4-1-96 agenda•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
'T-Cl;u T
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. REVIEW OF 1996 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
PROCEDURES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 13
II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL
SITE AREA AT CITY HALL TO MAKE IT MORE
FUNCTIONAL AND RELIEVE PRESSURE ON
NEIGHBORING STREETS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 14
9 III. 7:45-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS THAT ASSISTS BUYERS
AND SELLERS WITH ARRANGING REPAIRS
REQUIRED BY POINT OF SALE PROCESS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 15
IV. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF CITY'S ADVISORY BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 16
V. 8:15-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED
ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 17
VI. 8:30-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL SALARIES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 18
9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUEST S MUST BE KRADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 13
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement: .
Review of 1996 Board of Equalization procedures.
Background:
The 1996 Richfield Board of Equalization is scheduled for Monday, May 6, 1996 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. As provided by City
Charter, the Board consists of the Mayor, Council Members and two citizens appointed
by the City Manager with the confirmation by City Council. Mr. Lawrence Emond and
Mr. Glenn Erickson were recently appointed to serve on the 1996 Board of Review.
The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Equalization are established by State
law. In general, it is the Board's responsibility to hear appeals by property owners
regarding the estimated market value established by the City Assessor and to
determine if market values should be adjusted. The appeal is to address market values
rather than tax rates or other concerns which property owners may bring up to the
Board.
• The Richfield property assessment was conducted through a contract with Hennepin
County which is supervised by the Administrative Services Department. Staff works
closely with Hennepin County Property Appraisers to ensure that the local assessment
complies with the provisions of the law.
In order to prepare for the Board meeting scheduled for May 6, 1996 a review session
has been established for April 1, 1996. At that meeting Larry Miller, the Hennepin
County Principal Property Appraiser assigned to Richfield, will present information
pertaining to the 1996 assessment and Board of Equalization process.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the Council prepare for the Board of Equalization with a
presentation from Larry Miller.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is important to review significant property appraisal issues prior to the time of the
meeting.
2. It is important for the Board to review their statutory responsibilities prior to the
meeting.
is Alternative Recommendation:
None.
. Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Study Session on April 1, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
Copy: Larry Miller, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser
E
.7
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1996
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW INFORMATION
0
Atoll 0,
AAAA Ow
1 i
•f0 ?
FAWT
444.
2,---
N
J
0
n
a
z
i
oot----
lOf,- --
J
3M
i
SAM
z -01
fm
s
i 1;
?a
LL)
o ?
