Loading...
02-01-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1999. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. UPDATE ON SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS IN PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY DIVISIONS STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 1 III. 7:45-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF MAJOR MAINTENANCE ITEMS FOR STREET AND PARK MAINTENANCE DIVISIONS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS DIVISION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 2 IV. 8:30-9:00 P.M. STORM WATER UTILITY STATUS REPORT STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 3 V. 9:00-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO.4 10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT • AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No ~ i Agenda February 1, 1999 Issue Statement: Update on self-directed work teams in Public Works utility divisions. Background: Members of the utility divisions will present information on the self-directed work teams that have been in place for over a year. The self-directed work teams were the result of the work of a task force that looked at how work was preformed in the divisions and what could be done to increase competitiveness and productivity. Recommended Motion: No action required.. This is an opportunity for the Council and public to hear about a relatively new method of providing service to the community. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Richfield's self-directed work team program has several advantages for service delivery. 2. The program is receiving some recognition throughout the local industry. Alternative Recommendation: None. This is a discussion item. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff members of the Public Works utilities divisions will be in attendance to discuss Richfield's self-directed work team program. Respectful) submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.2 Agenda February 1, 1999 Issue Statement: Discussion of major maintenance items for the Street and Park Maintenance Divisions, and the Government Buildings Division. Background: In 1995, Council approved afive-year accelerated street maintenance program. Staff would like to review the results of the program, which will come to an end in 2000, and discuss options for the next five years. In addition, staff would like to discuss implementation of similar programs for the Park Maintenance and Government Buildings Maintenance Divisions. Recommended Motion: Discuss the possibility of extending the current five-year street maintenance program for another five years;- and the possibility of setting up similar five-year programs for major maintenance items in the Park Maintenance and Government Buildings Divisions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Maintaining the infrastructure of the City of Richfield an important item. 2. National standards indicate that two to four percent of the estimated replacement cost of buildings should be spent on major maintenance items annually. Alternative Recommendation: None. This is a discussion item. Discussion/Decision Mode: No formal action will be taken at this time. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 3 Agenda February 1, 1999 Issue Statement: Storm water utility status report. Background: The storm water utility was formed in 1985 with the mission of controlling the flooding of property and routing the water out of the City in an environmentally responsible way. There are several projects that still need to be completed such as 69th Street and Penn Avenue drainage, 70th Street and Russell Avenue drainage and 73rd Street and First Avenue drainage. The estimated cost of the projects is between $1 and $1.5 million. Staff will have information on: • The present financial status of the storm water utility fund. • Pending projects and other demands on the funds. • Alternative funding mechanisms. Recommended Motion: There are several options that the Council may consider: 1. Delay projects until there is money in the fund to pay for them. 2. Sell bonds to pay for the construction projects. . 3. Fund from other sources of cash. 4. Cut the maintenance cost by paying for sweeping costs from another source. Basis of Recommendation: The negative cash balance makes it very difficult to continue the present construction schedule. The present schedule should be delayed until the fund has a positive cash balance and then a revenue bond of approximately $1.25 million could be sold to cover the cost of the projects. This would be in approximately the year 2002. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may choose to sell bonds at this time, but this would likely require a rate increase of approximately 25 percent. Another alternative would be to fund construction from another source of money. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Public Works Director will be available to discuss the status of the storm water utility fund. Respec I submitted, James ~: rosser City Man ger • JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 4 Agenda February 1, 1999 Issue Statement: Status of airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues including the following: • Proposed Runway 17/35 Richfield/MAC Agreement -The December 18, 1998 signing of the Richfield/MAC agreement [attachment A] has set in motion a series of new programs and initiatives. Noise Policy Committee -The first of these is the establishment of the Noise Policy Committee (NPC): This group with Representatives from Richfield (Mike Sandahl and Tom Harms), the MAC (John Himfe and Steve Kramer), Bloomington (Larry Lee, no alternate) and Minneapolis (representation is still to be determined) will have the responsibility. to "conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency aircraft noise." According to the agreement the NPC's work should be reported "within 100 days" of the agreement and should be convened within 20 days. As of January 27 1999 (40 days after the agreement) there had not been a time nor date established for the group's first meeting. According to the MAC's John Himle these- meetings will be open to the public. Tax Increment Finance (TIF Le islation -The second group formed, as a result of the agreement, is a group working on TIF legislation for this session of he legislature. This group has consisted of members from Richfield, Minneapolis, Bloomington, the MAC and the Met. Council. The focus of this group has been on how to establish the airport impact TIF district that the agreement calls for. To date this group has met several times and has committed to meeting every week until an agreement on legislative language has been determined. There have also been several joint meetings between the Richfield, Met Council, and the MAC's lobbyists with legislators on this issue. There are several different components under discussion by the TIF legislation [Attachment 8] group. The focus of the group, so far, has been that there would be a base level of criteria used to determine the total area involved in the TIF district, in Richfield this area would be east of Bloomington Ave to TH 77. According to Ehlers and Associates the cost of acquisition, relocation and demolition for this land is $143,604,252. The accompanying cost/benefit analysis of the different aspects of the proposed legislation can be found in [Attachment C]. The reaction among legislators has been mixed so far. Some legislators appear supportive and others saying that the City is either asking for too much or too little. Richfield Airport Strategy Group (RASG) - RASG is being reformed. The purpose of this group will be to serve as a focal point for the communication and dissemination of information on what is happening with the airport. The hope is that by coming together on a regular basis, the group will be able to concentrate the efforts of the community in appropriate and fruitful ways. Discussion topics for this group will be limited only to the effects of the airport on Richfield. Meetings: The group will meet on the first Wednesday of the month (starting on February 3) at 3 p.m. at Richfield City Hall. Council input and attendance are desirable for these meetings. • MASAC -The full MASAC body met on the evening of January 26 to elect a new chair. This election was marked by a decidedly united community group which subcaucused to unite behind one candidate. The new MASAC chair will be Mendota Heights Mayor Charles Mertensotto, who will serve a two year term. In other MASAC news, on January 12 the City sent a letter to then Chair Bob Johnson requesting that Richfield be given a permanent seat on the MASAC Operations Committee. This committee's responsibility's are to "to address, refine, and evaluate various operational procedures to abate aircraft noise." With the election now complete Chair Mertensotto will be able to act upon the City's request. Recommended Motion: Discuss current airport issues Basis of Recommendation: It is important