Loading...
06-04-90 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~,, Study Session Letter No. ~ //~ Agenda June 4 ,1990 Issue Statement• Review of proposal to conduct team building/goal setting se5~~~..,. with John Vinton. Background• The City Council has previously authorized staff to initiate team building/goal setting sessions with John Vinton. Attached is a proposal received from John Vinton regarding those services. Recommended Motion: Review the proposal to determine if the outline meets Council expectation and needs. Basis of Recommendation: Response to Council direction. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Council workshop meeting of June 4, 1990. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:cak JOHN C. VINTON, Ph.D. Management Consultant for Local Government - 941 Cannon Avenue Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 (612)641-2203 James Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Jim: May 22, 1990 It was a pleasure to meet with you, and to learn about the progress the City has made since last year. My understanding is that you and the Council are interested. in a Team Building and Goal Setting Program which assists the Council improve teamwork and which estab- lishes priorities. for the coming year. To achieve these objectives four activities are proposed: • Individual interviews with the Council and Department Heads The interviews will be confidential and will be used to identify key issues im- pacting the City. The interviews will provide the opportunity to review goals and commitments made at last year's session and to assess current team effec- tiveness on the Council and among departments. Each interview would be ex- pected to last approximately one hour. • Council Team Building Session The agenda for the session would be based on the results of the interviews. Expected topics might include progress on issues identified last year (e.g., conduct of council meetings, communications among council members, im- pact of upcoming elections on council working relationships), assessment and problem solving of current issues facing the council, and communication with staff. • Goal Setting Session The agenda for this session would be to review accomplishments for the last year, to scan the environment for changes or issues the City will face, to iden- tify and set priorities for the coming year. Depending on the results of the in- terviews, department heads could be included in this session. • Follow-up Report A written report would be prepared summarizing the results of the two ses- sions. The cost of this program would be based on an hourly billing rate of $90 with a not-to-ex- ceed amount established in a contract with the Government Training Service once. final ar- rangements are made. My schedule would permit the interviewing to begin immediately given some opportunity to set the appointments. Any Thursday or Friday in June is avail- able at this time with the exception of June 22nd to conduct the sessions. Other times might be possible with advance notice. As we discussed, maintaining a strong team building and planning process is important if the City is to address the important challenges it faces. I am pleased to learn that you and the Council are willing to make the commitment to this process. Please let me know if you require more information. nton, Ph.D. tant CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTI Study .Session Letter No. Agenda June 4, 1990 Issue Statement• Status report on items related to Robert Larsen Promenade development. Background• On May 2, 1990, the HRA and City Council approved a Contract For Private Development with Robert Larsen Partners, Inc. The contract calls for Larsen to have substantially completed negotiations and/or mediation for the purchase of property by July 31, 1990. That date is approximately 60 days away. Below is a summary listing the status of various items including property purchase. - As noted at the joint meeting, the attorneys. for the parties have made minor modifications in the Developers Agreement to clarify their agreed to positions. - The Agreement requires the developer to comply with all environmental laws and regulations. Under state law the City is the "Responsible Governmental Unit". In accordance with an opinion from the HRA Attorney, the developer must complete an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet). This