The URL can be used to link to this page

10-25-76 agenda~ ~ ~ _. CIfiY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Gouncil Letter No. 341 Agenda October 25, 1976 The Honorable Mayor ` and. _ -' Members of the City Council City of 'Richfield ' Gentlemen: Subject: Employee As istarce Program During the last session of the legislature, Governor Anderson signed an Employee Assistance Program bill. The focus of this legislation is to pray=ide an "Employee Assistance Program" dealing with diagnostic and referral services as a means. of helping affected employees with either emotional, financial, marital, family or chemical. dependency problems . Hennepin`County is the contracting agency for developing the Employee Assistance Programs in municipalities in the metropolitan area . Two organizations have been. approved by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to provide these-services.. The Hazelden Foundation will provide Employee Assistance Program implementation sen,~ices to aII public employers . The Employee Assistance Program has two parts : The .first pant zs trze "Occupational Program Consultation Service" which provides to alI pub :ic employers and employee groups at no cost: 1 . Inforrri'ation-education programs. to'increase employer,~employee awarer_ess of the effects of chemical dependency and other related problems . 2. Consultation and technical assistance in establishing employer policy, regarding chemical dependency and other problems on employee work performance. 3. Training management and supervisory personnel and, if applicable, union,~stewards, to facilitate access to care for affected employees. .The second part of the Employee. Assistance. Program is the "Motivational Interviewer" services cr otherwise known as "Diagnostic ar:d Referral Services" . All employers or employee groups can obtain theseservices; however., under Minnesota Statutes 254A12, theese services are on a cost- sharing basis of 90% paid by Hennepin, ' County and 10% by the .employer or employee group. 1 _ .~ - Council Letter-No. 341 -2`- October 25, 1.976 ~~ 'All. public employer groups ar•e eligible far this cost sharing program . The services under this portion of the: program: wil,l'be: 1 . Assessment of personal and/or health problems of employees and/or their dependents which negatively affect job performance; ` 2. Referral to appropriate. community resources for direct services;. 3: and, monitoring (follow-up) referrals made.- The city would have the option of selecting one of five vendors for diagnostic and referral services that have been approved by the county. Richfield's involvement in a program of this nature could be very advantageous . An effective employee assistance program can: a . Reduce turnover b. reduce absenteeism _ `c reduce sick leave tune/costs d. reduce-health insurance usage e. reduce accidents at home and at work f. reduce suicides g. reduce workmen's, compensation claims h. increase company morale i. reduce' family insurance claims j . .rehabilitate the family k. increasepositive employee/employer relations. As I have stated the complete cost of the Occupational Program Consu tation Services, which would include training of supervisors and setting up the program, is paid for under the contract with Hennepin County, the remaining cost of contracting with a vendor are split on a 9.0/10 basis- with the municipality picking up the 10% of the cost thru June 30, 1977. Atypical cost for this type of contractual service would .run about $10 per employee per year with no limitation on the frequency of use. Self referral is encouraged as well as supervisory referral...- Throughout all referral confi- dentiality is maintained . At this point in time, this information is provided for your authorization to participate in this Employee Assistance Program. - Respectfully submitted, ~~ f - - ~ Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager WSB ,kl /7 cc: Personnel Director /h_ ~~ x f' :. .. CITY OF, PICHFIELL~, MT1\NESOTA Office of Ciay Manager Council. Letter No. 340 Ag~:nda `(October 25 ,_ 1 y % 6 The Honorable Mayor and . Members of the City Council City of Richfield GEntlemen: Subject: South Hennepin Route Ridership Improvement Projec~ The purpose of this council letter is to provide informal;a.on to the city rounril members regarding the South Hennepin Route Ridership .Improvement Project, and.: to secure the council review of the project before submission to the Metropolitan Council. History The Metropolitan Transit .Commission has sponsored Rotrte Ridership Improve ment Projects throughout Minneapolis. and the suburban areas over the past few years. These projects have .sought to explore means by which the efficiency and - effectiveness of existing bus transit systems. might be improved;.. Each study has focused on• 1. Specific project target areas. 2. Evaluations of existing transit potentials in that area. _ 3. Projections of future o•rowth .and changing land use in the area . 4. Recommended changes in existing transit options to best suit future needs . South Hennepin Route Ridership Improvement.Project In 1y75, the South Hennepin Route Ridership Study was initiated through a. grant provided by' the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration ~UMTA). The Metropolitan Transit Commission sought through this project to initiate a compre- hensive study to determine present and future transit needs in the South Hennepin Gounty area. The project area includes: South Mince apolis, Richfield, Bloomington,. Edina and Eden Prairie. Local government and residential input have been secured through-the .Project Management-Board,. consisting of local government represent- atives, project consultants and MTC personnel; the Suburban and Minneapolis Community Advisory Committee, served by residents of suburban communities and residents of south Minneapolis in the project area. Technical support to the project has been provided by the consultant firms Bather-Rngrose-VlColsfe).d, Inc. . ' -.and Simpson & Curtin. Council Letter No, 3Q0 -2- October 25, I976. Goals a.nd Objective s The goals and, objectives for the South Hennepin.- Route Ri.~ership improvement Project were drafted by the Advisory Committees and subsequently approved by the }?roject Management Board-. A copy of the project goals and objectives is included for council review. While. all of the goals and objectives are important to Richfield residents, several are of particular importance: 1. Provide new or irriproved service for transit dependents (i.e. elderly, handicapped, low income and those withoutautomobiles), and for those persons desiring alterna fives or supplements to the auto. This objective i.s particularly important in light of Richfield's efforts to im rove an an o •h laerl p d exp d services t tee y. 2. Improve interface between bus, pedestrian, and bicycle systems; evaluate the current bus system with xegard to its~possbie interface .: with future transit systems. The commercial improvements scheduled. for the L/H/N area and implementation of the. Richfield bikeways plat. particularly relate to this objective. 3. Implement an activity center circulation system to service activities in the I494 and Southdale commercial areas which would interface with both Local bus and. regional transit service. For Richfield residents, this goal will help to provide flexibility in bus transit .from the major freeway "flyers" surrounding the city to major arterials- within Richfieldo 4. Revise bus schedules by making them easier to understand and using larger print. This objective is designed to aid traizsit dependents and others not using mass transit to use available bus service. 5. Increase crosstown service to increase express bus service in an east west direction within the project area. In an attempt to relate these goals and objectives to the municipalities within the project area, "major trip generators" were determined. :These generators included major employers, commercial establishments acid recreation and transport- ation facilities within the ,project area.. For Richfield, the major activity center was 'identified a s !the L/H/N area "A major new activity within Richfield is the redevelopment of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area. There is a need to coordinate the provisions of street related transit facilities within the new road. reconstruction. In addition, the common section of I35W County Road 62 provides a restriction which influences express bus travel through he area." The objectives of the project have been drawn with these needs in mind. _ _ Council Letter No: 340 -3- October 25, 1976 Current Project Status . Through various types of surveys, interviews and demographic research a great deal of data has been.-accumulated about the project. area., and the project is now in the data analysis; stage with the project consultants evalua ting this data to derive pre:Iimnary conclusions... These ronclu~ions will then be assembled into specific recommendations for implementation. At than; point,. workshops will bs scheduled to discuss: the proposed solutions with representatives of each community. After these workshops are held and. the final conclusions and recomm- endations assembled, the implemerrtation of the project will begin. Council Actions The goals and objectives of the route ridership project are scheduled- for review. by the Metropolitan :Council later: this fall. The Metropolitan Council has, therefore, requested. that the city council. of Richfield provide input regarding their perceptions- of the project. From the above summary and thee-.enclosed goals and objectives it is my feeling that the major transit needs affecting .Richfield -have been identified and will be addressed in the final recommendations. Further- more, the project goals and objectives appear. to be consistent with the city's - comprehensive plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the council adopt the • attached resolution supporting the goals and objecticlos o~` the South Hennepin Route Ridership ?mprovement Project. Respectfully submitted, Vv ~p~ ~ ~' ~~~ !"~' Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja ', cc: Administrative Assistant Planning Director Public Works Director €i GOALS AND OQJEGTIVCS Listed below are the. goals and objectives as developed by the suburban and Minneapolis community advisory committees. These statements have been approved by the Project P•lanagement Board and reviewed by the study consultant. . GY~F Goals 1.' Provide new or expanded bus service so as to increase the. -' number of persons carried per vehicle in a service and cost-effective manner. This will: ~ conserve the nation's limited etroleum resources;. '~~ P a reduce air pollution; ® reduce traffic congestion during peak travel periods; e avoid expenditures otherwise required to increase.- ~=' road capacity to handle peak travel demands, M"'"- ~_~: 2. Provide a transit plan that complements and supports County w;~~ ~, and municipal land development plans. Service Objectives ~ .Provide nevr or improved service for transit dependents and for those persons desiring an alternative or supplement to the auto. The existing conventional service does not adequately serve transit dependents (elderly, youth, handicapped, low-income and those without autos). Desired origins and destinations are too far removed from existing routes. In addition, service should .also be provided to attract choice riders. This service should be competitive with the auto trip in travel time, convenience and comfort. e Improve evening, weekend and appropriate seasonal service for local activity centers and recreational facilities. The present bus system is oriented to downtown employment and consequently is incompatible with off-peak, especially evening and weekend travel desires. Of particular concern of the citizens advisory group is that there is not Sunday service past 54th Street on 34th Avenue. 18 ~(: ~. ;~~.>.:. ~. r .,.;. ~.. ® Review the transit service needs and potential for residents who are not presently served by transit. At present, there are many residents who are separated by barriers., such as freeways and rivers, from a major part of the community and are not served by transit. In many cases, ~~{~ an extension or deviation of an existing route would serve these residents. -~, ® Improve and maintain schedule performance. This objective has begin identified because buses are not a always maintaining schedules. ® Improve transfer coordination. Transferring from one route to another frequently requires 30-minute araits and sometimes almost an hour because buses apparently are'not scheduled to arrive at major transfer ;~~ ~ points at the same time, or because drivers do not adhere to schedules. Apparently, many riders miss a connecting bus by seconds; that is, ~rhile~the connecting bus is visually '~ observed, it does not t~~a~t for the persons wznting to ~~ ~ transfer to it. ~ Improve i nterface bet~veen bus and pedestr•i ~n and- bi cycl e systems; evaluate the current bus system with regard to its possible interface with future transit systems. This objective has been identified to coordinate the planning of the above travel modes to minimize potential conflicts bet,~reen modes sharing i:he same right-of-vray ( i . e. , buses and bicycles, pedestrians and bicycles) and to facilitate intermodal transfer opportunities. ." ~ Review the location of present fare zone boundaries and -~ adjust so 't hat faros are commensurate with distance traveled. Rt present, some residents have to pay fares in excess of 30~ to travel a short distance because they are crossing a fare zone boundary. This additional fare may deter „ .~ residents from using transit for these trips. ® Implement an activity center circulation system to service activities in the I-494 and Southdale commercial areas which would interface with both local. bus and regional transit. .:. service. ~ ~ ~ ' I' . 19 ul t. • A local circulation system would expand or adjust local transit service to serve local activity centers and supplement other transit services.. This type of service could serve as a feeder service to the proposed transportation centers. The citizens advisory committee has • suggested that vans or small buses be used for such an internal transit system. _ ~ Analyze the need for innovative transit systems where use of conventional transit is not economically feasible.- " It is essential to investigate the need for various types of conventional and Para-transit systems: demand-responsive service (including improved taxi service), subscription bus service, vanpools and carpoc;ls. The citizens advisory committee favors the use of smaller vehicles wherever appropriate.. . e Explore the possibility of a package delivery service. If a package delivery service could be provided, persons could use transit to shop and place orders whereupon the grocery store or other sales stores would provide a reasonably prompt delivery of merchandise to a customer's home. This delivery could be provided by the transit. .