10-07-91 agendaCity of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No. 41
Agenda, October 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues
and events related to the airport. R.A.S.G. has provided
recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent
developments regarding the airport include the following:
• MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) held a public
information meeting, hosted by the Richfield Planning Commission,
for Richfield residents on September 25, 1991 at Richfield High
School. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information
regarding the preliminary selection of an airport development
concept for the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan.
On August 27, the MAC selected the north-south runway and a
replacement west terminal as the preferred expansion option at
MSP. This plan will require acquisition of some Richfield
properties, removal of Rich Acres Golf Course, and result in
airport noise impacts for property owners west of Cedar Avenue.
At the meeting, Mayor Martin Kirsch stated objections of the
concept because the north-south runway will cause extraordinary
negative impacts on the City.
Approximately 300 Richfield residents attended the public meeting
on September 25. Most of the residents who spoke at the meeting
stated opposition to the proposed north-south runway. Mayor
Kirsch publicly stated objections to the runway concept at the
meeting because of the negative environmental impacts it will
cause the community. The Mayor stated that the City's opposition
to the proposed runway plan does not affect the buyout of New
Ford Town and Rich Acres. Regardless of which runway concept is
chosen, the City is in favor of the immediate buyout of the two
neighborhoods. Reference was made to the City/MAC Feasibility
Study currently being conducted for the complete buyout and
redevelopment of the area.
The MAC Planning and Environment Committee will meet on October 8
to review the input received from the public meetings held in
September and October and make a recommendation to the full MAC
Commission of the preferred runway/terminal expansion concept at
MSP. The MAC Full Commission will make a final vote on the Long
Term Comprehensive Plan and forward its completed plan to the
Legislature by the statutory deadline of January 1, 1992.
• 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. On September 20, staff and
consultants from the City and MAC met to discuss a scoping
document which includes all the elements of the work plan to
complete this project. The joint staffs agreed on all the
elements of the scoping document including distribution of costs.
The total cost for this phase of the project is estimated to be
$70,000. The approved work plan/scoping document will be
presented for consideration at the MAC Planning and Environment
meeting on October 8. Attached is the work plan and schedule.
® FAA Part 150 Program
The MAC developed an MSP Land Use Policy Committee (PAC) which
monitors and makes recommendations on the development of the land
use implementation plan (Part 150 Program) to improve the noise
environment around the airport. The committee includes
representatives from the FAA, Met Council, MASAC, and the five
cities adjacent to MSP airport. City Planner Bill Weaver
represents Richfield.
The PAC has set the Part 150 funding priorities for 1992. The
PAC decided that it would utilize the same funding priority
throughout all the program years. As a consequence, the
committee adopted a base allocation plus percent of population
formula upon which to base funding allocations. The following
formula was adopted:
• 1. Across the board allocation of 2% of the amount
allocated to MSP, and
2. Additional supplement based on the percent of
population falling within the 1996 Ldn 65 Contour.
Since Richfield accounts for 18.67$ of the total population
within the 1996 Ldn 65 Contour (map attached), it will receive
18.67% of the remaining funds after this base allocation. It was
felt that use of a base allocation weighted by degree of
population exposure would more equitably distribute funds to
those areas most in need. The amount of funding available per
year will not exceed $4-$5 million. New Ford Town, Rich Acres.
and areas west of Cedar Avenue are eligible for Part 150
projects. Attached is the 1992 allocation of Part 150 funds for
eligible communities.
In regards to mitigation programs and the methods of
implementation, the PAC generally agreed that each community
should be free to select the most appropriate program and the
content of these programs needed to be consistent. The Part 150
mitigation programs include: land use acquisition, sound
insulation, purchase guarantee, avigation easement. Attached are
descriptions of these programs.
The PAC has yet to agree upon the contents of the Avigation
Easement and Purchase Guarantee Programs.
• s Legislative Strategy for Funding Off-site Improvements
As stated above, funding priorities have been set for the Part
150 Program. The City of Richfield will receive about 20% of the
$4-$5 million per year allocated for Part 150 Program projects.
The MAC has already identified projects it intends to fund with
Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) for 1992. PFC's are fees
charged for passenger enplanements on commercial flights at
airports. The fees are added to the ticket costs, collected by
the airline, and forwarded to the airport authority.
Other financing options are needed to fund off-site airport
improvements in Richfield.
o NWA Financial Assistance Package
On July 8, the Richfield City Council adopted a resolution
calling for the inclusion of aircraft noise abatement measures be
incorporated as an integral part of the State's financial
assistance package to NWA. The City Council adopted this
resolution as a way to minimize aircraft noise from MSP for
Richfield and adjacent airport communities. Similar resolutions
have been adopted in the cities of Mendota Heights, Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Burnsville and St. Louis Park. Copies are being sent
to all State officials, the Congressional delegation from
Minnesota, and other involved agencies.
• On August 22, representatives from the cities developed a list of
major noise issues that NWA should be contractually bound to
address as part of the State's financial assistance package to
the airline. The group agreed that if NWA hopes to secure from
the State $740 million in taxpayer financing, NWA.should be
forced to aggresively tackle the aircraft noise problems
affecting the Twin Cities residents. A letter was sent to State
elected and appointed officials from the mayors of the cities
introducing their collective concerns at MSP with the enforced
utilization of Stage III aircraft. Representatives from these
cities met with Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of MAC, in
September to bring attention to their concerns.
e Communiciation of Airport Issues to Richfield Residents
City staff is receiving conflicting feedback from Richfield
residents regarding recent MSP airport expansion plans and other
airport issues. Some residents seem confused regarding the
airport proposals and the City's position on the issues. The
City provides information to the residents on these subjects
through the regular bi-monthly publication of Your City and
Schools and the Our Town newsletter.
® MSP Symposia
A committee is planning the overall design of a series of public
forums which will address issues surrounding the present and
future use of MSP airport, and possible future alternative
airport sites. The planning committee includes: John Berkford,
Mark Bernhardson, Bob Collette, Nigel Finney, Don Groen, John
Kenealy, Larry Lee, Charlie LeFevere, Tom Martinson, Jim Prosser,
Rob Smith, Byron Wallace and Bill Weaver. The group meets once a
month. Attached is the airport symposia outline developed by the
committee.
e Public Meeting with the Minnesota House Local Government and
Metropolitan Affairs Committee
At the request of Representative Edwina Garcia, a public meeting
has been scheduled with the House Committee for the City of
Richfield on October 30, 1991. Rep. Garcia serves on the
committee. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the City's
position, concerns, and input on several airport issues that will
impact Richfield and provide feedback on the overall airport
decision process. The meeting will be held from 9:00 to 10:30
a.m. in the Council Chambers at the Richfield City Hall.
