10-02-89 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 28
Agenda, October 2, 1989
Issue Statement:
Setting date for meeting with the City Council and Board and
Commission Chairs.
Background:
The City Council recently formalized a procedure for appointment
to Boards and Commissions. One of the first steps in the
procedure is for the Council to meet with Chairs of Board and
Commission Members. That meeting should take place approximately
the third week in October, or the week of October 16, 1989.
Staff Recommendation:
The City Council should select a date during the week of October
16, 1989, to meet with Board and Commission Chairs.
Basis of Recommendation:
The meeting would be consistent with the procedure adopted by the
City Council for Board and Commission selection. The date should
be set on October 2, 1989, in order to provide adequate time to
schedule meetings with Board and Commission Chairs during the
week of October 16, 1989.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Study Session of October 2,
1989.
JDP:sae
y submitted,
D. Prosser
Manager
~.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 27
Agenda October 2, 1989
Issue Statement•
Review of sanitary sewer charges for apartment buildings.
Backcrround
At two recent City Council meetings, an Edina resident, Debra
Olson, complained about the sanitary sewer charges for the
apartment building she owns located at 6901 .Penn Avenue South in
Richfield. She stated that the City's method of charging
sanitary sewer rates was unfair and not similar to other
communities, such as Edina.
A survey was conducted by City staff to ascertain how neighboring
communities charged apartment buildings for sanitary sewer
service. Based on that survey, a summary was presented to the
City Council showing that Richfield was treating water
consumption for the purposes of sanitary sewer base similarly to
other communities. Richfield's sanitary sewer rates were also
the lowest of the communities surveyed. A letter summarizing the
City's finding was also sent to Mrs. Olson.
At the .September 25 City Council meeting, Mrs. Olson disputed the
findings of the City survey, especially with respect to the Edina
and Minneapolis data. In order to further clarify the data, this
item was identified as a future Study Session subject.
The data attached to this letter is arranged into five
categories:
1. Ordinance Code provisions and resolutions concerning
sanitary sewer rates of cities surveyed.
2. Billing procedures for sanitary sewer charges for
apartment buildings in the cities surveyed.
3. Calculations of Mrs. Olson's sanitary sewer bill in each
of the other cities so that a comparison to her Richfield
bill could be made.
4. Costs to the City.
5. Options and recommendations.
Recommended Motion:
None, discuss the information concerning sanitary sewer rates
presented in this packet.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sanitary sewer rates have been an issue of contention
between the City and this apartment owner, who has
asserted that a change in billing is necessary.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter was identified by the City Council as a Study Session
item. It is being handled as such at the first opportunity.
Re a ully submitted,
J D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:cak
cc: Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager
John Thom, Utility Superintendent
/ "~
SANITARY SEWER RATE SURVEY
September, 1989
In late September, 1989, a survey of neighboring communities'
sanitary sewer rates and practices was done. This survey
included the cities of:
Minneapolis
Bloomington
Edina
Eden Prairie
St. Louis Park
The results of this survey were used to compare with Richfield's
sanitary sewer rate structure.
A) Governing City Codes
In order to establish a firm basis of comparison, each city
was asked to submit a copy of their ordinance
code/resolution which established sanitary sewer rates.
Attachment A is a copy of each such city's documentation.
This data was reviewed and used as a basis for the billing
comparisons found in Section C.
B) Billing Procedure Comparison
Two aspects of each city's billing practices and rates are 1)
the quarter upon-which the sanitary sewer flowage is
calculated, and 2) the rates per 1000 gallons or 100 cubic
feet charged for the flowage.
The basic variation in the flow calculation is that most
cities, including Richfield, provide a break to homeowners
by measuring sanitary sewer flow on winter quarter water
usage. One city surveyed, St. Louis Park, extended the
winter quarter base to all apartment buildings also. Other
cities surveyed, like Richfield, did not. Instead, these
cities based the sanitary sewer charge on the current
quarter water usage being billed.
Rates varied also. Some cities measured flow on a 100 cubic
foot basis, while others, such as Richfield, used a 1000
gallon flow unit basis. For the purposes of comparison, a
conversion of cubic feet to gallons was done in Section C to
allow a comparison of like measures.
Another variation in rates was that some cities charged a per
apartment unit charge in addition to a flow charge. One
city charged on a flat rate per apartment per month
irrespective of flow used.
Finally, a variation also exists in that some cities billed
per quarter while others billed by the month. Again, for
comparison purposes, all ,charges in Section C were converted
to a quarterly basis.
The following listing describes the rate basis for an eight
unit apartment building in each of the cities surveyed.
Edina: Charge is based on current quarter usage.
Rate: 51.15/100 cu. ft.
Rate based on whichever is higher:
A) Actual usage based on 51.15/100 cu. ft.
or
B) (# of apts. x $16.50 each) + $22.50
Bloomington: Charge is based on a formula only, no usage
measure.
Rate: Standard $5.95 per month per apt. unit
Minneapolis: Charge is based on current quarter usage.
Rate: $.85/100 cu. ft.
St. Louis Park: Charge is based on winter quarter usage.
Rate: $.926/100 cu. ft. + $6.67 per apt. unit
per quarter
Eden Prairie: Charge is based on current quarter usage.
Rate: 51.70/1000 gallons + $12.50 service
charge
Richfield: Charge is based on current quarter usage.
Rate: 5.89/1000 gallons + 53.00 service charge
C) Billing .Comparison
Based on the rate structures of each of the cities surveyed
and the utility bill of the property located at 6901 Penn
Avenue South, (Attachment B), charges for sanitary sewer
were calculated for each of the cities surveyed.
The summer quarter consumption of the property was 120,000
gallons, while the winter quarter was 70,000 gallons.
For purposes of comparison, 120,000 gallons = 16,000 cu.
ft.; 70,000 gallons = 9,333 cu. ft.
Edina: 16,000 cu. ft. @ $1.15/100 cu. ft. (160 x $1.15 =
$184.00)
or
(8 apts. x $16.50 each) + $22.50 ($132 + $22.50 =
$154.50),
Whichever is greater
Bill• $184.00
Bloomington: $5.95 x 8 apt units. x 3 months =
Bill• 5142.80
Minneapolis: 16,000 cu. ft. @ $.85/100 cu. ft. _
Bill• $136.00
St. Louis Park: 9,333 cu. ft. _ @ $.926/100 cu. ft. + $6.67 x 8
(winter) apts.
Bill• 5139.78
Eden Prairie: 120,000 gallons x $1.70/1000 gallons + $12.50 =
Bill• $216.50
Richfield: 120,000 gallons x $.89/1000 gallons + $3.00 =
Bill: $109.80
D) City Costs
The City of Richfield's sanitary sewer maintenance
expenditure budget for 1989 is $1,146,870. Of that total,
5803,970, or 70$, is budgeted for payments to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Thus, Richfield is
retaining only 30$ of the expenditure budget for
maintenance. (See Attachment C).
Charges to Metro Waste have increased each year and continue
to increase. Still, the City has kept sanitary sewer rate
increases at a bare minimum. A four year rate comparison
follows:
1986 1987 1988 1989
$.86/1000 gal. $.89/1000 gal. $.89/1000 gal. $.89/1000 gal.
(3.4~ increase)
As can be seen, in that entire period of time, there has
been only one 3.4~ rate increase!
E) Options and Recommendations
There are a number of possible courses of action which could
be followed in this matter. One option would be to apply a
winter usage base to sanitary sewer rates for apartments in
Richfield. However, for several reasons, including the
practices of our neighboring communities, potential vacancy
rate extremes in any base period, and the generally small
portion of lawn area in most complexes, staff recommends
that this option not be utilized. Further, if a break was
given to apartments, the lost revenues would have to be made
up through rate increases.
A more reasonable option is for the apartment owner to elect
to install a bypass or "deduct" water meter which would be
used to meter water destined for a lawn or other purposes
which do not find their way back into the sanitary sewer
system. Other apartment building owners have addressed this
concern by having this type of meter installed.
Furthermore, apartment buildings in other cities besides
Richfield have elected to use the same "deduct" meter where
cities allow such an exemption.
In conclusion, Richfield has very fair and reasonable
sanitary sewer rates which are very favorable when compared
to neighboring communities. Additionally, there does exist
an option for apartment owners to specifically meter water
used to service a lawn. Thus, it is recommended that the
sanitary sewer billing practice of charging for current
quarter usage for apartment buildings be continued.
aaVt.K~i•1~LV 111 L3
~~a~. SEP 2 2 REG'D
Ordinance No. 171-A28
Page Three .
ORD. SEC. '
N0. N0. PURPOSE OF FEE/CHARGE AMOUNT FEE N0.
761 3 License to operate a Hotels - $150.00 for 1-50 rooms 27a
hotel, lodging or and $1.00 per each room over 50
boarding house Lodging and boarding houses - 27b
' $55.00 per location
902 10 Sunday intoxicating liquor $200.00 per annum 36a
sale license (Clubs only)
1101 1(a) Sewer Rental Charge:
Single family dwellings, Based upon water usage during 37a
townhouses, two-family winter quarter. (Three-month
dwellings, apartment period falling between Nov. 1
buildings containing and March 1.)
four or less dwelling
units:
- To and including 1800- $20.50 per quarter
.. cubic feet
From 1801 cubic feet $1.15 per 100 cubic feet
___ -and - o~e~-----
Apartment buildings with $88.50 plus $16.50 for each 37b
~ ~ W~ ~~ more than four dwelling .unit over four, or $1.15 per
~ units ~ hundred cubic feet of water
~It.O `_,yu,i,~•n,a„p„~,r,, ~ ~ ~(~,SQX ~~ ~ -~- a~,~® used during the quarter,
n y~~ ~ ,y ~ ~ ~ y~ ---°---~--" °"°`- ~°--~.° -.._._,._„_„whichever is reater
Q Commercial and $23.00 per water meter ~or "°~ ~ ~"°~"~ 37c
industrial buildings, approved sewage metering device
- including schools and on premises, or $1.15 per hundred
` churches cubic feet of water used during
- ~ the quarter, whichever is greater
1111 3(A) Water service 1. 40 cents per 100 cubic feet 39a
for areas of City except areas
described in 2 and 3~
1111 3(b) Minimum charge of $.69'0 pe ~~ 39d
quarter will be made where water
consumption amounts to less than
` 1800 cubic feet
` 1301 6 Garbage hauler license $75.00 per annum first vehicle, 41
$30.00 for each additional vehicle
~_ 1303 5 Solicitor's permit $35.00 per annum 43
1331 3 Taxicab drivers license $35.00 per annum 46
1361 1 False alarm response fee $75.00 for the third and each 48
subsequent response
1432 4 Taxicab license $35.00 per annum for each vehicle 49
i
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
304 CITY HALL
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415
PHONE: 348-2215
MERRY KEEFE
CITY CLERK
September 21, 1989
.~ Wendy Larson
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Av S
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Wendy:
~o~~r~apo~o~
Attached is a copy of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinance Chapter 511
regarding Sewer Rental Rates. I hope this will be helpful.
Also, I spoke with Linda Westscott, Public Works Department, inquiring on
rates for multiple units and she said that the SAC charges are set by
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You may want to contact them for
further information.
Respectfully,
Becky Spens ey
Supervisor, Council Document xer
SEP 2 b ?EC'D Pis
ARTICLE III. SEWER RENTAL RATES
511.280. Definitions. Operation and Maintenance: Activities required to
provide for the dependable and economical functioning of the sanitary
sewer system, throughout the design or useful life, whichever is longer
of the sanitary sewer system, and at the level of performance for which
the sanitary sewer system was constructed. Operation and maintenance
includes replacement.
(b) Replacement: Obtaining and installing of equipment, accessories, or
appurtenances which are necessary during the design life or useful
life, whichever is longer, of the sanitary sewer system to maintain the
capacity and performance for which such system was designed and
constructed.