~ .operator or by some independent delivery system operated or supported by individual or groups of stores. o Provide an effective transit marketing program which ~vould develop a public acceptance program for transit within the community. Develop an educational marketing program on fiow to use buses for use in the schools, on television, etc. Many persons are apprehensive about using transit - they don`t know hoax. Some persons find it difficult to understand destination signs which are not indicative of. .where the bus is going and especially confusing to .some is the MTC branch destination practice. Others have expressed concern as to where to get off and on the buses in that different streets are used for different directions in the downtowns. To a few, this unknown would represent a traumatic experience. There are many potential riders who would use transit if signing, scheduling and information was consumer oriented. • Revise bus schedules by making them easier to understand and using larger print. • This. objective has been identified because, at present, bus schedules are difficult to understand and hard to read. • • Gs;: zo ~ i :-, f~; 4 • Increase crosstown service. Presently, many residents find it difficult to travel , crosstown since the existing crosstown routes generally do not offer very frequent. service. Route Objectives . • Improve bus speed. Minimizing travel time via the use of expressway routing, reduced stop-ping. (such as stopping at every .other block) or improving law enforcement of parking restrictions and side4ralk snow removal has been identified as an important. concern of the communities. ® Improve regional accessibility. pevelop ~~ express any des x`~ • D e v e l o p streets routes and corresponding schedules with the regional bus network so as to provide reduced trip times to iced regional destinations: plans for future transit service; identify those and facilities that would be needed. ,ti.: Especially in the developing areas, it would. be of "'' considerable value to know beforehand vrhere routes probably would be located. This would permit-local planners to plan °, for and incorporate the bus-related road improvements that would be needed. and that would facilitate the implementation of viable transit routes and services. Road--Related Objectives •. Provide those bus-related street and highway improvements needed to increase the attractiveness and convenience of using transit. ~~ <;~. t r~ LJ `~ Among the necessary bus-related road improvements that might be implemented to increase f.he attractiveness of transit are bus shelters, park-ride sites, bus turnouts, access lanes, signalization, etc. Once these improvements are made, additional service should be inaugurated. One particular suggestion made. by the Community Advisory Committee is to investigate the possibility of using the school bus facilities at 94th and James. 21 i i j ~ ~. o Investigate the possibility of improving the moveiner~t of ` patrons between buses by developing transportation centers within the comrnunities inc3uding new transit facilities located in major .activity centers. .-. •, - ~, ~- ~.. ~. ~~: A.:.. }1 ~~'_ y.:,.. y; ~.: - I ~., it ~~~ ~~<_ I ~;. - ,,., ~. - - ;".. • ,..... - - '~j ~ z ~:. t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GUALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SOUTH HENNEPIN ROUTE RIDERSHIP IMPROVE- ME N T PROJECT WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Commission has initiated the South Hennepin Route Ridership Improvement Project, and WHEREAS, this project is designed to .improve transit potentials and alternatives within the general project area which includes Soutri Minneapolis, Edina , Eden Prairie , Bloomington and Edina , and WHEREAS, Richfield residents and city representatives have participated in the formulation of the projects goals and objectives, and WHEREAS, ,the goals and objectives of this study address crucial transit problems, options and opportunities within the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, the goals. and objectives of the project are generally consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. NOW, TI3E REFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Richfield as follows: I. That the goals, objectives, and intent of the project are timely and address questions which can lead to improved transit alter- natives in the Metropolitan Area. 2. That the South Hennepin Route Ridership ?mprovement Project has the general support of this body. Passed b_y the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of October, 1976. -Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J . Moran City Clerk a. t~ z i 1I° - CITY CSI- RICHI' ELD, N NNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. '339 Agenda October 25, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Gity Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: 'Subject: Request for Amendment to Off-Street Parking ~ Contract for 1301-1309-1.325 E. fi.6th Street p Mr. T. A. Samsel has. requested. that the .off-street parking contract.. for 1301-130:9-1325 East 66th Street. be amended. A copy of the letter from Mr. Sa.msel is attached. The city council approved an off-street parking contract for 1301- • L309-1325 East 66th Street on November. 13, .1972, which provided for- 37 off-street parking spaces. The contract provided that. the existing curb cut located approximately 80 feet west of 14th Avenue be closed. A copy of the off-street. parking sketch is attached. In his. letter, Mr. Samsel is requesting that he be allowed. to retain this curb cut. The staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the curb'cut ~be closed in conformance with city policy.< If-the city, council agrees .to Mr. Samsel's request and amends the off-.street parking contract, all of the contents.: of the contract would then be completed and it would be recommended that the bond be released.- . Respectfully. submitted, _ ~' ~~ /"-,r Wayne S; Burggraaff _ '; City Manager WSB/eja cc; Pubic Works. Director ~, ' a , October 1S, 1976 City of Richfield :6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Offstreet Parking--Contract 1301, 1309-1325 East 66th Street Dear Sir: All provisions of the offstreet parking contract for the above address have been completed except one. It was stated in the contract that the center driveway in front of the. building at 1309-1325 East 66th Street be removed. `~ I would like to leave this driveway. It has not caused • any traffic congestion or problems.. It would be of great inconvenience to TJ's Ceramics, Inc., 1311 East 66th Street for the loading and unloading of products ', from semi-trailers, particularily in the wintertime when it gets icy. ', If this could be deleted from the contract at this time, I would also like-the bond for the offstxeet parking contract released. Sincerely, ~', j ~...: ;C/ GCa~~/l~/ T. A. Samsel TAS/r .. ~, a IX ~ a W_ ff m ~~L~ __ ... ~.•___..__.__._ _..~_.,. _ _. .._.. _ ~ . _. T r.~.~ ~. I ~- . 1 I---~ --1- -=-----i-------~------- 1 ~ ~~, v N YW Q ~ v' ~ r - ~a N\, ~1 ~ W I I I I I I I ~I I I ~ •,• ~ fi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o : I I ' N ) ~ 1 ~-~.6 1 I ~ I I ~ ' ~ J-- 1- L -1--,-1--L - ' ~ ~. ~ , _ __ , .1 u tl tl H u W W N N t M ~ - W~- 0 2 O ,q ~ ~ d ~I 0 O` OI ii u C ~ d d tl u N N tl o1 1 M 4J 'S t~1 ~ CO N . N d b d 8 F ' ~~~ G .O H .~ M d ~ .O P ~ .Y w O ~ .O b U O O w x W .-1 O tl ri K1 tl M ~ ni O ' ' .. N fi U O W H n ~. n v1 •i a H. afl • - - - N N d < . 1 ~ 1, ' - ~ - • ~ 1x-1 d Y W .O Z N ~ G • ~ ~ •,f 3' to ~ u O O w V 1 N ' ~ •' Vl -- - ~ aw ~ 4 ~ c d x 1 r i I -1 9'D ---- rte- ~' NHU° " m m °' =. ~ .e m W ,~, 6 ~ nv> ~ a F~ P .~O x0 C I I a0 ~ O y ~ C P7 O QI ~. I = ~ t C .-1 d +1 'n F • x M W ~. _ -- I m ) ~ p ~- 9 t 8 ~ i . i H N n N C1 H - W ( '• f v t0 tl r a ti a .-1 a o' m a .-~ ~, r->=- o c 1 d ~ "~' I i + O N .C 2 - -- - O O .-1 O .1 M tl O V OI ~ 1 g ---- i W ~ • °? I-- - ~ .. .. z .. ,ZS 1• - -- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ rn pN1y~ x O w H66 w U G n: H U P i~ q i4 M N ^< - - - ~• ~ ~ a papy~ v u a c~ y A ~ fA A 6 W Y f~ T PC v i -- - = / N p l C 0G ,,.~~ ~ fL l zz G ;c 2 , ~ n 1 ( Na O ri a q ?. ¢°~ W r 2 1 ei. - --- I c°P• as 02 w3 ~'Ir; I =~ :~i ~ tie.. ~ • ,6£ - - ~ y ~~-• yf ~ O . ,0 ~. 4 . ~ J, 1 1. ~ ~S•~ •~ • ~ ~ . ~1 • \^ .. 'O$ '3Ad 41b1 r ~.. rt CITY OF RICHFIELD', MINNESOTA `' Office of City Manager Council'Letter No. 337 Agenda .October 25, 1976 f - The Honorable Mayor :and IVlembers of the City Council City of Richfield I .Gentlemen:. Subject.: Authorization of Grant Application Earlier this year, President Ford signed into law the Locale-Public Warks Capital Development and Investment Program. The purpose of this legislation is to stimulate employment-opportunities in`areas of high unemployment by providing federal grant funds to stimulate construction or renovation of public facilities . ~` Title Tof the Local Public Works' Capital Development`and Investmen Program provides for distribution of approximately $2 billion, nationwide to state and local governments. A formula in the act specifies that each state i guar= anteed a minimum allocation of $9.95, million. However, .the actual amount a state will receive is based upon its unemployment "rate compared with national unemployment figures as well as the state's share of he total national number of unemployed persons. Using this formula, Iviinnesota's allocation is estimated to: be approximately $_18.7 million. This .amount will be; distributed as grants for public works projects to local governments within the state; based on the follovu- ,. ~ ing criteria- ~ 1. 70% of all. available funds must be spent in :areas with. unemploy- meat over the national rate (currently 7.8%). 2. 30% wil'1 be spent in areas with unemployment between 6.5% and the national rate . 3. Projects will not be funded in areas with unemployment below 6.5% unless doing so is necessary to meet''state minimum funding levels or unless funds are available in the 30%° category. Because the unemployment. rate for Hennepin County is currently estimated to be 5.7%, Richfield may only.. qualify for, project funds under the, last criterion listed above. ~" '~ / Council Letter No:, 337 -2- October- 21, 1.976 Grant Application' Proposed Because of the numerous boulevard trees los in Richfield as a result of shade 'tree dsea e, the Public Works Director is proposing a grant appIica- ton to finance replacement of 250 boulevard recs. Under the guidelines of the-proposed application, boulevard tress will be planted in areas-where trees have been lost (approximately '200 locations) and in areas where boulevard trees have never existed, but have been requested by residents (approximate y 50 locations). The total dollar:-amount requested' for the grant: is $95,000. This amount should provide sufficient funds for the purchase offour inch :trees w h a one-year guarantee. The proposed project budget vuould also cover costs related to tree planting, equipment casts and watering costs,. I# the grant is approved, the project will begin in April or May and conclude in October of 19`77. Council Action Necessary The public works department has completed preparation of all application' materials, and the required approvals and certificates have been applied for or received. However, before the grant application may be submitted, it is nec- essary for the city council to authorize the grantapplcation by,adopting he attached resolution. If -the grant application is :approved°for funding by the: federal government, it will be necessary at a future date for the council to formally accept -.the grant monies and authorize necessary public -bids . Since this r g ant application is completely federally funded and does not entail the expenditure of local funds, it is recommended that the council adopt.., the attached resolution authorizing city- staff to ..submit this grant application to the regional office of the Economic Development Administration. Respectfully. submitted, ~.? ~~,~, E . Wayne S. Burggraaff f City Manager j WSB/eja ~~ cc: Finance Director - Public Works Director I 4 ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR PROJECT FUNDING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND CERTIFYING THAT NO FUNDS BUDGETED OR OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY COMMITTED FOR REFORESTATION SHALL BE REDUCED, DEMINISHED OR REPLACED BY FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE ABOVE REFERENCED ACT. WHEREAS, the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Program has been authorized and funded by the federal government, and WHEREAS, the purpose of the legislation is to provide employment for unemployed construction workers while stimulating local capital development or redevelopment, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is making application for funding under the above referenced .legislation for the purpose of tree replacement on public properties within the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, such a reforestation program has become advisable and advantageous to the community as a result of the. increasing numbers of public trees lost due to Shade Tree Disease . • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as 'follows; 1. That the city council hereby supports and authorizes an application for federal grant in the amount of $95, 000.00 to operationalize the "Richfield Forestation Restoration Project" . 2. That, no funds currently budgeted and available or otherwise specifically. committed for this project shall be reduced, diminished, or replaced by funds requested for this project, 3. That the city manager is hereby appointed and authorized to act as authorized representative for the City of Richfield in matters relating to this project. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on the 25th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: ~~homas T. Moran City Clerk ((( CI~.[`Y QF RICHI'IELD, MI~aNESOTA Office of City Mana~~c~r • CoLU1ci1 LetLe'r ha. 336 Agenda October 2S, 1976 7.'he I~ionorable 'Mayor end ' Meznber• of .the City Council City of Richfield y Gentlemen: Subject: Special Assessment. Policy, for L/H/N :Public Ii:~zp,rovements The Lyndale/Hub/Nico.llet Project Financing Plan includes use of special assessments to repay the bonds sold to finance the pablic irnpr'oveanents ir. i:he area. The proposed assc;ssment policy is attached to this letter for council re-- vietiv and consideration at the October 25, 1,976 council meeting. The cast of the public improvements plan for the L/H/N is estimated at approxi.rnately $1,918,000. Of this Total cost, Hennepin County wil.I contribute an estirrzatcd $511:, 000. Another $98, 000 is anticipated from the Fec~era~ a~l.cl Urban grant program, leaving a balance of $1, 309, OOJ to be financed by special asst ssments to the owners of. property in trze project area, Tf the federal grant %s not received, the sum to be financed through special assessments could ~~ossibly increase to $1, 500, 000. This has been explained to f:he businessrrien and property owners, and accepted by them. Eight possible methods of assessment were examined by city and BRVV staff; and .the: city a torriey. These alternatives were.revi.ewed against four rriter•ia: 1. The method had to be equitable to tYze property owner 2. Simple to adrninister 3. Legally justifiable 4. Understandable to the praperty owner All but two of these methods were eliminated through this review process, be- cause they .did. not conform to one of the four criteria . Tl"ie two .remaining a lter- natives. ware to either assess purely on the basis of gross land area; at 42 cents a square foot, or to use area as a basis with different gradua~ions depending on the locale of the property. For instance, in applying this last alternative, the base .assessment of 42 cents per square. foot woulcl be used, and Land at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue would be assessed 100 percent of that base assess- `I~ meat, since this corner is in tl~e heaz-t of the redevelapment area . The Waad Lake School site, however, .since it is on Llxs fringe of the rsdeve.lcpmerit area, rrzi:ght be in a~i 85 percent none. and be assessed 35 3/4 cents; per s~~uare foot. ,~. Council 'Leger No. 336: -2- Agenda October 25, 1.976 f, - Once these a terra fives'were developed, meetirrgs were held with the whole CIC with ;its Special Asses ment Suh--committee to study the alternatives ~ in particular., and also briefly review the other methods.reviewed,..but not ' recommended by legal 'counsele As a result of these discussions, the CIC is recommending that the city. council adopt the attached policy. The policy recommended by the CIC provides for assessment only of prop- erty in the project area itself, based on grass land area, with no graduations by locale. This is the first alternative'summarized above. Thus recommendation reflects.. the committee's feeling thst theeimprovements will actually benefit an area muc?i larger than just that included in the project, including the entire City of Richfield, and that the public improvements within the project boundaries are ' evenly spread throughout, so that a graduation is not,.. justified. The committee has also recommended that the city council adopt an 'equal' payment schedule, a sample of which is attached. Normally, the payments vary each year with. an equal amount of principal, but a decreasing interest charge. Instead, the CIC recommends the same. payment each year with equal amounts of principal and interest, even though this dog result in a :higher total amount .being paid by the property owner. The. policy statement does indicate that the intere t rate. on the payments v~ri11 not exceed eight percent. City policy has been to charge the full eight. percent' allowable by state law for any special assessment payment, regardless of'the interest rate the city pays on a specific issue. However, in discussions with the busines community, it was assumed. that the interest rate they wr~uld pay cvould equal the rate the city paid on the bonds;- .this-was: assumed to be seven percent..: Since the, property .owners were informed that the"rate .could be as,high as eight percent, th9:s statement is reflected in the CIC developed policy, and thy: difference ` in the amount of paymerit per square foot each is minimal... (Orly SO.G0252 if the interest rate is eight percent instead of seven percent. ~ Again, no change is neces ary in the CIC policy as submitted. It is recommended that the council approve the attached resolution providing for adoption of the assessment policy. .Respectfully .submitted, S. ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City ZJIanager WSB/eja cc; Planning Director Finance Director. . ~ -- w RESOLUTION RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSABLII PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN TIIE LYNDALE/IiUB/NICOLLET PROJECT AREA WHERET~S, it is expected that public improvements, for which special assessments are to be levied, will be made in the Lyndale/ Hub/Nicollet project area, which improvements will consist generally of street widening, traffic channelization, traffic signals, utility and drainage modifications, landscaping pedestrian walkways and related improvements, and WHEREAS, the amount to be levied for benefits received from such improvements cannot finally be determined by, the city council until after the appropriate procedural steps have--been taken to determine assessable costs, prepare proposed assessment rolls, con- duct hearings and determine benefits to individual tracts and parcels of land, but it appears to be in the public interest to establish a proposed assessment policy on special assessments for the purpose of considering the proposed .public improvements, NOTa, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield that the tentative and proposed assessment policy to be used for the contemplated public improvements in the Lyndale/Hub/ Nicollet project area shall be as follows: • 1. The amount to be assessed would consist of the cost of the public improvements, less any funds contributed by Hennepin County and any funds secured from state or federal grant programs. 2. The properties to be assessed would be all properties located, within the Lyndale/Hub/Dlicollet project area. 3. The proposed a~~sessment rol)_ would distribute the assessable cost to the assessable parcels of land on the basis of land area, i.e., the amount assessed for each .parcel would have the. same relation- ship to the total amount assessed as the parcel land area would have to the total land area being assessed. 4. The special assessment proceedings would be scheduled to provide for the levy to be made when most of the improvements are substantially completed; a.nd the proposed assessment roll would pro- vide for payment of the special assessments over a 20-year period having twenty equal. payments combining principal and interest, and with the interest rate not exceeding eight per cent (8%) per annum. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J". Moran, City Clerk PROPOSED ASSESSMENT POLICY LHN COMMERCIAL IMPROVE,`~'IENT PROJECT i. I. Improvements -.,Public improvements for which special assess- ments shall.be levied generally consist of street widening, traffic channelization, traffic signals, utility and drain-- age modifications, landscaping, pedestrian walkways and related street furniture. II. Amount to be Assessed - The amount to be assessed shall be equal to the cost of the public improvements, less any funds contributed by Hennepin County and any funds secured from State or Federal grant programs. It is estimated that the amount to be assessed will be between $1,304,000 and $1,500,000. III. Assessment District - The properties to be assessed shall be all properties located within the LHN development district. IV. Assessment Amount/Benefit - The benefit and resulting amount to be assessed on each parcel within the assessment district shall only be determined on the basis of the land area of the parcel. The amount assessed for. each parcel shall have the same relationship to the total amount assessed as the parcel land area has to the total land area within the assessment district. V. Terms - The assessment shall be levied at such time as the improvements are substantially completed. The assessment shall be payable over a twenty-year period, having twenty equal payments combining principal and interest; and the. interest rate shall not exceed eight per cent per annum. it r r Parcel Size - 10,000 Square Feet Total Assessment - $4,200.00 Payment Period .and Terms - 20 years at 8o Constant Payment -Amount Annual Principal Monthly Year and Interest Cost 1 $ 421.68 $ 35.:14 2 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 3 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 4 $ 421.68 $ 35.1.4 5 $ 421.68 $ 35..14 g $ 421.68 $ 35.14 ~ $ 421.68 $ 35.14 g $ 421.68 $ 35.14 g $ 421.68 $ 35.14.- 10 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 11 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 12 $ 421.68 $ 35.14. 13 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 14 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 15 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 16 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 17 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 18 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 19 $ 421..68 $ 35.14 20 $ 421.68 $ 35.14 $8 ,433.60. -~ h, ... .. '- ~ ~ ~'. GTTY OF i2ICHFIELD, MTNNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 335 Agenda October 25, 1976 L The Honorable Mayor and. ~,~.~~~"- Members.. of the City Council City of` Richfield Gentlemen.: Subject: Public Improvements Phase of the L/H/N Including Required Acquisition ,. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has been requested to approve the` preliminary public improvements plan for the` Lyndale/Nicollet/Hub area. .However, it is also necessary for the city council to approve this plan and to call a public hearing on the proposed improvements. As council members will recall, design work on the preliminary plan actually began°as part of the L/H/N fetal ~roj~ct planning process, with .concept approval in: October, 1975. After extensive meetings v~ith Hennepin County and the property owners, businessmen ar~d residents of the area, the design has been revised whey. feasible, to reflect their concerns and has receivf:d overall approval from these groups. ~'he streets and related irr<p~o~=ements such as signalization should be I sufficient to handle traffic volume in the year 200, and the accompanying design elements such as street furniture and tree plantings will increase the attracfiive- ness and desirability of the area to he shopper white .establishing an identity for the locale ~' ~ To accomplish street widening and channelization improvements, land must ,' be purchased in eight areas. Three complete parcels must be acquired; including the Betty Crocker Pie Shop, Jerry's Standard Station, and Nelson's- Restaurant. The other purchases will consist of strips .along the property lines. .Attached are the legal descriptions foreland required to be acquired. Appraisals are irl progress and should be completed by the November 8, 1976. city council meeting. It is recommended that the council take the follo~n~ing actions at this time: 1. Approve the preliminary public i provements plan 7`. Schedule a public~~g on this plan ,- ; ; Council Letter No. 335` -2- October 25, 1976 • RESOLUTION AUTIiORIZING ACQUISITION QF LAi'1D FOR PUISLIC RIGH`_T'S-OF-WAY WHEREAS,. the City Council approved the I,yndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project on the 24th day of November, 1975; and. WHEREAS, a portion of this project includes. construction of public improvements consisting of street revisio~ls and associated design. elements; and WHEREAS, the preliminary public improvements plan has been received by the Council for the above-referenced work; a hearing date has been set; and the drawing of final plans and.specificatons has been ordered; and WHEREAS, the-lands legally-described below must be acquired to proceed with the public improvements as specified in the prelimin- ary plan; and WHEREAS, appraisals have been ordered to determine the fair market value of the lands to be acquired; NOW, THEREFORE, BE I`T' HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.: 1. It is the council's intention to acquire the lands legally described below for the purpose of public rights--of-way; 2. The lands to be acquired are legally described as f_ollo•ws: PARCEL l A11 of Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, Fairwood.Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof. Containing 15,500 square feet more or less. PARCEL 2 That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, lying northerly of a ].i.ne drawn from a point on the easterly line of said Lot 1 ds-` tant 35.00 feet sourtherly, as measured at right angles, .from the north line of said Lot 1 to a-point on the westerly line of said Lot 2 distant 25.00 feet southerly, as measured at right angles from the north line of said Lot 2. and The easterly 22,00 feet of Lots 16 and 17; Block 1, Fairwood Shores, and that part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, lying easterly of a line drawn-from a point on the northerly line of Lot 15, Block 1, >~'ai.rwood Shores, distant 22.00 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, from the easterly line of_ said Lot 15 to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 14 distant L0.00 feet westerly as measured at right angles, from the easterly lino of said Lot 1!l. Said easements contain 7,.570 square feet more or Tess. -2- PARCEL 3 All of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Faixwood Shores, according to the recorded. plat thereof. Containing 2.0,000 square'f~et, more or less. PARCEL.4 That-part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat .thereof, lyirng northerly of_ the following des- cribed line: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 8 distant 30.00 feet southwesterly from the most northerly cor_n.er thereof; thence .easterly to a point .on the northeasterly line of said Lot 7 distant 20.00 feet southeasterly from the most northerly cornF.r thereof;. thence easterly to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 6 distant 25.00 feet southerly from the northeast corner thereof, and there. terminating. Containing 3,250 square feet, more or less. PARCEL S Across the south 390.00 feet of the north 440.00 feet of tl~e west 17.00 feet of the east 50.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 6,590 square feet, more or less. PARCEL 6 Across the northwesterly 17.00 feet of all of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on ~ti'ood Lake, according to the. recorded plat thereof, and that part of Lot, 8, said Bieck 3, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northG-westerly line of said Lot 8 distant 30.00 feet northeasterly from the sauthwesterly corner thereof; thence southwesterly to said southwesterly corner; thence southeasterly 40.00 feet along the southwesterly line of said Lot 8; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning. Containing 2,102 square feet, more or less. PARCEL 7 Across the northwesterly 17.00 feet of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake, according to the recorded plat thereof, except that part of said Lot 8 described as follcws: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 8 distant I~ 30.00 feet northeasterly from the southwesterly corner thereef_; thence southwesterly to said southwesterly corner; thence southeasterly X0.00 feet along the southwesterly line of said Lot 8; thence northwester-ly to the point of beginning. Containing 1,800 square feet, more or less. -3- PARCEL 8 All of Tract A, registered land survey #692, files of the Registrar of Title, Hennepin County, Mi.nnesot.a and the south 30 feet of ~}ic ea,t 60 feet of Lot 5, Block 8 rearrangement of Nicollet homes 2nd Addition according to recorded plat thereof. Containing 13,,640 squaie feet, more or~ less . 3. The city manager and staff are hereby authorized and directed to present to the council proposed resolutions determining the fair market value of such tracts of land, as soon as appraisal information thereon is available,. 4. Upon adoption of resolutions determining such fair market values,. the city manager and staff are authorized and directed to proceed with negotiations for the purchase of such tracts. Passed by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law i• ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk. Mayor r RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY PUZ~LIC IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND CALLING FOR HEARINGS ON 1977 PERMANENT STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PR0,7ECT AREA WHEREIiS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted on the 10th day of May, 1976, preliminary public improvement plan s were prepared by Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld caith reference to permanent street improvements and associated design elements; and WHEREAS, the above-referenced plans were received by the Council on October 25, 1976; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of_ the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the Council will consider the improvement of the 7.,yndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area in accordance with the plans; and 2. That a public hearing will be held on Monday, November 8; 19.76, at 7:00 PM in the council chambers. of the City I-ia11, 6700 Portland Avenue South and .that the Cler}k shall give published and mailed notice of such hearings on the improvements as required. by law; and • 3. TlZat Bather-Ringrose-t^7olsfeld is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the final survey work and the preparation of plans and specifications on said project; and 4. Such project shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project #701. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of October, 1976. ATTEST: omas J. Moran, City Clerk Loren L. Law Mayor l~ _ Nf ~ / ~. .CITY OF,RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ' Council Letter No . 3 34 Agenda. October 25, 1876 f The Honorable Mayor and ~ Members of the City Council City of :Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Noise Analysis for Potential IVlunicipal Golf Course Site On July,12, 1976 the city council .directed the city manager to retain nec- essary consulting services to provide a noise analysis. of the potential MAC municipal golf course site. David Braslau Associates, Incorporated was. retained to .conduct such a preliminary analysis. -The study his been completed and a copy is.attached. This matter is being placed on the October 25 1976 cit council a enda Y g for. discussion purposes. Mr. Braslau-is .tentatively planning to be at' the council meeting to discuss this.-matter. Respectfully s`ub fitted`, o~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Park and Recreation Director ;. ~. ,i f~JISE A;~ALYSIS PGTE~~ i ILL SITE FCR i~iUwICIP;~L GOLF CC~;RSE RIC('FIEL~, P~I~r(`~ESOTA PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF IIICHFIELD v CCTCBER ~.