Loading...
06-08-92 agendaF, 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) 1992 RICHFIELD BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL 29, 1992; (2) RECONVENED 1992 BOARD OF REVIEW OF MAY 11, 1992; (3) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 11, 1992; (4) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1992; AND (5) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF JUNE 1, 1992. 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT • LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF GENE JACOBSEN CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD TO PAT RICKERT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 122 3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO 1992 MISS RICHFIELD CANDIDATES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 123 AGENDA APPROVAL 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM • BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. 5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL 1992 TO 1993 AGREEMENT WITH THE • CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS INTERN PROGRAM C.L. 124 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR 6400 VINCENT AVENUE C.L. 125 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS OF 1993 ALLEY MAINTENANCE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 883, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 126 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS OF 1993 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS, LHN PROJECT AREA, CITY PROJECT NO. 881, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 127 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR 1993 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS, ILN PROJECT AREA, CITY PROJECT NO. 882, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 128 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE AND SNOWPLOWING FOR JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991, CITY PROJECT NO. 864, 1991 ALLEY MAINTENANCE, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 129 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 862, 1991 LHN MAINTENANCE, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 130 • H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 863, 1991 ILN MAINTENANCE, AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 131 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991, ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR JULY 27, 1992 C.L. 132 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WIDENING OF NORTHBOUND NICOLLET AVENUE BUS TURNOUT, LHN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TO PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,865.35 C.L. 133 K. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR 1992 TEE MOWER REELMASTER 216 FROM MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,203 C.L. 134 L. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5;000 FOR TWO COMPUTERS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT FROM PC EXPRESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,746, PLUS $266.18 SALES TAX C.L. 135 M. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR ELAINE'S GROOMING, 7429 HUMBOLDT AVENUE C.L. 136 N. ESTIMATE #4 PAYMENT FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT AT 69TH AND XERXES AVENUE, S.M. HENTGES & SONS, INC., $89,883.10 0. FIRST AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1992 SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER • REPAIR, RYAN CONTRACTING, INC., $24,250.58 PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE 6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 137 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR MINIATURE GOLF PROJECT AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 138 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY COMMENTS ON 135W DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 139 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR FIREWORKS FOR FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION FROM AMERICANA FIREWORKS DISPLAY COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 140 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY • CELEBRATION EVENT LICENSE WITH REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER BY FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE FOR EVENTS SCHEDULED ON JULY 4, 1992 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 141 11. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE, 7209 12TH AVENUE, 4 DOGS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 142 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 9 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 142 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for renewal of a residential kennel license for Ronald and Margaret Glaub, 7209 12th Avenue. Background: On May 12,•1992 Ronald Glaub submitted an application for a residential kennel license. He owns four dogs. Mr. Glaub's application had all contiguous property owner's signatures on it. On May 26, 1992, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. Basis for Recommendation: • 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Glaub has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Mr. Glaub's residential kennel license. This would mean that he would have to reduce the number of dogs he has from four to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve kennel license for Ronald is presented for Council JDP:cak the application for a residential and Margaret Glaub, 7209 12th Avenue, consideration at this time. Respec ully submitted, Jame Prosser City ager .7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ?? Council Letter No.141 Agenda June 8, 1992 • Issue Statement: Application for a community celebration event license with a request for a fee waiver by the Fourth of July Committee for events scheduled to take place on July 4, 1992. Background: Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a community celebration event license and requests that the fee of $5,000 be waived for the activities that take place throughout the City on July 4, 1992. A detailed activity plan of the day's events is currently on file. A copy of the committee's bylaws and articles of incorporation are also on file. The food concessions will be staffed by members of nonprofit organizations who have been with the committee since the celebration began. Any proceeds of the concessions are used for community programs. No other outside vendors will be allowed to sell at a concession. The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Recommended Motion: • Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event license for the Fourth of July Committee for activities held throughout the day on July 4, 1992. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements for a fee waiver. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on the 4th of July. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a community celebration event license for July 4, 1992 for the Fourth of July Committee is presented at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser • City ganager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.140 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Purchase of fireworks for Fourth of July Celebration. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Two firms in the metropolitan area sell fireworks and provide the staff to do the display. In the opinion of the City staff and the Fourth of July Committee, one of the firms, Americana Fireworks Display Company, provides a better show. This firm has been used for the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration fireworks for the past nine years for the following amounts: Year Amount 1982 $ 5,000 1983 $ 5,000 1984 $ 5,400 1985 $ 5,400 • 1986 $ 5,970 (30% reduction in time/content of 1985) 1987 $ 8,900 (approximated 1985 display time/content) 1988 $ 9,400 1989 $10,000 1990 $10,000 1991 $11,000 Americana has submitted a contract in the amount of $11,000 to provide fireworks for the Celebration in 1992. Americana will provide public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of $300,000. In the event of cancellation due to inclement weather, the show will be held on Sunday, July 5. City staff recommends adding a condition to the contract to require the employees of Americana Fireworks Display Company to clean up the shooting area, after the display, of any potentially dangerous material. The City's budgeted cost share of the 1992 Celebration is $15,000 for fireworks, additional insurance coverage, and other items such as entertainment, performance stages, lighting and sound systems. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract and payment in the amount of $11,000 to Americana Fireworks Display Company for • fireworks and staff to do the display for the 1992 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield supports the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration including, in part, the financial cost of the fireworks display. 2. Americana Fireworks Display Company has submitted a contract in the amount of $11,000. 3. There is $15,000 in the adopted 1992 budget for the Recreation Division of the Community Services Department for the Celebration. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to eliminate its financial support of the community Fourth of July Celebration. 2. The size of the display could be reduced thereby reducing the cost to the community. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the June 8 agenda to provide sufficient time to confirm the fireworks display for the 1992 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. C? JDP:ds Respe tfully submitted, Jame N. Prosser City Manager U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 139 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Approval of City comments on I35W Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Background: The City Council has previously reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I35W. A recommendation from the City's Traffic Advisory Committee includes: ? Support for the diamond lane option. ? Strong opposition to Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the Soo Line right of way. An open house and public information session regarding the I35W DEIS-was hosted by the Ad Hoc Committee on April 23. On May 14, 1992 the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) conducted a public hearing at Richfield High School. As expected, Minneapolis expressed strong support for an LRT option. The City of Richfield has requested and received an extension for comment on the DEIS in order to provide an opportunity for the Richfield City Council to prepare and approve . comments at the June 8, 1992 Council meeting. At the June 1 Study Session the Council had an opportunity to review the preliminary draft letter and to hear from interested residents. The City Council has previously authorized staff to work with legal counsel to prepare comments in support of the City position. The draft letter was revised to incorporate comments suggested by Council members and citizens who attended the June 1 Study Session. The letter also has been reviewed and modified by legal counsel. Recommended Motion: Approve the City's position regarding the I35W DEIS as described in the attached letter. Basis for Recommendation: The position described in.the proposed letter is based on Council direction given to staff throughout preparation of the I35W EIS. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision must be made tonight for submission to MnDOT by the June 12, 1992 deadline for comments. Re ully submitted, • Ja D. Prosser Ci y anager JDP:ds Attachment • ACADEMY OF THE HOLY ANGELS hno11 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2462 e12 866-8762 I Vil ,. r.. _ SVr April 16, 1992 0?a: Q b W. M. Crawford Clerk Minn DOT-District Engineer ""- fab Sate .' Metro District-West 2055 N Lilac Dr Golden Valley, Mn 55422 The Academy of the Holy Angels position favors the Diamond Lanes option featuring six mixed lanes plus two HOV lanes in Richfield, without LRT. The Academy has taken this position based on what we percieve as the best interests of our students and our community. According to the I35W EIS the Diamond Lanes plan diverts the fewest vehicles to local streets. The LRT proposal would result in extensive congestion as well as more pollution from slow moving vehicles. The • large number of vehicles diverted would require extensive widening of existing streets such as 66th St and Nicollet which would cut into our campus. The increased congestion on local streets would make it more difficult for our students to get to school in a timely fashion. The Diamond Lanes option projects the fewest number of accidents. The safety of our students getting to and from school is of course very important to us. The Academy strongly opposes above ground LRT along the Soo Line tracks. We are again concerned with the possible loss of part of our campus. Trains passing every 7 minutes would need a pedestrian warning system that would of necessity be very loud and disruptive of the educational process. The 135W EIS also says that trains may be run as often as every 3 minutes. We would not, however, be opposed to an underground system that would leave our campus intact. In conclusion, based on the I35W EIS we believe that the Diamond Lanes without LRT is best for the Academy, our students and our community. Sincerely, James A. McCormack Director of Development 1932 - 1992 DIAMOND ANNIVERSARY WE REMEMBER WE CELEBRATE WE BELIEVE RECED'E'D VUN 0 4 1992 10509 Drew Av. St Bloomington, MN 55431 May 21, 1992 To: Richfield City Council Members From: Lawrence J. Lystig Subj: I-35W Corridor Encl: Statement by Lystig The enclosed Statement prepared by myself was brought to the I-35W Corridor Manager following the hearing held by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at Richfield High School can May 14--15, 1992. The Statement consists of five major parts, which are: I. PURPOSE AND PROPOSAL II. PREFACE III. GENERAL COMMENTS AND PRINCIPLES (7) • IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS (8) V. CONCLUDING POSTSCRIPT The Statement is for your perusual and subsequent action, based upon your digestion of and reflection upon its comments. I would be glad to respond to any of your questions, comments etc. as I have time and opportunity. I?..J i AIRAC? n??a.o A%j Cz S-3 Bloomington, MN • 55#31 May 21, 1992 I-35W Corridor Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metro District, Golden Valley Office 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 5542' To all addressees: STATEMENT CONCERNING THE I-35W CORRIDOR I. PURPOSE AND PROPOSAL The PURPOSE of the following expanded statement is two-fold: to SUPPORT the arguments of those who at the May 14-15, 1992, hearing on the I-35W Corridor sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Transportation urged a redraft of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and to provide some CONSIDERATIONS to be used when re-doing plans for the • Corridor. I PROPOSE as a FIRST step the building of an LRT line from downtown Minneapolis to the vicinity of the Burnsville Center adjacent to I-35W, with an LRT spur built at the SAME TIME connecting the I-35W LRT with the Mall of America and the Metropolitan Airport/Twin City International. (Some 15,000 jobs exist currently at the Airport; some 10,000 employment opportunities are projected for the Mall of America when it becomes fully functional.) II. PREFACE On May 14-15, 1992, I attended and gave oral testimony at the Minnesota Department of Transportation hearing held at the Richfield, Minnesota, High School regarding some proposals for the I-35W corridor transportation corridor. The following remarks address some of the concerns raised at the meeting and by the informational materials presented both at that meeting and at an earlier session held by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (hereinafter MNDOT) at the same place late in the winter of this year, which I also attended and at which I also spoke. • LYSTIO/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 1 5"T I aria a long-time resident of the State of Minnesota, • having maintained a permanent residence here since 1941, although at various times having lived in ether places. From 1946 to 1949 I lived at 920 13th Av. S., within a half block of what at the time was a heavily used rail route for both passenger and freight trains, owned and operated then by the Milwaukee Road. After retiring from active duty with the Navy in 1987, I moved to Bloomington, where I have resided continuously ever since. While on active duty with the Navy I lived for three years at North Chicago, IL, and became well acquainted through personal usage with both the highway networks surrounding the city of Chicago and its environs and the rail systems serving the same area. For three years I lived in Garden City, Long Island, New York:, commuting six days a week to the former Navy Yard in near downtown Brooklyn, New York. During that time I frequently used the transit systems not only within the city of New York, but also in a number of the adjacent communities. In addition I have used transit systems in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, (S.C.), Milwaukee, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle in the United States; and such systems in Halifax and Montreal in Canada; Augsburg and Munich, Germany; Rome, Genoa, and Naples, Italy; Marseille, France; Geneva, Switzerland; Barcelona, Malaga, and Palma, Spain; Lisbon, Portugal; Athens and Pireaus, Greece; Olangapo, Republic of the Philippines; _Freemantel and Perth, Australia; Mauritius; Seoul, Inchon • and Pusan, South Korea; Hong Kong; Singapore; and Sasebo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kamakura, Yokuska and Tokyo in Japan. For three years (1964 - 1966) I drove intercity busses out of Minneapolis, including many trips over what is now MTC: route 51, Minneapolis to Mound. For the past five years I have driven my personal vehicles an average of 40,000 miles a year, 90% of which is done within the five-county metropolitan area. On an average of six days a week I traverse the I-35W corridor, moving from 98th street in Bloomington to downtown Minneapolis, and than on I-94 to Saint Paul and return, usually entering the freeway at 7:15 a.m. and returning home around 4:45 p.m. on weekdays. Often during the day I use portions of I-94, I-35W, I-35E,_I-394, I-494, and I-694, as well as numerous other highways and streets. Two of eery vehicles are automobiles; one, driven around :000 miles per year, is a 31-foot motorhome. From the foregoing comments it should be clear that although I am writing as a private citizen and representing no one but myself, I do speak: on the basis of some experience and acquaintance with the subject at hand. And since I am an active parish pastor I have access to and frequent opportunity to discuss with and hear the opinions of many other people of many different economic and political strata regarding the subject under discussion. • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 2 5- III. GENERAL COMMENTS AND PRINCIPLES . Today the Twin Cities area is the 16th largest metropolitan area in the nation. That size brings with it an ever-increasing need for the availability of dependable and affordable transportation. At the same time environmental sensitivities have became more acute, as people have become increasingly aware of the damage done by an over-reliance on the use of internal-combustion engine vehicles. A number of these concerns were addressed at the May 14-15, 1992, hearing. (The meeting began with oral presentations around 7:15 p.m. on the 14th, but did not adjourn until around 2:40 a.m. on the 15th; surely people are concerned about the subject to stay that late!) One of the two concerns repeatedly and vehemently made was that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) prepared by MNDOT was woe-fully inadequate for its failure to properly address a number of environmental issues. (I have reviewed the DEIS twice, scanning the copy held at the Bloomington City Public Works office.) I therefore offer a number of guiding principles that should form the framework for a revised DEIS and for the subsequent decision to be made by the Commissioner of the MNDOT regarding transportation needs and solutions along the I-35W corridor. These principles should also guide the decisions made by the federal officials in their review of and decision to fund appropriate parts of the transportation . c=orridor. 1. TAKE NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. .Neighborhoods are fragile entities, particularly in distressed areas, such as those abutting "freeways." That is especially true when the neighborhood existed prier to the planning and construction the "freeway," which in those cases came as an intruder into the neighborhood. Such is the case for the entire city of Minneapolis, for Richfield and for much if not all of Bloomington north of 98th Street. Under some of the MNDOT proposals given in their DEIS, up to 1400 dwelling units would be taken for the I-35W Corridor project. Even though MNDOT proposes to buy or replace 400 dwelling units, that "new" replacement is a poor substitute for the structures which, however humble, form the basis for the formation and maintenance of community. I remind the readers of an ancient story that contains an up-to-date point. A rich man desired to give a feast for his friends. He had plenty of cattle. A poor man living next to the rich man had but one lamb, which he loved and treated as he would his own child. The rich man seized the poor man's lamb and had it killed to provide food for the planned feast. • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 3 S-(v In modern terries the suburbs are the "rich man. " The "feast" is to be able to arrive in downtown Minneapolis with . minimal traffic delays. The "poor man" is the neighborhood surrounding the present freeway. Why take further dwelling units from an already adversely impacted neighborhood in order to allow a suburban freeway user five more minutes of rest at home? (I recently had an experience that makes me wonder how pressing is the need for added capacity to I-35W in the near future. I do not question that means do have to be provided in the more distant forseeable future for ways to move an increasing number of people between and to major concentrations of work opportunities. On Wednesday, April 29, 1992, the Twins had a home baseball game that did not end until after 3 p.m. Over 23,000 people were in attendance at the Metro Donee. Also that afternoon, beginning some time after 3 p.m. I-35W was blocked in both directions in the Diamond Lake area by police apprehending a suspect who had collided with a number of vehicles and was finally stopped by one of them. A massive traffic jam can I-35W was the result, with some motorists delayed as much as two hours. I picked up eery wife at her place of work: near the Hennepin County Courthouse at 4:15 p.m. that day. I was then aware of the ball game but knew nothing of the traffic situation can I-35W, a corridor I usually use in order to reach my residence in Bloomington. I entered I-35W by Central Lutheran Church. As I approached the Lake Street area I saw slowing traffic in all lanes ahead of me. I exited at 35th • Street. At that point I went over to Lyndale Avenue and used that road all the way to 98th Street in Bloomington. Only once on Lyndale did I encounter any congestion, and that was only for three blocks in the vicinity of 66th Street. Much of the time on Lyndale I was the only vehicle moving southbound within at least one block. [Except for a short stretch near 58th street, Lyndale accommodates two lanes of traffic= in both directions.] I arrived home five minutes later than I usually do when using I-35W all the way!) 2. ADD NO ADDITIONAL LANES-TO THE FREEWAY, EXCEPT TEMPORARILY FROM COUNTY ROAD 42 TO JUST NORTH OF 98TH STREET, WHICH INCLUDES THE MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING AND THE 13RADE ON EITHER SIDE. 3. MAINTAIN THE GRASSY SLOPES WITH THEIR TREES AND SHRUBS BETWEEN THE SHOULDER OF I-35W AND THE ADJOINING NON-FREEWAY AREAS AS THEY NOW EXIST IN BURNSVILLE, BLOOMINGTON, RICHFIELD, AND PORTIONS OF MINNEAPOLIS. Avoid the "Chinese Wall" effect of the vertical concrete walls and narrow shoulder areas as seen now for • example in the vicinity of 24th Av. S. and I-494. "Chinese LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 4 Walls" may be appropriate for certain desolate sections of the Bronx in New York: City and in the Los Angeles area, but . do not belong in a state so gifted with green grass, shrubs and trees as is Minnesota. 