1-6-92 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1992
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
I. 6:00-6:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF FURTHER OPTION FOR
DISPOSITION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 7300
FIRST AVENUE
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 1
II. 6:30-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
AFFECTING THE 135W AND I494 RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 2
III. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF AIRPORT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 3
IV. 7:45-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF 4-22 EXTENSION DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 4
V. 8:15-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
ACQUISITION OF NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH
ACRES NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 5
VI. 8:30-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL NEED TO SPLIT ONE
OR MORE CITY PRECINCTS FOR COUNTY
COMMISSIONER REDISTRICTING
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 6
VII. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION RELATING TO COUNCIL SALARIES
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 7
9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.7
Agenda January 6, 1992
Issue Statement•
Council discussion relating to Council-salaries.
Background:
Mayor Kirsch has requested that discussion relating to Council
salaries be placed on the January 6, 1992 Study Session agenda.
Attached is Council Memorandum No. 5$ which provides background
information related to Council salaries. The 1992 salary
adjustment for employees in the General Services and Management
pay plans was 2.5~.
Recommended Motion:
Council Members should discuss whether or not an ordinance
amendment regarding Council salaries should be prepared and
scheduled for first reading at a subsequent Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. .Mayor Kirsch has requested this item be placed on the January
6 Study Session agenda.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could defer discussion of this item to another
Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the January 6 Study Session agenda
as requested by Mayor Kirsch.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
Attachments
~~
Richfield City Code
slo.ol "
(2nd Rev. 1988)
Section 210 - Compensation of mayor and council members
210.01. Com ensation of council. Subdivision 1. M_ y°r. The salary of the
mayor is 67,282 per year. Amended, .Bill No. 1987-18; Sill No. 1988-14)
Subd. 2. Council. The talary of a member of the council is ;5,652 per
year.
Subd. 3. Payable. Salazies of members of the council are payable
bi-weekly.
Subd.. 4. Salary review. The council chall review the calaries set by this
section by December 1 in each year in which an .election is held pursuant to
Section 200 of this code. (Amended, Bill No. 1988-18).
c
i
~`
_, ~_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
May 23, 1991
~~»ncil Memorandum No. 58
The Honorable Mayor.
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Council Salaries
Council Members:
Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the
salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of
the Council members be reviewed by December l of each year in
which an election is held.
It has been the ,practice in past years for the City Council to
review their salaries prior to the time that work begins on
proposed budgets for the next year. Budget preparation will
occur during the month of June..
Council Members may wish to think about this matter to determine
if an ordinance amendment to increase Council Member salaries
should be approved.
In June, 1987,-Council Members adopted a policy to review Council
salaries. The policy statement provides that in years a
municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a
revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor.
Council salaries were last adjusted
(effective in 1989) when the salary
from $7,002 to $7,282 per year; and
increased from $5,435 to $5,652 per
City Charter, salary increases do n~
next succeeding municipal election.
salaries would be effective January
for fiscal year 1988.
of the Mayor was increased
Council Member salaries were
year. As stipulated in the
~t take effect until after the
This means any change in
1, 1993. .
The policy also provides that any increase should be based upon
the amount of increase granted to employees in the year
subsequent to the previous salary adjustment. The salary
increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay
plans was 4~.
Attached is a list of Council salaries of eleven selected
.metropolitan cities, as well as all the Council salaries for
cities in the metro area of a comparable size.
If Council Members would like additional information on this
matter, please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
James. . /Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:ds
Attachment
~ ~C - ~
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT NO.. -- ~ -
Issue
Establishment. of council salaries. The purpose of this policy is
to provide a basis for updating council salaries regularly.
According to state law and city charter, councils may adjust
their salaries to be effective the year following a municipal
election. This policy will provide a basis for setting the
revised salary. base..
Policy Statement
In each calendar year when a municipal election will be held, the
~,~
council shall establish a revised pay schedule for council
members and mayor. This amount shall be based upon the amount of
increase granted to the employees generally in the year(s)
subsequent to the previous salary adjustment. Staff shall
provide information to council indicating what these amounts have
been not later than May 1. Council shall then make a
determination regarding salaries. Final determination shall be
subject to the council approval as required by Section 2.07 of
the City Charter which stipulates that council salaries may be
adjusted only by ordinance.
roar
roar
roar
~a~ d
~
~a~ O
~
roar
roar
roar
a
H ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
3~ ~
~+~ v
U
~ ~
3~ a~
U ~
~+~+ ~
~~ qq~
3~
' z O O O O O ~ O O O O O
~+
a G N
x~ O N
x~ O N
x~+ O N
x•~+ H ~
~ O N
x-~ H ~ N
~+ O N
x~ q N
x~+
a
a o~
a +~ ax
a +~ o.o
~ +~ o.o
a +~ o
z ~ a.o
a +~ o
z ~
a +~ o.o
a +~ o.o
~ +~
a
N
O~
O
~ O
~
roar roar roar ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~~ `~~
a s ~+ ~+ ~+ ~+ o ° ~+ ~ ~+ o+ o+
H
q N
~
' h-I O N
x vi O N
'.Y: rl O N
'~ rl C~
l!! O N
'.tC rl H ~ t!1
vl O N
.1C ~ O N
'.~t4 Sri
,
O .[ O .[ G~ O~ O O .G O ~,' O .C O .O
~ H O N O O
O O
O N.
~ O
O d~
O N
to O
O O
O N
e7'
~ O
~ a U ~ ~, ~ ~, ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a ~+ cn
H Q~
_ °~ a
z
~
U
Z O OD O O
to O
O ~o
M O
O O
O N
o0 O
O O
O H
H
a ~
p p
N ~
r-1 p
O O ~ to N d~ N O N
. M
.
a £ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a
z
a
z
`p ~ ao ~n ~
H o
n ~n
M ,~
c~ ~o
M O
t~ o
~ ~n
O r
o0
p, E.,
a p,
to ~
rn M O M a+ t~ M L~ d~ t~
a
H ~ d~ OD O- t0 CO
N O
N 00
M 00
'd' Ilf
M M
M M
'~M
W p~ M M M tM
~. a
H z N N N N N M N 'd' N M N
~ ~
~
a~ a ~
.~ ~
0
H ~ " " ° o ~
a ai G +
~ N ~
U ~ ~ ,~ a~ a~ o w ~ a N
o
a
° '~ b E a ° ~ a
'
a ca w w w ° ~ a
_~` ~~~
~ ,
~ u•~
® ~(• =~_
v.0 ~
._ ~2
o ~ O O:u
~7~
,~ U~
/ ~' ~ r ~-
"" r ~
L .~ ..~
W
a
a
a
H
u
is.
W
O
O
EW
U
W
a
w
N
-,~
A
a
U
YI
C
7
C
b
.~
0
a.
0
w
0
c
0
A
-..~
U
O
N
N
4
n~
t
~,
.c
v
n~
a
0
u
o~
vi o-
~ a
V
z
u
w o
O ~
~+ rl
a
a ~
a o-
~_
o
0
0
0
O O O O O ~G O O O O N
O O O O O N O O O O tt'1
o m ~ o eo ~c ~ ao .-+ r+ ~c
~ r ~ o+ ~ ~ ~n ~ an ~ ~n
N C~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a cc o 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0 ~ o o an o an
a o o- N' e~ o er r N o ~ o ~ o o an eh
W ~ ~
O ~ N r ~ ~c. ~ r o- ~c r er ~c r r cc
z w
H ~ O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O ~0
E+ ~+ O O O O W O ~C O O N O O It'f O e'~
,rQ7 ~FaQ7 ~ N CO O v r 1t) O ~G ~ N O O O 1f)
.
J ~ ~-i N r ~ ~C ~ r ~ ~D r r ~0 r CA r
j'o W
«a o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 ~
s a ~ o ~r o 0 o N o o N o o u~ o e~
[-~ D O~ N ri O D l~ O- O ~D et CO O O ~t 11'f
H z Q1 . . . . . . . . . . .
3 z •-1 r to If1 r ~ r O 1C r r ~D r co r
~ ~ rl ~
W
H '.~
W C7 Z
V ~ '~ N N ~' N N N !h N N N N N N N
•
W W
a a
o a
Q1 M
O1 U
.~ z
O o ~ ~ r .-i oc ao in ao o~ r+ o in .~
z O o~ r r~ oo ce m r e~ co o ~-+ r e~ r
o a u ~ o~ ~ ac e~ N o~ o+ r ar eh o e~ o,
H W
H a ~ O ~ O ~ .-~ N N eh r o- ac t~ 0
a a c"f e"f CD N In It) t~! N N ~' t"1 ~ N N
O E
a w
o z
a
s~
°
'
+~ x a >.
H '
° o v a ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ d
a > ~ ~ ~ "i a o b ~ a ~
. . ~ a
i c
v a~ c ~ x x ~ ~o +~ c ~ ~+ d
H .-~ ~.~1 O O O C C ~ N Rf C C 'C 't3
O. W O O O ~.+ O ~ b+ ~ -•~ -.a .~
Q. ~ ~ La 1•+ a O O ~ A b 'C l.+ O
~ W R1 to Ri a1 U V U W W W w C9
0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 o eo 0 0 o an o
0 0 o v o 0 0 o an o 0 o r an
O r O e-1 CO OD O oD t°1 ~C o0 e-I ~' N
. . . .
~0 Il1 O tt r at co er u1 eh et to in ~G
O O O O d' O O O O O O ~C O N
O O O ~ O et O O N O O O- tl1 to
O r o .-1 co O O m 1C ~' cD O oD ~0
.
1C 1~1 O et r ~n O~ er K1 In ~ 1!1 In tl1
e~
O N O
o ~ o
0 0- O
~o ~ O
i
O
rl
I
m ~
U
Z
u
w
O O
0-
~+ O~
4
y
a ~
a a-
rl
~~
O O~
o x ao
o O o+
~+ e-~
O
N
a w
w o
O >+ O
~+
O ~"~
~ a
E try
a
a 4 ri
O-
H
N ",1'
3 H
[C7 Z
W E ~
H
H •
M C7 tY,
u w w
a a
o a
O~ N
o~ U
•-~ 2
0 0 o r1 o O• e~ 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0
O N O C~ of O 1D O O O O O O O O
O~ !'1 st t~ O In N ~' 1D at 00 lit N ~D O
. . . . .
N t}' I[f ef• tt1 •Q' Ill 41 Ill If1 ~' ef' a' e'1 t~f
O O O O O O C~ O N O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 •a~ oc ~ o Ill 0 0 0 0 0 0
N e}' at 1C O I11 N O 50 ~' 00 111 N ~G O
. . . . .
e! Ill 111 ~C 111 ill In 1D Il1 It1 et ~' et e"f e•1
O O O O at O 1G O N O O O O O O
0 0 0 .-I o 0o rl o ~ o 0 o O o 0
N O et O ~0 tl1 h C1 1G 00 CO In N 1C e'1
. . .
~' 1G I11 h I11 Ill Il'f 1C I[1 d' et ~' et c^l c'1
O O O O O O sf' O O O O O O O O
0 0 o e~1 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O et N h N h e}' 1!1 N N N O N CO N
. . . .
Ill In h If1 h in h t~ h h h 1D h et ~
et O O O O O I1f O N O O O O O O
0 0 o O o o ~ o a~ o 0 0 0 0 0
O 1D N In N N et N N N N O N GO N
. . a
tcf 1p h h h h h cD h h h ~C h et ~'
O O O N1 O O CO O N O O O O O O
O O O h O O h O CO O O O O O N
O N N O- eT N O 1C N O N O N CO ~G
. . . . .
to h h h CO h CO CO h 10 h 1C h ~' ~'
P'1 N N N ~' N N N N Pf ~' N N !'1 N
A h ~' ~G ~' O h e~1 O~ O 111 h h h ~' t11
Z O h Ill a1 tl1 h O I11 00 r-I CO CD CO o+ O h
M W U ~' CO h O- r1 N CO oD h ~' h to .-i h O
. .` . . .
H a N ar oc O oo N rl O 111 r1 e~ er O er O
a ~O N N t•1 f'1 st N N 111 !''f f'1 ~' N t0 N N
a w ~
~ E o~
~ ~
a~ ae rl ~C
x ~ o
H n~ d o a a~ vii
a o n- 'o ~~ x b a~ m 3 ~ o
a~~~ o o °' a~ o ~ ~ °i N m ~ N
V j•I > d O d ~ ~ eO w >
~> x a a c 3 3 a+ .c a~ ~~~ w x
I~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z a a a ~ c=n c°n 3 3
I
ri
1
CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 6
Agenda January 6, 1992
Issue Statement•
Potential need to split one or more City precincts for County
Commissioner redistricting.
Background•
On December 19, 1991, County Commissioner Randy Johnson met with
Mayor Kirsch and Administrative Services Director Steve Devich to
discuss the current status of redistricting. As a part of those
discussions, Commissioner Johnson stated that the Hennepin County
Board was attempting to balance their Commissioner Districts to
within 1,000 population. Commissioner Johnson further stated
that his district is currently 20,000 persons too large and that
the Board may propose to distribute a portion of his district to
other Commissioners. Those areas which may be shifted out of his
district might include certain Richfield precincts.
In addition, Commissioner Johnson stated that the County Board
may request the splitting of one or more Richfield precincts to
balance the County Commissioner Districts. He concluded by
saying that the County Board would be considering this issue in
the near future, once the court issues currently holding the
redistricting process in abeyance are resolved. After an
informal agreement on redistricting on the County level is
reached, the Board would be approaching individual cities
affected.
It would be timely for the City Council to begin to consider the
possibility of being represented as part of two larger County
Commissioner Districts as well as being asked to split one or
more precincts. The latter issue, that of splitting precincts,
would involve a change in district designation for some
residents, a possible new polling place and the costs associated
with setting up a new voting precinct or precincts. The cost of
a new precinct is approximately a $8,900 one-time cost and $2,800
in additional ongoing costs.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the possibility of a change in County Commissioner
representation for some parts of Richfield and splitting
precincts for County Commissioner purposes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Hennepin County will soon be examining County Commissioner
Districts.
2. As a part of that process, the County Board may seek to
modify Commissioner Districts including those in Richfield.
3. Modified County Commissioner Districts may mean different
representation for Richfield as-well as the need to
establish new County Commissioner Districts.
4. Precinct changes which include additional precincts have a
cost implication to the City with no budgeted funds to pay
for those costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Ignore the issues until officially approached by the County
Board.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It-may be a very good time to begin considering the impact of
any such County proposals upon Richfield. When the court issues
concerning redistricting have been resolved, the process will
call-for swift formal action from each layer of government to
complete redistricting in a timely fashion.
Respec fully submitted,
''~
<-~~<=y.
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
,,, ~ ' DRAFT OF"
_ - 1-3-92
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY
OF ACQUISITION OF~THE
.NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
NEIGHBORHOODS OF-THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
DATED:
:, PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CONTRIBUTING CONSULTANTS:
HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
PUBLICORP INC.
