Loading...
04-25-94 agaendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER I. 5:30-6:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STORMWATER SYSTEM: 1) DAMAGE FROM JULY 1, 1993 STORM AND POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS; 2) PRESENT STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY; 3) RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 14 ADJOURNMENT *****~*************~*******,t~t******~t*,t**~~***,t*******~r********** SPECIAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY HRA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN HRA AND CSM CORPORATION; ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HRA LETTER NO. 38 2. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND QUICK TAKE OF PHASE I, THE SHOPS AT LYNDALE, ILN . REDEVLOPMENT PROJECT HRA LETTER NO. 39 ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL HRA MEETING REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING. .SPECIAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRLL 11, 1994 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH REGULAR HRA MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING. MAY 1-7, 1994 NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK AND MAY 7, 1994 NATIONAL DRINKING WATER DAY COUNCIL LETTER N0. 121 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: 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 CALENDA~~ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. 4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND. AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS AND PARTIAL FEE TAKING; PHASES I AND II-77TH STREET PLAN C.L. 122 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR MODULAR OFFICE FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL FROM FACILITY SYSTEMS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,500 C.L. 123 C.~CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING GAMBLING ACTIVITY WITH FEE WAIVER REQUESTED BY FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555, 710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE C.L. 124 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF .RESOLUTION APPROVING EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY WITH FEE WAIVER REQUESTED BY THE ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS, 6600 NICOLLET AVENUE C.L. 125 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR NEW 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHAMPPS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE, 790 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER N0. 126 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: 1) 6409, 6415, 6421 AND 6429 BLAISDELL AVENUE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 2) 6227-29 AND 6237 PLEASANT AVENUE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; 3) 840 WEST 65TH STREET TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; AND 4) 920-24-28 RAE DRIVE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY COUNCIL LETTER N0. 127 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AT 7537 GIRARD AVENUE TO HRA; AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HRA COUNCIL LETTER N0. 128 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, CONSISTING OF MODIFICATION N0. 4 TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER N0. 129 RESOLUTIONS. 9.. CONSIDERATION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY PLAN FOR 76TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INCLUDING RESOLUTIONS: • APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO. 71587; • AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $466,344 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES OFF-SYSTEM FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PENN AVENUE • AUTHORIZING POSTING OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "NO PARKING ANYTIME" ON PENN AVENUE FROM 75TH STREET TO I-494 AND ON 76TH STREET FROM SHERIDAN AVENUE TO NEWTON AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 130 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS PROJECT), SERIES 1994 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 131 PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ~ OTHER BUSINESS 11. CONSIDERATION OF NEW APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR VETERINARIAN JOEL D. LOCKETZ FOR PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER N0. 132 12. CONSIDERATION OF NEW APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR GROOMING ANIMALS ONLY FOR PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 133 AIRPORT BUSINESS 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT .77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT • Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.14 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Discussion of stormwater system: 1) damage from July 1, 1993 storm and possible improvement options; 2) present Stormwater Capital Improvement Policy; 3) recommendation from the Community Services Commission. Background: At the January 3, 1994 Study Session, the City Council reviewed information on 1) damage from the July 1, 1993 storm; 2) present Stormwater Capital Improvement Policy; 3) outline of a stormwater grant program. A copy of the January 3, 1994 Council Letter No. 6 is attached. The City Council directed the Community Services Commission to review the Stormwater Capital Improvement Policy. The Community Services Commission reviewed the policy on January 11, 1994. The Commission then held a February 1, 1994 neighborhood meeting with the residents whose homes were affected by the July 1, 1993 storm. The Commission discussed the policy again at their February 8, 1994 meeting. At their March 8, 1994 meeting (minutes attached), the Commission made the following recommendations: 1. Richfield should revise the stormwater Capital Improvement Policy to include capital projects to provide relief to residences that do not have 1~ protection. The present policy uses 2~ protection. One percent protection is the standard used today in developing communities. The stormwater system studies completed following the 1977-78 storms and again following the 1987 storm outlined multi- million dollar ($6.3 million in 1987) improvements needed to produce 1$ protection for the entire City. The City took good advantage of the 77th Street project to accomplish many of the improvements contemplated in the 1987 study. The outlet for Wood Lake and eventually Richfield Lake, the additional stormwater storage in Washington Park, the piping system in 77th Street all combine to provide dramatic increase in protection City wide. One percent protection City wide may be within reach given the improvements being considered. 