Loading...
08-26-91 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement• Approval of proposed 1992 budget and property tax levy for payable year 1992 for certification to the Hennepin County Auditor and set date for public budget hearing for the 1991 Revised/1992 Proposed budget and tax levy. Background: As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (M.S. 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 1992 to the County Auditor on or before September 3, 1991. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. In addition, each "taxing authority" must certify to their County Auditor: the date that has been selected for their Truth in Taxation hearing by September 3, 1991. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the County or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth in Taxation public hearing must be held between November 15 and December 20, 1991. It is recommended that this year's hearing be set for 7:00 p.m., November 20, 1991 with a continuation date of 7:00 p.m., December 4, 1991, if necessary. Notice of the budget hearing will be published and posted in accordance with both the State Statute and the City Charter. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution certifying a proposed property tax levy and budget for 1992. 2. Set a public budget hearing for 7:00 p.m., November 20, 1991, with a continuation date of 7:00 p.m., December 4, 1991. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Minnesota Truth in Taxation law requires a budget hearing for each "taxing authority" prescribed by M.S. 275.065. 2. The recommended dates are available according the Hennepin County Auditor. 3. The budget and accompanying proposed levy are ready for consideration. 4. There is adequate time to meet publication requirements. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select another date for the hearing, provided it is available and publication requirements can be satisfied. ~-i 2. The City Council could reduce the property tax levy, causing the need for more severe service reductions. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action by the City Council on August 26 would make it possible to certify the proposed 1992 tax levy and set date for budget hearings as required by law. y submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP:ds -~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1992 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 3, 1991, and then recertified before December 30, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The proposed budget for the City of Richfield for the year 1992 is hereby approved and .adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: GENERAL FUND Legislation $ 173,760 Executive- 406,040 Administrative Services 922,010 Community Development 237,880 Public Safety 6,064,810 Community Services 4,327,450 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $12,131,950 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1992, which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: GENERAL FUND $12,131,950 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1991, payable in 1992 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE GENERAL FUND* AMOUNT $ 6,848,429 *Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to the Public Employees' Retirement Association and the Police and Fire Relief Associations. Provision has also been made in the General Fund revenues for a general levy that includes a debt service levying in the amount of $350,076 for Bonds of 1972, 1977, 1978, 1983 and 1985. See separate resolution on other bond issues. ~-3 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 1992 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1991, payable in 1992 for the following purposes: PURPOSE ~ AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority S 213,224 Relocation Information, Services and Assistance $ 21,287 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of August, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA. Council Letter No. 2J0 Agenda August 26, 1991.. Issue Statement: Council consideration as to whether to hold a City Council Study Session on September 2, 1991. Background: City Council Study Sessions are regularly conducted on the first Monday of each month. However, September 2 is the Labor Day holiday. It is suggested that the Study Session scheduled for September 2 be cancelled. Recommended Motion: Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for September 2, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Study Session business can be carried over to October 1991. 2. September 2 is the Labor Day holiday. 3. The holiday may cause a problem with a quorum for the Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reschedule the City Council Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the August 26, 1991 Council agenda so proper public notification can be given if the meeting is cancelled. Respect ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 229 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement: Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ended December 31, 1990. Background• The City's.auditing firm of Deloitte and Touche completed the audit of the City's fiscal year- ending December 31, 1990 late in June. The Comprehensive Annual,Financial Report was subsequently submitted to the State of Minnesota as required and to the Government'Finance Officers Association for compliance review. At the City Council Study Session earlier this evening, representatives from Deloitte and Touche made a detailed presentation of the financial report to the City Council and answered any questions concerning the report. The action to be taken at the August 26, 1991 meeting. is the official receipt of the CAFR by the City Council. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ending December 31, 1990. " Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City's Auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial records for the year ending December 31, 1990 and is making a report to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal control. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanation of their findings. Discussion Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested Council meeting. The report has State of Minnesota, pursuant to at the August 26, 1991 City been previously submitted to the State law. Respe y submitted, James D. rosser City a ger JDP:ds 5 CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF RICHFIELD, .MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 228 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of approval of workers' compensation stipulation for settlement. Background• In 1979, a•Richfield Equipment Operator II was injured while trying to catch a falling street light pole which the Operator had lifted onto a front-end loader. The injury caused pain. in the Operator's back. As a result of the effect of the injury, the Equipment Operator II was unable to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position and was paid temporary total disability benefits, and various rehabilitation and medical expenses since the injury in 1979. In 1982, the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund accepted retroactive registration with the Second Injury Fund of a previous back injury. The City, the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund and representatives of the Operator have tentatively agreed to a stipulation for settlement which would allow the City to recover a portion of certain overpayments made to the Operator since 1987 and also fully realize future reductions in workers' compensation benefits, and statutory assessments paid to the State. The stipulation shows that the Operator and the City have agreed that the Operator has been permanently and totally disabled since the injury; that as of June 4, 1991, the City has a claim against the Operator for an overpayment of compensation benefits; that likewise the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund has a claim against the City for an overpayment for Second Injury Benefits for the same amount; that the parties have agreed to reduce their respective claims for overpayment to•facilitate settlement; and that the overpayment to the Operator will be refunded to the City by reducing the employee's future workers' compensation benefits by 20~ until the stipulated overpayment has been recovered. The overpayment to the City will be refunded to the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund by executing a check in the amount of 57,107.48. In addition, the City also maintains a separate claim against the Special Compensation Fund for supplementary benefits paid by the City which should have been reimbursed by the Fund. These and all future supplementary benefits will be reimbursed by the Special Compensation Fund and the City is entitled to a reduction in assessments owing to the State on these benefits. The City will also be allowed to recalculate its annual statutory assessment for the last four years. ~--r It is the position of the legal staff representing the City that the settlement is a reasonable one. Even though the City must refund a portion of its Second Injury Benefits to the Special Compensation Fund, the City will realize a net gain in excess of $16,000 plus a reduction in all future workers' compensation benefits to the Operator and a reduction in future statutory assessments to the State. Recommended Motion: Approve the stipulation for settlement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City staff and Attorney consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend accepting it. 2. The City will receive its now reduced overpayment to the Operator through a 20% reduction in benefits. 3. A portion of disability payments previously paid to the Operator will be reclassified as~supplementary benefits and reimbursed by the Special Compensation Fund. 4. A portion of future disability payments will be classified as supplementary benefits, reimbursed by the Special Compensation Fund and the City will pay reduced assessments. 5. The settlement results in a net benefit for the City in .excess of $16,000, as well as a future reduction of workers' compensation benefits and future statutory assessments. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the settlement. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled Attorney's office may execute Operator in a timely manner. for August 26, 1991 in order elements of constructing the Ci for August 26, 1991 so the City a signed stipulation with the Action on this item is suggested to take advantage of all essential settlement agreement. lly submitted, . Prosser JDP:ff CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council LetterNo.