C6
F?ff h LA
g ?I
l ?
II J
k?
K
r.
WgW
V
Y
A
O
I
:I
a
0? S
M
L
S
\L\ Vt?L JRL 1 . r , t•t •-ea.a.++t a?va "JIMA a i a a awl • ' ?c ??r-,
Listings Total Dollar Unit Average
Processed Volume Sales Sales Price
1972 33,635 $436.396.177 14.788 529,510
1973 33,966 489,373,859 15,518 31,536
1974 27,865 500,401,086 14.481 34,555
1975 31,271 585.954,410 15.381 38,095
1976 34,940 773,837,914 18.476 41,883
1977 38,879 1,115,698,038 23.271 47,943
1978 36.095 1296,246,066 22.780 57,178
1979 40,007 1,351,465288 20.466 66,417
1980 37,018 1,340.772,915 18,351 74,069
1981 35.580 1249,787,584 15.675 80238
1982 41,465 998,693,468 12.193 82,288
1983 50,794 1,344,916,756 15,914 84.953
1984 53,646 1,544,535,531 18,231 85,007
1985 51,492 1,866,291,153 21,335 87,789
1986 58,382 2,523.647,113 28.015 90,319
1987 55,422 2.460,309,115 25,772 95,914
1988 80,771 3,211,389,403 34.244 93,977
1989 89,170 3,277,302,913 33.962 96,658
1990 78,548 3,372,262,409 34.496 98.016
1991 71,850 3,522,813,135 35.598 99.402
1992 72,730 4,309,040,911 41.944 103264
1993 70,685 4,300,305,967 39.842 107,569
1994 63,369 4,733,426,199 42,454 111,806
1995 64,556 4,941,765.241 42,310 117,053
7
m•.'_i'?aM:I4.X.F`SG'v:'
550 Calhoun-Harriet
551 . Cedar Isles-Loring
552 North
553 Northeast
554 Parkway West
555 Parkway Central
556 Parkway South
557 South
558 South Central
559 Southeast
560 SL Paul & Suburban
563 Isanti County
564 Blaine-Lexington, Circle Pines
565 Falcon Heights-Roseville, Arden Hills
Shoreview
566 New Brighton-Moundsview, St. Anthony
567 Coon Rapids-Anoka
568 Fridley-Columbia Heights, Spring Lk Pk
569 Suburban NE
570 Sibley County
571 Brooklyn Center-Park
672 Wright/Sherburne Counties
573 Golden Valley/Tyrol Hills
574 Plymouth
575 Robbinsdale-Crystal-New Hope
576 Dayton-Champlin-Maple Grove-Osseo
577 Suburban NW
-_ ?_a.' E3VT?I?=SOME
S'wg'le family"
AVERAGE MEDIAN
January $116,600 $96,500
February 114,700 97,300
March 117,700 98,800
April 114,800 972M
May 115.500 99.700
June 118,200 103,800
July 117,500 97,700
August 124,100 108,700
September 122,800 106,900
October 120.800 104,500
November 124,600 106,500
December 121,700 104,000
• Figures are rounded to nearest $100 and
include all residential sales for RMLS.
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
$92,897 $98,682 $112,634 5115,451 $416,029 $121,117 $122,008 1993
110
348 122
760 175,545 171,830 219,862 211,267 200,881 Minneapolis
. , 300 Calhoun-Isles $153,168
55,701 53,997 52,825 55.667 53,435 54,181 53,080 301 Camden 57,388
61,672 63,045 63,370 63,840 64,645 65,414 66,234 303 Longfellow 69,180
93,530 98,163 100.405 105,461 107,090 109,846 109,588 304 Nokomis 82,748
77,409 76,851 80189 83,241 83.712 86.840 88.446 305 North 51,568
63.364 67,130 68.616 66,973 70.761 70.595 70,652 306 Northeast 67,556
307 Phillips 41,253
61.115 61,825 62.317 63,127 63.695 66,944 67,495
308 Powderhorn 63,277
52,184 51,587 49,136 49.630 51.220 50,510 48,894 309 Southwest 118.534
73,861 74.314 73,196 78.685 81,215 65,697 79,124 310 University 82,370
82,797 110,473 Suburban and other ar eas
56,399 59.830 63.830 66.235 340 Buffalo 97,702
73.638 75,052 • - 341 Wright County 85,103
342 Hutchinson 75,702
105,100 107.244 • 343 McLeod 65,250
360 Robbinsdale 77,874
89.812 95.504 98.878 102.486 106.085 361 Crystal 80,323
75.904 77.887 362 New Hope 93,094
73,788 76.404 363 Brooklyn Center 77,897
74,165 76,903 364 Brooklyn Park 96,775
365 Mple Grve / Osseo 130,387
79,503 86,176 366 Champlin 102,558
75,812 77.837 87,606 89.466 89,401 89,104 91,869 367 Hennepin Co North 129,863
62.232 65.081 69,880 72.120 74,130 77,850 82,442 368 Hennepin Co NW 179,230
