6-5-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
i
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00` P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. 7:00-7:15 P.M. . DISCUSSION OF ELECTION SIGN SAFETY
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 16
II. 7:15-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN THE
. CITY OF RICHFIELD
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 17
III. 8:00-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED
ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 18
IV. 8:30-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ADDING RIGHT TURN AND LEFT
TURN LANE AT INTERSECTION OF LYNDALE
AVENUE AND 77TH STREET
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 19
V. 9:00-9:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
DECISION REGARDING ADDING FOURTH
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 20
VI. 9:15-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AID AND HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
AID AS RESULT OF 1995 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
STUDY SESSION.LETTER NO. 21
9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
Is 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. 21
Agenda June 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Discussion of impact on Local Government Aid and Homestead & Agricultural Credit Aid as a
result of 1995 legislative session.
Background:
During the recent legislative session there was considerable discussion regarding the
possible cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA) and Homestead & Agricultural Credit Aid
(HACA) to cities. With the session now concluded, the following appear to be the results:
What didn't get a? .
• A property tax freeze.
• Taxation of municipal bond interest.
• Property tax deferral for senior citizens.
• Constitutional amendment to remove schools from property tax.
• The "Sing for your LGA" provision (cities requesting and justifying LGA to a state
appointed board.
• HACA and/or LGA cuts for 1995.
What did get passed
• A one-time reduction in HACA to cities, counties, towns and special districts in 1996. For
Richfield, that would mean a reduction of about $73,000 in 1996.
• Removal of the increase in personal income data from the truth-in-taxation statements.
• Move the circuit breaker and targeting programs to the tax statement.
Recommended Motion:
This item is presented as an informational item.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Council Members asked for a report on the aid reductions to Richfield once they were
known.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item had been scheduled for the Study Session in June during discussions at a previous
City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam ra sser City JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 20
Agenda June 12, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request to reconsider decision regarding adding a fourth municipal liquor store.
Background:
City staff has previously recommended the addition of a fourth municipal liquor store in order
to help provide funding for continuing demands in the area of capital improvements. An
independent analysis by Beverage Marketing, Inc. indicates that an additional store in the
area of south Richfield would be profitable. Adding turn lanes in the area of 77th Street and
Lyndale Avenue would require taking of the Conoco Station located on the southwest corner
of this intersection. There would be sufficient land available at this location to construct a
liquor store. CSM has indicated that they do not have interest in that property for any
additional retail space at this time.
Recommended Motion:
Direct staff to proceed with the addition of a fourth municipal liquor store at the location of
77th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The addition of a fourth municipal liquor store has been studied by an independent
beverage marketing expert., That recommendation indicates that a fourth municipal liquor
store at this location would be profitable.
2. There are strong demands for additional revenues on an ongoing basis to support capital
improvements within the City.
3. The acquisition of the Conoco Station provides a unique opportunity for the City of
Richfield to acquire a highly desirable retail location.
4. The 77th/Lyndale area is a highly desirable retail location and if this store proves to be
less profitable than desired, the site and the building could be sold to another retail user.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could reject the concept for an additional store.
2. The Council could decide to construct the Lyndale store and close one other store, now
or at some time in the future.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be present for discussion at the Study Session of June 5, 1995.
Respectf submitted,
Ja . Prosser
city,, ager
JDP:ds
Municipal Liquor Operations
Fourth Store Analysis
Five Year Projections
June 5, 1995
Executive Summary
Assumptions
The attached five year liquor operations projections compare the years 1996-2000 using a three
store versus a four store, municipal liquor operations configuration. The net difference between
the three and four store models is reflected in the column entitled "Benefit (Cost)".
The model uses the following assumptions:
• No new Liquor Store Manager will be hired for the fourth store. Instead a current Manager
will be used to supervise two stores, with the net addition of an Assistant Liquor Store
Manager.
• Current fixed costs for items such as word processing, advertising, insurance, etc. would be
distributed among four stores rather than three in the four store model.
• Available cash balances would be significantly depleted to construct the fourth store, resulting
in lower interest earnings for the first few years.