Following the meeting, the Committee will tour New Ford Town and
Rich Acres from 10:30 to 11:00 a.m.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
are provided to address these issues:
e MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
The recommended strategy regarding the MAC's selection of the
north-south runway.as the preferred expansion option includes:
1. Educate the Legislature of the airport decision process and
inform them of the City's concerns regarding the expansion option
at MSP.
The following committees and individuals will be contacted and
informed of the City's concerns:
Sue Sandahl will send a letter to the State Advisory
Council on Airport Planning which oversees the dual-
track airport planning process.
Jill Schultz, Minnesota Senate Research, who is assigned
to various Senate transportation committees.
U.S. Representative James Oberstar's Office.
Richfield Public Meeting with the House Local Government
and Metropolitan Affairs Committee on October 30.
2. Inform the Metropolitan Council.
3. Contact the FAA regarding the need for a FAA Task Force
Capacity Study to be conducted on the proposed expansion options
at MSP airport. This study is needed to provide objective input
on MAC's proposed plans.
e FAA Part 150 Program
Given the limited amount of funds available to Richfield for Part
150 mitigation projects, the City should focus on the sound
insulation program. The program will be implemented on a block-
• by-block basis for all eligible properties within the 1996 Ldn 65
noise contour. The property-by-property priority system will be
based on the severity of airport noise exposure as determined by
the noise contour map.
e Legislative Strategy for Funding Off-site Improvements
The Legislature should request that MAC find alternative
financing methods to fund off-site airport improvements in
Richfield. City officials should discuss mitigation issues and
the need for alternative financing methods.for Richfield with
members of the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs
Committee at the public meeting scheduled at the Richfield City
Hall on October 30. City officials should emphasize that Part
150 Program funds are not enough.
e NWA Financial Assistance Package
Negotiations are proceeding now for approval of financial
assistance from the MAC and the State of Minnesota to NWA. Staff
will continue to keep the Council informed of the inclusion of
noise abatement policies as part of the negotiated financial
assistance package to NWA.
e Communication of Airport Issues to Richfield Residents
The strategy group recommends that a survey should be conducted
of Richfield residents for their input on airport planning
issues. The resident survey feedback will provide the City with
• resident concerns and opinions on airport issues and how the City
could better inform them of matters affecting the community. It
will also determine whether the City needs to change its
communication plan.
e MSP Symposia
Staff will continue to provide the Council with information
regarding the planning for MSP Symposia.
Alternative Recommendations:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
October 7, 1991 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the October 7, 1991 Study
Session.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:kb
. Attachments
•
zV
F?
Ln
r-I
a
N
0
0
0
0
•
0
O' 0 0
0
Cl 00
H dP N
Q ON M O N ?O
C.l O co co r4
En. %.O N t? (/Y t?
x
O O O
O O N
u1 N O - M N
M
ra vs V)- </>
O O O
O ?O ?O
W 00 dP O
00 %D ON
G4 O? O ?O ?
U 00 00 %-0
,-d N V)-
O
E-f :.
O O
O O
O
C7: O N N
dP O
^
.' N O O 00
m 00 n
_W
w
r- O N N
M dP O u1 u1
tf1 N m 1-
O r4
2 ' u'1 00 00
z ,-1 Ln U> N N
?-4 V? VY
O
?4 r-4 4)
O
O E3
U ? c/Y
a o
o z
w
c 0
4
m Cd .,a G
ON 41 a r
w
f-4
c
c
d
0
H v .-. 4j a
00 Cd
o •? ? r-4 C> 0 0
r
4 O 0
z r. ° ?
°
0 0 ,
? o -4
,
?-4 ail ? N O ? O H
u r-4
v
a
0 44 O M
ts. O w VY H
L
ll O dP 0
L-
1a w dP N dP E-1
,-4
Q\
,
N
0
r-I
ao
R
•rl
J-?
N
4
w
i
•
•
M
H
CJ?
w
O
x
W r-i
w v?
H N
v?
O O
U +-4
•1
O
aU
Z a
O
VJ
H
A
O r
r
0
O ,
N v b b
Cd
O N b
y Le) O O
"4 N
O b f? I? ?O ?n
z
0
0
ao a 0
Ln Ln O
z p N
O rA Ln N rl
;> 0 0 r-4 r-4 r-4
V x t/r ? t!}
O ?
A
. ? b b
N ? v U
:3 Ln u1 to
pq 4) C4
0 04
z
Ln
°
a? a? o 0 0
ao a o 0 0
z Cd Ln L O
O w w w
4) rn of C14 m
:>
U x V> ?
O 0
0 Ln r- m
•r4
p (1) r-4
N rAA O
41 "A
H
z 14
O
Ln
w
V
0
o ° o ? S 93 ,?,_'
° C ? w Gir •C ??,? 0
Ike
?&Its
V` Z Z a.6.6 W
c•? ul 8? w
•s;: N
yafxJCa?'° be
... E '~ ? C? C•.?Z E
o C? 3? o?•? a
u
OA•-y¦ C? C ? .C
??°"=s3a o
Bt r= t=
.r.. i.r N ° •G'
C .. C
Eo?'0•°o-c0
a ?..cc,ow•$?•?a•E??
N +? 'fl
z ?y t
E
o?
Q
C:6 0 A2 0
-- >.cw G....
O' j?a y $ s
E:M ?u9r-<C Eu
?a > E v?w... u.?oc'°
G4 ? .
?u ?'vos33o
- CO
ed? ??E e w
0 cc
??o? 3?u•voG
ow u=No >Ou
•v .. >,...
cog E
?. - 22 H •? u
E?o?=
• .C .C eEd C .C eQ 8 w VN G.
44-4
.C ?
: E
0. 2!5Nw
to.-°8?
?°E•cc ?8
C
-9 Sw
3
o.c=o°•'
No3.-a, G
C
E?c
w
?Cc
.0
t: A
06 8 0,11-1
C'o Cl
E'Q•v
$ 3 a? a•?s?
a?
Ey_°
r
O ? ? o
?"OOcgO=
RZ Ed a3
co$3 a
H? 3c
? 5 ... ? rA
H cd.
a.Egg
o ° ^•f.
°
c a; ? `?' ?.a v
a=a
^•
? ?• RE
b
ay
coc ?.o°
Epr
AA V
W
c°of]v
low., 5
rig ?e p coo a
Era
^ o a
2 tor .4 a
al a CARL
3 9.0
3 d.v? ~'e ° °`A+ g: °_ o a
IR,
?° w?c3 act d. S?
°OCO° ACV c3omlo 9.8 0 O ig cl a.
°•
viC?O A?os R:90 a
O?
°. C p L. to ?. D' C A
29
C"
fir' y?3 d`". tnm
?.? LIMA ?.
a ?.
