Loading...
8-5-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 33 II. 7:30-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 34 III. 8:00-8:45 P.M. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 35 IV. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE FINANCIAL REPORT STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 36 V. 9:00-9:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL SITE AREA AT CITY HALL WITH POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF 6758 PORTLAND AVENUE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 37 VI. 9:15-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF CABLE TELEVISION REFRANCHISING ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 38 VII. 9:30-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF 76TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION 10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT S AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 38 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: Progress/status of cable refranchising ordinance with Paragon Cable. Background: The City of Richfield is currently a member of the five-city Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) which administers the provisions of the cable franchise ordinance with Paragon Cable. The SWSCC includes the cities of Richfield, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins and Minnetonka. The franchise ordinance currently in force will expire December 31, 1999. Paragon has suggested that the commission members may want to consider approving a refranchising at this time in order to allow Paragon to begin upgrading its cable services. This would provide for an increase in channel capacity from 58 to 79 and improved picture quality. The issue that appears unresolved is the "level playing field" language. Basically, Paragon is asking for the cities to pre- approve a reduction in franchise fees and public educational governmental access if certain competitive conditions exist as would be defined in the agreement. Richfield presently receives $147,000 annually in franchise fees. City staff and some Council Members object to this language. It appears likely that other cities within the SWSCC will approve this level playing field language. Recommended Motion: The City Council should discuss and provide direction to staff regarding level playing field language. The Council should determine whether staff should assess the • advantages and disadvantages of not approving the refranchising agreement at this time and possibly receive proposals from other cable companies in 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The draft level playing field language does not appear to be in the best interest of the City of Richfield. However, it is not certain that the City would be able to attract viable competitors in 1999. 2. It is possible that by not approving the refranchising agreement, Richfield would not be upgraded to the 750 MHz, and therefore the City's residents would receive fewer channels and poorer picture quality than surrounding cities. 3. It is possible that if Richfield did not approve a refranchising agreement at this time, the City would receive even less favorable conditions from Paragon upon refranchising in 1999. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide to delay discussion of this item to a later time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of August 5, 1996. Respectfull"ubmitted, • Jame rc City Ma a er JDP:cak LAW OFFICES MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 4800 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129 BRIAN T. GROGAN TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300 TELECOPIER (612) 339-6686 (612) 347-0340 j V V` July 29, 1996 Mr. Steven Devich Assistant City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Level Playing Field Language Comparison Dear Steve: Pursuant to our meeting on Wednesday, July 24, 1996 I have reviewed the documents for the Cities of Jordan and St. Louis Park to compare them with the language currently being considered by the Southwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission and in particular the City of Richfield. 9 St. Louis Park In the City of St. Louis Park the issue before the City was simply whether to extend the term of the franchise in return for completion of a system upgrade. The amendment generally read as follows: The City, in consideration of any early completion of Company's upgrade plan and additional technical improvements, features, facilities, equipment, reports and correspondence as described in attached exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, grants an extension of 6 (six) years to the present ten (10) year term, which expires February 27, 1999. The extension embodied herein constitutes the whole of the agreement ... The only other issues of concern to the City of St. Louis Park were the impact of this extension on periodic review sessions and the enforceability of existing franchise obligations. To the best of my knowledge there was no language included in this amendment with respect to a "level playing field" provision nor was this issue addressed or debated by the City at the time of this amendment. It was simply an extension of the franchise term in return for a guarantee that a system upgrade would be completed by a specified date. • MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Steven Devich July 29, 1996 Page 2 Jordan In the City of Jordan, Minnesota the City found itself backed into a corner and eventually reluctantly agreed to language regarding a level playing field provision. This language provided as follows: (a) Any additional or subsequent franchises granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with the Franchisee within the City limits will be granted only on the same terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome or more favorable terms than those imposed on Franchisee by this Franchise. (b) The City and Franchisee agree that all regulations to which Franchisee is subject, including but not limited to those set forth in this Franchise, are effective against the Franchisee only if such regulations are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Franchisee within the City limits. For purposes of this subsection, wired competitors shall include any multi-channel video provider which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on public property or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor would not include a satellite antenna master television system located solely on private property within a building. Any regulation enforced by the City upon Franchisee which is not also imposed upon Franchisee's wired competitors, shall be void as to Franchisee. (c) Not withstanding the effect of anything set forth in this Section 21, the existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Franchisee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum franchise fee of three percent (3%) of Gross Operating Receipts and at least one (1) channel dedicated for public, educational and government access use. The City of Jordan fought for months with Paragon regarding this language, however, given its relatively small size and the costs associated with fighting Paragon on this issue, the City reluctantly agreed to this language in return for certain commitments in the franchisewhich were of importance to the City. MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION • Mr. Steven Devich July 29, 1996 Page 3 I hope this information is helpful to you as you consider the advantages and disadvantages of the language proposed by Paragon. