Loading...
10-2-95 agenda• SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING 5:45 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1995 CALL TO ORDER 1. 5:45-6:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF FORMATION OFA COMMUNITY COUNCIL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 270 • ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER AGENDA 1. 7:00-7:05 P.M. PRESENTATION OF RICHFIELD CO-OP SUMMER SCHOOL VIDEO II. 7:05-7:20 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL FOURTH OF JULY COMMUNITY CELEBRATION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 23 III. 7:20-7:50 P.M. DISCUSSION OF 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OPTIONS AND LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET MAINTENANCE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 24 IV. 7:50-8:20 P.M. DISCUSSION OF OUTDOOR WINTER SKATING RINKS STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 25 U V. 8:20-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 26 VI. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN CITY OF RICHFIELD STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 27 VII. 9:00-9:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE INCREASING NUMBER OF ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES ISSUED BY CITY STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 28 • VIII. 9:15-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENCE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 29 IX. 9:30-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE CITY CHARTER TO REFLECT CURRENT STATE LAW REGARDING CONTRACT BID LAW STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 30 10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 30 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of an ordinance amendment to change the City Charter to reflect current state law with respect to Contract Bid Law. Background: For several years the City Charter followed the State Statutes regarding the Contract Bid Law. During that period of time both the City Charter and the State Statutes required that a formal sealed bidding process be used for all municipal contracts in excess of $15,000. The statutory sealed bidding threshold has been periodically increased to reflect inflation. The City Charter has also been changed periodically to match increases in the state law. However, the Charter provisions pertaining to the sealed bidding threshold have not been amended since 1983 and have fallen far below the current statutory threshold for competitive sealed bids. While the Charter still requires sealed bidding at the $15,000 threshold, the statutory threshold was increased to $25,000 in the early 1990s. Deloitte & Touche, the City's auditors, and the City Attorney have recommended that the sealed bidding threshold in the City Charter be amended to mirror current State Statute threshold limits for sealed bidding. The process necessary to amend the City Charter is more complex than affecting a change in the City's Ordinance Code. In order to amend the Charter, the City Council must first review a proposed ordinance to amend the Charter, then forward it to the Charter Commission with a request that they make a recommendation on the matter. The Charter Commission would then review the proposed ordinance and send it back to the City Council with their recommendation. The City Council would then give the ordinance first reading and set a public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance. At the second reading, the proposed ordinance must pass by unanimous vote of the City Council in order to accomplish the change in the City Charter. In addition, the Charter also requires that the City Manager may make or let contracts or sales for under $10,000 and may make contracts and/or sales for in excess of $10,000 but less than $15,000 provided the City Manager first secures City Council approval. Further complicating this issue is Resolution 6847 from December 1983 which states that all purchases in excess of $5,000 but below $10,000 shall be made only after the City Manager notifies the City Council on a City Council agenda. In practice, this becomes another level of approval as a consent calendar item. LJ The proposed ordinance now under discussion would amend the City Charter to increase the threshold for competitive sealed bidding from the current threshold of $15,000 to the current statutory level of $25,000. There are, however, two distinctly separate ways of making a change in the Charter: • The Charter could be amended to simply adopt the statute on competitive bidding by reference. This would eliminate the categories of purchase, which are less than the sealed bidding threshold and which require the City Manager to obtain prior approval. • The Charter could be amended to raise the limits for sealed bidding from $15,000 to $25,000. The other limits specified in Section 6.05 of the Charter could also be commensurately raised or left in place, as the Council chooses. In addition to the Charter changes, it would also be appropriate to review Resolution 6847 which brings all purchases of $5,000 or more before the City Council for "notification." This could either be amended to reflect a higher limit, left "as is" or repealed. In reality, there is no notification in this process as it currently exists. Instead, all purchases over $5,000 become part of an approval process. Recommended Motion: Discuss the proposed ordinance regarding an amendment of the City Charter and related resolution regarding minimum threshold for sealed competitive bidding of contracts and possible referral to City Charter Commission for review and request for recommendation. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The State Statutes were amended a few years ago to increase the threshold for sealed competitive bidding of contracts from $15,000 to $25,000. Prior to that increase the City Charter had mirrored the State Statutes with respect to the sealed bidding threshold. 2. Both the City Attorney and the City's Auditor's, Delloitte & Touche have recommended that the City change the current City Charter provision to increase the competitive sealed bidding threshold from $15,000 to $25,000 to match the statute. 3. Preparing specifications and bidding contracts is a time consuming and costly process. Contracts under $25,000 would be more efficiently handled through a process of obtaining competitive quotation as is now the case for City projects under $15,000. 0 • 4. For ease of administration and clarity, it is desirable to have a competitive sealed bidding threshold which is equal to that of the State Statute. To that end, both the current Charter provision and related resolution should be reviewed. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may decide not to further consider this proposed change to the City Charter. 