• Transfers to the Special Revenue Fund would be scheduled as follows:
1996 - $400,000
1997 - $450,000
1998 - $475,000
1999 - $500,000
2000 - $500,000
Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis
The analysis results in a conservative projection of an increase in Net Income of $45,970 in the
first year of operation, 1996. In the following four years the increases in Net Income are as
follows:
1997 - $ 72,727
1998 - $106,750
1999 - $151,940
2000 - $185,235
The analysis projects an ability in the second year to make a $50,000 increase in the contribution
to the Special Revenue Fund and to attain a $100,000 increase in the contribution by 1999. Even
with the increased contributions to the Special Revenue Fund, the Liquor Store Operations
project a five year growth in Net Income to $185,000 by the year 2000.
•
•
•
0 co
O O 0 O
0
0
r
0
(0 O O O O N
M. 00 r 00 CO
C) N I- ? O
t O
D
N r .i r
64
N
O O
1- O 0
C ',L O O O M
0 0 T- 'r-
O O N
r _
0
r ti `-' ? d
r
v ti 0 0 0
N
00 DO O O O Il
O 00 0 ti OD
0)
0 1- (O `-' qt
v O
-
N r r
Z
0
Z
O O
W Z W O N
O 1-
co _
O O O
0
LL Q Q N V
2 W
CY) co
Lc) LO ? r0 u0
tN
?
= r
W
LL Cy
LU J (f}
Z J
U r a C) ^
00 co
O' CO 0 0
W Z N R
O r ? 0) Lf) O O
r r (o
d9
r
M
r
_ L
N
N E
C O U
m
(D O O ") O N
C
N N ? ?
? U (0 ? C
03
m ON N Q F+
c fC
C
N
0 (D
V 0
v 0 N
U c
co N
U
W Z Q J J W
C) r-
r M
Cf) co
0) LO
r
co co
N (O
f? N
O
r
O r-
N
O
r
r
N 00
M 0?0
M OOO
I-en, M co
r 0
(0
'IT
63
N
0
Q? C
? U
N C
C N M
• 0 ? L
z U? Z M
c LO
M C U U
W w
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
THREE FOUR BENEFIT
STORES STORES (COST)
Sales $ 7,312,800 $ 8,637,800 $ 1,325,000
Cost of Goods 5,777,112 6,823,862 (1,046,750)
Gross Profit 1,535,688 1,813,938 278,250
Percent 21.0% 21.0% 21.0%
Expenses:
Personal Services 668,670 767,300 (98,630)
Other Services & Chgs 234,580 299,370 (64,790)
Supplies 18,390 23,380 (4,990)
Depreciation 64,800 95,670 (30,870)
Total Expenses 986,440 1,185,720 (199,280)
Operating Income 549,248 628,218 78,970
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest 50,000 15,000 (35,000)
Commissions 23,000 28,000 5,000
Other (9,000) (12,000) (3,000)
Total Misc. Revenues 64,000 31,000 (33,000)
Net Income $ 613,248 $ 659,218 $ 45,970
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
Sales
Cost of Goods
Gross Profit
Percent
Expenses:
Personal Services
Other Services & Chgs
Supplies
Depreciation
Total Expenses
Operating Income
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest
Commissions
Other
Total Misc. Revenues
Net Income
THREE FOUR BENEFIT
STORES STORES (COST)
$ 7,459,050 $ 8,850,300 $ 1,391,250
5,892,650 6,991,738 (1,099,088)
1,566,400 1,858, 562 292,162
21.0% 21.0% 21.0%
695,410 797,990 (102,580)
236,925 302,360 (65,435)
18,580 24,000 (5,420)
66,000 97,000 (31,000)
1,016,915 1,221,350 (204,435)
549,485 637,212 87,727
50,000 33,000 (17,000)
25,000 30,000 5,000
(9,000) (12,000) (3,000)
66,000 51,000 '(15,000)
$ 615,485 $ 688,212 $ 72,727
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998
•
THREE FOUR BENEFIT
STORES STORES (COST)
Sales $ 7,682,820 $ 9,182,820 $ 1,500,000
Cost of Goods 6,069,428 7,254,428 (1,185,000)
Gross Profit 1,613,392 1,928,392 315,000
Percent 21.0% 21.0% 21.0%
Expenses:
Personal Services 723,220 829,900 (106,680)
Other Services & Chgs 239,290 305,380 (66,090)
Supplies 18,760 24,240 (5,480)
Depreciation 67,000 99,000 (32,000)
Total Expenses 1,048,270 1,258,520 (210,250)
Operating Income 565,122 669,872 104,750
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest 50,000 51,000 1,000
Commissions 27,000 31,000 4,000
Other (9,000) (12,000) (3,000)
Total Misc. Revenues 68,000 70,000 2,000
Net Income $ 633,122 $ 739,872 $ 106,750,
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1999
THREE FOUR BENEFIT