105,237 105,371 114238 113,613 118,860 119,438 119,699 370 Sibley County 59,000
120:323 126,910 145.748 151.612 153.820 151,483 160,141 373 Golden Valley 128,603
74,433 77.689 80,144 81.266 81.370 81,146 84,468 374 Plymouth 171.532
378 Richfield 86,150
85,544 92,627 104,199 106.767 112.030 112,070 115,466 379 Bloomington - East 88,070
90.579 98.805 107.938 125.869 117.650 148.008 135,817 380 BI W 157 418
579 East Bloomington 78210 79.500 83,435 85,913 86,052 85,943 89,375
580 West Bloomington 109,963 115,103 134,625 133,679 131,377 136.269 144,396
581 Mendota Heights-Eagan, Inver Grove Hts 95,617 105.342
582 Burnsville 93,985 101,801 114.829 122,581 123,956 123,590
583 Suburban South 83.261 87,231 '
584 Apple Valley-Rosemount-Lakeville 93,401 103.109 '
585 Edina 142,654 152,634 179,852 196,486 188,380 189,921 200,868
587 Hopkins-Minnetonka 112,915 122,772 138.603 150,368 148,849 148,371 154,544
589 Lake Minnetonka 133,215 158,729 172208 180,700 178,719 171,361 190,743
591 SL Louis Park 79,091 79,587 90,582 90,369 91206 93,633 94,582
592 Eden Prairie 116,734 126,632 148,971 163,400 167,836 157,322 168219
593 Eastern Carver County 80,402 89,643 112,418 120.318 130,022 129,359 141,155
oommg
on -
381 Lake Minnetonka N 238,535
382 Lake Minnetonka W 155,471
383 Lake Minnetonka S 223,746
385 Edina 214,290
386 Hopkins 97,882
387 Minnetonka 168,031
391 Saint Louis Park 100,584
392 Eden Prairie 175,454
394 Carver County 99,438
395 Waterfront 85,099
396 Chanhassen 164,240
397 Chaska 126,421
398 Victoria 174270
399 Out of Town 94,807
* I.- LA;.....,....L ......... .. t
.......;-
1994
$178.990
55,026
73.246
84,565
43.953
65,748
32,732
57.002
128.723
83,946
101,236
93.406
79,526
66.646
82.274
80,663
103,443
78.878
105,641
142.872
113.051
136.165
178,293
75,038
132.215
1995
$213.029
59,129
76,169
87,633
45,568
72,.
35,
58.487
136.642
87,105
108.085
102,149
94,521
82,519
84,796
84,911
108,340
82,562
109,632
143,879
120,806
134,811
171,131
60,611
137,388
94,569 99,179
156,131 161,256
306,287 238,422
144,015
262,619
226,948 243,550
107,208 116,266
184,818 194,061
106,856 111,008
206,057 218;
109,824 124,.
92,295 97,0
182,828 206,592
132,502 145,115
207,068 185,296
73,861 68,489
14 • Minneapolis Area REALTOR' • February 1996
i
CTt O
PERCENT
? -+ N N
CA O CA O CA
P
co
N
O
O
N
O
0)
iO
0
N
O
w
0
0
N
4
O
IV
N
C
N
A
W
A
W
W
XIII
0
r
,1
m
r-
0
X
m
cf)
0
m
z
D
nr
V
X
0
0
•
? < s a
N
? e
a
o l
a
u
ald
7
- m F+F.NNNi?A VfA W Nr 0?0
N O W ONAr00 V1V V Ti?OrNO?ONNN A• a
0
S S a
W T N
C. =n
V Z=
r r r r r r r r r m -n
V r
:
amo
c
c
w
:
? w m
H
.p .p e
o
o.0
?
V
rrroooooe
0?o
0 7 Hm
i?NO?O V t71WId 0 W O%4%NW10-4 71W NOO •i• zv
O t M M H M M H H M H M H H H H H H H H M M M M
.. 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x z .?
• x x x x x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x n m
1 x x xxxx x.x x x x x x At x O O N
_ = 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 S H
+ x xxxxxxxxxx xx • S O
M 1 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x a m
q Ir t x x x x x x x x x x x x x N -1 z
' N. O 1 x. x x x x x x x x x x x H 1
7 r l x x x xxx x x x x x 3 O H
IC S N t x x x x x x x x x x C z a
1.. 1. x xxxxxx x x x• o r
? a 1 x xxxxxxxx x r N
m .1• / xxxxxxxxxx mtn
a o / x xxxxxxxx • o a s
m to + x xxxxxxx x a r
p 7 1 x x x x xxxx x C m H m
•
01 1 x x x x x xxx •• d 1
f N
g 1 x x x xxxx x r m
.
N I x x x x x x
x N N ?
x x x
x x x x r
w ? 1 x xxxx x 01 0
' O O 1 x x x x x x 9 H\
o C 1 x x x x •• x 9 al o
'`**
o
asp
m + *
•
j 1 •• x x x x W I
o / xxxx ?• o
* * * x m o
IN i
0? + x x x x .+• 10
I•
1
/ x x x x
x x x x m
r VI
1 xxxx IC
1 x x x
+ x x x
1 x x x r
1 x x x
1 x x x N
t 1 x x O 31
O
?
y
? C 0
•
+ x ?
