02-06-89 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 4
Agenda February 6, 1989
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Council liaison appointments for 1989.
Background•
Members of•the City Council represent the City on a variety of
boards, commissions, and agencies. Each year the Council makes
liaison appointments to these various agencies and commissions.
Council Members have expressed a desire to discuss these
appointments prior to this item being placed on a Council agenda.
A list of the appointments is attached.
Recommendation:
Discuss which Council Members should represent the City on these
various commissions and agencies.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. This will give Council Members an opportunity to discuss
these appointments individually prior to their confirmation
at a subsequent Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the Council is in agreement on the appointments, the item will
be placed on the February 13, 1989 City Council agenda for
Council confirmation.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/ej a
CONMISSION-LIAISON APPOIN'IMEN'I5
1988 LIAISON
ASSOC. ME'IItO MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) Steve Quam
Orve representativve, one alter. Edwina Garcia, Alt
Meets: Annual Mtg. + Various
CATV CQMYI2SSI0N James Prosser, Dir.
Two directors, two alternates Ivan Ludeman, Dir.
Meets: First Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. Starve Quam, Alt.
January-April-June-Octobex Steven Devich, Alt.
LEAGUE OF MINNESdrA CITIES (IMC) Ivan Ludesilan, Rep.
One representative, one alternate Edwina Garcia, Alt.
Meets: Annual Mtg. June + Various
MASAC
Two representatives two alter.
Meets: Fourth Tuesday, 7:30 P.M.
Edwina Garcia, Rep.
Dan Priebe, Rep.
Michael Sar~dahl, Alt
James Prosser, Alt.
NOISE
RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
One delegate, oane alternate
Meets: First and Third Moan,
7:00 P.M.
Michael Sandahl,Rep
Steve Quam, Del.
Michael San~dahl, Alt
STOREFROIVT/YOUTH ACTION, INC. Steve Quam, Lia.
One liaises, one alternate Jack ~-sl~*~, Alt.
Meets: Fourth Tuesday, 7:30 A.M.
SUBURBAN RATE AtJ'I'HORITY
One director, one alternate
Meets: As Needed
Michael Sandahl,Dir
James Prosser, Alt.
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
One liaison, oaze alternate
Meets: Third Monday, 7:00 P.M.
Martin Kirsch, Lia.
Edwina Garcia, Alt.
1989 LIAISON
1988 LIAISON 1989 LIAISON
COMMUNITY SERVICES AIJVVISORY
COMMISSION Michael Sarx3ahl, Lia.
One liaison, one alternate Ivan Ludeman, Alt.
Meets: Seao~xi Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
IIVERGY AViIAF2IIVE5.S Al7VISORY
COMMISSION Edwina Garcia, Lia.
One liaison, one alternate Michael Sandahl, Alt.
Meets: Third Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Steve Quam, Lia.
One liaison, owe alternate Edwina Garcia, Alt.
Meets: First Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
HUMAN SERVICES OONMISSION Martin Kirsch, Lia.
One liaison, one alternate Ivan Ludeman, Alt.
Meets: Second Thursday, 4:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION Martin Kirsch, Lia.
One liaison, one alternate Edwina Garcia, Alt.
Meets: Fourth Tuesday, 7:30 P.M.
SISTER CITY INTIIZNATIONAL James Prosser, Lia.
One liaison, one staff member Steve Quacn, Alt.
Meets: Seooayd Thursday, 7:00 P.M.
% ,`~ Q
..2% ~^"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 3
Agenda February 6, 1989
Issue Statement:
Review of 1989 tax capacities and net taxes payable for Richfield
residents.
Background:
(See attached Council Memorandum).
Property tax statements are now being mailed to Richfield.
property owners. The impact of the new tax law and the City's
1989 tax capacity rate will be reviewed by the Administrative
Services Director to provide an information background on the
process.
Recommended Motion:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
With the timeliness of property tax statements, now is an
excellent opportunity to briefly review this subject matter. It
should provide insight to Council Members on telephone calls they
may receive from Richfield residents concerning their property
tax statement.
Res lly submitted,
Jame p. Prosser
City~~anager
JDP:eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
January 31, 1989
Council Memorandum No.4
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Tax Capacities and Estimated Real Estate Taxes
for 1989
Council Members:
Tax statements for 1989 are now being mailed to Richfield
residents. The following data is provided for your information.
