Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-24-1992
CITY Of R10HRELD PLRnrnnG commission RGEnDR November 24, 1992 7:00 p.m. ROIlll (CEU pr• T. tl c' Min Ute Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1992. 1 "u li• Ilc ril•in l C,'V' r Uti1I11'titi JOINT MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ITEM #1 Information Letter #12 City purchase of property at 6636 Sheridan Avenue South DIld Suom' 800 1.1•1 t School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council AdHoc 135/1494 Traff ic Committee Ci N)U1 11111L -'Clt CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING: A HANDBOOK FOR LOCAL PLANNING JANUARY, 1987 INDEX PAGE 1. OVERVIEW: WHAT IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM? l INTRODUCTION 1 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE 1 THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN 4 WHY HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6 BENEFITS OF HAVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 7 DEFINITION a HOW TO IDENTIFY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS 9 2. RICHFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS 10 PURPOSE 10 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 11 CITY COUNCIL 12 PLANNING COMMISSION 12 OTHER COMMISSIONS 12 CITY MANAGER 12 TECHNICAL SUPPORT COMMITTEE 12 ESTABLISHING CIP PRIORITIES 13 General Questions to be Reviewed by the Technical Support Committee Relating to The Overall Community Needs and Objectives 14 a-Planning Concerns 14 Engineering Concerns 15 i,Financial Concerns 15 bPublic Safety Concerns 16 3-Risk Management Concerns 16 OPERATING DEPARTMENTS 16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF 17 CIP SCHEDULE 17 3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT .16 INITIAL CIPS 19 CIP CONTENT GUIDELINES 19 FINANCIAL STATUS OF COMMUNITY 19 CIP 19 DETAIL REQUIRED 20 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REVIEW OF LIPS 20 BIENNIAL REVIEW OF CIPS 21 PROJECT SUMMARY FORM 22 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIP-REQUEST 24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING: A HANDBOOK FOR LOCAL PLANNING 1. OVERVIEW: WHAT IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM? INTRODUCTION Local officials are stewards, on behalf o,f - citizens, of a considerable stock of buildings, roads, bridges, schools, parks, sewers and equipment. In many cases, local officials may not know the value or even the extent of public facilities the local government owns. Yet, it is one of the officials, primary responsibilities to preserve, maintain and improve these facilities for future citizens. This responsibility ,includes financial responsi.bility. It is a matter of simple dollars and cents. Prudent financial management of public facilities today can avoid crises and major replacement costs tomorrow. Planning for capital maintenance and improvements is also sound development practice. Communities seeking to attract new. business investment in.order to raise tax revenues and provide jobs should recognize that a rational, carefully planned program of new sewers, roads and sidewalks is necessary in order to attract this investment. It also ensures that the new investment will take place on locations in the community that make the most sense for future maintenance, and for the quality of life for the citizens. How does a local government plan for capital investments? First, it must plan the maintenance and replacement of its existing capital equipment. Then, it must plan the major investments it will make in replacing and building new public facilities. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE Traditionally, capital planning and programming identifies future growth and development patterns and ensures that capital inventory will adequately support them. Furthermore, older systems do outlive their useful lives and the replacement of older capital stock is an expensive proposition that all communities must face eventually. However, capital investment decisions are difficult to make in a period of scarce financial resources. One way to ease the financial burden is to establish a facility maintenance schedule to target both capital and operating financial resources to the upkeep of buildings, water and sewer facilities, major pieces of equipment, roads, and so forth. Routine preventative maintenance such as painting and patching as well as rehabilitation may reduce the need for future, more expensive, replacement. Furthermore, it will limit the economic disruption, inconvenience, and dangers to health and safety that a result when a capital item breaks down or must be replaced unexpectedly. The decision to invest operating funds in the upkeep of existing facilities must be based, in part, on the potential capital cost savings and possible consequences of deferring maintenance. Conversely, communities should also take into account future maintenance and repair requirements when designing or purchasing new capital items. Improved design and higher quality materials may significantly reduce future maintenance and repair costs. Complete information on the current condition of capital facilities is one key to making good capital improvement decisions. when a community must choose between maintenance, repair, replacement or abandonment of an existing facility, it needs to know the facility's current condition, the rate of its deterioration, and the costs and benefits to be obtained from various investment strategies. These considerations must then be compared with the need for a new capital facility. Identify Existing Capital Items. The first step in establishing a facility maintenance plan is to inventory the existing capital plant. Before a local government can begin to correct the deficiencies within existing facilities, it must identify the assets it owns. All too often, local governments have not taken the time to determine what they own, when it was acquired, its maintenance and repair history, and its current condition. This identification process will not only help determine if there has been a pattern of deferred maintenance, it will also help determine whether the existing capital plant has the capacity to meet future growth and demand. There are several easily available sources from which to obtain basis information on what the community owns. These include: List of buildings covered by insurance The fixed assets schedule contained in the annual audit report Engineering studies Departmental inventories Local or regional land use plans Transportation plans Housing plans Community facilities studies Determine Existing Condition: The next step in the process is to identify the condition of the capital facilities the community already owns. A large investment In the expansion of the city's water system when the existing system is in disrepair may create future health, safety, and financial burdens for the community. Perhaps a smaller investment in improving the existing system will have a more dramatic impact on improving water service in the community. 2 An inventory of the condition of existing equipment and facilities may Show that: A major piece of equipment must be replaced or added The water system is in need of urgent repair Existing roads must be resurfaced Bridges need structural improvements Treatment facilities can't meet current demands An inventory that lists capital items, year built or acquired, Improvements, condition, extent of use, and projected rebuilding or expansion•.can be developed by the community. In assessiA*g a capital facility's current condition, local officials should compare the age of the facility with its useful life. There-are established standards concerning the replacement of capital items that should be reviewed; however, they should not be the sole basis for a repair or replace decision. Don't forget to consider future growth projections to determine if the existing facility or equipment has the capacity to meet future demand. The level of past maintenance of the facility will be a major factor in determining its current condition. Review of maintenance records, reports on service interruptions, engineering surveys, and a visual inspection should be used to assess current conditions. This assessment may be supported by evidence of the type and cost of maintenance and repair that may be needed. For each item the inventory should include age, condition, estimate of the extent of usage, useful life (if appropriate), and a target for rehabilitation, expansion or replacement. After the inventory has been completed, reexamine the listing to insure that all existing capital facilities, improvements, and equipment are included and their condition accurately described. The completed analysis of existing facilities will provide documentation for decisions on specific capital improvement proposals. Equipment Replacement Schedule. Certain items, shown in the budget as capital outlays, may have a short term useful life or require relatively modest operating and maintenance expenditures. Office equipment, computers, various municipal vehicles and traffic signals, and so on, are examples of this type of capital expenditure. Some communities may wish to consider these outlays separately from larger, more complex capital projects. In this case, a list which identifies specific capital items in need of repair or replacement may be prepared. Facility Maintenance Strategy. Once the condition of the capital stock has been documented, a facility maintenance strategy should q be developed. The strategy may range from a "do nothing until it breaks" approach to sophisticated cost benefit analysis. Perhaps a middle ground approach will work best. The strategy should identify capital items and maintenance resources that.will be allocated to them. Because financial resources are limited, priorities must be established. In developing a maintenance strategy priority system, local officials may wish to identify the anticipated useful life of the item and decide what benefits may be derived from even a modest maintenance investment. If an item is nearing the end of its useful life, major maintenance and repair expenditures may not be warranted. Conversely, an early -on systematic maintenance program may reduce the need for more costly repair and extend the useful life of an item. Other factors to be considered include: the consequences if the item is not maintained or repaired; cost; opportunities for - linking maintenance and repair to other capital initiatives; and citizen pressure. When priorities have been established, funding in the capital and operating budgets must be determined. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN A capital improvement program (CIP) is a community's plan for long -range and short -range physical development. The CIP links the community's master plan and fiscal plan to physical developnent. It provides a mechanism for estimating capital requirements; scheduling all projects over a fixed period usually five or six years) with appropriate planning and implementation; budgeting high priority projects and developing a project revenue policy for proposed improvements; coordinating the activities of various departments in meeting. project schedules; monitoring and evaluating the progress of capital projects; and informing the public of projected capital improvements. In its most basic form, a CIP is no more than a schedule listing capital improvements, in order of priority, together with cost estimates and the proposed method of financing them. A capital improvement program is not static. Adoption of a CIP does not lock a local government in for the upcoming several years. Each year the CIP should be reviewed and updated to reflect changing community priorities, unexpected emergencies or events, unique opportunities, cost changes or alternate financing strategies. Is the CIP a wish list? This question is frequently posed. In the "good old days" when local government could count on an expanding tax base and the receipt of considerable grant dollars, perhaps a few wishes did come true. In fact, we may still be V paying for these wishes through operating and maintenance costs associated with these capital items. Today government does not have the fiscal flexibility it once had. A good CIP is not merely a list of desired projects -- it-is a schedule of needed projects including both realistic costs and financing elements. The capital improvement program-lists each proposed capital item to be undertaken, the year in which it -will be started, the amount to be expended in each year, and the proposed method of financing these expenditures. Based on these details, summaries of capital activities each year can be prepared as well as summaries of financial requirements, for instance, the amount of general obligation bonds to be issued, or the amount of general operating funds required. The capital improvements budget is the first year of the CIP as approved by the council or board. It appropriates money for projects included in the first year of the capital improvements program, and authorizes the necessary funding mechanisms to pay for these improvements. How is the CIP related to the annual operating budget? The relationship between the CIP and the annual budget depends largely upon the manner selected to implement the projects contained in the CIP. Often it is preferable to adopt the CIP before completing the annual budget, but this is not absolutely necessary. The capital improvement budget may be incorporated into the community's overall annual budget. As such, the capital improvement budget can generally be thought of as the link between the CIP and the annual budget and appropriations process used by the community. The CIP does not, by itself, raise money for capital projects. Almost always, capital projects require additional actions by the city council, public hearings, or citizen referendum before they can be formally initiated. For example, bond resolutions (if necessary) must be adopted, or taxes must be levied through the general fund of the annual budget. In most communities, it is perfectly legal to substitute capital projects that have never been adopted as part of a CIP, as long as other legal requirements are met; however, such a procedure defeats the purpose of capital improvement programming. How is the CIP process implemented? This process will not vary greatly from community to community. However, the level of detail can vary greatly, depending upon the community's size, organizational structure, fiscal condition, growth, and specific needs. Furthermore, there are no specific CIP rules cast in stones. Each community must decide, how to go about preparing Its program. Before getting started, remember that putti -ng together a CIP will require the combined efforts of lots of people in and perhaps 5 outside of the community. What you will learn this year can be used to improve the process next year. Be realistic. There are things that would be nice to have, and things you must have. Preparing and adopting a CIP will involve political choices. Careful analysis of community needs, well- documented project requests,-and a'sound fiscal policy will eliminate the less critical projects. Furthermore, even after careful analysis, there will be circumstances that are simply beyond your control. Funding uncertainties, grant restrictions, unforeseen emergencies, plans by other governmental units will have an effect on community decisions. In addition, think about the impact of a proposed project on the community's operating budget. A new community center is useless without .a maintenance staff person, heat, light and programs. New roads will require increased maintenance to keep the pavement in good repair. Any new or expanded capital project will leave the community with operating and maintenance costs long after the capital costs have been paid. WHY HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM? Increasingly, communities find their public facilities -- bridges,,roads, water, sewer, major pieces of equipment -- need major repair, replacement or expansion. Population growth and changing community needs may require new facilities. All this requires money. And planning. Many communities must make major financial investments to upgrade capital stock to meet present and future demands. Unfortunately, limited fiscal resources may preclude some from meeting not only their capital needs, but other needs as well. They are faced, therefore, with some tough choices: Do we rehabilitate existing facilities or face the prospect of serious disrepair? Do we construct new facilities or expand existing facilities to meet current or further growth needs? Should we shift financial resources from the provision of services to an investment in our capital inventory? There are no easy answers to these questions. Taxpayers may not want to provide additional revenues to pay for police or fire stations, schools, rescue vehicles, bridges, and streets. Federal funding is no longer as-available as in past years. Other financing options my have limited applicability. Therefore, local government must make optimal use of limited investment dollars. Building and maintaining infrastructures (roads, bridges, sewer, water and so on) require planning as well as money. All communities must consider how major financial commitments will fit within their future plans and goals. In communities 6 experiencing population decline, migration of businesses, and residential deterioration, there is pressure to make limited capital resources work more efficiently. Growing communities have more needs and wants than can be satisfied at once. The selection of one investment over another may shape the growth of the community. Public parks, buildings, streets, major pieces of equipment, and utility systems are significant public investments. They will cost every household in the community hundreds or thousands of dollars, not only for construction or purchase, but for operations and upkeep as well. How nuch this cost will be in the long run will be a direct result of the community's choices about what to build, where and when to build or buy, and how much to spend. Capital improvement programming is a way for a government to make the best possible choices. BENEFITS OF HAVING A CIP The benefits of a systematic approach to programming capital projects include: Focusing Attention on Community Goals, Needs, and Capabilities. Capital projects can be brouglit into line with community objectives, anticipated growth, and financial capabilities. Considered by itself, a new park may be a great idea and so may water improvements. But a project may look quite different when it is forced to compete directly with other projects for limited funds in the CIP process. Achievino Optimun Use of the Taxpayer's Dollar. Advance programming of public works on an orderly basis will help avoid costly mistakes. The program will guide local officials in making sound annual budget decisions. In addition, a listing of future construction projects may encourage the selection of needed land well in advance of actual construction, and thus permit acquisition at lower cost. Furthermore, the existence of a CIP may be looked upon favorably by investors in municipal bonds. This can save the community a considerable amount on interest costs (due to a favorable bond rating) if bond financing is used. Guiding Future Community Growth and Development. The road network and water and sewer system locations and capacities shape the growth of the community. Local officials can use the CIP effectively to provide.leadership in guiding future residential and economic development. Serving wider Community Interest. The CIP, once accepted, keeps the public informed about future construction plans of the community and helps reduce the pressures on-local officials to fund projects far down on the priority list. 7 Encouraging a-More Efficient Governmental Administration. Coordination of capital improvement programming by the departments of a municipality can reduce scheduling problems, conflicting and overlapping projects, and overemphasis.on any single.municipal function. Improving the Basis for Intra overnmental and Regional Cooperation. Capital improvement programming offers public officials of all governmental units (town, county or city, special district and regional agency, as well as public utilities) an opportunity to plan the location, timing, and financing of needed improvements in the interest of the community as a whole. Maintaining a Sound and Stable Financial Program. Having to make frequent or large unexpected expenditures can endanger the financial well -being of any community. Sharp changes in the tax structure and bonded indebtedness may be avoided when the projects to be constructed are planned in advance and spaced over a number of years. When there is ample time for planning, the most economical means of financing each project can be selected In advance. Furthermore, a CIP can help the community avoid commitments and debts that would Limit the initiation of more important projects at a later date. Repairing or Replacing Existing Facilities and Equipment. There has