STORES STORES (COST)
Sales $ 7,875,000 $ 9,525,000 $ 1,650,000
Cost of Goods 6,221,250 7,524,750 (1,303,500)
Gross Profit 1,653,750 2,000,250 346,500
Percent 21.0% 21.0% 21.0%
Expenses:
Personal Services 752,150 863,100 (110,950)
Other Services & Chgs, 242,880 309,960 (67,08'0)
Supplies 19,040 24,570 .(5,530)
Depreciation 68,000 101,000 (33,000)
Total Expenses 1,082,070 1,298,630 (216,560)
Operating Income 571,680 701,620 129,940
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest
Commissions
Other
Total Misc. Revenues
Net Income
50,000
27,500
(9,000)
68,500
$ 640,180 $
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2000
THREE FOUR BENEFIT
STORES STORES (COST)
Sales $ 8,111,250 $ 9,843,750 $ 1,732,500
Cost of Goods 6,407,887 7,776,562 (1,368,675)
Gross Profit 1,703,363 2,067,188 363,825
Percent 21.0% 21.0% 21.0%
Expenses:
Personal Services 782,240 897,630 (115,390)
Other Services & Chgs 246,520 314,610 (68,090)
Supplies 19,320 24,930 (5,610)
Depreciation 68,000 101,000 (33,000)
Total Expenses 1,116,080 1,338,170 (222,090)
Operating Income 587,283 729,018 141,735
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest 50,000 93,000 43,000
Commissions 28,000 31,500 3,500
Other (9,000) (12,000) (3,000)
Total Misc. Revenues 69,000 112,500 43,500
Net Income $ 656,283 $ 841,518 $ 185,235
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 19
Agenda June 5, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of adding a right4urn and a left-turn lane at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue
and 77th Street.
Background:
Planning for the 77th Street Project revealed that the Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street
intersection would carry the highest traffic volumes and experience the most severe
congestion of any intersection in the 77th Street corridor. This was based on a traffic
analysis that redevelopment along 77th Street would occur gradually over time and additional
improvements would be needed if the land south of 77th Street were fully developed.
Today, CSM is proposing to build a second stage of its project that will occupy almost all of
the land south of 77th Street between Emerson and Lyndale Avenues. Also, discussions
have begun on the development of the Cloverleaf site, the City's prime site to attract a major
commercial enterprise.. This interest in redevelopment is proceeding at a rate more quickly
than anticipated by City staff. The rapid pace of new private investment presents the City of
Richfield with the need to improve traffic flow simultaneously with construction of the new
development and avoid potential traffic congestion problems before they occur.
Traffic studies commissioned by the City for the CSM and Cloverleaf project indicated that:
• 85% of the traffic to and from the development would use the Lyndale Avenue
interchange of 1-494; .
• the additional traffic generated by the CSM project would require an eastbound right-turn
lane to be added on the west approach on 77th Street;
• the additional traffic generated by the CSM project would require a second northbound
left-turn lane to be added on the south approach on Lyndale Avenue; and,
• with the additional turn lanes, an acceptable level of service could be maintained at 77th
Street and Lyndale Avenue with one million square feet of office development on the
Cloverleaf site.
The need for double left-turn lanes on the south approach on Lyndale Avenue may require
the acquisition of several properties on the east side of Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street.
Maps of the proposed improvements will be available at the Study Session.
The need for a right-turn lane on the west approach on 77th Street will necessitate the
acquisition of the Conoco Service Station.