2. The City Council may decide to consider increasing the sealed bidding threshold to an amount different than the one suggested in the proposed ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: Discussion of this item is suggested at the City Council Study Session of October 2, 1995. The process to change the City Charter would require several months to complete. It would be desirable to implement the new threshold as soon as possible if the City Council approves such a change. Respectfully submitted, • James . Prosser City Ma ger JDP:cak • AFCTION 1 - ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING MATTERS Management Review of Self-Insurance Reserves: Observation: Berkley Administrators is an outside service that performs an analysis of the adequacy of the incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserve for the City's workers' compensation and property claims. Berkley Administrators does not provide actuarial services; rather, they develop an expectation of the level of IBNR reserve required based on the historical lags involved with claims being filed against the City. Currently, the City records an IBNR reserve equal to the amount recommended by Berkley Administrators. No separate review:as to the adequacy of the reserve is performed either at the time of recording or in monitoring the reserve using subsequent data. Recommendation: Management should review the IBNR reserve calculated by Berkley Administrators for adequacy and reasonableness based upon knowledge of actual claims against the City, using historical trends and known current activity. Also, the City should consider having an actuarial study done to estimate the workers' compensation IBNR reserve. Contracting Bid Laws: • Observation: Based on current state contract bid laws, the requirement for sealed bids on contracts is . $25,000. The City's current policy is conservative in that it requires sealed bids on all contracts greater than $15,000. Recommendation: n The City should consider changing its policy to require sealed bids on all contracts greater than $25,000, rather than $15,000. This will reduce the administrative burden of soliciting bids via public notice for contracts between $15,000 and $25,000. 2 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .Attorneys at Law ROBERT A. ALSOP RONALD H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BUBUL JOHN B. DEAN DANIEL J. GREENSWEIG CORRINE A. HEINE DAVID J. KENNEDY CHARLES L.LEFEVERE JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. LONG James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Po gland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL 337.9207 August 10, 1995 RE: Bidding Requirements for Contracts Dear Jim: JAMES M. STROMMEN JAMES J. THOMSON, JR. LARRY M. WERTHEIM BONNIE L. WILKINS JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON WELLINGTON H. LAw T. JAY SALMEN Both the Richfield Charter and state law establish the maximum dollar value for contracts before competitive bidding is required. is The statutory threshold has been raised periodically over the last twenty or so years from about $5,000 to $25,000. For many years the charter was periodically amended in order to catch up with the increases in the state law. However, that has not been done for quite some time and the charter threshold is currently $15,000 - $10,000 under the statutory level. You may wish to consider amending the Charter again to close the gap.' In speaking with various staff members, I have gotten certain impressions: 1. Preparing and bidding for contracts under $25,000 takes time, specs are sometimes difficult to create . 2. Preparing and bidding for contracts under $25,000 costs money. 3. The more informal process of obtaining quotes is more suited to contracts in this range. I also note that such a change would not in any way diminish the council's role in reviewing and approving such contracts. Very truly yours, hn Dean JBD:gak 1 The amendment could simply reference the statutory limit thereby eliminating the need for future charges. RECEIVED AUG 1 11995 JBD92877 RE160-1 Section 6.03. Departments of Administration. The Council may create such departments, divisions and bureaus for the administration of the City's affairs as it may deem necessary, and from time to time alter their powers and organization. It shall, together with the City Manager, prepare and enact a complete administrative code in the form of an ordinance, which may be amended from time to time by ordinance. The Council may by ordinance abolish offices which have been created by ordinance, and it may combine the duties of various offices as it may see fit. Section 6.04. Right of City Manager and Other Officers in Council. The City Manager, the heads of all departments and such other officers of the City as may be designated by vote of the Council, shall be entitled to seats in the Council, but shall have no vote therein. The City Manager shall have the right to take part in the discussion of all matters coming before the Council, except as provided in Section 6.02, Subdivision 6, and the department heads and other officers shall be entitled to take part in all discussions of the Council relating to their respective offices, departments or agencies. Section 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager may make or let contracts for the purchase or sale of supplies, materials, a equipment, or the rental thereof, or any kind of construction or repair work involving real or personal property, or for the purchase of personal services, when the amount of such contract does not exceed ._4 $10,000. If such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is not } more than $15,000, same may be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. If such contract is for the purchase of personal services and exceeds $15,000, same shall be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal -p property, where the amount involved is more than $15,000 shall be let -; only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to .x the lowest responsible bidder,-unless the Council shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the Council and published once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The Council may, however, rejec-- any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the Charter, the Council may by ordinance adopt further regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. All other contracts shall be let by the Council. (Bill 1987-21) 8-13-87 Section 6.06. Contracts: How Let. Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the rental thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property, where the amount involved is more than $15,000 shall be let only by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible bidder, unless, the Council shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by a vote of a majority of the Council and published once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The Council, may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the Charter, the Council may by ordinance adopt further regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. (Bill 1983-29) 12-12-83 471.345 MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES 1180 1181 471.30 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14] (a) "Small targeted 471.31 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14] 16B.19. 