Loading...
1995-09-13CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TENTATIVE AGENDA SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Discuss Draft 1996 Budget Document. 3. Approval of Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy for 1996. a. RESOLUTION NO. 95-47, RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSE BUDGET. b. RESOLUTION NO. 95-48, RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTAI 1995 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1996. c. RESOLUTION NO. 95-49, RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 1 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO: 1 COLLECTI 1996. � IN 4. • Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 95-50, Resolution Amending Friendly Hills Assessment Roll for 729 Mohican Court. � 5. Discuss Status of Ownership Transfer Request - Ivy Falls Creek Ho e Owners Association. 6. Approval of Community Position Statement Related to Minneap Airport-Area Community Protection Concept Package. 7. Other Issues. 8. Adjourn. 0 I St. Paul � TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DISCUSSION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 30, 1995 Mayor, City Council and City Administ Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer /� � Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy for 1996 Each year the City must adopt a preliminary budget and tax levy following year prior to September 15th, and certify the levy to the coun Once the preliminary levy is adopted, it can be reduced but not increasE county auditor then prepares parcel specific tax notices and mails them our Truth-in-Taxation hearing. Attached are these resolutions: 1. 2. 3. Preliminary Budget Resolution. Preliminary Tax Levy Resolution which includes the General Levy plus the special purpose levies. , A Final Tax Levy Resolution for the Commercial Street Li which is not subject to the Truth-in-Taxation Hearing. At the present time, we are basing our tax projections on the preli figures from the county assessor's office. There was a considerable ran valuation adjustments for next year from reductions to over ten percent Overall, there appears to be about a ten percent increase in (tax capacir about 40 percent from new construction. � the auditor. The �ior to , District nary of ) with The Preliminary Budget, which shows a 4.9 percent increase in o dollars, is ready for approval. A resident with no increase in valuation � decrease in City tax (5-6 percent). A tax payer whose house has a five increase in value will see about a 0- 1 percent increase for 1996. The 5150,000 home paid a 1995 City tax of 5466.94. The budget as presented does not allow for any of the add levels for 1996. As you will recall, these add level items include Heart Start d outdoor warning siren improvements, an enhanced City Hall telephone s the acquisition of the Burow Farm. It would be possible to adjust the pr levy to include any of these items which the Council might want to incl� must certify to the County by September 15th. A workshop or special r could be held up to September 14th. . According to the dates provided by the County Auditor, we can h Truth-in-Taxation Hearing at our regular meeting on December 5, 1995. The final Resolution must be adopted at a subsequent hearing prior December 19th. It will be necessary for us to hold a special meeting to a resolutions. I suggest that a brief special meeting be held on December 1 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. If work on the budget is not finalized on Decemb we could have our continuation hearing on December 12th with a subseq hearing on December 13th. The time and dates of the continuation and/o subsequent hearing must be announced at the December 5th hearing. W� unable to use our regular December 19th meeting as this date has been p by the County. � ACTION REQUIRED If Council so desires, a motion should be passed adopting Resoluti 95- , RESOLUT/ON ADOPT/NG PROPOSED BUDGET, Resolution No. ! RESOLUT/ON APPROV/NG TENTAT/VE 1995 LEVY COLLECT/BLE /N �9� Resolution No. 95- , RESOLUT/ON APPROV/NG F/NAL 1995 TAX LEI SPEC/AL TAXING D/STR/CT NO. 1 COLLECT/BLE /N 1996. LES:kkb :rall tax Iseea ercent pical service �ices, �tem and �osed e. We �eting our opt the :th at r 5th, ent are , :empted No. ,- , and ' FOR . , � FUND FUND NO. GENERAL FUND 01 I TOTAL EXPENDITURES City Council Administration ' Elections � PoGce Fire � Code Enfor+cement Public Warks ; Road & Bridge � Pa�lcs P��nning E..,,.yding . Animal Control Total General Fund Expenditures General Fund Contingency NON-0EPARTMENTAL ADD-LEVELS'� Heart start devices Outdoor waming siren City Hali telephone system Burow Fann 1993 1994 1995 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 17�750 18,880 19,990 472,840 488,070 545�460 1,650 27,600 ' 21�410 1,168�830 1 �205,030 1,�85�50U 185,190 232�970 223,020 130,010 137�630 128�060 455�220 386,690 434,850 312�960 324�880 373�460 79�400 72�690 � 66�520 12,520 17,060 15�430 4,970 8,010 7�200 1995 1995 to 6/1/95 ESTiMATE 1996 � % 6,210 19,990 19,990 0.0% 161,270 - 545,420 532,540 2.4% 50 21,410 •� 37,000 72,$% 462,800 1,284,000 1 307.650 1.7% 51,8Q0 223,020 216.130 �3.1% 45,440 128�060 133�Q60 3.9°k 145,240 15T,790 17�560 5,190 3,880 437�490 373�460 66�220 15�430 7�660 �72,490 8.7% �82,660 2.5% 67,360 1.3% 15,770 2.2% 7�600 5.6°� 2,841�340 � 2,919,510 � 3,120,900 � 1�057,230 � 3,122,160 � 3j192,250 � 2.3% "` Peroentage Generai Fund v�ili increase - �d expendifures. � 0 ��� .� ��� 1995 if the 0 0 0 0 � item is add�d to .1 111 - .1 111 1 1' � 8,400 2.6°� 25�000 3.1 °� 35�000 3.4°� 67,000 4.4% � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET WHEREAS, State Statute requires City Council adoption of a pro Budget for 1996 on or before September 20, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed the City Administrator's Proposed 1996 Budget; and WHEREAS, Council recognized that the Budget document was prep the basis of a Preliminary Levy which will be considered at public hearing December 5, 1995. n � NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City lof Mendota Heights that the City Administrator's Proposed 1996 Budget apdropriates expenditures in a manner consistent with service level needs and Prelimin ry Levy funding; and . , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council hereby adopts the Adminis rator's Proposed 1996 Budget dated as the Preliminary Budget for 1996 subject o amendment following budget and levy hearings and adoption of a final lev . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 13th dayl of September, 1995. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk By CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEI Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE 1995 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN f1996 WHEREAS, the 1990 State Tax Law requires the City of Mendota I�eights to certify a tentative Tax Levy for the year 1995 prior to September 20, 199,5; and WHEREAS, the Levy may be adjusted prior to December 20, 1995 amount not to exceed the adopted tentative Levy. . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopt the following tentative Levy for tax against all taxable property in the City of Heights for collection in the year 1996: General Fund Emergency Preparedness Fire Relief Infra Structure Reserve Watershed District Legal & Contingency Levy Total General Levy Subject to Limitation Special Debt Levies MWCC Sewer Debt Equipment Certificates Park Bonds Improvement Bonds Fr. Hills St. Bonds Total Total Tentative Levy Anticipated HACA Aid 52,385,000 1,000 _ 22,000 30,000 -0- 60,000 52,498,000 30,000 106,000 320,000 17,400 30,000 5 503,400 53,001,400 5 4-4-8,000 Net Tentative Levy Certified 52,553,400 an dota BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the L.evy shail be amended foilowi I g budgefi hearings ta reflect the adopted City Budget. BE !T FURTHER RESOl.VED that the City Counci! hold a public hear ng on Tuesday, December 5, 1995 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. for the purpase of con iderin� the proposed budget and levy with a second hearing ta be hetd at 5:(?0 o clock P.M. on ` , December , 1995. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 13th da� of September, 1995. C[TY GOUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIG By Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swansan _. City Cierk 4 ° � a C1TY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAK(?TA COUNTY, MlNNESf�TA RESQLUTtON NO. 95- RESfJlUTION APPRClVENG �INAL 1995 TAX LEVY FOR SPEClAl, TA�►CING DISTRIGT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 1996 �- WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has, by Resolution No. 87 91, authorized the ievy of taxes within Special Tax District No. 1 for the purp � se of paying op�rating costs af the street lighting system established within sai District; and V1IHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has determined that the su' of $15,000 will be required in 1996 for the purpose of paying such operatinc„�costs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Ci ' of Mendota Heights adopt the following levy against ail taxabte property wit in said Special Taxing District No. 1. Operation and Maintenance Costs $15.000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED #hat any tax exempt property with said be billed for services at a comparabie rate computed on the Assessar`s M Value of such property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Dakota County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 13th day Septem6er, 1995. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY COUNCI�. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIG gy Charles E. Mertensatto Mayor of CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS September � TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ma.yor, City Council and City Adminis Tames E. Danielson, Public Works D' Schmid Assessment Amendment . Friendly Hills & Surrounding Area Improvements 7ob No. 9216 Improvement No. 92, Project No. 6 DISCUSSION: Ms. Renee Schmid, 729 Mohican Court appeared before the City Council at Friendly Iiills Street Reconstruction assessment hearing. At that meeting Ms. Schm that the st�eet in front of her home had been reconstructed several years ago along w Bridgeview Shores Project. Although there had been no charge to her at that time sl that she was not benefitting from this project and submitted a formal written objectic Since that meeting the City has been negotiating with Ms. Schmid aad has controversy by agreeing to split the assessment cost with her ($1,350). RECONIlVIENDATION: In order to resolve this controversy without legal action, I recommend that Schmid's assessment be reduced to $1,350. ACTION REQUIltED: If Council desires to implement the recommendation, they should pass a moti adopting Resolution No. 95 =, RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENT RI FRIENDLY HII.LS & SURROUNDING AREAS REHABILITATION/ RECONSTRUCTION ,(IlVIPROVIIVIENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. �, to show reduced assessment of $1,350 for Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, 729 Mohicaa Co Parcel No. 27-27800-310-22. 13, 1995 stated �the stated the FOR Tax � e��y of M�Qa�� x��gnts Dakota County, Minnesota. P►ESOLUTIUN NU. 95- F�SOLUTIpN AM�NllING ASSESSA�IEN'.0 ROLL FUR I'RIENDLY & SURROUNDING AREAS REHABILITATION/ REC4NSTRUCTIQN {IlVIP7EtOV '�1ME1�TT NU. 92, PRUJECT N4 6} WSI� AS, Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, the owners af the property sit of Mendota IIeights identified as Tu� Parcel Na. 2?-27$00-310-22 have sabmitted a uc to the assessments levied against said�parcel ia the total amount of $2,700.00 by reaa PmP�rtY does nat receive benefit from this project as �heir pmperiy received recc�ns� the Bridgeview Shores project; and W�iTREAS, Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, have agreed to withdra.w in consideratian for #he City reducing the assessment against their parcel to the � and W�LREAS, the legal description of said Taac Parcel No. 27-27800-310-22 particuiarly described as fihe following pmperty situated in Dakota County, Minnes Lat 31, Bl.ack 22, Friendly Hills Rearrangement, Section 36, Township 28 Range 23 "West W�3]ERF.,AS, compromise and settlement of said vbject�on on the basis set result in the saving to the City of additionai legat expense and expert witness fees litigate said assessmen�t objection in court, and W�3C�1tEAS, the City Attorney has recommended that settlement of said set forth above would, in his opinion, be in the best interest of the City. �3 in the City itten objection that their xon as part of formal objectian rt of $1,354.00, more , to-wit: abave would :ed in order to on the basis NOW Z�EREFORE, IT LS HEREB'Y R.ESOLVED by the City Council o� the City of Mendota Heights, l�iinaesota as follows: l. 2. That the settlement of Daniel A. & Renee E. Schmid relative to the above be compromised and settled an the basis more particularly set That tbe Ciry Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to amend mll to refle�t said settlement. set forth above, and id assessment t Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 13th day of Septe�iber, 1995. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCII. CITY OF MENDOTA HIIGHTS : Chazles E. Mertensotto, Mayor .r � i � � � :r --M TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admi.nis FROM: James B. Daaielsan, Public Works D` SUB,]ECT: Schmid Assessment Amendment Friendly Hills & Surraunding Am,a. Impmvements Job Na. 9216 Improvement No. 92, Project No. 6 DISCUSSION: Ms. Renee Schmid, '729 Mohican Court appe��red before the City Council at Friendly Hills Street Reconsttuction assessment hearing. At that meeting Ms. Schm that ihe street in front of her home had been reconstrncted severai years ago a�ong a Bridgeview 5hores Project. Although tliere had been na charge to her at tha.t time sl that she was not benefitting from this praject and submitted a formal wriiten objectic 13, 1995 stated �the stated Since tbat meeting the City has been negott,iating with Ms. Schinid and has re�olved the controversy by agreeing to split the assessment cast with her ($1,350). ( RECUMMC�NI')ATItJN: In order to resolve this cantraversy without legal action, I recommend that Schmid's assessment be reduced to $1,350. ACTION REQUIItED: If Council desires to implement #he recommenda.tion, they should pass a mob adopting Resolution No. 9S- , I��SOL�J�TIQN AMI+' 1iDING ASSESSMENT Rt FRIENDLY HII..LS & SU.RROLJNDiNG AREAS P�EHABIGITATION/ REC4NSTRUCTIQN ,{I1�iPRQVIIV1�l�TT NU. 92, PROJECT NU. 6}, ta show reducecl assessment of $1,350 for Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, 729 Mohican C� Parcel Na. 27-2780{}-314-22. �� ' w_� City af Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota FtESOLUTION NO. 9S- P:ESOLUTIUN AMENUING ASSESSI1rlENT ROLL FC?R F�:IEIV'DLY & SiJRItOUNDING AREAS 1�►EHABILITATION/ REC4NSTR.UCTION (l[NII']2QVI{.�IV�NT NU. 92, PRUJECT N4 6} WHEREAS, Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, the owners of the properiy si1 of Mendota Heights identified as T� Parc�l No, 27-27800-310-22 have submitted a to the assessments levied against said �parcel in the total amount of $2,700.00 by rea; praperty does nat receive benefit from this project as their pmperiy rec�ived reconst the Bridgeview Shores project; and WSEREAS, Daniel A. and Renee E. Schmid, have agreed to withdraw in consideration for the City reducing the assessment against their parcel to the ; and WHEREAS, the legal description of said Tax Pazcel No. 27-27$C10-31.0-22 part%calarly described as the follawing Pmperty situated a'n Dakata County, Miucmes Lot 31, Block 22, Friendly Hills Rearrangement, Section 36, Township 28 Ra.nge 23 West WSTRF..AS, compromise and settlement of said objection an the basis set result in the saving to the City of additianat Iegal expense and expert wimess fees litigate said assessment abjection in court, and WFi] �'. , the City Attarney has recommended that settlement af said set forth above would, in his opini�on, be in the best interest af the City. �i in the City itten objectian that their ion as part of formal objection �t of $1,3S0.00, more �. to-wit: above would �ed in order ta on the basis NOW T+� FORE, IT IS E�EREI3Y N.ESOLVED► by the City Council o� the City of Mendota Fleights, Minnesota as follaws: 1. That the settlement of Daniel A. & Renee E. Schmid relative ta the ; abave be compromised and settled on the basis more parti.cularly set set forth above, and 2. That tb.e City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to amend Isaid assessment roll to reflect said settlement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota. Heights this 13th day of CITY COUNCII. CITY OF MENDOTA HIIGHTS : ATTFST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor , 1995. L CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 13, 1995 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr SUBJECT: Ivy Falls Creek Home Owners Association - Update on Prope; Ownership Transfer Request � DISCUSSION In the wake of the Ivy Falls Creek Restoration project, several mem ers of the Ivy Falls Creek Home Owners Association suggested that ownership f the actual creek property would best be in the hands of the City. The City al eady has ownership and/or easements on some of the creek property, although a s bstantial amount of the creek bed still belongs to the Ivy Falls Creek Home Owners Association. Mr. Jack Brassard has been in contact with Mayor Mertensotto on his issue, and the Mayor suggested that the Council be brought up to speed d n this subject at our September 13th Special Meeting. Information on this subject was recently provided by Mr. Brassard ��o Mayor Mertensotto, copies of which are attached. ACTION REQUIRED None at this time. Council should receive the update, and offer comments or suggestions they may have on this subject. S�p-O?-95 02:04P Rawland 4 � � �j>y/ . r . y.. & M�rte»sotto 612 222-4755 � t� Jack Brassard, Pres. Ivy Fail Home Owners Associatian t205 Sylvandale Road St Paul, Minn. 55118 Dear Jack, I hav'e Revie�wed the propos�:d 8eed to transfer aut lot C,f�om the llome Owners asSOCiation to th� City of Me Heights. I agree �hat the are� is ecologically fragile,and sho maintained in its Wild state,as a refuge for the wild and birds that have inhabited the area for so many ye are probably aWare �hat the area h3s been c3esignated Wetlands area and a� such there are limitations as to can be done to change the ar�a ,or how the area can b 'The area is quite fragi].e and wi-11 not be able to han large g=oups of walkers :such as we had iast Fall wit creating paths and destroying vegetation that would n prevenL erosion and �rater damage. We are in accord with a11 oF the ct�ndL�.ions se� farth deed and if the area is giv�n to the CiLy it Wi11 be � to grow in it's natural state as a�wild life R�fuge Yours Truly � � J'� �� �- ����K �:C.