21
=gn gee. $ cla ?r
0;4 CA
g 9A
IL 16...
oo tbo ~ "M4 c?
gin M a C Q ...?e G,•?N ?' a
-, co ? ao H a co co ? ? ? ? .
a
Sol 0 =so o ?
cn 0-9"0
c' C a
co:
0 Saroca a
=r Ej
a
???fV/wvllC?gr
O a, OWE 'b ?' c. O: o •- g ?:
^
A t"C el
..._.3m.°AI s
ca.cy 3 ?Daco?•o?'??3
OUR Pill
M. 6:8
?...5 c 3.3 "•3. -•a.
a a4 Q"? L;
MR.
aa?.?? A
?•o30ccr??•c?
3. o ca a
?.QQ 03
'm an
H ? D ?C L? ? a?C D
? Of y?(9?cc
a'
'vc:
• ? co e? '?? 5• ?
a 00?? C' ? ? ? ?f
' r
I -IN ek.a
ec a.c
CL o
--z R
spQyaQo'A?
g• rrc. noo??.
o.oP?g 0.0
04
... a ca
o =w o.... ???y
?Av?93,
R It,.
^ Noo
8a .cg ? s g ? ?
C Vr ? ? r
? y's o
LV S?aroy
c a ? ce . .
04
w
bn2'
1.j
ac33• a.?a°?
t a.
C it 4
coca ?e ?,??a
SIN c S.
o y'
Z.3 ?R c:A
?.e c? av •.. o
C.
•••v?
p,
ow 88
°
v1
?c
0 3 r'
•o Val
? o•? as
75
3 ?
y
sE r' 'G. y
wy
.fit
r)z- o
?w•? E 3?
•.ac?E•?a?ia°i
G y
It's
•? ? 0000 •?°'1, °
? U, mo b
a
COe E! M .o
tc83
Ec
a,o a ..,
o.c?Gw3
.••+ 3 G y w
c
E?E.a°aci
>
Cca?•8
*3.s e a In
c a,'o
oo•v.EE°
?•c??c?E
Bw •°c ???
w
c r _X
4j eEo
-or c Z'?
41 O c
.0 a cc
?? ..r C
3 Cc .20
EE°
gE.U
cw
? •g p ?? u
O
C ? w
.?E,?°., wO°h
'K o a%
e
b
Eve
•E .5 c °'?
>, ° .o •E
?..? ce?E
?_.SO vOi rl•vt
gyp= ????g
w D O E??.c
?v>? moo
ei$ o Rn S
oG?? ??y
yO•>a ?'
y
cc e
$lu •? Drz
w? •.3 >
...? Fr.000
??
.Gg $cis
18.
?•ve 3e?
u ae ? ?o c
C ? $ 0 0
•rio? ?c
^•EE °-'au
A
?g° sp=y
uoo ? w
s?o
3 ? " ?. O
LO
a
eaE
p,
I
S
kit
y O ?
00
t?bc ?>C
X30 ?0e
c 0.0
cqs
• 8•a
.3e?ox° cs3
G
>8?
E ],SRI
'• y
?eo 3??
.C N
C
O
3
C
•y ? V
E b .
•
-= O O
V3 ? .
?
S?
H
• O C
~ C ''$
C
h O
? h
8 ?
b
? $
3
?
w
o
_
o
A
...
RECOMMENDED ADDENDUM TO:
The Sound Insulation Progrmm
The program will provide an approved list of a variety of products (ie, windows, doors)
that satisfy program requirements while meeting individual needs. A list of trained and
certified contractors will also be developed Residents could select from this list as they
become eligible. These lists would be updated as needed.
The package of sound insulation improvements for each house will be determined by a
specially trained consultant who would conduct a detailed on-site analysis of the house.
The consultant will then recommend a package of improvements that would be paid for
by the Part 150 program. In the event homeowners want to upgrade to a higher level of
sound insulation, or make other miscellaneous improvements, additional work can be
done simultaneously at the homeowner's expense as long as the proposed changes are
consistent with the scope and character of the work being performed.
0
0
•
a
A
a
u Z
k .5
?
s a E
Ali
• 5.? aH
8JA
Ad a
gas
all
of;Tg Sera
4.71
NIS
a ?a
< g
Jul
?~ ~
d
? C
u
UA
gig
.
!-Ste
oil Lis
a .?
4d
Ads
?. oily
PSI Q1
.. a9siv
d
i
His
ua uau r
s
pa
h
log
md
a 1.
? ua rar a
w
M
Ira
44
Its
a
!V
V1
a?
C r+ ? fia '
fA ...
a jr
?? .
...?46
o
Ado
s
0. e
WAS
. ?a. s
;a ss
• R
All s ?. .
-.H- to rs
Inn
.1AN
a Aj
•
??q? h?-;?ya? ? ?
??tr s,p? ^??a)O
rV L)
c o o G) g E o? H c
t3 Q6
O
wC?OQ
r= s
cc 0
of
E 0 ?
v W VA ?
hQ Cy•?'OtaeT1..3 C
,400 9aE2'°c? E
o a?
C
4a. ? ?S '124 w=.? C^ c.w.,? w
cdl?
y °.?
Q.0 v 4- ? p = C•> a
W ? ? Q ? C `.3 '? ed a C ? .y y ^ .a
.120 E
b ao ? *r u'p
z •??v? .=E3.0??a?.^a o
bo %n
'v 'v ^ « u >, A•
?a3EsE? w
v..r
Q O A•O yb °~
cc
cc ja
°'x'40 ?EE??°'?•°??
,?' •"' cif ?" C R.'''3 ?+ U 1A
hOp O ed... ?cc? Opp
Eocisu? 0 0
E r=
0
0
04-
o
0
u
N
N ?
O
c
c eR
?o
N
C G
U?
Q y
O=
.yy. O
E
O .?
U
y
aE
S.
?E.
? H
?v
? N
ego
O y ?
3 b
3T C
O E
71
19
I
.y?
E
_o
V) °
•r.3 y
E'o
C
td
o=
w °
y3
c
E. c
u --
" 3
c?
a
of
,$ o
s
U
.3?
°c
o^
O?
.0
u
s
0
s
V
c
a?
'o
s
3
a
o
•r Q.
OlI a
N
O
E
E
O
C
O
•C
C
a
e?
U
Q
a?
c
w~
i7 N
ub
?a
,o v
•E
?5 0
c
c >
?a
?a
E
o?
N
O
?
C
G
?
u
W
4r
rr
O
C
Q?
V
? U
s Q
o ?
78 s
U ?
a+
C _
?«
E w w
?
a? U
?
'o 3Q
ov
r ? V
3 r1
?E
u 4) o
o a e?
Q ?
s
Q
P
r,
s.,
"NEW APPROACHES" SYMPOSIA OUTLINE
Draft 9/11/91
CONCEPT
A series of symposia on a regular (perhaps quarterly) basis which
objectively address airport issues. Well-known experts would be
asked to appear and speak on selected topics. A "celebrity"
(such as retired Congressman Bill Frenzel) moderator will be
asked to emcee the sessions on an ongoing basis.