RALPH WHITE ASSOCIATES
W. D. SCHOCK COMPANY
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Executive Summary
1.2. Goals and Scope of Study
Explain that end use cannot be determined for several years. Therefore, it is
beyond the scope of this report to address end uses except to the extent. that
such discussion is necessary to describe or explain fully a point in the context of
the discussion of another issue. For example, if a certain source of funds is
available only for a specific end use, that limitation is described. The study
addresses the economic feasibility of acquiring these neighborhoods in the near
future, prior to a final decision about end use. The study addresses the legal
authority to acquire the land, including acquisition by the exercise of eminent
domain, if necessary; the laws and regulations which would apply to such
acquisition and process of review by the various. regulatory bodies involved; the
costs of acquisition; the impact of such acquisition on the City of Richfield and
the Richfield School District; sources of revenues available to finance acquisition;
a procedural plan for acquisition, demolition and management; and alternatives
for midterm and final disposition of the properties. The goal of the study, in
general, is to attempt to determine whether ~t is feasible to acquire these
neighborhoods in a way which -does not restrict or preclude reasonable options
for development in the future, to determine available funding sources for
acquisition, and to ensure that future sources for reimbursement are retroactively
eligible, if necessary. The parties are hopeful that this report could be a model
for intergovernmental cooperation in mitigating the environmental impact of
airport operations in other cities as well.
1.3. Background
1.3.1. New Ford Town and Rich Acres
1.3.2. Issue Identification
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Authority of the City and Prerequisites to Exercise of Powers
2.2.1. The City of Richfield, Authority of the City, Acting as a City, by Charter or
State Law
2.2.2. Legal Authority of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
2.3. Authority of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Prerequisites to Exercise
of Powers
2.4. Authority of HRA and MAC Jointly Exercising Powers
2.4.1. Joint Exercise of Powers
2.4.2. Statutory Authority to Transfer Land to Other Party with or without
Consideration
2.5. Related Consequences or Limitations on Exercise of Power
2.5.1. Action by the HRA within Its Area of Operation
2.5.2. Consequences of Statutory Deannexation upon Acquisition by MAC
III. REGULATORY REVIEW AND APPROVALS
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Approval by City of HRA Redevelopment Plan
3.3. Metropolitan Review
3.3.1. Metropolitan Council
3.3.2. Metropolitan Significance Review
3.3.2.1. Introduction
3.3.2.2. Consequences of Determination of Metropolitan Significance
3.3.2.3. Initiation of Metropolitan Significance Review
3.3.2.4. Project Status to Metropolitan Significance Review
3.3.2.5. Projects not Subject to Metropolitan Significance Review
3.3.2.6. Conclusion
3.4. Federal Aviation Administration
3.5. State Environmental Review
3.5.1. Introduction
3.5.2. General Procedures
3.5.3. State Environmental Review Process as Applied to the Acquisition of New
Ford Town and Rich Acres
3.6. Federal Environmental Review
3.7. Miscellaneous
3.7.1.. LAWCON or Other Park Restrictions
3.7.2. Historical Significance
3.7.3. Wetlands Preservation
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS OF ACQUISITION.. DEMOLITION AND MANAGEMENT
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Costs of Acquisition
4.3. Relocation Costs
4.4. Demolition
4.5. Information Office
4.6. Management
4.7. Costs of Condemnation
4.8. EAW
4.9. Summary Total Estimated Costs
4.10 Time and Costs
V. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Costs to City of Richfield
5.3. Costs to Richfield School District
VI. FINANCING
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Summary of Other Airports/Overall Analysis
6.3. Financing Mechanisms:. Pay-As-You-Go vs. Up-Front
6.3.1. General Obligation or Revenue Bonds
6.3.2. Pay-As-You-Go Program
6.4. Revenue Sources
6.4.1. Tax Increment Financing
6.4.2. Federal Sources
6.4.3. Land Sales
6.4.4. Lease Revenues
6.4.5. Minnesota Department of Transportation
6.4.6. State of Minnesota
8.4.7. Property Tax Levy
6.4.8. Passenger Facility Charges
6.5. Financing Models
VII PLAN FOR ACQUISITION SITE CLEARANCE AND MANAGEMENT
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Acquisition
7.2.1. Timing
7.2.2. Purchase Order
7.2.3. Hardship Consideration
7.2.4. Declination of Initial Invitation to Sell/Reoffer/Condemnation
7.2.5. Purchase of Other Property
7.2.6. Appraisal Process
7.3. Relocation
7.4. Public Information
7.5. Management of Structures
7.6. Site Clearance
7.7. Management of Vacant Property
7.8. Application of Proceeds of Sale or Lease
Addendum to Plan for Acquisition, Demolition and Acquisition
VIII. DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES
8.1. Introduction
•
It is not possible to identify all of the possible. interim or .end uses of the affected
properties. Therefore, the plan should be so designed as to preserve the
maximum number of development options. This section summarizes some of
those options and explores ways in which they might be preserved and pursued
under the various financing options identified in this report.
8.1.1. Development for Airport Use
8.1.2. Redevelopment for Commercial/Industrial Uses
8.1.3. Interim Uses
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1. Introduction
This section outlines, in as much detail as possible, ways in which the acquisition
of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods might be accomplished
including: identification of one or more sources of funds; assignment of
responsibility for the necessary work tasks to secure necessary review and
approval, acquire and manage properties, secure funding; description of the
contractual relationship between the parties.
APPENDIX
A. Excerpted Laws and .Regulations
B. Financial Models
C. Draft Joint Powers Agreement
D. Maps
U
iv
L INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Executive Summary
The Richfield neighborhoods of New Ford Town and Rich Acres are in very close
proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport. A majority of residents from these
neighborhoods have indicated a strong interest that their homes be purchased
by MAC. Reasons for their request include both airport related noise and the
perceptions that both of these Richfield neighborhoods will be condemned for
airport expansion. The combined impact of the noise and the future uncertainty
has caused economic and social disinvestment for these two neighborhoods.
Since residents are no longer certain about their future, there is unwillingness, or
possibly an inability, to make normal improvements which would occur in other
neighborhoods. In addition, routine maintenance has been deferred by some
property owners. Residents also indicate the uncertain future has also had the
impact of discouraging potential home buyers from considering these
neighborhoods as housing choices. Both the Metropolitan Council planning
guidelines and FAA guidelines encourage nonresidential development in areas
proximate to the airport such as New Ford Town and Rich Acres. A decision
regarding airport expansion which might directly impact New Ford Town and
Rich Acres is several years away, however, it is agreed that whether or not the
airport is expanded, it would be appropriate to redevelop these properties
because of the noise impact. This is true even if a decision is made to build a
new airport at another location at some future date.
It is clear that the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission can
effect the buyout of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. Some of the major issues
addressed end resolved in this report include the following:
-1-
• Legal Authority
The City of Richfield, the Richfield HRA and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission have the .legal ability to enter into a joint powers agreement as
authorized by Minnesota State Statute. This agreement will outline
accountability and authority to accomplish each of the buyout elements. Use
of a joint powers authority. is fairly common for governmental units within the
State.
Regulatory Reviews and Approvals
The exact nature of regulatory reviews will depend on funding sources.
Metropolitan Council review will certainly be required because of the nature
and cost of the ro'ect. However, there a ear to be no si nificant obstacles
P 1 PP 9
to Metropolitan Council approval
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet -will. also be required.
It is ,unlikely that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required.
The primary purpose of the acquisition would be land clearance for noise
abatement. Both parties understand that final or even interim disposition of
the property will not be determined until a later date. A final decision
regarding the future of the MSP, including the potential for a relocated airport
is still several years away: It is recognized, however, that the acquisition of
New Ford Town and Rich Acres is appropriate under any circumstance and
should proceed no matter which option is chosen as part of the established
-2-
dual track process. Accordingly, regulatory review and approval of end use of
the cleared property is neither appropriate nor possible. Regulatory review
and approval of the land clearance itself provides a more limited scope of
review. Though the required reviews are detailed within the text of the report,
it is important to recognize that, overall, the general impact of the acquisition is
to provide an environment which is much more consistent with adjacent land
use. This fact reduces the complexity of the review process.
• Financial Impact
Both the City and the Richfield School District (the "Schools") will experience a
significant loss in tax. base as a result of the acquisition of these properties.
With the assistance of the State Legislature, the loss can be recovered. To a
certain extent, losses are offset by the reduced cost of providing services for
residents within these areas. Initial calculations indicate a total annual net
loss of approximately $353,000 for the Schools and $177,000 for the City.
There will also be a one time cost for the City, estimated to be $3.6 million.
The report recommends that the annual net loss be compensated to the City
and Schools by an increase in a special State aid paid to the local
governments. This aid would need to be specially authorized by the
Legislature. Compensation for the one time cost to the City is best resolved at
the time disposition of the land is determined.
• Financing
-3-
There is a wide. variety of financing mechanisms and revenue sources to
accomplish the buyout of New Ford Town and- Rich Acres. The three most
common mechanisms are pay-as-you-go, general obligation bonds and
revenue bonds. Frequently, a combination of these methods are used. The
main determinant of the financing mechanism is typically the revenue sources.
Those potential sources for this project .include tax increment financing, State
and Federal grants (Part -1:50, Airport Improvement Program), land sales, .lease
revenues, property tax levy and passenger facility charges (PFC). The one
source that appears to best fit the needs of this program is the passenger
facility charge. Because of the flexibility of PFC's, this revenue source could
be used as "bridge financing" pending final disposition of the property. In the
future, ff the property is to be used for airport purposes, FAA funds could
replace or reimburse this source. If, on the other hand, MAC does. not need
the property, land sales and tax increment financing could reimburse the
PFC's.
• Acquisition, Site Clearance and Management
Using joint power authorities, MAC and the Richfield HRA have both the legal
authority and ability to jointly acquire .properties, assist in relocation and move
and/or demolish homes after acquisition. In order to be certain that options
for either FAA reimbursable airport improvements or private development are
both adequately protected, both FAA and State acquisition guidelines would.
be followed. It would be advisable for Richfield and MAC to engage qualified
FAA relocation experts to assist in this effort. Relocation experts have
recommended that the buyout occur within a maximum three year period.
This will. help not only reduce understandable anxiety of residents, but also
•
•
~~
-4-
reduce administrative costs of the project. The cost of the buyout is estimated
to be $28.5 million. Other costs, including relocation, demolition and
administrative fees are estimated to be approximately $19 million.
Federal and State guidelines for acquisition and relocation assistance provide
a very detailed blueprint for assuring that property owners are adequately
protected in the sale of their property and relocation. Richfield and MAC
consultants have considerable experience in applying the State and Federal
guidelines respectively. Site .clearance for a project of this size provides a
special challenge. An attempt would be made. to move homes where
appropriate; others would be demolished as soon as possible after being
vacated. Fulf City services would continue to be provided for the area until
100% of the residents-are relocated.
The buyout of New Ford Town and Rich Acres is feasible but will require a
special effort by MAC and the City of Richfield. Involvement of other Federal and
State agencies is important in this buyout process but not as central as perhaps
first thought. Most important is an acquisition plan which protects residents of
these two neighborhoods to the best extent possible. It is emphasized that this
does not mean that hardship already experienced by these residents will be
erased but rather that they will not be required to experience these hardships in
the future.
1.2. Goals and Scope of Study
The goal of this study is to determine how the City of Richfield and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission could cooperate in the acquisition of the New
-5-
Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. The significant issues which require
analysis include:
• Develop the Legal Framework for Acquisition,. Property Management and
Disposition
• Identify the Required Regulatory Reviews and Approvals
• Estimate Costs and Funding. Sources
• Describe the Property Acquisition Process and Interim Management
• Establish a Mechanism to Recapture Net Tax Loss to City and School
• Describe the Process to Permit Redevelopment and Final Disposition. of
Property
1.3. Background
1.3.1. New Ford Town and Rich Acres
New Ford Town is a predominantly residential neighborhood that forms
the northeast border of Richfield. This neighborhood is surrounded on
two sides by MSP International Airport; its western boundary is T.H. 77
and its southern edge is defined by 66th Street and the Rich Acres golf
course. The Rich Acres neighborhood is located east of T.H. 77,
bounded to the north by Rich Acres golf course and to the east and
-6-
south by MSP. By forming two land-use peninsulas, each penetrating the
boundaries of MSP both neighborhoods are geographically unique to
neighborhoods in the Twin Cities.
Because of their geographic uniqueness, both neighborhoods have
historically developed clear physical and social identities, producing a
sense of pride and belonging for residents. However, that sense of
identity has eroded over time due to the increasing use intensity of MSP
and its' resulting noise disturbance. An equally disruptive factor has been
the continuing concern that these neighborhoods will be acquired for
airport expansion at some indefinite time in the future.
Currently, land use for both Rich Acres and New Ford Town is a mix of
single family and multi-family residential. New Ford Town contains a
small contingent of commercial uses located along its south border of
66th Street. Both have neighborhood parks.
Zoning designations within both neighborhoods largely coincide with land
uses. However, a recent comprehensive plan redesignation called for a
change in comprehensive plan designation for New Ford Town. The
comprehensive plan was changed to allow mixed use including ,
hotel/motel, dining/entertainment, retail, wholesale, light industrial and
offices. The comprehensive designation for Rich Acres was changed to
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The redesignation of both
neighborhoods was strongly supported by the citizens of Richfield during
neighborhood meetings.
-7-
The 1990 census shows population for New Ford Town as 940 with 369
housing units, and population for Rich Acres of 152 with 54 housing units.
Both the Ldn 70 and 75 contours affect New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
New Ford Town is included within both contours while Rich Acres is
affected by the Ldn 65 contour.. Ldn 75 noise levels are experienced by
households .located in the extreme northeastern blocks of New Ford
.Town. Due to New Ford Town's proximity to the end of runway 29L,
residents experience a high noise level associated with take-offs. .While
take-off noise is of a shorter duration, its intensity is much higher and
seemingly more intrusive than landing noise.. The intensity of the
intrusions. is multiplied by frequencies of take-offs. Landing noise is
much more intrusive to those households within the Ldn 75 contour
because of their proximity to the runway end.
Rich Acres experiences airborne noise to a lesser extent than New Ford
Town since it does not have direct exposure to Ldn 75 or 70 levels.
Both New Ford Town and Rich Acres are affected by ground noise
associated with aircraft operations. Because of their location, both
neighborhoods serve as buffers to the rest of Richfield and absorb high
levels of noise.
The Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Aviation Guide Amendments. 1990
recommend that areas situated close to aircraft operations such as New
Ford Town and Rich Acres be redeveloped to more compatible uses.
C~
-8-
The Metropolitan Council suggests hat,only non-habitable uses are
appropriate in such close proximity to MSP. The FAA however, provides
for heavy application of sound insulation to make such land usable.
Clearly by two credible standards, both neighborhoods are incompatible
with airport use.
