Loading...
02-10-92 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 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) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1992 AND (2) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF FEBRUARY 3, 1992 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION TO COMMISSION VOLUNTEER, DON ANDERSON, FOR SERVING THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 37 3. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 18-21, 1992 STUDENTS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING WEEK 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. l 5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION C.L. 38 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OFF- STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 6328 PENN AVENUE C.L. 39 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING C.L. 40 . D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR REMOVAL, REPAIR AND INSTALLATION OF DEEP WELL PUMP #2 LOCATED AT 6301 NICOLLET AVENUE FROM E.H. RENNER & SONS FOR AN AMOUNT OF $12,238 C.L. 41 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 1992 LICENSE RENEWALS: BLUE & WHITE TAXI: 1 VEHICLE MANTHEI DISPOSAL SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE PUBLIC HEARING 6. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HEAD START PROGRAM IN THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, 7001 ELLIOT AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 42 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 7. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RESTRICTING THE REPAIR OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS U COUNCIL LETTER NO. 43 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT BUSINESS 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ORDINANCE LIMITING NIGHTTIME STAGE II OPERATIONS AT MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 44 CORRESPONDENCE 9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 10. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 0 11. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Consideration and approval of a resolution regarding a proposed Metropolitan Airports Commission ordinance limiting nighttime Stage II operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Background: The MAC is.currently receiving comments on a proposed Stage II Nighttime Use Ordinance being considered by the Commission for implementation at MSP. The comment period ends March 9, 1992. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached. The proposed ordinance would be a mandatory restriction on the operation of Stage II aircraft with the increased use of quieter, Stage III aircraft at MSP by capping and then eliminating takeoffs and landings of noisier, Stage II aircraft between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The proposed ordinance, if enacted by the MAC, would take effect not earlier than 180 days from the date of publication of the notice (December 9, 1991). The proposed ordinance would initially cap Stage II operations at a baseline level comparable • to the number of Stage II flights during the same time period of the preceeding year. After this initial phase, the prohibition on nighttime Stage II operations would take effect on June 1, 1992 or at a later date as determined by the MAC. Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution regarding a proposed Metropolitan Aircraft Commission ordinance limiting nighttime Stage II operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Basis for Recommendation: The City of Richfield should support the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1. A Stage III Working Group, established by the Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council, reviewed a variety of alternatives to accelerate the use of Stage III aircraft and has proposed the ordinance to eliminate Stage II operations at MSP during the hours from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. when those operations are especially disruptive to residents living near the airport. 2. Local action is necessary by the MAC because neither federal law nor FAA regulations mandate any reduction in nighttime noise at MSP during the next few years. • 3. The proposed ordinance would reduce the adverse noise impacts on many Richfield residents from disruptive aircraft operations flying over their homes during these hours. g-1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide that the proposed nighttime ordinance not be expanded to exclude the use of Stage II planes during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. as stated on the resolution. 2. The Council may decide to take no action on this matter. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting on February 10, 1992. Respectful submitted, James D rosser City Ma er JDP:ds Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING A PROPOSED MAC ORDINANCE LIMITING NIGHTIME STAGE II OPERATIONS AT MSP WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council has established the Stage III Working Group; and WHEREAS, the Stage III Working Group has reviewed a variety of alternatives to accelerate the use of Stage III airplanes at the airport; and WHEREAS, a federal legislation has been approved to increase the use of Stage III aircraft nationwide by the year 2000; and WHEREAS, the Stage III Working Group has.proposed an ordinance which would provide some relief from noisier jets during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; and WHEREAS, many Richfield residents are adversely impacted by the noise from airplanes flying during these hours. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City of Richfield encourages the use of quieter Stage III aircraft nighttime operations. • 2. The proposed nighttime ordinance should be expanded to exclude the use of Stage II planes during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of February, 1992. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 3-3 MEMOPOLITAN AU PORTS COMM=ON . STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT NIGM TII1E USE RESTRICTION ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance. to promote and conserve the public safety, health, peace, and convenience and to reduce nighttime aircraft noise in the communities surrounding the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport by limiting, and eventually eliminating. nighttime operations with Stage 2 aircraft, as an equitable balance between the needs of air 'commerce and economic development, and the environmental protection of area residents from disruptive noise created by flights during those hours when people near the Airport are sleeping. WHEREAS .the, Metropolitan Airports Commission~ owns and operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and has the legal authority to promulgate Ordinances, enter into contracts, and act as necessary to achieve the safe and efficient operation of the Airport; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Airports Commission is obligated under its charter and statutory authority to determine in the public interest the proper balance between the metropolitan area's need for adequate air navigation and transportation services and facilities and the Commission's obligations to protect the residents of the area from adverse environmental impacts and to protect itself from legal liability resulting from excessive levels • of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS the Commission has, since the advent of jet aircraft, undertaken a continuing series of programs and actions designed to mitigate the noise impacts of air transportation on communities adjacent to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS in March 1990 the Commission established the Stage 3 Utilization Working Group ('Working. Group") to evaluate proposals before the Commission aimed at increasing use of quiet Stage 3 aircraft at the Airport and alleviating the problems caused by aircraft noise, including a proposal to restrict Stage 2 aircraft during nightime hours; and WHEREAS after study and analysis of these proposals the Working Group and Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council approved in concept a recommendation to alleviate the disruptive impact of nighttime aircraft operations by restricting use of Stage 2 aircraft at the Airport during the nighttime hours; NOW, THEREFORE, the Metropolitan Airports Commission does ordain: The following words and phrases when used in this Ordinance shall have the • meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section: 1.1 AFFECTED AIRCRAFT: A subsonic or supersonic aircraft operated at the Airport with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight of more than 75,000 pounds, except military aircraft or other aircraft owned and operated by the U.S. government. 