471.32 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14] (b) "Business entity partnership, corporatior 471.323 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14] Nothing in this secti 471.33 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14] ing a resolution, rule, red 471.34 1959 c 261 s 4] [Repealed, sets aside for awarding t 471.345 UNIFORM MUNICIPAL CONTRACTING LAW. its anticipated total pro which uses either a negol Subdivision 1. Municipality defined. For purposes of this section, "municipality" curement contract under means a county, town, city, school district or other municipal corporation or political that any award based on subdivision of the state authorized by law to enter into contracts. the municipality's estim, Y Subd. 2. Contract defined. A "contract" means an agreement entered into by a the open market and no municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental Subd. 9. [Repealed, thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal prop- Subd. 10. Hospital erty. to be used in the operati Subd. 3. Contracts over $25,000. If the amount of the contract is estimated. to are purchased or leased i sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject 000 exceed $25 than one hospital purch? , , to the requirements of the law governing contracts by the particular municipality or hospitals either through class thereof provided that with regard to repairs and maintenance of ditches, bids shall chased without regard tc not be required if the estimated amount of the contract does not exceed the amount following conditions are specified in section 103E.705, subdivisions 5, 6, and 7. (1) the hospital's go Subd. 4. Contracts from $10,000 to $25,000. If the amount of the contract is esti- (2) the shared servic mated to exceed $10,000 but not to exceed $25,000, the contract may be made either than one source on the t upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the and purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise comply- (3) the arrangement ing with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quotations obtained shall be kept tives to review the purch on file for a period of at least one year after receipt thereof. ments. Subd. 5. Contracts less than $10,000. If the amount of the contract is estimated Subd. 11. Fuel conti to be $10,000 or less, the contract may be made either upon quotation or in the open amount of the contract ; market, in the discretion of the governing body. If the contract is made upon quotation , of fuel required for the gf it shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept erned by subdivision 4. s ubdivision 4. on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt. 12. Subd. Subd. Sa. County or town rental contracts. If the amount of a county or town con- hibits a municipality fror tract for the rental of equipment is estimated to be $60,000 or less, the contract may, an annual basis designat in the discretion of the county or town board, be made by direct negotiation by obtain- described in section 268,E ing two or more quotations for the rental when possible and without advertising for ment of goods and servic bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quota- tions shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt. aside program as allowed Subd. 6. Applicability of other laws. The purpose of this section is to establish for tiated price shall not exc all municipalities, uniform dollar limitations upon contracts which shall or may be price for the goods and entered into on the basis of competitive bids, quotations or purchase or sale in the open under the set-aside progr market. To the extent inconsistent with this purpose, all laws governing contracts by Subd. 13. Energy effi a particular municipality or class thereof are superseded. In all other respects such laws vision. shall continue applicable. (a) "Energy conserva Subd. 7. Minimum labor standards. Nothing in this section shall be construed to designed to reduce energy prohibit any municipality from adopting rules, regulations, or ordinances which estab- (1) insulation of the lish the prevailing wage rate as defined in section 177.42, as a minimum standard for conditions prevailing for the largest s and workin h th h bli h hi (2) storm windows a: ' g our e s esta c wages and w number of workers engaged in the same class of labor within the area as a minimum r and doors, heat absorbinI tems additional glazing e standard for a contractor's employees which must be agreed to by any contractor befo material, of any labor r the furnishin t f t d d , , modifications that reduce , g rac o any con e the contractor may be awar (3) automatic energy supplies, or service. Procurement from economically disadvantaged persons. For purposes of Subd. 8. (4) heating, ventilatil . this subdivision, the following terms shall have the meanings herein ascribed to them: (5) replacement or n RESOLUTION NO. 6847 RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are in excess of $5,000, but below $10,000, shall be made only after the city manager notifies the city council by inclusion on a city council agenda. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of December, 1983. ATTEST: , /,/,- ?' ?' 4 e, '/ ? -Sy; ,Via K. Bergh Cit Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 29 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of procedures for Council Member absence. Background: Recently a question was raised regarding the procedure for Council Member absences. The City Code does have provision for absence from City Council meetings, however, because of staff omission that procedure has not been followed. In fact, orientation for new Council Members has not included discussion of this item. Recommended Motion: It is appropriate for the Council to review the portions of the City Code regarding attendance and to discuss how the provisions will be implemented. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is appropriate to adhere to the Code regarding Council absences. 2. The issue of Council absences has not previously been discussed for at least the past nine years. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to review this issue at a different time. 2. The Council may decide to recommend changes in the attendance policy. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the October 2 Study Session. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds L-A Richfield City Code 205.13, Subd. 2 • Subd. 2. Special rules. The following special rules apply to council procedure: (a) a member may be excused from voting on a matter properly before the council only with the unanimous consent of the other members present; (b) a motion before the council shall be reduced to writing by the clerk at the request of any council member; and (c) such other special rules as may be adopted by ordinance or resolution as the council from time to time deems necessary. Subd. 3. General rules. Except as otherwise provided in this code council procedure is governed by the latest printed edition of "Robert's Rules of Order". Subd. 4. Suspension of rules. The operation and effect of a rule set forth in this subsection may be suspended upon the unanimous vote of the council. 205.15. Attendance at council meetings. Attendance of council members at meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members. Member presence to participate in the hearings, deliberations and decisions of the council is essential to the proper discharge of, the member's official duties. • Recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present at all meetings, and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters occasional absences are excusable, the following rules apply to absences of council members from meetings when invoked by resolution of the council: (a) such rules shall remain in effect until the end of the calendar year during which the resolution is passed unless revoked prior to that time by resolution of the council; (b) a member of the council may not be absent from any regular or duly called special meeting unless excused by a majority of the council; (c) notices of special meetings shall be deemed properly addressed if addressed to the address shown on the member's voter registration; (d) for each unexcused absence from a regular or special meeting of the council each council member shall be penalized by a fine of not to exceed $75, and the mayor may be penalized by a fine of an amount not to exceed $100, but the resolution may specify a lesser penalty for absence from a special meeting than a regular meeting; (e) any member of the council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible give advance notice to the manager, stating (i) the meeting at which the member will be absent, (ii) his reason for being absent and, (iii)the • member's location during the meeting. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 27 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of public safety issues. Background: Over the past year, the Council and staff have discussed public safety issues on a quarterly basis. The purpose is to keep the Council up-to-date on trends or areas of concern. This also provides the Council with more accurate information as they respond to constituents. A second area staff is seeking Council input on is public information on certain crimes. Staff has, in many instances, blanketed certain areas of the community with crime alerts on specific crimes. It is staffs intention when doing this to inform the part of the community affected, thus having citizens aware and possibly providing helpful suspect information. However, an adverse reaction could occur, that being unnecessary fear for one's safety and security. Recommended Motion: • Staff will be providing current Richfield statistical data at the Study Session. In addition, staff will be seeking Council input and direction on certain public information issues. Basis of Recommendation: The Council constantly is in communication with their constituents who are seeking answers to community concerns. By means of quarterly dialogue with staff and the Council, the members of the Council and ultimately residents can be better informed. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Discuss with staff public safety issues and provide input and/or direction on certain public information issues. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager • JDP:cak . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 28 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of an ordinance increasing the number of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses the City may issue. Background: Staff has recently received inquiries from individuals who would like to offer non- intoxicating malt liquor to their customers with their meals. They have been told that currently all licenses allowed by ordinance have been issued. Mr. Thang Masyn, owner of Lan's Vietnamese Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue, has made a request to the City to consider increasing the number of licenses. The current ordinance was amended in March 1994 with the following language: "No more than twelve "on-sale" licenses may be issued. The number of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses is not controlled by the State; therefore, they have no objection to the number being increased. • Recommended Motion: Council discussion of an ordinance amending Subsection 1210.07, Types of Licenses, that would increase the number of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses that could be issued. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This amendment would give the City the authority to issue additional on-sale non- intoxicating malt liquor licenses. 2. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is seeking direction on whether to amend Subsection 1210.07, "Types of Licenses", increasing the number of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor Licenses from twelve. Respectfull submitted, James JDrosser • City Manager JDP:cak • Current Establishments With Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses as of September 1995 1. Airport Bowl - 7711 14th Avenue 2. Vina Restaurant - 6401 Nicollet Avenue 3. Frenchmans - 1400 East 66th Street 4. Godfathers - 2 W. 66th Street 5. Kinhdo Restaurant - 6345 Penn Avenue 6. Lariat Lanes - 6320 Penn Avenue . 7. Sandy's Tavern - 6612 Penn Avenue 8. Silver Spoon - 6700 Penn Avenue 9. Davanni's - 2312 W. 66th Street 10. Miller's Fireside Pizza - 6736 Penn Avenue 11. Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant - 2902 W. 66th Street 12. Hampton Inn - 7745 Lyndale Avenue 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 26 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following: New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition Demolition is scheduled to begin on or about October 9 for 69 homes. A total of 65 homes have been moved to date from the neighborhoods. Cleared properties have been graded and reseeded as required in the contractual agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the purchasers of vacated homes. Demolition should be complete in mid-December, at which time there will be several blocks completely cleared of homes. These blocks will be turned over to MAC for property management purposes; i.e. - lawn maintenance. Phase III of the acquisition is progressing on schedule. Money for Phase III will be committed by mid-November. The New Ford Town/Rich Acres Citizens' Advisory • Committee will continue working with the Minnesota congressional delegation to secure funding for continuation of the project. If funding remains constant, and if W.D. Schock maintains its current schedule, the project should be completed by mid-1997. 