for the Council to provide direction to -staff regarding airport concerns. Alternative Recommendation: Defer discussion to another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of February 1, 1999. Respec y submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci anager JDP:cak r Richfield•MAC Noise Mitigation Agreement • A. Environmental 1. MAC agrees to develop and implement an air quality monitoring and reporting plan in sa~ordanoe with the provisions of the EIS and through consultation with the MPCA. 2. MAC agrees to evaluate surface end groundwater flows and implement mitigation measures to ensue no off-airport impacts in accordance with the provisions of the EIS end through oonsuttation with the MPCA. 3. MAC agrees to integrate beans and landscaping, in oonsuftation with Richfield, with dsvelopmeM stong the west side of MSP aaport. 4. MAC agrees to develop lighting in the west side bw'Id'rng area in such a manner as to minimrze impacts on Richfield. 5. MAC accepts the findings of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (Exhibit A, 28 through 3~ adopted on November 18.1998 regarding low frequency noise. B. Mitioation 1. MAC agrees to expedite an update of the Part 150 Program in order to re-evaluate and revise the airport .DNL contours, including those impacting the dty of Richfield. 2. MAC agrees to flexible use, at Richfield's discretion and consistent with the revised Part 150 Program, of funds associated with proposed soundproofing within the DNL 60 in Richfield. 3. MAC agrees to pursue amending the Runway 4/22 Record of Dedsion (RODj to permit flexibility in the use of funds identified for mitigation of Runway 4/22 Runway Use System impacts in Richfield by Richfield at their discretion and subject to FAA. approval i ' at a po nt in time when MAC is assured that there v-n ll be no delays caused by Richfield in constructing the North/South Runway. 4. Richfield agrees to be responsible for the use of all Part 150 funds reallocated to the city by the MAC through the provisions of this agreement. 5. MAC and Richfield agree to jointly petition the FAA for a resolution that ensures Richfield will maintain ownership of the properties acquired through this mitigation process. The MAC does not intend or desire to retain ownership of properties in Richfield west of Trunk iiwy 77. 6. MAC agrees to immediately address the issue of low frequency noise and vibration. To this end, MAC agrees to expedite an evaluation of low frequency noise and aircraft noise induced vibration and mitigation. using the process described in Exhibit B (attached) within 100 days of the date of the agreement. 7. MAC agrees to incorporate the recommendations of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee or the mediation process (identified in Exhibit B) in MAC's Part 150 Program unless it determines that those recommendations are not prudent :end feasible. MAC's decision regarding implementation of the Policy Committee's re•~artimendations shall be deemed to be a final order of the Commission, subject to judicial review as provided by law. This paragraph is not intended to change the standard of review ordinarily applicable to orders of the Commission. E MAC agrees to vigorously pursue, advocate and support all prudent and feasible poss~b~l~t,es for funding of the low frequency noise implementation program as determined .n Item B7, including but not limited to state and federal legislation and FAA funding ~~ n, vse rat C. Commercial Redevelocment 1. MAC sprees, in consultation with Richfield, to assist in encouraging airport and other ~ businesses that must be relocated due to airport expansion to relocate to the Cedar Avenue redevelopment area 2 MAC and Rkhfisld. with the Metropordan Couna'I ~ the lead and hopefuthr in cogabontttion wflh the cities of Minnsapotis and 8loomrngton, spree to propose establishment of an Airport Impact Tax Increment Finance district (TIf7, quat'~ed by the uNqus characteristics of communities closest to large-scale airport operations, to the 1999 session of the Minnesota Legislature. 