10-01-90 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 34
Agenda October 1, 1990
Issue Statement:
Discussion of a proposal to consolidate Richfield Police Relief
Association with the Public Employees Retirement Association of
Minnesota (PERA).
Background:
All police and firefighters who were hired subsequent to June 15,
1980, are covered by the Public Employees Retirement Association
of Minnesota (PERA). However, police and firefighters hired
prior to that date are covered by a locally operated relief
association. There are currently 26 retired and disabled
beneficiaries and 22 active members of the police relief
association. Recently City staff and Richfield Police Relief
Association have initiated discussions regarding the possibility
of merging the relief association with PERA. State law permits
consolidation if approved by the members of the pension
organization and the City. At the same time the relief
association has asked for changes in some benefits. The changes
include:
• Incentive pay to be included in salary calculations for
pension computations.
• Retirement based upon earned service credit at age fifty.
• Elimination of the two unit reduction for deferred pensions.
The Police Relief Association board has requested consolidation
with PERA contingent upon changes in the benefits. The basis of
this request is that after consolidation, relief association
members will have the opportunity to choose from either PERA
benefits or Police Relief Association benefits. Without the
change in benefits proposed, there may not be enough incentive
for some of the members to approve the consolidation.
These benefit changes must be approved by the state legislature
for our city alone.
Recommendation:
Discuss the potential merger of the Police Relief Association
with PERA.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Police Relief Association board has approved a resolution
requesting consideration of consolidation.
2. The City Auditor has recommended that the City consider
police and fire relief association consolidate with PERA.
3. The cost of administration would be significantly reduced if
consolidated.
4. The logistics of administration are becoming more difficult
as more members of the relief association reach retirement
age.
5. The state has provided cost estimates for consolidation and
benefit increase which appear to be reasonable (attached).
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not discuss this item or defer to a later date. Deferral to a
later date will permit less time to present this issue to
legislatures prior to initiation of legislative session.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Study Session of October 1,
1990. If acceptable, a resolution endorsing this consolidation
will be placed on the October 8 agenda. After approval of a
resolution the following events would need to occur prior to
consolidation:
• The state legislature will need to approve a bill authorizing
the changes in benefits for the relief association.
• The Governor will need to sign the bill.
a The relief association members (active and retired) need to
vote in favor of consolidation, contingent upon the benefit
change.
• The City Council will need to approve the change in benefits
contingent upon consolidation.
Resp,etc,tAplly submitted,
James D'. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
RICHFIELD POLICE
6700 PORTLAND AVE. SO. RICHFIELD, MN. 55423 PHONE 861 -9800
September 25, 1990
James Prosser
City Manager
Dear Mr. Prosser:
The attached Resolution was approved by the Board of Directors
at a Pension meeting held September 5, 1990. A copy of the Resolu-
tion was given to Public Safety Director Erskine. We have informed
the 53 active, retired and deferred Relief Association members by
letter of the Board's intent to negotiate changes in the pension plan.
The Pension Roard requests that you work with the City Council
for Resolution approval so we can continue the benefit process and
to work at getting a Bill together for the next Legislative session.
The Pension Board would like the Resolution approved by the City
Council , as well as the Bill passed, by early next year.
Please keep us informed on your progress with the Resolution
and the Council approval.
M e Hanson, Secretary
Richfield Police
Relief Association
Resolution
relating to the benefit structure of
the Richfield Police Relief
Association; recommending changes and
expressing intent to consolidate with
P.E.R.A.
WHEREAS, members of the Richfield Police Relief Association
(the "Association ") are interested in improving the pension
benefits to members to have a more equitable, fair and
competitive plan, and
WHEREAS, the Association has examined the issue of college
incentive pay and believes it should be included in the
definition of pension benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Association would like to improve benefits to
members by having age 50 retirement under the current plan and
amending the bylaws to allow members to retire on a deferred
pension without the current two unit penalty provision; and
WHEREAS, city officials have expressed their desire to have
the membership of the Association consolidate with the Public
Employees Retirement Association (P.E.R.A.); and
WHEREAS, city officials and Association officials believe
that both the goals of the Association membership for improved
pensions and the city's goal of consolidation could be
,,. i
accommodated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Association supports
legislation for the 1991 Session which would:
1. Codify the interpretation that college incentive pay is
included in the definition of salary for the purpose of
pension computation effective retroactive to January 1,
1990;
2. Provide for retirement based on earned service credit at
age 50; and
3. Elimination,of the two unit reduction for deferred
pensions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Association seeks the
approval of the city for the above - mentioned legislative package
and that the Association and the city jointly lobby and support
i-he legislation in the 1991 Session of the Minnesota
Legislature;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Association support the
initiation of a consolidation process into P.E.R.A. in January,
1991 with the intention of having the benefit changes being
accomplished in conjunction with the Association consolidating
with P.E.R.A.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the legislative proposal
set forth herein fails to pass, the Association will not support
•.' the consolidation with P.E.R.A.