been considerable national attention given to the disrepair of our country's infrastructure. The CIP process requires local officials to focus attention on the existing condition of their streets, bridges, public buildings, equipment, and so on, before expanding the capital inventory. Enhancing opportunities for Participation in Federal or State Grant -In -aid Programs. There are federal and state programs that a municipality may draw upon for planning, constructing and financing capital improvements. The preparation of a capital program improves the municipality's chance of obtaining such aid. DEFINITION Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, a capital improvement program (CIP), is given the relatively narrow definition: Capital improvement program means an itemized program for a five -year prospective period and any amendments thereto, subject to at least biennial review, setting forth the schedule, timing and details o'f* specific contemplated capital improvement, financial sources, and the financial impact that the improvements will have on the local governmental unit or school district." This law, passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1976, went on to define specific content requirements for the CIPs that nearly all local units of government (cities,' towns, counties) and school districts were required to prepare. These content requirements greatly narrowed the scope of the CIP to only local 8 improvements for transportation, sewers, or parks and open space, because the focus-of the law was primarily the impact of local development on the regional systems for these three elements. Realistically, however,for a local CIP to be useful, local ' transportation, sewer or'park.improvements must be considered -in the context of other local CIP needs such as storm sewers, sidewalks, water systems, city administrative offices, or police and fire.equipment. This handbook describes how to go about preparing a CIP for all local facilities. The process of preparing a capital improvement program involves the following: Evaluating the level of service needed from public facilities. Identifying major public facilities needed to meet those service levels and to support existing and proposed development. Determining when these facilities should be provided. Determining how to pay for the facilities. Regularly reassessing these public facility decisions and making appropriate adjustments based on emerging needs and conditions. HOW TO IDENTIFY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS A "capital improvement item" has been generally defined as a major expenditure of public funds beyond maintenance and operating costs, for the acquisition and construction of a needed physical facility." There is no firm criterion for defining a capital improvement item. Generally, capital items have the following characteristics: Capital items have a relatively long, useful life. A commonly used measure of "long life" is six years or more. Capital items usually don't recur annually. Capital items have a minimum value of $10,000. Capital items result in fixed assets. Table 1 provides some examples of items that are commonly considered capital improvements, some that are n.ot, and some that vary from community to community. 9 I Table 1 EXAMPLES'OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Considered Not Considered Capital Sometimes Considered Capital Items Caoital Items Items Municipal buildings Fire /Police Stations Libraries Water Line Const. Feasibility Studies for Capital Items Major office /support systems Salaries Office supplies Overhead (heat, light, telephone) Annual Mainten. Expenses Long -term Maintenance Expenses such as painting, road paving (need does not recur annually) Road Construction* Parking Facilities* Sewer Line Construction* water Treatment Plant Const.* Park Acquisition and Dev.* Tnese items are required to be in a CIP by the Land Planning Act; the rest of the above capital items are not required to be included. 2. RICHFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS PURPOSE The Richfield Capital Improvement Program is a comprehensive list of major improvements necessary to meet the needs of the community over a six -year period. This list is prepared through a compilation of the project needs requested by the various city departments. The Capital Improvement Program sets forth the proposed scheduling and details of specific projects by year, estimated cost, and a justification or descriptions of each improvement. The Capital Improvement Program provides organized information to those responsible for making policy decisions - regarding expenditures for new facilities and provides information so that individual project requests can be better evaluated against community needs and the community's ability to pay. The specific objectives of Capital Improvement Programming are: I. To develop a realistic list of capital improvement needs which relates proposed projects to the city's capacity to finance such projects. 2. To minimize the financial impact of projects on the resident's ability to pay.. 10 3. To schedule various projects and improvements in a way which allows adequate time for detailed design and engineering of the projects, preparing environmental statements, grant applications, or exploring alternative methods of financing. 4. To provide coordination between city departments, various units of special and general local government, and public utilities. 5. To implement the community's Comprehensive Plan in an orderly fashion. 6. To keep the public involved and informed about needed public improvements, and to better enable the public to schedule private improvements. The Capital Improvement Program is adopted by resolution of the Council, but does not authorize spending and borrowing. It is merely a statement of City Council policy regarding physical development. The City Council must adopt the required transitory ordinances in order to implement the various projects contained In the CIP. The Capital Program is reviewed and revised annually. LEGAL FRAM-7-WORK City Charter Provisions: The Richfield City Charter (Chapter 7) requires that each department submit a six -year estimate of capital improvement needs, and capital expenditures for each of the six years. According to the City Charter, it is the City Manager's responsibility to include in the annual budget message a capital improvement budget outlining proposed capital expenditures for the year. The charter indicates that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to develop a capital improvement-program for the five fiscal years succeeding the budget year and submit it to the City Manager for inclusion in the budget message. State Legislation: State enabling legislation (M.S. 462.351 - 462.364 ) directs the Planning Commission to review proposed capital projects in relation to the adopted comprehensive plan. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (revenue sharing) requires municipalities to prepare high priority expenditure plans. Both the city's operating budget and this capital budget provide such priority setting opportunities. The Richfield Capital Improvement Plan has two components: The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) The process is set up as such that it will evolve into a comprehensive capital improvement program plan dealing with all the factors influencing the plan in a coherent manner. 11 A description follows of the process according to responsibility by the various groups involved in the CIP process. CITY COUNCIL The City Council as the elected local governing body, shall make the final decision on the CIP. The City Council shall determine a fiscal policy for the capital improvement program to ensure that the CIP conforms with prescribed fiscal policy. The City Council also approves the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). PLANNING COMMISSION As defined in the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes, the Planning - Commission is responsible for developing a CIP presentation to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall review analysis of the capital projects, prioritize them, and review the CIP for final recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission may choose to hold public hearings on the CIP. The Planning Commission shall also receive a status report each year from the Technical Support Committee regarding the implementation of the current and proposed plans and may choose to review past year activities for recommending any changes to the City Council. OTHER COMMISSIONS By the resolutions which created them, other boards and commissions of the city may also be advisory to the city council on matters relating to capital improvement projects. CITY MANAGER As the Chief Executive of the city, the City Manager shall provide input and make recommendations to the City Council on the -CIP. However, the City Manager cannot change the CIP recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Manager shall also incorporate the CIB in the budget proposal. TECHNICAL SUPPORT COMMITTEE The Technical Support Committee shall consist of the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, Community Development Director, Community Services Director, Public Safety Director and the Liquor Operations Director. The City Planner shall be the liaison between the TSC and the Planning Commission and shall coordinate the CIP between the-TCS and departments. The Technical Support Committee shall deal with: the financial aspects of the projects, projection and analysis; implementation of the plans; and shall prepare status reports of all projects for the City Manager. 