Table #1
This table projects what the net tax payable (homestead credit
deducted) for Richfield residential properties would be for 1987,
1988 and 1989 if the estimated market value did not change.
The tax law changes for 1989 appear to favor properties with a
value in excess of $70,000. In fact, with a constant estimated
market value of $69,200, net property taxes would remain level
from 1988 to 1989. Any constant value below $69,200 would show
an increase, while values above that mark would show a decrease.
The decrease is greater as the value of the property is greater.
It should also be noted that even at the breakeven point of
estimated market value, the resident would have experienced a
12.87$ reduction in the City only portion of their-net tax bill
if the market value stayed constant. (See Attachment 1).
Table #2
Table #2 shows some actual examples of net tax payable (homestead
credit deducted) for 1988 and 1989. This table reflects what
actually happened to these selected properties both in terms of
estimated market value changes and net taxes payable.
It is interesting to note that on the two highest valued
properties, market value increases of 6.25$ and 5.63$,
respectively, resulted in virtually no change in taxes. While on
the lowest valued property, a 5.45$ market value increase
resulted in an 8.07$ net tax payable increase.
Anyone whose property taxes increased be more than 10$ and whose
tax increase was greater than $40 may be entitled to a property
tax refund. Details are in the yellow booklet, "1988 Minnesota
Property Tax Refund".
Table #3
Table #3 shows the breakdown of the total tax capacity rate. The
table goes on to show the estimated taxes for 1989 on different
market values ranging from $40,000 to $170,000.
Summary
The new tax law appears to be most favorable to properties which
are valued over the $70,000-$80,000 mark. Lower valued.
properties may see the highest percentage tax increases in the
City.
The new tax law formula and the City's 1989 budget are
responsible for the decrease in the City's share of a resident's
tax bill. However, one should not forget that the City was the
benefactor of a significant increase in Local Government Aids for
1989. The direct result of this aid increase was a diminished
burden of Richfield homeowners.
Finally, it should also be noted that the homestead credit
maximum increased from $700 in 1988 to 5725 in 1989. However,
the formula for calculating the credit remained the same, 54$ of
tax on the first $68,000.
This information will be reviewed on February 6 during the City
Council Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP : e~ a
cc:~ Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
TABLE ~~1_
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Residential Homestead Tax And Assessed Value
EST TAX* EST TAX* EST TAX*
MARKET VALUE 1989 (1) .1988 (2) 1987 (3)
50,000 480 469 447
60,000 576 562 537
70,000 - 743 7.50 715
80,000 984 1074 1018
90,000 1224 1398 1320
100,000 1465 1721 1623
110,000 1782 2045 1925
120,000 2100 23.69 2228
130,000 2418 2692 2530
140,000 2735 3016 2832
150,000 3053 3339 3135
160,000 3370 3663 3437
170,000 3688 3986 3740
*School District #280
Watershed #3
Residential Homestead
(1) 1989 Tax Capacity 96.232 (Maximum Homestead Credit $725)
(2) 1988 Mill Rate 119.864 (Maximum Homestead Credit $700)
(3) 1987 Mill Rate 108.027 (Maximum Homestead Credit $700)
TABLE #2
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Sample Values And Taxes
ESTI:~'iATED 1988 I ESTI~'IATED 1989
MARKET VALUE TAX I MARKET VALUE TAX
I
42200 395.55 I 44500 427.46
44300 415.24 I 46500 446.66
48800 457.42 i 51000 490.02
55700 522.10 ~
I 59100 567.50
61100 572.75 1 65100 634.75
66100 646.90 I 70000 743.50
71300 792.42 I 75300 871.48
75500 928.34 I 80100 986.96
80200 1080.44 I 82800 1051.44
84900 1232.56 I 89500 1213.10
92500 1478.52 I 94500 1333.40
96100 1595.02 I 99000 1441.18
106500 i
1931.65 I
1
111900
1843.42
120100 2371.74 I 126100 2293.78
133200 i
2795.76 I
140900
2764.37
144000 3145.22 I 153000 3148.32
163400
3773.12 I _-
172600
3770.95
TABLE ~~3
1989 RESIDENTIAL TAX ESTIMATES
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Tax Capacity Rate = 96.232 ~ W.S. #1 = .351
Total Tax Capacity Rate
City of Richfield
School- Dist #280
Vocational School
County
Misc.