will serve as the basis for the application for an ISP (Indirect Source Permit). An EIS (Environmental Impact Study) is not mandatory for Phase I of the Promenade but the EAW will give the City the information necessary to determine what, if any, further environmental studies will be needed at that time. - There are some 23 different property owners with whom the developer must negotiate sale agreements. - To date, one mediation session has been held with each of three different property owners. The sessions were held on May 10, May 18 and May 23. Although the sessions were productive, no option agreements have yet been signed. Negotiations with other property owners are underway outside the mediation process. However, staff is concerned about what appears to be the slow pace of negotiations and mediation. - The developer is reportedly in the process of optioning the property at 7529 Lyndale Avenue. It would be used as a relocation resource. - The site boundary survey is being completed by the developer. Once established, the architect will prepare The Promenade foot print. The foot print will be used for a variety of purposes one of which will be to work with a lender on financing. - Demolition estimates for clearing the entire site are now .being submitted to the developer by private contractors. (One contractor opined that the apartment buildings at 78th and Emerson Avenue could be relocated). - The developer is hiring a private contractor to prepare a master time schedule for all activities. - Reverend Doug Allen at Emerson Church reports his congregation has completed all of their needs assessment activity. They are awaiting receipt of a draft agreement from the developer and the arrival of an architect. Recommended Motion: Discuss the status report and direct staff as appropriate. Basis of Recommendation: It is important that staff and the HRA/City Council maintain good communications during this 60 day period. Discussion/Decision Mode: No formal action is being requested. Respectfully submitted, 1 Jame Prosser City anager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA l Study Session Letter No. ~ I Agenda June 4, 1990 Issue Statement• Safety improvement to roadway intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. Background: Hennepin County has proposed adding a left turn lane to all four legs of the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue to reduce the number of accidents associated with vehicles making left turns. Four different alignments for the proposal have been studied. Each would require 1) acquisition of about 24' additional right of way from homes and businesses within one or two blocks of the intersection, and 2) a concrete median extending about 600' to 675' on each leg of the intersection. Construction cost will be $l million regardless of the alignment chosen. Right of way costs vary from $1 to $1.3 million depending on the alignment alternative. Construction costs are borne by the County. Right of way costs are shared by the County and the City. The Richfield I35W/I494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee hosted public information meetings on March 8 and March 29. The purpose of the meetings was to explain proposed improvements and to obtain citizen comments. In addition to the two public meetings to date, staff has discussed the proposed improvements with all the affected businesses and several of the affected home owners. The agenda of the May 23 Richfield 135W/i494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee meeting included discussion of the 66th Street and Portland Avenue proposed improvements. Advantages and disadvantages of each alignment were outlined. As a result of the discussion related to redevelopment potential in the area, the Planning Commission has also been invited to attend this Council study session unless the Planning Commission would like a separate meeting to be held on their second Tuesday alternate meeting date. A third public information meeting has tentatively been scheduled for June 14. The Richfield 135W/I494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee would like to discuss the proposed improvements with the City Council before making any recommendations to the Council. Recommended Motion: No recommended motion. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss proposed improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: The City Council meets from time to time with various advisory bodies. The Richfield I35W/I494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee feels it is important that all factors be considered before any Committee recommendation is made to the City. Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not discuss the proposed improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue until after the Richfield 135W/I494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee has made a recommendation. 2. Do not discuss the proposed improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue until after a third public information meeting has been held. Discussion/Decision Mode: Although no decision is needed at this time, if there are to be roadway or any related improvements in the area of 66th Street and Portland Avenue South, there should be discussion of all issues and factors. Members of the Richfield I35W/I494 Ad Hoc Traffic Committee, Richfield Planning Commission and city staff will be in attendance for discussion of this item. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/sdr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. (((///~~` Agenda June 4, 1990 Issue Statement• Status report and alternative uses of Municipal State Aid (1h,ri~ funds. Background• The purpose of this Study Session agenda item is to discuss upcoming roadway improvements and their impact on our MSA funding. It now appears likely that a major .portion of 77th Street will be constructed as early as 1991. The Larsen Group developers agreement calls for reconstruction of 77th Street from Lyndale Avenue to I35W. Also, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is potentially offering $2.8 million to $4.0 million to help fund 77th Street improvements between Portland and Lyndale Avenues (possibly to I35W for the 1991 construction season). Further, Hennepin County is prepared to reconstruct the 66th/Portland intersection in 1991 and Penn/76th-1494 in 1992. This council letter utilizes MSA historical data, future MSA allocation projections and MSA eligible projects to provide a framework for future direction of MSA funding. The information is presented in four categories: 1. 1. A brief history of the major uses of MSA funds in Richfield. 2. Present status of the MSA account. 3. Cost estimates of upcoming roadway projects. 4. Ways to borrow against future MSA allotments. History of Use of MSA Money in Richfield 1958 - MSA system initiated following state constitutional amendment. Early 60's - MSA used to pay for Richfield's share of county roads: Portland Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, 66th Street. Late 60's - Concrete portions of 76th Street built. 70's - Street paving program. Richfield's MSA collector streets built along with residential streets. 80's - Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN), Lyndale 67th-74th, sidewalks, street lights on county roads, 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. 90's - Projected Uses 77th Street, I35W to Cedar Avenue 66th/Portland Penn/76th-I494 Overlay of streets built in 70's Local share of I35W and 1494 reconstruction Emergency Vehicle Preemption (Opticom) 2. Status of MSA Account Balance as of - 5/1/90 $1,807,803 + Expected annual construction allotment for 1990 $760,000 -------------- Expected balance available 1/1/91 $2,567,803 3. A) Preliminary Cost Estimates of Proposed Projects TOTAL PROJECT COST RICHFIELD'S MSA SHARE YEAR 66th/Portland $2-$2.3 Million $750,000 1991 Penn/76th-I494 $2.2 Million $1,000,000 1992 77th Street(1) $11.5 Million $1,775,000(2) 1991 Total City MSA Share Obligation $3,525,000 B) Breakdown of 77th Street improvements I35W to Lyndale Lyndale-Nicollet Nicollet-Portland Total Cost Est. Richfield MSA share $ 4.3 Million(3) $ 4.2 $ 3.0 $11.5 Million X 25$(4) $2,875,000 Less YTD expenses - $1,100,000 Remaining MSA obligation $1,775,000 (1) Funding sources include MnDOT, Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) and MSA and include cost for roads, screenwall and right of way. (2) Remaining estimated MSA obligations. (3) $1.1 million of MSA spent to date for purchase of 11 homes included in total. (4) The exact cost split is speculative,. but staff estimates that the City is responsible for 25$ of the project. 