1.2 AFFECTED AIRCRAFT OPERATION: _ A landing or takeoff of An Affected Aircraft at the Airport, except for (1) a landing necessitated by mechanical failure, air traffic control delays, fuel shortage or other emergency conditions or (2) a landing of an aircraft scheduled for maintenance at the Airport, where that landing was scheduled outside the nighttime period but was delayed due to mechanical problems at the point of origin. 1.3 AIR CARRIER: Any entity conducting or proposing to conduct operations at the Airport pursuant to a certificate to conduct air transportation services in accordance with , 49...U.S.C..1371;,1372, ,1375, 1386,1387, and/or 1388 and/or any.vther applicable provision of law by which such entity may conduct commercial air transportation services. Any group of Air Carriers serving the Airport that is subject to more than 50 percent ownership or control by a single entity shall be collectively deemed to be a single Air Carrier for purposes of this Ordinance. 1.4 Aircraft Operator. The entity responsible for an Affected Aircraft operation at the Airport iS . AIRPORT: Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport - Wold Chamberlain Field, or "MSP,' a public airport under the supervision, operation, direction and control of the Commission. And located in Hennepin County in the State of Minnesota 1.6 COMMISSION: The Metropolitan Airports Commission or "MAC,' sometimes referred to as the Minneapolis-St Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public corporation organized and operating pursuant to Chapter 500, Laws of Minnesota 1943-and amendments thereto, owner and operator of the Airport 1.7 FAA Federal Aviation Administration. 1.8 FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation, found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 1.9 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. n L10 MONTHLY PERIOD: The monthly period begins on the first of each calendar month and ends on the last day of the calendar month. 1.11 STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT: A United States registered Affected Aircraft certified by the FAA as complying with the Stage 2 noise standards of Appendix C, Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 36), or an Affected Aircraft certified by the country of 0 3-5- registry as complying with the noise standards of Chapter 2, Volume I of Annex 16 to the Convention. on, International. Civil Aviation. Where an aircraft is certified as both Stage 2 and Stage 3, depending on landed weight, all reports under this Ordinance must disclose the landed weight of the aircraft.. 1.12 STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT: A United States registered Affected Aircraft certified by the FAA as complying with the Stage 3 noise standards of Appendix C, Part 36 of the Federal Aviation, Regulations (14 CFR 36), or an Affected Aircraft certified by the country of registry as complying with the noise standards of Chapter 3, Volume I of Annex -16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation; this definition shall also include aircraft certified to any more stringent noise standards which may be adopted by the FAA or the International Civil Aviation Organization in the future. The use of voluntary operating techniques at the Airport to comply with Stage 3 noise standards in lieu of FAA certification shall, not bring an.,aircraft within the.definition .of Stage.3. forpurpose of this ordinance. 2.1 This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its enactment by the Minneapolis-St- Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission and shall remain in full force and effect until amended, modified or rescinded • 3.1 . This ordinance shall apply in all respects to every . Affected Aircraft that now operates or in the future may operate at the Airport. SECITON 4 REG rt 77ON 4.1 To reduce aircraft noise in the communities surrounding the Airport during the Nighttime Period (11 p.m. and 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T.), the following nighttime restriction shall be observed. 4.1.1 Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline: On and after the effective date of this ordinance each Aircraft. Operator shall be assigned a Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline applicable to each Monthly Period. 4.12 Each Aircraft Operator's Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline for a given Monthly Period shall be the number of Stage 2 operations it flew during the Nighttime Period in that same month of the preceding year. For example, an Aircraft Operator's Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline for the Monthly Period from August 1, 1991 to August 31, 1991 would be the number of operations it flew with Stage 2 aircraft in the Nighttime Period from August 1, 1990 to August 31, 1990. 0 SECTION 7 PENAL= AND SANMONS • 7.1 MISDEMEANOR Any person (including a corporation, company, firm, partnership, or a joint stock association) violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by fine of not more than seven hundred dollars (5700), or both, for each such violation. Each instance of an Air Carrier operating a Stage 2 aircraft at the Airport in violation of this Ordinance, any failure to file a required report in a timely manner, or any other violation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be a separate violation. 72 LOSS OF NIGHTTIME STAGE 2 BASELINE Any Air Carrier that violates this Ordinance during the period between the time of its enactment and March 31, 1992, shall be subject to loss of all or part of its Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline for such period of time as the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing shall determine. 8.1 If airy provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof is held unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of the same shall • not be affected thereby. r'1 U O_ SECTION-BY-SEC7nON ANALYSIS OF METROPOLPTAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION STAGE 2 AIRCRAFr NIGHTMM USE ORDINANCE This section defines the words and phrases used in the Ordinance. Subsection 1.1 defines 'AFFEC'TED AIRCRAFT' to include aircraft with a gross takeoff weight of more than 75,000 pounds, except military aircraft or other aircraft owned and operated by the U.S. government. Subsection °12> defines `"AFFEC'T'ED AIRCRAFT OPERATION" to include all landings and takeoffs by Affected Aircraft at the Airport, except those due to mechanical failure, air traffic control delays, fuel shortage or other emergency conditions, or landings of aircraft scheduled for maintenance at MSP that were delayed by mechanical problems at the point of ori gin. This section establishes an effective date for the Ordinance of thirty (30) days after enactment, and provides that the Ordinance shall continue in effect until amended, modified • or rescinded. SECTION 3 APPL.T &B PTY This section states that the Ordinance applies to all Affected Aircraft that operate, now or in the future, at the Airport. SECTION 4 RECI n AMOK This section establishes the "nighttime period" of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and provides for two restrictions on the use of Stage 2 aircraft at the Airport: first, between the effective date and Aprid 1, 1992 a capon Stage 2 operations during the, nighttime- period; second, on and after April 1, 1992, a ban on Stage 2 operations during the nighttime period The section provides that each Aircraft Operator at the Airport will have a Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline, which equals, for each month, the number of Stage 2 operations that Aircraft Operator flew during the nighttime periods in the same month of the preceding year. That Baseline serves as the "cap" on Stage 2 operations in the Nighttime Period for that Aircraft Operator between the effective date and April 1, 1992. The section establishes a ban on Stage 2 operations in the Nighttime Period on and after April 1, 1992. An exception from the ban is available to an Aircraft Operator that can show the MAC that the flight in question was originally scheduled to land outside of the g - 2 4.13 Initial Limitation Period: From the date on which this ordinance takes effect through March 31, 1992, no Aircraft Operator shall conduct a total number of nighttime stage 2 operations in any given Monthly Period which exceeds its applicable Nighttime Stage 2 Baseline. 