07-01-91 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 38
Agenda July 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Council discussion of recycling funding options under consideration
by Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and their ramifications
for Richfield's recycling program.
Background:
Since the mid 19801s, Hennepin County has reimbursed cities 80% of
eligible recycling expenses, provided that cities meet the criteria
established by the County for recycling programs. Historically,
criteria have included such things as providing curbside residential
collection of recyclables, meeting recycling goals set by the County,
and promoting the program to residents.
Currently, the County is reassessing its municipal recycling funding
policy. Some commissioners and County staff believe that the current
program is expensive and overly time-consuming for both the County
and cities. Thus, County staff has prepared some alternative funding
options for consideration by the Board in July. A copy of these
recommendations will be made available at the Council study session
on July 1.
The Board's Public Service Committee will be discussing this matter
at its meeting on June 27. It is anticipated that the Committee will
then make a recommendation for consideration by the Board in July.
Recommended Motion:
Because this is a study session, no formal action may be taken at
this time. Staff is seeking opinions on the alternatives from the
Council, so that the City may be in a better position to react to
potential recommendations made by the Public Services Committee at
its June 27 meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
Details will be provided at the study session.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose not to address the funding matter. However, the
City would lose its opportunity to have input and/or potentially
influence the County Board's decision on the funding issue.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is looking for direction from the Council at its July 1 study
session. If the Council wants input on the County policy, direction
should be given at this meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
• James D Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING FUNDING OPTIONS
Option 1A: Current Policv with Administrative Ca
--Maintains current policy of 80/20 funding (County reimburses
80% if recycling goals are met), but places an administrative cap
of 170/household/month.
--Requires recycling subcontracts to be procured on a competitive
basis.
--Percentage recycling goals (currently at 16% for 1991, 18% in
1992) would continue to increase over a 5 year period.
Advantages
-- Predictability. Would
enable City to proceed with
current 1992 recycling budget
Disadvantaaes
-- City would be required to
forgo current system of having
haulers collect recyclables
-- City would have to initiate
an alternative funding
mechanism for costs not
covered by County funds
• ** Option 1B: (County Staff Recommendation) County Entitlement
Established to Provide Recycling Funding to Cover Costs of a
Basic Recycling Program
--The County would provide an entitlement of
$1.50/Household/month to cover the cost of a basic program to be
operated by cities.
-- Each city would be required to collect designated recyclables
as specified by the County; provide collection of recyclables at
least every two weeks; promote the program through various means;
and report recycling tonnages, markets and total program expenses
to the County.
Advantages
-- More independence and
autonomy for cities; Richfield
should be able to continue its
hauler-provided system
-- No "strings" are attached
to how cities spend the money
(as long as it is for
recycling-related activities)
Disadvantaaes
-- The City would receive
significantly less money from
the County for recycling
(approximately $35,000 less in
192 than in 191)
-- The reimbursement is based
on every other week
collection; most cities now
have weekly collection
Option 2: Phase Out County Funding and Identify Alternative
Funding Mechanisms
The County would phase out funding by reducing maximum
reimbursement 20% each year for the next four years.
Advantages Disadvantages
-- Through a gradual phasing -- Tip fee for recycling may
out of funding, City would continue to be withheld,
have some time to make though cities would not
alternative arrangements, if receive reimbursement
needed
-- Richfield may have to forgo
hauler-provided system,
despite funding termination
-- Costs for residents would
probably increase
-- Alternative funding for
various recycling/solid waste
activities or mandates may be
needed
Option 3: County Operated Recycling System
Hennepin County would assume responsibility-for implementing •
recycling services in place of cities
Advantages Disadvantages
-- City involvement would be -- Cities would have very
minimal little, if any, input in how
recycling programs are designed
or function
-- Richfield would have to
forgo hauler provided system
-- County may not be as
responsive to citizen concerns
or inquiries
11
Option 2:' Phase Out County Funding and Identify Alternative
Funding Mechanisms
The County would phase out funding by reducing maximum
reimbursement 20% each year for the next four years.
•
Advantages Disadvantages
-- Through a gradual phasing -- Tip fee for recycling may
out of funding, City would continue to be withheld,
have some time to make though cities would not
alternative arrangements, if receive reimbursement
needed
-- Richfield may have to forgo
hauler-provided system,
despite funding termination
-- Costs for residents would
probably increase
-- Alternative funding for
various recycling/solid waste
activities or mandates may be
needed-,
Option 3: County Operated Recycling System
Hennepin County would assume responsibility for implementing
recycling services in place of cities
Advantages
-- City involvement would be
minimal
Disadvantages
-- Cities would have very
little, if any, input in how
recycling programs are designed
or function
-- Richfield would have to
forgo hauler provided system
-- County may not be as
responsive to citizen concerns
or inquiries
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.37
Agenda July 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Council discussion regarding whether to amend the current
ordinance concerning residential kennel license requests.