These forums will take a hard look at real issues which affect
the present and future quality of life in this area.. Conducted
on a factual, unbiased basis, the symposia will quickly establish
a legacy,of legitimacy and become a trusted source of credible
information for residents of the metro area and Minnesota.
PURPOSE
To provide a high-profile public forum to present and discuss
substantive issues surrounding present and future use of
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and possible
future alternative airport sites.
. REASONS FOR HAVING SYMPOSIA
• People are confused by the vast array of airport-related
matters.
e Certain airport views are advanced by groups with selfish or
partisan agendas, which clutters the landscape.
• Some important subjects are not receiving sufficient notice.
e Many airport plans and ideas are too focused on an eventual end
result, rather than immediate problems or interim effects.
• The two-track planningprocess has put many valid concerns
effectively "on hold" until 1996 or beyond.
e The phasing of the airport planning process often causes
inordinate attention to be focused on transient, "sensational"
events to the neglect of other significant issues.
• The local media is not an adequate source of neutral, accurate -
and comprehensive information.
• An ongoing dialogue, accessible to the public, is critical to
the legitimacy of the airport decision-making process.
C?
AUDIENCE
• Local government officials from metro area communities,
especially airport contiguous communities.
•'State legislators, especially legislators from contiguous
communities and legislators who will be involved in the airport
decision making processes.
• Businesses from communities adjacent to airport, airport
related businesses, airlines, Chambers of Commerce from
communities surrounding airport, MAC, Metro Council,
Legislative staff, Federal Legislative staff, news media,
public television, Citizens League and other good government
organizations.
TOPICS
• Demonstrations of how land uses surrounding the airport could
be converted to make the uses more compatible with the airport
and more productive for city purposes, i.e., higher value,
higher tax producing capacity, better residential quality,
improved esthetics, removal of either current blight or future
blight.
• Discussion of the potential impact of relocating MSP to a
remote site on the core cities surrounding the airport, use of
• experience of cities where this has occurred, i.e., Dallas,
Kansas City.
• Exploration of the impact of dispersing the economic
development core by virtue of relocating the airport.
• Identification of the "real world" - cost of new airport and
financing options, as well as review of the impact of those
financing options on financing organization agencies, i.e.,
Northwest Airlines, state, users (per ticket cost).
• Noise impacts
• What are the real capacity requirements for MSP - review of Met
Council adequacy reports for future; impact of modification of
Northwest hubbing procedure on these projections; examination
of runway capacity issues; impact of technology; review of
historical trends for MSP as well as other airports.
COST/FINANCING
The budget for the initial symposium is estimated to be $25,000..
Cost primarily related to development of land use plan and
graphic presentation. Other symposium costs may vary depending
upon topics. Symposium would be sponsored by business
contributions. Some potential donors include:
• Major businesses, including hospitality industry (Curt Carlson)
"NEW APPROACHES" SYMPOSIA OUTLINE
Draft 9/11/91
CONCEPT
A series of symposia on a regular (perhaps quarterly) basis which
objectively address airport issues. Well-known experts would be
asked to appear and speak on selected topics. A "celebrity
(such as retired Congressman Bill Frenzel) moderator will be
asked to emcee the sessions on an ongoing basis.
These forums will take a hard look at real issues which affect
the present and future quality of life in this area.. Conducted
on a factual, unbiased basis, the symposia will quickly establish
a legacy of legitimacy and become a trusted source of credible
information for residents of the metro area and Minnesota.
PURPOSE
To provide a high-profile public forum to present and discuss
substantive issues surrounding present and future use of
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and possible
future alternative airport sites.
REASONS FOR HAVING SYMPOSIA •
e People are confused.by the vast array of airport-related
matters.
e Certain airport views are advanced by groups with selfish or
partisan agendas, which clutters the landscape.
e Some important subjects are not receiving sufficient notice.
e many airport plans and ideas are too focused on an eventual end
result, rather than immediate problems or interim effects.
e The two-track planning process has put many valid concerns
effectively "on hold" until 1996 or beyond.
e The phasing of the airport planning process often causes
inordinate attention to be focused on transient, "sensational"
events to the neglect of other significant issues.
e The local media is not an adequate source of neutral, accurate
and comprehensive information.
e An ongoing dialogue, accessible to the public, is critical to
the legitimacy of the airport decision-making process.
0
• • Stan Hubbard of Hubbard Broadcasting (recommended by Connie
Levi)
•'Northern States Power
• Minnegasco
• U.S. West
• Minneapolis. Convention Center
• Simon & Associates (Mall of America)
•.Norman Green (North Stars)
• National Car Rental
• Norwest
• First Banks
• St. Paul Companies
The symposium would be sponsored by businesses and/or Chambers of
Commerce. Cities should provide very low profile.
•
OTHER ITEMS
Consideration should be given to some type of kick-off event to
draw special attention to efforts.
C,
SEP 23 191 15:53 HOLMES & GRAVEN
GENERAL BACKGROUND'
AND LEGAL AND
REGULATORY MATTERS
Determine legal framework for
cooperative effort between MAC and
Richfield.
- determine legal authority for.
property acquisition, management
and disposition
• determine legal authority for
alternative property disposition
Determine and report on all govern-
mental approvals required (planning,
financing, environmental, etc.) for
any action proposed, including all
federal, state and local regulatory
requirements.
Survey experiences, programs and
financing methods used by other airports
i
around the nation.
P.2
WORK PLAN
Responsible Time/
Party Participants Completion
-- Date
Holmes do MAC legal staff 1 Week
Graven
Holmes do MAC legal staff I Week
Graven
Holmes & Mac legal staff 1 Week
Graven
Holmes do Mac staff 3 Weeks
'Graven Ralph White Assoc.
Publicorp MAC staff 3 Weeks
Ralph White Assoc.
1
SEP 23 '91 15:53 HOLMES & GRAVEN
1VORH PLAN
P.3
FINANCIAL MATTERS Responsible
Party
Parts ants Time/
Completion
Date
Report on legal authority of MAC to
Holmes do
MAC legal and
2 Days
borrow, including statutory and contrac- Graven financial staff
fuel limitations on such borrowing.
Determine and report on MAC's current
. Publicorp MAC financial
1 Day
status of borrowing and remaining
i authority to borrow.
.Identify and evaluate various possible
. Publicorp
Holmes & Graven 9
4 Weeks
sources of revenue available to MAC MAC legal and
• including its general revenues, ad financial staff;
valorem taxes, passenger facility Ralph White Assoc.
! charges, part 150 money, tax increment,
i
land sales, and state or federal grants.
Develop financial models showing PubIieorp - MAC staff Z Weeks
i various program options and reporting City staff
' on how such models would respond to
'
Holmes & Graven
changes in such variables as availabil-
ity of funds, timetable for acquisition
,
.
availability of tax increment, and other
revenue and expenditure variables.