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, MOSS & BARNETT, A Professional Association /a4'4 1 Brian T. Grogan BTG/slo 49681/12C 101 !.DOC/12C 101 !.DOC • 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Southwest Suburban Cable Commission City Managers' Committee FROM: Staff SUBJECT: Franchise Renewal Process DATE: June 4, 1996 Below we have outlined the language agreed upon regarding the major issues outlined by the City Managers and Paragon Cable. 1. PUBLIC ACCESS A. Public Access Channels. Paragon Cable will continue to provide four public, educational and government (PEG) access channels. The City may request a State-of-the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In conducting a State-of-the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: (a) The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: (1) characteristics of the existing System; (2) the State-of-the- Art; (3) additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art; (4) the market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and (5) the financial feasibility of/ the State-of-the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. (b) The City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. (c) For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of-the- Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: (1) are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two (2) or more sources of supply; (2) have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and w (3) are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term &4 • "State-of-the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of-the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. B. Studio/Facilities. Paragon Cable will provide one large facility containing one studio with the current square footage of the Eden Prairie studio for public, educational and governmental access which will be located in Eden Prairie. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall have more hours than currently provided, including regular hours during the week, weekend hours and some week night hours. C. i ment. No agreements have been reached on the equipment which will be necessary in the new studio. D. Funding for PEG Access. Paragon shall provide a total of $200,128 for PEG access annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the 5 member cities of the SWSCC. These expenses will be itemized on customers bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; and (e) educational expenses. Paragon will no longer be required to provide the access news show. E. Public Access Users. If the cities request, Paragon Cable will work with the cities to charge a nominal fee to users of the PEG access facility. II. CUSTOMER FOCUS A. Commercial Channels. Grantee agrees to upgrade its system to a capacity of 750 MHz which is the equivalent of 112 6 MHz analog video channels. However, Paragon will initially use the 54 MHz-550 MHz section of the system to deliver analog signals and reserve the 550 MHz to 750 MHz section for future applications. Stated in terms 2 i? of 6 MHz analog channels the 54 MHz to 550 MHz of the system has capacity for 79 channels. The present system has capacity for 58 analog channels. B. Social Contract. The Social Contract between Time Warner Cable and the Federal Communications Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is expressly understood by the City and the Grantee that the Social Contract is made a part hereof for informational purposes only. Inclusion of the Social Contract by reference is not intended to nor shall it create any right of the City to enforce any provisions of the Social Contract directly or indirectly under the terms of this Franchise. The parties expressly acknowledge and understand that tie Social Contract and the obligations contained are enforceable exclusively by the FCC as more fully set forth in the Social Contract. C. Technological Changes. The City may request a State-of-the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In conducting a State-of-the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: (a) The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: (1) characteristics of the existing System; (2) the State-of-the- Art; (3) additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art; (4) the market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and (5) the financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. (b) The City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. (c) For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of-the- Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: (1) are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two (2) or more sources of supply; (2) have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual ,purposes atfier than tests or experimentation; and operating conditions for (3) are technically and economically feas~- ible- to implement. The term "State-of-the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. 3 1 fo (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of-the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to the effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. D. Periodic Customer Surveys. (a) The Grantee shall upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no more frequent than once every three years conduct a random survey of a representative sample of subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) installation practices; (b) The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of three hundred (300) customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent (6%) or less of the total customer base. (c) The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within sixty (60) days of the completion of the survey. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. r E. Customer Service Standards. ,; 1-1 f The Grantee shall comply with the customer service standards of the Federal Communications Commission as such standards may from time to time be amended. .t-I F. Line Extension. (a) The Grantee shall within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. (b) The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who may be interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. III. CITY GOVERNMENT A. Franchise Fees. The City Managers and Paragon have tentatively agreed to a 5% franchise fee. Both parties, however, are negotiating additional language which would provide a "level playing field" for other wired competitors who offer a competitive video service. B. Government Access Channels. Paragon Cable will maintain the current government access channel. C. Override of the Government Access Channel. Paragon Cable agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government access channel in the following ways: 1) insert live council meetings from City Hall; 2) replay government access programming from City Hall; 3) transmit character generated programming; 4) schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time slot on the government access channel; and 5) switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by cable operator at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. Whatever programming the City determines will be carried on its government access channel within the City. D. Construction Requirements. Paragon Cable shall, at least sixty (60) days prior to commencing the System upgrade for an area of the system, provide notice to representatives of the City of the following: (a) The nature of the work to be undertaken; (b) the estimated schedule for said work; (c) steps to be taken to minimize disruption to public; and (d) steps to be taken to notify the customers of said work. 5 i? IV. EDUCATIONAL NEEDS is A. ? I Wo Ili C. 41 ,-? o - ? -11, B. Educational Access Channel. Paragon and the City Managers have agreed to retain the two current educational access channels. Service to the Schools and Government Buildings. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings (a) The Grantee shall continue to provide one outlet of Basic Service, the Cable Programming Service Tier and one converter, if needed, to those facilities presently served. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 2.00 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. (b) If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing system, the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. (c) All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. (d) The financial responsibility for any additional converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. O-L"* Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Under the social contract, cable service shall be provided for free to private schools through the year 2000. Cable Nodes System Connect. Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible without in Grantee's opinion comprising the engineering design of the system. Cities will provide maps showing the location of the schools. 6 .t,,t1w4 GG V. TECHNOLOGY 41 A. System Upgrade. Grantee agrees to upgrade its system to a capacity of 750 MHz which is the equivalent of 112-6 MHz analog video channels. However, Paragon will initially use the 54 MHz-550 MHz section of the system to deliver analog signals and reserve the 550 MHz to 750 MHz section for future applications. Stated in terms of 6 MHz analog channels the 54 MHz to 550 MHz of the system has capacity for 79 channels. The upgraded system will be two-way. Time Warner will complete the upgrade in three (3) years. B. Level Playing Field Provision. See attached pages. These are the major issues which were agreed upon between Paragon Cable and the City Managers. If there is an issue that you believe should be addressed and you do not see it here, please contact Staff as soon as possible. 544515 • 7 aL7) DRAFT "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD LANGUAGE" (a) Any additional or subsequent cable franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome or more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise ar (b) The City and Grantee agree that all franchise provisions that Grantee is subje j ainst the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to an effective ag wired competitors of the Grantee within the franchise area. For pu subsection, a wired competitor shall include any video provider offering 12 ch ?w' programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on public property or public utility facilities. This definition of wired ?9 competitor would not include a Satellite Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. oo v upon Grantee which is ulation enforced/ the Ctt rovision or other re (c) An franchise y y y g p not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: (1) The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum franchise fee of 2 % of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor, obtains a cable franchise which requires it to pay a franchise fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than 5% of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's franchise fee to the same level, but in no event less than 2% of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does noL ob lain_ a cable franchise, but it is required to pay a franchise fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the same fee, but in no event less than 2 % of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not res ' to may a fran chise fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota, then the 2% minimum franchise fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's franchise fee shall immediately return to its original level. (2) The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable franchise which requires it to provide less than four (4) public, educational and governmental access channels, the City shall, upon the effective date of the subsequent franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one (1) public, educational and governmental -1- cz ( access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable franchise, but it is required to provide less than four (4) public, educational and governmental access channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental access channels, then the City shall reduce the number of access channels required of Grantee as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25 % of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four (4) public, educational and governmental access channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes,25 % or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three (3) public, educational and governmental access channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more, of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one (1) public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental access channels shall immediately return to its original level. (3) If a wired competitor obtains a cable franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee, the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable franchise, but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25 % of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, • -2- ,:2a the City shall reduce the funding and, equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding and, equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. (4) For all other franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable franchise which does not require it to meet the same franchise provision, the City shall not require Grantee to meet that franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable franchise and it is not required to meet the same franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to meet the franchise provision. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the franchise provision. (d) If Grantee is aware of a franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a "wired competitor as defined above; it shall identify the franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within ninety (90) days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring such franchise provision void as to Grantee; (2) declare why the entity in question is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a requirement that substantially duplicates the franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. • -3- ,-?3 (e) If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the . Ordinance within ninety (90) days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. 551199 U • -4- ay SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. IV DESCRIPTION INITIATED BY DATE Franchise Renewal Budget Managers Committee June 26, 1996 ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Commission approve a budget of $30,000 for Phase III to complete the franchise renewal negotiation process. Each Member City will contribute $6,000 toward the $30,000. The budget includes attending the final meeting of the City Managers' Committee; completing the negotiations of the major points; drafting the franchise ordinance; attending the special commission meeting; attending the remaining city council work sessions and public hearings; and finalizing the franchise documents. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS • $30,000 ($6,000 per Member City) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Letter from Theresa Harris to the City Managers, dated June 13, 1996 STAFF COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS: A staff member will be present at the meeting to discuss this request. 