(c) Sewer service charge: The aggregate of all charges, including
charges for billing, metering, operation, maintenance, replacement,
debt service, and other sewer related charges that are billed
periodically to users of the city's wastewater disposal system.
(88-Or-099, s. 1, 5-27-88)
511.290. Sewer service charges. For the purpose of paying the cost of
operation and maintenance of the sewage disposal system, including the
sewage works and sewer system; for the cost of construction of such
sewage disposal system, including the principal and interest on bonds
sold for such construction; and for paying Minneapolis' share of the
metropolitan waste control commission's annual budget as provided in
Chapter 473 Minnesota Statutes, a sewer service charge shall be levied
and assessed against every lot, parcel of land, building or premises
now or hereafter having connection to the Minneapolis sewer system or
otherwise discharging domestic sewage, commercial or industrial waste
water, or other liquid, gaseous, or solid wastes either directly or
indirectly to the Minneapolis sanitary sewer system. Such sewer service
charges shall be based on the volume of such sewage into the city sewer
system as measured or as determined by the volume of water use. In
addition, the costs of operating and maintaining the city's sanitary
sewer system shall be recovered on the basis of actual use in
accordance with regulations established pursuant to the federal Clean
Water Act. (88-Or-099, s. 1, 5-27-88)
511.300. Allocation of funds. In accordance with regulations
established pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Minnesota Rule 7075,
the city shall allocate sufficient revenue to the "sewer rental fund"
of the public works department to ensure adequate operation,
maintenance, and replacement of its sewer system. (88-Or-099, s. 1,
5-27-88)
511.310. Sewer rental rate. The rental rate to be charged property
within the City of Minneapolis, and property without the City of
Minneapolis sewer system and which are served directly by the City of
Minneapolis sewer system and which are all served either directly or
indirectly by the sewage disposal system constructed, maintained and
operated by the metropolitan waste control commission under and
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.517, 473.519 and 473.521,
Sub. 2, is hereby fixed as follows:
(a) The sewer rental rate applicable inside the City of Minneapolis
for the first one hundred thousand (100,000) cubic feet generated per
month is one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25) per one hundred cubic
feet; for the next nine hundred thousand (900,000) cubic feet per
month, one dollar and twenty-two cents ($1.22) per one hundred (100)
cubic feet; for the next one million (1,000,000) cubic feet per month
~~
-~, `~ SAP 2 5 RECD
one dollar and nineteen cents ($1.19) per one hundred (100) cubic feet;
for the next one million (1,000,000) cubic feet per month one dollar
and sixteen cents .($1.16) per one hundred (100) cubic feet; for amounts
over three million (3,000,000) cubic feet per month one dollar and
thirteen cents ($1.13) per one hundred (100) cubic feet. The sewer
rental rate applicable outside the City of Minneapolis for all sewage
flow generated is one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25} per one
hundred (100) cubic feet.
(b) The minimum sewer rental shall be five dollars ($5.00) per
quarter within the City of Minneapolis and eighteen dollars ($18.00)
per quarter outside the limits of Minneapolis.
(c) The sewer rental charge for residential property not exceeding
two (2) resident units shall be based on the volume of water used
during the winter quarter which is defined as a three-month period
between October 15 and April 30.
(d The sewer rental charge for resident property exceeding two (2)
rident units and all other commercial and industrial property shall
- be based on measured sewage volume or the total water volume used
during the billing period as is appropriate.
(e) The foregoing rates shall be applied to sewer rental billings
from and after February 1, 1988, and a penalty of five (5) percent
shall be imposed for failure to pay such rental in full on the last due
date shown on such bills.
(f) The same administrative procedures for payments, delinquencies
and service termination. shall be applied to sewer rental charges as are
applied for water use under sections 509.1030-509.1042 of the
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances.
(g) Pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1973, Chapter 320, whenever payment
remains in default for sewage disposal services furnished to real
property by the city, the city council may annually levy an assessment
equal to such unpaid costs including penalty and interest against each
property so served and upon which the service charge is unpaid.
(88-Or-099, s. 1, 5-27-88)
*Charter references-Planning department and commission, Ch. 13;
restriction on location of premises used for sale of alcoholic
beverages, Ch. 4, s. 5(1).
Cross references-Heritage preservation, Ch. 34; air pollution, Title 3;
building code, Title 5; housing, Title 12; licenses and business
regulations, Title 13; special council permits-for certain businesses
and uses, Ch. 265; planning and development, Title 16; streets and
sidewalks, Title 17; traffic code, Title 18.
State law references-Zoning regulations authorized, M.S. s. 462.357.
Special law reference-Special act relative to development districts in
cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale, Laws 1971, Ch. 677, as amended
by Laws 1974, Ch. 357, and by Laws 1982, Ch. 439 (accepted by 82-R-262,
adopted June 25, 1982).
The attention of the user is directed to Laws 1976, Ch. 46, repealing
Laws 1963, Ch. 405, relative to rezoning lots or tracts of land in
certain situations without consent of adjacent landowners.
For location of detached banking facility notwithstanding numerical
statutory limitation, see Laws 1980, Ch. 463.
Annotations-Owners of property and their predecessors in interest who
v~~{~l~
.1 SEP 2 5 RECD
remained passive while their land was zoned for single-fame y
residences only, while neighboring property was developed for many
years in reliance on validity of the ordinance, were guilty of lathes
with respect to having their property rezoned to allow construction of
apartments. Filister v. City of Minneapolis, 133 N.W. 2d 500 (1964).
City may not deny a permit for a particular use merely because it may
disagree with some prior council in its determination that a certain
classification of property under zoning ordinance was justified. Olsen
v. City of Minneapolis, 115 N.W. 2d 734 (1962).
A statute, and a zoning ordinance adopted thereunder, which confers
power on some property owners to control the property rights of others
and which grants no standard by which power is to be exercised is
invalid. State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 97 N.W. 2d 273
(1959).
Zoning ordinance permitting public schools in residential areas, but
not private schools, is unreasonable and unconstitutional. State v.
N.W. Preparatory School, Inc. et al., 37 N.W. 2d 370 (1949).
Under M.S. s. 599.13, upon expiration of three years from date of
publication of zoning ordinance and map, such ordinance and map thus
published became the official zoning map of the city, even though
discrepancies existed between such map and the map referred to by the
council at the time the ordinance was adopted. W.H. Barber Co. v. City
of Minneapolis et al., 34 N.W. 2d 710 (1948).
Acts of municipality relative to issuance of building permits under a
zoning ordinance for construction of various types of commercial and
residential plants fall within the governmental, rather than
proprietary, functions of city, and consequently estoppal will not lie
against it for its acts performed in connection therewith. Id.
Under Chapter 4, s. 9 of the charter, a zoning ordinance, together with
the map to which reference is made therein, is required to be published
before it becomes effective. Id.
While in the conduct of the several industries prohibited in a zoning
district there may be variations as to effect on surrounding owners or
occupants, court may not therefrom conclude that the exclusion is
unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. State v. Miller, 288 N.W.
713 (1939).
Governing bodies having authority to determine residential and
industrial districts in city are better qualified because of knowledge
of the situation to act upon these matters than are the courts, and
they should not be interfered with in the exercise of their police
power unless it is a plain violation of constitutional rights. American
Wood Products Co. v. City of Minneapolis et al., 35 Fed. 2d 657 (1929).
There is nothing discriminatory or arbitrary in taking into
`consideration location of buildings in existence at time of adoption of
zoning ordinance and adjusting setback lines so as to correspond with
the one generally observed by those who built in the block before
zoning was contemplated. State ex rel. McKusick v. Houghton, 213 N.W.
907 (1927).
Reasonable provision in zoning ordinance as to building or setback
lines is valid. Id.
Council has authority to regulate and restrict the use of property, so
far as necessary for the general welfare, but only such uses as may
produce injurious consequences or infringe on the lawful rights of
others can be prohibited. State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton, 158 N.W.
1017 (1916).
utility. charges (Section 3.t~^) `l cl~r ~ ~v. - CEP 2 ~ pEC'D
2. ~~9 SYSTEM ACCESS CJ-IF-1Fi'GES
A. For Metropolitan sC-uiitary sewer. as established by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
Er. Far sanitary sewer - ~uC~ per R.E.C. plus ~li~~.~K>
7 each Metro SAC for industrial, p~.;blic. office -plus ~i1S.~'k~
~ each Metro SAC for commercial -plus X115
For water - ~44<~ per R.E.C.
~ each Metro SAC for industrial, pi.;blic, office.
~i~'::ti~ each Metro SAC for commercial.
.4C) 1.11'; CF~iAFit~S
A. S~-u~itG-~ry. sewer - ~1.7U per i,Cx:x:~ gallons s3..;bject to minirrr~un of
4,ir:x:~ gallons per quarter per R.E.C.
Et. Water - ~#1.1C~ per 1,CK~CJ gallons s;.tbject to a minim;.un of
4,1CrC~ gallons per quarter per R.E.C.
C. The minim~.un monthly use charge for uses other than residential
shall be the same as i R.E.C.
U. A resaidential equivalent connection (R.E.C.) is one dwelling ~.u~it.
E. In addition to the charges in A., B., C., and D. each R.E.C.
will be billed: `6.24 fi>;ed charge for water and fib.: a fi;;ed
charge for sewer per quarter.
F. Una~:atr?red residential sewer only use charges are ~2C~.E~~~ per
qu~~rter per R.E.C. plus a X6.25 fi>;ed charge.
G. FE:-~~nalty far billed clkarges: 1% per month on acco~u~t not paid
within ~~r days of billing.
E~ ,~ ~, ~~.~~; ~ ,~'r l.au.,..~ ~'GGl,JL.
Section 9-230. Rental Charges for Use of Sewers: An annual charge
is hereby imposed upon every, person, .firm or corporation whose
premises are served by the. sanitary sewer system of the Gity of
St. Louis Park, either directly or indirectly, for the use of
the facilities of the said sewer system and for connection therewith
which charge shall be as hereinafter provided in Section 9-231 of
this ordinance. Said charge shall be payable as hereinafter
provided in Section 9-232 and shall be subject to the penalities
set forth in Section 9-231 hereof if not paid within twenty days
after the billing date. Such charges for sewer. service. shall be
a charge against the owner, lessee, occupant, or all of them of the
premises served, and of whom shall. be charged and billed for the
said services, and all such charges which have been billed and not,
paid within thirty days after the due date stated on said bill shall
be certified to the County Auditor of Hennepin County as an assessment
against the property served for collection as other taxes are not
collected.
The obligation to pay the charges herein specified shall be incurred
as of the time of connection of any private sewer disposal system
to the City sewer, and such connection shall be deemed to be made
if a sewer connection is made to the City sewer at the curb line,
whether or not the connecting sewer is then in operation in
connection with the private sewer system on the adjacent premises.
Effective October 1, 1968 every person, firm or. corporation whose'
premises can be served by .the sanitary. sewer system of the City of
St. Louis Park, either directly or indirectly, shall pay an annual
~°' sewer rental charge as hereinafter provided in Section 9-231 and
9-232 of this ordinance.
Section 9-231. Sewer Rental Rates. Charges for sewer service to
residential and nonresidential users within the City provided in
Section 9-230 hereof shall be: $...926 per 100 cubic feet of water
consumption as measured during the writer quarter (or otherwise
determined in Sec. 9-231(1), and a service charge of $ 2.32 .monthly,
or 6.67 quarterly per dwelling~or account.
~ Sec. 9-231 amended b~ Ox~ds. 1584, 1982; 1614, 1983; 1652, 1985; 1729,
~~• ~=,~ 1988; 1773, 1988; )
"~c, ~~~,~°~i /1,~7~,
0~5` J ~a
E ~- ~ (1).
~i~ Gh ~ ~>
c7c.. s ~ k "y~
`' ~ I I p
J ti
G~ ~~S
D.y
r
~.