The two property acquisitions will enable the City to provide remnant parcels for commercial
redevelopment.
City staff recognize the disruptive nature of road construction and believe both turn lanes
should be built at the same time to cause the least inconvenience to the public. There also is
the advantage of coordinating the Conoco property acquisition so that land not needed for
the right-turn lane is made available for redevelopment. These redevelopment opportunities
become increasingly attractive if a large share of the cost to acquire these properties can be
financed using federal highway demonstration funds, possibly for the Conoco property, or
Municipal State Aid (gas tax) funds.
Recommended Motion:
No action is requested at this time. The topic is.presented for discussion purposes only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Traffic analyses show the need for both a right-turn lane and a double left-turn lane to
maintain an acceptable level of service at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 77th
Street.
2. Both turn lane improvements should be undertaken at the same time so that they cause
the least disruption to the community.
3. The land needed to provide these improvements will produce remnant parcels that can be
made available for commercial redevelopment.
. 4. The funding for the property acquisitions can come from Municipal State Aid funds and for
the Conoco Service Station property possibly from federal highway demonstration funds.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Consider approving the right of way and improvement of adding both the right-turn lane
and the double-left-turn lane at the intersection of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
2. Consider approving the right of way and improvement of adding the right-turn lane at the
intersection of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
3. Consider delaying one or both improvements until traffic congestion reaches unacceptable
levels or 1-494 is reconstructed, whichever occurs first.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This issue is being presented for discussion only.
itted,
Jarrfed/D. Prosser
City'All pager
JDP:ds
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 18
Agenda June 5, 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
MAC and W.D. Schock have scheduled an open house for neighborhood residents.
Schock will provide an overview of the acquisition and relocation processes. The open
house will be held in the Richfield Council Chambers on Wednesday, June 14, 4:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Phase II continues to progress well, with only one appraisal left to be conducted as of
May 30. Offers are also nearing completion, and will be followed shortly by closings
and relocations. The timeline for Phase III residents, including initial interviews and
appraisals; will be presented at the open house. Phase III will include priority blocks
11-15, and 16 if enough money is available.
• 4-22 Extension
The Metropolitan Council approved a recommendation to utilize the Minnesota Office of
Dispute Resolution to mediate the Runway 4-22 issue. An initial meeting between the
parties was scheduled for Thursday, June 1, to discuss some working guidelines for the
mediation sessions. Richfield's and Bloomington's Met Council representative Neil
Peterson stressed that the communities wish to see the mediation progress without
delay, allaying concerns from some that the process could drag on indefinitely.
Attached is a copy of the resolution passed Friday, May 26, by the Minneapolis City
Council defining their principle guidelines for the mediation process.
Dual Track Planning Process
MAC has released the Second Phase Scoping Report for the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement. The letter accompanying the
document says that MAC and FAA will be preparing a joint federal and state EIS on the
potential effects of alternatives, including a new major airport, an expanded MSP, a no-
action alternative, and other feasible and prudent alternatives.
Scoping meetings for the public will be held during the last week of June: Monday, June
26, 7:00 p.m. at the MAC General Offices and Tuesday, June 27, 7:00 p.m. at Hastings
Middle School. A scoping meeting for the federal, state and local agencies will be held
June 27, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. at the MAC General Offices. Written comments will be
. accepted through July 5. Staff will review the document and provide comments as
necessary.
• Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
Staff is working with MAC and W.D. Schock to possibly include a resident of south
Richfield as an emergency participant in one of the upcoming bid phases for sound
insulation. The resident is selling his home and has a relocating New Ford Town
resident as a prospective buyer. MAC and Schock informed the buyer they could not
purchase that home and still receive relocation compensation. This is due to a federal
regulation prohibiting acquired homeowners in noise impacted areas from relocating
into a similarly noise impacted area, unless the house has already been sound proofed.
MAC is inquiring to FAA about a possible waiver for "in-process" noise insulated homes.