RICHFIELD POLICE kQW AAAo�"
6700 PORTLAND AVE. SO. RICHFIELD, MN. 55423 PHONE 861 -9800
September 24, 1990
Dear Relief Association Members and Beneficiaries:
The Pension Board has been meeting with the City Management Staff
to discuss and negotiate some changes in the Pension Plan. At
this time, the City Council is not in the process and is not
officially aware of these negotiations. The City Staff will
present the information and recommendation to the elected
officials by the normal procedure.
The intent of this letter is to inform you of these negotiations
and to advise that more information will be provided if our
progress continues or ceases. We do not want to either raise
expectations or to cause apprehension as to the details so far.
However, it is the opinion of the Board Members at this time,
that the changes proposed will benefit all active and inactive
members and beneficiaries in varying degrees and not directly
harm any member. There will be no monetary loss to any member.
There will be a vote by all members to accept or reject the
proposal changes by majority rule. Prior to that vote, detailed
information will be sent to all members, and an informational
meeting will be held, and a special meeting for the balloting
will be called. This process is specified in Minnesota State
Statues and will be reviewed by the Legislative Commission on
Pensions and Retirement. The dates or time line for these
meetings can not be set now, but all will be forthcoming as soon
as possible.
If you have
the process
Board.
Robert Burge
Mike Hanson
Ken Pilcher
Glenn Kleist
John Nelson
Sincerely,
questions about this letter or the present status of
or any other pension matter, call any member of the
861 -9800
to
Richfield Police Relief Association
Board of Directors
881 -3624
866 -0174
492 -2093
866 -0362
869 -6546
AU -OD048 2/9/90
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
525 PARK STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55103
(612) 297 -3685
POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION REPORTING FORM
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1989
Name of Relief Association RTCHFI LD POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION
Mailing Address 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH
City /State RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA Zip Code 55423
GENERAL INFORMATION
1
Date of your association's last actuarial survey ......................
1
12/31/89
DATE.
YOU FILED YOUR LAST ACTUARIAL SURVEY REPORT WITH:
2
legislative Reference Library .......... ...............................
2
6/30/89
3
legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement .....................
3
6/30/89
4
Commissioner of Revenue /State Auditor .. ...............................
4
6130/89
5
Governing body of your municipality .... ...............................
5
6/30/89
6
If you plan provides for escalated retirement benefits, what
was the percent of pension increase for this year? ....................
6
3.5 %
7
Number of active webers in association ...............................
7
23.0
8
Number of persons being paid retirement benefits ......................
8
12.0
R
Number of persons being paid permanent disability .....................
9
3.0
10
Number of persons being paid survivor benefits ........................
10
11.0
it
Number of persons being paid temporary disability .....................
11
0
12
Number of death and funeral benefits paid .............................
12
0
13
Date Unfunded liability (accumulated deficit) must be fully
amortized by general or special law .... ...............................
13
14
City law, Chapter /section .. ...............................
FINANCIAL CONDITION
Dsaemdwr 31, 1989
ASSETS
1 Cash ................... ...............................
2 Investments ............................. 0.............
3 Accrued Interest Receivable ...........................
4 Other Receivables ...... ...............................
5 TOTAL ASSETS ........... ...............................
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
6 Payabies ............... ...............................
7 Required Reserves ...... ...............................
8 Surplus or (Unfunded Accrued Liability) /Fund Balance..
SPECIAL FUND
Amount
1 1,148,294
2 6,718,878
3 152,583
4 _ 2,644
b_ 8.022,399
GENERAL FUND
Amount
1_NO GENERAL
2 FUND IS
3 MAINTANIED'
4
5
6 11.537 6
7 7 XXXXXIUWUUUUU(
8. 8.010.862 •8
9 Financiai requirements of the special fund for the following year as
certified to the municipal governing body on or before September 1, 1989 9 173.000