3. MAC and Richfield agree that a potential use of the funds described above could be used as seed money for the TIF, and MAC agrees to seek FAA approval for this proposal. . D. Transcortation Imcrov_ents 1. Metropolitan Council agrees to communicate Richfield's needs to MN/DOT in an effort to ensure that the redesign of the TH 77 inter+cttange with 66'" Street does not conflict with Richfield's redevelopment plans. The interchange construction should bs completed before the new cargo aroa and North/South Runway become operational. E. Recreational Assets 1. MAC and Richfield agree to enter into a lease agreement for MAC properties in the nortt N sst quadrant of the TH g2 and TH 77 interchange, and south of TH g2 adjacent to 28 Avenue. The lease would be guaranteed for an agreed-t~ number of years, after which the lease would be year to yearsubject to MAC. The agreement is subject to a review of community impacts and study as to whether baltfields, community gardens, an archery range and other facilities can be built in this location near the runway safety Zones. 2. MAC agrees to enter into along-term lease, or consider transfer of ownership, of Taft Park to Richfield. 3. MAC agrees to continue discussing options to redevelop the upper bluff area into an 16- hole golf course and recreation area with the Airport Recreation Coordinating Group. a. MAC agrees to pay Richfield 3460,000 for neighbofiood parks affected by the acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. Richfield may decide to accept this offer or proceed to condemnation. F. Sociallmoacts 1. MAC agrees to work with communities to develop a legislative proposal for state funding that addresses the community and social impacts related to the 1996 MSP airport expansion mandate by the Minnesota Legislature. This agreement is consistent with the 1996 Mit~gat, n C~ nmittee Report. 2. MAC agrees to assist affected communities to develop a legislative proposal for state .funding to address the loss of school and city revenues due to MSP airport expansion. N~i~liiUC Nair 16eiptia~ /1ows~ D~^!~r 19.1l9i ~~ ~ Good Faith 1. MAC agrees to use its best .efforts to secure approval of this agreement from the FAA and other decisionmakers with authority or an interest in these matters. 2 Richfield agrees to withdraw current objections to the project, inducting but not limited tD~ MPCA. Metropolitan Couna'I~ and the Minnesota te~rslature. Richfield further agrees not to pursue litigation or other measures in the fuhms that would delay or have the effect of delaying the North/5outh Runway or any other part of the MSP airport e~ansion plan in the ROD totaling 51.7 br~Gon. However. nothing prohibits either party from pursuing litigation to enforce the temu of this agreement 3. The provisions of the agreement are wbject to Federal law regarding revenue diversion. 4. MAC and Richfield commit to implement this agreement in a cooperative and collaborative manner. .. • • c.e..e~ n. is~s r+a ~ Richfield-MAC Noise Mitigation Record of Agreement Thin aspreement, made and entered into as of the dates indicated, by the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. and wifiessed by the Metropolitan Couna'I CITY OF RICHFIELD ~- ey- By . c~ ~ Approved as to form: ~s 9$ Date iZ/t~ R~ Date a D e METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Pierson M. Grieve Chair METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ey - Curt Johnson Chair t~ Lkc ~t~ Date Date ExHIBIra r~ RICHFIELD-MAC Noise Mitigation Record of Agreement MEQB Findings Low Freauancv Noise 28. The City of Richfield has expressed the concern that the EIS does not address the impacts of low frequency noise on the dty and its residents, particularly those residents on the east side of the dty nearest the airport and the proposed new north- south runway. The isws of the impact of noise which wiq be generated by aircraft on the ground during takesoffs and landings and mitigation measures to reduce ground noise impacts was identified during the scoping process and was recognized as an issue in the FEIS, and in responses to comments in the FEIS. 29. Low frequency noise is sound energy with frequencies less than about 100 to 200 tiz (cydes per second). Human hearing is less sensitive to low frequency sound than it is to higher frequency sound. Low frequency sound is the energy that can cause buildings to vibrate; it more readily penetrates through structures than does high frequency sound. 30. Aircraft operations generate sounds of low frequency as well as sounds throughout the frequency spectrum. The low frequency energy is radiated more strongly to the rear and side of the aircraft and can propagate over considerable distances without being reduced as much as is higher frequency sound energy. Airccraft on the runway during takeoffs and landings generate significantly more low frequency noise. or low rumbling sounds, than do aircraft in flight. Noise will be generated on the ground by aircraft using Runway 17-35, the north-south runway, particularly during acceleration for takeoff and while using reverse thrusters for deceleration on landing. 