4. REMOVE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE ANY OF THE EXISTING GRASSY AREAS COMPRISING THE MEDIAN STRIP ALONG I-35W FROM 98TH STREET TO 46TH STREET SOUTH. I have frequently observed tail-gating vehicles head for the "safety" of the median when braking hard in suddenly slowing traffic. In addition, the grassy area provides a visual relief to the boredom of the pavement, as well as a handy "catch basin" for snow in the winter. 5. PRESERVE THE VISUAL RELIEF AND STIMULUS AFFORDED BY THE SIGHT OF THE WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER IN RICHFIELD. One of the unique assets of Minnesota is its abundance of water, wet-lands and marshy areas. The sight of the Wood Lake Nature Center observable from I-35W is a rare jewel that should be preserved to remind both residents and visitors of the treasures of Minnesota's environment. Let Los Angeles and Yuma have their painted concrete walls to offset the barrenness of their desert environment; let us rejoice in the sight reminders of the difference that is Minnesota. 6. PROVIDE READY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS TO THE LARGE JOB CENTERS AT THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AND THE MALL OF AMERICA FOR THE USERS OF THE I-35W CORRIDOR AND EQUALLY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MINNEAPOLIS AND THE SOUTHERN SUBURBS. What not to do is illustrated by the present I-394. That roadway largely isolates northern from southern Minneapolis. I can remember being able to access Highway 12 :forerunner of 1-3947 from both Cedar Lake Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway in a way that suggested a greater bond between northern and southern Minneapolis than is now possible. If for example an LRT is built only from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America it will suggest that that transportation medium should be used only by the citizens of Minneapolis, and will work to further isolate and insulate the suburbs from the city. But we need to build those means of transportation that will help to unify rather than sunder the community of which we are all a part - the greater Twin City metropolitan area. n LJ LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 5 8-g 7. DESIGN AND MAINTAIN TRANSPORTATION ARTERIES IN WAYS THAT WILL ENC:OURAGE.ODEDIENCE OF.EXISTING LAWS AND ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF DRIVERS USING THOSE ROADWAYS. The present DEIS states that for the sake of safety roadways should be designed with a parameter of a 70 mile-per-hour speed. The curves at the junctions of I-35W and Highway E2 and again at the junction of I-35W and I-94 are frequently cited as highly accident prune zones. I go through bath zones on a nearly daily basis, usually at rush hour. I frequently encounter backed-up traffic at bath locations. But the greatest hazard comes not from the curves themselves. Traffic is usually moving too slowly for the curves to pose much of a hazard. Only once in the past five years of near daily transit through those areas have I seen an overturned vehicle on either of the so-called hazardous curves. Non rush-hour traffic, including semi-trailer trucks, usually, except on Sunday mornings, gees around the I-35W 35 mile-per-hour curve at speeds at or above 50 miles-per-hour. I do frequently see scraped, bent, or replaced guard rails on the curves. But it is unconscionable that the adjacent dwelling units be taken in order to provide a curve that can be negotiated without harmful effect by a driver that is either driving in excess of the posted speed limit or is impaired by the abuse of alcohol or the use of an illegal substance. Two other things are extremely hazardous. The most dangerous thing on the freeways is the tail-gating driver who puts at risk: the vehicle immediately in front of his/her own. Frequently and not only at the curves or immediately adjacent to them I see vehicles that have been damaged in a tail-gating incident. Typically three vehicles are damaged to a significant degree. It does not make sense to increase the usable speed of a roadway, thus increasing the amount of damage likely in a tail-gating incident. Tail-paters are frequently the same drivers who create and maintain the ether hazard on the freeways - excessive speed. To attempt to consistently drive at the legal speed limit anywhere along I-35W during most of the day or early evening hours is to put oneself at great risk: from drivers intent on driving at or above the designed safe speed for the roadway. To deliberately design a roadway system safe for travel at 70 miles-per-hour is to encourage drivers to drive at that speed or more. In observance of long-standing legislative policy, which since the early 1970s has not allowed speeds above 55 miles per hour anywhere along the I-35W corridor from downtown Minneapolis to its end in Burnsville, any upgrade of that corridor should be designed so as to encourage a maximum speed of 55 and preferably a somewhat lower speed in congested areas, preferably 45 miles per hour. In an ideal world traffic would flaw at the same • constant rate of speed. But traffic has to slaw riot only LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 6 B-9 for curves but also., to exit the freeway; usually vehicles have not been able to attain the existing legal speed of the freeway when entering from a ramp. The speed differential is especially pronounced with large vehicles, such as semi-tru0::s, busses, and motor homes, and with small under-powered but fuel efficient automobiles. Since many vehicles enter and leave the freeway in the downtown area, as well as at the junctions of I-35W and 1--94, I-35W and Highway 62, I--35W and I-494, I-35W and Highway 13, and I-35W and County Road 42, it would seem more reasonable from a safety standpoint to impose and maintain a lower speed limit through those areas, thus allowing a lesser speed differential between exiting and entering traffic on the one hand and the traffic moving on the so-called "main line" can the other hand. As the percentage of our driving population increases in average age, a greater proportion of those drivers will have increasingly delayed perception and reaction times, as well as decreased speed of body motor functions. One way to enhance an even rate of traffic flow is to design and construct traffic interchanges that will allow no needed slowing of "mainline" traffic. But designing and constructing roadways that allow "mainline" speeds of 70 miles-per-hour increases hazards both for and of the aging driver population. An alternative which I propose is to lower "mainline" speeds so that interchanges and curves can be negotiated at less dangerous speeds, at rates that do not depend so heavily on near-instantaneous perception and reaction times. • At present the enforcement of safe and legal driving practices on the urban freeways of this state is a cruel hoax, most closely resembling anarchy. Several simple steps can be taken to improve both safety and adherence to existing laws. Mount permanent cameras above the freeway lanes in the areas most abused, so that vehicle license plates can be monitored and recorded. Devise a computer scanning program so that violaters can be identified from the video tapes and appropriate tickets be written and sent to therm. Install large signs and flashing lights warning drivers of upcoming slower speed areas. From time to time have State Highway Patrol Officers drive vehicles abreast in all lanes so that traffic can go no faster than their speed. Continued failure to enforce existing laws and continuing failure to design, build and maintain transportation systems that encourage obedience of existing laws will only accentuate the present dangerous conditions and lead to further anarchy. For example, for several years following my return to Minnesota in 1987, I drove at no time faster than the legal speed limit can I-35W, or anywhere else. But obeying the law became so hazardous and nerve-wracking (because I was impeding the flow of traffic moving at illegally excessive speeds!) that now in order tc, "go with the flaw of traffic" I frequently find myself driving at speeds well above the legal speed limit, E5 or even 70 miles per hour! For another example, some drivers, LYSTIU/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 7 ?ll knowing the danger posed by a tail-gating driver, will deliberately slow down until that tail-pater gees around the one being followed so closely. But such reactions do • nothing to help traffic flow and result in further infuriated drivers. I add a concluding note to this whole sad section: administrative agencies, such as Departments of Transportation, are to carry out the policies of elected persons, including policy-making bodies such as State Legislatures, not the other way around. Therefore I repeat: design, build and maintain transportation systems in such a way as to foster and maintain adherence to existing laws, not act in defiance of them as is so often the case with respect to, for example, the I-35W corridor. IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS I-35W 1. PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE EXISTING ROADWAY STRUCTURE OF Only as I write this, on May 22, 1992, dog I see signs announcing that maintenance work: is about to begin on I-35W south of 76th Street. Big vehicles, such as my rnotorhome, can navigate that stretch with little ill effect. But the outer lane has so badly deteriorated that I refuse to drive my automobiles over it. The southbound curve of 1--35W, as it swings from south to west as Highway 62 joins it, is so . badly worn at some joints that more than once the latch of the hood of my 181 Escort has been detached, leaving me with the "fun" of driving a vehicle that at any moment will possibly have no forward visibility! Such conditions, allowed to exist for weeks on end, as they have this spring, are dangerous and totally unacceptable. The roadway surface of the southbound exit from I-35W to 98th Street is so rough under the overpassing bridge that I refuse to exist the outer lane of southbound I--35W until the departure lane for 98th Street begins its curving ascent from the freeway. For over a year the inner lane of southbound I-35W south of 106th Street has been a hazard to navigate with a passenger vehicle. Since MNDOT has not properly maintained in an acceptable timely fashion the roads already existing nor shown itself capable of so doing, it makes no sense to add to what may already be an excessive number of roadways. • LYSTIG/I--35W CORRIDOR/ page 8 9_0 INSTALL AN LRT BEFORE ANY OTHER MAJOR ALTERATIONS ARE UNDERTAKEN WITH RESPECT TO I-35W. MNDOT estimates their I-35W Corridor project will take 10-12 years to complete. The installation of an LRT system as soon as possible that can move people more adequately and with less adverse effects on the surrounding environment than anything else presently existing or reasonably proposed will also help alleviate some of the problems such as pollution and traffic congestion caused by the long time needed to complete a major renovation of the Corridor. 3. INSTALL AN LRT FROM DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS TO THE VICINITY OF THE BURNSVILLE SHOPPING :'ENTER AND AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDE A CONNECTING SPUR THAT WILL LINK THE MALL OF AMERICA AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AREA WITH THE I-35W CORRIDOR. The I-35W Corridor LRT should be built on the existing I-35W Corridor from downtown Minneapolis to approximately ^ 61st Street. From downtown to approximately 46th Street one of the existing four lanes of the freeway in both directions could be converted to LRT use; thence south to 61st Street the median could be used. From the 61st Street area the LRT Should use revamped Soo Line tracks through Richfield and Bloomington to the near 98th Street crossing of I-35W by the existing track:. (The Soo Line property in that area was designed originally for a double-track passenger-carrying railroad using rail vehicles capable of speeds of 60 miles per hour on that segment of track. Obviously such speeds are not possible on the presently existing track, but the roadway width and curve basis could allow such a system to be installed.) From the I-35W/Soo Line junction in Bloomington the LRT should again utilize the I-35W corridor/roadway to County Road 42, and terminate adjacent to the Burnsville Center. This LRT line, with the exception of the downtown Minneapolis area and the area around 98th Street, should be designed, constructed and signaled for maximum LRT speeds of 70 miles per hour. An alternative route for the LRT southbound from the 98th Street area in Bloomington would be along the present Soo Line alignment to County Road 42 in Burnsville. I would pleased to have such an alignment, for the LRT would then pass within a quarter of a block from my home. But there are several objectionable features about such proposal. Several major thoroughfares would either have to be crossed at grade or the roadways and LRT separated by bridges. These thoroughfares include Penn Av. So., Xerxes Av. So., France Av. So., Old Shakopee Road, and Normandale Road in Bloomington and Burnsville Parkway in Burnsville. There- are a number of other relatively minor road crossings of the Soo Line track: in the area, but these crossings could probably r?1 LI LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 9 3-/49 be closed with an relatively adverse effect on traffic or accessibility to homes and businesses near the track. Two major bridges presently in place are single track. The present single track: bridge over Highway 13 in Savage could likely be used without replacement for a number of years. But the bridge over the Minnesota Fiver is a different matter. It is a swing bridge, and both pleasure beat and barge traffic in the area are quite heavy, requiring the opening of the bridge frequently at unexpected moments many times during the navigation season on the river. Replacing that structure and realigning the grades leading to it, especially on the north bank, would likely be an extremely expensive proposition. One advantage of using the Soo Line track to Burnsville is that just north of the County Road 4 overpass over the track there is a substantial, presently unoccupied, open and relatively flat area that could be utilized for shops and storage for the LRT, as well as providing a parking and storage area for vehicles "feeding" into the LRT. The connecting LRT spur to the airport should leave the I-35W LFT in the vicinity of 79th Street and proceed eastward along or alongside that street, using it to pass under Cedar Av., to the Mall of America, thence north on 24th Street, using its bridge over I-494, then eastward to 34th Street along or on Airport Lane, then north on 34th Street to, 70th Street, east for a block or two, then tunneling under the runways to the Airport, terminating in the main airport terminal area. LRTs on this spur line could run at 45 miles per hour on the streets, at higher speeds on private right-oaf-way portions of the route. 4. IN RICHFIELD DEPRESS THE TRACKS OF THE LRT SO THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL NOT BE VISUALLY OR PHYSICALLY DIVIDED. I knew, from my experience of living in south Minneapolis, that a high capacity people and goads mover can be installed in a community so as to have minimal impact can that existing community. Of course, in Richfield, the track: of the present Soo Line was installed long before most of the surrounding structures of the community came into being. Richfield High School, for example, was built long after the tracks were laid that now separate the school building from its adjacent athletic field. But it is absurd to expect that community to live with fast-moving LRTs running at ground level through its environs many times a day. But if the tracks were depressed and bridges built over the tracks, from just south of 61st Street to just south of 76th Street, and proper walls and fences built, and landscaping such as lilac bushes installed, as now exists on portions of the west side of the Soo Line track through Richfield, the community could live in safety with a minimal impact upon its aesthetic values. This depression should be built in E LYSTIG/ I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 10 such a way as to allow residents on both sides of Pleasant E-8 Avenue continued front-door street access to their homes. However, even at grade level an LRT can have a very • minimal adverse aesthetic impact upon the surrounding community. Compare the difference between the swirling smog-infested roaring barren concrete desert expanse of I-394 in Minneapolis and Golden Valley with the quiet green grass sylvan beauty of the remnant of the former Twin City Rapid Transit Company trolley line still existing and used by the Minnesota Transportation Museum in the vicinity of Lake Harriet. Just west of the present Linden Hills southern terminus of the Museum line, trolleys of the TORT attained and maintained 60 mile-per-hour speeds to and from Lake Minnetonka -- and for years post cards were distributed showing TORT cars on this stretch as illustrative of the park--like beauty of the Twin Cities area! 5. IN RICHFIELD AND BLOOMINGTON, TAKE NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WHEN AN LRT IS INSTALLED; FATHER HAVE THE PROPOSED STOPS IN THOSE CITIES SERVED BY FEEDER BUSES USING PRESENTLY EXISTING; ROADWAYS, AND BUILD PARKING LOTS ONLY WHERE OPEN SPACE PRESENTLY EXISTS. 