If FAA grants permission, staff will formally request that one allocated slot be used for
the southeast Richfield home. The reason that homes are not being sound proofed in
south Richfield now is the uncertainty of the Runway 4-22 extension. However, the
seller is located in an area that will most likely be in the 65 DNL footprint no matter what
the outcome of the extension issue. The prospective buyer is aware of the 4-22 issue
and potential noise impacts, and is still interested in the home.
Attached is the monthly log of resident phone calls received. Most calls pertain to the
is Part 150 Sound Insulation Program, which is surprising considering that the City's legal
challenge to the runway extension received fairly widespread media coverage.
• N.0.I.S.E.
The National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment has scheduled its
annual NOISE Conference for July 26-29, 1995, in Washington D.C. Keynote speaker
for the conference is Geoffrey Gosling, of the Institute for Transportation Studies,
University of California-Berkeley. Gosling will be discussing the question, "is there a
noise problem," in light of such issues as the integration of Stage 3 aircraft and
shrinking DNL 65 contours in residential areas. Richfield counsel Steven Pflaum will
also be a featured speaker, discussing the controversy and public policy implications of
the 65 DNL for determining adverse noise impacts on residential living. Conference
itinerary, pricing and other logistics will be available soon.
Attached is an article from the April 1995 issue of the NOISE Newsletter. The article
contains an excerpt from NOISE's letter supporting new federal regulations regarding
incompatible land uses in areas surrounding airports, but chiding the FAA for not
soliciting enough input, from interested agencies during the policy formulation stage.
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 June 5, 1995.
Respectful) submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
•
•
0
•
Resident Contact:
Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns
j
?y: yp? .y
?:?? ??iA:•:•. i"•'?:•:::: •?:,: :
:•:•}:•':'•'.•?.}??'}
•:::::::::. ..,..
?i<}:?::??:i::.w: . +i::•:•:?:•:?: •3:?•}:•}:• :
.{?yj???pptt??
? ii . ' •.:;??.tit•':'t: '
..:\.{•.......{.v.••.<:•':?:{ti?:•:?
•: rr'fi::?v'.•: i+• :::::::::::::::::: •}::.:::::. rr
?yt? •'<'':;: ;
::?:•:?}:.}•::•ir,+•:?? i?:`t?i:?i a .:...
F}?r::•:??::•::?::•:?:•:5:3'•:•:3:•:•:•}:•}:•}:•.•.•: }.•.•.•: ••.
x. x..
.} :::::::::::::::.•.v.+:
:
:;:?i:; +?•?i?y;?j??jyjjjy? ,?y, •?•,:;?}Fi:•: is
w..::..?iF41F?Ri74 •:.iti?{ ..::::..
:?:?S:ti•.titi•:}.:•.:v.:.:.:::.
.: ?:: •:::::::. 3}:: is ii.•. •i.
?:: ,:;:;:?....6
........7.7:: r.7iF.
??pdrlr:??}:.
:..:.::::•
}}:....
..: r+. >:
•?y. tiff •ti
%i:Y+.•<i\4•}:•}: .?li ':?+'. h'.,'k:•+'.':::i+:•}4 .
4
v :if{i.:.r,:..•:::.:..r,.::+i:^ii:•}::}r:.4K•. }.v..:f r.
v .; .t.::: •::• ::::::::::::::::
v::4:3}:•}:•:•}:3:•:•:•}}.:::....•..........
•
?
• ..................
:..i:. ?n:
i?ti'•}if.•'? . '..
+•}:•}}:: }iyy?ii:•:i'ii:
::..}:. .. vr?r'r:•:v :
:
'f:
{
•
•:-:•::•:-:•'•:•:•:•}. •
: :Rb:•}:•}:+•}:•}:•} :
•
•}: 'RP. ????yft
X+7' .?? •?' .t?•f17t7F:?:•{
„ .
i•::.w.•: ••.•:.•.: •::::.v.•.•.•::::::.+.• .:•v; },.
•}::::. ,
.....4.5:
; ....•::.•.•.•.•.•.•.• :::::::::::::::::.
i•:3: :
:.
.v.
......
:.: }:.::.::::.f.+.
:3:::: f.:rr,•::: -----
.......
......
••.•: •.•.•.•.• .. ..
