Loading...
11-04-91 agendaCity Of Richfield, Minnesota Council Study Session Letter No. 48 Agenda, November 4, 1991 Issue Statement: Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues. Background: Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: ® City/MAC Feasibility Study The City and MAC staff are jointly conducting the feasibility study for the complete buyout and redevelopment of New Ford Town and Rich Acres properties. The joint staffs developed a scoping document which includes all the elements of the work plan to complete the project and the distribution of costs. The overall management of the program will be performed by City staff with input and coordination by MAC staff. The estimated costs of the program will be $70,000. Richfield's portion will be $27,000. Funds will be transferred from the General Fund for this purpose. On October 21 1991, the Full MAC Commission approved: the work plan developed by City and MAC staff; the authority for its staff authority to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the preparation of a feasibility report and plan for the acquisition and redevelopment of New Ford Town and Rich Acres; and, the is authority to execute the necessary documents for the work program. The Richfield City Council approved the Joint Powers Agreement between the City and MAC on October 28, 1991. Staff from the City and MAC are now meeting to complete the feasibility report and plan for the complete buyout of the two neighborhoods by the end of December 1991. The feasibility report will cover the following areas: general background; legal and regulatory matters; land acquisition and management; disposition or redevelopment or properties; and, mitigation of impacts on the City and the Richfield School District. • Public Meeting with the Minnesota House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee A public meeting was held with the Minnesota House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee at the Richfield City Hall on October 30, 1991. The meeting was held at the request of Representative Edwina Garcia who serves on the House Committee. At the meeting, City officials and residents provided the Committee their positions of proposed MSP airport expansion plans at MSP and the impacts they will have on their communities. These individuals provided input and feedback on the overall airport decision process. At the meeting, Mayor Martin Kirsch stated that the airport is likely to stay here for at least another 15 to 20 years. He stated that immediate action is needed in Richfield for noise mitigation measures to reduce the negative environmental impacts from the airport affecting the community. Attached are the remarks made by Mayor Kirsch at the meeting. Following the meeting, the Committee was given a bus tour of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods by Representative Garcia. The Committee proceeded to another public meeting held in Hastings. At that meeting, the Committee received input from Dakota County officials and residents regarding the Dakota County site for a possible new airport. ® FAA Part 150 Program The MAC Land Use Policy Committee (PAC) meeting scheduled for November 1, 1991 was apparently cancelled. An update will be provided when the meeting is rescheduled. s Airport Communication Plan As a result of the discussion at the Study Session on October 7, staff developed a revised communication plan for airport issues. The recommendede plan includes the following components: 1. Bi-monthly airport newsletter insert in the SunCurrent and Your City & Schools. The newsletter inserts will include question and answer articles regarding airport issues. The questions addressed will be determined by resident interest and inquiries. Articles will focus on informing residents of current airport issues and actions the City is taking to alleviate • impacts of future airport plans on the community. The articles will be short, concise and understandable. 2. Citizen Feedback. In the bi-monthly airport newsletters, residents will be requested to provide their questions to the City regarding airport issues. The questions will be responded to in future issues of the airport newsletter inserted in Your City & Schools and the Richfield Sun Current. 3. Sun Current. Staff will inform Lynn Fleming, Sun Current Editor, of airport issues that should be covered for articles in the newspaper. 4. Council Meetings. An agenda item has been added for discussion of airport issues. Individual issues will be addressed in a non-technical format. 5. Speakers Bureau. Staff will establish a speakers bureau. Individual residents with background and interest in airport issues will be asked to volunteer for the bureau. Staff will advertise the availability of the speakers bureau for presentations to service clubs, civic organizations, church groups and neighborhood organizations. 6. Cable TV. Staff will request that the Southwest Community News program highlight airport issues on a regular basis. 7. Board and Commission Communications. Board and Commission members will be invited to attend a special airport issues discussion forum which will be developed in the next few months. The purpose of the forum will be to develop a greater awareness and understanding of airport issues. s MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will hold a public hearing in November on the preliminary selection of an airport development option for MSP airport. The north-south runway and west terminal concept was selected from six airfield/terminal concepts that have been under study by the MAC for the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing, a formal comment process, is scheduled for November 12-13 at Highland Park Senior High School, St. Paul. The sessions will be from 6:30 to 10:00 p.m. in the auditorium. There will be a brief presentation on the proposed airport option under consideration. The MAC will hold a special meeting on November 25 to make a final selection of an airfield/terminal development option for MSP airport. Following this meeting, the MAC will finalize documentation to meet the January 1, 1992 statutory deadline for completion of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Motion: With this background information, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: e City/MAC Feasibility Study Staff will continue to keep the Council informed of progress on the feasibility report and plan for the acquisition and redevelopment of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. • FAA Part 150 Program Staff will continue to provide summary reports to the Council of the MSP Land Use Policy Advisory Committee meetings. ® Airport Communications Plan The Council is encouraged to provide staff with suggestions of articles that should be addressed in future newsletters, names of individuals who would be available to do presentations for the speakers bureau, and any other ideas for the City's communication plan. e MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan The City should formally register