6. IN BLOOMINGTON, DEPRESS 82nd, 86th, and 90th STREETS UNDER THE SOO LINE/LRT, ENABLING; TRAFFIC TO FLOW ON 'THOSE MAJOR ARTERIES WITH A MINIMUM OF DISRUPTION WHILE ALLOWING THE CONTINUANCE OF RAIL FREIGHT TO PRESENT AND POTENTIAL • FUTURE USERS IN THE AREA. Even should the Soo Line discontinue rail freight service in the area, these named arteries are too busy to allow a safe at-grade crossing with frequent and fast-frioving LRTs. 7. AT THE I-35W/I--494 INTERCHANGE, CHOOSE THE "PING" ALTERNATIVE, BUT UTILIZE-DESIGN SPEEDS THAT TO THE GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE OBVIATE THE NECESSITY OF TAKING ANY EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 11 5-1q 8. UNTIL THE LRT IS BUILT AND IN OPERATION TO ITS • BURNSVILLE TERMINUS, INSTALL A THIRD LANE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS OF I -35W FROM JUST NORTH OF 98TH STREET TO COUNTY ROAD 42. Traffic builds up most severely in just that area. A substantial amount of traffic enters and leaves I-35W at 98th Street, at Highway 13, at Burnsville Parkway and at County Road 42. Another big part of the problem is the grade that must be traversed on both sides of the Minnesota River. Even automobile drivers tend to slow down when crossing river bridges. But the problem is accentuated by the fact that both big vehicles and under-powered passenger cars frequently cannot accelerate going up the grades encountered in that area. In both my 181 Ford Escort and eery former '86 Volvo I was unable to accelerate on portions of the grade in either direction. There is a third lane presently existing for a portion of the uphill grade. But there are only two., lanes in either direction crossing the river; thus the third lanes are not doing as adequate a job as they could were there three lanes throughout the area in both directions. But based upon nay observations of traffic both south of County Road 42 and north of 98th street, I do not favor continuingza third lane further in either direction. Design and build the added temporary third lane in such a way that the LRT can be installed in it with a minimum of new construction. • • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 12 91-fs V. CONCLUDING POSTSCRIPT • Dealing with the problem of congestion caused by the use of privately awned and operated motor vehicles is like dealing with an obstreperous child. The child will continue demanding whatever it wants. But the job of the "parent" is to yield to that child only those things that can be safely given it. There is no way to permanently "salve" the problem of the obstreperous child, but ways can be found to live with him/her. Such a child is unlikely to modify its behavior unless an authority figure significant to it consistently, fairly and firmly applies whatever rules and standards are deemed appropriate for it. So also is it with motor vehicle traffic. In this country it is highly unlikely that the use of motor vehicles will diminish to any significant degree, no matter what steps are taken by governmental agencies. Traffic congestion will never be totally relieved, no matter how many lanes of roadway are built. But we can decide to stop yielding to every pressure exerted by the presence and use of such vehicles. We can do better than continue to despoil our cities, disrupt our neighborhoods, and defile our air, water and land by the ever-increasing construction of more lanes of roadway for use by internal-combustion propelled, petroleum fueled motor vehicles. We can by conscious policy decisions, implemented by deliberate building programs, put in place those things that will create a disincentive for use of motor vehicles • for purposes of commuting to the biggest centers of work: in the Twin Cities. By enforcing existing laws we can create and maintain traffic patterns that will not necessitate the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods and the surrounding environment. By refusing to add more lanes to our freeways, and by installing an LRT system whose vehicles will be able to move faster than legally allowed motor vehicle speeds on adjacent roadways, we can give people a viable alternative to the use of their motor vehicle, an alternative that will respect the neighborhoods, help knit together our various segmented communities, and help preserve the portions of our environment that we have not already irretrievably damaged and destroyed. The traffic estimates given by MNDOT in its DEIS are suspect at best. For -example, in the latter part of April I made my own traffic count of the so-called High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes of I-394. On a weekday morning just before 8 a.m. I stood on the pedestrian walkway over I-394 near Penn Av. In a three-minute time period I counted 13, 21, and 18 vehicles respectively per minute in the HOV lanes (there are two lanes at that point). With the single exception of one MTC bus, all the vehicles were private passenger cars, light trucks and vans. Almost all the vehicles with the exception of the bus were carrying but two persons. (Under current MNDOT definitions, even a motorcycle carrying both a driver and a passenger is a HOV!) MTC two • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 13 g-/? axle buses carry 47 seated passengers; three axle units carry E7 seated passengers. A single LRT typically carries 80 seated passengers, (e.g, the LRTs presently being placed • into service in Baltimore, MD.) and has roam to carry an additional 200 standees. Unlike buses, LRTs can operate in coupled trains of any desired length, limited only by the length of station platforms, and can operate on headways of as little as two minutes. (As my daughter reported can her trip to London earlier this month, the underground system there operates on that tight a headway.) Assuming that one MTC bus carrying 50 passengers uses the HOV every five minutes during rush hours, and assuming 20 other HOV vehicles each carrying two persons per minute, the usage of the HOV amounts to 3100 people moved in an hour. Ten three-car LRTs per hour, carrying 300 people each, would carry 3000 people in an hour. But twenty three-car LRTs per hour', or one every three minutes each carrying 600 people, would carry 12,000 people per hour! The LRT choice has a far greater capability of expansion than does an HOV lane occupying roughly the same amount of land space, and of course pollutes the environment to a minuscule percentage of the HOV. The proposals by MNDOT in their DEIS that do include an LRT appear to be designed to encourage the failure of the LRT and work for its non-selection. The usage counts of the LRT versus the HOV appear to be unrealistic, and the number of homes to be taken should the LRT be chosen (as many as 1400) out of all proportion to what could be done. Adding • more lanes together with the LRT, as proposed by the DEIS, simply enhances the temptation of drivers to continue to use their own vehicles instead of choosing the LRT alternative. It is unjust that only one public hearing was held after a series of informational meetings regarding MNDOT plans and proposals for the I-35W corridor. It is further gravely unjust that that meeting was held far removed from the majority of people most directly and immediately affected by most of the proposed changes, namely those living near and in downtown Minneapolis and adjacent to the I-35W corridor. In Minnesota we can do better than that! After the revised DEIS has been prepared, before any final decision is made by the Commissioner of the MNDOT, hold at least one more public hearing, this time in the neighborhood of Minneapolis closest to and adjoining the I-35W/I-94 .junction! From all the foregoing, it is obvious that I favor none of the MNDOT proposals as presented at the May 14-15 hearing and prior informational sessions. I believe that an LRT should be built FIRST before any major upgrades are made to the I-35W corridor. And I think that the LRT should at the same time be constructed connecting the I-35W corridor with the Mall of America and Airport terminal, enabling people from both the southern suburbs and Minneapolis to have ready • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 14 g-/7 access bath to the downtown area and to those other areas of concentrated employment opportunities. Any changes to I-494 west of the Soo Line/I-494 area should be designed and • constructed so that an LRT running westward along the I-494 Corridor could be installed with a minimum of design and construction changes. :Incidentally, although MNDOT says a projected usage of 6000 persons per day does not justify an LRT in the I-494 Corridor, several heavy rail lines in the Chicago area carry less than that number per day, and their abandonment is not being advocated.: I am adamantly apposed to the addition of any further motor-vehicle lanes in the I-35W corridor with the temporary exception of the 98th Street to County 42 stretch of the corridor. But I do think that in particular the I-35W/I-494 interchange should be changed so as to eliminate the present dangerous "clover-leaf" design that creates too great a disparity between speeds of the "main-line" traffic and traffic that is entering or leaving the complex on the "leaves" of the "clover-leaf." I whole-heartedly support those who at the May 14-15 hearing called for a revised DEIS before any final decisions are made regarding the future of the 1-35W corridor. For over 20 years the topic of an alternative to the construction of more freeway lanes has been discussed and debated in the Twin Cities. That debate has failed to quell a rising chorus of calls for the installation of an LRT system. A bus ridership at present of over 12,0100 per day • on the I-35W Corridor is more than adequate for an LRT replacement. Some call the LRT an outmoded transportation alternative.. But forerunners of today's cars and LRTs were developed at nearly the same time shortly before the turn of the century. Then those vehicles were called "horseless carriages" and "trolleys." In the intervening years both have undergone significant developmental changes in the vehicles themselves and in their roadways . But one LRT lane can still carry far more people far more efficiently, and in a far less polluting way, than one lane used by petroleum-fueled motor vehicles. Finally, how shall these things be paid far? I believe that it is only just that those who by their choice impose a burden on others should pay for the cost of that burden. Every time a petroleum-fueled motor vehicle is used it burdens the air we all breathe with its polluting emissions. That vehicle pollutes the earth we all use by requiring ever more impermeable surfaces upon which to move,. By requiring clear roadways in all sorts of weather conditions that vehicle pollutes with the run-cuff the water we all use. Neighborhoods through which that vehicle moves Suffer by its demand for more space for its roadways and by the sound of the noise of its passage. Every user of a petroleum-furled 0 LYSTIv/I-35W CORRIDOR/ page 15 d-1 g motor vehicle within the State of Minnesota should pay an additional increased tax on petroleum-based fuel in an amount sufficient to provide not only for the construction _ but also the maintenance and a large portion of the operating expense of all transit systems within the state. That petroleum-based fuel tax should be large enough to pay for the adequate maintenance of the roadways and enforcement of laws on existing and future roadways used by such vehicles within the state. A larger amount of tax should be imposed on those petroleum-based fuels sold within the Twin Cities area, including but not necessarily limited to the five-county metropolitan area. This greater revenue source may be necessary both to discourage private motor vehicle use within that area and to pay for the cost of designing, maintaining and operating an adequate mass transit system that must consist of many components, including an LRT, but also having necessary "feeder" systems and other transit systems within the area. We can do better; we must do better than what has been proposed up till now by MNDOT. I believe the foregoing discussion, proposals and suggested principles and considerations can help in the achievement of that better result that should be the desire of all of us. Addressees include but are not limited to the following: • I-35W Corridor Manager The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation The Mayors of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, and Burnsville Members of the City Councils of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, and Burnsville Richfield School District Beard Hennepin County Commissioners Regional Transit Board Metropolitan Council State Representative Blatz State Representative Riveness State Senator Belanger Representative Saber., Representative Ramstad Senator Durenberger Senator Wellstone Governor Carlson Neighborhood Transportation Network The Social Ministry Committee of the Greater Minneapolis Area Council of Churches Metropolitan Airport Commission The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis • LYSTIG/I-35W CORRIDOR,'/ page 16 s-/9 • June 9, 1992 Mr. Craig Robinson Minnesota Department of Transportation 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Subject: State Project 2782 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-35W In Hennepin and Dakota Counties From: Washington Avenue South in Minneapolis • To: I-35E in Burnsville 1. Introduction. The City of Richfield supports the Federal Highway Administration proposed action to construct additional traffic lanes and transit facilities to enhance the operation of the existing I-35W transportation system. (Draft EIS 1. 1.3) The proposed action is to reconstruct the portion of I-35W between Washington Avenue South in Minneapolis and I-35E in Burnsville. (Draft EIS 1.1.4) The overall goal is to accommodate I-35W's share of the forecasted regional travel demand between these termini. (Draft EIS 1.3. 1) Richfield officials reviewed the travel demand forecasts used in preparing the I-35W draft EIS. It is the City of Richfield's position that these travel demand forecasts are reasonable and accurately reflect travel demand in the year 2010. Within this overall goal, the joint lead agencies and the Project Advisory Board identified six objectives related to the need for the I-35W project. Briefly stated, the objectives are: (1) increase number of people served on I-35W; (2) provide preference for high occupancy vehicles; (3) provide reasonable access to the 5104U Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 2 freeway, with preference for regional trips; (4) maintain or improve the traffic level of service; (5) decrease the accident rate; and (6) support development without encouraging growth outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. (Draft EIS 1.3.1) The City of Richfield agrees with the above objectives and believes that all decisions regarding alternatives and design must be measured by the extent to which the overall goal and the six objectives are met. Without a doubt, the data and analyses in the draft EIS, and in the technical memoranda and special studies which, underlie. the draft EIS, compel a conclusion that the Diamond Lanes alternative best meets the overall goal and six objectives specified for the I-35W expansion project. The City of Richfield's position is that the draft EIS is adequate so long as the Diamond Lanes alternative is the preferred alternative in the final EIS. The EIS analyses provide inadequate factual bases for • selection of any other alternative. In fact, selection of a LRT alternative or introduction of a transit envelope concept would, in Richfield's opinion, expose the project to challenge under state and federal law. It is not within the stated project goal and objectives to create a system grossly inadequate to meet forecast travel demand so as to attempt to force behavioral change in travel mode choices. Richfield supports the Diamond Lanes alternative. The remainder of our comment letter addresses a number of specific issues. II. Richfield's Position on I-35W Expansion. As stated above, the City of Richfield strongly supports the expansion of I-35W. The No Build Alternative discussed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is clearly inadequate to address transportation needs in the I-35W corridor for the next 20 years. Of the build alternatives and sub-alternatives addressed in the draft EIS, the City of Richfield supports the following: 1. The Diamond Lanes Mainline Alternative; 0 2. The Base Interchange Design at I-35W/I-494; 8 -&q Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 3 3. The Side by Side Mainlines at the Crosstown Commons; 4. Full existing access at Crosstown Commons; and 5. Other miscellaneous alternatives. A. Diamond Lanes Mainline Alternative is the Superior Transit Option. As part of any improvements to I-35W; the City of Richfield favors increased transit availability. Of the transit alternatives addressed in the draft EIS, the City of Richfield supports implementation of the Diamond Lanes Mainline Alternative. The City believes that this alternative is the superior transit option for the following reasons: 1. Provides greatest people carrying capacity. Total People Carried (2010 Peak Hour Direction). Alternative Diamond Light Rail Lane Conversion Plus Lanes Transit Light Rail Transit Lake Street 16,800 15,100 15,000 Minnesota 11,300 9,300 8,800 River (Source: I-35W draft EIS, Figure S-3(a)). 2. Least Total Right-of-Way Acquisition Construction of the Diamond Lanes Alternative would involve adding one lane in each direction north of 46th Street and two lanes south of 46th Street. Right-of-way acquisition needed to implement this alternative is centralized, confined to one 0 side to the extent possible, and therefore least disruptive. Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 4 Since the Diamond Lanes Alternative would result in very little diversion of traffic, local governments would not be forced to widen local streets to carry long range, regional trips. If any other alternative is chosen, numerous single- family homes along several north-south arterials and collector streets would have to be acquired in order to accommodate traffic diverted from I-35W during rush hours. More land, more homes, and more neighborhoods would be taken under any of the LRT alternatives than is the case with Diamond Lanes Alternative. These undeniable additional impacts associated with diversion are not of little consequence. In fact, the addition of just one through lane on a local street would require the acquisition of approximately 125 homes in Richfield. Two or three of these arterials, in Richfield alone, would have to be widened, depending on which alternative was ultimately selected. (Source: Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch Inc., I-35W EIS Local Street Traffic Impacts Special Study, January 1992 pp. 63-65.) The net effect is removal of hundreds of homes, which is not quantified as an impact in the draft EIS. Any right-of-way savings on the freeway from other alternatives are overshadowed by the right-of-way needs, safety problems and negative environmental impacts on the local streets and in neighborhoods near these streets. Unfortunately, the amount of right-of-way needed to widen the local streets to meet the 2010 forecasted traffic was not considered in the analysis of I-35W alternatives described in Tables 5-5 to 5-16 of the draft EIS. If it were, the Diamond Lanes Alternative would be shown to cause the least amount of residential displacement of any build alternative. Therefore, it is Richfield's contention that adding two lanes in each direction on I-35W, which would provide an • additional carrying capacity of approximately 4200 vehicles ?-Aa • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 5 per hour, is not only a more efficient way to address the region's transportation needs, but is also less disruptive to the surrounding communities. 3. Least Congestion on Local Streets. A comparison of the various alternatives outlined in the draft EIS demonstrates that the Diamond Lanes Alternative is the only option that minimizes the diversion of traffic from the freeway to local streets during rush hour traffic. The diversion difference is substantial, not just a matter of a few cars. Therefore, the Diamond Lanes Alternative best protects residential neighborhoods from additional traffic disruption. Vehicles Diverted During PM Peak Hour to Local Streets 0 Alternative Diamond Light Rail Lane Conversion Plus Lanes Transit Light Rail Transit Lake Street 700 2,300 2,100 60th Street 700 1,800 2,400 66th Street 200 1,400 1,700 Minnesota 300 1,900 2,300 River (Source: Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, Inc., I-35W Local Street Traffic Impacts Special Study.) Estimates of traffic diverted to local streets under _the various alternatives during the 2010 PM Peak Hour, October 28, 1991. Along with other adverse effects, diversion to local streets introduces quantities of air pollution into neighborhoods and increases total air pollution. First, even though single-point CO levels have been modeled, and appear to meet standards, 0 it is undisbutably a fact that a source of pollutants (vehicles) ? -At . Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 6 are being directed into closer proximity to neighborhoods by diversion. Second, vehicles diverted spend more time idling at intersections and the total operational time of the vehicles is increased by having to use local streets. This increases the total amount of air pollutants emitted into the metropolitan area. Diamond Lanes Alternative keeps this to a minimum. 4. Least Number of Accidents. 1-35W Technical Memorandum No. 43, addressing the operational and safety characteristics of the various alternatives, revealed that the Diamond Lanes Alternative would result in the fewest number of accidents of any of the alternatives under consideration. Much of the reduction would occur on local streets as a result of keeping regional . trips on the freeway. Diamond Laness result in 400 to 700 fewer accidents per year. (Draft EIS, Table S-3(a)) The human and dollar costs associated with vehicular and vehicular/pedestrian accidents cannot be overemphasized. In the instances of personal injury or death, the costs are unquantifiable. It is the responsibility of city government to respond to accidents on local streets. Since the Diamond Lanes Alternative is the safest option under consideration, it would minimize the expense of providing these services. Additionally, staffing in the cities' public safety departments would make it difficult to respond to other emergencies if traffic accidents on local streets demand increased attention. These expenses and staffing impacts which should be further addressed in the final EIS. 5. Provides Significant Reserve Capacity for Further Growth. Many advocates of LRT point to its excess capacity as a major selling point. Transit experts, however, emphasize that 3-4;e Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 7 the need for excess transit capacity is not the issue in determining the best transit mode for major metropolitan areas in the United States. The real issue is the limited demand for transit. LRT proponents assert that high-occupancy vehicle lanes ("HOV lanes") cannot compete with LRT for handling peak hour transit passengers. This is simply not true. For example, the Shirley Highway (I-395) in northern Virginia carried more than 15,000 people in vans, carpools, and buses, making it the busiest single rush hour for any transit facility in the country besides New York City. The Dan Ryan line in Chicago, the busiest rail line outside New York City, carried only 14,000 riders. Other urban areas in the United States have experienced similar results. (Sources: John F. Kain "Choosing the Wrong Technology: Or How to Spend Billions to Reduce Transit Use," Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 21 (Winter 1988), p. 207, and Don Capelle, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Dennis Christiansen, Texas Transportation Institute, "Common Misperceptions Associated with Preferential Facilities for High Occupancy Vehicles," Conference Proceedings, Third National High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Conference, October 17 through 19, 1988, Minneapolis, MN, p. 45.) HOV lanes provide significant reserve capacity for future growth by allowing transit officials to increase the occupancy requirements for carpools in response to increased travel demand. Use of persuasive skills and regulatory authority over employers and building owners to increase vehicle occupancy and stagger work hours is significantly less expensive than capital-intensive rigid transit options. For example, Minneapolis is in the process of implementing validated parking to lure suburbanites to shop downtown. Analogous efforts to implement travel demand management 0 measures are not beyond the capabilities of government. If • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 8 travel demand increases well beyond expectations, the HOV lane can be reserved as a transit way for exclusive use by buses. Additionally, the HOV lane can be operated for longer periods of time if traffic congestion extends beyond the current morning and evening rush hour periods. (Source: Frank Cechini, Federal Highway Administration, "Operational Considerations in HOV Facility Implementations," presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 22 - 26, 1989, pp. 16-26.) 6. Avoids the Need to Make Costly Improvements to Local Streets. The cost of handling traffic diversion from I-35W to local streets will be the responsibility of the respective cities and • counties. Various studies done in conjunction with the I-35W draft EIS have demonstrated that since the Diamond Lanes Alternative minimizes the amount of diverted traffic from I-35W during peak hours, this option most effectively avoids the need to make costly improvements to local streets. If LRT was implemented, the amount of diverted traffic would force local cities to make huge expenditures for which no funds are currently available. These costs are estimated to be $18 to $29 million higher if one of the LRT alternatives is constructed. (Source: Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, Inc., I-35W EIS Local Street Traffic Imports Special Study, January, 1992 p. 65.) 