• Determine relevant legal limitations
on Publicorp Holmes do Graven 4 Weeks
use of each of the possible sources of Ralph White Assoc.
funds. 2
SEP 23 191 15:53 HOLMES & GRAVEN
J
i?
WO$R PLAN
ACQUISITION AND Responsible
MANAGEMENT
i
.
Par Particiuat_ s
Prepare an *stimate of the cost of
City Staff BCL Appraisals
acquiring and managing property in Carl Holander
NPTRA, including costs of acquisition, S
ons
relocation expenses, legal and consul- Conworth, Inc.
tant costs, and all other related Holmes & Graven
expenses.
{
i
I •
i
I
P.4
Time/
Completion
Date
60 Days
3
SEP 23 '91 15:54 HOLMES & GRAVEN
DISPOSITION OR REDEVELOPMENT
OP PROPERTIES
Develop alternative plans for disposi-
tion of property. The plan should pro-
vide for considerable flexibility and
keep redevelopment options of the City
and MAC open to the greatest. extent
possible.
i
i
.t
t •
i
P.5
WORK PLAN
Responsible Time/
Completion
Party Particigant9 Date
City Staff MAC Staff ongoing
Holmes be Graven
Publieporp
Land Use
Consultants
4
SEP 23 '91 15:54 HOLMES & GRAVEN P,6
f
j
i
?. WORK PLAN
IDENTIFICATION AND Time/
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON Responsible
CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT Completion
Party - Pai't1_eipantD?ate?
Determine financial impacts on City Publicorp City Staff g Weeks
and School District of loss in popula-
tion; reduction in tax base; loss of
investment in infrastructure; and costs
for abandonment, relocation or
replacement of infrastructure.
-Identify alternatives and develop
proposals for the investigation of
• these adverse impacts such as payment
in lieu of taxes, impact fees, or the
like. Determine legal authority for
proposals to mitigate impacts.
Holmes &
Graven
City Staff
Publicorp
MAC Staff
2 Weeks
5
SEP 23 '91 15:54 HOLMES & GRAVEN
i
i
GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Coordinate and oversee all aspects of
i
the preparation of the feasibility report.
Redline, review, collate, and print
feasibility report.
Prepare draft joint powers agreement
for acquisition, management and rode-
-velopment.
• Determine when existing legal authority
- is not adequate to accomplish any
given objective. Identify and
propose possible legislative changes.
1
}
RC145^011
WORK PLAN
P.7
Responsible Time/
-P_ Party _ Participants Completion
Date
e
City Staff
Holmes dt
Graven
Holmes '& MAC legal staff
Graven
Holmes do Publieorp
Graven MAC staff
6
2 Days
1 Week
ongoing
N
0?
1
M
1
n
N
I
N
O
N
1
N
rl
M
rl
1
N
ri
?O
1
N
rl
01
N
1
14
1-4
N
N
1
rl
t-I
rl
I
ri
rl
m
1
rl
rl
1
r1
119
N
1
O
rl
0 m
T
'AA
Y
L
O
Q.
VJ ? Z
1
y C
Q. yr C
cc c ?
C r
C L
D
L
y
C\l C14
Z p co cC
C 'a 3 c 3
J o?
U
v c c
Os as cc CM cts
r Q N
arc
o
' C to
c
O
L n
2
a M
W
g as c as c
C. S g L p w
0 ?dw
E c -
d C $ +
g '? d
'
a V o J ?
rr
Ez
?r
M l I
? ?' 0? D ^ use a o?? w ???• a-? .,,,,o .f , ?
c0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 42
Agenda October 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Status of Redistricting
Background:
Minnesota State Statutes (204B.135 and 204B.14) and the City
Charter (2.03) address the issue of redistricting with respect to
both the City's obligations and restrictions. In addition, the
City is also impacted by Supreme Court cases dealing with the
issue of equal protection and the "one person-one vote concept."
Currently there are also court challenges in progress concerning
the most recent legislative redistricting enacted by the 1991
Legislature.
The current status of redistricting as it affects the City of
Richfield is now more clear. With the court cases involving
legislative redistricting currently unresolved, Hennepin County
sought and attained a stay granted until the first week in
December 1991. The stay precludes any municipal action on
redistricting until after the Legislature lines have been
established, which may be as early as the first week,in December.
That means that the cities such as Richfield will have 60 days
from that time to complete their redistricting work. All
• redistricting, both legislative and local ward/precinct
boundaries, would become effective for the September 1992 primary
election.
Richfield's specific task with respect to local redistricting is
to equalize the population contained within the City's three
wards. While this does not mean that each ward must have exactly
the same population, the U.S. Supreme Court in White v. Register
indicated that differences larger than 9.9% would clearly suggest
a possible equal protection deprivation. Under the present ward
configuration the deviation between the largest and smallest
(Wards One and Two) is 10.48% (expressed as a percent of the
average or ideal district). A relatively minor boundary
adjustment could balance the wards well within the 9.9%
benchmark.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the redistricting process and what direction the City
will take in this issue.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. A recent stay granted by the courts extends the timeframe
within which cities may complete their redistricting. The
city now has 60 days past the first week in December to
complete its redistricting.
• 2. A process should be established to proceed with
redistricting, if any change in City ward/precinct boundaries
are to be made.
• 3. The City's current ward alignment exceeds a court established
9.9% deviation benchmark. Therefore it may be desirable to
make some adjustment in ward boundaries to even out the
population distribution.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide to make no changes and risk a
future challenge based upon equal protection.
2. The City Council could postpone this issue to a future
meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council establishes a process now for dealing with
the redistricting issue, the City will be in a good position to
undertake and complete this task within the statutorily
established timeframe. The City Charter indicates that
redistricting changes must be done by ordinance. Thus, with the
need for two ordinance readings as well as necessary
publications, timing will be extremely important.
0
JDP:ds
Respe f ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City J--
anager
Attorneys at Law
ROBERT A. ALSOP
PAUL D.BAERTSCHI
"ONALD H. BATTY
ARYJ.BRENDEN
STEPHEN J. BUSUL
ROBERT C. CARLSON
CHRISTINE M. CHALE
JOHN B. DEAN
MARY G. DOBBINS
JEFFREY ENG
STEFANIE N. GALEY
DAVID L. GRAVEN
CORRINE A. HEINE
JAMES S. HOLMES
DAVID J. KENNEDY
JOHN R. LARSON
WELLINGTON H. LAW
August 2,19 91
Mr. Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
170 Pillsbury Center. Minneapolis. Minnesota 55102
(612) 337-9300 JULIE A. LAWLER
Facsimile (612) 337-9310 CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
JOHN M. LEFEVRE.JR.