0 • SOUTHW ;T SUBURBAN CABLE Ct 00 FREDRIKSON & BYRON 1 100 International Ccntrc 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-3394 (012) +47-7000 ?IMISSION Direct Dial Nos. Adrian E. Herbst, Esq. (612) 347-7053 E-Maikaherbst®fredlaw. com Theresa M. Harris, Esq. (612) 347-7131 E-Mail:tharris®fred law, coin • June 13, 1996 Carl Jullie, City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 David Childs, City Manager City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 Steve Devich, Assistant City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Franchise Renewal Process Dear City Managers: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Jim Genellie, Assistant City Manager City of Hopkins 1010 South First Street Hopkins, MN 55343 The Commission approved the following expenditures for attorneys' fees for the franchise renewal process: 1) $25,000 for Phase One; and 2) $25,000 for Phase Two. The Commission asked Fredrikson and Byron to request additional funds for the negotiations phase after completion of Phase Two. Fredrikson and Byron will bill the Cities $25,082.50 for attorneys' fees in Phase One. During Phase II of the renewal process, the negotiations process evolved and Fredrikson and Byron incurred substantial negotiations costs. However, Fredrikson and Byron will bill the Commission, $24,753.00 for Phase Two based upon the original proposal. Fredrikson and Byron is now requesting funds to continue and complete the negotiation process which we began in Phase Two. At this time, we estimate that it will cost approximately $6000 per city in attorneys' fees to complete the negotiation process. This estimate includes the ( itic, 01'I",cIcn Prairie. k.dIna. I lopkins. Minnetonka & IZIchlield a0 0 E City Managers June 13, 1996 Page 2 following activities: attending the final meeting of the City Managers' Committee; completing the negotiations of the major points; drafting the franchise ordinance; attending the special commission meeting; attending the remaining city council work sessions and public hearings; and finalizing the franchise documents. We intend to have an item regarding fees on the agenda for the special Commission meeting of June 26, 1996. Fredrikson will strive to keep the Commission members fully apprised of any developments in the negotiations process. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact either of us at the above direct dial telephone numbers. Very truly yours, Adrian E. Herbst TMH:5479s9 Theresa M. s . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 37 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: Opportunity for additional site area at City Hall to make it more functional and relieve pressure on neighboring streets. Background: At the April 1, 1996 Study Session the City Council directed staff to pursue the potential purchase of 6758 Portland Avenue. Several months ago the widow owner died. Prior to her death she indicated to her son that the City might be interested in purchasing the property. Her son contacted staff. The appraisals and rental analysis have been completed: City's appraisal report $83,000 Estate's appraisal report $88,000 City's review appraisal $85,000 The Inspections Division evaluated the property and repairs needed to bring it into compliance with the rental licensing ordinance. An HRA remodeling advisor evaluated the report of the Inspections Division and determined that the cost of repairs would approximate $10,000. The estate is willing to sell the property for $85,000 assuming that the City undertakes the repairs. A market rent would be $800 per month with the tenant assuming all utility costs. (This rental rate has not been tested at this property.) Recommended Motion: Discuss whether staff should seek formal authorization from the City Council to purchase this property. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of purchase. 2. The property is vacant and available. 3. Rental would be an acceptable interim use. Alternative Recommendation: Direct staff to seek tax exempt status for the property. Discussion/Decision Mode: The estate is awaiting a decision. submitted, ResYanager Jamosser City JDP:cak • City Council August 5, 1996 SOURCES & USES 6758 PORTLAND AVENUE n Income $ 8,800 Rent 12 x 800 less 1 month. Expenses Taxes (est.) $ 2,400 Miscellaneous $ 1,400 Management Company fee (est.) $ 1,500 Interest lost to City (Assume 30 year T Bill 7.05%) 6,416 due to capital expense Net Income -$ 2,916 Capital Expenditures Acquisition Cost $85,000 Code Compliance $10,000 TOTAL $95,000 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 36 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: Fourth of July Committee financial report. Background: The Fourth of July Committee has requested an opportunity to discuss with the Council their fund raising efforts and current financial status at the conclusion of their 1996 July Fourth activities. Recommended Motion: Receive the report from the Fourth of July Committee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Council has previously agreed to meet with the Fourth of July Committee to discuss fund raising efforts. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to discuss this matter at a later time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the August 5 Study Session. Resp tfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds L "A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 35 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: Study Session with the Planning Commission to discuss potential changes to the zoning ordinance regarding cluster home developments and telecommunication towers and antennas. Background: The Planning Commission is currently working on two projects related to the City's zoning ordinance it would like to discuss with the Council. The City recognizes a need to encourage a greater variety of housing types in the community. One type of housing that the City has very little of, and that the housing market is seeing an increased demand for, is townhomes. The Planning Commission has spent several months working on an ordinance to facilitate the development of townhomes in the City. The Planning Commission looked at how the City's zoning ordinance currently serves as a barrier to townhome development. Townhomes are treated like apartment buildings and are permitted in one zoning district in the City, unless the project is at least an acre in size and can qualify as a planned unit development. The Planning Commission reviewed ordinances from other cities and found that some cities allow for a type of housing referred to as "cluster housing". Cluster housing may be attached forms of housing like townhomes or detached housing arranged in a cluster formation. The Commission considered the value of encouraging this type of smaller, infill housing development. They worked to develop ordinance language that could facilitate the development of this type of housing in appropriate areas in the community. A summary of the issues the Planning Commission is exploring is attached. During the month of August, the Planning Commission will review the issues relating to telecommunication towers and antennas and make a recommendation to the Council on an ordinance amendment. A summary of the issues that staff and the Commission are exploring is attached. Recommended Motion: No specific action is required of the Council at this time. This is a discussion item to inform the Council of projects the Planning Commission is working on. Basis of Recommendation: The Planning Commission requested that they have an opportunity to discuss these It items with the Council. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission has been scheduled for August 5, 1996. Respectf ffly submitted, Jam DProsser City Manager JDP:ds is Attachment One CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENTS Purpose: To provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow wider varieties in the types of housing available to City residents, provided it is consistent with the single family residential character of the residential district. To provide opportunities for cluster housing to serve as transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses at densities slightly higher than single family housing but less dense than multi-family housing. Zoning Districts: A cluster home development could be appropriate in a single family, two family or multiple residence district if the development is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The ordinance is written to direct this type of development to the appropriate areas. Conditional Uses: Cluster home developments would be conditional uses in the R, MR-1 and MR-2 districts. The conditions would include the following items: • design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (items such as architectural design, scale and mass of the structure) • landscaping • parking (2 spaces/unit) • open space • minimized number of driveways and curb cuts Comprehensive Plan: The density of the development would follow the density identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains a classification called high density single family attached housing (RSF-H). This classification is used in many commercial to residential transition areas, along arterial streets and in areas close to shopping and services. This classification permits a density between 5 and 12 units per acre. Single family residential neighborhoods not identified as RSF-H have a density of 5 units per acre or less. The following table compares the densities of various types of housing in Richfield. Single family block (> 1.0,000 sq. ft. lots) 217,800 16 3.2 Single family block (6,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. lots) 217,800 22 4.4 609 West 74th Street (to be built) 25,410 4 6.8 Coach Homes 312,376 92 12.8 7400-7500 Penn Avenue (walk-up apartments) 217,800 112 22.4 Lake Shore Drive Condominiums 180,074 178 42.9 *Note: calculation includes streets ordinanceVesearchUsummar.doc Attachment One CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENTS • Definition: "Cluster home development" - A development of 3 or more detached one family dwellings or a row, group or cluster of attached one family dwellings. Dwelling units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common. The maximum number of units in the R or MR-1 district would be 9 units. In the MR- 2 district, the maximum number would be 14 units. Once a development reaches this size, it is more appropriate as a planned unit development. Setbacks and Flexibility: The setbacks of the zoning district would apply to the cluster housing development. The ordinance amendment provides some flexibility in the setbacks if certain criteria are met. Example: In the R District, the setbacks may be reduced to 25 feet in the front and 15 feet in the rear (reduced from 30 feet in the front and 25 feet in the rear) if certain criteria are met. The criteria include the following: • demonstrating that a superior design is achieved, • not creating any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood, and • minimizing the impact of the reduced setback by the use of features such as landscaping, limited number of building openings, building orientation or similar features. Example: The Choice Wood development at 609 West 74th Street has smaller setbacks. It also contains several elements of a "superior design". • Natural amenity: The units cluster around an interior courtyard. • Garage door dominance minimized: Only two of the four double garages are visible from the street. The presence of the two visible garages is also minimized. • Neighborhood compatibility: The roof line and windows suggest the "Richfield character". • Minimized impact: Fencing and landscaping minimize the impact on adjacent uses. Lot Size: The lot size would be similar to the current requirement for duplexes. Projects would need a minimum of 4,500 square feet per unit in the R and MR-1 districts (unless a lower density is required). The size per unit in the MR-2 district would be slightly smaller and would vary depending on the size of the development. ordinance\research\thsummar.doc Attachment Two TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS ISSUES TO ADDRESS Location • Communities need to provide reasonable accommodation for towers and antennas • Where are towers appropriate? commercial and industrial districts possibly residential districts in parks, schools, churches or institutional uses • Towers should comply with the setbacks that are required for principal buildings in the underlying district • Towers should be setback an additional distance from residential uses -- a distance equal to the height of the tower or some portion of the height is commonly used by other communities Approval Process • Want to encourage locating antennas on existing buildings or other structures (they're less obtrusive than towers); permitting them if they are under 10' would provide an incentive to do so • New towers could be conditional uses to ensure that the proposed location is appropriate 0 Abandonment • If a tower is abandoned, it should be removed at the owner's cost Accessory Equipment/Buildings • The accessory equipment should be screened • The City's current regulations for accessory buildings (size, setback) can apply Amateur Radio Towers/Satellite Dishes • The ordinance currently limits towers to 70' and they must be in the back yard • Satellite dishes have to be in the back yard or on top of a roof Co-location • The ordinance should encourage co-location (e.g. evidence that the tower could accommodate other one or two other users) Aesthetics/Appearance 0 9 Require that they be painted a neutral color Attachment Two TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS • • Require screening of accessory equipment • Maintenance is required under the City's nuisance ordinance • Encourage that antennas (e.g. in the bell tower of a church) and towers be camouflaged, where appropriate • Monopole structure preferred to frame structure FAA Requirements • The FAA conducts an obstruction analysis for anything within 6 nautical miles of the airport and will look closely at telecommunication towers • The FAA will limit height in some cases and may require lighting or painting in some cases Height • The height needed to provide service depends on topography and conditions • 75' to 100' is an average height for a tower • 150' is the maximum being allowed in many communities • The FAA may limit height • Co-location requires extra height • Health Regulations • The federal government applies health standards and limits municipalities from doing so • The City might require that towers and antennas comply with federal rules and if federal rules become stricter, they would have to comply with the new rules (or we would take action against them) • It's generally believed that towers and antennas are not harmful unless a person has direct contact for an extended period of time. Interference with Public Safety Communications, Radio and Television • Companies are prohibited by federal law from interfering with other radio and television signals • The City's communications consultant recommends that language be included to prohibit interference and that staff request a copy of the company's interference analysis Proof of Need/Area-wide Analysis • The City might require an analysis of why a tower is needed in a requested • location, especially to show why an existing building can't be used or why the tower can't be located in another location 2 Attachment Two TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS • Industry Input • Industry representatives were mailed a survey in July • They were mailed draft ordinance language for comment • They've been invited to the Planning Commission