Loading...
11/12/2019 - City Council Special SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2019 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS—EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION IV. 2020 EAGAN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU BUDGET V. 2020-2021 ENTERPRISE FUND OPERATING BUDGETS VI. 2020-2021 GENERAL FUND BUDGET UPDATE VII. REDEVELOPMENT FUND DISCUSSION VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Information Memo November 12, 2019 Eagan City Council Meeting III. JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION Action To Be Considered: There is no formal action to be taken. The ARC work plan will be added to a future City Council consent agenda for formal consideration. Facts: ➢ The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) is prepared to d iscuss two primary items: 1. The recent letter sent by the City of Eagan to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) with suggested operational changes by the FAA. 2. The 2019-2020 draft ARC work plan and the commission’s accomplishments over the past year. Correspondence to the NOC with Suggested Operational Changes by the FAA ➢ At the recommendation of the ARC, the Eagan City Council approved correspondence to the NOC on September 3,2019 with recommendations for the FAA’s consideration. ➢ The letter stemmed from the ARC’s review of data from a Runway 17 Departure Study completed this past summer by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The study showed an increase in departures over Eagan since the implementation of Converging Runway Operations (CRO) in 2015. ➢ Prior to CRO, Runway 17 was used for approximately 25% of all departures at MSP Airport. Since CRO, the usage of Runway 17 for departures has increased to 33.7%, with many of those departures flying over predominately residential areas of Eagan. ➢ While Runway 17 is still being used less than the Environmental Assessment forecasted in 2003, there has been significant increase in departing aircraft over the past four years. ➢ The process set forth by the FAA for suggested operational changes requires multiple steps and must eventually come from the MAC as the airport operator. Here is a snapshot of where we started and where we are headed: o Eagan’s letter was sent to and reviewed by the NOC in September. A determination was made for MAC staff to review and make modifications to the letter. Their feedback will be reviewed at the November 20 NOC meeting. o The enclosed analysis from MAC staff will be discussed at the Nov 20 NOC meeting. Any recommendations of the NOC on proposed FAA operational changes would them be forward to the MAC. o Pending NOC approval, the MAC Planning and Environment Committee would then consider the NOC’s recommendations in early December. o The MAC Commission of the whole w ould then consider the recommendations at their meeting in mid-December. o The final step would be action by the MAC to send recommended operational changes to the FAA for their review and determination. ➢The City’s letter suggests eight possible adjustments to be made by the FAA. When the NOC reviews the letter and analysis from MAC staff, it is likely that the airline representatives of the NOC will discuss impacts of the recommendations on airport capacity, i.e. will the changes result in delays and/or hinder planes from expeditiously departing or arriving. ➢Likewise, surrounding communities will want to review whether the recommendations move noise from one community to another. It has been a long- standing practice of the NOC to fan noise to the greatest extent possible, rather than concentrating it. The NOC also has been consistent in their commitment not to shift noise from one community to another. ➢Assistant City Administrator Miller and the ARC are prepared to discuss the conversations to date regarding Eagan’s letter, and the remaining steps before the FAA’s consideration. ➢Several residents have expressed an interest in attending the workshop to speak about Eagan’s requested action of the FAA. It has been suggested that they select one representative to speak on behalf of their collective requests and feedback. 2019-2020 Draft ARC Workplan and Commission Update ➢ARC Chairman, Michael Johnson, is prepared to summarize the commission’s 2019- 2020 draft work plan and present a brief presentation showing the 2018-2019 Commission accomplishments. ➢If directed by the Council, forma l action can be included on the November 19, 2019 City Council consent agenda to approve the 2018-2019 ARC work program. Attachments: (4) III-1 City of Eagan Letter to the NOC (seeking operational changes by the FAA) III-2 MAC Staff’s Review of Eagan’s Letter III-3 Proposed 2019-2020 ARC Work Plan III-4 ARC Power Point, 2018-2019 Accomplishments Operational Requests and Inquiries of the FAA Issue #1: Use of Runway 17 for departures has increased dramatically since the implementation of CRO, including more frequent use of the south flow configuration. The Runway Use System (RUS) calls for Runway 12R and 12L as the first priority for departures. However, Runway 17 is the most frequently used runway for southerly departures in contradiction to the RUS. Requests/Inquiries: •Consider the feasibility to direct departures from MSP with initial fixes of COULT or ZMBRO to use Runway 12R instead of Runway 17. •Vary the use of Runway 17 departure headings to limit the frequency of overflights in neighborhoods Issue #2: More frequent use of the 120, 140, and 155-degree departure headings off Runway 17 has caused a significant increase in the noise burden over residential areas of Eagan. Requests/Inquiries: •Implement an eastbound turn restriction off Runway 17 similar to the westbound 2.5-mile river departure procedure. •Review the feasibility of a new southerly fix located approximately 6.6 miles at the intersection of 35E and Cedar Avenue to which all or a portion of Runway 17 departures could be directed to prior to making their eastbound turn. •Better fan aircraft by increasing the use of the 180-degree heading to more equitably distribute operations currently using the 120, 140, and 155-degree headings. •Could all Runway 17 departures use the 2.5-mile river departure procedure to gain altitude before making an easterly turn to their destination? Issue #3: Westbound departures on Runway 12R are making sweeping, westerly turns over predominantly residential areas. Requests/Inquiries: •Move Runway 12R and 12L westbound departures to Runway 17 to take advantage of the 2.5-mile river departure procedure. In particular, consider this change during the nighttime given this practice already occurs during the daytime. o Or, as an alternative, could westbound departures from Runway 12R turn immediately after departure and follow the river valley to the southwest without impacting residents living in northern Eagan? •Could departures in the corridor be required to reach a certain altitude (e.g. 5000 feet) before initiating their westbound turn? As outlined by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staff at the NOC meeting in September, the process for amending departure procedures has many steps. A representation of that process as presented by the FAA is included below. Amending Instrument Departure Procedures Through Collaboration — A Process Approach Affected communities work with the airport operator to develop a proposal. The airport operator endorses and supports the proposal taking into account existing infrastructure and impacts. Based on FAA feedback, the airport operator develops more details about the proposal and provide that to the FAA. 1. The proposal has to be ripe for evaluation. 