W.S. #3
Market Value
16.420
45.616
1.223
27.101
5.797
.075
96.232
Mid-year
Homestead Tax Homestead Tax
W.S. #3 = .075$
Non-
Homestead Tax
$ 40,000 $ 384. $ .865 $1,347
45,000 432 974 1,516
50,000 480 1,082 1,684
52,500 504 1,136 1,768
55,000 528 1,190 1,852
57,500 552 1,245 1,937
60,000 576 1,298 2,021
62,500 600 1,353 2,105
65,000 632 1,411 2,190
67,500 .685 1,479 2,273
70,000 743 1,550 2,358
72,500 803 1,622 2,442
75,000 863 1,695 .2,526
77,500 924 1,767 2,610
80,000 984 1,839 2,695
82,500 1,044 1,911 2.779
85,000 1,104 1,983 2,863
87,500 1,164 2,056 2,947
90,000 1,224 2,128 3,031
92,500 1,284 2,200 3,116
95,000 1,345 2,272 3,200
97,5.00 1,405 2,344 3,284
100,000 1,465 2,416 3,368
105,000 1,624 2,580 3,536
110,000 1,782 2,744 3,705
115,000 1,941 2,907 3,873
120,000 2,100 3,070 4,042
125,000 2,259 3,234 4,210
130,000 2,418 3,398 4,379
135,000 2,576 3,562 4,547
140,000 2,735 3,725 4,715
145,000 2,894 3,889 4,883
150,000 3,053 4,052 5,052
160,000 3,370 4,380 5,389
170,000 3,688 4,706 5,725
ATTACHMENT #4
Est. Mkt Value
Assessed Val
Tax Capacity
Local Mills
Local Tax Capacity
Local Tax
Local Share of
TAX CALC -II
1988 1989
$69200 $69200
11884 1506
23.76
0.1642
$282.36 $247.29
Homestead Crdt X140.00 123.25
Net Local Tax $142.36 $124.04
INC/(DEC)
-
---------------- -12.87$
------------------------------
------------------
Mill Rate 119.86
Tax Capacity Rate 0.96232
Total Tax $1424.42 $1449.25
Homestead Credit $700.00 $725.00
Net Tax $724.42 $724.25
$ Incr/(Decry -0.02
~~,~u
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2
Agenda, February 6, 1989
Issue Statement:
Review of recommendation to improve Fire Division ability to fire
response capability.
Background:
Since the late 1960's, the City of Richfield has utilized off-
duty firefighters to augment the on-duty strength at structural
fires. This practice afforded the City a cost-effective method of
fire protection. The typical fires, however, today are more
challenging. Fires now are faster-growing and hotter as a result
of the abundance of synthetic materials that are more common in
our modern environment. This challenge has been intensified by
the fact that we have depended upon City-resident firefighters
for our off-duty response but the number of available off duty
firefighters has steadily dwindled.
The scope of the problem and a recommendation for resolving it
are contained in the enclosed report titled Analysis of Fire
Division Manning Alternatives. It includes data showing the
following:
* The probability of property damage and casualty due to fire
is greater now in Richfield than it was in the past.
* The availability of off-duty firefighters has steadily
decreased at the same time that the risks from fire have
been increasing.
The data included in the analysis show that the response of off-
duty firefighters now exceeds generally accepted standards for
over one third of the calls. Within the next two years three
city-resident firefighters retire. At that time the probability
of adaquate response will drop to zero.
The analysis measures our fire protection strength against
national standards and federal regulations. It shows that the
present staffing level and organization of the fire division is
below national standards, and also is less than our surrounding
neighbors of Bloomington, Edina and Minneapolis.
The data for the attached analysis was compiled in a yearlong
study of the various options available for correcting our fire
protection problems. The following four options have been
selected for review:
1. Option 1 -Changing the trend in the firefighter living
pattern by requiring, through negotiation, that new
firefighters live in or near the City.
2. Option 2 - Recruiting paid-on-call firefighters to
respond in place of the off-duty career firefighters.
3. Option 3 - Recruiting college students from the ranks of
volunteer firefighters, providing them with college
expenses and living quarters for their work as
firefighters when not at school.
4. Option 4 - Hiring more career firefighters.
The analysis compares those options based on the following set of
factors which measure the costs and effectiveness of each:
1. Response Reliability.
2. Response Effectiveness.
3. Initial Training Requirements
4. Continuing Training Requirements.
5. Effectiveness Time Lag.
6. Operating costs.
The factors are defined in the analysis on Page 13. Detailed
cost breakdowns for each option are included in Part 4 to show
their entire cost.