VI
REVENUES - 190
10 State Police Aid ....... ...............................
11 State Amortisation Aid . ...............................
12 City Contributions ..... ...............................
13 Members' Salary Deductions or Contributions ...........
14 Members' Dues .......... ..........................:....
15 Interest Earned ........ ...............................
16 Dividends .............. ...............................
17 Transfers In ........... ...............................
16 Other ( Identify) ....... ...............................
16 TOTAL REVENUES ............. :.............. ............
SPECIAL FUND GENERAL FUND
Amount Amount
10 198.012 10 XXWXXX XXXxX
it 32.368 it XXmmx. W.xXX
12 173.000 12 XXX)D=X.x WUUc
13 68 ^_ 22V is XX10IX70W000UU(
14 14
15 625.913 15
16 8.300 16
17 17
to 19
10 1_lOS_850 19
EXNENSES/E"ENO/TURES - i969
SERVICE PENSIONS
20 Retired ................ ...............................
21 Survivors .............. ...............................
22 Permanent Disability ... .....0...........0.00...........
OTTER BENEFITS
23 Sick /Temporary Disability .............................
24 Death and Funeral ...... ...............................
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
25 Salaries ............... ...............................
26 Conventions and Meetings ..............................
27 Dust ........ .......... .....�..�........................
2e o 4W . PTA(SPA011Al .1A00.
29 Faithful ►erformenct�oce . ...............0...0.0.6..
30 Other (Identify) once ous
..... .. . ...................
OTHER
31 State Snppla- ft aI Retirement Fund ....................
32 Transfers Out .......0.0.0.0 ... ..... ...................
33 Other (Identify) .............
34 TOTAL L'^' SES /EXPENDITURES ......................0.0.0.0..
Amount Amount
20 203,656 20 XXXWXXIW W
21 tl XXXXXXIUUUUUU x
22 4,8.12r 22 x.xw= UUW(X
23 23 JUUOOUf�00000w
24 24 XXXXXl)xxx xU
25 25
to 5, 26
27 �� ) 27
to _�3, iyb' 28
29 20 XXXXXX�OU(XXXXX
30 333 so
31 = XXKIU=)ODUWlX
32 XXXXXXIUUWUU X 32
33 19,113 33
34 403,192 34
CERT[FICATION SY SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF.TNE
RELIEF A"=AT/ON AND tY THE rUN/c/IAL CLERK
We certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief, the facts presented in
this report-for the je #r ending Decm6or 31. 1989, are true and correct.
Ong
soda
'bignature of Treasurer of Relief- Assocfttlon
a ure at Finance Manager
Please complete this form and return it along,
statement by June 30th.
Phone Number Dated
§61-9444 J-27-20
one REV, Dated
861- 9723 6 -27 -90
Phone er- D&t -ecT-
with your audited financial
r
CTUARIAL SERVICES
_MPENSATION PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION SURVEYS
THE QA11 COMPANY
ISTH FLOOR
8400 NORMANDALE LAKE BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55437
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Kenneth Pilcher
Treasurer
Richfield Police Relief Association
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Pilcher:
(612) 921- 8700
June 11, 1990
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS
RISK MANAGEMENT
INSURANCE CONSULTING
HEALTH CARE CONSULTING
RE: Potential Consolidation of the
Richfield Police Relief Association
In response to your request, we have prepared an analysis of the potential consolidation
of the Richfield Police Relief Association (RPRA) into the Public Employees Police and
Fire Fund (P &F).
Tables 1 and 2, attached, show the results of consolidation using the current plan
provisions. The results in Tables 3 and 4 are based on proposed amendments to the
plan provisions, which are described below.
Current Plan Provisions — Tables 1 and 2
The consolidation process provides the RPRA members and their beneficiaries an
opportunity to change their retirement benefit plan coverage by electing between RPRA
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
RPRA 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 RPRA as of December 31, 1989, prepared by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith &
Company. Since the RPRA benefits are identical for columns 1 and 2, the differences in
liabilities and costs are due primarily to the use of different actuarial assumptions as
required by statute, and to a lesser extent, to the differences in data. Table 2 shows the
data and lists the major assumptions.
OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES AROUND THE WORLD
Mr. Kenneth Pilcher
June 11, 1990
Page 2
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 $3,304,646, 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, 1991 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 7) - a variable cost which will depend on the
compensation of members still active.
Additional contributions (line 6) - a fixed cost which is an annual amount
of $193,999, 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 °k) will
increase future contributions.
Proposed Benefit Provisions — Tables 3 and 4
Tables 3 and 4 are identical to Tables 1 and 2 in the type of information that is presented.
However, the results shown in these tables also incorporate the following changes:
Definition of Salary: The maximum college incentive increment would be
added to base pay for purposes of determining RPRA benefits and
THE 4 ;171/ COMPANY
Mr. Kenneth Pilcher
June 11, 1990
Page 3
contributions. This change in definition of salary does not affect the
calculation of benefits for active members under the P &F election. Under
P &F, benefits and contributions are based on total pay which would include
the college incentive pay.
However, this change does increase the liabilities for current inactive
members electing P &F benefits as all current retirees and beneficiaries are
assumed to get the increased benefit associated with the increase in pay
given to active members. The amount to be transferred if all benefit
recipients who are eligible for the Minnesota Post Retirement Investment
Fund elect P &F benefits is $3,883,813. This is an increase of $579,167 over
the $3,304,646 that would be transferred if the current benefit level did not
change.