4-22 Extension The mediation team met on Friday, September 29, to review proposals submitted for conduct of the community survey. All of the participating cities, with the exception of Eagan, have approved the $20,000 shared cost. The Eagan City Council is waiting for a solid estimate of survey costs before allocating the money. It is expected that the survey will be prepared, conducted, and analyzed by the end of December. Staff received a telephone call from a Bloomington resident (see the attached monthly report) requesting detailed information about the survey. General answers were provided regarding timing and purpose related to mediation planning efforts, however, staff believes that providing greater information to the public prior to conduct of the survey may compromise the validity of the study. The Federal Aviation Administration and Minnesota Department of Transportation have reviewed the proposed agreement for staying litigation. FAA had one or two interpretive remarks, but indicated satisfaction with the agreement. FAA and MnDOT are expected' to sign the agreement in the near future. 10 Preliminary construction work on the extension is scheduled to begin on Monday, October 9. This year's construction will be on an adjacent service road near the Humphrey Terminal. The majority of the construction will be done in 1996. MAC will be providing staff with a tentative construction schedule for the project. • Dual Track Airport Planning Process The Commission dismissed the Remote Runway Concept from further consideration as part of the Dual Track Planning Process. Study of the concept, completed earlier this year for $50,000, determined that the cost of the proposal exceeded costs of either option in the Dual Track and was not conclusive in determining if the concept was operationally feasible for a hubbing airport. The Scoping Decision for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dual Track was adopted by the Commission on July 26, 1995. The document describes the alternatives, issues and impacts that will be addressed in the EIS. Richfield staff provided oral comments at a public scoping meeting to the effect that ground level noise analysis was not included in the scoping document, and that the impact of losing Rich Acres Golf Course should be analyzed as both an environmental factor (the golf course provides a noise buffer for east Richfield) and an economic factor, considering the loss of revenue to the City of Richfield if the north-south runway becomes reality. The Scoping Decision document responded that these issues would be analyzed. Staff has arranged for MAC staff to meet with the Council in a special meeting before the regular scheduled meeting on Monday, January 12, 1996. MAC staff will present progress of the Dual Track, including a video tracking the process, and answer any questions that Council Members may have regarding the decision making process. Representatives of the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning (SACMAP), a council created and members appointed by Governor Perpich at the beginning of the Dual Track Planning Process, travelled to the new Denver International Airport in September on an informational fact-finding mission. Richfield resident Sue Sandahl is a member of the council and may be available to brief the Council on specific issues or findings. SACMAP may also travel to Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport in the near future. • Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. The Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), which provides direction to MAC staff regarding progress and policy for the residential sound insulation program, approved a recommendation for FAA to include all "border blocks" in the Part 150 program. "Border blocks" are those which are intersected at any point by the 65 Ldn Noise Contour, which determines program eligibility. Historically, the FAA has reviewed border blocks on a case-by-case basis. Because of the number of these -- roughly 90 -- surrounding MSP, FAA requested a specific recommendation from MAC and PAC. The recommendation will go through MAC channels for approval before going to the FAA for consideration, probably in mid-October. FAA is expected to take some time to review the recommendation because of its precedent-setting potential for the nation-wide program. Residents in the border blocks, meanwhile, are growing impatient. Several have indicated intent to circulate a petition to be forwarded to FAA urging full inclusion of the border blocks. Funding for the 1996 program is still uncertain. The MAC Capital Improvement Plan projected funding at the current level of 840 homes. The original schedule for the program anticipated an increase in 1996 to 1,000 homes. MAC staff expects the Commission to approve the increase, which will raise program spending from $14.5 million to roughly $17 million. Commissioners Cramer and Gasper have indicated they may push for a schedule increase to 1,200 homes, or about $21 million. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council The Richfield representative made a motion at the September 26 meeting that MASAC offer a resolution of support for the recommendation from the Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee to MAC and FAA urging full inclusion of all border blocks in the eligibility contour. The motion passed unanimously. The Richfield representative also requested information about use of the run-up pad and when the secondary run-up area on the southwest end of Runway 4-22 is used. Several residents have called recently to complain about run-ups in the middle of the night. MAC staff will look into how they may better explain run-up scheduling and how use of the areas may be formatted for inclusion in the monthly Technical Advisor's Report. MAC staff also said that the fence around the run-up pad will be under construction -- the height of the fence is being increased so that all planes can use the area -- in October, meaning that all run-ups will be conducted on the end of 4-22 for one month. MAC will forward faxes from the tower to Richfield staff every time there is an exception report for nighttime run-ups. These are special circumstances for which a plane is allowed to conduct run-ups during the period from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. • Joint Airport Planning Effort The planning group of communities surrounding MSP, as well as the Metropolitan Council and MAC, finalized a concept package to present to legislators. The package, a collection of community mitigation and protection planning concepts, is intended to provide airport impacted communities various tools to prevent disinvestment and community deterioration which may be a direct or indirect result of airport proximity -- whether the airport is relocated or expands in its present location. This position recognizes that even if the legislature approves a new airport, the existing site will most likely be in use for the next 15 years. The Council previously approved this package. The joint planning effort will continue to proceed as the group develops strategy for future approval. 