comments at the MAC public hearing set for November 12-13 regarding the preliminary selection of an airport development option for MSP airport. The Council should provide suggestions to staff for comments to be provided at the November 12-13 public hearing. Attached remarks Mayor Kirsch presented to the MAC Planning and Environments Committee on August 9 regarding the proposed airfield/terminal plans at MSP airport. Alternative Recommendation: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the November 4, 1991 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the November 4, 1991 Study Session. Respprc'fglly.submitted, Jamgs' . Prosser Cit anaaer JDP:kb Attachment 41 • REMARKS BEFORE THE MINNESOTA HOUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by Martin Kirsch 0 0 The City of Richfield is impacted greatly by the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport. There is little doubt that a greater portion of our residents are affected by the airport than any other city. Add to this impact the sacrifices our residents have made for surface transportation including 494, 35W, Crosstown and TH77, and few would question a Richfield position that would support moving the airport to a remote location. But that is not our position because, based upon on the information we have gathered, it simply isn't realistic that MSP will move from this site for many years. We realize that in order to serve our residents, we must work as diligently as possible to find ways to make our land uses surrounding the. airport more compatible and, at the same time, assure that any airport expansion either does not adversely impact our community or can be properly mitigated. The fact is when the airport adequacy study was undertaken, it was predicted that the airport would grow from 400,000 operations in 1986 to 680,000 operations in the year 2016. Two years later, instead of growing, airport operations had decreased. Projections were revised to indicate growth in the year 2018 at 527,000 operations. If these projections hold true, we're looking at an increase of 30% in airport operations over the next 30 years. Given the fact that there are currently three runways handling nearly 400,000 operations per year, it's easy to see that the addition of one runway would be able to serve this growth. It's hard to imagine that either the airline industry or the taxpayers of Minnesota will be able to support constructing a new remote airport at a cost conservatively estimated to be between $3 to $5 billion, not including public infrastructure costs, instead of constructing one additional runway. But the airport does affect our residents and we need to provide some relief. What can be done? Very simply, we believe it is essential that future airport development be tied to efforts to reduce the noise impacts on our residents. This can be accomplished through noise insulation, land clearance and redevelopment. How this effort is financed remains to be seen. We do know that FAA Part 150 funds will not be sufficient. We look forward to the Legislature and MAC working as vigorously in examining what can be done to reduce the airport impacts upon our residents as they are working on the prospect of a new airport. Mayor Kirsch Remarks Page 2 The need of our residents is immediate. We can't wait 15 to 20 years for a new airport to resolve our problems. We need your action and support now. If a new airport is necessary and construction occurs in 15 to 20 years, we will adapt to that situation also. But in the mean time, it is important for the people of not only Richfield but other communities surrounding the airport to be served. We can't let another generation pass by without addressing these needs. 4k DONALD J. PRIEBE 7225 Bloomington Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 869-8186 Momentum is building for either a huge expansion of the present airport or a completely new airport in southern Dakota County. The cost of either alternative is several billions-- dwarfing any previous single project expenditure in the State's history. Yet, there is a third alternative--do nothing--which is the most sensible based on present experience and what can reasonably be expected in the future. The 1989 legislature was misled by the Metropolitan Council's ridiculously high forecasts of future airport needs when they put in place the so called dual track process calling for large increases in capacity at either the present site or a completely new site. Those forecasts called for 680,000 operations (landing or take off) annually in 2018, an 81% increase over the then current levels. Only six months later, in September 1989, the Airport Commission reduced the 2020 estimate to 515,000 operations, an increase of only 37% with a two year longer time span. The nonsense coming from the Metropolitan Council at the time their forecasts were prepared (June 1988) included the following: "Unless something is done to expand capacity at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport, which is at its limit, serious 9 Donald J. Priebe Page 2 constraints on aircraft operations will occur within five years." In the first 3-1/2 years of the 5 years mentioned, the percentage of flights delayed 15 minutes or longer has dropped from 1.4% to 0.7%. Total operations have gone from 374,000 to 379,000--a 1.3% increase in.3 years and still well below the 1986 peak of 389,000. If this current growth rate continues, we might get back up to the 1986 level by 1997 or 1998. Continued growth at even this modest rate assumes that Northwest Airlines will remain a viable player in the industry and will not shift its hubbing operations to an airport making a i better offer. Neither of these is a certainty. As was reported in the Wall Street Journal recently, airports all over the country are undertaking huge expansions in the face of stable or declining traffic. A financially vulnerable Northwest might find it essential to their survival to accept the subsidies that will be offered to fill those facilities. The fact that our offer of $690 million for Northwest's A320 overhaul base is not good enough shows how real this possibility is. Without Northwest's hubbing operations, we already have far more airport than we need now or in the future. No one disputes the fact that we must provide superior airport facilities for those people flying to or from this airport. Our whole State's is economy depends on it. But for a variety of reasons such Donald J. Priebe E Page 3 passengers have been declining. All of the low price airlines like Peoples, Frontier, Western, Braniff, and even Republic, have disappeared cutting vacation travel. More and more business travel has become unnecessary with the telecommunications explosion. Hubbing passengers have increased but they add little to our economy and could disappear almost overnight if Northwest for whatever reason changed its operations. Those advocating a new airport, primarily the airport noise activists from South Minneapolis and their political leaders, frequently complain that MSP is too