~7C ~; ~~~w~ t -~~:: david taraslau t~;ar~ associates, incorporated environmental and tr~3nst:~ort~-~tiori cpnsuit-z-ant.: ' i • Summary and Recommendations Analysis of present noise 1'evels on the potential golf course. site indicates that the southerly .half of the property is ex- posed to noise levels from various types of aircraft operations. which are well in excess of the established MPCA standards for a golf course (L10=70 dBA). In addition, peak levels of 99 to 102 dBA may be expected in that area. While some argument could be made fora golf course in~this area under existing conditions, the possible extension of Runway 4-22 an additional 2,750 feet. closer to the potential site increases the probable impact. The northerly portion of the potential site is mostly within the. MPCA standard during normal hours when takeoffs are occurring on Runway 22. Takeoffs on Runway 29L and 29R also contribute to the levels on the site, but these do not occur simultaneously with those on 22. Possible contributions to the site from .landings and thrust reverser noise on 11R and Takeoffs on 22 may occur simul- taneously, but only a small portion of the course is expected to be exposed to additive levels above L10=70 dBA from both sources. ~Rn 18-hole course could be constructed within the northerly half of the site on an area of approximately~135 acres, and provide space at the same time for the little league softball diamonds. Exact location of the club house and associated facilities could be based upon a more detailed noise analysis. Since the potential northerly site is off the center lines of both runways 29L and 22, few peak levels above 100 dBA are anticipated. Comparison with OSHA standards, or a modified version which is somewhat stricter, indicates that noise exposures within the northerly site should be acceptable from a hearing loss point of view. Some concern has been raised by the MPCA with peak levels, although from this preliminary study, they do not appear to create any difficulties. Because portions of the potential site are exposed to levels during certain hours above-the ~••1PCA standards established for Tand use. .. . 2' ° such as a golf course, it is recommended that a variance be obtained from the A9PCA. However, since the variance. is applicable to the producer, not 'the receiver, of noise, it will be encumbant upon the Metropolitan Airports Commission to request a variance from the MPCA for a golf course at this site. It is unlikely that the variance could be for an indefinite period because of the. changing nature of the noise source. >It would appear .that arguments could be made for a variance by the MAC for noise exposure on the potential .site. These arguments should include the present and future probable noise exposures and a comparison with the MPCA standards, showing .that the period during which standards might be exceeded occur intermittently, and as such could serve as a basis fora variance. ldhere there is any possibility of noise levels increasing at the site from future airport development, the MRC must decide whether any potential. hindrance, in the form of a non-compatible land use, might exist. This preliminary study based on a review of i:ne MSP master plan, • indicates that noise levels will most 'likely decrease, but the MAC may wish to examine this in more detail because of the " potential consegdences. 3 Introduction and Study Methodology This report contains a preliminary investigation into the noise • environment, primarily from aircraft operations at MSP, to which the potential golf course site between MSP. and Cedar Avenue is exposed (See Figure 1 ). The evaluation is based on possible .harm to the hearing of persons using the course, and a comparison with noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: The basis for the noise analysis consists primarily of records of aircraft noise monitored by the MAC and presented in terms of L- levels and as graphic level recorder output. L-levels and noise- exposures have been .based upon operations of a typical noisy air- craft (peak level 99 dBA, duration at 65 dBA of 48 seconds, at site 60 - See Figure 2). Some modelling of reduction or increase in noise exposure with distance has also been carried out. Discussions have been held with Claude Schmidt, Director of Environmental Affairs, MAC, and Al Perez, Chief of the Noise Control Section, MPCA. The crucial question which must be answered deals- with implications of possible improvements at MSP in the future, _ since the MAC is reluctant to allow the construction of a golf course immediately adjacent to the airport, if this will in any way jeopardize future expansion potential of the airport. The question of any possible future impacts on a given land use has been raised and it has been pointed out that the producer of noise, i.e. the Metropolitan Airports Commission, must request-such a variance. Because of the changing nature of noise around the airport, it is uncertain whether or not such a variance could be ~ issued for an indefinite period. Data on aircraft and runway operations have been obtained from Marty Warksow, who is responsible for the Background Study of the MSP Master Plan Study, which is nearing completion. These data have been used to estimate probable existing and future noise levels on the site. z IJ~ E. • I ~ 66',h l l ST~J I~.~ ~ In V. e ~ k 9 _ '~ ~l> > VH•~NF ~~ /~ ~ R~' j0 / A/G I ! ~ ~R~ PRA --_--L J __ w llo>~_ .. R. 3 _ , ~ ,~ ~~:sriti•:•:~ PV ~n~ ~ 62 ::::::• •• { J~. ~~~-"-'~;~-~ QJ`,~~ ~~`~p, . Aso y t' / / ~. -:::..:. ~ ~ o, o .,~: •: £~ .•::. ~ O QP ~; 4 • ~,° ~ G] J W H LL = w U ~ Q H a 0 W - U z S •'PROPOSED -~ GOLF,CfluRSE. `. ~~ ~/ r y ~ +~ •: ~ ~•~'r. i 1~ I RE!•{OTE ~ \p ', a ..~,.;5 TRANS. 1 `~ ~ ~' 0 •=I }~ ROTATING ~ /,r~~,~i~ y~y'~~ _~ve. '~•' CEILOMETER r--~\ ~~I1: ~: ~N 1 QOpL~• ~ .. \~~ 1 ..Qy~p ~~J x~•.11 _ .. / ;.~'I r,,, .J L. I~ ~~::,_ ~':'"~~i / \4 ~ FIGURE 1 :r:~;~~~-~~.~I ~ ~ POTENTIAL GOLF COURSE SITE - ~ -- .I ~_- -~ / ' • ~ . ~ ~ ~+ 1`B~O ^.. ~FREIGNT_.~ m F RWARDERS I `~"~ Q I _ G tl CLINIC _~~~ .,~.~v ~~• ---INTF.RST,ZTE~'•~ j,¢kC = ~_ R~, Z Iles L $T ( t, ~`" i eo ~ ~\` ~ ,~ a' r - ` "t y a~~~~ ~ { ' ~ 66 ~ f 1 __ - rig t , O ~~ ~ }~ (.. t - x ~~:: ` ~~ ~~ ~~ ll~\V///)~ I ~/ R T '~, ~ y STS ~" ~ / ~ T E A Q -'gib k~ ,~ ~ ~ B IN FIELD i1~ x z g wt y ' sr r• ti.. 1 •I 2; Park ~_~~~ O _# ,~ ~~ {:. . ._._ ,= 11 ; ~ E} ~,,,r,S-t. I r-'" a ~3 ~~ "'i ` ,~ s` ~ = r i I a X03 l~0 _ - /. `: .~, c~ iL'' ~ ;, ~_ ~~~ ~is~~+' /j m ~ ~ _ - = rn z o. tl`.?' ~ MI E ~ a~~ x ;rr Z ~`? a,<r~ .u ? ~I ( ~ -_ ~ ~ RRSERYA ' ~, ~i ~-. L • M . ~~`_"~ I i' : v ~ Pa I I~ ~ ~ I T PAU ~, f J, r'x~ ~~ ~ I ~~,. ~~ ~t° / : x~. ,~' ~ xli ~ M I N F~JCPQ_ ~. .J ,u - ;, :`~ ~ ~ l_-} ~dfG ~`~ tEr_ <-+LS?i'~ ~ - -INTET~NATIO[~iA. ~ N~PI~LD)~ > ~ errruu R-Y ?~ "~~~-- I,' .1~ rnte,.Sc ~,,i ~F ';1 ' I (WOLD-CHAMBER ! I a ~~ =a ~ K~# f :rr ~-: i Y ~ 1. t. ~-r-, ~ ~' ~*5 1 r 35 ~~ I~~ 5 I 36 .:' '~ I i : / _ ,4- '~ ` x ~~' ~~ ,~ ~ ~ r ~ I 3 o a° t rt -~. ' }~ s T_i 1 a" ~ ~- - ~~r--*^d.~"' . ` •1. ~ ~ ~ - i r ~ ~ d -a, ~t'~ ~Atp t~ _t~~y~ ~G s :::f"r ~;, / I ~ ~ 3 . f u ~`' v ~F r¢' ~ r T a^ : ~ N .•r' ~ ~ i ~ ~~1 h'~" '-~ ti.7 ~ ti# :".'I Iry+'~','~~ 111;. I a .6"'~,~~'.~t:•'~:y~ 3 l C' 1 i I< _ ._..I~~--'1~=~` ~' tu~g---- i ~ = l~ ``~ ~ YJ ShIC~6i~_" I~O ~ ~ 8/8 c}NE ~ ~•~ t .,,~~p ~ G ~ : ~'~-1k,=~ I.Fa!,k • _~ I``~ } \ ~ O 19+ ~ ~ 1 s%zT ~ ~ ~-_ _ ~~~{ ~'-" ~ I l/ g 00.,:x` ~. t -d ~ t .sly ' ~ •' a ~ 1 ~ 1 _ -___,-~--°'_""_.` _----_--~' fir! I ~ / ,r ~ { ~:~ =e~tt~Iit ~ ~j LFITi` YI--' ~ '~ - -, -- - -~- - 9 jam->If {~j1 ~ ~ 1\I~ S ~I ~a:ed` .prive In ~ gZ~Cj ~~/II. - - r-~ ~`, - r~ J I •iT_h=eater ~ ~ 1 ~~..~,.r. ; I ~ .~ ill ~"~ ~ r-'.1-~ '~ , i~° --:i ~ f x l'~^~Fal$~ ~9A''~ ~~~1~~^~ i ~I I~U:~-.'%~`.' I ~"~-_`+ ~~, -..' / ~/~a ~t ~r' ^~ ~`:.rw ~i,41~,:~lm ~ C~rJ``s ~. ~1- METROPOLITAN ,~ I ~~'?/'~•~ _ '.r;r, y`- ,~ ~oo Par ~ ~+ '-- mP'~ t_c "`=rte f-¢ ~~~ ~ ~x ~. •~ ~ I ~ ~ OLD ~~ - d'r e^rc~K ~ .r .. c._~ --n t( t+.a~ a r QI~i.. ~ If~tsll`s; •"~ 5_r%/~,~ ~ Q /~/ ~/ ~ ~ ~h ~~ ~~~ ' II i i ~. Si I ~~" 3~l zl` ~ ''~~ 1 ~ N. .I ~~ +s - C~rJ 1~ •~ - 4 1 ~l~h t 1{ ~ 4 iI. , lt' 2 `. r'-0' ~ ~ .III y `"~ `/~(L:i,S~ ~% ~ ~ ~ - 3 tom' ,T { FF~ <. 6 r li`. l~ ~ I ~}~~ Q--,J ~ .... V~ ,r _ !i r _ `• ~4~ 3~~a ~" r i ~~, ~ ~ ~ iJ I •~` _ .. Rid ~ ~~ _,'- ~/ "'~ ~-,ft~.~ •TY ~ ~• ~ >^ ''"' ~!(-,~I ~ 4 ~k ~ ~ ! ~ •... -~~II•. Sther 1~~ir'1 - ''~'*s ; ~ 4 ^~-+ „t. ~Y ~~ ~ ~,~- ~ r ,rte t. £s F ` /.: ~ _p 7g ~ J, ~ ~" ~ '~. T var.. .Z'~! ~ y~i` Y /F { ~t I .edasc-C~h Y~ ~ , ~ ;ly, • • I I ~~~ - ~ f:~„~_1 .tr $s _r S ¢~T & _~, " Flit ~I ^~ ~~:R"- i alI' ~I• :II~•-•l f~i ., ~/ -G~ ~-~-~'.. ~a•~, -~`+~ ,dY'~~~ ~~~,=1~, ~~,t ~t'Y( n.l 1'~ S a"aa. ___I ~. 1 ~~~~~/F1•' s / ~ ~ -j ._S~L'e:Jr.'l~u-.~"~ ~,'.Y..Y :, 4 ~_ ~ • ' ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~~l'• Isr tPlaY~ro, artid s J~• ~ ® St'I~ (.c)ftER>: ~- ~C LJ:!~_S /uEh~S~+iR.Eb J, :.1 ~ ~ ~' ~ rt ' ~Ky~ ~j~~ ~~~i t •: ~ Srre WH>^itE Ph4K L~~S on~Y wEt2E tiiE,RSc,R~b ~~ 1. ve ur r`~ - r,~ 1! ~ ` .~ , r ~_~~; , :- ; ?o' r 3 ~~ 6r~~ ~ '~ Il'.~ •er,; . ~ 1ND'~c~t~s ~~REC"i't~rl GF F't-t.G~~? - p - - Y „_ .,~. ... Y s4 ..~ ,.. ^J ~+. ~"r ~%`N-. _a 9 < ~. • ~ ~ - ~ ~~ III --, .~ ~ ~- FIGURE 2 NOISE MEASUREti'ffIVT SITES aF ~t ~ ~ .. > `? ~4. r~~ ifs` Ws'~ ~..=,.r'~",4'S'1 ?S5~'~S wsCi alt ^_ 6 Potential. problems and constraints were discussed with Don Herfort, Golf Course Architect, to pursue implications on limiting the golf course to particular areas of the site, or to limit the possible acreage recommended for such use. 7 Estimated Present and Future Noise Levels on Site Data Sources The primary source of aircraft noise data has been graphic level recorder tapes provided by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Sites for which such data were reviewed are shown in Figure 2. .Secondary sources included the background document and support- ing material for the FAA Aircraft Sound Description System, the Summary Report for the MSP Master Plan Study, and a report prepared for. the MAC by David Braslau Associates, In- corporated, intitled "Comparison of Noise Indicators: Airport Environs", May, 1975. Data on runway operations. were obtained from Marty Warskow, Ralph Burke Associates, who prepared the Study Background for the MSP Master Plan Study, with earlier data contained in Volume II of the above mentioned report by DBA, Inc. Present Aircraft Operations Present runway usage on a daily basis, when maximum use is made of the preferential runway system, is shown in Figure 3. 6•Jhere maximum capacity is desired, the values shown in parenthesis in Figure 3 should be used. It is anticipated that the preferential runway system will remain in effect until peak hour operations reach 65 .(presently 55), which is anticipated around 1980. It may be seen that increased use of the parallel. runways is expected at that time. Runway 4-22 is presently 7,250 feet in length, with a 1,000 foot dispaced threshold for landing aircraft (Runway 22, landing to the southeast). The takeoff roll of aircraft begins at either end of the runway, with landings to the northeast at the end of Runway 4. Peak hour takeoffs normally include 15 to 18 air carrier aircraft, with other hours having fewer. The number of landings may be ~: ~~ 21.2 VFR 9.9 1 FR {40.3 VFR) (9.9 1FR) 12.2 UFR a 11 ~\ ~~ ~j 3.4 VFR 1.0 1FR (1.0 UFR) (1.0 1FR) ' FIGURE 3 MSP RUNWAI RUNWAY USE FOR MAXIMUM F (RUNWAY USE FOR MAXIMUM 29R cy~ y 22.4 VFR. 8.0 1FR (36.9 VFR) (8.0 1FR) 15.3 VFR 1 ~~ • t s r. expected to be somewhat similar.. Present Estimated Noise Levels Noise. levels have been estimated from MAC data and runway opera- tions..' Contribution to the noise 7eve1 may ~e due to either landing or taking off aircraft: .Landing with accompanying thrust reversal was deemed to be secondary to takeoff noise, which is emphasized here. Takeoffs do not occur simultaneously on 29L and 22, .although takeoffs on one with landings on :'the other do normally occur. .Preliminary analysis indicates that landing noise on 11R will be secondary when compared to takeoff noise on 29L. " Approximate contours for L10=70 dBA are shown in Figure 4. From there it-may be seen t.ha t most of the northern portion of the site are within the 70 dBA standards during hours other than • peak (for takeoffs on Runway 22). The northeastern tip of the site is. estimated to be exposed to levels over 70 dBA. also during the peak-hour with takeoffs on Runway 29L. Future Aircraft Operations and Noise Levels Altho-ugh Runway 4-22 is recommended for improvement, operational characteristics will, remain essentially the same, except for a very small .percentage of the time when heavier aircraft will be using the Runway 22 for takeoff. The landing and takeoff thresholds will remain the same for Runway 22, as will the landing threshold for Runway 4. The takeoff threshold for Runway 4 will be moved to the southwest (closer to the site) by 2,750 feet. ~- The number of operations on Runway 22 is not expected to change significantly, and may in fact decrease as more capacity is needed- - at the airport (with a switch to the parallels). Heavier aircraft,. may takeoff on Runway 22 on very hot days, with strong winds from G ..~ t . ~r ti~'~f..~~ I \~(,pp l'`` :A.S.R. rLJUMFR/T/R' YVUS.W .~. 23.241 ~ ~~ i ~ Jt L " 1 ~ U E1.9~7,9 er p 26!25, _ / , ~ ~ E. 63id~S_Tr_ --- 1~r ~~~ ~ o ;' W . -~ 830 •`' ~ • ~, ~ Q• . ~ W 1 Q • f ~ _ 1 ~ ' ~ cS G . ~/ _ 0 ~ ~ I It -. 0,~ VHF/UHF DF ^ ~~T '~~S . ~ /g0r4 ~ . . ~ ~T~h - F- ~% VHF /UHF r.~ /' //~~ 8 E' 66 ih. ST v' _ - / A/G~J rRa ~.. ~ oR.V.R. 30 • - ,O. ® -_~~f~s~->~s_ ~i- • R• ~ ~ R.V.R. b ~ ~{' ~ L ( SO' a.v,r e.q rn~' jj~ ~••~~~`f•• •:tif( e,•L ~~ ~J/ ^. y`~.:'/ - v/ y aQ'~ e :II ~,~ ,~ L ~ ~• 1 pGpp ,~~~. F~ ~'/ 4 ,,gig. ~`q -+~j~A- 4. / i tr-; 2625 ~. ~A. 35' 36 f 'f -"~i9:•. ~.. ~~ .. .~c• . S 1 T E ,_ R' \ ~ 9 0 ~~ ~ ~0 - ,h~ ~'~`c¢ct~•t ~ ~ :~~ :~}f :: ROTRTING - \Y~ ~Oi ~ ~ 6ti C,y~5~C~ ~ CEit<iMETER ~\ y o ~ ~ ~ ~- II ~ p4 ~ ,INTrTRNATIOf /~~Eoe® ~ ~~ 1 ~ AND I NARTi /~ ( / TERi411NA+ ,~®, ~ I~ ~I 1 gag / ~ _ I i I ~ t) ~I ~e-~4~ _ ,/_/ _.._ ~ .~ :!_ I ~ E. 72nd. _~ ~~ ~ m I~ J P o-,~; ~ FIGURE 4 a 1 - •'' ~ o ~I ~ ~ N~ISF CONTOURS - o g, ~'-~ _, .. ~ ~? 1 ~` ^`i ~ ~'' ~ NORTHWEST a.. ~ , ..ii ~- .' ~ o i PROPOSED ~( ~ ('~/ / ~' ~~ 60LF COURSE Ifl 'jj { __ I1 ~I ~ ~ • m ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ NCA/ 1NA,(.. t ~' ~'If ~ ~.' ~I ~ ~~ AfRGARGO 9 r 11 the southwest, when,they are heavily -Toaded for the west coast. While'this is expected to happen only a small percentage of the time, it is a very important consideration for the airlines, where the reliability factor ensures that .the plane may takeoff . under any condition. ,Therefore, while a .170,000 lb 727-200 is expected to be approximately 2.5 dBA louder than a 1.50,:000 lb . , aircraft, which is the present a{?proximate lima t. for Runway 22, the additional noise is anticipated to be statistically small. ..~,~ Since the landing threshold on Runway 4 will rema::in the same, l 1'~~d~-rg ai~rcr~aft will fly over the site as at present. As noted" above, l~an~'ing noise appears' to be secondary to` takeoff noise, r i-1 ';aFid ~~~such is considered under an analysis for takeoff noise.: i n ., ~ m. {~ Same additionalnoise i~ e.xpected behind and. to the side of" aircraft s,ifarting the takeoff roll 2,750 feet closer to the s=i'te %' 'on Runwa 4.$ ?;From Fi ure 3 . i t ma be seen tha`t` this mo e ma `be - expected up to 15% of tlie'day under preferentia9;runway usage but it will drop 1% ~rhen maximum capacity is required. Few'data .are available for estimating noise behind 'the aircraft, but such impacts ,will be assumed similar to those of aircra'ff takng~off on Runway 22. ~~ ~~ ~ If one uses the approximate relationship derived in the~DBA~~report` - for landing aircraft, i.e. NEF = L'10 ~ 40, the .approximate a oca.tion- ., of the L10=7- dBA contour, based upon the 30 NEF 1982 contour contained in the MSP Master Plan Study may be seen in Figure 4. From this it may be seen that much of the site may be expected to lie outside of the 70 dBA contour by that date. Noise Levels and Hearing Damage Table 1 contains values of acceptable noise exposure under OSHA standards, and also a much stricter scale, which is based on 8 hours of 80 dBA rather than -the 90 dBA contained in the OSHA Standards. TABLE I Allowable Noise Exposure Levels Ex op sure_Time ~ Maximum Level OSHA' MODIFIEQ OSHA EXPECTED EXPOSURE 15 Minutes 115 dBA i00 dBA 30 Minutes 1.10 dBA 96 dBA . 1 hour 105. dBA -y2 .dBA 7 Minutes over 92 dBA: 2 hours 100 dBA '~"' -~88 d~A~= 9 Minutes over 88 dBA 4 hours 95 dBA 84 dBA 12 Minutes over 84 UBA 8 hours 90 dBA 80 dBA 18 Minutes over 80 dBA 16 hours (85)dBA 76 dBA 23 Minutes over 76 dBA 32 hours (80)dBA 72 dBA a. Assumptions: ' 1~ Exposure is based on 4.5 hours to play 18 holes. 2) Typical aircraft, B727. 3) Exposure at LT0 Contour location.• • .