Thur., May 4 Resident 6600 block of 12th Is he included in the Question answered
"Your City" Avenue noise contour for (he is not). No
insulation? follow-u requested.
Thur., May 4
"Y
Cit
" Apartment owner
i
d owns apartment at
66th St
901 E Came in to see Part
150 ma Sound roofing of
m
lti
f
il
our
y rop-
n)
( .
. p. u
-
y
am
dwellings explained.
Thur., May 4 Resident 7600 block of 13th Came in to see map. Question answered.
(drop-in) Avenue Is he included? 4-22 issue explained.
No follow-up.
Thur., May 4
"
" Resident 7400 block of 18th Caine in to see flight Questions answered.
f
ll
Your City (drop-in) (owns bungalow), path projections for o
ow-up
o
lives at 7500 block 4-22 extension. requested.
of Chicago
Thur., May 4 Resident 7500 block of 16th Is he included in Question answered.
"Your City,, Avenue sound roofinarea? No follow-up.
Mon., May 8 Resident 6200 block of 12th They were invited to Referred to CEE.
Avenue CEE ineeting for No follow-up.
May 3, but couldn't
make it.
Mon., May 8 Resident 6500 block of Are they in the Question answered.
f
ll
N
Bloomington sound proofing area? ow-up
o
o
re uested.
Tues., May 9 Resident 7500 block of 16th Are they in the 4-22 issue explained.
Avenue eligible area for No follow-up
insulation? requested.
Mon., May 15 Non-resident 6100 block of 14th. When is he going to Referred him to
Avenue Minneapolis be sound proofed? Minneapolis contact
for Part 150.
Thur., May 18 Resident 6500 block of Are they included in Question answered.
ll
f
Bloomington sound proofing area? ow-up
No
o
requested.
Fri., May 19 Resident 6500 block of 17th Is her house in the Question answered. .
Avenue eligible area? No follow-u .
May 23
Tues- None given. 7200 block of 17th When is she being 4-22 issue explained.
, Avenue sound proofed? No follow-up.
Thur., May 25 Resident 6400 block of 14th When is his house Question answered.
ll
w
f
Avenue being sound o
-up.
No
o
roofed?
Thur., May 25 Resident 7500 block of 16th NFT resident wishes
his house;
t
bu Contacted W.D.
MAC and
Schock
Avenue y
o
MAC won't allow it. ,
prospective buyer.
i
i
nto
Look
ng
possible solution.
•
0
Tues., May 30 Resident New Ford Town Still interested in Staff attempting to
house mentioned get house into noise
above. Can insulation program.
anything be done?
Tues., May 30 Resident 7000 block of 18th Is she eligible for Runway 4-22 issue
Avenue sound proofing? explained. No
follow-up requested.
Wed., May 31 Resident 6800 block of 12th Where is the noise Questions answered.
boundary? What No follow-up
about 4 22? requested.
This information was gathered May 4 - May 31, 1995.* 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.
JDV:ttf
0
M`k J 1? v d
THE NOISE NEWSLETTER APRIL 1995
0 PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
. Volume V, No. 4
NOISE SUPPORTS NEW 150 POLICY
BUT ASKS WHY FAA DEVELOPED IT
IN A VACUUM
by Charles F. Price
Executive Director
NOISE has forwarded comments to the Federal Avia-
tion Administration generally favoring the agency's
proposal to prevent the use of Part 150 noise mitigation
funds in areas where new noncompatible development
has been allowed to occur around airports.
Out NOISE also- chided the FAA for fashioning its new
proposal without input from its own Study Group on
Land Use Compatibility although that panel was in
operation at the time the policy was being developed.
The study group consisted of multiple interests includ-
ing airlines, airports, communties, and academia.
NOISE was a participant.
"NOISE is particularly interested in this matter since
we have long questioned the effectiveness of the Part
150 program as an inducement to more compatible
land-use planning in the environs of airports. NOISE
has believed for some time that Part 150 has proven far
more useful in treating the consequences of
noncompatible development after it has occurred than
in preventing it in the first place. Over the years we
have put forward a number of suggestions intended to
strengthen Part 150 and make it as much a force foster-
ing compatible new development as it has been a force
for remediation of noise problems in development that
has already been permitted in noise impacted areas.