Retirement Eligibility: Age 50 and 20 years of service, rather than age 55
and 20 years of service. This change does not affect the P &F benefits.
In order to approximate the change in the age requirement for a retirement
benefit, the assumed retirement age for RPRA was lowered to age 58 from
age 56. The assumed retirement age for P &F remains at age 60.
Retirement Amount:
The current benefit is based on the following formula:
-- For first 20 years of service 36/75 of base pay.
-- For each year in excess of 20, 1/75 is added to a maximum
of 43/75 of base pay for 27 or more years of service.
The proposed benefits are based on the following formula:
-- For first 20 years of service, 36 units.
-- For each year in excess of 20 an additional unit is added to
a maximum of 43 units for 27 or more years of service.
-- The unit value will be based on age at retirement in
accordance with the schedule shown on the following page:
THE "' ny l/ COMPANY
Mr. Kenneth Pilcher
June 11, 1990
Page 4
Aae— Unit Value
50
1/80
51
1/79
52
1/78
53
1/77
54
1/76
55
1/75
The average unit value for determination of benefits for future retirees was assumed to
be 1/77.
The effect of the plan changes and the assumption change is to increase the Total
Municipal Contribution (Tables 1 and 3, Column 4, Line 8) from $304,331 under the
current provisions to $478,449 under the proposed provisions.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding this information.
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Perkins
Consulting Actuary
9?/- P7i6,
REP /Iv
Enclosures
cc: Lawrence A. Martin
Steven L Devich, City of Richfield
Senator Donald M. Moe
Representative Leo J. Reding
THE ��Q�G COMPANY
«
CDa
N
M
O
N
O
N N01
CD
O O O
r
yrJ �'• .�i O ~` p
M
M
41
•p
W
C
O Q. 01 C
•
�
O
N '6L�)
m
Cl
entry
u0-
O G
V
y O O
p
r
�
n eMn
F
J n
v
O
CD OD
;
w �
y u. .•� O
N
0
O
Lo
p1
M O
N Ql O
M
O
�j cr
wi
w v
a
G
« twt+
U
ems•••
N
r N O �-
tG
O t[t M d•
CIL
en dt
Z
M
M
tD OD
N
un
G ap �••
U
I
r
6
M
t
U;
� N
N
4 r
T
N
H
'' N
V N . V .�
7 y O
401k
yj
Q
y
w O
—*F
p ¢
A
n
/y0 d �-
pr
C
N
C S
W
p
A v 0
R d rr
Q
i•-
N u- � d
Z � �
o an
V
Ly
G
N .�i r.-
+ �
y
eD �.'
.Oi
►� G O O
AA O L
7
dIA
w 7 •r b
d
o
9
�
Cdr
O
..- ;
�
G r �L
✓ q
p y
.
y q
'•dO w i
r
q
�i0 y G A O A G
O W
9 C A
w
Lij to
•r O •
y
w
+� s «
x
..
u o
o c y
`
C6
e•-
O•
i
A w
A
a
6u
a
�
�
O
O
♦
CT O O
%
s
.�•+
or• G
r
M
K>
rn
y
J+ {O
°'
t0
`O
N
,-
M
-4
V
Jf
Y q O
N
+O A
~
O N
p
O
Q
O
M+ C
C;
P N
tFD
O;
O
,..
L Y
pO�
p
O
Cn
O Y O
= 7
O'
01
it
1
~ r °a'r''+ Cl O
40
A
'O
L W Y
d
N
N
M
i
x
s
ay EG �
c V
d
Ln
.TO
yiJ O
co
Ln
►'
en
�t
G y A
10
yU d O Q1
N
t0?
N
C$ r
W
Q d Cl ~
r a
a
A
Y G
� N V
1�
�+ In p L d �i}•.y
^yS�eZ;
O
r tNO
F M
(�+.�
r
H
4c
tD
C;
0
F EO a d' 0 N
N r+ 41
_
N
6 Z
Z
4+
O M
r Q' d W
V b U r
�. O ✓ G �+
h`
G N
A
1ND d to
V Z
O 6
to
N
c s
v
Wd
O
l
J
C
L
N O y 0, �
.0
r r-
6
v
N ✓ •►
N d .�O
m
pp s.
ii
C
� Ot
y 7 r
.�ip O ✓ q �' V G
.yY.-
Y y O
Y�
y
G
V
a
01
.r0 Y ✓ G A Z
,.N
y
C.
v
d
V Y 4p) O td- Op.
