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