N
i e ?''
O t N r
7
d
m
0
r
0
10
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS XXXX XX Avenue South
PID# XX-028-24-41-0010
Story Height Rambler Year Built 1952
Ground Floor Area 1042 sq. ft Gross Building Area 1042 sq. ft.
Fireplaces 0
Central Air Conditioning Yes
Bathrooms 1/0/1
Finished Bsmt. Area 500 sq.ft.
Garage 1 car attached
Porches / Decks None
Other / Comments Property sold 12/91 for $81,000
Lot Size 75 x 133
1994
5.0
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANTS.NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ADDRESS: XXXX XX Avenue South
PROPERTY ADDRESS: XXXX XX Avenue South
P.I.D. P XX-028-24-41-0010
MUNIC: Richfield
rv.
,
N
,
0
I&
OWN
MINE
XXXX XXXX YYYY XXXX XXXX
XX Avenue S.
r:: r
:
{
}
$ XX Avenue S. XX Avenue S. XX Avenue S. XX Avenue S.
::'.•
:
?
}
Y Y
::}i;{} Y'??,f, }Y: {4+-?}-::jF:;fif,
•i$?
.. >.` -..... .y., .}.:; ::k, Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
1042 951 1042 918 1040
?'???? #? ?`?.• ......x} ?-: 1042 951 1042 918
1040
1952 1953 1953 1949 1955
i'it?.:
?
;
h
?:
A
??
•
?
r?
.?
?
•'
:
• ?
? :
>
;
vera e
..<
.
;.
.??
?.
::
.:::;.:.:
::•.: '. Average Good Average Average
8rk
.
5 4
.
......e 6 4 5
3 2 3 2 3
}:::}i i'•:?'} . •.?yrrf •}t:i:?I,•.tii rv'.'j.; l• r• {: ........ •...??'•}rF
Hal},:.v}.w
r?.. Y7(;:iiSGti'{iM3',nr'?Cj y:CJrvri,?:ti••? 0 0 p
p
500
..
300
500
300
500
•..•
No No No No No
' l"..; ..... `:1,: } Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
? y
r7F:<<<Y:,ir.r:;wr::
264
400
336
352
280
0 GLP -144 . ft. 0 GLP -140 . ft. 0
?Y? O'J,.;Y,.•:?{isS.t}f.::•:
:$:;:;.,v`,:i?:;?•}.riff NO p
,
:':Y.tti?:n:i:;%:::i ?isti:ri':'i'?'•:;::?:;::$:}rii'iY{}':::::i'r':ii:
i -
75 x 133
78 x 172
75 x 133
78 x 126
66 x 136
COMP-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE/SQ.FTJGBA
12/91
$81,000
$77.74
11/93 8/93 9/93 1/93
$88,000 $86,000 $83,000 $86,000
$92.53 $82.53 $90.41 $82.69
SUBJECT-ASSMT DATA
1994 ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT.
REMARKS:
$75,000
$71.98
SUBJECT-REVIEW APPRAISAL
$86,000
$82.53
1994 Example
t
Comparable Sales
! r ? u r` r / x III t,. ? t 1 ?I
r'
wee
COMPARABI.R #1
RICHFIELD
XXXX XX AVE. S.
•
COMPA-RART_F. 92
RICHFIELD
XXXX XX AVE. S.
COMP RABIX #4 COMP ARTE #d
RICHFIELD RICHFIELD
XXXX XX AVE. S. MM XX AVE. S.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 14
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of opportunity for additional site area at City Hall to make it more functional
and relieve pressure on neighboring streets.
Background:
In the past the City Council has talked about the desirability of providing additional off-
street parking space at City Hall. Four years ago approximately, Council directed staff
to contact the owners of the three houses at 6734, 6754 and 6758 Portland Avenue
about their interest in selling voluntarily to the City. All three owner-occupants indicated
a lack of interest at the time. Council Members directed staff to inform them of any
opportunities to purchase these properties in the future. Recently the widow at 6758
Portland died. Prior to her death she had indicated to her son that the City may be
interested in purchasing the property. Her son recently inquired about the City's
interest in a purchase.