12 ESTABLISHING CIP PRIORITIES Because Richfield will not usually have sufficient funding capacity to meet all its capital needs, priorities will have to be set. Priorities should relate to how each project meets the City Council goals and objectives, the city's infrastructure needs, service needs, and the guidelines of the comprehensive plan. The Technical Support Committee shall assign priority ranking based on need and funding sources. Based on priority, it may be placed in one of several categories. CATEGORY CRITERIA Immediate need Preservation of current level of service to the public Necessary within 3 years To correct deficiency in existing facility Future Improvement 4 -6 Desirable, but funding years flexible. Not immediately required to maintain level of services Future Improvement - Additional analysis and No timetable research required After all project requests have been submitted, the process of project review is undertaken. The Technical Support Committee and the City Planner will have to: (a) evaluate each project proposal according to the selection criteria; (b) meet with the appropriate departmental staff proposing the project; (c) obtain technical reviews; and (d) determine overall priorities, scheduling, and financing for the total package of capital projects. Early in the review process the Technical Support Committee should: Eliminate any project requests not eligible for inclusion in the capital program based on policy guidelines. Ensure the project submissions are complete and accurate. Where necessary, provide technical assistance to those submitting project requests. Identify funding opportunities. Review proposals in order to prevent overlapping projects and identify alternatives: To help determine the relative merit of each request, a list of questions (criteria) that can be used in evaluating and programming projects follows: 13 General Questions To Be Reviewed by the Technical Support Committee Relating to Overall Community Needs and Objectives I. what will happen if the project isn't undertaken at this time? 2. Is this project an appropriate means of providing the Intended service? Is there a better or more economical alternative such as contracting out for the service that the project supports? 3. What is the proposed project's net contribution to the achievement of current municipal, regional and state plans, policies and work programs? 4. What impact will the project have on the quantity or quality of service to be provided to the public? First priority is typically given those projects necessary to eliminate major hazards to human health and safety. 5. What is the project's contribution to an equitable distribution of benefits to our citizens? 6. How far into the future will the project continue to provide benefits? 7. Are there any special negative effects such as damage to the physical environment, overloading or duplication of existing facilities, nuisance effects, relocation of residents and businesses, decreasing the tax base, etc.? B. Is there an urgent need for the project? 9. Is the project mandated by the state, federal government or the courts? 10. What is the amount of time required for implementation, and the suitability for separating the project into different phases? 11. Are there any legal requirements involved, including clearances and permits from other levels of government? 12. Is the proposed implementation schedule feasible in terms of timing and phasing? Plannino Concerns 1. Are the projects scheduled in the proper order, so that costly mistakes are avoided? 2. Do individual projects conform with the priorities established in the comprehensive plan, CIP goals, and other relevant planning documents? 3. How will the taking of land effect city services, revenues, programs, etc.? 4. Is the project located in the right place? 5. Is the design of the project appropriate to the stated need? 6. What is the compatibility of the implementation schedule with other facilities and services planned? 14 Enoineerino Concerns 1. Have the costs of engineering and architectural plans been included? 2. Are the land and equipment costs accurate? 3. Do cost estimates include inventory and furnishings and equipment purchases? 4. Is land or right -of -way available when and where needed? 5. Is the engineering and architectural design satisfactory and appropriate for the stated need? 6. How reasonable are the cost estimates? Financial Concerns 1. What will be the long term operating and maintenance costs which a new facility will have to bear when it is constructed or acquired (facility maintenance costs and new or expanded program costs). Facility maintenance costs includes utility expenses such as heating, building maintenance such as cleaning, repairs and painting, and upkeep of grounds. 2. Is the requested improvement within the definition of what should be included In the CIP? 3. Do the proposed sources of financing conform with the community's fiscal policy? 4. Is the projected impact of the proposed improvement on current and future operating budgets accurate? 5. What is the total direct cost? Total direct cost includes all expenditures required for the purchase or construction of the project. 6. What is the net direct cost to the municipality? Net direct cost is the total direct cost minus any available non- municipal funds (grants, reimbursements, and credits). 7. Will these other financial resources actually be available? S. What is the impact on the property tax rate? To analyze a project's impact on the tax rate, consider the following: net direct cost to the municipality minus applicable non - property tax funds net effect on the operating budget, such as additional maintenance costs, or a change in departmental revenue net effect of changes in the property tax base the available alternatives for scheduling and financing. Careful scheduling and financing may permit a "smoothing out" of the tax rate impact. 9. What are the alternative sources of financing for the project? These include non - municipal funds (grants, reimbursements, credits), current departmental revenue, trust funds, earmarked reserve funds, and debt (short 15 term and long term). In deciding to bond for a project, the following guidelines should generally be considered: do not bond for minor recurring expenditures observe applicable local financial policies, such as those pertaining to the maximum debt service level desired . observe applicable state laws-regarding what can be bonded, bond terms, and debt limits. 10. what are the alternatives creating a special joint financing privatization Public Safety Concerns for providing the service? district 1. will the project affect the delivery of public safety services? increase fire protection /inspection services increase building inspectional services increase police patrol /manpower change emergency vehicle routes increase /decrease response time adequate accessibility for police /fire vehicles Risk Manaqement Concerns 1. Does the proposed capital improvement significantly reduce/ increase the city liability exposure? 2. Does the proposed.capital improvement contain features to be reviewed by a loss prevention engineer? safety /design 3. will the proposed capital improvement result in a reduction or increase in the city's insurannce premiums? 4. will the proposed capital improvement result in a change in the city's insurance coverages or limits? OPERATING DEPARTMENTS The operating departments will prepare a CIP plan for the respective department with a list of projects, the individual project costs and list capital improvement projects according to the order of ranking related to budget source. The operating departments are advised to. seek input on the plan from all affected citizens and citizen groups, boards and commissions. The departments will show the impact of the projects on the operating budget. Such projects must justify the need-for the services in a quantified manner whenever possible. Rationale for projects must consider factors such as: 16 Life expectancy of the project Regular maintenance Existing condition of the project if necessary Number of users (current and projected) Number of staff necessary to operate the project at current level of services Impact of the project -on the project did not materialize would be affected this year ated from the CIP plan what community community, e.g., if the this year, how many people or if the project is ell- min-will be the impact on the City operating departments should consider alternative sources and amounts of revenue.evailable for the project, in case prima.ry sources of revenue are not available or are decreased. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF The City Planner will review all relevant data to identify Planning Commission issues raised by their review and report back to the Technical Support Committee. The city planner will also act as a staff liaison to the capital Improvement planning process as necessary. August 8, 1989 TIME TABLE FOR PROCESE- I NG THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI1d' SO TA , 1991 CAPITAL BJDGi'T AND 1992 /1996 CAPITAL IMPFOVEKDqT PROGRAM, ate item May 30, 1989 Disa.Lssion by r-ity manager/department heads of Capital Budget /Capital I prvverent Program process and ule. July 27, 1989 Project description foam available to all departments /divisions in the <Ccuncil> aamputer dire+=ry. September 12, 1989 Introductory disaission of process at joint Planning Ctrwdssicn PC) /Ccmrnuu ty Services Advisory Commission ( CSC ) meeting. September 12, 1989 Continuing discussion, CSC members may propose new projects. September 12, 1989 Project descriptions due from ALL departments for ALL projects in the Proposed 1991 Capital 8 dget and Proposed 1992/1996 CLP. September 26, 1989 Summaries discLS by city manager and department heads. September 26, 1989 Continuingg discussion, PC members may propose rew projects. 17 C)ctober 10, 1989 Discuss "first draft" at joint PC /CSC meeting. October 24, 1.989 "Final draft" discussed by city nonager and department meads. October 24, 1989 If needed, joint meeting PC /CSC to discuss "first draft ". November 7, 1989 "Final draft" sumtiaxy /project descriptions distributed: PC /CSC. November 14, 1989 Joint meeting /potential action by PC/CSC- Novem ber 28, 1989 Potential action by PC if not taken at November 14 meeting. January 1, 1990 Final copy Capital Budget /CIP available for budget preparation. January 15, 1990 First reeding transitory ordinance for 1990 Chpital Budget. May /June, 1990 Revised 1990 Capital Budget project descriptiCnS and funding waxy part of ALL budget wtmittals to city manages. 