Background:
City ordinance 905 states that when there are more than two dogs
OR two cats over the age of six months on any premises in the
City, a residential kennel license must be obtained through the
City.
A residential kennel license application must be completed and
returned to staff with the appropriate fee. The application must
contain signatures of the applicant's contiguous property owners
indicating their approval. After receipt of the application, a
Community Service Officer will conduct an interior and exterior
inspection of the property. Staff will make a recommendation to
Council to either grant or deny the license request.
In instances where the application does not contain all
contiguous property owner's signatures or staff has received
complaints concerning the animals from other neighbors, a hearing
• before the Council is generally scheduled. Neighboring residents
of the applicant will be notified of the hearing and are given
the opportunity to either appear in person or present written
testimony for or against the issuance of the license. Based upon
testimony from neighboring residents and the owner of the
animals, the Council may either grant or deny the license
application. If Council denies a license request, the owner of
the animals must reduce the number of animals they own to two
within 30 days of the hearing.
Currently, there are approximately 15 residential kennel licenses
that have been granted in the City of Richfield. In most cases,
these are residences that have more than two dogs.
Recently the Council has directed staff to prepare alternatives
to our kennel license ordinance for discussion at a study
session.
The following options are available to the Council for
consideration:
1. Enact an ordinance that will prohibit any new residential
kennel license requests after the ordinance's effective date.
Currently existing residential kennel licenses will be
allowed to remain and may be renewed on a yearly basis. This
would preclude establishing new kennels and licensing kennels
that have existed but were not previously licensed.
2. Enact an ordinance which provides that no new residential
kennel license applications will be accepted other than
currently licensed residential kennels and others who can
demonstrate that more than two animals will not have an
adverse effect on neighboring residents.
3. Enact an ordinance which provides that no residential kennel
licenses will be issued to any resident. All currently
licensed residential kennels will expire May 31, 1992.
Thereafter all individuals with more than two dogs or two
cats will be required to remove additional dogs and cats from
their houses.
4. Amend the current ordinance to limit the number of dogs and
cats that can be kept at a residential kennel. The current
ordinance does not limit the number of animals the resident
may keep at their house.
Recommended Motion:
Consider options to the current residential kennel license.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Leave the current ordinance as is and continue to accept
residential kennel license requests which do not limit the
number of animals a person may own.
. Discussion/Decision Mode:
The issue is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
JameYager
City JDP:ds
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 36
Agenda July 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
City Council authorization of $5,505,000 advance refunding bond
sale.
Background:
In conjunction with the City's financial consultant, Evenson-
Dodge, Inc., the City examined its outstanding bond issues to
determine if it would be advantageous to proceed with advance
refunding of any issues.
Refunding is advantageous under the following conditions:
e The interest on outstanding bonds is greater than the current
interest rate which can be obtained for refunding issues.
e The net cost of issuance is less than potential savings on
interest earnings. The cost of issuance includes bond
consultant's fees, legal expenses, printing, escrow charges and
similar expenses.
The review of outstanding bond issues identified two suitable for
advance refunding:
• $6,265,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1985
$1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985
The two issues provide approximate annual savings of:
Total Savings: $185,015
Present Value Savings $158,777
The refunding issue will be structured
present value savings will be realized
1992 and 1993. The immediate savings
available for the LHN project area for
allow a small reduction in the special
improvement bonds.
so that most of the actual
in the first two years
will provide more cash
the next two years and
levy necessary for the
Finally, the cost of issuance would be approximately $50,000 and
the underwriter's discount $55,050. These costs were considered
before calculating total savings.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the possibility of authorizing sale of $5,505,000 advance
refunding bond sale.
Basis for Recommendation:
. 1. The analysis of outstanding bond issues projects an annual
savings if advance refunding of certain of these outstanding
issues takes place now.
•
2. Any net savings will reduce the City's future special levy
for retirement of bonded debt. Ultimately, this favors the
taxpayer in the form of reduced or stabilized property taxes
and more cash available in the LHN tax increment district.
3. While the savings are small, roughly 4.9% as a present value
savings, as a percent of refunded interest, even a small
savings is worth pursuing as bond interest rates remain at a
low point before they are expected to rise again and
eliminate any potential advantage of refunding.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Disregard current advance refunding options and continue to
retire the bonded debt as currently structured.
2. Authorize an advanced refunding issue for either a lesser or
greater issue amount based on refunding a different number of
current bond issues.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council discuss this matter at
the July 1, 1991 Study Session. A resolution authorizing sale
could be considered at the July 8 Council meeting with sale
targeted for early August.