study session on August 13, 1996 Estimated Timetable for Ordinance Amendment • Planning Commission study session on August 13, 1996 • Draft ordinance language revised in August • Planning Commission recommendation by the end of August • City Council first and second readings in August and September • Ordinance language effective in October • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 34 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following: Runway 4-22 Dr. Sanford Fidell, BBN Systems and Technologies, has submitted a draft final version of the "Social Survey of Community Preferences for Aircraft Noise Mitigation Measures" for review. Metropolitan Council staff is bringing the mediation team back together to discuss the draft. One of the decisions to be made is who will present the results to the MSP Mitigation Committee, and how that presentation will be made. Staff is currently reviewing the document for recommendations. • MSP Mitiaation Committee/MSP Expansion A meeting was held between MAC Chair Sandy Grieve and Executive Director Jeff Hamiel, Met Council Chair Curt Johnson and Regional Administrator Jim Solem, and Mayor Kirsch and the City Manager. MAC and Met Council are very concerned about Richfield's potential opposition and litigation to prevent construction of the north-south runway. MAC and several communities want to move forward with the new runway as soon as possible. Staff has notified Richfield consultants of the issues discussed at that meeting and requested that they provide input regarding other issues that need to be addressed. The main issues continue to be environmental/noise impacts and the loss of valuable recreational space. Richfield has represented that the City will continue to reserve rights to take legal action if the issues identified by the City are not properly addressed. As indicated to Richfield's consultants, this is the City's best chance to go on record as to what issues need to be addressed and the manner that those issues should be resolved. It is, therefore, very important that both issues and methods to resolve issues be properly identified. An "Issues Paper" addressing these issues is attached. It is important for the Council to review these issues and advise staff if this is the proper direction to focus on, or it there are additional issues that should be addressed. The next meeting of the Mitigation Committee is scheduled for Friday, August 9 at 10:00 a.m. in the MASAC Room of the MAC General Offices. Very little substantive discussion on mitigation alternatives and associated funding sources has taken place. It is anticipated that operational alternatives will be discussed at the next meeting. The committee is also planning to hold several public hearings -- whether on separate dates or as part of the regular meeting schedule has not been clearly decided -- to solicit resident comments. Several committee members have questioned what punitive measures can or will be taken if the legislative-imposed deadline is not met in September. • Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) As reported in the July 26 "Status & Information," MASAC did not act on the proposed changes to the Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP). Richfield representatives requested the issue be tabled at the June meeting, having identified erroneous population counts in north Richfield. The census database used by HNTB is apparently flawed. MAC staff are making revisions in-house, and those revisions were not complete in time for the July meeting. The issue will likely be considered at the August meeting. • Summer Noise Problems in Richfield Several residents from northwest Richfield attended the July MASAC meeting. The number of resident calls to City Hall regarding airport noise have increased dramatically this summer (see contact report attached). There are several reasons for this increased impact. Construction of runway 4-22 (project update attached) has left only two functional runways at MSP. Summer also means an increase in operations to accommodate vacation travelers. This operational increase is in addition to the overall increase in operations that is a result of a healthy air industry. Throw in summer • weather patterns, with increased heat and humidity making rapid climb more difficult, and the end result is noise levels never before experienced. In response to a request from Ms. Lois Howard, 6305 Thomas Avenue, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and MAC placed a portable monitor in Ms. Howard's back yard on Friday, July 26. The monitor was to be left in place for one week and the results reported to the resident and the Council at the Study Session. Council Member Rosenberg contacted staff to request an additional week of monitoring. Apparently, weekend noise in this particular area of Richfield was down somewhat from previous weekends. MAC is unable to accommodate the request due to other Part 150 monitoring priorities. It is likely that several residents from north and northwest Richfield will be at the Study Session to share their concerns with the Council. Several residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the City's litigation to prevent noise redistribution. Ms. Howard requested staff to provide the cost of attorneys' fees for the litigation (July 26 response memo copied to Council Members), as well as a detailed report of all airport expenses since specific division expenditures were approved in 1989. • New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition W.D. Schock reports that 284 houses will have been removed from the project area by November 1996. Acquisitions appear to be going quite well. There are nine • homeowners in various stages of condemnation; two have been settled, two will have a condemnation commission decision rendered soon, and five others will be moving to a commission hearing in the near future, One of these last five is the lone remaining property on the 6300 block of Standish Avenue. This resident is a holdout from Phase 1. An environmental assessment of potential land contamination was ordered by the court. Findings determined no contamination at levels requiring remediation, which allows W.D. Schock to move forward. Inspections staff is having problems with several house movers. W.D. Schock has been notified on numerous occasions of movers not paying for or picking up proper permits. The problem should be remedied as fines get movers' attention. W.D. Schock has been asked to be more aggressive in ensuring compliance with City permitting policies. e Airport Impact Zone Brochure Update The Urban Revitalization and Stabilization Zone map has been released by the Met Council. A paper copy and disk copy were received by the City. Unfortunately, the Met Council's GIS mapping system contained on the disk does not permit City staff to open the document and transfer it into the brochure design. Staff will be working with the artist who works on the newsletter to draft a rendering of the map for publication purposes. The zone is very favorable for Richfield, with over half of the community included. Although this does not benefit current residents, it is an important stabilization effort that will help resale efforts. • Recommended Motion: Discuss current airport policy issues. Basis of Recommendation: It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on airport policy. Alternative Recommendation: Defer discussion to another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of August 5, 1996. Respectfully submitted, Jam s . Prosser City anager JDP:ds Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD 0 Memorandum DATE: July 29, 1996 TO: Steve Pflaum, McDermott, Will & Emery Don Brauer, The Brauer Group Cindy Fish, Fish & Associates, Inc. Lisa Raduenz, LJR Transportation