4.1.4 Nighttime Period Stave 2 Ban- Beginning April 1, 1992. no Aircaft Operator shall conduct any Stage 2 operation with an Affected Aircraft during the Nighttime Period. . 4.15 Exceptinn 4.15.1 Beginning April 1, 1992, an Aircraft Operator conducting scheduled commercial service using a Stage 2 aircraft may land that aircraft during the Nighttime -Period if the flight (1) was originally scheduled to land outside of the Nighttime Period, (2) was delayed due to mechanical problems or weather conditions, And (3) does not arrive at the Airport more than thirty minutes before or thirty minutes after its originally scheduled time of arrival. . 4.15.2 An aircraft operator who conducts a Stage 2 operation during the Nighttime Period after March 31, 1992 must report that operation as required by Section 5.1, below. If the aircraft • operator believes that. .the. operation falls within the exception provided above, it should request an exception when it files its next monthly report and should provide all information available showing that it meets the three requirements for an exception. The burden is on the Aircraft Operator to show that it meets all three of the requirements for an exception. 4.153 No exception will be granted to an Aircraft Operator that fails to make a good faith effort to schedule its flights according to their actual times of operation, or that schedules one or more flights that fail to -arrive or depart on schedule and that instead operate - during the Nighttime, Period more than 15% of the time. 5.1 To show compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, beginning with the first Monthly Period after the effective date of this Ordinance, and each Monthly Period thereafter, each Aircraft Operator shall submit a report to the Commiss on that lists all Affected Aircraft that have operated at the Airport during the any Nighttime Period in the preceding month by the aircraft characteristics in 5.1.1 through 5.1.4 below and that provides the additional summary information in 5.15 through 5.1.7 as follows: 0 8-9 . 5.1.1 Type or class and model number, 5.12 Type of engines; 5.13 Registration number, 5.1.4 Whether the aircraft is certified by the FAA as complying with Part 36 Stage 2 or Stage 3 noise standards (and, where the aircraft is certified as both Stage 2 and Stage 3 depending on landed weight, the landed weight of the aircraft); 5.15 Number of Affected Aircraft operations during the Nighttime Period for the preceding month with actual and scheduled arrival or departure times; 5.1.6 Number of Affected Aircraft operations by Stage 2 aircraft during the Nighttime Period for the preceding month. 5.1.7 Number of Stage 2 aircraft operations during the nighttime period that were (1) not Affected Aircraft Operations under this Section 12 of this Ordinance or (2) excepted from the restrictions of this Ordinance under Section 4.15. Any aircraft operator claiming an exception under Section 4.15 should request an exception and provide required information justifying that exception. • .52 -.Eacb Aircraft Operator's required monthly report shall be submitted to the Commission within 20 days after completion of the preceding monthly period 53 The Executive Director shall provide those administrative procedures necessary for reporting compliance with this ordinance. 5.4 If an Aircraft Operator conducts no Stage 2 operations during the Nighttime Period in two succeeding monthly periods, it may cease filing monthly reports beginning with the second month in which it had no Stage 2 operations during the Nighttime Period, and need not resume filing monthly reports until 20 days after the next monthly period in which it conducts Stage 2 operations during the Nighttime Period 6.1 An Aircraft Operator may petition the Commission for an extension of the date provided in Section 4.1.4 of this ordinance. The Commission may at its discretion grant an extension of the Initial Limitation Period until December 31, 199Z to an Aircraft operator that demonstrates that it cannot comply with the April 1 date and shows that it has firm orders for Stage 3 replacement aircraft or hushldts for Stage 2 aircraft that will be installed by the December date. The burden shall be on the Aircraft Operator seeldng an extension to show that it meets these conditions. ?_ O Nighttime Period, was delayed due to mechanical problems or weather conditions, and did not land more than thirty minutes before or thirty minutes after its originally scheduled time of arrival The exception is not available to operators that do not make a good faith effort to schedule flights accurately. This section provides for monthly reporting by Aircraft Operators to demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance. This section provides that the MAC may extend the compliance date for the Nighttime Stage 2 ban from April 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992, for an Aircraft Operator that cannot meet the April l: date- and that has firm orders for Stage 3 replacement aircraft that will be in service or hushkits for Stage 2 aircraft that will be installed by the December date. This section provides that violation of the Ordinance is a misdemeanor, and that each violation is punishable by a $700 fine, 90 days imprisonment, or both. In addition, Aircraft Operators violating the Ordinance between the effective date and April 1, 1992, may lose their Baseline allocation. SEMON 8 SEVER4REI TT'Y OF REGI II AVON ?his section provides that any provision of the Ordinance held unlawful may be severed and. voided without affecting the applicability of the remainder of the Ordinance. is S-// L SUbOtARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The proposed Ordinance would limit and eventually eliminate operations with Stage 2 aircraft between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T. 'at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). For purpose of this ordinance, the "nighttime period" includes the hours between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T.; the affected time span is thus narrower than the Federal Aviation Administration's traditional 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. nighttime period used for calculation of, aircraft noise contours). In-the initial :phase :.(between 30,days:after enactment of the Ordinance and April 1, 1992), aircraft operators are limited to their baseline" number of Stage 2 operations in the nighttime period. An aircraft operator's baseline will be set equal to the number of nighttime Stage 2 flights it had during the same month of the preceding year. On and after April 1, 1991, Stage 2 operations are prohibited during the nighttime hours. MAC may grant an extension until December 31, 1992, to an aircraft operator that cannot comply with the April 1 date and shows that it has firm orders for Stage 3 replacement aircraft that will be in service or hushldts for Stage 2 aircraft that will be installed by the December date. II. 