7. Less Expensive to Build Relative to Any of the LRT Alternatives. As the draft EIS demonstrates, the Diamond Lanes Alternative will save the taxpayers anywhere from $127 million to $250 million over any alternative containing light rail transit. This huge differential deals solely with capital 0 costs. (Source: I-35W draft EIS, Figure S-3(a)) Further, it 3-A7 • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 9 probably underestimates the costs to mitigate impacts on local streets. This cost differential should halt further serious consideration of LRT, when, at base, LRT in a widely- dispersed, low density metropolitan area amounts to little more than nostalgic pursuits bolstered by institutional momentum and federal financial carrots. III. Light Rail Transit A. LRT Alternative Not Supported by the EIS. Richfield officials looked seriously at the various alternatives containing LRT and found all of them much less suitable for I-35W than the Diamond Lanes Alternative. X 1. More Expensive than Diamond Lane As stated above, the Diamond Lanes Alternative will save the taxpayers anywhere from $127 million to $250 million over any alternative containing LRT. Additionally, LRT would require considerable public operating subsidies in addition to the huge capital expenses of building this transit network. The EIS projects the need for an additional annual $5 million to operate LRT as compared to the Diamond Lanes Alternative. Over 20 years, this is an additional $100 million associated with LRT. Note that these excess funds (together with the excess construction funds) are spent to achieve carrying 500 more people at Lake Street, and 100 fewer people at the Minnesota River on transit during the peak hour. There are fewer total people carried. (Source: Draft EIS, Table S-3(a)) Finally, in other American cities that have opted for LRT, projected savings in transit operating subsidies have failed to materialize. Studies of transit alternatives performed by J. R. Meyer, J. F. Kain and M. Wohl showed that, "... "Freeway Flyers," i.e. express buses • operating on uncongested, but shared, express highways, had c6 Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 10 substantially lower costs than heavy rail, bus on exclusive right-of-way, or private autos at all peak hour volumes and in every situation considered." The situations considered in these studies were for different levels of density of urban development, high, medium and low. (Source: John F. Kain, op. cit., pp. 200-201.) 2. No Flexibility to Respond to Changing Travel Demands. If an LRT alternative is selected, it would be impossible for transit authorities to modify the system to respond to changing travel demand. While LRT mi ht work well in serving trips destined for downtown Minneapolis, many new developments, and thus new jobs, will be located in the suburban areas. Metropolitan Council policies support employment development not only in the two central downtowns but in suburban areas as well. Indeed, the Twin Cities • has one of the lowest population densities of the top 25 metropolitan areas in the United States. 3. The Purported Advantages of LRT Have Not Materialized in Other American Cities that Have Built a Rail Transit Network. As Don H. Pickrell observed in his Spring 1992 article on rail transit planning, "A Desire Named Streetcar: Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning", which appeared in the Journal of the American Planning Association: The forecasts that led local officials in eight U.S. cities to advocate rail transit projects over competing, less capital- intensive options grossly overestimated rail transit ridership and underestimated rail construction costs and operating expenses. These mistakes cannot be explained by such obvious sources as errors in projecting the input variables of the ridership forecasting models, or changes in the design of the projects. 0 g-k7 Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Pickrell's (whose credentials are impressive) analyses and conclusions were based upon his study of eight cities in which both heavy-rail and light-rail transit projects are operational; four of the cities studied had constructed light-rail systems. In the article, Mr. Pickrell also observed that LRT's purported advantages have not materialized in American cities that have built light rail transit networks. The vast majority of LRT ridership comes from former bus passengers. Therefore, LRT does not solve the problems associated with traffic congestion and elevated air pollution levels, since those laudable objectives are dependent upon getting people to switch from single occupancy vehicles to a different ridership mode. (Source: Pickrell at p. 158) Mr. Pickrell's data should be analyzed in the Final EIS if there is any further consideration of LRT. Furthermore, LRT alternatives rely on feeder buses to increase • ridership. Ridership forecasts in American cities where light rail transit has been built, however, have consistently overestimated the willingness of people to use feeder buses to board an LRT train. This is acknowledged by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority study referred to on page 3-24 of the draft EIS. Finally, existing bus service along several routes parallel to the proposed LRT route on I-35W offers customers frequent stops. This existing service will be curtailed or eliminated if LRT is implemented in the I-35W corridor. 5-30 Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 12 4. Comparison of the Most Imp ortant Impacts. (Excerpted from Draft EIS Figu re S-3(b)) Alternative Diamond Laness Light Rail Transit Lane Conversion (Base Interchange (Base Interchange Plus Design) Design) Light Rail Transit Total People Carried: (2010 Peak Hour Direction) 16,800 15,100 15,000 (MN River) 11,300 9,300 8,800 (Lake Street) Vehicles Diverted to Local Streets: (MN River) 300 1,900 2,300 (Lake Street) 700 2,300 2,100 . Accidents 2,100 2,520 2,830 Dwelling Units Acquired* 1,325* 1,300* 1,045* Construction Cost $830 million $990 million $971 million Right-of-Way Cost* $ 77 million* $ 83 million* $ 63 million* Transit Operating Cost (Annual) $ 41 million $ 46 million $ 46 million Cost to Mitigate Impacts Local Streets $ 21 million $39 million $50 million *These numbers do not specifically include dwelling units and right-of-way costs associated with local street widening and improvements. (See draft EIS, page 3-57). The Final EIS should refine, quantify, and include those factors. B. Selection of LRT Would Violate State Law Section 116D.04, Subd. 6 of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act states that: 0 glt Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 13 No state action significantly affecting the quality of the environment shall be allowed, nor shall any permit for natural resources management and development be granted, where such action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such is conduct. (emphasis added). See also Minnesota Environmental Rights Act § 116B.04, which includes the same policy mandate and declares air, quietude, recreational and historical resources to be protectible natural resources. The draft EIS demonstrates that the implementation of the Diamond Lanes Alternative on I-35W constitutes a feasible and prudent alternative to LRT alternatives. The Diamond Lanes Alternative would carry more people, result in fewer accidents, cause less diversion of traffic, offer a higher level of service, cause less air pollution and be less expensive to build than the LRT system. The only negative measure of the Diamond Lanes Alternative, when compared to LRT, is that it appears to involve the acquisition of more residential units than some of the LRT alternatives. However, this distinction is one of appearance only; the EIS does not quantify homes taken to widen local streets. Even if this distinction was real, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in Peer Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Counsel, 266 N. W. 2d 858 (Minn. 1978), stated that condemnation of residential units, without other impacts, does not constitute an adverse environmental impact because Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 14 persons who lose their homes can be fully compensated in damages. Richfield does not wish to minimize the significance of the taking of residential units. It does, however, wish to make it clear that the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act mandates a social value system which treats those units differently than "protectible natural resources". Therefore, since the draft EIS conclusively demonstrates that construction of the Diamond Lanes Alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative to LRT, the selection of LRT would violate state law. See also, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S..402 (1971); County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. `178, 243 N.W.2d 316 (1976). C. If an LRT Alternative is Adopted, Construction Should Take Place Along Cedar Avenue. • Richfield strongly opposes the implementation of any alternative involving LRT. If LRT is selected, however, it would best serve Richfield along Cedar Avenue. 1. LRT along Cedar Avenue would provide service to two large employment centers, the Mall of America and the Airport West Terminal/New Ford Town Development. 2. It would avoid a large amount of right of way acquisition in Richfield. 3. It would avoid conflict with residential areas in Richfield. 4. It would be compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. Adequate land for transit parking would be available. 6. Right-of-way needs would not cause serious disruption of existing developments in Richfield. 0 g-sw • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 15 D. Richfield Adamantly Opposes Construction Along the Soo Line Route. City officials have consistently objected to the use of the Soo Line as a route for any LRT service. There are numerous reasons for this opposition. 1. The Soo Line is currently situated in the middle of a primarily residential/institutional area. The current freight traffic on the Soo Line is limited to one small, slow-moving train per day, or less. Presently, the Soo Line poses neither a safety threat nor physical barrier to residents who walk across the track. Installation of an LRT transit line, however, would significantly disrupt this area. Richfield is particularly sensitive to this issue since it is already divided by 1-35W. it is imperative that any further disruption be minimized. 2. Use of the Soo Line track in Richfield would cause significant environmental concerns due to the frequency of at-grade street crossings at 66th, 68th, 70th, 73rd, 76th and 78th Streets. If LRT is constructed along this line it will be necessary for the trains to constantly alert pedestrians and vehicles in order to avoid collisions. Additionally, the need to provide a control signal, together with the frequency of the trains, will further serve to interrupt this residential area. Richfield calculates that its east-west streets would be blocked every 3.5 minutes during rush hours to let LRT trains pass. (Trains will be operating in both directions). 3. The Soo Line track currently bisects the Richfield High School campus. Because freight traffic on the line is limited to one train per day, this does not currently pose any significant problems. The implementation of LRT along the track, however, would pose significant noise and safety problems at the high school. In addition, the Soo Line track borders the Richfield little league ball fields, St. Peter's School and the Academy of Holy Angels. Again, noise and interruptions, as well as the frequency of the trains, would • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 16 cause significant safety concerns as well as disrupt recreational activity and classes at the schools. Recreation is a protectible natural resource under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Since there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the LRT Soo Line Route, a different alternative must be selected under Minnesota law. 4. The Soo Line route also runs along the Pleasant Avenue Corridor,. which is essentially a residential district. The frequency of LRT trains would significantly alter the character of this neighborhood. Many. people regularly cross the Soo Line tracks at points other than the at-grade street crossings in the area. Therefore, it would be necessary to provide a barrier along the corridor to avoid pedestrian injuries or fatalities. The construction of such a barrier, however, would be at odds with the quietude and residential nature of the neighborhood. 5. Richfield's Master Park Plan identifies the Soo Line corridor as a pedestrian/bikeway trail to connect with the Regional Park System. Use of this corridor for LRT takes it for non- recreational use. This violates the intent of Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, since the trail is reserved for recreational purposes under the Richfield Master Park Plan. n U 3- Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 17 IV. The City of Richfield Opposes the "Envelope" Concept Advanced by the Metropolitan Council. A. Because the Envelope Concept Does Not Appear in the Draft EIS or the Scoping Document, the Minnesota Department of Transportation Must Start the EIS Process Over or Prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS if the Envelope Concept is to be Considered. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Transit Facilities Plan dated February, 1992, suggests a "flexible" approach, essentially deferring the transit mode choice into the future, but acquiring 47 foot wide right-of-way now to accommodate the future choice. (See page 26). That is, the Council proposes an envelope within which transit might later be constructed. The width for right-of-way is directly proportionate to an LRT alternative. • There has been no mention of the "Envelope" Concept; and the delay and disruption the option implies, in either the draft EIS or the scoping document. The object of the EIS process is to provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the entire range of alternatives under consideration. Public comment procedures are at the very core of the review process and reflect the paramount legislative desire to internalize opposing viewpoints into the decision making process to insure that an agency is cognizant of all environmental trade-offs that .are implicit in a decision. It is only at the stage where the draft EIS is circulated that the public and the outside agencies have the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the proposal. No such right exists upon issuing of the final EIS. Consequently, an agency's failure to disclose a proposed action before the issuance of a draft EIS defeats the goal of encouraging public participation in the development of information during the decision making process. Recognizing the importance of public participation in the EIS process, the Federal Highway Administration regulations state that: • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 18 A draft EIS, final EIS, a supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that: 1. Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that are not evaluated in the EIS; or 2. New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearings (sic) on the proposed action or its impact would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in • the EIS. 23 CFR §771.130 In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines state that: Agencies shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact. 40 CFR §1502.9. See also Minn. Rules pt. 4410. 3000 subp. 3(A)(1). In fashioning a test for determining whether substantial changes in a proposed action have occurred, at least two factors must be considered: S17 Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 19 1. Whether the alternative finally selected by the Agency falls within the range of alternatives the public could have reasonably anticipated the Agency to be considering; and 2. Whether the public's comments on the draft EIS also apply to the chosen alternative and inform the Agency meaningfully of the public's attitude toward the chosen alternative. If both of these criteria are established, the Agency satisfies the goal of encouraging meaningful public participation during the decision making process without having to circulate a supplemental draft EIS. See,, Half Moon Bay Fishermans' Marketing v. Carlucci, 857 F. 2d 505 (9th Cir. 1988); California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982); State of Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 578 F.Supp. 1327 (W.D. Whiz 1984), reversed on other grounds 745 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1984). In this case, the Envelope Concept and its impacts so radically depart from any alternative discussed in the draft EIS that the public could not have reasonably anticipated the agency to be considering this option. Furthermore, numerous impacts associated with the delay in selecting a transit alternative are not addressed in the draft EIS. (See IV B discussion below). Therefore, the Minnesota Department of Transportation must start the EIS process over or prepare a supplemental draft EIS if it chooses to consider the Envelope Concept. B. The Envelope Alternative is Not Acceptable. 1. Even if the Envelope Concept was adequately addressed in the draft EIS, it is not an acceptable alternative. a. Delavs Transit Mode Decision. The City of Richfield has several concerns associated with the delay in the transit decision. During the period of delay, problems associated with traffic congestion, air quality, noise • and access will increase. An under-constructed facility for ?-" Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 20 the sake of hoping numbers will later justify LRT exacerbates the situation and is contrary to the Statement of Purpose and Need for the I-35W project. Delaying the transit decision creates long range uncertainty for property owners and disrupts the affected cities' ability to make long range planning decisions. Even under the best of circumstances, a decision to build a major highway/transit facility causes serious hardships as individuals find their lives disrupted by time consuming delays. Moreover, postponement of the transit decision may leave the acquired land vacant for decades as has happened in other corridors. b. Two Designs Not Compatible. The two designs are not compatible at various access points and have different right of way needs. • c. Essentially a Decision for LRT. The City of. Richfield believes that a decision to delay the transit decision and leave a right of way wide enough for LRT is, essentially, a decision for LRT. As discussed above, however, the quantitative data contained in the draft EIS demonstrate that the Diamond Lanes Alternative is the preferred as well as a feasible and prudent alternative to LRT. Consequently, the selection of LRT would violate state law. d. Prolongs Disruption Associated With Construction. The expansion of I-35W will certainly be a long and disruptive process. Delaying the transit decision, however, will only serve to prolong this disruption. This will be particularly burdensome to adjacent property owners who will have to deal with the fugitive dust from constructive activities and I-35W commuters who will have to endure protracted traffic delays during the extended decision deferral -- and then suffer again when construction follows the decision. U S-3f Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 21 e. Additional Costs Associated With a "Build" Component at a Later Date. A design that allows both transit options will drive up the cost to retrofit transit into the I-35W median after the mixed use lanes are built. The costs of delaying a decision should be analyzed in the EIS. f. Without Makine Transit Decision. No Legal Authoritv to Acquire Land. The Authority to acquire a right of way for transit is based on a clear need for the land. Without making a transit decision, MnDOT has no authority to acquire the land. The government must need the right-of-way to achieve the I-35 W project objective, or it cannot acquire. Taking homes so that rail advocates can prolong their dreams is not a legitimate • public purpose. g. Delay Frustrates Purpose, Need and Objectives of the Project. The number 1 project objective is to "Increase the number of people served on I-35W." (See draft EIS, pp. 1-12). Right of way acquisition and deferral of a transit mode choice runs directly counter to this objective. h. The Impacts Associated with Delay Mandate that Build Alternative be Selected Immediately. The disruption to neighborhoods, the uncertainty for property owners held hostage by postponing the selection of a transit alternative, and lost tax base to cities from unnecessary right of way take, mandate that a transit decision be made now, based on available data and analysis in the Draft EIS and special studies. LRT is an unwise use of limited public resources. Studies done in support of the I-35W EIS show the Diamond Lanes Alternative clearly outperforms all of the LRT alternatives in handling the projected travel demand in the I-35W corridor and is achieved at less cost to build and 0 operate than LRT. (Sources: Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, Inc., Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 22 "I-35W EIS Local Street Traffic Impacts Special Study", January, 1992; "Transit Operating Cost Estimates for the I- 35W Corridor", Revised November 6, 1991; and, Technical Memorandum 43 "Accident Projections and Operations Analysis for Alternatives.") V. Interchange Design Alternatives. In addition to supporting the Diamond Lanes Alternative for the mainlines, the City of Richfield supports the following interchange design alternatives: A. Favor a Base Interchange Design ("Ring Road") at I-35W/I494 • The proposed Ring Road Alternative appears to be superior to the overlapping Diamond Sub-Alternative for the I-35W/I-494 interchange. Plans for the Ring Road design offer the following advantages to the City of Richfield. 1. Provides good access to local streets. 2. Provides local access across freeways between Richfield and Bloomington that is not currently available. 3. Limits right-of-way needed from Donaldson Park. 4. Requires less right-of-way acquisition. 