~ 13 No levels ,are anticipated. to be higher than 102 dBA for any of the aircraft, It may be seen"that even an 8-fold increase in exposure would lie below the stricter standards contained in .Table 1. It may be noted that nowhere on the site was an L10 = 80 or above noted, implying that the maximum exposure to 80 dBA could be expected to be (4.5)(.10)(60) = 27 minutes of 80 dBA or greater. This is to be compared with an allowed 8 hour exposure of ;80 dBA or less. Therefore, it may be concluded that hearing damage to golfers on the .course is not expected to be the critical factor in determining noise compatibility of .the site. • Noise Levels and MPCA Standards The L10 exposures contained as criteria used in the standards . established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are somewhat more variable than the NEF contours used in the MSP Master Plan Study, since they may vary from hour to hour, while the NEF is .based on an annual average daily usage of the airport. In interpreting the Minnesota Regulations, it may be assumed that an area exposed regularly and over reasonable percentage of .the day _to levels above the standards would be considered incompatible with the imposing noise source. i~oise exposures from aircraft operations on the runways adjacent to the site have been estimated for the present time under normal and peak usage. It has been shown that under normal use, the site will be compatible with the L10=70 dBA standards, while for peak usage, a large portion of the site will be exposed to levels above standards, while those closest to the landing runway may be below standards. From data contained on runway operations in the DBA report, it might appear that heavy use of Runway 22 for takeoffs would occur for 30 hours per month. These will tend to be concentrated in a small number of days per month, rather than occur in a uniform manner over the period. Therefore, vrhile the noise standards may ~~ 14 °, be exceeded over a portion of the proposed site for sor~ie fraction n ded that most of the-time L10 levels oi~ the. month,. it may be co clu w'i`ll be below the standards. Amore detailed analysis of runway usage would be required before estimates of the percentage of time for any given exposure may. be determined. Irt view .of the above,'it would appear that the noise standards might be interpreted to allow for the golf course at-the present time, and that estimates of future noise, which indicate a probable decrease in level at the site, would tend to make the site more compatible in the future. 6dhether or not this preliminary. E ,. analysis. will be sufficient for final decisions on the course is j unclear. Pdaturally, a more thorough analysis indicating variation. o~F levels with time and expected values of `impact both now and in the future would be helpful.. In view of the above analysis, ~, lit would appear that construction of a golf course on the northern h<rlf of--the po~ential site is feasible, although further studies m<~y b~ required before a final design comp?eted and approval by ~ ~,. the Metropolitan Airports Commission obtained. r •+. rr i/ ,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, IvILNNESOTA . `Office of City Manager Council`Letter No. 333 Agenda October 25, 1976 The I-Ionorable Mayor and • Members° of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen; Subject: `I~ennepin County Emergency Communications Organization Joint Powers Agreement On June 14, 1976 the city council approved the Hennepin Emergency. Communications Organization Joint Powers Agreement. , The agreement was also approved by the Hennepin County Board, the Minneapolis ,city .Council .and nineteen o-thee suburban municipalities` in Hennepin County. The agreement did not become effective because a legal .opinion prevented the agreement from being executed by the Hennepin County sheriff which was a basic requirement for initiating the new organization. Attached to this council letter is a copy of my letter. to,admnistrators and managers in Hennepin County explaining what has transpired on this matter. In .short, we-have changed. the agreement to eliminate the sheriff as a .signatory,:. • .although he, or his delegate, continue. to be a Hennepin County representative. A copy of the amended agreement together with a one page summary listing. the necessary .changes in the amended agreement is attached...: • i Therefore., it is recommended. that the"city council adopt the attached res- ~, olution authorizing execution of the new HECO Agreement. .This resolution is ~ i in the same form gas the earlier resolution adopted by the city council on June 14, 1976. ', i. Respectfully submi ted ~'. ~~~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City IVlanager '~ WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director N . Lt? .~.+ L ~ • e d s~ ice.. . ~. ~ ® ~ .~ ya~uT~oN Q ~' '`3 U ''~ ~Ld • rj76 -19~ 6 e~~ ~2 m ~Z ~~ •~ ~ ~ ,~~~•~ ~- y D ~ aC~ sy~$ ~~~j ~~la c~~~ rdtan~~~r R~~~~. October 15,.1976 To: Municipal Administrators and Managers in Hennepin County From: .Wayne Burggraaff, Chaixnian, Interim User Board. Re: Implementation of HECO Agreement As you know, the original Hennepin Emergency Communications Organi- zation (HECO) Agreement was executed earlier this year by the Henne- pin County Board of Commissioners, the Minneapolis City Council and the city councils of 20 Hennepin County suburbanmunicipalities. However, HECO did not become an operational entity (per the terms of Article V, Section l which stated: "The Agreement shall become e~fecti`ve when it has been executed by Hennepin County, the Henne- pin County Sheriff, the city of Minneapolis and seven other eligible governmental units i'n Hennepin County...") as the.Hennepin County Sheriff was prohibited from executing .the Agreement based upon a legal opinion issued by the Hennepin County Attorney's ~Jffice. This Issue .was brought to the attention of the Interim User Board (IUB) at a special meeting on September 15, 1976. Following con- siderable discussion which substantiated the countywide interest in seeking an alternative way in which to resolve this issue, the original drafting committee {Havir, Pidgeon, Willis, Omodt and Peterson) was re-appointed and charged with the responsibility "to develop a working alternative with as little change as pos- sible in the concept and agreement as originally developed." In the next several weeks, that committee met three times and ful- filled the charge given it by the IUB. The drafting committee presented its recommendations for amend- ment at a special meeting on October 12, 1976. The major substan- tive change,. is accord with the previously mentioned legal opinion, was to eliminate the requirement far the Hennepin County Sheriff to execute and sign the Agreement. This modification occasioned a series of related amendments. Following a detailed review and discussion, the amendments were accepted by consensus and the new HECO Agreement was- recommended for passage by all eligible units of government in Hennepin County. Transmitted herewith, please find a copy of the new HECO Agreement dated October I2, 1976, a "Summary of Amendments to the 2/18/76 HECO Agreement, Approved 10/12/76," and the minutes of the October 12, 1976, special IUB meeting. Each unit of government in Hennepin County is urged to take the following action as soon as possible: letepban•:889-7521 (612) art egos! oppoetunity en9pioyec t Municipal Administrators and Managers in Hennepin County October 15, 1976 Page Two 1. Submit the new HECO Agreement .dated 10/12/76 to your govern- ing boards for consideration and action. .(Your earlier reso- lution of support on the original HECO Agreement need not be rescinded as that agreement was never in force and effect.) 2. A certified copy of the resolution authorizing execution of the new HECO Agreement together with an executed copy of the new Agreement should be filed with the Hennepin County Admin- istrator on or before December 31,. 1976. The resolution auth- orizing execution of the Agreement should also designate the director and alternate director in accordance with Article IV, Section 4 of the new HECO Agreement. 3. The new Agreement provides join on or.before December governmental units joining only on the favorable vote Board. While the December you are encouraged to pass new Agreement as soon as p~ that initial members are-those who 31, 1976, and further provides that after that date shall be admitted of two-thirds of-the members of the 31 date establishes a firm deadline, a new resolution and execute the ~ssible. • Even during this recent period of delay, the planning process directed toward improving our public safety communications systems has proceeded. Much of what has transpired in the past several months, especially activities related to the implementation of 911 emergency telephone service, demands that we devote immediate attention to executing this rew HECO Agreement. Specif- ically, the 911 planning process has reached the stage wherein the initial responsibility for HECO will be the negotiation of implementation costs and scheduling with the telephone companies serving ou-r county--we have been advised that this process could commence as early as December 1, 1976. I trust you mutually share in the commitment of myself, other municipal admin- istrators, Sheriff Omodt and the many public safety officials in our county to execute the HECO Agreement as soon as possible. Accordingly, we ask that you bring this matter to the attention of your governing boards at your ear- liest convenience. Any municipality having questions concerning the new HECO Agreement should contact John O'Sullivan of the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Council at 348-6497. b~ r Enclosures s i~ SUMMARY: AMENDA1ENTS TO 2/18/76 HECO AGREEMENT. APPROVED 10/12/76. 1. Pg. 2 Last paragraph ("Whereas the Sheriff") - Strike entire paragraph. 2. Pg 3. Top paragraph ("Now, therefore, be it agreed...) - Strike."the tennepin County Sheriff". 3. Pg. 4. Amend Sect. 2 to read as follows: "'Board` means the Board of Directors of NECO, consisting of the Hennepin County Sheriff and one Director from each governmental unit which is a member of HECO." 4. Pg. 4. Amend Sect. 5 to read as follows: "'Governmental unit' means any city, town or county." 5. Pg. 6. Part III. Amend Sects. 3 & 4 by deleting July 1, 1976, and inserting December 31, 1976. 6. Pg. 6. Part III, add new Sect. 2 to read as follows: "Hennepin. County shall be entitled to two directors: one of which shall be . the Sheriff, the other shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners." 7. Pg. 6. Part IV. Sect. 4 (old 3). After first sentence insert the following: The Sheriff shall appoint an alternate director who shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Board and who may vote in the absence of the Sheriff." 8. Pg. 7. Part IV. Sect. 7 (old 6). Amend first sentence to read as follows: "When the council of a member appoints .a director or an alternate director, or when the Sheriff appoints an alternate di- rector, it shall give notice of such appointment to HECO in writing." 9. Pg. 7. Part IV. Sect. 9 (old 8). Amend to read as follows: "A majority of the voting directors shall constitute a quorum of the Board." - 10. Pg. 7. Part IV. Sect. 10 (old 9). Amend to read as follows:. "A vacancy on the Board shall be filled by the appointing authority whose position on the Board is vacant." 11. Pg. 8. Part V. Sect. 1. Line 11: Strike "the Hennepin County Sheriff". RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING HECO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND DESIGNATING DELEGATES WHE.ZEAS, .the Richfield City Council did on May 12, 1975 adopt a resolution authorizing participation in planning a county wide public safety communications system- including implementation of a 911 Emergency Telephone System, and WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Richfield, together with Hennepin County and other municipal jurisdictions within Hennepin County did participate in an Interim User Board planning process for the purpose of creating a permanent communications systems user board, and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Public Safety Communications Interim User Board has unanimously approved a joint powers agreement providing for the creation of a Hennepin' Emergency Communications Organization, and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the city council approve and authorize execution of the Hennepin Emergency Communication Organization joint powers agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization agreement . dated October 12, 1976 is hereby approved and that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf. of the. City of Richfield. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manageris designated as Director and the Public Safety Director is designated as alternate Director for the purpose of representing the City of Richfield in the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield deems it preferable to permit elected officials to serve as directors on the Board of the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization and urge that the Board of Directors initiate the procedure to amend the joint powers agreement to permit this type of representation. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law MAYOR ATTEST: • Thomas Moran City Clerk ,• , .._ ~. ~~ Hennepin County Public Safety Communications Interim User Board Approved 10/12/76 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT "HENNEPIN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ORGANIZATION" The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. .This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes-§471.59. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the concept of a nationwide emergency telephone number was first realized in Great Britain more than thirty. years ago with that country's establishment of "999" on a national scale; and WHEREAS, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice has recommended that a "single number should be established for reporting emergencies"; and WHEREAS, Nine-One-One (911} is~the three-digit telephone number that has been designated for public use throughout the United States for reporting an emergency and requesting emer- gency assistance; and WHEREAS, the effective utilization of the public safety radio frequency resource in Hennepin County requires a plan for the reallocation and greater sharing of the frequency channels available and prompt implementation thereof; and i HECO AGREEMENT -2 _ 7 WHEREAS, it seems feasible to have the several existing dispatch facilities consolidated into a lesser number., with one centralized facility.possibly providing enhanced public safety services and the-best opportunity for application of current and future technological developments; and WHEREAS, police powers are granted to cities and counties in the State of~Minnesota by either statute or charter; and WHEREAS, command and control of public safety and emer- gency service agencies. should remain with the chief or director. of said agency; and WHEREAS, public safety radio broadcasting stations owned I ~. and maintained by any county are required. to be operated under direction of the sheriff, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the county; and WHEREAS, licenses for public safety radio frequencies are held by communities that have expressed interest in partici- pation in a-joint powers communications organization; and WHEREAS, Minnesota .statutes provide a means for govern- mental units to exercise jointly those activities which they independently are authorized to engage in; and WHEREAS, the participant communities in a county-wide. ~- system desire to be represented on a user board for that system; and NOW, THEREFQRE, IT IS AGREED by and among the CouTty of Hennepin and the communities who are signatory to this i HECO AGREEh~ENT - 3 agreement, yin consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter set forth, to hereby commit them= selves to joint participation in the development of a county- wide integrated emergency .communications network that pro- vides the maximum possible local command, control and owner- ship consistent with existing legislation; and IT IS FURTHER AGREED by the parties that this agreement is intended to be in conformance with Minnesota Statutes Section 373..041 and in the event that any court of competent jurisdiction shall rule contrary to .this intent, then the entire agreement shall become null and void. I. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this agreement is to pro~Tide- for an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively participate in the development, implementa- Lion, operation and maintenance of .an .integrated countywide public safety communications system. II. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this article shall have the meanings given them: Section 1. "Hennepin Emergency Communication Organiza- tion" means the organization created pursuant to this agree- ment which is herein referred to as "HECO". • HECO AGREEMENT -4 Section 2. "Board" iaeans the Board of Directors of HECD, consisting of the Hennepin Gourzty Sheriff and one director from each governmental unit which'is a member of HECO. Section 3. "Member" means any governmental unit which has entexed into this agreemen~~ a.nd is, at the time involved, a party in good standing. ...Section 4. "Council" means the governing body of the member governmental unit. Section 5. "Gavernmenta.l unit" means any city,.toHrn or county. Section 6. "j~eighted vote" wherever used or provided- far in this agreement shall be computed as follows: A) Each director who represents a city or a group of cities shall be eligible to cast the number of votes re- sulting from the 'following computation: 1) The population of his municipality or the total of the municipalities he represents divided by 2,000 plus the assessed valuation of his municipality or the mu- ricipalities he represents divided by $10,000,000 with the total resulting sum rounded to the nearest whole number. B) The sheriff or his representative and the Henne- pin County representative shall each be eligible to cast the number of votes equivalent to 12 1/2:percent of the total municipal votes computed far all~m.ember municipalities in accordance with subparagraph A) above. • • HECO AGREEMENT -S Section 7. "Papulationt' means the most recent estimated population as determined. and published by the Metropolitan Council. Section 8. "Assessed valuation" means the most recent assessed valuation of any. municipal member as derived from the estimated market value and certified by the State Board of Equalization, but prior to the computation of fiscal dis- parities and tax increment financing adjustments. III. rdEMBERSHIP Section 1. -Any governmental unit or combination of gov- ernmental units which has authority to render police, fire or medical public safety services and which employs not less than the minimum full-time sworn Iaw enforcement personnel to satisfy LEAA Standard 5.2 (ten full-time personnel) is eligible to be a member of HECO. If membership is derived from a joint powers agreement combination of municipal units, that-unit shall be eligible for one director whose selection shall be determined by the municipalities contracting with each other. Section 2. A governmental unit desiring to be a~member shall execute a copy of this agreement and shall pay the established membership dues and charges. Section 3. The initial members shall be those members who join HECO on or prior to December 31, 1976. I~ HECO AGREEMENT -6 Section 4. Governmental units joining HECO after Decem- ber 31, 1976, shall be admitted only upan the favorable vote of two-thirds of the. members of the board. The board may impose conditions .upon the admission of members other than the initial members. IV. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. .The governing body of HECO shall be its board. Each .members shall be entitled to one director, who shall have one vote, except as otherwise provided in this agreement. Section 2. Hennepin County shall be entitled. to two directors; one of which shall be the Sheriff, the other shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 3. Each member shall also be entitled to one alternate director who shall be entitled to attend meetings of the board and who may vote in the absence of the member's director. Section 4. Directors and alternate directors shall be appointed by the council of each member. The Sheriff shall appoint an alternate director who shall be entitled to attend meetings of the board and who may vote in the absence of the Sheriff. In order for HECO to be of maximum value to its members, they shall appoint, as their directors and alternates, their chief administrative officers or emp"loyees with general administration or public safety management responsibilities. I! HECO AGREEMENT -7 Directors and alternates shall serve without compensation from HE.CO but this shall not prevent a member from providing com- pensation for its director or alternate director if such compensation is authorized by s~~ch unit and by law. Section S. There shall be no voting by proxy; all vote s must be cast in person at,board meetings by the director or his alternate. Section 6. Directors and alternate directors shall be appbinted~to serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. ' Section 7. j'~hen the council of a member. appoints a director or an alternate director or when the Sheriff ap- points an alternate director, notice shall be given to HECO in writing. Such notice shall include the mailing address I of the persons so appointed. The names and addresses shown on such notices may be used as the official names and addresses for the purposes of giving any notices required by this agree- . i ment or by the bylaws of HECO. I Section 8. Any director or alternate director shall be subject to removal by the appointing authority at any time, with ar without cause. Section 9. A majority of the voting directors shall constitute a quorum of the board. Section 10. A vacancy on the board shall. be filled by the appointing authority whose position on the board is vacant. Section 11. A director (or his alternate) shall not be eligib7.e to vote on behalf of his governmental unit during HEC4 AGREEMENT -8 the time that such governmental unit is in default on any contribution to HECO or o.n any contract with it. During the existence of such default, the vote. or votes of such govern- mental unit shall not be counted as eligible votes for the purposes of this ,agreement. j V. MEET'IN'GS - QI•:FICERS Section. 1.~ Any governmental unit desiring to enter into this agreement may do so by the duly authorized execution of a copy of this agreement by its proper officers. Thereupon, the clerk or othdr corresponding officer of the governmental unit shall file a duly executed copy of the agreement, together with a certified copy of the, authorizing resolution or other action, with the county administrator of Hennepin County. The resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement shall also designate the first director and alternate for the mem- ber. The agreement shall become effective when it has been executed by Hennepin County, the city of ?dinneapolis and seven other eligible governmental .units in Hennepin County, and when Executed copies from such governmental units eligible to be members, together with certified copies of the authorizing r.esolutiorls, have been d.u1y filed as set out herein. Within .30-days after the effective datz of this agreement, the s>hexiff of Hennepin County shall. call the first meeting of the board, which shall b e held not later than 15 days there- after. t . HECO AGREEMEDTT -9 Section 2. The sheriff of Hennepin County shall be the president of the board and shall take office at. the first meeting of the board. Section 3. The initial vice president of the board shall be a director elected from among and by the directors repre- senting any of the following municipalities which are members: Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, New Hope, Richfield, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park. The vice president shall be elected in accordance with this section at the first meeting of the board. Thereafter, in July of each even-numbered year,-after 1976, the vice president shall be elected from among and by the board of directorsa He shall hold office until his successor is elected and qualifies. ~~~ Section 4. 'A director shall be .elected as a secretary- treasurer from among and by the directors represenstin g any member. He shall be elected at the first meeting of the board and a new election-shall be held in July of each. even-numbered year after 1976. The secretary-treasurer so elected shall serve until his successor is elected and qualifies. Section 5. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the board shall adopt bylaws governing its procedures, including the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings. Such bylaws may be amended from time to time, but as a minimum, they shall provide for'. an annual public meeting of the board to be held each year in \ July and, in addition, for regular public meetings of j HECO AGREEMENT -10 ~t~e board to~ be held at least quarterly in the months of January, April, July and .October. Section 6. Special meetings of the board may be called (a) by the president, (b) by he executive committee or (c) by the executive committee upon the written request of a majority of the directors, Five days' written notice of special meetings shall be given to the directors and alternates. Such notice shall include the agenda for the special meeting. Section 7. The specific date, time and location of regular and special meetings .o f.the,board shall be determined by the executive committee. Regular and special meetings of the board shall be held in the County of Hennepin. Section 8. Notice of regular meetings of the board shall be given to the directors and alternates by the secretary- treasurer of the board at least fifteen (15) days in advance and the agenda for such meetings shall accompany the notice. Section 9. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement. to the .contrary, it is recognized that the staged development of an integrated communications system is likely to involve separate communications dispatching operations by some member -- units for some `period of time. It is also recognized and agreed that member units which choose to operate independently from any centralized system developed pursuant to this agreement should not continue to have a voice in operational decisions for a central system for an indefinite .period. Therefore, ~ -:_ • t . f HECO AGREEI~SENT -11 :notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, it is agreed that as of July 1, 1978, a director who represents a municipality which as of that date has not assigned or other- wise transferred. to HECO (onto such agency as may be designated by HECO) public safety radio frequencies that it may be licensed to operate or otherwise be entitled to, shall not be eligible for election to any office in the organization or to serve on the executive committee until such frequencies are assigned or otherwise. transferred to HECO or such agency as may be designated by. HECO. If such-municipality. has entered into. .contractual arrangements with one or more municipalities in Hennepin. County, to jointly share the use of one or more - ~, frequencies with a resulting frequency loading approximately equal to the average within Hennepin County, the directors representing such municipalities shall be eligible. for-full rights to participate as directors. Section 10. A director who is .not eligible for election as provided above, shall not, after July 1, 1978, be entitled to vote on the establishment of the annual budget of HECO or on any matter pertaining to the operation or maintenance of such joint operations, facilities or programs that HECO may have instituted which do not directly serve the residents of the i. municipality represented by such director. Such director shall not be entitled to vote on the employment or dismissal of HECO employees. F HECO AGREEA4EN~T -12 Section 11. Any dispute as to-the eligibility to serve. as an officer shall.be subject to binding arbitration as .provided- in Article IX. Section 12. Any dispute as to eligibility to vote shall be determined by majority vote of the board of directors. Any director whose right ~o vr~te is in dispute can vote on the question of his. own eligibility. ' Section 13. It is agreed-that the board of directors shall have broad Latitude and discretion in defining the mat.- ters upon which membeY munieip~alities which become ineligible for full participation shall be allowed to vote. The board shall be guided by the intent that such municipalities should be allowed to particip~.t~ in plenning. for and maintaining an inte rated system, but limiting their participation after July g 1, 1978, to exclude them from decisions relating generally to operational processes that do not have.a~direct fiscal or . frequency distribution impact on them. VI.• POPPERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD Section 1. The powers and duties of the board shall in- elude the following: (a) Development of a plan and operating procedures for an integrated and coordinated public safety communications system which includes county',-w~_de 911 service a:nd the avail- ability of compu't~r aided dispatch capability far all public safety agencies who are members. . (b) Development of a mechanism. for assignment. of c HECO AGREEMENT -13 public safety frec{uencies currently licensed to the member units with such assignment to be to a system pool to be used in accordance with plans for an integrated public safety com- munications system developed by the board. (c) -Enter into contracts between HECO and such other governmental agencies as appropriate to accomplish the. general purposes of the organization. (d) Operation of a centralized communications facility consistent with plans and procedures developed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section, and the employment of any necessary personnel deemed appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the organization, including the plan- ning of systems. The purposes of this section may be accom- plished either by direct employment of personnel necessary to manage and operate the system or through contracts, leases or other agreements with other operating agencies within the dis- cretion of the board. (e) Acquisition through purchase or lease of space and equipment necessary to accomplish the general purposes: of the organization as set forth in subsections (a) through (d) above. Section 2. The board shall have full control of the man- agement and affairs of HECO including the power to make contracts it deems necessary to make effective any power to be exercised by HECO pursuant to this agreement; to provide for the prosecution. and defense or other participation in actions or proceedings. at 1 HECO AGREEMENT -14 law. in which it may have an interest; to employ such persons as it-deems necessary to accomplish its activities and functions on a full-time, part-time or consulting basis; to conduct such .research and investigation as it deems necessary on any matter relating to or affecting. the general purposes of the organization; to acquire, hold and dispose of both real and personal property as the board. deems necessary; to contract for space, materials, supplies and personnel either with a member or with a number of members. Section 3. -The board of directors may establish and collect membership dues and other charges for services to members and to others. Section 4. .The board may accept gifts, apply for and use. grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental units or organizations or any other source and may enter into agree- ments required in connection therewith and may hold, use and dispose of such monies or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto, Section S. It shall cause an annual independent audit of the books to be made and shall-make an annual .financial accounting and report in writing to the members. Its books and records shall be available fox and open to examination by its members at all reasonable times. .. :' HECO AGREEMENT -15 .Section 6. It shall establish the annual budget for the organization as provided in this agreement. Section _7. It may delegate authority to~the executive committee of the board, between board meetings. Such delegation of authority shall be by resolution of the board and may be conditioned in such manner as the board may determine. Section.8. It may accumulate and maintain reasonable working capital reserves and may invest and reinvest funds not currently needed for the purposes of the organization. Such investment and reinvestment shall be in .accordance with and subject to the laws applicable to the investment of statutary city funds. ~ " Section 9. It shall make the services of any public safety communications system developed through the activities of the organization available to its members, subject to reasonable charges for development and operation thereof. Section 10. It may pay the reasonable and necessary expenses of officers, directors and alternates incurred- in connection with their duties as such, but this shall not include. the expenses of attending meetings of HECU within the seven- county Twin City metropolitan area. Section 11. Within the limitations of applicable retire- ment laws and M.S. X471.59, it may provide for any of its employees to be members of .the Public Employees .Retirement I! 7 HECO AGREEMEN?' -16 Association, the Pu.biic Employees Retirement Association Police anal Fire Fund or any other pu?