2. Richfield should initiate a stormwater grant program as outlined in the January 3, 1994 Council Letter attachment. The .cost split should be 50~ resident/50$ grant. The grant should apply to future projects only. 3. The Commission did not make a motion on additional funding but there was an apparent consensus that any improvements should be done on a "pay as you go" basis and that a $1 per quarter per residence increase should be added to the stormwater utility. The current storm water utility fee is $7.55 per quarter. Members of the Community Services Commission will be at the Study Session to explain their position and answer questions.. Recommended Motion: This is a discussion item. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The last major action of the Council related to stormwater damage was a result of the 1987 flood. 2. Residents in some areas of the community have expressed concern about stormwater damage as a result of the July 1, 1993 rain storm. -Alternative Recommendation: Because this is a discussion item, no .recommendation or alternative recommendation is made at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council discussion on April 25, 1994. Respect~.illy submitted, Ci . Prosser JDP:ds Attachments ._.~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.6 Agenda January 3, 1994 Issue Statement: Discussion of storm drainage system: 1) damage from July 1, 1993 storm and possible improvement options as a result of the storm and 2) present stormwater drainage capital improvement policy. Background• On July 1,•1993, Richfield received 1'~ inches of rain in less than 15 minutes - a very heavy rain for such a short period of time. Our stormwater drainage system was inundated in places and several areas in Richfield were flooded. City staff has met with affected residents to get a damage report ..and staff has considered multiple solutions related to the damage report. The two attachments outline the specifics: 1) damage report and alternative improvements from the July. 1, 1993 storm and 2) a history and outline of the current stormwater drainage capital improvement policy. Recommended Motion: This is a discussion item. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The last major action of the Council related to stormwater damage was a result of the 1987 flood. 2. Residents in some areas of the community have expressed concern about stormwater damage as a result .of the July 1, 1993 rain storm. Alternative Recommendation: Because this is a discussion item, no recommendation or alternative recommendation is made at this time. Discussioh/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council discussion on January 3, 1994. Respe t lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds 6-1 . -July 1,1-993 --. Damage Report and Stormwater Drainage Improvement Options • 6644 Logan Avenue - Basement floods periodically. Minor regrading of Fairwood Park will increase flood protection to this home. Estimated cost $6,000. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a 100-year design. • 6601 Stevens Avenue - This residence received two feet of stormwater in the basement. A boulevard berm and raised apron could be constructed at 6601 Stevens. Also, additional piping and catch basins can be constructed from the low point in 66th Street west of Second Avenue to the storm sewer. trunk line on Second Avenue. Most of the pipe work can be accomplished by working south of the 6bth Street south curbline without disturbing the 66th Street road bed. A storm sewer pipe can also be stubbed into 6601 Stevens. Estimated cost $22,000. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a greater than. 25 year design. The existing level of protection is approximately a 10-25 year design. • 7632 Logan Avenue - The backyards of this property and the neighboring properties are lower than the street. Stormwater collecting in this backyard area causes flooding in the garage and basement. The driveway apron could be raised and a storm sewer pipe be stubbed into the property. The property owner would be responsible for connection to the stub. Estimated cost $15,000. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a 100 year design. • 6645 Queen Avenue - Stormwater threatens underground parking. The apron to the alley be raised and a flap gate be installed in the storm sewer pipe in the alley. Estimated cost $7,500. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a 5-10 year design when water will come in contact with the structure. The existing level of protection is approximately a 2-5 year design. Property owners in the area have provided additional flood proofing to increase their level of protection to :prevent damage from rainfalls with higher intensities. • 7048 Cedar Avenue - Stormwater threatened the building and remained in the street for over an hour. Recent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) construction on Trunk Highway 77 left the boulevard on the east side of the Cedar Avenue frontage road too high. MnDOT crews lowered the boulevard. A MnDOT/City of Richfield study of drainage in the area is being pursued. There may be an opportunity to store water in the open area in the northeast corner of Cedar Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard. The cost to the City would be prorated. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option is dependent on the size of basin that could feasibly be constructed and the drainage area that can be directed to the basin. ~' .~ • 6900 Block of Russell Avenue - Several homes on the south end, west side of the block had water enter through the window wells into the basement. Staff met with the neighbors in this area on August 31, 1993. City staff and drainage consultant .continue to work on home floodproofing options for-the homeowners. A flap gate in the Russell Avenue storm sewer is also an option. Estimated cost for City crews to install the flap gate is $500.. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option will increase slightly but will not significantly change from the existing 10-25 year design. See 6900 block of Penn Avenue alternative #3 for another possible option. • 6900 Block of Penn Avenue - One house on the west side had its basement full of water. Several other houses had lesser .amounts of water in the basement. Staff met with neighbors on October 13, 1993. There are three options available: 1. Leave as is. The owner, developer, and house builder of the affected lots built the houses or walkouts to the houses below street grade. The City could take .the position that the owner, developer, and builder are responsible for those decisions. The neighbors contend that developments elsewhere in the City have caused the problem. Estimated cost $0. Estimated level of protection currently is less than an 2$ chance or less than a 50 year design. . 2. Provide a berm up to one foot high to delay and retard the overtopping of the water from Penn Avenue to the backyards. This would .allow more water to be stored in Penn Avenue. The owner of the apartment building across the street sees this as a threat. Also the property owner at 6921 Penn continues to decline to grant an easement; condemnation maybe required for the .project to proceed. City staff has met with County staff to investigate adjustments to the Penn Avenue surfacing. Estimated cost $20,000. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a 50 year design should there be a lot of traffic with water standing in the street for an extended period of time. The exact level of protection is difficult to define because of variable traffic impacts. A small amount of water overflowing from wave action, for example, can be contained in back yard areas without; sustaining property damage. The current range of protection is a 10-50 year design. 3. Some residents in the block suggest that the City buy them out. The idea would need additional consideration by the City. It does appear, however, that if the single family homes were purchased and removed, there would be space available for stormwater storage or a combination of stormwater storage and housing (perhaps townhouses or condos).. stormwater storage is in critical short supply in this area. The storage would provide relief to the 6900 block of Russell, specifically, and to the neighborhoods west of Wood Lake, generally.. Estimated. cost $750,000. Estimated level of protection as a result of this improvement option would approach a 100 year design for the 6900 block of Russell as well as for the 6900 block of Penn. ~ ~3 Present Stormwater Drainage Capital Improvement Policy HISTORY In 1985, Richfield initiated a storm drainage utility. A brochure, which explains the stormwater drainage utility, was mailed to residents in 1985. There are three uses for the storm drainage utility funds: - Operation and maintenance of the storm sewer piping system and storm ponds. - Planning and operation of storm water .quality monitoring and improvements. - Making. capital improvements to the stormwater drainage system. The first two uses have been relatively stable. The third use, capital outlays, varies from year to year depending upon what improvements were made to the system. The brochure identified five capital projects for which the City bonded: - 69th Street relief sewer (affecting area of Penn Avenue to Wood .Lake, 66th Street to 70th Street, estimated $100,000). - 76th Street and Washburn Avenue relief sewer ($200,000). - Norby's Pond relief sewer ($900,000). - Wilson Pond (Christian Park) relief sewer ($600,000). - 66th Street, Xerxes .Avenue to Upton Avenue, relief sewer ($200,000). There are approximately 14 years of about $230,000 annual bond payments remaining for these improvements. There have been numerous minor capital improvements built as opportunities have presented themselves. A major $600,000 improvement was made on Xerxes Avenue south of 69th Street to Adams Hi11 Park. One hundred thousand dollars has been reserved in the Storm Drainage Utility account to pay for the local share of drainage improvements needed with the 77th Street project. The available cash balance in the Storm Drainage Utility Fund as of December 31, 1992 is $309,970. PRESENT POLICY On September 26, 1988, the City Council addressed capital improvements to the storm drainage system (see attached City Council letter). These improvements were reviewed by the Community Services Commission. The criteria used were: - Benefit/cost ratio for the improvement project must be greater than 1. / ~ . ~-, -.Projects considered for funding must be within areas where ' structural damage is likely to occur for rainfall events with a 2$ or greater chance of occurrence. - Improvements should be constructed on public property. - Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer utility. - City should provide technical expertise and education to residents in areas not meeting these criteria. - City may reasonably support improvements with a total cost range from $500,000 to $1,000,000. POSSIBLE FURTHER CONSIDERATION Several cities in the metropolitan area have grant programs for property owners to makke improvements to their properties to protect against flooding. An brief draft outline of such a program is attached. The Council could direct the Community Services Commission to review. the program and/or to recommend changes to the Stormwater Drainage Capital Improvement Policy as needed. Attachments: - Council Letter No. 241 dated September 26, 1988 - Draft Outline of Richfield Storm Water Grant Program ~'=.