Loading...
04/10/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA THURSDAY APRIL 10, 1986 I. ROLL CALL & APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. MASAC Meeting - Alternate Appointment - Runway Use Report Complaints - Part 150 Study Vote B. Metropolitan Council Vote on Airport Capital Improvements Program C. Joint Position Paper III. OLD BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension - Environmental Impact Statement Process - City Resolutions IV. NEW BUSINESS A. May Newsletter Article - Publicity B. MAC Videotape V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: APRIL 4, 1986 SUBJET: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR APRIL 10, 1986 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 1986 at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be at the Eagan Municipal Center in conference rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend the meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Thursday. I. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee Meeting of March 11, 1986 is enclosed for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the committee. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. MASAC MEETING Alternate Appointment Enclosed in your packet you will find a copy of the memorandum forwarded to the City Administrator concerning Mr. Dustin Mirick's interest in appointment as the MASAC alternate member. In offical action taken at the March 25th special city council meeting, the Eagan City Council appointed Mr. Mirick to fill the MASAC alternate position. Due to a mix -up in scheduling, our regular MASAC member, Tom Baker, was unable to attend the MASAC meeting on March 25th. In going above and beyond the ordinary expectations, Mr. Mirick agreed to exercise his new status as the alternate by attending the MASAC meeting on March 25th without prior notice. It is fortunate that the committee and staff could benefit from Mr. Mirick's dedication in this way. Part 150 Vote Mr. Mirick's presence at the meeting was especially important because MASAC voted on the major portion of the FAR PART 150 study recommendations. Mr. Mirick will be available to comment on voting process and the recommendations of MASAC. Runway Use Report Complaints During the runway use report portion of the MASAC meeting, it was revealed that a very large number of the complaint calls received by MASAC from South Minneapolis are the work of 15 to 20 people. As many as one quarter to one half of all South Minneapolis calls are accounted for in this way. This tends to support the contention that organized phone calling exists in certain neighborhoods. AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 4, 1986 PAGE 2 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required of the committee on any of the MASAC items. B. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL VOTE ON THE AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Enclosed for your review you will find a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune article of March 20th, 1986 regarding the opposition of Metropolitan Council Chairwoman Sandra Gardebring to the Runway 4/22 extension until noise abatement studies have been completed. As the article indicates, it is the position of Ms. Gardebring that the airport should not be allowed to invest in capital improvements which increase noise in any part of the metropolitan area until they have completed the FAR Part 150 study, an environmental impact statement and the airport master plan for noise abatement. The Metropolitan Council is in the position to block the expenditure of the runway extension funds because of its right to review all airport capital improvement measures which cost in excess of five million dollars. Also enclosed you will find the portion of the informational memorandum which was before the Metropolitan Council Systems Committee regarding this issue. You will note the staff report recommendation parallels Chairwoman Gardebring's position. The matter was opposed by the representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission due to the extended time frame in which the airport master plan would be completed. The Systems Committee concurred with staff and continued any action on the matter until the reports were completed. The City has offered correspondence and support of this decision because it makes the capital expenditure dependent upon the reasonable completion of environmental studies. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required of the committee on this item at this time. C. JOINT POSITION PAPER At the time of packet preparation, the position paper has been voted on by three of the five cities which have chosen to participate in it. The City of Savage approved the position paper with slight language changes in Section 7 regarding overflights of compatible land uses. The City of Eagan has passed it with the exception of Section 11, pertaining to the Metropolitan Airports Commission exercising its taxing authority. Mendota Heights passed the position paper without qualification. The remaining cities, Inver Grove Heights and Burnsville are scheduled to vote on the proposal early in the week of April 7th. Staff should have results of all community votes by the time of the committee meeting. It is anticipated that the portions of the position paper which are excluded by one committee or another will be excluded from the final document for purposes of unanimity, and the paper will be forwarded to the appropriate public officials and the press for their review. The request that a five mile corridor be included as an element of the position paper was opposed by the other cities due to its local impact. The AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 4, 1986 PAGE 3 other cities did not imply that it was not a positive suggestion, rather it was indicated that they believed it to be a local issue, perhaps to be shared by Mendota Heights and Eagan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: There is no action required of the committee on this item at this time. III. OLD BUSINESS A. RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION Environmental Impact Statement Process During the Metropolitan Council Systems Committee meeting on the 4/22 extension, representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission indicated that an environmental impact statement on the runway extension was in progress and that a draft report would be completed in May or June of this year. The EIS process requires that public hearings be held to review the draft prior to its final approval by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It is likely that committee members will be interested in attending these meetings and taking a position on the draft EIS. Staff will continue to monitor developments in this area and keep the committee and community informed on its progress. City resolutions Recently, two communities have indicated their support for the Runway 4/22 extension. Not surprisingly, the City of Minneapolis passed a resolution in March which endorses the runway extension and includes recommendations for a noise cap and a southerly departure heading to alleviate the impact of increased traffic on Bloomington and Richfield. The resolution of the City of Bloomington was more surprising. On a 4 to 2 vote with one abstention, the City of Bloomington resolved to endorse the Runway 4/22 extension pending the completion of the appropriate studies and public hearings. Chairman Baker has requested that staff look into the reasons behind this resolution and staff has contacted one of Bloomington's MASAC representatives in this regard. Staff will be available to review the reasons for this resolution at the time of the meeting. The resolutions of Minneapolis and Bloomington are attached for your review. In light of these resolutions, the committee may wish to recommend that the Eagan City Council forward a resolution of its position on this matter to the appropriate public bodies. If committee members would consider which elements they wish to have in such a resolution, staff would be available to draft it for Council consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend a resolution on the Runway 4/22 extension to the Eagan City Council. AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 4, 1986 PAGE 4 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. MAY NEWSLETTER ARTICLE /PUBLICITY Staff is preparing an article for the City's May newsletter regarding airport noise. The committee is on record as having requested that all media channels be explored to make the public aware of its alternatives with respect to aircraft noise. In the past, articles have been placed in the local newspapers. In addition, the airport noise complaint numbers currently appear on the Eagan Cable TV bulletin board channel. City Council members have also discussed the airport noise issue as a part of the Eagan Report, the locally produced cable television program. Staff will attempt to have a draft of the article prepared by the committee meeting for committee review and comment. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend items to be included in the May Newsletter article concerning airport noise. B. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION VIDEOTAPE Staff has a copy of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's half hour documentary program on airport noise. Equipment will be available to view this half hour program during the committee meeting. Enclosed in your packets you will find a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune article concerning the program. ACTION TO BE REQUIRED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required of the committee on this item at this time. V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT The committee will be asked to expedite its consideration of the agenda items to provide at least one half hour to view the video tape. As usual, we will attempt to have the meeting done by 6 o'clock. Administrative Assistant cc: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Attachments JH /hb MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA MARCH 11, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Tuesday, March 11, 1986 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker, John Gustin, Carol Dozois, Otto Leightner, Joe Harrison, and Dustin Mirick. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Member Mirick requested one change in the minutes of the previous meeting, that being the spelling of his name in line two (2) of page two (2). Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Mirick, all in favor, the minutes of the meeting of January 16, 1986 were approved as corrected. RUNWAY USE SUMMARY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein presented the information in the Air Traffic Count Report of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport for the summer of 1985. He indicated that during the time period under review the Eagan /Mendota Heights air corridor handled 45.7% of all arrivals and 47.9% of all departures at the airport. The committee then discussed the wind vector analysis performed for the Traffic Count Report. The analysis tended to support the contention that the use of the parallel runways are wind directed for 80% to 90% of the aircraft when winds exceed 5 knots. The committee expressed concern that the information provided does not indicate traffic for wind vectors other than those from the northwest or southeast, nor does it indicate an analysis of traffic at wind velocities less than 5 knots. Member Leightner raised the concern that the wind velocity at which the FAA requires a shift to headwind headings has been increased. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that this change will reduce the amount of time when aircraft are required to go in certain directions and will increase flexibility for FAA controllers to fly aircraft in other directions at such times. Chairman Baker expressed concern that the greatest amount of time was spent monitoring traffic during peak hours during which the parallel runways are used almost exclusively. Further, no monitoring was conducted between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. when the principal arrival and departure corridor is over Eagan and Mendota Heights. The committee discussed the fact that this information would tend to skew the actual use number and overstate the Minneapolis impact while understating the Eagan /Mendota Heights impact. MASAC ALTERNATE Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that the City of Eagan is currently without a MASAC alternate member to vote on behalf of the City in the absence of Chairman Baker, the appointed member. The committee discussed 1 the importance of the alternate being from the Airport Noise Committee to provide continuity between City interests and the voting representation of the City. After the discussion, the committee suggested that member Braun be contacted to determine her interest in the appointment and member Mirick expressed interest in being appointed. NORTH EAGAN CORRIDOR Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that he had been contacted by Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission about the potential to discuss improving aircraft compliance with the Eagan /Mendota Heights air corridor. Board members discussed potential problems with negotiating with the MAC and enforcing any agreement reached by the parties. As a point of reference, Chairman Baker described the 105 degree departure procedure. The committee expressed skepticism at the intention of the MAC in offering to discuss the matter and requested that staff pursue the question with MAC before requesting official action on the part of the committee. JOINT POSITION PAPER Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed the draft position paper for communities south of the Minnesota River. The 12 point document was reviewed on an item by item basis. The committee expressed general support for the joint position paper process. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein requested that if the committee had suggested amendments to the position paper that they be presented. Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that a position requiring a 5 mile departure before turning to reinforce the departure corridor be added to the position paper. GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE REPORT Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that the Governor's Task Force report had been passed over by the Governor in favor of efforts by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. He further indicated that all but one of the task force recommendations is included in the airport's 17 point plan, and the FAR Part 150 study. MAYOR'S CORRESPONDENCE The committee received and reviewed the correspondence of Mayor Blomquist concerning the Governor's Task Force position and Chairman Glumack's Noise Abatement Implementation Committee. 2 Airport Noise Committee Minutes March 11, 1986 AIRPORT FACT SHEETS The committee also received and reviewed airport facilities sheets and MAC fact sheets 105 and 106 on noise abatement and Stage 3 aircraft. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. JDH Secretary 3 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: MARCH 13, 1986 SUBJECT: MASAC ALTERNATE MEMBER At your request, I have discussed the matter of the MASAC alter- nate member appointment with the members of the Airport Noise Committee. The members recognize the Council's prerogative in making this appointment, however, they believe that it is impor- tant that the member be an Airport Noise Committee member to provide continuity between the discussions of City position and . the voting membership. Following this discussion, Mr. Dustin Mirick indicated a desire to be appointed to MASAC as Eagan's alternate member. Mr. Mirick has been apprised of the reponsi- bilities of alternate membership and expresses a working under- standing of flight operations and City interests. Please bring this matter before the Council at its next regular meeting and indicate Mr. Mirick's interest. . , Qom, J' Hohenstein • Administrative Assistant JH /hb bardebring urges delaying 4 a w -'off ■ �, airport runway project, ,- $ � r } ,I i a 3 says nose remains issue 7 By Laurie Blake Z v;. noise; it also might increase the air- , �� • Staff Writer , F I • : port's capacity to handle more • . S ,, ,. planes. As the leader of the gover- L ,,, , Metropolitan Council Chairwoman nor's special task force on airport 7 „ : . ' Sandra Gardebring said Wednesday " noise, she has advocated cutting the - that she will urge that the council - number of planes using the airport n Y ' not" approve the proposed extension:....asone,way to reduce overall noise. G t runway at Minneapolis -St. Paul 2 96"ki "" n, i • Idtern/Atonal Airport until airport ',ardebring said that , until airport k officials show a strong commitment. ?'officials demonstrate a willingness to _. n r a ucing airport noise. _ . reduce, noise ., in ; ways other. than Sandra Gardebring ,r . ,_ $ 0 / ` pot �s�. r f '; 'laying down more concrete; she ° • ;/11�Ietan rports Commission " will urge that the council not , tip- ,function in the public interest,'_,' he officio' ls,' who operate the airport, prove the runway project. '''''�°�', said. - ,� ,_cont that extending the "cross- w ,- r5 . tic 4-4 • '�+° ` • j wind" ;runway is the best way to Cortifnission Chairman Raymond "It is much too important to Have reduce jet traffic over south Minne- Glumack responded that the future obstacles or stones thrown in its spoils, which is hardest hit by noise. „',...of the airport depends upon the run- . path," Glumack said. - • , ' way extension. Any attempt to hurt :7;,. ,: • �, - Bili Gardebring said she isn't sure _the project will be doing "dastardly " that the extension would only reduce harm to this airport and its ability to Noise continued on page 5B , �.. y • ` . ' f 7:;'_ r Noise Continued from page 1B { ; i •i - Under state law the Airports Com- ney said. mission cannot undertake any air- . port improvement project exceeding Besides council approval, the com- $5 million without Metropolitan mission also would need the go- in 10 J I C Council approval.