All sewer customer charges, payable monthly/quarterly shall
be determined by computing the average monthly/quarterly
water consumption from the combined water meter readings
for any three of the months from November-through April or
alternately, the sewer charges may be computed based on-the
water consumption each month throughout the year. Such new
change of rate shall be effective January 1 of each year
and shall be billed monthly/quarterly thereafter. In any
case where winter meter readings are not available or
appropriate, monthly/quarterly charges shall be made, on the
basis of current water consumption at which time the annual
charge will be established and an adjustment of such
charges collected will be made.
Sec. 9-231(1) amended by Ord. 1584,. Dec. 6, 19'82)
~~
~,, ~~ .
J~
~~ ~ ~ ~y
o .h
~~~~
~ .i
JS ?
~/
s
January 1, 1989. i40
SEA ~ ~ RAC°D
city of ~ '~~- ~ ~
~~~
bioomington, minnesotal ~ F~ ~~~ ~•
~o ~~
~
~
Municipal Building • 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Blooming#on. Minnesota 55431 '' ~ ~~eL1
~`
0 ~~~~, `~
~ ,
E ~`. \ WORKS % i
~_/
January 1
1989 ~~~ `•~; ~""~~°`p ~;
~~
,
~ • 9••4S~ M4/"7ENRNG~!
, '~~ ~:
/4i
~
30.06 WATER RATES ~~_
A. The rate due and payable to the City by each water user within the City for
water taken from the Water Supply System shall be as follows:
A service charge of 53.25 per.billing period, plus 51.25• per 1,000 gallons used.
This is subject, however, to a minimum charge to each water user for each
period during which water service is furnished as follows:
Billing Minimum Charge Per Billing
Meter Size Period Gaiions (Includes 33.25 Service Charge)
5/8 inch Bi-monthly $ 3.25
3/4 inch Si-monthly 3.25
1 inch Bi-monthly 3.25
1-1/2 inch Monthly 8,000 13.25
• 2 inch Monthly 16,000 23.25
3 inch Monthly 26,000 35.75
4 inch Monthly 36,000 48.25
6 inch Monthly 56,000 73.25 -
8 inch Monthly 96,000 123.25•
30.04 SEWER RATES
A.' Residential Properties. The sewer charc3e per unit for each residential
sewer user within the City shall be as follows:
Per Unit
Single-family Residence and Townhouse $6.75 per month
Apartment Houses $5.95 per month
Motels and Hotels -- $5.70 per month
Trailer Courts $5.20 per month
6. Industrial and Commercial Properties. The sewer rate for industrial and
co~~uT)er-cial properties shall be $1.22 per 1,000 gallons - based upon the
metered water usage with a minimum charge of $6,75 per month.
Industrial and commercial establishments discharging into the sewer but
not using City water (wholly or partially) shall be required to install
meters or other measuring devices (approved by the City Engineer or Utility
Supervisor) to measure either the water used or the discharge to the sewer.
Establishments desiring credit for water consumed for sprinkling, or other
purposes where the water is not returned to the sewer, must separately
meter the water for such uses.
C. Establishments which are a combination residential and commercial shall
be charged per unit in accordance with Section A, or per 1,000 gallons in
accordance with Section 6, - whichever is higher.
AN AFFIRMATfVE ACTION; EOUAt_ OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Telecofnnnm,catwns Oev~ce for the OeaL X612) 887-9677
i, 7-~.r
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Attachment B
PDS-ADEPT
HISTORY DISPLAY ONLY - BILLING CONSUMPTION, PAYMENT, AND BALANCE DUE
ACCOUNT SEQUENCE NUMBER OF ZERO WILL DISPLAY CURRENT ACCOUNT, OTHERS AS KEYED.
Select account via one SERVICE ADDRESS ACCOUNT NO. OSR
of the following fields... 6901 PENN 13186901021 011765
LOCATION: 6901 PENN AVE S - C8 ~~~ CURRENT
NAME: DEBORAH S OLSEN ADJUSTMENT BALANCE
ADDRESS LINE 1: 4220 VALLEY VIEW RD ON LAST BILL DUE
ADDRESS LINE 2: EDINA MN 55424 0.00 279.90
ADDRESS LINE 3:
BILLING HISTORY
DATE ADJUSTMNT ARREARS WAT.CHG SEW.CHG. SS.CHG. SERV. SPL.CG TAX TOTAL
0907 0.00 0.00 135.60 106.80 34.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 279.90
0608 MISC: 3.00 , 67.80 53.40 34.50 158.70
0309 MISC: 3.00 79.10 62.30 34.50 178.90
1208 192.32
CONSUMPTION HISTORY
~1= 00120
2= 00060
~-3= 00070
4= 00080
5= 00170
6= 00100
LPC. HISTORY
DATE AMOUNT
0000 0.00
0000 0.00
0000 0.00
0000 0.00
PAYMENT HISTORY
DATE AMOUNT
0612 158.70
0315 178.90
1212 192.32
0912 374.12
CERTIFY HISTORY
DATE AMOUNT
0.00
a.oo
PRESS GO TO CONTINUE
Attachment C ~ ~ / ~~
Division Expenditure Comment
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission raised their .rates to a~level hi J
gher than
expected. The actual charge in 1987 was $764,164.- The charge is anticipated to be
$810,000 in 1988 and $803,970 in 1989. The other .areas of expenditure increases
are the purchase of a new one ton truck for sewer maintenance and a machine to
attach to the jet machine for foaming and killing roots in the sewers.
it
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
E-24
ANNUAL BUDGET
FUND DEPARTMENT DIVISION ACCOUNT NUMBER
Sewer Utility Community Services Sewer Maintenance 707-4842
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY MINOR OBJECT CLASSIFtCATiON
198A
CLASSIFICATIONS
Personal Services
1010 Regular employees
1030 Overtime-regular employee
1050 Interdepartmental labor
1060 Interdept. labor credit
1070 Longevity
1080 Seasonal employees.
1091 Retirement contribution
1092 FICA contributions
1093 Hospitalization
1094 Term life insurance
1096 Medicare contribution
Total
Other Services & Charges
1100 Rents & leases
1102 Word processing rental
1110 Advertising & publication
1120 Maintenance & repairs
1130 Professional services
1200 Communication
1210 Travel-conferences-school
1220 Subscription & membership
1230 Utility services
1240 Metro sewer board
1260 Insurance & bonds
1280 Taxes & licenses
1290 Other contract services
Total
Supplies
1300 Office supplies
1301 Copying charges
1320 Clothing
1340 Parts & tools supplies
1350 Mtce & construct material
1360 General supplies
Total
Capital Outlay
1510 Building & improvements
1520 Struct & other imprv
1560 Other equipment
1580 Other improvements
Total
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
1987
ACTUAL
$ 157,029
11,436
15,752
-62,039
1,585
5,428
10,665
:6,621
9;554
74
79
$ 156,184
$ 22,633
1,831
5,399
917
1,080
5,313
764,164
8,077
106
596
~', $ 810,116
$ 181
3
490
3,624
895
2,730
$ 7,923
$ 48,389
20,000
13,029
12,786
$ 94,204
E-25
BUDGET
$ 144,390
5,500
31,620
-54,600
1,680
5,710
10,420
7,210
11,270
80
$ 163,280
$ 26,000
300
100
8,000
2,100
1,600
3,100
200
6,000
742,000
7,390
100
2,220
$ 799,110
$ 180
50
700
6,500
4,000
4,300
$ 15,730
31,000
$ 31,000
REVISED
$ 142,510
6,000
.32,020
-52,860
1,990
5,710
.8,070
7,430
11,000
80
$ 161,950
$ 26,000
300
100
8,000
2,100
950
2,880
200
5,200
810,000
8,770
100
1,500
$ 866,100
$ 200
200
700
5,000
4,000
4,300
$ 14,400
33,000
10,000
$ 43,000
1989
BUDGET
$ 148,290
6,000
33,590
-54,910
2,090
6,000
8,100
7,800
11,620
80
$ 168,660
$ 26,000
800
100
7,500
2,100
500
2,480
210
5,200
803,970
9,120
100
1,500
$ 859,580
$ 200
200
5,000
4,000
4,200
$ 13,600
X0,000
_ 2.,500
$ 42,500
ANNUAL BUDGET
=FUND DEPARTMENT DIVISION ACCOUNT NUMBER
Sewer Utility Community Services Sewer Maintenance .707-4842
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY MINOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION
1987 1988. 1989
CLASSIFICATIONS ACTUAL BUDGET
• BUDGET REVISED
Transfers
1794 Administrative services
', 1796 Workers' compensation
1797 Dental insurance
1799 Property liability
Total
Other
1899 Depreciation
i,
Total Account 707-4842
$ 13,700
6,800
238
3,320
$ 24,058
$ 24,637
II $ 1,117,122
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
E-26
$ 14,390 '~,
9 , 000
260
3,320
$ 26,970
$ 24,780
$ 1,060,870
$ 14,390
9,000
220
3,320
$ 26,930
$ 28,870
$ 1,141,250
~yi/
I
i~
'~~
$ 20,320
10,300
220
4,490
$ 35,330
$ 27,200
$ 1,146,870
ANNUAL BUDGET
~~.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 26
Agenda October 2, 1989
Issue Statement:
Discussion regarding the City's recruitment practices.
Background:
Current recruitment practices of the City of Richfield focus on
two primary areas of need: 1) Legal Requirements and 2)
Organizational Needs.
1) Legal Requirements
Recruiting and selecting people for employment has become
much more complex in recent years, and it is likely to
become more complex, involved and difficult in the
foreseeable future. Beginning in the early and mid-1960's
and continuing to gather momentum are vast social and
political changes in our country. The growth of the
minority population, the entrance of females in large
numbers into the work force, the two income family, the
aging of the population and the change from a production to
a service economy are just a few of the changes. These
changes have had a dramatic impact on the management and
operation of all organizations, both private and public.
Of particular significance has been the emergence of a vast
array of laws, government regulations, federal guidelines,
court decisions and interpretive rulings effecting the
employment and utilization of minority personnel, women,
older employees and the disabled.
The Minnesota Human Rights Act, in part, states that
employers may not discriminate on 1) "race, color creed
religion national origin, sex, marital status, status with
regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a
local commission disability or age" (Minnesota Statute
363.03, Subd. 2) or 2) "to refuse to hire or to maintain a
system of employment which unreasonably excludes a person
seeking employment" (Minnesota Statute 363.03, Subd. 2a) or
3) "cause to be printed or published, a notice or
advertisement that relates to employment or membership and
discloses a preference, limitation, specification or
discrimination" (Minnesota Statute 363.02, Subd. 4b). The
law is enforced ever more vigorously, with substantial
financial penalties being imposed on organizations who do
not comply.
The City has adopted an Affirmative Action Plan which
identified by work force analysis, areas where minorities
and females were underutilized. An analysis of applicant
flow identified that there was a deficiency in both
minorities and females applying for jobs with the City in
areas of underutilization.
The Plan requires the City to use two recruitment areas to
determine minority and female availability. The areas the
Plan use are Hennepin County and the seven county
metropolitan area.
Limiting the source of employees to a particular area, such
as Richfield, would place a non-job related qualification on
persons who may apply. Any qualifications that limit
persons applying for non-job related reasons is not serving
the legitimate business purpose of seeking the best
qualified person available. Geographical limits may violate
federal and state discrimination laws and the City's
Affirmative Action Plan. State and federal enforcement
agencies have, in specific incidents, attacked non-job
related qualifications as having adverse impact or failure
to achieve proper applicant flow. `
2) Organizational Needs
The law recognizes that employers have a legitimate business
purpose in seeking the best qualified persons available.
The City's recruitment efforts strive to achieve the
selection of the best qualified person available.