Because of the continual and increasing noise exposure of both areas
and the continued uncertainty regarding the future use of these areas,
property values have failed to follow the same trends as property not
exposed to such noise levels. Consequently, both neighborhoods have
.experienced a gradual disinvestment by property owners. Residents
have continually expressed dismay, confusion and frustration over
repeatedly being included in airport expansion plans. This has been a
major contributor to neighborhood disinvestment. Residents experience
an ever increasing sense of uncertainty as buyout continues to be
discussed but is never set in motion. Disinvestment is manifested by a
trend of low maintenance and minimal efforts to upgrade property. While
property owners have historically shown pride in the condition and quality
of their property, their interest in continuing such a high standard has
declined as uncertainty has increased. Consequently, blight potential has
approached a critical threshold as property continues to deteriorate
physically and property values are adversely affected in turn within the
marketplace.
1.3.2. Issue Identification
-9-
Both neighborhoods as currently formed are inconsistent with airport
operations. However, according to both the FAA and the Metropolitan
Council, most land uses would be incompatible thus severely limiting any .
economically feasible reuse of both New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
There are two basic reasons the City of Richfield has great difficulty
resolving these problems. First, because of this location, it is not only
difficult to reduce the noise impact. but there will always be concern. about
airport expansion. Second, from a quality of life standpoint, Richfield
residents in these neighborhoods will experience alienation and general
frustration because of their plight.
As noise intrusiveness has increased residents have become more and
more intolerant of their current situation and more interested in relocation.
However, property values have decreased due to increased noise thus
limiting the possibility of voluntary relocation through property. resale. The
likelihood of relocation has decreased interest in property upkeep in
some cases. A final, complicating factor is the continual inclusion of each
neighborhood in the future MSP expansion plans without the benefit of
substantial study or discussions with neighborhood residents regarding
their future.
Residents of both neighborhoods deserve resolution of the uncertainty
they have had to endure. There are three general avenues through which
the issues relating to .New Ford Town and Rich Acres may reach
resolution. They are:
1. Acquisition and use by MSP;
-10-
2. Interim use;
3. Commercial or industrial redevelopment.
Acquisition and Use ~ MSP
One of several alternatives for MSP expansion involves location of a
north-south runway next to the airport's western border. This new
runway would require acquisition of both New Ford Town and Rich Acres
leaving little room for their reuse.
Acquisition under this alternative would occur when funds became
available, however redevelopment would not occur. The land from both
neighborhoods would be converted to airport use soon after. acquisition.
Because this is not likely to occur for several years, this alternative would
produce the greatest amount of anxiety for each of the neighborhood's
residents. Additionally, this alternative results in the greatest tax base and
.revenue loss. for the City and Schools.
Interim Use
This alternative is based on the current dual track effort to decide MSP's
future location. Because of the uncertainty inherent in the dual track
process, this alternative offers an interim solution by providing near term
relief to New Ford Town and Rich Acres residents until MSP either
expands or relocates. Under this alternative, New Ford Town and Rich
-11-
continued productive use. The interim redevelopment would also provide
the City of Richfield with a continued tax base while airport relocation
decisions are taking place. Presumably, this alternative would also allow
interim development should MSP in fact relocate.
Acquisition of both neighborhoods would: occur in the near future with
redevelopment taking place soon after acquisition. Once MSP's location
was finalized further redevelopment .could occur if MSP were to relocate;
or if MSP were to remain, transfer would be made to MAC.
Commercial or Industrial Redevelopment
This alternative involves complete redevelopment of both neighborhoods
in a way that would be both compatible with airport uses and avoid .
permanent elimination of a substantial tax base for Richfield.. The 1989
Comprehensive Plan redesignation began to lay the conceptual ground
for this-category of reuse. Although all of the uses permitted are not
wholly compatible with MSP operation, conceptual design and.
development studies illustrated. that redevelopment could be possible..
Because of the current and projected future development market,
commercial and/or industrial redevelopment may be limited to those
which. complement airport operation.
Acquisition for this alternative-would take place when funding was
available and plans were developed.
•
-12-
It is not necessary to select one of these.. alternatives at this time. It is
sufficient to conclude that current land uses are not compatible with MSP.
The first step in any change to another, more compatible land use is the
acquisition of properties in these neighborhoods. Such acquisition will
not preclude selection of any foreseeable reuse alternative. Therefore,
there is no reason to delay alleviating hardship suffered by the residents
of these neighborhoods.
-13-
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Authority of the City and Prerequisites to Exercise of Powers
2.2.1. The City of Richfield, Authority of the City, Acting as a City, by Charter or
State Law
The City of Richfield, acting as a City, has specific authority to undertake
a project such as the acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. The
City can acquire .land for certain public purposes. including certain
development projects undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
469.124 - 469.134. However, the City's powers are much more limited
and restricted than those of the Housing and Redevelopment. Authority in
and for the City of Richfield. Therefore, it is very unlikely that any such
project would be undertaken by the City as opposed to the HRA.
2.2.2. Legal-Authority of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield
(HRA) was created :pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001
through 469.047. Among the purposes of the HRA are to clear and
redevelop blighted areas. Minnesota Statutes Section 469.001.
The term "blighted area" is defined in subd. 11 of Section 469.002 as ".~ . .
any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation,
•
U
-14-
obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangements or design, lack of
ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage,
deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or
other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the
community."
It would appear, given the impact of airport noise, that the New Ford
Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods could be found by the HRA to meet
this definition of blighted area.
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.002, subd. 14, defines a "redevelopment
project" as any work or undertaking:
(1) To acquire blighted areas and other real property for the
purpose of removing, preventing, or reducing blight, blighting
factors or the causes of blight;
(2) To clear any areas acquired and install, construct or reconstruct
streets, utilities and site improvements essential to the preparation
of sites for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan;
(3) To sell or lease land so acquired for uses in accordance with the
redevelopment plan;
(4) To prepare a redevelopment plan, and to incur initiation, planning,
survey and other administrative costs of a redevelopment project,
and to prepare technical and financial plans and arrangements for
-15-
buildings, structures and. improvements and all. other work in
connection therewith; or to conduct an urban renewal project. The
term "urban. renewal project" may include undertakings and
activities for the elimination or for the prevention of the development
or spread of slums or blighted or .deteriorating areas and may
involve any work or undertaking for that purpose constituting a
redevelopment project or any rehabilitation or conservation work.
For this purpose, "rehabilitation or conservation work" may include
... (ii) acquisition of real property and demolition, removal or
.rehabilitation of buildings and improvements thereon where
necessary to eliminate unhelpful, unsanitary or unsafe conditions,
lessen density, reduce traffic hazards, eliminate obsolete or other
uses detrimental to the public welfare, or to otherwise remove or
prevent the spread of blight or .deterioration, to promote historic
and architectural reservation, or to rovide land for needed public
p P
facilities-,.... (iv) the disposition for uses in accordance with the
objectives of the urban renewal project, of any property or part
thereof acquired in the area of the project; provided that the
disposition shall be in the. manner prescribed in Sections 469.001 to
.469.047 for the disposition of property in a redevelopment project
area; .. .
Therefore, it would appear that the HRA could conclude that the
proposed acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres would qualify as
a redevelopment project.
The powers given to the HRA in Section 469.012, subd. 1, include:
-16-
(4) Within its area of operation, to undertake, prepare, carry out and
operate projects and to provide for the construction, reconstruction,
improvement, extension, alteration, or repair of any project or part
thereof.
(5) ... to give, sell, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of real or
personal property or any interest therein ...and take action that is
necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of these
sections;
(6) Within its area of operation, to acquire real or personal property or
any interest therein by gifts, grant, exchange, lease, transfer,
bequest, devise or otherwise and by the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, in the manner provided by Chapter 117;
(13) To borrow money or other property and accept contributions,
grants, gifts, services, or other assistance from the federal
government, the state government, the state public bodies, or from
any other public or private sources;
-17-
(17) Within its area of operation, to determine where blight exists or
where there is unsafe, unsanitary or overcrowded housing;
(20) To lease or rent any dwellings, accommodations, lands, buildings,
structures, or facilities included in any project ...;
(21) To own, hold and improve real or personal property and to sell,
lease, exchange, transfer, assign, pledge or dispose of any real or
personal property or any. interest therein;
(22) To insure or provide for the insurance. of any real or personal
.property or operations of the authority against any risks or hazards,.
(24) To make expenditures necessary to carry out the purposes of
Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would appear to
have all of the powers necessary to carry out the contemplated project.
2.3. Authority of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Prerequisites to Exercise
of Powers
r~
~J
-18-
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is established pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.601 through 473.679.. The purposes of the
creation of the MAC are set forth in Section 473.602. These purposes include:
(1) Promote the public welfare and national security; serve public interest,
convenience, and necessity; .. .
(2) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum
environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that
end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and
other protective measures; and
(3) Promote the overall goals of the State's environmental policies and
minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around
airports.
The powers granted to the MAC by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.608 include
the following:
Subd. 1. The corporation, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed
by law, shall possess all the powers as a body corporate necessary
and convenient to accomplish the objects and perform the duties
prescribed by Sections 473.601 to 473.679.. .
Subd. 2. It may acquire by lease, purchase, gift, devise, or condemnation
proceedings all necessary right, title, and interest in and to lands and
-19-
personal property required for airports and all other real or personal
property required for the purposes. contemplated. by Sections 473.601
to 473..679, ..., pay therefore out of funds obtained. as hereinafter
.provided, and hold and dispose of the same, subject to the limitations
and conditions herein prescribed. Title to any such property acquired
by condemnation or purchase shall be in fee simple, absolute,
unqualified in any way,. but any such real. or personal property or
interest therein otherwise acquired may be so acquired or accepted
subject to any condition which may be imposed thereon by the
grantor or donor and agreed to by the corporation, not inconsistent.
with the proper use of the property by the corporation for the
purposes herein provided.
...
Subd. 5. It may contract and be contracted with on any matter connected with
any purpose or activity within the powers of the corporation as
specified in Sections 473.601 to 473.679.
Subd. 12. It may borrow money and issue bonds for the purposes of acquiring
property, the acquisition of which is herein authorized, .. .
Subd. 13. It may use for the following purposes any available moneys received
by it from any source as herein provided, in excess of those
appropriated, donated, loaned, or otherwise paid over to the
- 20 -
corporation for specific purposes, or received from the sale of bonds,
and those required for the payment of any bonds issued by the
corporation .and interest thereon, according to the terms of such
bonds or of any mortgage or trust deed accompanying the same:.. .
(b) to pay the cost of ...extending, and improving. the properties
under the control of the corporation; .. .
Therefore, it would appear that the MAC has the authority to enter into an
agreement with the City of Richfield for the acquisition of the New Ford Town and
Rich Acres neighborhoods for either airport expansion or noise abatement
purposes.
2.4. Authority of HRA and MAC Jointly Exercising Powers
2.4.1. Joint Exercise of Powers
Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental
units, by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies,
jointly or cooperatively to exercise any power common to the contracting
powers. As explained in earlier sections of this report, both the HRA and
the MAC have the authority to acquire the properties in New Ford Town.
Therefore, they may lawfully exercise these powers in common.
2.4.2. Statutory Authority to Transfer Land to Other Party with or without
Consideration
-21 -
If the acquisition of these neighborhoods is undertaken jointly between
the HRA and MAC, these parties would have considerable latitude in the
transfer of the real estate between themselves. Under Minnesota Statutes
465.035, any public corporation may convey its lands to another
governmental subdivision or public corporation for nominal consideration,
without consideration, or such consideration as may be agreed to
between to parties.
2.5. Related Consequences or Limitations on Exercise of Power
2.5.1. Action by the HRA Only Within Its Area of Operation
The authority for the HRA to act in this matter is found in Minnesota
Statutes Sections 469.001 - 469.047. As a city housing and
redevelopment authority, the Richfield HRA has as its "area of operation,"
only the area within the territorial boundaries of the City of Richfield.
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.002, Subd. 8. Generally, the HRA only
has the authority to act within its area of operation. See, for example,
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.012, Subd. 1, clauses (4), (6), (7), (8),
(17) and {30). Therefore, the activities of the HRA in this project may be
limited to activities. conducted within the City of Richfield.
The authority for the joint exercise of powers is contained in Minnesota
Statutes Section 471.59. Under Subd. 1 of this Section, the parties may
jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting
parties "including those which are the same except for the territorial limits
within which they may be exercised." If the activities associated with the
-22-
acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres involve activities outside of
the corporate limits of the City of Richfield (and. therefore outside of the
area of operation of the HRA), the parties should take the necessary
steps to assure that the activities of the HRA do not exceed the limits of
its legal authority.
2.5.2. Consequences of Statutory Deannexation upon Acquisition by MAC
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.625 provides: "Lands constituting. any
major airport or a part thereof now and which may hereafter be operated
by any public corporation organized under Sections 473.601 to 473.679,
and embraced within any city or school district organized under the laws
of the State, are hereby detached from such city or school district."
This law does not specify the formal legal action by the Metropolitan
Airports Commission which results in detachment of lands from the City of
Richfield or the Richfield School District. In formulating the relationship
between the MAC and the Richfield HRA in acquiring the New Ford Town
and Rich Acres neighborhoods, care should be taken that the operation
of the above quoted section does not have unintended consequences.
For example, the detachment of lands from Richfield may result in a
limitation on the power of the City of Richfield or the Richfield HRA to
acquire land, by negotiation or eminent domain, to develop projects, to
collect tax increment upon redevelopment of the property, etc.
-23-
III. REGULATORY REVIEW AND APPROVALS
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Approval by City of HRA Redevelopment Plan
A redevelopment plan, once proposed, must first be submitted to the Planning
Commission of the City of Richfield which is required to give its written opinion on
the plan within 30 days. The plan must then be submitted to the City Council
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.028, along with a statement of
method proposed for financing the project and the written opinion of the
planning commission. Before approving the plan, the City Council must hold a
public hearing following published notice of not less than 10 nor more than 30
days. Following the public hearing, the City Council must make the following
findings before the HRA may proceed with the project:
(1) The land in the project area would not be made available for
redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought;
(2) The redevelopment plans for the. redevelopment areas in the locality will
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the locality as a
whole, for the redevelopment of the areas by private enterprise; and
(3) The redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development
of the locality as a whole.
3.3. Metropolitan Review
~__.J
•
-24-
3.3.1. Metropolitan Council
The acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods would
have to be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The acquisition
would be a part of the long range comprehensive plan for the airport, which
requires review under Minnesota Statutes 473.146. At some point, the
acquisition would be reflected in the MAC's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
which also requires review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. However,
the action proposed is consistent with- Metropolitan Council planning guidelines
for properties adjacent to airports.
Finally, Minnesota Statutes 473.621, provides that land acquisition involving more
than five million dollars and involving the relocation of residential properties, must
be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval.
3.3.2. Metropolitan Significance Review
3.3.2.1. Metropolitan Significance Review
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.173, Subd. 1, requires the
Metropolitan Council to review all proposed matters of
metropolitan significance to be undertaken by any board or
agency or local governmental unit. The review is to be
conducted in accordance with rules, promulgated pursuant
to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section
473.173. These rules are set forth in Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 5800. The purpose of the review, as stated in
-25-
Minnesota Rules Part 5800.0010 is "... to assure that the
total effect of a ro osed project alleged to be of
P p
metropolitan significance is considered and the orderly and
economic development of the area is promoted. It is not the
council's intent to use this chapter to stop development, but
rather to work out differences among parties and arrive at
consensus."