2. Should involve resident air carriers and other commercial entities with a stake in the outcome. I The proposal is subject to a high level FAA review focusing on feasibility and safety of operations. If the proposal consists of multiple approaches, please identify the order of preference. 14 FAA conducts appropriate feasibility and safety assessment. 1. Parties need to determine and agree on who would bear the cost of development and implementation. 2. Assessment may include a pilot program that evaluates feasibility of public acceptance of multiple, competing procedures. If new procedures are determined appropriate for implementation, then they are subject to environmental review with appropriate c ummunity outreach prior to implementation. The letter is organized into 3 issues with recommendations and inquiries, listed below. 1A — Direct departures with initial fixes of COULT or ZMBRO to use Runway 12R instead of Runway 17 Aircraft with initial fixes of COULT and ZMBRO that depart Runway 17 typically fly over central Eagan. These fixes are located southeast of MSP. Aircraft that have this routing are often outbound to easterly destinations from New York to Atlanta. The Runway Use System (RUS) prioritizes departures to Runways 12L and 12R before above Runway 17. This request has been made to review the feasibility of directing departures to a RUS Priority 1 runway before a RUS Priority 2 Runway. 0 5 10 20 Miles 1B — Vary the use of Runway 17 departure headings to limit the frequency of overflights in neighborhoods Aircraft that depart MSP are assigned headings that will direct an aircraft to their initial fix and ultimately to their final destination. The MSP airspace has a number of imaginary departure gates that Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) uses to separate departure streams of traffic from incoming arrival streams of traffic. Aircraft departing Runway 17 normally have one of five fixes that serve as a waypoint on their departure route. While weather, aircraft performance, pilot control and ATC direction naturally disperse aircraft, there are neighborhoods that receive more overflights than others. The Runway 17 Departure Operations Report found that the aircraft flying a path denoted by a 210° heading was the most frequent departure track from Runway 17. The 140°,120° and 155° were next in order of use and collectively accounted for 50% of the departures from Runway 17 in 2018. 15 2A — Implement an eastbound turn restriction off Runway 17 similar to the westbound 2.5 -mile river departure procedure From the time Runway 17-35 was opened in 2005, MSP has maintained a Runway 17 Departure Procedure. This noise abatement procedure directs aircraft with westbound routings to fly runway heading until reaching the Minnesota River. This procedure design limits overflights of residential neighborhoods in Bloomington. The procedure was evaluated in the 2003 Environmental Assessment of the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17 (EA). Subsequently, the FAA issued a finding of no significant impact and record of decision for the procedure. The EA also states, "The Proposed Action is to direct aircraft that have initial departure headings east of runway heading (headings ranging from 950 to 1700) to initiate their turns as soon as possible when departing Runway. This recommendation was made due to the fact that there is no one flight path considered 'better' than another when departing to the southeast over the existing residentially developed areas. This is consistent with the FEIS documentation for Runway 17." 0 1 2 4 Hypothetical Runway 17 Eastbound Gate Miles — Runway 17 Westbound Gate 2B — Review the feasibility of a new fix at the intersection of 35E and Cedar Avenue to which all or a portion of Runway 17 departures be directed prior to making their eastbound turn The 2003 EA evaluated several alternatives and determined that aircraft with eastbound destinations do not fly runway heading after departure. Instead, those departures are directed to turn left as assigned by ATC after the aircraft has enough altitude to do so. The FAA does not direct aircraft that depart from any runway at MSP to fly directly to a point or a fix on the ground. Rather, aircraft are assigned a heading that points the aircraft in a direction that aligns the flight with their initial fix. This departure vector system naturally disperses flight tracks due to variables identified in Request 1B. 16 0 1.5 3 6 Miles w 2C — Better fan aircraft by increasing the use of the 180° heading currently using the 120. 140. and 155 -degree headings A number of headings are used for departures from Runway 17 that take advantage of airspace south of MSP. There are five imaginary departure gates to the south of the airport that departures are directed to use. Three of these gates are east of the extended runway centerline, while the remaining two are west of centerline. These departures gates are utilized by the FAA to separate aircraft departing MSP airspace from aircraft entering into MSP airspace. There are six imaginary arrival gates that aircraft use to enter the MSP airspace. Two from the east, one from the north, one for the southwest and two from the south. Due to this layout, departures from Runway 17 directed to fly runway heading or slightly west of that of 180° will eventually need to be turned on course to avoid the arrival traffic entering the airspace. These traffic routes are displayed in the image below with the red tracks showing Runway 17 departures and the blue tracks displaying arrivals to Runways 12L and 12R. 17 0 5 10 20 Miles 2D — Could all 17 departures use the 2.5 -mile river departure procedure before making an easterly turn? The current Runway 17 2.5 Nautical Mile Turnpoint Departure Procedure is in place for westbound departures to help flights from overflying residential areas of Bloomington immediately after departure from Runway 17. As discussed in request 2A, when aircraft fly runway heading before initiating a westbound turn it ensures that aircraft do not turn until they reach the Minnesota River Valley. After this turn point, aircraft are vectored by ATC to direct them to their initial fix. The route of these flights often takes aircraft over the City of Burnsville because aircraft typically do not follow the river specifically since they are not navigating using ground-based references. ATC personnel are required to separate MSP aircraft departures using nose -to -tail distance requirements or by using divergent headings. If two flights are assigned the same heading, there needs to be a minimum of three nautical miles of nose -to -tail separation. Alternately, if two flights are assigned a divergent heading (required to be separated by at least 15 -degrees), the first departure needs to be 6,000 feet down the runway and airborne before the second flight can depart. ATC employs the use of divergent headings effectively from Runway 17 to allow for an efficient utilization of the runway. As found in the Runway 17 Departure Operations Reports, aircraft departing Runway 17 utilize a number of headings after departure, with five general headings being used the majority of the time. 18 3A— Move Runway 12R and 12L westbound departures to Runway 17 to take advantage of the 2.5 - mile river departure procedure The RUS at MSP prioritizes departures to use Runways 12L and 12R ahead of Runway 17. ATC has more ability to employ the RUS when airfield demand subsides, which is the case during the nighttime hours. This is apparent when reviewing runway use. In 2018, Runway 17 was used for 36% of all MSP departures between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, but only 12% of departures used Runway 17 between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Conversely, Runway 12R was used for only 4% of daytime departures and by 25% of nighttime departures. More than 90% of Runway 12R departures adhere to the Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor procedure. After exiting the Corridor, aircraft with westbound destinations are directed to turn to southerly headings. The track of these operations often takes them over Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. j ••`'j� ���� �,,.r 4� ;: �� r yam. "�' d c ,�-�; 0 1.5 3 6 Miles 3B — Could westbound departures from Runwav 12R turn immediately after departure and follow the river valley? Runway 12R and 12L departures utilize the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor to take advantage of land zoned by those cities to be compatible with aircraft overflights. Further, the Corridor exists to limit overflights of residential land uses directly north and south of the Corridor. The City's inquiry is whether aircraft could make a turn immediately after departing Runway 12R that would keep the aircraft over the Minnesota River Valley. 