Respec y submitted,
James D Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
cc: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager
0
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No-35
Agenda, July 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding the airport include the following:
® Richfield Planning Commission Airport Meeting
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) conducted a public
information meeting, hosted by the Richfield Planning Commission,
for all Richfield residents at Richfield Senior High School on
June 11, 1991. The purpose of the meeting was to provide
information regarding MAC's proposed Long Term Comprehensive Plan
for MSP Airport. Approximately 120 residents attended the
meeting. Representatives from the MAC included:
- Walter Rockenstein II, Chair, MSP Airport Interactive
Planning Group;
- Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director, MAC;
- Evan Futterman, Consultant, Howard Needles Tammen &
Bergendoff (HNTB).
The representatives presented the following:
• (1) Overview of the dual track airport planning process given by
Nigel Finney.
(2) The six airport expansion concepts currently being studied
for the MSP Airport Long Term Comprehensive plan presented by
Evan Futterman.
Following these presentations, comments and questions were taken
from the audience by the MAC representatives. There were New
Ford Town and Rich Acres residents who stated they want their
homes purchased and to be relocated. Most of the residents
stated that MAC needs to make a decision quickly due to the
uncertainty of future expansion plans at MSP Airport which has
caused social and financial disinvestment within these
neighborhoods. A resident asked the MAC to be courteous and be
considerate of the residents in these neighborhoods by making a
decision soon regarding future expansion plans at MSP Airport.
There were a few New Ford Town and Rich Acres residents at the
meeting who stated that "their homes were not for sale." A
resident stated that he would file a lawsuit to keep his
property.
A few residents inquired why there were enough funds for the MAC
to make expansion improvements at MSP Airport and not enough to
buyout the property in New Ford Town and Rich Acres. Senator
Phil Riveness continued this issue by asking what funding sources
would be available for the MAC to acquire the property in New
• Ford Town and Rich Acres and if these sources would be
sufficient. He also asked what assistance the Legislature could
provide in the process. Nigel Finney stated that currently there
are Federal Part 150 funds and Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's)
that could be used for the acquisition process. Senator Riveness
stated that the MAC needs to begin the property acquisition
process as soon as possible to alleviate the adverse
environmental impacts of adjacent airport operations and
expansion plans on the residents living in New Ford Town and Rich
Acres.
James Prosser provided the City's position on the dual track
planning process as it relates to Richfield. He stated that the
City of Richfield wants mitigation provided now for residents in
the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods regardless of what
the future plans are in the dual track planning process.
® MSP Intergovernmental Planning Group
Mayor Martin Kirsch and City staff continue to attend meetings
with this group. The group has been asked to provide an off-site
impact analysis of the proposed six airport concepts on the
communities adjacent to MSP airport which will be included in the
MSP Airport Interactive Planning Group Report. Attached is the
impact analysis of airport-related development impacts to
Richfield. City staff prepared the analysis with the assistance
of Tom Martinson, Planner; David Braslau, Environmental Engineer;
• and Bob Collette, former FAA official.
® Resolution Regarding the State Financial Assistance Package to
Northwest Airlines
The Mendota Heights City Council adopted a resolution on June 4,
1991 (attached) asking that aircraft noise limitation measures be
incorporated as an integral part of the State of Minnesota's
Financial Assistance Package to Northwest Airlines. Mendota
Heights adopted this resolution as a way to continue its campaign
to minimize the aircraft noise problem in the metropolitan area.
The State recently enacted legislation that provided for a
substantial, long-term financial investment to Northwest Airlines
for construction of two aircraft maintenance facilities in
Minnesota and direct lending to the airline in exchange for
mortgages on company properties. The specific details of the
financial package will be negotiated in the next few months with
Northwest Airlines by various State commissions and agencies.
The resolution adopted by Mendota Heights asks that the
negotiated agreement for the financial assistance package to
Northwest Airlines include provisions which address aircraft
noise concerns in the metropolitan area. The city is encouraging
all communities affected by the airport noise problem to adopt
similar resolutions. They are also asking these communities to
inform their elected and appointed State officials and to
distribute their positions to key federal and regional officials
as well. Attached is a letter addressed to Governor Arne Carlson
. from Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, providing the
city's position on this issue.
• MAC 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). The PAC held a
meeting on June 5 which Bill Weaver, the City's representative,
attended. The discussion at the meeting included:
1. Finalization of members of each city's core team.
2. Review a project flow chart.
3. Clarification of project study area boundaries.
4. Preview of an educational open house for
core teams and media held on June 5.
After the PAC meeting, the MAC held an educational open house for
the core teams representing the communities adjacent to MSP
Airport. At the open house, the following information was
provided to the core teams:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
is 6.
Basics of noise and noise contours.
General overview of the FAA Part 150 Program.
Land Use Implementation Design project review.
Land use mitigation options.
Residential soundproofing methods and noise
attenuation.
Funding tools.
The next PAC meeting is scheduled sometime during the last week
in July (no specific date or time has been specified).
The Center for Energy and Urban Environment and Wyle
Laboratories, consultants to the MAC, conducted noise tests June
20-22 in selected homes near MSP Airport. The tests were
conducted as part of the FAR Part 150 Noise Program.