✓ W
r
O t
L � d
rG
d
T q
7 Yom.
4 Y O V
O Y A✓ 'o�
d
v rn
A
s N L. W
an >
9 �' b
b
o G O
x
O Y
d
ice- O
>
L
Y ?q+ Y « K s
7 L
4 N 4 A
N d
A •� '�' "� pC
r 6
J '►'
f.. Off-
n K�
r .GiE
10 la
e
N
N
r
v
/
.e
L
LL
a
ii
v
W
L
x �Y
Z
C
=
L
v
� X r
C ++
L
61 yCy
♦+ C m
W
m
N
d
C O
O
CO
W
L
10�p
4
pN
uu
xx
XX
S
6
{M{,,�� LL
N f A
N N
C co N
M N
CD f 1A
O i0 N
M M
f M
I�fl O
CO M)
1x
90
Q Q
i i
M
\
O
d
�+
L
W M
Of 0�
t0
pG
M wy M
— A
L
L
0
p
E C
r
M
M
Cr
W
�
yy
n
J
M
m
Q
A
F
7
U
q
V
C
O
++ C
� O
M
r +1 4
O U
LI
N d
C .-
N f 1O
x
O
x
O
M
d
O W Vi '••�
N N
f M
O CO N
f f
CO M
1xPl
1XA 1xA
O
N
�+
V N
v
O A CO
~
CO CO
t0
t0 t0
i0
CL' O
Q
N A
N
N
d C
d
01
Of .r
n.
h
h
L
C
Z
O
d
w
d
N N
N Z
a o
„
L
z
z
LLJ 0.
°
C
a
d
z
C► N
4-
Cie .
O
U
Q
_7 i.l
d IC
M f iD
N N
O
O {p
Q d Q
O b
1x
M�'1
O
N
C
p
W
16
v
N .fr
CD
Z Z Z
N N
M
M M
\
N
'O
y
J d
L C N
~
A
N
d Y
(•
d
O
y
O Q
Q
d
S C
V y
J O
N
Cr Q
W
W
2
_
4
L
�
_
n
U
OC
H
d
v
.e
L
a
ii
v
L
x �Y
c
C
=
L
v
� X r
C ++
L
61 yCy
♦+ C m
L L
N
d
C O
Y
CO
L
10�p
�
�
►- Li
�
a
�+ r+
d O O
M wy M
L
L
L
0
E C
r
E C
v
.e
ii
L
x �Y
c
=
L
v
� X r
`
IC
61 yCy
♦+ C m
L L
N
d
C O
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 33
Agenda, October 1, 1990
Issue Statement:
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group met for the last time on
September 20, 1990. The strategy group discussed a long term
airport strategy that the City of Richfield should actively
pursue in the next year. The issues discussed included:
1. Dual Track Airport Planning Process
2. Interactive Community Planning at MSP
3. Mendelsohn Study
4. Part 150 Noise Abatement Program
5. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
(runway and terminal expansion plans)
6. Extension of Runway 4/22
7. Property Acquisition in New Ford Town /Rich Acres
Recommended Motion:
1. The strategy group recommended the city include the following
positions in an airport position paper:
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process
The City of Richfield supports the dual track planning
process as mandated by the Legislature and wish to
actively participate in the planning process that will
address future needs for the region as a whole.
• The city will continue to press the MAC to fund the
Part 150 noise abatement program.
• Interactive Community Planning at MSP
The city is asking the MAC to develop an interactive
community planning process. This process involves
communities surrounding the airport to collaboratively
identify agreeable measures to mitigate any adverse
impacts which may occur with MSP capacity enhancements
in the near future.
Even if a decision is made by the Legislature in 1997 to
build a new airport for this region, it will take at
least another 20 years to build. In the meantime,
MSP border communities will still need to alleviate
the negative environmental impacts from the airport.
It is necessary for the MAC and these communities to
develop a process that identifies agreeable
measures to mitigate these impacts.
I
2. Mendelsohn Study
The study was conducted by the cities of Bloomington, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Burnsville and Richfield by Mendelsohn
Associates, Inc. and Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates.
The study raises important questions that should be
considered as future airport planning issues are explored
for this region by the Metropolitan Council, MAC and
Legislature. The city should require that a more solid
framework be developed in the dual track strategy for
determining the future of the airport.
The study should be used to educate airport planning
agencies involved in the dual track strategy to ensure
that both tracks are adequately studied.
3. Part 150 Noise Abatement Program
On April 2, 1990, the FAA approved the Noise Abatement
Program which the MAC submitted for MSP. The purpose of the
program is to identify and improve the noise environment
around the airport.
The program will provide funds for specific noise abatement
projects. Some of the projects include purchase or "sale
guarantee" of properties affected by airport noise,
soundproofing homes and public buildings, revising building
codes for greater sound insulation, and other measures.