ROBERT J. LINDA LL
LAURA K. MOLLET
DANIEL R. NELSON
BARBARA L.PORTWOOD
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL !NARY FRANCES SKALA
JAMES M. STROMMEN
STEVEN M.TALLEN
JAMES J. THOMSON. JR.
LARRY M. WERTHEIM
337-9207 BONNIE L. WILKINS
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT L. DAVIDSON
JOHN G. HOESCHLER
Re: Issues raised in your letter of July 2, 1991
• Dear Tom:
In your above-referenced letter you have asked for my comment regarding the
phrase "as nearly equal as practicable" as that term is used in Section 2.03 of the
Richfield Charter relating to redistricting.
That phrase, and phrases of similar import, have been found in charters and
statutes for many years. However, the need to have a clear understanding of the
phrase became apparent when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Avery v.
Midland County in 1968. According to that case, disproportionate voting strength
violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. "The Constitution permits
no substantial variation from equal protection in drawing districts for units of local
government . . ..It This decision has given rise to the "one person - one vote"
concept; and has resulted in a great number of cases in the federal courts.
Although it is difficult to give a concise summary of all the cases, three points
appear to be common themes:
1. Districts need not have exactly. the same population.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of White v. Register indicated that
differences larger than 9.9% would clearly suggest a possible equal
protection deprivation.
3. Variations, and especially those which are 10% or more, will still be
• considered constitutional if they can be justified by "legitimate state
considerations."
Mr. Thomas Ferber
• August 39 1991
Page 2
On the basis of the material which you provided me, it appears that the deviation
between Wards 1 and 2 (the smallest and largest) is 10.48%.
As a result of this analysis, it appears that the City may not be able to rely upon
the 9.9% "minor deviation" rule. Consequently, the disparity between Wards 1 and
2 should be supported on other practical considerations which make it unrealistic to
come within the "minor deviation" rule.
Among the factors which might be relevant are:
(i) location of legislative districts (when they become known);
(ii) location of physical barriers such as, major roadways; and
(iii) location or precincts.
After you have had an opportunity to review this material, please advise so that we
can discuss it further.
Respectfully yours,
r
John B. Dean
JBD:rsr
RC160-001
1 "Deviation" is used in the cases to mean the difference in population
between the largest and smallest districts expressed as a percentage of the
• average or ideal district.
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.43
Agenda October 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Discussion of final action approving consolidation of Police
Relief Association and PERA-Police and Fire Fund.
Background:
At the October 8, 1990 City Council meeting, a resolution
supporting certain improvements to the Police Relief Association
benefit structure and an expression of intent to consolidate with
the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) Police & Fire
Fund was adopted.
The benefit improvements included the following:
- College incentive pay to be included in salary calculation
for pension computations.
- A reduced retirement based upon earned service credit upon
age 50.-
- Elimination of the two unit reduction for deferred
pensions.
. Since that initial action, several events have occurred:.
- On May 3, 1991, an election of all eligible members of the
Richfield Police Relief Association was conducted and
resulted in overwhelming member support for consolidation.
- The.Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill
authorizing the proposed member benefit improvements upon
the approval of the City Council.
- The City Council gave preliminary approval to
consolidation of the Richfield Police Relief Association
with the PERA Police & Fire Fund at the June 10, 1991 City
Council meeting.
- All formal notification have been made pursuant to
Minnesota statutes.
- An actuarial analysis has been completed by the Wyatt
Company, reflecting the costs of consolidation including
the new.proposed benefit enhancements.
The City and Police Relief Association are awaiting final
information from the State Board of Investments and PERA Police
and Fire. After those notifications are received, the City will
• have 60 days to take final action on the consolidation, or lose
the opportunity to consolidate for a year.
Two financial comparisons accompany the Council Letter.
first is a Wyatt Report entitled "Actuarial Calculations
Preliminary to Consolidation." The second is a one-page
cost comparison.
•
The
employer
The data from both sources reflects a first year's worst case
contribution by the City of $521,364 as compared to a
contribution of $314,122 prior to consolidation and benefit
enhancements. However, under consolidation, the City would save
approximately $75,000 annually in administrative costs. Further,
the worst case annual contribution is reduced by each Police
Relief Association member who selects benefits under the PERA
Police and Fire Fund. If every member selected benefits under
the PERA Police and Fire Fund after consolidation, the City's
annual contribution would be $110,005. Thus, the unknown factor
of what portion of Police Relief Association employees select
PERA Police and Fire Fund benefits has a significant impact upon
the City's future cost of consolidation.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the consolidation package, especially with respect to the
actuarial cost estimate.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City and Richfield Police Relief Association are moving
through the process of consolidation with all requirements
completed except for final City approval.
2. The City Council will soon have to make a decision on whether
or not to adopt final approval of the consolidation including
the benefit enhancements.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could choose to make a final decision without the
. preliminary discussion of costs.
2. The City Council could ignore the matter entirely, thereby
causing the consolidation bid and benefit enhancements to
expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council must formally act on this matter within the next
few months if the consolidation is to occur. Therefore, an
informal discussion of the relevant data would be very timely at
the October 7, 1991, Study Session.
Respe ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
• City Manager
JDP:ds
0
Current Active Police Relief Association members
10-1-91
Captains
Fritz
Lambert
Lieutenants
Suech
Sergeants
Hanson
Johnson
Merabella
Sandell
Investiaators/Agents
Hollick
• Lotzer
Mead
Pilcher
Patrol Officers
Benedict
Burge
Dubberke
Edwards
Fitzhenry
Gabrysh
Kleist
Thill
t~ ?4
.,?
? U
b?? LO
O If)
O
r-i 0 0
? H H
oa
U a'
•ri
4
) Lr)
001
-
- ,
L17 M 10 N N d?
? a
((a % CAP to
'0
r-I
b 0)
LO LO LO
C- ON
w H
co
M LO N
O r-I
0 CC) O
O
Ea ? a
? aD 10 t0 .0 In
ra tR •K
0
Ica M O
M
?OCr/L??/? C7% L4,%
MdgW co
r•IMt? L" LO
N CO co El- L-
O LO d?
ca
4-) -
Ow E
•r1 a) •r1
0 w w ? °' N M M r -I m
d?
0\0 10 LO a%
(0 P +) L?
r-f LO LO r -I M 10 o
o
ro co o (A
CD co LO H m co a
i
0 O
Oro u
co 00 M
r1 11 01% M
ko ko M ••i ro •rl
•I-> ro V Ua Ua w
O f4
r•1 ao M E- A N a
? a) A b 0
M ca p Ua r•I w p w
14(1) BOO O
NAP OUw a)aa)
r -I -r1 0 O a > >
3 t~ U () O •rl O •r4
H U) U 4-)d* iJ
(? cd co <0 c0
a) p V ?