3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT The Metropolitan Land Planning Act specified certain minimum requirements for a CIP. This portion of the handbook summarizes those requirements. Even though this handbook Is being published EP after most of the initial CIPs required by the law have been prepared, the law has defined a CIP as being "subject to at least biennial review.... ". The following reiteration of the law's requirements and the city council's review procedures is designed to help local units to conduct biennial reviews within the context of the law. WHAT THE LAW SAID ABOUT INITIAL LIPS The law required most local units to include a CIP in the implementation program of their comprehensive plan. The law stated: "Implementation Program. An implementation program shall describe public programs, fiscal devices and other specific actions to be undertaken in stated sequence -- to implement the comprehensive plan and ensure conformity with the metropolitan system plans. An implementation program shall-contain at least the following parts: a) A description of official controls... b) A capital improvements program for transportation, sewers, parks and open space facilities. c) A housing implementation program...." CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONTENT GUIDELINES A community's capital improvement program outlines implementation of the physical components of its comprehensive plan. The program balances the needs of the community with its financial ability to provide the services. The timing and financing of capital improvements, aggregated for all governments in the Region, are important considerations in the coordinated development of the Region. To review a community's comprehensive plan and to supplement fiscal data for certain policies in the Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF Policies.l and 11), the following items would be helpful if included in a capital improvement program: FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE COMMUNITY Revenue sources (current and five previous years) Expenditures (operating, maintenance and capital, current and five previous years) Indebtedness (by type and schedule, including debt service and overlapping debt) Market value of property (also assessed value by type) Proposed revenue sources.(projected five years) Proposed expenditures (projected five years) Projected property tax base (five years) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Capital costs by year and project Annual operating and maintenance costs by project Revenue sources for capital costs 19 ' In addition, the capital improvement program Should contain an official fiscal policy or set of policies that reflect the community's attitude on how capital projects should be financed. Finally,.projects in the capital improvement program should be related to community needs. Existing level of.service and projected demands, therefore, should be discussed somewhere in the comprehensive plan (in the CIP, if nowhere else). This discussion ideally, should include all improvements to facilities and services provided by the local unit of government. In most cases, this includes at least municipal buildings, fire and police stations, libraries, park acquisition and development, utility and waste treatment facilities, and road construction. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires only that improvements on roads, transit, sewers and parks be included, but all municipal improvements should be included so that a complete financial picture of the community is available. HOW MUCH DETAIL IS REQUIRED? In preparing the initial CIP, communities used their current best estimates of what projects should be included. The Metropolitan Council generally expected the first year of capital improvement programs to be fairly definite and specific, representing actual budget commitments. However, later years are less specific as proposed projects are subject to change The purpose of reviewing the CIP at least every two years, as required by law, is to deal with this problem of longer term lack of specificity and to provide flexibility to meet changing conditions. Specific capital improvement program requirements in the Land Planning Act and supplementary material in the Council's Plan Content Guidelines define information that should be included in a community's CIP. If the public facilities plan described road, sewer or park Improvements to be provided, a capital improvement program was required. Very few of the CIPs submitted with the plans contained enough detail to satisfy the requirements of the. law. HOW THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REVIEWED CIPs. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the Metropolitan Council reviews local comprehensive plans to determine: Conformity with the council's metropolitan system plans for airports, sewers, transportation and recreation open space. Compatibility with adjacent community plans and with the capital improvement programs of school districts serving the community. 20 Consistency with other council plans as contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide. Capital improvement programs are also reviewed by the council in the above three areas. In some cases, capital improvement programs contain proposed transportati.on, sewer,' or park and open space projects that did not conform to the existing or planned location, timing, capacity or conditions on the use of metropolitan airport, transportation, sewer, or recreation open space systems. In those cases, the council may require changes in the CIP (and very likely the land use plan and.public facilities plan providing the basis for the CIP) to conform to the affected metropolitan system plan. In requiring -e:,y changes, the council had to substantiate that the nonconformity has a substantial impact on or departure from the metropolitan system plans. Under the Land Planning Act, communities have to submit their comprehensive plans, including the capital improvement program, to adjacent communities and affected school districts for review and comment six months before sending them to the council for review. Any comments on the CIP coming out of this process were reflected in the council review of the CIP.' Any comments on incompatibility of the CIP with plans of adjacent communities or the CIPs.of affected school districts are advisory only. The law does not empower the council to require changes in CIPs that are not compatible with adjacent community plans or with the CIPs of affected school districts. The council also comments on the apparent consistency of the local CIP with the Land Planning Act definition of a CIP. Review comments focuses on whether the CIP provides revenue, expenditure, debt and market value information, and the projected capital and operation costs of proposed projects. This information is needed for 1) the council's ongoing Investment Framework research of the financial condition of the Metropolitan Area, and 2) future council reviews of the CIP's financial impact, related to state - imposed limits and potential costs to- other jurisdictions of local projects that may be reviewed by the council. Although communities are strongly encouraged to provide this information, the Land Planning Act does not empower the council to require that it be included with the capital improvement program. BIENNIAL REVIEW OF CIPS Since the Land Planning Act defined a CIP as being "subject to at least biennial review.... ", a local unit should reevaluate its CIP at least every two years. If change's to the CIP are found to be necessary and they concern local transportation, sewers or park facilities, then an updated CIP should be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for-review. The review criteria will remain the same as described above for the initial CIPs -- i.e., conformity ", "compatibility ", and "consistency ". 21 PROJECT SUMMARY FORM 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 19--_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1. Brief, descriptive name of project: 2. On a separate sheet, provide detail explaining the location, background, purpose and other information about the project. Attach map or drawing, if applicable. 3. Is the project a continuation of an existing project? What is the city project number? 4. Do other projects have any relationship to this project? If so, what is the relationship? S. In what year(s) and with what annual cost is the project proposed to be scheduled? CIB 19 i CIP 19 S CIP 19 CIP 19 $ CIP 19 CIP 19 $ 6. Based on the following estimates, the cost of this project for phase 11 or Year (as detailed in No. 2): Planning and Engineering: $ In -house - Contract - Acquisition of Property $ Construction /Installation $ In -house - Contract(s) Furnishings and Equipment $ Contract(s) Quotations(s) Construction Observation $ In -house Contract Miscellaneous Expenses $ Rent /Leases Advertisement Office Supplies Copying Postage Mileage Meetings Other (please specify) Contingency TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR PHASE , 19 $ Use additional sheets as necessary to provide a cost estimate, as outlined above, for each and every phase or year of the project. 22 7. Which, if any, operating budgets need to be adjusted annually as a result of this project completion: Estimate how much the operating budgets will be affected note reduced expenditures in parenthesis). First year personal services S First year other services 6 chgs. $ First year supplies $ First year debt services $ Additional capital outlay $ First year transfers $ First year other (i.e., depreciation) $ On a separate sheet of paper, provide a breakdown of any items noted above, i.e., description of additional personnel to be hired, supply /capital outlay items needed, etc.) 8. -What, if.any, will be the in -house labor /equipment "credit" for working on this project (noted in question 6 above)? 9. what, if any, is the first year estimated operating income; i.e., user fees, grants, etc., resulting from this project? 10. What is the proposed source(s) of funding for this project? User Fees $ Special Revenue /Revenue Sharing $ Bonds (circle those applicable) $ Gen. Obligation /Revenue Spec. Assessment Other (specify) Grants (circle those applicable) $ Federal (specify) State (specify) County (specify) Other (specify) Federal Aid Urban System $ Municipal State Aid i Tax Increment Financing $ Other (specify) TOTAL ESTIMATED FUNDING FOR PROJECT $ 11. Is this project in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which has been adopted by the Planning Commission? If so, indicate the page(s) of the plan that apply: 12. which department is responsible for the coordination of this project? Which division of that department is responsible? 