The homes chosen for the study were located in the 65 to 75 Ldn
noise contours. Three homes were tested in Richfield:
- 6314 Standish Avenue
- 6509 - 13th Avenue
- 6505 Standish Avenue
The number of homes tested in the surrounding airport communities
included: Minneapolis (6); Bloomington (1); Eagan (1); and
Mendota Heights (1).
Temporary noise monitors were set-up both outside and inside the
selected homes to record the noise from overhead aircraft
operations. The recorded noises will be transmitted through a
• computer. The computer will provide data indicating how well the
homes currently attenuate the aircraft noise by comparing the
outside noise levels to the levels inside the homes. The test
results will provide an indication of the soundproofing projects
• needed to attenuate the noise and the estimated costs for homes
located in the 65 to 75 Ldn noise contours.
® Our Town Newsletter
The Council authorized future issues of Our Town Newsletter be
published as needed, but not more frequently than bimonthly.
The next Our Town newsletter for New Ford Town and Rich Acres
residents will be published and mailed on July 15, 1991. The
articles to be included in this publication will cover the
following issues:
- City-sponsored Special Public Information Meetings held
on May 28 and June 11, 1991;
- Part 150 Program Update;
- City of Richfield's Position on the Extension of
Runway 4-22;
- City of Richfield and MAC Resolutions Providing for
Joint and Cooperative Action;
- MSP Intergovernmental Planning Group Update;
- Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's).
A copy of the newsletter will be mailed to the Council.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
is are provided to address these issues:
® MSP Intergovernmental Planning Group
City staff will continue to participate in this group and keep
the Council informed of the issues covered and the tasks
accomplished at these meetings. The Council is encouraged to
provide any additional comments regarding the attached impact
analysis of the six airport consolidated concepts on the City of
Richfield. A final copy of the impact analysis for Richfield
will be provided to the Council after completion.
® Resolution Regarding the State Financial Assistance Package to
Northwest Airlines
Review the resolution adopted by the City of Mendota Heights
calling for the inclusion of aircraft noise abatement measures as
part of the State Financial Assistance Package to Northwest
Airlines and consider adopting a similar resolution for the City
of Richfield.
The residents in the City of Richfield are impacted by
intolerable aircraft noise from MSP airport. The negotiation of
the Financial Assistance Package between Northwest Airlines and
the State of Minnesota provides an opportunity to effectively
address the air noise problem. Inclusion of provisions requiring
the airline to meet an accelerated fleet conversion schedule to
quieter, Stage III aircraft in the negotiated agreement will
ensure noise relief will be guaranteed to the residents in
Richfield and other areas severely impacted by airport noise.
s MAC Part 150 Program
Staff will continue to provide summary reports to the Council of
the MSP Land Use Policy Advisory Committee and the City Core Team
meetings.
® Our Town Newsletter
Staff will continue to keep the Council informed of future issues
of the newsletter. The Council is encouraged to recommend topics
to be included in future publications.
Alternative Recommendations:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
July 1, 1991 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the July 1, 1991 Study
Session.
Re a lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City pager
JDP:kab
Attachments
0
0
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-29
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE INCLUSION OF AIRCRAFT
NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES AS PART OF THE STATE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PACKAGE TO NORTHWEST AIRLINES
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is located immediately
adjacent to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP)
and is.heavily impacted by the intrusion of aircraft noise, and
WHEREAS, it is an accepted fact that aircraft noise intensity
over southern Mendota Heights has become seriously detrimental to
human health within the past four years, and
WHEREAS, by the sheer volume and nature of the aircraft
operations at MSP, Northwest Airlines is the prime contributor of
aircraft noise affecting Mendota Heights and other communities
surrounding MSP, and
• WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress recently enacted a Law which
requires all United States Airlines to meet fleet conversion goals
to quieter aircraft by the year 1999, and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota recently authorized a
financial assistance package to Northwest Airlines in conjunction
with the siting of two additional maintenance facilities with-in the
State, and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the financial assistance package
are subject to a number of details being negotiated with Northwest
Airlines by various State Commissions and Agencies, and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights believes that aircraft
noise reduction is a valid and legitimate issue for consideration
in negotiating the details of the financial assistance package.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Mendota Heights,
Dakota County, Minnesota, that efforts be made by the involved
state Commissions and agencies to include provisions in the final
financial assistance package which positively and aggressively
address the aircraft noise concerns of the metropolitan area, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said provisions should at a
minimum require Northwest Airlines to meet an accelerated fleet
conversion schedule to Stage III Aircraft, and
BE, IT. FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be transmitted to
the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, the Governor, the State
Executive Council, the Legislative Commission on Planning and
Fiscal Policy, the Inter-Agency Task Force charged with analyzing
the Northwest financial package, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission and other various committees and agencies involved in
the negotiation of the Northwest Financial Assistance Package.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th
day of June, 1991.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
athleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
? ..;_.
tYo
.. '.?. Mendota Heights
•
June 21, 1991
The Honorable Arne Carlson
Governor of Minnesota
130 State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Governor Carlson:
On behalf of the Mendota Heights.City -Council,I wish to bring
to. your attention a matter of great, concern- to ,-th' .1'ditizens ..of
Mendota Heights.. Our community, along .with many 'others;, within:`:the'< L _
Twin Cities . Metropolitan area, isafflicted.:. byl•--the ? burden` of
intolerable aircraft ..noise..: A great` opportunity has now arisen to
effectively address this issue and we need-your help.