Different parts of .the analysis refer to comparisons between
Richfield and its neighboring cities. Part 5 is related to those
comparisons, and is a discussion of Edina's experience with using
paid-on-call (POC) firefighters.
Recommendation
City staff has concluded from the analysis that the positive
features of the college student/firefighter option make it the
superior choice for improving the fire division capability.
The attached analysis contains a detailed description of the
recommended program, along with graphic comparisons. To
summarize, the program would operate in two phases. In Phase One,
we would recruit 12 qualified volunteer firefighters who have
been accepted as full-time students at a metropolitan college.
Four students would be assigned to each shift, raising the on-
duty strength from a minimum of six to ten. They would report for
duty at 5 pm on school days and work the regular 24 hour shift on
other days, giving us an increased on-duty strength nearly 80~ of
the time, and always during the time when fires are more likely,.
between 5 pm and 1 am.
Phase Two is the creation of the PSC program at Richfield High
School. A cooperative effort between the City and school system,
the PSC program is designed to:
1. Provide the training necessary to qualify
for the college .student/firefighter program.
2. Give the PSC students priority for openings
in the college student/firefighter program.
3. Recruit minority students.
4. Assess each student's deficiencies in qualifying
for a public safety career.
5. Custom-design a skills-building program to
help each student overcome any deficiency
which might prevent them from meeting
the criteria for employment in Richfield
as a police officer or firefighter.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Public Safety Department has submitted data showing
that the level of fire protection in Richfield has
deteriorated. The analysis includes extensive research on
our options for augmenting the strength of the fire
division. Four options were selected for comparison, and
the college student/firefighter program was selected as
the most cost-effective solution for restoring our fire
protection to its former level.
2. The college student/firefighter program will also provide
an opportunity for qualified Richfield High School
students to receive a free college education. The
proposed Public Safety Career program will provide the
high school students with the necessary training and
experience to qualify for the program, and in addition
will be an extremely desirable affirmative action program
for the City.
The Public Safety Director and Fire Chief have discussed the PSC
program with Mr. Richard Maas, Principal, and Mr. James Hare,
Director of Eduction. They expressed enthusiasm for the program
and are willing to work toward its implementation for the coming
school year.
Alternate Recommendation:
1. The Council could postpone consider.
fire division manning. Postponement
college student/firefighter program
recruitment needs to begin in March
implemented in time for the 1989-90
3tion of any changes to
would delay the
until 1990, since
in order to be
school year.
2. The Council could suggest another option for
consideration. The Public Safety Department did study
other options not included in the analysis, but only
retained the most cost-effective options.
Decision/Discussion Mode•
The Public Safety department has prepared a recommendation which
would resolve the fire division manpower problem, and will
discuss the recommendation at the February 6th study session.
Respect ly submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:sae
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 1
Agenda, February 6, 1989
Issue Statement:
Consideration of strategies regarding Minneapolis/St. Paul
airport.
Background•
The Metropolitan Council has recently adopted a dual track
strategy to address airport capacity. The dual track includes
the construction of a north/south runway, and an effort to
initiate a search for a new airport. The Metropoltan Airport
Commission (MAC) has adopted a modified version of that dual
track approach.
The dual track strategy appears to have a negative impact upon
Richfield. Those impacts include:
-Decreased quality of life within Richfield due to noise
from airport .operations.
-Loss of tax base.
-Economic disinvestment caused by the potential increased
airport noise.
-Decreased economic investment due to the potential of the
loss of the airport as an economic center.
-A public perception that Richfield may not be a good
place to live in the future because of the increase
in noise and the loss of the airport as an economic
attraction.
The City Council has previously adopted policies relating to the
dual track strategy. The policies include the following basic
elements:
-Richfield does not believe that the need for a new
runway or a new airport has been clearly established.
Without a clearly established need, planning for a new
runway or airport causes adverse impact upon Richfield
without good cause.
-The north/south runway is an environmentally unsound
alternative to increase airport capacity and should
be dropped as an alternative to increase capacity.
Should the need for increased capacity be demonstrated
other alternatives need to be reviewed. One such
alternative would be the construction of the far
parallel runway.