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 October 2, 1995. Resp fully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser City anager JDP:cak • C?' • 0 Resident Contact: Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns yy??y?y? :::::::?:::::::v7:7:??:??:::>.::::•,:+:::::i::::::::: ;•:::•:::•::::};'}:•<;;$$.v::$::5::;::::::::•:::::::•:::•::? ::•'•::}:::::::•:::::::•:::•:::•:::•i:::•:::•i::::}:::i::::i::::i:::::•:::::•:::::•:ii ±"::::•,::::::::•:::::::•:::::::•::::?:: ?:::T:r:•,:::::::•,::::::::•:::::::•:::::::•:::::: ::::•:::::•::::i::j:::::•:::::•::::5::::i:::::•'•::ii::i::jjj::j::::•,:::::::{::r : i::::v:::{::::•,:::•''":::•:::::::•::::?:: :::::•,::::::::::i:::::•:•::::: :}i::i:::•:•::i7: '?' ,,?jyy }}?,yyy,, i:'::}::::::v:::•::::i:::?::•,Y:•,:::::::::v'::•::•.?'`:i::iivtititi}}: +?y 4::V[•i Fri., Sept. 1 Resident 6400 block of 14th Aircraft noise Questions answered. Avenue extremely bad all No follow-up week. requested. Fri., Sept. 1 Resident 1600 block of East Is she eligible for Questions answered. 66th Street sound proofmg? Staff will send her a How do they brochure and determine area? contour map. Tues., Sept. 5 David Gepner Planning How are commercial Contacted MAC Commission properties on airport staff. Commercial member taxed? Will new properties pay businesses be personal prop tax to allowed on MAC state - nothing else. property if airport is MAC has no plans expanded9 for commercial leasing other than aviation related because surrounding communities would lose development opportunities. Tues., Sept. 5 Resident Rich Acres Run-up noise is bad. Questions answered. Many other No follow-up comments. requested. Tues., Sept. 5 No name given. 6800 block of 14th Are they eligible for Questions answered. f ll Avenue sound proofmg? No o ow-up requested. Tues., Sept. 5 No name given. 6500 block of Are they eligible for Question answered. ll N f Bloomington Ave. sound proofing? ow-up o o requested. Wed., Sept. 6 Resident 7200 block of 18th When is he 4/22 issue explained. Avenue scheduled for sound No follow-up Proofing? requested. Wed., Sept. 6 Resident 6500 block of 15th When will he be questions answered. ll f Avenue sound proofed? ow-up No o requested. Tues., Sept. 12 Resident 7500 block of Is she eligible for the 4/22 issue explained. Bloomington Ave. sound proofing No follow-up ro ram? requested. Tues., Sept. 12 No name given. 6900 block of Elliot Are they eligible for Questions answered. sound insulation? No follow-up. Tues., Sept. 12 No name given. 6900 block of Cedar Are they eligible for Questions answered. sound insulation? No follow-up. Sept. 12 Tues. No name given. 6700 block of 17th Are they eligible for Questions answered. , Avenue sound insulation? No follow-up. ?J • 0 Tues., Sept. 12 Rep. Edwina Garcia Was called by a New Staff will look into Ford Town resident situation and get unhappy with the wa c ock is back to Rep. Garcia with d t y up a e. handling her deal. Tues., Sept. 12 Resident that New Ford Town Has already signed Contacted Schock. contacted Rep. purchase agreement Appraisal certified Garcia to relocate and soon, should be able Schock is moving to accomodate too slow. She may resident's need. lose new house. Staff contacted resident with update. Wed., Sept. 13 Resident 7600 block of 15th Why isn't she 4/22 issue explained. Avenue getting sound No follow-up roof? re uested. Wed., Sept. 13 Elaine Keinitz Rep. Martin Sabo's Received call from Staff updated office. New Ford Town Keinitz on progress resident. of situation. Thur., Sept. 14 Resident 7000 block of When will they get 4/22 issue explained. Bloomin ton Ave. sound insulation. No follow-up. Thur., Sept. 14 No name given. 6300 block of 12th When will they get Border block Avenue sound insulation. situation explained. No follow-up requested. Thur., Sept. 14 Resident 7400 block of Are they in sound 4/22 issue explained. Bloomington Ave. proofing area? Will Encouraged her to probably move to look at Richfield Eden Prairie because Rediscovered of noise, neighbors, program to stay in and bus stop in front Richfield. No of house. follow-up requested. Thur., Sept. 14 Non-resident 6128 15th Avenue When will she be Some questions Minneapolis sound proofed? answered. Referred her to M Is. staff. Fri., Sept. 15 Resident 6600 block of 17th Will he be sound Questions answered. "Your City" Avenue proofed? Flight Issues and patterns have involvement of City changed. City isn't explained. No protecting itself ' follow-up requested. from a ort. Fri., Sept. 15 " Your Cit Resident None given. Where are the sound insulation priority Questions answered. o follow-up y blocks? requested. Fri., Sept. 15 " Your Cit Resident 6200 block of Colfax Avenue Airport noise is really bad. QQuestions answered. loo follow-up y requested. 18 Mon., Sept Resident 7200 block of 17th When is she goin to 4/22 issue explained. ; "Your City Avenue be sound proofed. No follow-up requested. Mon., Sept. 18 " Resident 6500 block of 15th Avenue What is happening with sound Border block situation explained. Your City insulation program? No follow-up. Mon., Sept. 18 " " Resident None given. Where is the eligible ound area for Question answered. o follow-up. Your City s roofin . • • • Mon., Sept. 18 Resident 1500 block of When is he getting 4/22 issue explained. "Your City" Bloomington Ave. sound insulation? No follow-up re uested. Mon., Sept. 18 Resident 6300 block of 12th Is he going to be Border block Avenue sound proofed? situation explained. No follow-up requested. Mon., Sept. 18 Resident 6300 block of 1 lth When is she getting Border block issue Avenue sound proofed? explained. No o ow-up requested. Tues., Sept. 19 Resident 6400 block of 16th She inherited this Asked CEE to Avenue house and is contact homeowner. planning to sell; She will sell the when will it be house and CEE will sound proofed? hold a place in program for new owner. Tues., Sept. 19 Resident 6400 block of 13th When will she get Border blocks Your City Avenue noise insulation? expplained. No follow-up requested. Tues., Sept. 19 Resident 7200 block of 3rd Is she in the eligible Questions answered. "Your City" Avenue area for sound No follow-up insulation9 requested. Wed., Sept. 20 Resident 7200 block of 17th When will she be 4/22 issue explained. Avenue sound proofed? No follow-up requested. Wed., Sept. 20 Non-resident Bloomington Several questions Staff responded that resident regarding the survey for 4/22 mediation; specific questions about the survey Blmgtn staff is not could not be providing residents answered yet. Other adequate info. questions answered. Wed., Sept 20 No name given. 6300 block of Are they eligible for Questions answered. ; "Your City Clinton Avenue sound insulation? No follow-up. Wed., Sept. 20 No name given. 