.3.3.2.2. Consequences of Determination of Metropolitan Significance
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.173, Subd. 3(2), provides
that the Metropolitan Council is empowered to suspend
action on a proposed matter: 1) for the period. of review
during which a determination is made whether a project has
metropolitan significance, and 2) for a period not to exceed
12 months following the issuance of the final determination of
the Metropolitan Council. The same section authorizes the
.Council to prescribe appropriate conditions with regard to
the proposed matter which, if incorporated or complied with,
would cause the Council to remove the suspension. The
period of review during which the Council makes a
determination, is limited to 90 days following the receipt. by
the Council of a proposal accompanied by adequate
supporting information, unless all parties consent in writing
to an extension. However, the Council may extend the time
to complete the review by an additional 30 days if the
Council determines that a fair hearing cannot be .completed
-26-
in the time allowed. Furthermore, to avoid duplication, the
review may be suspended for up to 90 additional days to
await completion of review of a matter by another public
agency.
In the event. the Council determines that a proposed matter
is of metropolitan significance, Minnesota Statutes Section
473.173, Subd. 4(6), requires that the Council review the
proposed matter as to its consistency with and effect upon
metropolitan system plans, as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 473.852, and their adverse effects on other local
governmental units.
3.3.2.3. Initiation of Metropolitan Significance Review
A Metropolitan Significance Review is required by Minnesota.
Statutes 473.173, Subd. 4(4), upon the request of an affected
local governmental unit or metropolitan agency that is subject
to Section 473.161. This paragraph, and Minnesota Rules,
Part 400.0060, provide that a Metropolitan Significance
Review may also be requested by the unit of government in
which the proposed project is located, an affected local
governmental unit, school district, or other independent
commission, a duly authorized executive officer or governing
body of a state agency or a sponsor of the project, an
affected metropolitan agency, or on petition signed by the
smaller of the following: at least 5,000 adult residents of the
-27-
metropolitan area or that number of adult residents of an
affected local governmental unit which equals or exceeds 50
percent of the number of persons who voted in that affected
governmental unit during the most recently held state general
election. Additionally, Minnesota Statutes 473.173, Subd.
4(6), empowers the Council to review all proposed matters of
metropolitan significarACe regardless of whether the Council
has received a request to conduct that review.
Initiation of a Metropolitan Significance Review does not,
however,. mean that a project wil( be delayed. Under
Minnesota Rules, Parts 5800.0070, .0080, and .100 there are
a series of steps leading up to the hearing on the question of
metropolitan significance, during :which the process could be
terminated. Additionally, the Council may determine,
following the hearing, that the project is not of metropolitan
significance.
3.3.2.4. Projects Subject to Metropolitan Significance Review
The Council is required to review all proposed matters of
metropolitan significance to be undertaken by any board or
agency or local government unit. A proposed project may
be found to be of metropolitan significance only if it meets
one or more of the criteria set forth in Minnesota Rules, Part
5800.0040. Minnesota Rules, Part 5800.0040 sets forth the
criteria for determining metropolitan significance as follows:
-28-
5800.0040 Criteria for Determining Metropolitan Significance.
Subpart 1. Generally. For the purposes of parts 5800.0070
and 5800.0130, a proposed project listed in subparts 2 to 4
has metropolitan significance if the requirements of the
applicable subpart are met.
Subpart 2. Proposed project affectin4 a metropolitan
system. A proposed project affecting a metropolitan system
has metropolitan significance if it:
A. May result .in a substantial change in the timing, staging,
and capacity or service area of local facilities in a Council-
approved local sewer policy plan or comprehensive sewer
plan.
B. ~ May result in a wastewater flow that substantially exceeds
the flow projection for the local governmental unit as
indicated in the Water Resources Management Development
Guide/Policy Plan, Part 1. Sewage Treatment and Handling.
C. May require a new national pollution discharge elimination
system permit or state disposal system permit or a
substantial change to an existing permit.
-29-
D. May result in substantially less restrictive standards and
conditions to be ado ted for the installation or management
P
of private on-site sewer facilities than those described in the
comprehensive plan.
E. May have a substantial impact on the use of regional
recreation and open space facilities or natural resources
within the regional recreation open space system. Impacts
on the use of recreation and open space facilities include but
are not limited to traffic, safety, noise, visual obstructions (for
example, to scenic overlooks), impaired use of the facilities,
or interference with the operation or maintenance of the
facilities. Impacts on natural resources include but are .not
limited to the impact on the level, flow, or quality of a facility's
water resources (lakes, streams, wetlands) and .impact on a
facility's wildlife populations or habitats (migration routes,
breeding sites, plant communities).
F. May preclude or substantially limit the future acquisition of
land in an area identified in the capital improvement program
of the Council's Recreation Open Space Development
Guide/Policy Plan.
G. May substantially affect either the function of a
metropolitan airport identified in the Council's Aviation
.Development Guide/Policy Plan or the land use within an
airport search area.
-30-
H. Is substantially inconsistent with the "Guidelines for Land
Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise" contained in the
Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan.
I. May result in a substantial change to existing or proposed
metropolitan highways, highway interchanges, or
intersections with metropolitan highways,. or to local
roadways that have interchanges with metropolitan highways.
Substantial changes to the mainline, interchanges, and
intersections include an increase in volume that will overload
the facility, or a difference in timing, design, or location from
that indicated in the Transportation Guide/Policy Plan.
Changes to local roadways include changes in timing,
staging, volume, capacity, design, location, or functional
classification.
J. May result in a substantial change in transit service or
facilities inconsistent with the Transportation Guide/Policy
Plan.
K. May have a substantial impact on the use of solid waste
facilities identified in the Solid Waste Management
Development Guide/Policy Plan. Impacts on the use of these
facilities include but are not limited to, disruption of planned
facility staging, facility access, or other interference with the
operation and maintenance of the. facilities.
- 31 -
Subpart 3. Proposed publicly subsidized project. A
proposed publicly subsidized project has metropolitan
significance if it may threaten a publicly financed facility.
Subpart 4. Proposed project affecting a local. governmental
unit. A proposed project affecting a local governmental unit
has metropolitan significance if it:
A. May have a substantial .physical effect on a local
governmental unit other than the local unit in which the
proposed project is located. More specifically, a proposed
project may be of metropolitan significance if it adversely
affects existing or proposed land use or development in
another local government with respect to traffic, stormwater
runoff, groundwater pollution, air or noise pollution,
increased security needs {police, fire) or other similar
impacts.
B. May result in the substantial disruption of agricultural use
in the commercial-agricultural area of a local governmental
unit other than the local unit in which the proposed project is
located.
Based on the foregoing, it does not appear that the
acquisition of properties in New Ford Town and Rich Acres
neighborhoods and the demolition of the structures on those
properties would have metropolitan significance.
-32-
3.3.2.5. Projects not Subject to Metropolitan Significance Review
Under Minnesota Statutes 473.173, Subd. 4(7), previously
.approved policy plans and implementation plans of
metropolitan agencies such as the Metropolitan Airports
Commission are not subject to review as to metropolitan
significance except as specifically provided in Minnesota
Statutes 473.171. Minnesota Statutes 473.171 requires that
the Metropolitan Council shall review various specified kinds
of applications of a metropolitan agency or a local
governmental unit for funds, grants, loans or loan
guarantees from the United States of America or agencies
thereof, or the State of Minnesota, or matters of metropolitan
significance; or for similar financial assistance from the
United States or the State if review by a regional agency is
required by law; and for all applications for such financial
assistance from funds made available by the United States
to the metropolitan area for regional facilities pursuant to a
federal revenue sharing or similar program requiring
approval by a regional agency.
Minnesota Rules, Part 5800.0050, further provides that a
Metropolitan Significance Review will not be commenced if a
proposed project falls in any of a number of exempt
categories. Those exempt categories which could include
the acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres
neighborhoods include the following:
-33-
Under Subpart 2, a proposed project that inconsistent with
acouncil-approved local comprehensive plan is exempt
from review for metropolitan system effects. The Council
shall determine whether a proposed project. is consistent for
system effects with the local plan. It may be that the prior
approval by the Metropolitan Council of amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan would qualify for
purposes of this exemption.
Under Subpart 3, any proposed project of the Metropolitan
Airport Commission which is within an area of that agency's
operational authority, or will be subject to approval by the
Council as part of a regional policy plan, or any proposed
project which has previously been approved by the Council
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 173.167, is exempt
from review. Therefore, if the project comes under review
by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to any of these .review
processes, it would not be subject to Metropolitan
Significance Review.
Finally, a project is .exempt from .Metropolitan Significance
Review ff 30 days have elapsed since a negative declaration
on an environmental assessment worksheet as described in
Part 4410.1700, or a determination of adequacy on an
environmental impact statement as described in Part
4400.2800 or, in the event no environmental review is
•
•
-34-
required, any proposed project for which 30 days have
elapsed since a local governmental unit has approved a
plan amendment or rezoning to accommodate the
proposed project.
3.3.2.6. -Conclusion
The acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres
neighborhoods will not require Metropolitan Significance
Review.
3.4. Federal Aviation Administration
New Ford Town and Rich Acres could be acquired by the MAC and the Richfield
HRA without FAA approval if adequate funding were available. However, most of
the potential sources of funding include review or approval of the FAA. Because
the FAA approval is linked to the source of funding, review by the FAA is
addressed in the sections of this report dealing with those sources.
3.5. State Environmental Review
3.5.1. Introduction
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D, requires Environmental Review prior to
any major governmental action which has the potential for significant
environmental effects. Projects requiring governmental approval may not
proceed until an environmental review process has been completed.
-35-
Rules setting forth the requirements and procedures for, and nature of,
such review are set forth in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.
3.5.2. General Procedures
Under Minnesota Rules there are two principle parts to an Environmental
Review. The first is the preparation of an environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW) which is followed in cases in which the .EAW reveals the
potential for significant environmental effects, by an environmental impact
statement (EIS). These environmental documents are not used to justify a
decision, nor do indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily
.require that a project be disapproved. Rather, environmental documents
are used as guides in carrying out the responsibilities of governmental
units to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects. Minnesota
Rules, Part 4410.0300, Subp. 3.
An EAW serves primarily to aid in the determination of whether an EIS is
needed and to serve as a basis to begin the scoping process for an EIS.
An EAW. must be prepared for any project which meets or exceeds the
thresholds of certain mandatory EAW categories listed in Part 4410.4300,
or in any of the EIS categories listed in Part 4410.4400 of Minnesota Rules.
A governmental body may also prepare a discretionary EAW when a
mandatory EAW is not required by the rules if the governmental body
determines, because of the. nature or location of a proposed project, that it
may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Minnesota
Rules, Part 4410.1000, Subp. 3. Additionally, an EAW .review process may
be commenced by a filing of a petition that contains the signatures of at
-36-
least 25 individuals. Such a petition is filed with the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) which designates a Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU) for a determination whether to prepare an EAW.
The RGU may either order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence
presented by the petitioners .and other information available to the RGU
demonstrates that the project may have the potential for significant
environmental effects, or the RGU may deny the petition if the evidence
fails to demonstrate the potential for such effects. The RGU has 15 days
from the receipt of the petition to decide on the: need for an EAW. Under
Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.1100, Subp. 7, an additional 15 days may be
allowed for the RGU to determine whether to prepare an EAW. Under
Subp. 8 of the same Part, the RGU shall, within five days of its decision,
notify the EQB staff and the petitioner's representative of its decision. The
EQB then publishes notice of the RGU's decision concerning the petition
in the EQB Monitor.
The RGU, for this proposed project, would be determined under Part
4410.0500. The RGU could be the MAC or, more probably, the City of
Richfield.
The requirements for the content of an EAW are set forth in Part
4410.1200. The EAW must identify the project, describe the project and
its characteristics and the land use and physical features of the
surrounding area, identify major potential environmental impacts and
issues that may require further investigation before the project is
commenced and identify all known governmental approvals, reviews or
financing required and the status of those actions.
-37-
Within five days after the RGU approves the. EAW, it shall provide a copy
to the EQB staff. which then. publishes notice`of the availability of the EAW
in the EQB Monitor. Under Part 4410.1600, a 30-day period for review
and comment on the EAW commences the day the EAW availability notice
is published in the EQB Monitor. During that 30-day period, written
comments are submitted to the RGU on the accuracy. and completeness
on the material contained in the EAW, the potential impacts that may
warrant further investigation before the project is commenced, and the
need for an EIS on the proposed project. The RGU may also hold one or
.more public meetings to gather comments on the EAW if it determines a
meeting is necessary or helpful
Following the completion of the commenf period, the RGU shall either
make a .negative or a positive declaration, based on the evidence
gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the
EAW.. This decision is to be made between 3 and 30 days after the close
of the review period. The RGU is required to maintain a record, including
specific findings of fact supporting its decision. The record must include
speck responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW.
Following its decision, the RGU is to provide a copy of the decision to all
persons who commented, in writing, during the 30-day review period and
to any other person who has made a written request. Upon notification to
the EQB, the decision shall be published in the EQB Monitor. If the
decision is positive, that is that an EIS shall be prepared, the notice shall
also indicate the date, time and place of the scoping review meeting for
determining the scope and content of the EIS. Minnesota Rules, Part
•
C
C
-38-
4410.1700. An EIS must be prepared for any of the mandatory categories
listed in Part 4410.4400. Additionally, a discretionary EIS is to be
prepared if, based on the EAW and any comments or additional
information received during the EAW comment period, the RGU
determines that the project has the. potential for significant environmental
effects.
Under Part 4410.2100, the EIS Review begins with a scoping process in
which those issues which are relevant to the proposed project are
identified and the form, level of detail, content, alternatives, time table for
preparation., and other such matters are identified. The EAW is to be used
as the basis for the scoping process. The 30-day scoping period begins
with the publication of the notice of the availability of the EAW. During this
scoping period, the RGU must provide at least one scoping meeting
which is to be held not less than 15 days after publication of the notice of
availability of the EAW. A final scoping decision is to issued within 15 days
after the close of the 30-day scoping period. If the EIS is being prepared
as a discretionary EIS, the schedule for scoping of the EIS is as follows:
At least 10 days, but not more than 20 days after the notice of a positive
declaration is published in the EQB Monitor, a public hearing is to be held
to review the scope of the EIS. Within 45 days after the positive
declaration is published, the RGU shall issue its final decision regarding
the scope of the EIS.
The Scoping Decision shall contain the issues to be addressed in the EIS,
the time limits for preparation of EIS, identfication of permits for which
information will be gathered concurrently with the EIS preparation,
-39-
identification of the permits for which a record of decision will. be required,
alternatives that will be addressed in the EIS, identification of potential
impact areas resulting from the project itself and related actions which
..shall be addressed in the EIS, and identification of necessary studies
requiring compilation of existing information or the development of new
data that can be generated within a reasonable amount of time and at a
reasonable. cost. Part 4410.2100, Subp. 6. An EIS Preparation Notice
shall be published within 45 days after the Scoping Decision is issued.