There are an estimated 10,286 Richfield residents who live
within the qualifying noise contours.
The city should continue to insist that the MAC proceed in a
timely manner on implementation of the noise abatement
program to provide relief for residents living in
noise impact zones. The planning and implementation
of this program should be included in the interactive
community planning process with MAC staff and Richfield
officials.
The procedures and phasing projects in the program must
coincide with future land use redevelopment plans the city is
proposing for the areas that lie in the heavily impacted
noise contours (i.e. New Ford Town and Rich Acres).
4. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
The MAC is required to submit the Long Term Comprehensive
Plan to the Legislature on January 1, 1991. The plan will
recommend preferred runway and terminal designs for MSP
to reflect aviation facility needs to meet the year 2020
capacity demand.
The city recommends a more thorough exploration of the
various proposed conceptual designs. Physical expansion
plans, when needed, could have adverse environmental impacts
on airport border communities. These cities and the MAC
should include this discussion in the interactive community
planning process by identifying agreeable measures to
mitigate any adverse impacts which may occur.
5. Extension of Runway 4/22
The city recommends the MAC include proposed plans
to extend the runway in the interactive
planning process for future airport planning. This
proposed expansion enhancement should be discussed along
with other proposed enhancement plans at MSP.
6. Property Acquisition in New Ford Town /Rich Acres
The city must continue to actively pursue with the MAC:
• redevelopment for future airport related use; or
• sale of the properties in the area with a joint powers
of agreement between the MAC and city to ensure the
city does not suffer any unreasonable adverse financial
burden.
Given the reduction of available resources, the City of Richfield
will take a much less active role in the airport issue. Our
position will be more reactive and less pro- active. We will
concentrate primarily on the following:
• interactive community planning
• redevelopment of New Ford Town and Rich Acres
• implementation of the Part 150 program
There will be little activity in the following areas:
• attending MAC, Met Council and legislative hearings
unless specifically invited.
• promoting the "Martinson Plan" to state and federal
agencies.
• promotion of the airport tape. This work will hopefully
be assumed by the Chamber of Commerce.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
October 1, 1990 Study Session.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the October 1, 1990 Study
Session.
y submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit anaaer
JDP:kab
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 32
Agenda October 1, 1990
Issue Statement:
The Human Services Commission Serving Seniors and Disabled has
requested a meeting with the Council to discuss the provision of
funds in the budget for Information and Referral Services for
Seniors.
Background:
The Human Services Commission Serving Seniors and Disabled
studies and makes recommendations to the Council on issues
relating to persons over 55 and persons with disabilities. For
the past several years, the Commission has been studying the need
for an Information and Referral Service for senior citizens. In
July of 1989, the Council directed the Commission to study with
South Hennepin Human Services Council ( SHHSC), ways to provide
this service without using city funding to support it.
The Commission, at its meeting of July 12, 1990, voted to urge
City Council financial support of the Senior Citizen Information
and Referral Hub currently being established by Senior Resources
through a start up grant from the Metropolitan Council Task Force
on Aging. The one year grant provides funding for a coordinator,
Julie Bentz, data base and marketing for a model information and
referral service designated for senior citizens. Senior
Resources is a Minneapolis based agency which provides a variety
of human services for seniors.
To date, Ms. Bentz has determined the need for a series of Hubs
to provide Information and Referral services to seniors in the
suburban Hennepin County area. First Call for Help statistics
indicate that seniors outside of the Minneapolis city limits do
not make use of the First Call Services as effectively as other
populations. In fact, seven percent of all calls to First Call
For Help come from seniors. In an effort to better serve that
segment of the population, First Call will provide (for a fee)
their data base to any agency who wishes to access it. Their
staff has been cooperating with Ms. Bentz on this project.
Senior Services has also been coordinating with SHHSC since
determining that the South Hennepin area is the best place to
begin their pilot project. The South Hennepin area was chosen by
Ms. Bentz and Senior Resources because of the history of
cooperation among the four cities.
In July, Senior Resources sent out a Request For Proposals (RFP)
to approximately 90 agencies requesting proposals from agencies
interested in providing this service. Bloomington's Office of
Senior Services is the only agency that responded; however,
Bloomington is not willing to underwrite the full cost of a
service designed to serve the four South Hennepin communities.
In July, 1990, Bloomington's Office of Senior Services had
estimated a 1991 cost of about $25,000 to operate this program.
They have suggested each city contribute a portion of that amount
based on its over 55 population to cover the cost.
The Human Services Commission feels the City is the logical place
to provide those funds. The Human Services Commission voted in
July, to urge the City Council of Richfield to set aside $10,000
to $20,000 in their 1991 budget to fund Richfield's share of this
project.