5. Is less costly that the Overlapping Diamond Sub-Alternative. The City of Richfield, however, is still concerned that ramp entrances provide adequate storage space so that metering of the entrance ramps does not cause severe traffic backup that may result in the blocking of local streets. If ramp entrances cannot provide adequate storage space, grade 0 S-0 • Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 23 separated frontage roads should be provided so that local streets are not obstructed by vehicles waiting to enter freeways. B. Favor Side-by-Side Mainlines at Crosstown Commons. The City of Richfield favors Side-by-Side Mainlines at Crosstown Commons for the following reasons: 1. - Improves safety and eliminates traffic congestion; 2. Causes the least diversion of traffic to local streets; 3. Less intrusive design on adjacent neighborhood than Stacked Mainlines; and • 4. Is less costly than other sub-alternatives. C. Favor Fully Existing Access at Crosstown Commons. The City of Richfield recognizes that this is still an unresolved issue. The City, however, supports a design that provides the same access as that which currently exists to reduce the need for additional traffic on local streets and to protect existing businesses that depend on convenient freeway access. VI. Miscellaneous A. Interim Third Lane Over Minnesota River The City of Richfield is not opposed to an interim third lane over the Minnesota River. An acceptable plan, however, must be developed for making the transition back to the existing two lanes without imposing . unacceptable demands on local streets. sAk*)% E Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 24 B. Richfield Lake Park and Donaldson Park The proposed mitigation for impacts on Richfield Lake Park and Donaldson Park are acceptable to the City of Richfield. The City, however, believes that the Base Interchange Design at EIS I-494 is the most effective way to avoid acquiring land in Donaldson Park. C. Bike/Pedestrian Trails 0 The City of Richfield supports the use of surplus land for bikes/pedestrian trails consistent with the Richfield Master Park Plan. The City believes, however, that there is a need for additional bikeways and pedestrian crossings over the freeway beyond the 76th Street crossing described on page 3-39 of the draft EIS. The Richfield's Master Park Plan identifies three crossings. To restrict bikeway and pedestrian (recreational) crossings to one when there is a feasible and prudent alternative, i.e. two more, runs afoul of the Minnesota Environmental Policy and Rights Acts, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. D. Water Resources After the completion of the I-35W Water Resources Study, the engineering consultant hired by the City suggested a less costly solution for providing a storm drainage outlet for Richfield Lake and Wood Lake. This solution involves building an outlet from Richfield Lake to Wood Lake and from Wood Lake to the drainage pipe proposed for I-494 at Lyndale Avenue. If the elevation of the I-494 storm sewer intake at Lyndale Avenue is lowered approximately three feet, the City proposes the construction of a gravity outlet. E. Noise Walls and Landscaping Several neighborhoods in Richfield have expressed their concern that they be given the opportunity to have input into the design of noise walls and landscaping along the I-35W corridor to ensure compatibility of the freeway . with Richfield's residential neighborhoods. The City supports this idea. 9-4a Mr. Craig Robinson June 9, 1992 Page 25 Comments received from one neighborhood are enclosed as part of the City's position on I-35W. VII. Conclusion In sum, the City of Richfield endorses the data, analysis, and findings of the draft EIS. Those findings clearly demonstrate that the Diamond Lanes Alternative is the best transit and mainline option for the expansion of I-35W and, therefore, should be the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. The findings also provide a conclusive basis that construction of the Diamond Lanes would constitute a "feasible and prudent alternative" to the selection of LRT. Consequently, the selection of LRT would violate the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act as well as the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Since the Envelope Concept advanced by the Metropolitan Council does not appear in the draft EIS or Scoping documents, it cannot be considered without starting the EIS process over or preparing a supplemental draft EIS. Finally, in addition to the Diamond Lanes Alternative, the City of Richfield supports the Base Interchange Design at I-35W/I- 494, Side by Side Mainlines at Crosstown Commons and full existing access at Crosstown Commons. Richfield adamantly opposes LRT on the Soo Line. Very truly yours, Martin J. Kirsch Major, City of Richfield Enclosure JDP/10747 0 n ,aF i"1 r inn2 X(' INU I C-) `T3: 2? O 1G C'+-i61r.?l Lz:, M1J?? lQ m -?-.5 ?W i s ,? ?TIC(SLs N13Lu, See erJ t,? e?rz P?a?e,,,SS',? -sx - MC[Ln ?CZ?l VJ?-'C`am C) Oe- ` -6 "CLAC?S < L? l S acs ° sonaIt h oucpays off: - for suburbs bus systems - By Igarde Blake - in4 the buses in Maple Grove, when f StaffWriter. 'daily ridership on the Ci ty', new 30 minute Xh sa service to downtown The first evrnter that Maple Grove Mmneapolis has grown by more than ran its new bus service, the city gave 200 rte lest than two yeah §7u . ? : ' ? pen-sized fiashhghts to nden m bus " r?5 r ' .? driven could see them on dark stmt •. Rrdenhip is rutmitig.85 peaoeut oo• corners befora des ;t?; x e r'capa which is almost unheard of t ?# ,,; : in pub is transit. We're almost the $ ?rsd to keep passengers riding on dream of rapid. transit," said Jim 2`. Christmas Eve, when many commut- Koniar, a rider and chairman of the en would take their errs to work so Maple Grove Transit Commission. they could leave early, Maple Grove , , . r, c took an on-board survey to find out Other Twin Cities suburb arri Caving -what time to run an early bus home. similar success with nlim% t xpien 5.. Y atMlt ski 1" ii pack Bases oontiqued on pigs 9AW J } MW TI'bt~Tussthyh*l 2111982 I rrY,f y Buses/ MTC is asking the suburbs for su estion? C ndaved Gem page IA jservice provided with extra attention o the special needs of their riders. f ' " s Transit is somethia??that atTects =4?on every day of ff It's got to tUiat tespoosive If iCs not, you're not coooing to tolerate it," said Frank it sPlymonth whiff runs the Plymouth Metro Idnk. "ILat'a what local sys- iii tuns an do. Wean respond." { service rum 16 ex- the plymnoth third h='uDd ridership of 1075, '111 this success in the suburbs has the Metropolitan Transit Commission j(MTC), with ridership at a 20-year- low, taking now the irony is that the MTC operates 'she Maple Grove and other suburban express routes under "opt-out".con- tracts that allowed third- and tbau& ' ring suburbs to withdraw from the 1 ''%b1TdC system and use the monWJb* ,dten for t service in ? own com- 4munities. (The chance to opt odt .ended in 1989.) I' s .Now, in arcs where the MTC was i ,.# ?bsina riders, the. suburban lines are.( ;Ann Olson, a Maple Grove resident who took the MTC before her city E began service in 1990, aid them difievences between the two Iaple Orove buses an on time more often and respond to as dmplaints and suggestions, 'If they can't change it, i st you know that they ae ssue. 1 never got that I he MTC, and you were a hold," Olson said. st .. 'Everyone acknowledges that that's a ,lot easier to do with one suburb's bus iservioe, when most riders want to go ,to the same place at roughly the same ItiMe. That process is mom compli- ,ated with the MTC's annual rider- ship of 65.2 million scattered across ,the metro area. Still, them are those who believe the ;MTC an learn something from the customer service practiced by the suburban bus lino. m Maple Grove: fonts and ached- kla were drawn from a citywide air- Vey as" what time people wanted to get picked up and where they wanted to board the bus. Free parlt- and-ride lots were established in church parking lots dose.to Interstate Hwy for the 25• to 30-minute ride to downtown Minneapolis. The buses, painted white and bearing the city's =town leaf logo' make 12 trips downtown and I t back for. fans that match the MTC'a: S 1.60 one wey for ash customers and 51.30 for riders using 104ide tickets or monthly pisses If a rider reports a late bus, the city investtt?r'gutesand eves the passenger an expiamtion. If riders say a route time is inconvenient, the city takes a survey to determine if a schedule change is needed. And riders run the Maple Grove sys~ tem; seven of them form the ci a transit commission. Because they re on board every day, they know how the service is performing. "If thiyo're???I" wine. thing wrong, you want to get it tssttrraightened out," Koniar said. . Vbiwe the MTC is planning new mar- keting schemes to attract riders, Ma- . j)le Grove has stopped advertising use it doesn't have the money to .expand service. bison recalled a day riding the MTC down Broadway when a woman with a baby asked to get off the bus at a corner that was not a regular stop. The driver would not let her off even though he atop the bus at that borner fora trails.light. ???VVhhen Olson tried to re the nc ie i?nt to the MTC, she saidpo, hrter phoni- p I was put on hold, increasing her i6jer. Such incidents fester, creating attitude toward the bus service, C Administrator Mike Christen- said the success of the suburban es shows that. local control and munity support strengthen the sit system. He said the MTC is ig to foster that link within its .in by encouragg'rag cityhousoegovern. ts to act as citarfng for tit complaints, comments and are being asked by the decide how to redesign sere to put but shelters t., t tI think the opt-out communities stave reached success in building tome of their numbers and we are watching very carefuuy and taking totes," Christenson said. r e Minnesota Valley Transit Au- rho ity, which serves Burnsville, Es- f Apple Valley, Rosemount, Prior take and Savage, runs 88 express (rips to and from downtown Mmna 40olis and St. Psul. It also contracts I .th the MTC to provide the service, ?Iftbed ion the MTC if driven er trips and/or arX from aid executive drnctor Beveriy idler. "We are very. very picky. I think they get a little frustrated from time Miller =I& "I think t we an way too Ricky andwewe just baby-sit our router. Ridership is up from 67 200 in Marsh of Isar year to 76,00 this year- Southwest Metro Transit, which serves Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen, has noted a 100 percent growth in ridership in its five years of existence, from 140,000 in 1986 to 280,000 in 1991. A quick response to problems is criti- cal if buses an to compete with cars, officials say. For example, Southwest Metro Transit added a second bus to one route within three days of notic- ing its ridership growth. "We don't have to wait for a board mating," said Diane Harberts, tran- sit commission administrator. Though no one argues that providing MTC metrowide bus service ia.mote complex and problematic than the suburban commuter systems, Maple Grove City Administrator John Elam contends that the MTC could follow Maple Grove's example in customer relations. "I think if I ran the MTC, I would break the MTC into some bile-size pieces and I would design the system around the same concept we are try. irtA to use here," he said. "Go to Richfield and MY, 'This is your bus system.... r,; - -- -- - -- "?vats-}:-a:.'-'7?e±F.'.k-^.;-. ±. 1?a?.Y?.Lr-?•_--?.._ ---......-.i?_..c_ae-r-?:=?? ".'y_.w;?,r.?e-?y?-era- F,'.: 1 T -.-MASS { THE? TRANSIT - ¦ Goes` Building Subsidies f On Despite High osts . , . , By Michael Fumento If anyone doubted that mass the ranks of cities installing new tracks, TfStlSlt Ridership ' and Los Angeles' planned rail system is aransportation was making a Billions of passengers .a mammoth 300 miles slated to cost $78 25 billion over 30 years. Costs for con- comeback, that doubt was dis- struction, however, are already running i pelled last year when Los An- about 15% over budget. - The main reasons given for expand geles - land of. the ,, almighty : 20 ing rail service and mass transportation : :1.11 X automobile and the cloverleaf ::. are to lessen. automobile traffic conges- ?rchange - began service on tion. and air pollution,:, but ;carefuL.. analysis reveals that mass transit is not ?-Jts Blue Line rail between i5 necessarily a cure for either. downtown L.A. and Long At a glance, rail would seem to reduce. Beach, located about 25 miles conge.stion. Simple mathematics shows 10 that a given number of commuters south. using rails or buses is th at many fewer But the question some are asking is: on the freeways. But it doesn't really work that way.. Should it be making a comeback? Once the queen of urban transporta- . 5 For one, . studies have shown that tion, ' streetcars have been, in decline many of the passengers on .new rail ,- systems merely switched over from across the country since shortly after World War II, when New York and - _ p buses -the main form of. urban mask ! y other cities across the country began ` 145 150 $5 180 W 70 75 180 185 'se , transit in America. . Moreover . urban planners have , ,;-. paving over their surface rails. soumcobft" Often the streetcars found that. to the. extent that freeway ? were:'rep ??. traffic is'lightened it simply encourag;4 22ge laying rail lines W . , with buses. But buses, too, fe a O ` . , . t `. favor. Mass transit ridership declined . '° :Nevertheless, as a percentage of Elie. more drivers to get back on. 9' 215 billion passengers in 1945- "" ,: s ; At any rate, rat sys ms z?nly seven million in 1975, during which . continued to decline. anaged to pull tiny numbers of people " .time the population of U.S. metropol- Indeed, per-capita transif ridership: off highways in the areas they serve. In itan areas doubled. has dropped in all the urban areas that Portland, for example, the rail system The revival began in. the 1960s when opened or expanded rail systems in the removed less than 0.5% of automobile Congress created the Urban Mass 1980s - including Atlanta; Baltimore; riders off the freeway. Transportation Administration, which Washington; Portland, Ore.; Sacra- As for environmental and energy- began pumping billions of dollars into mento, Calif.; San Diego; San Fran- consuming advantages, again the theory cities to convert private transportation cisco; Miami and Buffalo, N.Y. sounds good. A bus or train can systems into public ones and to begin Nonetheless, Denver is soon to join Continued on Next Page 0 f • N QC 13 C 2 r? i r N > ., > a era ro a g -0 o-¢1pg,• os ?c '? .•Qic s{ap-tog' ?s•5 .8p! S°9S a 3 •a .9 •a lit 01"7? ,J• •t3'_ s >.a -ddp Eb a. 3$3co5 a o^ e`L' do>yj''°-?3M '`G'iM'+`? isi-•°-?,' aittp{ ??o?vp? ppQ? ? y•A4 H ?•c?ro ? •3s.ECSe ,?`o 2,81 Z$3a. ` ', ?... a .5 $aa0 ?7 fsR ° ?F oSE$'4a. >t'°s •a i3?Cue'S?8'a. ea•? Q °gngp Du3a^?iii7?yS:?EeRoRuSee2 •o ?rov.°.ou°••??e if A?xC?Sa,u°•0 yo58ae.,$I-°'$'ggday°=$q`OU°•$ l-°Yg?>>'•5Q '¢ 8 2 rT 3 11 s" E° OC °c a° a°° $ o° 3 a . S ra B iL'? a ? ' § 900 A ^ad VOWS E °S O C aIng 3 ?a E gems ? ' $ oao. eaO H =aE $ o av a g 3 g? If 0 p5p,?•??o•g ''?a63,?'?a a....aSss?a,,d ? .?gpgpF??a ?? o?i 20. -a -o -0 ALL. Ed 9 A78 A at- is ail _ ''geF°gaoo ••?Q? E80 ?$'-d?%?,•?pE?, '??,dS 3o'L Xv. ???? ??8-°•3°p??a?i??wa`?a ?s$''Zy3? ??? ?S o5 c ? X20 -'b?8 a° Lq 2. x.^'. a ?,.,:? g ro 4. "1 14 1 1 ° a.s°O 10 0 i w a 3I.a_ U.158 f-11. ILI ecv a.? ?• 3•. Q :' oed,. ee$77 ,?? E?. uQ o.-:X tiio ?S ?i 4?d "•°i-{L''gwS'. g?. 1' E ..??.,o•',a E Fiv Y$. E $ s.,.'9g$ y?{a?? .g.??;??a.?L = •°° ??IIr?ESAH'a$O1? A•a3' Q oo?Q?G e3. 8?S€5y? Lj ° g?r ax a°q c d G 5.? a•3$.?+ o u,?C°@e?pp:7am.-? c e 6 a ?e1'? Ea iecel.? a°•° $?s °$ ?QaC r «°a??g..? •?'? ,116o •O92=oo>.sl v 95-. oe aum3Q?+L° 6,g3`mECF?^EOT? :•S•?i. .F =•$ a°O ?eee?9. P.:wI p °E0.5 9u'ymN v'%a •?g°g?i ?c'?L`?2i a:: •?x. ' c`n88 uab's° a6- 2sA a 04e t a 3t ?z E 0.40 a, 06-8-69 tzs . .y. ..aA proa?o:a $ AZ i?.? aE°0 L,-°,°° E?Og'a ' 0 A .ac a is R v tic E gg a ;? so. y•aEa?u„ .;'$ 3'3o.•`+?$>.- lima .y $?'o •° yS oQ.$8o '9 °•o .x mHC21 e ,a -34cE SS k p=: R.E th be .a?oa:3 a$oeSa.cec > e o° E u •a •_2'o'A 3 u v ;a'a L° `? u 3 a, s /-3.0 ?i •o° E.3 3 3S°0 1 1 SE-a°H wg>_C>?9•°O-? U _% Y? •J• mYy°„ •'f ,C? td LC Be; O,?p N .. ? 7 V!0 81! OM i ° C E ?COOgg CN? i. ° ?' w ?5oyiC >ov''2 'g8 ao aa]ya 0 Qi3 o `o >3C_?°^`o g'o0 ,;gE+;?r?e,'C am ?S3$8.p ,ac ?E'a 5.1 BE oa?b:., a ? L ys= ?cg?? c 4 gQaS' 11 8w=0 .coAAT C6,c?? oo0 0. A :•.•agoo"?esb ?-0.0g $ _$? mm "g°? BE 'O°L Apt^•.: La `aa' $ E>9 uaoSpzEp ?8 a aP C2 .8 10 . = • A e •o > ro oE" '?t-.?.1 pE?(^{r.?F ?7•.=p. W ?'?'u. ?ipp? {ap ° m•5 $$ 4 8 ur9Q m C.8tfQ u{ 0.E w O.A 'J P. 0'4 O 'S V) Y O OF a.E> ° yea a0ro9?' 7 Cy 0.° C •.°. ?? i w ?i °-' u 8_ '?` use $a y 3 y . _.t tI; So> yp A, yyJp ,, o °? Cod s- iEo jaah 9J- uv? tl }Ca O E. ASe 3 5? ME el tOL -a t °Q 5 QLQ?-YrB y$-6 9 8ob'a? ggEo 9?' 0 a'0 ??8 y ,?,?n IS g5'uy33 tO$ .aaH?E?i±y? ?•?a ?•a 8aA?Q oa.°acE'o$ ,°,ao${-° o F•aEw_! 9Em8•aE •aH$ON ?i o 0 OR 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No..138 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for miniature golf improvements. Background: The adopted 1992 Capital Budget includes a miniature golf course at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. On April 13, 1992, Council authorized an agreement with Arne Lundmark, dba Adventure Golf Services, for design services related to miniature golf. Mr. Lundmark has completed.the design work and prepared plans and specifications. The plan has a theme oriented around landscaping. Waterfalls, trees, flowers, flowering shrubs and plantings provide an aesthetically pleasing setting. As approved by the Council, the plans have been developed for a total of 36 holes to make the best use of the site, and ensure proper piping, pumping and electrical capacities. At this time, specifications for the first 18 have been developed. The plan includes double tees on all holes and several with double cups to allow variety for repeat players. In addition, approximately half the holes have been designed to be accessible • to the disabled. This allows disabled players to play nine holes twice with the first construction. If the second 18 becomes financially feasible, they will be able to access 18 different holes (nine on the first 18 and nine more on the second). The design has made use of the new building at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield as originally planned. The course is situated north and west of the new building and north of the picnic shelter. It takes advantage of the hill and the shoreline on the pond to the north of that area. A rendering of the plan is available for your review. Community Services Director Don Fondrick, Leisure Services Coordinator Gretchen Blank, and Mr. Arne Lundmark, dba Adventure Golf Services, will be in attendance to describe the plans and specifications in detail and to answer questions. Recommended Motion: Order City Project 884, approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids for the miniature golf project at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The project is in the adopted 1992 Capital Budget. 0 2. The miniature golf facility plan is feasible. 0 3. The construction of the miniature golf facility is to take place in 1992 to be available for use in 1993. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not construct the miniature golf facility at this time. 2. Amend the plans for the miniature golf project. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval is requested at the June 8, 1992 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jame. Prosser City nager JDP:cak • ID CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter -No.137 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution adopting rules of procedure and decorum for City Council meetings. Background: The City Council has previously directed staff to investigate procedures to assist.the guidance of Council and Board and Commission meetings. At the May 4 Study Session, the City Council reviewed rules of procedure and decorum for conduct of Council meetings. A draft of the rules of procedure were provided for Council review on May 6. The City code currently contains some aspects of rules of procedure and decorum, however the code has limited application. It is proposed that the Council adopt the resolution on rules of procedure and decorum on a trial basis. After a period of one year, Council will review the rules of procedure and decorum to determine whether it is appropriate to adopt, by ordinance, the rules of procedure and decorum. Recommended Motion: Adopt the rules of procedure and decorum, by resolution, for a trial period of one year. • Basis for Recommendation: 1. The rules of procedure and decorum provide for an expanded outline of appropriate measures for conduct of Council and Board and Commission meetings. 2. The Council has previously reviewed this item at a Study Session. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to not adopt the proposed rules of procedure and decorum. 2. The Council may decide to adopt the rules of procedure and decorum by ordinance at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting of June 8. lly submitted, J13%. Prosser C naaer JDP:ds Attachment 6-/ • • DRAFT - RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA SECTION 1. PURPOSE Subd. 1. General. It is the concept of it is essential formal rules of deliberative pr disturbed. SECTION 2. GENERAL recognized that in order effective and democratic that a legislative body. procedure and decorum so ocess will be observed an to enhance government, establish that a true d not Subd. 1. Law. The City Charter, Ordinances and State Statutes governing the City Council shall be followed and supplemented by the Rules of Procedure and Decorum of the City Council. Subd. 2. General Rules. In all matters of parliamentary procedures, the Council shall be governed by the latest printed edition of the STURGIS STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE as published from time to time except as modified by these rules. SECTION 3. PRESIDING OFFICER Subd. 1. Who Presides. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside. The presiding officer shall have the power to preserve strict order and decorum at meetings, enforce the rules of procedure, and determine without debate, subject to the final decision of the Council on appeal, all questions of procedure and order. Subd. 2. Appeal of the Ruling of the Presiding Officer. Any member of the Council may appeal from a ruling of the presiding officer. If the appeal is seconded, the member may speak once solely on the question involved and the presiding officer may explain the ruling, but no other Council Member shall participate in the discussion. The appeal shall be sustained if it is approved by a majority vote. Subd. 3., Rights of the Presiding Officer. The presiding officer may speak on any question, and make motions and.second motions. • SECTION 4. AGENDA Subd: 1. Matters for Consideration. Matters for Council action shall be submitted by members of the Council and residents to the City Manager. Subd. 2. Preparation. An agenda of business for each regular meeting shall be prepared in the Office of the City Manager and copies thereof delivered to each Council Member as far in advance of the meeting as time for preparation will permit. Subd. 3. Order of Business at Regular Meetincts. At the hour appointed for the regular meeting of the City Council, the meeting shall be called to order by-the Mayor and in the Mayor's absence, by the Mayor Pro Tem. If a quorum is present, the City Council shall then proceed with its business in the following manner: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) approval of minutes of previous meeting; presentations; agenda approval; consent calendar; public hearings, including ordinance hearings; proposed ordinances; resolutions; administrative reports; correspondence; and other business. Subd. 4. Varying Order of Business. The order of business may be varied by the presiding officer. Subd. 5.. Consent Agenda. In the preparation of the agenda for a meeting, the City Manager may place certain items of business on a consent calendar. A member of the Council wishing to remove any item from the consent calendar may do so at the time that the consent calendar is reached on the general Council agenda. Any item removed from the consent calendar shall become one of the regular agenda items of the meeting and shall be taken up after the consent calendar. All items not so removed from the consent calendar may be passed by a single, non-debatable motion. Matters proposed by the City Manager for the consent agenda shall be those which the Manager deems to be of a routine, non-controversial nature. Subd. 6. Items Not on the Agenda. The Council may consider items not appearing on the agenda as normal business if an objection is not raised by a Council Member. If an objection is raised by a Council Member to considering an item not appearing on the agenda, a 6-3 . vote of the majority of the Council shall determine the appropriateness consideration of the matter at that Council may not take action on any requires public notice or hearing. Members present of further time. The item which Subd. 7. Public Participation. Members of the public may address the City Council during: (a) Public hearings, (b) "Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council on Matters Not on the Agenda." This portion of the meeting shall be limited to thirty minutes and individuals shall be requested to limit their comments to four minutes or less. (c) Specific issues scheduled on the agenda but in accordance with Section 6, Subdivision 6, of these rules entitled, "Addressing the Council." SECTION 5. VOTING Subd. 1. Procedure. The votes of the members on any ordinance • or resolution pending before the Council shall be by roll call vote. The votes of the members on any motion shall be by voice vote, unless the Mayor or any member of the Council requests that a roll call vote by taken. The Mayor shall call for a roll call vote whenever a voice vote of the Council is not clear as to the disposition of the action before the Council. Subd. 2. Abstention. If a Council Member does not vote, the abstention shall be recorded as "Abstain--name. Subd. 3. Voting Order for Roll Call. The Secretary to the Council shall call for the vote in consecutive order of wards with the ward voting first rotating one position at each regular meeting. The presiding officer shall always vote last. SECTION 6. RULES OF DECORUM Subd. 1. Council. While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Council • nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the presiding officer. • Subd. 2. Recognition. No person or member of the Council shall address the Council without being recognized by the presiding officer. Subd. 3. Discussion. No member of the Council shall speak more than twice on any question, nor more than five minutes each time without consent of the Council. Subd. 4. Staff. Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order and decorum as are applicable to the City Council. Subd. 5. Pertinent to Matter Under Debate. Members of the Council, staff and public shall confine remarks to the matter under debate. Subd. 6. Addressing the Council. Each member of the public addressing the Council shall step up to the microphone provided for the use of the public after being recognized by the presiding officer and give his/her name and address in an audible tone of voice for the records, state the subject to be discussed, and state who the speaker is representing if representing an organization or other persons. Unless further time is granted by a majority vote of the Council, remarks from the public shall be limited • to four minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without permission of the presiding officer. No question may be asked a Council Member or a member of the staff without the permission of the presiding officer. Subd. 7. Spokesman for Group of Persons. In order to expedite matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and, in case additional matters are to be presented by any other member of said group, to limit the number of such persons addressing the Council. Subd. 8. After Motion. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the Council from the audience on the matter under consideration without first securing permission to do so by a majority vote of the City . Council. ?-s • Subd. 9. Conduct. Any member of the Council,.staff or person indulging in personalities or making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who willfully utters loud, threatening or abusive language, or engages in any disorderly conduct which would impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of any meeting, hearing or other proceeding, shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may at the discretion of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during that meeting. Subd. 10. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly conduct such as hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling, and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENTS OF DECORUM Subd. 1. Warning. All persons shall, at the request of the presiding officer, be silent. If, after receiving a warning from the presiding officer, a person persists in disturbing the meeting, said officer may order the • person removed from the meeting. If the person does not remove himself/herself, the presiding officer may order that the person be removed by the Sergeant-at- Arms. Subd. 2. Sergeant-at-Arms. The Public Safety Director, or such member or members of the police department, shall be Sergeant-at-Arms of the Council meetings. The Public Safety Director or such member or members of the police department shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the Council meeting. Upon instruction of the presiding officer it shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove from the meeting any person who intentionally disturbs the proceedings of the Council. Subd. 3. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the Sergeant-at-Arms may be charged with violating City Ordinance. Subd. 4. Motions to Enforce. Any Council Member may move to require the presiding officer to enforce these rules and the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council shall require him to do so. 6 '? • Subd. 5. Adjournment. In the event that any.meeting is willfully disturbed by a group or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting is not feasible and when order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are creating the disturbance, the meeting may be adjourned with the remaining business considered at the next regular meeting. Subd. 6. Special Meetings. If the matter being addressed prior to adjournment is of such a nature as to demand immediate attention, the presiding officer may call a special meeting. SECTION 8. WORKSHOP MEETINGS Subd. 1. General. Workshop meetings of the City Council may be held at the call of the Mayor, who shall serve as the presiding officer at workshop meetings. No official Council action will be taken at workshop meetings. Subd. 2. Rules of Procedure and Decorum. The Rules of Procedures and Decorum of the City Council shall be observed in workshops so far as they are applicable. • SECTION 9. CAMERA AND RECORDING DEVICES Subd. 1. Use of Cameras and Recording Devices Limited. Cameras, including television and motion picture cameras, electronic sound recording devices and any other mechanical, electrical or electronic recording devices may be used in the Council Chamber, but only in such a manner as will cause a minimum of interference with or disturbance of the proceeding of the Council. SECTION 10. SEPARABILITY Subd. 1. General. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of these Rules of Procedure and Decorum is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 0 6-7 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City Council to establish rules of procedure and decorum for Council meetings and Board and Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Code, section 205, currently provides for rules of Council Procedure; and WHEREAS, Richfield City Code, section 205.13, subd. 2(c) provides that City Council may adopt such special rules by ordinance or resolution from time to time as necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate to adopt these special rules of procedure and decorum on a trial basis of one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: Section 1: That the attached rules of procedure and decorum are hereby established. 40 Section 2: That these rules are adopted by resolution for a period of one year. Section 3: In the cause of any inconsistencies between these rules and the rules in the City Code, the rules herein adopted shall prevail. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA 45M . Council Letter No. 136 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for renewal of a commercial kennel license for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue. Background: lication On June 1,.1992, Ms. Elaine Bergquist submitted an app for the renewal of her commercial kennel license. On June 1, 1992, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did not find any problems. Everything was clean and in order. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved. J Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. 2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Elaine's Grooming. is Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license. However the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel license for Elaine's Grooming; 7429 Humboldt Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Resp c ully submitted, James. Prosser City nager JDP:cak 7 SL . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 135 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for personal computers. Background: The Data Processing Division is requesting Council approval for the purchase of two personal computers for the Public Safety Department. This purchase is included in the adopted 1992 Data Processing budget. One computer will be used as file server for a new Novell network in the Public Safety Department and the other will be a workstation on the network. Price quotes for the file server were solicited from four vendors. PC Express submitted the lowest quote of $4,095 for a 486/33MHz system with 12MB RAM and a 600MB disk. Unfortunately, because of the delivery date, the City will have to pay a sales tax of $266.18 on this system. The second computer is a 486/33MHz system with 8MB RAM, a 200MB disk and enhanced graphics. PC Express submitted a quote for this system in the amount of $2,651. Staff compared this quote to NEC and ZEOS computers on the state contract with AmeriData. Although an "apples to apples" comparison was not possible, the • PC Express system is very competitive. The City will not have to pay sales tax on this system as the City was able to secure delivery of the system prior to June 1. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of two computers for the Public Safety Department from PC Express in the amount of $6,746, plus $266.18 in sales tax. . Basis for Recommendation: 1. PC Express submitted the lowest competitive quote for the equipment. 2. PC Express offers a free five-year, on-site, full parts and labor warranty on most components of the systems, and low cost extended warranties on the rest. 3. The City has purchased other personal computers from PC Express and has found the equipment and the service to be reliable. 4. City staff has proceeded to secure a portion of this purchase prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline and as a result, saved approximately $175 in sales tax. • Alternative Recommendations: None. 5L-1 Discussion Decision Mode: As the Council is already aware, the order for this equipment was placed on may 26 in an effort to take delivery of it prior to June 1, when the purchase would be subject to the sales tax. One of the computers did arrive in time, the other did not. As such, the City will have to pay the tax on the second computer system. Council approval of this purchase is requested at the June 8 meeting so that installation of the new network in Public Safety can proceed as scheduled. The purchase of one computer is an official ratification of the purchase. There was no second regular City Council meeting in May to facilitate this purchase with prior approvals. Respe fully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:ff 0 r- L-11 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 134 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Purchase of a tee mower for Rich Acres Golf Course in excess of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. One fully depreciated tee mower purchased in 1980 (Unit #8) by the Golf Course is being revised into the 1992 Capital Outlay budget. The motor pool has accumulated sufficient funds from the golf course depreciation schedule to cover this purchase. Staff solicited quotations in an informal bidding process, and received four as follows: Erv's Lawn Mower Repair Toro Reelmaster 216 $10,700 Less Trade-In of 1980 Toro GM3 (1,000) Total $9,700 • Wayzata Lawn Mower Toro Reelmaster 216 $10,200 Less Trade-In of 1980 Toro GM3 (1000) Total $9,200 North Star Turf, Inc. Jacobsen Tri-King 1671G $9,875 Less Trade-In of 1980 Toro GM3 (1,000) Total $8,875 MTI Distributing Co. Toro Reelmaster 216 $9,703 Less Trade-In of 1980 Toro GM3 (1.500) Total $8,203 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to MTI Distributing, Inc. for a total of $8,203 for purchase of a 1992 Toro Reelmaster 216. Basis for Recommendation: 1. MTI Distributing submitted the lowest quotation for the unit desired. 2. The Garage Motor Pool fund has sufficient funds for this . purchase. sty-? Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to delay this purchase until 1993, keeping in mind that the price for the unit may increase. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is asking for approval at the June 8, 1992 Council meeting. Respectf lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:cak L LJ . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 133 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Payment authorization for the widening of northbound Nicollet Avenue bus turnout, LHN redevelopment project. Background: . On October •14, 1991 the City Council authorized Progressive Contractors Inc. as the low bidder to proceed with the construction of a widened Pus turnout. .The bus turnout was necessary to accommodate buses that had previously used the Hub shopping center for routing. As part of the Rainbow development, it was agreed that the City would pay for the widened turnout. The bid was $10,614. Once.the job was underway, additional work was necessary; there was a need for additional concrete removals and replacements due to unforeseen conditions related to a street light relocation and some additional curb and sidewalk was replaced. Recommended Motion: Authorize payment of $12,865.35 to Progressive Contractors Inc. Basis of Recommendation: . 1. The contract was authorized at $10,614. 2. The additional cost was justified given the conditions which existed. 3. The additional funds are available in CP705. (CP705 is a fund which has been set aside for all public improvement costs of the City in the LHN area.) 4. The work has been completed and is acceptable. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the proposal. 2. Delay authorization. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will permit payment to the contractor in a timely manner. JDP:cak Res ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council-Letter No. 132 Agenda June 8, 1992 .Issue Statement. Approval of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from private property for the period January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991, and approval of a resolution setting date of hearing. Background: The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for the period of January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 have been determined to be $34,116.57. The property owner of a diseased tree has four options available: 1. Remove the tree themselves. 2. Hire and pay their own contractor. 3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 days, or 4. Use the City's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. In the period from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991, 53 property owners chose the fourth option. The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. The property owner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before October 10, 1992, for the 1992 taxes, the interest rate is eight percent with payment spread over three years. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 27, 1992. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. 2. Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. Alternative Recommendation: Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: All work was performed with prior approval from home owners. Staff is requesting adoption of the attached resolutions at this time in order to meet certification deadlines. Resp ully submitted, Jam Prosser City M' alter JDP:cak 5-.m-1 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COS TS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991. WHEREAS, costs have been dete rmined for the removal of diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incu rred or to be incurred for such work during the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991 amount to $34,116.57. Property Address Property Identification Number 7123 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0092 7110 Knox Avenue 33-02824-21-0057 6928 Upton Avenue 29-02824-43-0149 6501 Oliver Avenue 28-02824-23-0098 121 East 68th Street 27-02824-43-0105 6845 Garfield Avenue 27-02824-33-0102 500 East 67th Street 27-02824-41-0013 6433 Bloomington Avenue 26-02824-14-0089 6326 Girard Avenue 28-02824-12-0034 6501 Girard Avenue 28-02824-13-0029 6533 Emerson Avenue 28-02824-13-0066 6801 Vincent Avenue 29-02824-43-0048 6629 Lynwood Boulevard 28-02824-41-0031 6525-20th Avenue 25-02824-23-0050 7357 Portland Avenue 35-02824-23-0007 6236 Bloomington Avenue 26-02824-12-0049 7201 Penn Avenue 33-02824-23-0006 6708 Russell Avenue 29-02824-41-0096 1511 East 62nd Street 26-02824-12-0040 7125 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0091 6932-16th Avenue 26-02824-44-0118 7015 Oliver Avenue 33-02824-22-0050 7309 Garfield Avenue 34-02824-23-0127 6824 Park Avenue 26-02824-33-0094 6824 James Avenue 28-02824-34-0030 6316-21st Avenue 25-02824-22-0058 7012 Portland Avenue 34-02824-11-0072 7208 Knox Avenue 33-02824-24-0013 7300 Penn Avenue 32-02824-14-0070 6214-14th Avenue 26-02824-12-0122 7301 Logan Avenue 33-02824-24-0046 6344-21st Avenue 25-02824-22-0051 7321 Emerson Avenue 33-02824-13-0093 7340 Dupont Avenue 33-02824-13-0085 7314 Sheridan Avenue 32-02824-14-0112 2208 East 66th Street 25-02824-24-0025 6308 Aldrich Avenue 28-02824-11-0043 6441 Girard Avenue 28-02824-13-0010 • 6609 Girard Avenue 28-02824-42-0029 7508 Girard Avenue 33-02824-42-0068 6525 Oliver Avenue 28-02824-23-0093 2204 East 66th Street 25-02824-24-0024 6835 Longfellow Avenue 25-02824-33-0048 5I-C )- • Property Address 6812 Emerson Lane 7033 Fourth Avenue 6644 Clinton Avenue 6309-20th Avenue 6901 First Avenue 6439-13th Avenue 6616 Second Avenue 6615 Lynwood Boulevard 157 East 68th Street 6830 Columbus Avenue Pronertv Identification Number 28-02824-42-0090 34-02824-11-0099 27-02824-41-0078 25-02824-22-0041 27-02824-43-0066 26-02824-13-0125 27-02824-42-0064 28-02824-41-0027 27-02824-43-0101 26-02824-33-0092 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $34,116.57. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of June, 1992. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor is 5-T-3 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991. WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 8, 1992, the City Clerk was directed to prepare the assessment of the cost of removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. Property Address Property Identification Number 7123 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0092 7110 Knox Avenue 33-02824-21-0057 6928 Upton Avenue 29-02824-43-0149 6501 Oliver Avenue 28-02824-23-0098 121 East 68th Street 27-02824-43-0105 6845 Garfield Avenue 27-02824-33-0102 500 East 67th Street 27-02824-41-0013 6433 Bloomington Avenue 26-02824-14-0089 6326 Girard Avenue 28-02824-12-0034 6501 Girard Avenue 28-02824-13-0029 6533 Emerson Avenue 28-02824-13-0066 6801 Vincent Avenue 29-02824-43-0048 6629 Lynwood Boulevard 28-02824-41-0031 6525 -20th Avenue 25-02824-23-0050 7357 Portland Avenue 35-02824-23-0007 6236 Bloomington Avenue 26-02824-12-0049 7201 Penn Avenue 33-02824-23-0006 6708 Russell Avenue 29-02824-41-0096 1511 East 62nd Street 26-02824-12-0040 7125 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0091 6932 -16th Avenue 26-02824-44-0118 7015 Oliver Avenue 33-02824-22-0050 7309 Garfield Avenue 34-02824-23-0127 6824 Park Avenue 26-02824-33-0094 6824 James Avenue 28-02824-34-0030 6316 -21st Avenue 25-02824-22-0058 7012 Portland Avenue 34-02824-11-0072 7208 Knox Avenue 33-02824-24-0013 7300 Penn Avenue 32-02824-14-0070 6214 -14th Avenue 26-02824-12-0122 7301 Logan Avenue 33-02824-24-0046 6344 -21st Avenue 25-02824-22-0051 7321 Emerson Avenue 33-02824-13-0093 7340 Dupont Avenue 33-02824-13-0085 7314 Sheridan Avenue 32-02824-14-0112 2208 East 66th Street 25-02824-24-0025 6308 Aldrich Avenue 28-02824-11-0043 6441 Girard Avenue 28-02824-13-0010 6609 Girard Avenue 28-02824-42-0029 • 7508 Girard Avenue 33-02824-42-0068 6525 Oliver Avenue 28-02824-23-0093 2204 East 66th Street 25-02824-24-0024 6835 Longfellow Avenue 25-02824-33-0048 681.2 Emerson Lane 28-02824-42-0090 51- y Property Address 7033 Fourth Avenue 6644 Clinton Avenue 6309-20th Avenue 6901 First Avenue 6439-13th Avenue 6616 Second Avenue 6615 Lynwood Boulevard 157 East 68th Street 6830 Columbus Avenue Property Identification Number 34-02824-11-0099 27-02824-41-0078 25-02824-22-0041 27-02824-43-0066 26-02824-13-0125 27-02824-42-0064 28-02824-41-0027 27-02824-43-0101 26-02824-33-0092 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 27th day of July, 1992, in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. • 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. By order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 56- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 130 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Preparation of assessment rolls and setting hearing date for City Project 862, 1991 LHN (Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area) Maintenance. Background: City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, City Project 862, the 1991 LHN Maintenance Project. Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment. Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services 1988 - 1993 were: • Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Estimated $40,614 $44,560 $44,153 $46,484 $45,322 Actual $44,159.33 $43,151.19 $43,539.10 $43,825.22 Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for LHN maintenance, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 27, 1992. Basis of Recommendation: Council ordered the work, and the work is complete. Alternative Recommendation: After the public hearing, Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to meet certification deadlines, approval is requested at this time. ly submitted, r? L Prosser JameLager City JDP:cak S6--] RESOLUTION NO. 9 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991 CITY PROJECT NO. 862 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $43,825.22 for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $43,825.22. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer and the Operations Coordinator, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 5-&-J, • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991 CITY PROJECT NO. 862 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 8, 1992, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 27th day of July, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all is persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk r? L 5H • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 131 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Preparation of assessment rolls and setting hearing date for City Project No. 863, 1991 ILN (Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Redevelopment Area) Maintenance. Background: City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Redevelopment Area, City Project No. 863, the 1991 ILN Maintenance Project. Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment. Estimated and actual costs for the ILN maintenance services 1988 - 1993 were: Year Estimated Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780 $8,555.46 1992 $8,894 . 1993 $9,154 Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for ILN maintenance, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 27, 1992. Basis of Recommendation: Council ordered the work, and the work is complete. Alternative Recommendation: After the public hearing, Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to meet certain legal requirements for publishing legal notices and notifying affected property owners, approval is requested at this time. Respe fully submitted, Ilk, • Jame Prosser City nager JDP:cak of on - l 9 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ILN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991 CITY PROJECT NO. 863 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street, the railroad tracks and 77th Street including that property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34-028-24-33-0073, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $8,555.46 for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $8,555.46. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer and the Operations Coordinator, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council.thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: 9 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 5tl _c?' 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ILN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991 CITY PROJECT NO. 863 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 8, 1992, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street, the railroad tracks and 77th Street including that property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34-028-24-33-0073, in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: . 1. A hearing shall be held on the 27th day of July, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 129`x^ Agenda June 8, 1992 ?.J !? Issue Statement: Resolution declaring costs to be assessed for alley maintenance and snowplowing for the period January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991, and setting a public hearing date for City Project No. 864, 1991 Alley Maintenance. Background: City staff •has determined costs to be assessed for alley maintenance, City Project No. 864. Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment. Property owners on permanently paved concrete alleys are assessed for snowplowing, joint repair, and patching work done on the alley right'of way. Estimated and actual costs for the alley maintenance services 1988 - 1993 were: Year Estimated Actual 1988 $ 8,453.93 1989 $20,000 $17,725.98 1990 $20,000 $17,213.95 1991 $20,000 $21,426.94 1992 $20,000 1993 $20,000 • Increased costs in 1991 were due to snow removal. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for July 27, 1992. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council ordered this work to be done. 2. Adoption of the resolutions at this time will allow adequate time for staff to complete necessary legal requirements in order to meet certification deadlines. Alternative Recommendation: After the public hearing Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay action on the attached resolutions; however, Minnesota State law requires specific notices and public meetings, and scheduling problems may occur beyond a two week delay. Resp ly submitted, James . Prosser City pager JDP:cak • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE AS SESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 1991 ALLEY MAINTENANCE AND SNOWPLOWING -. CITY PROJ ECT NO. 864 WHEREAS , costs have been determined for the maintenance and snowplowing of the following alleys in the City of Richfield The expenses . incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991 amount to $21,426.94. Number Surrounding Avenues Surroundi ng Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th 1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th 1010 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th 1011 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th 1012 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th 1013 1014 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th • 1015 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th 1016 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th 1027 1028 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th 1029 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th 1030 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th 1031 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th 2001 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th 2002 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th 2004 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th 2005 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th 2007 Logan - Knox - 63rd - .64th 2008 James Irving 63rd - 64th 2009 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th 2010 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th 5F • Number Surround incT Avenues Surroundina Streets 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred 2016 2017 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred 2019 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred 2020 Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th 3002 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71th 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet . 71st - 72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th 3016 3018 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd • 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th - 69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st 3026 Nicollet - lst Avenue 71st - 72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd 3030 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd , 3032 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 2nd - 3 d 71st - 72nd 3035 r Avenue 3rd - Clinton 72nd - 73rd 3036 3rd - Clinton 66th - 73rd - 67th 74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th 3038 3039 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th 4001 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th 4002 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th 4004 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd 4006 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th 4007 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th • Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th 67th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesotan 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $21,426.94. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992.- Martin J. Kirsch Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. Jr- RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED / ASSESSMENT FOR 1991 • ALLEY MAINTENANCE - CITY PROJECT NO. 864 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by Cit of Ri hfi the City Council of the y c eld on June 8, 1992, the City Clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of maintaining the following alleys in the City of Richfield for the period of January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. Number 1001 Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th 1005 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th 1006 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th 1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th 1010 1011 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th 1012 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th 1013 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th 1014 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th 1015 Upton - Thomas 6tth - 69th 1016 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th • 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th 1020 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th 1024 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th 1025 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th 1026 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th 1027 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th 1028 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th 1029 Queen - Penn Queen - Penn 66th - 67th 1030 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th - 68th 69th 1031 2001 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th 2002 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th 2004 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th 2005 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th 2007 Logan.- Knox 63rd - 64th 2008 James - Irving 63rd - 64th 2009 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th 2010 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th 2013 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson F 64th - 65th • 2015 remont (35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th 2016 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred 2017 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred 2019 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred 2020 Graham -.Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th ?F Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71th • 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th - 69th 3025 Nicollet - lst Avenue 70th - 71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd 3027 Nicollet - lst Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3028 1st - Stevens. 71st - 72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th • 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue' 66th - 67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th 4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed i n his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the . City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 27t h day of Jul y, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment. At such time and place all 5-F- Persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessmen will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2,. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. He shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance,. and also caused mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll, not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 128 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Resolution relating to 1993 maintenance assessments, ILN (Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Redevelopment) Project Area, City Project No. 882. Background: On March 14, 1988, the Council adopted Resolution No. 7405 establishing a policy that the actual cost of performing current maintenance services in the ILN Project Area (area approximately, bounded by Lyndale on the east and 77th Street on the south) would be assessed. The special assessment to multi-residential and commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property within the district being assessed an equal amount. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to: 1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging. 2. Irrigation maintenance. 3. Painting and repair of wood furniture. • 4. Trash removal and general maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, sidewalks, curbs, furniture and plantings. These items are extra services provided directly to the ILN Project Area and do not include services provided to the entire City. Estimated and actual 1988 - 1993 were: Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 costs for the ILN maintenance services Estimated $7,254 $7,514 $7,780 $8,894 $9,200 Actual $7,001.47 $6,135.54 $7,762.52 $8,555.46 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to.specially assess the ILN Project Area for the period of January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, and to set July 27, 1992 as the public hearing date for said proposed special assessment. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. • 2. This policy will allow staff to continue to provide excellent service to the ILN Project Area. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended by staff in order to sustain current standards for landscaping and maintenance. Action on this item should be taken at this time to meet the requirements for the public hearing date. Respe lly submitted, James Prosser City pager JDP:ds Attachment 0 5=a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES • PROVIDED WITHIN THE ILN (INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NIC PROJECT AR FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1993 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1993. CITY PROJECT NO. 882 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, 78th Street, the the boundaries of which are Lyndale Avenue, railroad tracks and 77th Street including that property known as Hennepin County Property IdentifaCUrrentuservicesOp8o 24-33ided _by7the for the purposes of assessing for City. d to be undertaken by 2. The current services hereby propose the City in the district, with nefited commercial and multiple family specially assessed against be include, but are not residential property within the district, necessarily limited to, the following: properties including ? Landscape maintenance of common tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing, ? Irrigation maintenance; ? Painting and repair of wood furniture; repairs lights, maintenance ? Trash removal t ofgeneral sidewalks, curbs, plantings. and replacemeplacemen 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every rassessa leclot aand ssesparcel sments of land within the district. It property be made on the commercial and multifamily pro erty basis of the area with each square foot of assessed an equalaamountbforpmaintenance within the district t being g of common area. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of a hearing by this Council at which time the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying . The of special assessments uto bar blishedtnoticetoftsuch hearing astrequireat shall give mailed and pub July 27, 1992, commencing by law. Such hearing shall be Monday, 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the eriod January 1 costs of the aforementioned services for the p 200. through December 31, 1993. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period is $9, • SE-- 3 • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk n LJ 0 51) ICHFIELD, M"MESOTA ESO CITY OF R Letter 992 Counci June 8, Agenda assessments, LHNNo- 881. ent' 1993 maintenance City project Statem veloPment Area, Issue relating to Rede ResolutioHUB/Nicollet) tion No. (Lyndale/ adopted Resolu roximately Council area (apPEmerson roand ' the City the LH , Back service in 67th Street and On January 26 1981 Avenue, The specialbasis of which established a First assessed. the 6372, b 64th Streets ecially made on erty bounded h be P erty would be ercial PrOQ le which would cO? All sing Avenue) commercials t of assessaelual amount. erty each square assessed an gesidential prop assessment Lth , being family secial assessment areawi the distr t and multiple the P family, two family ere eliminated within from a the LHN area this are in levy- reached with owners For the most Part, each were - the curb while the property* In 1982, agreements property to street islands. maintenaneoas of ble forertyProp such as individual related tO to be resP common areas work for the owner was for maintenance assessed to be is responsible do some directly continues to tenance serviced city Alt ough the City does these costs aroe of common areas Property °w"owner and maintrtct. Current malsarily be limit appropriate dis not neces • to the entire would include, but assessed for the districtof the following' to, one or more including tree trimming; 'Landscaping , in the summ er; 1. sidewalk sweeping the winter: 3 Snow removal in 3. d i r pair of wood furniture: placement; 4. Sidewalk rep 5, painting a airs and Trash removal: including rep 7 maintenance, the LHN 7• General maintenance. Irrigation directly to the 8. provided rovided to a services servic are swept twice a are extr do not include to the LHN These items Area and , all City streetno charge sweeping Redevelopment For example would be street city' service there any additional entire and for this gowever, item. year, assessment. an assessable 1989 maintenance in the LHN area would be intenance services costs for LHN ma actual are:' Actual 1993 were/ $43,151-19 ti mated Es $43,539.10 Y 1989 $44,5 $43,825.22 • 1990 $ $46 484 1991 1992 $45,050 1993 - Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the LHN project area for the period of January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, and to set the public hearing date for July 27, 1992. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established a policy for assessing the costs. 2. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the LHN Redevelopment Area. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended by staff in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years. 0 JDP:ds Attachment Respect lly submitted, Prosser JameImager City 0 5D-a RESOLUTION NO- RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSES THEE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET PROJECT AREA FOR TE THROUGH DECEMBER 31111993 PERIOD JANUARY 1,.199 CITY PROJECT NO. 881 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminoufowithetpurposes Project Ar of assessing for currenteservicestprovided byethe City. of assesssing g for es of the city are hereby 2. The following current servic City in the district, with the proposed to be undertaken by the assessed against benefited cost of such services to be specially property within the district: ? Snow, ice or rubbish removal; ? Weed elimination; public health or safety ? Elimination or removal oferty, excluding and structure hazards from private pr P included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; ? street nor repair other water dust treatmentlofsstreets; ? Street ? Trimming g and sprinkling and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; ? Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; lighting system; ? Operation of the street ? Maintenance of landscaped areas amenities on or adjacent Maintenance of Civic Plaza; ? Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; ? Painting and repair of wood furniture; ? General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of eiery assessable lot and parcel o land within the district. It proposed assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each square assessable equalmamountlforopertyent within the district being assessed maintenance of common area. Exempt two-familye multipleafamily levy shall be all single family, district. residential property within the LHN redevelopment properties derisistrtr shall be fo inividual inrperforming said Special maintenance assessed directly maintenance to said property. ,5I?