The comments were made on a proposed revision of
the FAA policy governing approval and funding of
projects under the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility
Program, as published in the Federal Register of March
20, 1995 (See the March NOISE Newsletter).
Following is a partial text of the letter forwarded to the
FAA:
"The National Organization to Insure a Sound-con-
trolled Environment (NOISE) is an association of local
government officials whose communities are impacted
by noise from commercial airport operations. Conse-
louently the mayors, city councilpersons, county super-
visors and others who are members of NOISE are
vitally concerned with any contemplated revision in the
federal government's only program designed to reduce
noncompatible land uses around airports.
"Heretofore, FAA's Part 150 policy made no official
distinction between new and existing development and
thus permitted scarce federal dollars to be used for
remediation in areas where new noncompatible devel-
opment had occurred. NOISE applauds the distinction
FAA now proposes to make between existing and new
development. We believe such a change will mean that
the government will no longer be `subsidizing'
noncompatible development at a time when federal
funds are more scarce than ever.
"NOISE has argued for quite a long time that the
government's policies regarding airport noise should
recognize a distinction between existing and new
development. As a member of the recently disbanded
Study Group on Land-Use Compatibility, NOISE
strongly advocated a lowering of the threshold for
April 1995 Page two
determining the adverse effect of noise on residential
?iving from DNL 65 dB to a lesser level in areas subject
to new development. We continue to believe that
different thresholds should be set for different types of
development. It is to be hoped that the proposed
change in Part 150 policy represents some movement
by the agency in that direction.
"We take note of the fact that there is in the March 20
notice more than a whiff of a suggestion that local
communities are not to be trusted to do the right thing
when it comes to planning for compatible development
around airports. Communities are sensitive to such
innuendos in approximately the same proportion that
they have been trespassed upon by unplanned airport
expansions or by unilateral changes in airport opera-
tions that caused new noise where none existed before.
Yet this is not the place to point fingers of blame.
NOISE has never insisted that all communities have
behaved responsibly in zoning around airports, any
more than it has claimed that all airports have been bad
neighbors. NOISE wishes to take this opportunity to
pplaud the FAA for what appears to us to be afor-
ward-looking and reasonable step.
"However, we also feel bound to mention our puzzle-
ment as to why this proposal was developed `in a
vacuum' when.a perfect opportunity existed to refine it
in consultation with the Study Croup on Land Use
Compatibility. Inexplicably, the FAA seems to have
run the two processes on parallel but unconnected
tracks, although they are clearly related. It seems to us
that input from the various interests represented on the
study group, including communities, might have re-
sulted in a richer and more broadly-based proposal, and
one more likely to receive wide acceptance."
;fig: 7CPi :77Y CLERK.
owwi_M'• Fov 1.!nie ? 7R7t
0
By
95R
RESOLUTION
of the
CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS
Scott, Mead, Schuistad, Dziedzic, Campbell, Biernat, Rainvilie, Cherryhomes, Niland, Herron,
Ind
Setting forth principles regarding Minneapolis support for the Runway 4122
extension at the Minneapolis-St, Paul International Airport (MSP).
Whereas, the extension of Runway 4/22 at the Minneapolis-St, Paul International Airport
has been debated since 1977; and
Whereas, the extension would provide air traffic controllers with the necessary facilities to
operate a landing and take-off pattern that would divert a substantial number of planes per day
from south Minneapolis; and
Whereas, this diversion of traffic would return air traffic distribution percentages
approximately what they were in the 1970s providing a more equitable sharing of the noise
burden.
Whereas, the extension also provides the capability for gully loaded long haul planes to
use the airport in more weather situations than at present; and
Whereas, the extension also provides the Metropolitan Airports Commission a second
long runway in case of emergency or repairs; and
Whereas, the City of Richfield has filed a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Statement in hopes of thwarting the proposed shift of noise from south
Minneapolis to Richfield and Bloomington; and
Whereas, the City of Bloomington has indicated that they will fight the approval of the
runway extension at the Metropolitan Council to prevent the noise shit; and
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council has proposed that all parties involved participate in a
mediation effort to resolve the differences;
•
eK-9007 Rev. 7189 __.. ..... i' wr -.. ..