19 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 3C — Could departures in the corridor reach a certain altitude (e.g. 5000 feet) before initiating their westbound turn? All departing aircraft climb at different rates as a result of engine performance, weather conditions, aircraft weight, aircraft type, and airline standard operating procedures in addition to other variables. A departing flight needs to maintain separation from arriving flights. ATC personnel are required to keep at least 1,000 feet of altitude separation when flights are sharing airspace. Additionally, there are very few departure headings available to ATC for Runway 12L and 12R departures. The Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor is a confined airspace that does not allow for many divergent headings to be used. Aircraft that fly runway headingto a prescribed altitude would further limit the use of divergent headings to provide the required separation. PIC V �.. _ � +. ■ 40 I�wi•`-rte-- �U�S� '-�- � , `'•: .-_ ■ � ; _ - • t - ■ ■ • •ice • ■ 7f ■ 0 0.75 1.5 3 Point Aircraft Reached 5,000 Feet Miles Runway 12R Departure Tracks At the November NOC meeting, MAC Staff will provide an overview of these requests to the Committee. REQUESTED ACTION REQUESTTHAT THE MAC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE FORWARD THE PROPOSAL FOR FAATO CONDUCTA HIGH-LEVEL EVALUATION OFTHE FEASIBILITYAND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF EAGAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTED BY THE NOC. FURTHER, REQUEST THE MAC FORWARD TO THE FAA A LETTER FROM NOC REQUESTING THE FAA'S FINDINGS BE PROVIDED IN WRITING AND PRESENTED AT A FUTURE NOC MEETING. 21 DRAFT 2019-2020 Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) Work Plan ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC, under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropo litan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without jeopardizing safety. Work Plan Topic Presenters/Invited Guests Schedule (tentative) Joint Meeting with the Eagan City Council • Present draft 2019-2020 ARC Work Plan to City Council • Update to Council on communication with the FAA regarding operational changes in response to CRO Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 5:30pm Eagan City Hall Council Chambers Regular ARC Meeting • Receive status update from MAC on the City’s requests of the FAA for operational changes. • Presentation: Delta Chief Pilot—receive update on their fleet mix (including the purchase of quieter aircraft) Delta Chief Pilot Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 7pm Eagan Community Center Regular ARC Meeting • FAA 101—visual presentation demonstrating how the FAA directs aircraft from gate , runway, to sky and back to approach, landing, and gate. FAA rep (TBD) Tuesday, March 10, 7pm Eagan Community Center Offsite Tour—MSP Air Traffic Control Tower FAA Tower Manager Tuesday, May 12, 2020, Time TBD Joint Meeting with Mendota Heights ARC • State of the Airport Update by MAC Executive Director Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director Mendota Heights ARC Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 7pm, Location TBD DRAFT 2019-2020 ARC Work Plan Work Plan Topic Presenters/Invited Guests Schedule (tentative) Regular ARC Meeting and 2020-2021 Goals and Work Plan Workshop Tuesday, September 8, 2020, 7pm, Eagan City Hall Joint Meeting with the Eagan City Council • Present 2020-2021 Work Plan Tuesday, November 10, 2020, 5:30pm, Eagan Room Other Topics/Efforts throughout the Year • Community Connections Booth (typically March) • Host Quarterly NOC Listening Sessions (in partnership with the MAC) • Emergency Preparedness exercises at the MAC Airport Relations Commission Update November 12, 2019 City Council Workshop 2019 ARC Accomplishments and Key Efforts •At the request of the ARC and City Council,the MAC installed two mobile noise monitors in Eagan to determine if noise outside of the current Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT) buffer area was being captured and whether 35-E was impacting current measurements . The study results showed the existing RMT are successfully capturing the noise over Eagan and no changes are needed to RMT locations. 2019 ARC Accomplishments and Key Efforts •Ken Davis, an electrical engineer from Larson Davis, provided the ARC with a presentation on the science behind how noise is perceived. ARC Accomplishments and Key Efforts •At Eagan’s request,a comprehensive Runway 17 Departure Study was completed by the MAC. •FAA Regional Administrator Rebecca MacPherson attended the ARC meeting where the study was presented and offered her observations on the impact of CRO. 2019 ARC Accomplishments and Key Efforts •Review of 2018 actual noise contours —the contours continue to shrink due to quieter aircraft and fewer operations. •There are 16 homes in the Burr Oak neighborhood that reached the second year of eligibility. If they remain in the contours for one more year, they will be eligible for mitigation in 2021. ARC Community Engagement •Participated in a tour of the FAA Air Traffic Control Center in Farmington. •Held a joint meeting with the Mendota Heights’ ARC, listening to a “State of the Airport” update from MAC Executive Director Brian Ryks •ARC members had booth at Eagan’s Community Connections event. Thank you! EAGAN CITY COUNCIL/ARC JOINT MEETING RESIDENTS’ PRESENTATION Ideas from concerned Eagan residents to reduce airport noise pollution Presented by Ted Gladhill THE GOAL We hope to help you better understand what happened Gain a commitment to help! WHAT ARE WE ASKING OF YOU? We have momentum toward demanding action by the MAC/FAA to reduce the growing noise issue over residential Eagan. This may be the best chance we will have to effect change. You’ve heard us and we appreciate that you have taken the first steps Your letter is a great start, but a letter alone won’t force a change Don’t expect this to be easy -We need Council Members and Commissioners engaged now and to stay actively engaged Member(s) of City Council attend the Nov 20 NOC meeting –at least 1 of you If you can’t, explain why you’re not there… Stand up and advocate for your constituents at the meeting: “What do we need to do so you will listen to our City’s residents?” Reach out to Congresswoman Craig, Governor Walz, State Senator Carlson and solicit their assistance Press the issue to ensure it moves quickly through the system. We’ve already lost our quality of life for years –how much longer can we tolerate? BACKGROUND -WHAT HAS HAPPENED? A wholesale redistribution from every other city onto Eagan Has Eagan become the dumping ground for airport noise? Total operations (flights) have dropped 20% since 2004 (pre-runway 17) Flights began being redirected over residential Eagan from R17 starting 2005 CRO 2015 –not the only cause, but became worse Flight Path