V
V
u
O r. a) •A CO •
l
.r., H ri O a) 0
4-) r-I CO N O .0 •ra Ua •r1
00 0%
ON M O
V-q T-4 C14 4J
4-)
W ro (D
d
P 0
0 10 N
ca
0
Q 0404
% Ln
N co r-I
l? CY) ?
Q
O r-I N . 0 '
. 4-) W rr
%D LO r-I N r-I 11 r -I a) w O •rq
0 00 N 00 r-I
r-1
I . t!?
t!? 4
14
i!? t!? O4 Ow t
m U -H W U •r1
N 3 >
>1 O cd
d-) r-4 c
0
.-1 4-) O ^ co p O O V]
•? •r1 Oro $4 a
a) 1
H
+
?
a
A A E 4-)
a' z
tio a • •I-)
co
a m>1 0 Ua •?a?i LL
a) ca roU r- va
? 'Q N P
E
W O U w
P Ua P
ro
a 4' ro 04
ry
a
i
O a W
a) w
• W
S-I - ri
O
ca 4-1 a r-I 4-)
0 wro ar?
Ua
O
O
.,-l
045
Ua
Ua
m
.H
m
p
E
ro
r.
c0
Ua
f~
O
•r1
04
5
O
co
Ua
c?
O
•r1
cC
0
m
a)
O
O
m
O
a)
0
ro
•x
•
RICHFIELD POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION
ACTUARIAL CALCULATIONS PRELIMINARY
TO CONSOLIDATION
0
•
GV4'1intt
RECEIVED 3133 2 3 1991
.. Y---
•
July 18, 1991
Legislative Commission on
Pensions and Retirement
55 State Office Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
RE: RICHFIELD POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION
lJ
Commission Members:
We have performed actuarial calculations preliminary to consolidation for the
Relief Association as of January 1, 1991 based on membership and financial data
supplied by the Relief Association.
We certify that to the best of our knowledge anc
performed in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, and the requirements of the
adopted by the Commission on September 20, 1989.
belief this actuarial work was
Sections 353A.05 and 356.215,
Standards for Actuarial Work,
Respectfully submitted,
THE WYATT COMPANY
Robert E. Perkins, FSA Michael C. Gunvalson, FSA
Consulting Actuary Actuary
cc: The Honorable Mark Dayton, State Auditor
The Honorable Joan Anderson Growe, Secretary of State
Howard Bicker, State Board of Investment
Laurie Hacking, Public Employees Retirement Association
James Noble, Legislative Auditor
Peter Hutchinson, Commissioner of Finance
Kenneth Pilcher, Richfield Police Relief Association
Steven L. Devich, City of Richfield
'aft
REPORT PRELIMINARY TO CONSOLIDATION
The purpose of this report is to estimate the cost of consolidating the Relief
Association with PERA Police and Fire (P&F) as specified in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 353A prior to potential final municipal approval of the consolidation
question.
The consolidation process provides the Relief Association members and their
beneficiaries an opportunity to change their retirement benefit plan coverage by
electing between Relief Association and P&F benefits. In order to evaluate the
financial aspects of consolidation, the costs in Table 1 have been determined
under three possible outcomes - all individuals elect Relief Association
benefits (column 2), all individuals elect P&F benefits (column 3) and each
individual elects the benefit plan which has the greater total benefit plan
actuarial value (column 4).
Table 1 also compares the consolidation calculations to those found in the
actuarial valuation of the Relief Association as of December 31, 1990, prepared
by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company. The Relief Association benefits in columns
1 and 2 are not identical. The benefits in column 2 incorporate the changes
in plan provisions found in the 1991 Bill (Chapter No. 96, House File No. 579).
That Bill provides for changes in the definition of salary, benefit eligibility
and benefit level.
Another source of the difference in liabilities and costs is the use of
different actuarial assumptions as required by statute. Table 2 shows the data
and lists the major assumptions.
0
-1-
GU'nff
.. y. -
• Whenever a retired member or the retired member's surviving spouse elects P&F
benefits, the reserve for that benefit must be transferred to the Minnesota Post
Retirement Investment Fund (MPRIF). The amount to be transferred if all benefit
recipients who are eligible for MPRIF elect P&F benefits is $3,994,089, which
is less than the current market value of assets. This amount includes an
estimated increase of 4.00% for those who meet the MPRIF eligibility rules for a
January 1, 1992 benefit adjustment.
Current benefit recipients who are not eligible for MPRIF will be paid directly
by PERA. Their benefits will be escalated by the same percentage that applies
to MPRIF annuitants, however no funds are required to be transferred to MPRIF.
Although the costs shown in Table 1 represent an appropriate range of estimates
available today, the costs are subject to change in future years following the
consolidation. The true cost of any pension plan is not completely determined
until the last benefit payment has been made to the last benefit recipient.
Prior to that date, annual budgets are determined by making assumptions
regarding future experience.
Each year in the future following consolidation, municipal costs will be
redetermined based on the elections made by members and beneficiaries and will
consist of the following components:
Regular contributions (line 7Z - a variable cost which will depend on
the compensation of members still active.
C
-2-
6W2, ntt
Additional contributions (line 6) - a fixed cost which is an annual
• amount of $410,932, the amount required to amortize the initial
unfunded consolidation actuarial liability shown in column 4 of Table
1 by the year 2010.
Additional contributions (undeterminable at this time) - a variable
cost which will depend on actual experience. Any actuarial gains
(for example, investment results in excess of 8.5%) will reduce
future contributions and actuarial losses (for example, salary
increases in excess of 6.5%) will increase future contributions.
ICI
L'
-3-
OW21171t
.. y-
41
-?
..
W L O
co
cF
co
M
0i
N
co
Q
r-
r a)
\
-
-
N
I
- 4?
'a Q O
E 63 w
•i
•O C7
Y7 M M
±? .r N ? Lr cli
?+ M
LO
Ol
d Oll
W M 0
v
\
.
-1 O M
Q uj O 4~'!
91.
O C
C O
.
O ++ 41 ?O M
U a)
~ tO ? ?
U _ p
j
N W O \ N U') Q
V
N OD co
v
)
O Cl N
\
Q
N
O
N
y
a)
Z ?
O
N
o-
a.
U
O y
N Z
V! O
W cH{
W J p ~ M
M et
Q O M
7 V- Z ti Q
Z
0 Lr;
U Q) )O M
i t
O N
. W
U J s
9 ) N
••'? M y O v .-y
a Q O M N
Q
U d
W Q
W
S
CC
N
C
b
i
p
L
CL
O 41
a)
? .c
C ' J
C
R O 7
N
L L
U V
,
6 O Q ++
U pNp
4- b
• t0 U
O t- L r
•
a) ? 7
?