~~7 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement• Public hearing and second reading consideration of an amendment to the sign ordinance relating to the C-3 zoning district. Background• The C-3 high-density commercial district was established to encourage the redevelopment of the ILN area along I494. It was further recognized that there may be an extended period of time before the redevelopment is fully realized. To deal with the interim period, transitional activities were permitted to allow certain development or expansion of businesses located in the area in order to remain viable and competitive without such activities having a detrimental effect on the redevelopment potential. Sign regulation for this interim period was not revised. Any off-premises sign is de:~ined as a billboard and, in effect, precluded in the C-3 district. This prevents the sharing of a sign by adjoining businesses. The proposed ordinance would permit the sharing of a freestanding sign as long as it is within 150 feet of a.business. An additional 50 square feet of signage would be permitted. This would reduce the cost of business identification signage as well as the total number of signs. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of an ordinance amending paragraph (f) of Subsection 416.07 of the City Code, relating to the sign ordinance, which would allow the sharing of business signs in the C-3 district under certain conditions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This proposed amendment would give the City Council more flexibility and control in the issuance of sign permits in the C-3 zoning district. 2. Conditions may be imposed on the issuance of the sign permits to deal with unusual situations or problems. 3. The sharing of a freestanding sign by adjoining businesses may result in fewer signs along I494. 4. The amendment is consistent with the policy of helping existing business to remain viable in the C-3 district area pending redevelopment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could modify the amendment. 2. The City Council could decide not to adopt this amendment. ~-r Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 P.M. on August 26, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Respectful submitted, James Prosser City M ger JDP:cak ~~ GILL KO. 1591- AMBNDMBNT TO CBAPTBR [V, $BCTION 416, $UBSBCTiON 416.0? OP THB 08DiNANCB CODB OP THB CITY OF' RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN= Paragraph (f) of Subsection 416.0? is hereby emended to reed as follows: (f) C-3 hi~th density commerci$1. General -rule. Only thost suns approved as part of the site plan review praeess required by section 520 of this code shell be permitted. All signs iawtully existing on August .1, 1987, shall be deemed to be nonconforming signs subject to the provisions for nonconforming signs found in subdivision 5 of subsection 416.11, and in the case of outdoor advertising displays, subject to the provisions found in subdivision 3 of subsection 418.0$ of this code. ' Is (vi) ~~ d rimental to the general public heap` h~s~-fety or welfare. Passed by the City Council of the Cityr o! I;ichiield, Minnesota this Z6th day of August, 1991. CITY OF RICHFIELD $Y Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RC160-003 2 viii if located on the parcel, the si~-n area woes. not exeeec zuu 3~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 226 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application fora new residential kennel license for James Ruedy, 7600 Grand Avenue, Richfield. Background: On August 7,.1991 James Ruedy submitted an application for a residential kennel license. He owns five cats. Mr. Ruedy's application had all contiguous property owners' signatures on it. On August 8, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. A kennel inspection of the property found no apparent problems. Although this application is for five cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. Basis for Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two cats not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Ruedy has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Mr. Ruedy's residential kennel license. This would mean that he would have to reduce the number of cats he has from .five to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for James Ruedy, 7600 Grand Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Res c ly submitted, Jame Prosser City M ager JDP:cak i ~Q r-1 KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION INSPECTION Name `,~'~ ~ ~ \\`C ~ ~ U ~ d~,i Address Z(~ab ~9~CPr?c~ Number of Animals: dogs ~ cats Breed: Are animals currently licensed? ~ yes no Number of residents occupying dwelling ,~ Is yard enclosed with a fence in good repair? ~ yes no Will fence keep animals on owner's property? :7~ yes no Is yard clean and free of animal feces, etc.? ~ yes no Is garbage stored in covered metal container? yes ~ no Are pets kept for breeding purposes? yes ~no How are pets exercised? (where - what area) Are there unpleasant odors present? yes __~~ no Have all abutting property owners signed a petit'on of approval for a kennel license for this number of animals?yes no If not, why not? Additional comments and history: Gac.rba_ae /5 .-~s~~F- ^sp=cted b ~cd To 5!~ e rnaJ~ QQl-'~ s V o sr ~ A ~ ~ ae,c iu.