4. Borrowing Against Future MSA Allotments - Advance Encumbrance: MSA rules allow cities to use local funds which can be repaid when the MSA allotment is made. Interest costs are not eligible. - Bonding: MSA rules allow cities to sell bonds against future allotments. The annual debt service cannot exceed 50$ of the last MSA construction allotment. The interest on the bond must be paid from the MSA maintenance account. Proposed MSA rule changes will allow interest expense to be transferred from the construction account to the maintenance accounts. Recommended Motion: No formal action can be taken at the Study Session; however, staff is looking for direction. _ Staff proposes to continue to try to reconstruct the 66th/Portland intersection, the Penn/76th-1494 intersection and 77th Street/I35W to Portland over the next two years. These projects will deplete or exceed the MSA construction account. Staff will advance these projects as quickly as possible, with the intention of using MSA cash on hand and a modest level of borrowing. The most significant unknown at this time is the 77th Street cost sharing split with MnDOT. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The MSA funds identified in the three major projects (66th/Portland, Penn/76th-I494 and 77th Street) are leveraging a significant investment by Hennepin County, MnDOT and the Larsen Group. In total, the investment is: Richfield MSA $4.5-6 Million .County, MnDOT, Larsen Group $8.5-11 Million 2. The roadway work is creating significant redevelopment potential - ILN, 494 corridor, 66th/Portland. 3. Hennepin County, MnDOT and the Larsen Group are ready now; unnecessary delays by Richfield may jeopardize these opportunities. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Richfield could bank their MSA funds until reconstruction of our local streets is needed. This approach actually reduces our annual allotment. Fund balances in excess of twice our annual allotment reduces Richfield's share in the MSA funding formula. 2. We could refuse to borrow against future allotments; however, staff believes that the opportunities before us now will not likely be there in the near future. 3. We could wait for a more favorable cost sharing split on 77th Street. When Interstate reconstruction money is used to rebuild I494, a small percentage of .the to construct this stretch of I494 could reconstruct 77th Street. However, this is at least five years away, and likely believes negotiations at this time will favorable cost sharing split and timely 77th Street. $100+ million needed be used to 1494 reconstruction longer. Staff result in a completion of much of Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for discussion at the June 4, 1990 City Council Study Session. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/reb CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Study Session Letter No. Agenda, June 4, 1990 Issue Statement• Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues. Background• The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues and events related to the airport. R.A.S.G. has provided recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: • New Ford Town Redevelopment Plan. 1. Update on Meetings and Communication Plan. Staff has continued to present the plan to local municipalities, agencies, state government officials and various community groups for visibility, feedback and support. A schedule is enclosed listing the meetings that have occurred and future meetings. 2. New Ford Town Plan Video Tape. Greatapes has been interviewing "key players" and citizens for the video tape. A list of the individuals interviewed is enclosed. The production of the video tape will be delayed by two weeks because Steve Keefe (Met Council) and Jill Schultz (Senate Research) were not available for interviews until the second week in June. They are key people that need to be included in the content of the video. The first draft of the script will be completed the week of May 28 for staff and D.J. Leary to review. The second draft will be completed after the interviews with Steve Keefe and Jill Schultz (the second week of June). 