The URL can be used to link to this page

09-11-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 242 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1995; AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1995 PRESENTATION OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. REPORT FROM RICHFIELD LEGISLATORS REGARDING 1994-95 LEGISLATIVE SESSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 243 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION IN AMOUNT OF $255.60 C.L. 244 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT SEWER AND WATER UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO COUNTY AUDITOR C.L. 245 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES IN AMOUNT OF $850.32 C.L. 246 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE FOR CHECK EXPRESS MINNESOTA, 6525 NICOLLET AVENUE C.L. 247 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 73972 BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND MNDOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RICHFIELD LAKE OUTLET AND ACCEPTANCE OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RICHFIELD LAKE OUTLET PROJECT PENDING CONCURRENCE BY MNDOT TO BARBAROSSA & SONS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $349,562.35 C.L. 248 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR RICHFIELD.-COMMUNITY CENTER TRAVEL FOR OLDER ADULTS TO BAYFIELD, WISCONSIN FROM MEDICINE LAKE TOURS IN AMOUNT OF $7,695 C.L. 249 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF .$5,000 FOR PHOTO IMAGING BOOKING SYSTEM FOR USE BY PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE DIVISION FROM XIMAGE CORPORATION IN AMOUNT OF $47,800 C.L. 250 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR STREET LIGHTS IN 6700 BLOCK OF PENN AVENUE FROM COLLISYS IN AMOUNT OF $9,500 C.L. 251 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ONE HYDRAULIC SHORING (TRENCH BOX) TO EXCAVATE DEEP WATER MAIN BREAKS, STORM AND SANITARY SEWERS FROM PRAIRIE EQUIPMENT IN AMOUNT OF $7,695 C.L. 252 J. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR 1995 CONCRETE STREET AND ALLEY REPAIR; ARCON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; $43,053.70 K. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR PAINTING LOGAN WATER TOWER; DELOUGHERY PAINTING COMPANY; $52,405.85 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SPECIALLY ASSESSING L/H/N AREA FOR CURRENT SERVICES FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996; CITY PROJECT NO. 912 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 28, 1995) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 253 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: • 2400 WEST 64TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 6400-6444 QUEEN AVENUE FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; • 2401-2421 WEST 65TH STREET, 2400-2420 WEST 65 1/2 STREET AND 2412 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; • 2405 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 2409 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; • 2720-2730 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; • 2020 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 2200-2208 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 2216-2228 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 254 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING QUEEN AVENUE BETWEEN 62ND AND 64TH STREETS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 255 RESOLUTION 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR YEAR 1996 AND SETTING TRUTH IN TAXATION -- HEARING DATES, AND RESOLUTIONS CANCELING CERTAIN 1996 BONDED DEBT LEVIES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 256 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT BUSINESS 9. CONSIDERATION OF MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL AIRPORT AREA COMMUNITY. PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 257 10. CONSIDERATION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON, EAGAN, AND MINNEAPOLIS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 258 11. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 12. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 16. 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 Council Letter No. 25s Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement with Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Council, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, and Minneapolis, to provide funding for public opinion survey. Background: As part of the ongoing mediation for the Runway 4/22 extension issue, the participants have proposed a public opinion survey of residents impacted by operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The purpose of the survey will be to determine levels of annoyance, preferred noise mitigation alternatives, and general attitudes regarding airport noise. The mediation team will review the results of the survey and utilize the information in developing an alternative noise mitigation package to that proposed in the 4/22 Environmental Impact Statement. The request for proposals was directed to survey research firms and published in the state register. The project will include survey design, implementation, and compilation and interpretation of results. Respondents may bid on one or all aspects of the project. Lowest responsible bids will be accepted by one or more firms. The mediation team has agreed to project funding up to $120,000, or $20,000 per participating agency (proposed Joint Powers Agreement attached). This is not to say that the entire amount will be spent, as the mediation team is committed to the most cost effective project possible. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City of Richfield to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for conduct of a public opinion survey of residents impacted by Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, .and that up to $20,000 be appropriated for Richfield's share of the survey cost. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council has previously directed staff to participate in mediation of the Runway 4/22 extension for the purpose of finding a noise mitigation alternative, different from that proposed in the Runway 4/22 Environmental Impact Statement, that is acceptable to all communities surrounding MSP. An acceptable mitigation plan will allow the City to consider dropping the lawsuit opposing the runway extension project, currently in abeyance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may choose not to participate in the proposed survey. 2. The Council may continue discussion until a later date. iQ at Discussion/Decision Mode: This is an agenda item for consideration at the regular City Council meeting of September 11, 1995. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds i~-a THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this .day of September, 1995, by and between the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the City of $Ioomington, the City ofEagan, the City of Minneapolis and the City of Richfield, hereinaf}}er referred to as the "Agencies". '~i~TNESSETI~: WFIEREAS, the Metropolitan CaunciI did approve extension of runway 4-22 at IviSP Internatioaai Airport in 3uly 1995, and W;~REAS, the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with the other Agencies did detercnis~e that the Agencies should have more time to investigate the merits of noise redistribution and other measures to provide mitigation of aircraft noise, and ~i~iEREAS, it has been determined by the parties hereto that the noise mitigation selection process be continued by conducting a public preference survey to gauge public opinion about aircraft noise impact and preferred mitigation measures, and Wf~REAS, the general objective in conducting a survey is to help resolve uncertainty about the most cost-effective aircraft noise mitigation measw'es at MSP 3ntemational Airport and to be ready to use feder~i funds when they are available, and WHEREAS, it has been deternined that alI of the said Agencies are a part of ar have a specific interest in the stated objectives, and ~~REAS, the said Agencies will all benefit from the results of a public preference survey and are all willing to share proportionately in the cost of the preparation and completion of the survey, and WHEREAS, it is the expressed interest of said Agencies to participate and cooperate in the preparation and completion of the said survey, NOW, TPiEREFORE, IT IS MUTI3ALLY AGREED AS FOLr.OVt~S: SECTYQN 1 -SCOPE OF WORK The Agencies agree to jointly sponsor within their jurisdictions a public preference survey to gauge public opinion about aircraft noise impact and preferred mitigation measures. The questionnaire design, survey and report of results shalt be performed by survey ccsnsultant(s) under the direction of the Metropolitan Council in consultation and cooperation wsth the Project Advisory Committee, which will act in an advisory race. /0 3 The Metropolitan Council will act as the contracting agent for engaging the services of survey cansultant(s} to conduct the work. The Froject Advisory Committee will review the list of interested firms, narroR the list affirms far further consideration based upon a technical proposal, and interview consultant firms if necessary. The Project Advisory Committee wilt recommend the selection of consultant firm(s) to the Metropolitan. Council for their approval, SECTICI~2 - FLJR23ISHING QF DATA The Agencies shall furnish to the consultant{s} arty information. ar data they may have which is pertinent to the studies without separate compensation therefor or arty adjustment of any Agency's share of the cost. The ownership of all data collected or developed shall be vested with the Ivietropalitan Council, subject to the right of all Agency participants to secure access to, receive and use a copy of ail such data. Each Agency shall be entitled to ten { 10) copies of ail reports developed far the project and upon retiuest, a .copy of all other data collected or prepared in connection with the work.. Credit shaII be given to each participating agency in each repot`. individual completion dates far reports prepared during the process shall be determined by vote of the Pro}eet Advisory Committee. SECTION 3 - Ct3MPENSATIaN The Metropolitan Council shall enter into a contract with a consultant firm(s) recommended by the Project Advisory Cottunittee and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Notice of final execution of the cottsuitattt agreements shall be given to each Aget}cy within seven (7} days. The consultant casts far the public preference survey shall be shared by the Agencies in the proportions listed hereafter: 2 /c ~} Agency Percent of Actual of Cost Not to Exceed: Metropolitan Council 16.7% X20,000 Metropolitan Airports Commission 16.7% $20,000 City of$loomington 16.7°/a ~20,~00 City of Eagsn 16.7a/o X20 000 City afA+fittneapolis I6.7°/a $2{},OOU City of Richfield I~.7~10 0 ct00 TUTAL 100.0°/a $12Q,000 If it appe~srs that the consultant services required to complete the desired work will exceed the total costs identified in Section 4 above, it shall be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council to request a supplemental agreement for the purpose of increasing the shares of the contributing Agencies. Tf such supplemental agreement is not reached, the Project Advisory Committee shall determine haw to proceed within the available budget. The Metropolitan Council will invoice the participating Agencies as provided by the fcsllawing schedule: 1 } Two-thirds of the Agency`s proportion of the contract amount at the time of execution of the consultant contract. 