6500 block of When will they be Border blocks Bloomington Ave. sound insulated? explained. No follow-up requested. Wed., Sept. 20 Resident 6300 block of 12th Heard that sound Questions answered. Avenue proofing wouldn't Border blocks Neighbor referred be done on his explained; probably l him to staff block, although it y will be done ear was done across the 1996. No follow-up street this year. requested. Thur., Sept. 21 Non-resident Mendota Heights He is right under the Referred him to "Your City resident flight tack... who r Mendota Heights talk to about does he city staff. No sound insulation? fo low-up requested. Tues., Sept. 26 Resident 7500 block of 15th Why aren't they 4-22 issue explained. Avenue being soundproofed No follow-up when neighbors on requested. next block are? Sept. 26 Tues. Resident 7500 block of 17th What is the number Referred him to , Avenue for CEE - is there a CEE, gave number. guarantee on the No follow-up doors that were requested. installed? • • Wed., Sept. 27 No name given. 1500 block of 16th Avenue What is happening with sound insulation in his neighborhood? 4-22 issue explained. No follow-up requested. Wed., Sept. 27 Resident 6400 block of 13th A She is circulating a i i i questions answered. l venue pet on to t nclude ` o follow-up IN border blocks" in requested at this Part 150 program. time. Several questions. Wed., Sept. 27 Rep. Garcia Asked for update on Contacted Schock W.D. Schock's staff. Schock has review of NFT conducted review relocatee package. and is preparing a Resident is letter to resident. considering legal Informed Rep. action. Garcia of status. This information was gathered September 1 - September 28, 1995.* 1 *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. 25 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of outdoor winter skating rinks. Background: Council Memorandum No. 120, dated September 22, 1995, outlined location of skating rinks for the 1995/1996 winter season as unanimously recommended by the Community Services Commission on September 12, 1995. The locations indicated include: • Donaldson Park, 74th and Knox: 1 general, 2 hockey • Jefferson Park, 67th and Thomas: 1 general, 1 hockey • Madison Park, 63rd and Knox: 1 general, 1 snowboard hockey • Nicollet Park, 63rd and First: 1 general, 0 hockey • Augsburg Park, 72nd and Wentworth: 1 general, 1 hockey • Roosevelt Park, 77th and Fifth: 1 general, 1 hockey • Christian Park, 69th and Bloomington: 1 general, 1 hockey • Taft Park, 62nd and Bloomington: 1 general, 2 hockey This provides for eight general skating rinks, eight hockey rinks and one snowboard hockey rink at a total of eight sites. These are the same outdoor skating sites provided for the 1994/1995 season. The revised 1995 and proposed 1996 budgets were written to provide funding for the indicated number of sites. The cost to develop and maintain a rink • is approximately $5,00048,000 annually. Recommended Motion: This is a discussion item with no specific action requested at this time. Basis of Recommendation: The item is on the agenda at the request of Council Member Priebe. • JDP:ds Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The brochure announcing 1995/1996 winter programs will need to have copy available by mid-October 1995. Should the Council choose to alter the sites for outdoor skating rinks in any way and wish to have that change published in the brochure, action should be . scheduled for the October 9, 1995 Council meeting. Also, should the Council choose to establish outdoor skating rinks in other than the Commission recommended locations, sufficient time will be necessary to prepare the site(s) for the development and maintenance of ice and for the staffing of the site(s) if applicable. Respec Ily submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Cit anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 24 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of 77th Street maintenance special assessment options and Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance special assessment. Background: The following is a chronology of events to date relating to the 77th Street Project Area maintenance special assessment: Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. The Council resolution set up a special assessment district for the I nterstate/Lyndale/N icol let (ILN) project area, an approximate two block area. The district included properties east of Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed for current services required to maintain special landscape features and other public amenities on or adjacent to the right-of-way. • On June 12, 1994, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing a redefined ILN/expanded 77th Street Project Area for the • period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. • Discussion was held at the December 5, 1994 Council Study Session. As directed by Council, staff presented a redefined project area and estimated cost of current maintenance services to be provided to the redefined project area in 1995 for Council consideration. The expanded area was bounded by 1-35W, 77th Street, I- 494 and Portland Avenue. It was proposed commercial property owners and multiple dwelling unit owners would be assessed on a per-square-foot basis under the proposed plan. However, all single family and two family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy based on the rationale that generally there are negative impacts from businesses located close to residential properties, and the landscaping buffer insulates the residential property from these negative impacts generated by the businesses. • On February 13, 1995, the Council tabled consideration to expand boundaries of the redefined ILN/77th Street Assessment Project Area and order the undertaking of current maintenance service projects to the March 27, 1995 City Council meeting. On March 27, 1995, the Council further discussed maintenance of the 77th Street improvements, suggested an Open House forum and took action to adopt Resolution No. 8238 expanding the boundaries of the 77th Street Project Area maintenance assessment district to an area approximately bounded by 1-35W, 77th Street, 1-494 and Portland Avenue for the 1995 assessment. • On July 11, 1995, the Community Services Commission hosted an Open House from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Council Memorandum No. 75 outlined the public notification of the Open House. The following options were discussed at that meeting: 1. Scenario #1: Businesses and multi-family residential units pay the same rate. 2. Scenario #2: City's General Fund pays one-third of costs; businesses and multi- family pay flat rate. 3. Scenario #3: Businesses pay all maintenance costs. • After the Open House, the Community Services Commission held their regular meeting. At that meeting, the Commission rejected the first three options, and discussed the following: A 75%/25% rate split between businesses & multi-family respectively. • The Commission then made the following recommendations for Council consideration for the 1996 77th Street maintenance assessment: 1. No general fund monies should be expended for the additional maintenance costs arising from the 77th Street Project Area; and 2. Costs to maintain the expanded.1996 assessment district should be assessed to both commercial properties and multiple-family dwellings in the district. 