ ?? 133.5 _ (6v) 69 Z U. 133.5 'O 00 12 (61) 133.5 r r to 70TH STREET D PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY 69TH STREET ca LO r Q? tC W N Z W Lo > N Q to z Z W a a ch M 01 t0 n M t0 W Z a W J O Dated 11/12/96