Changes from Runway 17: Prior to 2005: 0 departures over residential Eagan Currently: Over 40,000 departures over residential Eagan in a year Over 3500 in a month Over 250 in a single day Oct 10 Example: 116 flights on same path in a single day –David’s home, Robert’s home, Steve’s home, our home, and probably 1,000 other Eagan residents BACKGROUND -WHAT HAS HAPPENED? Prior to 2005, NONE of these 3,500+ departures (in 1 month) flew over Eagan August 2019 MAC Data: Runway 17 WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? The Runway 17 Study finally puts to paper part of what your residents have been complaining about for several years Important Takeaways: Not airplane operations (traffic) growth Not an overall change in the winds Not just the new runway -Bloomington somehow gets a free pass Not even CRO, although that made it worse Not only Runway 17 usage –Parallel runway flights are turning West more frequently It’s 100% the result of the FAA choices FAA’s CHOICE -NOT A NECESSITY The current operations and flight path choices are clearly the FAA’s preference –it’s the most convenient and may even be the most efficient option when no consideration is given to its effects upon the community. The FAA, lacking any objection from the MAC, chooses to (and will continue to) direct flights over residential Eagan homes They don’t need to (flight volumes dropping, modified CRO, etc.) Nothing about CRO requires them to choose flight paths over residential Eagan BUT, it’s a reversible choice! This City has offered them viable alternatives which: Direct most flights over more noise-compatible non-residential areas Do not reduce safety Do not re-redistribute the flights to other cities IS THIS IMPORTANT? YES!!! Look at the audience here tonight! We’re not the only ones… Complaints continue to grow 72% of Eagan residents in the 2018 City survey reported being bothered by airport noise Complaints logged with the MAC have grown significantly 3100 in a month last year (when we last presented to you) 4000 in a month this year 34% increase in complaints (and these are just the residents who bother to take the time to log an official complaint –how many people have you overheard complain of the noise but don’t take the time to log a complaint? Many possible reasons why: Time, apathy, hopelessness) The media seems to also agree this is an important issue… Nov 7: 6:00 News Lead story 10:00 News Nov 8: Morning News Oct 8: Front Page Sep 18: 5:00 News Lead Story 10:00 News Click to view Click to view Click to view A SIGNIFICANT QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE FOR MANY EAGAN RESIDENTS Some comments we’ve received: “I Can’t sleep –the noise awakens me early in the morning and keeps me awake late at night” “Aren’t the outdoors considered one of Eagan’s greatest amenities?” “White noise machines and ear plugs combined can’t prevent the noise from awakening me” “Torture” “We can’t enjoy any outdoor activities” “Do you think retreating indoors and closing the windows makes it go away? “Sitting on the deck relaxing or enjoying an iced tea is out of the question most days” “We don’t entertain at home anymore” “We no longer have Summer family dinners on our deck” “We spent thousands improving our deck and patio and can’t use them” “I couldn’t even rest and recover in my home after my surgery” “Even casual neighborhood conversations are interrupted” “My daughter can’t concentrate doing homework because of the non-stop plane noise” “We can’t enjoy watching TV or listening to music most evenings” “Working from home has become very difficult due to the noise interruptions while on calls” “I got a severe ear infection from wearing ear plugs to help me sleep and can no longer wear them” “I dread going home when I see that the airport is in South Flow” WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE? Published Federal FAA Documents: Local Community input and planning –that’s you! MAC –Airport Operator responsible for affects upon the community FAA –Evaluate and make appropriate operational adjustments Is this OK? If the FAA were any other company dumping pollution upon your City and its residents, government officials would come down hard on them and they would face severe consequences Somehow airplane noise pollution and the FAA seem to be treated with a double standard WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT FAA/MAC Pushback: The FAA will resist these changes: Changed operations will be less convenient to them than their current operation They could have some impact on the airport’s peak efficiency Reminder: Operated Safely and Efficiently prior to redirecting over Eagan Do 60,000+ Eagan residents deserve consideration? Why can’t the MAC/FAA tolerate some level of inconvenience and some level of operational inefficiency in exchange for salvaging the quality of life in our community The MAC/FAA will also reference the 16-year-old 317-page EA document –don’t fall prey to being overwhelmed by the selective use of outdated data Many inaccurate “modeled” assumptions of volumes, runway use and flight tracks that no longer apply or aren’t being used But, they don’t reference the objections adamantly raised by then Mayor Awadaand Asst. City Administrator Jamie Verbrugge Expect delays and inaction –demand swift and complete action! Final Comments, Thanks and Questions? This is a great community and we have loved living here… …many of us just can’t continue to live here due to the airport noise Help make Eagan one of America’s Best Places to Live again! Agenda Information Memo  November 12, 2019 Special City Council Workshop  IV.2020 Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau Budget Direction For Consideration:   To hear an overview of the 2020 marketing priorities and receive the Board‐adopted   2020 ECVB budget and direct that it be placed on a future regular City Council meeting   consent agenda for formal ratification:  Facts:   The Eagan CVB’s 2020 budget process began early this past summer and has been reviewed by the ECVB Finance Committee which includes City of Eagan’s Assistant Finance Director, Josh Feldman.  The budget was also reviewed by City Liaison and Director of Community Development Jill Hutmacher by way of her position on the ECVB Board. The mission of the Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau is to promote Eagan as a major conference, meeting and tourist destination through creative marketing and sales efforts.  The organization also strives to generate a greater economic impact for Eagan, thus enhancing the quality of life for all residents. A 3.4% budget increase was approved by the Eagan CVB’s Board of Directors during their September Board meeting. City Liaison Jill Hutmacher and Mayor Mike Maguire were present for Board action. While the Eagan CVB Board operates independently from the City, Section 3.2 of the Operating Agreement with the City of Eagan requires the ECVB to submit its work plan and operating budget to the City Council for its “review and approval.” Pursuant to the agreement between the City of Eagan and the ECVB, the Bureau is also required to perform an economic impact study every four years, and 2020 marks the next opportunity to do so.  Two options will be presented to the Council for consideration. The ECVB will once again play an active role in spearheading promotional efforts for Eagan’s July 4th Funfest, Art Festival, Market Fest and Caponi Art Park while also working with officials from Cascade Bay Waterpark and the Eagan Civic Arena on joint marketing efforts for 2020. CEO Brent Cory will make a brief presentation and be available to answer any questions relative to the ECVB’s 2020 budget. Attachments: (1)  IV‐1 ECVB 2020 Budget   2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Budget Budget INCOME Lodging tax 937,506$ 1,022,206$ 1,184,000$ 1,220,000$ Other 9,361 10,405 19,500$ 24,000 Utilization of reserves 25,000 - -$ -$ Total Income 971,867 1,032,611 1,203,500$ 1,244,000$ EXPENSES Personnel 319,085 327,638 343,000$ 359,500 Other 121,008 131,162 150,250$ 159,500$ Marketing 490,071 552,530 675,750$ 691,500$ Travel & Entertainment 24,105 23,945 34,500$ 33,500$ Total Expenses 954,269 1,035,275 1,203,500$ 1,244,000$ Net income 17,598$ (2,664)$ -$ -$ Eagan Convention & Visitors Bureau Proposed 2020 Budget % Budget vs. Budget 2017 2018 2019 2020 Change Actuals Actuals Budget Budget 2019 to 2020 INCOME Tax Income 937,506$ 1,022,206$ 1,184,000$ 1,220,000$ 3.0% Interest Income 681 840 500 1,000 100.0% Explore MN Tourism Coop 7,600 7,517 7,000 7,000 0.0% Undesignated Reserves 25,000 - - - 0.0% Misc. Income 1,080 2,048 12,000 16,000 33.3% Total Income 971,867 1,032,611 1,203,500 1,244,000 3.4% EXPENSES Personnel Expenses Salaries 263,959 266,140 285,000 294,000 3.2% Health Insurance 26,857 31,297 26,000 32,000 23.1% Payroll Expenses (FICA, etc.) 22,232 22,842 24,000 25,000 4.2% SIMPLE Matching Funds 6,037 7,359 8,000 8,500 6.3% Subtotal 319,085 327,638 343,000 359,500 4.8% Other Expenses Accounting 25,448 23,819 23,000 30,000 30.4% Annual Meeting/Awards Program 4,390 3,872 7,500 5,000 -33.3% Auto Expenses 1,361 587 1,000 1,000 0.0% Contract Labor 7,302 14,373 15,000 15,000 0.0% Depreciation 5,459 5,219 11,000 12,000 9.1% Donations - - 500 500 0.0% Dues/Subscriptions 8,934 5,312 8,500 8,000 -5.9% Education/Training 9,445 15,629 14,000 15,000 7.1% Equipment Lease 663 663 750 - -100.0% Equipment Maintenance 2,783 3,314 5,000 5,500 10.0% Insurance 4,931 7,091 7,000 8,000 14.3% Legal Fees 495 557 1,500 2,000 33.3% Meetings 4,793 3,174 4,000 4,000 0.0% Office Supplies/Equipment 7,770 9,585 8,500 10,000 17.6% Rent 34,858 35,557 35,500 36,000 1.4% Telephone 2,376 2,410 7,500 7,500 0.0% Subtotal 121,008 131,162 150,250 159,500 6.2% Marketing Expenses Advertising 277,786 358,264 444,750 450,000 1.2% FAM 414 927 6,500 6,500 0.0% Fulfillment House Services 6,342 7,119 8,500 8,000 -5.9% Postage 13,155 16,388 11,000 10,000 -9.1% Promotion 100,806 110,463 150,000 160,000 6.7% Research 38,950 7,100 10,000 10,000 0.0% Telecommunications Services 8,185 8,348 7,000 8,000 14.3% Trade Show 22,409 17,940 18,000 19,000 5.6% Website/Mobile Technology 22,024 25,981 20,000 20,000 0.0% Subtotal 490,071 552,530 675,750 691,500 2.3% Travel & Entertainment Transportation 6,832 7,533 13,000 13,500 3.8% Entertainment 97 156 - - 0.0% Meals 2,410 2,737 5,000 5,000 0.0% Lodging 14,766 13,519 16,500 15,000 -9.1% Subtotal 24,105 23,945 34,500 33,500 -2.9% Total Expenses 954,269 1,035,275 1,203,500 1,244,000 3.4% Net Income 17,598$ (2,664)$ -$ -$ Proposed 2020 Budget Eagan Convention & Visitors Bureau Agenda Information Memo  November 12, 2019 Special City Council Workshop      V.  2020‐2021 ENTERPRISE AND SPECIAL REVENUE OPERATING FUND BUDGETS    Direction For Consideration:      To provide direction to staff regarding the proposed 2020 fund budgets for:    ENTERPRISE FUNDS:  o Public Utilities (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Street Lighting, Storm Drainage and  Water Quality)  o Civic Arena  o Cascade Bay  o Community Center    SPECIAL REVENUE FUND  o ETV     To direct that the budgets be placed on a future City Council meeting Consent Agenda  for formal ratification, or studied further.    Facts:     GENERAL INFORMATION     By definition, enterprise funds are established to account for self‐supporting activities  with revenues primarily from user fees at rates set by the City Council.   Staff responsible for these budgets will be available at the meeting to expand on policy  issues and respond to questions.    The Budget Team—City Administrator Osberg, Assistant City Administrator Miller,  Finance Director Pepper, Assistant Finance Director Feldman—met with the following  responsible budget managers to review and discuss the respective budget proposals and  operating issues:   o Public Utilities Budgets ‐ Public Works Director Matthys, Transportation  Operations Engineer Plath, Utilities Superintendent Eaton, and Water Resources  Manager Macbeth  o Civic Arena and Cascade Bay ‐ Parks and Recreation Director Pimental, Facilities  Manager Vaughan   o Community Center ‐  Parks and Recreation Director Pimental, Assistant Parks and  Recreation Director Flewellen  o ETV – Director of Communications and Engagement Ellickson and ETV Executive  Director McIntee        Agenda Information Memo  November 12, 2019 Special City Council Workshop    PUBLIC UTILITIES (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Street Lighting, Storm Drainage and Water Quality)     The Public Utilities Fund budgets note a net cash outflow of $6.36 million in 2020 and  $5.2 million.  The higher than usual outflow amounts are from the increased capital  improvement costs in the Public Utilities budgets.  Capital expenditures by nature can  result in large fluctuations in expenditures from year to year.  We try to anticipate these  fluctuations and plan for them accordingly with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.      The City participates in an annual utilities rate survey by AE2S, an engineering consulting  firm.  In the 2019 survey, Eagan’s combined rates for water, wastewater and  stormwater ranked 3rd lowest among the 33 Twin Cities metro communities responding  to the survey.     User rates for the utilities are approved annually with the Fee Schedule adoption in  December.  An internal rate study of utilities rates based on Springsted’s 20‐year model  has been completed for the 2020 rates.  The following rate increases are proposed as a  result of our study:  o Water:  5.00 %  o Sanitary sewer:  5.00 %   o Street lighting:  5.00 %  o Storm drainage/water quality:  5.00 %      CIVIC ARENA     The Council will be asked to adopt all rates when the City‐wide fee schedule is adopted  in December.  These rates include a $5 increase in the prime‐time and non‐prime hourly  ice rates.  With rental of ice‐time expected to be consistent with past years, the rate  increase will result in additional rental revenue for the facility.   A decline in retail sales (concessions, pro shop and skate sharpening) is anticipated for  2020 from 2019 of 3% or 27,400.  This is reflective on actual trends in sales.    CASCADE BAY     Total attendance for the facility amounts to just over 2.2 million patrons since its  inception.  In 2018, attendance count for the year totaled 120,767.  In 2019 the  attendance decreased to 119,712.  The facility’s best year was in 2001 with 168,109  patrons.   Daily admission revenue was down $30,518 for 2019 ($663,116) in comparison to a solid  2018 ($693,634).  An increase of a $1 in admission rates are proposed for 2020 and will  be reflected in the fee schedule.  2021 admission rates are expected to change as  season pass rates have been status quo since 2014 and large investments in the aging  facility are evaluated.         Agenda Information Memo  November 12, 2019 Special City Council Workshop        COMMUNITY CENTER     The Community Center continues to serve Eagan’s residents and businesses as a fitness  center and event and meeting facility.     From the Community Center’s inception, it was recognized that fee revenues from  operations would be insufficient to cover operating expenses.  The budget has always  been balanced by way of a transfer of antenna lease revenues from the Public Utilities  fund.  The 2020 budget calls for utilization of $342,600 of antenna lease revenue while  the 2021 budget is proposed to use $396,600.  This is less than 20% of the proposed  Community Center budgets for each year.    The 2020 Budget does include an average increase of $5 for fitness memberships.  The  increase is expected to increase revenue by $90,000   Concession stand operations in the Community Center ceased in 2019.  The resulting  budget impact is a net loss of $19,000 in the 2020 Budget.  Improved customer service is  expected due to less interruptions at the front desk.   The 2020 levy for the Community Center bonds, which is excluded from the operating  budget, is about $1.1 million.  The bonds will be paid off in 2021, therefore, no levy is  required.    ETV     The proposed ETV operational budgets are mostly status quo except for Professional  services for the Eagan Room Control area move and ETV instead the communications  department now paying for Granicus and the streaming of City Council meetings.  Due  to the fluctuating nature of capital expenditures, the 2020 and 2021 budgets are  programmed to increase and decrease significantly from year‐to‐year.   PEG Fee revenue is expected to decline in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to past years, due to  “cord cutting” competition and the FCC rule changes.     Attachments: (2)    V‐1 2019 Metro Utility Rate Survey Results  V‐2 2020‐2021 Enterprise Fund and the E‐TV Special Revenue Fund Budgets   MINNEAPOLIWST, PAUL METRO AREA Blaine, MN $31.58 Maple Grove, MN $33.32 Eagan, MN $41.33 Rosemount, MN $41.60 Spring Lake Park, MN I $42.56 Woodbury, MN $44.32 Ramsey, MN $46.81 Shakopee, MN $47.06 Apple Valley, MN $47.98 Oakdale, MN $48.26 Coon Rapids, MN $49.08 Inver Grove Heights, MN $50.32 Eden Prairie, MN $51.23 Plymouth, MN $51.51 Anoka, MN $53.53 Mounds View, MN $56.25 St. Louis Park, MN $59.19 Fridley, MN $62.33 Chaska, MN $63.26 Minnetonka, MN $6341 Savage, MN $65.24 Edina, MN - $65.93 Roseville, MN $65.97 Maplewood, MN $66.96 Columbia Heights, MN $67.47 Forest Lake, MN $67.88 Richfield, MN $68.17 Falcon Heights, MN $70.54 Waconia, MN $79.08 Robbinsdale, MN $82.01 Minneapolis, MN $87.29 Mahtomedi, MN $89.13 Arden Hills, MN $91.36 $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $120.00 $160.00 $200.00 49 www.ae2s.com www.ae2snexus.com Sanitary Street Storm Water Quality Revenues: Service charges 5,932,400$ 7,847,100$ 807,900$ 1,079,400$ 1,619,100$ 17,285,900$ Connection permits 8,000 8,000 - - - 16,000 Meter sales 40,000 - - - - 40,000 Other 16,000 12,000 3,500 - 35,000 66,500 Total revenues 5,996,400$ 7,867,100$ 811,400$ 1,079,400$ 1,654,100$ 17,408,400$ Operating Expenses: Personal services 2,329,400 902,400 11,600 189,400 578,700 4,011,500 Supplies, repairs, maint. 712,300 169,800 - 100,400 63,000 1,045,500 Other services & charges 1,979,600 367,400 557,300 331,200 188,600 3,424,100 Merchandise for resale - - - - - - Transfers Out 986,900 469,200 48,500 32,400 80,900 1,617,900 MCES disposal charges - 5,955,100 - - - 5,955,100 Total operating expenses*6,008,200$ 7,863,900$ 617,400$ 653,400$ 911,200$ 16,054,100$ Net operating cash inflow(outflow) (11,800) 3,200 194,000 426,000 742,900 1,354,300 Capital 4,051,600 994,000 140,000 1,002,000 3,026,500 9,214,100 *Excluding depreciation expense Other non-departmental revenues: Interest income 355,000 Connection charges 250,000 Antenna lease revenue (excludes ECC allocation 851,000 Other 40,100 Total - non-dept revenue 1,496,100 Net cash inflow (outflow)(6,363,700)$ Public Utilities Fund 2020 Budget Revenue and Expense Summary TOTALSWater Sewer Lighting Drainage Sanitary Street Storm Water Quality Revenues: Service charges 6,227,500$ 8,237,900$ 848,300$ 1,133,400$ 1,700,000$ 18,147,100$ Connection permits 8,000 8,000 - - - 16,000 Meter sales 40,000 - - - - 40,000 Other 16,000 12,000 3,500 - 35,000 66,500 Total revenues 6,291,500$ 8,257,900$ 851,800$ 1,133,400$ 1,735,000$ 18,269,600$ Operating Expenses: Personal services 2,513,100 1,066,800 13,300 298,200 612,300 4,503,700 Supplies, repairs, maint. 667,700 99,300 - 64,400 62,300 893,700 Other services & charges 1,975,500 367,400 592,200 311,200 191,900 3,438,200 Merchandise for resale - - - - - - Transfers Out 1,041,500 495,200 52,100 34,100 85,400 1,708,300 MCES disposal charges - 6,133,800 - - - 6,133,800 Total operating expenses*6,197,800$ 8,162,500$ 657,600$ 707,900$ 951,900$ 16,677,700$ Net operating cash inflow(outflow) 93,700 95,400 194,200 425,500 783,100 1,591,900 Capital 3,727,300 972,000 165,000 1,372,000 2,076,000 8,312,300 *Excluding depreciation expense Other non-departmental revenues: Interest income 355,000 Connection charges 250,000 Antenna lease revenue (excludes ECC allocation 893,500 Other 40,100 Total - non-dept revenue 1,538,600 Net cash inflow (outflow)(5,181,800)$ Public Utilities Fund 2021 Budget Revenue and Expense Summary Water Sewer Lighting Drainage TOTALS 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Revenues Group Sales 235,661$         238,994$         285,800$         277,000$         277,000$          Concessions 44,180              32,690              51,000              36,700              36,700               Merchandise Sales 9,741                7,185                10,000              9,000                9,000                 Vending 14,822              17,135              18,500              17,500              17,500               Rental 779,877           788,121           768,400           772,100           795,400            Other 26,062              133,663           28,000              22,000              22,000                   Total Revenues 1,110,343        1,217,788        1,161,700        1,134,300        1,157,600         Expenses Personal Services 583,909$         622,264$         617,800$         623,300$         621,700$          Parts & Supplies 59,793              63,341              66,100              67,800              67,500               Cost of Concession Sales 37,797              35,509              45,000              35,000              35,000               Services & Other Charges 282,470           268,330           297,600           293,000           301,800                Total Expenses 963,969           989,444           1,026,500        1,019,100        1,026,000           Operating Surplus/Deficit 146,374$         228,344$         135,200$         115,200$         131,600$          Non‐Operating Expenses Capital/Reserve for Renewal & Replacement 190,064           156,656           135,200           182,800           157,200            Debt Service Payments ‐                     ‐                    700                    ‐                     ‐                        Total Expenses/Non‐Op Disbursements 1,154,033$      1,146,100$      1,162,400$      1,201,900$      1,183,200$       Civic Arena Fund 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Revenues Daily Admissions/Season Pass 770,778$         860,530$         756,400$         807,600$         828,100$          Group Sales 125,176           149,100           134,000           140,000           140,000            Concessions 247,953           266,146           245,000           245,000           245,000            Classes / Camps 17,827              19,162              20,000              20,000              20,000               Merchandise Sales 17,942              19,832              19,000              18,500              18,500               Vending ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     Rental 10,455              11,149              16,700              13,700              13,700               Interest 11,484              29,975               ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     Marketing Revenue ‐                     ‐                    4,000                 ‐                     ‐                     Other 695                   1,946                 ‐                     ‐                     ‐                         Total Revenues 1,202,310        1,357,840        1,195,100        1,244,800        1,265,300         Expenses Personal Services 694,315$         711,630$         699,100$         