31. The sound energy of runway noise, particularly low frequency noise, causes vibration, rattling of windows, walls, floors, pictures, and other objects in buildings which are exposed to levels of low frequenry noise. 32. Higher frequency sounds that are most noticeable to human hearing are generally measured using what is called an A•weighted scale. Low frequency energy is not accurately reflected by the A•weighted scale. A C-weighted scale can more accurately measure these low frequency sounds. The FAA and MAC used the A-weighted scale in the FEIS to analyze noise impacts of the north-south runway. 33. There are no standards in either federal or state law for low frequency sounds. The lack of such standards does not mean that the EIS does not have to address the environmental impacts associated with low frequency noise. 34. Sufficient scientific data and information exist to analyze and desuibe the impact of low frequency noise, which will result from the operation of the north-south runway. Due to its product•~n of noise, i. , .ludir+g :~w frequency noise, the operation of the north-south runway has the potential i~i,r significant adverse effects on the people living in Richfield. 35. The City of Richfield has developed a mitigation plan for reduang the impacts of low frequency noise on city residents. The FAA has undertaken efforts to reduce low frequency noise impacts near Baltimore Washington International Airport D~o~brr 1?. V!t 36. The MEQ6 has no authority to require miti0ation of low frequency noise. 37. The MEQB rules recognize that an'EIS shag identify and briefly d'~swss any major .' differorues of opinion ooncemm~ si~nificar~t impacts of the proposed project on the s~rnrironment." Minn. Rules paR 4410.2300. item H. The record in this case d'~swsses at length the differences between MAC and the City of Richfield over the low frequency noise issue. Der 17.1!!s ~j~ ~~~ EXHIBIT B STUDY TO BE UNDERTAKEN ~~ 1. Not later than twenty (20) days following the date of this Agreement, MAC will establish a Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee to conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency a'rttxaft noise. 2. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee shag consist of the following members: Richfield Metropolitan Airports Commission Bloomington and Minneapolis, with members appointed by the body they rsprosent. Ths Federal Aviation Administration Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Council Mn~l provide technical assistance to the Policy Committee. 3. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee will be charged with the following tasks: a. Review all existing information pertaining to SFO, BOS, BWI and !AX and any other published studies of the audibility and impact of low frequency noise. not exGuding impacts outside of residential settings. b. Conduct such studies as, in the opinion of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, are necessary to address issues related to low frequency noise. c. Convene an Expert Panel consisting of Sanford Fidell, Andrew Harris, and a third member to be named by these two, to provide technical input and information to the Policy Committee for consideration. d. Present recommendations regarding the appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended mitigation programs, measures or techniques. e. Prepare a report or reports documenting the Policy Committee's deliberations and conclusions. The work of the panel shall be completed within 100 days from the date of this Agreement, unless a majority of the Policy Committee deem it necessary to extend the Ume period in order to complete the tasks outlined above. In the event the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee is u~+able to reach :=:eaningfut recommendation:, the ;ssues will be submitted to mediation, to be conducted by a certified mediator. D~e~~ 17.1!!i T --- pie s MAC Resource Commitments Environmental • Staff and design consultant time • Equipment costs • Staff and consultant time and servicas • Lobbying of FAA for spproval of mitigation program and mod'~fCation of Runway 422 Rec~r+d of Decision • Support of Low Froquency Noise Policy Committee • Funding for noise mitigatjon efforts • Reallocation of funding from Runway 422 to area west of Trunk Highway 77 Commercial Redevelopment • Resources at Legislature regarding TIF establishment • Staff