3. Property Acquisition. On May 8, 1990, the MAC submitted an offer of $125,000 to Manley Magnuson for acquisition of his property at 6314 Standish Avenue South. This offer was based on an appraisal and a review of that appraisal by representatives of MnDOT acting on behalf of the MAC. The offer was accepted by the Magnuson's per an Offer to Sell and Memorandum of Closing. The MAC approved the purchase price of $125,000 for the Magnuson property at the full commission meeting on May 21, 1990. The MAC staff is now .authorized to pay related expenses, to advertise for bids for removal of the structure and to execute the necessary documents. Staff and Charlie LeFevere are drafting a property acquisition agreement in preparation for future acquisition of residential homes in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. This agreement will ensure the acquisition process is done in a timely and managed fashion. The city does not want to lose the tax capacity as a result of decreasing property values or acquisition of properties by the MAC. • MSP Airport Interactive Community Planning. Staff has met with MAC officials to suggest to them the need for interactive community planning for future airport expansion plans at MSP. The MAC is supportive in establishing this group however, they feel there isn't enough time to form the group and include the group's impact analysis into the MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP airport. The plan is due to the Legislature by January 1, 1991. Mayor Steve Quam has scheduled meetings with the mayors from the airport border communities, Tom Holloran (MAC) and Walter Mondale regarding the interactive community approach to future planning at MSP airport. Walter Mondale would be a possible moderator of the group. • Extension. of Runway 4/22. The results of the EIS on the extension of runway 4/22 has not become available. The EIS will be done this summer. At a Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce Aviation Meeting on May 16 attended by David Braslau, Nigel Finney (MAC) publicly stated that Richfield does not appear to be credible because it is proposing airport related plans that will impact surrounding communities and it is not negotiating with the extension of runway 4/22. • Media Strategy for Richfield's Position on Airport Issues. In recent articles appearing in the Twin Cities newspapers, Richfield's position on airport issues has not been adequately or correctly addressed. The staff has submitted various articles and letters to the editors and have had numerous phone. conversations to clarify the city's position on airport issues resulting in little success. Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Chuck Whiting, editor at the Star Tribune, from James Prosser on May 23, 1990. • N.O.I.S.E. Conference The National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.) will be sponsoring an Aviation Noise Symposium, July 18-21, 1990 in Tempe, Arizona. The topics of discussion include: 1) the DOT's 1990 National Transportation Policy; 2) the three "legs" of _a noise solution (end Stage 2 aircraft by 2000, no new noise actions by airports and preemption of local land use authority within the 65 dBDN; 3) local efforts to deal with airport noise; 4) discussion of the- LDN noise metric. Enclosed is a brochure describing the symposium. Recommended Motion: With this background, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: • New Ford Town Redevelopment Plan 1. Update on Meetings and Communication Plan. The strategy group recommended the City of Richfield should market the plan to gain developer interest by focusing presentations on trade and real estate journals. Staff will work with D.J. Leary to market the plan. 2. New Ford Town Plan Video Tape. The strategy group and staff will continue to work with Greatapes on the content of the video tape and to review and edit the script to ensure the Richfield position on future airport planning is properly translated to the viewers. 3. Property Acquisition. Staff will continue to follow the MAC acquisition of the Manley Magnuson property. Staff will continue to work with Charlie LeFevere to draft the property acquisition agreement for homes in New Ford Town and Rich Acres. The options being considered in the acquisition process include MAC purchasing the property and the City of Richfield developing it or, the City of Richfield asking from MAC a revenue stream of money that would replace the lost tax base. • MSP Airport Interactive Community Planning. The strategy group recommended the city staff develop an MSP Airport interactive community planning group point powers of agreement outline describing the membership