23 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CAPITAL.PROJECT REQUEST 1. Self Explanatory 2. Give a detailed narrative explanation of the project to the extent that someone unfamiliar with Richfield would at least have a basic understanding of the proposed project. Among other things, indicate whether the project is to replace existing facilities, equipment or land or whether it is an addition which ma'y involve an increase in service delivery. Include, if possible, dimensions, overall characteristics, unusual conditions and any other pertinent information. Include reference to any studies, such as the infrastructure, or any other types of relevant information. In all cases, indicate the need for the project and what it is expected to accomplish. Reference to its relationship to overall CIP priorities and other projects proposed now and in the future as well as federal, state, regional, city or departmental policies, plans and programs. Discuss possible alternatives such as repair, leasing, delays, etc. 3. Self- explanatory 4. Using a separate sheet if necessary, describe expected relationship of this project to existing or planned facilities and services, both public and private, and summarize the probable impact of the project on the municipality and region. Explain how the project relates to other projects; i.e., storm sewer work in the ILN may impact a project at the Wood Lake Nature Center, exterior work for a project at -the ice arena or swimming pool should be coordinated with Legion Lake Park , or frontage /service roads may need to be coodinated with other traffic or business area improvements. 5. Self- explanatory 6. Enter the estimated capital costs for: a) planning and engineering - architects, design meetings, soil borings, surveys b) land purchase including right -of -way c) construction /installation, - labor, materials, bonds, etc. d) furnishings and equipment not included in (c); i.e. traffic signs and signals connected with project, furniture and equipment required to make a new building usable e) construction observation - on -site inspection, processing of payments, change orders, etc. f) miscellaneous costs of the-project which may not have been included above, i.e., cost of invitations to neighborhood meetings, use of city equipment, etc. g) contingency - typically for unexpected costs arising upon initiation of the construction /installation 24 As the project nears a Capital Budget year, estimated costs should become more refined and accurate. The more distant in time the project, the more likely it is to. have gross estimates of cost. All estimates should be made in current year dollars.' 7. Enter.the'annual estimated costs for first year operation and maintenance of the proposed facility. For example, salaries of additional workers, cost of heat and-light, road maintenance, mowing park lawns, and so on. Base estimate on current costs, without consideration for inflation factors. If the improvement may not reduce /increase the operating cost in the first year, but will have a long -range effect, note the annual or future anticipated reduction in the attached detail. B. Indicate here if you do any of the work and labor credits will be acknowledged in an operating budget, or if city owned equipment will be used on the project. 9. Indicate the effect of the project on municipal income (with a decrease shown in parenthesis) over the first year of the projects's life. This might be due to removal or addition of property on the tax rolls, a change in assessed valuation, a change in user fees"or rents collected, grants for operation or other effect. Substantial variations over the years should be noted and explained. 10. Self - explanatory 11. Self- explanatory 12. Self- explanatory 25 n MEMBERS RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992 7:00 PM CITY HALL, 6700 PORTLAND.AVENUE SOUTH EX- OFFICIO Greg Allers (chair) Bill Snyder Jim Clinite Bill Bullock /Ivan Ludeman Dave Delzer Dick Walker Elayne Gilhousen Royal Imbery Bob Lindgren Sue Sandahl Joe Sausen (vice- chair) Matt Stokes Liz Swanson Tom Ulmer A G E N D A COUNCIL CHAMBERS OTHERS Don Fondrick Gretchen Blank Mike Eastling Darrel Harman John Heddle Lil Hipp Randy Hughes Al Payne Sandy Rosenow Karen Shanberg Roger Spencer John Thom Frank White 1. 1993 Capital Budget and 1994/98 Capital Improvement Program Proposals (see attachments) - Discussion (with Planning Commission) . LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 2. Minutes of November 10, 1992 - Action. 3. Residential Stop Sign Policy - Discussion. 4. Revised 1992 /Proposed 1993 Operating Budgets - Discussion. 5. Other items, if any. 6. Next Meeting: January 12, 1993. 7. Adjournment. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPROPRIATION 1992 1992 1993 figoggt Revisko Budqe.t RECREATION AND SPA VLLOPMENTOPEN Park Improvements S - 300,000 R Jefferson Park 100,000 S 100,000 R 300,000 R 300,000 R Playfeatures 10,000 R 10,000 R Miniature Golf 400,000.0 325,000 U Golf Course Picnic /Rain Shelters 10,000 U 13,500 U 40,000 U Golf Course Fairway Irrigation 0,000 U 60,000 U 70,000 U Golf Course Well Pump 15,000 U 14,500 U Golf Course Chemical /Storage 50.150 U Total Recreation /Open Space S 885.000 S 823,000 S 460.150 RIGHT_OF -WAY IMPROVEMENTS I /L /N Improvements S 625,000 M 300,000 S 2,000,000 T 300,000 U L /H /N Graham Avenue 100,000 T Penn /I494 - 16th Street 549,000 B 636,000 B 901,000 C 1,499,000 C 550,000 M 599,000 F 11th Street Construction 6,253,500 G 391,000 M 1,172,500 S 2,000,000 U Total Right -of Way- Improvements 5,325,000 12,551,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Water Plant Filter Rehabilitation S 76,000 U S 70,000 U Water Plant Additions 125,000 U 3,000,000 U Well Generators Total Public Facilities 5 76.000 S 195.000 180.000 S 3,1 80,000 U TOTAL PROJECTS 56,286.000 51,018,000 516,191.150 ESTIMATED REVENUES BY SOURCE General Fund Balance (') 100,000 City of Bloomington (B) 549,000 636,000 Hennepin County (C) 901,000 1,499,000 Federal Aid Urban System (F) 599,000 i Federal Grand (G) 6,253,500 Municipal State Aid (M) 1,175,000 391,000 Special Revenue (R) 310,000 S 410,000 300,000 State Grant (S) 300,000 1,172,500 Tax Increment Financing (T) 2,100,000 User Fees (U) 651,000 60$,000 5,340,150 Total Estimated Revenues and Expenditures 56,286,000 1,018,000 165 ,191,150 Those projects supported by User Fees '(U) are also a part of the individual Enterprise Fund capital outlay. CFTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL BUDGET Col C7% N Cr. CC C CC = CG CC {Cl: rd, i cc oC oG oC CK = Cr Cl O pCm CD 0000000t CD fL I 0000000 O CI OOp!p N G C• O O O Co &n 0 I O N' H'! N ..r N r e In O 4 Co 1n 1A Co. O O Q O N m .••• n r r C-4 r ..+ r r r f- Qt CO' Co %p At Q• W v a 4W %n In O u+ in %o:ao• Co: ,.; N 1 C Co OO C p Ot O 0 Co O OO lc* C C kn O kn Co Co O` L m N O, O O. O O J d• Li A , W Cr v 0 0 Oa; r+ p 0 0 Cr P• O O l O O O O Ln 40 Lin g Law 6- en N O; O OD O N fr1. P! Pfd r L w toc Cr. C. W O O Co O• O O O• Cl: CD Or 4' O O O 000 O Q N e C) to to O %0 N d N Y7,f N Ln P. u O N/ p0 O 00aC O 000• C to 00 O 00 O. 000 A CA 00 O 00 O 000 cc 47% CC IV W; C; fn C; C O r 000 oQNfhe'7 Ifh a a Cr Z p Cl 0 0 O O O• a o Cl 0! o; oZ4) 0% C C W C+ si v ar OQ N t ... Go Co Co OOCPO 000000 OO 00000000 000'0 OOOO rO000Cl0CoCl00OO0000000CoOOOCoOOO.O J Q V• O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CL CD O O O O Lr C; C C; 1 Vn1nC+f D\'r Y'1Nr Cl; •rAM1 COO -C, Qt &n" CP,% I 000 ONfnM ul rr Nrrrrrrr- w-knOQ O m 69 O Co r+ to 61 CK V) .•+ N CD. Q C t Zp Co r p C p O W r L O- C O Q d E o a W C1 C t O + r Vf O 10 L L O ANN u - d f+4z d W id CD tSt a) \ V S L d A C O• O\ W uO, V' L 41 OI fF t ¢1 pC10 C J GO c. L Q C A h C C u O L #A s L L Q A N O 0 CCL O N d W A O.--r G? A 7 C O\ O N Nom[ V V C OCQOv'Ice d C OZ N r r a+ L L L L Q+ O Z' N fo L A A W A t6f O C L L L L L L O> i[ .+ W •- -r > A d O L O! L li + O! d d d d d S • L 7 d l 0 C L-r d O O L O C -b+f1r+ *•+ Cl, CT Q EN 6-19 N -+ Cr *J L C C C C C C O1 O C m V W C m u u W O L N y L A O d IV W W d d d d d C 2 Q ty Q O N A V L W= ti Z V d V O S O L O l' C C V N W W W O 7 O N G) 6) Go 30% L L m N {Y N C 7:- C id C N r+*+ 7 OrAV 9 O a 4. C OC] A O O dW WA CO0C ' J J0dN J d V C Ci V O V V Q A W Al.. Cl L J E L W -- w r A w i1 W L OE 7 6 w w o- L K. 1 Lwild4i W L++ E O1 V- C C zi r 06 L. A C d O EUIPEE E" O r• E E E EE O fLy g V A Cp W dl+> a' CTmp Z*CLO IC r m W DWWVWW6)VLo9 Cm Lo ONO1. -- Nei" rrRfrDr 00 0 N 0 ZI m r •r •.nrrrrrrN NN r++ Cf1Y OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL BUDGET 1 I I t r r r r r r r r it CI r r r L' - I ao O' 00 COO QOO;O 00000 QUO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,O. CV 00 LnOI^ 000' LnOOON'> O C; C AWnN Af"C:p Hr C O O O to UD f+f SDI M O% f"! M: V w .I Cl O+ 00 SOW C O Q O O O N kn P. LfY• N LA P. Ln T L f"! O CD CD N W f" N: O O SO O00000O. b-1 0 0 Lt O n O, M O LO O CY d ON Co O N WN P` LA N LH f: Ln, O O f" Ln CID M an CD f CON r+ N; W M N O L LD 0 0 0 0 O 000 Co m Co 0 0 0 O Cl 0 0. O el; C V AAN J I R W w Ln Ln Ln D N &n L&n rg N i N Ir; v p N Q c O O O 0O C O OLf1O 3c A ON 000 O. 000 O 4c ON CD N m mANCDWA aa Lri r Sri u o0 00o LZ,, O 0000 I0 W o: m co 00 000 000 to 0000 O o000 jO LZ,, 0 0 Cn M O+ O m 1+f O+ C Co 0 N CD Q N co qr Co %D n Lf'f P'f NI% ICD M1 + 1D N Z: J cz H N O Co O _. O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o O O 0 0 Co O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 u O 00 O O coo 0 LnoOOLn00 o4 u J O C; C LA C C;W;C O ft"m6NOLNO Q Co 00 A O LnfnA M. LD •CDOOmm Cp I` O Ln M f'f in a% A CO O W film. O Obi D A UN N r fh ILA M' w f•7 an u o h d • E u 0 COOa7LNZ: LaJ pp> y O Le) N G J A r o c ad : ht o u N fv Z: d c v A d w- wr d 4+ G O O w cc fo h L f+ G L kDor OC d c N0 m f+ N E \A•+ 0- r O+ a O+ c41 c C 1.-' Q to w W o u O r r V! 2 oc O d O Ch vNi iLn c E mc W I d O c L t>n + Li a s c9 . A • A 7 LL u L Q! d v r J O L L w Cr I w a fe G N to — 2 O c c v c t v .- LD v CU w+ •.+ L O C7, w G O d 0.6-6 d 10 10 c A PC d 1- n, E d L= f. VI .+ to OG d d d O 4.0 m VI cc.;c j CL li A a V/ C!C N L& LL. = VN 1- 0 J C;, f4 1;ur;to o o+o. O aU.03c4^1 -0 N N N N N N N f'"f vvvvr.rr CT' OF RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA ANNUAL BUDGET L' - I 4o. f Q C vobi m CO. L d Q di li 4/ r+; 31- 1 O+ Li G L& O L Li w o+ J a N u N O d f. fu 3 Ln cc crt V CCD d qrCh CT O ^ CY CL J r 7 C CL V J 6 r 00+ C7 o+ w+ O C' O fe — 41 I C 1] L 41 CL O fe 7 4x, C J • • H d 4.f 39 f0 r O CL CIC N C + 1f. 1i A O Li' •r . .. N^ L f0 d J a b d a J Z O .1• DC. I f0 Qf f0 47 f0 O 0 w a.f N C L, 4/ 1d. Q 1q u CL, WM C =1p1= L= cN EE J + N O_A1L ` 61.11 ^c is 3E 7-07 d L r - a.a V L A C.- u cno co F+ Lr+ W 4 O++CD L 40390- C C•r V Va+ Q 41r 7 IWdltaO. V V W t r r = i7 H N O r CC CtC'CL C N fo/ f ! tD A Z 0 CL cr IT' OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA n ac cc cc y N Cl CD m C5 I i Ch C O O C C O 00 C d dd 4 C70Co: N A O C* 0 Cft C C 0 V, fh fdfl hf'1 hf'f 4t f" NY N'. u . f— o « CCC b a c N NI N to O U- aa O L.e N N NE N' r r C 000 CT IJ QQ O N S' CZ 41 O W' 41 N N O L C _ O O O O Ci C O 0i O O QC10O F-; C AA V 40 A d I 0 d.... i0 CC L L + Ci V f 0 CCD 01 W_; oi r, JJ; c ffn X .r to 0-0 c • -.•..• . v .