- T ;, -; < < • ahead from the Federal Aviation Ad- ' ministration (FAA), Finney said, Airport officials had asked the noun adding that the Airports Commission C w r • % . cil to approve the $7 million runway also would have to give final approv- J �� 1 1 r 110V K'@ extension, to begin In 1987. ` - -" "- al to the project. • But the Airports Commission has'not The crosswind runway points from S, AO lap yet completed key ,studies '.on the northeast to southwest and sends benefits and drawbacks of the proj - planes over Richfield and Blooming- ect, and the Metro.. Council's trans- ton or St. Paul. The extension would portation department recommended ; take it a half -mile closer to Richfield yesterday that until that information and Bloomington, is available the project should not be app roved *.,-, -„, A ^, . �t p # . The ' commission's idea is to make , f• _ , th runway longer to increase its Gardebring took that one step fur - :, handling capacity, giving ther with her own recommendation '' some relief to south Minneapolis. that the council withhold its approve ` The commission, in an effort to re- al until receiving a demonstration Of duce noise over Richfield and the Airports Commission's commit- Bloomington, also is seeking FAA ap• • ment to reduce noise. =_.,, ...' -- ... 1• -4_, prove( for an airborne turn to allow planes to fly over less- populated ar- Because the start of the proposed eas as they ascend from the airport extension is still a year away, the to the southwest. absence of council approval now ? . , . . would not stop the plannin; neces- Glumack insists that the project will sacy to bring it about, according to stop the rising number of citizen Nigel Finney, the Airports Commis- complaints about air noise. He said sion's director of planning and eng1. he wants the extension to receive neering. But continued council reins- ,early Metropolitan Council approval. al 4 could prevent the commission "I wanted them to be shoulder -to- from spending the money to build shoulder with us on this." the half-mile runway addition, Fin- - r•K;. 4' i4a - K r t Y ► » • "r Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291- 6359/TDD 291 -0904 DATE: February 25, 1986 TO: Metropolitan Systems Committee FROM: S. Wilson, Transportation Planning SUBJECT: Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) 1986 -87 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) File No. 13413 -1, Resolution No. 86- AUTHORITY TO REVIEW The Metropolitan Council is reviewing the MAC 1986 -87 C.I.P. under the following authorizations: Federal Projects in this program eligible for federal funding are being reviewed under the Minnesota Intergovernmental Review Process (MIRP) which requires review and comment by the Metropolitan Council on federal grant applications and development projects (Minn. Stat. 473.171). State The plans of the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall, as provided in Minnesota Statutes 473.611 (subd. 5) and Minn. Stat. 473.655, be consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide. The present Aviation Chapter was adopted in 1977 and amended in 1983. Under Minn. Stat. 473.181 the Council is directed to review Metropolitan Airports Commission capital projects pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.621, which reads in part as follows: Subd. 6. All Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport capital projects of the commission requiring more than $5,000,000 shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. All other capital projects of the commission requiring the expenditure of more than $2,000,000 shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. No project which has a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area may be commenced without the approval of the Metropolitan Council. Subd. 7. Capital projects. For the purposes of this section, capital projects having a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area shall be deemed to be the following: (a) the location of a new airport, (b) a new runway at an existing airport, (c) a runway extension at an existing airport, (d) runway strengthening other than routine maintenance to determine compliance with federal air regulation part 36, T (e) construction or expansion of passenger handling or parking facilities which would permit a 25 percent or greater increase in passenger enplanement levels, • (f) land acquisition associated with any of the above items or which would cause relocation of residential or business activities. In summary, all projects receiving federal funding are subject to review and comment for consistency with the Council's comprehensive development plans; these comments are advisory only. Review and approval authority exists for a precisely defined range of projects, regardless of funding source. All other projects have been historically reviewed and commented upon by the Council for consistency with the development guide, although such comments would not necessarily be binding. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Airports Commission has submitted its 1986 -87 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Metropolitan Council review. Also submitted is a five -year long -term capital improvement plan. The 1986 -87 plan (see Table 1) includes a total of $111,675,000 in improvements to the MAC system of seven airports over the two year period; additional projects for 1987 will likely be added when then 1987 -88 CIP is prepared. An estimated $98.9 million of the improvements are slated for Minneapolis -St. Paul International, with approximately $12.8 million planned for secondary airport projects. Approximately $81.7 million of the program are anticipatedfor 1986 projects and $30 million for 1987 projects are anticipated. Attachment A includes descriptions of all projects as well as maps of each airport showing proposed improvements. PROJECT ANALYSIS Over the past several years, several projects within the CIP have been carried over from one year to the next because of delays in implementation or other considerations. This carryover and the defined review authoritity limit the role of the Council in reviewing the nearly $112 million 1986 -87 CIP. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the 1986 -87 CIP according to Council review authority and whether the projects have been previously submitted in a CIP. Only $41,050,000 worth of projects in the CIP, or 37 percent of the total, are actually being reviewed for the first time by the Metropolitan Council. None of these new projects fall within the approval authority granted to the Metropolitan Council by Minnesota Statutes 473.621, and only $7,275,000 (18 percent) in expenditures require review and comment under the federal review process. Nearly half of the new budget is due to a single project discussed in detail below. An additional 5,225,000 in $ projects were reviewed - last year by the Metropolitan Council as 1986 elements and are still planned for 1986. 2 Of the remaining $62,525,000 in the 1986 -87 CIP, $42,025,000 is programmed for projects that were previously reviewed, and approved or found consistent, by the Metropolitan Council; the majority of these projects have been delayed, by as many as four years, past the implementation dates originally stated in the CIP. Three key project areas, with a total cost of $20.5 million have been previously reviewed and warrant additional consideration from the Metropolitan Council on the basis of studies being conducted at the present time. • Key Projects o Runway 4/22 Rehabilitation and Extension The MAC has submitted as two separate 1987 projects the rehabilitation and a 2,750 foot southwesterly extension of Runway 4/22. These projects were submitted together as a 1986 item in the 1985 -86 CIP reviewed by the Council during 1985. Costs for the projects are estimated at $10 million for the rehabilitation and $7 million for the extension, a $17 million total as opposed to the $13.5 million estimate in the 1985 -86 CIP. The MAC anticipates concurrent rehabilitation and extension, to the extent possible, to minimize noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods that would be caused by the loss of runway availabiity during construction. The runway extension is a project over which the Metropolitan Council has approval authority, while the rehabilitation is subject to review and comment under the existing legislation governing Council authority. Council action in 1985 withheld approval for the extension, suspending review until the ( completion of the master plan update for the MSP International Airport. Based on information provided in the CIP and in discussions with the MAC staff, it appears the runway rehabilitation project is excluded from Metropolitan Council approval authority, but must be reviewed for consistency with comprehensive development plans. The rehabilitation is needed and is consistent with the Aviation Chapter. The 4/22 project is identified as one of the MAC'S key noise reduction measures. The runway extension has both potential advantages and disadvantages. Extension of the runway would permit greater use of 4/22, and thus lessen the burden of air traffic using the parallel runways and enhance the capability of the preferential runway system. Noise levels could be reduced over the South Minneapolis, north Richfield and Mendota Heights /Eagan areas, the most heavily affected by aircraft travel. On the other hand, early estimates are that the total number of people affected by aircraft noise would increase, due to more flights over areas to the south and southwest of the airport. The potential may exist to increase operational levels, which could have implications for the noise environment. A final determination on the desirability and feasibility of the 4/22 project will depend on the completion of several studies underway at this time. The Part 150 study is a federally- funded effort to explore a variety of operational and land use measures to control noise, and includes analysis of the 4/22 extension; the operations portion of the study should be completed early this summer. The airport master plan, an extensive documentation of airport development needs including such things as field and runways, terminal 6 659 buildings and ground transportation access, is being updated. Finally, an Environmental Impact Statement on the project is being prepared, following a lengthy delay due to public concern over the project, and is expected to be completed this summer. The MAC states in its CIP that environmental documentation is needed before the project is implemented. It would be timely for the Metroplitan Council to continue to withhold approval for the project until after it has reviewed the studies relating to the project. o Anoka County- Blaine Airport Building Area Development and Runway Modifications These two projects are included in the Master Plan for the airport. An environmental impacts statement is being prepared to assess the impacts of the master plan. The first project, at a cost of $600,000, involves the opening of an additional area for hangar construction. The second proposes to move the existing north /south runway and taxiway approximately 950 feet to the north (away from the residential development at the south end of the airport), and a 1,600 foot (approximately) extension of the east /west runway at a total cost of $1,750,000. The Metropolitan Council reviewed the two projects as part of the 1985 -86 CIP, with respective costs of $800,000 and $1,900,000. Council action, limited to review and comment because neither of the projects is over $2 million, was to °'` request that MAC delay implementation of the projects until analysis of the f environmental impacts is completed. The MAC states in its CIP that the EIS will be brought to the Commission prior to the project proceeding further. The results of the EIS however, will be needed before the Metropolitan Council to determine whether the projects are consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide and Aviation Chapter. The City of Mounds View (see attached letter) has requested that the Council withhold action until the city and MAC settle issues that are the subject of a lawsuit by Mounds View. o Transportation Center: Terminal Building and Plaza Revisions ($1,950,000) and Tunnel ($1,300,000) These projects involve improvements to the ground transportation /terminal access at the airport. Enclosure of the areas for passengers awaiting taxis and limos, as well as other modifications are included in the first portion of the project. The tunnel project would complete an underground link between the parking structures and terminal, with vertical access between the garage access and bag claim areas. The projects were first proposed in the 1981 -82 CIP, with respective costs of $1.2 million and $750,000, and were found to be consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide and Aviation Chapter. The projects may be eligible for federal funding, requiring Council review and comment. r One of the major issues in the 1985 CIP review was encouragement of ;=;�.