As the business of governance has, over the past decade,
like other segments of our economy, grown ever more refined
and specialized, the old statement, "People are our most
important asset", was never more true, as we ask employees
to do more with less funding. The quality of a city's
personnel is frequently the single factor that determines
whether it will reach its basic objective of service to the
public.
The City of Richfield has been rated by Decision Resources,
Ltd. highest in public satisfaction for the services it
provides, which points to the City's success in its
recruitment and staffing practices.
Successful Personnel Recruiting and Selection Professor
Erwin Stanton states, "A large number of well qualified job
applicants must be attracted if an effective selection
system is to operate. Limiting recruitment to current
employees or to a specific geographical area would limit the
number who have prerequisite qualifications."
A recruitment system must fill positions with the best
available talent of which a balance between inside and
outside recruitment is necessary. While area-wide
recruitment ensures open access and maintains good public
relations, selection from within presents advancement and
the chance to make the best possible use of one's capacities
and forms one of the wellsprings of human motivation. It
should be noted that current employees can apply and compete
for all job openings.
~ 'fit ~S
Limiting outside recruitment and selection produces a highly
inbred government organization. Such an organization is
seldom among the best run agencies," asserts Glen Stahl, a
noted author in the field of Public Personnel
Administration.
The City recruitment practices have worked well at finding
and selecting the best qualified persons. The selection
process has worked well at providing both advancement and
the infusion of new ideas and methods that have produced a
well managed and efficient staff to provide service to the
people of Richfield (See attached).
Recommended Motion:
Continue with present balanced recruitment practices.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Legal Requirements
2. City's Affirmative Action Plan
3. Organizational Needs
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City's recruitment practices are presented for discussion at
the October 2, 1989, City Council Study Session.
Rest ully submitted,
~/. '
Jame D. Prosser
Ci~~~ Manager
JDP:cak
SELECTION RATES
INTERNAL/EXTERNAL
FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME PERMANENT
Year Total Appointments Internal External
1986 27 10 37$ 171 63$
1987 40 18 45$ 22 55$
1988 28 12 43$ 16 57$
1989 38 17 45$ 212 55$
(1/1/89 to
8/1/89 )
2 Four Police Officers appointed.
Four Police Officers appointed.
Note: Police Officers must be Post Certified. The inter nal pool
at any time would be small. At the current time, there
are no internal Post Certified employees who could be
appointed to the Police Officer position.
~i /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 25
October 2, 1989 - Agenda
Issue Statement•
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues
and events related to the airport. R.A.S.G. has provided
recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent
developments regarding the airport include the following:
o Advisory Council Appointment. Richfield resident, Suzanne
Sandahl has been (unofficially) appointed to the Advisory
Council which oversees the dual track plan. Ms. Sandahl
attended R.A.S.G. for the first time.
o Star Tribune Editorial Board Meeting. To encourage media
coverage of Richfield's positions on airport issues,
members of R.A.S.G. met with the editorial board of the
Minneapolis Star Tribune. The group met for over an hour,
as R.A.S.G. members explained the importance of keeping
the airport where it is, the uncertainty of what the
future holds for the airport and its effect on Richfield
neighborhoods, the resulting disinvestment, and
alternatives for enhancing MSP Airport to make it more
than adequate. It was suggested that and editorial board
meeting be scheduled next with the St. Paul papers.
o Bloomington/Richfield Airport Adequacy Study. Bob
Mendelsohn of Mendelsohn Associates has retained
consultants to study each of the areas of concern for the
two cities. They are:
Study Area Lead Firm
Economic Benefits EDAW, Inc.,
and Costs Dr. Steve Fuller, Principal
Political Aspects
Financial Feasibility
Noise Impacts
Airport/Airspace
Capacity
Mendelsohn Associates,
Bob Mendelsohn, Principal
A.J. Parry Associates,
A.J. Parry, Principal
Mestre Greve Associates,
Paul Dunholter, Principal
Robert L. Collette
At the last meeting entitled "Focus and Formalize
Conclusions" held on September 18, 1989, Steve Fuller, Bob
Collette, Paul Dunholter and A.J. Parry gave presentations
T'/~/
on .their areas. Bob Mendelsohn will make his presentation
at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, October 9,
1989.
An "Interactive Technical Session" is scheduled for
Wednesday, October 18,.19.89. All of the consultants,
along with staff from both cities, will meet with a number
of the key airport decision makers. The issues will be
discussed and the group will try to define some areas of
agreement.
o Local Newspaper Articles. Recently, the Freeway and
Skyway Newspapers quoted Metropolitan Council Chair Steve
Keefe as saying that the airport could not be expanded
without the demise of Richfield. The Minneapolis Star
Tribune picked up on it and added that Senator Freeman
asked the Governor to remove Mr. Keefe from airport
discussions. Mr. Keefe has apologized in writing to Mayor
Quam, and the Skyway News tried to straighten it all out
(related articles attached).
o Equitable Distribution System (EDS). MASAC is undergoing
an analysis of the 180 day test of the Runway Use System
(RUS) and will make a recommendation on runway use plans
to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Although the RUS
somewhat lessens the noise burden over North Richfield and
South Minneapolis and places more noise over St. Paul, the
RUS still does not correct one of the fundamental problems
of the Preferential Runway System. Some residential areas
may still receive unlimited flights whereas other similar
residential areas receive almost total exemptions.
The Council passed Resolution No. 7553 on September 25,
1989. The Resolution calls for containing traffic in
corridors first, then distributing remaining traffic as
equally as possible over the remaining residential areas.
The City of Bloomington also passed the identical
resolution on September 25, 1989, with a 7-0 vote.
Mayor Quam read the Resolution into the record at the
MASAC meeting on September 26, 1989 (attached).
0 4-22 Objection Letter. A letter objecting to the EIS
Scoping Document was sent on Holmes and Graven letterhead
to the two project managers (copy enclosed). The letter
states that the EIS process will not be credible or valid
because its scope is too narrow. Specifically, the EIS
will not include a review of the Preferential Runway
System.
A copy of the letter and a cover letter was sent to U.S.
Senators Durenberger and Boschwitz, U.S. Congressmen Sabo
and Frenzel, State Senator Freeman, and State
Representatives Henry and Tjornholm.
o The Magnuson Home. The Metropolitan Airports Commission
has agreed to begin the process of buying the Magnuson
home on Standish Avenue. They are obtaining an appraisal
value, and will hold a public meeting. It is important to
note that this is a safety issue, not a noise or expansion
issue. The MAC is would like to acquire the property
because it is within the clear zone (MAC memo attached).
Recommended Action:
With this background, the following recommendations are provided
to address these issues:
o Advisory Council Appointment. The strategy group
recommends involving Suzanne Sandahl in R.A.S.G. meetings,
and keeping her updated on airport issues.
o Editorial Board Meeting. The strategy group recommends
that the process be repeated at the St. Paul papers on
Wednesday, October 11, 1989 at 3:00 PM.
o Bloomington/Richfield Airport Adequacy Study.
Informational only. No action necessary.
o Local Newspaper Articles. R.A.S.G. recommends that the
City Council invite Steve Keefe to a Council meeting. Mr.
Keefe could then formally apologize, and the Council
Members could ask questions of him.
o Equitable Distribution System (EDS). Informational only.
No action necessary.
0 4-22 Objection Letter. The strategy group recommends
sending a copy of the letters to area cities, and trying
to get them on record supporting our objection to the
runway 4-22 EIS.
o The Magnuson Home. The strategy group recommends that
the City of Richfield go on record again as not objecting
to property acquisitions by the MAC for safety reasons.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
October 2, 1989 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the October 2, 1989 Study
Session.
,~~d.
Respectful submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:mba
~/-~
.~~~~ ...sue, ...~~.~~
1826 JEFFI±1?50:~ PLACL+'. \.V4.
SUITE 101
H'ASHI\CiTO:~i. D.C. 200313
ROBERT H. ME:~DELSOH\ Tr:I.F.PHC>N~:
P]iF~3IDF.tiT X2021 46:3-0.17.0
SLOPING WORXSHOP RECAP - TASK 1.0
The following recap of the scoping workshop is the product
outlined in Task 1.0 of the Bloomington/Richfield project work
program. The purpose of the workshop was to derive a list of
consultants for the project by focusing on the subject areas of
greatest interest to-the client.
The following workshop agenda items were discussed:
- problem definitions
- desired results
- strategy options
- essential study area and experts in those areas
The workshop process allowed an initial listing of problems to be
compiled and then categorized and ranked in order of importance.
The ranking, together with the desired results and probable
strategies that were identified by the client, will provide the
focus for the technical evaluation and direction for the experts
conducting the evaluation.
Problem Definitions
The list of problems that was created was organized into
categories. Some of these categories were identified as being
essential to the process; these categories appear in this recap,
as do the problems that were identified as falling outside the
principal focus.
Economic Benefits and Costs
- Economic advantages and disadvantages of the new site
alternatives compared to retention of the existing site.
- The urban land ramifications of a new airport site and
redeveloping the existing site.
- Assessment of the recipients of the casts and benefits.
~/
Political Aspects
- The position of the aviation industry.
- Review of the political equity and the distribution of noise
and economic benefits.
- The political momentum represented by the actions to date.
- The political role and power relationships regarding the
airport issue.
Financial Feasibility
- Cast effectiveness of the new site proposal.
- The ability of the public and private sectors to carry the
existing debt, costs associated with the proposed short-term
improvements at Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
(MSP} and new site investment.
Noise Impacts
- The extent to which the existing-Part 150 effart can resolve
existing and projected future noise impacts at MSP.
Airport/Airspace Capacity
- Whether the existing site can accommodate future capacity.
- Airspace issues associated with the new site options.
In addition to these categories, the following problems were also
mentioned:
- The new site represents "progress.n
- There is competition for economic development between
Bloomington/Richfield and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
- From a planning standpoint, the time horizon is important.
- There have been changes in technology, markets and modes.
- There has not been a proper Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS} process on the decision.
~j-(v
- There is a perception that traffic is increasing.
- The market and resources are saturated in the urban area.
- The new site proposal is driven by a concern for noise, not
a capacity concern.
- There will be an impact on reliever airports.
- Safety at MSP is an issue.
Desired Results
- The existing airport can accommodate the traffic levels today
and with improvements can provide enough capacity for the
future.
- Noise can be satisfactorily abated at the present site.
- A new airport is not needed to accommodate capacity; a new
site would be too expensive and should not be developed.
Strategy options
- Work within the framework of the Interagency Agreement between
the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission.
- Support Track "A" excluding the north/south runway and the
Runway 04/22 extension.
- Pursue an independent, but parallel course of action which
includes the following:
o identification of specific, possible new airport sites
o political contact and information
o media contact and information
o special meetings with selected individuals and groups
o pursuit of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issue
Study 1~-reas/Experts
The workshop participants identified the following core group of
firms that could be used to evaluate the key problems:
Study Area
Economic Benefits
and Costs
Political
Aspects
Lead Fins Status
EDAW
Under contract to
Mendelsohn Assoc.
Mendelsohn Associates
Under contract to
Bloomington/
Richgield
Financial Francis Fox Associates Selection in
Feasibility Peat Marwick Mills progress. Client
A.J. Parry Associates approval before
EDAW negotiation.
Noise
Impacts
Airport/Airspace
Capacity
Mestre Greve Associates Negotiation in
progress.
Robert L. Collette Under contract to
Mendelsohn Assoc.
-
- ~ ^
_
_ _
_
+- CC - - :J y v ~ !n
` `% ~ ~ y
OJ 6.