~ ~-S ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ Council Letter No. 241 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Review Storm Sewer Study findings and discuss possible solutions. Background: In late July, 1987 an unprecedented amount of rain fell on the City of Richfield. Because of the flooding problems experienced in certain sections of the City, the City entered into agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) for purposes of studying the City's storm sewer system. During the course of the Study, a public meeting was hosted by the Co-mmunity Services Advisory Commission on May 24, 1988. The .Community Services Commission established the following targets for consideration is preparing their recommendation: - Benefit/cost ratio for the improvement project must be greater than 1. - Projects considered for funding must be within areas where structural damage is likely to occur for rainfall events with a 2% or greater chance of occurrence. ` - Improvements should be constructed on public property. - Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer utility. - City should provide technical expertise and education to residents in areas not meeting these criteria. - City may reasonably support improvements with a total cost range from $500,000 to $1,000,000. The Community Services Commission unanimously recommends the City Council authorize the following improvements which are estimated to cost $161,000: Priority Ranking Site Location 1 A-1 Alley east of X erxes south of 66th Street 2 L'-38 Intersection of B. oomington and 70th Street 3 H-8 Monroe Park 4 T-20 Stevens Avenue and 68th Street 5 P-16 Colfax Avenue a nd 77-1/2 Street 6 0'-41 69th Street and 70th Street and Penn Avenue 7 C'-29 66th Street and Fourth Avenue g N'-40 66th Str°et and Newton Avenue ~~ ~,_ ~ (o - Ic In addition, some members of the Commission felt improvement should be made at Priority Ranking 9, Site B-2, an alley east of Xerxes Avenue, south of 69th Street. This .improvement, in the amount of $430,000, would bring the estimated cost to $591,000. However, since the Commission review of the report, information has come forth that improvements being made by the City of Edina will offer flood relief to this site. The Commission, at their September 13, 1988 meeting, unanimously recommended .the City Council pursue the Edina solution and not spend Richfield dollars on this project. The Commission also recommended the .City Council authorize a maximum of $30,000 for technical expertise and assistance to be provided to Richfield residents upon request. if the property owners wish to increase their level of protection at their own request. The concept of .taking advantage of opportunities as .they are presented was a common thread. throughout the Commission discussions. An .example of this opportunity has been briefly j outlined above with regard to Site B-2. Other opportunities may~_ be related to redevelopment projects or traffic improvements projects associated with I35W or 1494. Copies of the Study report and an addendum have been made available to the City Council. The City Council, the Community Services Commission, the consultant and City staff discussed the report `and the Commission recommendation(s) at the August 1, 1988 City Council study session. It was noted that the improvements recommended would increase the level of protection from flooding but there is no guarantee that properties will not flood. The city manager stated that an approximate 20% increase in the storm sewer utility will be proposed excluding the financing of the proposed storm water improvements recommendations. As requested, the formal presentation of the report to the public and Council is scheduled for September 26, 1988. People signing the attendance list for the May 24 Community Services Commission sponsored meeting were mailed notice of this Council meeting. Notice of the Council meeting has also been in the Richfield~Sun- Current and on the cable television channel 34 Bulletin Board. Members of the City staff and the consultant will be available to discuss the report, its findings and the recommendation(s) of the Community Services Advisory Commission. The City Council is currently conducting budget hearings. It should be noted the proposed 1989 operating budget for the storm sewer utility and the proposed 1989 Capital Budget do not include any funding for storm sewer system improvements outlined in the report or as recommended by the Community Services Commission. Any authorization by the Council to proceed with improvements would necessitate action also being taken related to funding. ..- ~- ~ Recam~ended Motion: Accept the report of the storm sewer system study conducted by OSM, order any improvements deemed. to be in the best interest of the City and its residents, .and authorize the necessary funding for those improvements and/or actions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A complete and thorough study of the City's storm sewer system has been conducted by an independent consultant. 