~m y/e~~Z ~y J _ - ~ // / // -f irJ N cam, s-S Gam' nN ~C O ii o ~ Q ° Oo T Gs-~ ~~ c2ri~r~ y~ 8/8: w ._ x/91 ~~ 1'~ CZTY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVE. S0. RICHFIELD, I~".N X5423 RECEIPT N0. LICENSE N0. NEkt~ RENEW n~~r Trnmrn~* rOF KF1'*'FT T T(`~'~CE June 1, 1991 to May 31, 1992 Applicant's Name:. r~I/P.a~I~S L1~~6 ~1 FEE Applicant' s Address : ?GOt~ G~~/~~/ SO • ~ Residential S Applicant's Phone No: Business Name: Commercial S 2° Business Address: ` ~ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE S y„T(,i Business Phone No.: I•(we)•hereby.agree to•operate.such•business in•accordance with the laws of the State Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge any belief. Authorized Signature: Date: ~ COMPLETE FOR RESIDE TIAL KENNEL ONLY n~~an 7AT Off' r'nN'T'Tf~ii~"° ~Rf1Pt~RTV nLdNFFc mn p~gTDE~TTTnT, KRNt`?FT. (A place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping _ of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises fo= residential purposes.) . Ordinance Code Section 90.31, Subd. 3 - The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a peti~ion showing t. approval cf the occupants of pr_vately owned real estate abutting the premises o^. which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all cf tY occupants of abutting property approve the application, the council may grant or deny the license. The license may not be granted unless t+e , council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residen~_a_ kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse e•ffe~t upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and wi'_'_ not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The council may impose conditions upon t:~e granting cf any residential kennel license. ^TTTT V"~ ~t SE'a ATTAC:?~D P ~ + i ~ +ON 1 ~~;- . 3~ ~' ~ HEREBI' APPROVE OF A RESIDE?`'TIA= F;E~'~fE:. 01ti :'HE OF PP.ENISES APPLICAI~"r: ~QL/$/'~C RDDRESS : _ ~Ip / QQ ~~(°~/1J4~ / ~~f~JC~ SIGIv'A~URE • ADDRESS : ~ E~ ~ ~+. SIGNATURE. ~ ADDRESS : ~(op ~ ~r~„~~ ~ `,•~. ~j , SIGNATURE' ~V~~~~ ADDRESS: ~ 7.1fi t.~ C-!~~ ~~ ~_~~ FnR .TTY TTSF C)NT.Y HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL: YES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO NO Signed Date Date 3C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Council Letter No. 225 Agenda August 26, 1991 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution authorizing $5,580,000 advance refunding bond sale. Background: At the July 8, 1991 City Council meeting the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the City proceed with an advanced refunding bond sale. The refunding is advantageous because: ® The interest on outstanding bonds is greater than the current interest rate which can be obtained for refunding issues. ® The net cost of increase is less than potential savings on interest earnings. The cost of increase includes bond consultant 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: $210,714 Present Value Savings: $187,099 The refunding issue will be structured so that most of the actual present value savings will be realized in the first two years 1992 and 1993. The immediate savings will provide more cash available for the LHN project area for the next two years and allow a small reduction in the debt service payment necessary for the improvement bonds. The cost of issuance would be approximately $50,000 and the underwriter's discount $55,050., These costs were considered before calculating total savings. The resolution formally authorizing this will be distributed by the City Attorney's office just prior to the start of the Council meeting on August 26. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City's financial consultant, Evenson-Dodge, to obtain proposals for the sale of $5,580,000 advance refunding bonds. 3C- I Basis for Recommendation: 1. The analysis of outstanding bond issues projects an annual savings if advance refunding of certain of these outstanding issues takes place now. 2. Any net savings will reduce the City's future special levy for retirement of bonded debt. Ultimately, this favors the taxpayer in the form of reduced or stabilized property taxes and more cash available in the LHN tax increment district. 3. The City Council reviewed these issues. at the July 1 Study Session and the July 8 City Council meeting indicating that staff should proceed with steps to authorize refunding bond sale. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Disregard current advance refunding options and continue to retire the bonded debt as currently structured. 2. Authorize an advanced refunding issue for either a lesser or greater issue amount based on refunding a different number of current bond issues. Discussion/Decision Mode: A resolution authorizing advance refunding bond sale is to be considered at the August 26 Council meeting with sale date on September 9, 1991. Respe~t~u~ly submitted, Jame Prosser City M nager JDP:cak cc: Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Council Letter No.~24 Agenda August 26, 1991- Issue Statement• Request for an off-street parking permit at US West, 300 West 66th Street. Background• US West currently meets their parking requirement with 94 spaces in the existing parking lot, which is located in .the northern portion of the property. They are, however, requesting an off- street permit to establish a second parking lot in the southwest portion. of the property. The second parking lot would provide an area for the overnight parking of 2$ company vehicles. The parking lot would be setback 55 feet from 66th Street to provide adequate space for landscaping and screening. The parking lot would be secured with a chain link fence and gate which would also be setback 55 feet form 66th Street. The fence would be screened with an earth berm and plant materials. Recommended Motion: Approve the off-street parking permit and site plan for US West with the following stipulation: 1. A cash escrow for all required landscaping be submitted. prior to issuance of this permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal is in conformance with City .parking lot requirements. 