~ -
s M I
f
y :J
- _
C- :~ ; 3
~
=.. ~
n. ._ ~~ 3. c....-
_ ~ ~ ....~ y C •GC to ca ~ ~ .O ~ O ca y = . iG R "^ v vpi y ~ C ` L ~ ~_
s `, L C ~ L ~ C ~~ ? x C C C .y.. ~ N L Q ~ .~+ ~ ~ `.0 ~ ~y~ y ^
c/^ - . CJ 0 2 ~ v, >. ~ cCV i C R ~ = = • O ~ • O ~vCi x y ~ '' ~ Oy~ip.~ ~ y ~ ~ ~
:~ •: V Y y O e0 r. ~ C ~.~ ~ r C y ~ y `~ ' r ,L^ CJ)
=.C ~ ~ ~Y ~ v ~~ o-o ~ cc ~ o ca ~ ~ v ° y a~ ~'~ y ~ ^J cn`r c es
y„ _ .. r N y . 4J • ~ ' c9 ~ _.. L y ea m O L O - .= ~ O -.r .: v ^...~
~N-'. ~-, N L Y • ~ C Q' OJ CO ^ RS ~ ~ L~ R C y ~ C ..fin ~ ^ ^ "'~ ^ ~ C ~ ~ ~..' L'ii
(~ y R ~, = ~ U w L .. ~ ` eo y L Vj .y.1 .y..._ C.1 ~" F ~. `+ ti 00 ~ • ~ ~ L ._ ~
_ ~+ U~ ^ y c r..1 O O ~ X L .~ L L L U V O .O L ~^ ~ y
"" ; .. ' C ?~ M Cn O n~^. L rw..r .. 3 V L C) ~ ~ N ~ ~ r CC ^ ~ ~ -.~ C "'',,, .^..
~ G '-' ~ O C L ~ V '~ y ~ ~n co y ~ y :4 c ^ sR.. ~ ~ :, ." ,--i y U .~
tiz``o ti~ N 3cr1 o R-.:~.= c~: c~U v v~::. ~ cC~~ 3J ~~
as.~~ ticii .ta oioxa
~- ~
nra-•.
Wy
~Q
JI
= Z
~~
~D
~~
Z
Q
T
~ !Q ~ ~_ O C L ..'~ _ ^
~ t6 .V C ~
~ ~ O ~ ~ r 4J ~ 4:
Y
('3 N _
.
~~ 3 C O L U ~ S .:e ~. ?~ c4 G 0J O^ -.. O N
C t O -~ C.) x L O^ '~' .^'-+ c~4 ~ r ti~ ~ :^_. .`d O c4 G
:...
C3 V~ L
~ ^^ ~ `
N
L LPG
C y
y
•
of i:. - - - c = ~ o
no y vi ai c c .... m 3 cc cc v~
eo i ~ .. a' _ `-° a a~ c 3 ... 3 `
,
d x L y r=.A v' f ca "C)L.
p] O J ~ L ~ ~~ ^ _
~+ _ _ R C d tC L = O O H
-
V n. ~ .. ~ y
..' O ~ R C ~ -a
O .~ p
C
V
.
.
~
- ~ _ - -
. = a~ '~ 3 ~ c ~ a~ a~ a = ~ ~ i
> > L C
3 ~ ...) --~ .. R
~ .C.. C ^
r-.. L) .~ r ..~ iZi .R .~. t4 G aR.. r
:,„„;
'W4t'-1i..
L
G~
~ c~
~1
~~
00 °q~ ~_ ~~==
•60 y s .~ , -U ~ .~ Zvi J •~ - z
a~ ~ ~ -
ti C~ ct i ~' ;-0 - ~ C sue.. 3 .~
~ O~ .~ r. O C• 3 = G O a~ .r R. y
F ~ GQ - • O `~ _ r _ ~ y R ~ eG
°3y~ "C~c~c~~x3
y L C ~~ C,~.~o~f y v. C vi
~ ~ ' L ~ ~ _y C - ~ ~ .C m ~ y ~
O C y^ L ": y
=~a,y°=x a~~a'vooo
c ~
Y ~ T . ~.., ~ y L y l0 O '~
Y Y~~~ :J ~ C '..' L~ C .L ~ L .~ L 3 Y
3 ~~" c y ~C79~.. f° cd 3 ~ 3 ~ c ~ c~ $ ~~
= Y~ CJ ~ C I L r ce ~ O V GfJ O .^. ~. 3~
C - ~ (~.~. L _ 3+ fA ~ ca - fS V) ~ .c ~'= C C
_- ~_ ~ C y y y C) 3 00 ^ I G C v O
i _ -. ._ :J c4 ~ L U .. C •L ~ N _ 3 y [rJ O ~ C .J ~.
j =' %~n -. C ~ 6J C "^ 'C t~i~ ~ O V y 00 ~ r0 3
L~ ~ C C` O~ y L fC ^ C y ~ ~.. ~ C' C Cn L• U
.. n ~ C :. > .~ oo C» . ~ , c ^j ' > ,;,, ',_; ce :r L 3 C -., ca
..+ 00
eC6Y ~ C
°"c ~ aLi = 3 °' ~ a
CA ~~ C4 ^ ..J Q) ~_ Q
c~ -°~~3ca~~:
L..r L p y c~•v ~
= via e°~ccR:
r.~. CJ ~ ~... C d~ f
• .Y r.. X - •- ^ y
.C
~~ .~+ Y O.~ N U C .:
~ C . N O
1~~ ~ Q~ ~ -~ •~ 0 V ~
o•
y .~ .--~ . ^ V K '..
~= CC~
~
~ m
C
c
t
~ T
C
U
>+` a~ C O -~
_
H m
ca
a
y a
~
OD ~
~
~
U
Y m
"
~ ,p O
f.. B O O J y C a~
~~ ~~ 3 ~`o= a
•
.
L ~
O ~ W c0 ~C ^, ~.
cCi
~ y T ~
`,
^
'
3
~ C
~ u
0
y
~ p
~
y y 0 y .r .. v ~ cc Gi
-_o~
. y ~
~
t .
V
oD c'
C
y6'3
~~
_
^
~~ O~ v
~ _~
C ~ ..+ ^
~
.
°
...
y
0 3'v
~
^
n
ti
u
_
CC
c ~
N
~
° •
~"
K
~
U U ... U °
_ v,-3
~
G ~
.i =
U
.-~ ~ C N y
tE?
~-
tP~
-i..
O
R~
Q~
~~
Y3~e.Sti•v
'~ ~ C ~_ ~ O
T~.~ C- a
C ~ U U 3 ~
3
Y ~ H y 6J
c. ~ .r R
cti-~3
To~_~~3
L
y y ~ 3 •~" U
CC ~ ~ i
m ~, a~ ~ ~ ~ " y •~ ~ `•y % ._ ° ~- p L ~ R1 ~ v, c ~ ~, 3 a~ C 6 C
y- U y 3 C~ .L a u. a~% T• _ '~ 3 3 ti y~ ° ° ~ N
~ ~3.C C.C H ~~ H yL~ ` y i~ h O R C ;~ ~LL y C = ~
~ p ~ .'_.+ N ~ .~ U •~ d ~ r COD" ^' ~ y •~ C .~ r' y "S 6l ~ U K •~ Z
•- y r' o._ ~ y ~ a y - e`e io C .~ °•~ G'~ s C ~ m o:Y?'- ~ 0 3
~ O d y r ° C6 U ~ 4' ~ y L: '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y V ° C C. ~'" ,fl d d r ~ ~ y ~+
p'a .a~ .r - H O ~ 'fl m ~ O ~ 7 :~ •_ c~ vii O vi y ~ ~ O ~ ~- cC :r O a vi ^ , ~ b
. ~ C = U ,~"' ~ 1. ^ ~ vi N y t_ ~.
6> 0 ° C cd: L ° .0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ y •~ ~ _ C a. ~ ~ y ~ V ~..~ r ~ ~ ~ p .~ V '~
rn. a .n'cvU`-~C ~'R aRi waG•v 3 c°~~U'r S 3s ~G ~ a~ ~ R: Ca ~'.~-..c~ °~~~ tL y h
~ '
CO O yN)~ N~~~„ t4,~+Cy. ~L'd>.lO ~C.r OC~~ CLGOO
d 'e [~''.a3 aoD"°~c.~'~_~' 'v=y ~a ~o.°D ~a+~3a~E o{"'yaD•~
L' °'._' y = V'L `° y U•ca :: a`~ p a h ~'`_ l.~,r •L ~ ~:°~ T3
°-'~> R~~~~~~ U -aa 3 a~ ca
~ ~ ` ~i T - ~ ~ U L .~ ^ ~ 6~ = O G' ..~'. p may„ ° f. l3 ~.' ~ w VJ y~. ~ rO
o. ~ ~: - R c~~~~o a~ ~ ~c= c0 -' CC3 ca ~ ° ~. 3 ~ ~ y
O ~ 3=U ~ ~ ~- Om O~ Ct. cEO
~ U ~ v, c ~~ R R,o U~ ~.~ o RrG o R'$s 8~Z .-, c.' t. Z y'3 3
c4 ~ a,v o3i ~ O c a`" _'- ~~ ~'~ o•°_ a,~ 0 0 c ^ s `° c~,R 3 3 ~~ 3
~_ ~ ~e~•~ U!=-.~`-~~o~e°a~v ='a'y`°xh Uoa~ `o"E T aC o
„~. "" ~ U G C ~ ~ • 0) y ~ R l0 V y OD's 4,,, ~ O id CO
~ _ h O E - yLr"~' o v a~ -t ~ _ ~ y ~. ~ c ~ s. v` R y0
fem.
C ~~ T~ K O C ~ ~ yL ~~,: ~ ~ O ~ ~•C cpa d•a>'C R p ~ O •pc~s 6> d
~ :v_3~:d ~=~c.~.`i''_~ .~„OU~du a~i~`4~= Uo m a~aD
S y.,Cm a~ pv•U.°'U~ oDUycSGOL yam- OCEC ypca~;?
~ ~ ~ y eo ~ ~ ~ ~._«, _~ 3 ~ O o eo^ `o u. d ^ = C=a `-° c:; p y'ai o
~- ~~ ~ ~ y`a~ a~ n`Dai~ c•a.~.°_~ ~_ ~ fl.ti.o`.ca • C ~fx ., - ~'~'n d R 3 aU
R ~ e~a'aca> ~ eD'o„ 3 a a. ~~oa .-o._~ce A43C:rapi
N :+C L ~ x F- ° ° .°_ aa. R E- eo F ~ Q ~°- -• ~ oa U u as a~ y
~
~ :J ~, ~,~ :a eC
u y' ~
_' ..
y v -
o I
' -
=v•=o
~3~~, ..
•y~-3occ~ ~`3=y
_~
~ ~5 ~
"' ~~a
"o_~a ~
_ w
`
ti
`_
3 F
~
a'~
~ o
._
~ y ~.s~
~ ' ~ a Z ~~~~.
~
~ ~
~°a ~y~ t ~ _ ;O -Y ~z cn ~U
~ ~ ~ vJ vv ~: ~' W O 'W
0.c { _ i .
~ ~ ~~
~ = ~ ~ :° 3
~ ~- 'O ca
'~ • ~''
- -
a~ a
~?
~
~ u., ~ ~G ,,._, ~ . c..
3
!+ d o h '~
~
y i
.~
V
~
.G ~ ~
~
L .._
_
... .. ..... .. ..«.
C
^ p y
..+
CC
l4 ~ ~ T I.. •y y ~ y
~ ~ '3 •_ ~~
~, R lC ~ L tVii ~ ~ Q' y .
qvi vs~.U•o ca H °~'~C
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Pork cenr-~, 230 F.r:st Fifrh Srrr~t, St. Paul, MN. SS101 6I2 z91-6.59
Soptemh~r 20, 1989
The Honorable Steve Quam
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN. 55u23
Dear Mayor Quam:
I am truly sorry that my remarks to the Downtown Council about the airport have
caused anxiety among the residents of Richfield. My words sounded to some
people as if 2 were actually proposing "the demise of Richfield." The point I
was trying to make, however clumsily, was exactly the opposite.
