10-5-92 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL 8TUDY SESSION
MorrosY, ocsosER s, s99a
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
• I. 7:00-7:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF KENNEL LICENSES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 35
II. 7:15-7:20 P.M. DISCUSSION OF REFUNDING GENERAL OBLIGATION
STORM SEWER REVENUB BONDS OF 1986
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 36 -
III. 7:20-8:00 P.M. POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 37
IV. 8:00-9:00 P.M. REVIEW OF 1992 REVISED/1993 PROPOSED
BUDGET
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 38
9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AURILI7~RY llZDS FOR INDIVIDUllLB WITH DIS7~BILITZEB ]1RE AV7IILAHLE
UPON REQUE$?. REQUESTS MUST HE MADE l~lT LEAST 96 HOURS IN
ADVANCE TO THE 1~1DMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR aT 861-970x.
CITY OF RICHFIELD,, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 38
Agenda October 5, 1992
Issue Statement:
Review of the 1992 Revised/1993 Proposed Budget.
Background•
The City Council has requested a Study Session be conducted to
review the 1992 Revised/1993 Proposed Budget. Questions
previously raised by Council Members include:
• Analysis of personnel cost increases.
• Legislative/Mayor-Council dues and subscriptions.
Council Members have contacted and met with staff individually
for a detailed explanation of the personnel issue. Basically,
the personnel cost increases are derived from three components:
salary schedule adjustments as required by contract-and
competitive adjustments for non-represented unit; progression
through salary ranges; and state mandated comparable worth
adjustments. These factors will be more fully explained at the
Study Session.
The copy of the Legislative/Mayor-Council dues and subscriptions
line item is attached.
No other budget questions have been presented to staff for
analysis prior to the budget Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
Review the budget with City Council.
Basis for Recommendation:
Council request.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session
on October 5, 1992..
Respectf lly submitted,
Ja a Prosser
Ci anager
JDP:ds
Attachment
Listed below is the breakdown for Line Item 1220, Subscription &
Membership, for the Legislative/Mayor-Council budget.
1992 Revised
League of Minnesota Cities $13,300
Assoc. of Metro Municipalities 7,000
National League of Cities 2,120
Miscellaneous: Citizens League,
LMC Directories, Mayor Assoc., etc. 500
Total $23,560
Budgeted $24,000
Non-Designated Expenses $ 1,080*
1993 Proposed
League of Minnesota Cities $13,300
Assoc. of Metro Municipalities 7,280
National League of Cities 2,220
Miscellaneous: Citizens League,
LMC Directories, Mayor Assoc., etc. 500
Total $23,940
Budgeted $24,400
Non-Designated Expenses $ 1,110*
*This is used to cover unanticipated Mayor-Council expenses.
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No. 37
Agenda October 5, 1992
Issue Statement•
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding the airport include the following:
• New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition
Ralph White and Bill Schock, MAC consultants, are preparing the
preapplication forms and supporting documentation that will be
submitted to the FAA for funding the buyout of the New Ford Town
and Rich Acres neighborhoods. HNTB is preparing an Environmental
Assessment (EA) which is required under FAA guidelines to
determine whether or not a full environmental impact study is
needed. The EA will also be submitted to the FAA. The MAC
consultants will assist HNTB in preparing the EA by providing an
analysis of social impacts related to relocation and replacement
housing.
The MAC consultants completed the cost estimate to purchase-
properties in New Ford Town and Rich Acres. The property cost
estimates are based on a computer printout of the City's assessed
property market values compared to a field survey conducted by
the consultants to verify the values.
The consultants are conducting an analysis of available
replacement housing for residential and rental units. The data
for the analysis came from MLS, local newspapers and apartment
guides. The results of the analysis indicates that the
replacement housing supply in the metropolitan area is adequate.
The consultants will continue to conduct ongoing research on
other projects in the Twin Cities area that may compete for
available supply over the next three to four years. In terms of
site clearance evaluation, the consultants are developing a plan
in cooperation with City staff for the demolition, disposal of
debris, and source of fill material.
HNTB, Ralph White and Bill Schock began preparation of the draft
text for the EA and FAA application forms. At this time, the
draft text includes: data obtained by the consultants regarding
demolition/clearance and land restoration specifications;
relocation process; and, a response to the concerns raised by the
Department of Natural Resources regarding project impacts on area
wetlands, abandoned wells, and cultural resources. The response
to the DNR concerns will include the appropriate mitigation
measures to alleviate. the negative impacts. HNTB also received
comment letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota Historical
Society regarding the project which will be included in the EA.
Richfield staff and consultants will meet with MAC staff and
consultants on October 15 to review the project status and
completion of the EA.
• MAC Part 150 Program
Twenty-eight Richfield homes are eligible for soundproofing
projects in 1992. The construction projects have been delayed
least three months due to contractors'-bids coming in far over
budget. The MAC anticipated the bids in the range of $15,000
$20,000. In actuality,, the MAC received bids. from the
contractors that ranged from $27,000 to $47,000. As a result,
the MAC, together with the Center for Energy and Urban
Environment (CEDE) and the Policy Advisory Committee, reviewed
the Part 150 policies and made changes in the bidding and
at
to
construction procedures that would lower the costs while staying
within the Part 150 Program standards.
On August 6, representatives from MAC and CEDE held an
information meeting with Richfield homeowners to discuss the
construction delays and program changes. CEUE informed the City
that all Richfield homeowners eligible for soundproofing projects
in 1992 signed revised contracts for the actual work-agreements
and avigation releases.
Under the revised Part 150 Program timetable, MAC will open bids
on October 15 which are due back on November 21. They hope to
award the contract on December 21. Construction will then begin
on January 11, 1993 and run through June 1993..
• Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22
On July 1, 1992, City staff submitted comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of Runway 4-22 prepared by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. -The City's comments
stated opposition to virtually every section of the Draft EIS --
from the statement of purpose and need, to the project
description, to the analysis of impacts and alternatives. The
City's response concludes that if the MAC is determined to
proceed with the project, the Draft EIS must be revised to
address the deficiencies outlined and then recirculated for
public comment.
Richfield staff met with representatives from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in Chicago on August 21. The purpose of
the meeting was to discuss the comments submitted by the City and
to seek the EPA's assistance in making the NEPA process work.
City officials stressed the need for airport officials to
understand the realities of the Richfield residential area to
provide planning that respected the community's current uses.
The EPA officials were also briefed on the City's concerns over
operations issues as well as safety issues.