� L � � f, a� ����,ci / �y ��s = � �l''� `K � y� f �� � u � +l /�/�� �g�• ��G A, B, And 3ota d be nimals s.You hat used. e the ut ma1.2y in the llawec3 S�p-Q?-95 Q2:Q4P Rowland & M�rt�nsott� 61Z 2ZZ-4755 ( P_02 4 + ��� G�+ti+ y 0�}�er= ,No delinquent ta3cea and tran�fe= antored; Certiticatg of Reai Eatatc Valuo ( j filed ( ) not r�c�uired C�rtfficaLa of Real Eatate YaluQ 'Ro. , 19 County Aud toz by DQputy STAT$ DEEB TAX DUE IiSREQN: S D�tte: , 1994 FOR VALUl18LE CONSZDERr,TIQN, 2wv Fdtlla Home Qwne nork-erofi� Carparatian under the Iaws canveye and quit claims to City o� Iiendota cQrgo�atian undQr the 2aw� of Mir�ne �3�ata County, Kinneeota, deeczibod ae followe (reeerved foz� C=antae, Outlot A6, Ivy Fa128 Adflition and Outlots 8 and C, Ivy Falle 2ad lidclit da►tts? � , a antar hereby mun ic iv�►1 1 propwzty in {•Property'}. Grantor ie makinq thia conveyance in coneideration of Grantee'e uee oi ha Froperty aa part of ita� atorm water draiaaqe ayatem and ussa incidentai thezeto incl ding, but not limited to, the maintenar►ce, rQpair, im�rovemen� and modification of such a atom. Grar►tee further agreea, to thQ oxtent reaeonaDly povaible, ta keep the abova Progerty ir► ita natural et,ate with rio �tru�turee, aLhe= than drainage and wat+�r cantrai facilitie8, to bQ eoaa�ructed aad lacatad thereon and no uso ehall be madQ of the Proparty �or trail�, walkway� or pedestxian or recreationnl uee. In th�t event any part or all of the Property iar ovar ueed for aay pur �Q other than �ar a�tozm vater drainage $ystem then title ta such part or a23 0� tne Fro rty na loager befnq eo ueed ohail revert to Grantor. Grantee ehail, upon th4 occuaronce of n ovant giving rise to thi� right a� reversion and at the written requo�t of Grantor, deiiv r ta Czantor a limitwd uarranty deed tc all or that p3rt of Prop�rty subjaot to reveraion. Grantee-a�c.}cnowledgea that the Ptoperty abuto n number_9f-e�agio-•ia,mily (re dencea and tttQ uea af tt�e Fro�te�y_ �for -trn#.ls,._ walking, pedestrf3��• ai z+�creatiossal, ��� wauld be dioruptive to the pse -�mi--=�j e�rrre�,�=�.f-�,h� ad, j��riinq reaidential_ .p�e�¢ez and cauoe a diminution or reducti.an in marTCBt-_v_alue oi ti�e�'"�rra��inq�=�,sroke=ty. .r...drant a agreee� that Gzantor has no adequate r�medy at Ia�i-iti. t�ea�vent af a violation of' ari� aqr��ment hQreunder and that Grantar may bring -�r�-�acr.�.en • to en join aay"vic2at�tan" iaf� the termo h reaf . togetri�r wi+Ch all hereditamenC and appuztQnancee Delonging therota. Grantars c�rrtit'p tn�t Graato7rs do not kaow of sny w�lls an the describtd STATE OP' ZiS23NESOTA CA[iNTY OF IYY FALLS FiOt'� CWNSRS' !l630CIATIOLi� ZNC, Bys Its: propesty. and xnregoing inattument was ack�owledged befor� me Chie day �f by f the of � Fal,, $ iiome ¢wn j�,c. , a�}on-p�o�,� co=�csration under tho iawa of Kinn��ots , • corvorat on . Notary Pnb c THIS INBTRUISENT DRPiiFTED BY: li�iUN & 32riON, PLC (BGO} 29Q0 Norwest Center 90 So�th Seventh 3treez Kianoapolia, i�N 55402 (612) 338-1113 arsu�a,aco,33639_IM Tax Statements far trie real pacoperl thia instrumant ahauld b� sent to name and addreQ�r of Grantee)r City of Hendota Heighte , 1994, lf of the y described in (Includa �. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 1, 1995 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Admini r SUBJECT: Discuss Draft MSP Environs Community Protection Concept DISCUSSION As the Council is aware, the Dual Track Airport Planning Process is progressing under the guidance of the Metropolitan Council and the Metra Airports Commission. As part of the work being done by the Met Council have been working on a study to identify those land use planning and imp mitigation steps which would need to be undertaken in the communities surrounding MSP if the airport is to remain in its current location. A simil� is also underway in southern Dakota County to address planning implicati� mitigation steps necessary should the airport eventually be moved. �olitan they study s and Metropolitan Council staff and their two consultants on this project, Clarion Associates and Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc., have been meeting . informally with various airport impacted communities since late 1994 to g ther data for their report. They recently prepared a draft "Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package" which is attached for your eview and comment. � On August 9, 1995 the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commis ion reviewed the draft document and were asked to provide input to the City ouncil on this subject. At that meeting it was agreed that the ideas suggested in the report were basically sound, but that the main issue of interest to Mendot Heights, the equitable distribution of air noise, was not addressed at all in he document. Those present at,the meeting felt some mention of operational equity should be made in the document. The Commission was unable to make a ormal recommendation to the Council due to a lack of a quorum at the meeting. The Met Council plans to convene a meeting of those communities I close to the airport on September 14, 1995 to further discuss the draft do Input to the document from area elected officials is currently being solicite the inclusion of this item on tonight's agenda. :ument. �, hence ANALYSIS The attached package describes a number of mitigation tools and techniques suggested for consideration for MSP communities. These suggestions include: 1) Community Stabilization *' Property Value Guarantees * Preferential Tax Programs . * Housing Revitalization Programs 2) Community Revitalization � Tax Increment Financing � Fiscal Disparities � Community Development Bank 3) Community Incentive Programs 4) Airport Protection Measures Further details on each of these tools and techniques is included in the draft document. Many of the described suggestions will require legislative approval to enact. Although a decision on whether or not to move the airport will not be made until 1997 at the earliest, many of the communities surrounding MSP would like to see these tools legislatively adopted prior to that decision. Even with today's level of airport impact, many of the tools are thought to be useful in dealing with the physical and financial stresses imposed on nearby cities by aircraft operations at MSP. � The use of nearly all of the described tools and techniques would be optional for those cities eligible to participate-- Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Mendota Heights. One provision in the package which might not prove optional is described in the section entitled "Airport Protection Measures". This section advocates for greater enforcement of the state's Airport Zoning Act, and the revitalization of the Airport Zoning Board, to guard against incompatible land use development in areas close to MSP. Although we have previously adopted the Met Council's Guidelines for Air Noise Compatible Development, the prospect of perhaps losing some control over our local land use decisions is still troubling. t COMMUNITY JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS In support of the package, the Met Council has asked each City to "community justification" statement which can be used to help lobby for approval of the various described tools and techniques. Examples of the community justification statements from Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan attached for your review. Based on comments provided by the Council, � statement will be prepared for Mendota Heights. RECOMMENDATION evelop a �e are similar Although many of the tools described in the draft package are mor applicable to communities such as Minneapolis and Richfield, the added opportunity to have these tools available to us could be beneficial in the f ture as our community ages. ,. From a broader viewpoint, the City mUst be careful to note that an� given to the package should not be seen as an indication that we are in fa expanding the airport in its current location. Additionally, the City's positi relative to the need to more equitably distribute airport noise around MSP be included in the draft document in some fashion. This position should a clearly noted in the to-be-prepared Mendota Heights Community Justificat Statement. ACTION REQUIRED support �or of on uld be Council should review the Draft Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package and should provide staff with an recommended additions, deletions or other suggestions you may have. T e Council should also indicate any specific sites or purposes they would like to see the described tools used within Mendota Heights. These suggestions will hen be incorporated into a Community Justification Statement for Mendota Heiqh s. MI[�iN,I�.APGILISIST. PAUL AIRP4RT-A►REA CUMMUIVITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE Prepared For Metropolitau Council City of Bloomington City of Eagan City of Minneapoiis By Clarion Associates Denver, Colorado Metropalitan Airports Commission City of Mendoia Heights City of RichfieId in association with Richardson, Richter & .Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minneso�a Juiy 1995 � MIl�INEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AiRP41tT-A�REA C4A�IlYIUNITY CtaN+CEPT PACKAGE--DRAFT Clarion Assaciaies in associatian with Richardson, Richter & Assaciaies, Inc. JuIy 1995 .