2} ~e-third of the Agency's proportion of the costs upon completion of the consultant`s final repot`. The Agencies will make payment within 30 days of receipt of said invoices. Upon completion of the final consultant report, the Metropolitan Council shall provide an accounting of receipts and expenditures to each contributing Agency and shaI{ refund any re;naining balance to each contributing Agency in proportion io that Agency's total contribution. SECTION 4 • PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Projeet Advisory Committee, chaired by the Metropolitan Council, shall be composed of not more than two policy and/or staff personnel of each of these Agencies: 3 /0-5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ivfetropolitan Council City of Bloomington City afEagan City of Richfield City of I-Snneapolis Each Agency shall have one vase an Project Advisory Committee actions: The Project Advisory Committee stay take action by a majority vote of those Agencies present at a meeting, The Agencies, acting through the Project Advisory Committee representatives, shall at all reasonable times during the terms of this ageement be afforded the opportunity far review ofthe work being performed. The Agencies shall also be able to obtain copies of reportQ, studies and data compiled for the studies without additional cost. The Project Advisory Committee shall meet as determined by the Committee or its Chair and shall act as $ liaison for their Agencies. IN WITNESS WHERECaF the parties hereto hive duly executed this agreement b}' their proper officers and representatives. METR(~FOLITAIt1 COi.T:NCIL sy Regional Administrator METROPOLITAN AIItPORT5 COIvIlvITSSION By Executive L7it'ector Date By Chief Counsel Date CITY OF $LOOMIIv(`rTON Date By Commission Secretary Date BY Date Iviayor aY Date City Manager a /C ~ CITY aF EAGAN By Ivtayor By City Clerk CITY OF h+IINNEAPdLIS By Mayor By City Clerk By City Attorney By city Fistance dfficer CITY OF RICHFIELD By Mayor By City Manager Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date S TOTAL F'. ~~6 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 257 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package. Background: City of Richfield staff have been working for the past year in a collaborative planning effort with communities surrounding Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The effort, under the guidance of the Metropolitan Council, is an attempt by airport impacted cities to develop protection tools that will help achieve airport compatible land uses. The result of this planning effort is the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package (attached). The planning group will be developing justifications for the various alternatives included in the package. The concept package and justifications are intended for presentation to legislators for consideration. _ Recommended Motion: Review and discuss the Community Protection Concept Package and justifications for the necessity of such a plan for airport impacted communities. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Previous community surveys have identified airport noise issues among those of greatest concern to residents. It is important for Richfield to consider alternatives that will protect the City and region from negative impacts as a result of its proximity to MSP. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay discussion until a later date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This is an agenda item for consideration at the regular City Council meeting of September 11, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds G-i ~..:~ Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. August 22, 1995 MSP Communities' Mitigation Package 235 East Sixth Street ~ '~V From: Trudy Richter Suite 202 Re: Attached Flnal Concept Paper and Next Steps St. Paul, Minnesota _. 55101-1919 Chris Duerksen and I have completed the attached Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport- Area Community Protection Concept Package. I appreciate your patience in waiting for the final document. The working group (612)-222-7227 agreed that they would contact local officials and legislators to brief them on the fax (612) 223-5229 package and obtain reactions to the contents of the package as well as the collective approach being used prior to our next meeting. We have agreed to meet at 1:30 on SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, in Richfield to share information and reactions and plan our next steps. As you are all aware, we have asked each community to develop a justification for the need for such a Community Protection Package. At the meeting of September 14, 1995, we should finalize the justifications that we will want to be able to share. It is critical that we agree to certain parameters for finalizing these justifications so as to remain credible and to continue to work collectively. Please come prepared to discuss the types of examples that should be used as justification as well as some boundaries on the extent (dollars and types) of justifications that are appropriate for us to use that will. best achieve our objectives. Thank you. Rimed on reryded PoP~ mmuuung SO% total rerovered fiber with 25X posttonsunaK waste. 9a MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE Prepared For Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Airports City of Bloomington Commission City of Eagan City of Mendota Heights City of Minneapolis City of Richfield By Clarion Associates Denver, Colorado in association with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota July 1995 9-3 MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE--DRAFT Clarion Associates in association with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. July 1995 INTRODUCTION The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct. economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoothly functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County or remain at its current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current capacity and projected demand. While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also apparent that it has significant impacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are always the first issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of equal significance--safety, ground traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental influences, and effects on property values and overall community stability. Most airport-impact mitigation efforts focus almost exclusively on noise--and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has established a good track record with its noise insulation-and property buyout programs. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation programs are limited in their outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at least the next twenty years, and the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained, these other impacts need to be addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating existing houses closest to the airport is not enough. Airports are dynamic facilities, at least if they are successful. Operational requirements are constantly changing and new runways and other facilities need to be added from time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, continually changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts. At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP that would hamper its efficient operation in the long term. To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission have been meeting informally since late 1994 with representatives of local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. The group's primary goal has been to identify and explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities in the airport q-~t environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.' In essence, these discussions have focused on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. Recognizing that this effort was atwo-way street, the group. also examined ways to prevent new incompatible development that might adversely affect the airport. During 1995, the group has. examined a wide range of tools and techniques and has developed a mitigation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision regarding location of MSP. This package. includes several of the most promising approaches identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private ector businesses: • C'ommunitX stabilization techniques such as property value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration. • community revitalization approaches such. as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks. • Incentive programs similar to those commonly used in siting large .facilities to provide offsetting benefits (such as neighborhood recreation centers) to a community or neighborhood. These would include incentives from private firms • (e.g., the airlines, car rental companies) as well as from public agencies. • Airport protection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures are undertaken.. The group also examined the issue of where- such tools and incentives might be made. available. While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level of noise (typically with the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing ease can be made that the impact area should not be so narrowly defined. When homes are demolished within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable. housing may be significant throughout the entire community.. Likewise,.: their may be a significant effect on a community's tax base. Of course, airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts on a community, for example, major changes in traffic levels and patterns. Based. on such considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine which communities should be eligible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First, only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods within 'A summary of the operating principles adopted by the group is attached to this document. 2 /~ i '~/ -~ one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted.. on the attached map. The defmition of the precise boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legislature to the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected neighborhoods. SUNIMARY OF MITIGATION TOOL5 AND TECHNIQUES Community Stabilization Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues. Property Value Guarantees Where landowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely affected by noise from airport _ operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception may lead to a pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area, and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. Experience in the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, amiddle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioration by providing guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this. Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an $90 application fee which covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses. If after five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible. Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have it purchased by avillage-established Equity Assurance Commission. Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears of property value loss. While over 160 homeowners initially joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. Interestingly, no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and remains a desirable residential community. 3 q-(o Emulating this concept, local governments around MSP should be authorized to establish a • program that pledges to reimburse landowners for losses in property value caused by airport operations and impacts. Backup funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local governments would pass through such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for' any equity reimbursement, the rationale being that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the state or MAC. Participation would be optional for all property owners within a designated eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone). Preferential Tax Programs To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or social stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have adopted a variety of income and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of Minnesota recently adopted an urban homesteading program that authorizes the Metropolitan Council to designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that are in transition to blight and poverty. Any person buying or occupying a home within such a zone is eligible for an exemption from Minnesota taxable income for up to five years (up to a limit of $15,000 for married individuals filing a joint return) in specified circumstances. Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special property tax benefits to encourage owners of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fourth mile of major transit stops. The goal is to encourage job density around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible. The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax benefits to businesses locating in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes Section 473.3915) In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be recaptured. Housing Revitalization Programs As noted above, several of the MSP-area communities have undertaken aggressive and innovative housing revitalization programs. However, where these efforts involve direct government action as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating .properties, they can be quite costly for local jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit 4 ~4 7 program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make, improvements to homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and similar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged. Interestingly, in Minnesota half of the credits have been claimed by owners of<homes with values less than $85,000. Thus the state legislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit program for homes in designated airport-impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective by reducing the age limitation to fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a wider range of housing. .~ In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be ,greatly encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage lending rates, down payment requirements, reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs for prospective homeowners--especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, .special lending programs embodying these concepts, in addition to those already in effect in other areas, to encourage more aggressively first-time home buyers, thus helping. to stabilize the airport-area neighborhoods. Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proven to be :useful tools in broader community stabilization and housing preservation programs. Typically, local governments create low-interest loan rehabilitation loan funds for designated areas (e.g., an historic district). Homeowners in the district can borrow funds for rehabilitation at below-market interest rates, thus encouraging investment of their private dollars. Payment can be made over a specified term or upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. A similar program is'currently available in Minneapolis through MCDA--the Middle Income Housing Program. This program is not limited to first-time homeowners; it .makes loans available for housing rehabilitation such as putting a new roof on a house. Funding for such.. a program tailored for the airport area might come from aone-time appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a combination of sources including some form of local match. Community Revitalization Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of "preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally discovered that there are no silver bullets when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substantial experience with commercial and residential revitalization programs, but more programs are needed to enable them to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts. 5 ~~ Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing (TIF) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization tool throughout the state. There are currently five .general types of TIF districts, and the municipalities surrounding MSP may qualify to use one or more of these districts. Generally, however, there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area, purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calculated, and areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues. These recommended changes include: • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to a specified percentage of substandard housing, location within an airport impact zone would trigger use of the district. • Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qualifying expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue bonds, community facilities, etc. • Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere within broader project area, perhaps the entire airport impact zone;. do not limit just to district. • Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment ..basis to zero. Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax-increment financing in the qualifying communities .without local government aid penalty.. Another alternative for consideration would be to spread over the seven county region the. reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special. burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout the region. • Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports around the United States are encouraging non-aviation related commercial development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non-aviation. commercial uses, and such properties should be included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to address airport impacts. U 6 99 Fiscal Disparities MAC-controlled property is treated differently from other similar use property in the area for purposes of fiscal disparities. Valuation of the property is not included in any tax based sharing. Many options are available for consideration including the payment of a shared area rate. Additionally, growth in existing commercial and industrial property uses within .the airport could be made eligible for sharing under the fiscal disparities program. ., Community Development Bank Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient in the success of community revitalization programs. Experience shows that in blighted or deteriorating areas, bank lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization funding may dry up or conventional financing may not be sufficient to stimulate private investment. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung up that might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest financing. One of the most successful of these community development banks--the South Shore. Bank in _ Chicago--is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has ,been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhood that had been written off by most observers In most respects,. this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks--credit worthiness of the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important difference, however, is that a significant amount of the banks funds are in "development deposits"--deposits by institutions and individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for neighborhood rehabilitation. As the bank's executive vice president has stated, "We are owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations., but who are also interested in economic development. " Community development banks often make rehabilitation funds available at below-market interest rates or with extended payment schedules. This non-traditional financing is often the key to getting the revitalization ball roiling. Funds for such non-traditional programs come from a variety of sources--community development funds, Community Reinvestment Act programs, and private sector contributions, to name only a few. The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is worthy of further exploration. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these communities than was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration in some residential areas and provide venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial areas, particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital for such a bank might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even the state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the 7 G-Ic~ airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program-related investments (which typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) ('ommunity Incentive Programs In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly- common .practice to provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the impacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e.g., a large industrial development. or ski resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of significant amounts of park land to offset loss of open space on-site or increased demand on local parks associated-.with an influx of new workers. The. types of other incentives offered by developers include: • Community and recreation centers; • Contributions towards .local police, fire,, and emergency medical services/equipment; • Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts; • Special rates for use of commercial facilities. (e.g., discount tickets at a ski resort). In a general sense, these incentives and benefits. are intended to protect and possibly enhance the . quality. of life in an area in which a new development is viewed as potentially compromising that quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major development. In the context