2. The drainage plan meets the City Engineer's approval. 3. The curb cut width is adequate for the proposed use. 4. The proposal would provide a secured parking area for company vehicles. 5. The proposed site plan meets the landscape requirements. 6. The proposal exceeds the parking requirement by 28 spaces. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the off-street parking permit with a finding that the request would have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the August 26, 1991 City Council meeting. Respectfu submitted, James D rosser City Ma a er JDP:cak -65TH STREET + JI W~ a~ i rPROPERTY LINE . Ply )T 1 3~-- I -~~ t 1 t Y a oc d i L___ e~~i ti g conditions 300 WEST 66 scale 1 ~ =so' TH STREET N "~ ~~ ~1~4A.iM 1a~~ PLANNING ZONING a....,o.,.b._.o.o.,..,. . ~ ~~ . , . _ ,,,,,~_ 66TH STREET _ 2 ~ RETAINING WA'LL• ~ " •~ I• ". . - - .~ ~ • , t ~ , . • Z O ~ ~ . 'J PAVED PARKING LOT m ~ _• Q .1. ' cc }• i '~ • Y / a Z. D J m H W ~~ ri cn o• a • Z , X ,~ /• W • W I 1 L'I - " 1~.~.; - - , • ~ 1 I `. ' ~ j r ~q~•~•~ . ~ ._ _ ~ ~ - . ~ - CHAIN LMNC 1~~~1~1- NCE & GATE ~~M ,c ~ \ ~ ' ET iNG WALL • , ~RI~ED AR ' ~ . j - . . r V ~ - • ~_ _ ~ _ _ _ ~~ ~~' ~ ~. "I _ _ PROPERTY'LME ~ . _ ~ . _ RRT41 CTR~FT I PROPOSED SITE PLAN 300 WEST 66TH STREET .~~~~~++ * ~ ~ PLANNING scale ~• = so' i~ ~a~ ' ` ~ Z~N NG CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 223 Agenda, August 26, 1991 Issue Statement• Consideration of a Council resolution supporting the proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991. Background• The proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991 was introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. -This legislation would exempt municipalities and other persons from contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et. sec. ("CERCLA" or "Superfund") on the basis that they are liable for generation or transportation of municipal solid waste. The bill provides protection to municipalities during Superfund cleanups. It prevents third party contribution suits against municipalities or other persons who sent ordinary household garbage or sewage sludge to toxic waste sites. The legislation does not exempt a municipality from liability for waste containing hazardous substances in an amount in excess of waste generated by households. Attached is an analysis of the proposed legislation for further information. Recommended Motion: Approve a resolution supporting the proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991 which has been introduced in the United States Senate. Basis for Recommendation: The proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991 would amend municipal liability under Superfund cleanups and provide protection to local governments. It is in the best interest of the City of Richfield to support this bill. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to take additional time to examine this matter. 2. The Council may decide to take no action on this matter. ~~J' Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the Council meeting on August 26, 1991. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP•kb Attachments ~"~. RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED TOXIC CLEANUP EQUITY AND ACCELERATION ACT OF 1991 WHEREAS, the Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991 has been introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey; and WHEREAS, this proposed legislation would have the effect of exempting municipalities and other persons from contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et sec. ("CERCLA" or "Superfund") on the basis that they are liable for generation or transportation of municipal solid waste; and WHEREAS, municipal solid waste is of a nature similar to solid waste generated by households and office buildings; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would apply to any response action or suit in which final judgement had not been. entered by a court before the date of the enactment of the act or in which a court approved settlement had been reached; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would not exempt a municipality from liability for waste containing hazardous substances in the amount in excess of that which one would expect to find in waste generated by households; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation is in the best interest of the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to support the proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991 introduced in the United States Senate. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of August, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk .~ . ~ ~A3 BECTION-BY-SECTION PiNALY8I8 OF THE TOPIC CLBANIIP EQIIITY AND l~CCELERATION !-CT OF 1991 8. 