and purpose of the group. The outline will be given to the airport border communities, MAC officials, Walter Mondale and the FAA. A copy of the outline is enclosed. • Extension of Runway 4/22. The strategy group recommended staff should contact Nigel Finney to clarify Richfield's position on the extension of runway 4/22 and future expansion plans at MSP airport. We need to stress that our opposition to the extension of the runway is based on how it is intended to be used rather than the extension itself. It is proposed that most of the takeoffs will be to the south over Bloomington and Richfield creating more noise pressures to residents in these communities.- Both ends of the runway should be used equally for aircraft operations. The planning for the extension of runway 4/22 should be part of the interactive community planning group discussions. • Media Strategy for Richfield's Position on Afrport Issues. The strategy group recommended that we need to clarify Richfield's position on future planning for this region. Our position is, whether or not a new airport is necessary, MSP airport will be here for at least 20 years and the state needs to develop strategies and plans that will mitigate the noise pressures from the airport on surrounding communities. D.J. Leary will assist in scheduling a presentation for Jim Prosser and Bob Collette to the suburban editorial board discussing the topics of the New Ford Town Plan and the interactive community planning approach at MSP airport. This meeting will help clarify Richfield's position on airport issues to the media. • N.O.I.S.E. Conference Council Member Mike Sandahl and R.A.S.G. consultant Don Priebe would like to attend the conference as representatives for the City of Richfield. The estimated conference cost would be $1,000 per person. This total estimated cost .includes the registration fee ($225/person), hotel ($180/person), airfare and miscellaneous expenses (i.e. meals, transportation, etc.). Alternative Recommendation: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the June 4, 1990 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the June 4, 1990 Study Session. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:kab Enclosures NEW FORD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Date Time 1/29/90 3:30 PM 2/1 9:00 AM 2/2 8:00 AM 2/8 2/8 2/8 2/9 2/12 2/12 8:30 AM 2:00 PM 4:15 PM 8:30 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 2/12 2/12 2/15 2/2.0 2/21 2/21 2/23 2/26 3:30 PM 5:30 PM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 7:30 PM 1:30 PM Group/Individual Set-Up Person Gertrude Ulrich JP Bloomington Staff JP Freeman (Gertrude JP Ulrich, Steve Quam, Edwina Garcia) Minneapolis Staff JP (Bill Barnhart) Halloran (JP, SQ, TM, TM Dick Miller, Jeff Hamiel) Mayor Fraser, Staff TM Sue Sandahl JP Steve Cramer, Freeman Freeman Chris Tjornhom, Denny JP Shulsted Press Preview DJL/RS Richfield Council, HRA, JP Planning Commission Paula Hanson, Tom Todd, KB Jill Schultz Richfield Chamber JP Edina Council/Staff JP New Ford Town Public Mtg. JP Met Council TAC Advisory JP Board Bill Crawford JP/DF MnDOT 3/1 2:00 PM MAC Staff (Finney, Fortman, KB Ryan) 3/8 10:00 AM Rep. Bernie Lieder, KB Rep. Joyce Henry Air Trans. Subcommittee of Air Transportation 3/9 8:00 AM General Mgmt. Staff JP (Richfield) 3/12 1:00 PM Steve Keefe, Met Council JP/SQ/GU 3/12 3:00 PM .Bloomington Gen'1 Staff JP 3/13 1:30 PM Senator Dave Durenberger JP 3/13 2:00 PM Met Council Staff (Kari, DF Case, Kozlak, Diaz) 3/13 4:00 PM Credit Union Board DF 3/14 11:30 AM MAC Consultants JP (HNTB) 3/19 NOON Bloomington Chamber 3/21 2:00 PM Citizens League JP Curt Johnson 3/22 7:30 AM Richfield Rotary JP 3/22 9:00 AM Minneapolis Staff JP (Dick Heath, Philip Meininger, Gordon Wagner, Bob Morgan, Perry Thorvig, Linda Waite) 3/22 11:00 PM FAA (Heath, Meininger, KB Wagner, Morgan, Thorvig, Waite) 3/28 2:00 PM City of Mendota Heights KB (Tom Lawell, Kevin Batchelder, Larry Shaughnessy, Jim Danielson) 4/3 1:00 PM MAC Planning & Environment JP Committee 4/4 1:30 PM City of Eagan KB (Tom Hedges, John Hohenstein) 4/11 2:30 PM Connie Levi KB (Mpls. Chamber) 4/16 7:00 PM Bloomington City Council JP 4/30 10:00 AM City of St. Paul KB (Bob Long/Staff) May 31 11:30 AM BRW Assoc. KB/Richard Planning Staff Woldorsky June 7 Noon Edina Rotary KB/Brauer June? State Advisory Council KB/Tom Todd on Airport Planning 7/18 Noon