of the airport, an incentive/mitigation package might. include, for example, funding for additional indoor recreational facilities. The logic would be that such facilities would help "compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for the adverse impacts airport noise has-on the use of outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this. direction by making some of its land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreational opportunities, but also provides an important buffer for neighboring- Richfield. Private companies might also be enlisted in this effort. In many communities,. airlines contribute free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. For example, to encourage community involvement in .planning for the redevelopment of Stapleton Airport in Denver, Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for .school-age children to suggest interesting uses. fora the site. The MSP communities feel that the many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and. cargo. business and are more than willing to weigh in on the side, of keeping the airport at its current location have an obligation to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well.. Noise insulation programs, because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the airport, let alone the serious secondary effects discussed above, 8 ~-// Airport Protection Measures A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps hate been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For example, the state has enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as part of its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are to be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a .few airport-area municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not (although most have some noise protection/insulation standards for new construction). If the airport is to continue to function in an efficient, safe manner,: it is.important that steps be taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider: • Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board. • Putting "teeth" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that "local compliance is ensured. At the same time, the state legislature must address the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage award against them. • Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they specify preferred result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in achieving a specified objective. • Providing land use planning assistance to local governments so that they can comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to airport impacts. 9 q-ice AIRPORT .IMPACT MITIGATION TOOLS SUMMARY TOOL SOURCE OF ~XAIVIPLE AUTHORITY/FUNDING Property Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota . Oak Park, Illinois, equity assurance program. Preferential Tax Programs State of Minnesota Minnesota urban home- steading legislation. Housing Revitalization State of Minnesota Minnesota "This Old House" Programs legislation tax credits for home renovation. Tax Increment Financing State of Minnesota Current state tax increment Expansion financing legislation.. Community Development. MAC/State/Airport-Related South Shore Bank in Bank Businesses Chicago. Community Incentive Airport-Related Businesses/ Large real-estate Programs MAC developments; ski resorts. C 10 1 ~~ ~ ~ .o ~ - .J .~ i% ~,~.-- i ~C ~i N i ~~ C` ~~--~ i Z ~ ~~ _ "'~~ ~ Na [ .F" :, x ~ '~ _ u `_ ~i ~ f ,. Fr---., a~ ~ s~ r~ >~, s ~ ~ _....,......- ~ ,I -- -- ~ ~ ,~ ~ i! {~ Li M ~`~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ '+"~ ~ 1 •~ ~ ~ N ' ~~ c~ _ ~~ Q T --' S i n /1 ~ i) ..._..._ _. ~F ~ 3 ' ~ ..J N ~ ~- =~= ~o e ~ _ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~` ~. N L } ~ ~~ . Q ~ ~ ! o .~ .. ~ ~ Q ~ -- -~ `I .1 0 ~ ~" -tit ~ .~ IL 8 ~ `~ ~, ~~ N ~ .I ~ ~, a~ ~ L ~ zi r ~ n- 'r'-j W ~ ~~ ,., .N ,1 ~ .% ~;,. • • 9- /~F Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' Collaborative Efforts in Airport Planning GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments affected by airport operations are committed to maintaining- themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspective. To that end, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to redevelop the airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identification of the impacts. of MSP operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of a community stabilization and revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the airport at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to airport-area communities should not be applied in such a way as to result in undue burden to individual"'residents of affected communities. These cooperative planning efforts should not be interpreted as supporting the retention of MSP at its-current location or moving it to Dakota County. PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS: 1. To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse impacts related to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include new tools and the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax-increment financing, should be made available in the airport development area. 2. Airport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied and may affect a community in other ways. 3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governments and school districts. 4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, funds should be provided to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere in that community if feasible. 1'/ ~, 5. The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact `assistance, and the burdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment and quality of life, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the maximum extent feasible. 6. Steps .should be taken over time by each community in partnership with MAC and the Met Council to create compatible. zones around the airport. These zones should be accomplished through a combination. of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopment tools to assure that the zones remain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities. 7. Steps should be taken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing high-intensity uses in areas where existing. uses preclude application of safety zone development restrictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities to facilitate and expedite this process. No new schools, hospitals, and multi-family housing should be built in these areas. 8. Airport development area communities should take steps to ensure that all new and- infill development within the airport development area is compatible from anoise- and safety perspective. This should be accomplished through the use of improved building codes, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions. 9. Steps should be taken to assure that existing as well as future .community-wide . redevelopment plans associated with airport development area impacts are integrated into the community's overall plan. (to include the addition of community-wide amenities...) 10. The Met Council should take primary responsibility on behalf of and in cooperation with affected airport development area communities to ensure that the above-listed principles and concepts are fully considered in the dual-track process. These principles and concepts should be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the Dual Track Decision Document. • 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 256 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Resolution adopting the proposed budget and property tax levy for the year 1996 and setting Truth-in-Taxation hearing dates, and resolutions canceling certain 1996 bonded debt levies. Background: As required by the Truth-in-Taxation legislation (M.S. 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 1996 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 1995. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. In addition, each "taxing authority" must certify to their County Auditor the date that has been selected for the Truth-in-Taxation hearing by September 15, 1995. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the. hearing dates of the County or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth-in-Taxation public. hearing must be held between November 29 and December 20, .1995. Pursuant to City Charter, a 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed Budget and tax levy was presented to the City Council at the August 30, 1995 Special City Council meeting. A presentation of the budget and discussion occurred at that meeting. The proposed tax levy of $7,637,200 is an increase of 2.48% or $185,000 over the previous year's gross levy. The proposed levy includes $2,000 for the portion of estimated 77th Street maintenance allocated to the apartments. Apartment property was assessed at a rate one-third of the commercial properties. In addition to the 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed Budget and preliminary property tax levy, City staff. is also recommending dates for this year's Truth-in-Taxation public hearing. It is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 6, 1995 with a continuation date of 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 13, 1995, if necessary. As Council Members are aware, at that public hearing, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary tax levy, but not increased. In addition, Hennepin County has requested that the City submit resolutions canceling any 1996 bonded debt levy. Hennepin County has requested the resolutions at this time to reflect the cancellations in the parcel specific property tax notices mailed in November. The total amount of the 1996 bonded debt levy that staff recommends be canceled is $1,773,219. There are sufficient funds available in the Debt Service Funds to meet 1996 debt service payments. ~-i Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution certifying a proposed property tax levy and budget for 1996, and setting a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., December 6, 1995 with a continuation date of 7:00 p.m., December 13, 1995, if necessary, and adopt the attached resolutions canceling certain 1996 bonded debt levies. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Truth-in-Taxation timelines establish the process that must be followed. to adopt a preliminary property tax levy. September 15 is the deadline for cities to submit a 1996 proposed property tax levy, Proposed 1996 Budget and Truth-in-Taxation hearing dates to the County Auditor. 2. The recommended dates are available according to the Hennepin County Auditor. 3. The budget and tax levy are ready for consideration. 4. Discussions regarding the budget and tax levy were held on August 30, 1995. 5. The preliminary tax levy includes $2,000 for the apartment portion of the 1996 77th Street maintenance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could adopt either a greater or lesser 1996 preliminary property tax levy, 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed Budget or select other allowable Truth-in- Taxation hearing dates. 