2. The Community Services Advisory Commission has met with the public, reviewed the report and its findings, and has made its recommendation(s) to the City Council. ....Alternative Recommendation: Oo not authorize any improvements to the City's storm .sewer system as the current level of protection is at an acceptable level for the majority of rainfall events. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the September 26, 1988-City Council meetino. Action is not necessary at this time and may be taken at any time. However, if improvements are to be made, it would be advantageous. to provide sufficient time for establishing the funding process through budget considerations which are currently in progress and sufficient time to-plan for construction and the whole of the process necessary before improvements can be in place. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Hager JDP/eja l~J ~ January 3, 1994 City of Richfield OUTLINE OF STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM • PURPOSE: To provide technical and financial support to Richfield property owners for eligible improvements to eligible properties to reduce the risk of flood damage to their property. • ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES: Residential property subject to periodic flooding for which the predicted flood level is not being lowered by other public improvements.. The Community Services Department will keep a map of eligible property based upon storm water studies, historical. data and contour maps. • ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS: Improvements are limited to those which. provide increased flood protection. For example: 1. Filling, grading, and seedling around the house. 2. .Adding or modifying window wells. 3. Eliminating basement windows and substituting glass blocks. 4.'Replacing large basement windows and doors for smaller ones. 5. Raising the entire house. 6. Building concrete or block wall dikes. 7. Adjustments needed to accommodate stormwater protection improvement such as to stairs, electrical, plumbing, or heating system. • INELIGIB~,E IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Improvements to provide protection to garage or other out buildings. 2. Landscaping, other than seeding, such as bushes or trees. • FUNDING: The .City Council will determine an annual funding level for the two year life of the grant programs with the intent of funding all eligible applicants in two years. f The property owners will be responsible for 25% to 50% of the cost of the improvement. Richfield Community Services Commission Minutes March 8, 1994. Page 3 STORMWATER CAPITAL POLICY Information was distributed. If the level of protection were to be changed from 2$ to l$, about 40 homes would qualify under the policy. Protection to the 1$ level could be provided to about 75$ of those properties through individual improvements. Those improvements are considered to be relatively inexpensive and might be funded through a grant program if one were approved. It is estimated that if $250,000 were provided to a grant program, there would be more "bang for the buck" than could be provided to individual properties through bigger piping or through provision of water storage. Assuming a grant program were in place, the estimate is $1 million for improvements which could be made if the calculation method for cost/benefit ratio were changed to include a broader area. than an individual property. The majority of this cost estimate is related to 69th and Penn. The impact of a $1 million bond to provide improvements would be about $1 per quarter for 20 years for all single family residences. Funding was discussed. The question of bonding or.'°pay as you go" brought a rough estimate that $1 per quarter would provide $70,000 annually or repay a $1 million bond over 20 years. It was noted the $1 per quarter was for single family residential and that commercial rates are higher. It was generally agreed that the funding source for stormwater improvements should be the storm water utility. Although no official action taken, the consensus appeared to be that "pay as you go" should be used with an increase of $1 per quarter to single family residential and a look at commercial rates. Other discussion included a program of priorities. Priorities would need to be established not only for properties "left over" after improvements made through a grant program but for purchase of properties. Purchase of property may be necessary in the 69th and Penn area in order to provide protection for that area as well as the 69th and Russell area. Motion by Delzer, second by Gilhousen, that the Community Services. Commission recommend the stormwater capital policy be amended to raise the protection to 1$, that a grant program be authorized, and that the calculation of cost/benefit ratio be amended. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Gilhousen, second by Swanson, that the Community Services Commission recommend the property owner be 50$ responsible for those improvements funded through a grant program. Motion carried. Motion by Gilhousen, second by Delzer, that the Community Services Commission recommend improvements funded through a grant program begin with the inception of a grant program; i.e., that there be no grandfathered funding of previous improvements. Motion carried. It was suggested that the City Council hold a workshop to discuss the details of the Commission recommendations. STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS INCOME Cash Balance 12/31/93 Approximate annual allotment from stormwater utility available for ongoing capital projects EXPENSES Richfield Lake outlet (revised) 1995 CIP Wood Lake dredging 1996 CIP 6601 Stevens 7632 Logan 6645 Queen 70th/Russell, 70th/Penn $ 450,000 $ 150,000 (annually) S 275,000 S 250,000 $ 22,000 $ 15,000 $ 7,500 S 750,000 51,.319,500