1557 Section 1--Short Title The short title of the legislation is the "'Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991"' (TCEAA). The legislation contains amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 ~t sect. Any reference to "'CERCLA"' or "'Superfund"' should be construed as a reference to that act. Section 2--Amendments to CERCLA definitions This section adds three definitions to CERCLA. The section does not alter any existing definitions under CERCLA and thus, for example, continues to define "'person"' as virtually any public or private entity or natural person, including federal, state, and local governments. The section defines "'municipal solid waste"' (MSW) as including all waste materials generated by households and office buildings, as well as waste from other sources when it is similar to household waste. The definition also includes small amounts of hazardous waste that can legally become part of the municipal waste stream under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6921(d). The term includes all constituent components of MSW, even though some of them might be deemed hazardous ~~"/ ` `7 - 2 - substances under CERCLA when they exist apart from MSW. The term does not include incinerator ash. The section defines "'sewage sludge"' as essentially any residue removed during the treatment of waste water at a publicly-owned treatment works. The section defines "'municipality"' to be any political subdivision of a state and includes individuals who act in an official capacity on behalf of a municipality.. section 3--Third-party suits for MSW or sewage sludge Under CERCLA, "'potentially responsible parties"' (PRPs) who have been notified by EPA that they may be liable for cleanup costs have the right to sue other parties who may also be responsible for the hazardous waste site. Such "'third-party"' or "'contribution"' suits provide PRPs a mechanism for making other polluters share the cleanup costs. This section modifies CERCLA to prevent third-party contribution suits against municipalities or other persons if their only actions were related to the generation or • transportation of MSW or sewage sludge. As used herein, "'generation"' or "'generators"' is meant to refer *_o actions or persons described by section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA and may include arranging for the transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous substances. "'Transportation"' or "'transporters"' is meant to refer to actions or persons described by section 107(a)(4). If. municipalities owned or operated a facility, or generated or transported waste materials that do not meet~the ~~-S - 3 - definitions of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge, the block on third-party suits does not apply. This section also codifies EPA's Interim Municipal Settlement Policy, 54 Fed. Reg. 51071 (1989). It states that the President must not sue municipalities or other persons who merely generated or transported MSW or sewage sludge, unless "'truly exceptional circumstances"' exist. These circumstances exist when the President has reliable evidence from a particular site that hazardous substances have been released that are not ordinarily found in MSW or sewage sludge and that those substances have come from commercial, institutional, or industrial processes, not households. Truly exceptional circumstances also exist when the toxicity and volume of waste from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources is insignificant compared with the toxicity and volume of the MSW or sewage sludge, or when absent all the hazardous substances from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, the hazardous substances from municipal solid waste or sewage sludge would be a significant cause of the contamination requiring the cleanup. When non-household trash at a site is alleged to be similar to or~!inary household garbage, the President may require that the generators or transporters of the trash bear the burden of proving that similarity. The section identifies two specific situations that can never amount to truly exceptional circumstances. First, when MSW or sewage sludge have been contaminated with hazardous substances at a waste transfer station, the generator or transporter of the ~n_ - 4 - original MSW or sewage sludge is not held responsible for the subsequent contamination (unless the generator or transporter also owned or operated the waste transfer station). Second, when sewage sludge has been approved by the President for "'beneficial reuse"' such as fertilizer, or would have so qualified at the time of disposal, such sludge cannot be the basis for the President bringing a lawsuit under Superfund. The section defines one situation in which a municipality will not be liable under Superfund for exercising its regulatory power: when it owns a public right-of-way, such as a road or sewage pipeline, over which hazardous substances are transported. Section 4--Settlements The section creates a special settlement opportunity for municipal generators and transporters of MSW and sewage sludge. When a municipality is notified by any person that it may be sued for generating or transporting MSW or sewage sludge, the section permits the municipality to request the President to enter into a settlement for all or part of the municipality's potential liability. The section requires that the settlement must be reached within 120 days? unless specific conditions are met. Once the municipality requests a settlement, a moratorium on administrative or judicial action against the municipality begins, and it continues until a negotiated settlement is reached ~or until the President publishes an explanation of why a settlement cannot be reached. A municipality may ask a federal ~~-~ - 5 - district court to review the President's decision denying the request for settlement. The section provides for only three acceptable reasons for failing to