As you are aware, recently the State authorized the
developmentof a financial assistance-.._
package for Northwest=: -
Airlines as part-.of Northwest's commitment to' build ':'two ;=new `=
maintenance facilities within the State ' ---,While we are'' pleasedthat "°
?. Northwest has chosen to expand. their..-operations.; within Minnesota,
we are convinced that Northwest should also - show. their_;`commitmentw,;t
to the state by taking positive and aggressive steps to becoming a:`,,7- better neighbor. with respect to-aircraft noise.
The details of the'Financial Assistance Package*.to Northwest
have.. yet to. be negotiated. The opportunity -to::incorporate,<noise
limitation measures as part of the negotiated agreement: should!not,
be lost, and on June 4, 1991, the :Mendota Heights ..Ci.ty Council;
adopted. the.. attached Resolution urgz.ng your-assistance-regarding•a
this matter: ; yrt`,
2. g ''''' m'._'Ti,•k':
:.. -
The State ? { , T n ,..
t r? of ;=:Mi.nnesota ChaswrbediQ iked ,makel ajor
financial=..commitment to:.Northwest- rlines which guarantees a 0"
°term `relationship .;between =the .,,two : parties..,`: By. addressing,the
aircraft -noise ,issue:early 4h -the . relationship,-`°=we `can be`,. ssured-
that the overall ;best -: interests °'of'the State remain`:at°the z;
forefront - during.. ,.the negotiation : process It As time ''that ` we A
recognize the':degradation . aircraft -noise°inflicts-on'Minnesotals
quality of life :,and and. positive strides: to Itaddress the=problem.
t '?
• The Honorable Arne Carlson
June 19, 1991
Page 2
We look forward to your support on this issue. We pledge our
full assistance to you in addressing the air noise problem and
encourage you to call with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
CEM:kkb
Enclosure
I1DUMB Qynth olio
runway concepts 1 & 2
I1. TJL 77/66th St. interchange
Proposed location of T.H. 77 interchanges designed to provide access to the
west terminal is unclear. Specifically two locations have been indicated. Original
concept drawings prepared by HNTB show west terminal access from the
vicinity of 64th St. while conceptual drawings prepared by BRW show access
from 66th St. Although the final location of the proposed west terminal
interchange must be resolved each of the proposed locations produces
significant local and regional impacts. the following is a summary of the impacts
associated with a west terminal interchange:
a. Both lack sufficient space for workable connections to the existing
T.1-162 /T.H.77 interchange.
b. The 64th St. interchange does not provide access to TH.77 from
Richfield.
c. Both will significantly impact adjacent neighborhoods in northeast
Richfield. The BRW interchange concept will obliterate a recently
redeveloped area of northeast Richfield.
2. 66th St. & Portland Ave.
Traffic impacts associated with both an interchange constructed at 66th. St.
and access to either a west terminal or remote parking facility will extend the
length of 66th St. to at least Portland Ave
The resulting increased traffic volumes will exceed the existing capacity of 66th
St.. Portland Ave. traffic will increase as well, as motorists choose it as an
alternative means of gaining access to west MSP facilities from 1-35W and T.H.
62.
3. Property loss -
66th Street and will require widening to meet the increased capacity demands,
41 Property along the south side of 66th St. will be acquired in order to provide
additional right of way. Loss of this property will represent a loss to Richfield's
tax base. Property values within the T.H. 77 corridor will experience a decline
relative to development of a buffer zone adjacent to MSP's western border.
Such a decline could substantially limit redevelopment of eastern Richfield. All
property losses will translate into loss of tax capacity as well.
Property lost in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods as a result
of previous noise mitigation efforts will account for a significant loss in tax
capacity.
d. Ldn 65 noise contour
There will be no significant impacts from Ldn 65 noise level. Exposure will be
limited to a portion of northeast Richfield.
B. Runway 4= impact area
Runway 4/22 is proposed for significant less use than other runways despite its
increased length. However, it appears unlikely that runway 4/22 will actually
experience such low usage especially in unfavorable weather when it could
very easily become the runway of choice. Southeast Richfield will experience
is noise impacts when runway 4/22 is operating to and from the southwest, it is
likely that noise experienced in this portion of the city will be greater than
anticipated.