-3 give public authorized and directed towi uncil Clerk is at ll which the C and the levying The city this council services The City Clerk 4, by of such current notice of a hearing costs thereof. undertaking bear the of such hearing aJuly 27, consider the notice on Mond assessIl and pub lished shall be held Of special d ay matter mailed shall give law. Such hearing or as soon thereafter a the required b encing at 7.00 P of the °O the agenda. Project consist 1 can re ached °n the Proj d of January , 1992, osed that the peril providing tioned The services for cost period is . It is hereby prop 5 . estimated that period the aforemen 1993 Services during costs of h December 31' current 1993 throug the aforementioned Minnesota all of . l Of the City of Richfield, $45,050. City councl passed by the C June, 1992* this sth day Of Mayor Martin J. Kirsch FITTEST City Clerk Thomas P• Ferber CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 0.126 Council Letter 1992 Agenda June 8, Issue Statement: City Proposed 1993 alley maintenance special assessment project - y Project No. 883. Background: the City Council in 1980 provides The alley policy adopted by an alley will be assessed that "all costs involved in maintaining - against In 1981, the against the property abutting ing, maintenance functions unaved alley clne1982sandpyears since, cleaning of potholes and co this assessment included not the maintenance functions covered by this also an assessment to all only repair work to unpaved alleys, alleys, paved or unpaved, for snowplowing services. The actual 1989 maintenance costs for all alleys totallese air $17,725,98, or approximately $9.60/per 50-foot lo. charges were primarily for sweeping, snowplowing and joint repair on paved alleys. The 1990 estimates for alley maintenance were $20,000, oActual approximately $10.75/per 50-foot lot on a paved alley. costs were $17,213.95. The 1991 estimates for alley maintenance were also $20,000. than nor due Actual costs were costs were Octobergand Novembermof that to the record-breaking snowfalls year. As for 1992 and 1993, the estimates are also $20,000 for alley foo maintenance or approximately $10.75 for a Sand atnlot. winter of $7.75/per lot is the estimate for swPot is an estimate of snowplowing. The additional $3.00/per ram costs to continue a concrete joint nprogram)noncpaProedgalleys (initiated in the 1989 alley maintenance as a part of routine maintenance. have Estimates of additional costs on dependingaon the been about $23.00/per lot amount of patching required. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which proposes to spacially asses the costs of 1993 services for alley mai, total estimated cost of $20,000, for Jsets uly the public hearing on this 27, special assessment project Basis of Recommendation: mandates the assessments. 1. Previously adopted policy 2. The project is feasible. 5C-1 • Alternative Recommendation: lowinwill still e to establish Council may choos a set rate he°City wp the remaining unpaved alley However, as well as the older alleys which now require yearly maintenance require cracksealing. Discussion Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay next meeting; however, any problems with legal notice adoption of this resolution until the further delay would cause scheduling s required by Minnesota State Statute. RespectfMlly submitted, James Prosser City 4ager JDP:ds Attachment • 40 5C.-a RESOLUTION NO-FOR THE RENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS N THE CITY COSTS OF CUR RICHFIELD SERVICES PROJANUARY O1 1993 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1993 CITY PROJECT NO. 883 IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, BE Minnesota, as follows: 1. That area which includes the property which abuts is her improved alleys in RcssmentDdistrict)for theepurpose of assessment as a spe cial ial rovided by the City; assessing for current services p 2. city are That the following current services of the District with rto be undertaken by assessed against the hereby p the cost of such services to be specially property within the District: the maintenance an benefited snowplowing of alleys; 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such assessable lot and parcel of current services consists of every rproposed that special assessments land within on property the Districtbe made son the basis of prorated share of assessable abutting footage as defined in the alley improvement • .. policy, Resolution No. 6345; 4. That the City Clerk is authorizes and di Councilrecatted to time which publish notice of a public hearing by the costs the Council will consider the undertaking of assessments such to current bear services and the levying ° published in the official thereof. Such notice shall be P to the date ate and at shall lbesheld on Monday, July h 27, 1992, newspaper at least once of hearing. Such hearing g commencing at 7.00 p.m• or as soon thereafter as the matter ca be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs 1, the 19 providing the aforementioned serv1993.f0The esteriod imated from cost of January 1Period, 1993 through December 31, that p all of the aforementioned current services during using day labor, is $20,000. 6. That the project is feasible. Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, Passed by the City this 8th day of June, 1992. Kirsch Mayor Martin J. 0 ATTEST: City Clerk Thomas P. Ferber w R CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 1225 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Request for a one year extension to the lot coverage variance for 6400 Vincent Avenue. Background: On July 22, 1991, the City Council reinstated an expired variance that was granted by the Richfield Hearing Examiner on July 5, 1989. The variance would allow construction of a new home with a lot coverage of 31.7 percent. The maximum allowed lot coverage for this 10,508 square foot lot is 25 percent without a variance. Richard Ziemer, the applicant, requested the variance in order to build a home with the majority of floor space on the main level to accommodate his physically disabled wife. Mr. Ziemer states that circumstances beyond his control have delayed the project, making it impossible to complete the home by July 22, 1992. Mr. Ziemer states that project completion is anticipated later in 1992. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for a one year extension of the lot coverage variance at 6400 Vincent Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There are no changes in the proposed development from that approved by the City Council last year. 2. If extended, the variance would expire on June 8, 1993 unless the home is completed by that time. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the variance extension if the circumstances of the variance have changed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the Consent Calendar of the June 8, 1992 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James rosser City M n er JDP:cak 41 • C? `4 May 28, 1992 Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: RICHARD & MARLENE ZIEMER VARIANCE CASE #89-V-2 FOR 6400 VINCENT AVE S. • Dear Councilmembers: 53- I Re-C. 11-11/q 2- We are writing to request an additional extension of the currently granted variance. Nothing has changed regarding the variance or the plan since your action July 22nd, 1991, however, the current variance requires the house be completed by July 22nd, 1992 and this appears unlikely until after that date. We were ready to build in February, after a difficult, time- consuming search for a builder and adequate financing on the revised plan. Then the builder backed out on us because of having acquired several new projects a considerable distance from this one. Since then, we have had to find a new builder, and while that search is just being finalized, the key financing source now wants a complete new set of current bids. Obviously, it would be impossible to complete the project by the deadline, however, it will be definitely completed this year. These are not normal times economically and conditions the past year have compounded difficulties and added delays. In spite of the low interest rates, the increases in qualifications for financing have frustrated sales of property and financing new construction. Just how rediculous conditions are is well illustrated in our case where we had to search high and low to find even one source willing to provide financing, even tho' equity would be 25% more than the loan, we had almost no debt, and rental income almost covered loan payments until duplex sold for a paydown to minimal loan balance, not to mention our regular income and assets. We trust that the council continues to support our effort to improve this property and continue our long residence in Richfield. You may even admire our perseverance. We hope you will agree that it would serve no useful purpose to not grant the requested extension and would only add to our difficulties. We assure you that we are going to make whatever effort is necessary to conclude this project this year. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L? I. - , ?j?L2LGI?LI?LLt?., `?AL(?tLt Richard & Marlene Ziemer 6229 Xerxes Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 866-1932 ? Z 9_ BnN3Ad 1N30NIA Z 0 1 Q of I I Nt I V ? ? 1 g i - v -- - - - }r W ? Q O.? b ,/fir^,\`?' O q4t ,Vn y J? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 124 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1992 to 1993 agreement with the City of Minneapolis for participation in the Urban Corps Intern Program. Background The Urban Corps provides college students with an innovative service learning environment. Through a well-planned internship, students get an in-depth exposure in a specific field and gain valuable practical experience. At the same time, the City receives the benefit of the students' enthusiasm and academic skills at a nominal cost. For a number of years, the City of Richfield has cooperated with the Urban Corps to place area college students in internship positions with the City.` This arrangement has been quite beneficial because it has enabled the City to hire additional part-time employees, at very little cost, to either undertake short-term studies or projects, or to supplement our full-time work force in performing some of the City's ongoing services. Under the program, undergraduates are paid $5.75 per hour and • graduate students are paid $6.75 per hour. The cost to Richfield is $2.97 per hour and $3.48 per hour. These are the same rates which applied for 1991-92. The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with the City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This agreement does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps Interns, but it does provide the City with the option to hire interns through the Urban Corps Program as we choose. Recommended Motion: Authorize the execution of the attached agreement with the City of Minneapolis for participation in the 1992/1993 Urban Corps Intern Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Urban Corps Program provides a supplement to our full- time work force. 2. The Program also provides a resource for short-term studies or projects. 3. The cost of Urban Corps participants is relatively low. 0 5-h - I • Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the execution of the agreement, thus terminating the program. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the June 8, 1992 agenda for consideration in order for Departments to consider the internship program for the coming year. Respect ully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit Hager JDP:ff • 0 I r I?• 5P _C?_ 1992 - 1993 AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS PROGRAM BETWEEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 , by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps") and (herein called "Agency"). WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non-profit tax-exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for interns :submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that purpose by the Urban Corps. 2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application form. . 3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in ac- cordance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in nature of assignment, duties, supervisor or work location. 9 4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe place to work and with responsible supervision. 5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right to interview such students and their supervisors. 6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be necessary for the proper functions of the program. 7. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall: a. Be in the public interest; b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing contracts for services; C. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much of any facility as. is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship; • d. Not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity or be for the Office of Education. 8. The Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit time reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the Urban Corps. • 9. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason without prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall not be obligated to replace said student. 10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban Corps. 11. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 252), and Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and 141, where applicable. 12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from all claims. causes or actions which may result from the assignments of students to the Agency or because of the acts or omissions of the students. 13. The Agency will be responsible for compensating to a work-study student any monies earned before or after the student's specified work-study award dates and/or monies earned over and above the dollar amount specified in the student's work-study award. 14. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Worker's Compensation insurance • (or shall be self-insured under State Law) for such students as may be assigned to it under this Agreement. For the purposes of the Agreement the Agency shall be deemed the student's employer and that no employment relationship exists between the student and Urban Corps, and, further, that no employment relationship exists between the Agency and Urban Corps. 15. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 51.5% or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi-weekly payroll periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period. Student: hourly rates are set forth in Section 15(a) and 15(b) of this Agreement. a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at $5.75 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and $6.75 per hour for graduate students or other agreed upon hourly compensa- tion rates, or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A., B.S.. or equivalent degree or is enrolled • in the fifth year of a five year program. 16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student works. • 17. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional twenty-one and one half percent (21.5X) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 17(a) and 17(b) of this Agreement. a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.99 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and $8.21 per hour for graduate students;. other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below specified rates in 17(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum .rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. 18. Performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1992 and terminate on June 30, 1993 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed upon by both the Agency and the Urban Corps; however, either party may terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice. Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the • above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and regulations. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS By Mayor AGENCY Agency Name ATTEST: Address City Clerk COUNTERSIGNED: City State Zip Code City Finance Officer Approved as to Legality: Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney By. Title By Title ATTEST: 0 k 5-1.5 0 0 ACKNOWLEDGMEM OF CORPORATION STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) On this day of 19 before me appeared and to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and of the corporation described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation; that said instrument was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and said and acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 123 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the 1992 Miss Richfield candidates. Background: Each year a young lady is selected as Miss Richfield during the Fourth of July activities. This year there are 12 candidates. Recommended Motion: Present each candidate with a Certificate of Appreciation. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This has been a long-standing tradition. 2. The candidates will be present to receive these certificates. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the June 8 agenda and certificates have been prepared. Respectf/411y submitted, Jam?. Prosser City Viager JDP:cak ?a 3-/ 1992 MISS RICHFIELD QUEEN CANDIDATES AMY CLENDENING Amy is a 1992 graduate of Richfield High School. She plans to attend the University of Minnesota to pursue a career in elementary education. Her parents are Paul and Penny Clendening. Amy is sponsored by American Legion Post 435. JENNIFER EIDSMO Jennifer graduated from Richfield High School in 1990 and currently attends Normandale Community College. She plans to attend Mankato State Extended Program pursuing a career in business administration. Her parents are David and Janice Eidsmo. Jennifer is sponsored by Copy Duplicating Products. KRIS HARTLE Kris is a 1992 graduate of Richfield High School and plans to attend Normandale Community College. She will pursue a career in elementary education. Her parents are Andrew and Patricia Hartle. Kris is sponsored by The Rotary Club. KAREN LINDSTROM Karen graduated from Richfield High School in 1991 and currently attends the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire. She is pursuing a career in secondary education. Her parents are Jerry and Marcy Lindstrom. Karen is sponsored by Richfield Bank and • Trust. TARA MAGNUSON Tara is a 1992 graudate of Richfield High School. She plans to pursue a career in secondary education at a four year university. Her parents are Glenn and Carryl Magnuson. Tara is sponsored by the Optimist Club. MELISSA PEARSON Melissa graduated from Richfield High School in 1991. She is currently attending Inver Hills Community College pursuing a career in the legal assistant field. Her parents are Jim and Jan Pearson. Melissa is sponsored by Bloomington Chrysler Plymouth. KARI SAVAGE Kari is a 1991 graduate of Richfield High School. She plans to attend Normandale Community College and pursue a career in elementary education. Her parents are Larry and Mary Jane Savage. Kari is sponsored by the Hub Merchants. MARILYNN SEASHORE Marilynn is a 1992 graduate of Academy of the Holy Angels. She will pursue a career in elementary education and plans to attend St. Scholastica. Her parents are Charles and Dolores Seashore. Marilynn is sponsored by Fred Babcock VFW Post 5555. n U 3-a KATHERINE SMITH • Katherine is a 1992 graduate of Richfield High School. She plans to attend Normandale Community College and pursue a career in law enforcement. Her parents are Lawrence and Nancy Smith. Katherine is sponsored by King Oscars. KATIE SUMNICHT Katie graduated from Richfield, High School in 1992. She plans to attend the University of Minnesota at Duluth to pursue a career in secondary education. Her parents are Dave and Jeanne Sumnicht. Katie is sponsored by the Hampton Inn. LESLIE TAPPER Leslie graduated from Richfield High School in 1992. She plans to attend Normandale Community College and later Boulder University to pursue a career in business administration. Her parents are Les and Kathy Tapper. Leslie is sponsored by McDonalds. LANNA WITTHANS, Lanna is a 1991 graduate of Richfield High School and currently attends Normandale Community College. She is pursuing a career as a travel agent. Her parents are Larry and Manna Witthans. Lanna is sponsored by Hub Dairy Queen. u 3-3 1991 MISS RICHFIELD ROYALTY Aw, KAREN ALTHEN, QUEEN Karen graduated from Richfield High School in 1991 and is currently a student in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Karen's interests are in pre-law and communications. She is looking forward to competing at the Minneapolis Aquatennial in July for the title of Queen of the Lakes. Her parents are John and Mary Althen. ANNMARIE STROSHANE, PRINCESS AnnMarie is a 1991 graduate of Richfield High School and is currently attending the University of St. Thomas. Majoring in pre-law, AnnMarie's goal is to become a corporate lawyer. She was the freshman class Vice President and has recently been elected as Academic Affairs Chair for 1992-93. Her parents are Earl and Patricia Stroshane. SUSIE VANDEN BURG, PRINCESS Susie graduated from Richfield completed her freshman year at theatre and music arts, with a continue her education at the Wisconsin. Susie's parents are High School in 1991 and has Normandale College majoring in minor in speech. She plans to Jniversity of Eau Claire, Maurice and Dawn Vanden Burg. i*k_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 122 Agenda June 8, 1992 Issue Statement: Presentation of the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year" award to Pat Rickert. Background: The Richfield Human Rights Commission has selected a Citizen of the Year for the past 19 years. The award is presented to a person whose actions demonstrate an awareness and commitment to the attitudes and practices that foster human understanding, tolerance and the spirit of human relations. Recommended Motion: The City Council, in cooperation with the Human Rights Commission, should present the award to Pat Rickert. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Human Rights Commission has met to review nominations and discuss the presentation of this award for 1991. 2. Based upon that meeting, Pat Rickert was selected as the 1991 award recipient. 3. Mr. Rickert has a long history of commitment to the community with service in the areas of human understanding and relations. His contributions to the community include long standing active membership in numerous civic organizations as well as the Big Brothers organization. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This presentation has been placed on the Presentation Section of the June 8, 1992 City Council agenda. Prior to the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting, a reception for Pat, his family and friends will be held beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Re a fully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:ds s