resources with Richfield regarding encouraging Trunk Highway 77 development Transportation Improvements • Lobbying resources for t56"' Street Interchange and 77"' Street tunnel Recreational Assets • Use of MAC, property for recreational purposes • Payment for New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighbofiood parks • Staff resources relative to Fort Snelling Upper Bluff recreational development Social Impacts r- X • Assistance at Legislature for prc~~.:ram apF=.vva~ and implementation City of Richfield -Cedar Avenue Chart Guide • • Chart Number Dis la Chart 1 Cost to other taxing entities -no base value Chart 2 Cost to other taxing entities -housing base value only Chart 3 Total Public Costs (land acquisition) Chart 4 Costs to Acquire Land By Type Chart 5 Total Costs less land sale proceeds Chart 6A Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment. -Normal TIF District Chart 6B Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment -Normal TIF District: NO Fiscal Disparities Chart 7A Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment -20 year TIF District: housing base only Chart 7B Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment -20 year TIF District: housing base only -No Fiscal Disparities Chart 8A Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment -20 year phased TIF District: housing base only Chart 8B Total Costs less land sale proceeds and Captured Increment -20 year phased TIF District: housing base only -No Fiscal Disparities -Prepared by Ehlers & Associates- 01/20/99 City of Richfield -- Cedar Avenue Charts Page 1 • 1. COST OF BASE VALUE TO EACH TAXING ENTITY - NO BASE VALUE TAXING TAX RATE ANNUAL COST 25 YEAR 25 YEAR ENTITY OF TAXING TO TAXING FUTURE PRESENT ENITY ENITY VALUE VALUE j CITY 23.00% $552,000 $13,800,000 $7,029,997 (COUNTY 39.00% $936,000 $23,400,000 $11,920,243 I SCHOOL 60.00% $1,440,000 $36,000,000 $18,338,835 (OTHER 10.00% $240,000 $6,000,000 $3,056,472 TOTAL 132.00% $3,168,000 $79,200,000 $40,345,547 Assumes base of all property drops to zero in year one. Assumes 6.5% Present Value Rate. 2. COST OF BASE VALUE TO EACH TAXING ENTITY -HOUSING BASE VALUE ONLY TAXING TAX RATE ANNUAL COST 25 YEAR 25 YEAR I ENTITY OF TAXING TO TAXING FUTURE PRESENT ENITY ENITY VALUE VALUE CITY 23.00% $402,500 $10,062,500 $5,125,959 COUNTY 39.00% $682,500 $17,062,500 $8,691,844 SCHOOL 60.00% $1,050,000 $26,250,000 $13,372,067 (OTHER 10 00% $175 000 $4,375,000 $2,228,678 ~ G~~ TnTAI 132.00% $2.310,000 $57,750,000 $29,418,548 _; ~Cr~ \~\`d aJ'~ ` ~ ~ in ~'~ 3, TOTAL COST TO ACQUIRE LAND __ LAND COSTS LAND COSTS TOTAL ~ CATEGORIES PER SO. FT. LAND COSTS ~ LAND PER SO. FT. $10.00 $87,032,880 .DEMOLITION $4.00 $34,813,152 i RELOCATION $2.00 $17,406,576 ; OTHER $0.50 _ _ $4,351,644 TOTAL $16.50 $143,604,252 q, COST TO ACQUIRE BY LAND TYPE i, TYPES OF ACRES PER SO. FT. PER LAND COSTS COST PER LAND USE LAND USE LAND USE PER SO. FT. LAND USE COMM./OFFICE 85.00 3,702,600 $16.50 $61,092,900 .TOWN HOMES 85.00 3,702,600 $16.50 $61,092,900 I PARKS 24.30 1,058,508 $16.50 $17,465,382 I STREETS 0.00 0 $16.50 $0 (OTHER 5.50 239,580 $16.50 $3,953,070 I TOTAL 199.80 8,703,288.00 $16.50 $143,604,252 g, LAND SALE INCOME BY LAND TYPE _ _ TYPES OF _ SO. FT. OR UNITS PRICE PER TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT LAND USE ~ OF LAND SOLD SO. FT. OR UNITS _ OF LAND SOLD _ _ COVERED _ __ COMM./OFFICE _ ___ 3,702,600 $5.50 $20,364,300 (40,728,600) TOWN HOMES 800 $12,000.00 $9,600,000 (51,492,900) PARKS 0 $0.00 $0 (17,465,382) STREETS 0 $0.00 $0 0 'OTHER 0 _$0.00 $0 (3,953,070) TOTAL ___ 29,964,300 _ __ (113,639,952) __ Assumes base of commercial property drops to zero in year one. Assumes 6.5% Present Value Rate. ~ ~1 RI100- Prepared by Ehlers -Please review all assumptions. Ryan-SUMMARY-25.WK4 01/20/99 City of Richfield --Cedar Avenue Charts Page 2 • 6A. • gA, LAND SALE & TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- 25 YEAR PHASED TIF DISTRICT HOUSING BASE ONLY WITH FISCAL DISPARITIES TYPES.OF TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT LAND USE OF LAND SOLD TAX INCREMENT LAND & INCREMENT COVERED :COMM./OFFICE $20,364,300 $52,303,707 $72,668,007 $11,575,107 'TOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $5,305,418 $14,905,418 ($46,187,482) PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) STREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER $0 $0 _ $0 ___ __ ($3;953,070) ___ TOTAL __ $29,964,300 $57,609,125 _ $87,573,425__ _($56,030,827) gg, LAND SALE 8 TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- 