'AN 171CIPATED OR °ACTUAL COSTS AND'BENEFM 'OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Noise Problem at MSP Creation of the Stage 3 Utilization Worldng Group In July 1989, MAC staff presented an airline Stage 3 Utilization survey it had prepared of ten U.S. international airport to the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). The survey showed that MSP had a low overall Stage 3 percentage (30%) and.that .Northwest. Airlines, which hubs at MSP, had a low. Stage 3 percentage at the airport (27%). On August 9, 1989, Minneapolis City Councilmember Steve Cramer responded to the relatively low proportion of Stage 3 aircraft flying to and from MSP by proposing to the Commission that it prohibit Stage 2 operations between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. That proposed restriction is embodied in the Ordinance. Alternative restrictions, including increasing the stringency of goals under the current voluntary "noise budget," a program under which each carrier serving the airport strives to stay within an allocation of "noise energy;" prohibition on the use of Stage 2 aircraft imported from Europe at MSP; a requirement that each n LJ airline fly the same percentage of Stage 3 aircraft at MSP as in its overall fleet; and use of differential landing fees, were also discussed in Mr. Cramees letter. MAC has subsequently negotiated a differential landing fee with all signatory. air carriers and imposes an identical charge on other users through ordinance. In March 1990, in response to the MAC staff findings and Councilmember Cramer's .proposals, MAC formed the Stage 3 Utilization Working Group to. consider these proposals. The Working Group is composed of representatives of the MAC, local government groups, state agencies, Northwest Airlines and other carriers. An FAA representative is a nonvoting member of the Working Group. . The goal of the Working Group is to reduce noise at MSP by promoting a substantially increased percentage utilization of Stage 3 aircraft After the Working Group and MASAC analyzed the proposed restriction and various alternatives as discussed below, it recommended to the Commi.?.sion that the proposed restriction be adopted as Commission ..policy. Between March, 1990 and April, 1991, MACS Working Group considered a number of proposals, including those originally raised by Councilmember Cramer, to reduce noise at MSP. The Working Group studied current and projected fleet mixes for carriers serving MSP; the ADNE noise budget goals; nighttime Stage 2 utilization at MSP; noise restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft at other airports; and options for nighttime Stage 2 fleet restrictions. ..The Working Group collected extensive data about daytime and nighttime operations by specific carriers and by specific aircraft types at MSP. On April 19, 1991 the Working Group issued an Interim Report summarizing its findings and recommendations. In 1989, there were an average of 416 daily aircraft departures (and an equal number of arrivals) performed by scheduled air carriers and regional carriers at MSP. Thirty-one percent of the air carrier flights were flown with Stage 3 aircraft By the years 2000 and 2005, 524 and 550 scheduled departures are forecast; before enactment of the National Noise Policy and without implementation of the Working Group recommendations, Stage 3 percentages were forecast to be 70 percent and 89 percent, respectively. The Working Group found that average 1990 'activity between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m included approximately 8 daily scheduled arrivals and 4 daily scheduled departures, with 4.6 of the arrivals and 2.6 of the departures flown with Stage 2 aircraft In the broader nighttime period of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., there are approximately 29 daily scheduled arrivals and 32 daily scheduled departures, with 17.1 of the arrivals and 212 of the departures flown with Stage 2 aircraft. 2 0 3-I3 • Stage 2 flights between 11 p.m. and .6 a.m., are especially disruptive to sleep of residents around the airport Analysis of noise complaints received by MACs Noise Complaint Hot Line indicates that each aircraft operation between 11 p.m. and 6 a= is 6 times more likely to result in a complaint than an operation between 10 p.m and 11 p.m, and over 12 Si= more likely to draw a complaint than a flight between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. One late night flight over St Paul or Minneapolis can generate from 5 to 15 complaint calls within the next 20 minutes Complaint data also shows that Stage 2 night departures are more likely to result in complaints than are arrivals or Stage 3 departures. The Working Group also investigated the availability of programs to convert Stage 2 aircraft into Stage 3 aircraft, for carriers unable to finance new aircraft. These conversion programs involve either acoustically lining existing engines ("hushkdtting") or outright engine replacement with newer, quieter engines, to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise levels. Hushkdtting, the less-expensive option, typically achieves only the minimum Stage 3 noise requirements, while adding weight and reducing aircraft performance. Hush kits have been certified for installation on Boeing 727-100s and -200s and DC9-10s and -30s; and hush kits are being developed for Boeing 737-200 and DC-8-62/63 series aircraft Re-engining is considerably more expensive. It typically achieves more than minimum Stage 3 compliance and improves aircraft performance and fuel efficiency. Re-engining is currently available for the Boeing 727-100 and -200 and DC4;-61/62/63. • B. EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON AIRPORT OPERATIONS, CAPACITY, AND AIRCRAFT NOISE The following numbers of flights were flown with Stage 2 aircraft during the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m_ period in 1990. The Working, Group estimates that approximately this level of operations would be affected by the proposed ban on use of Stage 2 aircraft during that time period: Passenger carriers: total: 0.9 arrivals daily Northwest: 0.0 arrivals daily Continental, Delta, United & Midway: - 0.9 _arrivals daily aggregate Cargo carriers: total: variable by month DHL: 4 arrivals in October UPS: 18 arrivals/month April-Sept. Burlington 4 arrivals/month Feb.-May Consolidated Freight 44 arrivals/44 departures monthly • 3 Charters: total: about 67 arrivals/15 departures per month Sun Country 63 arrivals/12 dep./month . Hawaiian 3 arrivals/2 dep./month Other. 1.2 flights in some months The costs and benefits of the proposed Ordinance were analyzed with respect to the effect on noise and on airport operations and capacity. In addition, the Working Group looked at impacts on the regional economy and aircraft acquisition and operating costs. The proposed Ordinance would eliminate approximately 5 daily arrivals and 3 daily departures by Stage 2 aircraft between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The elimination or replacement of these flights by Stage 3 aircraft would remove the most disruptive events during the "nighttime hours. 4f applied to 1989 noise- conditions; the reduction in Stage 2 flights would reduce the population within the Ldn 65 contour from 41,000 to 36,000 persons. 1p20 on Ai Operations and Cana The proposed Ordinances would have no direct impact on airport operations and capacity. Instead, as discussed below, they would affect airline operations to some small degree, and might have some effect on the quality of air service received by MSP. I== on Air Carrier Operations There would be minimal impact on the scheduled passenger carriers serving MSP. At present, based on the October 1989 to September 1990 period, there are only 13 daily Stage 2 arrivals and no departures in this time period. The impacts on cargo and charter carriers would be somewhat greater. Cargo Stage 2 activity in this period currently includes 12 arrivals and 22. departures daily. This includes operations by four different carriers: DHL, UPS, Burlington and Consolidated Freight (Emery). Cargo activity would have to be replaced with Stage 3 aircraft or rescheduled; it is possible that Consolidated Freight, which carries mail for the U.S. Postal Service, might terminate service, but that contract would probably be picked up by another cargo carrier or..trucking company. Charter Stage 2 activity includes 2.1 daily arrivals and 0.4 daily departures, principally by Sun Country. Charter activity would have to be replaced with Stage 3 aircraft or rescheduled to other hours. If flights are rescheduled, with departing flights leaving later and arriving flights returning earlier, charter passengers might lose a minimal amount of vacation time. It is possible that some operations would be eliminated. 