3. Multiple-family dwellings will be assessed one-third the rate paid by commercial properties. The Community Services Commission also recommended that the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) assessment district be reviewed by Council for possible inclusion of multiple-family dwellings in that assessment district with a similar one-third/two-thirds cost sharing with commercial businesses. • On July 24, 1995, the Council adopted a resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the 77th Street Project Area, and set a date of August 28, 1995 for the public hearing. Notice was duly published and each property owner that would be affected by the special assessment was mailed a notice. • On August 28, 1995, the public hearing was held to consider the assessment. At the close of the public hearing, the Council voted 2-2 on the motion to approve the adoption of the 1996 77th Street assessment. • On September 11, 1995, the Council met with the Community Services Commission to discuss different options and how the Commission came to the recommendation they did. Since the adoption of the resolution for the 1995 maintenance special assessment, construction has continued along 77th Street to Cedar Avenue, a total project area of approximately 37 blocks. More landscaped areas will become the partial maintenance responsibility of the City in 1996. The additional maintenance costs will need to be spread over an enlarged assessment district to include properties benefiting from the new improvements. Some of these services include: 1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing, edging and soundwall maintenance. 2. Irrigation maintenance. 3. General maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, signs, curbs and plantings. These items are extra services provided directly to the 77th Street Project Area and do not include services provided to the entire City. Most of the routine maintenance (mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) has been and will continue to be contracted, leaving City crews to perform repairs on irrigation, lights and signs. Estimated costs for the ILN/77th Street maintenance services from 1988 - 1996 were: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780 $8,855.46 1992 $8,894 $7,031.70 1993 $9,200 $3,614.94 1994 -0 * 1995 $18,000## 1996 $18,000## * The $0 estimate was provided to the Council in a December 28, 1993 memorandum. ## There is a two-year guarantee on irrigation and landscape materials which will keep this amount at a reduced level for a period of time. After construction is completed and warrantees are expired, future estimated costs are $72,000. 0 Recommended Motion: No specific action is required of the Council at this time. The Council discussion at this Study Session will be directed to the options proposed for the 1996 special assessment for 77th Street maintenance and, secondarily, to the Community Services Commission recommendation related to inclusion of the multiple-family dwellings in special assessments for maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) district. Basis of Recommendation: The City Council has indicated a desire for further discussion of maintenance special assessment for 77th Street/ILN and the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) districts. Alternative Recommendation: None Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the October 2, 1995 Council Study Session. Respectfully submitted, James . rosser City Man ger JDP:cak • LJ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 23 Agenda October 2, 1995 Issue Statement: Discussion of annual community Fourth of July celebration. people June 30 through July 4, 1995. Events included an amusement carnival, parade, family entertainment including music and food/beverage concessions, Miss Richfield coronation, and a fireworks display. Background: The 16th annual Richfield Fourth of July Celebration was enjoyed by thousands of On July 4, 1974, Richfield had its first Fourth of July Leisure Festival. Some of the agencies participating were the Chamber of Commerce, American Legion, Richfield Square Dance Club, Young at Hearts, Richfield Swim Club, Richfield City Council, Richfield School Board, Historical Society, Richfield Churches United, the Richfield Little Leagues and Babe Ruth Leagues and girls softball leagues, as well as the Richfield High School. The City sponsored activities at the Ice Arena, Wood Lake Nature Center, Swimming Pool, and on the playgrounds. Festival events included such things as fishing contests and softball, theater and music, kiddie parade and cartoon festival, generally a wide variety of other family oriented activities. In 1975 the event was cancelled due to the concern of various organizations that there would be poor attendance because the Fourth of July was a Friday and there was the possibility many families and individuals would choose to leave town because of the three day weekend. In 1976, the bicentennial celebration contributed to the overall festivities. The first year of the current community Fourth of July celebration activities was 1980. City staff and volunteers worked together to organize events. The first official board of directors for the Richfield Fourth of July Committee signed incorporation papers on December 28, 1984. City staff continues to work with the Committee planning, coordinating, and working at the annual celebration. A history of the City's financial involvement, not including costs for City staff time and City equipment, is as follows: Year Budgeted Expenses Actual Expenses 1984 $15,000 $17,268 1985 $11,000 $ 9,821 1986 $11,000 $ 4,896 1987 $15,870 $14,890 1988 $15,000 $17,241 1989 $15,000 $18,942 1990 $15,000 $19,243 1991 $15,000 $18,328 1992 $15,000 $19,045 • • 1993* $ 4,000 $ 3,933 1994 $ 4,000 $ 5,014 1995 $ 4,000 Not yet available 1996 $ 4,000 * The Committee assumed the financial responsibility for the fireworks display. In 1994 the City transferred the carnival operation, including revenue, to the Fourth of July Committee. Recommended Motion: This is a discussion item related to the City's financial participation in the annual Fourth of July Celebration in Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: The Fourth of July Committee has requested Council discussion of the City's financial involvement in the annual celebration. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the agenda for the October 2, 1995 Study Session. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Ma Wager JDP:ds