Greater Mpls. Chamber of KB Commerce Aviation Comm. ---- Bloomington Legislators, Staff (Kathleen Blatz, Bill Belanger, Joyce Henry, John Himle) ---- Governor's Staff ---- Hennepin County (`Randy Johnson) ---- NWA KB/Finney ---- Downtown Business JP ---- Sen. Schmitz (Senate Local & Urban Gov't Committee) ---- Minneapolis Rotary ---- St. Paul Chamber/Business Community ---- N. Dakota County Chamber ---- W. Suburban Chamber Group ---- Bloomington Hospitality Group ---- Carlson Companies ---- Martin Sabo i . . _. -~ ~ ~ ~ , . NEW FORD TOWN PLAN VIDEO TAPE INTERVIEWS Connie Levi, Greater Mpls. Chamber of Commerce Jeff Hamiel, MAC Tom Martinson, Planning Consultant Rep. Bernie Lieder, House of Representatives Air Transportation Subcommittee and the State Advisory Council on Airport Planning Larry Lee, City of Bloomington Scott Bunin, Chair of MASAC Bob Collette, Retired FAA Area Manager and RASG Consultant Bill Morris, Decision Resources Gertrude Ulrich, Met Council Residents in South Mpls., Bloomington and Richfield Pat Meagher, MN Department of Finance Tim Thornton and/or Richard Hirst, General Counsel, NWA Steve Cramer, Council Member, City of Minneapolis Steve Keefe, Chair of the Met Council Jill Schultz, Senate Research Lee Bachman, Bachman's (south Mpls. resident) MSP AIRPORT INTERACTIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP JOINT POWERS OF AGREEMENT OUTLINE Membershi~• Representatives from all MSP Airport border communities, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, FAA. A chair would be selected by the MAC to serve as a facilitator and mediator for the group. Purpose• • Review proposed .airport plans versus no build and/or expansion plans; • Determine the impact of the airport plans including no build on surrounding communities; • Develop mitigation measures to each proposal (i.e. sound insulation of buildings/homes, property acquisition). Identify costs associated with these measures for each alternative in a summary report of airport plans; • A summary report assessing the impacts on .surrounding communities of proposed airport plans and alternatives agreed upon by the group representatives to be sumitted to the MAC for consideration. t .City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Steve Ouam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl May 23, 1990 Mr. Chuck Whiting Star Tribune Editor Dear Mr. Whiting: Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you on May 22. I agree with one of the premises of the May 22 editorial regarding the need to avoid parochialism in the airport planning process. For that reason, I'd like to clarify Richfield's position regarding the airport issue. • Richfield does not oppose the construction of a new airport. It is our position that it is unlikely a new airport will be justified within the next twenty years. During the interim, it is necessary for the airport and the communities to plan to mitigate the negative impacts. from the noise. This mitigation effort is necessary if the airport does not expand or if the airport does expand. • It is unrealistic to assume that a new $3-5 billion airport will be constructed just because the communities oppose the construction of single runway. Given that fact, it makes .sense for the communities to cooperatively work with the airport on determining the best additional runway alternative. • Richfield supports an inter-active community airport planning process. That process would include the cities surrounding the airport:. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota Heights and Eagan. The inter-active planning would allow communities to have input into different airport development alternatives, including no build. Communities working with the airport would determine the impact of various airport development alternatives and to assess what mitigation would be accommodated to reduce the negative consequences of airport development. The impact and mitigation analysis would be made part of the airport's Track A proposal. • The City of Richfield's position is based upon a pragmatic approach. This effort does tend to put us in opposition to Steve Cramer. I don't want to represent Steve Cramer's position, but it would appear that Steve Cramer believes that pushing for a new airport is the only solution to the airport noise problem. The difficulty we have with that position is that given the significant