2. The City Council could defer the cancellation of the 1996 bonded debt levies until a subsequent Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: The September 11, 1995 City Council meeting date is critical in the process. The Proposed 1996 Levy and Truth-in-Taxation must be presented to the County Auditor's office on September 15, 1995. Failure to do so would place the City out of compliance with the Truth-in-Taxation Statute and would, at minimum, forfeit the City's tax levy increase over the previous year's levy. Respectfully submitted, James rosser City Manager JDP:ds ~-~- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1996 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 1995, and then recertified before December 31, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The proposed budget for the City of Richfield for the year 1996 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative Executive Administrative Services Community Development Public Safety Community Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 193,710 435,000 967, 340 222,190 6,975,730 4,209,630 111,670 $13,115,270 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1996, which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 1996 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,115,270 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1995, payable in 1996 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $7,637,200 ~-3 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association and the Fire Relief Association. All authorized levies for debt service will be canceled as there are sufficient funds available to pay 1996 principal and interest. See separate resolutions for the cancellation of the tax levies for debt service. 4. The proposed budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 1996 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1995, payable in 1996 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $149,800 Relocation Information Services and Assistance $ 14,950 5. A certified, copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. 6. The Truth in Taxation public hearings shall be set for 7:00 p.m. December 6, 1995 with a continuation hearing at 7:00 p.m. December 13, 1995, if necessary. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST:. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk fr~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1983 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6842 provided for the sale of $825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment earnings thereon exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds, and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 6842 in the amount of $27,531 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~j ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1977 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5753 provided for the sale of $4,500,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1977 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5753 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1996 of $222,800 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1977; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to substantial prepayment in previous years of special assess- ments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there are presently funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1977 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 5753 in the amount of $222,800 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7100 provided for the sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, ilt appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment from the Project Area exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 7100 in the amount of $25,788 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk -~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 provided for the sale of $6,100,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1996 of $489,000 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to substantial prepayment in previous years of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there are presently funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1980 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 6310 in the amount of $489,000 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~-S RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON REFUNDING BONDS OF 1978 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5836 provided for the sale of $6,500,000 Refunding Bonds. of 1978 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5852 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1996 of $208,800 for payment of principal and interest on the Refunding Bonds of 1.978; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to substantial prepayment in previous years of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there are presently funds available in the Refunding Bonds of 1978 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 5852 in the amount of $208,800 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk g- i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON REDEVELOPMENT BONDS OF 1977 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5752 provided .for the sale of $4,700,000 Redevelopment .Bonds of 1977 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1996, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment from the Project Area exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1995, collectible in 1996, on Resolution No. 5752 in the amount of $799,300 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 255 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating Queen Avenue between 62nd and 64th Streets. Background: On March 27, 1995, the City Council approved a request by Fraser School to amend their conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the school. The expansion creates a need for more parking, which can be provided along a vacated Queen Avenue. The vacation has been delayed until agreement could be reached on a stormwater management plan for the site. Staff has now approved the storm water management plan. On August 14, 1995, the Council approved first reading of the transitory ordinance. All property owners adjacent to this portion of Queen Avenue have signed a petition to vacate. In addition, the owners have signed an easement agreement that will allow the businesses along this portion of Queen Avenue continued access to 64th Street. Recommended Motion: Conduct the public hearing and approve the attached transitory ordinance to vacate a portion of Queen Avenue, subject to a drainage and utility easement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This portion of the street is no longer needed for public right-of--way. 2. Additional parking is needed for Fraser School along Queen Avenue. 3. -Staff has approved the stormwater management plan for Fraser School. 4. The vacation would be subject to an existing drainage and utility easement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny the vacation. 2. Delay action. Discussion/Decision Mode: Se tember A public hearing and second reading are scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, p 11, 1995. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City ager JDP:ds ~-~ BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT FOR QUEEN AVENUE BETWEEN 62ND AND 64TH STREETS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public street purposes for Queen Avenue: The West 30 feet of the East 330 feet of the South 1 /2 of the East 3/8 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 28, Range 24; EXCEPT the south 33 feet thereof. and The West 30 feet of that part of the East 360 feet of the East 3/8 of the East 1 /2 of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29 Township 28, Range 24 lying south of the North 175 feet thereof; EXCEPT the south 33 feet thereof. Sec. 2 The fee owner of abutting land, Whitbeck Fraser School, has petitioned for the vacation of that part of Queen Avenue as described in Section 1 of this ordinance. Sec. 3. The area to be vacated is occupied by the following utilities: public water main. Provided that a drainage and utility easement is reserved in favor of the. City of Richfield, the proposed vacation of the street easement will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace any utility facilities that are located within the area to be vacated. Sec. 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for a street easement over that portion of Queen Avenue as described in Section 1. Sec. 5. The street easement over that portion of Queen Avenue, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, is hereby vacated; reserving, however, to the City of Richfield a drainage and utility easement over the area vacated. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~-~ W a z a _C a J J n r W a z z W a A. STREET TO BE VACATED 8-4-95 NORTH 63RD ST. G4 i n sr. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 254 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to rezone the following MR (multiple residence) properties: (1) rezone 2400 West 64th Street from MR to R (single family residence) and 6400-6444 Queen Avenue from MR to MR-3 (high density multi- family), (2) rezone 2401-2421 West 65th Street; 2400-2420 West 65 1/2 Street; and 2412 West 66th Street from MR to R, (3) rezone 2405 West 66th Street from MR to MR-2 (multi- family residence) and 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2 (general commercial), (4) rezone 2720-2730 West 66th Street from MR to MR-3, (5) rezone 2020 East 66th Street from MR to R, and (6) rezone 2200-2208 East 66th Street from MR to R and 2216-2228 East 66th Street from MR to MR-2. Backaround: Over the past several years, staff has reviewed the zoning ordinance for revision and update. Analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective because its provisions are incomplete, outdated and ambiguous. The MR district has no density limitation and incorporates the single family uses of the R district as well as two family and multi- family developments. The MR district was the original and only multi-family district when Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR-1 (two family), MR-2 (medium density multi-family), and MR-3 (high density multi-family) districts were created to provide more precise controls for the expanding variety of multi-family housing. When the MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 districts were added, all but 90 MR parcels were rezoned to fit into that classification system. Staff reinitiated the rezoning process a couple of years ago when they began revising the zoning ordinance. As a continuation of this process, these properties are being evaluated and presented for reclassification to the most appropriate land use zone. The proposed zoning designations for the subject parcels are consistent with the existing land use and with the Comprehensive Plan. On August 14, 1995, the City Council approved first reading of the amendment. Recommended Motion: Hold the public hearing and adopt a motion to approve an amendment rezoning 2400 West 64th Street from MR to R; 6400-6444 Queen Avenue from MR to MR-3; 2401-2421 West 65th Street, 2400-2420 West 65 1/2 Street, and 2412 West 66th Street from MR to R; 2405 West 66th Street from MR to MR-2; 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2; 2720-2730 West 66th Street from MR to MR-3; 2020 East 66th Street from MR to R; 2200-2208 East 66th Street from MR to R; and 2216-2228 East 66th Street from MR to MR-2. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date with current land use practices and the Comprehensive Plan. ~-i 2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the City and an update to a more appropriate district is needed: 3. The text of the zoning ordinance has been updated to eliminate the MR district. It is appropriate to rezone the designated areas so the map is consistent with the text of the ordinance. 4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing single family and private school uses and would ensure that higher density development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does .not occur. 5. The proposed MR-3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 20 unit and 23 unit apartment buildings while offering proper regulatory control .for future land uses. The MR-3 district allows multi-family dwellings with eight or fewer units. Dwellings with 9 to 25 units are allowed as a conditional use. 6. The proposed MR-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing four unit. and seven unit apartment buildings and would ensure that higher density development does not occur. The MR-2 district allows multifamily dwelling with eight or fewer units. Dwellings with 9 to 25 units are allowed as a conditional use. 7. The proposed C-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing office use and is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the parcel at 2409 West 66th Street as mixed land use. 8. The affected property owners have been notified of the proposed rezoning. 9. On July 25, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could deny this rezoning. 2. The City Council could rezone the subject parcels to a classification which is inconsistent with the existing land use, however, that could result in the creation of nonconforming uses. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, September 11, 1995. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owner within 350 feet of subject parcels. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ~-z Bill No. 1995- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 3, Paragraph (63) is amended to read as follows: (63) M-10 (SE corner 66th and Russell) Lots 4 & 5. Block 2. Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition. Section 5, Paragraph (4) is amended to read as follows: (4) M-9. 10 W side of Oueen. near 64th1 That area lying between the east lines of both Leslie Terrace Addition and Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 2, Richfield Gardens, and the center line of Queen Avenue extended; and between the center lines of 62nd and ~~+'~ 63rd Streets. Section 5, Paragraph (5) is amended to read as follows: (5) r~ o i n TL, + i i. +, ^or +t,o ^ „+or i;„o~ ^~v„~~oii .,r,a n„oo., "„^.,,,v~ .,r,a o T• a ~ T2 +1, r • „~„ u;ii~ n .a,7;+;,,,, ^,.+ r „+ i .,.,a +t,o o„~+ ~~ ~ o+ „~r „+ ~ ; .,;,a ~ r hlesl~ fRepealedl. Section 5, Paragraph (13) is amended to read as follows: (13) ~^,.a T,,,,,., "aa;+;^„ Re Baled . Section 5, Paragraph (15) is amended to read as follows: (15) ems: fRepealedl. Section 5, Paragraph (24) is amended to read as follows: (241 Ad 1 ') /AT~I7 ~~+1, .,.,,.a '11 ~+l T +~ 1 2 rl 1 A TZ1....1~ n T~To,,. ~..,..a T.,,,,,~, l 1 ~ , crLr.7sTnoso-r~-c'u-rc~r ~~~zovxc-~~ " a Re Baled . I~-3 Section 12, Paragraph (35) is amended to read as follows: (35) M-10 (SW of 66th and Oueen) All of Lot 3 and Lot 2 except for the east 33 feet thereof,, Block 2, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition. Section 12, Paragraph (36) is amended to read as follows: (361 M_1 (at 66th and Standish) Lots 13 and 14. Block 6, and Lots 10 and 11, Block 7 in New Ford Town Addition. Section 13, Paragraph (15) is amended as follows: ~15~(W side of Queen. near 64th) That area lying between the east line of Harrv Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 2. Richfield Gardens, and the center line of O_ueen Avenue extended: and between the center lines of 64th and 65th Streets. Section 13, Paragraph (16) is amended as follows: ~16,~_(N side. 66th at Upton) The west 1/2 of the south 1/2 of lot 12. Richfield Gardens. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: (1) rezone 2400 West 64th Street from MR to R and 6400 and 6444 Queen Avenue from MR to MR-3, (2) rezone 2401, 2409, 2415, 2421 West 65th Street; 2400, 2401, 2408, 2409, 2414, 2415, and 2420 West 65 1/2 Street; and 2412 West 66th Street from MR to R, (3) rezone 2405 West 66th Street from MR to MR-2 and 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2, (4) rezone 2720 and 2730 West 66th Street from MR to MR-3, (5) rezone 2020 East 66th Street from MR to R, (6) rezone 2200, 2204, and 2208 East 66th Street from MR to R and 2216, 2220, 2224, and 2228 East 66th Street from MR to MR-2. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of August, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk REZONING .PLAN EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING LLI N ~ ~ LLI > : - - W Q > W Q W > a' Q Q I--' Z LLI Q Z .: . LLI Z :~ : LLJ W > W > J W': '> W:: -~ r2 J W ;• : Q J : Q ~ V, ~ ~ Q W ~~ W =~; ~Z N a V Z N Q: : Z N C~:: : Z N - CJ Z N :Z N ~ a ~ 64TH•.ST.••. a ~ 64TH•ST. ~' 64TH ST. ..................... 65TH ST. 6400-44 Queen Ave. MR ~ ;:;:;:;:; MR-3 ~ R TH ST. 65TH ST. (~r`' REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST. JJ JJ j W NG E J . Q J~ Q j INGLE W F MI Ja J' W ~. N 651 ~ V N 65 1 2 ST. J~ .; N 65 1 2 ST. J~ j F MILY ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ j J SI GL O ~ '~ U ~ J FAMILY OJ ~ J 30 UNIT INGLE ~ J J J' APT. BLDG. AMILY j j J J J J J VAC. • J JJ JJ JJ JJ J. J J J J J 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 2401-21 West 65th St. 2400-20 West 65 1i2 St. 2412 West 66th St. J J J J J MR JJJ"JJJJJJJ G_Z J J J J MR-1 ~ R ~ ~QNN~NG N PMR ZONING ~„„~.,nn,,.~„e1.Nnent..,irYnoM AN ~`~ REZONING PL EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST. J J J J J JJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJ JJJ JJ JJJ J ~ ~ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 5 A /IS C J J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ i ~li ~ O JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ O ~~~ ~ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ' J J J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J J 8 UNIT y. APT. a ~ BLDG. ui ~ ui a J Q Q J Q a LL J w 10 UNIT Z w Z w w N APT. w N w cn w ~ BLDG. ~ _ > > Q ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 UNIT APT. ~ BLDG. z 4 UNIT APT. BLDG. 67TH ST. 67TH ST. 67TH ST. 2405-09 West 66th St. ® MR JJJJ J J J C-2 . JJ JJJJJJJ ~~ N ' NG N MR-2 ~R ZONING con,munlty oe~opnoM nap~re+w~n ~r~ REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE PARK i u a > a 23 UNIT ~ . ~ APT - N . TWO w a BLDG. 23 UNIT ~ ~ V ~ Z APT. Z = ~ BLDGS in E- . COM ERCIAL DUPLE 66TH ST. EXISTING ZONING ui ui J J J J J J J J J J J J a J J J J J J J J Q J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J L J J J J J J J J J J J J J r V/ J J J J J J J ~J J J J J J J J J J Q W JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ~r J J J J J J J J J J J U J J J J J J J J J J J O J J J J J J J J J J J J Z J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ` / JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JJJJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J 66TH ST. PROPOSED ZONING u .i ui ` J J J J J J JJJ J J J J J J ^^^^•^ Q ) J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^^^^ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J •^^^•• J J J J J J J J J J J J) ^^^^^•^ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^•^ J J J J J J J ^^^^• •^ ^ • ^ ^ • ^ J J J J Z JJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J ^ • ^ ^ • • ^ J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJ J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • J J J J J J U J J J J J] J ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ J J J J J J J J J ^ ^ O J J J J J J ^ ^ ^ ^ J J J J J J J J J J JJJJJ J J J J ^^^^^^^ Z ) J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^^• T J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^^^^ JJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J •^^^•• .L - J J J J J J )JJ J J J J J ^ J J J J ^ ^ J J J J J J J ^ J J J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J J JJJ J J JJJ J J J J J ^^•^^^ J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^^^^ J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^^^^ JJJ J J J J J J J JJJJ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ JJ ) J J J J J J J J JJJ J 66TH ST. 2720-30 West 66th St. MR ))JJJJJJJJ C-2 ~°r MR-1 R ~ ~ PLANtVING o N ^'^•^•^•^ MR-3 ZONING Canmunlly DclreloptneM DaparhtwM REZONING PLAN ~~~ .EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 65TH ST. ui a O N i ....................~....................a 66TH ST. n r N 65TH ST. ..................... .................... 66TH ST. u.i a Q N LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPT 15 UNIT APT. BLDG. ON MR-2 PARCEL ui a T N 2020 East Stith St. ~, ~ Mq PLANNING Oq"' N~' _ ZONING ~``~ REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE 65T H ST. } x w W > ~ 'e W VAC. Q ~ y W Q W . FAM. N ~' Q U J LL Z o > Z = W ~ N SIN LE Q M N FA ILY N N N 4 4 V S U I S F M Q P I S LL VAC. . N 66TH ST. EXISTING ZONING 65TH ST. W Q Q N Q N M N Q F- N N 66TH ST. PROPOSED ZONING 65 TH ST. W Q LLI LLJ a N a Z Z ~ N N N 66T H ST. 2204-28 East 66th St. s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 253 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Continuance of public hearing to consider specially assessing the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) area for current services for the period January 1 through December 31, 1996, City Project No. 91.2 (continued from August 28, 1995). Background: The City Council scheduled a public hearing for August 28, 1995 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in the LHN redevelopment area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to.all owners of commercial property in the area and was published in the official newspaper as required by law. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1996 is $47,600. All commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. On August 28, 1995, the City Council took action to continue the public hearing to September 11, 1995. Recommended Motion: Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the LHN maintenance work for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 (City Project No. 912) to be performed and the costs specially assessed. Basis of .Recommendation: 1. Notice of the proposed assessment- has been published in the official newspaper. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the proposed assessment. 