� INTRODUCTIt�N The MinneapolislSt. Paul (MSF) Airport is widely recagnized as being one of e primary econamic assets and engines in Minnesata, Not only does it provide substantial direc ecanomic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an iuncreasingly global ec nomy. The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoathly functioning, madern and compedtive facility, it should move ta a new site in Dakota County or re ain at its current 14cation and expand. A decision is expecte�i sometime in 1997. It is clear, ho ever, that even if MSP� moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years giv n current capacity and projected demand, - '�Uhile the airport obviously has many posidve benefits for the regian and state, it is als+ that it has sig�nificant i.mpacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are alwa3 issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of e+qual significance--safet traffic, fiscallta�c base impacts, environmentai influences, and effects on property � overall community stability. Most airport impact mitigation effarts focus almast excl� noise--and the Metrapolitan Airports Comm�ission has established a good track recoi naise insulation and property buyaut programs. However, it is becoming increasingl that because of iimited federal funding, the noise mitigatian pragrams aze limite� outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at Ieast the next twenry ; the vitality of surraunding communities is to be maintained, these otb.er impacts n addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating existing houses the airport is not enaug�. Airports are dynamic facilities, at least if they are s Operational requirements are constantly changing and new runways and other faciliti� be added fram time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, c changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport imgacts. At the same time, to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP t hamper its efficient ogeration in the long term. � To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropoiitan Cauncii and� the M Auports Commission have been meet7ng infonnally since Iate 1994 with representati� gover,nments that are iacated in the vicuuty of MSP. These include Bloomingti M8IItI0�1 H�1�}iGS, Minneapo2is, and Richfield. The ,graup's primary gaal has been to i explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable cammunities in apparent ; the first , ground .tues and �iveiy on l with its � obvious in their �ars, and ed to be ;losest ta of iacal Eagan, tify and : airport � environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.l in essence, these discussiaz�s have focused an how to make the airport a better neighbar ai2d to ensure the continued vitality of surrounding neighborhoads and businesses. Recognizing that this effort was a two-way street, the group aIso examined ways to prevent new incompatible development that might adversely aifect the aupart. During 1995, the gzoug has examined a wide range of tools and technigues and has developed a mitigation package that the group recommends the legisiature cansider reg�rdless of the decision regarding Iocation af MSP. This package includes several af the most promising approaches identi�ied over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Cauncil, MAC, and private sector businesses: • Commur�� stabilization tec�iniques such as property value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization`in noise impact azeas, acquisition of incompatibie land use prior to deterioration. �� • ommuni�y revitali�atio,� a��.�oaches such as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development��banks. ' • �n�entive ,pro�rams similar to those commanly used in siting large facilities ta provide offsetting h�nefits (such as neighbarhoad recreation centers) to a community or neighborhoad. These would include incentives from private firms (e,g., the airlines, car rental campanies) as well as from public agencies. • A.ir.��.pr�gtection measures such as improved local land use coz�trals to ensure that developments that are incompatible fram a noise or safety perspective cio not accur in the auport environs untess mitigation measures are underl:aken. . The graup aiso exarninned the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available. While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to azeas affected by a certain level of noi�e (typically with the so-called b5 Ldn contour}, the group believes a convincing case can be made that the impact area should not be sa narrowly defined. When hames aze demolished within a'70 Lcin naise cantour, the impact on the avaiiability of affordable housing may be significant throughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a community's tax base. Uf cowrse, airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts on a community, for example, major changes in traffic levels and patterns. Based on sucli�considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine which communities should be etigible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First, only communities that have within their borders a 60 I.dn noise contour as defined by the MAC wouid be eligible ta participate, Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within which the taals might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods within xA sunnmary of the operating principles adopted by the group is attached ta this document. 7 one mile of the 60 Ld.a contour as depicted on the attached map. The definition boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legi; Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical cover� neighborhoods. SUlVIlVIARY OF MITIGATION TOOLS AND TECHIVIQUES Communutv Stabilization Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of pro stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development progr neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized � as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However; these limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues. Property Value Guarantees Where landowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely affected by noise � operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception m pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an inflwc of inacoII uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important invesl owaers may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. Experience in the Village of Oak Pazk, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, c that local governments can bolster confidence in an azea of potential deterioration 1 guarantees against properiy value depreciation. Oak Pazk utilized a property vali program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood: In brief, fihe program wor� Owners of eligible single family residences submitted an application to join the pro€ $90 application fee which covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expen five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he to be reimbursed for 80 % of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adeqt that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal v Also, if the properiy could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eli� it purchased by a village-established Equity Assurance Commission. Oak Park believes the program was successful in cahning fears of properiy value loss. 160 homeowners initially joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. I� no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully in remains a desirable residential community. 3 the precise ure to the of affected ims to help the airport to stabilize grams such o�rams are n airport lead to a the area, �ble land ;nt. some � providing guarantee l like this. m with an s. If after as entided �ly during � possible. �le to have over 7�J � and Emulating this concept, local governments around MSP should be authorized to establish a program that pledges to reimburse landowners for losses in progerty value caused by airport operations and impacts. Backup funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local governments would pass through such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for any equity reimbursement, the rationale being that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where owners aze unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to purchase the properties in fee sunple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the state or MAC. Participation would be optional for all properry owners within a designated eligibiliry zone (such as a noise overlay zone). Preferential Tax Programs To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or social stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have adopted a variety of income and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of Minnesota receatly adopted an urban homesteading program that authorizes the Metropolitan Council to designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that are in transition to blight and poveriy. Any person buying or occupying a home within such a zone is eligible for an ex�on from Minnesota taxable income for up to five years (up to a limit of $15,000 for married individuals filing a joint return) in specified circumstances. Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special pro�eriy tax benefits to encourage owners of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fourth mile of major transit stops. The goal is to encourage job densiry around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible. The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides properry tax benefits to businesses locating in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes Section 473.3915) �� In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be recaptured. " � � Housing Revitalization Programs As noted above, several of the MSP-area communities have undertaken aggtessive and innovative housing revitalization programs. However, where these efforts involve direct government action as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit 4 pragram in Mizuiesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make impr homes aver 3S years oId (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Px similar uutiarives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeawners can be spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged. I� in Minnesota haif of the credits have been cIaimed by owners of homes with vah $$5,000. Thus the state Iegislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitatic program for homes in designated airport-impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective the age limitation to fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging ren wider range af housing. In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can encouraged with a modest reduction in mort a e lending rates, down payment rec reductian in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce iiut� mvestment and car s to and into less than tax credit ► reducing atian of a greatly ' --especially fust time buyers. As applied to the airport ar�a, special lending progranls embodying these concepts, in addition to ihose akeady in effect in a� er areas, to encourage more aggressively first time hame buyers, thus heIping. to stabiiize the a' ort-area neighborhoads. Housing renovation revaiving Iaan funds have likewise proven ta be usefui tools i community stabilization and housing preservation prograrms. Typically, Ioca1 govemme Iow-interest loan rehabilita,tion Iaan funds for designated areas (e.g., an historic Homeowners in e district can borrow funds for rehabilita6an at below-market interest � encouraging investment af their private dollars. Payment can be made over a specifie upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by malcing new loans. A simila is cuirently available in Minneapolis through MCDA—the Middle Income Housing Frogi program is not limited to first-time hameowners; it makes loans available foi rehabilitatian such as putting a new roof on a house. Funding for such a pragram tailared for the airpart azea might come from a appropriation by the state legislature, an annual cvntribution by the MAC, issuance t bonds by MAC, �aise imgact fees� on late-night flights, or a cambination of sources some farm of local match. \��_ i 1,� !!, ��.l. R%. ' 1�1 ��4%! + 1 , Community revitaiizatian prograzns are generally seen in areas that aze past the "preventative medicine" such as the properiy value guazantee. Commwnities have , discavered that there are no "siiver bullets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather suc depend an utiiization af a variety of programs to address problems such as lack c investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substantial experie commercial and residential revitalization pragrams, but more progz�arns are needed to en� to deal more effectively and comprehensively with augort imgacts. E broader its create district). ttes, thus L term or program �m.. . This housing revenue of :ss will capital � with e them �Tax Increment Financing � Tax increment fmancing (TI� districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization tool throughout the state. There are currendy five general types of TIF districts, and the municipalities surrounding MSP may qualify to use one or more of these districts. Generally, however, there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area, purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calculated, and areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport impacts. With relatively madest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues. These recommended changes include: • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to a specified percentage of substandard housing, location within an airporE�impact zone would trigger use of the district. . . • Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qualifyin� expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitadon loans, mortgage revenue bond ocs munity facilities, etc. • Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere within broader project area,. perhaps the entire airport impact zone; do not limit just to district. . • Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero. Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax increment financi�g in the qualifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another altemative for consideration would be to spread over the seven county region the reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout the region. • Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports around the.United States aze encouraging non aviation related commercial development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non avia6on commercial uses, and such properties should be � included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to address airport unpacts. � 1 � Fiscal Disparities �,,,�,,��, ���,� .�.p � ..��a�.'.Ju' .-- � MAC-controlled property is treated differently from other similar use property in � e area for purposes of fzscal disgarities. Valuation of the property is not inciuded in any tax bas d sharing. Many optians are available for consideration including the payment of a shared area rate, Additionally, growth in e�cisting commercial and industriai praperty uses within the � be made eligible for sharing under the fiscal disparities prograrn. .. Communiiy Devetopment Bank Availabiiity af a steady flow of investment capital or iow-interest laans is vften a key in the success of community revitalization programs. Experience shows that in b deteriarating areas, bank Iending and ather traditianal sources of renavatian and reti funding may dry up or conventianal financing may not be sufficient tti stixnula inves#ment. To address this issue, several cammunity developm�nt banks have spru might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or lc financing. One of the most successful of these community development banks--the South Sh Chicago—is described mare fully in the attached report. Using a combination residential and commercial loans, strategic development prajects, and education pro€ been respansible for revita�izing a neighborhood that had been written aff by most c most respects, this community development bank is no different tl�an any local n� fmanciai instztutian. Criteria far 2ending is the same used by other ba�zks--credit u tFie borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One unporkant difference, how a sig�nificant amaunt af the baa�ks funds are in "develapment deposi�s"--deposits by ius could or private up that Bank in targeted �s, it has rvers In iness af , is that .ans and individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for neighborht�od rehabiiitation. As ihe bank's executive vice president has stated, "We e owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable ogerations, but who are also int�rested in economic develapment. Community develapmerit bauks often make rehabiiitation fiznds available at below-mar rates or with extended. payment schedules. This non-traditional fuiancirig is often ir getting the revitalization ball roliing. Funds for such non-traditional programs co vaziety of saurces--community development funds, Community Reinvestment Aet pro, private sectar contributians, ta naine only a few. � The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is worthy i expioration. VVhile the indicia af distress and disinvestment are lower for these commw was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem det� in some residentiat areas and provide veniure capital and rehabiiitation funds in commer� particulazly neighborhood commercial. C1�artered by the state legislature, stazt-up capita a bank might came from a cornbinatian vf sources, including I�IAC, area governments, the state who could depasit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associate� 7 interest key to fram a riS, aIl{i further �s than ai areas, for such �nd even with the airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program-related investments (which typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) � 1s �1 � � � ' .� ' ' ' � '� : � In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly. common practice to provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the unpacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e.g., a large .industrial development or ski resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of significant amounts of park land to offset oss o open space on-site or increased demand on local parks associated with an influx of new workers. The types of other incentives offered by developers include: • Community and recreation centers; .