The EPA suggested the following plan of action:
• Encourage Richfield to meet with the FAA. The EPA will assist
in arranging a future meeting.
• Milo Anderson, EPA environmental engineer, will review the
draft EIS one more time.
• The EPA will advise their Washington office of concerns related
to operational issues as addressed in the draft EIS.
In response to a letter from the City requesting a meeting with
the FAA, Frank Benson, FAA Manager at the Minneapolis Office,
called the City on September 10 to discuss our concerns regarding
the runway 4-22 draft EIS comments. Mr. Benson stated that the
FAA has not yet begun to address the City's comments. The FAA
has not set the review of the comments as a priority in their
work schedule because the runway extension project is not in the
airport's current construction cycle. Since the FAA hasn't
reviewed the comments, Mr. Benson did not believe it was
appropriate for the City to meet with the FAA. The City
responded that it would be useful to meet so that we could more
fully explain the questions raised to ensure the. analysis
conducted by the FAA is complete. Mr. Benson stated that the FAA
was familiar with our concerns and a meeting was not necessary.
On September 15, Bob Collette, Richfield's airport consultant,
spoke to Glenn Orcutt, FAA Area District Office, on the
telephone. Mr. Orcutt stated that the FAA is required to respond
to Richfield's comments but they have not addressed them yet.
The FAA may integrate their response to Richfield's comments into
the EIS and revise it accordingly or, they may draft an appendix
similar to the one in the EA and respond to it in detail. Mr.
Orcutt also stated that it was unlikely that the FAA will meet
with Richfield to discuss the comments and clarify the issues.
He said the FAA has the City's. comments and they are considering
what form the FAA response will take when one is developed.
• MSP Symposia
Richfield-and Bloomington staff and the Chamber of Commerce
representatives met with Sonia Cairns from Marecek, Cairns &
Yelsey, Inc. on September 14. Funding has been secured by both .
cities to cover the consultant firm's professional services fee
to develop and implement a fund-raising strategy for the
symposia. Representatives from the Bloomington and Richfield
Chambers of Commerce will work with the consultants to identify
and stimulate interest from the business sector to fund the
symposia.
• Decision Document for the Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy
The City will submit comments to the MAC and Met Council
regarding the draft Decision Document for the Dual-Track Major
Airport Strategy. The MAC and Met Council held two public
hearings in September to receive comments on the draft report
which suggests an outline for a joint final airport planning and
development report that will be submitted to the Minnesota
Legislature on the dual-track major airport planning process in
1995 or 1996. The Decision Document will recommend a long-term
aviation strategy for the Twin Cities, and lay out the key data.,
analysis and reasons for the recommendations. The hearing record
will remain open until October 7, 1992. Attached are copies of
the draft Decision Document and the comments prepared by City
staff .
• Northwest Airlines Announcement to Exceed Voluntary Noise
Limits at MSP Airport
On September 8, Northwest Airlines announced that it will no,
longer abide by voluntary noise limits at MSP Airport. Northwest
officials stated the action is for competitive reasons and
increased passenger demand. The airline will add 13 flights (26
landings and takeoffs per day) to their current schedule of 281
flights per day. Many of the .additional. flights will be made by
older, louder aircraft and will continue over the next 18 months.
Because of Northwest's plans to increase airport operations, the
noise levels around the airport will exceed the MAC. limits for
the first time since their inception in 1987. The MAC took no
action following the announcement, preferring to wait until
October when actual noise levels for September would be
available.
In response to Northwest Airline's announcement, Council Member
and MASAC representative Kristal Stokes sent a letter on
September 16 to John Dasburg, President and CEO of Northwest
Airlines, Hugh Schilling, Chair of MAC, and Scott Bunin, Chair of
MASAC stating that "we are deeply disturbed by the recent
announcement that [the airline] will no longer comply with the
voluntary noise limits."
Although the airline must maintain competitive operations to
remain economically viable, Northwest "must balance its business
plans with the impact of increasing the use of noisier airplanes
on residents living in communities surrounding the airport."
Stokes recommended alternatives including purchase of quieter
planes and modifying schedules to reduce the volume of planes
using runways that impact residential areas. MAC and Northwest
must compromise and make a decision which balances the economic
needs with the health and welfare of residents living near the
airport.
• Noise Mitigation Funding Legislation
During the 1992 session, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law
requiring the MAC to dedicate nearly $30 million to noise
mitigation in residential districts surrounding the airport. In
June 1992, MAC began receiving revenues from Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC's). The new state law requires that a percentage of
PFC's go toward residential noise abatement over the next four
years.. The staff and legal counsel from the City and MAC will
meet on October 8 to discuss MAC's interpretation and
implementation of the noise mitigation funding legislation.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
are provided to address these issues:
• New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition
Staff will continue to inform the Council on the progress of the
proposed acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres
neighborhoods.
• FAA Part 150 Program
Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of the
Sound Insulation Program.
• Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22
Staff will continue to update the Council on future developments
in the environmental review process for the proposed extension of
runway 4-22.
• MSP Symposia
Staff will continue to keep the Council informed of the proposed
plans for future seminars regarding MSP airport.
• Decision Document for the Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy
The Council is encouraged to review the City's comments prepared
by staff on the Decision Document and provide any additional
comments.
• Noise Mitigation Funding Legislation
Staff will continue to update the Council of the MAC's planned
use of PFC's in accordance to the noise mitigation funding
legislation.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
October 5, 1992 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the October 5, 1992 Study
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
City
. Prosser
JDP:ds
Attachments
J
• 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch William Bullock Michael Sandahl
Ivan Ludeman Kristal Stokes
October. 7, 1992
Mr. Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Comments on the Decision Document for the
Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy
Dear Nigel:
The City of Richfield reviewed the Decision Document for the
Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy. Richfield supports the dual-
track airport planning process as an effective way to study
future airport needs for this region.. We believe a comprehensive
and objective analysis must be conducted that gives equal support
to each track without favor to either one. This requires 'an
objective approach and neutral consideration of all. factors
before arriving at a decision.
Our review of the decision document indicates that. many of the
major issues in the dual-track airport process have not been
adequately defined which results in an .incomplete analysis.
Attached-are the City of Richfield's comments which identifies
our concerns and key issues that need to be included in the
strategy.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and submit comments on
the decision document. If you have any questions regarding our
comments, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:kab
Attachment
Copy: John Kari, Metropolitan Council
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700
Fax 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITY OF RICHFIELD'S COMMENTS ON
DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE DUAL-TRACK
MAJOR AIRPORT STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION: AVIATION STRATEGY SUMMARY
The decision document outline lacks detail and does not clearly
relate the airport analysis to other regional systems or
policies. The introductory comments in the document identifies
the key players in the. dual-track process as the: Legislature,
Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Council, citizens
of the Twin Cities and state, the region, and Dakota County. The
list should also include the FAA, NWA and local governments that
surround the current and proposed site as stakeholders in the
policy.
Two questions-are posed which these key players must respond to
when making a decision. The questions contrast "significant
investment" for new runways/terminal capacity versus "only
modest" investments and improvements at MSP. Richfield's concern
with these statements is that no dollar value for "significant"
or "modest" is provided. What is the break-point amount to
determine whether or not investments are modest or significant?
These terms need to be more clearly defined. One specific
concern is that "modest" improvements might limit the investment
in sound mitigation at the present site.
The scorecard. technique that will be used to evaluate the options
is a rather simplistic approach to studying such a complex public
policy issue. The scorecard is a decision matrix, but as
presented, is incomplete because it does not include all the
alternatives being considered at MSP and at the new site. A fair
and objective assessment of all airport capacity expansion
alternatives and their impacts must be thoroughly analyzed.
The decision document identifies only three options for
evaluating the seven factors relevant to making a final decision:
expand MSP, build a new airport, or do nothing. While these are
clearly general options that are available, the options should be
expanded to include the various options for a new or expanded
airport. For example, the new airport options should include
such alternatives as world class, phased development, or basic
design.
In terms of the expanded airport, the MAC identified six airport
development concepts under study for the MSP Long Term
Comprehensive Plan in a report published in 1991. The
alternatives are important because not only will costs differ but
also available revenue sources will vary. For example, an
alternative to expand the existing airport with a western
terminal and gateway includes extensive improvements to a state
Trunk Highway 77 while other alternatives do not impact the trunk
highways. In addition, all alternatives should include full
implementation of sound abatement at the present site.
An additional option that should be included in the decision
matrix is some form of remote runway/LRT airport concept or mini-
hub airport located in Rochester, Minnesota.
DECISION FACTORS/ANALYSIS TOPICS
After reviewing the seven decision factors, analysis topics and
questions for each factor, the City of Richfield developed the
following list. of concerns and recommended issues that should be
included in the decision matrix.
DECISION FACTOR: INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT
Analysis Topic: Net Capacity
• What are the assumptions regarding technology for each option
and their impact on net capacity?
CONCERN: It appears that technology improvements, given the
FAA's $31 billion, 20-year Capital Investment Plan, will be a
moving target. It would be easy to limit technology gains to
those anticipated in the near future and misjudge the larger
gains that the long-term may hold. Technology assumptions should
be visionary, not conservative.
Analysis Topic: Cost Effectiveness
• Cost per passenger or per flight is submitted as a cost-
effective criterion, both if demand and airport use increases.
CONCERN: Any cost-effective standard should be carefully
examined for its relevancy. The factors being used should meet
known qualitative industry measurements and include all pertinent
development and re-use costs in conjunction with the new airport
option.
Analysis Topic: Cost/Benefits
• Do the benefits of the option justify the costs of the project?
CONCERNS:
a) Are the benefits sufficiently large to compensate for the
local costs to achieve them?
b) And, if they are, are these costs greater or smaller at a new
location compared to the existing site?
c) What are the net of the total accumulated benefits and costs
by location or recipient?
There is insufficient detail in the document to determine what
will be included in any cost/benefit analysis. The Met Council's
airport adequacy study, the basis for the dual-track approach,
used a highly questionable cost/benefit analysis. For example,
it is estimated the cost of lost wages from passengers who might
realize delays because of projected delays and compared this with
the cost of a new airport. The problem with this analysis is
that it does not address financing issues. The real question,
missed in the initial report, was whether the businesses
represented by these business travelers will be willing to pay
additional costs to avoid the potential for delays and whether
these delays actually materialize or not. If this type of
question is not asked, we may be forcing current and future
generations of taxpayers to pay the cost of the new airport.
Analysis Topic: Risk of Low Return
• What is the risk of low return for each option? Is this
acceptable or not?
• What is the risk of being wrong, of having too much or too
little capacity?
• What will it cost if the region guesses high or low?
CONCERN: The phrase, "if the region guesses high or low
indicates the inaccuracy of the analysis. The difficulty of
aviation forecasting is reflected in a statement made by The
Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Aviation Forecasting
Workshop: "excessive optimism (high forecasts) leads to more
serious consequences than excessive conservatism (low forecasts)..
The chief dangers of high forecasts are premature investment and
overbuilding."
The TRB Aviation Workshop also had difficulty with the issue of
delays: "Air traffic delays are a particularly difficult
variable to measure, let alone to use in a forecast it is
unclear how to calculate delays."
Analysis Topic: Social Cost/Benefits
• What are the costs of aircraft noise and traffic on the well
being of nearby residents?
• Do the social benefits and costs of the option justify the
costs of the project?
CONCERN: Moving noise from one community to another is a complex
proposition. The benefit achieved because of lower population
densities in one area is of little consolidation to those people
newly exposed to noise. This issue is especially relevant to
Richfield if sound mitigation at the present site is deferred in
anticipation of a new airport that may not be built.
DECISION FACTOR: AIR SERVICE QUALITY
Analysis Topics: Level of Service, Fares, Rubbing,
International, and System Integration
CONCERN: The quality of air service for the region is primarily
a function of market forces, many of which have been unfavorable.
This analysis should address the question., is it realistic to
expect the dominant airline at MSP to commit to the additional
costs of another MSP in the foreseeable future?
DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
CONCERN: The following changes in revenue sources must be
thoroughly analyzed:
• taxes on retail sales, real property, income tax for
individuals and corporations, fees for services.
• changes in property values.
• new demands for local infrastructure and public services at MSP
site (as well as the burden to finance these improvements).
• state compensation to communities suffering revenue decreases.
• indirect economic effects such as job generation and land
development.
• finally, the net of total accumulated benefits and costs by
location or recipient to account for all economic flows within
the regional economy.
DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
CONCERN: This section has no criteria which specifically
addresses the people affected by the airport, both the current
residents impacted by airport noise and those who benefit from
the current airport location, as well as residents in the future.
DECISION FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Analysis Topic: .Noise/Overflight
CONCERN: New noise and overflight effects from the proposed
expansion plans at MSP and the possible construction of a new
airport must be fully developed and disclosed to the communities
near the two sites. We believe that any airport improvements
must be tied to increased funding for residential noise relief.
DECISION FACTOR: FINANCIAL ISSUES
Analysis .Topic: Effect on State Government (added topic)
CONCERN: The feasibility topic must identify funding sources and
methods. In addition, however, the feasibility analysis must
evaluate how the financing will not only impact the region but
also the state of Minnesota. A special metropolitan tax --
sales, income, and to a lesser degree, property -- must be
analyzed in terms of its impact on the state. One obvious impact
would be the possible higher tax in the metropolitan area which
could limit the state from raising revenue for its purposes. The
need for improved trunk highways which are funded from the
highway user fund will impact other highway projects throughout
the state. Another concern is the impact of an increased debt
burden and the impact of this debt burden will have on the
state's ability to compete for economic development.
Analysis Topic: Related Public Facilities (added topic)
CONCERN: The financing of a $3 to $4 billion public facility
must also identify costs by capital expense. The identification
must list the expenses as a-.direct airport component (terminal)
or an indirect component (transit and highway improvements).. By
listing the related infrastructure, the Met Council analysis
could illustrate the interrelationships and impact on other
metropolitan systems, such as transportation and sewers, and the
fact that the airport is an integral part of metropolitan
systems. Therefore, the option alternatives should be expanded
to include such items as: new airport transit link to the
central cities or new airport no transport link; new airport
improved trunk highways at freeway level or new airport improved
trunk highway at a four-lane level or other appropriate service
levels.
Analysis Topic:- Utitlies, Cost and Provision (added topic)
CONCERN: Another issue with financial implications to both the
public and private sectors is the provision of utilities.
Currently, the search area is served by the Dakota Electric
cooperative. No utility supplies gas or water to the search
area. The area. is presently served by individual water wells and
propane gas tanks. The new airport, therefore, could need
increased electric .capacity as well as new gas, water service,
and sewer systems. (Note: the search area is not within the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area, MUSA.) The costs of the utility
service must be included in the analysis. The provision of
utility service must also be considered in the environmental
analysis.
Analysis Topic: Effect on Regional Finance
CONCERN: Among the analysis topics outlined in the financial
issues decision factor is the study of capturing revenue from
development around a new airport to be used for public purposes.
While not stating tax increment financing (TIF), the outlined
concept is TIF. The study could conclude that a revenue capture
(property or sales) should be authorized. If such a conclusion
is reached, it must be measured in relation to current state TIF
policy which strongly advocates TIF use for redevelopment rather
than economic development projects such as a new airport located
beyond the MUSH line.
Analysis Topic: Effect on Airlines
CONCERN: The financial capability of Northwest Airlines and the
airline industry to support their portion of the cost of a new
airport or airport improvements should be analyzed. Northwest
Airlines is the major user of MSP. Industry experts generally
agree that it is highly unlikely that the Twin Cities area will
attract a second major airline to home base or hub either at the
current site of a new site. A careful analysis of Northwest's
capabilities is of critical importance unless the state
anticipates becoming the primary..•funder for airport improvements.
The FAA has already indicated that they cannot be relied upon for
support for new airport costs. Richfield is especially concerned
that without adequate funding, money will be diverted away from
undertaking necessary steps to reduce the impact of airport noise
on the people of our community.
DECISION FACTOR: STRATEGIC CONCERNS
Analysis Topic: Economic Flexibility
• Can the finished airport be adapted to respond to shifts in the
composition of aviation demand?
CONCERN: Our concerns on this issue are reflected in by an
article printed in Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 6,
1992, which states:.
"U.S. Airlines, deeply in debt because of growth and the struggle
to finance fleet renewal in a super cautious investment market,
are stuck in their most damaging fiscal crisis of the last two
decades. Not since the first world oil .shock soured the start of
the wide-bodied aircraft era have the U.S. airlines wallowed in
such a financial morass. In a period of 15 months, they have
lost $6 billion -- an unprecedented deficit that has eradicated
all trace of profit earned in the 67 year history of scheduled
airline service."
"Even when the current recession ends, traffic rebounds, and
earnings rise, the future looks bleak for America's air carrier
industry, according to Robert J. Aaronson, president of the Air
Transportation Industry (ATA). 'We will need more than that' he
said, referring to traffic and profits, because the future has
been mortgaged. Airlines have canceled airplane orders and. put
off construction projects. They are deeply concerned about their
survival. And the main reason is rapidly rising costs. without
rising revenues."
"The shifts in composition of aviation demand are more than
shifts from regional to cargo air service. They are fundamental
issues of survival in a crisis market."
DECISION FACTOR: RELATIONSHIP OF AIRPORT SEARCH TO VITALITY OF
CENTRAL CITIES (added factor)
The decision document should include a decision factor that
assesses the airport decision on the central cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul and the inner-ring suburbs. The Met
Council's development guide is designed to ensure the central
cities continue as available urban centers. Both cities have
redeveloped the central business district to .attract tourists,
major national business and sporting events, and conventions.
The central cities have benefited from the current location of
the airport and a relocation of the facility could have an impact
on the central cities.
It appears self-evident that a relocated airport will draw some
economic development away from the central cities. Their impact
must be measured and included in the decision analysis.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The decision regarding the long-term aviation strategy for the
Twin Cities area and for the state is an extremely important
issue for our community. The City of Richfield's primary
interest is to make sure that residents surrounding the airport
receive relief from airport noise as soon as possible and that a
sustained and serious effort be made to reduce the airport noise
for them.
NOTICE OF
Metropolitan Council/Metropolitan Airports Commission
PUBLIC HEARINGS
to receive comments on the draft report,
Twin Cities Aviation Strategy
An Outline of a Decision Document
for the
Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy
In September, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will
hold -two public hearings to receive comments on the proposed outline of the Dwdsio~t _
Dbcumertt regarding the dual-track major airport strategy. You are encouraged to participate
in these hearings and. provide the agencies with your input on the Diccision Dbcumcnt.
The public hearing draft suggests the outline for a joint final airport planning and
development report of the Council and MAC to the i~nnesota Legislature on the`"dual-track"
major airport planning process in 1995 or 1996.
'The Drciston Diocun~t will recommend a Long-term aviation strategy £oz the 'twin Cities, and
.lay out the key data, analysis and reasons for the recommendations.
The public hearing draft fulfills two purpcue.~:
__.
~ The first is to identify the question -and key jssues `that will need to be
addressed in the Da+dsion lbcumeht so the research and studies undertaken
during the neat phase of the dual-tract planning process yield information
helpfu! in making the bey recommendations in the Diacis~ Decummt.
~ The second purpose is to make sure that all the keq fsetiors in recommending a
strategy are, in fact, addressed and all relevant information is aummari~ed and
extracted in one document 'for public review and debate. This outline
identifies and descn'bes seven important factors. People are encouraged to
review them and suggest others.
T'hc public hearings wi'il be head on Tuesday, Sept. ZZ and Wednesday, Sept.'73. The hearing
record will remain open unh7 S pm., Oct. 7, 1992.
-over-
PUBLIC H~:ARING DRAFT
Twin Cities Aviation :Strategy
An t~utline of a Decision Document
for the
Dual-Track Major Airport Strategy
July 1992
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
6040 -28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
METROPOLTfAN Courrcii.
Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
612 291-6359
Metropolitan Council Publication No. 559-92-044
CONTENTs
Preface .......... ................... ............................ .....ii
I. DUAL-ThACK AIRPORT P1.rwNING PROCESS. ................................ 1
II. CHOOSING AN AVIA'T'ION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES MET[tOPOI_TTAN AREA ... 3
III. DECISION DOCUMENT ........ ....................................... 6
Outline of Decision Document ............................................ 6
Decision Factors & Data and Analysis ...................................... 7
Decision Factor: Investment Assessment .............................. 7
Decision Factor: Air Service Quality ..... .......................... 8
Decision Factor: Regional Economic Impacts .......................... 9
Decision Factor: Regional and Community Impacts ..................... 10
Decision Factor: Environmental Effects .............................. 11
Decision Factor: Financial Issues ........................ ....... - • 12
Regional Strategic Concerns . .... .............................. 13
DUAL-TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Under the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 (MS 473.155 and 473.616-619), the
Metropolitan Council (Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are required to
make recommendations to the legislature about how to meet the long-term aviation needs of the
Twin Cities Area. A six-year time frame was established to complete the dual-track airport planning
effort. The tracks are on a parallel timeline.
Under one track, the MAC was to prepare a plan for the possible expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul
(MSP) International Airport. A concept plan, MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, was adopted
by the MAC in November 1991.
Under the second track, the Council was to designate a "search area" for a possible replacement
airport. A search area in east-central Dakota County was selected by the Council in December 1991.
The next steps in the planning involves environmental, economic, community impact and other studies
for both tracks (see Figure 1). An update of the MSP Long Term. Comprehensive Plan is expected
to be completed in 1994. In 1994 the MAC will have selected a site within the much larger search
area for a new. airport and will have a development .plan for a new airport. The MAC will .lead the
new airport planning effort, though the Council will conduct some of the land use and economic
impact studies. In addition, by the end of 1992 the Council must prepare a plan for how MSP can
be re-used. if a replacement airport is constructed.
The overall purpose of the dual-track approach is to conduct studies that will give the region -- and
the Minnesota Legislature --information to compare the option of expanding the current airport with
the option of building a new airport in a new location. The major planning activities for 1992 to
1995/1996 period are shown in Figure 1.
In addition, the Council, the MAC and a 15-member Contingency Planning Committee are annually
monitoring trends in the growth in airport passengers and freight travel, the economy of the region,
and changes in the airline industry, among others, to see if the trends mean changes should be made
to .the dual-track approach. The annual monitoring will also give the region the best and most
current information on which to base the decisions which will be made in 1995 or 1996.
CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN
CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
By 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature will select along-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities
Area and for the state.. The MAC and Council are following an accelerated planning schedule which
will result in a final report for legislative consideration in 1995. This ambitious schedule represents
a goal of the agencies to address concerns raised because of the uncertainty that exists for persons
potentially impacted by the development of MSP or a new airport.
Overall, the legislature and the citizens of the Twin Cities and the state, need to be in a position to
respond to two questions:
• First, will the region need to make significant investment for additional runway(s) and
_ terminal capacity (concourses, gates).during the next 25-30 years (2020) or can the
region meet expected demand for air service with only modest investments and
improvements to facilities at MSP?
• Second, if significant investment and additional capacity is needed, where should the
region make those investments -- at MSP or at a new commercial airport in Dakota
County?
The MAC and Council 1989 forecasts show that demand will probably outpace existing capacity by
early in the next century requiring significant investment for capacity improvements. The long term
forecasts for 2020 will be updated in 1993 and used to determine facility requirements. These facility
requirements will be the basis for comparable master plans for both. MSP and potential new airport.
The decisions on where and how best to meet future air transportation demand in the region will
take into account how each option will provide air service in terms of physical facilities,. operational
efficiency and flexibility, and safety. In addition, the comparison of the options will need to include
cost, economic, community, regional development and environmental impacts.
The DECISIOty DOCUMENT should extract the information and analysis of the dual-track studies in
a manner so that the differences, similarities and contrasts between the potential public policy options
can be more readily seen and highlighted. To date seven factors have been identified in the 1991
annual contingency planning assessment report as important for making choices among the options -
- expand MSP, build a new airport, and do nothing. These factors are as follows:
• Investment Assessment
• Air Service Quality
• Regional Economic Impacts
3
FIGURE 2
DRAFT SCORECARD FOR EVALUATING DUAL-TRACK POLICY OPTIONS
DECISION FACTORS.
INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT
Net Capacity
Cast Effectiveness
Costs/Benefits
Risk of Low Return
Social Cost/Benefit
AIR SERVICE
Level of Service
Fares
Hubbing
International
System Integration
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Short Term
Long Term
Improved Economic Structure
REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Airport Environs
Infrastructure Implications
Accessibility
ENVIRONMENTAL
Natural
Noise/Overflight
Indirect (air quality, etc.) -
Abiliry to Mitigate
FINANCIAL ISSUES
Feasibility
Effect on Regional Finance
Effect on Airlines
Effect on Region
STRATEGIC CONCERNS
Technical Flexibility
Economic Fle~tibility
Vision of the Region
Technology
PoliticaUlnstitutional
THE SCORECARD
The scorecard above summarizes the kind of information needed to evaluate the aviation options and to select the
most suitable aviation strategy. This scorecard, or one Gke it, serves two purposes. It helps explicitly identify the
data needed for an informed decision. Much of this data can be distilled into one summary statistic in the social
oost/benefit anaysis. However, the scorecard can also help evaluate single faaors that are especialty important
and/or consider factors that may be impossible to put a dollar figure on for inclusion in the summary mst/benefit
analysis.
5
DECISION FACTORS &" DATA AND ANALYSIS
DECISION FACTOR: INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT
The primary policy concern is to have adequate capacity to meet the air transportation needs. The
existence of a full range of aviation services is central to the long-term economic and social well-being
of the Metropolitan Area.. In the planning and development of airport facilities, it is not unusual to
have long lead times between project identification and project construction and operation. This
situation requires looking out long-term and recognising the potential risks. The key issues for major
airport investment .decisions involve how effective and flexible an option is in meeting the future
capacity objectives, the relationship between costs and benefits and what. the relative risks of making
investments too soon or too late.
Analysis Topic: Net Capacity
• How much capacity and f lexibiliry for expansion in relationship to the forecasted demand does
the option provide?
• What are the assumptions regarding technology for. each option and their impact on net
capacity?
Analysis Topic: .Cost Effectiveness
• Does the option provide capacity at a reasonable cost per passenger or per flight--that is, is it
cost-effective?
• What is the cost per operation of each option at different levels ojactivityldemand? What is the
cost in future years if demand and airport use increase?
Analysis Topic: CostsBenefits
• Do the benefits of the option justify the costs of the project?
Analysis Topic: -Risk of Low Return
• What it the risk of low return for each option? Is thin acceptable or not?
• What is the risk of being wrong of having too much or too little capacity?
• What will it cost ij the region guesses high or low -- what are the ftnancial and economic
penalties if there it not enough activity to cover operating costs and debt service and what if
there is not enough capacity that leads to unacceptable delays, perhaps even a limit on air
traf j`ic?
Analysis Topir. Social Cost/Benefits
• What are the costs of aircraft noise and traffic on the well being of nearby residents?
• Do the social benefits and costs of the option justify the costs of the project?
7
DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Air service plays an important role in fostering regional economic prosperity. The aviation industry
provides the region with accessibility to and from other parts of the United States and the world. It
is a major force in the regional economy. The .key economic questions involve what airport
investments will do in the short term, over the long-term and how will they affect regional economic.
growth and development patterns.
Analysis Topic: Short Term
• How do the options differ in their short-term relocation and employment effects? Do they differ
in their long-term impact on regional growth and stability?
.Analysis Topic: Long Term
• .What kind of changes. are likely in the level and charac~er of economic activity fostered by each
.option for region and state.
• Where within the'region will new businesses be likely to locate under each option?
Analysis Topic:. Improved Economic Structure
• What kinds of businesses will be attracted and how will they affect local employment, residential
patterns, income, character and quality of lije?
• Who benefits and who is burdened by each option?
• Overall; how well do these economic changes support the long-term goals of the Twin Cities
region and the state?
9
DECISION FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Airport development and operation, whether at the exsting airport or at a new site, will involve have
environmental impacts which will need to be addressed. These impacts will be both on- and off-site
and will effect the natural. and man-made environments. What are the type and magnitude of
environmental impacts and can identified adverse impacts be mitigated?
Analysis Topic: Natural
• What, and how critical, are the environmental implications of each option?
• What is the impact on the ntttural environment--wildlife, wetlands, river and groundwater quality.
How does the community evaluate these effects.?
._ Analysis Topic: Noise/Overnight
• What are the noise and overflight effects. How do residents feel about these annoyances?
Analysis Topic: Indirect (air quality, etc.)
• Will airport-based and induced ground transportation significantly affect air quality?
Analysis Topic: Ability to Mitigate
• Is mitigation possible? How much will it cost?
11
DECISION FACTOR: STRATEGIC CONCERNS
No matter how well it appears to satisfy currently estimated needs, the aviation plan will succeed only
if it is implemented in a form that satisfies future needs. No one evaluating the options now, can
predict the future with precision. Circumstances are bound to change. New technology may be
introduced, aviation and economic development in general may take a slightly. different path, or new
socio-political forces may emerge. The flexibility of each option may provide an important hedge
against uncertainty.
The viability of the aviation strategy may critically depend on its ability to adapt to change and
unforeseen events. Financial flexibility fosters greater efficiency and helps keeps costs to a minimum.
At the same time, the chosen option must be able to fit in with regional plans and objectives. If the
project fits in well with public objectives -- the vision of the region -- or is easily adapted to support
those objectives, it is more likely to garner the support needed for successful implementation. There
are potential implementation roadblocks facing each option and they may differ because each option
affects different populations, .interests groups and economic interests, or affects a given interests
differently.
Analysis Topic: Technical Flexibility
• Can engineering design be altered during the construction phase to fit changed circumstances? .
Is it possible to stage development differently or shift development schedules?
• Can the finished airport be adapted to respond to shifts in the composition ojaviation demand
-(for example, a shift from regional to cargo air service)?
Analysis Topic: Economic Flexibility
• Can financial an-angements can be adapted to changes in financial markets, local debt
situations, or cash outflow.
Analysis Topic: Vision of the Region
• How well does each option fit into the overall development strategy for the region as an'iculated
in the Council's policy plans?
Analysis Topic: Technology
• What technological improvements and changes are expected?
• How might they impact the need for air transportation or improve the capability of existing air
transportation investments?
Analysis Topic: Political/Institutional
• What are the political and institutional issues faced by each option?
13
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.36
Agenda October 5, 1992
Issue Statement:
Discussion of refunding General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue
Bonds of 1986.
Background•
In 1986, the City of Richfield
Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue
of certain storm sewer related
projects were part of a larger
flooding areas in Richfield.
issued $2,525,000 General
Bonds to .finance the construction
improvements in the City. These
comprehensive review of storm
The bonds were issued in conjunction with the establishment of
the storm sewer utility fund. .Fees collected through the storm
sewer utility are used to pay the debt service of the bond issue
as well as for annual maintenance of the system and some
additional construction.
The 1986 bond issue was sold at a 6.51$ net interest rate.- With
current interest rates at a 14 year low, staff requested the
Evensen Dodge firm to review this bond issue to ascertain if
refunding was feasible.
On the basis of their review, it appears that the current
interest rate climate would make it feasible to refund the bond
issue this November. It is projected that the refunding would
save the City $140,183, with a present value of $97,661.
If the City Council wishes staff to proceed with this refunding
issue, work should begin on this immediately so that it may be
prepared for official City Council action some time in October,
with a sale in November 1992.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the possible refunding of this bond issue for November
1992.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. An analysis of-this bond issue reflects an estimated savings
of $97,661 in present value dollars if the bonds were
refunded in November.
2. Interest rates are at the lowest level in well over a
decade.
3. If the City is to take advantage of the low interest rates
to refund this bond issue, the time schedule suggested in
this letter should be followed.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could decide not to discuss this matter and
forego the opportunity to refund the bonds.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council decides to proceed with this refunding,
staff should be given direction at this time to commence the
process.
Respec~ully submitted,
Jame~~D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
F?ECEI VEC~ ~ ~ r ~ 0 ~~~1
E V E N S E N DODGE I N C 65OT°wn CenterDrive
Suite 430
F I N A N C I A L C O N S U L T A N T S
Costa Mesa CA 92626
714!545-1212 500/322-0171
714/557-9126 Fax
44 Montgomery Street
Suite 500
September 28, 1992 San Francisco CA 94104
415/955-267s
415/955-2676 Fax
Mr. Steve Devich
Director of Administrative Services 2ss South orange Aven°e
Cityty of Richfield suite Ss5
6700 Portland Avenue . or~ana° FL 32501
~1Chuelu, I'.iiv` jJ'~tGJ 407/541-0757 500/6z4-RZZz
407/872-2326 Fax
Dear Mr. Devich:
You have asked us to comment on the advisability of refunding the City's loo C°urt avenue
General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds of 1986. The Bonds are suite 2u
callable on February 1,1993 at a price of par plus a call premium of 1.5%. Des Moines [A 50309
Because the refunding bonds could be closed fewer than 90 days prior to the call sls/282-6138
date the issue would be a current refundin gg and thus not sub"ect to the more sls/252-ozs2Fax
restrictive rules concerning advance refund
o
i
i
h ings. Current re~dings are also
W
i
d
h
h
ncreases t
e savings.
e
ave est
mate
t
at a
lower c
st transact
ons which
refunding bond issue of $2,160,000 dated November 1, 1992 to be closed on 17370 NoRh Laurel Park Drive
November 4, 1992 would produce savings of $140,183 with a present value of
$97
661
he
disc
nted at 5
0645%
the
ield on the bonds
The avera
e Sui[e400E
Sonia Ml 451s2
w
,
y
.
g
,
n
ou
.
annual savings are $9 952, and the present value savings represent 4.52% of the 313/s91-4040 SOO~s59-2500
par amount of the refunding issue and 4.67% of the par amount of the refunded
d
i
f 313/s91-4ss4Fax
vance refundings
bonds. Under the 3% Minnesota savings requ
rement
or a
not applicable here because the issue is a current refunding, but shown for
4lustrative purposes) the present value savings are 4.36% of the present value of 1951 East Buena Vista
the debt service on the refunded bonds. Springfield MO 6sSO4
000 was derived aS follows:
The issue size of $2
160 417/887-1277
,
, 417/887-7916 Fax
Par amount to be refunded on 2-1-93 090
000
$2
1.5% call premium ,
,
31.350 1726 Prairie Lane
$2,121,35 Fargo ND 58103
701/235-4416 800/328-5200
$2,121,350 discounted @ 3% 701/239-4597 Fax
to 11-4-92 $2,106,755
Costs of Issuance 27,325
Discount
25.920 379 Federal Circle
Delaware OH 4301s
Ln
21 W ~~ 614/363-5577 800/62&7900
614/363-4887 Fax
* We have assumed that the City has no excess money in the debt service fund
for the 1986 bonds which would need to be applied to the transaction.
_.. - 701 Brazos
suite soo
Austin TX 78701
517/320-9047 800/284-5612
517/320-1419 Fax
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 3800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/338-3535 800/328-8200
FAX 612/338-7264
28301s/1
September 21, 1992
Page 2
The 1986 bonds were structured with an earlier-than-normal call date and a call premium
because the bonds were issued at a time of uncertainty in the municipal market because of
pending federal legislation with substantial impact on municipal bonds. The early call date
makes the transaction possible, but the call ppremium increases its cost. The call premium
decreases until 2-1-96 when the bonds can be called with no premium. By deferring the
refunding until then the cost of the transaction would decrease, but the City would lose the
savings to be.realized in the intervening years, and there is no guarantee, of course, that interest
rates then would below enough to produce sufficient savings to Justify the transaction.
ln• GOIICtuS10II, LI1C tCa~Ut~u iv. Yiva.v:.aiu,~ :r~~:. ,:; _~~;'»:^~ `_'^_^..^±~~:_ ~*~mediately are the
following:.
1. Interest rates are at a 14-year low making possible estimated saving of $140,183
with a present value of $97;661;
2. Savings would begin to be realized immediately; and
3. The refunding bonds would be callable on 2-1-01 at par thus making it possible
to do a refunding of the refunding bonds should interest rates make it feasible.
Please call me if you have any questions or if you wish to proceed with the transaction.
Sincerely,
EVENSEN DODGE INC
WaXne S. Burggraaff
Senior Vice President
& Principal
/nlb
RICHFIELD
52,160,000 G.O. SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
--------------
SAVINGS REPORT
--------------
--------------
- - - - - - - - PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE - - - - - - - - PRIOR CUMULATIVE
DATE
-------- PRINCIPAL
-------------- COUPON
---------- -- INTEREST
------------ TOTAL
-------------- D/S
--------- SAVINGS SAVINGS
2/
1/93
- ----- --- ----------- ---
858.77 -----------
858.77
8/ 1/93 77,289.38
2/ 1/94 85,000.00 3.000000 51,526.25 213,815.63 223,605.00 9,789.38 10,648.15
8/ 1/94 50,251.25
2/ 1/95 115,000.00 3.400000 50,251.25 215,502.50 223,295.00 7,792.50 18,440.65
8/ 1/95 48,296.25
2/ 1/96 115,000.00 3.700000 48,296.25 211,592.50 222,595.00 11,002.50 29,443.15
8/ 1/96 46,168.75
2/ 1/97 125,000.00 4.000000 46,168.75 217,337.50 226,495.00 9,157.50 38,600.65
8/ 1/97 43,668.75
2/ 1/98 135,000.00 4.200000 43,668.75 222,337.50 229,675.00 7,337.50 45,938.15
8/ 1/98 ~0,833.i~
2/ 1/99 135,000.00 4.400000 40,833.75 216,667.50 227,115.00 10,447.50 56,385.65
8/ 1/99 37,863.75
2/ 1/ 0 145,000.00 4.600000 37,863.75 220,727.50 229,115.00 8,387.50 64,773.15
8/ 1/ 0 34,528.75
2/ 1/ 1 155,000.00 4.750000 34,528.75 224,057.50 235,475.00 71,417.50 76,190.65
8/ 1/ 1 30,847.50
2/ 1/ 2 165,000.00 4.900000 30,847.50 226,695.00 235,725.00 9,030.00 85,220.65
8/ 1/ 2 26,805.00
2/ 1/ 3 170,000.00 5.100000 26,805.00 223,610.00 235,325.00 11,715.00 96,935.65
8/ 1/ 3 22,470.00
2/ 1/ 4 185,000.00 5.250000 22,470.00 229,940.00 239,275.00 9,335.00 106,270.65
8/ 1/ 4 17,613.75
2/ 7/ 5 195,000.00 5.400000 17,613.75 230,227.50 242,250.00 12,022.50 118,293.15
8/ 1/ 5 12,348.75
2/ 1/ 6 210,000.00 5.600000 12,348.75 234,697.50 244,250.00 9,552.50 127,845.65
8/ 1/ 6 6,468.75
2/ 1/ 7
- 225,000.00
------------- 5.750000
--- 6,468.75
----------- - 237,937.50
------------- - 250,275.00
------------- 12,337.50
---- 140,183.15
---
2,160,000.00
965,145.63
3,125,145.63
3,264,470.00 -------
140,183.15
ACCRUED 858.77 858.77
2,160,000.00 964,286.86 3,124,286.86 3,264,470.00 140,183.15
Dated 11/ 1/92 with Deli very of 11/ 4/92
Bond Years 18,880.000
Aver age Coupon 5.112000
Aver age life 8.740741
N I C % 5.249288 % Using 98.8000000
N 0 T E Savings on 2/ 1/93 Include Accrued Interest of 858.77
Net Present Value Savings at: 5.0645% Equals 97,660.98 or 4.5213% of Par of the Current Issue
. or 4.6728% of Par of the Prior Issue
Prepared by Evensen Dodge, Inc.
RUNDATE: 09-21-1992 is 10:50:49 FILENAME: RICH KEY: REREF
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 35
Agenda October 5, 1992
Issue Statement•
Council discussion of kennel, licenses and number(s) of animals in
homes.
Background•
The Council on a number of occasions has expressed concerns over
the number of animals (dogs and cats) kept in homes. Currently,
City ordinance 905 states that when there are more than two dogs
OR two cats over the age of six months on any premises in the
City a residential kennel license must be obtained through the
City.
A residential kennel license application must be completed and
returned to staff with the appropriate fee. The application must
contain signatures of the applicant's contiguous property owners
indicating their approval. After receipt of the application, a
Community Service Officer will conduct an interior and exterior
inspection of the property. Staff will make a recommendation to
Council to either grant or deny the license request.
In instances where the application does not contain all
continguous property owners' signatures or staff has received
complaints concerning the animals from other neighbors, a hearing
before the Council will be scheduled. Neighboring residents of
the applicant will. be notified of the hearing and are given the
opportunity to either appear in person or present written
testimony for or against the issuance of the license. Based upon
testimony from neighboring residents and the owner of the
animals, the Council will either grant or deny the license
application. If Council denies a license request, the owner of
the animals must reduce the number of animals they own to two
within 30 days of the hearing.
On July 1, 1991, staff was directed by Council to draft a policy
which would limit the number of animals to six, over the age of
six months, that may be kept at a property licensed as a
residential kennel. This action. became necessary as a result of
increased neighborhood complaints from residents concerning
properties licensed in their neighborhoods as residential
kennels. In most instances, their complaints related to the
number of animals being kept on the property.
On July 22, 1991, Council approved a resolution that was adopted
as council policy limiting the number of animals to six, over the
age of six months, that may be kept at a property that is
licensed as a residential kennel. This decision was based in
large part because of homes being so closely located to one
another, that more than six animals at any one property would be
likely to have an adverse effect on neighboring residents.
Currently, there are approximately 15 residential kennel licenses
that have been granted in the City of Richfield, with two
requests still pending. In most cases, these are residences that
have more than two dogs. (See attachment.)
Recommended Motion:
Staff presents to Council for discussion the following options:
1. Do nothing and leave the Council's current policy as is which
allows for residents to have up to six animals (any
combination of dogs and cats not to exceed six).
2. Reduce Council's policy of July 22, 1991 to a lesser number.
Consideration should be given to current residential kennel
license holders that they be grandfathered if that number is
reduced.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This issue is presented for Council discussion at this time.
Re p ully submitted,
J e D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:ds
1. Lynne and Scott Clarke
7400 Pillsbury Avenue
3 cats
2. David Delzer
6305 Wentworth Avenue
3 cats
3. Ronald and Margaret Glaub
7209 12th Avenue
4 dogs
4. Carolyn Kretchmer
7232 11th Avenue
4 dogs
5. Tony Neubauer
6401 22nd Avenue
3 dogs
6. Karen Patek
6633 15th Avenue
2 dogs and 4 cats
13. Marilyn Staber
7544 2nd Avenue
4 dogs and 1 cat
14. Philip Mortenson
7315 Thomas Avenue
4 cats
7. Sandra Pynn
7420 Aldrich Avenue
3 dogs
8. James Ruedy
-7600 Grand Avenue
5 cats
9. Craig and Janette Stodda
6533 19th Avenue
3 dogs
10. Claire Todd
7425 Pleasant Avenue
3 dogs and 2 cats
11. Sharon Trego
6732 11th Avenue
3 dogs
12. David Yajko/Terri Schweiss
6914 Cedar Avenue
3 dogs and 1 cat
1. No licensing for cats
2. If you have more than 3 dogs, you need a kennel license
(There is no limit to the number of animals you may have)
3. Must be zoned for it
4. Cost-$240 per .year
5. Council approval needed
6. They currently have, none
1. No residential kennel licenses at all in the City of Edina
You may not have more than 2 animals
2. Commercial kennel is $55 per year
1. No licensing for cats
2. If you have more than 3 dogs, you need a kennel license.
There is no limit to the number of animals you may have if
you have a residential kennel
3. Residential Kennel - $25
Commercial Kennel - S50
4. Council approval needed (rubber stamped)
5. Contact person doesn't think that any have ever been denied
B7 n om, nar .nn
1. Need a kennel license if you have 4 or more dogs/cats
2. Planning and Zoning d etermines how many pets you can have by
the size of the yard (limitation requirements)
3. Price for residential kennel license is $27.30
4. Currently have none in Bloomington