4 0 For those airlines that acquired Stage _3 aircraft, the increased efficiency- of those • aircraft could be offset by larger size.' Fuel and operating cost efficiencies for purchased or leased aircraft would benefit passenger carriers more, and charter and cargo operators less, because the latter make fewer flights per day. I== on OualiIX of fir Service The affected passenger flights represent a small proportion of total airport service, so there would be only minimal impact on the quality of scheduled passenger air service provided by carriers at MSP. Rescheduling or replacement of Stage 2 cargo and charter aircraft by the existing carriers appears to be achievable. In addition, other cargo carriers might be able to replace the service with compliant aircraft roc in other°time periods: There is a potential for impacts on cargo and charter service if replacement flights do not occur. Regional economic imp=: Because of the small number of flights affected, and the likelihood that those flights will be rescheduled or flown with Stage 3 aircraft, 'major regional economic impacts from the proposed Ordinance appears unlikely. Aircraft acquisition and oo rating,costs: Cargo and charter carriers without Stage • 3 aircraft would have to accelerate plans to acquire use of these aircraft if they did not want to reschedule flights out of these hours. M. ALTERNATIVE RES'MC rIONS CONSIDERED A. Operational Alternatives The proposed measure is aimed at reducing the most disruptive noise events that affect residential areas around MSP in the most noise sensitive hours. Operations options, including preferential runway use and flight tracks to direct many of the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Stage 2 flights over more compatible areas, are in place or under study in the Part 150 process.However prevailing winds; weather conditions; and traffic levels at the airport result in overflight of residential areas a significant percentage of time, requiring action to control the number of Stage 2 flights. 0 5 B. Measures to take effect during daZime hours (7:00 a-m. to 10*00 lz-mj_ 7be Daytime Measures considered fell into two types: first, revisions to the existing • -noise budget, a voluntary system under which each carrier serving the airport strives to stay within an allocation of "noise energy;" and, second, restrictions aimed at altering Stage 2/3 operational levels. Additional detailed information about the current voluntary noise budget is available from MAC staff. Several measures were considered which would involve direct. regulation of the percentage of Stage 2 operations by each carrier. For example, the Working Group considered setting pre-established "moderate" percentages of Stage 2 operations, with interim levels and a final phase-out of 2005; more stringent levels with a final phase-out in 2000; a prohibition on a carrier operating more Stage 2 operations at MSP than the percentage of Stage 2 aircraft in the airline's fleet; a prohibition on a carrier operating a higher percentage of Stage 2 operations at MSP than Stage 2 operations by that carrier's .fleet. As indirect regulation, the Working Group considered changes to the Noise Budget program; amendment of the Noise Budget to establish noise energy ceilings (measured in "Average Daily Noise Energy" or "ADNr) through 1995 at levels tied to Stage 3 percentage goals; amendment of the Noise Budget with ADNE ceilings tied to forecasts of operations and aircraft mix as found in the Long-Range Comprehensive Plan for MSP; and amendment of the Noise Budget to shift some ADNE set aside for new entrants to incumbents. After elimination of some measures considered, the best of the measures were • evaluated in detail. Policy sion: Defer action on daytime phaseout goals pending review of National Noise . C Measures to take effect during full 10 p ,m- to 7 a_m.=riod used by FAA in the Integ3ted Noise Model "Ibe period covered by the INM defines the hours when the FAA considers aircraft operation potentially disruptive to sleep. As .a result, of increased activity., at .MSP between 10 pm. and :11 p.m and from 6 am- and 7 a.m., coupled with the noise "penalty" included in the Integrated Noise Model for operations during those periods, the Ldn 65 noise contour has expanded to include approximately 41,000 people, compared to 19,000 in 1987. If all Stage 2 operations between 10 p.m. and 7 am were replaced with Stage 3 operations, the population within the 65 Ldn would fall from 41,000 to 21,500. 6 0 8--x'2 The Working Group considered a number of measures for the 10 p= to 7 a.m. period, including a range of phaseout dates beginning with 1995 and ending with 2000. There is considerably more activity in this period than in the narrower 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. period, with 11.5 daily scheduled arrivals and 15.4 daily scheduled departures by Stage 2 aircraft anticipated in 1995. Northwest Airlines has considerable activity in this period, with flights to smaller communities by smaller Stage 2 aircraft for which they reportedly have no replacement Stage 3 aircraft and additional flights arriving to and departing from their maintenance base at MSP. Dcision: Continue to discuss options for Stage 2 phaseout during full 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. period D. Alternative Mmurec_ to take effect during RSA nighttime eeriod from 11 p.m_ to 6 a_m_ In addition to the proposed measure, alternatives discussed that would apply to the 11 p.m. to 6 a.= period included Stage 2 phase-outs with a range of phaseout dates between July 31, 1991 and December 31, 2000. Decision: Of the range of Stage 2 phase-out proposals, the preferred alternative is that embodied in the proposed Ordinance. • IV.. _ ALTERNATIVE . RESTRICTIONS. _ NOT INVOLVING AIRCRAFT RESTRICTIONS; COSTS AND BENEFTIS COMPARED TO COSTS AND BENEYITS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE Consideration has been given to measures involving no change in operating restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft The principal purpose of the proposed measure is to eliminate the most disruptive flights during the hours when people in the vicinity of the airport are sleeping. This benefit would accrue to thousands of homeowners in the vicinity (41,000 people and 16,000 units in the 1989 L.dn 65 noise contour). The costs of insulating these homes to provide some of -the same-noise benefits would be °approximately 3240 mfllion. The benefits of soundproofing are not equivalent to the benefits of eliminating nighttime Stage 2 flights, because soundproofing is only effective during the winter, when houses are closed and heated, and summer, when houses are closed and airconditioned. When doors and windows are open, soundproofing has no effect. 0 7 Acquisition of those homes that would be removed from the 65 Ldn by the proposed Ordinance would be prohibitively expensive and not feasble due to unacceptable social • impacts. To benefit the same number of people, approximately 3750 houses would have to be acquired at -an average cost of $100,000/house for a total cost of $375 million. Further, while acquisition would remove the same number of people from within the 65 Ldn contour, it would not benefit those residents outside that contour, while elimination of Stage 2 operations during the Nighttime Period would benefit all area residents affected by aircraft noise. 8 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 43 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment restricting the repair of vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Background: Staff has received many complaints from residents regarding apparent violations of a zoning ordinance which prohibits auto repair as a home occupation. In many instances, the problem is, resolved after City staff advises the alleged violator of the ordinance. However, approximately two to three times a year, compliance is not easily attained. In these cases, it is necessary for City staff to construct a case that would demonstrate not only that cars other than the owner's are being repaired at the house, but that the repairs are part of a business. This additional burden of proof has made enforcement through the courts difficult. Because of the difficulty in preparing a case, neighbors adjacent to the violator's house frequently become frustrated. As a result of comments made by a resident at a recent Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to explore other enforcement mechanisms that would simplify enforcement for this type of violation. • Recommended Motion: First reading of an ordinance amending Section 510.23 "Home Occupations" that would prohibit the repair of motor vehicles which are not registered to a resident of the dwelling. Basis for Recommendation: 1. This would simplify and clarify enforcement of repair of automobiles in residential neighborhoods. 