Part 4410.2100, Subp. 9.
The requirements for the content of an EIS are set forth in Part 4410.2300.
Among other things, the EIS is to contain: a description of the project in
sufficient detail to allow the public to identify the purpose of the project, its
size, scope, environmental setting, geographic location, and the
anticipated phase of development;. governmental approvals required;
alternatives to the proposed action which compares the environmental
impacts of the proposal with other reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project; the environmental, economic, employment and
sociological impacts for the purposed project and each major .alternative;
those measures that could reasonably eliminate or minimize any adverse
environmental, economic, employment or sociological effects of the
proposed project.
Upon completion of the draft EIS, the RGU is to make the EIS available for
public review and comment, and to hold an informational meeting on the
draft EIS. The informational meeting must be held not less than 15 days
after the publication of the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the EQB
•
•
-40-
Monitor. The record for comment must remain open for public comment
not less than 10 days after the last date of the informational meeting.
Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.2600.
The RGU is then to prepare a final EIS in which it responds to the timely
substantive comments on the draft EIS consistent with the scoping
document. Copies of the final EIS are to be provided to all persons
receiving copies of the draft EIS, any person who submitted substantive
comment on the draft EIS, and any person requesting a copy of the final
EIS. Notice of the availability of the final EIS is then to be published in the
EQB Monitor. The RGU is to determine the adequacy of the final EIS
unless the EQB makes a determination that it will determine the adequacy
of the final EIS. Interested persons may submit written comments on the
adequacy of the EIS for a period of not less than 10 days following
publication in the EQB Monitor of the notice of availability of the final EIS.
Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.2800. Under Part 4410.3100, a governmental
unit shall not take any action with respect to a project, including the
acquisition of property, until a petition for an EAW has been dismissed, a
negative declaration has been issued, or until the final EIS has been
determined adequate by the RGU or the EQB. Minnesota Rules, Part
4410.3100.
3.5.3. State Environmental Review Process as Applied to the Acquisition of New
Ford Town and Rich Acres
The proposed acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres, by itself, is
not among the types of projects listed in either the mandatory EAW or the
-41 -
mandatory EIS sections of the rules. Therefore, unless it is concluded that
this project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, it
would not seem. that an EAW or an EIS would be required. However, there
are a number of end-use scenarios which would have the potential for
significant environmental effects. Some of these are listed among the
mandatory EAW and EIS categories. For example, Subp. 14 of Part
4410.4300, requires a mandatory EAW for construction of a new
warehouse or light industrial facility in excess of 450,000 square feet of
gross floor space or a new industrial, commercial, or institutional facility in
excess of 300,000 square feet. Subp. 21 of the same section requires any
mandatory EAW for construction of a runway extension that would
upgrade an existing airport runway to permit usage by aircraft over 12,500
pound"s that are at least three decibels louder than aircraft currently using
the runway. Part 4410.4400, Subp. 11, requires a mandatory EIS. for
construction of a new warehouse or li ht industrial facili 'n
g ty i .excess of one
million feet of gross floor space or a new industrial, commercial, or
institutional facility in excess of 750,000 square feet. Subp. 15 of the same
Part requires a mandatory EIS for construction of a paved and lighted
airport runway of 5,000 feet of length or greater. The acquisition of the
New Ford Town and Rich-Acres neighborhoods. would be the first step
toward putting these neighborhoods to a more productive and compatible
land. use. Since there are so many possible end-uses with such widely
varying environmental effects, it is not reasonably possible to prepare a
complete environmental .review of the project at this time. It is possible,
however, to prepare an environmental review on the first step or phase of
the overall project. In such cases, the rules require a phased
environmental review as well.
-42-
Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.0200, Subp. 9b, defines "connection actions"
as follows: "Two projects are 'connected actions' if a responsible
environmental unit determines they are related in any of the following ways:
A. One project would directly induce the other; B. One project is a
prerequisite for the other; or C. Neither project is justified by itself." Subp.
60 of the same Part defines "phased action" as meaning "...two or more
projects [are] undertaken by the same proposer that an RGU determines:
A. Will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and B.
Are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period
of time."
Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.1000, Subp. 4, deals with connected actions
and phased actions. This subpart provides that multiple projects and
multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased
actions must be considered in total when determining the need for an
EAW, preparing the EAW, and determining the need for an EIS. In
connection actions and phased actions where it is not possible to
adequately address all the project components or stages at the time of the
initial EAW, a new EAW must be completed before approval and
construction of each subsequent project component or stage. Each EAW
must briefly describe the past and future stages or components to which
the subject of the present EAW is related. When review of a total project is
separated under this Subpart, the components or stages addressed in
each EAW must include at least all components or stages for which stages
or approvals are being sought from the RGU or other governmental units.
-43-
Under Part 4410.4300, Subp. 1, dealing with mandatory EAW categories,
multi le ro'ects and multi le sta es of a sin le ro'ect that are corm
p p) p g g p ~ ected
actions or phased actions must be considered in total when comparing the
project or projects to the thresholds of this Part and Part 4410.4400,
dealing with mandatory EIS categories.
It is possible, of course, that no development will occur in the New Ford
Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods in the future which will, by itself,
require the preparation of an environmental review document. However,. a
challenge to a decision not to conduct an environmental review could be
successful on the basis of either of two arguments. First, many of the
reasonable possible end-use scenarios will require an EAW,, and perhaps
an EIS.. If such a document is prepared, the. environmental consequences
of action could well include, for example, the impact of dislocating
approximately 400 families. If this review would be required as a part of a
review prior to the end-use decision, and if acquisition is a necessary first
step for such a decision (i.e. a "connected action"), then arguably, the
environmental review should be conducted now and as the first step of
such connected actions. Second, it may be #hat the project itself, involving
acquisition and demolition of 400 homes, may have the. potential for
sign cant environmental effect. Therefore, at least an EAW should be
prepared to determine the need for an EIS.
3.6. Federal Environmental Review
Environmental review. under federal law is similar to review .under Minnesota law
and regulations. If the acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres involves a
-44-
federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 42 U.S.C.
4321, et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, would
require the preparation of an environmental assessment resulting either in a
finding of no significant environmental impacts or the completion of an
environmental impact statement, unless the proposed project fits a categorical
exclusion. The procedure and regulations for such review, in the case of FAA
actions relating to airports, are found in FAA Order 5050.4A.
If the proposed acquisition were a part of a major airport improvement such as
construction of a new runway, a full environmental review would clearly be
required. Such a review would include sociological impacts such as relocation of
residents of these neighborhoods. However, whether an FAA environmental
review is required would depend on the degree of involvement of the FAA in the
project. If the FAA were not involved, no federal environmental review would be
required. Or if FAA involvement were limited to expenditure of funds under FAA
noise regulations (i.e. Part 150), a federal EIS would not be required. However,
environmental review would be required if the FAA were involved, for example, in
the approval of the use of airport improvement project funds or the approval of
an airport layout plan, also known as a master plan expansion.
If federal environmental review is required, it may be satisfied in one of three
ways:
1) A determination that the activity fits a categorical exclusion,
2) An environmental assessment resulting in a finding of no significant
environmental effect, or
-45-
3) The preparation and approval an environmental impact statement..
If the FAA determines, after an initial review of the sponsor's proposal, that the
action is categorically excluded in accordance with paragraph 23 of Order
5050.4A, no environmental assessment is necessary. If the acquisition of the
New Ford Town and .Rich Acres neighborhoods were the first step in
construction of a new runway, for example, the review of the environmental
impact of the acquisition would be part of the environmental review of the overall
project. However, at this time, it is not known how these neighborhoods will
ultimately be used or developed. The acquisition of these properties is fully
justified on the basis of noise abatement, and it may be that these
neighborhoods will not be developed for airport use but. will be redeveloped with
some commercial or industrial use which is less noise sensitive than residential
uses.
Under these circumstances, it would seem that the acquisition of these
neighborhoods would fit one of the categorical exclusions set forth in Order
5050.4A. Paragraph 23 of that Order includes among the categorical exclusions:
"(8) Projects to carry out noise compatibility programs. (9) Land acquisition and
relocation associated with any of the above items." Under paragraph 23, the
acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres, as a noise compatibility program,
would not require an environmental assessment unless this activity would fit one
of the "extraordinary circumstances" listed in paragraph 24 of the Order. The
extraordinary circumstances which could conceivably apply to acquisition of
these properties for noise abatement purposes are "d. An action that is likely to
be highly controversial with respect to the availability of adequate relocation
-46-
housing. In an action involving relocation of persons or businesses, a
controversy over the amount of the acquisition or relocation payments is not
considered to be a .controversy with respect to availability of adequate relocation
housing. " an~Y< "e. ~t~~n action that is likely to: (1) cause substantial division or
disruption of . ~ . ~;~lished community, or disrupt orderly, planned
development, or is likely not to be reasonably consistent with plans or goals that
have been adopted by the community in which the project is located; ...." If
one of these extraordinary circumstances is found to apply, a federal.
environmental assessment would be required. The environmental assessment
which would be prepared in accordance with state environmental laws should
provide sufficient information to determine whether extraordinary circumstances
justify the preparation of a federal environmental assessment on this project
which would otherwise seem to be included in the categorical exclusions.
As is the case under state environmental law, federal law requires connected
action to be reviewed in the same environmental review process. See Order
5050.4a, paragraph 26. If the land acquisition were necessarily connected with
some other action which required an environmental review, such as construction
of a new runway, the environmental review of the residential acquisition should
be a part of that review which, in all probability, would involve a full environmental
impact statement. The section of this report on state environmental review
concludes that environmental review under state law would be required in part
on the basis that the acquisitions are connected with actions which would require
environmental review. However, the same conclusion does not necessarily follow
with respect to federal environmental review for two reasons. First, unlike state
law, the federal regulations cited above provide a categorical exclusion for
acquisition and relocation associated with noise compatibility programs. And
-47-
second, some of the possible end uses to which the required land could be put
do not require environmental review under federal law. For example, commercial
or industrial development of a certain size by the Richfield HRA would require
environmental .review under state law;. however, if no feder °~! action were
involved, no federal environmental review would be required. Therefore, it would
seem to be likely that the FAA would conclude that no environmental assessment
was required in this case as long as the acquisition is not tied to airport
improvements such as construction of a new runway, for which an EIS would be
required.
3.7. Miscellaneous
3.7.1. LAWCON or Other Park Restrictions
None of the park properties within New Ford Town and Rich Acres were
acquired using LAWCON or any other Federal or State funds. There are
no restrictions regarding subsequent sale.
3.7.2. Historical Significance
Although a complete historical survey has not yet been undertaken, there
are no known areas or buildings of historical significance within New Ford
Town or Rich Acres.
3.7.3. Wetlands Preservation
There are no designated wetlands within New Ford Town or Rich Acres.
~~
•
-48-
IV ESTIMATED COSTS OF ACQUISITION DEMOLITION AND MANAGEMENT
4.1. Introduction
The Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield (HRA) has
gained extensive experience in assembling land. Since the late 1970's, a variety
of commercial and residential property has been acquired for redevelopment
purposes. The cost estimates which follow are based on that experience as well
as recent discussions with appraisers, relocation consultants, demolition
contractors, and attorneys where the focus was a New Ford Town and Rich
Acres "buyout" strategy.
Consideration was given in the cost estimate to the more restrictive of the
requirements under federal, especially FAA, and state regulations. Even though
this may increase the cost, the alternative final disposition of the property dictates
potentially different ultimate funding sources and requirements. To insure due
consideration of the airport related issues, advice and oversight will be obtained
from a knowledgeable consultant. A professional consultant will be selected
according to federal, state and local criteria with special attention to FAA
guidelines.
4.2. Costs of Acquisition
It is important to keep in mind that the purchase of property figures are
estimates. The official offer to purchase made to a property owner will be based
on an appraisal report prepared by an independent fee appraiser.
-49-
The property in New Ford Town and Rich Acres was analyzed based on existing
use: single family residential, double bungalow, apartment, commercial, vacant
lot, church or park land.. The 1990 assessed value was adjusted based on the
City's experience in land acquisition and further includes a contingency for
condemnation awards. The total figure of $29,538,649 is an estimated fair market.
value as of 1991 and has not been adjusted for inflation or deflation over the term
of the buy out period. The longer the time line, the more uncertainty which is
introduced into these values.
Related acquisition costs include appraisal, legal and administrative costs in the
amount of $1,525,750.
City experience in acquisition would indicate that about half of the property
owners will request an additional appraisal. This will cost an additional $90,000.
This may not be an FAA reimbursable. cost.
4.3. Relocation Costs
These costs are based on application of the 49 CFR Part 24 Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations of 1970, as amended,
which would be applicable with FAA or other funding. Again, it is important to
note that the relocation payments are based on experience. The estimates are
based on the 1990 owner/tenant mix and, because of substantially different
relocation costs depending on occupancy, will vary over time. Advice will. be
solicited to ensure FAA compliance. The estimated total payment for relocation is
$9,568,950. Consultant cost for this relocation effort is estimated at $500,000.
•
-50-
4.4. Demolition
These estimates are based on past experience and discussions with demolition
contractors. They do not reflect the benefit of contract negotiation. However,
the estimates are representative of the cost to demolish and backfill and seed.
Asbestos removal is also included. Any extraordinary contamination problems
are not reflected in these estimates. The demolition contract will suggest
maximum reuse and relocation of housing units within the time lines given.
Reflected in the total demolition cost of $2,297,000 is a volume discount that
could be lost in part by an extended acquisit9on period.
4.5. Information Office
The operation of an information office within an existing house in New Ford
Town and Rich Acres is estimated at $300,000 for the three years.
4.6. Management
Management costs are related to utilities and maintenance of the yard space
after clearance. Under the strategy discussed in Chapter VII with regards to the
rate of purchase of property and site clearance, total costs would be $332,420.
4.7. Costs of Condemnation
The number of properties against which condemnation would be initiated is
expected to be low. However, it is a contingent factor for which costs would be
incurred. The estimate includes legal work and expert testimony but assumes
-51 -
no major legal challenge to the taking. Assuming 8% of the properties will
require condemnation results in an estimated cost of $200,000.
4.8. EAW
The cost of preparing an EAW for the "buyout" has been projected at
approximately $8500. An additional part of the preparation of the EAW would be
an assessment of the amount of asbestos in each of the structures which would
run about $84,800. The need for funds to remove hazardous waste or other
substances will result from the EAW and thus has not been included here.
4.9. Summary Total Estimated Costs
4.2.1. Purchase of Property
4.2.2. Related Acquisition
4.2.3. Owner/Seller Appraisals
4.3.1. Relocation Payments
4.3.2. Relocation Consultant
4.4.1. Demolition
4.5. Information Office
4.6. Management
4.7. Condemnation Fees
4.8. EAW Preparation
. 4.8.1. Asbestos Assessment
Contingency (10%)
Total
$28,538,649
1,525,750
90,000
9,568,950
500,000
2,297,000
300,000
332,420
200,000
8,500
84,800
4,300.000
$47,213,649
r ~,
L_.J
-52-
4.10. Time and Costs
The anticipated "buyout" period is short. There are two significant reasons for
keeping the buyout time as short as possible; the impact on residents and the
impact on costs. All indications are that most of the residents are anxious to
relocate. Once the process starts, the desire to leave wilt grow stronger. If the
acquisition period drags, frustration and anger may interfere with the process.