Given the damage to Richfield because of the uncertainity for
planning a new airport without a demonstrated need, a new airport
site should not be selected. The City Council has authorized
staff to initiate a strategic planning process regarding the
airport.
A Richfield Airport Strategy Group has been formed. The group
includes the following:
David Braslau, an environmental specialist familiar with airport
operations.
D.J. Leary, of Media Relations Inca, a political public affairs
strategist.
Bill Morris, Decision Resources, Ltd., a marketing survey
company.
Charlie LeFevere, attorney, LeFevere, Lefler, law firm.
Don Priebe, City representative MASAC.
Byron Wallace, Richfield Director of Community Development.
Melanie Ault, Administrative Aide, City of Richfield (part-
time employee) - Staffed to the Richfield Airport Strategy Group.
James D. Prosser, City Manager, Richfield, Minnesota
The meeting notices are also provided to City Council members who
are invited to attend the Richfield Strategy Group meetings. As
approved by the Council, the purpose of the Strategy Group is to
accomplish the following:
-Review developments regarding implementation of dual track
strategy
-Assessment of the impact of airport plans on
the City of Richfield.
-Recommend general policy positions to the City Council
regarding airport planning.
-Recommend strategies to implement policy direction
determined by City Council.
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met on two occasions
since the previous Council Meeting.' A summary of those meetings
is attached as an exhibit. Current assessment of the status of
the dual track strategy includes the following basic elements:
-The Metropolitan Commission has fully endorsed the
dual track strategy as previously described.
-The Metropolitan Airport Commission appears to cooperate
with the dual track strategy, primarily in an effort
to avoid direct confrontation with Metropolitan Council
and/or the Legislature regarding planning authority for
the airport.
-The Legislature has not taken a clear position on the dual
track strategy. It appears to be a strong indication that
the Legislature will want to become more directly involved
with gathering information regarding the impact of the
dual track strategy.
traffic. Alternative ways of enhancing the
airports capacity.
-Economic impact of relocation of the existing
airport and the opportunities for economic
growth by existing and future commercial
and service business in the communities.
-Interaction between the Twin Cities region
and other regions with respect to demand of
air travel, and the ability of each region to
accomodate that demand.
-The economic and environmental impacts and
benefits of the north-south alternatives on
the community.
-The impact of creating an additional growth
center around a new airport.-
-Recommendation for Legislative and/or Agencies
actions related to meeting future air travel
needs in the Twin Cities market.-
3. The projected cost of this study is $100,000 to be
.funded on a shared basis between Richfield and
Bloomington. Richfield's share would be approximatly
538,000. It is expected that the survey would be
initiated in early April and completed by October 1,
1989.
4. The staff will contact local Legislators and Legislators
involved with this issue, and advise them of our intent
to complete the Study and ask for input regarding the
Study. The City would also ask that the Legislators
withhold making final positions regarding the
implementation of dual track strategy until our
study is complete.
5. In order to avoid community disinvestment, or a concern
on the part of the public that the environmental quality
of Richfield is in danger, a public information brochure
will be provided to residents. The purpose of that
brochure will be to let the residents know what the City
is doing regarding the dual track strategy and advise
them of the unlikelihood of the implementation of the
north-south strategy. A copy of that brochure will
be separately reviewed with the City Council.
6. A representative for the City will initiate contact
with major businesses that have a stake in the
airport staying where it is. Those contacts would
probably include visits to two or three corporations
or organizations per month.
7. The City should consider conducting a public opinion
survey of Richfield, Bloomington, and South Minneapolis.
The purpose of the survey would be to gather information
from the public regarding their opinion about the
-The Metropolitan Council has delivered a final report on
the Metropolitan Counci task force findings to the
Legislature. A copy of that report is also attached.
-Minneapolis appears to strongly support relocation of the
airport.
-North suburban Mayors are currently urging Minneapolis
elected officials to support relocation of the airport to
a North surburban location.
-Minneapolis elected officials are apparently
divided regarding the wisdom of supporting this effort
now. Minneapolis elected officials with the exception
of Steve Cramer are apparently opposing construction
of a north-south runway. Steve Cramer's support for
the north-south runway is apparently waivering.
Recommendation:
The recommendation of the Richfield Strategy Airport Group is as
follows: The City Council should refine their policy regarding
the airport to include the following basic elements:
1. Support keeping the airport where it is.
2. Improve as necessary - but do not construct a north-
south runway.