2. City staff would not be required to prove that a business is being conducted, only that the auto being repaired is not owned by a resident. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The ordinance could be extended to permit the repair of autos owned by immediate or extended family. However, enforcement would be significantly complicated. 2. The Council also asked consideration of a specific prohibition of the repair of automobiles which are not registered to a resident. The attorney has recommended that the proposed course of action is less likely to be subject to challenge. 0 3. The Council could decide not to take action. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter is being placed on the City Council agenda for first reading.approval on February 10, 1992. Since the ordinance impacts the zoning ordinance, it is necessary for the Council to refer this to the Planning Commission for a hearing as soon as possible by the Planning Commission and report back to the City Council. Respectf ly submitted, Prosser Jamelaager City JDP:ds C? • BILL NO. AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 510 OF APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Subsection 510.23 of the ordinance code of. the City of Richfield entitled "Home Occupations" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new subdivision: Subd 9 Specific activities prohibited The repair of motor vehicles whether for consideration or not which are not registered to a resident of the dwelling shall not be allowed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1992. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.42 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Request for a conditional use permit to allow a Head Start program in the Community Education Center, 7001 Elliot Avenue. Background: Parents In Community Action, Inc. (PICA) is a nonprofit organization which administers the Head Start program in Hennepin County. Head Start is a comprehensive child and family development program designed to help economically disadvantaged preschool children and their families achieve their full potential. PICA is proposing to operate a Head Start program in two classrooms of the Community Education center. They would provide service to 80 children by utilizing a rotating schedule; however, only 40 children (20 per classroom) would be on the premises at any one time. There would be no physical changes to the property other than those required to meet building and fire codes. Head Start vans would transport all children to and from the Center. The drop-off and pickup area would be located on the site close to the building entrance. The proposed site is zoned R-residential. A conditional use permit is required for state licensed programs serving more than 12 children. In addition to the conditional use permit, PICA is requesting a waiver of the $400 application fee. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit and waive the application fee for Head Start at 7001 Elliot Avenue with the following stipulation: 1. That all building and fire codes be met prior to occupancy. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On January 28, 1992, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. 2. The Head Start program would be compatible with existing child care related uses in the building. 3. Adequate on-site parking is available for Head Start staff. 0 4. Adequate play area is available on the site. ?' 1 Alternative Recommendation: Deny the conditional use permit with a finding of fact that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode : A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 10, 1992. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Respectf 7 ly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:ds 0 ! Z L1A z Z MNJ -401 u? W W 6 0 ti COOF -, J •O 3f1N3AV 101113 O .? v 0 ? O CITY OF RICHFIELD,.MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 41 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for removal, repair and installation of Deep Well Pump #2. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The existing pump assembly, column pipe, shafting and headshaft at Deep Well Pump #2, 6301 Nicollet Avenue, requires replacement and repair as part of the normal maintenance of the pump. The new pumping equipment capacity will process approximately 2,000 gallons of water per minute. Four contractors were contacted for quotations with the following results: E.H. Renner and Sons $12,238 Layne Minnesota Company 12,943 Keys Well Drilling Company 14,666 Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. 15,016 The quotations include all parts, labor, removal and installation of the pumping equipment. • Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to E. H. Renner & Sons for the removal, repair, and installation of Deep Well Pump #2, located at 6301 Nicollet Avenue South for an estimated total of $12,238. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The existing Deep Well Pump #2 was installed in 1987 and needs replacement due to column, shaft and pump wear. 2. E.H. Renner submitted the lowest quotation, and has satisfactorily completed several City utility projects. 3. There is $12,000 budgeted for this item in the Adopted 1992 Water Maintenance budget. The line item will be revised to reflect the additional $238. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained for the complete repair. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the February 10, 1992 Council meeting. Respe ly submitted, James D Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 5e, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 40 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive. Background: On January 28, 1992, the VFW submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Sunday, Monday and Thursday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager,.Mr. Adler Strandquist, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant inaccordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant has submitted the request within 60 days of the renewal of the license. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. • 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. 5C-1 Discussion/Decision Mode Approve the renewal of Fred gambling application and a investigative fee. Babcock Post #5555 VFW's lawful request for waiver of the Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:ds 11 is '5 C 0-1- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Fred • Babcock VFW Post #5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of February, 1992. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 5g • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 39 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the off-street parking permit at 6328 Penn Avenue. Background: Acadian Candles, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the off- street parking permit at 6328 Penn Avenue. The applicant is proposing to utilize the former Tastee Bakery building for the manufacturing and retail sales of candles. The subject property is zoned I-industrial where manufacturing and retail sales are permitted uses. A change in.general use and an expansion of the retail area requires an amendment to the off-street parking permit. The proposed changes mainly consist of adding landscaping along Penn Avenue and providing the required handicapped parking space; with few other changes to the previously approved parking layout. Proposed site improvements consist of the following items: ? Installation of directional signage; ? Installation of one new security light; ? Restriping of the parking lot; ? Installation of landscaping and curbing as per the PASSS design requirements. Recommended Motion: Approve the amendment to the off-street parking permit and site plan for 6328 Penn Avenue with the following stipulation: 1. That a cash escrow agreement,for required site improvements be submitted prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal meets the landscape requirements. 