3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful the past years. These current services have been ,provided and specially assessed to this commercial district since 1985. Alternative Recommendation: None. 5'I Discussion/Decision Mode: The continuance of the August 28, 1995 public hearing has been scheduled for September 11, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City ager JDP:ds Attachment RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996 -CITY PROJECT N0.912 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain services be undertaken by the City in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 28, 1995 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; h. Operation of the street lighting system; i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; j. Maintenance of civic plaza; k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; L Painting and repair of wood furniture; and m. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 5~3 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 1996. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~T CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 252 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for one hydraulic shoring (trench box). Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.. This equipment is needed to provide safe access in order to excavate deep water main breaks, storm and sanitary sewers. This equipment will be used in addition to the present box to make repairs when other utility lines such as electric and gas are present. The trench box now owned by the City is not deep enough. Two vendors were contacted for quotations. The quotes are as follows: Prairie Equipment $7,695 Minneapolis Equipment Company $9,243 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Prairie Equipment in the amount of $7,695 to purchase one hydraulic shoring. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The existing trench boxes are not adequate to provide a safe working environment when repairing very deep water main breaks. 2. Prairie Equipment submitted the low quote. 3. The 1995 Storm Water Maintenance budget contains $8,000 for the purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better prices .will be offered for the shoring. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the September 11, 1995 Council meeting. Respectfu submitted, James rosser City Manager JDP:ds 41+ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 251 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for street lights in 6700 block of Penn Avenue. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The 6700 block of Penn Avenue has never had street lights. Recent requests to provide lights on this block have resulted in staff investigating several options, but the narrow right-of--way, and extensive asphalt and concrete paving, makes proper placement of the fixtures difficult. The decision was made to install three lights on the back edge of the sidewalk on the east boulevard. The property owners at 6715 Penn Avenue and 6725 Penn Avenue have agreed to give easements for the placement of two lights. The third will be placed on the 67th Street boulevard. Quotes have been obtained to install concrete bases and underground wiring as follows: Eagan McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc. $12,854 Collisys 9,550 The City will supply poles and fixtures at a cost of $1,908 and will repair bituminous as necessary for an estimated cost of $1,000. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order in the amount of $9,500 to Collisys for street lights in 6700 block of Penn Avenue. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Collisys is a reputable electrical contractor. 2. Collisys submitted the low quotation. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to not install Penn Avenue street lights. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval at this time will allow the street lights to be installed in a timely fashion and cause no further delay in the installation process. Staff is requesting approval at the September 11, 1995 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James rosser City Ma ger JDP:ds ~{ /1 _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 250 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for photo imaging booking system for use by the Public Safety Police Division. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Currently, persons arrested and booked at Richfield are photographed using a 35mm camera. Photographs to be used for identification in criminal investigations are obtained from Richfield's own arrest files and the arrest files of other agencies. The Hennepin County Sheriff s Department has changed their mug shot booking system to a computerized, photo imaging system. Several other metropolitan cities and counties either already have or will be switching to this system by June 1, 1996. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Xlmage Corporation for: QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Capture ImageStation - 24 Bit $14,500 $14,500 Includes: Necessary hardware and software 1 Large Color Monitor Multiscan Upgrade - 17 in. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 Hitzchi HV-C10F Camera Subsystem $13,800 $13,800 Includes: Lighting, cables, and connectors 1 Remote Pan and Tilt Mechanism $ 1,200 $ 1,200 1 Tektronix Phaser 540 Color Laser Printer $12,000 $12,000 1 Shipping, Installation and Training $ 5,100 $ 5,100 TOTAL $47,800 Basis of Recommendation: 1. Provide on-site access to Hennepin County jail records. 4G-I 2. Provide on-site access to Scott, Anoka, and Ramsey counties' jail records; several municipal agencies' records, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension registered sex offender records within 12 months. Potential access to Dakota and Washington County records, also. 3. On-site access eliminates travel time spent retrieving information and photographs from other jurisdictions. 4. Provides ability to search records using available information on unknown suspect to identify potential suspect(s). 5. Purchase is from Hennepin County Contract 2740A3. 6. Adequate funds are available in 1995 revised budget to cover the purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Deny approval and continue using existing 35mm camera for booking system and access records through in-person and telephone contacts. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approve the purchase in excess of $5,000 for the imaging system, in the amount of $47, 800. Respectfully submitted, Ja .Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds ~{F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 249 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for payment of trip to Bayfield,Wisconsin. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shill be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The Richfield Community Center regularly offers travel programs to older adults. This request is for payment for a fall trip to Bayfield. Revenues have been collected to cover the cost. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order in the amount of $7,695 to Medicine Lake Tours for trip to Bayfield, Wisconsin. Basis of Recommendation: 1. People have registered and paid for the trip. 2. Payment is due to the tour provider. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the consent calendar of the September 11 City Council meeting. Action is requested at this time. Respectful) submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~' Council Letter No. 248 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of Richfield Lake Outlet Project: 1. Resolution authorizing signing of Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT. 2. Award of contract to Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. Background: Cooperative Agreement: The construction of an outlet for Richfield Lake is included in the 1995 Capital Improvement Budget at a cost of $275,000 using Storm Water Utility Funds. The new pipe is to be placed under Rae Drive from near the post office across 66th Street to Wood Lake. The pipe will be jacked under 66th Street. The City was successful in gaining majority funding through MnDOT's .Cooperative Agreement Program for the State's fiscal year 1996 beginning July 1, 1995. The Cooperative Construction Agreement identifies cost participation based upon pre-bid estimated costs. The agreement will be adjusted to actual costs upon completion of the work. MnDOT costs: $355,197.50 Construction (estimate) 28;415.80 Construction Engineering 30.000.00 Contingency $413,613.30 Total Richfield costs: $ 6,066.00 Richfield's costs are limited to those needed to correct a washout due to drainage from the Wood Lake Nature Center parking lot. The,Storm Water Utility will fund this expense. MnDOT officials justify their expense because relief to the Richfield Lake watershed is needed to allow any increase in paved surface in the Crosstown Commons/I-35W area that drains to Richfield Lake. Significant features of the Cooperative Agreement other than the cost split include: • Designation of the City of Richfield as the contract administrator and construction engineer. MnDOT reserves the right to review the bids and concur with the award prior to signing the contract. • Identify methods to approve changes in work. • Determination of method used to share claims paid by the contractor. • Stipulates the City of Richfield is to be paid in advance once contract is signed. • Designates long term maintenance of the facility to the City of Richfield. As a cooperating agency and major financial contributor to the project, MnDOT reserves the right to review the bids and concur with Richfield's decision to award the contract before the contract can be signed. A delay of up to a month can occur before the City can sign the ~~f contract. This delay may cause some of the work to carry over to 1996. Award of Contract: Bids for the Richfield Lake Outlet Project were opened in a formal bidding process on August 31, 1995 with the following results: Contractor Bid Barbarossa & Sons $349,562.35 Lametti & Sons $355,732.00 S. M. Hentges $377,581.00 Ryan Contracting $399,492.80 G. L. Contracting $402,426.05 Arcon Contracting $402,848.78 Northdale Construction $408,199.30 C. S. McCrossan $431,829.70 The engineer's estimate for the work is $370,167.50. The bid minutes and tabulation are attached. Recommended Motion: 1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor and City Manager to enter-into a Cooperative Agreement No. 73972 .between the City of Richfield and MnDOT for the. construction of the Richfield Lake outlet. 2. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award the contract for the Richfield Lake Outlet Project pending concurrence by MnDOT. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Richfield Lake Outlet Project is included in the 1995 Capital Improvement Budget. 2. MnDOT funding through the Cooperative Agreement Program removes most of the funding burden from Richfield Storm Water Utility. 3. Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder and has a proven track record with this type of project. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all quotations and instruct staff to rebid. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the September 11, 1995 City Council agenda. Prompt approval will allow the contract to be signed after MnDOT concurrence. Work can then begin this year. Respectfully submitted, Jam .Prosser City anager JDP:ds Attachment ~E ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 73972 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE RICHFIELD LAKE OUTLET PROJECT WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield (City) enter into Agreement No. 73972 on the Richfield Lake Outlet Project; and WHEREAS, the Cooperative Agreement No. 73972 provides State funds for the City to pay for the cost of the street reconstruction, storm sewer and sediment basin construction and other associated construction to be performed east of Trunk Highway No. 35W between Richfield Lake and Wood Lake from Engineer Station 10+40 (Inlet to Wood Lake) to Engineer Station 26+30 (Outlet to Richfield Lake) upon, along and adjacent to Rae Drive within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-261 (T.H. 35W=394) and City Project No. 708-1584. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~~ Bid Opening August 31, 1995 2:00 p.m. Storm Sewer Installation, Pipe Jacking Street Reconstruction and Appurtenant Work City Project No. 708-1584 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for storm sewer installation, pipe jacking, street reconstruction. and appurtenant work , as advertised in the official newspaper on August 9, 16, and 23, 1995. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount Arcon Construction Co., Inc. Mora, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 402,848.78 Ryan Contracting, Inc. Shakopee, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 399,492.80 Northdale Construction Co., Inc. Rogers, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 408,199.30 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. Osseo, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 349,562.35 S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Jordan, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 377,58.1.00 Lametti & Sons, Inc. Hugo, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 355,732.00 G. L. Contracting, Inc. Medina, MN 5% Bid Bond $402,426.05 C.S. McCrossen Construction, Inc. Maple Grove, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 431,829.70 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 11, 1995 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk yQ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 247 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for a renewal of a currency exchange license for Check Express Minnesota, 6525 Nicollet Avenue. Background: On August 21, 1995, the City of Richfield received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Check Express Minnesota located at 6525 Nicollet Avenue. A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days receipt of the State's notification. The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $50. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders or travelers checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, officer, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. All of this information has been provided to the State of Minnesota and a background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Cary D. Geller and Richard P. Krietzman. Cary Geller resides in the City of Edina, and Richard Krietzman resides in Minneapolis. Richfield Public Safety Department has conducted a background investigation on the applicants. There were 12 Public Safety contacts with this establishment from September 1, 1994 through August 30, 1995. They were: two bicycle thefts and ten false burglary alarms -- nine billable and one non-billable. 40--I Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council approve a license for Check Express, 6525 Nicollet Avenue. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. 2. A background investigation of the applicants finds no reason to recommend denial of the license. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could deny the license request; however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval for the issuance of a currency exchange license by the State of Minnesota for Check Express Minnesota, 6525 Nicollet Avenue, is submitted for City Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City anager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Council Letter No. 246 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees. Background: There is a resolution on the September 11, 1995 City Council agenda certifying a special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees to Hennepin County. This assessment is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain properties in the City which are not properly maintained by their owners, and for uncollected false alarm fees. For the nuisance abatement, the owner of the subject property was notified by the City to correct the nuisance and failed to do so within a timely limit. The property owner was notified that if the nuisance was not abated within the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. For false alarm fees, the fees were billed to the property owners on a monthly basis. In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid charges may be assessed against the property for 1995. The attached resolution provides for these assessments against six properties in the total amount of $850.32. Recommended Motion: __ ,-adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees against the listed property owners in the total amount of $850.32. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The nuisance property was not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. 2. Three properties incurred false alarm fees which remain unpaid. 3. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 11, 1995 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Respectf II ubmitted, James osser City Man er JDP:ds ~e-i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS NUISANCE ABATEMENT: 34-028-24-34-0045 27-028-24-23-0059 26-028-24-43-0094 FALSE ALARM FEES: 27-028-24-24-0063 33-028-24-41-0152 27-028-24-34-0109 46530 7615 Pillsbury Ave 45725 515 W 64th St 46271 6929 12th Ave 44827 220 W 66TH ST 45605 7512 LYNDALE AVE 45295 6909 PLEASANT AVE AMOUNT $ 83.07 95.85 63.90 $242:82 $357.50 150.00 100.00 Total 607.50 850.32 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Council Letter No. 245 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Resolution certifying delinquent sewer and. water utility accounts to the County Auditor.. Background: Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also authorizes $25.00 certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 1994, the City Council certified $112,861.27 of delinquent charges for 404 properties, an average of $279.00 per account. Thee 1995 certification currently under consideration totals $156,391.85 for 602 properties, an average of $260.00 per account. Property owners owing water and sewer charges are notified on their summer quarter water bill that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners' taxes, on said properties. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties. Basis for Recommendation: 1. State Statute and City Ordinance provide that delinquent utility charges may be collected in this manner. 2. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent charges. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the September 11, 1995 City Council agenda to allow sufficient time for the charges to be certified to the County Auditor. Respectful) submitted, James rosser City Ma ger JDP:ds RESOLUTION NO. ~~ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE - CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075, provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property;. and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of $141,341.85. 2. That a $25.00 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totaling $15,050.00. 3. That the above described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 4A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 244 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction. Background: Each year the City of Richfield hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not properly maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and bills the property owner for the service. If the cost of the weed destruction is not paid by the property owner it may be assessed against the property for a one year period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against property in the amount of $255.60. In addition, the resolution provides for an 8% penalty. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction against the property owner in the amount of $255.60. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The property was not maintained by the owner and the City incurred costs to abate the weed nuisance. 2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 11, 1995 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Respectfully submitted, James D. tosser City Manager JDP:ds yA-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The described property is hereby specially assessed in the amount for the expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT 35-028-24-43-0008 44835 1200E 78th St $255.60 2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of September, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 243 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: .Receipt of report from Richfield legislators regarding 1994-95 legislative session. Background: The City Council adopts legislative initiatives on an annual basis. Initiatives are reviewed with legislators at the beginning of each legislative session. This past year, the City Council invited legislators back in order for the legislators to provide a summary. of the legislative. activities. Recommended Motion: Receive the report from legislators. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council direction. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to receive the report. 2. The Council may decide to defer the report to a later time although legislators have been invited to the meeting of September 11. Discussion/Decision Mode: Fthis item has been placed on the September 11 Council agenda. Respectful) submitted, Jame .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 242 Agenda September 11, 1995 Issue Statement: Meeting with the Community Services Commission. Background: The Special City Council meeting with the Community Services Commission is one of a series of meetings between the City's Boards and Commissions and the City Council. The purpose of this special meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for Commission Members to discuss with the City Council recent and current issues. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue between the City Council and the Commission. One issue to be discussed is the Capital Improvement Program and requests for improvement projects. Recommended Motion: There is no action recommended. Basis of Recommendation: The Council has provided an opportunity for the Community Services Commission to meet jointly with the Council to discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Any discussion which might ultimately lead to an action would have the consideration for specific action scheduled for a regular Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This special meeting has been scheduled for September 11, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Jams .Prosser City Hager JDP:ds Copy: Elayne Gilhousen, Community Services Commission Chair