3. Minimize environmental impact.
Recommended strategies to implement these policies include
the following.
1. Continue to clarify City of Richfield position with
Legislators, MAC, Metropolitan Council and other
regulatory bodies reviewing this matter. This is
accomplished primarily by, testimony at hearings,
letters to appropriate officials and individual
meetings with Legislators as appropriate.
2. Gather additional information to repute the basis of
the dual track strategy. The City of Bloomington and
the City of Richfield are working to cooperate in a
joint venture to gather additional information to
repute the Met Council dual track strategy. This
would primarily accomplished through a study,
jointly funded by the communities. The study would
examine the following basic elements:
-Volume and mix of air traffic which will use
Minneapolis-St. Paul airport during the
forecast period.
-Capability of the MSP airport to accomodate that
current airport location. Preliminary indications
are that there is public support for the airport
to stay where it is, but that efforts to reduce
noise should be continued. Information which supports
the airport's current location would be os strategic
importance in reviewing this issue with Legislators
and Minneapolis`Respresentatives. The survey would
also be helpful in indicating general items of
concerns of residents regarding the airport and
operations.
8. Continue to examine the feasibility of redevelopment
portions of New Ford Town to uses more compatible with
airport operations.
Basis of Recommendation:
To implement strategies consistent with City policy regarding
airport discussion mode. This matter will be presented for
discussion at the work shop session on February 6, 1989. The
Council may add, delete, modify any strategy proposals as
indicated.
JDP:sae
Resp tf ly submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit Manager
Strategic Planning Group
January 5, 1989
Brainstorming Session
Issue
Airport Development Strategy
Goals
1. NO North/South Runway
2. Do NOT move Airport
3. Further Airport Noise Equity
4. Oppose 422 Extension
Goal 1.
Current Status
--A North/South runway is good for South Minneapolis. There
would be no additional traffic, but it would be an inefficient
use of money.
--Acknowledging the need to expand is good for MAC.
--Problem: StarTribune will not print Richfield's views.
Where is this Strategy Likely to Go?
--Richfield can continue to work with MAC, trusting they will not
put in a N/S runway.
--It is unwise to continue to trust MAC. Now, Richfield and MAC
have a common interest. MAC however, can expand when and where
they feel appropriate.
--Redevelop New Ford Town. Commercial/Industrial development
means more dollars in compensation if N/S runway built; would get
those residents who want to move, out; communicates the.
perception that a N/S runway will not be built.
--Communicate the failure of a dual track system and its
alternatives with: legislators, politicians, residents, extended
community..
Additional Information Needed
--What is the mood of the Legislature?
--What does the Governor think?
--Find the language in the Met Council Report that allows MAC to
look into something other than the N/S runway, namely the Third
Parallel.
Goal 2.
Current Status
--Minneapolis City Officials really want a new airport, but
endorse having the Dual Track System in the report. They seem to
"know" that a dual track will never come to be.
--Minneapolis is giving away brochures to outstate areas
promoting a new airport.
Where is This Strategy Likely to Go?
--Minneapolis may be dividing on a N/S runway, but unite in
promoting a move. Question: What if a N/S runway is built
anyway?
Additional Information Needed
--Find out feelings of: Al Greenwood, Denny Schulstad, Steve
Cramer, and Mayor Fraser. Also, get their opinions on a third
parallel.
Goal 3.
Current Status
--Experiment ends 1-31-89.
--MASAC to consider an extension.
Where is this Strategy Likely to Go?
--Support an experiment extension.
--It is largely a perception issue; residents are willing to put
up with some noise, but feel they should not be "dumped" on.
Keep up a sense of equity.
--Debunk PRS as Airport Noise Equity.
--Support Flight Track Monitoring.
--Improve visibility and clout.
Additional Information Needed
--A Metro-Wide Survey, done scientifically, and publish it.
Goal 4.
Current Status
--Scoping document is prepared.
--E.I.S. is underway.
Where is This Strategy Likely to Go?
--Make sure the E.I.S. generates the information Richfield will
need.
--Consider capacity increase. Review the Scoping document and
examine the use of extended 4-22 in the future.
Additional Information
--Scoping document.
--E.I.S. when completed.
Overall Plan
--Richfield should come up with affirmative action.
--Richfield should become more active and prepared.
--Build a coalition and include Bloomington.
--Get more FACTS.
--Get someone to analyze the existing data; no new data is
necessary.