Recommended Motion:
Direct staff to undertake an appraisal of the property and determine feasibility of renting
as an interim use.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The house is vacant.
2. Purchase of the property would help achieve the long term objective of providing
additional off-street parking.
3. Until additional property could be purchased the house could be rented.
4. The acquisition cost would approximate $82,000.
Determine not to proceed.
The former owner's son is awaiting a response.
Respec Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
is City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
to Study Session Letter No. 15
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of a process that assists buyers and sellers with arranging for repairs required by
the point of sale process.
Background:
At the suggestion of Council members and the request of buyers and sellers, housing and
inspection staff have been working together on identifying alternatives funding sources for
completing housing maintenance code repairs at time of residential sales. Sellers sometimes
have little cash but some equity. Buyers are committing their cash to financing the purchase.
The City, through the point of sale process, has an opportunity to act as an intermediary in the
cash flow of the seller and buyer to ensure that the resources are reserved, if needed, to
complete repairs.
The concept of a "cash escrow" has been developed. Attached is a summary of the key
provisions and a draft of the proposed agreement between the seller and the buyer.
Recommended Motion:
Direct staff to make the "cash escrow" program available to sellers and buyers as the need
• becomes evident on a case-by-case basis.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sellers and buyers are seeking alternative ways of financing repairs required by the City.
2. Legal counsel has reviewed the program and agreement and believes they are a
reasonable administrative response. An ordinance revision to the point of sale program is
not required.
3. As an intermediary, the City has reserved the funds needed to ensure that requested
repairs are made.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Determine not to proceed.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The cash escrow program would be implemented this spring to coincide with residential sales.
Respec II ubmitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Summary
Cash Escrow Program
1. A "cash escrow agreement" will be required in those instances where a Certificate of
Compliance is sought, the Seller will not complete repairs by the time of closing, the Buyer
intends to comply at a future time in cooperation with the Building Official, and the sales
transaction provides the resources for repairs.
2. The source of funds for the escrow is between the Seller and Buyer.
3. The escrow agreement and funds should be provided to the Inspection Division on or before
closing.
4. If funds to make repairs are coming from proceeds of sale, closers should make the check
payable to the City of Richfield and have the escrow agreement executed at closing by the
parties.
5. As the basis of determining the escrow amount, one written bid by a licensed contractor is
required to reasonably determine the estimated cost of repairs.
6. A separate account will be created by the Finance Division to hold funds on deposit and
dispense funds when requested in accordance with the agreement.
• 7. One interim draw upon invoice submitted, will be allowed upon satisfactory completion and
verification of work by the Building Official.
8. The remaining requirements are included on the escrow agreement form.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
0 CASH ESCROW AGREEMENT
(Seller) and
to the City of Richfield in the amount of $
improvements.
1.
2. (or see attached list)
3.
_ (Buyer) do hereby tender a cash escrow
for the following incomplete site
The above listed site improvements are required for the property at , Richfield Minnesota,
55423. The escrow amount represents 1.5 times the amount that the parties (Seller, Buyer, City) agree is
required to complete the improvements.
The above listed site improvements will be completed by
The City of Richfield will release this cash escrow upon acceptable completion of the site improvements
listed above. An inspection of the property will be conducted by the Building Official or designee to
verify acceptable completion. Upon verification of completion, the escrowed amount will be released to
the Seller (_) or Buyer (__) within ten (10) business days.
The City of Richfield may use this cash escrow to complete any incomplete site improvements if the buyer
does not do so within 30 days after the completion date specified above. The Buyer does hereby grant the
City of Richfield and its agents and employees the right to enter upon the property for the purposes of
completing any incomplete items listed above. Any administrative costs involved with enforcing this
agreement or any costs incurred by the City of Richfield in excess of the cash escrow amount will be paid
by the Buyer within 30 days following written notice of such costs.
The City of Richfield will deposit the cash escrow check in a non-interest bearing account; and no interest
shall be due and payable to the Seller or Buyer as a result of this agreement.