722,300$         737,800$          Parts & Supplies 85,604              92,117              99,900              100,400           102,400            Cost of Concession Sales 132,957           121,168           100,000           122,000           122,000            Services & Other Charges 145,620           146,917           200,200           208,200           211,200                Total Expenses 1,058,496        1,071,832        1,099,200        1,152,900        1,173,400           Operating Surplus/Deficit 143,814$         286,008$         95,900$           91,900$           91,900$            Non‐Operating Expenses Capital Outlay 8,685                98,689              6,000                2,000                2,000                 Reserve for Renewal & Replacement 92,000              89,900              89,900              90,600              90,600                  Total Expenses/Non‐Op Disbursements 1,159,181$      1,260,421$      1,195,100$      1,245,500$      1,266,000$       Aquatic Facility (Cascade Bay) Fund 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Revenues Personal Trainers 63,288$            67,493$           65,000$           67,000$           67,000$            Equipment Rental 30,222              33,408             35,000              33,000             33,000              Parks/Rec Programming 8,266                8,003               16,000              20,000             30,000              Concessions/Vending/Merchandise Sales 72,397              53,938             78,000              23,200             23,200              Group Sales 45,798              55,602             57,000              55,000             55,000              Daily Admissions 89,303              92,506             107,000           92,000             92,000              Memberships 727,495            758,252           750,000           825,000           825,000            Room & Facility Rentals 365,746            351,405           347,000           346,500           346,500            Contract Revenue 98,303              125,916           125,000           125,000           125,000            ECVB Rent 15,545              16,173             15,000              15,000             15,000              Other 92,350              114,828           50,000              50,000             50,000                  Total Revenues 1,608,713        1,677,524       1,645,000        1,651,700       1,661,700        Other Financing Sources Antenna Lease Revenues 296,053            276,923           378,000           342,600           396,600               Total Revenues/Other Financing Sources 1,904,766$      1,954,447$     2,023,000$      1,994,300$     2,058,300$      Expenses Personal Services 1,302,428$      1,233,399$     1,269,400$      1,292,600$     1,308,300$      Parts & Supplies 56,859              59,589             60,300              61,100             64,500              Services & Other Charges 359,643            406,944           363,600           360,100           370,900            Cost of Merchandise Sales 39,628              28,641             35,000              40,000             41,000                  Total Operating Expenses 1,758,558        1,728,573       1,728,300        1,753,800       1,784,700        Capital Outlay 10,037              310,235           14,700              17,300             50,400              Reserve for Renewal & Replacement 147,000            175,000           175,000           223,200           223,200            157,037            485,235           189,700           240,500           273,600              Total Operating Expenses and R&R 1,915,595$      2,213,808$     1,918,000$      1,994,300$     2,058,300$      Debt Service ‐‐ voter‐approved tax levy 1,117,514        1,120,635       1,111,850        1,119,300        ‐                     Eagan Community Center Fund 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Revenues PEG fees 376,129$         366,512$         380,000$         314,100$         320,400$          City Contribution ‐ Cable Franchise Fees 345,311           403,765           464,600           495,200           526,100            Other Charges 26,533              31,313              40,000              17,300              17,200                   Total Revenues 747,973           801,590           884,600           826,600           863,700            Expenditures Personal Services 390,623$         398,482$         453,300$         483,900$         514,800$          Parts & Supplies 11,981              24,702              38,200              38,300              35,700               Services & Other Charges 134,454           117,644           115,400           163,800           131,300            Capital 22,404              515,044           273,200           115,200           156,700                Total Expenses 559,462           1,055,872        880,100           801,200           838,500            Expenditure ‐ type PEG 164,005           648,100           415,500           308,100           318,200            Non‐PEG 395,457           407,772           464,600           493,100           520,300                Total 559,462           1,055,872        880,100           801,200           838,500            Retained (used) PEG Fees from Balance 212,124           (281,588)          (35,500)            6,000                2,200                 ETV 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements Agenda Information Memo November 12, 2019 Special City Council Meeting VI. 2020-2021 GENERAL FUND BUDGET UPDATE Direction To Be Considered: To provide direction to Staff on the 2020-2021 General Fund budgets and levies in light of the SAFER grant award of $3.4 million. Facts: ➢At its August 13 special meeting, the City Council tentatively approved 2020 and 2021 budgets that called for hiring 9 full-time firefighters each year as part of the transition to a full-time fire department. ➢Subsequent to that meeting, the City was awarded a SAFER grant in the amount of $3,441,257 to hire up to 18 firefighters. The grant covers a three-year period, which would start in January 2020. 75% of the salary and benefits of each new firefighter would be reimbursed in the first two years; 35% would be reimbursed the third year. ➢In order to take full advantage of the grant, the City would need to hire all 18 firefighters in 2020. ➢Hiring all 18 in 2020 would increase the 2020 budget from $41,755,700 as presented in August to $42,822,100, which represents a 12.3% increase over the 2019 budget. The 2020 budget as proposed in August was a 10.0% increase. ➢The proposed 2021 budget increase would drop from 7.6% to 4.8%. ➢Because of the SAFER grant revenue, the 2020 levy could be decreased by $328,700 from the $39,661,078 figure certified in the preliminary levy to $39,332,378. Instead of a 7.9% levy increase as presented in August, the levy increase would be 7.0%. ➢With the SAFER grant revision, the projected levy increase for 2021 drops from 8.1% to 5.4%. ➢Unless directed otherwise, Staff will present the revised 2020 budget of a 12.3% increase and revised levy of a 7.0% increase at the December 3 Truth-in-Taxation public hearing. Attachments: (0) Agenda Memo November 12, 2019 Special City Council Meeting VII. REDEVELOPMENT FUND Direction To Be Considered: To provide direction on whether the City should establish a Redevelopment Fund . Facts: ➢ Only approximately 180 acres or 4% of Eagan’s commercially-zoned land remains undeveloped. An additional 132 acres, most of which is in Viking Lakes, is available for Mixed-Use development. As a nearly fully developed city, Eagan is turning its attention to reinvestment and reuse which tends to be more difficult and expensive than greenfield development. ➢ Redevelopment projects have become financially more difficult