~lic pension'fund available to employees of one or more of its members and-may make any required employer contrr~utidn~ ~~~hich member municipalities are authorized or required by law to. make. Section 12. It may purchase public .liability insurance and such other bands or insurance as it may deem necessary. Section 13. 'It may exercise Gray other-power necessary and incidental to the implemeni~ation of-its powers and duties. Section 14. -The byl~.w~~~aclopted by the board. of directors initia]_ly and any amendments thereto shall provide formulas for the allocation of costs among members and criteria for allacating and assigning va.rioL~s tykes of casts between classes of charges set forth in Article TX, Section 5. Adoption or amendment of bylaws required pu}scant to this section shall be by weighted voting if requested by-any director. Section 1. The officers cif tre board shall consist of the president, the vice president and the .secretary-treasurer selected in accordance with the provisions of Article V. The vice president and secretaxy--i:reasurer shall be elected at the regular annual meeta.ng a~ the board held in even- t` numbered years after 1976. New aff_icers shall take office at tkie adjournment of the anriual,meeting of the board at which they are elected. • ~. HECO.AGREEMENT -17 Section 2. A vacancy shallimmediately occur in the office of any officer upon his resignation, death or upon his ceasing to be an .employee of his member governmental unit.- .Upon a vacancy-occurring in any office, the executive committee shall . fill such position from among, directors eligible for the vacant position until the next meeting of the board.. Section 3. The three officers shall all be members of the executive committee. . Section 4. The. president shall preside at all meetings of the board and the executive committee. The vice president shall act as president in the absence of the president. Section 5. The secretary-treasurer .shall be responsible for keeping a record of all of the proceedings of the board. and executive .committee, for custody of all funds, for the keeping of all financial records of the organization and for. such other matters as shall be delegated to him by the board.. Any persons may be engaged to perform such services under his supervision and direction, when authorized by the board. He shall post a fidelity bond or other insurance against loss of organization funds in an amount approved by the board, at the expense of the organization. VIII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Section 1. The board shall have an executive committee consisting of its three officers .and two other .directors, HECO AGREEMENT -18 provided., however, that. if neither the vice president nor the secretary-treasurer is thedirector representing the City of tdinneapolis, then one of the two othex directors on the executive committee shall be ..,the director representing-said. city. The procedure for electing directors shall be the ' ~. same as for .the election of a secretary-treasurer as set forth in Article V, Section 4 of this Agreement. Section 2. Each member of the. executive committee shall have one vote. Section 3. A quorum at a,meeting of :the executive committee shall require the presence of :not less than three officers and/or directors.. Action-other than to adjourn shall require an affirmative vcte of a majority of the full executive committee. Section 4. The executive committee may. adopt bylaws governing its own procedures, which shall be subject to this agreement, the bylaws of the board, and any resolutions or other directives of the board. Section 5. The executive committee shall meet at the call of the president or upon the call of any two other members of the executive committee. The date and place of the meeting shall be fixed by the person or persons. calling it. At least forty- eight (48) hours advance written notice of such meeting shal l be given to all members of the executive committee by the t. - DECO AGREEI~IENT -19 person or persons calling. the meeting.: Such notice, however, may be waived by any or all members who actually. attend .the meeting or who give .written waives of such noticefor a specified .meeting. Section 6. The executive committee shall -have the following duties: ,(a) It shall exercise the powers and perform the duties... delegated to it by the: board of directors, subject to-such conditions and limitations as `may. be imposed by the board.: (b)- It shall cause to be prepared a proposed annual budget each year which shall be submitted to the board of directors at least thirty (30) days before the annual meeting. :, (c) It shall present a full report of its activities ~ at each regular meeting of .the board. Section 7. Subject to the provisions of the approved budget it shall have the authority to appoint, fix the conditions of employment of, and remove .any employees of the organization. Section 8. It shall have-authority to fix charges for the use of the programs and facilities of HECO, both as to members and non-members .consistent .with policies .and guidelines established by the board. Section 9. All actions taken by the executive committee- shall be subject to control by the board: of directors as the board shall deem advisable. I,~ i .f HECO AGREEMENT -~0 i R S IX. FINANCIAL MF~TTE Section 1. The fiscallyear of HECO shall be the calendar _ year . Section 2. An annual b~,udgetshall.be adopted by the Board at the annual aneeting ~'~,in July of each year. The vote on the adoption of the budget;, and any subsequent amendments thereto -shall be byweghted voting~lat the request of any director. Copies shall~be mailed, promptly after a3option, to the chief administrative officer of each member. .: Section 3. The axecut~y'.ve committee shall have the author- ity to fix .cost sharing cha~ges for. all members in an amount sufficient to provide'th~ funds required by the budgets of the organization but such_chargES shall be in accordance with cri- teria.set forth in the bylaws. It shall advise the chief ad- ministxative officer of each member, on or before August 1, of each year, of, the amounts of such charges falling within the classes defined in Section S `of this Ar icJ.e. Section 4. Billings for all charges shall be due when l '~icharges have n©t been paid within rendered. Any-member whose 45 days .after billing shall~~be in default. and shall not be entitled to further voting privileges nor to have its director hold any office until the-default has been cleared. In the event charges have not been~~';paid by a member within 4S days i ._ '' HECO AGREEMENT -21 after billing, such defaulting member shall be deemed to have given, on such 45th day, notice of fiscalpxotest which shall then'be resolved pursuant to the provisions of Section 6 of this Article. Any member may make. a payment in order to pre- . serve its status as a member but may make such payment subject to fiscal. protest asset forth in Section 6 and. such payment shall not prejudice its right to dispute. the amount of the charge. and to pursue remedies set forth in this agreement or other legal remedies available to the member. Section 5. Costs incurred 'by HEGO for its genexal ad- ministrative, development and operating. expenses shall be shared and paid by the members in accordance with the criteria set forth in the bylaws of the board. For the first year and as long thereafter as may be provided by the board costs-shall be allocated as follows: (a) All casts not included in a county levy or in special charges to cover costs for special equipment, facilities and operating procedures requested by an individual member shall be charged to the members in accordance with the following formula: (1) For services rendered to the sheriff and _ Hennepin County EMS, cast shall be paid by the county in pro- portion based on the number of public safety mobile radio equipped units serving sheriff and EMS functions compared to the total number of public safety mobile radio equipped units serving HECO AGREEMENT - 2 Z all members. A similar formula. shall be devised for any other user which does not have a direct population basis for- compar- ison with municipal public sjafety operations. (2) Municipal members shall.be charged costs under this subsection;' one half on the basis of population and one half on the basis of assessed valuation. The board may determine the portion of°such cysts which represent capital or develop- ment costs which shall become charges for new members after the initial organization is established. Excluded from the above costs shall be the following: (a) Non-grant.: capital cents and eontinui.ng operating costs of a 911 emergency telephone system to a central point ,or, if less costly a.nd consistent with long-range development plans, to selectively rouged locationso ,Costs excluded pursuant to this clause shall bo paid by the county board through a county-wide levy or through the initiation of a telephone user tax. (b) Costs for development of a central facility for dispatching to serve the whole county and development of central computer capabilities f_nr such purpose when recommended by the HECO board and w:nen. the county board determines that it is feasible to develop such'faca.lity. Costs excluded pursuant to this clause shall be paid through. a county levy. ' (c) Special capital and operating costs incurred be- cause of a rec{uest by an individual member. Costs excluded pursuant to tl~ris' clause shall be paid by the requesting member. L HECO AGREEMENT -23 " Section 6. Within thirty (30) days after receiving notice • of charges established pursuant to Section 3 ox at any time before September-l, whichever is later, any member may file a novice of fiscal protest with the presidents. Such .notice shall constitute a request for review of the charges applicable to the protesting member. The executive committee shall attempt to negotiate the dispute and, with. approval of the board, shall have authority to settle the matter upon any basis deemed equit- able by .the parties.. In the event that the dispute is not recon- ciled to the satisfaction of the protesting party on or before January 1 of the appropriate year, the party may request arbi- tration in accordance with the rules of the. American Arbitration Association, and a finding of an arbitration panel or an arbi- . trator pursuant thereto shall be binding and judgment upon any award thereunder may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The period of negotiation prior to invoking arbitration may be extended by agreement between the executive committee and the disputing member., Section 7. Nothing contained in this Article shall prevent the board from charging nonmembers for services rendered by HECO, on such basis as the board shall .deem appropriate. Section 8. The board may agree to credit any member against future or current charges for the value of equipment or staff contributions made by the member to HECO functions. In no case shall credit be given for contributions of equipment or staff for which the member received federal or state grant 1 IiECO AGREEMENT -24 funds except that local contributions. to match grant funds .may be allowed to the extent of such contributions. Section 9. Board funds may be expended by the board in accordance with procedures established by-law for the expenditure of funds by Minnesota statutory cities. Orders, checks, drafts-and other legal instruments shall be signed- by. the president or vice president and countersigned by the. secretary-treasurer or such other person as shall be desig- nated by the board. Section 10. Contracts shall be let and purchases shall be made in accordance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases by Minnesota statutory cities. • • X.. ASSOCIATtS Section 1. It is recognized that certain governmental units which cannot quality: for membership or which choose not to be .members may desire to follow and participate in the activities of HECO as a forum for input into systems design and other characteristics which may be valuable in maintaining a complete coordinated public safety communications system. Such ~. HECO AGREEMENT -25 governmental units may .affiliate with HECO as "associates". : Section 2. A governmental unit desiring to become an associate may do so in the same manner as is required to become a member, except as otherwise provided in this Article. Section 3. At the time of applying for "associate .status".the governmental unit making the request shall indicate in writing that it is not joining as a member but rather as an associate. Section 4. An associate may appoint a director and an alternate director to the board but such director (or alternate) shall be without voting power and he shall not be eligible to serve as an officer nor shall he be counted for quorum purposes. Section 5. The executive committee with the approval of the board shall establish the charges to be paid by associates and for that purpose it may classify associates in accordance with their varying circumstances. Section 6. An associate may discontinue its relation- ship with HECO at any time by giving written notice of withdrawal to the secretary-treasurer of HECO. Withdrawal shall not relieve such associate from its obligation to pay any charges which the associate has incurred up to the time of withdrawal. XI. WITHDRAWAL Section 1. Any member may at ar_y time give written notice of intent to withdraw from HECO. The refusal or failure ofa ' HECO AGREEh'IENT -26 , any member to be bound by any financial obligation to the . organization. shall also constitute notice of withdrawal. Section 2. Withdrawal from the organization shall be in accordance with he following provisions: (a) Actual withdrawal -shall not take effect for a period of one. year following the date of notice of intent to withdraw. (b) Upon the effective date of withdrawal, the member shall continue to be responsible for any pro rated and unpaid cast sharing charges or contractual obligations incurred by the member prior to the effective date of withdrawal. Section 3. A member withdrawing from membership at a .time when such withdrawal does not result in dissolution of . the organization shall forfeit its claim or right to any public safety frequency license which it has assigned or other- wise transferred to HECO, except under the following circum- stances: (a) That the executive committee with the approval of the board of directors authorizes withdrawal of the member and withdrawal of the public safety frequency from the pool of frequencies available to the organization on the grounds that such withdrawal would not seriously hamper continued coordinated public safety communications within Hennepin County, or (b) That the frequency loading of the withdrawing c J . HECO AGREEMErIT -27 .- ( member is sufficient or that contractual arrangements have been made with other appropriate. governmental agencies to create a frequency loading sufficient to warrant withdrawal of .the frequency from the pool and creation of an independent public- .-- safety communications system utilizing that frequency and thereby reducing the remaining frequency demand to be served through the HECO organization sufficiently to result in approx- imately equal .loading of frequencies before and after such withdrawal. Any dispute arising from a request to withdraw a frequency pursuant to this Article shell be negotiated and subject to banding arbitration in the same manner as set forth for disputes relating to financial responsibility in Article IX. Section 4.. The withdrawal of any member which is effective at a time when such withdrawal does not result in dnssolution of .the organization shall result in forfeiture of the with- - drawing member's claim to any assets of the organization except as may be authorized by action of the executive committee and approved by the board of directors. XII. DISSOLUTION Section 1. The HECO organization shall be dissolved . whenever the following occurs:. (a) A sufficient number of members withdraw to reduce the population included within the boundaries of the re- manning municipal members to less tb.an one third (1/3) of the total population of Hennepin County. ' - •.