2. Adequate off-street parking is provided for the proposed use. 3. The Staff Administrative Review Committee has considered and approved the proposed east parking lot layout. This includes the continuance in use of the existing curb cuts along Penn Avenue. Widening of the north curb cut would make it wider than the drive aisle creating a conflict with parked vehicles. The south curb cut is of adequate width for • one-way traffic movement as proposed. 0 Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the February 10, 1992 City Council meeting. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager 0 JDP:ds 3:E °'Z V C Z :° Z 0 'o bo bo iw1 Z a 001 co 00 ?+ N o 4-4 0 U or •- o c vs *d ev c t y co vs -boo ' a ev ?¦d . WE cm . a 'Ice ' H C W 00 4.0 • P04 cn X (?1V 1 - - •I? r4;;T L1 ?__L_L_.L L Juawasea aniap CM a 00 p cm 0 F-4 M Co 5A • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No-38 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Amended joint powers agreement, between the cities of Richfield and Bloomington, establishing and empowering the Richfield- Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. Background: The cities •of Richfield and Bloomington originally entered into a joint powers agreement establishing the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization in December 1983. Procedural changes in that agreement are now necessary in order to meet new rules established by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The new agreement will enable the organization to meet in the first quarter of the year instead of in January. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached amended joint powers agreement establishing the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. Basis of Recommendation: Council approval is needed in order to enter into a new joint powers agreement with the City of Bloomington. • Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of the attached amended joint powers agreement at the February 10, 1992 Council meeting. Respect ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds Attachment 0 519-I JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA ESTABLISHING AND EMPOWERING THE RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ("Bloomington"), a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and the CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Richfield"), a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, a portion of each City lies within the geographical area hereinafter referred to as the "Richfield-Bloomington Watershed," which watershed is illustrated and described on "Exhibit A," attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 4-73-875 te 472 992 103B.201 to 103B.255, • inclusive, require that there exist a watershed management organization which will perform some or all of the functions of a watershed district for the Richfield- Bloomington Watershed; and WHEREAS, each City has the authority to manage surface waters within its boundaries ;and WHEREAS, each City may jointly exercise common authority by adopting a joint powers agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 471.59; and WHEREAS, by means of a joint powers agreement, the cities may establish a water management organization pursuant to M.S.A. 473.875 te 473.883 Minnesota Statutes § 103B.201 to 103B . 255, inclusive; and WHEREAS, each City is desirous of jointly creating a watershed management organization which would fulfill the mandates of Minnesota Statutes § § 473.875 te 473=853 103B. 201 to 103B. 255, inclusive, with respect to the Richfield-Bloomington • Watershed and which would otherwise manage the surface water within said CLL27168 BC145-166 watershed in order to achieve various goals with respect to natural water runoff and retention. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein expressed, the City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree as follows: SECTION I ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization is hereby established; the operation of the Organization shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. SECTION II PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to create a Watershed Management Organization which would fulfill the mandates of Minnesota Statutes §§ 473-,875 te 472 992.103B. 201 to 103B.255, inclusive, with respect to the Richfield-Bloomington is Watershed and which would otherwise manage natural water runoff and retention in order to achieve the following goals : (a) Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and Lrroundwater storaLre and retention systems; Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; Establish more, uniform local policies and official controls for surface 0 and groundwater management; CLL27168 RC145-166 5? ?3 • (e) Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; {-d-}Lfl Promote groundwater recharge; kcOiL Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and {-}-Ch I Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water within the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed. SECTION III DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the terms used herein shall have the meanings as defined in this section. Subdivision 1. The "Organization" means the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed • Management Organization established by this Agreement. Subdivision 2. The "Board" or "Board of Commissioners" means the governing body of the Organization. Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of the City of Bloomington or the governing body of the City of Richfield. Subdivision 4. "Richfield-Bloomington Watershed" or "Watershed" means the geographical area described and/or illustrated on Exhibit "A" attached and made a part of this Agreement. Subdivision 5. "Commissioner" means a member of the Board of Commissioners. Subdivision 6. "Cities" means the cities of Richfield and Bloomington. U CLL27168 RC145-166 SECTION IV BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Subdivision 1. The Organization shall be governed by a Board of Commissioners composed of all the members of the City Councils of. Richfield and Bloomington. Vacancies on the Board resulting from vacancies in city council positions shall be filled by appointment by the City Council on which the vacancy exists in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 103B . 227. The term of any Commissioner so appointed shall be one year from the date of appointment or until the vacancy on the City Council is filled and the new council member is sworn and qualified, which ever occurs first. Subdivision 2. Each Commissioner shall have one vote with respect to Board actions. Subdivision 3. Unless otherwise specified by this Agreement, substantive Board action shall be by a majority vote of the entire Board. • Subdivision 4. At its first organizational meeting, or within a reasonable time thereafter, the Board shall adopt bylaws not inconsistent with this Agreement concerning its procedures, meetings, and other appropriate matters affecting the operation of the Organization. Such bylaws may be amended from time-to-time in either a regular or special meeting of the Board provided that notice of such proposed amendment has been given to each Commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which the proposed amendment will be considered. A twe- tWpe r. (244-majority vote of the entire Board shall be necessary to adopt or amend such bylaws. Subdivision 5. All meetings of the Board shall be subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. All Commissioners shall be given at least ten (10) days written notice of meetings called pursuant to the bylaws of the organization except for meetings scheduled and announced during any meeting of which