Date:
Property Seller
Property Seller
Date:
Date:
Property Buyer
Property Buyer
Date:
Receipt of the cash escrow is acknowledged as intent to comply with the housing maintenance code.
Building Official or Designee
Date:
MCdadmin:CEscrow
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 16
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of a residency requirement for members of the City's advisory boards and
commissions.
Background:
The Public Safety Department has suggested to the Human Rights Commission that a
non-resident be considered as a member of their commission. This individual is an
African-American minister at a Richfield church who has assisted Public Safety on
several occasions and has a special interest in the community.
Currently, there is no residency requirement for a Human Rights Commission member
in the state statute, City ordinance or commission bylaws. The Planning Commission
requires residency by ordinance; the Community Services Commission and Advisory
Board of Health by resolution. The Friendship City Commission does not state a
requirement. Residency is established by state statute for the Civil Services
Commission, Charter Commission and HRA.
A survey of seven metropolitan cities regarding this issue was conducted:
• Four cities state a residency requirement in their City code.
• Based upon their City Attorney's opinion, one city has appointment guidelines that
indicate applicants must be residents.
• One city establishes residency requirements in the resolution creating the
commissions. -
• One city has no guidelines regarding residency; it is an assumed requirement.
John Dean, City Attorney, has suggested that the City of Richfield adopt a resolution
stating a residency requirement that includes all City advisory boards and commissions,
unless a non-resident is restricted by law.
The process should include the following:
• A notice to the public of vacancies and the required application.
• If no applications were received from qualified Richfield residents or after the
interview the applicant was determined to be not qualified, it would be the Council's
discretion to appoint a qualified applicant who is a non-resident.
• Appointment of the non-resident would require a recommendation by a majority of
the commission on which the individual is desiring to serve.
9 The preference would be for a Richfield resident to be appointed.
Another option could be the appointment of a non-resident as an ex-officio member.
This member would not have any voting privileges but would be included in discussions
and the decision making process.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the residency requirement for members of the City's advisory boards and
commissions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Public Safety Department has suggested to the Human Rights Commission that
a non-resident be considered as a member of the commission.
2. A resolution including all City boards and commissions will provide consistency on
the residency requirement for members.
3. A non-resident who has a special interest in the community may be a very
worthwhile member of a board or commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not discuss the residency requirement for board and commission members.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is presented for discussion at the April 1 City Council Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Jameb/ . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study'Session Letter No. 17
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
Airport Legislation
The noise mitigation bill authored by Rep. Edwina Garcia and Sen. Phil Riveness was
signed by the Governor. The bill extends sunsetting spending requirements by MAC for
offsite noise mitigation projects. MAC is required to spend an amount of money, in
addition to federal funds and local match, that is equivalent to 40% of 1996 budgeted
PFCs. That amounts to roughly $11.5 million. By making a commitment of $21 million
to the Part 150 Sound Insulation, with federal funding assistance of only $5 million, it
appears that MAC will meet the requirement in 1996.
The Community Protection Concepts legislation has gone to conference committee.
The only part of the package that made it through the. House was an amendment of
This Old House eligibility to provide deferred assessment of property improvements for
homes within the defined airport impact zone. The amended eligibility is for homes 15
and 35 years old, where before it had been 35 and 50 years. In the Senate, This Old
House and the Tax Increment Financing district remained intact. The Livable
Communities aspect, offering income tax reductions to eligible home buyers in the
airport impact zone, was removed from both the House and Senate bills.
Sen. Ted Mondale's bill to end the Dual Track (Rep. Chuck Brown authored the House
version) was still being heard in committee as of March 28. If the bill is not voted on
before the end of the 1996 legislative session, it is likely that a special session will be
called in June or July. The Richfie!d Airport Strategy Group (RASG) has been meeting
to discuss strategy.
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
The Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council both voted to
recommend expansion of MSP. Many commissioners and council members expressed
concern for environmental issues, pledging to fulfill their responsibility to provide noise
mitigation. Since expansion was essentially a foregone conclusion, much of the
discussion focused on the issues of land banking in Dakota County and inclusion of the
north parallel runway option in long-term development plans.