small at 3,100 acres and 374,000 operations. Here are four other major airports for comparison (1989 data): Los Angeles San Francisco St. Louis Baltimore 3,500 acres 2,700 acres 2,300 acres 3,300 acres 631,000 ops. 461,000 ops. 429,000 ops. 304,000 ops. No one is recommending that these airports abandon their present sites. The absurdities unleashed by the dual track process are best illustrated by the Minneapolis proposal for noise relief in the event of a major expansion at MSP. Their proposal is a ludicrous and transparent attempt to make the cost of remaining at MSP comparable to the cost of a new Dakota County airport. They propose that the airport first spend $550 million to insulate Donald J. Priebe 0 Page 4 24,900 single family homes and some apartments and schools. Secondly, they propose to spend $1.225 billion to acquire and demolish 15,900 of these same homes sometime after completing the insulation program. Finally, they propose to spend an additional $1.225 billion for new homes in a new area presumably to be given to some of the people whose homes were acquired. If this program had any chance of being implemented, it would probably set off a land rush in most of South Minneapolis. How could you lose? Aircraft noise is declining--dawn 20% since 1986. The insulation program would help with heating bills. Eventually the airport is would pay you a fair price increased by the insulation cost which you could pocket because they would likely give you a comparable home in a new area. The truly unfortunate effect6 of this kind of grandiose impractical plan: is that they obscure the fact that there are several hundred close in homes in Richfield and South Minneapolis that deserve immediate buy out action because of the present noise impacts. The Legislature should call a halt to the whole dual track process. It has needlessly upset thousands of people living around the present airport and half the population of Dakota County: Our airport needs are clearly dependent on what Northwest Airlines decides. No one can doubt their influence 0 after watching the State's frantic efforts to have the A320 Donald J. Priebe Page 5 • overhaul base located here. Whether for good or ill, what Northwest Airlines wants in the way of airport facilities, Northwest Airlines will get. They have understandably avoided a prominent role in the airport expansion and siting debate but they have let it be known they oppose moving the airport and see no need for huge expansion of MSP. The Legislature should not resume the dual track process until they are absolutely certain of three things: 1. That Northwest Airlines will survive financially. 41 2. That Northwest is irrevocably committed to maintaining its present percentage of total activities here for the long term. 3. A consensus forecast including Northwest, the FAA and other recognized independent forecasters shows a clear need for future airport expansion. In the meantime they could direct their attention to the myriad of real 1991 problems the State has in social services, health careieducation, highways, etc. etc. etc. 0 City of Richfield, Minnesota Study Session Letter No. 47 November 4, 1991 Issue Statement: Information for discussion of options related to the sale of 7300 First Avenue and adjoining properties. Background: Staff has been pursuing the sale of 7300 First on the basis of a procedure first outlined in a Council letter dated June 24, 1991. At the second reading and public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the sale, October 14, 1991, staff was asked to explore another option. This letter presents the two options along with information related to the flooding of the 73rd Street and First Avenue area. Option 1 This is the option being pursued for the sale of 7300 First. it includes the following: e Sale to individual submitting the bid which exceeds $40,000 by the greatest sum and who demonstrates the financial capability to finance the transaction. e Buyer contracts with City and agrees to complete work with an is estimated cost of $15,000-$17,000. This work would result in the repair of the basement floor and removal of utilities from the basement and the conversion of a third bedroom to a utility room. Damage from future floods to the furnace, water heater and other appliances would thereby be minimized. Danger from damage to gas and electrical services would also be lessened. e Bids due November 1, 1991. e The minimum sale price of $40,000 was based on an appraisal by Chase-Brackett. The appraiser considered the property to be worth $40,000. He deducted $17,000 for the cost of improvements and removed $13,000 as an incentive to overcome the flooding history and compensate for the loss of a bedroom and changes to basement. Absent the flooding potential, the property would be valued at approximately $70,000. e The approximate cost to the Sewer Fund assuming only a minimum bid of $40,000 would be $29,500. (This figure excludes administrative costs). The Fund purchased the property for $69,500. Option 2 At the October 14 meeting, the Council requested staff to pursue an alternative option. This option evolved after Mr. Englund, . owner-occupant of 7308 First Avenue, presented testimony at the public hearing. The option includes the following: 0 • Devise a treatment plan for 7300 First Avenue and the two privately owned properties at 7308 and 7314 First Avenue. • Raise each house the equivalent of approximately 24 inches by adding 3 courses of block to the existing foundation. • Raise the existing basement floor an equal height so the floor to ceiling height is consistent. • Keep the utilities in the basement. • Mr. Steve Earl of Home Care, Inc. indicated that the cost for raising 7300 First would approximate $35,000 to $45,000. This includes the following: - installing three courses of concrete block - new basement windows. - raising the basement floor - adjusting the fireplace and raising basement floor plumbing - patching and repairs and painting to interior and exterior walls - raising the garage and installing new doors and garage floor, new sidewalk from house to garage - new front and rear steps - new lawn walk - modifying plumbing and electrical services between first floor and basement - modifications to yard including landscaping and grading - driveway installation Each of the other two houses appears to be somewhat similar to 7300 First so the cost range would be similar as well. However, if the three houses were worked at the same time, the price may be somewhat lower. A few words about the process may be appropriate. It is likely the occupants would have to move from their houses for perhaps three to six weeks. Much of their personal property would have to be removed as well. To maneuver house moving equipment, it may be necessary to remove portions of the first floor walls. Also the interior walls may develop cracks during the process which would require repairing. This work is best undertaken during the non-winter months. Recommended Action: Discuss the options and information presented and formulate an approach. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The attached Chronology of Storm Water Events provides a listing of the heavy rains since August, 1977 and responses to them. 2. OSM, the.City's consulting engineering firm, reviewed the proposed option 2 solution for providing increased flood protection. In memo #1, which is attached, they indicate that while the first floor won't flood, the basement will continue to be susceptible to flooding. The memo also points out that basement walls will still be subject to hydrostatic loading and could fail as could the basement floor. 3. A 1988 study by OSM, titled "Hydrologic Analysis for Selected Areas Within the City of Richfield", evaluated all areas within the City prone to flooding. The study areas were those which flooded as a result of the July, 1987 super storm. Attached is a map which locates the areas studied. The 73rd Street and First Avenue area is site R-18. 4. The 1988 study determined that 7300 First, the lowest of the three houses, had 100 year plus flood protection. On the basis of that determination, this area ranked #17 on a priority list based on a cost-benefit approach. It ranked #13 when cost only was considered. 5. To date the Council has authorized corrective action in the nine highest ranked areas of flooding. 6. The attached memo #2 from OSM recommends a procedure to be followed in responding to requests for assistance from residents. It points out the importance of dealing with flooding problems in a manner consistent with the criteria developed by the Community Services Commission and the City Council following the 1988 study (The attached blue- brochure was distributed throughout Richfield as part of the process for establishing the storm drainage utility). 7. By extending assistance to the three houses at 73rd and First, the ranking system for identifying areas which the City would assist would be abandoned. Many other homeowners with less protection would feel entitled to assistance. 8. If assistance were to be provided to the properties at 7308 and 7316 First Avenue, it could be done through a direct grant of dollars on a cost sharing basis. The owners would pay 10% and the City 90$. The revenue could be provided by the storm water utility. 9. The appraisal report for 7300 First Avenue by Chase-Brackett is also a marketing tool. The report indicates that to overcome the negative history, economic concessions must be made. The sale price of the house must be adjusted downward. The City could invest improvement dollars in the property on the basis of option 2. However, that does not mean that the additional dollars would be recovered. The loss would most likely surpass the $29,500 noted above with option 1. 10. Staff will report to the Council on November 4, the response from the bidding process for 7300 First. Alternative Recommendation: Identify other options for evaluation. Discussion/Decision Mode: The sale of 7300 First is dependent on the identification of a course of action. Respectsubmitted, James City Manager JDP:ds 41 • Chronology of Storm Water Events * August 30, 1977 Rainfall of 7.2 inches in ten hours, 3.2 inches fell in the first hour. This was the heaviest rainfall recorded to thi's date. Flood damage reported throughout Richfield. * June 25, 1978 - Rainfall of 2.8 inches in three hours, 2.27 inches in the first hour. Some flood damage reported in Richfield. City Council commissions storm water study. * September 22, 1978 - Storm water study completed by Orr- Schelen-Mayeron & Associated (OSM). Conclusions and recommedations: - Recognized that there is no cost effective way to eliminate flooding. - Improvements to Norby and Wilson Ponds could significantly improve storm sewer system over a large area. - Recommend that technical assistance could be provided to affected properties to assist them in making improvements. * April 27, 1981 - City Council Study Session. Identified funding alternatives. Staff directed to pursue legislation to allow formation of storm drainage utilities. * 1983 - State Legislature passes law enabling cities to establish storm drainage utilities. * April 8, 1985 - City Council second reading and public hearing for Richfield ordinance establishing storm water drainage utility. See attached copy of brochure mailed to residents. * 1986 - Most of the drainage system improvements identified at the initiation of utility are completed: - 76th/Washburn to Adams Hill storm sewer Norby's Pond, Milner Pond, and Legion Lake storm sewer - Christian Park Pond to Legion Lake storm sewer-(Wilson Pond) - Wood Lake/69th Street manhole reconstruction - 66th/Xerxes (started in 1987) * July 23-24, 1987 - "Super Storm" - Over 10 inches of rain in six hours - 5 inches in the first hour - Far surpassing the previous storm of record August 30, 1977. Widespread flooding in Richfield. Hundreds of basements take on water. -over- Chronology of Storm Water Events October 28, 1991 Page 2 * April, 1988 - OSM study of the "Super Storm" completed. City wide mail survey used to establish possible trouble spots. Forty-four areas studied. * July, 1988 - Community Services Commission recommended and the City Council ordered the improvements to the top eight of twelve priority areas identified. * 1991 - Following reports of repeated flooding in the 69th/Xerxes area (ranked 9 in the priority list) a more detailed analysis shows that the area has less protection than the first study indicated. The project fits the criteria used on the first eight areas. So the Community Services Commission recommended and the City.Council ordered the improvement. The project was completed in 1991. • E so MEMO #1 • Orr Schelen (IM51% Mayeron & Associates, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors Memorandum TO: Mr. Don Fondrick, Community Development Director City of Richfield, Minnesota FROM: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E., OSM & Associates, Inc. DATE: October 28, 1991 Revised October 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Review of Concept Associated with Raising the Foundation for Low-Lying Structures in the Vicinity of 73rd and 1st Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota OSM Project No. 1750.54 i As requested, we have completed an analysis and review of the feasibility and advisability of adding additional foundation block to structures in the vicinity of the intersection of 73rd and 1st for the purpose of providing an increased level of flood protection for low-lying structures in the area. Specifically, we understand the concept involves raising the floor joists and adding three courses of block to the building foundation. In conjunction with this effort,the concept also involves raising the basement floor the height of three courses of block as well. This will result in the basement ceiling height being similar to that which exists prior to the improvement taking place. Based on our analysis of this concept, it is apparent that the principal benefit of this approach is to raise the first floor elevation above that which exists today, thereby providing an increased level of flood protection for the first floor of the structure. Our review also indicates that this approach will not provide any increased assurance that the basement flooding problem will be reduced or that the recurrence of the structural failures that are inherent in this situation will be avoided. These comments are based on the following considerations: 1. The concrete block foundation associated with structures in this area does not have the ability to withstand any significant lateral hydrostatic loading. Such a loading could only be accommodated if the basement walls were constructed of poured concrete with steel reinforcement. 2. The basement floor cannot withstand any significant vertical hydrostatic loading for reasons similar to that outlined in the above Item No. 1. A significant hydrostatic loading would likely take place if surface water is ponded adjacent to the building foundation. 0 3. For the structures adjacent to 73rd and 1st, hydrologic analysis results indicate that the first floor elevations for structures in the area will not be inundated by rainfall events having up to a 100 year return frequency. Memorandum October 28, 1991 Revised October 29, 1991 Page 2 4. It is likely that as part of any foundation raising activity, backfilling against the new foundation courses would be included. The extent and amount of backfill that is placed against these new courses of block and the slopes that are carried from the elevated building foundation to the street may reduce the amount of storrawater storage available in this area. Depending on the amount of backfill utilized, a significant increase in the 100 year flood elevation could occur, thereby reducing the level of protection for other structures in the area. Based on the above considerations, we believe that the concept of raising the first floor to provide an increased level of protection may have some merit, but the benefits of raising the basement foundation and floor for the purpose of providing an increased level of protection from basement flooding will do nothing to decrease the likelihood of structural failure to the basement walls and/or floor, which has occurred in the past. In addition to the above technical considerations, the cost of the improvements and their associated benefits and/or increase in market values should be considered. The financial • obligation as well as liability associated to the City with performing these improvements should also be considered. Based on a hydrologic study of over 40 areas within the City that are prone to flooding, it was observed that other areas in the City may have a lower level of protection than these structures. It is recommended that the City assist in any improvement in this area only if it is deemed appropriate to do so based on previously developed standards and on an area-wide level of protection study for other structures in the City. /cmw 102829cor.dfl a 1. M o N 1I1 ?11 ?ll 6 ' ?i ?i H ?y ? Y W r r • ¢W W ps cc 10, 0 M NSIONVIS u ? 1 1 J p•_= • l: 5101 t t t f d N N 51 t1 D l^LJ D ? ?;. a. A w A ? ? ? a N N ? ~ 1 SAS YS03 - D Du :-- - - - - -- ; --- "Sol 51.1 CM== ?NOlON111omt l 11[? - ?C? [U? (3s ; N 51 SI 51.1 Jl Fft JL- A 51 „ .? N 5111,1 5101 N xYra ONTINVO 3 • ONV,lYOA _.i_Ll:?t No1N119 rN J Pit Icwyyy W o 1 ?7 1? -?BL_J[ -J IL__JI W 0 ? ' ~ SN3A315 M-6/ CC2 $61 -12 0 4 I i W AYMS1,Id I I? 1 N L? dd??J es del " U. p a CC 1NSS131d i -Aul?_ l._ . _M ,mow Z 0 1 ONSYO IF -1 ? 131YY1IN ? ? l JJ - - - _ O131lYt9 I EiF 1 '3AV 31SONAl Eliacm-i _ L INVA AL to a II `` u (-- o IL 1 OSY3"3 J= DAM aY• _ Z = AOlot1111N w p 1 -+ DECD I LL - .?C7C? ? _J z ? ° ,? NSOYOR O? - -- --- NO1lM3N _ J17- E --)=f W 3Av NN3d Dom' LAC _ C..)I..D _ ?C] ; '-w - p N N33f1OI1 '? ') v+ J „35Sf1Y - ¢O I,? -. r I W O ffvolv3ms svnom moldn - LAaWbd. _ 1N33NIA r-- ?1 -- ??I 1 1 T. mm )C_D? _ MYf1tNS?M _- 1 I z lw a .. I O r _ ( ? 1 3AY s3xY3x F 1. FF F l LL N N M N ? ? ? ? ? M ill ? NA + ^ ? • A F I? 1? A A A ~ I? A A CF) 0? ; m H N /7 /O .er Y. W m ? V O 1 ?¦ - _>•If ? 1tiY? ar >•?r _? .? ._' __? ?' _? _ejiF __?? ?1' ?? .ra ?.? ??. MEMO #2 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Engineers Orr Minneapolis, MN 55413 Architects O ) Schelen ms & Mayeron & 612-331-8660 Planners 6 S Memorandum A i I nc. FAX 331-380 urveyors ssoc ates, i TO: Mr. Don Fondrick, Community Development Director City of Richfield, Minnesota FROM: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E., OSM & Associates, Inc. DATE: October 28, 1991 Revised October 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Recommended Procedures the City Should Follow when Responding to Future Requests for Assistance to Alleviate Storm Drainage Problems with the City OSM Project No. 1750.54 As a follow-up to drainage concerns that have come to the City's attention since they responded to the problems that surfaced since the 1987 super storm, the discussion below provides recommendations concerning how the City should respond to future flooding complaints within the City. The formalization of this approach will allow the City to respond to future problems and concerns in a consistent manner. To fully understand the recommended approach, the procedures and methods followed during the 1988 study need to be understood. is Procedures and Methods Followed in 1988 Analysis As part of the analysis of the areas studied in 1988, a survey of the lowest depression within the study area was completed. The runoff characteristics of the study area were estimated based on existing mapping, and a hydrologic and routing model was developed based on this information. The accuracy of this information was only as good as the accuracy of the background information incorporated into the model. If high water information was available for a given rainfall event, the model was tested by utilizing this given rainfall event and comparing the high water elevations predicted in the model to those actually achieved. In most areas, specific calibration information was not available, and if it was available, it was available for the non-typical storm that occurred on July 23, 1987. Calibration of the model is very important if the results are to be relied on to a high degree of certainty. As part of this effort, assumptions also needed to be made regarding the topography in the vicinity of these depressions to establish a stage-storage relationship. This relationship was based on a limited number of survey data points, and an engineering evaluation of the impact of downstream water elevations on reducing the capacity for the system upstream to carry water. Based on varying water elevations downstream, the system capacity calculations could only be approximate. The information provided within the report entitled "Hydrologic Analysis for Selected Areas within the City of Richfield" dated April 1988 and its related addendum provides the City with our best estimate of high water elevations and levels of protection available for structures given the background data and resources available at the time of the study. 