�j • Contributions towards local police, fire,: and emergency medical services/equipment; � • Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts; • Special rates for use of commercial facili6es (e.g., discbunt tickets at a ski resort). In a general sense; these incentives and benefits are intended to protect and possibly enhance the quality of life in an area in which a new development is viewed as potentially compromising that quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major development. � In the context of the aixport, an incentive/mitigation package might include, for example, funding for additional ind The logic would be that such facilities would help "compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for the adverse impacts airport noise has on the use of outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this direction by making e o rts land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreational oppornmides, but also provides an important buffer for neighboring Richfield. Private companies might also be enlisted' in this effort: In many communities, airlines contribute free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. For example, to encourage community involvement in planning for the redevelopment of Stapleton Airport in Denver, Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for �school-age children to suggest interesting uses for the site. The MSP communities feel that the many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more than willing to weigh in on the side of keeping the airport at its current location have an oliligation to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation programs, because of limited funding, db not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the airport, let alone the serious secondary effects discussed above. 0 ,A�ir�ort Pratectipn� Me�asures A recurring problem araund most major airparts throughout the United States is the �ontinuing canstrueti�n af uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Se�eral steps have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this pe;rsistent problem. For example, e state has ena�ted tiie .Aupart Zoning Act �"vSinn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq} that requires mu 'cipalities within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent cons ction or expansian of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metro�olitan Council, as part of its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model naise protection_s_tandar � s that are to be incarporated into Iocai comprehensive pians and r�tatians. Unfortunat Iy, these requirements have not worked in practice. The�oint zanin� board established ara d MSP pursuant to the Airpart Zoning Act is na Ionger active. And whiie a few a' ort-area municipalities have adopted the Met Council naise standards, the majority have a{alth � ugh mast have same noise protection/insulation standards for new construction). If the airport is ta continue ta function in an efficient, safe manner,. it is.important tha�k steps be taken to make these grocesses more effective. To do so, the legislature should consid�r: ❑ � Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the noise standards to be administered by a revamged Airport Zaning E Puttin " " into the enfarcement provisians af the Airpart Zoning local campliance is ensured, At the same time, the state IegisIature n the issue of if local governments are threatened with "t��+;ings" litigatian that may resuIt in award against them. � Councii t so that address id lacal damage • Requiring that local implementing reguladons be performance based, tha is, they specify preferred result, but give locat governments regulatory flex bility in achieving a specified objective. • Providing land use pXanning assistance to local governments sa that comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to airpart impacts. � � � � i/ l�i��i �' � � can AIRPORT IlVIPACT MITIGATION TOOLS SUNIlVIARY TOOL SOURCE OF �XAMPLE �� AUTHORITY/FUNDING Property Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota Oak Park, Illinois, equity assurance program. Preferential Tax Programs State of Minnesota Minnesota urban home- steading legislation. Housing Revitalization State of Minnesota Minnesota�•�"This Old House" Programs . legislation tax credits for home renovation. Tax Increment I+�nancing State of Minnesota Ctiirrent state tax increment Expansion financing legislation. Community Development MAC/State/Airport Related South Shore Bank in Bank Businesses Chicago. Community Incentive Airport-Related Businesses/ Large real-estate programs � � MAC developments; ski resorts. 10 �" vaii�' � i• l._i'i 1 Cj tl iS" ;, j. { �+^� _ ""`� � .,. '�i �� '= Minne olis Park �� ; � 1 r -1 1 �� `+ •% ♦ `� %� l Zo1 r`, '` �� ~ �'`� � �' � �► �.:.; . � � J r. � �' / �. .��-.:1_• „�.i�, �' j '(, �,"1 � �t � f �, � r j� �► ` . . Edina . , 62 f; CJ �� � ! Richf�id . '' 1 � �+� �� t � t � � 1 31 � 11 � . Btaom gton .1 ; � � � 0 w�'1p� ' ,:.� f■i � ; �.""�� Y � �.. �st ... . . ......._. ._ I s �� � � �_ ,�,,,p� � S2 . �. �• � : �jj' ' �; a: �. 1�t �� � t,' �i t+� r West � ' ,�Lil' ale St. P ul s ~ j; :� ,.�'J � 3 South ._,.. ,. ... M� rtdo"� {� St. Pau � r �usz. r.r rL �.��� '��. � �. � ndota�� :,•, hts�S��s ��o i, Newport �s , '"� fLa k � '� ! �' � ._ ;.i `'i"' � '� �..i...+.w�.r�.r �' � � �� � . t __ t .. � �j j 3 � , / ss St. Pau! ; i nv r G rove ; Park /. • �' ! � N ights '�7=�`� �;' . � �.� rC � _ t � ` 2o y� z..�- i � � � � � ��i z tf ` i' . �'�� ij ; � . i an � ' GRE . i � `' � tf • ir r �, . �r f ' 1 �2 t '..tit . . _ • "a,�•:�',, ` �� ! j� e ���„� �', . � i Y.� m %� ��- -- - �.,. �:... - �.: ....n,.,,. . . -:. : . .;,; n-� �; , �y V �(' Y�f't�� �ir'' 1 �'�1%,kff�y ;�7'••��Gi~�y` �^t�'�z� ���;'r';'•r'►�i,k. ✓ r. I1�,.,'':i Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' Collaborative Efforts in Airporf Planning GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments affected by airport operations are committed to maintaining themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspective. To that end, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to redevelop the airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identifiication of the impacts of MSP operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of a community stabilization and revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the unpacts of continued operations of the augort at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to airport-area communities should not be applied in such a way as to result in undue burden to �� individual residents of affected communities. These cooperative planning efforts should not be interpreted as supporting the retention of MSP at its current location or moving it io Dakota County. � � PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS: 1. To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse unpacts related . to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include new tools and the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax-increment financing, should be made available in the airport development area. 2. Airport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied and may affect a community in other ways. 3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governments and school districts. 4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, funds should be provided to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere in that community if feasible. � , 5. The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development 'assistance, and the burdens of airport expansion, including impact on the e and quality of life, should be shared e u' ly among affected commun ma�cimum extent feasible. 6. Steps should be taken over time by each community in partnership with 11� Met Council to create compatible zones around the augort. These zones accomplished through a combination�of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopm� assure that the zones remain an integral, functional part of adjacent commiu 7. Steps should be taken by each community to identify and phase out over tu high-intensity uses in areas where existing uses preclude application of s development restrictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to c< to facilitate and expedite this process. No new schools, hospitals, and � housin,g should be built in these areas. . -� � i impact ronment � to the and the ould be tools to ;s. existing tv zone 8. Airport development area communities should take steps to ensure that all ne �and infi11 development within the airport development area is compatible from a noise d safety perspective. This should be accomplished tlirough the use of improved build g codes, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions. 9. Steps should be taken to assure that existing as well as future �on redeveiopment plans associated with airport development area impacts are n �the community's overall plan. �(to include the addition of community-wide 10. The Met Council should take prunary responsibility on behalf of and in cooper affected airport development area communities to ensure that the above-listed and concepts are fully considered in the dual-track process. These princ concepts should be reflected .in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guii Dual Track Decision Document. into s...) i with les and and the SENT BY �( 612) 67�-272� : 7-2U-95 � H� 50A1N : CTY �u'LS PLAlVN 1 NCr Minneapolis MSP Airpolrt Noise Miti�;ation Needs 612 223 5229�# 2./ 5. Mitigation efforts must occur rcgardless if the airport is relocatcd or cxpanded. The tc�ols and tcchniqucs ta mitig�te the negative effects of thc airpori must be flGxihlc and accauntablc ta thc aifected comniunities as cach community has somewhat uniquc challengcs. Minncapolis has a mor� fixed land use configuratian than the other ec�mmunities sunoundin�g the MSP Airpari, As a result Mi.nnespotis' ecmcems focus more on residcntial livability issues than on land usc conversion. ilowevcr, arca,S for change can bc idcntificd. Plcase consider thc following issucs reladve to the MSP mitigation effort. 