•. n a C NION 0) + W 04 LO C O HHP O > — C kni N W Z;: 0 O O CD O c b ltCDUl$ 4:0 ti .t m N I !?j f d..A ^.d O Co O O O Cl O O O O' O O O. 0 0 0 C O O O O 00D 00.0 000.0 o D•0, Gn%D0 - O DO%Nm I Q I I N'1 O O Ol Co O CD O O O Q Q Ln In 10 t X CL IX O O O O O O O O O-O. O O OiO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O p O CD Oo00 IO Cl 000,0 o000 O O C tD D' O O tD O to,: O tD C O O O -- O O — O ^ CD WD ^! tD O O u'J N7 O O in. &n* N N u•f O N Ni 1 O ) f+ O co Co O O Co C), 0, O O Cl Co Of O. Co O =-C), O O O O Co O Co: O• 0 0 00 C, CD1 00,0 0 0 N 0 C 0 00 oio 00000 0 C; C; C; 0000 aaU'"W C; 0 %D O o M I A.CK qr-;' O O Cl N ti CTS sf m CT fv to Ln NI O u'1 O ... tD, N co &n N tD tPN dri P.f Cl &h; CT 19 CD'ltf1 9" 1 u•1 w+ O C' O fe — 41 I C 1] L 41 CL O fe 7 4x, C J • • H d 4.f 39 f0 r O CL CIC N C + 1f. 1i A O Li' •r . .. N^ L f0 d J a b d a J Z O .1• DC. I f0 Qf f0 47 f0 O 0 w a.f N C L, 4/ 1d. Q 1q u CL, WM C =1p1= L= cN EE J + N O_A1L ` 61.11 ^c is 3E 7-07 d L r - a.a V L A C.- u cno co F+ Lr+ W 4 O++CD L 40390- C C•r V Va+ Q 41r 7 IWdltaO. V V W t r r = i7 H N O r CC CtC'CL C N fo/ f ! tD A Z 0 CL cr IT' OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA n C1 . y N IV Ch CC CCWCCddd441 aL1 1 bu . f— o « C CC b a c N NI NU- aa O L.e N N NmfL4A N' r r C 000 CT IJ QQ O NN C CZ 41 W' 41 N N O L C _ r :1 3 rrl CC E •' di W GG QF-; C AA V 40 A d INdd.... i0 CC L L + Ci V ff0 CT Cl) C CT I r, JJ; c f fn X .r to 0-0 c • -.•..• . v .•. n a C 16>; Z 0) + W 04 LO C O H HP O > — CC r W Z;: 0 s 0 I I, i I t lu lu lul fl 4A CL C V Ov V ar m y o ON aQ c L W. ry u > CC > C: 0 O Z3 V 0 IV 0+ J ~ Q CON i Li O N w ON cc LD O C d o d 'e W cc ON MW ON O D. W O a v d u Q H v0, o v r~ Q 0+ v+ CRY OF p0pp0000 N Cl O tn0000 a o+ OI 0-ft C ^P% m in N p D+ Ch 4=0 to UDI tv to N Mco C C C Q 0 C Pf 1C M awCVCwC.- C Q a N ANr O > •+ CQW p' Il O© oC.= L toi; E': N 07 o r+ L L V S. •.. d + o. u of 0) 0) 1w +-a L OC W C Z7 Z7 C C .- d A PC, d UD te ° CcM ' I iiNQltZ40.,&^ I CD r t, G1I N p CD P+.1 W fn pQ 00 00 00 00 00 A t lc VIP N M CD NN l:'1 40 9%; 0 0 00 0 0p O 00 00 00. 1 0 O co BCD AN fn co IN 0o QOOOa0 0 C) 0 0 00 00 0 0 O O O O Q O QM 000+000 NCD 00000U0 Q 0 0 Co Q O C O O O Q 0 O O O O O O Co Q Co Q O O, snQO00Q0C SUM CD NO ^MQQQLnNQ e: D0 .r ODQQMoC>gw OfH'f ACDLnQNO%Dev%D I N E a o+ N Mco C C C Q 0 C WNWI ALA awCVCwC.- C Q a N ANr O > •+ N Q C0 ) L oC.= L toi; E': AA aoow CAizr+ L L V S. •.. d + o. u of 0) 0) 1w +-a L OC W C Z7 Z7 C C .- d A PC, d UD An I iiNQltZ40.,&^ I Qd LA- v...rvwvvvvv v MINNESOTA ^ _p I mi o W oar, a 0 1 g 4.1 of C co o o' GA E a: f o Cl an vii u c0 P, m. 6n Ln w O M rr W La. m O O S O, Q p. d Co dV» C>< L C O O C M M 21. LI A oG u W d Cl O 0 d f%! W CD O CD O Lfij V L! M I M O a 66-, sc o cr IAJ 10 4D Co 4*1 Co H W C% O O O p CT O O O O O O coZuMin. N cc o A ocmo© Ic J a O Co D O p 0-+ C M M QEE+ O G 9:6 CC O O O O Q O 0 0 p 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A• O 00000000000 00 00000000 W V% d 0000000000 C? O0 OOOOOOd0 O IO pr pl O 00000000000 00 00000000 O O O 0P fin CtOLntoO•QNI+ C)%Ln 61$C%j Nat --+0 10 CL M O u' -- O M N r+ Q x W 1— 00 O Co 0000 W N: QO O O 0000 V 00 O O 000.0C CL JI O O Ln 1+ wo-+ & M d m Z: Y9 O O 1n. n.. F4- i r 926 w c" L41 Q 011.1 C N L O A 4.& u -r W 06 It L W A tT O\ o u; L CT L + •.0 W 4- t W= C Z7 C J a iC7% Q A h C A C C V O L N 3t L L Q A N C56! CL W r > O W W A O +- -r A 7 C CIC cn 3 X L OmV V C C1C4C NVli O W C O O O L L O1 r -- 41 t — Z. A r L A O Q L W A W 7 C L L L L L. L r O i Cl. L L i[ .0 M- 16 7 4W, — i CLI L -r C: A r C W W 64 r W W W W W W N S r yCL li —= J L = c ..0 *J r+ 4j4.0 00 r L A W 0,0 E 0 h N NO -P<41 1:. O c c c c c c CCRO CC1.t,C>G pt V) \! E U W.-0 L N 41 N L N L A A A W r d W W "Iwo, cr2 d V F--, Z, d Q O N A W L t+.*j W iC W C Z v Z 4J V V V V V V N 4a d W d W W V o x cc N CL L= O moo C* C C r 4c h N L h N W W!;:: 31 LL O a.OJCLP--rr A W— W W-C 3w 31-w 2b% 30% 3%3% L S. Lo L L.cr L r+ V W C4 W C .19 r- w V C r.+ f+ L r.+ a+ ++ V O 7 O C2,.CcrO.4 C: O w. N m ++ t v A 1= A O C O O O O J OC t UJ A C to W W N C VN 3%W) fL J J W U* C C C C C C — V V W V V Q CLICC L O t W- 4r r r A . W 4 i< L 7 a 7 a a J E U. Ld W E EO W C1, 1 ?ti C id L iL m id Ti U 7 _L E E E M. 4. A A A EO EEO 4. O C>C; W d a •A- 4C/ h A Q A' V O o G MGM Q O O Co.- O O~ u eLx401%.1- a4CLSd tics N M rt NZI N N CfTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA A -10 ANNUAL BUDGET w F1 U-11 CD o aP o gQ•a O o'o' go O g00000 00 00;0' 9Q0Qa Q pQobpo vs C' O O O a 0 N O N C 0 o nctc Cd'n O C ppNN. O O 4 00 ANN ttP1AM p AAMNtV fn 0 V O 0 O O Ot t0 t0 P1 tP M Vt 1D t0 MiM t. Y'1 1n W tb N m N M N N N on m M Ie N INS N, r: a Z 4a Z Ln co o 1cr O O; 4:0 C) 0 0 QQ b y a: b' rb' go o° 0 O C O,' 00 NpN O kn N O O O, C; 0 lVLtil+ N N U'IA Nn O O. O O M N W r+I m bn m 1+! a M M. W N Nq, es<i M N; O L' 4Z QZV/ w Y ro 00 p00 O' O 00 O; W-' A• C) QO pNOtpnCO16nOt109 W ch Ic'j, C 0I 1 N LL p 0; W !V N W en !V W t.d M M. r i 401M CC 0000 o aC= CO 40 000• go =o o C=d CO v, 10 ON oQO a000, b oob Q Ot 0== AAlVO t01 AAN !G CO r Z 0 0'0 MNW CO N fa fV N Lnn N M N M f1. N o CO 0 0o0 0' o0o 01 C N 000 op0 O 000 p„ W ro Ot 00.0. OOp O: 000 0 QON V CO CO Q f; . O ev CO tD t0 A W Ot 0% W MI. C M iM. A tV co A N W co w f c I1, 4 N` low* C O O CO* N v 0 Q O 0 0 CO 0 0 0' Q OO CO R>` d 00 C 0Q OOO CO, 0000 CO CC O; a0 000 CO 0000 O, O C; 0 CK N 'O UM a 0 D M + 01 ao fh C C 0 C QM M M OO NCDO t0, NWQO 0. r.+ N M ^ N M ..n t0 N r co W a0 O C 401b. O H' oQOao o QOa o coo oI 000aC000' O O CO OaN;N' CO CQO O 0tQ0 CO. OOCD 00000 u O N O M W 0 000 CO 0OO CO an0ooN00,= d N O O N,1+ O O O N OOti O 0 a N 0 NMA O M. N A M O N O N,O' to •WOaM,MN..O O NM rr M N' A AWO%0MN Q fp A N N en • M Lr M a CL O a ro • G u r v m d Z W -0+ O O Z IV$ L O+ 0 V W qS W L V L W. h p O+ m L Z O 67 do am- N O M* f "1 r C N C OC 40 ro >, C N O Ln O N O 0.I C C Ix C .0 O CC N U G V H Z ro ET 81 .0 Z d j Aj CC V ro N L y C 010 a y d C *j G 'C N C+ Op+N I N q N LCE O4i041 CD .r W 4c a L7 o - A W to Li CD C c V> d p C i d O i u w n d Li LiCO v fv L d rL+ p a C 1 4.0 •v P- *J O I- r - w Iv w •.• C& ro L qS oo N N W L d r Z C7 fd a d rod V L ro h C o ar+ dIC"D C w K aiP C C a a ++ a' A 4-P o n rL+ a p r. w H O O+ m 6 f5 d L L f OK 4n N Ls.)ZN O O t.7 V) O I- CC; GC J a L1. A O C?Otr3 M 4NtO A OOtO OI QLA. 0W& I.-O N N N N fn vvvvvvv C1TV OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1 ANNUAL BUDGET U-11 Ai Ch O d vh' N N d u o°, V d CO. d J W V P cc L, C7 C\ IL V YI CY% d CT Lai cr. c WI Ln. W qo CT N d. CT d x r; N, I c v C7% I a CD o CY, o = oc C>. Z W O V C6 QI Q H CL 4 V ao CT CT O N. Z0.= CD o n. o Ooo O Co O Cl 0 Q O N9 u b W WI d 1- C J d Q C L + V Z JI iv RI u of -• CrrY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA O O 0! CD., cc o o'. 0 O O Cp c. Siff0 Co Pf I OO Pf N I •' NI O O O 0000 O Cl O A A O W Al NI r ••••I O A .••: CT• Cl fQ" f a °o' C) pQp O° OOO 000 .10, Af CO O CIS W, co O O' Co O' O Oi A A r O O O' O• r QQ °o °o; oc QQ4= oQ QQ o o Qo1 0 o a' o o 0: J 00 Q. 0 f cc Q: A 0 0 0 0 0 Cr 0 0 Co, 0' O O Cl O O.O; O O O,O QOQQQQ a0O• j- Q, OOOC>^f+ l1Qf•fIC01 C 0Q Q &n A A CDC pul D 51, 41 Ahn" -knj. N C; W ,,1... CD o o oQ! V'J N'1 O o 0 o O o' Q •N: • - r+ N Q C T Ln mi T d m fill 0 C T - A T T • C V L "" 4C A r 0 W 06 L N C N.. -O6Or 39 %C col f N - A al l3 A d e d O L++N I S Z LCc.dN' cc T CC • V 'r go " 39 O V \V Vy1+Nr H- CD CQ CD AN i'1 C,- Ia 8 Q Q` O m O O OI A f•'f O D N CT 1A A O O OI O 0! CD., o O' o o'. 0 O O Cp c. Siff0 Co Pf I AMO H'1 IA Pf N I •' NI CD O Ol I 0000 O Cl Co Co O, O A A O W Al NI r ••••I O A .••: CT• QQ QQ` a °o' C) pQp O° OOO 000 .10, Af CO O CIS W, co Qo Qo 1oQ' 00 I O, C; e v - INW O O O' O• Q000' QQ °o °o; QQ4= oQ QQ o o Qo1 o a' o o uQ> o J Q. f cc Q: A 0 0 0 0 0 Cr 0 0 Co, 0' O O Cl O O.O; O O O,O QOQQQQ a0O• j- Q, OOOC>^f+ l1Qf•fIC01 C 0Q Q &n A W m ffs• a: pul D 51, 41 Ahn" -knj. N C; W ,,1... in I ; N w O C CD OI A N SRNCN Q0 HI C r W. E t7 L = G` . Q w 1 o Ar OCLw N C Ww4.d fu w n I• d r.r +v CY T aL,, wZU. a ue „r 6DHNQ OdCI[Q v vvv v 14 4 i 1 0 i O b t t N r v r+ ANNUAL O CID N0000 pOCo pO OI O O O, AbP MN9 pp N pm 6n p N p fV Ln an p pil o nc O m J W pOOO O Cp CD o^ O. Oo0Co &M O' ON N V; C O r M Ln o M CD a; cc 4LN. LA- O d n oo CD Ln o LL. Q% N LA A A N O M N W p M frf Lf V d p Co O O O' CX Lbi Cis P N N ev t M N r M b, co: V co N fh &M N I r. C fp u fl o 0 0 0 o O: 00 00 O 4D.{ Q N CN Ln O s O O! a Co CD A N n CD O ff NI a Q, a 00000 0 00 0' Q 00000000 0: O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O, G mM0000+00 oll a NCOhnOOQ OO M O O M ^ D &n 2 W Z WZo. N 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 O O o 000000000ao o; u n0000000Lno0 0 CL NOAMOOOO+NOqwl Q DO W wLnCILYOQ W p e'• O ON Ln AmLM OOOIDN an J Q H N a a N u E co a-. 4.0 c c O% N O co C C Q O C O W N •' L w+ A L GA rN' OC d C a d C ox GA C E W NI or oao) N Q O: a o..- LID u a OC R' A r r0 Mr A O m C k pC M CP r- 'D Z7 C C V 10 X W L7 O O d d 7 w m G4.1 m N L`I VECL4.L6scL NNNI —O C;, Z: QCLA- t93c O06CEV) O vvvvvvvvv.iry Y OF RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA v r+ ANNUAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson William Snyder; Commissioners: Robert Elliott, Timothy Erlander, Michael Gallagher, Daniel Linnihan, and Morris Nilsen H MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Edwardson, Thomas Scaglia, and David Sumnicht COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; Bill Weaver, City Planner; Shawn Drill, Zoning Administrator; and Diane Anastos, Associate Planner The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Snyder at 7:02 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Erlander, S/Elliott to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1992. Motion carried: 6 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 92- APUD -2, 6500 Woodlake Drive ITEM #1 Woodlake Point Condominiums Amend conditional use permit and final development plan to allow an entrance sign, and a balcony enclosure for #1104 Zoning Administrator Drill reviewed the staff report, stating that the request was to allow an identification sign at the entrance of Woodlake Point Condominiums, and a balcony enclosure for unit #1104. He stated that there was concern about the sign serving as an obstruction to traffic; however, the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the case and determined that because both Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1992 Page 2 curb cuts on 66th Street and Woodlake Drive are right -out only, the view would not be blocked. Mr. Drill stated that the sign would aid people in finding Woodlake Point. He noted that there is a curve in the road, and a 30 mph average speed, which makes it difficult to spot the building at either