5emorandum October 28, 1991 Revised October 29, 1991 Page 2 In the coming years, we anticipate the City will receive information from individuals within the City that may or may not appear to conflict with the results of the hydrologic analyses completed as part of the aforementioned study. In these cases, it is recommended that the resident be advised that the City can not respond to any complaints in this area unless the following information is provided: 1. The location of the high water mark associated with a given rainfall event and photographs describing the area inundated if at all possible. 2. The specific dates and times during which the event and the high water elevations were experienced. Once the City is provided with this information, this information can be used to test the hydrologic model that was previously developed for this study area. If the model does not reasonably reflect the high water elevations that were observed for this given event, then it is recommended that an additional detailed survey of the area be conducted and a . supplemental investigation be completed to determine the cause for the inconsistency. Based on a thorough analysis of this information, an appropriate response will be provided. If calibration of the hydrologic model based on a selected rainfall event reveals that the level of protection and/or cost benefit ratio for the most cost effective improvement alternative is changed, this information should be incorporated into the ranking previously completed and a redetermination of the need for an improvement project could be considered. The level of protection and cost benefit ratio required for implementation of any of these projects should remain consistent to that developed by the Community Services Commission and City Council and used in the original priority ranking. This ranking directed that any structure that had less than a 50 year level of protection, and had an improvement alternative available that could be constructed with a cost benefit ratio of greater than .4 would typically be favorably considered for implementation. In order to fully implement this approach, it will be necessary that rainfall within the City be monitored on 5 minute intervals. It is recommended that the City re-institute their rainfall data collection program to provide this information at appropriate locations, and allow the necessary calibrated analyses to be performed. Should you have any questions concerning these recommendations, please do not hesitate is to contact me. /cmw 10229cor.df2 N ??p m S a?Cgrfem'? Q?f9mv? ^m CL0 ?. ?. ?•c 3m ma a mwS o3? mo•? ?> ? u3Nu wag?? m n? HIS ? R I> W ? ?rt °?? - .2 g3 aSm tea n +e g -as nI co 3i ??aa?? ,°Q w_"QQ Co QNp 3 -?mp.Q SEX- ?. I A 0 ? CTi O?"• V Q7 _O N?NlA? MC??m 79? I m 0 ? G 7 3 N ? SK ?.m ±39 CD Op 1&- ° m,y? O O ga ?? $,a?s?wm ??m?muou?e :mw3 ? m__am_g SE. IMP ?2 1 0.0, ? 'o S a ? r + c a m S ?- Qmam_ m> u -o z+? am<go:f? u m ?m m e3_w?a•,? + ?? w?m = °'o m o na gmm?? u ? aN < FA m .+ > . . u ' I Nw •sipdsauwW 9StZ 'oN Nwiad - Oltld eftsod •$•n aivro wine >S529 _ _ 0 O ?m=moms 3 ? Mao aaD Q -0 P m I>= O Z " 0 c ? .? o? ? 3a W?m d? m S. .7 00 7O' VIVO 96 CDS 3 ro .10 IM'CEM 61O.«w161 1"0114*! Vin" «iu«v W1N9d 00, P191143l mad jo All: dgm? C m ° - COO cn y 01 . Z Q ; t rw -mn m ????°N s a ql :; > F`4 V j rr? 1 !_f Q ? g N a tD ANN ?yp? dp C ? ? ? y- ? ?0 J l_? E. Q 9q y m Ao N t tR cA ??ac? A-''? mcyNjL sc??<ieaa. 33-ggEola m=c aco=??aio'gc? 01 i. W $?a$?,? arrE A aro?E°mo. ?'- g -0 C m C _ ?? y ?•? rm COpCADe A amt ?r COD m3mg.;: •O> nG'ma,mCO `qmEH $Ei?= om??<on- cc -d m. m.Eo 'a W °;E .°12.-'m'm$?oo imM, ??8 vZ`mz?? cS??C-g 3 83 co) Zi t, c 'gas < Y G me Ed$ 12. =`° m a ?a m= CL a 01 • =t°R L $? ? ? a ° ; O9 mm RR ?a Rio ; X "; m 0 3 H _ ? m z5g 1 o o C ? 4) c-o A m? m??10 ?E y $ B- m.?= C -/Om i m ' CA R m A m' $ m A?ar1°my` . C O e?S ?1cYg. Q pa? E M W3 ¢3 ?'pNviN 'by m aEa,?u, a;m BEHmm_,?mE W3E m.?,?Of CIO;O • L" o? ?Ak iy c?c? L N ="?Z=?°?E???•°-'' Iii =0=°• iO'cLmc ?/?? ^ = c m o?mN m O m -- V/ ?I O tZ N2.11 igmO1Lm H Q Cc 4) io BS+as a OM2--i 3aiOa?aE- ? •Ri $``d??m?oACmicmi'Lm',?°c?' 0. 0 m ? c _ m? p GS m p d 3=cm3, ?L? ' ; ` ?. a? .t-°m..roeo m 8P7 Ila- m Es C- a ? a? E ° ay m ? ? i EcL-m:.o ?" ? ° +r iomm? =°<3 c ?cc moH W ?. aEo,aEimC 2 ES Z.8 yccEt°ync7°o? 0 1 2 to q c Z Nm??mma?.pppo? c.. c Os pyC.. mLOE?Sa H ?r c mN»oC_u0 y ? .m Vme0O HEcm ccci di Z sc c H ? $ ? H ' E? 42 T ig 1. a E - m Lp ? ? Q?3 ''r?• - a ? Fes- - _ C E-mmmm A c x?2 ?3Gg cc 2 21 IF CD Z!,z Q.;?am_Ay?3 1 1. c ¢UZ CC -F>uW cc 1.0 &m w 11 U, •? ?m?me? c ?: Lgas 3COQ?Oxx3 3C °?rn SM2 0 O$:'d ??L A c ?A m? pF-F- W W ?- O? E ?? s m 3-°ag:m.?: e-mA?.oUUW>-UWU o?$ m. i`? >ROE L6yyyyy?0 m=y La>U, Ow, 3 Y, a? c ?c?d2 0 3 0 ??? M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 46 Agenda November 4, 1991 Issue Statement: Discussion of the minutes from the Board and Commission Chairs meeting held on October 10, 1991. Background: On October •10, 1991, the City's Board and Commission Chairs conducted a meeting to discuss a variety of issues. Attached to this letter is copy of the minutes from that meeting. Items to be specifically discussed include attendance records, parliamentary procedures and the addendum to the commission application The Board and Commission Chairs have been invited to attend this meeting and participate in the discussion. Recommended Motion: Discuss the attached minutes from the Board and Commission Chairs meeting held on October 10, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Board and Commission Chairs discussed a variety of issues that should be reviewed with the Council. 2. Discussion should include attendance records, parliamentary procedures and the addendum to the commission application. 3. The Board and Commission Chairs have been invited to participate in this discussion. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer this discussion to a later Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the November 4, 1991 Study Session agenda. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:cak Attachment MINUTES OF COMMISSION CHAIRS MEETING . OCTOBER 10, 1991 Present: Carlene Ulmer, Armando Lissarrague, Martha Butzier, Connie McDonald, Jim Prosser Prosser stated that the work of Boards and Commissions was an extremely valuable part of the City's operation. The purpose of the meeting was to explore ways that the Commissions could enhance their effectiveness, especially in relation to working with the City Council, the staff and other Commissions. Update of Activities and Projects Those present provided a brief update on special activities of their Commissions, including: ® Martha Butzier described the activities of Sister City Commission, including the visits to Heredia and the visits from Heredia to Richfield. The Commission will be exploring ways in which the Sister City relationship can be further strengthened. ® Carlene Ulmer described plans for a health fair cosponsored by the Advisory Board of Health, Channel 11 and Visions 2004. e Connie McDonald described the development of the Human Services Commission's Silver Service Award. The award judging has recently taken place and an announcement is expected shortly. ® Armando Lissarrague discussed planning for the ethnic celebration and also the no-fault.grievance process administered by the Commission. Goals and Objectives Goals and objectives of the Commissions were discussed. It was agreed that it would be helpful for each Board and Commission to regularly update their goals and objectives and for this information to be provided to other Commissions. Staff liaisons will establish a timeframe and coordinate the distribution of this information. Communication Between Commissions It was generally agreed that there may be some advantages for joint meetings between Boards and'Commissions. In order to assess the desirability of such joint meetings, it was agreed that within the next 90 days each Commission would review the goals and objectives of other Commissions and assess the desirability of joint meetings. Joint meetings would be established at the discretion of each Commission. Coordination of Special Events Periodically, Commissions as well as City staff schedule special events. Sometimes, the special events schedules conflict. Commission Chairs agreed that sometimes the conflict was unavoidable since there are limited "windows" for the scheduling of certain events. It was agreed, that to the extent possible, Commission Members would announce proposed dates for special events in their minutes. That information would be highlighted for review by City staff to assess the potential for conflicts in dates. Any potential conflicts would be reported back to the Commission on a timely basis. Coordination of Fund Raising Activity Due to economic conditions, Commissions were more frequently assessing the possibility of establishing fund raising to carry out the purposes of the Commission. Examples include Sister City fund raising and fund raising for ethnic celebration by Human Rights Commission. The Advisory Board of Health noted that they may have some expenses relating to the health fair and were uncertain regarding what they could do to raise funds for the health fair. Prosser suggested that each of the Commissions would work, with their staff liaisons, to identify the need for Commission revenue. Fund raising activities should be cleared with the City prior to initiating any activities to avoid any legal problems or perceptions of conflict of interest. Prosser also stated that Commission Chairs'should feel free to ask either the City Manager or the Director of Administrative Services to attend meetings to talk about financial needs and resources. It was suggested that the Commissions which require financing for special projects consider establishing a plan at the beginning of each year so that events and fund raising activities could be coordinated. Attendance Records Prosser stated that the Council had directed staff to prepare uniform attendance report forms for use in the reappointment process. A number of issues were raised regarding how and what information should be reported. The issues 'include what constitutes an excused absence. Committee Members agreed that all absences should be reported. Excused absences should be defined by each Commission. Committee Chairs agree that excused absences should be part of the attendance record. Commission Chairs recommended that the Council include an attendance requirement in the Commission application form. That requirement should indicate that regular attendance at Commission meetings is an obligation of the appointees and that absence, whether excused or not, of more than three regularly scheduled meetings during a year would constitute cause for removal from the Commission unless extraordinary conditions apply. Commission Chairs indicated that if extraordinary circumstances did exist, the Commission Chair could advise the City Council of the extraordinary conditions so that information could be considered prior to the Council removing an individual from the Commission. Commission Chairs indicated a very strong need to have Council take action removing individuals who do not regularly attend the meetings as defined by this policy. It was also agreed that the attendance requirement should not apply to specially called or unscheduled meetings of the Commission. Prosser stated that he would draft language regarding this policy for Commission Chair review. Parliamentary Procedures Prosser stated that some Commission Chairs had indicated a desire to provide some additional structure to the meetings but did not have a strong desire to become rigid parliamentarians. Prosser suggested that the Commissions consider reviewing a new parliamentary procedure concept that is much less structured than Robert's Rules and relatively easy for all members to learn and use. Commission Chairs indicated the desire for additional information and possible training. Prosser stated that a representative from the Attorney's office could provide training to individual Commissions or on a joint basis. An announcement describing the training would be provided. Frequency of Joint Meetings The City Council has attempted to establish a regular schedule of meetings with Boards and Commissions. However, the volume of business has limited these opportunities. In response to the less frequent meetings, special effort had been made to strengthen the Council liaison relationship with Boards and Commissions. Prosser asked if this approach was workable or if there was a need to find a way to increase the number of joint meetings with the City Council. The Commission Chairs agreed that while it is nice to have joint meetings with the City Council, the Council.liaison communications had been working very well. Staff Liaison Staff liaisons were provided to Boards and Commissions to assure that the Commissions were able to accomplish their work in an efficient and effective manner. Prosser asked if there were any suggestions for changing or modifying the liaison program. Carlene Ulmer stated that Betsy Christensen provided exceptional service to the Advisory Board of Health and was very pleased with the work provided. Armando Lissarrague complimented Steve Devich and Francie Fletcher for their work and efforts assisting the Human Rights Commission. Martha Butzier also indicated that their staff liaison, Karin Batchelder, provided excellent assistance. Connie McDonald cited several examples of special performance by Gretchen Blank assisting the Commission. All agreed there was no need for a change and expressed their appreciation for staff work. Other Items Commission Chairs requested that an updated list of Commission membership be provided to them. Prosser explained the new Human Service Planning effort, replacing South Hennepin Human Service Council. He advised Chairs that an intern from South Hennepin would be visiting some of the Commissions to learn more about their activities and describe the planning process. The Commission Chairs suggested that Commission Chair meetings be held biannually. The