cost of a new airport (~53-5 Telephone 861-9700 (612) Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer billion), and the inability to make a case for increased demand sufficient to justify a new airport, it is unlikely one will be built in .the next twenty years. We need to provide a solution for the residents in this area before twenty years. .Refusing to deal in a positive fashion with the airport, puts us in the position of accepting what the airport eventually plans for our communities. Richfield has stated on numerous occasions that, if a new airport is warranted, then we will support it. The concern that we have is the time frame for a solution during the interim. The purpose of this letter has been to clarify our position for general discussion purposes. I am not requesting that this letter be published as a letter to the editor. However if there are some issues you think are worth pursuing in greater detail we would be glad to convert the letter into a format more suitable for public purposes. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify these issues with you. Sincerely, J mes D. Prosser Ci anager JDP:cak H m o m o C p~Q~o ~~ O ` m N N V w y m armE $'v $ ~ ¢ m m ;g~rn ~ ~d~ ~_ 300 w A O O C C m ~ ~~ W Z~..~N P, f0 ~~ £ 1C0 N mpN01 ~ N .. my C A - m COn, ~ X10 f0 ~'a 2y o~N R' ~ m€ m (~ m m C m ~??[(( V GV-~ U L W AtLL m ~ N $L= $ T ~3a .~ m„o ygo d e"o o,E ° m E a¢~° w m: A N y U m N~ _O O ~ O~ C o;~E °°3 > Qp1~ya • C ~~ ~ 0= ~~D ~ ~y O y V ~0 N C A CG ra ~ _ ~~_ ~ m W ~_°~ °= ~yo ~~€_s • .~o~'c a~eoo~~_w grim mo w r~ A c A g$ O E y m$ y • c o c `8 ~' $'00 c m m m<' w m O ie c 2' E ui c~ c mp`~imQo c E~ y~y ~ v • Lv~ 7 m m m y ~p~ C D W C=LLC O d Z O O ~@ N~ C~ O _~ O+ ~ m O 'p V_ N N my t 7 W G a~ b O~ W V D ~ O Q N ~ O . . R~ N W v~ ~ m~ Z m N R m; Ooeoo '~Oovm~ m~owmc~ 2 u~i m ~.~ Z2. m ~'U FL- o,m ~r ~~ i~Ot7D 11 'S3NIV1d S30 l9L ON UWtl3d mrd 3JV1SOd S n 11lOtldNON • W W ~~ ~ z o • V1 O~ z w ~ ~ ~J - ZcA ~ ~~ • n m Z O D J ~ N Z O 0 2 • O a ~~ a '~ =Q • Q} t ~ ~a Z _ ~~ N ~ W Q ~' g. w N ~ C A ~g~aE C C L Ip ~ m ~ C C ~ y v c ~ O m ~ ` ~g "`° O N > g_ R L ~ L 5 G w 01 E ~ mt-'~ cVio, St ~W h p~ O N h, C ~ 0 £ h £°~z cgs E ~o$',m E ma m°mE°' °m m- a=pp~~~E= oao~d N C~ m L y .C C l0 ~ 7 ~ 8 d ' Lm~OVE mmE u m > C m to ~ H zLE S g~~?m_ g~E -io Si.E u 2Ey 90002 ~ p 'uot6w~seM 00£.. M N yaauS a~3 OZ9t '3'S'I'O'N d~ ~~ ,o ~ ~~ ~ °' " a \ E ~ a- °~ H ~ qg o~ 2 q (amleu6~s 1 ale0 ualeiitl~3 D~e~ "ON lunp~~y (IaIOH staled u0~ssryq uOlelays aUl 01 elgeAetl aDe{~;- 'pasgx/a s~ f col H~au~ r ~O,eo I~pan iolew ~o tpauo a !o wool eyl w aq Aew I ~pannbai s~ le~we elel iq asotlap s,W6~u auo {o aalue,enL wd 1¢ Alnf Uetlap p~N ; wr wd le 61nf anwe I^.a ; Wr Orel % 6 snltl 00 Sts aye swow pd) ~waoi elgnop r elbuis r e a~l~; pnow ; 065ttZ~E~ Alnf '6u9aaw '3 S I O N lenuue ayllo{'zy 'edwal w IaloH swled uass~ly uole~8y$ ayl le aw iol woo, a aruasa, asea,~ WI~O~ NOlld»1SIJ3a 1310H NOI1 `dZINdOliO 3NOHd 31111 di7 31 r15 AlIJ S53d0~r 3wrr: ~inol a u~ pafsaiatu~ lou w.l r ~Sl~elap puss aseald /n01 8tlU8/a{0009sotl e w Datsa~alu~ we ; r '8M11e 1 UayM uale~lS~6a, 5275 A¢tl II~~` I r (3 S r0 N a elgeAetl ~IOayO) aa{ uale~is~6araitl SZZS 6msopua we I r spy Osie (aweNl :BSnodS ~(w /.q pawedWOOJe Bq !ou IM+ r II~w r I 0661 l Z-8 t Nnf ~ZO' 'edwal W (alq-1 culled upss[yy UOIC~By$ eyi le 6uy88y~J ICfluuy '3~5~1'O~N a41 ~0{ BW 1815168re1tl eSBaid WaOd NOlldalSlJ3d-3dd JN1133W ldflNNd ' O o E 4 do. c ~~ t ~ ~, ~ 4~~a o x`~a uu ~ V~ y ' W Q Y x4 Z Q / ' N aim%m dm O ¢ A C R gi' E ~iR;,: ~=N¢ 4$ o ~~ C Q1 a ~~ % y C 7 C C~ ~ N O~ O d ~ ~ t0 4' C f 0 % a O z ~ r C L 3 N ~~ ~ E a N = ~ L L LC O ~ d > % ~.. C Oi C 7 A W % Y yyU .~ ~ ~ = E .Z 0) ~ C ~'N ~ ~ S z U N ~' O:p <N Q G1 = F... V/ a m f 0% ~ Q+ ~! C N O O V C N~ C C ~ ~ % % O O p e0 % p ~ C C 5 Z _ i> i C Np N C N N 2 Z F- 9°~~,~ 61 N F L ~~' co ~~ is £ O Of Q L d jp L~ Qp~~H ~F ~~ 6~i C/ C G `y '~ W ~~Tg x W LL' v g LL Q W ymE~ ==moo ~~E ~ m CC~~S$° oy ,Q3 a o a gt~~ Qg~'~A gym` ~~~ ~~WT =z N Q E~i%E ~3t$s.Q, ffi~~ z$- 77~~2mE ~ m % go°o~ 8 m ~ m ~`££°ig ~ H ~ d f0$~ o°s '' ~ '^ c mop ~m ~ ~~ p ~ d 3 t `~ c~ ~4A~g ~; c E' °~ '`g o ~ p W r~ $ N~~o E~% O~ 3 ~~~ pr. %c ter ~ DE ~ ~- c ~S ~;a U t` O O Z~ ~ ~. ; S d ~ima9E c m= ~ y N n1 0~ ~Fg~'~+~~ % 10 la ` C O E ` S~Q;~ ~~wE~d m m m o m Z ns=~% m ~ ~c~m.t ~ r $v p~m~~a CC $ L ~ r5 ; ~ C L > > C ~ Q' O ~cLL C/O y LL SL~OIb >~ a pO°L ~~`3RW5