settle: the municipality refuses to pay according to specific cost allocation criteria (see next paragraph),-the municipality refuses to agree to settlement terms routinely required by the President. in settlements with parties who bear insignificant responsibility for sites, or there is insufficient information to allocate costs. If the President believes there is insufficient information, the moratorium is extended until enough information is obtained, but a completed remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is deemed to provide sufficient information, at least for the portion of the site studied in the RI/FS. Also, if the President has settled with another party (other than a de minimis party), it is presumed that he has enough information to settle with the municipality regarding matters addressed in the prior settlement. The section requires a municipality to pay for costs based on the portion of its MSW or sewage sludge that consists of hazardous substances, not on the total volume of she waste. MSW and sewage sludge are assumed to contain no more than one-half of one percent (0.5$) constituent hazardous substances unless the President obtains reliable site-specific evidence to the contrary. The section also requires the President to limit the amount a municipality must pay if payments would force a ~~~ - 6 - municipality to dissolve, to declare bankruptcy, or to default on its debt obligations. A municipality can settle under this section even if it may face other liability for acts unrelated to its role as a generator or transporter of MSW or sewage sludge (although the settlement can ignore such other liability). The section states that the settlement, which can take the form of a consent decree or administrative order, must include both a promise from the President (unless contrary to the public interest) not to sue the municipality again and protection from contribution suits or other claims under Superfund for matters addressed in the settlement. The section provides that in the settlement the President cannot reserve any rights for further relief that he does not ordinarily reserve in settlements with parties who bear insignificant responsibility for sites. The President also cannot ask a municipality to indemnify the United States or require a municipality to violate laws about meeting its fiscal obligations. Finally, the President must encourage municipalities to contribute services instead of money and to make delayed payments or payments over time. Section 5--Preliminary allocation of responsibility This section provides that at the request of a municipality, the President must prepare a nonbinding preliminary allocation of responsibility, unless doing so would be contrary to the public interest.. In such allocations, the volume of MSW and sewage sludge must refer to the portion of its MSW or sewage ~~-~ 7 sludge that consists of hazardous substances, not on the total volume of the waste. Section 6--Retroactivity This section provides that the TCEAA applies to all administrative or judicial actions that began before the effective date of the TCEAA, unless a final court judgment has been rendered or a court-approved settlement agreement has been reached. J~}- ~~ /, AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY % 1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1100 - ~ ~ ~~ 0 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-4798 /~ TELEPHONE (202) 393-3734 TELECOPIERS (202) 879-400 t (202) 879-4081 FOR I1~II-~EDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1991 BPI- BETTLE~[alo1T Il12TI]1TZVE C010[a2TDl1HLE, BOT LaGI8L71TIO11 STILL lTE3DED Washington, D.C., July 17, 1991 -- American Communities for Cleanup Equity (ACCE), a coalition of 86 local governments in ten states, today commended the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its new initiative on municipal liability under Superfund, but said that legislation was still needed to speed cleanup and prevent government resources from being squandered. "The EPA initiative is a settlement initiative,"' said Rena Steinzor, the group's chief lobbyist in Washington, "'and settlement is only appropriate if you think you should be liable for cleanup costs in the first place. For citizens across the country sued through their local governments for hundreds of millions because they took out the garbage, it is no comfort that they can run to the federal government and spend fewer millions settling their case."' "'ACCE supports Superfund and the critical, national need to make cleanups faster and more effective,"' Steinzor added. "'Neither EPA nor counties, cities, and towns across America should be compelled to spend scarce resources wrangling about settlements because corporate defendants bring third party suits over garbage and sewage sludge." "'ACCE will participate actively in the EPA initiative but its top priority will remain immediate legislative relief," Steinzor said. The coalition is seeking legislation that blocks corporate defendants from suing for billions in cleanup costs from parties who sent ordinary household garbage and sewage sludge to toxic waste sites. ACCE is also seeking amendments streamlining the settlement opportunities for local governments that are sued by the federal government and eliminating all liability when a local government's only involvement with a site was the regulation of private waste haulers. For further inlorsation, aoataat Anna et~insor, David Eolker, or Sandra Garbracht at (ZOZ) 393-3734.