-=" =" alternatives to automobiles for access to the airport, such as mass transit and improved taxi /limo amenities. The MAC has put these projects on hold pending the completion of a ground transportation access study that has been integrated ,P 7 into the Master Plan Update Study. Given this, the changes in cost, and the number of years since the Metropolitan Council initially reviewed the project, f; a reassessment should be made of whether the projects are still consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide and Aviation Chapter. The Airport Master Plan, once completed, should provide the information necessary to determine consistency. Other Projects Previously Approved By The Metropolitan Council • • Five projects are pending implementation that have been previously granted approval by the Metropolitan Council, but for a variety of reasons have yet to be implemented. Two of the projects received approval prior to the change in Metropolitan Council review authority, two are part of a phased improvement program that is somewhat delayed, and one received approval from the Council in June, 1985 and could not be implemented during the 1985 construction season. o Noise Suppressor ($6,000,000) Minnesota Statutes require the construction of a noise suppressor to reduce engine run -up noise at MSP international Airport. The project was approved by the Council in 1984. The MAC has selected a suppressor, but intends to delay purchase and installation until it presents noise monitoring data to the Legislature "for consideration and further direction on this item ". MAC believes that evidence may show that the extent of the run -up noise problem is minimal enough that benefits would not justify costs. Council support of the project is still valid in the event that the Legislature does not revoke the prior requirements. C o AA F Office Facility ($2,500,000) The existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offices are located in the old terminal area, where noise levels have made continued occupation untenable. A new on -site facility is therefore proposed. This project was initially approved by the Council in 1983, with notation that adequate acoustic treatment should be a part of the project. The project is self - liquidating and would therefore result in total federal reimbursement, however the FAA is in the process of resolving their funding process and has requested that the project be put on hold. o St. Paul Downtown Airport, Phases II ($3,500,000) and III ($3,150,000) These two projects complete the stage I development of the airport, providing a new runway, new taxiways, building areas, and other improvement that will enhance the airport's role as the system's only intermediate airport. Phase II was begun in 1985 and will continue during 1986, to_be followed by Phase III in 1987. The projects received Council approval in 1985. o Parking Structure and Connector to Green Concourse ($22,000,000) This item was initially proposed in the 1985 -86 CIP. It consists of a "twin" to the existing seven tier parking structure at MSP. The Metropolitan Council, after extensive debate and testimony from MAC and the Regional Transit Board, approved the project. Major issues were the need for the structure and efforts to encourage alternatives to the automobile for airport access. The Council, following its approval, directed the MAC to discuss in its master plan: a) plans to encourage greater use of mass transit; b) plans for beautification of 8 { ; z the parking structures and lots; c) plans regarding rental car facilities and ground transportation at the airport and regarding off -site parking. The project was approved too late in the year to begin construction, therefore implementation will occur during 1986. With regard to the other directives of the Council, the master plan has not been completed, but the ground trans - s portation issues are receiving special study, relocation of some rental car facilities is occurring, and an overall airport beautification program is taking place. Microwave Landing System A microwave landing system (MLS) is proposed for purchase to enhance the air traffic control at MSP International. Another advantage to the MLS is noise abatement, since operations can be more accurately channelled, vertically and horizontally, to avoid developed areas. It should be recognized, however, that MLS is only one tool of many needed to affect aircraft noise abatement. The MLS was approved as a 1986 project in the 1985 -86 CIP; the project was found consistent with the MDG and Aviation Chapter. Although included by MAC as a 1987 project, Mn /DOT has the project scheduled for fiscal year 1988. Other Projects The remaining projects proposed within the CIP are primarily related to safety, maintenance, rehabilitation and efficiency improvements to the airport. For example, runway /taxiway /apron overlays are planned for several of the reliever airports; the cost of these projects accounts for $800,000 over the two year period -- nearly 20 percent of the budget for secondary airport p projects not discussed above. At MSP International, over $7 million is programmed for projects involving rehabilitation of roadway, terminal or field areas in addition to the $10 million proposed for Runway 4/22 rehabilitation. A modification to the Blue Concourse would result in the creation of two additional gates. Although these new gates add enplaning capacity, the major effect is