Because of the short period projected for the acquisition of property, the
estimated costs have not been increased to reflect the passage of time. Costs
reflect the 1990-91 time period. If the acquisition process is spread .beyond a
three year period and/or initiation of the acquisition process is delayed beyond
early 1993, cost increases must be anticipated. Property values may increase
which could impact the purchase of homes in Rich Acres and New Ford Town.
Relocation payments may increase with increases in home values for
replacement homes. Appraisal costs would increase due to the need to
reevaluate comparable sales. Demolition costs could increase because of the
diminution of the economics of scale and rising tipping fees. Staffing costs and
property maintenance costs would increase proportionately. Finally, there is
always the prospect of changes in laws and administrative rules which could
impact costs directly or indirectly.
An examination of historical data suggests that the increases could approximate
$600,000 to $900,000 per year if the acquisition period extends beyond three
years.
-53-
V. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT
5.1. Introduction
The transition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres area from residential use to
either airport related uses or commercial/industrial uses will have significant
financial impacts upon the City of Richfield (the "City") and the Richfield School
District (the "Schools"). Although the property value of New Ford Town and Rich
Acres represents approximately 2 percent of the City's and 1 percent of the
Schools' jurisdiction, the marginal costs of lost revenue to both of the public
entities. cannot be absorbed through other revenue sources nor through
corresponding cosf savings.
Therefore, the City and Schools have calculated the total amount of lost revenue
New. Ford Town and Rich Acres. project for both annual costs and one-time
capital costs. These revenue sources include state aids, properly taxes,
enterprise fund revenues, outstanding debt, fiscal disparities, etc.: The City and
Schools have also included estimates of potential savings due to a decreased
level of services necessary to the residents of the area.
The total amount of the revenue. loss each entity will incur will depend upon the
nature of the revenue source and the future use of the property. The calculation
for the Schools' annual loss contains less variation than the City's estimates
because all future scenarios will result in a decrease in the number of students in
the jurisdiction. The calculation for lost City revenues will vary with the ultimate. .
disposition of the property; however, the variation range is expected. to be less
than 25 percent of the. initial estimates.
-54-
Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 will assume that the future use of the .New Ford
Town and Rich Acres area will be airport uses under the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (the "MAC") because it is the "worst case"
scenario or the highest estimates of toss. Section 5.4 will explore the effects of
differing uses upon the City and Schools finances.
Section 5.2 (City Costs) and Section 5.3 (Schools Costs) also follow similar
formats. Each section begins with a summary table with individual line items of
the gross annual costs to the entity is listed first. A second summary table
describes the savings due to reduced services and-the resulting net costs to
each entity. Section 5.2 includes a description of the one-time costs associated
with the demolition of the property. Following each of the summary tables are
short narratives outlining the methodology for calculating the costs and savings.
In Appendix are documents which further detail the costs for each line item.
Based upon the initial calculations, a total annual loss is anticipated to be
$353,000 for the Schools and $177,414 for the City for a total of $530,414 per
year. The estimated 'one-time cost for the City is $3,610,000.
5.2. Costs to City of Richfield
TABLE 5A
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CITY REVENUE LOSSES
ASSOCIATED WITH NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
-55-
1. Property Taxes
2. State General Fund Aid (LGA/HACA/Equal./Disp.)
3. Fiscal Disparities
4. ..Utility Revenue
5. Recreation/Parks
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
$ 81,533
0
38,518
67,000
24.213
$211,264
Each of the line items found in Table 5A are based upon the most recent final
figures. Many of the line items such as property taxes and formulas for state
aids will change over time. As these changes occur, it is expected that the line
items will be recalculated. The costs above also reflect the revenue losses at
final completion of the project. Once the acquisition schedule is finalized, the
costs to the City will be modified accordingly.
Property taxes estimates are a simple computation. of the total tax capacity of the
New Ford Town and Rich Acres area multiplied times the City's local tax capacity
extension rate after fiscal disparities value for commercial/industrial properties is
subtracted. For taxes payable in 1991 (based upon 1990 market values) the
total tax capacity of the area was $374,840. The fiscal disparities contribution for
the parcels of commercial/industrial property is estimated to be $30,675. The
City's tax rate for 1991 was .20369. Therefore, $344,165 x .20369 = $81,533.
This figure will be updated to include final values and tax rates for taxes payable
in 1992, expected in January 1992.
•
~~
L__J
~~
-56-
State general fund aid includes four types of aid: local government aid (LGA),
homestead and agricultural aid (RAGA}, equalization aid, and disparity aid.
Currently each of these aid formulas begin with a base amount which can only
be increased. Therefore, the 1991 amounts are not expected to be reduced due
to decreased market value or a loss of the total number of homestead residential
properties.
Fiscal disparities is one of the most complicated formulas in local government
finances. The .portion of the fiscal disparities formula affected most. significantly is
the fiscal capacity of the City. Because the City will be losing a greater
proportion of its population relative to the loss of market value in New Ford Town
and Rich Acres, the City will appear wealthier and therefore lose $38,949 in fiscal
disparities revenue. A detailed explanation of the fiscal disparities formula is
found in Appendix _.
The City's recreation fund will lose funds in the loss of participants in a variety of
user funded recreational programs, including the loss of participants at the
swimming pool/ice arena. The per capita revenue for recreation programming in
the City is $22.17. The population loss of 1,092 represents a loss of $24,213
annually at all recreation/park facilities.
Utility revenue lost to the City includes the water charges to the parcels of the
property only, estimated to be $67,000 per year.
-57-
TABLE 5B
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CITY SAVINGS DUE TO LOSS
OF NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
1. Utility Operating Savings $ 29,000
2. Park & Recreation Program/Maintenance Savings 4,850
TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
33,850
NET ANNUAL COST TO CITY OF RICHFIELD $177,414
(Table 5A total less Table 56 Total)
•
The savings for the City water utility results from a reduction in the amount of
electricity and chemicals necessary for the water supply and the payments to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for sewage disposal
A savings will be experienced in the recreation and park maintenance area due
to the elimination of New Ford Town Park. There will be no need for seasonal
staffing and maintenance of an ice rink and play feature.
Aside from savings in recreation and park staff,. staff reductions. for the City are
minimal compared to the total revenue loss due to the size of New Ford Town
and Rich Acres relative ~to the entire City. Most of the studies regarding future
staff increases or cuts completed for municipalities in Minnesota have measured
personnel services on the basis of a per capita figure. The calculation is not as
simple as multiplying the percentage of population lost in New Ford Town and
Rich Acres (3 percent) times the number of staff in the City. Instead, a
breakdown by department in the City is necessary.
-58-
For example, according to 1990 Census data, the total population for the City of
Richfield is 35,710 and the City has a total of 13 staff in its Community
Development Department. Therefore, for each .2,747 residents of the City there is
one Community Development staff person.. Because the loss of residents in New
Ford Town is expected to be 1,092 persons, the City is 1,655 persons short of
justifying cutting a staff member in that particular department. If the assumption
is made that each department in the City is self-contained in terms of
responsibilities, adepartment would .have to have 33 staff in order to justify a cut
in one position. The only two departments with more than 33 staff are Public
Safety and Community Services.
The exception to the per capita methodology of measuring city services is in the
area of public safety. Services for police officers and public safety officers is
usually based upon the mix of property types in a community. Demand for
police calls vary greatly between a city with a high percentage of retail property
and a city with a high residential property value. A two year study (1988-89) of
actual calls for service in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres areas indicate that
calls for service in these areas represent 2.78% of all calls. Based on that data,
the loss of 356 dwelling units of single family units and 63 dwelling units of multi-
family in New Ford Town and Rich Acres does not justify a reduction in the public
safety staff.
TABLE 5C
SUMMARY OF ONE-TIME CITY COSTS DUE TO LOSS
OF NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
-59-
1. City Park (New Ford Town/Rich Acres) 2 Parks 285,000
2. Infrastructure Value and Demolition 3,325,000
TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS ~ $3,610,000
The City Parks represent two parks, New Ford Town Park and the Rich Acres
.Playground. The New Ford Town Park contains three parcels of land and has a
park building along with fairly extensive playfeature. The Rich Acres Playground
is a small park with basic playfeatures and greenspace.
The infrastructure costs are divided into a number of categories. The first is the
value of the underground sewer, water and storm water systems, estimated at
$1,000,000. The value of streets, lighting and sidewalks is estimated at
$1,500,000. Demolition of the sewer and. water systems is estimated to be
$405,000 and the demolition of the other utilities and streets is projected to be
$330,000 for a total of $3,325,000. Again,. these costs will be incurred at a variety.
of points in the future.
5.3. Costs to Richfield School District (Schools)
TABLE 5D
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL LOSS OF REVENUE TO SCHOOLS
ASSOCIATED WITH NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
-60-
1. State Aid -General Education Revenue $617,000
2. State Aid -Transportation 25,000
3. State Aid -Textbooks and Equipment 12,000
4. .State Aid -Facilities 25,000
5. Local Excess Referenda Levy 46.000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $725,000
Because Richfield is fully developed, in all of the calculations associated with the
Schools, it is anticipated that no students currently residing within New Ford
Town and Rich Acres will remain within the Schools' jurisdiction. Therefore, there
is no offset of retaining existing students.
State aids for funding of K-12 education are based upon average daily
membership (ADM) and weighted daily average membership (WADM). The state
gives more aid to students in high school than elementary age children, therefore
the WADM will reflect the relative age of students in a school district. According
to Schools' figures, there are 182 students living in New Ford Town and Rich
Acres who attend Richfield schools, or approximately 4 percent of the total
enrollment. This number equals 174.20 ADMs and 189.26 WADMs. The State of
Minnesota will guarantee a minimum income per WADM or ADM for each school
district for various state mandated programs.
The single largest state aid is general education revenue. For the 1990/1991
school district, this minimum figure is $3,260 per WADM for the district. School
districts must apply a minimum tax rate to their jurisdiction to raise a portion of
-61 -
the guaranteed income. The gap between the property tax income. and the
minimum guarantee is funded by the state. Thus, a decrease in propertytax
wealth for state programs will not result. in a loss of revenue for the school
district. The lower the property tax income, the greater the state's share of the
funding. However, if the number of WADMs decreases, then the state will reduce
the amount of aid. Therefore, $3,260 x 189.26 = $617,000.
A variety of other state aid categories also exist depending upon the number of
special education students, the size of the school district, etc. The other state
programs for which the Schools anticipate a reduction in state aid are:-
transportation, textbooks and equipment, and facilities aid.. These programs are
itemized in Table 5D.
The final line item on Table 5D is local excess referenda levy.. The. Schools have
three outstanding operating referenda passed by the voters of the jurisdiction.
Because these referenda were approved prior to 1988, the tax rate is frozen.
Therefore, the lower the tax capacity in he Schools, the less income for
operations the Schools receive. These funds are not matched by any type of
state funds.
TABLE 5E
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SAVINGS TO SCHOOLS
ASSOCIATED WITH NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES
1. Staff Reductions $335,000
2. Transportation 25,000
-62-
3. Textbook and Equipment 12.000
TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $372,000
NET ANNUAL COST TO RICHFIELD SCHOOLS $353,000
The Schools have calculated a reduction of 13 teachers associated with the loss
of the 189.26 WADMs. This constitutes the staff reductions for the. Schools. The
loss of state aids for transportation and textbooks and equipment will be
matched dollar for dollar by cost savings. The total net annual cost to the
Schools (Table 5D-Table 5E) is $353.000.
-63-
VI. FINANCING
6.1. Introduction
This. section addresses the potential sources of revenue to finance the
acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. This section will also define. the
limitations on the uses of those funds, from an economic, implementation, and
political standpoint.
6.2. Summary. of Other Airports/Overall Analysis
A number of airports around the United States were contacted to determine if
•
they were undertaking similar acquisition .and what types of financing were being
-~
utilized. The results of this informal survey indicate that a significant number of
other airports have completed, are in the process of completing or are planning
a significant amount of residential acquisition. The airports surveyed were all of a
similar size or smaller than MSP, however, the New Ford Towne and Rich Acres
project is on a smaller scale than the other airports projects which averaged
between 500 and 800 homes. Details of the informal survey are found in
Appendix _.
It was also determined that many of the airport related projects involved either
general obligation or revenue bonds. While the debt service on these bonds
. was to be anticipated to be paid through federal funds, both the air carriers and
the local governments guaranteed short-run payments for the bonds. In some
instances, general obligation bonds. were issued with a clear intent to levy ad
valorem taxes to pay for acquisition.
-64-
6.3. Financing Mechanisms: Pay-As-You-Go vs. Up-Front
to conjunction with. the identification of revenue sources is the identification of
funding mechanisms for the project. The three most common. mechanisms,
pay-as-you-go, general obligation bonds and revenue bonds, are not mutually
exclusive. The project may employ one type of funding mechanism or may
employ all three of the mechanisms. Typically, funding mechanisms are
determined on the basis of political decisions and on the basis of revenue source
availability.
6.3.1. General Obligation or Revenue Bonds
In order to facilitate a short acquisition period as recommended, it may be
necessary to issue bonds at the beginning of the project for borrowing to
front end the cost of acquisition. The two most common methods of
public borrowing are the issuance of either general obligation or revenue
bonds.
6.3.1.1. General Obligation (G.O.) bonds, issued by the MAC or the
City of Richfield, would bear a lower interest rate than
revenue bonds and would be the easier to sell based on
their respective credit ratings. If the project would include
G.O. bonds, the acquisition could take place within a matter
of months and could be unrestricted by the timing of other
funds. The major limitations are that G.O. bonds are
politically difficult and that both the MAC and Richfield may
-65-
have reached their borrowing authority, either legally or as a
. practical matter to maintain their. current credit ratings.
Additionally, even if G.O. borrowing. was available, sources
for the annual debt service payments would not be
.completely guaranteed until. the future land is established.
6.3.1.2. Another means to issuing debt is through .the use of
revenue bonds. Using revenue bonds, the need for either
MAC or the City to put up a general obligation pledge to
:debt service is eliminated. As is true with the general
obligation bonds, the acquisition of the project would not be
restricted by the timing of the funds. The limitations on the
use of revenue bonds are similar to that of general
obligation bonds, in that the sources for the annual debt
service would not be known until land use is established.
Additionally, the interest rate on revenue bonds will likely be
higher than G.O. bonds because the major revenue source
would be derived unsecured .sources or security from
carriers at the MSP and would reflect the carriers' bond
rating.
6.3.2. Pay-As-You-Go Program
Without the benefit of bonds, the other funding mechanism for the project
is apay-as-you-go program. Under this scenario, either sufficient
funding is available to pay for acquisition in a very short period of time or
the acquisition schedule is lengthened to accommodate less annual
-ss-
income for the project. Under pay-as-you-go, no governmental unit will
be responsible for issuing debt; therefore no tax dollars would be
required for the project.