I was urg~.ng the business community to become involved ~.n helping us identify a
search area for a new airport that meets their needs and the needs of the Twin
Cities Area economy. We need a site so we can have an acceptable alf,er~nai:ive
if, 10 or 20 years from now, there's simply no more capacity available at the
present airport. Metro Council studies indicate it will be virtually
impossible to add more than one runway (not airport, as I mistakenly said)
:l without removing thousands of homes near the airport. It's exactly because I
do care about Richfield that I wanted this danger clearly understood.
At tree tiros of my talk, a site near Hinckley had dust been proposed. It a new
site is too far away, it may not be able to support Twin Cities economic growth
adequately. And ii' such a site attracted a lot of enthusiasm by people with
parochial interests and were actually chosen as the site i'or a new airports I
fear a good deal of pressure would be put on elected officials by the business
community to expand the existing airport rattier than move far away.
I'm aware that you, as well as some other people in the southern suburbs
believe that sufficient growth can be accomplished at the existing airport site
without jeopardizing your communities. If you're right, that is what should
and will happen under our plan. The Matra Airports Commission is doing a
detaile~ study of runway options.
13ut if it turns outs down the roads that the airport has Deen expanded 8.11 it
can be and it's still not enough we want to make sure there is an acceptable
and workable alternative available. We don't want to have to choose between a
too-distant new airport and extensive incursions into densely populated
neighborhoods around the existing airport.
I3o slight was meant to the residents of RiohfielQ, but rather the opposite-,an
abiding concern for their ability to keep their community intact. Please
accept my apologias for having misspoken, which contributed to the misreading
of my meaning and my intentions. I hope this explanation helps answer your
and theirs concerns on this issue.
Sincerely
S~ 1
Steve Keefe
Chair
cc: Senator Mike Freeman, Representative Chris T_iornhom
a9
Li]
fY
a
N
Ad
k3
CO
~wr
w
VQY
OC
V7
~ ~ N 1 I.w
~ / '7 / Y. `Cj V
~ v ~
~ ~
~
'D ~
~ oC
~
y
~
~
to '-' CC qOi '~ v. ~ '~ `° C y ~ e- ~
C G O ' ~'
r
a ~Q h C~ O N a~ ~ Cam,,` ~ v~~. v
O~ C. y O C 3 G~ ~ Z ~~~
wC~ ~
~ .--~ .:r V1 N ~ 61 td iti'„ ~ .~
~ ~. .
L:
iC ~ '~ . C p ~ ^ • ~ O p~ tom. O .L ~
v' -r0, '~
d ; ~ C.1 f
., PJ ~ cc5 +-'~.+ ,[', y 41 C .C
r
Cr
~ (~ th ~ .~ > C i
r
..+ GJ
~
~
~
~ •
d ~ i ~ u ~ tc w
^ .
C
c
.
. a; y
r..I V
~ rn y U y ~
~ Q ~ ' Y N
..:: ~ ~ p
ti
V
i ~.
+
l..i Y. G.1 ~ L ~' ~ "~'
~ L ' ~' '~ . n v L Q ~ U Cd ~ r
~C
_
v ie yam, o `~ y •G 1 v~ r U O o n ego ~ ~" ,:''.~ ~ v ~ m
V V• ti ~ f
C
_
~~ .
L ,...
~
r
G
~ _, L y O ,'J_,
cv ~ > y ~ .r
^ '' U L y ~ 'fl
J
,
y~ ..r O "~, ~:,
~ L~ •= Vi
L. .
_
C ~ ~ ~ '~+ ~• '~~
~
v•^~ r
yN
y ~ 'O U ~' "'' r ~
u a. CC 4„ .~ C y .
C
...~ ~ L V: J f Qr
:h
a
..~ ca vi
i., ~ a
~ y. ~ ~ ~ ~ O
Z
~r}d
.~G
N
~
C)
^
'
~
Q
O ~
~~
i y
~ G Q~K iR ~ •- ^
C.~ cC
C 7
~ ~ i
tLy~d
C
.y L h T U U1 = ~ ~ ..., ~~ ~' L C
~ (J ~ • ~ T ~
C
~
~ •
~
C y
i y.. 7
C ^ y {xj'^j ~ ~'•'
1
.,,
Q
~.
~ ~
)
Jy ~ Vi ~ `/ $ in 0U O ~ eCv U II1 -C U C, • C . C ~ i. ~ +~ ^; rte.
' i. ~
~
~
' ~ 6. ..C., • U C R '-~ to
,., y ~ C ^, ~ '1'
.r RC, r ~
~.. 41 ';~+ ~ ?S
,`~
p
Gr: ~ '~ v C G> > G~ C G a: ~ O CJ tJ . ~ ~ • ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ G1 :J O ~ '~ v -' ~ :J
'-~ - ~" 6.' Q :
v V ~ C r.., C 3~+ C7 C. N y •^'-', .,,. Q) w ~ L. ~ •!G ^ a-.
O
rt 4J ~ r ~ V .~ •G•C ~ cC
~` ~! C 0.+^
~ "
0 ,
C^-0> ~ ~ ~" = ~_
... r :r ~.~'
~
~
.. .-.
r
x ~~a~ ~^
m c. ~.r
~^
.... ~
•
.. y to ~ U
r-
,
_ _Q _
_=gy
Cl: .0.+ O C.S'r r C ~ ~ j fR.. J 07 ,Yy` C CL y ~ .^~ G 'D Q 'D V:
~ C_
C
~
+ .
r. ' ~ G L v ~ C C `~
CJ
O
„'i
L.1
~ a; ~ ~ R cC '
= i O ~ ,,~ C .~ ~ ~ O O ~
C
G ~ G
~ ~ Ui ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ '."' tE 4 Cd ~ Od ~ ~ L y ^J v O
".
C
GC } [d C
u! ' ~ :n
CJ L
L .~
~ ti y ti a,
X ... L ,^, ?~-..
~ G ..
~ y
^.y ~ ,~ ~ ...
.
O v
7-.
.
_.
C QJ". U ' y ~ C L PS LS. ~ N +-. '~ C .-. L G.~ ~ •J.
v%
" '
~ L ~ 0 ~ U
'
'
v
_ ~
ti ~
•
• ~
,
C J - "~ ^ :J ~ ~-
0
. •
J
1 v
r
61 Q~ y
y c^C
y ~
'C •
~ . ~ e
O
-• '-'
~
x
O
r
x ~
d
~ r ~
C
' V. f j y
~ '
^
t
.
~
~
•
~
~
ce .
_ ~
~ .
,
4 C '
:J N
^ ~.
y e
U ,~
O x
~
~'
O
~
^
^
.
~
C n
t j
~ ~
,.~
~
i
.. :'^ ~' ~
v'~ ~ ~ O yr
i R C y
~• ~ ;~, ~ = 5. w '
~ "
~ .~ ? p
'~ y rJ y
ti ~~
x
~~ e o
o, fi ti ,~ ~."~ C fi O C v~ O
Cam` 1 °-C a~.p~•c,+_ a' c
.
~
fi b 'O ~ ~. ~
~ ~ a"C O ~
C' ~ "
~
c
~
.N C ~ C'=' .. C C'am' fi~
` ~
'
~"
Q C. "' .w~.. .~. ~~~+•`--' ~ ~ , fi may,,, ~, C ^ y c ~r
~~ ~ .4
~•~ .~~. w ~ ~ ~ G .fi •~ ~. ~ ` ~ C '~ ~'
~~
~
~
~` y.~ a ~ C x.
' '
~~
-~ cn~t V
C .~.. '.~.. ~ w +'~.. v V '+1. J C O t: Y". h
R
v
.~ ~
v~
C
w r
"rlwi •G~
O L
4+ 41
~~
NCQ
t~
C
U
y~
.~-• ~
R
3
?.
da,~~g•~C
~~~~W~~t
C II1 '^ ~' ~Q
4S d
`.
` ~~
}`~ ~ 16
R ~ N W ~
i~C 0.zdAdC
~"a~in'~ya-c
odo~cs.~o
U ~- ... ' la ~ o
=~~$ar 7
5 ~ ~ y ~ ~ N
r ~ ~ E N •~ m
d~'t3 ~~ ~
~~L L ~~ Cg
S~'a~~?~onl g~
~r X Q O .r l0 RS Q
_ ~ ~~ ~ ~
Q v
W X00 tC C ~~t O L ~~ ~ ~ ~ C v'' ~~d -~ ~~~•d
n J y api 4 p ~i ~ ~ p. w o ~ ~ .r` - W %, ~ 'mac ~ ~ .~ ~., ;~ ~ C ` sy ~
L/1 ~ y ~ C a •-K. V yC .'^. 4 :~ ~ ' r L N ~ t c .. ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ~ C ~ C OCq'y b
v "` ~" ~ '..~ y W
~ v y T3 `'~~'' m e, H b o o,
~M L .r, f /1 .0 ! 1 .r raj +^..~Y I ~ ~ •~ .c ~.. -L ~. ..~ ,., ., a C '0. ~.' +~1. V ~+.
1~.~Ob
~~ y3
~a~~
I~~a~
,~~~ i~
~'^ > ~..
~•~ ° ~~
~ ~
ao~~~e44i
:'>Hs~75
»wuE-'~•~T+
0
x
0
b
0
a
CK
'v
0
u,...r a ' ucep ~
e~ yy
tiCt.a~C.~l~~~a~o
yAe~Op,~~~'000 ~~
~F ~ er• ° ~ h 3 ~ o
... ~«. 'b C ~.
N ~ pONpO T ~ ~ ~ A ~~C, O ~ y
~v7 ~' Jl TS•3 ~ Tyr
cO cc w~
A~ y «•y ~~ A ..+ G T N
u~oC°'~~„a~o`bc~~
~:0 3 ~u~~ R C•.^.~ o
„L~Es 3.pCy«.
t C. R d~` O~ y O~ C O•~
s
s
9
1
i
.O
L
O
.~
/~ .a ld N u y
V~ M y O~ Tw W ^...~
~ a ~ o e ~ ° > u ~ ~
~$..~aO~..«~O~
a z~~~ y--
uu uuOa~y'a
_ 'r3'C""'~ C~~
•+ it O C ~O+ .+ .y.
D s'y~~--$~3x~
~ u„`°c~ayiaCiC~ ~eC
UC yrc>>,~Gc~
ca.d1e~
',
~ ~
N y V 'd
O ~
~'~ ~.~' ~
~°x~~,~ ~
a a ~~~9
ae3°~y`~" ~
~~~~Q4
F~8~1
yW~~~g~°~~>~
;; ~ p 3 ~ ~'~ ~'OC Q~ ~ ~ e~i
L V
a°~u:r,,,u~0uua0
> ~ O b a
as ~ ~ ~~ O £+~ ~ ~'~s gip„
y q
a.. a~,a~ u„y3 3
TuH~Q~e~a
a~ Q~.d~ u~~q~'
~~T~..a,CC~G
...
~ y4r ~b
a~wo'g~LU,a
>'~v~dG~y>.
wppe$`~°ao~vi
~O'o S ° :: Eon
Qvt„~.~4, O ~~.C~Q:
~u o~oo>a a+
~>,cE~.~u>>;
F~3~wo~0•~•v
~ ,. ~ o
Q~;~"a
r
~~~~
e~$~
~ TH+
° ~.~:
C~yC~
m 3wooa;
... r.
--'o~ac
~ ~ ;,t~ ~
~~~...a~.p.C
a ... $
V ~ ~ = ~ ~ y i
y
4r .~
aG>~~~°a
3~~°eU~'~ fl.
~~~s~o~
s °' ~'3 ~; u .. ~
"'~.CC v~uC
°.go~'s~a~~ V-
~~ ~~ ~~
C an ~+
u o y$ri fr
O~yb•>C
.r ywT..~
~~~3w.a .