03' 4 AP' CITY C ?rRP:
,Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:
That Minneapolis participate in the Metropolitan Council's mediation effort In accordance
40
with the following principles:
That Minneapolis reaffirm its support of the extension of Runway 4/22, but only if the noise
shift from south Minneapolis is guaranteed.
That any funds that-might be needed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to mitigate
the noise in areas of Richfield and Bloomington affected by the use of the newly extended
runway be "new" money and not any shifted from the Part 150 noise insulation program.
That the Part 150 noise insulation program not be compromised by the extension project,
and that it be completed by 2002 as originally projected, and expedited if at all possible.
• That the noise mitigation package for Bloomington and Richfield be completed within the
same time frame as the Part 150 insulation program in Minneapolis - that is 2002 - or
whatever earlier target date is agreed to for the Part 150 program as part of the 4/22
mediation effort
That the persons representing Minneapolis in the mediation process be Paul Farmer,
i Michael Norton and Jan Del Calzo,
That any terms generated by the mediation process must be brought to the City Council for
s
final approval.
•;:: ::, RECORD of
COUNCI! I
MEMBER
AYE i
NAY I VOTING
ABSENT 0 1
OvE VOTE To COUNCIL AY9 NAY
Drlsdzk
X
Thurber
Campbell i
I
__
I d
8lemat I
X I Mon
RainvrNs I i
X
Wand I ? Minn
,
I P
ident
Scar. I I X
res
chodynomes
Herm" I I I
PASSED MAY r 19M APPROVED - HOT APPROVED -VETOED DATE
UATE
Maros
PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL
ATTEST CITY CLERK __...,.. _ ,..
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 17
Agenda June 5,1995
Issue Statement:
Discussion of public safety issues in the City of Richfield.
Background:
Public Safety Director Jack Erskine will review public safety issues and new initiatives
to address areas of concern.
Recommended Motion:
This discussion is for the benefit of the Council so that they are better informed when
responding to their constituents.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Public safety issues are a high priority concern for the City of Richfield.
2. The council will become informed of the Public Safety Department's response to
these concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
40 None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Public Safety concerns are presented for Council discussion at the June 5 Study
Session.
Respectfulllystal?'mitted,
James rosser
city M anger
JDP:ds
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 16
Agenda June 5, 1995
Issue Statement:
Council discussion on election sign safety.
Background:
Staff has received a letter regarding the "safety" of election signs that use "re-bar" to
hold them up. The issue describes that many of these signs are from two to four feet
above ground with sharp edges. This is about the same height as a four year old,
creating the possibility of youngsters falling and seriously injuring themselves.
The residents, John and Bonnie Bucher, 7233 Girard Avenue, who wrote the letter have
been contacted and will be at the meeting. To date, Public Safety is not aware of any
injuries caused by these signs.
Recommended Motion:
Staff is requesting Council discussion and direction on the issue of election sign safety.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. None
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could decide to postpone discussion.
2. Council could decide to make no changes regarding election signs.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discuss and provide staff direction on any ordinance changes related to this issue.
Respectf submitted,
Ja e . Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
0
p -
71
I
j
I
•
October 27, 1994
City of Richfield
Mr. James D. Prosser, City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Jim,
This election year has presented a new safety concern to our family with the posting of
election signs throughout our community. Many of the candidates are using 3/8" steel
re-bar rod to hold their signs in place.
The re-bar has sharp edges and is left about 2 to 4 feet above the ground level. This is
the same height as our 4 year old and many other children in Richfield. With the
thousands of signs placed around Richfield we have created a safety concern in our own
• front yards where our children play. This could easily cut or worse yet cause a eye
injury to a child.
We are not against election signs for candidates, we only ask that they work with the
property owners to make Richfield a safe place for our children to play in their own
front yard.
Thank you very much for your concern and efforts to make Richfield the good
community it is.
Sincerely,
ohn and Bonnie Bucher
7233 Girard Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
John Work ph 951-2492
Home 866-8271
IE