25 YEAR PHASED TIF DISTRICT HOUSING BASE ONLY WITHOUT FISCAL DISPARITIES TYPES OF TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT LAND USE OF LAND SOLD TAX INCREMENT LAND & INCREMENT COVERED COMM./OFFICE . _ $20,364,300 $68,820,667 $89,184,967 $28,092,067 TOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $5,305,418 $14,905,418 ($46,187,482) PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) STREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER $0 . _ $0- -- --- - -_-_- $0 - - ($3.953,070) _-- ___ _ TOTAL __ ____ $29,964,300 $74,126,085 _ _ $104,090,385 __ __ ($39,513,867) 'cortesponding increase in metro-wide fiscal disparities burden $16,516,960 RI100- Prepared by Ehlers -Please review all assumptions. Ryan-SUMMARY-25.WK4 7A. LAND SALE & TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- l1W~AA1 TIF DISTRICT WITH FISCAL DISPARITIES gg, LAND SALE & TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- NORMALTIF DISTRICT WITHOUT FISCAL DISPARITIES TYPES OF TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT t LAND USE OF LAND SOLD TAX INCREMENT LAND & INCREMENT COVERED I COMM./OFFICE ' $20,364,300 $34,730,742 $55,095,042 ($5,997,858) ! . ;TOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $4,870,701 $14,470,701 ($46,622,199) ~ PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) it ~ISTREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 .OTHER $0 $0 $0 ($3,953,070) ''corresponding increase in metro-wide fiscal disparities burden $12,055,815 LAND SALE & TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- 25 YEAR TIF DISTRICT HOUSING BASE ONLY WITH FISCAL DISPARITIES TYPES OF TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT LAND USE OF LAND SOLD TAX INCREMENT LAND & INCREMENT COVERED ;COMM./OFFICE $20,364,300 $38,176,745 $58,541,045 ($2,551,855) j iTOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $4,870,701 $14,470,701 ($46,622,199) PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) 'STREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER- $0 _ $0 $0 _($3,953,070) ~ 7g, LAND SALE & TAX INCREMENT BY LAND TYPE- 25 YEAR TIF DISTRICT HOUS ING BASE ONLY WITHOUT FISCAL DISPARITIES TYPES OF TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME LAND COST NOT .'; LAND USE OF LAND SOLD TAX INCREMENT LAND & INCREMENT.. COVERED COMM./OFFICE - $20,364,300 $50,232,559 $70,596,859. $9,503,959 . 'TOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $4,870,701 $14,470,701 ($46,622,199) PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) STREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 i OTHER $0 $0 $0 _ ($3,953,070) ~ TOTAL $29,964,300 $55,103,260 $85,067,560 ($58,536,692) 'corresponding increase in metro-wide fiscal disparities burden $12,055,814 TOWN HOMES $9,600,000 $4,870,701 $14,470,701 ($46,622,199) PARKS $0 $0 $0 ($17,465,382) :STREETS $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER $0 $0 $0 ($3,953,070) TOTAL $29,964,300 $27,545,628 $57,509,928. ($86,094,324) r N rn ca 4. • C6 L 7 C Q ~U N L U O U •P O O N O ~_ • U O N r O LL O O~ O OOr r p U , ~ O Gs ~ ~ ~ 01 y k ~ C r r M r O r M N ~, 7 r t~ O r ~ 00 <O r ~' M r ~ CO 00 tD ~ ~ ~ (~ r OD ~ d' Cfl 00 ~+ O w Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ F R d~? 6R ER LL 'l7 O .~.. a. ~ iii iii ~ ~ c a~ c m -v o ~ g ' ~ •~ ~ ~ o a a o o o ~ miiC` ~ ~ miiU ~ n II y •L i-. ~~i C 0 ~ C ~' N + Oi ~ ~ U G i.r; p ~ y ~ ~i~ ~ ~ Q m ~ .Y C Q' .' L"w O pp f" • 'yr , U ~ ~ „ ~ ~,., a~ 3 ~ ~ E p Y •!I ~ c w ~ p~~ o .~ •Y ~ + ~ U i .,,,, ~; c0 O O ~' ffl EA N et N O ~ O fA r O at N CO O M 00 tf? O C7 00 CO M O 00 CO ~ Cs 00 ? 'C , ',+~' N "~! I cC v '~j • M M 00 ~_ M O ~ 00 O M tt~ 00 .~ ~ N' ~ q„ O ~ ~ O eF C7 L!') 00 Ln M ~ 07 r r r ~ M ~D r O N r l(') O M t0 7 .'-' a.' UO ~ O ~' ~ c~ 00 O O O O O r N M r `7 ti <"~ ~ L c a E-,: ' +-~ ~`~,, ~~ ~ Cp M cC O Net r f~ c0 00 t~ CU N I~ M O I~ O to N r CO M O y ;~ y ~ ~ O Q M EA E,R 6R t!~ E!? 6R r E!> Efl EA ~ O a ~I U C ~ fR ~ ~ . -p ~ C it ~ ~ ~ v ~ `~ w c ~ ~ ~ w v~ y c N c~ N s n b ~n ~ • 7 Q 7 Q " ~ N ~~ ' p O N N ~ OI - O (n UFO "a M ~ ~ 'a (A ~~ J O N ~'~ J v ~• ~ c J ~ ' ~ r-. ~ ` F U ~ ` ~"' N U ~ ` r N U~ L r ~". N U O N ~ N ~ O ~ .N ~ O ~ N ~ O 3 `~ m u C~ F- m tt_ C7 F- m tL C7 F- m ti C~ t- o :Y 'ti ,o ~ . '~ c 3 -° = ;~ v ~ c O y~ ~ O y w "'' ~ N i0 cVa s ~ Q m Q m e`'I ~ ~~^' `~ [ V W F,, Cfl O ~ ~ F CO z. Y Q c ca ~+ vi c E N N N .~ a~ cv a~ L W .~ .O m a n. O O r Q' r n • ~ M ~ 0 ~O O ~ ti t N t 0 N O t0 O 00 0 ~ 0 d; C to ~ ~ ! 