Planners & Consultants John B. Dean, Kennedy & Graven Gene Ranieri, Publicorp Sid Inman, Publicorp Walt Gillfillan, Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates Sandy Fidell, BBN Systems and Technologies Department Directors FROM: James D. Prosser, City Manager SUBJECT: North-South Runway Impacts Attached is a memo related to meeting between the City of Richfield, Metropolitan Airports Commission and Met Council. The City of Richfield has been requested to summarize a discussion which occurred regarding our concerns about the construction of a north-south runway. A draft of that memo is attached. I would appreciate your careful review of the issues and recommendation provided in this draft. Please provide your input regarding the following items: • Are there additional issues which should be identified as part of our concerns regarding the north-south runway. • Are there additional recommendations that we can make regarding what action should be taken to address concerns raised by the City of Richfield? The City of Richfield has represented that we will continue to reserve rights to take legal action if the issues identified by our City are not properly addressed. This is our best chance to go on record as to what issues need to be addressed and the manner that those issues should be resolved. It is therefore very important that we property identify both issues and methods to resolve issues. I'd appreciate your response on this matter not later than August 9. JDP:ds Attachment ISSUES PAPER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council had requested a meeting of the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission on July 24, 1996. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues of concern to the City of Richfield for the construction of the north-south runway. Present during that meeting were Richfield Mayor Martin J. Kirsch, Richfield City Manager James D. Prosser, MAC Chair Sandy Grieves, MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel, Metropolitan Council Chair Curt Johnson, Metropolitan Council Executive Director Jim Solem. A summary of the issues presented by the City of Richfield during that meeting include the following: ENVIRONMENTAL/NOISE IMPACT One of the primary concerns to the City of Richfield is the noise impact that the north- south will generate to Richfield residents. We are especially concerned that the low frequency noise generated from ground level activity is both properly identified and mitigated. The existing method to assess ground level noise impacts included in the traditional integrated noise model (INM) does not adequately measure the ground level noise impacts on residential properties. The City of Richfield is seeking alternative methods to assess ground level noise impacts in order to have a better understanding of the noise impacts and potential mitigation measures. Recommendation: The City of Richfield, Metropolitan Council, MAC and other communities that might be reasonably impacted by ground level noise should participate in a collaborative effort to identify appropriate ground level noise assessment instruments that would enable the MAC to properly determine the impacts of the north-south runway as part of the EIS process. MITIGATION It is reasonably likely that the construction of a north-south runway would create at least two significant impacts which require mitigation. Those impacts include: • ground level noise on residential property west of Trunk Highway 77; and • the loss to valuable recreational space including Rich Acres Golf Course, youth baseball fields and community gardens. Richfield has already initiated aggressive efforts to reconfigure incompatible residential land uses immediately adjacent to the airport to compatible commercial uses and to promote programs that help assure community stability for neighborhoods nearby the airport. Finally, Richfield has initiated efforts to provide housing replacement due to residents displaced because of airport incompatibility. Richfield has made special • efforts to address neighborhood livability components which offset the noise impacts on the residential neighborhoods. Recommendation: • The Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the City of Richfield and other communities surrounding the airport should identify alternative recreational opportunities that can be operated or made available to Richfield residents. • A specific plan to replace youth athletic field be developed. • A review of land availability for conversion to recreation use in areas surrounding and within the existing airport boundaries be developed. • Special financing tools that would enable Richfield to convert incompatible residential property to airport compatible uses be established. • Financing mechanisms identified to provide replacement housing be established. • Cooperative marketing plans to direct potential airport users to Cedar Avenue. • A master plan for Cedar Avenue should be prepared. The master plan should include the following: • design guidelines for buildings that would absorb ground level noise impacts; • design guidelines to provide appropriate separation between residential and commercial; and • a market analysis and plan for attracting airport compatible businesses; • The Metropolitan Council and the City of Richfield should develop a plan that will make Richfield whole in terms of housing units lost due to redeveloped airport in incompatible properties. • The Metropolitan Council and the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission should collaboratively develop a plan to improve neighborhood livability throughout the City of Richfield. 0 • • • Resident Contact: Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns »::::: .................. ---------------------- ................................................. ................................................. ............. ?.............................. ................ice........................... Thur., June 27 Resident 6300 block of 11 pm-2 am run-ups Staff will investigate Newton Avenue have been very bad run-ups and get back last 4 months - why? to him. Will also He is old aviator keep his name if the who is pro-aviation Council needs but also pro- i hb h d d citizen leadership on i t i g ne or oo s, an rpor a ssues. will be glad to sit on any committees to help out if he can. Fri., June 28 Resident 7600 block of 11th Are they eligible for Questions answered. sound insulation? No follow-up. Fri., June 28 Resident 6400 block of 11th Saw that more Questions answered. StarTribune article money is available No follow-up for insulation; does requested. this mean her house will now be done? Mon., July 1 Resident 6300 block of Who was surveyed Questions answered, "Your City" Pleasant Avenue about airport noise? Will she be getting survey and noise increase explained. insulation? She has No follow-up noticed that noise is requested. worse lately. Mon., July 1 Resident 2400 block of West Is she eligible for Questions answered. "Your City" 70-1/2 Street sound insulation? No follow-up. Mon., July 1 Resident 6300 block of Where is the Questions answered. "Your City" Harriet Avenue boundary for sound No follow-up insulation? He is requested. considering new insulation and would like sound insulation if he is eligible. Tues., July 2 Resident 7300 block of Elliot New to Richfield Questions answered. "Your City" Avenue and some neighbors No follow-up said MAC may li i l requested. expand e g b e area for sound insulation. Wed., July 3 Resident 7600 block of 13th He and his neighbors Explained 4-22 Drop-in were looking at 1996 issue. S Mpls home map and wondering is being insulated why someone along because of 29R/ l 1 L same contour in S and not because of Mpls was being insulated and they 4-22 as neighbors