6.4. Revenue Sources
To determine the types of revenue sources available, an attempt was made to
define all possible sources, without regard to perceived limitations.
6.4.1. Tax Increment Financing
If the eventual land use of the project includes short term or long term
commercial/industrial redevelopment, revenue could be generated in the
form of tax increment funds to recover previous investments or to meet
debt service. The City could establish a traditional tax increment district
or request special legislation from the legislature for an enhancement to
the tax increment district based upon the uniqueness of the noise
problem. Tax increment could contribute to the debt service on bonds
previously issued, acquisition cost, future development cost, or
reimbursements. Potential development could be highly dense and
therefore provide a significant amount of revenue for the project.
Tax increment is limited in the case of airport related uses. Airport
property pays a minimal property tax which would reduce revenue flows.
Special legislation would be required to make tax increment for airport
property financially and legally feasible. Another limitation on tax
increment is that at the current time we cannot predict the market for
-67-
future commercial/industrial uses in terms of the timing or the size of-the
future projects, and the amount. of tax increment it would generate.
6.4.2. Federal Sources
6.4.2.1. There are a number of types of federal funds available to the
airport for either airport related. or sound abatement uses:.
The airport currently is eligible to receive about $4.0 million a
year in Part 150 money and $7.8 million a year in AIP
discretionary and entitlement funds, totals which change
every year. These two sources could contribute to debt
service on bonds or could be used for pay-as-you-go (or
over-time) acquisition.
Federal funding sources are limited in predictability and total
dollar-amount, alone are. not sufficient to acquire all of the
property in a short time frame. Additionally, eligibility
restrictions in parts of the federal .regulations may exclude
part of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. Last of all, in order
to qualify for either AIP or Part .150 money, the property to
be acquired must be part of an approved master plan. At
the current time, the property is not included in the MAC
master plan.
6.4.2.2.. Another source of federal funds could be federal grants not
directly derived from FAA funds. Examples of such federal
funds include funds for. economic development,
-68-
transportation funds,. etc. The disadvantages of these funds
are that the disposition of the property would need to be
known at the time of appropriation and that the availability of
these funds is not predictable. However, these funds could
be used to reimburse the City and MAC at a later date.
6.4.3. Land Sales
Once New Ford Town and Rich Acres are acquired, structures are
demolished, and the future use is determined, there is a potential to
receive revenue through the sale of the land to private firms. This source
potentially can contribute to debt service cost or other acquisition costs or
just partially reimburse prior expenditures.
Limitations are that there are no guarantees that the land will not be used
for airport facilities. Additionally, the dollar amount of revenue would not
be sufficient to completely cover the front-end cost. Last of all, we
cannot predict the future use or market conditions that would allow for
this acquisition.
6.4.4. Lease Revenue
Again, once New Ford Town and Rich Acres are acquired, structures are
demolished, and the future use is determined, there is a potential to
receive revenue through leasing of the land to private firms. This source
potentially can contribute to debt service cost or other acquisition costs or
partially reimburse prior expenditures. As with land sales, limitations are
-69-
that there are no guarantees that the land will not be used for airport
facilities in a relatively short period of time. Additionally, the dollar amount
of revenue would not. be sufficient to cover the front-end cost. Last of all,
we cannot predict the future use or .market conditions that would allow for
this acquisition.
6.4.5. Minnesota Department of Transportation
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has available
specialized airportfunds available to MAC. It receives approximately $1.5
million a year out of a total fund of $7.0 million that it can use as a
discretionary fund.
One of the major limitations is that MAC currently employs these funds for
other projects, .grants usually require matching funds and that there is no
future guarantee of the revenue.
6.4.6. State of Minnesota
Another potential source would be direct grants from the State of
Minnesota. In the past, the State has expressed an interest in assisting
with noise abatement and helping the City and MAC with .these public.
purposes.
The major limitation is that such a grant category does not currently exist;
therefore, special. legislation would be required, therefore, there is no
guarantee of any future revenue. Given the State's current financial
•
•
•
-70-
situation, it is unrealistic to factor this as a revenue source for the
immediate future.
6.4.7. Property Tax Levy
At the current time, MAC can levy property tax over the seven-county
metropolitan area. This type of levy could serve to provide debt service
on the bonds or provide overtime acquisition costs.
The obvious limitation is that the MAC has never levied the property tax,
so therefore it would be extremely difficult politically to proceed with this
revenue source.
6.4.8. Passenger Facility Charges
Recent federal legislation allows MAC to levy a $3.00 fee on all
passengers flying through MSP. While the regulations are somewhat
complicated, it is estimated that this total amount of revenue per year
would be approximately $25.0 to $27.0 million. This large amount of
money would accommodate an overtime pay-as-you-go schedule for
acquisition costs and would eliminate the necessity for a bond.
Additionally, it appears that at the current time, there are no federal rules
limiting use of the funds for acquisition costs. One limitation is specifically
the competition for PFC funds. At the current time, MAC has already
budgeted these funds. Thus, MAC would have to agree to change its
priorities in order to begin the New Ford Town and Rich Acres project or
the project would have to wait until after 1995.
- 71 -
6.5. Financing Models
•
-72-
VII PLAN FOR ACQUISITION SITE CLEARANCE AND MANAGEMENT
7.1. Introduction
This section sets forth a proposed plan and procedures for acquisition, property
management, relocation, site clearance, and public information. It complies with
PL 91.646 and MN Statutes 117.50 to 117.56 which mandates that, with regard to
relocation, the 49 CFR Part 24 "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Regulations of 1970, as amended," be followed. As noted in Section
IV, specific FAA requirements and record keeping will be adhered to under the
oversight of the previously referred to consultant. Prior to interim of acquisition, it
will be necessary for the Acquisition Agent to develop the following:
• Relocation and Master Plan
• Procedure Manual
• Appeals Procedure for Eligibility
• Hardship Guidelines and Criteria
• Priority System
7.2. Acquisition
Initially, property will be purchased on a voluntary basis by the Acquisition Agent
for the City of Richfield (HRA). Consultant services required for this portion of
project will be selected on the basis of approved federal (FAA), state and local
guidelines. .
7.2.1. Timing
-73-
The purchase of property is proposed to be completed. within three years.
To extend beyond that time would exacerbate the difficulties experienced
by residents, increase cost, and complicate appraisal and negotiating
issues
7.2.2. Purchase Order.
A priority system will be developed. which conforms with applicable
acquisition guidelines.
Immediately following the assignment of priorities, every property owner
will be informed of their ranking and the ranking of all other properties.
7.2.3. Hardship Consideration
Each owner will have three (3) weeks to claim a hardship status by
completing a form and returning it to City Hall. Each property which
qualifies for hardship status will be so designated on the rank order list.
Hardship will be determined on the basis of criteria established by an
independent committee and will include health and financial factors.
The purchase process will .begin with the hardship properties. After all of
the owners of hardship. classed property have -been offered an
opportunity to sell their property, owners of the non-hardship classified
property will be offered an opportunity to sell
-74-
7.2.4. Declination of Initial Invitation to Sell/Reoffer/Condemnation
If a property owner declines to participate at the first invitation to sell their
property, the property will be moved to a second list. The rank order on
the second list will continue to be based on the original priority number
with ranking being lowest number to highest number. The reoffer phase
will occur after the first invitation. Those declining the offer will be subject
to condemnation.
The objective is to complete the purchase of all willing seller properties
within two years.
7.2.5. Purchase of Other Property
The purchase of apartments, vacant lots, and nonresidential property by
the HRA will be scheduled for purchase during the third year by the HRA.
7.2.6. Appraisal Process
The purchase price for property will be determined by an appraisal
report. The written report will be prepared by a certified independent fee
appraiser. The report will be reviewed by a certified independent review
appraiser. If appropriate, an owner may obtain an appraisal, the cost of
which will be reimbursed by the HRA at closing up to $500. An appraiser
may be selected by the homeowner from the "State's List of Qualified
Real Estate Appraisers".
-75-
The property appraisal inspection will be conducted by appointment in
the company of the property owner or designated: representative.
The process will be administered to help continuity and consistency in
appraising during the three year acquisition period.
7.3. Relocation
.Benefits will be provided on the basis of recommendations made by a relocation
counselor in conformance with the law and statute noted above. ..Benefits will be
paid to eligible .owners and tenants. A 90 day notice to vacate the .property will
be given the occupants from the time of closing on the purchase of real estate.
7.4. Public Information
Keeping people informed and responding to questions will be important to
program. success. An information office will be opened in New Ford Town and
Rich Acres.
7.5: Management of Structures
Occupants may continue to reside in the acquired property on a rent free basis
for 90 days following purchase upon the execution of a standard occupancy
agreement.
7.6. Site Clearance
•
-76-
The site clearance process will,be initiated. immediately upon property vacation of
each property. The objective will be to achieve site clearance within six months
of property acquisition. Clearance will be accomplished either by sale and
removal of the buildings from the site or demolition of the structures. If
structures are determined to be unsuitable for removal, they will be demolished.
Foundations, footings, basement floors, private sidewalks and driveways will also
be removed. The resulting hole will be back-filled with clean granular fill to
grade. Other site improvements such as fences, posts and shrubs may be
removed to facilitate maintenance. An appropriate ground cover will be seeded.
Trees will remain if practicable.
7.7. Management of Vacant Property
The site will be mowed and kept free of litter in accordance with community
standards and ordinances.
7.8. Application of Proceeds of Sale or Lease
Rental revenues will be received from former owners or contractors who continue
occupancy beyond the 90 day period from date of closing with the Acquisition
Agent. These revenues will be used to offset expenditures. Rent revenues must
be credited to the funding source.
-77-
ADDENDUM TO PLAN FOR ACQUISITION, DEMOLITION AND MANAGEMENT
P operty Purchase Volume
There are 356 single family and two family properties. Target volume per year will
.approximate the .following:
Year 1 178 acquisitions (15 per month)
Year 2 178 acquisitions (15 per month)
Year 3 20 plus acquisitions; 7 apartments, 1 commercial property, 1 church, 11
vacant lots and other residential property under reoffer and condemnation
phases.
Property Purchase Staffing
•
Outside firms or persons will be retained to assist in negotiations and closings on the
basis of appropriate federal (FAA), state and local guidelines. The targeted number of
properties per month will be apportioned between .the Acquisition Agent and the outside
firm(s) based on work load and agreements. To provide for continuity and to build
rapport, negotiators will work with an owner/seller from the beginning of the. purchase
process through the signing of a purchase agreement. A closers) will then be
responsible for the property.
Appraisals
Continuity. and consistency are important elements of the valuation .process. Four to six
appraisers will be utilized. Hopefully, within each firm, two appraisers would be assigned
to the buyout. A similar approach will be followed with review appraisals, two review
appraisers will be utilized.
-78-
Relocation
The Acquisition Agent will employ a relocation consulting firm. They will provide the
staffing necessary to help achieve the vacation of housing within 90 days of purchase.
The desirability of employing a second firm to help provide continuity will be evaluated.
Management of Property
Staff will be responsible for management of the property from acquisition through
vacation by occupants, release to demolition contractor and as vacant land. During the
90 day occupancy period, the occupants will be responsible for maintenance. Following
vacation, a contractor will be responsible for a spring and fall cleanup and regular lawn
mowing.
Site Clearance
Economies of scale suggest the following approach:
Award one contract to one contractor for the entire acquisition period of three
years with provisions for extension and "kick-out" for noncompliance. Asbestos
removal will be included within the contract. However, competitive bids will be let
to determine the least costly alternative.
Structures would be released for clearance in groups of five to ten to minimize
contractor mobilization costs.
-79-
Where building conditions are appropriate, the contractor is to first attempt to sell.
the structure for removal from the site. If a sale cannot be made, then demolition
would take place.
Salvage rights will be reserved for the contractor to help minimize site clearance
costs.
Public Information
An information office will be opened in New Ford Town. In addition to providing regular
information related to acquisition and relocation, a project office would establish a more
"user friendly" environment within which residents could seek information. Regularity of
hours would be maintained with some day time and some night time hours.
A "buyout information hot line" will be set to ring at the information office or at
Community Development when no one is at the office..
•
-80-
VIII. DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES
8.1. Introduction
There are a number of alternatives for the reuse. of New Ford Town and Rich
Acres. Those alternatives fall into two major categories: airport uses determined
by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and airport compatible uses as
determined by the private sector. Both the airport. and the City share an interest
in converting this property to productive use which is compatible with the airport
as soon as possible. It is not anticipated that a decision will be made regarding
the need and possible schedule for a new airport until 1995 at the earliest. Only
when the decision is made will a decision regarding the reuse of MSP be
possible. It is therefore necessary for the City and MAC to agree upon a
process. which will guide the reuse of the property when a decision can be made
at the appropriate time. The agreement should provide that the government unit
providing the most funding for the buyout should have first rights to determining
the reuse of the property. It is anticipated that MAC will provide the most funding
for the buyout. Accordingly, MAC would have the initial right to determine reuse
of the property.
8.1.1. Development for Airport Use
If the MAC determines that the New Ford Town and/or Rich Acres
property are necessary for airport related purposes, then the property
would be deannexed from the City of Richfield. Final settlement for
purchase of City infrastructure and property would be resolved at that
time.
_ 81 _
8.1.2. Redevelopment for Commercial/Industrial Uses
If a determination is made by the Metropolitan Airports Commission that
the airport will not require use of the property for a period of time between
approximately 5 to20 years, then the property may be retained by the
City for redevelopment. purposes. The City would seek MAC's review to
determine that any purposed uses were compatible with. airport
operations and did not conflict with .any funding restrictions. The City
would attempt to sell the property at market .rates; sale proceeds would
be applied to offset the cost of original acquisition to the extent possible.
Tax.proceeds not otherwise dedicated would be used to offset net tax
.loss to the City and school, thereby reducing the State and/or MAC
obligations.
8.1.3. Interim Uses
It is possible that a final determination regarding use of the property will
not be immediately apparent after acquisition is complete. Under those
conditions, it would be beneficial to MAC and the City to consider the
potential for interim .uses pending final disposition. A minimum interim
use period. would likely be three years. Possible interim uses include
storage, warehouse and similar activities.
In order to take advantage of the Richfield HRA redevelopment and tax
increment financing authority, it would be beneficial for the HRA to retain property
until such time as MAC -use and ownership is required.
_82_
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1. Introduction
-83-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Study. Session Letter No. 5
Agenda, January 6, 1992
Issue Statement•
Review and provide comments on the feasibility report for the
acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods in
the City of Richfield.
Background:
The City and MAC staff are jointly preparing a feasibility report
for the complete buyout and redevelopment of the New. Ford Town
and Rich Acres neighborhoods. For background information, a copy
of the draft feasibility report is attached. The report covers
the following areas:. general background; legal and regulatory
matters; land acquisition and management; disposition or
redevelopment of the properties; and, mitigation impacts on the
City and the Richfield School District.
The City and MAC staff will meet on January 8, 1992 to make final
changes to the feasibility report and to develop a schedule for
presentation of the document to the full Metropolitan Airports
Commission and the Richfield City Council.