C?oNegative visual impacts
Negative visual impacts will be reduced by these concepts as a result of lower
intensity development along MSP's western border. Significant terminal related
facilities are not sited adjacent to T.H.77 in either concepts 1 & 2.
7. Rich acres golf Course
The visual and recreational amenity offered by Rich Acres Golf course could be
lost as a result of this alternative depending upon final placement of the 66th St.
/west terminal interchange.
0. T.H. 77 & T.H. 62
Both T.H. s 77 and 62 will require significant capacity improvements to meet
traffic demands for the year 2010. The capacity improvements will result in
increased right of way acquisition along T.H. 77 and an improved interchange at
A
•
0
f •3S3f ?•=jt ?1+?I?i7:?' •' + ' , SI,3
: •; y : ?
.. ,
_ w ? : • ?I rt+11+111?1??:
H
,.::.
•:#::. ?
2-AW Kitt
h :>
:
•. m
3AY 1LLBE ?y??'
11191
Yl O ,? ? .
.. ..................
3
AV
h?c.b7)
d V
.b
C
= MAW 14131
°+ a
'3AV O'JY? r a
}
ti•i``,?, 3AY GOOVUUOd O w,
-AAY lill"M
0
CL
?Ah+??OIMA?
e
? ? anv 1?a?
u
3AY S3P(U3X
3A? VJPOA
z
Z?
z
N
C%j
r
Q
U) C
C
4 L
z
C
0
T.H. 77/62. It is likely that a new interchange at T.h. 77/62 will require more
height than is currently present producing potential height conflicts with runway
18./36 RPZ.
is
0
• m11 IL nn oyntheono
runway concepts 1 & 2
L T.H.62/77 and Portland Ave.
T.H.77 and 62: Develop parkway along T.H. 62 to emphasize airport approach
and reinforce visual connection to Minneapolis chain of lakes. T.H. 77 parkway
will not only reinforce regional open space connections but also provide a much
needed visual and environmental buffer for airport activities. A grand scale
buffer will encourage desirable and compatible redevelopment of Richfield's
eastern edge.
Portland Ave.: Portland Ave. should be developed as parkway in conjunction
with 66th St. improvements. A parkway development will reinforce regional
open space connections.
2. T.H.77 interchange
Conflicts associated with location and configuration of the proposed T.H. 77
interchanges designed to provide access to west terminal facilities remain
unresolved. However, concepts 1 & 2 provide an opportunity to reconfigure Rich
• Acres Golf course within the confines of a new interchange.
3. & 4 Redevelopment
Successful redevelop of southeast Richfield can occur by encouraging
relocation of "soft" airport related activities. Services provided by car rentals,
food services, and administrative offices, can be relocated to southeast
Richfield. Access to MSP can be provided by proposed 77th St. improvements.
Redevelopment will also occur as a result of an interchange providing direct
access to T.H. 77 and the MSP west terminal. Development associated with
the T.H. 77/ 66th St. interchange will replace commercial and hospitality
development lost in Bloomington as a result of runway 18/36 construction.
Redevelopment of south east Richfield will help to mitigate the loss of tax base
produced by the loss of New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
Concepts 1 and 2 will provide a better atmosphere for development of the T.H.
77 corridor as a result of greater opportunities to develop an environmentally
sensitive buffer along MSP's western edge.
•
5. Noise mitigation
Noise Mitigation will be less of an issue for concepts 1 and 2.
6.7 7 th St. connections
Construction of a 77th St. connection to 24th Ave. will provide direct access to
1-494 for businesses located within the T. H. 77 corridor.
is
0
0
C
V
C
0
0
L '?d
f+
E -3:
Ca
('I,
7YC
a
N
Z
N?
N
o?
T
A
U)
2
o0
Z
O
I
rn
U
• nODUB uyntheonu
runway concepts S & 6
11. T.H. 77/66th St. interchange
Proposed location of T.H. 77 interchanges designed to provide access to the
west terminal is unclear. Two different locations have been indicated. Original
concept drawings prepared by HNTB show west terminal access from the
vicinity of 64th St. while conceptual drawings prepared by BRW show access
from 66th St. Although the final location of the proposed west terminal
interchange must be resolved each of the proposed locations produces
significant local and regional impacts. the following is a summary of the impacts
associated with a west terminal interchange:
a. Both lack sufficient space for workable connections to the existing
T.1-162 /T.H.77 interchange.
b. The 64th St. interchange does not provide access to TH.77 from
Richfield.
c. Both will significantly impact adjacent neighborhoods in northeast
Richfield. The 66th. St. interchange concept will obliterate a recently
• redeveloped area of northeast Richfield.
d. Most importantly both will apparently conflict with runway 18/36. The
64th St. option places the interchange directly below the runway's
RPZ while the 66th interchange falls directly in the path of the north
end of runway 18/36.
2. 66th St. & Portland Ave.
Traffic impacts associated with both an interchange constructed at 66th. St.
and access to either a west terminal or remote parking facility will extend the
length of 66th St. to at least Portland Ave.