such notice was duly given. CLL27168 RC145-166 4 5-5 Subdivision 6. At the organizational meeting of the Board and ba ey which shall be held during the first ninety (90) days of each year the-peaf4e3p, the Board shall elect from its Commissioners a chairman, a secretary, a treasurer and such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. Subdivision 7. A majority of the entire Board shall constitute a quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a scheduled meeting. Subdivision 8. Each City may compensate the Commissioners it appoints, but the Commissioners shall not be compensated by the Organization or have expenses reimbursed by the Organization. Subdivision 9. Board decisions regarding epep +;,. g t....,o, ets a*d-capital improvement projects shall require a two-thirds (2 / 3) majority vote of the entire Board. Subdivision 10. The Board shall maintain a business office at 2215 West Old 0 Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431. All notices to the Board shall be delivered or served to such office. SECTION V POWERS AND DUTIES Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise qualified or modified by this Agreement, the Organization, acting by its Board of Commissioners, shall have and perform all the powers and duties expressly set forth in and reasonably implied from Minnesota Statutes § 473,875 te-473.883 103B.201 to 103B.255, inclusive. Subdivision 2. The Organization may, within the scope of this Agreement, • accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, any unit of government or other governmental organization, or from any person or entity for the purposes described herein and may enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith; it may comply with any laws or regulations applicable thereto; and it may hold, use and CLL27168 RC145-166 5 dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, • loan or agreement relating thereto. Subdivision 3. expend ..ue fi,nd-s By August 1 of each year, the Organization shall adopt an annual budget and work plan for the following year. Unless otherwise determined at the time of adoption of the budget, the operating budget shall be paid % by Bloomington and % by Richfield. The Organization may enter into contracts and expend funds authorized in the budget. Any disbursements shall be made in accordance with the principles of Minnesota Statutes 6 471.38 et sec.. • The a,..,?.a shah detep Uie hew The Cities may agree to a sharing or allocation of specific costs, personnel requirements, contracting and bid responsibilities, and other expenses and requirements of the Organization -shal-I be s-b-aped by the Cities outside of the budget of the Organization. Whenever personnel of the Cities is utilized by the Organization, such personnel shall remain the employees of their respective Cities for all purposes, including salaries, benefits insurance, and workmens' compensation. No charges for the services of employees of the Cities shall be paid by the Organization unless expressly agreed upon by the Cities • CLL27168 RC145-166 6 5-A-7 Subdivision 4. The Organization shall from time-to-time establish such • standing or ad hoc citizen or technical advisory committees as it deems necessary or desirable. SECTION VI DURATION Subdivision 1. The Organization shall continue in existence until the termination of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, upon ene year's ninety (90) days written notice to the other party, ep at- any to Hennepin County, and to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Subdivision 2. In the event of the termination of this Agreement and the dissolution of the Organization, all improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the party within whose boundaries the • improvement is located. Any unencumbered funds or other assets possessed by the Organization shall be distributed equally to the parties. Subdivision 3. Termination of the Agreement and dissolution of the Organization shall in no way affect or terminate Richfield's present rights to dispose of its storm water through connectors to Smith Pond in Bloomington. SECTION VII EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall be in full force and effect on the date by which both Cities have adopted resolutions approving said agreement and shall supersede the previous agreement establishing and empowering the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization dated December 19, 1983, as amended January 23, 1984. 0 CLL27168 RC145-166 7 SECTION VIII ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING The Boa`rd's first. meeting shall take place at Bloomington City Hall, 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota, on Monday, February 13, 1984, at 6: 00 P.M. SECTION IX MISCELLANEOUS Subdivision 1. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party for liability for damages for personal injury, death, or property damages occurring as a result of improvements or systems which are constructed solely within the boundaries of the indemnifying party; however, nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Subdivision 2. Unless specifically provided by this Agreement, nothing herein is intended to alter or amend any existing agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREAS, the Cities have hereunto set their hand the day and year first above written. Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington. City Attorney CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By Its Mayor By Its City Manager [SEAL] Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Richfield. City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manager [SEAL] is • CLL27168 RC145-166 O. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 37 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Presentation to Commission volunteer who served three consecutive terms. Background: Many members of the community volunteer to serve on the City's various Boards and Commissions. The City Council has requested that volunteers who serve three consecutive terms be specially recognized. The Commission volunteer to be honored is Mr. Don Anderson who has served on the Community Services Commission. Recommended Motion: Present the Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Don Anderson. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Council has requested that Commission members who serve three consecutive terms be specially recognized. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled under the Presentation Section of the February 10, 1992 City Council agenda. Respectfully submitted, P James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak LJ n L? 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 36 Agenda February 10, 1992 Issue Statement: Discussion of Traffic/Transportation Studies and related items at joint meeting of City Council and School Board. Background: There are a number of traffic/transportation studies and issues of concern to Richfield. These include the 1494 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its relationship with development of 77th Street, the I35W draft EIS, and Light Rail Transit (LRT). Don Fondrick, Community Services Director, will be available to go into more detail on the following items: 1494 draft EIS/77th Street development - Draft EIS due mid-March - One or two additional lanes - HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) or mixed lane - $20.8 million in federal funds for 77th Street - 77th Street construction in 1993 I35W draft EIS Draft EIS due mid-March - Five alternatives - LRT versus HOV lane - Crosstown access LRT update - LRT on Soo Line LRT in I35W median - LRT plus Lane Conversion in Metropolitan Council Regional Transit Facilities Plan - ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Act): more money for transit and more flexibility for local decisions on transit Recommended Motion: None required as this is a discussion item. Basis of Recommendation: The City Council and School Board periodically meet jointly to discuss items of mutual interest and concern. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Council and School Board will be meeting at 5:30 p.m., Monday, February 10, 1992. Resp f lly submitted, JDP:ds Jam s .Prosser Cit anager