next meeting would be scheduled in about six months. . Addendum to Commission form ATTENTION COMMISSION APPLICANTS: Regular attendance at scheduled Board and Commission meetings is expected of all Board and Commission Members. Members who miss more than three regularly scheduled meetings in a 12 month period will be removed from the Commission unless extenuating circumstances can be demonstrated. • 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 45 Agenda November 4, 1991 Issue Statement: A Richfield transportation issues paper to share with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and our State Legislators. Background: Few cities are affected by transportation to the extent Richfield is. The City is surrounded on three sides by major highways, the Twin Cities International Airport lies due east, 135W splits Richfield in two, and the Soo Line branch line passes through a single-family residential area. The City of Richfield has some serious concerns about the present and future performance of the transportation system and the City's ability to keep up with the necessary improvements. We are also concerned about some of the negative impacts that certain improvements could have on the City. Some issues we face are 77th Street, 1494, 135W, Light Rail Transit and the Airport. Details of Richfield's concerns are attached. Recommended Motion: No action is required. This Council letter is designed to serve . as the basis for discussions with Acting MnDOT Commissioner Edwin H. Cohoon and our State Legislators about transportation problems facing the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: An invitation was extended to the MnDOT Commissioner and our State Legislators to attend a meeting with the City Council as an attempt to convey Richfield's concerns directly to the leading policy maker at MnDOT. Alternative Recommendation: City staff has met with MnDOT staff for many years on various topics. Although staff to staff meetings are important, Council involvement is also very important. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Acting Commissioner of Transportation and our State Legislators have been invited to the November 4, 1991 Council Study Session. submitted, Jame Prosser • City M nager JDP:ttf Attachment • • • TRANSPORTATION ISSUES FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 77TH STREET Management of an urban freeway system will place increased reliance on the existence of a good system of minor arterial and collector streets. These streets are needed to accommodate shorter vehicle trips, carry most urban bus routes, and provide adequate access for local economies. In Richfield's case, 77th Street needs to be improved in order to relieve 1494 from the need to carry short trips and to support continued economic growth. It also is unique because it is needed to replace a frontage road that will be lost when 1494 is upgraded and to carry increased east-west traffic when the Nicollet Avenue and 12th Avenue interchanges are closed. State transportation policies that recognize needs in corridor areas rather than strictly within the confines of freeway right-of-way will best serve the continuing vitality of the Twin Cities area. For several years, City officials have been frustrated by MnDOT policies that are unresponsive to local problems. As an example, MnDOT has not yet provided any state funds in support of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. This project is an essential ingredient to gain community acceptance for the widening of 1494 and the closure of two freeway interchanges. 1494 Traffic volumes on major highways in the Twin Cities are expected to increase by 50 percent over the next 20 years. The City of Richfield supports improvements to these roads. Of particular interest is 1494. We support improvements to 1494 that do not cause undue disruption to Richfield's streets and businesses. This can be accomplished by building the 77th Street Project before major work on 1494 begins. With a widened 77th Street, businesses will have adequate time to reorient their access to the new street and help MnDOT save substantially on right-of-way costs when 1494 is rebuilt. 135W Richfield supports expansion of I35W to handle the increased traffic projected for this corridor. Studies indicate that only the alternatives that provide substantial capacity, the Diamond Lanes and LRT alternatives, will be of sufficient capacity to protect Richfield's local streets from severe congestion caused by traffic diverted from the,freeway. We still are concerned about Richfield having adequate access to the freeway and to Crosstown 62 so that local streets are adequate to handle forecast traffic and that businesses are not deprived of reasonable access to both roads. • LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT In order to minimize negative impacts, the City of Richfield supports a number of strategies such as encouraging people to ride with others rather than drive alone, managing travel demand and emphasizing the role of the transit system. Richfield supports a multi-modal approach to solving traffic problems in the I35W corridor. Based on environmental studies performed to date, it is evident that either Light Rail Transit (LRT) or a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane is adequate to provide the transit services in the corridor, but both transit options are not needed. Forecasts do show, however, that the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane alternative will carry more people and at less cost than Light Rail Transit. Also, the Twin Cities area already has developed HOV lanes in another major corridor. In order to minimize the harm done to Richfield by any expansion of I35W, we urge MnDOT to use the existing I35W corridor for locating any improvements. Use of the Soo Line for an LRT corridor will only divide Richfield further than I35W already does. LRT on the Soo Line would be extremely disruptive to Richfield's residential areas and cause considerable harm to the Richfield High School. AIRPORT • The City of Twin Cities capacity be Twin Cities the airport Richfield is also concerned about the future of the major airport. It is essential that adequate provided to ensure that the aviation needs of the are adequately met. Richfield supports expansion of at its current site with a new north parallel runway. A part of meeting air travel needs is also the provision of adequate surface transportation to and from the airport. A proposal to build a west terminal will require major access improvements to Trunk Highway 77 and Crosstown 62, and additional traffic lanes on both of these highways through Richfield. The City of Richfield is also concerned socioeconomic and environmental impacts decision to build a new airport. Areas accessibility, neighborhood disruption, perhaps above all,.the uncertainty crea, changes that remain in a highly visible indefinite time frame. about the major associated with a of concern include noise levels, safety and ted by major physical planning status over an 11