1.0 Land Use Implications 1.1 Who Does the Plaanin� and Who Pays? It is a.tsumed, apprnpriatcly, that the M(SP cc�rumunities will do the land use plam�ing for thcir re.�pective area,S. Howcver, gi�ven these austerc timcs who pays for this ptanning? Thc gr�wth of the airport prccipitatcd the need tn cansidcr ncw tand use optinns. lt sccros rcasona6le that somc af thc mitigation monics bc avail,able fora�int planuing cfforts. 1.2 Ytesidenti�l Conversioa to industrial, Commcrcial or Other Only a limited number of places exisi where the eonsideratian of land use ca»vcrsion is appropri.ate. These arca.s include: (:edar—(,}osstown This nodc is targetcd as part of the frant door for ihe new airport � icrmin�l. ?he appearancc of this nodc is crirical. The close proxunity to Lake Nokomis saggests a goc�d site for commercial which has a significant amouut of estl�ctic cicsign incnrpurated into it. 28th and Crosstown There will be restricted aceess to this intersecrinn. A low traffic intensity usc would be better for this nodc so as to reduce thc lcvcl af traffic in thc ncighbanc��ods. LDN Contours 70 and 75, Flight Path Corrldor A trapezoicial coaidnr could bc dcvelopcd to reflcct the flight paths resulting frarn the pardllel runways. The foot print nf the slate safety zoncs provid� a logical basc for this planning. 1 L SENT BY�(6121 673-2728 2.0 ��J C"v " 1.3 ; 7-20-95 ; 8�51AM � CTY A1PLS PL�INlNGi T; 61 223 5229+# 3/ 5 � , '!� Crosstowu Edge Light industrial/office space along che Clrosstown Frccway may be appropriate. Thc Jcvelopment shauld be continuos and of signific; n�ass so as to providc a noise buffcr &om thc roll �ver snuud fr�m airp�rt. Any rcdcvclapmcnt in this area would likcly iiicludc lhc B Terrace apartmcnt complex. � Satellite A,reas Arcas autside �f the airpoit impact could be improvcd t�r airport � industry. Thacc include the Hiawatha Corrid�r and thc ar�a atang GYosstown bctwccn 35W and Lyndalc Avcnue. �Yaf'fic and TransportAtion A numhCr of traffic nuisaiiccs result from the proximily to the a.ir�ort and candidatcs for mitigation. Also, snmc larger regional transp�rlation opportunities should be investigated. Traffic . CSty streets such ds Ccdar are used as routes to the downtown and ihc cxtra traffic gcncratcd by thc airport. Also, sorne pcoplc park cars on the neighborhn�d streets and take an express bus to ti�c au thus creating additionat parl;ing problems. Efforts to mitigate trdf impaets arc cnnsistcntly wcll received in Minncapvlis. 71-ansportation ' Mass transit options such as li�t.rail or a busway system should bc ccm.cidered as part of lhe reparations to the affected communities. 1 suitablo routc f�r me.cc transit could run along thc Hiawatha conida through the airpart sit� to the Mall af Americ.�, along 494 then snux 3SW. Other rnutcs azc possiblc and would not interfcrc with the op Ucing considcred far the Dual Track Planning Pr�cess. A joint paz� faciliiy at the airp�rt to free up surfacc parking for commercial dcvclapment Downtown and at the Mall af America shouid also be considcrcd in conjunction with a mass transit system. Noise and Community Implications 2.1 Capitallzing on Citizen Activism City re�idents report they feel .left out af the discussion, ignored, or foigotte Minneapolis rccidents as well as t}wse of nther MSP commu�iities are � char�cteriud ss thc matit complaining and noise seusitivc pc�pulation in� thc country. Rather than trcating this sensiCivity as a pnlitical liebility, it utcJs capitalizcd on. Pmvidin� a phone line to lodge complaints is not suf�icient, is thc current con�iguration of MASAC. Mitigation ciforts should go t� establishing a better forum for citizen involvement. �� 2 � :�� lU h8 n�r �f SFJVT BY�(612) 673-2728 � 7-20-95 : 8�52�119 � CTY �PLS PLANNINCr 612 223 5229:# 4/ 5 ,� 2.2 Giving Something in Return, Cor orate Responsibility � 3.0 Many c:ompanics and business arganizations who thc air <�' industry are uiorc thi,n willing to weigh—in on the side of kccping thc airport at its current location. It is unacceptablc that this t�cati�nal benefit comes without some �bligation to the affectcd communitics. Tlie n:sicicnts must l�ear the " ncgadve extcrnality of airport noise. Othcr industries must pay far thc:ir pollution remcdiation, the air industry should he no c�ccpNon. Somc obvious thing.� such as r�cluced flight costs f�r those in the impacted arcas arc well within the means of the air carricrs or the travcl industry. Mitigatinn cfforts must, at . t,h� vcry least, includc some significant gcsture fr�m thc business community. 2.3 Covexnment — Sharing the Noise Burden On the local level ... The City �f Saint Paul's comptete abscnce fram these mitigation discussions prescnts a poignant cxample of thc need tU shaze the naisc burden. It is imperative that thc problern bc cquitably shared in ordcr to devcic�p shared salutions. Equity in thc mitigation mcasures mast rcmain a ground rule and guide mitigation cfforis. To date, th� state governmcnl has effccliveiy dcicgdted the airport issue to the m�tro communities. Nationally... The MSP Airpart is not on par widi othcr airports azound thc country in tcrms of its stage AI aireraft mix. Thc FAA's mandate is to enhanc:e the air industry �� capacity and cnsure tho safcty of thc skics. In doing s�, nnise impac;t� azc relcgated to a lower priority and funding is often in jcapardy. It is unlikcly ihat a str�ng national arganization af noise isnpdcted cities will omergc in the ncar fulure. Conscquently, thcrc needs to be a secure source vf funding for thc MSP � communiries to adciress the impacts of noisc. This money/pro�rdmming should not bc administercd by the MAC aS its mandate is very similar to that af the FAA. Economic Linkages 3.1 Maintaining thc Economy in the interim. What dc�es passible restrieted eapaeity and dependenee on onc; air eacri�r mean for the city and metro region? The City of Minneapc�lis has aver $27 billi�n dnllars af econnmic activity per year and its downtown must cnmpcte with othcrs arouu� lhe cc�untry ancl the world. Ta have an inadequate airpart eited as a reason f�r lasing thc Otympic.� t�� Atlanta dcfinitely draws attcntion. Whilc l�st opporiunity c�sts arc bcyond thc scope of lhis assignment, it should not bn ignored. Interim, in this case, suggcsts a ten ycar time fremc at a minimum. 3 �SE7V7' $Y � i 612 l 673-2728 ; ?-20-95 : 8 � 53�iN � 4.0 Admiaistrative Concerns ' C'CY t�€'LS PLAftiW 11VG-F 612I 223 5229: # 5t 5 �.1 Na shrinking of the defined influence are�. 4"�,rrcntly within rhe LDN h5 therc azo appro�cimatcty 31iI,}L�U ICSIi�GII�'S 211 1 MSP commnnitics. Thc ncw coritnuts f�r Che y�az 2405 cst�auate that 23,t will bc affectcd. Tt is cicar that whilc the intlucncc �area may be shrir�king according the FAA acccptec� nuisc mctric, the jxrccptiun af n8�s� is nOt Ii; shrink. The ciefi»cd influcnce ana shoutd nat cxclucic thosc cunently aff� fxorn rcparatians. T13ey have paid their dacs. 4.2 M'atching the tcwi to the prnblem The obvious ncuus �f spund insulatioii f�r thosc most impactcd by noise suggests a simplc approach -- worst fust-- and can bc handled by an impa third party agency. Thc Icss obviously linked can;ccrns, such as cmpl�pmen those in thc affectcd azeas �r devclopYnti�t of new placcs tc� live fhr residc.-nt forced to rclocatc, should He handlcd by thc cammunity with provisini�s f�r appropriatc ncxibility. rnr ir�stancc, Minucapolis may find it b�ncficia! to cncowragc airport rclated dcvclo�rncnt alai�g the Hiaw�tha ct�rridor cven thc it is noC spccificall}► impactcd by naisc, Thc concci�tric ox tic�cd �pproach, ; suggcsteci 3n carlier scssions, may havc somc significant drawbacl;s. 4.3 Respccti::g neighborhaod bauadaxies it is irr�portant ta rrspect veighborhac�ct and athe� p3anning t�c�undarics as it encauragcs e�sc of undcrstanciing anci better community involvemcnt. Minneapatis has m�de a substantial commiiment ta neighb�nc��ad t�ased planning thmugh its Neighborhnod Rcvitalixatinn Program ($20 million aaqinually). 4.4 Tlming Airlincs at MSP havc becn allowed tn grow at their desircd r�te of cxpau,siC while those bcaring the bwrden csf gxowth have heen told tp'gct in linc' for micigatic�n mc�nics available only over a long period c�f time. 'i'hat iime line bc sbortcnec! cansi�ierably. m 4 v tc� for � - a7io�.jss 13: sa .—.� FAZC 612 861 9749 V11Z�nt�nriLa.,Y , . -- r-. , i � CITY OF 32ICHFIb�I D COMPAT.�3LE LAND USE REDEVELOPr�TT ALTERNA7IVES MSP JOINT pLANNING EFFQ�.T The redevelopment altematives for �ic�`ield znay be classified by a direct and indirect impacC ueeds basis. The az�s ofdirect impact are, obviously, those wIuch are adjacent ta the airgart. . This iacludes ths several bIacks west af the Cedar Avenue corridor and tb.e northeas�t and soirtbeast sections of tb,e Crty. Aseas afindirect impa�ct extend west beyond I-35 W as a resuit of depaarture naise �'rom 22 and 29L. Other inc�ir�ct impacts include tlse potential loss of neighborhoods from e�ansion of and improvemenis to the 35W/62 commans rhat will Iikely be necessary to ar.comodate the new "front-dooi" to tbe airport, and znar�ased commercial, h�c along b6ih an:d 77th Sfreets thax will affect residesrtial aud recreatianat areas. _�.. : .