Recommended Motion:
The Council is encouraged to review the attached feasibility
report and to provide recommended changes to the City staff at
the January 6, 1992 Study Session.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
January 6, 1992 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the January 6, 1992 Study
Session.
Respectfully submitted,.
Ci~v~iManageosser
JDP:kb
Attachment
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 4
Agenda January 6,.1992
Issue Statement:
Review of 4-22 Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) Comments.
Background•
A workshop•was conducted on December 30 at City Hall to review
the Draft EIS. Workshop participants included Bob Collette, Walt
Gillfillan, Steve Pflaum, Charlie LeFevere, Byron Wallace and Jim
Prosser. The purpose of the workshop was to review the Draft EIS
for the Extension of Runway 4-22. Federal and State
environmental review requirements are not identical and the more
restrictive requirements prevail..
The general requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement
include:
s The project description should accurately and clearly
describe what is proposed.
• Reasonable alternatives to the proposed project should be
identified, properly described and analyzed.
• The impact of the proposed action and alternatives should
be clearly identified.
e Reasonable mitigation to the proposed action should be
identified, including a plan to implement the mitigation.
A review of adherence to this criteria for the Draft EIS
indicates the following deficiencies:
s The project description included two major objectives; to
increase the use of the cross wind runway to provide a
shift in some aircraft noise away from the most heavily
impacted residential areas northwest of the airport and to
provide an 11,000 foot runway at MSP for use by long haul
intercontinental flights. Because these two objectives
were tied together, they provided a narrow scope of review
and lacked definition. It is unclear that spreading noise
is a noise reduction measure. There may be other
alternatives to spreading the noise which would prove to
be a more valid noise mitigation measure. There was no
data presented which indicated the specific benefit to the
additional runway length. An example of the benefit would
be identification of past or projected payable penalties
because planes were unable to take off due to limited
runway length. The project also appears to be segmented
in that there are other plans for improvements to MSP
which should be analyzed in conjunction with this
proposal. Finally, there is no clear commitment from FAA
regarding how the extended Runway 4-22 would be used.
• Alternatives
The Draft EIS limits the range of alternatives explored.
One of the principal reasons for this is that the two
project .objectives were tied together. There is no
reasons that both project objectives should be tied
together for Draft EIS review. Some additional
alternatives which should have been explored include
extension of a parallel runway, matching aircraft type to
the airport design,~using 4-22 construction and mitigation
funds to mitigate noise impact instead of spreading noise.
Part of the purpose of the 4-22 extension was to increase
the use of the Runway Use System, however,- the Runway Use
System has not received a full environmental review.
Questions were also raised regarding the accuracy of the
impact analysis. The Draft EIS shows three flight tracks
for departure tracks off of 4-22. The FAA has made no
apparent commitment to limit departure tracks to these
three and, therefore, the impact may actually be greater
than shown in the report. While single event and data was
included in the report, no analysis was undertaken.
Fleet mix projections for the year 2000 show 30o stage two
operations, however, according to Federal standards,
virtually all stage two should have been eliminated by
this time. The use of higher percentage stage two.
aircraft in fleet mix for the year 2000 may have
inappropriately effected noise contours.
o Impact
The report fails to address safety issues in any
meaningful fashion. The cumulative impact of this action
has not been addressed, especially in relation to the
airport master plan.
s Mitigation
The report fails to provide a reasonable mitigation plan
for the impact. Richfield has previously developed a
draft concept which received no consideration within the
Draft EIS. Part 150, which were identified as a potential
funding source for mitigation, is inadequate to meet
needs. No other alternative mitigation plans were
included within the report.
e Post Hoc Rationalization
It would appear that there may be substantial evidence
that the Draft EIS attempted to rationalize a prior
commitment to extend 4-22, and therefore, did not
legitimately review alternatives. The evidence of that
post hoc rationalization includes previous planning
documents assuming 4-22 extension.
Staff and consultants are preparing a written response to the
Draft EIS based upon this review. In addition, staff will be
contacting other interested agencies and individuals to inform
them of .our concern regarding these issues. Additional analysis
and research is necessary prior to-the completion of the
response, however, the response will be completed by January 30.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize staff to continue preparing a written response to the
Draft 4-22 EIS.
Basis for Recommendation:.
1. The review of the Draft EIS indicates a number of serious
deficiencies.
2. It is important that the City clearly understand the impact
of the proposed runway extension and that a mitigation plan
be prepared which clearly explores alternatives to the
extension, identifies the impact and develops appropriate
mitigation.
3. Under Federal law, issues not identified in the response to
Draft EIS cannot be reintroduced during later challenges.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide to discontinue development of a
response to the Draft EIS.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is presented for discussion at the Study Session on
January 6, 1992.
Respectf lly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City a ager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA.
Study Session Letter No. 3
Agenda January 6, 1992
Issue Statement•
Discussion of airport communications plan.
Background:
At the October 7 Study Session, Council directed staff to prepare
and implement an expanded airport communications plan. Since
that time, the following actions have been taken.
Recommendation Action
Your City & Schools: Future
issues of the Your City &
Schools will include questions
and answers regarding airport
issues. The questions
addressed will be determined on
the .basis of interest exhibited
by residents. A special
emphasis will be made to
highlight individual airport
issues and to avoid long, broad
based narratives. It is
extremely important for Council
Members to provide suggestions
regarding these issues. to City
staff.
Citizen Feedback: Residents
will be requested to provide
their questions to the City
regarding airport issues. The
questions will be responded to
in future issues of Your City &
Schools or individually by City
staff.
The December 1991 issue,of Your
City & Schools included a
question and answer section
limited to discussion on Part
150. Three other articles on
airport issues were also
included. The back page of the
Your City & Schools included a
colored box requesting airport
issue questions. Since its
publication, we have received
approximately 20 calls with
questions. Staff developed The
Airport Issue which is a
special bimonthly newsletter
for Richfield residents. The
publication has been printed as
an insert in the Richfield Sun
Current and includes the same
articles as printed in the Your
City & Schools. The first
publication of The Airport.
Issue was printed and-
distributed to Richfield
residents on December~ll, 1991.
Sun Current: Editor Lynn
Fleming has been requested to
identify specific airport
issues for articles in the Sun
Current. Staff has prepared a
series of questions and answers
for publication in future
issues as space permits. In
addition, Ms. Fleming has been
requested to provide the City
staff with suggestions for
future issues.
Council Meetincts: An agenda
item has been added for
discussion of airport issues.
Individual issues will be
addressed in a non-technical
format.
Lynn Fleming has been provided
copies of articles which
appeared in the Your City &
Schools. In addition, she has
been encouraged to include
articles regarding the airport
on a regular basis. Since
October 7, 14 airport articles
have been printed in the
Richfield Sun Current.
An agenda item has been added
for discussion of airport
issues. Staff has received no
specific response regarding the
items discussed at the
meetings.
Speakers Bureau: A speakers
bureau will be established.
Individual residents with
background and interest in
airport issues will be asked to
volunteer for the bureau.
Council Members are encouraged
to provide suggestions of names
of individuals willing to serve
in this capacity. Staff will
advertise the availability of
the speakers bureau for
presentations to service clubs,
civic organizations, church
groups and neighborhood
organizations.
Cable TV: Staff will request
the. Southwest Community News to
highlight airport issues in
their regular news programs.
Board and Commission
Communications: Board and
Commission Members will be
invited to attend a special
airport issues discussion forum
to be scheduled within the next
60 days. The purpose of the
forum will be to develop a
greater awareness and
understanding of airport
issues.
A speakers bureau has been
established. The speakers
bureau includes Roger Stern,
George Karnas, Don Priebe and
Mike Gallagher. The bureau has
been advertised in the Your
City & Schools and the special
publication insert in the Sun
Current. To date, no requests
for speakers have been
received; although this may be
due to the holiday season.
Seven weekly news shows have
included discussion of airport
issues.
Board and Commission Members
were invited to a meeting on
December 12 to discuss airport
issues. The meeting was
attended by seven Board and
Commission Members. The
attached pamphlet was
distributed at that time.
While participation was
somewhat less than anticipated,
those attending thought the
discussion was very worthwhile.
Recommended Motion:
The Council should determine if there should be any changes in
the communications plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
The recommendations previously provided by the City Council have
been implemented. It is appropriate for the Council to determine
if additional measures are required.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented
on January 6, 1992.
for discussion at the Study Session
Respectfully submitted,
J
C
sser
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.2
Agenda January 6, 1992
Issue Statement:
A review of environmental issues affecting the 235W and I494
reconstruction projects.
Backaround:
The draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for both 135W and
1494 will soon be issued for public review. MnDOT staff have
been asked to give an overview of the issues and alternatives
involved on these two projects.
Richfield staff has participated in the preparation of both
environmental reports over the past few years. Staff has focused
on limiting the encroachment of these major facilities on
Richfield. Staff has also stressed that the new freeways have
adequate capacity to keep regional trips off Richfield's streets.
135W EIS
A list of issues on 135W are:
• there are five alternatives with the most important being LRT,
Diamond Lanes, and Lane Conversion plus. LRT;
s the trade-off between acquiring. land (taking homes) and
providing adequate carrying capacity (keeping regional traffic
off Richfield streets);
• LRT on the Soo Line is still being considered;
• Some existing access in the 62 Crosstown Common Section may be
lost;
• Lane Conversion plus LRT is favored by some people in
Minneapolis but it handles less traffic than other
alternatives do;
• The issue of storm runoff to Richfield Lake and Wood Lake was
an issue when 135W was first built and it still is today (See
1494 for a related issue);
• I35W/1494 ring road may pose some operational problems at
freeway entrance ramps; and,
• There is a.possibility to use of surplus land for parks,
bikeways and trails.
I494 EIS
The City is in general agreement with the I494 EIS that proposes
building one additional through lane with room for one more lane,
and widening 77th Street.
A list of issues on 1494 are:
• The City has proposed that gravity outlets from Richfield Lake
and Wood Lake be built to connect to the I494 storm drainage
system to solve the I35W runoff problems;
• The loss of frontage road access for businesses remains an
issue; and,
• Staging of the project will be a big issue and staff favors
improvements between Cedar Avenue and 135W being built first
where the worst bottlenecks occur.
Recommended Motion:
No action is required. This Study Session letter is designed to
serve as the basis for discussions with MnDOT staff.
Basis of Recommendation:
An invitation was extended to the MnDOT staff to attend a Study
Session with the City Council to discuss Richfield's concerns
about both projects.
Alternative Recommendation:
None. This is a discussion item.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 6, 1992 .Study Session.
Craig Robinson and Len Palek of MnDOT will be attending this
Study Session for discussion purposes.
Respec ully submitted,
Jame ~. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
1-35W MAINLINE SECTION
NORTH 46TH TO CROSSTOWN I-494
ALTERNATIVE OF 46TH CROSSTOWN TO 1-494 TO 13
No Build 4 3 2 2
Lane Conversion 3+ 0 3+ 0 2+ 0 2+ O
Lane Conversion Plus LRT 3+ 0 +LRT 2+ O +LRT 2+ O +LRT 2+ O +LRT
Diamond Lanes 4+ O 4+ 0 3+ O 3+ 0
LRT (Median or Soo Line) 4+LRT 4+LRT 3+LRT 4+LRT
1) Table represents number of lanes in each direction.
2) LRT is proposed as twin rail system (2 one-way systems).
O Diamond Lane
1-35W Preliminary Design Studies Phase 2: EIS
SRF
1-35W TRANSIT/MAINLINE
ALTERNATIVES -
NUMBER OF LANES
Toble
A.2
Minnesolo Department of Trensportetion - Metropolitan Council • federol Nighwey Administrotio
43
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.~
Agenda January 6, 1992
Issue Statement•
Further option for disposition of City-owned property at 7300
First Avenue.
Background•
An agenda item at the November 25, 1991 Council meeting was a
public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
authorizing the sale of this property "as is" to the highest
qualified bidder. The sale was not authorized. Staff was
directed to examine an option which included the removal of .the
structures from the site and the maintenance of the site as a
vacant City-owned property..
There is virtually no market for the sale. of a house to be moved
to a different location. A house that is moved must conform to
the current building code in most localities which results in
extensive remodeling in addition to the substantial cost of
moving. As a result, the usual process is to bid demolition,
removal of foundation, backfill and sod. If the demolition
company has the ability to sell or pay someone to take and remove
the house thereby reducing its costs of demolition,
transportation and disposal of refuse, its bid may reflect such.
The bid, without reduction, would approximate $7,000. After
demolition, an additional 55,000 to $10,000 must be spent to
grade and landscape the property. Maintenance costs for the lot
would be about $1000 to $1500 annually. However, it will be
difficult to consistently maintain the lot to the same standard.
as adjacent yards.
Recommended Motion:
The purpose of this letter is to present the information
requested and use it as a basis to direct staff to proceed with
the final disposition of this property. Options at this time
include:
1) Scheduling the public hearing and second reading of the
ordinance authorizing the sale and offer the property to
the highest qualified bidder "as is".
2) Implementation of the concept discussed above with the City
owning the vacant lot for the foreseeable future. .
In evaluating these two options, it should be remembered that
there are many other lots with single family homes which have a
flood protection level which is similar to or less than this
property.
Basis of Recommendation:
This information is provided at the request of the Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Establishing a final direction will make it possible for staff to
deal efficiently .with this matter.
Respec fully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
• 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch William Bullock Michael Sandahl
Ivan Ludeman Kristal Stokes
December 3, 1991
Ms. Betty Carr
6633 Lynwood Boulevard
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Betty:
Thank you for your letter of November 25 with suggestions
regarding 7300 First. I will forward this on to the Council at
the time this matter i5 discussed with the City Council.
We certainly welcome any suggestions which may help resolve this
matter.
Sincerely,
James D. Prosser
Ci anager
JDP: ds "'
Copy: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director ,
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700
Fax 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
~~CEiv~~3 ~ilfs~'! ~ ;
November 25, 1991
Dear Mr. Prosser,
I have a suggestion that may help resolve what to do
with the Iot at 7300 First Ave. S.
Apparently this lot has been offered to the. people who
live beside it and to the people who live behind it with no
takers. I suggest that you offer it to the person who lives
at ~3~"U, across the street.
73c /
Someone who lives in this house is_a phenomenal landscape
gardener. Russ Sussag lives at ~$#~'~i~rst and he showed me
the garden at 7301 (over the fence). I was attracted to the
730Q1 First yard because the front yard was so tastefully done.
The backyard is even more spectacular.
As I recall the conversation, the son is a landscape
gardner for Bachman's. My experiex-:c~ with gardners is that
they are always looking for another spot to plant something.
Even if this.. man will .not take. title to the land, he might
be willing to give you his advice about how to landscape the
place so that constant cutting and care might not be necessary.
As I recall this lot, perhaps it would be possible to
slant it, put in. some trees and a low ground cover that would
not require any more attention than the banks along Woodlake
across from the V.F.W.
.Please feel free to fire this letter into the wastebasket.
I just think there is a way to get this hunk of land out of the
housing business so that it can't upset the residents and the
city bank account .again.
Betty Carr
_~