In August, the Mayor and staff met with Richfield members of the
SHHSC at their request to discuss the city's position on the
proposal. Ms. Bentz and Jeanne Guendal, SHHSC staff planner also
attended. Ms. Bentz indicated that she was pursuing alternative
sources of funding for the program. The City Manager and Mayor
discussed at that time the recent state Local Government Aids
reduction. City staff stated that this program could only be
funded by the city if some other service were reduced or
eliminated.
Recommended Motion:
Because this is a Study Session, no formal action is required at
this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Human Services Commission serving Seniors and Disabled has as
one of its charges to investigate, make reports, and make
recommendations to the Council on matters relating to residents
over the age of 55 including the availability of social services.
The Commission has studied the issue of Information and Referral
services for seniors for several years. They feel it is an
important service to help keep older adults in the community and
in their own homes.
Alternative Recommendation:
There is no alternative recommendation.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Discussion is taking place with the Commission at this time to
allow the Council to understand the issues and concerns prior to
the budget hearings in November.
Respect ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP /gb
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 31
Agenda October 1, 1990
Issue Statement:
Signalization study at the intersection of 66th Street and
Portland Avenue.
Background:
The Richfield City Council at its June 25, 1990 meeting directed
staff to request a signalization study be performed by Hennepin
County to reduce accidents at 66th Street and Portland Avenue.
The City Council asked for an analysis of accidents, signal
timing and other measures that could reduce accidents without
causing traffic congestion at the intersection.
Hennepin County staff looked at accident records by type of
accident, accident severity, time of day, traffic counts, and
turning movements. It was found that: (1) accidents occurred
throughout the day (see attached table); (2) left -turn accidents
were evenly distributed between 66th Street and Portland Avenue;
(3) left -turn accidents involved 54$ of the personal injury
accidents in 1989, down from 62$ of all personal injury accidents
from 1986 to 1988; and, (4) total accidents increased since
November, 1988 when the last signal timing change was made (the
increase was caused by a sharp rise in rear -end accidents).
The analysis of signal operations involved adjusting signal
timing to reduce potential traffic conflicts while still trying
to accommodate the high traffic volumes passing through this
intersection. Major adjustments in the signal cycle length of 95
seconds were not possible because this signal is coordinated with
other traffic signals to the west to maximize traffic flow on
66th Street.
Recommendation:
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Hennepin County
staff recommendations for improving safety at the 66th Street and
Portland Avenue intersection. The recommendations are: (1) to
extend the operation of the leading left turn arrow to 24 hours
per day; (2) to use sensors so that the arrow is turned on and
off by traffic making left turns; and, (3) to increase the red
clearance time between phases from 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. City
staff recommends submitting an annual evaluation of accident data
including a short synopsis to the City Council together with any
recommendations to improve safety.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Hennepin County staff believes that an extension of the left -
turn arrow from 5 hours to 24 hours per day and increasing the
red clearance time may reduce traffic conflicts especially for
left -turn movements. Sensors will control the length of time the
left -turn arrow operates so that the arrow adjusts to both high
and low demand periods. Changes in the length of the signal
- 2 -
cycle are difficult because this signal is coordinated with other
traffic signals on 66th Street to ensure efficient traffic flow.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Request protected left -turn arrows on the westbound and
northbound legs. This would cause undue congestion on the
other two legs of the intersection that carry most of the
traffic. Also, an inspection of current operations shows
that motorists traveling in the westbound and northbound
directions are able to make left -turn movements without
experiencing severe delays.
2. Request longer times for protecting the left -turn movements
on the eastbound and southbound legs. Protecting left -turn
movements is desirable but there is a large volume of through
traffic moving in the opposite direction of the two major
legs. Currently, signal timing is programmed to provide a
level of service B on the major legs at the expense of the
two minor legs which operate at a level of service D. Level
of service B means that the average delay for vehicles
passing through an intersection is from 5.1 to 15.0 seconds,
and level of service D provides average delays of 25.1 to
40.0 seconds. By extending the length of time for protected
left - turns, traffic delays on the minor two legs deteriorate
to an unacceptable level and possibly move traffic into
adjacent neighborhoods.