to improve the operational efficiency of the existing terminal facility. This capacity addition would likely have no bearing on airport noise levels. The following projects, neither of which are approval or federal review process, are of sufficient scale or interest to warrant discussion: o NWA Hangar Facility At $20 million, this project is the second most costly element of the CIP (following the previously approved parking ramp). The project involves construction of a hangar addition to Northwest Airlines main facility to accomodate the recently announced acquisition of new 747 -400 aircraft. The aircraft are Stage III, producing lower noise levels. Financing of the project is "self - liquidating ", whereby the MAC provides the funding for construction and is reimbursed by NWA according to an agreed upon schedule. o Green Concourse Improvements Three separate p projects are proposed for the Green Concourse. About $3 million would be spent on moving sidewalks, similar to those recently installed in the Gold Concourse. A $425,000 gate area modification would create an additional 4 F INDINGS o Under exis law, no new projects are proposed in the 1986 -87 CIP that require Metropolitan Council approval. o Several projects are included in the CIP that were approved by the Metropolitan Council in previous years, some under previous review authority, namely: Parking Structure, Noise Suppressor, FAA Office Facility, and St. Paul Downtown Airport Runway and Building Area. o The majority of the 1986 -87 CIP consists of projects initially proposed for implementation in years prior to 1986, but delayed for a variety of reasons. 1 o Consistency with the Aviation Chapter and Metropolitan Development Guide can not be determined at this point for several projects, which are presently the subject of one or more studies that will be completed in the near future. Reconsideration of the following Capital Improvement Program projects could be made by the Council following review of the appropriate studies: a) Runway 4/22 extension, following completion of the Runway 4/22 Environmental Impact Statement, Part 150 Study, and MSP Airport Master Plan Study; b) Anoka County - Blaine Airport Building Area Development and Runway Modifications (Runways 17/35 and 8/26), following completion of the EIS for the Anoka County - Blaine Airport Master Plan; c) Transportation Center: Terminal Building and Plaza Revisions, Tunr..l and Skyway, following completion of the MSP Airport Master Plan Study. o With the exception of the Runway 4/22 extension, the Anoka County - Blaine Airport building area development and runway modifications, and the Transportation Center terminal building, tunnel and skyway projects, the projects in the Metropolitan Airports Commission 1986 -1987 Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the Aviation Chapter and Metropolitan Development Guide . • 11 aircraft parking position (but not new gate). $300,000 is proposed for concourse modifications to permit development of an additional food/beverage The improvements would provide additional amenities for passengers and enhance the efficiency of the concourse. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The five year Capital Improvement Plan, for the years 1988 -1992, proposes approximately $28.9 million for improvements. Major projects include a $6 million addition to the Green Concourse and improvements at Anoka County- . Blaine, Lake Elmo and Airlake airports. Most other projects are rehabilitative in nature. 1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Under existing statutes, the MAC is not required to present any financial planning along with its CIP. Levels of funding estimates, obtained in discussions with MAC and Mn /DOT staff, are for information purposes only. Because no new projects requiring Council approval and no specific funding information were included in this CIP, no analysis of impacts on the Investment Framework Indicators has been prepared as has been provided in previous budgets and CIP reviews. The level of effort required to obtain the necessary information would extend the review schedule without commensurate benefits. For future reviews, the Council will likely incorporate an economic analysis into its comments, as provided in the proposed Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. Several sources of funding are used by the MAC to fund its Capital Improvement Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Minnesota Department of Transportation; and local sources (including operating revenues, investment interest and bond sales). In general, the policy of the MAC has been to finance its share of projects at secondary airports through cash reserves. Special construction accounts for MSP and the secondary airports have been established. The MAC has the • authority to levy a property tax assessment for its projects, but has been able to avoid the need to do so. Specific sources of funds are difficult to detail for a variety of reasons, including: time lags among receipt of funds, beginning of construction and end of construction; delays in implementation; unstable funding sources. Between 1986 and 1991, MAC estimates needs of approximately $160 million. Approximately 15 -20 percent of this would be federally funded and 5 percent would come from state sources. Of the local funds, approximately 15 to 20 percent would be raised through bond sales, and 60 to 65 percent would come from cash on hand, operating income and interest income. Due to construction delays, the MAC has a somewhat higher amount of cash on hand and interest income than normal. MAC received approval from the 1981 Minnesota Legislature for $92 million in additional bonding authority. To date, none of this authority has been used. MAC expects to issue some bonds in 1987, at most $29 million worth. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS (7 That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Withhold approval of the Runway 4/22 extension until the Runway 4/22 _ Environmental Impacts Statement, the Airport Master Plan Study for , Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and the operations element of the Part 150 Study are submitted to the Council for review. 