thought. Will send weren't. him a map of 1994 actual contours when MAC provides it in late-July. Tues., July 9 Resident 6700 block of 11th Is he included in Questions answered. sound insulation? o follow-up. Tues., July 9 Resident 6700 block of 15th Is she eligible for Questions answered. Staff referral sound insulation? No follow-up. • • • Wed., July 10 Resident 6300 block of 11th Are they eligible for Not eligible for insulation? They ' program. Explained weren t before. She Urban Revitalization is selling her home and Stabilization and would like to Zone as selling tell interested point, and asked her buyers. to have her realtor contact the City for information. Thur., JulyI I Resident 6300 block of Airplane noise is Discussed airfield CM Rosenberg Sheridan Avenue very bad, especially construction and asked staff to 6 a.m., 1 p.m., and impacts. Explained contact dinner hour. West night time flight Rfld is being restrictions, inundated. MASAC, and invited him and neighbors to attend. No follow-up at this time. Mon., July 15 Residents Wood Lake Village When are they going Questions answered. to stop being No follow-up delu ed with noise? requested. Tues., July 16 Resident 6600 block of Noise has been very Noise issues StarTribune article Bloomington bad recently? Is explained. Gave her there anything she numbers of state can do to get elected reps and involved? MAC noise line. No follow-up at this time. Tues., July 16 Resident 6700 block of Does he qualify for Questions answered. Bloomington sound insulation? No follow-up Noise is very bad. requested. Tues., July 16 Resident 7000 block of 18th Has the sound Questions answered. insulation area No follow-up changed? . requested. Tues., July 16 Resident 2800 block of West Have called MAC Noise issues 71st Street noise complaint line discussed. No several times. 6 am follow-up requested. and 10 pm hours are terrible... disrupting her sleep. Tues., July 16 Resident 7100 block of 17th Called several Explained 4-22 and months ago...looking N/S runway issues. for update on No follow-up runway plans. requested. Wed., July 17 Resident 6600 block of 2nd Noise has been bad Questions answered. StarTribune article the past couple of No follow-up months. requested. Wed., July 18 Resident 6300 block of 11th Why is he not Explained contour Walk-in getting insulation mapping. Will and across the street discuss his unique is? situation with MAC and et back to him. Mon., July 22 Resident 7300 block of 17th Wondering if he is Question answered. goin to be sound No follow-up insulated. requested. Tues., July 23 Resident 6500 block of 15th What is happening Question answered. with sound proofing? Contact if changes. • Wed., July 24 Resident 6800 block of Knox Have flight patterns Questions answered. been altered lately? No follow-up. Is sound insulation being extended? Wed., July 24 Resident 6600 block of 18th Noise was very bad Referred her to Channe134 this morning. MAC noise line. No follow-up requested. Thur., July25 Resident 6300 block of She would like Letter prepared and Thomas Avenue report of expenses hand delivered. for 4-22 litigation. Thur., July 25 Resident 6600 block of She has chronic Noise issues Stevens Avenue illness and needs her explained. sleep. Noise is Suggested she attend disrupting it. What MASAC meeting. is City doing? No follow-up. Fri., July 26 Resident 6400 block of 14th Upset about KSTP Staff was contacted story that measured by KSTP prior to noise in Mendota this story. Story did Heights. They not intend to slight should let people Rfld/S. Mpls know how bad it is residents. Gave her in Richfield. KSTP hone no. Mon., July 29 Resident 6500 block of Planes were terrible Informed her of Bloomington all weekend and this possible insulation. morning. Will contact her when specifics are known. Mon., July 29 Resident 6700 block of Planes have been Informed him of Bloomington just terrible. Called residents attending noise complaint line. study session in August. No follow- up requested. Tues., July 30 Resident 6600 block of 12th Any new info on Issues explained. ground noise, sound Encouraged him to insulation or new have neighbors call. runways? Many of No follow-up his neighbors have requested at this questions but don't time. call anyone. Tues., July 30 Resident 6300 block of She has called noise Suggested she call Portland Avenue line frequently. FAA tower to see if Noise is terrible and departure profiles planes are flying have been changed. much lower. Will contact if learn of an changes. Tues., July 30 Resident 6200 block of Protecting SE Rfld is di i i i Explained Council's Bryant Avenue scr m nat ng to 4-22 position. those along Hwy 62. Invited her to attend She has never next study session. complained before, Assured her that but this summer's Council would be noise and rising made aware of her taxes have her very concerns. frustrated. This information was gathered June 27 - July 31, 1996.* I *Note: Names of residents have been deleted for this report. Council Members wishing to respond directly to a resident's comment or question may do so by contacting the Media Assistant/Airport Issues at ext. 716. MEMORANDUM ITEM 7 9 C-] --- 4$ TO: Planning and Environment Committee FROM: Gary Warren, Airport Engineer - 728-8131 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON RUNWAY 4122 CONSTRUCTION DATE: July 26, 1996 Runway 4122 construction continues to make good progress on schedule. Specifically all concrete paving has been completed on the runway extension element such that the runway will be reopened to all "visual" traffic around the end of August. The FAA's contractor is in the process of installing the precision approach equipment (localizer, glide slope and approach lights) and has advised us that the full precision instrument approach for runway 04 will be commissioned by October 10, 1995 when the revised approach plates for pilots are published. The last stage of the construction which reconnects taxiway "S" to "D" and connects the new FedEx ramp to the taxiway system will commence the first week in August, If the weather cooperates all MAC construction on the extension should be complete by Labor day. Similarly, the concrete paving of the 1,000 ft of runway immediately south of the north intersection is also complete. Major work elements remaining to be done prior to. reopening this segment of the runway include; shoulder work, runway edge lighting, pavement grooving and marking. All work needs to continue on schedule such that Phase II of the Apron Reconstruction project located in front of the Blue Concourse (gates 47 thru 52) can recommence immediately after Labor Day. This is an informational item. No Committee action is requested. ? .ale TOTAL P.01 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 33 Agenda August 5, 1996 Issue Statement: City Council annual meeting with the Human Rights Commission. Background: The City Council has established the practice of meeting with its various boards and commissions on an annual basis. The City Council and the boards and commissions prefer to meet during a Study Session because of the informal atmosphere which lends itself to a more give and take discussion. The Human Rights Commission has not met with the Council this year. The Commission has also conducted a survey through an insert in the City water bill which will be discussed at this meeting. Recommended Motion: There is no action required. Basis of Recommendation: The Council has provided an opportunity for the Human Rights Commission to meet jointly with the Council to discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Meet with the Human Rights Commission so the Council and Commission maintain an open dialogue on pertinent issues. Respectfully submitted, a s D. Prosser Manager JDP:ds Copy: Cheryl Binzen, Human Rights Commission Chair t