- ' ~• HECO AG~iEEMENT -28 ~_ (b) Whenever dissolution is recommended by a two- thirds vote of the executive', committee and. such recommendation is approved by a twa-thirds vote of all members of the board. • (c) Whenever dissolution becomes necessary because of the operation of any law br thedecision of any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 2. ' In the- even'~,1: o£ dissolution, the. bard shall determine the measures necessary to effect the dissolution. Such measures .may include proposed reallocation of public safety frequencies licensed 'to the members at the time. of dissolution in a manner which will equitably allocate fre- quency resources to serve the citizens of the county. .Any plan far allocation of frequencies in the event of dissolution - shall be subject,to requirements o~ the Minnesota statewide communications plan and the Federal Communications Commission. Section 3. .Upon dissolution, the remaining assets of HECO, a:fte~'payment of all o~'bligations, shall be distributed among the .then existing members in proportion to their con- tributions, as determined-by, tl~z~ board, except that determina- ti_on as to allocation of pooled frequencies shall be pursuant to majority acti.gn of those ',members who.. held licenses to such frequencies. at the time they became members, of the organization. In distributing assets .following dissolution,-the board shall comply with the faliawing guidelines: (a) All physical assets which are contributed by or paid for exclusively by onel,inember sha11'be returned to that member. . " HECO AGREEMENT -29 (b) Assets which are contributed by or paid for by more than one member shall be distributed to existing members in proportion to their contribution to-the cost of those assets. (c) Any member who receives assets which.. have a greater value than that member's ,contribution to the cost thereof shall reimburse in cash those members who receive assets which have a lesser value than those members' contribution thereto. Section. 4. If there is an organizational deficit upon dissolution, such deficit shall be charged to and paid by the members and former members on a pro rata basis, based upon charges incurred by such members and former members during the two years preceding the .event which gave rise to the dis- solution. i I I / ~-- HECO AGREEMENT -30 XIII.. DURATION This agreement shall continue in effect `indefinitely, until terminated in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tree undersigned governmental unit has caused this agreement to be signed and delivered on its behalf. IN THE PRESENCE OF: DATED:. r a ~. i Name of Governmental Unit by its • by its FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, this day of , 19 1 ~ Gentlemen:. ' Subject.: Award of Bid for Raof Reconstructionat Richfield Community Center On October 25, 1976.`bids fors:roof reconstruction at the Richfield `Community Center were opened by the citymanager in accordance with previous ci y council authorization. The environmental health director, park and recreation director and ci y clerk were-also present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations" are: attached for city council review. Three bids were received for .roof reconstruction at the`Richfield Community Center. To M. Campion Company,`with a bd.of $8,639..85 including the base bid, alternate .number three to use copper instead of galvanized steel for valleys. and flashings;, alternate number four to remove gutters and replace .with redwood facia'and selected .areas. of gutters over doorways and aliAernate.number five to remove. existing shingles and apply asphalt fel in addition to the base bid, is the lowest responsible'bidder for: this project: However, due to the Federal holiday, the contractor has not 'been confirmed as . elig.ib'1e for this portion of the Community Development Block Grant program. It is the. recommendation of the, Park and Recreation Advisory Commis ion; - and the Park and Recreation Director, in-which I concur, that `the city .council approve thee.bi~d minutes, the tabulation of birds and the attached resolution approving the low bid of T,.M~ Campion Company.. in `the amount of $8,639.85: Respectfully submitted, .~ , ~ ~ Q ,~ ~ - ~r~- .- ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ f~~'~~ .~ Wayne S: Burggraaff. City Manager ~~ WSB/sdr cc: Park and Recreation Director Finance birector F ~; . -'. Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No 1015, a meeting of the administrative ' staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager,. who~announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Roof. Reconstruction for the Community Center, City Project No. 699, as advertised in t the official newspaper or, Oetober 15 and 20,-1976. r ;.: . Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff,..City Manager Don Fondrick? Park & Recreation Director I. F. Roesler, Environmental :Health Direc~or '' Sandy Rosenow, Administrative Aide Thomas 3. Moran, City Clerk T'tse following bids were submitted and read aloud; r BIDDER AND Ai,TERNATES ~ :BID SECURITY BASE BID ONE TWO TH~.tEE FOUR FIVE Ed Cirkle Roofing Co. Curt. Check $455 $5,200 $5,.550 $5,760 $3,3/+0 T, M. Campion Co. B. B. 5% $5,904 $2,106 $2,373 $310 $1,031.85 $1,394 Ett1e & France Co. B., B. 5% $6,130 $1,.57.5. ..$2,573 $360 $1,595 $8,278 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 25, 1976. •. W OZ ~ X X Is! O F-- ~- . . am es - l - ~ F X X T O --~ V -' O a-~ ~ _ X x X J ~ O Z O V ~ ~ \ i ~ Z t0 N tt3 rti ~,.~ ~- W C N 5- ~ ~ _ C N ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O t~f O O N 'O Ol M ' ~-K' Op O ~ ~ ~. sa~6uys anowaa "' w ~' w "' w r 00 M ER d3 if} Lf> m aaddoo aouno 9L • PuaL4aa4~~aH `0££ au~~,~agw~l ~t19 tp ~' w azuoa8 xa~pooM `00£ paa~uta~aa0 -t1! N O d ~~ C1_~ r V d ~~ L e }.a N ~ C V ~ .~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t + ~ y.. (~ - M CO ~ ~ ~ • w '~ ~ 4 ~ 4 ,. N C1 C O O O ~ ~~ V r •• ~ r C' V y .. ~ O n V ~d o C F- ~ N d e+ °'ao+ . m >,v- c v~ ~ ~L +. o r O 'M Q ,. r r ~ ~W M M 1 ~6~4 d? M M O n ~ M w w N N 49 b4 tf} ~ O n r w LL') w M N r ~' O O O M O O1 w a---' w N w 69 44 Ef} .~ 3~ 3~ +~ d' ~ ~ GJ Y V U O V C N O ~ •r ' ~ f~. S. CJ a2S ,y ~ r ~ r V .,.~ ~ ~ `''' `'' a r% ~, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT' TO - T. M. CAMPION COMPANY FOR ROOF RECONSTRUCTION AT THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER CITY PROJECT N0. 699. Clerk's File No. BE IT RESOLVED.. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid, including the base bid, alternate number three, alternate number four and alternate number five, of T, M. Campion Company is the lowest bid by a responsible bidder for roof reconstruction at the Richfield Community Center, City Project No. 699. 2. That the bid of T. M. Campion Company as outlined above for the above referenced project, at the price contained in their proposal of October 25,- 1976, with a constructor.cost of $8.,639.85, is hereby accepted. 3. That the proposed contract between 'T. M. Campion Company and the City of Richfield be given clerk's file no. and be placed on file.. 4. That-the proposed contract between T. M. Campion Company and the City of Richfield is contingent upon contractor. eligibility certification.being granted by'the Department of Housing and Urban Development as`required by the'Community Development Block Grant. program. 5. That said proposed contract for the above referenced project is hereby approved and adopted and the Mayor and City Manager-are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for or on behalf of the-City of Richfield and the Clerk is authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto. 6. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract shall be charged against the Project Fund.. 7. -That the corporate surety bond in the sum of the contract price which accompanies said contract is hereby. accepted and approved. 8. The the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract. Loren L. Law ayor ATTEST: omas J. Moran City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIEL.T~ MINNESOTA ' Office of City .Manager Council. Letter No. 332 Agenda October 25, 1976 The .Honorable Mayor and Members of the _-City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Award of Contract for Community Center Roof Reconstruction _ At the October 12, 1976, city council meeting, the city council took action to reject the one bid received at the October 5, 1976, bid- opening for roof reconstruction at the Richfield Community Center, ` At that time, the city council authorized staff to readvertise':for bids to complete the project. A read ertisement of-the notice of bid has been published, and the readvertised notice- of bid was sent to all previous plan holders and ~appro~imately forty additional contractors. The new bid opening is scheduled for Monday, October 25, 1976. Bid minutes and tabulations and a staff recommendation for award. bf the bid will... be available- to the city council at the October 25, 1976 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ VV ~• , - Wayne. S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Park and Recreation Director (~ `~; CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 331 Agenda October 2 5 , 197 6 The Honorable Mayor ..and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject;. ~Applxcaton for a Sign Permit ~~ On the October 25, 1976 city council agenda there is a request for approval;of a sign permit for the Nordgizst Sign Company to install a sign. with a traveling. light border at 6708 Lyndale Avenue South (Paradise Palace Sauna) Chapter 3, Part 5, Section 3.47, subdivision 19 of fihe city code requires special approval from the council for signs that are moving or of unusual design.. • '°Subdivision' 19 . Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such. sign.to the council for approval. Na permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.." Since the sign itself has a traveling border, the staff feels that this sign should be classified as moving or of unusual design, and requires. council action before a permit can be issued. A copy of the application. and a sketch of the .proposed sign are attached . It is the recommendation of the city manager that the application be denied. Respectfully submitted, ~~" Yd"~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager . - WSB/bll cc; Public. Works Director SEA 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD `' ~~.jb PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~p~I° mf ~,~;;e{~~'~ir~7J PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION .:.~ APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT U~ Date ~ ~ : 19~ Present. Zoning. 4{ `Z''+ Fee Paid ~ ~ "~ Location ~j~~~ ~,,,~~ , ~ Is sign .erected "at this date Yes No ~: Sign Erector ~ "~ ~~ ~. Address ~,~. ~ ~ ~~„ . Owner of Sign ~ '~ ~ Address ~,,,,~ ~. ~ t Type. of Sign:. Wall ~ Hanging Q Ground II'Rabf Pedestal g Pylon Single.Face ~ Double Face Q .Business ~ Advertisin q. ~'~ 'I g ~ S Ft. ea. side' Estimated cost $ ~ Constructed of ~~ ~,,. ~~ Completion .Date ~~ t _ , III .Total height from: (Ground);(Roof) ft. Space beneath sign to: (Ground) (Roof) If illuminated: Name of Electrical Contractor ~~j _T~~ ~~~[~ddress ~~, (,~, r Clear Glass Q Frosted Glass ~] Plastic Covered ~ Shaded [~ Other Flashing ~[ Revolving Q Traveling ~,, Zip ~ Other 1~ ~~~~ .Implying for this Permit the Undersigned agrees: 1. Denied Signature of Applicant IAddress Approval Recommended :Approval Recommended. Denied (Approved R Wattage Telephone No. ~~~°,~~ Date ~~ / ~ 19 J Date ~ `~/~ ~ Denied j.-~ Date Manager 19 19 Approved by Council: Date Council Stipulations ' 3.26 To accept and abide by all provisions of Ordinances #2.03 and #3.271 of the City of Richfield and all other pertinent ordinances or regulations that may be adopted in the future. To notify Chief Inspector when sign is ready for inspection, but before erection crew has left the job. Electric wiring on ~1,l~minate~} igns must comply with City of Richfield electrical ordinances. 1 J~ d ~',~ ,~ (~~. ~s; Ground Sign Width --~ Legend Wall Sign Width -~ f ~~ Ground Pedestal Sign {~--.- Width -~ Legend tRoof Sign ~.- (~ -Width ~j ~L~egend ~~~~-4-~IS~ P~~-~~,%C, ~1 Hanging Sign ~----- Width -~ Legend Indicate distance from the buil-ding Indicate legend on the reverse side in c ~~ ~ ~~~4+~0 ~~Us~~Ot~~'~oD~ 7~u~ u~ arr g~, Ground ~, Roof ~_ Place location of sign on thss sketch with distance the sign is from property lines.: ,Locate any traffic lights °within 6(30 feet. 413..26. Sheet 2 of 2_Sheets P hP 1 h~ Legend Indicate h ~;. CITY OF RICHFIELD, ' MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 330 Agenda October 2 5 , 197 6 ~.. ' The Honorable Mayor and Members of the .City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen; ` Subject: Award of 'Bid for City Hall Fire Suppression Sprinkler ` 'System, Gity`Project No. 693 On October Z0, 1976 bids were: opened by the city manager for he installation of a Fire Suppression Sprinkler System, City Project No. 693, in accordance with I previous city council authorization. The public works director, recreation director, - and city clerk also represented the city at this bid opening'. (' ~ The attached bid tabulation .indicates he amount bid by each of the bidders for this -project. Minutes of the bid opening are also attached. The low bid, submitted by• Sunrise Fire Protection, .appears to meet-all technical specifications . If is the recommendation of the consulting engineer. and:: public works director., in which I concur that the city council approve the bid minutes, .the tabulation of bids and approve the low bid of Sunrise Fire Protection in the amount of $10, 325.00. Respectfully submitted, ;~ ~%~- ~ ~ Wayne $. Burggraaff - City Manager i WSB/e)a r cc; Administrative Assistant. Finance Director _ Public Works Director ~Ie 1 (q fD fi N 7d fD 0 '~ f1+ N• 1 r O bd 1 ~i w to [D ~. K fD ~d K O c+ fD n c+ O i O W N Vi O O ~ N N ~ p ~ ~ ,'~ K Oq i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ' TJ ~ + c '~ N --'' ~' ~ p ~ ~ ~ F'i m "~f fv • n~ O n ~ d b b K ~ H ~ N K N O -F c ~ Cn d m ~ m ~ K ~ K ~d N O O ~ ~ ~ Fi Cn O K cf lD ~ ~ c+ + c O :j N ~ ~ ~ ~ n ('] O O H Q bd tz1 td bd bd ~1 t7d H d tzi bd bd tb bd ~ td ~ O Vl Vl Vl V1 V7 Vl Vl `~ d ~ ~' W O N N N v, %~ oo w oo :~- ~ r Vl ~ N N N W --J ~ W W Ott d~ W -3 ~ O O O O O O O Cn O O O O O O O H O H H ~ N b b 9 ~ H O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ '=J ~F-'7d •. O~~Cd OOyvn H ~ t~~J ~ ~J H :rl ~ O ~-S NO~~d ~nC]~xx3~ O t~ ~ N bd t~ ~ H FO-3 O~ C] O 'x=J O . v H t=J NCyO~ ~ d ~ -~ W ~ H y r . • r,~- CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 20, 1976 Fire-Protection Sprinkler System for the Rchfield.City Hall City'Project No. 693 Pursuant ,to requirements of Resolut-ion No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced-that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Fire. Protection Sprinkler System for the Richfield City Ha11, City Project No. 693, as advertised in the official newspaper on .October 6, 1976. Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Peter Eberz, Public.Works Director Don Fondrick, Park & Recreation Director Tom Moran, City- Clerk Z"he following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY- TOTAL BID • Eagle. Automatic Fire Protection Co. B. B. 5% $12, 777 Firebird Sprinkler Protection Co, B. B. 5% $12, 433 .Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. B. B. 5% $11, 826 Sunrise Fire Protection B. B. 5% $10, 325 Industrial Sprinkler Corporation B. B. 5% $13, 823 Grinnell-Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc. B. B. 5% $14, 183 Northstar Fire Protection Co. • B. B. 5% $15, 559 1"he City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 25, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk