Loading...
05-06-91 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 27 Agenda May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Information and discussion regarding 1991 Revised/1992 Proposed Budget strategies and schedule. Background: The City has begun its 1991 Revised/1992 Proposed Budget process. The initial informational meetings and forms distribution were done on April 24, 1991, with a statutory deadline of September 1 to submit a preliminary tax levy to Hennepin County to meet truth in taxation targets. The following information will present a schedule and process framework associated with this year's budget. ® Schedule A budget calendar has been implemented to assist the City in meeting deadlines necessary to comply with truth in taxation preliminary levy requirements. After the September 1, 1991 preliminary deadline has passed, a new budget calendar will be implemented to meet publication and public hearing requirements prior to submission of a final levy in late December. The following schedule provides a framework through September 1, • 1991: DATE ACTION Wednesday, 4/24 Distribute preliminary information on 1991 Revised/1992 Budget, such as insurance cost, data processing charges, salary increases, benefit cost. Budget Manual and forms distributed. Accounting reports and computer worksheets for first three months of 1991 to be distributed to all program directors. Friday, 6/21 All requests for budget accounts and estimated revenues for Revised 1991 and Proposed 1992 to be submitted to Administrative Services Director for: Legislative Legal Executive Administrative Services Liquor Community Development Friday, 7/5 All requests for budget accounts and estimated revenues for Revised 1991 and Proposed 1992 to be submitted to Administrative Services Director for: Public Safety Community Services • 0 Monday, 7/8 to Wednesday, 7/24 Thursday, 7/25 to Wednesday, 8/14 Thursday, 8/15 to Friday, 8/23 Monday, 8/26 September 1 City Manager review of departmental budgets. Final drafting, processing and printing of draft budget document. City Council Budget Review and adoption process. City Council adoption of preliminary levy. Last day to submit preliminary levy to Hennepin County. s Legislative Environment The legislative environment for this year's budget process is one of uncertainty. Legislative proposals to meet the state's current budget crises have varied greatly, with some proposed changes likely to severely impact upon the City. Obviously, Local Government Aid (LGA) reductions such as those proposed by the Governor would not only force drastic reductions in services, but also could cause significant local tax increases. More recently, a variety of options for state revenue increases which do away with large LGA cuts and significantly mitigate potential property tax increases have been introduced. The attached excerpt from the Minneapolis Star Tribune summarizes the most significant such proposals and the resulting revenue impact. ® Current Budget Adjustments Budget Adjustments 1991/1992 As Council Members know, the City will lose $200,000 of its 1991 LGA payment in July. This loss represents one half of the entire general fund expenditure budget increase from 1990 to 1991. In order to meet this unanticipated revenue loss, each department has been asked to review their respective 1991 budgets to identify across the board cuts and/or reliable revenue enhancements which would cumulatively total $200,000. With respect to budgeting for the 1992 Proposed General Fund Budget, departments were instructed to prepare a two-scenario budget. One scenario followed a 4% salary increase package built into a 3.5% total budget increase over the reduced 1991 budget. The second scenario calls for no increases in salary plans for 1992, including all bargaining unit positions, with no overall budget increase for 1992 over reduced 1991 levels. Each scenario, even the one featuring an overall 3.5% increase over reduced 1991 budget levels, will be extremely difficult to prepare without making fairly significant cuts in current services provided. :0 i Suagestions for the Public Employees With the budget framework there has also been a direct effort to obtain suggestions on economizing or modifying operations from City employees. Departments have used group meetings and/or individual discussion to gain insight from individuals on how the City could provide services more efficiently or what services might be reduced or eliminated. A number of valuable suggestions have been discussed. In addition, suggestions from the general public have been solicited. While the public input has been relatively light, staff is seriously examining each of those suggestions with a sensitivity to cost savings suggestions. Suggestions from the City Council Staff would also welcome suggestions from the City Council concerning the 1991 Revised/1992 Proposed budget. Suggestions early in the budget process are more helpful than those received after the process has reached the stage of having a draft budget document for review by the City Council. Any suggestions should be given directly to the City Manager. Recommended Motion: Discuss the budget process, timeframe and environmental factors. • Basis for Recommendation: 1. The budget process is just now commencing for the 1991 Revised/1992 Proposed budget. 2. Input early on in the process allows for more meaningful input into the budget process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Discussion of the budget schedule and process are set for the May 6, 1991 study session to provide an appropriate timeframe for input. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Sunday/April 2%T17?3a"Y?Yine -° y 4, evenue proposal" K _.V ': a Property tax Three-year phase in Reduces 3% rate on Same as Senate, phased kai , on 'homes of flat rate; drops value over $110,00016 2% in over two years. from 3% to 2% on value, phased in over three, House plan contains ?f•,,. over $110,000; rises, years. Double digit overall lowest property a s, from 1 % to 2% on value increases likely, tax increases on less than $68,000. but not as much as -homes, because local Combined with big local governor's because local government aids are K,* , Ra= govt. aid cuts, could have government aid cuts . maintained. effect of 20% to 50% hike'' are smaller. :., on most-low- and mid- r valued homes, but would be offset by "circuit-breaker„ f> tl refunds for low and . moderate incomes, ' Property tax Reduces rates on both No change Reduces,business gates 11 3 `on business by about 10% over two by about 4% over two and apartments years. , years,.rental by about 8%. r ` Homeowner Five-fold increase in Retains but caps Na change: Tax I property tax circuit-breaker refund,;; "targeting" relief for increase&kept down by refunds program. Incomes up to those whose taxes -retaining aids. I $70,000 may qualify; only rise by more than 10%. f , those who. pay more than , Maximum refund of $1,000. 2% of income in property . taxes get refund. Income tax Conform to federal. Same as Carlson. Same as Carlson. on wealthy, deductions ;'Raises $80 (from conforming million `from incomes ' • to federal law) over $100,000. Other income None Eliminate "bubble" Increase;top tax on wealthy by raising rate from rate to 9% at 8% to 8.5% on incomes $100,000. Raises over $170,000. $219 million. Raises $80 million. eneral No change. No change. But 2.4 Increase from sales tax cents would be 6% to 6.5% ! rate - returned to local Turn over 2 rc governments cents to L, cities and a counties, ff (3890111ne tax None Transportation None Committee tacked 3 cents on top of current 20$/gallon . " tax, but Senate 3 ' leadership opposes. "Yuppie Tax," None Marinas, kennels, ' Marinas, kennels, _ ' =i and other new stables, auction Al? data-carrying phone. extensions agent service's, ` service. of taxes on sales, misc. goods or services business services Cigarettes From 38 cents to "Same as Carlson. No increases. and alcohol 62 cents per pack , on rigs. Minor " increases on beer and,wine. Total state $276 $377 $690* ". tax increases _ (in,miilions) , Per capita $63 85 157* $ ' increase'(in actualdollars) *House leaders note that although their state taxes are larger, theirs is the only plan that aims at-keeping average property; " d' ubJe it increases in 1992. This is achieved by giving city, and county governments almost a third of sales tax revenues . th er the senaxek+, Pall! imating c,ef{acts is diNicult, bacau bYd AN ` i rf is dty"coUn6 ;and, s I+R " I Al CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 26 Agenda May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Discussion of an ordinance regulating the parking of trailers attached to vehicles used for commercial activities on City streets. Background: Public Safety has received some complaints of trailers attached to commercial vehicles parked on public streets. The current ordinances of the City do not address this problem except if the trailer is attached to a vehicle and is parked more than 48 hours, or is unattached and parked more than two (2) hours. If it were a commercial trailer, it could only be parked for two hours. Boat, snowmobile, all-terrain, and utility trailers under 10,000 pounds GVW are exempt from the two hour limit. These are currently allowed to park for 48 hours, attached to a motorized vehicle. Recommendation: Staff was directed to look at solutions which would limit the parking of trailers that are attached to a towing vehicle used for commercial activities on City streets for more than two hours. Staff consistently receives complaints regarding this issue. Current ordinances regulate commercial trailers over 10,000 lbs. and limit them to two hours. Other vehicles, including recreational vehicles or utility trailers attached to tow vehicles, can park up to 48 hours on City streets. Trailers attached to tow vehicles used for commercial activities are a safety hazard and City streets are not meant to be a storage area for commercial vehicles. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Restrict the parking of trailers entirely. This could create more confusion and is not necessary. 2. Do nothing. Leave the ordinances as is which would allow these vehicles to remain on City streets up to 48 hours. 3. Increase or decrease the number of hours from two on the parking of these vehicles. This, however is inconsistent with other ordinances (i.e., trucks, 2 hours). Decision/Discussion Mode: Discussion of an ordinance regulating the parking of trailers attached to vehicles used for commercial activities on City streets. Respecy!pully submitted, • Jam s . Prosser Cit naaer JDP:ds DRAFT ORDINANCE Trailers. No person may park or let stand for more than two (2) hours on any public street or highway a trailer of any gross weight, in commercial or noncommercial use, when said trailer is attached to a tow vehicle which is used, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes; except that parking shall be permitted during active commercial activity at a site if such trailer/tow vehicle is currently engaged in commercial activity at the site adjacent to where it is parked and that such activity requires the parking of the trailer/tow vehicle at the site and that the commercial activity is underway by persons at the site • contemporaneous to the parking of the trailer/tow vehicle. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 25 Agenda May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Review results from Council goal setting/team 'building session. Background: On April 12 and 13, the City Council met as part of a strategic planning and team building session. The session produced two principal products, a draft mission statement and strategic goals for 1993. Copies of the strategic goals and draft mission statement have been distributed to City staff for review and comments. Recommended Motion: Review the strategic goals and mission statement with City staff. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Mayor has requested this discussion. 2. it is appropriate to discuss the goals and mission statement with Department heads. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decline to discuss this issue. • 2. The Council may wish to defer this item to a later time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the workshop meeting of May 6, 1991. y submitted, James E Prosser City a alter JDP:ds 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 24 Agenda May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of Council authorization to formally request approval by Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) of a resolution authorizing the joint feasibility study of a New Ford Town/Rich Acres buyout, relocation and redevelopment. Background: Residents within New Ford Town and Rich Acres have previously indicated a desire that their homes be bought out and that they be relocated. Residents within this area are experiencing continued noise from airport operations. At the same time, the residents are experiencing an uncertain future due to various and continuing proposals for airport expansion. This uncertainty has caused economic and social disinvestment within those neighborhoods. The City Council has previously authorized the staff to initiate a process which would lead to a proposal for the buyout of New Ford Town and Rich Acres by Metropolitan Airports Commission. The result of that initial effort by staff and consultants indicates the following: • e There are a variety of financial mechanisms available which would provide a viable financing mechanism to accomplish the buyout, relocation and redevelopment. e An acquisition, relocation, property management capacity can be developed in order to accomplish a buyout within a three to five year period. e There are a variety of viable redevelopment options for the New Ford Town/Rich Acres area including direct airport uses as well as airport related uses. e There is a net tax loss to the City and school district if these neighborhoods are bought out. It will be necessary to provide a mechanism to reimburse both the City and the schools for this net tax loss. With the completion of this preliminary analysis, it is appropriate to initiate direct discussions with the Metropolitan Airports Commission in order to develop a financing mechanism and management plan in order to accomplish the buyout, relocation and redevelopment. MAC needs to be involved with those discussions in order that a product acceptable to them is developed for consideration by the MAC board. r 1 A resolution has been prepared which would authorize MAC and City • staff to initiate this feasibility study process. It is anticipated that the City of Richfield would continue to provide staff support for the service but that MAC would provide payment for the majority of the cost of consultants necessary to complete final analysis. Some of the specific issues that will be included in the feasibility study include: 1. Development of a work plan, specifically describing the issues that will need to be analyzed and the method of analysis. 2. Financial analysis, including identification of potential funding sources. 3. Legal and regulatory requirements to permit acquisition, relocation and redevelopment. 4. Acquisition, relocation, demolition and management. 5. Disposition of redevelopment alternatives. 6. Identification and mitigation of financial impacts on City and school finances. 40 i i i i f f ll i 7. on. on o property upon acqu s t Dispos u t 8. Structure of relationship between City and MAC to accomplish the buyout, relocation and redevelopment. Recommended Motion: 1. Review the resolution which would authorize the feasibility analysis of New Ford Town/Rich Acres buyout, relocation and redevelopment and the accompanying draft letter to be sent to MAC. 2. Authorize staff to establish a neighborhood meeting to inform the public, particularly New Ford Town and Rich Acres residents, of our intention to request MAC to participate in this analysis. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Residents within Rich Acres and New Ford Town have previously indicated a desire for their homes to be purchased and they be relocated. 2. Metropolitan Airports Commission staff has previously indicated a desire to assist the City in redeveloping New Ford Town and Rich Acres. . 3. It is necessary for the City to propose a positive action to proceed with a buyout, relocation and redevelopment effort. • 4. It will be necessary for MAC to participate in a feasibility analysis in order that they are comfortable with the recommended funding and management mechanisms. 5. Preliminary analysis by staff and consultants indicates viable financing and management options are available to accomplish the buyout, relocation and redevelopment effort. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to take additional time to examine options. 2. The Council may direct staff to initiate the feasibility analysis effort independent of MAC. 3. The Council may decide to take no action on this matter. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of May 6. 0 Respe tf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds 0 RESOLUTION NO. t? WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 473.601 through 473697 assign to the Commission responsibility for operating, managing and improving the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport (MSP); and WHEREAS, the Commission is currently reviewing options for the future improvement and use of MSP at its current location as well as options involving relocation of MSP airport operations to a new major airport; all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.616; and WHEREAS, the New Ford Town and Rich Acres areas of the City of Richfield (the "City") are primarily residential neighborhoods lying west of MSP and east of TH77; and WHEREAS, the Commission and the City have long recognized that residential uses in these.neighborhoods are not compatible with current airport uses, with any reasonably foreseeable future airport uses of MSP, or with any foreseeable uses of the MSP property should some or all of the airport operations at MSP be moved to a major new airport; and WHEREAS, the presence of residential uses in these neighborhoods has an impact on current airport operations and • reduces the options available for future airport improvements and operations; and WHEREAS, these residential neighborhoods are adversely affected both by the proximity of the airport and by uncertainty about how future airport operations or improvements will affect the neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, such adverse effects include reduction in property value, general disinvestment in the properties in the neighborhood, and the resulting blight and deterioration, all of which result in severe personal and financial hardships for the residents an owners of properties in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Commission has identified these neighborhoods as among those which should be acquired with part 150 funds for noise abatement purposes; and WHEREAS, the acquisition and clearance of these neighborhoods would mitigate adverse environmental effects of airport operations, alleviate personal and financial hardships, and facilitate airport planning by increasing options available for future airport operations and improvements; and WHEREAS, the residents of these neighborhoods have indicated a clear and urgent desire that their homes be acquired and that they be relocated; and WHEREAS, the City has requested that the Commission consider a cooperative effort to study the feasibility of acquiring the property in these neighborhoods and putting it to appropriate and productive use. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Metropolitan Airports Commission: 1. That its staff is directed to meet with staff of the City of Richfield to negotiate an agreement for the joint preparation of a feasibility study and program for the acquisition and redevelopment of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods in the City of Richfield. 2. That staff shall report back to the Commission with its recommendations as to the execution of such an agreement by 1991. Dated: Chairman Secretary • MAC. RICHFIELD A C H E PROPOSAL April, 1991 PAGE: S D. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPING/NEGOTIATING PROCESS (co-nti-ued? 2. PURPOSE/AUTHORITY/LEGISLATION will cover statutory basis for the agreement, and define additional investigations to be undertaken to define specific authority for inrsovative firsarsc•e programs that may be proposed. 3. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES will summarize the work to be completed, the reps<nsible party for each assignment, the proposed or estimated time frame, and agreements with other agencies required. 4. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS will be identified, defined, and investigated as a basis for establishing authority for all actions and approvals required, and new or revised state legistlation may be recommended. ..FINANCIAL MATTERS will include development of FINACIAL MODELS that will include AL BASIC ASSUMPTIONS, SIX REVENUE OPTIONS. FOUR ACQUISITION OPTIONS, ALL EXPENSES RY VROPER CATAGORY AND DESCRIPTION FIVE 121SPOSITION OPTIONS AND A CURRENT SCENARIO, all prepared in tabular, summary form for ease of comparison, with supporting documentation. S. ACQUISITION/RELOCATION/DEMOLITION AND MANAGEMENT will be identified by individual parcels, including itemized costs for staff, consulting, and contract costs., scheduled according to priorities and opportunities, with co-s-odemnatio-s-s procedures as required, together with a program for management, security, and revenues from the use of the acquired properties. 7. DISPOSITION OR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN(S) will be prepared for MAC consideration and adoption in order to provide the greatest degree of flexibility of options for reuse and revenue from sales of properties acquired. 6. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS to City and School District resulting from the loss of population: and tax revenues including passible legislative authority if needed. 9. PAYMENTS of all direct City staff time and expense, together with fees to contractors and consultants shall be made by the City upon approval by MAC. MAC will reimburse the City upon submittal of monthly invoices with supporting detail requested by MAC. 10. TERM/TERMINATION AND OTHER MATTERS include the right of either party to terminate the agreement upon proper notice and payment of all costs to that date, or upon: completion of the work, as well as ether procedural details. City of Richfield - 6700 Portland Avenue - Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch William Bullock Michael Sandahl Ivan Ludeman Kristal Stokes May 1, 1991 Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear: DRAFT . The City of Richfield is requesting that the Metropolitan Airports Commission approve the attached resolution authorizing a joint feasibility study for property acquisition, residential relocation and redevelopment of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. The report would examine the potential redevelopment of that site for specific airport (MAC) purposes or airport related purposes as well as private development. The City of Richfield is asking MAC to take this action because it is quite apparent that the environment of New Ford Town and Rich Acres is not suitable for prolonged residential use. It is also clear that redevelopment of these areas should occur regardless of the outcome of the dual track strategy. Even if 40 the legislature authorizes a new airport, it appears extremely Telephone 861-9700 (612) Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer unlikely that the new airport could be constructed in less than 20 years. In the meantime, residents within New Ford Town are asked to endure not only significant noise impacts, but also an uncertain future. This uncertainty is beginning to cause economic and social disinvestment within these neighborhoods. These residents have also provided a clear indication of an urgent desire that their homes be acquired and that they be relocated. We are asking for Metropolitan Airports Commission to initiate a process which will determine how the airport and the City of Richfield can structure a mechanism to permit that these wishes • be fulfilled. Preliminary research conducted by the City of Richfield indicates that there are a variety of viable alternatives to accomplish our purpose. However, it is clear that MAC needs to become a partner in the final design of the buyout and redevelopment effort. We look forward to an opportunity to meet with the Metropolitan Airports Commission to respond to any questions you might have regarding this request. Sincerely, • Martin J. Kirsch Mayor City of Richfield, Minnesota Study Session Letter No.23 Agenda, May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues. Background: Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: s MSP Intergovernmental Planning Group The MAC developed this airport interactive planning group to help determine off-site impacts and potential mitigation measures for each airport development proposal in the long-term comprehensive plan. Members of this group include elected and city officials from the communities surrounding MSP, representatives from the Met Council and MAC. Mayor Martin Kirsch and Bill Weaver are designated to this group. Attached are summary notes from two meetings held on April 10 and April 24, 1991. s MAC Part 150 Program The MAC developed a MSP Land Use Policy Advisory Committee to • meet with MAC staff and consultants to monitor and make recommendations on the development of the land use implementation plan. The committee consists of the Chair and Vice Chair from MASAC, representatives from communities surrounding MSP, the Met Council and FAA. Bill Weaver was appointed by the City Council as the city's representative on the committee. Bill Weaver attended the first committee meeting on April 24. Attached is a summary of that meeting. Richfield will establish a core group to review the Part 150 Program implementation process. This group will provide technical assistance relative to the city's concerns. s New Airport Legislation A bill has been introduced by State Rep. Dennis Ozment, IR- Rosemount, and Rep. Bill Macklin, IR-Lakeville that would require the Metropolitan Council to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the current airport before designating a final search area for a new airport (House File No. 1440). The study would compare the feasibility and cost of expanding the MSP with relocating and developing a new airport site. This bill is amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, sections 473.155, subdivision 3 and 473. 1551, subdivisions 1 and 2 which state the provisions for the new airport search process. A copy of the bill is attached. -0 Local government officials from Dakota County urged Rep. Ozment to adopt the legislation. On March 26, the Dakota County Board unanimously passed a resolution to stop the siting of a new airport. A number of other resolutions have been passed by city councils and townships in the county opposing the siting of a new airport in that area. The bill will be referred to the House Committee on Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs. A Senate companion bill still needs to be found. Recommended Motion: With this background information, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: ® MSP Intergovernmental Planning Group Staff will continue to participate in this group and keep the Council informed of the topics covered and the tasks accomplished at these meetings. • MAC Part 150 Program Staff will continue to provide summary updates the Council of the MSP Land Use Policy Advisory Committee meetings. • New Airport Legislation The Council will be updated on future developments of House Bill is No. 1440 and any Senate companion bill in the Legislature. Alternative Recommendations: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the May 6, 1991 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the May 6, 1991 Study Session. Respectf lly submitted, James . Prosser City pager JDP:kab Attachments INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING GROUP April 10 IPG The IPG meeting of April 10, 1991 focused on three major issues: 1. Discussion of Off-Airport Impacts 2. Review of the six consolidated airport concepts 3. Review of roadway impacts Discussion of Off Airport Impacts • The group recommended that the two major categories for analysis , airfield and landside development impacts be changed to runway/taxiway development and terminal/landside impacts. In addition the following revisions were made relative to runway/taxiway development impacts: 1. Air Quality: impact of changes in aircraft operations 2. Light Emissions (Navigational Aids): airfield lighting, radar systems, and landing aids; 3. Runway - Taxiway Construction: noise due to construction and operational changes; impacts on wetlands/groundwater and waterbodies; 4. Land Use: add the following categories - histoncal/archeological, recreational areas, relocation of military facilities, other land acquisition; Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)) acquisition will also include impacts on utilities; 5. Noise: year 2000 noise impacts will be determined through use of Ldn 60 -65 and L10 descriptors; assumptions relative to aircraft mix and activity, health effects and federal properties will also be included. Revisions to the terminal/landside development list were: 1. Traffic: acquisition impacts, noise impacts, and travel times; direct airport development impacts and induced development impacts; 2. Land- Use: induced development, federal lands, economic dislocation, community disruption, and historical/archeological impacts; Review of Consolidated Airport ConcepIs The general descriptions of the six airport concepts were reviewed for content . The group also requested maps showing noise contours overlaid with the six airport concepts. The maps were requested at V-2000' for noise contours and 1 " - 800' for the concepts. Dave Warner of BRW reviewed the regional roadway impacts of each of the six alternatives, copies of the traffic forecasts are attached. The forecasts were prepared for the years 2010 and 2020. Some specific points relative to the traffic analysis are: 1. The forecasts were adjusted to reflect differing services provided by the terminal facility and the remote parking facility. 2. The remote facility will not be able to handle checked baggage 3. The most significant differences in traffic volumes occur on the highways forming the borders of the airport,. Those changes are the result of changes in the locations of the main terminal and remote parking/curbside facilities. April 24 IPG meeting The April 24 meeting focused on the following: 1. Proposed work Plan 2. Noise contour re-evaluation 3. Public meetings 4. Economic impacts Proposed work plan: Communities were assigned responsibilities for compiling and analyzing the impacts of Terminal/Landside and Runway/Taxiway development as follows: 1. Terminal/Landside development a. Traffic impacts on local streets b. Economic dislocation and community disruption 2. Runway/Taxiway development a. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - tax impacts and community disruption. b. Noise - landaus compatibility, community disruption, growth patterns and population movement, tax implications. Richfield staff will therefore be responsible for compiling and writting draft analysis of each of the above issues. In order to maintain consistency between communities staff representatives from each community will meet to agree on a format for analysis. Because of the difficulty in obtaining 1990 census data and disagregating it to fit the requirements of the noise analysis it was agreed that the 1980 census data would be linked with the year 2000 base noise profiles to provide a "0" point for analysis. Consequently, the impacts of noise contours on population will be measured in terms of the incremental changes in coverage from 1980 / year 2000 base contours to 1990 population overlaid by each new noise contour. _--1 • Each community will be holding public informational meetings to be conducted by MAC and HNTB staff. The meetings will be similar to previous ones but will include all material available to date in addition to other materials requested by each community. Meetings are tentatively planned for late May. It is our intention to hold a special meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission prior to the public meeting so that both bodies may review the information available to date and be fully aware of the issues prior to the public meeting. Socio Economic impacts An outline of the socio economic impacts of each concept alternative was presented and is attached for your information. Clearly Richfield has the bulk of the socio-economic issues. Runway use diagrams Runway use diagrams for each of the proposed alternates were presented and are attached for your information. the diagrams represent the per cent usage of each runway end for each concept. PART 150 POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) The PAC held its first meeting April 24. The purpose of the committee is to serve as an advisory body to the Metropolitan Airports Commission during development of its Part 150 application and study. The purpose of this group is not to be confused with other airport related groups whose purpose is to study airport expansion and or relocation options. The purpose of the PAC is to establish a process for mitigating existing airport noise related problems and establishing criteria for mitigating such problems. The operating assumption of the study is that the 1996 Ldn noise contour will be the base for determining funding assistance under FAR Part 150. The process is seen to be a multi-year effort involving - Establishment of a project area with clearly defined boundaries; - Establishment of local "core teams" within each community; - Conducting community workshops - Selecting implementation strategies based on core group and citizen input. - Selecting a master implementation plan for each city. Richfield will begin its part of the process by establishing its core group. the core group's role will be to review the process in light of Richfield's issues and provide technical guidance relative Richfield's specific concerns. The group will also host the workshops and be the point of contact for the community. A core group workshop is tentatively scheduled for June 5th at 2:30 PM . During the workshop the MAC staff and consultants will review the requirements of Part 150, the various mitigation methods, and the results of work completed to date. • 0 r 0 G a H C a, s d L L- -j H OD c a 0 h C V "C N C 0 U O h v h C U E --4c G? cn v aW 3 3 9 Z i `rl c W e v `' 25 .. ?S c \?1 1? Rt ao C O a W C .? 3 1i JC.' ee O V U ?j J-00-0 cc 0 .0 01, 0 p ? c? ttN¢??]] a 4i t7i Z Ci cc > •? ? ', ?i w r20 1 v ? u O>? 'C 12\c z t > h in Z ?° =c °a. rr p ?. C eo \ to y .,,, - t7j w A .? '? c G C .O Cc -- O C O y b OO it. Oa y EO?O ,? •C ?^ y C y `" O Fi O a p v c v A O C eo 0? e~oW O c•? :c.O A M a C y 0 O?0 3 a Z r C ? Gi co 'o ~ co 4) V L• V ° r a+ 4) O . cc 3 Li 3 W s ? .a aa? ? ?' •c y•y ? Y3 8 c y ? .9 cc 72 <13 - ard cc 3 T ° °? 3 'a cc W i y r ~y O Oy •? .L. 0 Q? 11 ? ° c 0.. y N\ ^ V t7J ++ C r R .+ ... C C O O C o S 10 .C A e? 'm 4 '> 0 :1 as C \p ca . 'C ?a mac ?cc 4)U. -0 .03? •..?o4>1 ea V •veo°Z =o??;;c aE°"? •??,E3 '?I? =c3 V) y c c .S ° 3 ao c= e? fo1 b o a c° Z -cc / eoo 8 0 `° G W w w W G. v y v 6? C .0. C\ V O ~ bA ;7. co w IS W E- 0 ?. • U ?,. U IA ar W ?. VJ W 1.i ?j y ° •10 RS -C .. Eea? V o t °io? 3?°? 3o.a 030 •p s aK b 4' T; b •a. b Q ?o W .?_ t_ eeNa?? > M C y ` CC M C .r .r? r C •? '? .?? cta?f? ° Ip 17? R F'. ° v Q 1 QW 1 21 1 •i•? 1 j 1 w Q W , a to ° c? 0gg yNQ V.8 to V C O eo ?' ? O .0 CO _ .? C Q C p '? Q p ?1 C O 3 C O 3•? Q. ? 3 h 0. 4) .? O r.Or ? a yb„ w 'gyp '? ^ cc cog -10 %) •? . .y W d (d Q G? ld N V 0 3 3 ?+ Q C A 1 w U Q , V U 1 Y o U 1 V Q 1 w a ?r '1 VJ E 1 Ir .0 R e = . 41 _. ^? r+ ? g oc - C 0. .y s a H d? QC 1..i a 0 h .?r Q. V ri O U f. U 0 h ri O h U v E 0 O u 0 67 ? ?"• ? O'?p,p ? b w ?? vpi p G 0 ? ? e0 h p ? 0 a of A • w0' ? r? eon p? 00 p? . • O • • 'gyp W Li p „J, p '? W CS 0 'p p e0•e.. y0 ; G ba .O e0 ? O C NN y J N pp Ri t O ? q p 6> A ,? vl by R y _ S 0 '? 'O S p u : pQG a . p Q p Q r W V V t3 i W V b?0 - C >. C O i. C 7 Q r , o . G a N ? Q Il e a p' Aa - - a . ?j e0 e L v ?i ,y w p CY. 1 _ Is 0 $ C t 3 .? •C .. p O? v cl y C r L C'. C ?. o ?i v F? N C p CIS .0 t0 0-4 o 0 V C w v O U p w e c °? . !0 eQ 0-0 ? c?• by .fl _ r p w t 6 t- w ? 5 C ?p O R1 p p rt7 0 W C '? W 0 Q cc s -me ate o va o? -d , ,. , C C T 1r l0 ? y !p ? .O ; Ri N V C. 5t V C?. b o g 2= '00 0 '0 .0 cc 0 o X? Cc .0 = g 0. E - N C N C 4 ,Q cc ..?Q ,.,tea c c , . COV _.r by 7 *0 cc .q. C ? ed e0 ?i .? ? eo ? ? ? • ? V ? m .? a Q V ?• e •? yQ F V 05 O p C •cc ' •? ,,• •" w •°J' ? p m •" E ? •p w cl Q .. N 0 gyp O y N y y v •e0 = e c? Q D •ti tL> a C y c0 ? N • 1 G Q Q ? w , ? ' R Q VJ !r i p ee i V . ? p U ? '^ 3 C ' / a O ; •? r YiY 11 moo N?a t VI s sy CIS - 00 ?? w CO cc ^ ? ? N C , b0 d .+ • ? tQi? C ? w? wa. ? O R O O C a ,b0 • 0 O ? Cr) a Q c 0 c o co. c ti °"0 bsz CL Jsz do c o z ? s- ? o? X74 c 70 c 0\0, o ti. 0. Oi ?Cb ti c Ada $o? .c $s? a ` E V E . c 0 N T as d a 40 ? c c? v C ?o oc doo E N ? L } • • • O +O L" O n a Q t0 C C s. d6 ??. C C SS c? a o? lee c ti? ¦ ,?o• rrc c g nn -C?° OO` 'V y rrR $! C ?Cb 2! .C o? a E U E H c o .a U. v w C ? V C 3 V as o EN o? • 0 en. ?C dP ?s s'o ENO ti/ ?0 lti' O ++ O ? O ? CV) a f.r Q C O .ON +r C a 4w c ?o u1 0 a o? c c ¦ 241cVo 40? LZ. c s d s. a E V E a? c 0 o? w O LL cc H a? a ? C Cc 0 3 c ?o ? o do E N o? C z ,h 40 '4, BRW INC THRESHER SOUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612 370.0700 ;:Ax 612 370.1378 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1991 TO: Nigel Finney 0 FROM: David M. Warner, PE, BRW ??i'r-? 4 Sandra K. Cullen, BRW ,dp,, RE: Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Traffic Forecasts N Introduction The Metropolitan Airports Commission is developing the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP). The LTCP is a thirty-year concept plan which determines facility needs assuming that MSP continues as the designated air carrier airport through the Year 2020. Two terminal location concepts and three airfield concepts are being considered. Although each combination of terminal and airfield concept results in a potentially different trip distribution pattern, the passenger terminal location is the key determinant of trip distribution. The runway configuration influences the access plan. This analysis examines the effect of passenger terminal location and runway configuration on future traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system. Airport Terminal Concepts Under Terminal Concept A, all ticketing and baggage handling facilities for regional, domestic and international operations would be located in the area where the existing Lindbergh Terminal is located. A remote parking/curbside facility would be provided on the west side of the airport. • Under Terminal Concept B, all ticketing and baggage handling facilities for regional, domestic and international operations would be located near the northwest corner of the airport site. A remote parking/curbside facility would be located on the east side of the airport. MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN TUCSON ST. PETERSBURG Nigel Finney March 8, 1991 • Page 2 Airfield Concepts Airfield Concept A incorporates a runway parallel to and 1,000 feet north of Runway 11L-29R. Airfield Concept B adds a runway which is parallel to and 1,000 feet south of Runway 11R-29L. Airfield Concept C includes adding a new NNW/SSE runway along the west edge of the airport site. Airport Concepts Each of the airfield concepts is combined with a terminal concept to achieve the "airport concepts." The airport concepts are: Concept 1 - Airfield Concept A and Terminal Concept A Concept 2 - Airfield Concept A and Terminal Concept B Concept 3 - Airfield Concept B and Terminal Concept A Concept 4 - Airfield Concept B and Terminal Concept B Concept 5 - Airfield Concept C and Terminal Concept A Concept 6 - Airfield Concept C and Terminal Concept B Access Plans An access plan has been developed for each airport concept. Some of the concepts have the same access alternative: Concept 1: o Access to Main Terminal at TH 5 o Access to Remote Parking/Curbside Facility at TH 62 and at TH 77 Concept 3 and Concept 5: o Access to Main Terminal at TH 5 o Access to Remote Parking/Curbside Facility at TH 62 Concept 2, Concept 4 and Concept 6: o Access to Main Terminal at TH 62 and at TH 77 o Access to Remote Parking/Curbside Facility at TH 5 2010 Traffic Forecasts The forecasts for each of the access plans were prepared using a computerized travel model. The forecasts from the model were adjusted to reflect the fact that the..terminal facility and the remote Nigel Finney • March 8, 1991 Page 3 parking/curbside facility provide different services. The assumption made in this analysis is that passengers will not be able to check or claim baggage at the remote facility. It is further assumed that passengers with bags to check or claim will begin or end their airport trip at the terminal. The Year 2010 traffic volume forecasts for the access plans of Concept 1, Concepts 3 & 5, and Concepts 2 & 4 & 6 are illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, respectively. 2020 Traffic Forecasts The airport traffic volumes and general traffic volumes in 2020 were calculated by applying a growth factor to the 2010 traffic volumes. The growth factor used for the airport traffic volumes was 1.137 and was calculated from the forecasted increases in originations and terminations at MSP from 2010 to 2020. The growth factor applied to the general traffic volumes was 1.2, which is a calculated average from the growths of traffic along each link in the study area from 1988 to 2010 Traffic volume forecasts for the year 2020 for the access plans of Concept • 1, Concepts 3 & 5, and Concepts 2 & 4 & 6 are illustrated in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6, respectively. Analysis The traffic volumes entering the roadway system around the airport are similar in each of the future access alternatives. The differences in the traffic volumes are most significant on the major highways along the airport boundaries. These differences are a result of changes in the location of the main terminal facilities and the remote parking/curbside facilities. Comparison of Concepts 1, 3 and 5 to Concepts 2, 4 and 6 A comparison of Concepts 1, 3 and 5 (east terminal) to Concepts 2, 4 and 6 (northwest terminal) shows that when the main terminal facility is located near the northwest corner of the airport site: o Traffic volumes on TH 5 bordering the airport are lower. o Traffic volumes on TH 77 bordering the airport are higher. o Airport trips.shift fromientering/exiting the study area from I-494 to entering/exiting the study area from TH 62. 0 . Nigel Finney March 8, 1991 Page 4 Comparison of Concept 1 to Concepts 3 and 5 A comparison of Concept 1 (remote parking/curbside facility access to TH 62 and TH 77) to Concepts 3 and 5 (remote parking/curbside facility access to TH 62) shows that when only one point of access is provided: o Traffic volumes on TH 5 bordering the airport south of the airport access are higher. o Airport trips on TH 77 are lower. o Airport trips on I-494 are higher. OW/SC/nr 408929 E • L J ADT rt ADT 2010 Forecast Concept 1 Main Entrance T.H. 5 z ,'11:x: Remote Entrance TH. 62 & 77 ?t ? .1iiCi: i L, cfe. Figure 1 Long •TermComprehensiveft R March 1991 • ADT ft ADT 2010 Forecast Concept 3 & Concept 5 Main Entrance T.H. 5 Remote Entrance T.H. 62 Figure 2 R Long • Term Comprehengve Plan March 1991 • %DT t ADT C d ' 'gar Long • Team Compreherdve In N, I :fir^?;rrs 2010 Forecast Concept 2, Concept 4 & Concept 6 Main Entrance T.H. 62 & 77 Remote Entrance T.H. 55 Figure 3 March 1991 r 1 L? w %DT t ADT a? 2020 Forecast Concept 1 Main Entrance T.H.5 .'%. W-1 Remote Entrance T.H. 62 & 77 ? c ?::Figure 4 Lon -Term Com rehen*eMan R March 1991 • 0 10T Airport t ADT • 2020 Forecast Concept 3 & Concept 5 • Main Entrance T.H.5 -" •? n ?;T?,..j,,,t,;;t_, Remote Entrance T.H. 62 ?a.A. c?:,.Y;:r.•, ;i;? Figure 5 Long •Term Compreherdveft R March 1991 • 0 CDT port ADT 2020 Forecast 11 Concept 2, Concept 4 & Concept 6 ` -? Main Entrance T.H. 62 & 77 Remote Entrance T.H. 5 •.= t`n;rt, {, Figure 6 bong-Term Compre vePbn R March 1991 _to 1 PART 150 LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN • TIMETABLE 1991 Wednesday April 24 Week of may 6-10 Monday May 13 Monday May 20 TIay May 21 Wednesday May 22 Thursday May 23 Tuesday June 11 Monday July 1 Tuesday July 16 D?, A& I 9:00 am.-2:00 pm. Consultant Team Meeting 200 p m.4:00 p m, PAC Meeting #1 Residential Direct Mailers Community Newspapers Press Conference Notice Mailer Media rat Disttabution 2:00 p-m.-3:00 pm. Press Conference 3:00 pm.-8:00 pm. Educational WORKSHOP 1 Minneapolis 9:00 a-m--10:00 am. Consultant Team Meeting 10:00 2-m--12:00 pm. PAC Meeting #2 3:00 pm,-8:00 pm. Educational WORKSHOP 2 Minneapolis 3:00 pm.-8:00 per. Educational WORKSHOP 3 Richfield/Bloomington 3:00 pm.-8:00 pm. Educational WORKSHOP 4 Eagan/Mendota Heights 9:00 a m.-1:00 pxL Consultant Team Meeting 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. PAC Meeting #3 Demonstration Home Construction Completion 9:00 11-m--1:00 pm. Consultant Team Meeting 1:00 p.m.-5:00 pm. PAC Meeting #4 Thursday August 1 • Thursday August 8 Thursday August 29 Saturday September 7 to Sunday September 15 Monday September 23 Tuesday September 24 Residential Direct-Mailers Distribution of Final Part 150 MENU Media Kit Distribution 9:00 azL-12:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m.-1:00 pm. 1:00 p.m.-5:00 pm. 'Joint' CORE Meeting #1 Lunch CORE Breakout Meetings Residential Direct Mailers Community Newspapers Media Kit Distribution Demonstration Home - Open House 7:00 pzL-10:00 p m. PUBLIC FORUM #1- Bloomington 7:00 p.m.-10:00 pm. PUBLIC FORUM #2 - Richfield Wednesday September 25 7:00 p-m.-10:00 pan. PUBLIC FORUM #3 - Minneapolis Thursday September 26 7b0 pm.-20:00 pm. PUBLIC FORUM #4 - Eagan/MH Wednesday October 16 Monday October 28 Tuesday October 29 Wednesday October 30 Tuesday November 26 Thursday December 5 Mail Preliminary 'City-Specific' Implementation Plans -a-m- - CORE Meeting #2 - Minneapolis pm. - CORE Meeting #2 - Richfield am. - CORE Meeting #2 - Bloomington p.m- - CORE Meeting #2 - Eagan a-m- - CORE Meeting #2 - Mendota Heights pm. - Consultant Team Meeting 'City-Specific' Implementation Plans Due 9:00 a.m.-1:00 pm. Consultant Team meeting 1:00 pm.-5:00 p-m. PAC Meeting #5 1992 Tuesday January 7 to Wednesday January 8 Friday January 17 Monday January 20 Monday January 27 Tuesday January 28 Consultant Team Meetings PAC Meeting #6 (5) CORE Meetings #3 Completion of Final MSP Master Implementation Plan Residential Direct-Mailers Community Newspapers Media rit Distribution 7:00 pm--10:00 pm. Communication PUBLIC MEETING Richfield 7:00 p.m.-10:00 pm. Communication PUBLIC MEETING Bloomington 7:00 pm.-10:00 pm. Communication PUBLIC MEETING Minneapolis 7:00 pm.-10:00 p.m. Communication PUBLIC MEETING Minneapolis Wednesday January 29 February .March 1 7:00p L-10:00p L Communication PUBLIC MEETING Fagan 7b0 pm.-10:00 pm. Communication PUBLIC MEETING Mendota Heights Task 10 and 11 Completion of MSP Part 150 Land Use Implementation Design MSP Part 250 Land Use Implementation Begins 40 04/05/91 ? 1 0 0 2 relating to metropolitan government; requiring Introduced by Ozment, Macklin H.F. No. 1440 April 8, 1991 Companion S.F. No. Referred to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT & METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS Reproduced by PIiILLIPS LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 1 A bill for an act 3 metropolitan council to conduct feasibility study on 4 expanding present major metropolitan airport before 5 designat.ing final search area for a new major airport; 6 amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, sections 473.155, 7 subdivision 3; and 473.1551, subdivisions 1 and 2. 8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 9 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.155, 10 subdivision 3, is amended to read: 11 Subd. 3. [SEARCH AREA.] By January 1, 1992, the council, 12 in consultation with the airports commission, shall designate a 13 search area.for a major new airport. Before designating a final 14 search area, the council shall complete a study comparing the 15 feasibility and cost of expanding the current airport with 16 relocating and developing a new airport site. ?17 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.1551, 18 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 19 Subdivision 1. [CANDIDATE SEARCH AREAS PROTECTION.] (a) 20 The provisions of this subdivision apply within areas designated 21 by the metropolitan council as candidates for selection as a 22 search area for a new major airport under section 473.155, 23 subdivision 3. The However, these provisions shall not apply 24 until the council has completed the feasibilitv and cost study 25 required in section 473.155, subdivision 3. Thereafter these 26 provisions will apply until the council has selected a search [REVISOR ] RR/LY 91-2778 1 04/05/91 [REVISOR ] RR/LY. 91-2778 •1 2 3 4 area under section 473.155, subdivision 3. (b) All land within the candidate search areas not zoned for other use is zoned for use exclusively for agricultural purposes, except that a prior nonconforming use established with 5 reference to any lot or parcel of land may be continued. 6 (c) A local government unit in the metropolitan area may 7 not permit a change in zoning, a zoning variance, or a 8 conditional use, including planned unit developments, that the 9 local unit or the metropolitan council determines is 10 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the-local 11 government unit adopted in accordance with sections 473.175 and 12 473.851 to 473.871, or any other authority. Before approving an 13 application or proposal for a change in zoning, zoning variance, W 4 or conditional use, the local government unit shall submit the 15 application or proposal to the metropolitan council for review 16 and approval or disapproval. The council may disapprove the 17 application or proposal only if the council determines that it 18 is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the local unit. 19 (d) The council shall give notice to the metropolitan 20 airports commission of all submittals under paragraph (c). The 21 commission may comment to the council on any submittal. 22 (e) The council shall approve or disapprove a submittal 23 within 90 days following receipt by the council, unless a time 24 extension is mutually agreed to by the council and the 25 submitting unit. The commission has 45 days after notification 26 to comment. The council and the commission shall establish • 27 administrative procedures for expedited disposition of proposals 28 or applications that do not warrant metropolitan review. 29 (f) If a candidate search area includes land within a local 30 unit of government outside of the metropolitan area, the 31 metropolitan council and the local unit may enter into an 32 agreement for the joint exercise of powers necessary to 33- determine whether a proposed change in zoning, zoning variance, 34 or conditional use will be compatible with the development and 35 operation of a major airport. 36 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.1551, 2 f` F 04/05/91 2 3 4 5 6 7 (REVISOR ) RR/LY 91-2778 subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. (SEARCH AREA PROTECTION.) (a) The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply until the council has completed the feasibility and cost study required under section 473.155, subdivision 3. Thereafter the provisions of this subdivision will apply within the search area for a new major airport selected by the council under section 473.155, 8 subdivision 3---The-provisions, and will continue to apply until 9 one year after the report to the legislature on long-range 10 airport development required by section 473.618. 11 (b) Land zoned by subdivision 1, paragraph (b), continues 12 to be zoned exclusively for agricultural purposes, unless a 13 change is authorized under paragraphs (c) and (d). .t4 (c) A local government unit in the metropolitan area may 15 not permit a change in zoning, a zoning variance, or a 16 conditional use, including planned unit developments, that the 17 local unit determines is inconsistent either with the local 18 unit's criteria for approving changes in land use or with the 19 comprehensive plan of the local unit adopted in accordance with 20 sections 473.175 and 473.851 to 473.871. The local unit may 21 deny an application or proposal for a change in zoning, zoning 22 variance, or conditional use under this paragraph without review 23 by the metropolitan council. Before making a final decision to 24 approve an application or proposal, the local unit shall submit 25 it to the metropolitan council for review and approval or 26 disapproval as provided in paragraph (d). 47 (d) The metropolitan council may disapprove an application 28 or proposal submitted under paragraph (c) only if the council 29 determines that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan 30 of the local government unit adopted under sections 473.175 and 31 473.851 to 473.871, a metropolitan system plan as defined by 32 section 473.852, subdivision 8, or the development and operation 33 of a new major airport in the search area. A local government 34 unit in the metropolitan area may not permit a change in zoning, 35 a zoning variance,- or a conditional use, including planned unit 36 developments, that the metropolitan council has disapproved. 3 04/05/91 (REVISOR RR/LY 91-2778 1 (e) A governmental agency or unit may not construct a 2 public building or facility, including transportation, sewer, 3 and park facilities, wiLiAn ctie 6eai:t;ii a e4 until it la-4 submitted the plan for the building or facility to the 5 metropolitan council for review and comment. 6 (f) The council shall give notice to the metropolitan 7 airports commission of all submittals under this subdivision. 8 The commission may comment to the council on any submittal. 9 (g) The council shall approve or disapprove a submittal 10 within 90 days following receipt by the council, unless a time 11 extension is mutually agreed to by the council and the 12 submitting government agency or unit. The commission has 45 13 days after notification to comment. The council and the 14 commission shall establish administrative procedures for 015 expedited disposition of proposals or applications that do not 16 warrant metropolitan review. 17 Sec. 4. (EFFECTIVE DATE.) 18 Sections 1 to 3 are effective the day following final 19 enactment. • 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 22 Agenda May 6, 1991 Issue Statement: Status of South Hennepin Human Service Council reorganization. Background: The cities •of Richfield, Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina participate in a joint powers agreement human service planning program. The program, South Hennepin Human Service Council (SHHSC), was founded in 1970 and provides for human service planning on a regional basis. Initially the SHHSC was established in order to provide regional planning data to Hennepin County for coordination and operation of decentralized human services delivery systems. The effort was funded by Hennepin County. The current structure of the SHHSC provides that each community shall appoint four members to the Council. The SHHSC administers a staff and the staff provides planning based on community input provided by the Council. In the past year, three communities, Edina, Eden Prairie and Bloomington, have indicated a dissatisfaction with the structure of the SHHSC. Their concerns appear to include the following: e The day-to-day administration of SHHSC staff is burdensome for the appointed representatives. e The SHHSC planning staff should be supervised by professional staffs within the cities. ® The planning effort should be locally directed with greater emphasis on local issues. Regional planning would continue, however, on a more selected basis. It is clear that there are philosophical differences among the cities regarding some of these issues. Richfield has indicated support for the current structure. Edina appears to be somewhere in the middle of the two positions. A series of planning meetings have produced a compromise structure. The recommended structure basically provides for the following: s Planning staff would work under the direction of staff from the four cities. • The formal structure of the SHHSC would be essentially disbanded and replaced with an advisory council. s The advisory council would be comprised of four representatives appointed by the cities. One of the four representatives would be a staff liaison. The Council's primary function would be limited to establishing annual • planning goals and planning priorities, serving as a sounding board to the planning staff and identifying potential regional cooperative planning initiatives. • Each community shall establish a broadly based local advisory board for the purpose of determining local planning needs and goals. This group is primarily responsive to the City Council. The model anticipates the potential withdrawal of County funding for planning efforts for budget reasons. The new model would provide the capability for Richfield and Edina to share a planner if Hennepin County monies are withdrawn. Eden Prairie and Bloomington currently maintain that they have an individual with human service planning capabilities and responsibilities on staff. The net cost to the City of Richfield is not expected to increase as a result of the new model. Under the scenario that Hennepin County funds are eliminated some additional cost may be indicated depending upon staffing levels. The total cost to the City for the past three years for the SHHSC is as follows: 1988 $ 6,240 1989 $10,700 1990 $15,500 • A copy of the proposed model is attached. Recommended Motion: Review the proposed model. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The model is a compromise which would permit continued cooperative effort, albeit in a different form than previously existed. 2. The City of Richfield has played an extensive role in attempting to formulate a compromise solution which allow a continued cooperative effort. 3. It is important that a cooperative effort be maintained in order to continue to take advantage of not for profit volunteer and quasi-governmental human service providers that serve communities on a regional basis. 4. The new structure may enhance human service planning capabilities. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may decide to defer this item for discussion to • a later date, however the model will require formal Council action at a future date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the administrative meeting of May 6. Representatives to the SHHSC are invited to attend that meeting. No final action is required. The purpose of discussion is to make certain that the City Council concurs with the direction of the new structure. It is likely that a new joint power agreement will require City Council action at a later date. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City, anager JDP:ds cc: SHHSC Representatives C? Zr '?"-- REVISED 5/6/91 0 South Hennepin Regional Planning Office • for Human Services • • • m v P4 0 N W p?pqq x H as as 0 ao b r1 a w U .,4 N 2 d a w w 0 a [UH 1-4 a i I J l rti oD A • The South Hennepin Regional Planning Office provides planning and coordination in the area of human services for the region of South Hennepin County (Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie and Edina). The Regional Planning Office maintains a strong regional focus in addressing human service needs. The Regional Planning Office has three primary objectives: 1 To allow for each city to understand its unique needs, develop strategies to address these needs and, when appropriate, form a partnership with one or more other cities in developing these strategies; 2 To create a two tiered (municipal and regional) collaborative structure in which the various sectors (both public and private) of the communities are represented and form an integral part of the development of strategies to address human service needs. 3 To enhance the participation of residents and providers in the planning and development of human services. • The Regional Planning Office has the following primary functions: 1. Conduct surveys and other forms of research to assess human service needs and trends in the region and the degree to which services meet needs. ?. Conduct research to assess trends in human service and social policy issues. 3. Maintain computerized systems of data to monitor trends in needs and the human service delivery system over time. 4. Work with communities (i.e., cities, providers, citizens and organizations) in South Hennepin to coordinate resources in order to meet human service needs. a. Facilitate citizen input and participation in the planning of human services. 6. Provide planning services for the region on issues determined as priorities among two or more cities as well as for individual cities on local Issues depending on the need for services and availability of time. 7. Serve as link to local, regional and national agencies and Information sources. ? y ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The organizational structure of the Regional Planning Office consists of seven interacting bodies (refer to Diagram 1). E 0 2 -1i 13:56 0000 SANFAX22?j m e r i e b S. 1/ 5 The Regional Planning Office staff consists of a: Senior Planner Associate Planner Secretary FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF Senior Planner (accountable to the Human Service Liaison Committee) - Office management - supervise staff - recommend hiring and termination of staff - prepare budget • - oversee financial transactions - prepare: financial reports proposals and submit contracts program reports annual report grant proposals - serve as liaison to Hennepin County - work with staff, Regional Citizen Advisory Board and Human Service Liaison Committee in implementing work plan collect, organize, analyze and Interpret data on human service needs and regional delivery system of human services. - conduct needs assessments and other surveys to assess human service issues - develop survey instruments - develop planning proposals and work plan - write research reports - network with community agencies - manage computerized information systems - coordinate resources and facilitate collaborative strategies for addressing human service needs Associate Planner (Aooountab/e to and under direction of Signior Planner) - work with Senior Planner, Regional Citizen Advisory Board and Human service Liaison Committee in implementing work plan - collect, organize, analyze and interpret data on human service needs and regional delivery system of human services. conduct needs assessments and other surveys to assess human service issues - develop survey Instruments - write research reports - network with community agencies manage computerized information systems - coordinate resources and facilitate collaborative strategies for addressing human service needs Secretary (Accountable to and under direction of Senior Planner) - provide administrative support for planners 0 w The Human Service Liaison Committee consists of a human service coordinator from each city as designated by the City Managers. The Committee acts as the principle liaison between the Regional Planning Office and the four Cities and as the primary communiciation link to the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF HUMAN SERVICE LIAISON COMMITTEE ?,. Work with Regional Office planning staff on regional and municipal projects, and on developing annual work plan and budget Link planners with city resources, local Advisory Group and community network 0 M Serve as liaison to the Regional Citizen Advisory Board M Develop and monitor administrative and budget policy Provide general direction to permanent Regional Office staff through the Senior Planner Administer hiring, firing and performance review procedures and provide recommendations to City Managers for final approval. ?., Provide Ongoing updates to City Managers on activities of the Regional Planning Office. • C~? u May 6 '91 13:52 0000 SANFAX225 series 0 Each of the four cities has one or more commissions/committees which advise the City Councils on issues relating to human services. These commissions/committees serve as the Local Human Service Advisory Groups, advising city council, working with city staff on human service Issues and representing the cities on the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. Reflecting diversity among the four cities, the Local Advisory Groups vary in composition. The objective is to utilize the existing infrastructure of the human service network in eacn city. PUNCTlDNs/RE'sPONSIBKIT rs OF LOCAL ADVISORY GROUP Work with the Human Service Liaisons on local planning issues and work plans. Serve as community resource to Regional Office planning staff. Represent individual cities on the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. Form subcommittees to work on specific issues, bringing in additional members from the community. Serve as liaison to city councils. P. 4i 5 6 Ma g 6 ' y1 1.i: 52 0000 SRWAX225 series P. 5i 5 • The Regional Citizen Advisory Board consists of two representatives from the Local Human Service Advisory Groups, one city council representative and the human service liaison from each city as designated by the city manager. Each representative serves a two year term and may serve no more than three terms. The Board meets a mimimum of four times a year on a quarterly basis. • FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONAL CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD Serve as the main communication link to the Local Advisory Groups. M Advise on regional planning issues. Advise on the development and implementation of a citizen participation process. M Review and make recommendations on the annual work plan and budget. Serve on sub•commlttees as needed to work on specific issues and identify additional members from the community, providers and other organizations to serve on the committees. M Monitor and advise on regional work plan. 0 7 r? The Provider Resource Pool is a broad-based, non-membership group of human service providers and community organizations and serves as a link between the planning and implementation of human services. The group is inclusive of all organizations wishing to be represented. PURPOSES OF A PROVIDER RESOURCE POOL M To act as a conduit of information from the provider community for the Regional • Planning Office and the Local Advisory Groups; M To provide a direct linkage to the regional delivery system of human services and a primary information resource for planning efforts; e? To provide linkage to the Regional Planning Office with the expertise and experience of provider agencies; To serve on sub-committees created by the Regional Citizen Advisory Board to work on specific issues. To enable the provider community to strengthen its networking and collaborative efforts, and serve as a foundation upon which collaborative strategies can be developed. • s 6. 31 i:3: z.5 0000 SHNr= AX225 s e r e s ANNUAL PLANNING PROCESS The two primary functions of the planning office are research and the coordination of resources to address identified needs and issues. The coordination of resources refers to the ability to bring together existing resources (i.e. providers, schools, cities, citizens) and mobilizing new resources to engage in problem solving or to fill an identified service gap. The Regional Planning Office will conduct research, coordinate resources and facilitate the problem solving process for those issues defined as priorities by the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. Deciding priority issues, developing the work plan and allocating planning time will be performed on an annual basis. DEVELOPING THE ANNUAL WORK PLAN: A. Defining Human Service Need and Issues 1) At the municipal level, the Local Advisory Groups and the designated human service liaison define human service issues. The Regional Planning Office provides research to assist the cities in this process. 2) Each city completes its own planning process, identifies local planning needs and identifies planning projects based on these needs. 3) The Regional Office Planning Staff, with the assistance of the Human Service Liaison, prepares a summary report of identified issues, trends and priorities for review by the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. 4) The Regional Citizen Advisory Board reviews the report and makes recommendations for the annual work plan. B. Developing Planning Activities and Budget i) The Regional Citizen Advisory Board and the planning staff design a citizen participation process for the budget year. 2) The planning staff, in conjunction with the Human Service Liaison Committee, draft the annual work plan and budget. 3) The Regional Citizen Advisory Board reviews and approves the work plan and budget. 4) The recommended work plan and budget are submitted to the City Councils for approval. 0 2i 5 9 Meg 6 '91 13:56 0000 SANFAX225 series P. 3/ 5 C. Implementation and Evaluation 1) The Regional office planning staff, Human Service Liason Committee, the Regional Citizen Advisory Board and Local Advisory Groups implement the work plan. 2) The Regional Citizen Advisory Board, Human Service Liason Committee and Regional Office Planning Staff meet at the end of the planning year to evaluate the progress of the activities outlined in the Work Plan. Note: Each city may opt to pursue local needs and projects which do not fall into inter-city and regional activities. n U 10 1189 6 '91 1;5: 5'e UWWW SHNF AX225 series P. 4/ 5 0 ROLE OF CITY MANAGERS 1. Based on the recommendations by the. Human Service Liaison Commttee, give final approval and hold ultimate responsibility for hiring, firing and supervising the Senior Planner. 2. Meet with Liaisons and Senior Planner for periodic updates and briefings. 3. Maintain communication with City Councils regarding activities of the Regional Planning Office. 4. Based on the recommendations of the Human Service Liaison Committee, oversee budget preparation of cash and in-kind services. 5. Serve as mediator in conflicts between Human Service Liaison and/or with Senior Planner. 6. Participate in local update meetings involving Regional Citizen Advisory Board representative, the Human Service Liaison, the City Council representative to the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. 7. Ensure a local annual progress meeting between Local Advisory Groups, Regional Citizen Advisory Board representative, City Manager, and City Council. 0 May 6 '91 13:57 0000 SANFAX225 series P. 5/ 5 40 ROLE OF CITY COUNCILS n \J 1. Appoint, approve or develop process for citizen representation on the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. 2. Appoint one City Council member to the Regional Citizen Advisory Board. 3. Review and approve recommendations from the Local Human Service Advisory Group . 4. Appoint City Council Liaison to the Local Advisory Group where appropriate. 5. Review and approve annual work plan and budget. 6. Ensure the development of a local planning process for identifying needs and making recommendations for regional projects. 7. Participate in periodic progress meetings involving the Regional Citizen Advisory Board, Human Service Liaison Committee, City Managers and City Councils.