The resulting increased traffic volumes will exceed the existing capacity of 66th
St. Portland Ave. traffic will increase as well as motorists chose it as an
alternative means of gaining access to west MSP facilities from 1-35W and T.H.
62.
3. Property loss -
66th Street will require widening to meet the increased capacity demands.
Property along the south side of 66th St. will be acquired in order to provide
additional right of way. Loss of this property will represent a loss to Richfield's
tax base.Property values within the T.H. 77 corridor will experience a decline
relative to development of a buffer zone adjacent to MSP's western border.
Such a decline could substantially limit redevelopment of eastern Richfield. All
property losses will translate into loss of tax capacity as well.
4. Ldn 65 noise contour
It is likely that the Ldn 65 contour will extend further into Richfield than indicated
if runway 18/36 usage is maintained at the proposed 40% level. It also likely
that the noise contour will extend into Richfield if runway 18/36 is operated in a
manner similar as the proposed north and south parallels.
U). Runway 4= impact area
Runway 4/22 is proposed for significant less use than other runways despite its
increased length. However, it appears unlikely that runway 4/22 will actually
experience such low usage especially in unfavorable weather when it could
very easily become the runway of choice. Southeast Richfield will experience
noise impacts when runway 4/22 is operating to and from the southwest, it is
• likely that noise experienced in this portion of the city will be greater than
anticipated.
Oo Negative visual impacts
Absence of an environmentally sensitive visual buffer along MSP's western
edge will adversely effect the visual environment of the T.H. 77 corridor. The
corridor will appear narrow and cluttered if proposed terminal facilities are
developed close to the right of way. Additionally, runway activity will also
appear to be closer.
7. Rich acres golf Course
The visual and recreational amenity offered by Rich Acres Golf course will be
lost as a result of this alternative. The golf course lies not only in the path of the
proposed runway but also in the path of the proposed interchange at 66th St.
and T.H. 77.
Is
0 Oe T.H. 77 & T.H. 62
Both T.H. s 77 and 62 will require significant capacity improvements to meet
traffic demands for the year 2010. The capacity improvements will result in
increased right of way acquisition along T.H. 77 and an improved interchange at
T.H. 77/62. It is likely that a new interchange at T.h. 77/62 will require more
height than is currently present producing potential height conflicts with runway
18./36 RPZ.
0
0
•
Z
m
J
Z2
4
Q
d
H
X11 n af nn oynt e?n
runway concepts 5 & 6
L T.H.62177 and Portland Ave.
T.H.77 and 62: Develop parkway along T..H. 62 to emphasize airport approach
and reinforce visual connection to Minneapolis chain of lakes. T.H. 77 parkway
will not only reinforce regional open space connections but also provide a much
needed visual and environmental buffer for airport activities. A grand scale
buffer will encourage desirable and compatible redevelopment of Richfield's
eastern edge.
Portland Ave.: Portland Ave. should be developed as parkway in conjunction
with 66th St. improvements. A parkway development will reinforce regional
open space connections.
2. T.H.77 interchange
Conflicts associated with location and configuration of the proposed T.H. 77
interchanges designed to provide access to west terminal facilities remain
is unresolved.
3. & 4 Redevelopment
Successful redevelop of southeast Richfield can occur by encouraging
relocation of "soft" airport related activities. Services provided by car rentals,
food services, and administrative offices, can be relocated to southeast
Richfield. Access to MSP can be provided by proposed 77th St. improvements.
Redevelopment will also occur as a result of an interchange providing direct
access to T.H. 77 and the MSP west terminal. Development associated with
the T.H. 77/ 66th St. interchange will replace commercial and hospitality
development lost in Bloomington as a result of runway 18/36 construction.
Redevelopment of south east Richfield will help to mitigate the loss of tax base
produced by the loss of New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
5. Noise mitigation
Part 150 noise mitigation will be needed to reduce the effects of ground noise
and airborne noise produced by increased use of runway 18/36.
• 6. 77 th St. connections
Construction of a 77th St. connection to 24th Ave. will provide direct access to
1-494 for businesses located within the T. H. 77 corridor.
0
CJ
•
c-
0
c.
v?
8°
c
ar?hl+?L*
a
Q
c
ca
IN
Z=
MGM
z
N
z
co
as
c?
c
? c
J ?
Q
z
? o
I
H
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 34
Agenda July 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Discussion of "Beer in the Parks".
Background:
At one time, possession and consumption of beer was permitted in the
Richfield park system. Currently, sale, possession or consumption of
beer is prohibited in the public parks of the City. A recent history of
"Beer in the Parks" for Richfield is attached.
The Community Services Commission reopened discussion of beer in the
parks about a year ago. City staff did a survey of policies in other
cities in March of 1990. When the Commission again discussed the topic
in June of 1991, a Commission member provided updated information on the
policy of other communities. These pieces of information are attached.