0 d' 0 0 , N N ~ d' ~ ~ ~ EA EA r ~ tfl~ Ei~ 0 ~~ ^_ 0 1 O V 0 I O ~~ ~~ ~N Q ~- 0 V d V C as 'C J r L i c~ L -a 7 O V U as ~~ ~L Q d~ ~. ~ O ~ ~ d V ~ N ..- ca O '~ d i ~ ~ L ~ v N 'a 7 O ~ V ~ .~' s CU a t d ~ ~ ~ N ~~ i ~ c 3 ~~ •ir ~L }r L ~ V ~ ~ O C ~ O ~ ~1~+ ~ ~ d a~ M C O t~ C ~° 0 N O d i d c~ C =+ .Q c~ M C .a i as m a~ r.. L V c~ O Q ~t Q a~ t 0 L N is Q d M C a+ v N ~a ~L Q. N .a c~ V 0 Z ;r•; d c~ C N c ~L Q. is V 0 Z ti a~ 0 V L d N ca Z O d' O CC N O t0 M 00 r N 0 N V O L ~~ 1- r • • council 1 /29/99 Date Address General Issue Specific Issue Raised 12/1/98 6901 18th Ave General. Wants to know what's going on Update 12/2/98 Student at St. Thomas Other How many homes have been taken out due to airport expansion. Writing a paper on this. 12/2/98 832 25th Ave SE, Mpls, General Looking for information MN 55414 Update 12/2/98 resident Agreement Read the letter to the editor -"Can't believe how they're jerking us around." 12/3/98 resident Other Concerns about NWA's monopoly, no competition. Writing letter to the governor on 12/4/98 1505 East 62nd General questions about LFN is she in the area that is Update going to be affected. 12/7/98 7421 & 17th Housing Issue Are we will proposing to buy homes out in the area if the runway is completed? If so when? 12/10/98 69 & 18th Agreement Wants to know more about the agreement, commented that a decision has already been 12/11/98 6401 11th Avenue Part 150 complaint about sound insulation program, in particular about workers and how long the 12/12/98 resident General Wanted to know what was up with the Update Pioneer Press article 1 2/1 6/98 6533 Sheriadan General Looking for an information Update 12/16/98 7243 18th Ave S. Construction Has there been a change in flight operations, similar to what will happen in April. 12/16/98 67 Washburn Noise Aircraft noise late at night, 1:30 - 2:30 a.m. Complaint 12/16/98 resident Issue with Wants counciF to file a large lawsuit. Council 12/16/98 St. Thomas Student General Looking for information - is a student working Update on a journalism project. 12/17/98 17 8~ 67th Housing Issue Should he sell his home? Mad that he doesn't know anymore now then he did 12/18/98 resident Noise Wondering if MAC was going to give her the Complaint $116,000 she paid for her house in June, 12/22/98 resident Agreement Concern over the new agreement, when do people start moving? 12/23/98 resident General Re: Airport Noise Update 12/23/98 73rd & 15th by Wilson Agreement What does the agreement mean? Pond 12/28/98 68 & 16th Agreement Caller's mother lives in Richfield and she is wondering what has been going on and if her 12/28/98 74th & 16th Agreement Is she in the buyout -wants to be bought out -unhappy with the City, Schools, trash, 12/28/98 6824 Russell Noise Wondering if he was in any of the effected Complaint areas for the direct over flight noise? 12/30/98 17th & 76th General Wondering what was going to happen to the Update East Side of Richfield. 12/30/98 63rd & Girard Noise Will be moving because of the increase in Complaint noise. What is the City going to do for the Page 1 T~Cc D1 ~. CJ i'`~ ~ ~ a/l ~ ~j.G' C. council ~7 1 /26/99 • Date Address General Issue Specific Issue Raised 1/5/99 6837 & 14th Agreement Question. about if the agreement meant that she would begetting new istallation in her 1/5/99 7439 & 11th General Questions about the North/South Runway, is Update he in the effected area? 1/6/99 6415 18th Ave S. Housing Issue Wondering what will happen to her home? 1/6/99 367 Maple Island Rd, other Own a building on 66th & Bloomington and Burnsville. are wondering what is going to happen? 1/11/99 Washington Ave. & 67th Housing Issue Will the MAC. be doing anything in her area? 1/13/99 7512 & 12th -Edina Housing Issue Question about what's going to happen to the Reality house. 1/14/99 attorney involved in a Agreement Attorney involved in a divorce case involving divorce case. a home in the possible redevelopment area. 1/19/99 resident other Didn't like the last answer on Your City Q&A, then proceeded to say that we're all being 1/19/99 Looking for homes in the General How far west is the runway going to be? area. Update When will it be constructed? 1/21/99 69th & Stevens General What is the impact of the new runway? Update 1/22/99 6232 5th ave General Wondering what has been happeing -getting Update a lot of noise when planes fly down the 1/25/99 Realtor Housing Issue Selling a home in the possible redevelopment area -and this is listed in it's disclosure. 1/26/99 7314 -17th Housing Issue What's going to happen to his home?