turn. He also noted that the cars in the parking lot can serve as a distraction. Mr. Drill stated that the sign would be monument style, with a red brick base to match the building. The sign itself is a total of seven feet high, double faced, with dark green background and white lettering; it will not be illuminated. The address will be located on the brick base. Mr. Drill stated that the request for the balcony enclosure stems from problems with water run -off from the roof, and pigeon droppings. He stated that unit # 1104 which is located on the top floor, has a short eave, causing run -off to splash on the rail and backsplash onto the balcony area. Mr. Drill also stated that owners been using brightly colored objects to frighten the pigeons away, whose droppings onto the balconies pose a health and safety hazard. Mr. Drill stated that the screening enclosure will be constructed of material that will match the existing window frames. It will be tightly knit to prevent snow sift, and mounted on the inside of the railing to continue the rhythm of the exterior facade. The screen cannot be opened, but would be removable. He also stated that the frame will be attached to the balcony floor, with drain holes to dispose of any water that becomes trapped. Staff recommended approval of the request to amend the conditional use permit and final development plan. Val Swanberg, President of the Woodlake Association, stated that the request to amend the conditional use permit is to enable them to obtain an identification sign. She stated that several members of the Association have friends who find it difficult to find Woodlake Point. She feels the sign would enhance the area, as well as serve as a visual aid for people in locating the building. Ms. Swanberg stated that the Association is also requesting a screening enclosure for unit 1104, and that John Curran could provide background information on that request. John Curran, 4833 Washburn Avenue, stated that his mother lives in unit #1104, at 6500 Woodlake Drive. He stated that the Woodlake Condominium Association has been extremely cooperative in trying to resolve the situation. Mr. Curran noted that snow and rain fall onto the railing and bounce back onto the balcony, creating ice buildup on the deck. He stated that the proposed aluminum enclosure can be rigidly attached at both ends, and on the sides, to avoid any danger. The screening itself can be secured to the enclosure with wrenches. Mr. Curran stated that several of the Association members have expressed interest in having an enclosure of this sort. He feels the proposal to allow screening in one unit would serve as a cost free, full size model to review in regard to the long term. He stated that if other Association members opted to enclose their balconies, the same materials would be used, to ensure consistency in aesthetics. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1992 Page 3 Responding to Commissioner Elliott's question, Mr. Curran responded that the railing comes out about two feet, and the screening will be on the inside. This will provide a continuous view of the railings when viewed from the front of the building. The screen will be attached from the roof, (which will be extended out four inches) to the floor area. Don Jarvis, resident of Woodlake Point, stated that he is in favor of the proposed amendments. He feels the sign and a screening is a good idea, but is concerned about the red tape one has to go through to obtain approval. He was informed by planning and zoning staff that the State requires planned unit developments to obtain approval prior to changes made in development plans, which he feels is not easily obtained. Mr. Jarvis also stated that he spoke with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the possibility of changing the zoning designation, but discovered that this would impose additional requirements. He would like to see the process made a little easier. Chairperson Snyder stated that the Planning Commission cannot rule on that. The proper channel would be through the Council. M/Gallagher, S/Elliott to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 6 -0 NI/Elliott, S /Gallagher to recommend approval to amend the conditional use permit and final development lan for Woodlake Point. Motion carried: 6 -0 NEW BUSINESS Information Letter #11, 300 West 78th Street ITEM #2 Old Lampert Lumber Site Determine compliance of property with the comprehensive plan Associate Planner Anastos reviewed the information letter, stating that the request is for the Planning Commission to find the purchase of the former Lampert Lumber site, at 300 West 78th Street, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the 77th Street project is affecting some of the City Garage functions; the relocation would be both more efficient and economical. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1992 Page 4 Ms. Anastos stated that the Comprehensive Plan Figure 13 designates this land suitable for Freeway Strip ", which would allow for a broad range of uses. She said the proposed use would be interim, causing minimal disruption to the adjacent auto dealership. She also stated that the site is available at a reasonable cost. Staff recommended approval of the resolution finding acquistion of the Lampert site in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Community Development Director Wallace stated that the City Council has approved a purchase agreement, subject to a finding by the Planning Commission that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wallace stated that if any environmental issues surface, holding the seller responsible for clean up and costs, they have the right to back out. He said that it is not known how long the City would retain title to the property, but a two -four year time period is possible, depending upon redevelopment potential. Mr. Wallace stated that he accompanied an environmental inspector on her tour of the site, and that no significant environmental concerns were raised. He said that some tiles were found which may contain some asphalt residue, to be dealt with. He also noted that there was some asbestos board found that will need to be shoveled out. Mr. Wallace stated that an underground oil tank was removed from the site in 1990, and no evidence of leakage was found. However, for purposes of City Garage use, an oil tank will have to be brought in, or else natural gas could be used for heating. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Mr. Wallace stated that the inspector saw no need to do significant soil testing, although there would be testing for purposes of the roadway. M/Erlander, S/Elliott to adopt the resolution that the acquisition of the Lampert Lumber site is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried: 6 -0 OLD BUSINESS None LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Linnihan reported that the School Board granted sanction to a competitive cheerleading squad, albeit with strict controls through the administration. He also stated that Community Education, geared towards assisting Richfield residents without a diploma Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1992 Page 5 in obtaining a GED, was discussed. Mr. Linnihan also reviewed the levy proposal for 1993, and informed Members that a video journal, "Process of Change ", dealing with outcome driven education, will be available in November. Community Services Advisory Commission: None. HRA: Community Development Director Wallace reported that the HRA Fix Up Street will take place on Saturday, September 26. City Council: Community Development Director Wallace reported that the Council approved the parking lot extension for Woodlake Plaza, and that a variance was granted on the fence height. Mr. Wallace updated Members on the status of several projects, including proposals for the old Country Club site, Best site, Lunds, and Hope's Chow Mein Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: Commissioner Nilsen reported that the Committee held a meeting on September 10, which representatives from the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT attended, to present their position on Light Rail versus HOV. Commissioner Gallagher also informed Members that the New Ford Town neighborhood group met with local politicians to discuss the buyout. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:52 p.m. Timot Erlander Planning Commission Secretary CITY Of R10HRELD PuinninG oommission infomoboo Item: #1 Agenda Section: New Business Information Letter: #12 Date: November 24, 1992 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: City purchase of property at 6636 Sheridan Avenue South. Type of Request: Consideration of a finding that the City's proposed acquisition and disposition of 6636 Sheridan Avenue South is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. References: Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes require that whenever any public agency acquires or sells property in the City, the planning commission must review the proposed acquisition or sale for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. BACKGROUND Zoning: R- residence Comp. Plan: Single family Proposed Use: Single family residential Public Notice: This action does not require a public hearing. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, which finds that the proposed single family use of the property is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Basis: Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this property should continue to be used for single family residential use. 2. This lot meets the minimum area and width requirement for the R- residence Zoning District. Alternative: Find that the acquisition and disposition of this property by the City is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. L- 6636SH.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMIVIISSION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the acquisition and disposition of property at 6636 Sheridan Avenue South, described as follows: Block 4, Lot 12, Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hills Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of the property for single family residential purposes would be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the acquisition and disposition for the above described property for single family residential use to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed this 24th day of November, 1992 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA William Snyder, Chairperson ATTEST: Timothy Erlander, Secretary