Land banking (also known as Gite preservation) would prevent development of the
I f-
M.rm!and which Dakota County says they have no
Dakota County site --17,000 acres o,
intention of developing anyway -- in case capacity demands exceed projections and
MSP is unable to accomodate the growth. MAC and Met Council both chose not to
include a recommendation for site preservation.
A Minneapolis resolution supporting expansion of the airport passed narrowly 7-5 in
March. Minneapolis' support is contingent upon immediate construction of the north-
south runway and a promise from MAC never to build a north parallel runway option.
The dissenting Minneapolis council members feel that approval of expansion nows
solidifies the permanence of MSP at the current site, with further expansion being
inevitable.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
Commissioner John Himle gave a presentation to MASAC on the decision to expand
MSP, as well as an update of Sen. Mondale's legislation. MAC had previously voted to
oppose Mondale's bill if it remained in its original form. It has since been amended and
it appears MAC is more comfortable with the amended language.
During Himle's presentation, Minneapolis MASAC representative Jim Serrin asked how
it is that the north-south runway can be considered a noise mitigation project for south
Minneapolis, echoing comments made by Richfield Council Member Don Priebe at a
House hearing in March. Himle was adamant that north-south will provide noise relief
to Minneapolis. MAC staff, however, said privately that Serrin and Priebe were correct
in saying that the "south-south" will not provide significant noise relief. Expansion of
MSP was sold to the Minneapolis City Council, in part, because they were told that the
runway would provide noise relief.
The new Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) ground station at MSP will be operational by
April 15, 1996. GPS will eventually allow for curved approaches by aircraft, rather than
queuing 7-10 miles from the airport. John Foggia, MAC Aviation and Satellite
Programs, said that within 10 years all airports and aircraft should be equipped with the
instrumentation that will allow full implementation of new approach procedures. Foggia
believes that DNL will have to be replaced with some other measurement to determine
noise impacts. DNL does not adequately represent the impacts of frequency, and will
not be able to measure the impact of curved approaches.
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
W.D. Schock said that nearly 300 homes will have been removed from the two
neighborhoods by August of this year. There are 349 single-family residential units in
the project area. Phase IV should include the remaining homes, about 55, if $5 million
in federal assistance is secured. The New Ford Town/Rich Acres Citizens' Advisory
Committee sent letters to the Minnesota congressional delegation to once again
request their help in securing the necessary funding.
A recent auction of 30 homes brought in $191,000. Ten of the auctioned homes had
been vandalized, causing lost revenue probably in the area of $25,000. The arrest of
. two juveniles in February for vandalism appears to have ended most of the trouble for
the time being, although one house was hit March 20.
• Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
Attached is the contact report regarding resident phone calls and drop-in requests for
airport information. The prominence of the Dual Track in the media during March
prompted more questions than seen in the past.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on airport policy.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of April 1, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
0
•
•
Resident Contact:
Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns
•::::: ?j ,}}?..,r. ,•.., .;• ::v:. .:.•:?.,p? :::.•
:iii '?:?{,?$ ??•}:•}:
:
:
++ .;. ., ::/.;?';:• l.,.?4
''33
'v''i'}: ' •:0?? '??.'•'!:•?: •.
:tii
}
.'•
}:
i
•
:•
::
: i
:
•
!
is{;?4:•:•:6 :•,,??yy,,??,,{{..??..yy(??ppyyp4?
+:i{'i7:i?i%Ri=7Yt?i? }': Yy ?:
•:
v :v::
vk•: v.}'•}:•::•:::+i:'
•vv
•: }?may.,.
?:•:•i4,'+•'t•+#X ???f'•:M ::?!
vi•:'r:::}•:v
;
;
ti
tii•}:
! ...
.
.....
.
.
;
:
:•:.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.v.•.•
:........ \.
•:
r .
.
.
.
.
ii.'.\%:?:?:•:•}:•}:•}:•}
:4::•}S:tii•:•.i•:;i:•:•:i?}}•??FRi:i:F:?f:
Mon., March 4 Resident 6700 block of Left message with Answered question.
Columbus question about
sound insulation.
Mon., March 4 Resident 1400 block of E. Insulated Aug; 1995. Contacted CEE.