D V
Q
Q
_
i<
M Le) N N Q O
'C M ll O V M O
co N4 LO M O O
' t0 O Le N V' e-1 Lo cli
M i.9
h
C
Lf) M M M O O Ul) Ln -O
N N r^ M a)
M O O O
N LO ao LC)
O O =
O ti co
a)
4f t
L
()
a)
C
Q)
i 'f
is
pp?? is * M
O O Q1 fi') N N a
tO .-) t0 M et pMj to C 4094
N M 00 to M O O .-i y
el' tM0 O tf) N at .~+ uN7 i-?
.?i .-? M d' a) O
?9 >
C 1
4-
O S-
41
U
* O] ?p
# 4O1 O
* * 4 U
N O
N .-1 •--1 N
7
M to c ? C-i E
2 Z Z My cli CQ f, 41
L" M L0I
LO ti .r N (h _L-1 - 41
M N Z a) ao N
0) < m
m cc;
L? .C
64 U
a) U ?
N O O .r
C
S O) 4+ N
EC_ )N to
? •3 Q L
h
07 Z C L r
C 4O r6 3
41 O ?
O n a) O
T 44 °o
y d N O
0) O N 'O N 4?
p U 41 m a) T O
C +? ?O
M t y
m .0 0 M U 7
M N , y '-
'O L U
4?
C
O pp N O
Y
0 gyp"' OC f? J N +
() S
L 0) V O d N L p
L = N ?+ O U
4- V a C C O V
41
O L O O a) Q
C d ? N L
O L L N U 49- O 7 10 y Z
7 O 41
as ++ ++ a) q o +L+ a ,a m o)6i w
4J L? It Q G G..) O > +7+ L. T
4 O
a) 0 4- A
H O C C •C O. Y
L) 0
CL y Z 4+ E i-+ H L
U )a al
co N Z ,C LL aO+ O i q 4J
Y 4+ y 0 O L G• U N y
41 L'
•7 N N Y 7 is 4J S U = 0 ^ M
Q a )0 w V v C a" W m Q O W
S Q [C F- ii ,1 * i< i<
K i {C
"'? N M et L {6 f? aO K **
N
W
co
co
to
to Lo
*,,,P LL
PE P
N N
d co 0 0 2 Z \ as
- M
l%I O" M N 1% C CO 11'1 t0 O L
¢
r 1' . .
O
^ H
co
cc
W
d
UJ .
r
?
d 4)
Q d 400! 4OY ' C
yL
C.
C
O
4-
LL
N
W N LO I-- O N
d
N N O ^ N M O
r Q v N t0
06 H N d' O O CO t0 t0 \ L
Q 0. m 0. N W O
O n o d d
_ h 64 L ?
d d
tY a
Z
O
H
Q
U 4-
y N N
Q
O
C
t
W a
O ..
0, 0
J
O
U C). C
C a O ^ ' N N N O O^
CD - LO O O L9 ? LO O 1° C
^ N CD Z Z 2
H 9 U .?-I tD to to co M M \ "O
Z
-
? Q L CO' N v to co 41
o
O
to co 0 N rt
1 Q °
o a a U V)
W e Q
ti
S L
U ty
d
C
co
ai
L
?
N
.U- V1
b
[. pC? ? q
C? C
m
O
W
O d E
L
N
d i?
N
CO7
1
- 0 to
m C d C
L
0
R o
O
O O
44
O O
W
++
0
r N
CO) N
d S O O p?
p
LL1 Q
d q_?
q
7@ Y 16 10 7
4? ca .0 (,) w N =
1 E ? t0 Q t1
9
'
O
4 U O iJ
L C. O O 4:
-1 y a'1 ? L tF C N
pp
?i
Q C
) C
-
N O
d C?
U 01 O
O
L
T
L
++ C
d
Q
L
E . U U 4-1 N y C
a C
N O
i
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 44
Agenda October 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the need to purchase a replacement broadcast camera
and ancillary equipment.
Background:
Approximately five years ago, the City purchased a three-tube
broadcast grade camera. The three-tube camera is being used in
conjunction with a new three-chip broadcast camera and a single-
chip ceiling mount camera to cablecast City Council meetings.
All three cameras are merged through the central control panel
which allows the director to select various camera views based on
Council meeting activity, public speakers and other
considerations.
One difficulty staff has been encountering with the current
arrangement is that the color balancing of the outdated three-
tube camera and chip-cameras is extremely difficult. Even with
the best equipment available on the market, it is not possible to
completely match a tube camera with a chip camera. With the
limited equipment the City presently has available, the cameras
cannot be balanced beyond a reasonable guess. The result,
combined with an aging camera, has been some very poor quality
• broadcasts recently. Some of those broadcasts have come out
unusually green tinted and there is a marked difference between
colors from one camera shot to another.
The solution to the problem would be twofold: First, the
antiquated three-tube camera should be replaced with a three-chip
camera model as similar as possible to the City's current three-
chip camera. This would provide for matching camera light
intensity and colors as nearly as possible.
Second, a simple vectorscope should be purchased so the broadcast
staff has a piece of equipment capable of color balancing a
multi-camera broadcast. Items such as a vectorscope are normally
considered standard equipment in a studio cable production
setting.
A new three-chip camera along with the appropriate lens and power
source would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $5,600. The
vectorscope would be approximately $1,850. Adequate funds are
available for these purchases in the Cable Television/Public
Information Fund. Franchise fees paid to the City of Richfield
quarterly provide funding for cable broadcast of the City's
Council meetings and other selected public meetings. Those funds
are provided to cover the expenses of purchasing equipment and
personal services necessary to bring these and other public
• service productions to Richfield citizens.
If the Council is generally in agreement with the purchase of
this equipment, City staff will proceed to get quotations from
.appropriate vendors and present this item to the City Council at
a future Council meeting for formal approval.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the need for additional cable equipment and replacement
of a camera.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City's cable broadcast of City Council meetings provides
an invaluable service to Richfield citizens allowing
everyone connected to the system with an opportunity to be
informed on current City issues.
2. Public access broadcasts, such as the presentation of the
City Council meetings, are covered under franchise fees
collected through the cable company and remitted to the
City. Those fees are meant to provide cities with the funds
to provide public access.
3. There is adequate funding in the Cable Fund to pay for the
purchase of the camera and the vectorscope.
4. The current quality of the City Council broadcasts with the
older three-tube camera is not of a level that the City
• cable production staff feel comfortable with.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. City Council could elect to continue using the equipment that
the City presently has for broadcasting City Council
meetings. However, the quality will either remain at the
current level or perhaps deteriorate as the equipment ages.
2. The City Council could suggest that staff proceed with
purchasing either the camera or the vectorscope but not
both. However, it should be noted that both are needed to
completely solve the problem. At minimum, the three-tube
camera should be replaced.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is being discussed at the October 7 meeting so that if
Council generally agrees, staff could attain competitive
quotations in time to present this item at a Council meeting in
October and have the new equipment on board for the last few
Council meetings of 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
0
Cit g ager
JDP:ds