�.. Ceciar Avenue ,will experience a drau�atic face2ift in the event tbat MSP expanzis. The praximiry of cwaent airpart ogeratians creates a fairiy wanstan.t ground Ievel noise impact that creates tareameadous annayance by their duratian to singl.e-family and muiti �amily dwellin�s on Cedar, I8tl�, and fw.thet west. Red.evelopment af this carridorto commercial and industrial may provide the xequisi�e "but�e�' to safebvazd s�oundin� nei$hborhoods from. constant naise. An exampie ofssricch a bu�`er u the CDp b�diug at 66th and C�edar. 1he gotential impact of thc nanhtsoutli ruxzway is clifficult to assess at t�is time. lhere is s�l not enaugh data. to deter�mine if the graund l�v$I noise can be xeasonablq atzenuated rbraugh redevelopmenx in hz�h ma5s/density suuccures. ;��J/.4� CommQ�ansron ' .. This issu�e has not been specif cally addressed. m th� deveiopment of the west te�, hawever, rt is fanc to assume that thas problematic, higbl.y ta�a�ckeci area w� become �urther stressed by the new fro�t-door_ There will be a need ta azidress road d�.sign at Cmsstawn, T.H. 77 and 66th Street There will be the poteat�al for commescial r�development primarily along Ced.ar Avenue and 66th Str�et ��� � Increased spillav�r tra�c will impact 66th Street Nearby hnmes, as well as the recreatiana! solitude of Veteran,s Memoriat Par�, wiIII be n�a�.vely af%cted. L�cewis� the completed 77rh Stxeet Projec� cvarmaatly umd�an�ra.y, ance conne�ting Richfield ta the airport propert.y will credxe more commercial spillover traffic i�.to southc�ast Richfield. At,thou�h tbe saund wali will be cc�nstructed to pratect residsuts narth of 77t� Street, fllhe multi-famiiy lmits south of the s�eet wiil be 3mgacted. Thi.s southesa bo� afRichf eid may be aaother site far comrnercial andlar indus-t�al tedevelopment Belocation Should areas such as the Cedar Avenue coaidor aad sauth of 77th S�reet be redevelopsd, both af which are bounded by mviti f�ma�y dwelli�s, there must be a compensatary means to replace tb�t hausing within the Citp. . � �:� � �.� � � `� Noise rn�utati n As with every oti�er commrmity, the impacts of noise do nat stop at rhe ima�inary lin InsuTation will be required in north Richfiei,d, and perba�s the several blocks pa,ra�lel Avenwe, bepond 6S L�dn,. • Expan.dix�g noise insulation beyond the 65 Ldn is a crirical ' assure continucd interpst in reSidential properties,. '' ' . 0 t• . ` „ .._ . . _ . (65 Ldn). Cedar ctor ta . ' 0 . I ..._. .. . • - _. _..._ _.:i:: ' � �'a {y :� � � c..�_., �.� �� �vQi�.� Inc� ation . , ,As with every other comm�iiy, the impacts of noise do nat stop at the imaginary tine (65 Ldn}. �sulatian wiU be r+�.qui�red ?n north Richfield, and perh�ps the several blocks parallel to Cedar Avenue, beyond 65 Ldn.. F�cpandix�g noise insuIatian beYand the 65 Ldn is a criucal factor to .' ' assure continucd interest in �sidentiat properties. ' ' . .. 0 . i� . � � s. _ ...... . _ ._ _�_. _.. . . . . . . .. . . . �n..��..� �- . � . . �. .. .. _ . _. .. . _. ..�. � ' . 5 . •.� +' . . ' ' '-. � � .:?•. . . . . � . � � ' . � " '�'�� USES..'�^; AIRGRA.����NOIS��LATEIi�'IF/FINAI.i.:.�,ZNG , � ' ` `�cnEut�rr'r AIRPORT `"s=TE GiTX C1F EAGAN The pctcntial . uses of aircraft no�.se related �inanci,r 7Eagan �'all into at least five categories. While the Ci has warked hard to en�ure �and-use compatibi.lity wit naise impacts, t2�e increase in tzaf�ic sir►ce �airli.ne d+ has affected residential•r�eig�iborhaads in mare areas anticipated. E�cpansion of facilitxes and operatS.ons at � airport lacation will further exceed the capacity of the areas to absarb aircraft noise etfectively. As availabi2ity and applicata.an aP redeve3opment, relo development tools will be essential. It should also be nated that the extent of the applicabil toals depends upon the eligibility area defined. Since and communifies around MSP and around the country are : h015E�? nuisance is not cons�rained ta the fedearally 7 contour, it is •essential tha� a rational, su�ficien alxgibility arca �n ea,cess of the 65 DNL contour be ut: these too],s. If the area is too constrained, the best � the communities wi3.1 fail due to the dramatic di�'f reme4ial capabiiities inside and outside the boundary. '�ools in of Lagan aircraft egulation :han were e current �mpatible uch, the tion . and ty af the are that cogn? zed _y large ized for forts of •ence in It may � be appropriate far tools to�� be ta�ered or graduate a.n some. way �hat takes into account distance from,.federal conto rs, the magnitude of change �rom current ncise levels ta post xpansion 2evels ar cthez czite�ia. whz.ch zecogn3.zes the actual sco e of the prob2em.-� - 1. o�fice-2ndustri�l Redevexopment - Concentratians of op in northern and southwestern Eagan wi,li increasingly � compatible uses eveta 3ess campa�,ibla. Small poc residentia�. deve3.apment within these areas, such as t Addition, a.�ce already bordered or surrounded by of; industrial develogtteent. The market has no� yet z+ point where natura3 redeve3opment of these areas wou without assist�ance. The redevelopment of these ar� permit relocation of the affected zesidents while pr tax base in more compatible uses. . 2. Commercial Redevelop�aent - one of �.he areas o� ne z.�mpact from the north-south runway w�,ll be the Ced� r►eighbcrhoad near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13. For ye area has been ancho=ed by the cedarvale Shopping 1 which is current�y in dec3.ine. Tn order to �rese livea�ai.iity a;E t'he�area if the new runway is built, it essential for neighborhoad services and faci3.itie; improved. Commexcia3 �edeve2opamor�,t in this area waul� improvem+�nt in response to this need� There aze limi�ed number of scattered coxamercial properties in � Eagan whi.ch need ta i�e redeveloped to better se emp2oyment base of the noise-compatib3e land uses. ?{1A tt ttA t r-�—.rr��'fr ne . .....-� ... ..... .»..». , :rations �ke nan- cets of ►e McKee ice and ached a ,d occur as wi23 +� noise r Grove .rs this istric�t �ve the will be to be . be orie also a the i._,.,.,..,, . ... _� . °� � �, � : 3 , •^.lesident3 1 Reloc���on =�This �,,�.,�se is �plied �� the redevelopment discussion� above, but it stands as a separate category because effective relocation will �need to occur in neighborhoods which may be outside of the eligible area. ; Relvcation assa.stance must encompass not only housing , . replacement but also the obvious costs of dislocatior� for the : resident. Other communities have current experience with � . programs of this ki�d. 4. T�ran�portation Improvements - The City of Eagan contir,ues to receive pressure for the rezoning a�d development of residential projects in noise impacted areas. This is partially due to tra�tic capacity constraints at interstate interchanges which affect commercial and industrial build-out within the community. The effect of the opening of the interstates on development was anticipated by MNDOT, but its scope was not. Lower intensity uses offer property owners a quicker return, despite thair not being the highest and best use of the property. To insure the optimum developability oL �oise compatible uses within, a.variety of transportation improveinents will be necessary in Eagan including interchange modifications, additional overpasses arid arterial improvements. 5. Sound Znsulation - For those arsas too eictensive for redevelopment, expanded sound insulation assistance would be essential. Zike relocation assistance, the extent of noise nuisance justifying remediatio7n exLends dramatically beyond the federally accepted contours.'In no case should residents be the uncompensated carriers of the �actual environmental costs of airport expansion. These costs must be recognized, externalized and compensated. „ _ Post-It'" b�and tax t�ansmittal memo 7071 �°1 F�9� �'�--' � ��� •�nn. �,-,���-,n ... ...._.._ ._ ..._ ._.... .....- -- -- -- -- CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 4, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Discuss Draft MSP Environs Community Protection Concept DISCUSSION At our last two meetings we have discussed the work of the Metro Council as it relates to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, and mor� specifically, their on-going analysis of the economic and land use impacts decision to expand MSP in its present location would have on surroundinc communities. Since early 1995, the Metropolitan Council has been meeti interested cities and state agencies to formulate what has now become ki a"MSP Environs Community Protection Package". A draft version of the is attached for your review. e g with own as To make many of the mitigation tools described in the package pos ible, special legislation will need to be adopted by our State lawmakers. Some of this legislation would likely have to wait until a decision is made on the Dual ack Airport Planning question, but other tools described in the package may ake sense regardless of the Dual Track outcome. The next meeting of the Met Council/ Communities group discussin � this issue has been set for September 14, 1995. By that time each City is to have taken this draft package to its City Council for comment and approval. Pr or to taking this package to our Council on September 5, 1995, I first wanted t� allow the Airport Relations Commission an opportunity to provide input on the p ckage ACTION REQUIRED - Review and discuss the draft MSP Environs Community Protection f and provide comments or suggestions you would like passed along to the Council on September 5, 1995.