At the June 11, 1991 Community Services Commission meeting action was
taken, with one dissenting vote, to recommend that the City Council
consider allowing beer and wine coolers in Veterans Memorial Park of
Richfield, Taft Park and Augsburg Park with the understanding that 1)
persons wishing to consume beer or wine coolers in the park shall be
required to make a reservation with the City and obtain a permit for
their function, 2) beer and wine coolers shall be served in non-glass
containers and 3) beer and wine coolers may be consumed in the park only
between the hours set forth in the permit.
Community Services Commission members will attend the Council Study
Session to join in the discussion of the topic.
Recommended Motion:
No action is required at this time. However, if the Council has any
interest in pursuing the possibility of permitting beer and wine coolers
in the City parks, staff should be directed to work with the City
Attorney in preparation of necessary proposed ordinance changes.
Basis of Recommendation:
This item is being discussed at the recommendation of the Community
Services Advisory Commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion of "Beer in the Parks" is scheduled for the July 1, 1991
Council Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
(20
• Jam z. Prosser
Cityanager
JDP:ds
Attachments
cc: Community Services Commission Members
•
June 7, 1991
POLICY OF BEER IN PARKS OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
CITY POLICY
Anoka Beer off limits in most parks. Permits can
be bought for some parks for beer only.
Apple Valley Beer is allowed in all but one park where a
permit is needed.
Bloomington No permit needed. 3.2 beer/wine coolers only.
Burnsville Beer is allowed, but if group is larger than
25 persons, you need to apply for a permit.
Columbia Heights Beer is allowed only in main park on weekends
only. By Council approval in other parks.
Eden Prairie Beer and wine allowed. No kegs. Must get
permission from parks director and a permit
from the City.
Edina Available at Edinborough and Braemar only.
Fridley Against City ordinance to have any beer in
any park.
Golden Valley Beers in parks allowed only if you have
shelter reserved with the City. Must submit
letter to Council for approval.
Hopkins Beer allowed in two parks only. Permit needed
for keg or when gathering is 25+ people.
Minneapolis No permit required. 3.2 beer only. No kegs
or other liquor allowed.
Minnetonka Beer allowed in two parks only. Permit needed
for gatherings of 25+ people and for kegs.
Non-glass containers only.
St. Louis Park No liquor at all.
March 13, 1990
• BEER IN THE PARKS INFORMATION
Bloomington - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption except by special permit
at designated parks.
Eagan - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption except by special permit
(and then only beer in cans or kegs,
no glass containers allowed) at
designated sites.
Eden Prairie - Allows beer in most parks.
- Restricts keg(s) to special permit.
- Prohibits alcohol at specific parks
that involve youth athletics.
Edina - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption in parks anytime.
0 Minneapolis - Ordinance restricts nothing stronger
than 3.2 beer in parks.
Richfield - Sale, possession and consumption of
alcoholic beverages prohibited (see
attached for recent history)
Roseville - 3.2 beer allowed at/in Central Park
anytime.
Restricts keg(s) to special permit.
Special permit also available for
picnics or softball tournaments.
St. Louis Park - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption in the parks anytime.
St. Paul - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption in parks.
- Special permit available for
designated parks/facilities for
special activities.
March 13, 1990
• RECENT HISTORY OF "BEER IN THE PARKS" IN RICHFIELD
August 25, 1975 An amendment to the ordinance is passed
making the consumption and possession of
alcoholic beverages a misdemeanor
offense.
June 9, 1980 Ordinance amended to permit sale and
consumption of beer in Taft Park and
Augsburg Park on special occasions for
charitable purposes.
April 26, 1982 Ordinance amended. Sale and consumption
of beverages containing not less than
one half of one percent alcohol by
volume is prohibited.
May 9, 1983 Ordinance amended. Sale, possession and
consumption is prohibited in parks;
"beverages containing not less than one
half of one percent alcohol by volume"
removed and replaced with "beer".
• May 23, 1988 Subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, which refer to
permits, are repealed as redundant.
Richfield City Code
840.1'1 (Rev. 1988)
( 840.11. Sale and consumption of beer in parks. Subdivision 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this subsection, terms defined in the subdivision have the
meanings given them.
(a) "Sale" means all means of furnishing and includes but is not limited
to the furnishing for money or other consideration.
(b) "Beer" means any beverage which is produced wholly or in part from the
brewing of any grains or malt or malt substitute and containing more than
one-half of one percent alcohol by volume.
(c) "Organization" means any entity having religious, veteran, charitable
or business activities as its principal purpose and which qualifies in all
respects for the issuance of a license to sell the type of >beer to be furnished
at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought.
Subd. 2. Sale and consumption prohibited. The sale, possession with
intent to consume, or consumption of beer is prohibited in the public parks of
the city.
(Subd. 3, 4 and 5 Repealed, Bill No. 1988-12)
0