2. Withhold review and comment on the Anoka County- Blaine Airport Building Area Development and Runway Modifications (Runways 17/35 and 8/26) until the Environmental Impacts Statement for the Anoka County- Blaine Airport Master Plan is submitted to the Council for review. 3. Withhold review and comment on the Transportation Center terminal building and plaza revisions, tunnel, and skyway until the Airport Master Plan Study for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is submitted to the Council for review. 4. Find all other projects in the 1986 -1987 Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the Aviation Chapter and Metropolitan Development Guide and that this action conclude the Council's review of those projects. PHTRN1 JM1013 Z 12 RESOLUTION Referred to Comm. of the Dote CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Council Members Johnson, Cramer and Schulstad By Endorsing, with qualifications, the 4/22 runway extension at the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport WHEREAS, the level of operationsa 67g the St. Paul International Airport has es calated by four years; and WHEREAS, this increase`in traffic has noise abandonedt measures, such as preferential runway system and WHEREAS, the noise from jet traffic destroys the enjoyability of a person's home and property and is a factor in a neighborhood's viability . as a desireable place to live; and WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis has created an inter - departmental Task Force to study the airport noise issue and critique noise abatement proposals as to their impact on Minneapolis residents; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has studied the extension of Runway 4/22 as a means of expanding the time the Preferential Runway system can be used; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS: That the proposed extension of Runway 4/22 at the Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport be endorsed. Be It Further Resolved that the measure be undertaken only upon and as a part of the acceptance of an overall "noise cap" or "envir- onmental limit" sanctioned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and accepted as formal policy by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Be It Further Resolved that construction be conducted as expedi- tiously as possible and that construction should also be scheduled during the closed window season. Be It Further Resolved that normal take -off operations on Runway 22 be directed by the FAA to a heading that keeps airplane traffic to the east side of Cedar Avenue. Be It Further Resolved that full length of the runway be mandated so as to place takeoffs and touchdoewns as far south and north as possible to minimize noise effects in residential areas. Be It Further Resolved that endorsement of the extension of Runway 4/22 is contingent upon a commitment by the FAA to use the new extended runway as a way of maximizing use of the Preferential E Runway System. RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE Council Memo'? I Aw Nov N.Y. Abt I Ovre. Suat 1 Council Msmoer f Awe I Nav I N.V. I Abe. I Cvv . I Sust 0Z1eait6 ( f I I Scauon f I I O'Enen I I Nlem,ea Hoare - 1 I I Cramer wh,te I i L I 1 Scnulstaa I Coves � l won Carson I Pres. A atmt1N Savtes Sefton I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I X INDICATES VOTE — N.V. • Not Voting Abs. — Absent OvrC.. Vote co Ovemae Sust . Vote to Sustain PA 19. Presesent APPROVED Caomed ei NOT APPROVED 19 VETOED Ma • ATTEST City Con( RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 26 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING SUPPORT OF THE RUNWAY 422 EXTENSION CONCEPT AT THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bloomington is the official governing body of the City of Bloomington; and WHEREAS, the City of Bloomington recognizes the beneficial relationship it has with the Metropolitan Airport and the Metropolitan Airport Commission; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council to the Metropolitan Airport Commission is currently considering its recommendations with respect to the extension of runway 422; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the City recognizes and accepts the concept of extending runway 422 at the Metropolitan Airport and further urges that additional and appropriate studies and public hearings be conducted with respect to runway 422. Passed and adopted this 24th day of March, 1986. Mayor ATTEST: Secretary to the Council 1 Airport noise is the star in made- for -TV movie The Metropolitan Airports Commis- Nine other stations around the state sion's $100,000 campaign to educate have scheduled it at other times in the public on airport noise will begin March and April. . next month when a half -hour docu- mentary on the problem is to be To promote the film, the commission broadcast by two Twin Cities televi- will pay a total of $23,770 to the 11 sion stations. stations. KSTP (Ch. 5) and WUSA (Ch. 11) Commissioners have not yet seen the plan to give the film free air time at film nor reviewed its script. At a 10:30 p.m. March 16. In exchange, commission meeting Tuesday, Chair - the airports commission will pay for man Raymond Glumack repeatedly commercials to attract viewers, ac- told Dean that the film must present cording to Bill Dean, president of an objective view of the problem to Master Video, Inc., which is produc- avoid criticism that it is simply a Ing the film for the commission. public relations effort for the air - port. The two stations' combined viewer- • ship should reach 60 percent of the "I want this thing defensible," Glu- households watching television that mack said. night, according to a television placement expert for Master Video. • ,'. Dean said his firm is in the precari- ous position of being hired by the WCCO -TV (Ch. 4) has refused to car- airports commission to produce the ry the film because officials said it film with instructions to make it ob- would attract too many requests for jective. But, he said, it will be bal- equal time, Dean said. ,% ;t anced.