since the Cedar Grove Redevelopment project was initiated. Cities cannot acquire and assemble land using eminent domain. The 2001 Omnibus Tax Bill decreased commercial/industrial tax rates and created a State property tax which could not be captured in TIF districts. With those changes, TIF revenues declined while in the past 20 years acquisition and construction costs have increased dramatically. ➢ Buildings with functional obsolescence may not meet the blight test required by Redevelopment and Renewal/Renovation TIF districts. For example, despite the vacancy rate and market challenges, Burnsville Mall cannot meet the blight test required for a TIF district. Special legislation that would allow more flexible use of TIF can be very difficult to achieve. Because counties and school districts seldom participate, abatement generates much less revenue than TIF districts. ➢ Tax increment districts and abatement projects are often unable to generate adequate revenue to support large-scale redevelopment projects requiring new public infrastructure including streets, pedestrian facilities, stormwater management, public parking, sewer and water, and public gathering spaces. Tax increment may not be used for park and recreational facilities or decorative public improvements which are often critical place-making elements of redevelopment projects. ➢ Many cities that wish to encourage redevelopment establish special funds to support the extraordinary costs of redevelopment that cannot fully be met by grants, TIF, or abatement. For example, Brooklyn Park and St. Louis Park have “war chests” estimated at over $20 million each which the cities use to fund Council priorities. The source of funds is the EDA/HRA levies in Brooklyn Park, and land sale proceeds and interest earnings over 25+ years in St. Louis Park. ➢ Given limitations in the use of TIF, abatement, and grants, an independent redevelopment fund provides flexibility and influence to ensure that City goals are met. ➢ The City has a precedent of creating funds for special purposes. The Community Investment Fund (CIF) was established in 1992 with a $9.5 million transfer fro m the consolidated debt service bond fund. o The purpose of the CIF is to pay the capital costs and Council designated start-up operational costs of projects of general benefit to the City. o The current cash balance in the CIF is $2,933,504. In addition, the fund has notes receivable from ECVB (paid via rent) of $103,118 and the Eagan Hockey Association of $161,526. The fund also has a receivable for $1,433,772 in Green Acres deferred assessments primarily from the McCarthy property. o The CIF has been used for City facilities including the Municipal Center, Fire Administration Building, fire stations, Cascade Bay, and the Community Center. A list of CIF expenditures is attached. o Since 1992, the CIF has contributed $25 million towards public facility improvements. ➢ The Finance Committee discussed a potential Redevelopment Fund at its April 9, 2019 meeting and asked that the topic be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. POLICY QUESTIONS: 1. Does the City Council support the establishment of a Redevelopment Fund? 2. Does the City Council support funding sources such as land sales, for example the $250,000 which the City recently received for the sale of land to Costco? No levy funds are suggested at this time. 3. Would the City Council prefer to define eligible uses and funding criteria or to leave the use of funds open-ended at Council discretion? If the Council would like to define eligible uses and funding criteria, does the Council support the draft uses and criteria listed in the attachment? Attachments: (2) VII-1 Draft Eligible Uses and Funding Criteria VII-2 Community Investment Fund Expenditures Draft Eligible Uses and Funding Criteria The following eligible uses are similar to requirements for Dakota County Redevelopment Incentive Grants (RIG) and DEED Redevelopment Grants. The City received nearly $5 million in RIG, DEED, and other grants for acquisition, demolition, environmental assessment and cleanup, parking improvements, trails, infrastructure and streetscaping at Cedar Grove. Please note that the eligible uses below include streetscape and public space improvements which are items that are ineligible for TIF and most grants but are a necessary element of most redevelopment projects. The list below also includes structured public parking which is ineligible for most grants. Eligible Uses • Planning/technical assistance for costs related to market analysis, financial feasibility studies, concept development, site design, zoning studies, engineering studies, environmental studies, and environmental assessments including Phase I assessments and development of Response Action Plans. • Property acquisition if property is to be acquired by the City. • Relocation payments to occupants of property acquired by the City. • Clearance and demolition expenses related to site assemblage for redevelopment. • Environmental investigation and /or remediation activities on the impacted site. These may include Phase II environmental site assessments, Response Action Plans, soil/soil vapor testing, hazardous building materials survey, contaminated soil excavation and disposal, ground water remediation, contaminated soil remediation, soil vapor remediation and mitigation. • Necessary pubic infrastructure improvements required for and directly connected to the redevelopment project such as sanitary or storm sewer, water connections, stormwater (pipes or ponds), fiber optic lines, public streets, and pedestrian facilities. • Structured public parking intended to serve multiple users and/or destinations. Parking must be constructed as part of a redevelopment project and enable greater density and tax base that would not be possible without the structured public parking. • Streetscape and public realm improvements for public parks, plazas, and gathering spaces that are elements of a redevelopment project. • Geotechnical corrections to soil conditions that require extraordinary expense to remediate. • Required matching funds from local government for other agency grants. Funding Criteria • Leverage. A variety of funding sources must be committed to the project including private investment, CDBG, DEED grants, or Metropolitan Council grants. Private investment must be at least twice the amount of total public investment. City Redevelopment Funds should be used as funding of last resort for costs that cannot be supported by other public or private funding sources. • Economic Benefit. The project should have a defined positive economic impact measurable through growth in property taxes and new and/or retained jobs. • Environmental and Sustainability Improvements. The project should reduce the threat to public health, protect, preserve, or enhance the environment or contribute to increased environmental, economic, or social sustainability. Expenditures of Community Investment Fund 1994 - 2019 Municipal Center (Police & Fire) 6,666,595 Fire Administration Building 1,500,000 Recreation Facility 522,248 Aquatic Facility 5,140,000 Advance to Civic Arena II 295,500 Advance to Civic Arena - training center 388,428 Site Preparation 709,300 Fire Station # 1 Remodeling 250,000 Fire Station #2 Remodeling 196,997 Professional services 49,763 Miscellaneous Fees 22,970 Community Center Land 1,500,000 Transfer EDA Levy Out 212,608 Fire Safety Center 2,377,259 ABLE training facility 500,000 Caponi property & legal 87,950 Write off DS due from Cascade Bay 365,000 New Fire Station #1 961,761 Fire Station #4 remodel 1,535,323 Old Town Hall Replacement 259,674 Cascade Bay pumphouse etc 673,008 Galaxie/Cliff outlot (Fire Station #5) 65,794 Fire Equipment 1,112,407 Total Community Investment Fund Expenditures 25,392,585