°'~ 3 0 ° a
r ~
w .,
~a~i~3~.r
~G ~ 4 C ..+
p v y ~ O ~
y O~ .~.".'rn
~~F""~3a
~~~3.boo
~=-_oao~
. v o.... '-' e~ "d v
~ay~~~
~°oQ,~~c~,~
~'~ °' ~ ~ ~
~ o ~ ; > ~~
i~~..,..~ra~
-~~~.
~F ~~ ~
u~~~~$,~
~~~~~~~
~~•$u~a°
>+ w. ~ ~ y .+ r+
'C`~`~~i"+O~
_~ N 4.,
'«+ ~" ~ u 00.x.+
~ a :° ~ u «. ~ .;
~.O u u C ~
Vf ..+ U y «' ~ 00,~
°_U~a~c>c
c0 O ~ y u ~ '.yr ~
CQ~.+ ~~.~~ .S
o,a o w:r o ~
~~ce~.. U-w. Cb
•°~' V cTe ~ cry',' V ~
~ ~" a c~ ~ y
a> '' u `~ ' ca > ,a
~ u 'S: y '~ .+ y
O Cam.. U m'in C
c-'•~°o' ~ ~0~
~~~~yodo
C y ~ ~
7! u
o.~.+~~N>~~
h u•~.~ O~
o ~
u
?~`nC o00 y ~ C
S+ G•Vf.~ y~y~~ ~ ~ ~
ur^~ ~~~~
L... ~ sw
V] U H ~ ~ ' Vl ~
~" u
~oQ~o o~ aoi.C~;
f.. ~ •~ L ~ O ,L+
~o.¢ooy~
~a~3 ~,.uCaC~Ci
N ~ r' ~ ~ V G
u y u b 'y .'. 4; o
o ..•
_ y
oy~ ~~°o
w ~ 3 ~s ~u y
~~ ~~ ~'ci3 ~ ~
H ~ c°3 O C ..+ a? ~
oq~~ao•~a~o
t7 p •N C uy. •y'v~
«+~ U .y. ~ 4r y.i
.~ ~~8~ E
.v~y~G,t„~~y.
a ~o~w'dc
O .a
j~s ~ «+ v O3 f.' O
~QQ,~L~~ ~ ~~ 0~0
tY.~C pp~ ~ ~ ~
o,o•~M°~~~o
ua. ~'i~ :: u ~ u
`~ ~ ~, c~ ~ a~ 3
C '. y y ~ ~ y
~b_~.~~
3u.cvv~y~
~~~-~ a~b o -:
'~~ C O C [ C
ti ~~ °~'' o:a ;w;°
~~~Q ~ a SQ~a
°rE"C,a~.°~°y~
v o «, ' ob y~ ~'~ ~' u
~~~ C'«~~ y•~MO
E"" ° ~ N O `~ ~ u
a a ,[Qb > ~
3.~~»Eoy~
b~ •.. O C O L" C .~
.C. H
$, ~ a m•y ~ ~ .~
• iy K ~ " b
b •~ 0 3 ~ ~ ~ air
y~~o330~«
~~~3~'d~.N'ob
pgE3cv~'C'« o ..
~...
~~ a>i ~ ~ 3'v ~~ a°i
'O ~ w
~.+ W y l'r ~ ~ ~ y0., ,
fn u •C vii
~ a~>> ;yy;T.;~
G~'~b "O' y G G o0
~w'E•3 ~•~~t°. ~ 3•v
..+ ~ .~ C ° y y V ~ ~
~° ~ ~. r •°~ u y u
abioaui33'° ^~~
~ ; ~ ~ mix= ~ ~•~
^o~ `t ayi~~3
~'~~0~''8:~aa~
u u y w
y'..r V
~ y ~
[~ `+
4
'
.
~
~ ~ q~_~
~ O ~ a!1
ea
i
~j~~
T u
NQ ~~ ',
N
~3~
t~~ ~t
N p$tO
a~~a>
v~?'C 3 ~ ,
^ ^ N
~
Y H
m Y
-}
a
Z e
m
~ i
~
m FL-
}+ ° •<... ~ y'ob' o
~ C `mo'd > O ~ ~'~ u C C R U'e0
L 3ua3i.do°u~j '~..C3~veOC~
>~ C cd u O .Q O
CJ ~ ~ ° N O 0 ~ ~ C ~ .r ~ > ~ v
N y G~j
W ~~~b~~ ~~c.~;~
C b ~3 ~=-~~L
.~ O~ u -' u
C/].O~pG~C .GS euiOC,tiQ ~
y H u C m C O pp.L' m~ t~ 0 ~' y G L'
N
~~
^ ~~
0
fA
m
~ Y
O O
J ~'
~~
oZ
!L
m FL-
.._
> ~ o 0
O'L7-C•~
~33~~
... ~' r
r~ ~ V u
~°~~~
u ~ ~
~~~ C
y
°w "~~ ~
a e~
u CW ~ O
~3..~33~
ao~o3~~~~
3a~°a~
y>,uu~
H .'C. ~ Q.
~CobEe
•G^ ~W,r
O.COUC
N~o~a
u T': O
'- .o ~ : •a
~o~
^v'~.,.~
~ ~ C_
.yC~~~
- u 3 ~ a
,~ aQ u
7 7 C u v
aaw~3a
W
n.
d
W
Z
Z
m
m
w
z
z
c~
a~
a~
x
0
~'`,,
~~
~ ~~°~~^
~ y cC fl. C~6 vz . w+ O v: co L O 3 r.
O O O fl, O '~ ~ O X O ~.
..O ~+ S: w.+ 4J
`~ a'~ ~ ~ a~ tg'O
.~
°
a `~ ~ ~' 'cc ~' °,~j O v o ° o o ~' ~s '° ~
'~ .~ ftS U +~ ftS '-~i 0 y;r k"v O y > ~3y w :Si
V] CSS i "O v0. '~~..+ ~ Q'i ~ '~ ~ .~ ~ ~ '~' Ll.
aA
O
o
^
.
~~
of
' ~ _1
~
~
W
• Ai
O ~V
~1
Ol
~,.~• ~
d y
~ ^ CC{ y w G y ~ ~ ~ O c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cC
v~ '1J ~ F." _~ .~.~
.~ ~ ~ O~. O y O Q ~~ 4J ~ ~ csC ~ C .~ O.
G7 cC ~ '..'
'~ ~ v ~''~ v O .a O H O p, ~ bOA..O.~ ~ p O .~
~ ~ CLOD ~ ~ ~ ~UO~ ~ ~.0 9~ O
' C "O ~ >a w .~ w V: Z7 i. V: d '' y i-+ y Vi O "O ~ 'O C ~' 'CS O
X' •^~ iv C ~"' O O O .O> ~ y ,O 'Lf ~ .~F'„ ~ O O L. y O c~ i~ •U O ~ ',t3
O O .iy..~ O ~ '~ ~ O y V1 C ~ cC cii y0 O csS .C O U O O ~ ~.. ~ ~ w O
O O ¢, y O y O cti G
`~" .~ ~ ... 'J' O ~ 'S.' ~ y y O ~ CO "~' ~ 7 O LZf 'C %~ CSf ^~ V1 V ~" ^' y X .~
~ ~" ~',~ f~+ V O ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~-' ~ U O ~ .O .O CC y +' ~ 3 ~ O .~,+.., O Ly
,~ vOi ~ ~ ,~ ,~ "O s.. ~ ~y0 ~ Syoo. O U ~ c~ ~ ~,~ GL~ w U "C O ^Cl 4: bA,~ '~
O ~'~ O"C~ ~ r.' tOpw^„Oy ftT 5~.~ 3yv Oy~CC O U_ ivy ~~o~~ ~ O C
O O y iv ~ y "~ ~ ~ ca: ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .O O ~ Ly°..y.. y ~,~ ~_ ~ iv Qr' ~ •t011 ~ CL D .C: ~ y r0+
~ ~ V1 L G ~ L"' ~ : O C ~, 3 ~ Z3 3 ~ 0 O G~ ~ O ~0,, ~~ r..~ ^V~ y CC y y O " ~ ~ L
~~~'+' O y ~ CC O~ 0.=~ w y~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ p~ y.~Or ~~,0 ~ O
~,o,y~x 3 °s,' ~fxx uG~x °.~ ca o ~" ^c ~.so. i~ ~; ~v ~yx ~.Q ~~ cOC'c~
o y .o w ~ c zs y ~ ca ~ ' a~ w o , a; x •~ o c ~ -c a~ N o ~c
y ~ ....~ y w..i ~ _ RS ~ ~ ...~ y Q ... c,.,i
~ ¢~~p ~ y ,~ 'L3 ~ O V ~ ~ ~ O ~ .O O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 X 'O ,~ ~ ~ ftf L% ~
~L cC G)
'~ ¢,.O ~ ~ C% .O C m ~..' ~ :" ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ O v: ~ O N ~ L~ .a Lr i.+ ~ C ~
O ~ cLS i, ~ O O U 3 ~ U 'S ~ L. O r:.+ by U ~ iw ,u ~„•., ¢,
.~ ~V] ~_ 'a w ~+ ~ CC ~~ "'.' +"' ~ ° ~ U O O~„" C O O ~' ~ ~ y •cC S., "" .'~ ~ •O w
^a cC'L5 ~ O Z. ~ ~ i],~ w; 3 " ~, ~ y ~V3 U '"~~ O ,~' v] ~-' ~« ~.~ "" bA C ~ C by
CC '~,' y O ~ O . ~" X ~'C ~ +' ~ w O ~ .Q cC :.3 .t. SO„ ,L^ ~ w p y p .U O .~ C s0..~
^ ~ d X .--~ Q y ~ CSC w O .O ^-~ H w O O O ~ ,~ ~ y ~ L~U,~ O w ~ s. ~ -~ .... U ~ V .
~ ,^O,' ~ '~ ~' _~ .-+ ~ ,~ i-i ~ ,SO.' '~ ~ y O ^C •'"' y 'y" "" ° s., t~ ~ .~+ ~ .O S" .C y ~ '"' O y
.~Q''~ ~ vs^CS vOi"O ~ ~ O ^~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ U~~~~~~ O y:... O cCF ~ G~
.ti_ ftS "3 CC C.) fJ. ~ y w .Q c~ 3 "~ Q+ U v~ U ~ a' .3 y .u CC y y U ~' .Q.~, .N Rt .u
~w~wy ~ yO~. bD rn 7,wOC~~cC~~'O ^r3 BOO
~ ~ ° .C ° ~ cC O d ."~ ~ C s0„i "o" ~ O..,.., 3 ~ y ~ +-' y G ~ ftf ~' O
O ..~ C ~ d cC ""' '~' vs 'T3 ctS t~ +"' O ~..' ~ ~ O ....~ .c^y"- ~ vOi O. O ...
~'~~~0.~ y y !~O C...y Oy ctS ~ ~•~~,,, ~ V1V Q"~~.C ~..~..~~
O CC ~^-~ y ~ t0. m y ° ~Lpccw U0~ ~'w~~:, ~'Q•C'~w.. ~'^ d.a O
~ U .O .U Z3 Ga "y" ~ CC CL O ~ .~ O y O 3 vi O 't3 ~ 'O .~
.r~' ° ~ y C~ ,~ '~ ~,?C O .N v] ^' +~ yy y ...., S2 4J .,=, O 3 ~ vOi ~^+ .~ ~" .4 G y
,~ CC '.'".'~„ y "O i.....3 c~ ".S ~ cC CL O ~U L„ ;~ .~ y ,~ L. ~ 5~+ ~ ~ F" ~ 'C .~ •~ x
RSTf d.~ ~ 0.~~.,,Oy Vl y O,O dw~ ~ ~ ~~ sQ.~.C,~~ '~w~~~ C ~ S~-
~ xi ;-O~i ,S.' O ti0'~ .L ~' ~ :~. UA O C y '~' '~ .~ "" c0 y y ctS 'C43~ c~ +' Z
~ 'C C O CLy 3~ O ~Ors y ~,"~"~"" ~"~ O O ~..~~.3 ~ ~~ Ly, Off-" GL~ G+¢'~
~ ~ 7 p +-' ^ U.0 ~ .C to '~' w tr '.~+ r:., C ... ~ O ~ ~ .y. ftS '-' F C2. y y '_O
~ O £" rya ~ ~ ~ .~~" O ..w ~VI ~ ° ~. w x ~ ° ~ S~ ~~i .J C ~ ^~ x it ''tea y .Q ~ +~ ~..' 3~+ O
~ ~.c ~~~t~ °~A~ o~G~.,x °s,' vAQ ~Z °v csa`~ °v 3 ~ ~ °y' 3~°.~ 3~
._,..,,A,,.._
.._ ~~. _.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, Thomas P. Ferber, being the duly qualified and acting
clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of
Resolution No. 7553
and that the same is on file and on record in my office.
Given under my hand and seal
this 26th day of Seytember , 1989.
~i x a f.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
E
Fd
RESOLUTION NO. 7553
RESOLUTION REGARDING A
RUNWAY USE SYSTEM
AT
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, any runway use system at Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport (MSP Airport) must recognize that all areas
surrounding MSP Airport benefit from its proximity and all areas
must share in the overflights, and
WHEREAS, any change from the present system will require
extensive environmental review and thus must be clearly fair to
all involved, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Runway Use System (RUS) does not
correct the fundamental problem of the present Preferential
Runway System since it still provides for unlimited overflights
over some nearby residential areas and total exemptions for other
similar areas when traffic levels, wind conditions and runway
conditions permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield
requests that MASAC recommend and the MAC approve a runway use
system that within the limits of the safe, efficient operation of
the airport would first direct as much air traffic Southeast of
the airport (arrive on Runways 29 Left and Right; depart on
Runways 11 Left and Right) as could be contained in the corridors
the affected communities have zoned for overflights, and secondly
place the remaining traffic as equally as possible on the other
four runways, all of which overfly similar nearby residential
areas.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
25th day of September, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
'r
`torneys at Caw
ttOBERT A. AI.SOP
RONALD H. BATTY
MARY J. BRENDEN
ROBERT G CARLSON
CHRISTINE. J'1. CHALE
ROBERT 1.. DAVIDSQN
JOHN B. DEAN
ROBERT J. DF.IKF.
MARL' G. DOBBINS
JEFFREY E\C.
STEPANIE V. (:AI.EY
DAVID L. GRAYF.N
JOHN R. GRF.F.N
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
i70 Pilisburr Center. Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-93011
Rapifax (612) 337-9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL.
337-9215
JOHN G. HOF.SCHI.ER
JAMES S. HOI.MES
JOHN R.LARSON
WELLINGTON H. LAW
CHARLES L. LEFEYERE
JOHN M. LEFEVRE.JR.
ROBERT J. LINDAI.I.
LAURA K. MOLLET
DANIEL R. yE1soN
BARBARA L.PORTWOOD
LARRY M. WERTHEIM
BONNIE L. WII.KINS
September 12, 1989
Mr. Richard Theisen
Project Manager
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
State Transportation Building
Room 417
St. Paul, MN 55155
Mr. Glenn Orcutt
Federal Highway Administration
Airports District Office
6040 - 28th Ave., S.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Gentlemen:
On June 28, 1989, the Scoping Decision Document for the proposed extension of
Runway 4-22 at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport was certified by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. As legal counsel for the City of
Richfield, I have been requested to submit the following request with respect to
that document.
The City of Richfield is not opposed to the airport or to necessary expansion of the
airport facilities. However, the City believes that it shares with other public
bodies the responsibility to ensure that the airport as it Blasts now, or aS it ;ray be
improved in the future, is so designed and operated as to minimize and to equitably
distribute its adverse environmental impacts.
Recognizing the significant impact that this and other airport issues have on the
City of Richfield and its citizens, the City submitted a number of comments and
suggestions about the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this
proposed project during the scoping process. These comments and suggestions
were, for the most part, ignored or rejected in the Scoping Decision Document.
The City is firmly convinced that an EIS which does not address these issues is
legally inadequate and cannot be an adequate basis for sound public policy
decisions.
Mr. Richard Theisen
Mr. Glenn Orcutt
September 12, 1989
Page 2
For example, the Scoping Decision Document rejects the suggestion that the
Preferential Runway System (PRS) be reviewed as a part of the EIS, despite the
fact that the PRS has never been subjected to an environmental review. We submit
that the PRS is such an essential element of this project that it cannot logically be
ignored.
One of the two stated justifications for the project is that it will allow the
expanded use of the PRS. Therefore, it is obvious that the justification for the
project itself is based on the premise that the PRS is an environmentally sound
policy which distributes noise on a more rational or reasonable basis. However, if
the PRS is not examined, decision makers will have no way of knowing whether this
premise is correct. It makes little sense to proceed with the project without such
information since, if the PRS is not environmentally sound, not only the EIS, but
the need for the project itself, is called into question. Any project which has as its
purpose the increase in the use of a practice which is environmentally unsound will
compound the shortcomings of the practice and exacerbate the adverse
environmental effects of the airport.
'.Yioreover, the unquestioning acceptance of the PRS and the decision not to subject
it to an environmental review results in the elimination from consideration of a
number of alternatives to the project, or to the PRS, which may, in fact,
substantially reduce the environmental impact of the airport.
For example, the Scoping Decision Document concludes not to evaluate a proposed
extension of Runway 11R-29L because it would not allow the expanded use of the
PRS. Likewise, the "no-build" alternative is faulted because it would not allow for
the expanded use of the PRS, and the Runway Use System (RUS) is rejected
because it would change the PRS.
However, without evaluating the PRS to determine whether it makes sense, there
is no way of knowing whether alternatives which are rejected because they do not
facilitate the use of the PRS (such as extension of Runway 11R-29L, the RUS, or
the ?Tno-build~~ alternative) are environmentally advantageous or disadvantageous.
Therefore, any EIS which ignore; the central issue of the reasonableness and
efficacy of the PRS cannot logic:~lly serve the purposes for which it is prepared.
Few issues in the history of tie ,t:ate have elicited as much public interest as the
noise issues which should be ad.jressed in this EIS. The subject matter deserves a
rigorous and thorough analysis. The environmental review outlined in the Scoping
Decision Document clearly does not meet this standard. An EIS which is so
obviously superficial in its scope can neither command the public respect and
confidence nor be an adequate basis for sound public policy decisions.
Neither state nor federal regulations provide for legal challenge at this stage of
the environmental review process; however, we are confirmly convinced that the
Mr. Richard Theisen
Mr. Glenn Orcutt
September 12, 1989
Page 3
environmental review as outlined in the Scoping Document will not be legally
adequate. Therefore, the City of Richfield urgently requests that the Scoping
Decision be reevaluated and reconsidered and that the EIS include a full and fair
analysis of the issues raised by the City of Richfield.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
cc: Jim Prosser
Douglas F. Powers
Leonard Levine
Gerald L. Willet
John Foggia
RC145-011
ITEM 8
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 1989
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
PLANN(P1G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CCM~rAITTEE
File No. (J
Meeting Date
FROM: Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director -Planning on Environment
RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING -PROPERTY ACQUISITION
The 1989 Capital Improvement Program approved by the Commission included an item for
approach protection at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The item provides for
acquiring easements or fee title where appropriate to ensure that FAA criteria are met with regard
to maintaining the best allowable landing minimums under IFR conditions.
In addition, Federal Aviation Regulation Part I52 (Airport Aid Program) requires airport sponsors
(in this case, the Commission) to acquire satisfactory property interests to assure the maximum use
and safety of the airport.
Attached is a graphic showing the approach to Runway lIR at MSP in the New Fordtown azea
of Richfield. Note that the clear zone for Runway 11R includes privately owned property. The
graphic is compiled from aerial photos and available plat maps, but no actual land surveys at this
point The cross hatched pazcel, including the home on it, is without doubt in the clear zone.
The owners of this pazcel have on several occasions expressed their wish to be bought out by the
Commission.
Two other pazcels appeaz to be partially within the clear zone as well, although the buildings may
not be. Air easements over these pazcels may be appropriate, depending on the actual location
of the buildings with respect to the 11R clear zone.
Since the owners of the cross-hatched property are anxious to sell and the property is within the
cieaz zone, staff recommends that acquisition procedures be started as soon as possible. State law
requires the Commission to hold a public hearing prior to such an acquisition in order to
determine whether the acquisition would be in conformance with the objectives of the Commission
as set forth in the statutes.
It is proposed to obtain field surveys to determine the locations of the buildings on the other
parcels and recommend either fee or easement acquisition prior to the public hearing.
COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED:
RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION THAT A PUBL.'C HEARING BE HELD REGARDING THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION AS OUTLINED ABOVE, AND THAT THE PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED THE HEARING OFFICERS. FURTHER, TO
AUTHORIZE THE PROPER OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS.
7-30PHLA/PPP
~-/~~i
H
O
~ Q
$~ Q
W
/ r J
2 0 ~
s~ O
t=
¢.
z
W
H
Z
J
Q
a.
t-=
T
J
G.
Q
W
Z
Z
r~
~~
W W
_I W
Q =
F- ~
W !--
C~ X
¢'W
WZ~
~ Z
~,
QO
i'
~.
6b
~~
,,
~,
,,
,,
,,
~~
L ~, ~ ~~ '~
% ~ '
~ ~ ,
,~
~• l i ;
r ~ i , /
r ~ ~
~ ~ ~ i
~ i~ ~ ~ ~ /
~ i i
~ t + ~
r ~ /
~ ~ ~
/" i ~ ~ i /,
~'~
~._
~~ ~ ,J
j /
r N
~C
I_
Z [t
.,
T M"
W
Z~
O
~ N
~ CU
O Y/
~ N
~j T
zz
ti
~~
)-
~~
~~
~O
x
Wa
i ".
.I
~ ~ ~
:, ~ ~
3fMAl- w. ..~..~..~..w~..Y~..~ pJF.~ ww~..~..
~F- ~~ ° wI - - -
~ 9
a n. r Y ~- •• S-- Ylw e Y r w s g p ~ . o'w ~. wle -
` / W o I
00 /~MGI11Y ~ 1W HSI~IY.L.S II W
ia~~IYi $(^. S - - :: orf11 - 1'i - .°. ° - - A r :e _ oi~ °13 n CD
^, I -~
-~- i W IYn =~- -~- ~
~MBI1Y W PAZ W
iYsw •~w w~n a e - w a e o r• o o-- w w. o o- al. y
Y~AY ~Z
wi-~la•& $ °OI- - - 9 - a ~ a a $ - • n - ;o w ~ n r gi - o r o
- -- ~
n ( ~ e w ~ s S - ~y - _ - - ..
w w e o e e S~ a n e w ~. e
~ ~ ~ a t-
~WiAY ~
'-- ~ r 4102 a~ppt
~W t ~ O ( S O
O
i ~ i~ ~ a'71$ - • ~ S - o a K YY & $ o ~ ° S ~ ° F eY. a Yi = ° C I°. S M
!-. I -~ -~ i -I ~ Y ~ ~ m
W W {~j
. Qlw .Iw elt~Iw w ^. r - a n. w w r o s e p Y . e w sIo e =
_ -
~ ~~.. ~MBi1Y 4181 i
~;~
n;~ ~ r ~i .I° - - - - " a ${ ~i a Si ° - - - - ~ 11 iG e°. ° " °i S~
~~ ~• '~~
~ -
a e o- °- Y w e r ~ Y w o w ~ a
`-IW -~ -
LL ~b'MHJIH ~l`d1S i
o ~
0
N
0
O
N
N
0
a~