3. Request City staff to explore the feasibility of an accident
reduction program through accident analysis and enforcement
of traffic laws. City staff inspected the Minneapolis
Accident Reduction Project Areas Program and found that
enforcement increased only after computer aided accident
analyses were completed. Any signs announcing increased
enforcement at this intersection are opposed by Hennepin
County staff because the signs only encourage requests for
similar postings elsewhere.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The City Council can either accept the City and County staff
recommendations, or request additional information on accidents,
an examination of different signal timing patterns, or
information on increased enforcement programs. No decision is
needed now, but the City Council's comments need to be conveyed
to Hennepin County staff before any changes will be made to the
traffic signal at 66th and Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
Attachments
JDP /tff
Accidents Dated APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS BY SEVERITY IN CRASHES
81/01/88 To 03/31/90 As Of 09/19/90
Type: 0 Patrol Station From: To: ZZZZ County: 0 Township: 0 City: 32`10
Rte - Reference Points -
ays Number Begin End
04 27000035 003 +00.960 003 +00.960
Contributing Factors:
Human Factors:
Driver Inattention /Distraction
Failure to Yield Riqht of Way
Illegal /Unsafe Speed
Followinq Too Closely
Disreqard for Traffic Control Device
Driving Left of Center - Not Passinq
Improper Passinq /Overtakinq
lmproper /Unsafe Lane Use
Improper Park.inq /Startinq /Stoppinq
Improper fern
Unsafe Backinq
No /Improper Siqnal
Impeding traffic
Driver inexperience
Physical Impairment
Vision Obscured
VehiclUlar Factors:
Defective Equipment
Skiddinq
Miscellaneous Factors:
Weather
Other
total
No Improper Drivinq
Rte Rte - Reference Points -
Sys Number Begin End
04 27000053 003 +160.010 1603 +00.010
Personal Property ;Accide
Fatal Injury Damage ; Total Total ;Severi
Totals Crashes Crashes Crashes Killed It-IjUred; Inde
------ - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - --
28 14 14
,
.0
,
4.
1 1 4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6 1
- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- '-- - - - - -- - -- - '- - - - - --
12�0 55 65 ?9;
,
47 t.! t4 ; J1 ;
NOTE - the Accident Severity Index is calculated a-- follows:
((No. Fatal Crashes * lb) + (No. Injury Crashes * 4) + No. PDO Crashes) / No. Accidents
Accidents Dated DRIVERS IN CRASHES BY PHYSICAL C01
01/01/88 To 03/31/90 As Of 09/19/90
r -pe: 0 Ptrl Station From: To: ZZZZ Cnty: 0
.e Fate - Reference Points - Rte Rte
Svs Number Beqin End Sys Number
04 270000Z5 00-3 +00.960 003 +00.960 04 2`'000053
Physical condition
Normal
Under the Influence
Had Been Drink.ina
Had Been Usinq Drugs
Asleep
FatlQUed
III
Handicapped
tither
Unknown
Total
4DITION
Twnshp: 0 City:3210
- Reference Points -
Begin End
003+00.010 003 +00.010
------- - - - - -- Drivers In -------- - - - - --
Personal Property
Fatal Injury Damaae
Totals Crashes Crashes Crashes
q-) 40 52'
1
16
109
1
8
8
49
"0
i O i
1
G I
I
Q
� I
I
M
s I
�
I
1
I
I
i
�
1
> r
i
Q I
�
I
¢
� r
I
z
a .
s
S
I
_
Y
1
J
Zj
3
I
L S
1
S
—
S
'
_ J
r
I y
S
¢
I 1
I
ti
_
y
J
V
r
..r .+
..• � .w .» .ter i .�
V
I 7
—
I
G
'7
�7
—
¢
I
1
r S
E
U
1
J
Jr J
c
S
C
:'
y »
N I
.•. .+ '+ .r Q .. .+ Q
.. cf n of D -•� ^J r N
O
Y Z +
r N I
=
9
> I
�
t
_
L n7
E E E
zc
r D
I
G Z¢ Q Q Q Z Q¢ Q¢¢
iL .L IL :i .L u. LL i i •.
Q S
Y
CV
Q U% 'o n O. y
O ^J fi Q rf+ •[ 9, U` C O
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 30
Agenda October 1, 1990
Issue Statement:
Discussion of 1990 space utilization studies related to City Hall
and City Garage.
Background:
The 1990 Capital Budget included Special Revenue funding for a
space utilization study of City Hall. The principal consultant
for this study is David Kroos with Boarman and Associates.
The 1990 operating budget included funding for a space
utilization study of the City Garage. The principal consultant
for this study is Bob Pierce of Lindberg Pierce Inc.
Both studies have included considerable contact with city staff.
Both studies are nearing completion. There is no current funding
available to follow through with the findings of either study.
Recommended Motion:
No action necessary as this is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Council authorized space utilization studies of City Hall
and of the City Garage.
2. The consultant agreements included meeting with the City
Council to present the studies.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not meet with the consultants.
2. Schedule discussion of the space utilization studies for
another time.
Discussi n Decision Mode:
The consultants and members of the City staff will be available
for discussion of the space utilization studies.
Respectf ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP /sdr