62nd Street House is not airtight. They will contact
Frost on windows & her with specific
doors condensation timeline and what
on ceiling & rafters.
l
i
i they are doing to
l
Fee
s CEE
s putt
ng reso
ve the situation.
her off.
Tues., March 5 Resident 7100 block of 5th Are they eligible for Question answered.
sound insulation? No follow-up.
Thur., March 7 Non-resident Purchasing home at
01 12
h A Question answered.
f
ll
t
venue;
75 NO
o
ow-up
is that home eligible requested.
for sound insulation?
Thur., March 7 Resident 6300 block of 13th Sound insulation, Assessor asked to
Avenue not including central
l
d pull files on each
i
hb
'
ue to
air, cause
va home. Ne
g
or
s
increase $4,000. valuation based on
Neighbor had sound
h
i air only; improve-
d
insulation, wit
a
r ments were not
one
added, and his value
l prior to appraisal,
ill b
dd
d
on
y went up
$1
000
Wh
? H but w
e a
e
t
St
ff
,
.
y
ow nex
year.
a
is value assessed? suggested he attend
Why does CEE Board of Review to
manual say value discuss his concerns.
won't go up. CEE manual is
wrong and will be
amended.
Mon., Mar. 11 Resident 6500 block of 11th Is she eligible for Question answered.
Avenue sound insulation? o follow-up.
Mon., Mar. 11 Non-resident May be buying a
house at 6726 17th Question answered.
o follow-u
. p
Is it eligible for requested.
sound insulation?
Mon., Mar. 11 Resident 6800 block of 18th Are they in the
li
ibl
f Question answered.
f
ll
e area
e
g
or o
o
ow-up
sound insulation? requested.
Mon., Mar. 11 Resident 6400 block of 12th Neighbors are being Question answered.
Avenue insulated, will she? Another situation
where 3 corner
homes will be done,
and the fourth won't.
Legislative efforts
explained. No
follow-up re uested.
Tues., Mar. 12 Resident 6800 block of Are they eligible for Question answered.
Garfield sound insulation? No follow-up.
•
•
Tues., Mar. 12 Resident 7400 block of 17th Relocated out of N/S runway issue
Drop-in NFT and now MAC explained. Staff
is going to put a new urged resident to call
runway right next to in future if there are
her again. What are questions.
they going to do to
mitigate noise?
Wed., Mar. 13 Resident 6800 block of Park Is he eligible for Question answered.
sound insulation? No follow-up.
Wed., Mar. 13 Resident 7500 block of Will MSP expansion N/S runway issues
Bloomington mean acquisition of explained. Comp
her neighborhood? Plan also explained.
Rumor is it would Staff urged resident
go all the way to
Bloomin
ton Ave to call in future if
th
r
r
ti
n
g
., e
e a
e ques
o
s.
and noise will create
another Ford Town.
Wed., Mar. 13 Bob Lark Edina Realty Handling estate for
d
l Referred to CEE.
f
ll
eceased Mp
s. No
o
ow-up.
owner who had
deferred insulation.
Is the home still able
to participate?
Wed., Mar. 20 Art Bannerman Edina Realty Is 6529 15th Avenue Left message that it
eligible for sound is not under current
insulation? contours. No
follow-u .
Wed., Mar. 20 Resident 6400 block of 15th When will MAC be Question answered.
Avenue getting to her? No follow-up.
This information was gathered March 1 - March 27, 1996.*
*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.
JDV:ttf
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 18
Agenda April 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Council discussion relating to Council salaries.
Background:
Mayor Kirsch has requested that discussion relating to Council salaries be placed on
the April 1, 1996 Study Session agenda.
Council Memorandum No. 15 which was distributed on March 1 provides background
information related to Council salaries. The 1996 salary adjustment for employees in
the General Services and Management pay plans was 3%.
Recommended Motion:
Council Members should discuss whether or not an ordinance amendment regarding
Council salaries should be prepared and scheduled for first reading at a subsequent
Council meeting (April 8).
Basis of Recommendation:
is Mayor Kirsch has requested this item be placed on the April 1 Study Session agenda.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could defer discussion of this item to another Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the April 1 Study Session agenda as requested by Mayor
Kirsch.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak