12/05/1995 - City Council Special AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday
December 5, 1995
4:30 p.m.
Municipal Center Lunch Room
L ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
IL VISITORS TO BE HEARD
4:30 p.m. III. PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN FOR CENTRAL AREA
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
5:00 p.m. IV. DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VL ADJOURNMENT
• MEMO .
city of ea an
iY eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1995
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1995
A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 5, 1995 at 4:30 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to review a request from the Opus Corporation to change
the proposed financing plan for the Central Area Transportation Improvements and a
presentation and discussion regarding policy considerations on airport dual track issues.
PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN FOR CENTRAL AREA
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A Special City Council meeting was held on November 14 to review the Central Area
Transportation Improvements and, more specifically,the financing plan as it relates to the
Opus Promenade Development proposal. After a presentation by the City's staff and
transportation consultants (SRF, Inc.), and considerable deliberation by the City Council,
the Director of Public Works was directed to notify Opus Corporation of their financial
responsibility relative to the preliminary cost analysis for the Central Area Transportation
Improvements. The preliminary estimate for the project includes a grand total of
$8,636,000 of which $6,794,000 was determined to be the Opus Corporation's financial
obligation. For a copy of the correspondence that was sent to Opus Corporation, refer
to pages 3 through . The Opus Corporation has responded with a letter to
Mayor Egan expressing their concern that the project is no longer feasible if Opus is to
be assessed $6.8 million for the proposed transportation improvements. A copy of that
letter is enclosed on page A
The Opus Corporation has stated that steel must be ordered by January 1, if the project
is to proceed in order to satisfy schedules they have agreed to with their prospective
tenants. The Director of Public Works has tentatively scheduled community information
meetings for December 14 and January 4 to present the Central Area Transportation
improvements and financing plans. It is critical that a consensus be reached on the issue
of financing the Central Area Transportation Improvements if the City is to continue
incurring additional consulting expenses,scheduling of community informational meetings
and other related City processes for the proposed Promenade Project.
At the City Council work session held on Tuesday, November 28, staff shared concerns
that the Opus Corporation has in response to the Council's direction from the November
14 workshop. The City Council suggested that Opus provide a memo presenting any
logic or reason as to why the City should reconsider the financial plan as presently
proposed. Opus has directed their engineering consultants (BRW, Inc.) to analyze the
proposed transportation improvements along with the City's financing plan and are
1
r !
presenting a request to modify their cost participation in this project. Enclosed on pages
through It, is a copy of a memo from BRW explaining their philosophy for the
allocation of costs. The City's transportation engineering firm (SRF Inc.), will be working
with BRW to coordinate the base traffic volumes and assumptions that will be used for
both philosophical approaches in determining what should be the formula used in
determining Opus'financial responsibilities. Enclosed on page is a copy of Opus
Corporation's response.
Please note that City staff has not had an opportunity to analyze the data prior to
distribution of this information to the City Council. Either a summary memo will be
presented as a part of the Administrative packet on Monday or a verbal response will be
given by staff at the Special City Council meeting on Tuesday. .
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
After legislative direction, several years of consultant reports, informational meetings and
other data compiled by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan
Council, policy considerations are finally in order for consideration by the City Council.
The Airport Relations Committee has spent considerable time analyzing data regarding
the dual track airport planning process and due to the impact expansion of the existing
airport or relocation of the airport has on the local economy and land use planning, the
data compiled as a result of the dual track airport planning process has been presented
for analysis by both the Economic Development Commission and the Advisory Planning
Commission.
For further information, refer to a memo and attachments enclosed on pages S
through /de prepared by Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein, who has
coordinated this entire effort at the staff level.•The New Airport Comprehensive Plan and
Long-Term Comprehensive Plan are enclosed without page number for Council review.
•
OTHER BUSINESS
There are no additional items to be considered under Other Business at this time.
IS/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
c
Gn ,f
__ _ •
• city o F ea a
n •
THOMAS EGAN
Mayor
November 17 1995 PATRICIA AWADA
SHAWN HUNTER
SANDRA A.MASIN
THEODORE WACHTER
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES -
Ms. Michelle Foster City Administrator
Director of Real Estate Development E.J. VAN OVERBEKE
Opus Corporation • City Clerk
P.O.Box 150
Minneapolis,MN 55440
RE: CENTRAL AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
COST ESTIMATES RELATED TO OPUS PROMENADE DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL
' Dear Michelle:
Last February, I forwarded a very rough estimate of proposed transportation improvements and
related costs associated with the O'Neill property. Since that time,the City, through its consultant
(SRF, Inc.), has had numerous meetings with Dakota County, MnDot, Federal Highway
Administration, Met Council and other various regulatory/jurisdictional agencies reviewing the
proposed development and refining the required transportation improvements. The City Council also
held a special workshop on November 14 to review the total proposed improvements, estimated
costs, and options for financing. The result of this process during the past nine months results in a
new summary enclosed with this letter. All costs include a 35% contingency factor to cover all
potential costs beyond actual construction contracts(i.e. design, construction management, financing,
legal, etc.).
Please note that three City project.numbers have been assigned to the various components of the
overall improvements. -
Project 694 is referred to as the "internal" improvements which represent streets and utilities
necessary to serve the proposed Promenade development and potential future development located
north of Yankee Doodle Road between 35E and Lexington Avenue. You should note that there is
an estimated contribution from the Major Street Fund. This would apply towards any calculated
oversizing of Northwood Drive beyond what would be required for a residential development
according to standard assessment policies. These are typical development related costs that usually
are the full responsibility of the developing property.
J
MUNICIPAL CENTER THE LONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD 3501 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122-1897 THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE:(612)681-4600 PHONE:(612)681-4300
FAX:(612)681-4612 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer FAX:(612)681-4360
TDD:(612)454-8535 TDD:(612)454-8535
, _
T y ,
_
Project 695 refers to the "external" transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the
increased traffic generation resulting from the Opus Promenade development. The City's
contribution relates to those improvements that are being added by the City for the convenience of
timing and contract consolidation. Also, please notice that a credit has been applied for the excess
capacity created by these improvements beyond that necessary to serve your development.
Project 698 relates to the other"external"improvement which is a very short term modification to
Lexington Avenue to provide a center left-turn lane without signalization at the new intersection of
Northwood Drive. The City and County will be pursuing grant applications for the estimated $1.343
million ultimate improvement(center medians,channelization, signalization,trails, etc.)at a later date.
It is not projected that these ultimate improvements will be able to be performed prior to 1998 - 1999,
while the interim will be scheduled for 1997.
I realize these final figures are greater than the amount previously projected in February, but they
represent a more refined design and cost estimate as well as Council directed participation by the City
of Eagan They do not include any estimates for right-of-way acquisition which won't be able to be
defined until final detail design and construction limits have been calculated. However, we do not
anticipate it to be a significant amount (3%+b.).
We will continue to refine these costs as the design and regulatory permit process proceeds. If you
would like to review any aspect of this project to date in further detail, please feel free to contact me
and we will schedule a meeting as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Colbert,P.E.
Director of Public Works
TACicb -
cc: Peggy Reichert,Direction of Community Development
ghomas Hedges,City Administrator
Ferrol Robinson, Consulting Engineer -
Michael Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer
Gene VanOverbeke,Director of Finance
Enclosure: Summary -
wM1/95;POSTERI ILEZCB
•
U)
o 00 0 ONOO 000 •• N') CD 0 0 O
1 69069 10 49 69 49 i94*49 0 NZ N 49 1N qr
r
69
O L7 t.
_5
0CD0 CD 0000 000 0 0 f• ti e)
49 1049 U) •9CflCAt9 i9i949 4* 49. CD C
h
V C) 40 49 to
E• ,c .
co a)
to
a, a
a c
ToC, .
Ca
W >" ,UQ
J
Z •�
o Z C +) 0 — "at U) N 0) to co CD CO 0 Co CO CO CO et
CD tt) N CO t• 0 C'7 CD ef' ch h 4* co 'a' CD CD 0)at
Q. 0 1►) C09 609 tD M N Cfl co Cf? to 40 49 49 69
CD
Ze
a cc
re < Ch '— O U) '.? C7) tt) C7 CD CO r- _ if) i U) CD
O _ CD O N 0) 1 O) CD et Cr) O C') t'7 CO
O CD t•) CD ,u7 C) CO N C') N Cf}r N CIS 1 CD
d. 0 1 0 W W N f9 H H N r EA 49 to 69 69 CO
co Z O CD if> 4* 49 i9 49 69
zCj UX
�
, a
� � v
m co U re J a co . o E
• '5 c coco o =
-. m m Co
c 0 co 15 cc)) 0 CO
Z
L1.1 rt W 7 p O c —o •° O..--
150E0 =W �- to C9 CD U CD
C) !� o ° m o Lc w =I==la e CO o !° e Q
= .c Um � � .c ccxx t x a zE tL 0 15 E CO .o ms a ca --ova .cccoco W � � 0 O
scam -5 0° Y03E 22 � m� o om 0 Z•n m .0 E N Y —° c EJ m o o o o N W S0 CO
a.oza Casa. � u; zzcnov� o oQ
0 • • • >- • • • • C) • • • • J •
O.
I
.92. c; co co
i Z co 9 - CcD
Opus Corporation
/1 OPUS..
800 Opus Center Mailing Address
01 9900 Bren Road East P.O.Box 150 •
Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440-0150
612.936-4444 Fax 612-936-4529
November 21, 1995
Mayor Tom Egan , I
City of Eagan �' NOV 2 4 .
3830 Pilot Knob Road I '
Eagan,MN 55112 —..%' '
Dear Tom
•
Tom Colbert has communicated to us the direction of the City Council from the work session on
November 14, 1995 regarding the proposed Financing Plan for the Central Area Transportation
Improvements. This plan reflects that Opus would be expected to assume approximately $6.8
million in special assessments. This is a 75% increase from the cost estimates given to us in June
of this year.
•
We have been consistent in our position with staff that while the original$3.9 million estimate was
high for a project of this nature, Opus would be prepared to assume this responsibility. At a$6.8
million level of assessments,the project is no longer feasible.
We have appreciated your strong support of our project in the past. We also understand the
financing challenges for the infrastructure improvements that are needed not only in this part of
Eagan,but in others as well. However, I felt that it was important that I let you know as soon as
possible that Opus is not in a position to move forward with the project with this most recent
special assessment financing plan. We will be meeting with City Staff on November 28, 1995 in
order to discuss the specifics of the plan, as well as alternative financing mechanisms. We•hope
that we can come quickly to a resolution of this matter so that the project can continue to proceed
and meet our tenant's occupancy schedule. We would like the opportunity to meet with you to
discuss these matters at your earliest convenience. Please call me at 936-4527.
Sincerely,
OPUS CORPORATION
Michele Foster
Senior Director
Real Estate Development
MF/bb
cc: Torn Hedges • -
Tom Colbert
Peggy Reichert
Opus Corporation is an affiliate of the Opus group of companies—Architects,Contractors,Developers
Chicago,Columbus,Dallas,Denver,Ft Lauderdale,Milwaukee,Minneapolis,Orlando,Pensacola,Phoenix,Sacramento,San Francisco,Seattle,Tampa.Washington D.C.
612 370 1378
12/01/95 09:52 $612 370 1378 BRW INC 411002/009
Memorandum
DATE: • November 30, 1995
TO: Ms. Michelle Foster
Opus Corporation
BRW INC.
FROM: Mr. Anthony Heppelmann,PE .
Planning RE: Allocation of Roadway Improvement Costs on Yankee boodle
Transportation Road and I-35E
Engineering
Urban Design
The purpose of this memorandum is to explain BRW's philosophy for the
Thresher Square allocation of costs for the Yankee Doodle Road and I-35E Roadway
700 Third Street So. improvements. There are two areas where we believe an alternative approach
Minneapolis, would provide a fair allocation of the project costs. First, we believe the
MN 55415 calculation of the credit for excess capacity could be calculated differently and
612/370-0700 provide a fair allocation of the costs for the improvements that is consistent with
Fax 612/370-1378 the philosophy that Opus pay only for the improvements needed for their project.
Denver Second, we think that the HOV bypass lanes on the northbound entrance ramp to
Milwaukee I-35E are not required for the Promenade development which will generate very
Minneapolis little traffic in the AM peak hour.
Orlando
Phoenix Calculation of Credit for Excess Capacity
Portland
San Diego The proposed roadway improvements will provide additional capacity that will
Seattle accommodate traffic generated by the Opus Promenade project as well as
additional traffic generated by other development in the area and there will still be
a reserve capacity to accommodate traffic from other development in the future.
SRF calculated this reserve capacity to estimate a credit against the Opus share of
the project costs. To calculate this reserve capacity they looked at the capacity of
the intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road since this is
currently the critical intersection limiting capacity on Yankee Doodle Road.
To calculate this reserve capacity SRF used a method called the"Sum of Critical
Movements." This method determines the traffic operations at an intersection by
taking the sum of the critical movements or conflicting movements at an
intersection. The capacity of an intersection is considered to be about 1400
critical movements per hour. The critical movement volumes are determined by
dividing the volume of traffic for each conflicting movement by the number of
lanes provided for that movement.
612 370 1378
12/01/95 09:53 ' '612 370 1378 BRW INC J003/009
0
SRF calculated that there would be an excess capacity of about 15 percent with
the proposed roadway improvements and the 1997 Build Volumes (1997 Build
Network). They calculated this by comparing the sum of the critical movements
for the 1997 Build Network with the capacity of 1400 critical movements per
hour. In other words they expressed the excess capacity as a percent of the total
intersection capacity. This method dilutes the benefit of the proposed
improvements in that it compares the excess capacity remaining against the total
capacity of the intersection rather than comparing it with the amount of additional
capacity created. The benefit of the proposed improvements is being diluted by
the traffic which is already present.It would seem that a fairer method of
providing credit for the excess capacity would be to determine the amount of
excess capacity created by the proposed improvements and to require Opus to pay
for the percentage of the excess capacity which they use.
The proposed improvements will increase total capacity by 30 percent. The
traffic added by the Opus Promenade project will use only 42 percent of the added
capacity. Fifty-eight percent of the added capacity is available for additional
traffic that would be generated in 1995 and 1996 and by other future development
in the area in 1997 and beyond. Therefore,the credit for excess capacity would be
58 percent rather than 15 percent. The following page summarizes the calculation
used to arrive at the above credit. Following the summary page are the more
detailed calculations which are based on SRF forecasts.
HOV Bypass Lanes on Northbound Entrance Ramp to I-35E •
As stated at the beginning of this memorandum I believe that the HOV bypass
lanes are not needed to accommodate traffic generated by the Opus Promenade
Project. The proposed retail development will generate very little traffic in the
AM peak hour which is when these HOV lanes will really have a benefit to traffic
operations. Therefore, the cost of these HOV lanes should be totally separate
from the improvements needed for the Opus Promenade Project.
Inc
b:opus.cst
-2-
gr
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:41 BRW 612 370 1378 P.02/07
Promenade Allo_eatinn Calculation Based On Use Of New Capacity Create
�' P Y
199 CriticRl Movement C acit
R3 Y
Maximum#of critical movements 1.400
1995 traffic uses 1.383.
17
J997 Critical Movement Cgpacity With Improvements
Maximum If of critical movements 1,400
Used by 1995 traffic 964
Used by 1995-97 expansion of traffic 39 *
Used by Opus Promenade 12.6 *
Excess capacity 221
New Capacity Created
* Used by 1995-97 expansion 39
* Used by Opus Promenade 176
*Excess capacity 221
436
Minus 1995 excess capacity 7_12
Total 1997 New Capacity 419
P y
1,3¢ r-42%
Opus Promenade use of now capacity 4I9
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:41 BRW 612 370 1378 P.03/p7
11/30/95
BRW,INC.
Page 1 Of 5
Analysis of Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Road Intersection
Using Sum of Critical Movements Method
Existing Conditions
Signal Movements Critical Critical •
Phase Permitted Si Movement Volume
,- 189
92
TTT 4- 403
Ly 290
u L9, 1 3
4 if 406
Sum of Critical Movements 1,383
Excess Capacity= 1,400 - 1,383 + 17
•
•
/10
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:41 BRW 612 370 1378 P.04/07
11/30/95
BRW, INC.
Page 2 Of 5
Analysis of Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Road Intersection
Using Sum of Critical Movements Method
1997 Build Network- 1997 Build Volumes and Proposed Improvements
Signal Movements Critical Critical
Phase Eermitted RI Movement Volume
r 95
TT ,� 180
330
TV 145
41 41 V4 I 88
VI L 341
Sum of Critical Movements 1,179
Excess Capacity= 1,400 - 1,179=221
f `
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:41 BRW 612 370 .1378 P.05/07
y Y
11/30/95
BRW,INC.
Page 3 Of 5
Analysis of Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Road Intersection
Using Sum of Critical Movements Method
Proposed Improvements With Fxisting_Volumes
Signal Movements Critical Critical
Phase Permitted Movement Volume
I 95
II y 45
III - 269
TV � '�t, 145
V 14. 2
VI t 408
Sum of. Critical Movements 964
Excess Capacity= 1,400-964 =436
/ —
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:41 BRW 612 370 1378 P.06/07
11/30/95
BRW, INC.
Page 4 Of 5
Analysis of Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Road Intersection
Using Sum of Critical Movements Method
Capacity Usedi3y Opus Promenade Traffic
Signal Movements Critical Critical
Phase Permitted_ Movement Volume
0
„r
II 128
48
IV t�1.7 0
V 41. 1-11-1 �L o
vI ,14. t t 0
Sum of Critical Movements 176
•
•
•
/3
612 370 1378
DEC-01-1995 09:42 BRW 612 370 1378 P.07/07
•
11/30/95
BRW,INC.
Page 5 Of 5
SRF Calculation of Excess Capacity Credit
(Sum of Critical Movements for Existing Conditions
- Sum of Critical Mpvements_For 1997 Build Network)
1383 - 1179 = 14.8%--say 15%
• 1383
BRW Calculation of Excess Capacity Credit
1 - Capacity Used By Opus
Excess Capacity Created By Improvements
Where Excess Capacity Created By Improvements
= Sum of Critical Volumes for Existing Conditions
- Sum of Critical Volumes for Proposed Improvements With Existing Volumes
1 - 176/1383 - 964= 1 - .42=58%
•
TOTAL P.07
612 681 4300
12/01/95 13:08 EAGAN MTCE FAC 4 CITY HALL—DNSTRS NO.669 P002/002
612-936-4529
FROM :OPUS To 612 691 4300 195$.12-01 OS:OBPM #050 P.02/02
• Opus Corporation
•
OPUS. 890 Opus Center Modinp Addres.
atox
9900 Sren Road East Y.U. 1.0
Minnetonka.Minnesota;5343 Minno3Mli: Minnesota 5x440.0150
December 1, 1993 M2.9sF 4444 Fen 1317.336.4519
VIA FACb1MLL>E:
Ms. Peggy Reichert,Director of Planning
Mr. Torn Colbert, Public Works Director
City Of Eagan
3113(1 Pilot Knob Road
Pagan.MN 55 122
RE: Eagan Promenade infrastructure Costs
Dear Peggy and'Porto:
Opus Corporation would Like to present itb philosophy and proposal for the allocation of the infrastructure costs
needed in the Interstate 3511JYankee Doodle Condor. We understand the challenges the City faces with regard to
funding infrastructure imptuvwneniv and we acknowledge the increase in traffic that our project will contribute to
the roadway systems. We are prepared to pay for our fair share of the infrastructure improvements which we
believe to be our share of the capacity created by the new Improvements.
We have asked our traffic consultant, RRW, to prepare a technical memorandum which details the amount of
additional capacity that the proposed improvements will create and how much of that capacity the Opus
Corporation project will be utilizing. It is our conclusion that Opus should he granted a credit fur excess capacity
at 5g%consistent with the amount of MOM capacity that will be created by these improvements. 17urthermore,
we believe that the TTOV bypass lanes anticipated on the northbound entrance ramp to Interstate 35E should not he
included in any of the analysis with respect to our project because this improvement is not necessary for our
project, nor will our project benefit from this improvement. Therefore, the Coat associated with the HOV lanes
should be eliminated before the 58%credit is granted.
This proposal is consistent with our understanding that traffic capacity at the Yankee Doodle Pilot limb
intersection with interstate 3.5E is already at ur very close to capacity. hxisting infrastructure improvements are
being utilized to their fullest by other development and existing traffic. The Opus Corporatism project should pay
for only ihcisc improvements needed for our project and should not pay for the additional capacity created by these
improvements. Because this excess capacity will be of benefit to the. larger cwnrnunity, as well as to future
development, these costs should be borne by others.
We believe the Eagan PrornOTInde,larojeet offers a great deal of benefit to the City of Eagan and is the impetus to
implement roadway improvements that the City has desired for sometime. We have been successful in the
negotiation of the majority or our leases and purchase agreements for the project and are prepared to commence
construetion immediately upon governmental approvals. We anticipate this to be on or about March 1, I9SM and
als such, must order steel for the project within the next thirty (30)days.
We feel our proposal is consistwacc with City objectives and past practice. We thank you for your consideration
and fwd back as soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
\././W,Olth/4":::ft
imothy . Muriaanr Michele P otter
Vice Pn sidcnt Sr.Director
Real Estate.I)cvaiopmcnt Real Estate Development
/hh
(gran Crnibratinn it on affiliate et the Opus group of companies—Jtrrhitocts•Contractors,Oeveltytlnx
tturann•fnIonhus,bans!,0cir t: rt Law:le date.Muwauk0o.Minneapolis,Orlando,Pensacola.Hoorn;SAtawuopdo,Si a ttanctsco.Seattle,lamps,WashIrgtGn 0 C
1 r ^-s•
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1995
SUBJECT: COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
At its meeting of December 19, the City Council will consider its position in the Dual Track -
Planning Process decision. Essentially this is a decision as to whether expansion of the
airport at its existing location or relocation of the airport to a new site in Dakota County
is better for the City of Eagan. While most observers of the process can come to a quick
conclusion about this matter on the basis of one or two issues, it is important to
recognize that this is a complex decision with many aspects. The advisory commissions
took the approach of asking the "second question", meaning that they would consider all
of the sides of the issue as openly as possible. In many cases, people returned to their
original conclusions, but typically they broadened their appreciation for the costs and
benefits of both alternatives. In making its decision, the Council is encouraged to use the
same approach.
FACTS:
The facts associated with this issue are incorporated in the Commission findings which
are attached. While all commissions worked with similar information, the principal support
data is included as a part of the Airport Relations Commission findings to reduce
duplication. In overview, the facts are as follows:
Airport traffic is expected to increase from 455,000 annual operations in 1994 to
approximately 520,000 annual operations in 2020. To accommodate this growth
and to reduce already unacceptable levels of delay, the Legislature charged the
Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission with the development
of two alternative solutions - expansion of the airport at its current location and
relocation to a new site. Either of the alternatives developed can accommodate
520,000 operations a year - expansion would result in an average four minute
delay per operation and relocation would have virtually no delay.
• Expansion of the existing airport would consist of the addition of a north-south
runway roughly parallel to Cedar Avenue, the relocation of the terminal to the
northwest side of the airport and the demolition of the existing terminal and parking
facilities to allow aircraft parking on all sides of the main concourses. The
expanded airport would consist of three active runways on 3,100 acres with a
capacity of about 145 operations an hour. The current runway layout
accommodates about 105 operations an hour.
• Relocation of the airport would consist of the construction of a new facility near
Hastings in eastern Dakota County with terminal facilities comparable to those
anticipated for the expansion alternative. The relocated airport would comprise six
active runways on 9,700 acres with a capacity of at least 270 operations an hour.
an additional 4,000 acres would be purchased with the site to square off acquired
parcels, although a large portion of the excess could remain in agricultural
production.
• The alternatives are to be analyzed by the agencies on the basis of a number of
criteria including:
▪ Airport Operational Issues
• Ground Access Issues
▪ Air Service Issues
• Environmental Issues
• Economic Issues
• Community Impact Issues
▪ Financial Issues
▪ Strategic Issues
These criteria are the basis for the Dual Track EIS and they are the same criteria
the City's advisory commissions have used in reviewing the issue.
The expansion alternative is currently estimated to cost$2.8 billion while relocation
is expected to cost $4.7 billion. The costs for both options would be primarily
borne by airport users and FAA airport improvement funds.
ISSUES:
▪ How does each of the alternatives impact the City of Eagan on the basis of the
criteria reviewed by the commissions? Does Eagan stand to benefit or be harmed
significantly by each of the options? What actual impacts are expected in each of
the criteria?
What are the merits of the criteria from the City's perspective? Should certain
criteria be weighted more heavily than others?
r
• Is the capacity of the expansion alternative sufficient to meet the region's needs
before and after the year 2020? To meet projected post-2020 traffic growth, a
third parallel runway would need to be built on federal and state property in the Ft.
Snelling complex. The relocated airport could absorb substantial operations
growth with no additional facilities. In addition, traffic projections are based on a
1/2 percent annual growth rate over twenty-five years. The growth rate since 1980
has averaged 8 1/2 percent annually and it appears that 1995's growth will be 4
1/2 percent.
▪ Is the capacity of the relocated airport necessary? How likely is it that growth will
exceed projections? Will any additional competition or economic activity be
attracted to the region because this capacity exists?
▪ Do the cost estimates accurately reflect all costs of each option? For example,
Dakota County contends that traffic increases on some County roads will require
their expansion iff the airport were to relocate. Costs for such expansions are not
currently in the estimates. The expansion track only anticipates costs for noise
abatement to the 65 DNL contour. Is this sufficient to mitigate the impacts
anticipated? The costs for land acquisition and runway construction for an
additional north parallel are not included in the current estimates.
▪ Should the City support land banking as a means of insuring that an adequate site
is available if future airport demands require it? The site could be preserved by
land use controls or it may be necessary to option or purchase the property.
▪ Should the City actively support the availability of mitigation funds and mitigation
tools for airport related impacts to residents regardless of the option chosen?
Should the City begin to pursue the availability of mitigation funds and tools before
the Dual Track recommendation is presented to the Legislature?
. BACKGROUND:
The City of Eagan has been an active participant in the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process since its inception in 1988. The City has purposely taken a neutral position in
the airport debate to this point to insure that the best and most complete information was
available for consideration of a position. This month,the Environmental Impact Statement
comparing the alternatives of the Dual Track Process is being made available for
comment. As the EIS will form the basis for the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan
Airports Commission's final recommendation, it is appropriate for the City to consider a
formal position at this time.
In anticipation of the EIS, the City has broadened and intensified"its Dual Track review
since August of this year. The study included the Advisory Planning Commission,
Economic Development Commission and Airport Relations Commission as well as a
public information effort and a public hearing opportunity.
•
/1
Each commission reviewed specific criteria included in the EIS from the perspective of the
alternatives' impacts upon the City. In some cases, more than one commission reviewed
a criteria if each would have its own perspective on the issue. The findings of the
commissions are attached for the Council's review. The Advisory Planning Commission
and Economic Development Commission are recommending support for the expansion
of the airport at its current site while the Airport Relations Commission is recommending
relocation of the airport.
Each set of findings also comments on the subject of land banking. While the
commissions came to different conclusions on the issue of expansion versus relocation,
they uniformly recommended that the City support land banking of the Dakota County site
to insure that the region does not need to repeat the Dual Track process, if air traffic
demands or other issues cause this matter to be considered again in the future. Dakota
County has opposed this concept, but the Commissions have indicated that a failure to
do so would result in an expensive recreation of the Dual Track process in the future and
that future options will be more expensive and less convenient than the proposed site.
The findings, especially those of the Airport Relations Commission, comment on the
mitigation tools and strategies necessary for each of the airport options. The
commissions indicated that effective mitigation would be essential regardless of the option
chosen. This is especially the case with respect to aircraft noise impact mitigation if the
airport is to expand at the current site. If the airport expands, aircraft operations over the
City will definitely increase and lower level overflights will occur over more areas of the
City. It is doubtful that all of this increase will be offset by quieter generation aircraft. As
such, the City will likely need to be extremely aggressive in its advocacy for mitigation
dollars and tools.
MITIGATION - AIRPORT AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE
The mitigation recommendations are based in large part on the Airport Area Community
Protection Concept Package developed by staff of the cities of Bloomington, Richfield,
Minneapolis, Mendota Heights and Eagan, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Metropolitan Council. In addition, several cities are including requirements for necessary
operational changes if the airport is to expand at its current location. The Airport
Relations Commission's recommendation includes operational recommendations as well.
• The document outlining the proposed Community Protection Tools is included with the
ARC recommendation. The purpose of the Tools is to provide cities with the necessary
abilities to stabilize or redevelop noise impacted neighborhoods through such means as
property value guarantees, tax increment financing, preferential tax treatment for noise
impacted properties and the like. It is proposed that these tools be considered by the
Legislature before or during its consideration of the Dual Track decision so residents have
the necessary protections assured as a part of the process and to be certain that all costs
of the alternatives are recognized. The ARC is recommending that the eligible area for
the application of these tools be broadened in a graduated fashion and that sound
insulation be available to homes well beyond the DNL 65 contour which represents the
r
extent to which the FAA will fund noise mitigation.
In addition to being part of the recommended City action on the Dual Track Process, the
Community Protection Concept Package is the subject of the attached correspondence
from the City of Richfield. Richfield has taken the position that this package needs to be
addressed with our Legislative delegations for the upcoming session to ensure that it is
part of the discussion when the Dual Track report is presented to the Legislature in July.
Richfield is requesting that other cities respond with their intentions regarding the Package
•
by December 8. The correspondence also references support for lobbying this initiative.
Based on conversations with 'Richfield staff, they will incur some costs in this regard.
While the City of Richfield is prepared to absorb those costs, it is likely that they will
request support from other benefitting cities in the future.
Regardless of Eagan's'relationship with Richfield in this regard,the availability of mitigation
funds and effective mitigation tools will be essential to Eagan's coexistence with an
expanded airport.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Airport Relations 'Commission Recommendation and Dual Track background
information.
- Advisory Planning Commission Recommendation
- Economic Development Commission Recommendation
- Eagan Dual Track Public Hearing Minutes
- Written Public Comments
- Richfield Correspondence on Airport Community Protection Package
Staff anticipates the briefing and discussion of this item to take approximately one hour.
If you or any Council member wishes additional information on any aspect of this issue
either before or after Tuesday's meeting, please let me know.
--��%-
Assi = t t. the City Administrator
c2 0
•
•
` C,Ar,4
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1995
SUBJECT: ARC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
At its meeting of November 27, the Airport Relations Commission unanimously approved
a recommendation that the City support the relocation of the airport as the preferred
outcome of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The Commission's analysis is
outlined in detail in the document attached.
In considering the Dual Track alternatives, the Commission compared the expansion of
the existing airport to its relocation to eastern Dakota County on the basis of twenty
criteria in six areas relative to airport operations, air service, costs and environmental
impacts. The Commission reviewed the Expanded Airport and New Airport Environmental
Documents,traffic forecast summaries, the Dual Preliminary Track Environmental Impact
Statement and draft language of the Regional Development Blueprint concerning planning
policies for airport relocation. The Commission also considered information presented
at the public hearing regarding this issue on November 15.
The Commission found that certain of the criteria supported different conclusions;but that
overall, the City's long term best interests would be served by relocation of the airport to
. the Dakota County site.
Assant o e City Administrator
•
• C;/ •
1
INTRODUCTION:
Th following is a recommendation to the Eagan City Council that
includes the research and findings of the Airport Relations
Commission concerning the Dual Track Airport Planning Process.
The Council will determine the City's Dual Track position in
December of 1995 in order to add its voice to the lengthy
decision-making process concerning the airport. The final
decision on the airport expansion or relocation issue is
scheduled for action by the state Legislature during the 1997
legislative session.
BACKGROUND:
As the options for airport's future in the metropolitan area
evolved in the Dual Track Planning Process, the focus was
narrowed to expanding the current airport site or relocating the
airport to one of three possible new sites.
In 1992 the Metropolitan Council directed the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) to look at alternative airport sites in
Dakota County. MAC, eventually selected a site in southeast
Dakota County near Hastings as the preferred location. Plans
were developed for a new airport at that location (see attachment
#1) . Options were also developed for expanded use of the present
airport site at the same time (see attachment #2) . The
Commission also reviewed a number of other reports. The most
informative of which are the staff's presentation summary and the
Draft Executive Summary for the EIS (attachments #3 and #4) .
At the same time, certain parties encouraged consideration of a
remote runway concept in Dakota County which would leave the
terminal facilities at their current location. The remote runway
option seemed viable during the early part of the Commission's
consideration of this issue. When the MAC discontinued further
consideration of this option, it was removed from this report.
It should be noted that the Commission's preliminary analysis
found this alternative to have the same effects for Eagan, if not
greater environmental effects, as expansion.
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission considered the following
options:
1) Build a new Airport at the eastern Dakota County Site
(hereinafter called `RELOCATE' )
2) Expand the present site with one or more new runways and a
new terminal
(hereinafter called `EXPAND' )
3) Land Bank the Dakota County site for future expansion*
(hereinafter called `LAND BANK')
ac
2
4) Do nothing -- continue airport operations at the current site
with no or minor changes
(hereinafter called `NO PROJECT')
For each of the four options, the Commission considered a number
of factors, weighing each factor in a comprehensive matrix as
positive, neutral or negative for Eagan. The factors are similar
to those to be used by the MAC and Metropolitan Council in their
analysis. The factors are:
1) Airport Operational Issues
2) Ground Access Issues
3) Air Service Issues
4) Environmental Issues .
5) City of Eagan Economic Issues (this section will be prepared
by the Eagan Economic Development Commission)
6) City of Eagan Community Impact Issues (this section will be
prepared by the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission)
7) Financial Issues
8) Strategic Issues
CONCLUSION:
THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS BELIEVE THE OVERALL
INTERESTS OF EAGAN WILL BE BEST SERVED BY CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
AIRPORT AT THE DAKOTA COUNTY BITE NEAR HASTINGS.
The Commission recommends that the City Council express its
support for this option and that it use whatever opportunities
exist to influence the ultimate airport relocation decision.
The Commission weighed many issues in reaching this
recommendation. These will be reviewed in detail later in this
document. For most commission members, the most crucial factors
w re economic and environmental. We concluded the economic
issues are essentially neutral but environmental issues clearly
pointed to an advantage for Eagan citizens with a relocated
airport. Our conclusion was based in part on the assumption that
airport user fees and not taxes will be used to pay for new
construction. •
The information available to the Commission was lengthy and is
summarized in the attachments. If any member of the Coucil
wishes to review the full background in more detail, it is
available through staff.
023
,
3
ANALYSIS:
Airport Operational Issues
The Commission feels that there is little doubt that a new
RELOCATED airport facility, engineered to 21st Century standards,
would be a marked improvement over the NO PROJECT or EXPAND
options.
The Commission believes there are many negatives with operations
at the present site. They include proximity of parallel runways
causing physical separation problems for aircraft; runways
crossing each other limiting their use; constraints on additional
flights; expanding capacity would result in greater congestion
and delays.
A positive about the NO PROJECT option is that it would constrain
growth, forcing the MAC/FAA to use the present facilities more
efficiently. Our expectation is that problems with the current
operations will be perpetuated and worsened if the airport is
EXPANDED.
Safety is a key issue and poses several negatives at the present
site. A busy, crowded airport for a major urban area so close to
heavily populated areas could turn an accident into a major
disaster. The recent emergency landing of the Northwest 747
showed how easily a major disaster could happen, and emphasizes
the consequences of initiating emergency in-flight procedures
over highly populated areas. A more rural location could allow
designation of less populated areas for emergency procedures.
The bird populations of the Minnesota River valley also pose a
hazard to airplane operations.
Another problem with EXPANDING the present site is fitting the
proposed plans on the present site. The basic reason for
expanding the airport is to expand capacity. But even the
optimistic plans for expansion include built-in restrictions to
capacity growth due, to complicated taxying and ground movement
options. Restrictions on runway use will continue to be
difficult since four of the five runways will intersect each
other. There are no independent runways except for the south nd
of the new 16/34 runway, when it is constructed. Also, runway
use agreements will have to be negotiated with nearby cities and
it will be necessary to create safety zones over populated and
developed areas.
A RELOCATED airport in a rural location would allow- for almost
unlimited capacity expansion with the freedom to design a more
efficient runway system from the ground up. Multiple independent
runways would allow more simple ground and flight paths, and
zoning and us cov pants could be used to protect potential
safety zones.
;"2 (/
-
4
Ground Access Issues
The RELOCATE option would require significant surface road
improvement for access to a new airport, which would likely spill
over into Eagan. The exact effect of this is hard to gauge at
this time but would almost certainly result in dislocations along
major routes such as Highway 55 as upgraded becomes necessary.
The NO PROJECT and EXPAND options offer Eagan the fewest ground
access problems. The present road network would most likely be
maintained and, except for increased traffic on the 494 and Cedar
Avenue bridges, Eagan citizens and businesses should feel little
impact. The EXPAND option assumes building a new terminal on th
west side of the airport, which would marginally increase travel
distance from Eagan; the additional time for that travel could be
mitigated by improved roads.
The travel time issue for both passenger and cargo between the
ld or new sites seems about the same to the Commission. While
the RELOCATE option would be more distant for Eagan citizens than
th present site (7 vs 19 miles) , the Commission believes
improved access could make the total travel time to a new
facility comparable to that needed to get to the EXPAND site.
Air Service Issues
Commission members think the Hollywood adage, "Build it and they
will come" is appropriate for the RELOCATED airport site. New
facilities --well planned and well engineered -- will provide
more efficient and expanded air service. This also applies,
perhaps to a lesser degree, to the EXPAND option.
Improved facilities (especially at the RELOCATED site) , would
create capacity for additional regional flights. Additional
runways, and longer ones, could result in more of the longer
domestic flights and potentially more international flights. Air
cargo operations and charter flying would increase at the
RELOCATED site with new or better facilities. The limited
expansion space at the present site is a negative.
As part of this issue, the Commission considered potential far
changes. The more expensive the project, the more the traveling
public and airport users will have to pay. The NO PROJECT option
seems to be the best in this regard with a scaled back (no new
terminal) EXPAND option next best. ' (Estimates are $2.8 billion
for the EXPAND option. ) The Commission feels many of the
mitigation costs of the EXPAND option have not been factored into
the current estimate and that the actual cost will be -
considerably higher.
025-
II
5
As we have seen at the new Denver airport, passengers and users
pay a higher price (initial estimates indicate an increase of $15
to $20 per ticket) to support new construction. The RELOCATE
option (with an estimated cost of $4.7 billion) is likely to
cause increased fares, though greater capacity and competition
could keep such increases to a minimum. The Denver experience
seems to discredit some fears of negative effects. There are no
apparent indications that passengers and operators are avoiding
the new Denver facility due to its increased costs.
Environmental Issues
This is the most critical issue for Eagan. Commission members
spent the most time discussing this section.
Eagan could benefit environmentally from a more distant RELOCATED
airport and one that is laid out in a geographical configuration
that limits the city's exposure to overflight (80 percent of air
traffic leaving the metropolitan area is east, south, or west
bound) . We would also have the advantage of participating in the
negotiations for runway use and ground paths. The expectation is
that moving the airport will result in fewer flights over Eagan.
The NO PROJECT option might be the best of the present site
alternatives for Eagan. The `corridor' and semi-effective runway
us and ground path procedures, at least for now, limit the
ov rflight noise for most sections of the City.
All EXPANSION options at the current site -- whether extending
runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third
parallel 11/29 -- make Eagan's environmental situation worse.
EXPANSION will result in more flights, many of them over the
south and west sections of Eagan. The current runway use system
would have to be renegotiated and the city's historic lack of
support at the MAC and FAA indicates resolutions favorable for
Eagan are unlikely. With expansion at the current site, city
officials and citizens should expect to continue to hear the
philosophy that increasing operations in the southeast direction
(ov r Eagan) is the only choice.
The noise issue obviously dominates consideration of this
environmental section, but other issues also affect Eagan. As
discussed previously, the vast majority of additional flight
operations from the present site are likely to be routed over
Eagan with a corresponding increase in noise. And while there is
hope for some improvement in corridor compliance with new
navigational aids and aviation techniques, and less noise from
fewer stage II aircraft, more flights will mean a continuation of
the serious noise problem faced by many Eagan citizens.
6
The obvious advantage of the RELOCATE option is that flights are
originating further from Eagan and heading in a direction that
will produce fewer overflights for the city. In addition to
overflights, engine tests and other on-site activities also
produce noise at the airport. Again, the more distant RELOCATE
option is an advantage for Eagan.
Another environmental concern for Eagan if the current airport is
EXPANDED is corridor violations. Already, we know from MAC
documents that over eleven percent of departures to the southeast
in the last year have violated the corridor, occasionally for
weather reasons. Violations occur when aircraft start their turn
away from the airport sooner than three miles from the parall 1
runway end, near Knox Lumber on Lexington Avenue. Aircraft that
violate the corridor are turning south and going directly over
Eagan. The corridor's purpose is to help control noise for
homeowners by containing the worst of it in areas that have been
designated for industrial or commercial development. The
corridor will be unable to absorb added flights from an expanded
airport without causing even more violations, which will result
in even more noise for Eagan citizens. -
Air quality is also an issue for Eagan. Jet engines produce
considerable amounts of air pollution. Citizens under the
present flight paths often complain of engine burn residue and
other irritants. The recent emergency dumping of a Northwest
747's entire fuel load over the city showed an extreme example of
this problem. Again, Eagan is clearly better off with flights
that are further away and higher over the city, as they would be
with the RELOCATE option.
Another environmental issue is the Minnesota River Valley wild
life area. Birds are a potential hazard to airplanes and
airplane noise generally detracts from the area's natural beauty.
The RELOCATED site is rural farmland and few major noise
disruptions are anticipated or mentioned in the Environmental
Impact Statement. Fewer bird strike hazards are anticipated at
the RELOCATED site because the Mississippi River is farther from
the new airport than the Minnesota River is from the current
airport.
City Economic Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Economic Development
Commission for its consideration and recommendations.
City Community Impact Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Advisory Planning
Commission for its consideration and recommendations.
C97
7
Financial Issues
The RELOCATION option appears to cost about 70 percent more than
the EXPAND option, with estimated price tags of $4.7 billion and
$2.8 billion, respectively. However, we believe MAC has
underestimated some of the costs for the EXPAND option. The $2.8
billion estimate does not include the costs for land acquisition
and construction for the north parallel runway which will be
n cessary around the year 2020.
In addition, we feel the MAC has not accurately anticipated
mitigation costs. Home buy-outs, sound insulation for hundreds
or thousands of newly affected homes, and major real estate
purchases required south of the airport for safety purposes will
cost more than the MAC estimates -- and that assumes only costs
for current programs, without considering costs for other options
such as property tax relief for noise-affected areas.
The RELOCATE option is expected to cost $4.7 billion, and that -
seems realistic.
With such huge expenses on the horizon, an obvious question is
whether Eagan has any financial responsibility for the option
that is eventually chosen. Commission members feel that Eagan
will have very limited financial exposure regardless of the
amount spent. It is our understanding that MAC or state bonds
backed by user fees will be sold to finance the projects. The
bonds will be repaid with revenue generated by the travelling
public and other airport users, not individual taxpayers or
neighboring municipalities.
Eagan residents could be subject to slight increases in the
Dakota County portion of their property taxes to help pay for
infrastructure development if the RELOCATE option is chosen. In
the short term, property taxes also could be affected if Dakota
County loses the ability to levy taxes on 14,000 acres of
farmland at the new airport site, though land zoned for
agricultural purposes has a very low tax rate. We believe it's
reasonable to assume the increase in commercial/industrial
development near the new airport would more than offset the loss
of the 14,000 acres needed for the site.
Some financial impact will be felt by those in Eagan who will use
the facility under either the EXPAND or RELOCATE option -- both
citizens and businesses that use the airlines and the airport.
Unless passenger traffic increases dramatically to offset
construction costs, any of the options will almost certainly
result in costs being passed on to users. Passengers will likely
se an increase in their airline/airport fees. The new Denver
airport resulted in an increase in the per-passenger cost of $15
per ticket; Denver also has a $3 PFC (passenger facility charge)
tax. Costs for contractors, v ndors and freight forwarders at
721
8
the airport will also likely increase.
In the short term, the NO PROJECT option offers the lowest risk
of any financial exposure for the city and its residents. The
EXPAND option is next and the RELOCATE option appears to offer
the most risk for additional financial responsibility. In the
long term, though, it is expected that any additional costs to
the city and its taxpayers will be offset by a greater tax base
generated by a RELOCATED airport in Dakota County. If LAND
BANKING is considered, its costs would also affect the costs for
the EXPAND option and should be considered.
R gardless of the reason, if the RELOCATE option is rejected in
the 1996-97 Dual Track decision process, Commission members feel
the Eagan City Council should support and encourage the MAC to
LAND BANK a site in Dakota County to assure that options are
still available in the future. The Commission believes that the
time and money that has been spent researching the Dakota County
RELOCATE option, it would be short-sighted not to keep future
airport development of this site a possibility. LAND BANKING
should be accomplished in the most cost-effective manner, but it
should be done through a variety of techniques: zoning, planned
use agreements, option purchases, property acquisitions, or
others.
Strategic Issues
From the long term standpoint, there is little doubt that the
RELOCATE option provides the greatest flexibility if further
airport expansion becomes necessary. The present airport site is
constrained on three sides by residential and business areas and
on the fourth by the Minnesota River.
It is hard to imagine any greater expansion at the current sit
if the proposed changes under the EXPAND option are made -- no
additional runways could be accommodated on such a small site.
If further expansion is required, acquisition of major developed
roads, residential and commercial property will be necessary in
Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis. The sensible action at
that point will be to relocate the airport on a site that already
has been LAND BANKED for that purpose. If the state fails to
LAND BANK, and we assume a relocated airport is inevitable
sometime in the future, a new airport would end up being
inconveniently located 30 or 40 miles away from the metropolitan
ar a.
The EXPAND option does have the advantage of ease of
implementation. MAC already owns the land needed for physical
improvements at the current airport site except land needed for
safety zones, so th NO PROJECT or EXPAND options present few
insurmountable barriers. RELOCATING the airport to the Dakota
a �
•
9
County site could be more of a challenge, with the possibility of
lawsuits, contentious hearings, and potential eminent domain
proceedings to collect the necessary amount of land for a new
airport.
Finally, there are political and institutional issues to
consider. At this writing (the fall of 1995) there seems to b
little support for the RELOCATE option. Several key players
including Northwest Airlines have challenged the growth
projection figures that MAC uses to justify either the EXPAND or
RELOCATE options. As discussions continue, the NO PROJECT option
will have considerable support from those with investment at the
current airport. Eagan's interest would logically support NO
PROJECT if the RELOCATE option is rejected. Regardless of the
option ultimately chosen, it is apparent that meeting the demands
of increased air traffic will cost several billion dollars.
The Airport Relations Commission's assumption is that Eagan
officials and citizens will have to become players in the
process from this point forward to assure the City's best
interests are voiced and protected.
The Commission believes the region needs a new airport and it
should be constructed as quickly as possible, despite the
predictable difficulties and expense of such a huge public works
and rtaking.
30
10
Supplemental Items
1) Attachment #1--Relocation Brochure
Attachment #2--Expansion Brochure
Attachment #3--Presentation Summary
Attachment . #4--EIS Draft Executive Summary
Attachment #5--Noise Mitigation Needs
•
•
/
1
INTRODUCTION:
Th following is a recommendation to the Eagan City Council that
includes the research and findings of the Airport Relations
Commission concerning the Dual Track Airport Planning Process.
The Council will determine the City's Dual Track position in
Dec mber of 1995 in order to add its voice to the lengthy
d cision-making process concerning the airport. The final
decision on the airport expansion or relocation issue is
scheduled for action by the state Legislature during the 1997
legislative session.
BACKGROUND:
As the options for airport's future in the metropolitan area
evolved in the Dual Track Planning Process, the focus was
narrowed to expanding the current airport site or relocating the
airport to one of three possible new sites.
In 1992 the Metropolitan Council directed the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) to look at alternative airport sites in
Dakota County. MAC eventually selected a site in southeast
Dakota County near Hastings as the preferred location. Plans
were developed for a new airport at that location (see attachment
#1) . Options were also developed for expanded use of the present
airport site at the same time (see attachment #2) . The
Commission also reviewed a number of other reports. The most
informative of which are the staff's presentation summary and the
Draft Executive Summary for the EIS (attachments #3 and #4) .
At the same time, certain parties encouraged consideration of a
r mote runway concept in Dakota County which would leave the
terminal facilities at their current location. The remote runway
option seemed viable during the early part of the Commission's
consideration of this issue. When the MAC discontinued further
consideration of this option, it was removed from this report.
It should be noted that the Commission's preliminary analysis
found this alternative to have the same effects for Eagan, if not
greater environmental effects, as expansion.
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission considered the following
-options:
1) Build a new Airport at the eastern Dakota County Site
(hereinafter called 'RELOCATE' )
2) Expand the present site with one or more new runways and a
new terminal
(hereinafter called 'EXPAND')
3) Land Bank the Dakota County site for futur expansion*
(hereinafter called 'LAND BANK' )
2.13c2"--
2
4) Do nothing -- continue airport operations at the current sit
with no or minor changes
(hereinafter called 'NO PROJECT')
For each of the four options, the Commission considered a number
of factors, weighing each factor in a comprehensive matrix as
positive, neutral or negative for Eagan. The factors are similar
to those to be used by the MAC and Metropolitan Council in their
analysis. The factors are:
1) Airport Operational Issues
2) Ground Access Issues
3) Air Service Issues
4) Environmental Issues
5) City of Eagan Economic Issues (this section will be prepared
by the Eagan Economic Development Commission)
6) City of Eagan Community Impact Issues (this section will b
prepared by the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission)
7) Financial Issues
8) Strategic Issues
CONCLUSION:
THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS BELIEVE THE OVERALL
INTERESTS OF EAGAN WILL BE BEST SERVED BY CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
AIRPORT AT THE DAKOTA COUNTY BITE NEAR HASTINGS.
The Commission recommends that the City Council express its
support for this option and that it use whatever opportunities
exist to influence the ultimate airport relocation 'decision.
The Commission weighed many issues in reaching this
recommendation. These will be reviewed in detail later in this
document. For most commission members, the most crucial factors
were economic and environmental. We concluded the economic
issues are essentially neutral but environmental issues clearly
pointed to an advantage for Eagan citizens with a relocated
airport. Our conclusion was based in part on the assumption that
airport user fees and not taxes will be used to pay for new
construction.
The information available to the Commission was lengthy and is
summarized in the attachments. If any member of the Coucil
wishes to review the full background in more detail, it is
available through staff.
-
33
3
ANALYSIS:
Airport Operational Issues
Th Commission feels that there is little doubt that a new
RELOCATED airport facility, engineered to 21st Century standards,
would be a marked improvement over the NO PROJECT or EXPAND
options.
The Commission believes there are many negatives with operations
at the present site. They include proximity of parallel runways
causing physical separation problems for aircraft; runways_
crossing each other limiting their use; constraints on additional
flights; expanding capacity would result in greater congestion
and delays.
A positive about the NO PROJECT option is that it would constrain
growth, forcing the MAC/FAA to use the present facilities more
efficiently. Our expectation is that problems with the current
operations will be perpetuated and worsened if the airport is
EXPANDED.
Safety is a key issue and poses several negatives at the present
site. A busy, crowded airport for a major urban area so close to
h avily populated areas could turn an accident into a major
disaster. The recent emergency landing of the Northwest 747
showed how easily a major disaster could happen, and emphasizes
the consequences of initiating emergency in-flight procedures
over highly populated areas. A more rural location could allow
designation of less populated areas for emergency procedures.
The bird populations of the Minnesota River valley also pose a
hazard to airplane operations.
Another problem with EXPANDING the present site is fitting the
proposed plans on the present site. The basic reason for
expanding the airport is to expand capacity. But even the
optimistic plans for expansion include built-in restrictions to
capacity growth due to complicated taxying and ground movement
options. Restrictions on runway use will continue to be
difficult since four of the five runways will intersect each
oth r. There are no independent runways except for the south end
of the new 16/34 runway, when it is constructed. Also, runway
use agreements will have to be negotiated with nearby cities and
it will be necessary to create safety zones over populated and
developed areas.
A RELOCATED airport in a rural location would allow for almost
unlimited capacity expansion with the freedom to design a more
efficient runway system from the ground up. Multiple independent
runways would allow more simple ground and flight paths, and
zoning and use cov pants could be used to protect potential
safety zones.
• a ?
4
Ground Access Issues
The RELOCATE option would require significant surface road
improvement for access to a new airport, which would likely spill
over into Eagan. The exact effect of this is hard to gauge at
this time but would almost certainly result in dislocations along
major routes such as Highway 55 as upgraded becomes necessary.
Th NO PROJECT and EXPAND options offer Eagan the fewest ground
access problems. The present road network would most likely be
maintained and, except for increased traffic on the 494 and Cedar
Avenue bridges, Eagan citizens and businesses should feel littl
impact. The EXPAND option assumes building a new terminal on the
west side of the airport, which would marginally increase travel
distance from Eagan; the additional time for that travel could be
mitigated by improved roads.
The travel time issue for both passenger and cargo between the
old or new sites seems about the same to the Commission. While
the RELOCATE option would be more distant for Eagan citizens than
the present site (7 vs 19 miles) , the Commission believes
improved access could make the total travel time to a new
facility comparable to that needed to get to the EXPAND site.
Air Service Issues
Commission members think the Hollywood adage, "Build it and they
will come" is appropriate for the RELOCATED airport site. New
facilities --well planned and well engineered -- will provide
more efficient and expanded air service. This also applies,
xP PP ,
perhaps to a lesser degree, to the EXPAND option.
Improved facilities (especially at the RELOCATED site) , would
create capacity for additional regional flights. Additional
runways, and longer ones, could result in more of the longer
domestic flights and potentially more international flights. Air
cargo operations and charter flying would increase at the
RELOCATED site with new or better facilities. The limited
expansion space at the present site is a negative.
As part of this issue, the Commission considered potential far
changes. The more expensive the project, the more the traveling
public and airport users will have to pay. The NO PROJECT option
seems to be the best in this regard with a scaled back (no new
terminal) EXPAND option next best. (Estimates are $2.8 billion
for the EXPAND option.) The Commission feels many of the
mitigation costs of the EXPAND option have not been factored into
the current estimate and that the actual cost will be
considerably higher.
35-
5
As we have seen at the new Denver airport, passengers and users
pay a higher price (initial estimates indicate an increase of $15
to $20 per ticket) to support new construction. The RELOCATE
option (with an estimated cost of $4.7 billion) is likely to
cause increased fares, though greater capacity and competition
could keep such increases to a minimum. The Denver experience
s ems to discredit some fears of negative effects. There are no
apparent indications that passengers and operators are avoiding
the new Denver facility due to its increased costs.
Environmental Issues
This is the most critical issue for Eagan. Commission members
spent the most time discussing this section.
Eagan could benefit environmentally from a more distant RELOCATED
airport and one that is laid out in a geographical configuration
that limits the city's exposure to overflight (80 percent of air
traffic leaving the metropolitan area is east, south, or west
bound) . We would also have the advantage of participating in th
negotiations for runway use and ground paths. The expectation is
that moving the airport will result in fewer flights over Eagan.
Th NO PROJECT option might be the best of the present site
alternatives for Eagan. The `corridor' and semi-effective runway
use and ground path procedures, at least for now, limit the
ov rflight noise for most sections of the City.
All EXPANSION options at the current site -- whether extending
runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third
parallel 11/29 -- make Eagan's environmental situation worse.
EXPANSION will result in more flights, many of them over the
south and west sections of Eagan. The current runway use system
would have to be renegotiated and the city's historic lack of
support at the MAC and FAA indicates resolutions favorable for
Eagan are unlikely. With expansion at the current site, city
officials and citizens should expect to continue to hear the
philosophy that increasing operations in the southeast direction
(over Eagan) is the only choice.
The noise issue obviously dominates consideration of this
environmental section, but other issues also affect Eagan. As
discussed previously, the vast majority of additional flight
operations from the present site are likely to be routed over
Eagan with a corresponding increase in noise. And while there is
hope for some improvement in corridor compliance with new
navigational aids and aviation techniques, and less noise from
fewer stage II aircraft, more flights will mean a continuation of
the serious noise problem faced by many Eagan citizens.
• �C7
6
The obvious advantage of the RELOCATE option is that flights are
riginating further from Eagan and heading in a direction that
will produce fewer overflights for the city. In addition to
overflights, engine tests and other on-site activities also
produce noise at the airport. Again, the more distant RELOCATE
option is an advantage for Eagan.
Another environmental concern for Eagan if the current airport is
EXPANDED is corridor violations. Already, we know from MAC
documents that over eleven percent of departures to the southeast
in the last year have violated the corridor, occasionally for
weather reasons. Violations occur when aircraft start their turn
away from the airport sooner than three miles from the parall 1
runway end, near Knox Lumber on Lexington Avenue. Aircraft that
violate the corridor are turning south and going directly over
Eagan. The corridor's purpose is to help control noise for
homeowners by containing the worst of it in areas that have been
d signated for industrial or commercial development. The
corridor will be unable to absorb added flights from an expanded
airport without causing even more violations, which will result
in even more noise for Eagan citizens.
Air quality is also an issue for Eagan. Jet engines produce
considerable amounts of air pollution. Citizens under the
present flight paths often complain of engine burn residue and
other irritants. The recent emergency dumping of a Northwest
747 's entire fuel load over the city showed an extreme exampl of
this problem. Again, Eagan is clearly better off with flights
that are further away and higher over the city, as they would be
with the RELOCATE option.
Another environmental issue is the Minnesota River Valley wild
life area. Birds are a potential hazard to airplanes and
airplane noise generally detracts from the area's natural beauty.
The RELOCATED site is_ rural farmland and few major noise
disruptions are anticipated or mentioned in the Environmental
Impact Statement. Fewer bird strike hazards are anticipated at
the RELOCATED site because the Mississippi River is farther from
the new airport than the Minnesota River is from the current
airport.
City Economic Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Economic Development
Commission for its consideration and recommendations.
City Community Impact Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Advisory Planning
Commission for its consideration and recommendations.
7
Financial Issues
The RELOCATION option appears to cost about 70 percent more than
the EXPAND option, with estimated price tags of $4.7 billion and
$2.8 billion, respectively. However, we believe MAC has
underestimated some of the costs for the EXPAND option. The $2.8
billion estimate does not include the costs for land acquisition
and construction for the north parallel runway which will be
necessary around the year 2020.
In addition, we feel the MAC has not accurately anticipated
mitigation costs. Home buy-outs, sound insulation for hundreds
or thousands of newly affected homes, and major real estate
purchases required south of the airport for safety purposes will
cost more than the MAC estimates -- and that assumes only costs
for current programs, without considering costs for other options
such as property tax relief for noise-affected areas.
The RELOCATE option is expected to cost $4.7 billion, and that
seems realistic.
With such huge expenses on the horizon, an obvious question is
whether Eagan has any financial responsibility for the option
that is eventually chosen. Commission members feel that Eagan
will have very limited financial exposure regardless of the
amount spent. It is our understanding that MAC or state bonds
backed by user fees will be sold to finance the projects. Th
bonds will be repaid with revenue generated by the travelling
public and other airport users, not individual taxpayers or
neighboring municipalities.
Eagan residents could be subject to slight increases in the
Dakota County portion of their property taxes to help pay for
infrastructure development if the RELOCATE option is chosen. In
the short term, property taxes also could be affected if Dakota
County loses the ability to levy taxes on 14,000 acres of
farmland at the new airport site, though land zoned for
agricultural purposes has a very low tax rate. We believe it's
reasonable to assume the increase in commercial/industrial
development near the new airport would more than offset the loss
of the 14,000 acres needed for the site.
Som financial impact will be felt by those in Eagan who will use
th facility under either the EXPAND or RELOCATE option -- both
citizens and businesses that use the airlines and the airport.
Unless passenger traffic increases dramatically to offset
construction costs, any of the options will almost certainly
result in costs being passed on to users. Passengers will likely
see an increase in their airline/airport fees. The new Denver
airport resulted in an increase in the per-passenger cost -of $15
per ticket; D nv r also has a $3 PFC (passenger facility charge)
tax. Costs for contractors, vendors and fr ight forwarders at
3Y
a a
9
In the short term, the NO PROJECT option offers the lowest risk
of any financial exposure for the city and its residents. The
EXPAND option is next and the RELOCATE option appears to offer
the most risk for additional financial responsibility. In the
long term, though, it is expected that any additional costs to
the city and its taxpayers will be offset by a greater tax base
generated by a RELOCATED airport in Dakota County. If LAND
BANKING is considered, its costs would also affect the costs for
th EXPAND option and should be considered.
Regardless of the reason, if the RELOCATE option is rejected in
the 1996-97 Dual Track decision process, Commission members feel
the Eagan City Council should support and encourage the MAC to
LAND BANK a site in Dakota County to assure that options are
still available in the future. The Commission believes that the
time and money that has been spent researching the Dakota County
RELOCATE option, it would be short-sighted not to keep future
airport development of this site a possibility. LAND BANKING
should be accomplished in the most cost-effective manner, but it
should be done through a variety of techniques: zoning, planned
us agreements, option purchases, property acquisitions, or
others.
Strategic Issues
From the long term standpoint, there is little doubt that the
RELOCATE option provides the greatest flexibility if further
airport expansion becomes necessary. The present airport site is
constrained on three sides by residential and business areas and
on the fourth by the Minnesota River.
It is hard to imagine any greater expansion at the current site
if the proposed changes under the EXPAND option are made -- no
additional runways could be accommodated on such a small site.
If further expansion is required, acquisition of major developed
roads, residential and commercial property will be necessary in
Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis. The sensible action at
that point will be to relocate the airport on a site that already
has been LAND BANKED for that purpose. If the state fails to
LAND BANK, and we assume a relocated airport is inevitable
sometime in the future, a new airport would end up being
inconveniently located 30 or 40 miles away from the metropolitan
ar a.
The EXPAND option does have the advantage of ease of
implementation. MAC already owns the land needed for physical
improvements at the current airport site except land needed for
safety zones, so the NO PROJECT or EXPAND options present few
insurmountable barriers. RELOCATING the airport to the Dakota
County site could be more of a challenge, with the possibility of
lawsuits, contentious hearings, and potential eminent domain
10
proceedings to collect the necessary amount of land for a new
airport..
Finally, there are political and institutional issues to
consider. At this writing (the fall of 1995) there seems to be
little support for the RELOCATE option. Several key players
including Northwest Airlines have challenged the growth
projection figures that MAC uses to justify either the EXPAND or
RELOCATE options. As discussions continue, the NO PROJECT option
will have considerable support from those with investment at the
current airport. Eagan's interest would logically support NO
PROJECT if the RELOCATE option is rejected. Regardless of th
option ultimately chosen, it is apparent that meeting the demands
of increased air traffic will cost several billion dollars.
The Airport Relations Commission's assumption is that Eagan
officials and citizens will have to become players in the
process from this point forward to assure the City's best
interests are voiced and protected.
The Commission believes the region needs a new airport and it
should be constructed as quickly as possible, despite the
predictable difficulties and expense of such a huge public works
undertaking.
•
471`
11
Supplemental Items
1) Attachment #1--Relocation Brochure
Attachment #2--Expansion Brochure
Attachment #3--Presentation Summary
Attachment #4--EIS Draft Executive Summary
Attachment #!5--Noise Mitigation Needs
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING. STUDY
CITY OF EAGAN SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
Dual Track - Expand or Relocate
- Additional options - No Action, Land Bank, High Speed
Intercity Rail, Remote Runways, Supplemental Airports
- Purpose is to determine how best to accomodate aircraft
operations growth for the Twin Cities through 2020
- 1980 150,000/yr 400/day
1995 455,000/yr 1250/day
2020 520,000/yr 1425/day
- 8 1/2% annual growth in last 15 years
Projected 1/2% annual growth in next 25 years
- Passenger growth will exceed this, but will be
partially absorbed by the use of more wide body
aircraft.
Comparisons
Existing Expansion Relocation
Acres 3,100 3,100 14,000
Capacity 105/hr 145-165/hr 260+/hr
Independent Runways 0 2 6
Dependent Runways 2 1 0
Expansion Capacity Some Very Limited Significant
494/35E to Terminal 5 miles 6.5 miles 19 miles
Distance from Runway
to Eagan Residential 1.5 miles 1.5 + 3 miles 10.5 miles
Altitude over. Eagan 1500-3000' 1500-3000' 7000' -
Cost Maintenance $2.8 billion $4.7 billion
(+ mitigation)
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS - DRAFT EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DID
Th Dual Track Legislative Directive
The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the
Metropolitan Council (MC) to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the
future. The agencies were directed to undertake seven years of planning studies comparing expansion
of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with construction of a new replacement airport.
That seven-year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is nearly complete. By
July 1996, the MAC and Metropolitan Council are required to submit a report to the Legislature
containing their recommendations on future major airport development.
The Purpose of the Document
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contains the evaluation of the impact on the environment
of three development alternatives: a plan to expand MSP, a plan for a new airport, and a no-action
alternative. These have been studied by the MAC, Met Council and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Other development alternatives that were considered are also described.
The MAC and the Metropolitan Council will use the environmental evaluation found in this document,
along with operational and technical data developed for these options, to make a recommendation to
the Legislature in July 1996 of how best to meet the region's aviation needs.
A final state Environmental Impact Statement, which requires no recommendation on an action, will
be submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for a Determination of Adequacy in March
1996. A final federal EIS containing a preferred development alternative will be completed following
a decision by the Minnesota Legislature. • .
Future Needs
Recent MAC and FAA studies have independently concluded that without substantial airfield, terminal
and access improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP will result in a significantly
decreased level of service and increased user costs.
Peak-hour demand will outstrip capacity of the runway/taxiway system without major improvements.
Airfield simulations show that if no improvements are made by 2020, peak hour departure queues for
the south parallel runway could reach more than 25 aircraft. That would result in excessive delays and
aircraft blocking access to the terminal, producing gridlock. Peak-hour delays by the year 2020 are
expected to average 20 minutes per aircraft during instrument conditions, with the highest delays in
excess of one hour.
A t-
`�—ti;_ L •
•
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
•
1 i
y
•
The FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP shows that the annual cost of delay would increase
from about $26 million at current levels of demand to about $66 million annually by 2020 (with a new
Precision Runway Monitor planned for 1996). This projected increase in delays, decline in service and
resulting increase in user costs threatens MSP's ability to provide good air service and economic
benefits to the region as a major connecting hub. MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air
service the airport provides the region. Further, MSP provides a major link in the nation's airspace
structure, because it is the 15th busiest airport in the nation.
In addition to airport improvements, the regional highway improvements identified for each alternative
in Section 3 also need to be made to provide adequate access to the airport.
Alt matives Considered to Meet Future Needs
•
When considering how to meet the forecasted demand for 2020, a number of alternatives were
analyzed. The following is a summary of the alternatives that have been considered:
• No Action
• MSP Development
• New Airport
• High-Speed Intercity Rail (between Twin Cities and Chicago)
• Remote Runway
• Supplemental Airport (use of MSP combined with other existing airports)
Below is a brief description of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The location of the alternatives is
shown on Figure ES-1, which is attached to the Executive Summary.
No Action — This consists of the existing airport facilities at MSP and those committed projects with
funding approved by the MAC in its current 1995-1997 Capital Improvement Program. See Figure ES-
2. Projects that increase capacity (terminal, airfield, other) would not be permitted beyond 1997.
MSP Development — A new 8,000-foot north-south runway would be added to the current three-
runway airfield. A new replacement terminal building would be built on the west side of the airport
and connected to gates on the east side via an underground people mover. Other improvements
would include highway access from Trunk Highway 77 and Trunk Highway 62 to the new west side
entrance to the terminal, and a parking/drop-off facility on the east aide of the airport. See Figure ES-
3.
N w Airport—A new replacement airport would be built on a site of 14,100 acres west of Vermillion
and south of Hastings in Dakota County. The airfield would consist of six runways: four parallel
runways and two crosswind runways. Main highway access would be from the north to a centrally-
located terminal. See Figure ES-4.
•
Options that were eliminated from further analysis in the EIS are listed below.
High Speed Intercity Rail — This alternative includes the construction of high-speed rail connecting
Minneapolis and Chicago and examination of the extent to which this would divert passengers and
operations from air service to rail service so that in 2020 additional runway and terminal facilities at
MSP would not be needed. A 1991 MnDOT study of the implications of high-speed rail alternatives on
air traffic showed:
•
• High-speed rail service would not divert enough passengers and operations by 2020 to preclude
the need for additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP.
•
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
ii
445
Remote Runway— Under this concept, terminal ticketing, baggage and support facilities would remain
at MSP while new runways and gates would be constructed at a site in Dakota County, about 15-25
miles away. The two sites would be linked by rail transit. A 1995 MAC study of this concept showed:
• there would be significant operational inefficiencies. Nowhere in the world does an airport have
split landside/airside operations over 15 miles apart such as those described here. That is because
the staffing requirements would make air service for this type of configuration prohibitively
expensive;
• a two-terminal system would evolve, with the public demanding ticketing, baggage and parking
facilities at both sites, which would ultimately result in a full-service airport at the remote site. It
would be very difficult to force passengers to take an intermediate form of transportation, such as
a train. Local passengers will want to be picked up or have a car available for immediate transport
to their final destination, rather than having their trip prolonged by intermediate mode changes. In
addition, certain basic amenities must be provided to passengers as they embark from airplanes.
These amenities, such as food and rest facilities, require a passenger terminal, as would the
required queuing and seating areas for transferring to a train;
• costs would be slightly higher than the new airport alternative; and
• there would be adverse environmental impacts including the need for a one-mile long bridge over
the Minnesota River;
Supplemental Airport Concept — Under this concept, a component of MSP operations (general
aviation, military, regional, cargo, international, or flights to major markets) would be diverted to
another existing state airport. The intention would be to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand
without having to develop new terminal and runway facilities at MSP. Preliminary findings of a 1995
MnDOT study have showed:
• Diverting military operations, cargo activity, international operations or general aviation would not
delay the need for new runway and terminal facilities at MSP.
• if regional air carrier traffic were transferred even to the nearest airport — Downtown St. Paul
Airport — it would force nearly 6,500 regional air carrier passengers a day to travel across town to
make their connecting flights at MSP, making MSP a very unattractive connecting hub for regional
service. It would be extremely difficult legally to force air carriers to relocate regional service to
another airport. Downtown St. Paul has site constraints that preclude extensive development of
this type.
• As with regional carrier service, transferring service to major markets such as Chicago to another
state airport would force the passengers making connecting flights to travel long distances to
MSP. In addition, originating and destination passengers would have long driving distances. Once
again, it would be extremely difficult legally to force airlines to relocate service to major markets
to another airport. Neither the MAC or FAA has the legal authority to dictate to airlines the level
and location of service that they can provide.
Environmental Evaluation
To reach the MSP development plan and the new airport plan included in this document, a tiered state
EIS process was used. The tiered EIS process was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board (MEQB). That process consisted of the following steps: (1) selection of a new airport search
area; (2) selection of a new airport site within the search area; (3) selection of a new airport
development plan on the selected site; and (4) selection of a development concept for expansion of
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. - -
Dual Track,Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
The alternatives were examined for impacts in 32 environmental categories. They are:
Air quality, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird-aircraft hazards, construction impacts,
coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened species, economic,
energy supply and natural resources, farmland, floodplains, historic/architectural resources, induced
socioeconomic impacts, land use, light emissions, noise, parks and recreation, site preservation,
social, Section 4 (f), solid waste impacts, transportation access, major utilities, visual impacts,
wastewater, water supply, surface water quality, groundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic
rivers, and wildlife refuges.
The environmental evaluation did not reveal any critical finding that would preclude development of
any of the alternatives. It did reveal differences between the MSP development alternative, the new
airport alternative, and the no action option.
In reviewing the environmental analysis, differences in the social/economic categories are more
substantive than impacts on the natural environment when comparing the alternatives. Below is a
summary highlighting some of the findings. A matrix summarizing impacts on the alternatives follows
on pages v, vi and vii. More detail on any one or all of the impact categories is found in the
appropriate section of the EIS.
• Natural Environment — Impacts on the natural environment include air quality, water quality,
wetlands, endangered and threatened species, archaeological and historic resources, biotic
communities, floodplains, parks and recreation areas, and wildlife refuges.
• Economic—(To be completed)
• Farmland — If a new airport is built, 17,000 acres of farmland would be lost in Dakota County
(including 3,000 acres due to induced development and relocation of displaced farm households).
This is eight percent of Dakota County farmland and would have a major impact on the farm
economy of Dakota County. The total is less than one-tenth of one percent of existing state
farmland. No farmland would be lost under the expand MSP and no action options.
• Noise — In terms of adverse noise impacts of DNL 65 or greater: expanding MSP would expose
7,600 persons to these levels, compared to 175 for the New Airport, and 7,350 for the no action.
In 1994, there were approximately 22,000 persons in the DNL 65 contour for MSP. The lower
numbers of persons for MSP in the future are attributable to the continued introduction of quiet
aircraft.
• Social — The number of residents and households that would be displaced under each of the
alternatives is: expand MSP, 227 residents, 96 households; new airport, 914 residents, 273
households; and no action, 0 residents and households. The number of businesses and employees
displaced would be: expand MSP, 76 businesses, 2,920 employees; new airport, 147 businesses,
712 employees; no action, 0 businesses and employees.
• Transportation Access — The percentage of the metro area population that would have no more
than a 30-minute trip to the airport's main terminal during non-peak hours in 2020 under each of
the options is as follows: expand MSP, 80.2 percent; new airport, 17.8 percent; no action, 76.6
percent. The average travel time during non-peak hours would be 22 minutes for MSP expansion,
41 minutes for the New Airport and 24 minutes for no action. The number of lane miles of
highway improvements that would be required under each alternative is: expand MSP 25; . new
airport 116; no action 42.
•
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
iv
c7
•
•
Hearing and Approval Process •
Below is a schedule for the remaining activities of the environmental process of the Dual Track Airport
Planning process. A final federal EIS will not be prepared until the Minnesota Legislature selects the
preferred airport development alternative.
Public Comment Period Dec. 8, 1995 to Feb. 6, 1996
Public Hearings on Draft EIS January 17, 18, 1996 (tentative)
MAC Adopts State Final EIS, March 1996
and submits it to the MEQB
MEQB determination of State Final EIS May 1996
Adequacy
MC/MAC Report to State Legislature July 1996
•
•
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
O
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE
MSP NEW AIRPORT i NO ACTION
Air Quality «. ...«.._....«
1. Number of receptor sites near critical off- 0 0 0 «««
• airport roadway intersections over air quality
standards in 2020 _
2. Number of receptor sites on airport 0 0 0
.perimeter over air quality standards in 2020_
3. Total airport CO emissions in year 2020 6,092 6,834 6,781
(tons)
4. Total access traffic CO emissions in year 10,200 13,300 . 10,500
2020 (tons)
5. Total airport SOx emissions in year 2020 154 138 162
(tons)
Archaeological Resources
6. Number of known archaeological sites 2 1 • 0
potentially eligible for the National Register
that would be disturbed
Biotic Communities
7.. Number of acres of wildlife habitat 360 7,684 120
�._ ... _displaced.
Bird-Aircraft Hazards
8. Number of monthly aircraft operations less 4,940 0 6,470
than 500 feet over areas where birds
congregate.
Economic (to be added)
9. Estimated cost of alternative (millions of 2,820 4,716 30
1995 dollars)
10. Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected »»» _ 1.82 35.0 0
_.».».»..municipalities/townships. (Total) ««, _.. ..«... «.... .•.... _. »...».... ..... . »
• To be added
Endangered and Threatened Species
T1. Number of species on federal list of 0 0 0
endangered and threatened species that
_would be jeopardized.
12. «Number of threatened species in Minnesota 0 w1 (Loggerhead 0
L« that would be disturbed. - Shrike)
Energy Supply and Natural Resources
13. Consumption of aircraft and vehicle fuel in 160 156 161
_ year 2020 (millions of gallons peryear) « «_»«•« ««_ «».w .
Farmland
14. Acres of farmland that would be lost. 0 17,000
(14,000-site, 2,800
3,000-induced/
relocation)
% of existing Dakota Co. farmland _ 0 8 w 0
% of existing State farmland 0 <0.1 0
15. Im act on farm economy..of Dakota Coun y No irn.pact Major i No Impact
16. Impact on farm economy of State of No Impact Minimal No Impact
Minnesota
Floodalains
•
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
vi
`21 ?
CRITERION _ _ IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE _
_ T� w __ _ _ MSP — NEW AIRPORT NO ACTION
17. Is there a potential to significantly increase _ No �� _ No (with No
existing flood flow elevations in adjacent Mitigation)
rivers?
-
Historic/Architectural Resources
18. Number of historic/architectural 1 0 0
properties/districts on or eligible for National
Re•iste_r that would b_e demolished.
19. Number~of remaining individual properties 6 -M 2 6 ____
and historic districts within the DNL 65+
noise contour on or eligible for the National
Resister. _
_
IYrduc d Socioeconomic (to be added) � �
20. 1 Number of households induced by 2020 to be added 7,140 to be added
21. Number of sq. ft. of commercial/industrial to be added 3,054,000 to be added
development induced by 2020___
22._ Number of employees induced bar 2020 to added ___ 11,710 _ to be added
Land Use _.... _._ _..._..._ ..
23. Number of municipalities requiring changes 5 13 _0
_ in existing or_planned land use: _ _ _..___ ..._ .._
Noise _....._ .....�...__................_... .,
_..M. __ ..._........... . «._.... _..
24. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 7,600 175 7,350
DNL 65+ noise contour.
25. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 22,030 560 27,690
DNL 60-65 noise contour.
26. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 121,000 2,300 106,000
_____1....126.5 noise contour. .. __ ._._ . ._ ._ .... _ ........._...
27. Number of noise-sensitive land uses with 2 0 3
noise greater than FAA Guidelines ..
S ction 4(f) Park and Recreation Lands ._
28. Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation 0 0 0
_ lands displaced. _
29. Number of Section 4(f) par k r.__._�__...__.. ..
-...
µ and recreation 0 0 0
lands adversely affected by noise.
Social
..... ._......._........._.......................__.................__.....__..........._......._................._..... ..._..:_......._....
30. i Number of residents that could be displaced. 227 914 _-..._. .. 0 .,
31. Number of households that could be 96 273 . 0
_ displaced. _ -------. _.._....._.-_,._..._.........
32. Estimated number of businesses and
employees displaced.
Businesses 76 _ 147 �0_
_ .. ........ ..... .........._ _. _....,
Employees 2,920 712 - _0
-Surface Water Quality _ �� ... ,,,,.___,_„•_,,,,,
33. Stormwater discharge as percentage of 18 10 (Includes 17
receiving water's available BOD/COD Wastewater)
_ assimilative capacity. _. _ ._ _ ... ._.._......_..
Groundwater
34. Sensitivity of affected significant aquifers to Low to High to Very High Low to Medium
_ _potential contamination. • Medium
35. Existence of drinking water sources No Yes No
downgradient from aquifers under site. -
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary — subject to revision)
vii
50
•
. CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE
.....«... _6666_..
MSP NEW AIRPORT NO ACTION
Transportation Access
36. Year 2020 average travel time to terminal
for Metro Area residents (minutes)
off-peak hours 22 _ «« 41 24
_ W PM peak hour 26 - «46 27
37. Percentage of Metro Area population within
30-minute travel time to main terminal in
_ L 2020. _ .. « «.«.......
off-peak hours 6666 80.2 17.8 76.6
•6666.«« .6_666. PM peak hour........««« 67.4 -«_ 6666«.«13.6 62.5
......... __... 6666. 1666_ 6662.«
38. Percentage of Metro Area population within
45-minute travel time to main terminal in
2020.
-.
«........ «.«....«....... 6666«
L. off-peak hours 97.9 64.5 96.9
PM peak hour 94.6 _ «_52.0 .w 92.8 -6666.
39. Percentage of Metro Area population within -«-
60-minute travel time to main terminal in
2020
«.« _ ««... ......« «,.......................«....«.«...«_. . ..._ _
off-peak hours __100 94.3 99.9 _
«.. « PM peak hour 99.8 83.7 • 99.6 _•««.•
.« 6666_ _.... ........ «.......... «....«.....
40 Number of lane-miles of off-site highway 25 116 0
improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes
for 3 miles is 6 lane-miles)
Wetlands
........«,.•.......«-i........ ...«....... ...«.........i... ....«..«....��.........«..........«...«�..«.....«
41. . Number of acres of wetlands affected. 34.1 5.9 __ 1.5
Wildlife Refuges - .. .... .««
42. Number of monthly overflight approaches 2,000 0 0
less than 2,000 feet
.. .. .........«...................... .......««.........- 6666.. .......« ««........«......««........«
43. Number of human use areas within DNL 65- 1 0 0
70 noise contour.
Dual Track Draft EIS (Preliminary - subject to revision)
viii
' S
•
- 1.1
:- . ..... 't
4.1 71 :NO.". / ...7-:71-....1 1 .-• •,• • U
••• 1.-••
• C ;. . i C•7\ '••• . . k. 1 t n.. .
4:1) ix ..f., .• •et; 1111 l '', i- -,-1
I :"-------. • _-_-('-11111---Z T-7.= . rt
E • 0- r .., . AL"-•
O..... %T..' .-
1)0 0 ...S. ,'''‘, i I ___L4_, , •
1 ..- :7. / a 1 , ••••
, ,,,..,..-„,...e... r
• --- .piS:g" -
CO a
.0., 0 ' ... . ■•••=1+.'"':e I ILI_
ej .Lallar x70-1,7 '7S 3 te csrs Z 7 LI 1[ .
Li,a. z cc
---- t..- ---_-r:: A ,
YKL-:: .
..... _ ---....„ msNoosim f I , •---,- - ..-27' 4, 1 E, C
_
CO ••■• Y.1.0S3NNIii" 14! f.13. 1 I ' ---7".....—. .„ 0,4°=. -e
,
•••.•• .';
/••'••• ,,
•,...., <
%. ", i:f2 "-'''' r• -;4''''r = 4.4
r 1... 1
I
--- C.)
r c LL
,..,,;•:„1
I: r i -----_,..--' /• ff,r t7 1 . .1-'7 •-,
/ -1 - ••,. .
nie-,•-
_ z .i. ,....-_,L4 . ....._,•/..0,.: 0. 2 r1.7-=.
,....: -'
1. j .,, r 1--,--'`.--------- ,---- 4..7...... ...,
,.. „, .- ....„.'-..r."h.■e cm A ,,,
CCI L..)*IMI
-8-. ' r----`•-..., = e
C .._ ...
11.7,—.
w . . . .- •-.: ,, ..- .:0- 0 ....wA
...
- — i 111■_ t .., - , • t;..,417-2 • ,-. i.....ry 1....i u) -:.:
1____.E.—. • ,
. i I ..--
. o ci,
. (
1 C■ r / - ,......--..- . .„,i'---;,<--''•
/ '.' .../....•1" '..,•'-'•-
•."-•'
,-...
zis--
0 r r,ii
. , , . 1 .y. er laS"-■-.7.' 7
r .....
•.._
,..
. ._,,,. „. . A..., ...„.
.. .,„ . z . . 0 i 1.-......i: I.. a `,1, ..„2,2.......e..•••■
'• ,c .,x 8 2
) 'I 1■• ), J
5 mt.:, ...J7,--• .....a • 4.,.
0.,• <s.' N. .I.. I).4 1 •S Ar'? 7" i
..::-..' "'" 0) .. ../..." ...7
viel,, iiiksil a'- 41. i . . 1 0 ,• -
- ..., rii a" tA. ..41',‘ r er I, I gill . .•=:.:.
_.....,
,f, - ,
5.•...7.-
1
1 II
< •
, . 1
..1.-e---..1 •
1....Q1
-.-*
-,-.
.?..... 1
._ x o flu
._ ..!,:v7.- No il -•=111.0 '. .....,
••-z_.
t.:S'
:;-. 0 RIME )!
giboi4it:,, , iitha P4
0 - • .••L-777, "--f--, .i.
,
.1 mu!-- II"
, 1 t:,::" .•:4::......?2‹:•'..-:::.:.:.:•..::: 1 .,-,:.
:'.• 1 :.
1 , --iiir of,-,_t_.. 31 . ::.::::. i..:.:...:....:...„.:.......,.....7.7r
,..-
-hp, NI I 0-177: .:•::.:. :::::..i;.1:::::.:•!,.:.:::::: a, 1 -.e.-,-'
,..,
-*., a "-r. 1 . 4.. \ikijIi.::.::::::.;',•:1,f::::iTi:.::::!:',.11 1
5-;-) I
,.‘-• ,- 1 l'8g .57 c. --z 17-1'77.7.'' .-. -c..:::•:. — — ,„-
--,-
.A.• , 0 5 .11 . ::...,..:::.;„,:/r...k:..:.•:,•......!•:;,.•:, :•f•-,,
■
I
.-.:e• ,.. ..■ p 1 :..........= ,_ 1 .7-*•::,.,.....::: "..'•:.,.:.:-.::::::::::::. . CZ))
- -
U1 -1 Cil ii/i41110 II0 • c . ..•• . '::1,‹...i.::::::;:!..i:;
.. . .. . .
Ail:tell. r -= j_ij z I c 1 7.-
Z `, 0
0 \/0 0.
'61- ft • 1 I I 40pp • '., il: .._ _
I L'
- ‘..1.< 4. I --
..:r...2.: 2 1
"ZI I .0 I :-:Fir•
P'/ • ..
.... •• I
E • ! < . _-•-.1 •
..• . 1 al ,,.z.
1 • A II 0 r s No I I III 07--_,-; 4-r*:-------- '',.. 11.V''i / f . ,
•
> ,
---:-:
•:..„...-...•• ,--._ .‘„,00■- .....4.••■• ..)0.
........ ... .....■ ..26..W ' ..'
n Ilk 0110)
t=i - ,.■111111. ( .4..-.^ 0 '4, 1101.1 I 13 ..,
de-
• • vitg.I. . i
= I
„, so: 7111 i -7,1
1 I . .1.0 i
2 k
I
to . ' .. - - 1
1
cD 4
.....1 icii •
0 %I ta. ,
..,-
4C I-:t) 1 tril I 41 I I I - I 1 .... .ft.„1, "•i E
1
0
ilk Aillif 1 0 I la
CL I
I 11111111 .0_41.1,..111.11 m ,-,
CD I%'
= .
=
-.N1.•‘„.....L,
C 3 „i•Limplciu i . - 1
I i z -------- I
C alle.: az:,. CI ! I s___ , ca
= I " . - N E:a ---\ I I
J LIJ
I e
m ,
CO' - •,_:. 6 'e.'•• •MI.,.
1
.....— , .
u_ t ir -,..•••:.'. . .- ; 1 <<
>
..4.-A _......-. 1:• ' • ..r - 9 - o
O , i
k .tt:e -1\7, _I tu I
CL • _
to J
..... 1 \ Z
_ pp ; . , rc I su • _, a
in /
-Y_. mumismi ti .0
7 — --
eci : rvikuo
gr.Sillr, ii____.--__
N..
I-- , .
ins .
w Ath I 1
I • I
• ' C I ^ .
. L. '...?-.-
. .
1
l rackAirport Planning"Process<00 : � .i ironmentalampact_Statement
•
. - .• New Airport:'
- . • Entrance : := _1
•
_ :New West ►.r
_`-..P ' Terminal
. `� •
4...c...i 4 ir.. 1,,,,e 1
- •..
11 • III T ••• Nei T
• -‘ ❖ %/�
1 ‘12. II.; . - .4...AS„
• m o�` ♦ A q4 °4- ~
-, is . .<z42, 91/2,9
•
• Future •■ Aircraft I•' -
- • Maint.
■
.414111011 . . 1710.0,.. ._-.....--4P1.....• • .
itgr-
N
•
•
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
tr� QO�,s s,4..,„tir
' .
L MAC T
IIC:::E:I
..7 -.---- - -- . ---- -..= �: :_- r; =;_. . _ =x: .T :_v_� „ figureES2
N
'
AiR►ORI-` MSP Alternative
S3
.—_,- --
ir
. 1
Dual Track°Airport Plannin • Process :.„ i" =:environmental 1n�pacti tateme
. • . r.__ nt
•
•
. _ .-: `— _,.
: .lr d,-.A.- t `. v,._ [sg .. am:•__ • •
__;.pw :_ t-,.4 •:yam.=--. _ _ _ `TARP _..-._
•
•
•
I . 1\. ..
0
--- -- -y2 -
- ; ;r NP`
� EpM`EP
• it■ik
2
t
0 2000 4000
• 1 SCALE IN FEET
kr?O 115 5.�/~
r? r..'}•3
Z
_4- MAC 1N
= ,
-- �: ;-.- - -z - . : - :- .,: _� -
, ` k, ;Figure ES-3 f' Te-
' �
4/RPOa S New Airport Alternative
�y
_
•
i .. ment
• �ua1,:Tfack"AirportManning Process���� � ����-�- ��=�`- �. nvironmental,impactStete
•
_ • if/.
. .. . ..
. _
J e -
. . . .
- . -. . " Ttai_
.:tom
I - ,
, •
•
• Air cargo . . . ,
_ I:
Air
Cargo Aircraft -
Maintenance • -
..01.\ - . .. .• _� �"--.
9,!.i1 - .
• • - • • t ,
N
- 0 . 1000 2000
• SCALE IN FEET
���re' 15 s�in,,...
1r
A+ j,
_ _- F - -' '- __ _- gure ES-4
- `',4N� +S _ No Action Alternative
v
.
_,_ -y --r
Mamaoitran Airports Canntaission•Dud Tack Plami►p Study Metropolitan A:ports Commission-Dead Track Plarraig Study
Total Airport Development Costs- MSP Total Airport Development Costs-NEW AIRPORT t
(1995 $ with Contingencies at Bottom) (1995 $ with Contingencies at Bottom)
ELEMENT I Total Cost I ELEMENT Total Cost
PROPERTY ACQULSITION I J PROPEK"1 Y ACQtIDSI I lVI`I ,
Acquisition,Demolition an oration or runway 546,O0U,0U0T
Acquisition.Demolition and Relocation for site I Sl iu,000,000
Acoinstuon,Demouuon an Relocation- o-3a wa s ,uuO UUt Acquisition and Demouuon for Roadwaysiuuuues i 120,000,000-
Acquisition,Demolition and Relocation-"Terminal 57,0u0,0uu
TOTAL PKOPEILTY ACtil.JISITION COS 15 S56,000,UU0
TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS S130,000,000r
AIRFIELD COS 1S
Committed/Planned Improvement(incl.descing pads) jIncluded in CIP) I- 711KPlELD COSTS
Runwa s and Taxiways 154,000,000 Runways and Taxiways(including site preparation) 1309,000,000
I s S40,000,000T, Deicing Pads I 51.2,000,000
' TOTAL AIRFIELD COSTS S94,0OU,00O-^ TOTAL AIRFIELD COSTS 5331,000,000
TERMINAL AREA COSTS •
1 ERMINAL COSTS TERMINAL COSTS
Interim Improvements 1116,000,000 Interim improvements at MSP S154,000,1100
Demolition 133,000,007 —Terminal Building(including Central Plant) SI51,000,VUtT
TermtnarButldtng(s) 1117,000,UUU F1S I 515,000,000
F15 (Included in CIF) Concourses 131O,000,000
Concourses ' 1215,000,000 l -Peoplemover System 5112,000,000-
HHH 1 etmmal Expansion S9,000,UU0 Peoplemover-I unnel 195,000.000-
Peoplemover System 5112,000,000 Peoplemover Stations S8,0011,000-
Peoplemover 1=net/Stations t 5159,00U,000 Other Systems(baggage,loading bridges,secunty) 1175,000,000
Central Plant 516,000,000 I Subtotal 11,059,000,000
Other Systems(baggage,loading bridges,security) 5175,000,0UU PARKING COSTS
Subtotal 1962,000,000' Commercial Vehicle Parking 5110,000,000
G C—P-MiSTS Public Parking _ S146,000.000
Commercial Vehicle 184,000,000 I Curbs 514,000,000
Public Parking 5111,000,000 Subtotal 5270,000,000-
Curbs 510,000,000
Subtotal 51u5,UVU,000 APRONS7TAXJWAYS -
- Terminal Aprons $163,uuu,000
APRONS/TAXIWAYS Subtotal 11b3,000,00(i
Terminal-Aprons/Taxiways $120,0110,0111)
'TOTAL TERMINAL AREA COSTS $1,492,000,000"
Subtotal 11[U,V U U,U U U
7tOADWAY COSTS
TOTAL TERMINAL AREA COSTS 51,257,000,000 1 erminal Circulation Roadways S16,000,00IT
ROADWAY COSTS ' OTHER ROADWAYS I
Terminal Circulation Roadways 542,000,0OU —Internal Roadway System 523,000,000
—New Frwy.&Intern)).between TH 55&Arpt, 540,000,000
OTHER ROADWAYS , 1 H 47 Realignment&misc..Connections 518,000,000
28th Avenue Interchange Reconstruction - 11,0011,0011 —Interchange of TH-52 and 1-94 by St.Paul 530,000,0U0
Reconstruction of TH 62 East of TH 77 16,000,000 Highway 32 Widening(1-494 to Concord) 515,000,000-I
I Reconst.of 1H 62 between 1 H &1-35 W Ramps 59,000,000 Highway 55/52 Improvements to 1-494 5167,000,000
TH62/77 and 66(11 St.Interchange Reconstruction S2I,VUU,000 Subtotal 5293,000,0007
TH 77 Reconstruction 512,000,000
Airport Frontage Rd.between both Si.&24th Avenue 53,000,000 'T'O'TAL ROADWAY COSTS 1309,000,000
East Side Access 57,000,000
l7TH,ER FACILITY COSTS
Subtotal 559,0011,000 Airline Maintenance 1796,000,000
Air Cargo 1111,000,00O
TOTAL ROADWAY COSTS 1101,000,000 General Aviation 122,01.10,000
' Airport Administration and-Maintenance 529,uuU,uu0
Fuel Facilities - 137,000,000
OTHER FACILITY COSTS 1 Air Marl Facility 1[5,000,000
Airline Marnt.nance ' 1397,00U,00U Military Facilities(ANG.AFK) 1166,000,000
Air Cargo SI11,OVU,00U Flight Kitchen 518,000,000
General Aviation 51,000,000 Rental Car Service Facilities 165,000,000
Airport Administration and Maintenance 1[6,000,000) Airport Rescue and Firefighting Stations 56,000,000
J Fuel Facilities 517,000,1100 I FAA Facilities(tower,approach control,navaids) 1130,000,000
Air Mail Facility a25,000,QOlfl
Flight Kitchen 118,000,000 I TOTAL OTHER FACILITY COSTS 51,423,000,OU0 '
Rental Car Service Facilities 165,000,UUU'
Airport Rescue and Firth. h Stations SU MAJOR UTILITIES
FAA Facilities(tower,approac control,navalds) 542,000,000 wastewater Treatment Plant 520,000,000',
Water Supply Plant 1/,tUO,000
TOTAL�FACLLTl'Y COSTS 1/U2,000,000 ' Storm Water Treatment 535,000,000
I I Discharge Pipeline 1 S18,000,1.101.1-
Powerliine Relocation I 56,000,000.
MAJOR UTILITIES 1
Discharge Pipeline 516,000,000 1 TOTAL.MAJOR U'T'ILITIES COS 1S I • 586,000,000
TOTAL AJ R UTILITIES COSTS S1b,000,1.U0 I 1
SUI3 TOTAL* r S2,256,000,0'013 I SUB TOTAL* 13,773,000,000
Denim(796) 5158,000,000 Desiltn(756) 5264.000,000
Program Management/lnspectlon(890 ' slau,000,VVV Program Management/Inspectton(5%) 5302,000,000
Cost Contingencies(1096)1 5[20,000,000 I Cost Contingencies(1U%) is I/.000,000
GRAND TOTAL FOR FACILITIES • $2,820,000,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR FACILITIES• $4,716,000,000
MITIGATION CO ST'S MITIGATION COSTS
Noise Mitigation(DNL 65) $13,000,000 Noise Mitigation(DNL 65) $1,000,000
Other Mitigation I (Under Study) I Other Mitigation (Under Study)
TOTAL MITIGATION COSTS $13,000,000 TOTAL MITIGATION COSTS $1,000,000
I It
111x155.32 r51 1110115 i:32 Ina
•ExCt,US10NS: •aacLUsioNsi
1. LooiStats tun , Loal/SWe tits+
2. A6ateneat sadror Toxic Waste Inspection or Report 2. Abatement sad/or Toxic Waste Impeaioc or Reports
3. Airport tenant relocations 3. Some Highway improvements
4. Tease improvements(airline,oaoowicm,sdminiau ationp 4. Airport tenant mtontiomnd tenant tmprovemean(airline.concessions.admHisiz,Gon)
S.164SP Redevelopment Coats
.r
I
CITY OF EAGAN
MSP AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION NEEDS
The City of Eagan experiences severe aircraft noise impacts due to
its location southeast of the airport and the priorities of th
Runway Use System. These impacts are made worse by the failure of
the FAA and airlines to comply with procedures to maintain traffic
over noise-compatible land-uses which the Cities of Eagan and
Mendota Heights have set aside for this purpose. As a consequence
of current impacts, the City of Eagan is very concerned about the
operation and possible expansion of the airport at its current
location.
As a part of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the City of
Eagan has worked closely with the Metropolitan Council and other
cities around the airport to develop the Minneapolis-St. Paul Area
Community Protection Concept Package. The City of Eagan supports
adoption of this package as a necessary part of the Dual Track
decision with the qualifications outlined below.
Even though the City of Eagan has been able to plan its land use in
consideration of the airport, the dramatic increases in operations
since airline deregulation have resulted in unacceptable levels of
noise in residential areas outside the commercial and industrial
land uses planned for aircraft -noise. As the expansion of the
airport at its current location would increase the exposure of even
more areas of the City, the aggressive application of Community
Protection tools such as expanded sound insulation, property value
guarantees, preferential tax treatments and the other tools
outlined in the package are essential. Absent the availability and
application of these tools, the expansion of the airport will
result in significant levels of hidden costs born by 'our tax payers
and reflected in our tax base.
As the City has matured, the potential for additional land use
restrictions outside of the Metropolitan Council noise zones has
become limited. While the City will continue to discourage
incompatible land uses within the industrial areas and traditional
noise impact areas, the extensive development throughout the
community prevents any substantial benefit from extending such
controls to other areas.
Th City of Eagan has responsibly planned and developed its land
uses to take into account the aircraft noise issues which could be
anticipated. The City would not support the creation of additional
levels of government which would limit Cities, authorities to
determine appropriate land use solutions. The City does recognize
however the traditional and continuing role of the Metropolitan
Council in maintaining policies and standards to assist and support
City decisions in this regard.
To make the application of the Community Protection Concept Package
effective, the following additions are ssential:
r!
1. Certain of the community protection to is should b
implemented in a graduated fashion at 2 and 3 miles from 60
DNL contour so that there is a progression from no tools to
some tools to [ all tools. These include sound insulation,
property value guarantees, tax increment financing and
preferential tax programs. Such programs should benefit the
noise affected residents without penalizing the local
jurisdictions.
2. New commercial development should be encouraged in the
communities most affected by aircraft noise rather than on
airport property.
3. New commercial development within airport property at•eith r
the existing or Dakota County location should be required to
make payments in lieu of taxes and fiscal dispariti s
contributions. Fiscal disparities distributions equal to
these contributions should be made to the communities most
affected by aircraft noise.
4. Eliminate Fiscal Disparities contribution for communities most
affected by aircraft noise or at least within the 60 DNL
contour.
In addition, long term compatibility of MSP with its neighboring
communities is dependent upon certain operational assumptions and
changes which must be vigorously enforced on and by the MAC.
1. The Corridor operations should be narrowed using to the
fullest extent possible newly available technology such as
Global Positioning Satellite navigation and other air traffic
control enhancements. These improvements should be used to
better utilize the airspace around MSP and to minimize
aircraft noise impacts in areas which were not planned for
them.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the noise abatement
capacity of the corridor is finite. It is essential that
mechanisms be put in place to insure compliance with th
corridor. If this is not possible, then it is unfair to
concentrate impacts on the residents of the communities
adjacent to the corridor. Absent effective and acceptable
compliance, the Runway Use System should be dismantled,
parallel crosswind runways should be added to provide equal
capacity in every direction and every effort should be made to
equitably distribute air traffic on all sides of the airport.
2. The airport should place equitable impacts on all communities
it abuts and reduce its inequitable reliance on the Eagan-
Mendota Heights Corridor. If air traffic is redistributed in
other directions, it should be done in such a way that it does
not further impact cities which already receive the majority
of aircraft noise, such as Eagan and Mendota Heights. In
particular, operations utilizing an extended Runway 4/22 or a
SS"
north-south runway should use Standard Instrument Departur s
and oth r means of preventing additional overflights of the
City of Eagan.
3. Aircraft departing and arriving at MSP should be directed to
use, to the greatest extent possible, those areas which wer
planned by the region and the communities to absorb the worst
of the aircraft noise. In large part, these areas are made up
of less noise sensitive land uses such as agricultural and
industrial park properties. Optimum flight tracks should b
established and implemented which best utilize these areas and
recognize the planning efforts of the communities to provide
them.
4. Once modified in the ways outlined above, the boundaries of
the arrival and departure corridors should be specifically
defined and aircraft noise exposure standards should be
established for residential areas along the corridor. The MAC
should be responsible for monetary fines and documentation for
aircraft operations violating these standards. The fine
proceeds should be paid as compensation to the city or cities
affected by the violation for the benefit of the residents
most affected by aircraft noise.
5. Nighttime aircraft restrictions should be put into place
immediately to ensure that only quieter Stage III aircraft are
flown between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Such
restrictions should be mandatory and violation of the
standards should result in monetary fines to the offending
carrier with the proceeds to the affected city or cities for
the benefit of the residents most affected by aircraft noise.
6. Departure and arrival procedures should be reviewed and
adjusted to ensure that the full performance capabilities of
all aircraft are being utilized to optimize the rate of climb
or descent relative to the noise compatible and noise
sensitive areas in the surrounding communities. This should
include consideration of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles,
full-thrust departure procedures, steeper arrival glide slopes
and other means of ensuring that the worst of the noise impact
is concentrated in the noise compatible areas.
This is especially important in the areas affected by the
possible addition of the north-south runway due to its
potential to significantly degrade residential uses in Dakota
County communities, if no operational changes are implemented.
7. The airport should be responsible for ensuring that any
expansion of the current airport be "noise neutral" to the
urbanized areas, whether it be the extension of Runway 4/22,
the addition of the north-south runway or the addition of a
third parallel runway. This means that no new noise impacts
would be generated in off-airport properties as a result of
these activities.
6-7
8. The MAC should establish measurabl criteria by which the
performance of MSP is to be judged in deciding whether or not
airport expansion is warranted. These performance criteria
should be frequently and regularly reported to allow
interested parties to monitor the need to undertake the
improvements described in the MAC Comprehensive Plan.
9. When subsequent aircraft stages are defined which can further
reduce off-airport noise impacts, nighttime restrictions of
older aircraft and other efforts outlined above should be
implemented to require the use of such aircraft technologies
to ensure further noise reductions for neighboring
communities..
60
4
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY
PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE
: . : Prepared For
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Airports
City of Bloomington Commission
City of Eagan City of Mendota Heights
City of Minneapolis City of Richfield
By Clarion Associates
Denver, Colorado
in association with
Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota
October 1995
r�.-.-_
•
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION
CONCEPT PACKAGE—DRAFT
Clarion Associates •
in association with
. Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. .
October 1995
INTRODUCTION
The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary
economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct -
economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global
economy.
The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoothly
functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County
or remain at its current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is
clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to
20 years given current capacity and projected demand.
While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also
apparent that it has significant impacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are
always the first issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of equal significance—
safety, ground traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental influences, and effects on
property values and overall community stability. Most airport-impact mitigation efforts focus
almost exclusively on noise—and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has established a good
track record with its noise insulation and property buyout programs. However, it is becoming
increasingly obvious that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation programs are
limited in their outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at least the
next twenty years, and the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained, these other
impacts need to be addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating
existing houses closest to the airport is not enough. Airports are dynamic facilities, at least if
they are successful. Operational requirements are constantly changing and new runways and
other facilities need to be added from time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also
be dynamic, continually changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts.
At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible
development around MSP that would hamper its efficient operation in the long term.
To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan
Airports Commission have been meeting informally since Iate 1994 with representatives of
local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan,
Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. .The group's primary goal has been to identify
and explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities in the
1
6-2- •
• ••
airport environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.'. In essence, these discussions have
- -focused.on,how to make the airport a•.better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of
surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. _Recognizing that this effort was.a two-way street,
.the group also:examined ways•to,prevent;new-incompatible development that:might adversely
affect the air rtt• :.:..; ... ..r: •.�.,_ ��._ _�; (, �, 115.:
,,....:�:
'11 -i ..t ..- •-. - ...5.�"J •3 LJSJ Va. - l�� -.. _vim Vt�•:J _. ..� ...�°J• ..L . ...
_ t•.... r .. -..
During 1995, the group has examined a wide range•of tools and techniques•and has developed a
mitigation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision
regarding location of MSP.2 This package includes several of the most promising approaches
identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative
action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private sector
businesses: • •
•
• • Community stabilization technioues such as property value guarantees, tax .•
credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible
land use prior to deterioration. -
•
• Community revitalization approaches such as tailored tax increment financing
• - " districts and community development banks. .-•: • : • • • • . • • •
• Incentive programs similar to those commonly used in siting large facilities to
provide offsetting benefits (such as neighborhood recreation centers) to a
community or neighborhood. These would include incentives from private firms
(e.g., the airlines, car rental companies) as well as from public agencies.
• ••-s Airport protection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure
that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not
occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures are'undertaken;
•
The group also examined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available.
While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level
of noise (typically within the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can
be made that the impact area should not be so-narrowly termed. 'When homes are demolished
within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable housing may be
•significant throughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a
community's tax base. Of course,airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts
on a community, for example, major changes in traffic levels and patterns.
'A summary of the operating principles adopted by.the group is attached to this document.
• . : !The,measures discussed.by-the group•did not discuss changes in airport operations, such
as limitations on hours of operations and alterations of flight patterns, that may be necessary
fully ameliorate adverse impacts.
•
2
• 63
Based on such considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine
which communities should be eligible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First,
only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC
would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within
which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods within
one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted on the attached map. The definition of the precise
boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legislature to the
Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected
neighborhoods.
•
•
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
•
Community Stabilization • - . -
Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help
stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport
area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize
neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such
as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are
limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues.
Property-Value Guarantees _ •• . • • 1
Where landowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely affected by noise from airport
operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception may lead to a
pattern of flight from the neighborhood,thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area,
and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land
uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some
owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them.
Experience in the Village of'Oak Park, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates
that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioration by providing
guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee
program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this.
Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an
$90 application fee that covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses. If after five
years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled to
be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during
that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible.
Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have
it purchased by a village-established Equity Assurance Commission. • • •. • - -•
Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears'of property value loss. While over
• 160 homeowners initially joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. Interestingly,
3
. 6 �
•
y
•
no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and
remains a desirable residential community.. •.. :. ... .• . .• . . . .. . • . . . . . . . •
li
Emulating this.concept; local governments'around.vISP.:should.be authorized-to establish a
•• ...program that pledges-_to.reimburse-landowners forlosses in property-value,caused by-airport
.operations and impacts.: Backup funding to cover any payouts-might come from the state or the
•Metropolitan Airports • Commission. The :.local governments- would . pass -through :such
reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to.waive
any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for any equity reimbursement, the rationale being
that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where
owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to
purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the
state or MAC. Participation would be optional for all property owners within a designated
eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone). - -
Preferential Tax Programs
To encourage citizens to.continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical-or social
stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have
-adopted a variety of income.and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of
. Minnesota recently adopted •an urban homesteadin g program that authorizes the Metropolitan
Council to designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that are in transition to blight and
poverty::Any person buying or occupying.a home within such a zone is eligible for'an•exemption
from Minnesota taxable income for.up to five years (up to a limit of $15,000 for married
individuals filing a joint return)in specified circumstances. : • - • • .• . •
•
• Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special property tax benefits to encourage owners
of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fourth mile of major transit stops.
The goal is to encourage job density around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible. •
The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax benefits to businesses locating
in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes
,Section 4733915) . . .- . • -
In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep
existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a
designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved
out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be
recaptured. • •
Housing Revitalization Programs • L • •
As noted above,-several of the'MSParea'comtnunities have undertaken aggressive and innovative
housing revitalization programs. However; where these efforts involve direct government action
4 •
ds
-_
as they'do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local
jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit
program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make improvements to •
homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and
similar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into
spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged: Interestingly,
in Minnesota half of the credits have been claimed by owners of homes.with values less than
$85,000. Thus the state legislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit
program for homes in designated airport-impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective by reducing
the age limitation to fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a
wider range of housing.
In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly
encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage,lending rates, down payment requirements,
reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs
for prospective homeowners—especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, special
lending programs embodying these concepts, in addition to those already in effect in other areas,
to encourage more aggressively first-time home buyers, thus helping to stabilize the airport-area
neighborhoods. . ..
Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proven.to'be useful.tools in broader
community stabilization and housing preservation programs. Typically, local governments create
low-interest loan rehabilitation loan.funds.for designated areas. (e.g.,:an historic district).
Homeowners in the district can borrow funds for rehabilitation at below-market interest rates, thus
encouraging investment of their private dollars: Payment can be made over a specified term or
upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. A similar program
is currently available in Minneapolis through MCDA—the Middle Income Housing Program. This
program is not limited to first-time homeowners; it makes loans available for housing
rehabilitation such as putting a new roof on a house.
Funding for such a program tailored for the airport area might come from a one-time .
appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue
bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a combination of sources including
some form of local match.
•
Community Rev italiz ation
Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of
"preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally
discovered that there are no "silver bullets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will •
depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital
investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substantial experience with
commercial and residential revitalization programs, but more programs are needed to enable them
to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts. . 0 .
5
•
Tax Increment Financing - - „4•
.•. Tax•increment_fmancin (17).districts have roven to effective community revitalization
.. . g�j P . tY
- :.tool:throughout the_state. .-/There :are currently-five'general types-of:TIF districts,•and the
;municipalities surrounding MSP.may qualify:to:use One:or more•:df these districts:=Generally,
:however,'there are limitations imposed relating-to percentage•of substandard structures in an area,
purposes for which funds can be spent,the basis upon which the increment is calculated,-and areas
within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport
impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could
become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues.
•
These recommended changes include:
• • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to a specified
percentage of substandard housing, location within an airport impact zone would
trigger use of the district.
• Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in
addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. •Other qualifying
• • expenditures might be noise 'insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue
- •- • - bonds, community facilities,-etc: " • -
• Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere
_.: : within broader project.area,perhaps the'entire airport impact zone;..do not limit
just to district. • _ . •• • :. . . . . •_--_ • , _ -.
• Increment, basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero.
Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the
communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax increment financing in
the qualifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another
alternative for consideration would be to spread the reduction over the seven
county region the reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the
- special burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout
the region.
•
• ' • Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of
airports around the United States are encouraging non-aviation related commercial
development on airport land,particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of
an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of
buffer properties for non-aviation commercial uses, and such properties should be
included in districts, the increment equivalent being-paid into a fund to be used to
address airport impacts.
6
_•
Community Development Bank •
Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient
in the success of community revitalization programs.. . shows that in blighted or
deteriorating areas, bank lending and other_traditional sources of renovation and revitalization
funding may.dry up or• conventional financing may. not be sufficient to••stimulate private
investment. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung up that
might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest .
financing. •
•
One of the most successful of these community development banks—the South Shore Bank in
Chicago—is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted
residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has
been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhood that had been written off by most observers In
most respects, this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood
financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks—credit worthiness of
the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important difference, however, is that
a significant amount of the•banks funds are in "development deposits"—deposits by institutions and
individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for
neighborhood rehabilitation.. As the bank's executive•vice president has stated, "We are owned
by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations, but who are-also interested in
economic development." •
•Community development banks.often make rehabilitation funds available at below-market interest
rates or with extended payment schedules. This non-traditional financing is often the key to
getting the revitalization ball rolling. Funds for such non-traditional programs come from a
variety of sources—community development funds, Community Reinvestment Act programs, and
private sector contributions, to name only a few. •
The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is worthy of further
exploration. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are Iower for these communities than
was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration
in some residential areas and provide venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial areas,
particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital for such
a bank might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even
the state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the
airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program-related investments (which
typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.)
f
Community Incentive Programs - .
•
In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly common practice to
provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the
impacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e.g., a large industrial development or ski
7
6'7
S
•
resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of
- significant amounts of park land to offset loss of open space on-site or increased demand on local
.. _parks.associated with,an.,influx of;new,workers._;The,types-of other..incentives offered by
developers include: -3- - - — .,._ ,:..� ;� - "���;; .._ .. 3..::'
• Community and recreation centers;
• • ,--.. Contributions •;towards local :police,.-.fire,- and:: emergency:_ medical
services/equipment; • -• • -- .' -. . . . • • ' • • •
• Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts;
• Special rates for use of commercial facilities (e.g., discount tickets at a ski
• resort). -
In a general sense, these incentives and benefits are intended to protect and possibly enhance the
quality of life in an area in which a new development is viewed as potentially compromising that
quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major
• development. •
In the context of the airport, an incentive/mitigation package might include, for example, funding
for additional indoor recreational facilities. The logic would be that such facilities would help
"compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for-the adverse impacts airport noise has on the use of
outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this direction by making
some of its land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreational
• opportunities, but also provides an.important buffer for neighboring Richfield.•
Private companies might also be enlisted in this effort. In many communities, airlines contribute
free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. • For example, to
encourage community involvement in planning for the redevelopment of.Stapleton Airport in
Denver, Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for
school-age children to suggest interesting uses for the site. The MSP communities feel that the
many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more •
than willing to weigh in on the side of keeping the airport at its current location have an obligation
to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation programs,
because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the
airport, let aldne the serious secondary effects discussed above.
Airport Protection Measures
A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing
construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps
have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For example, the state has
enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities
within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or
expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as part of
its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are
8
•
bq
•
•
•
to be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these
requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP •
pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active.• And•while a few airport-area
municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not(although most
have some noise protection/insulation standards for new construction).
If the airport is to continue to function in an efficient, safe manner, it is important that steps be
taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider:
• Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council -
noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board.
• Putting "teeth" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that
local compliance is ensured:•At the same time, the state legislature must address
the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local
governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage
award against them.
• Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they
specify preferred result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in
- . achieving a specified objective. - . - • •
• Providing land use planning assistance to. local governments so that they'can
comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to airport impacts.
•
•
•
•
•
9
v
•
•
.. ; w � ' '
• i
_ s =
- AIRPORT IMPACT MITIGATION TOOLS SUMMARY-.... • •--•
TOOL SOURCE OF EXAMPLE
AUTHORITY/FUNDING
•
Property Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota , Oak Park, Illinois, equity
assurance program. .
•
Preferential Tax Programs State of Minnesota Minnesota urban home-
steading legislation.
•
Housing Revitalization , State of Minnesota Minnesota "This Old House"
Programs legislation tax credits for
• home renovation.
•
. _.. . Tax Increment Financing - State of Minnesota - .Current state tax increment
-•- - Expansion • - financing legislation.
- • ._.... . Community Development ' MAC/State /Airport-Related.. 'South Shore Bank.in..__ _ _ __ _
Bank • Businesses .." Chicago. - -• Community Incentive Airport-Related Businesses/ Large real-estate -
- Programs MAC developments; ski resorts.
•
•
10
e-7/ -
___---____'_ _-- ------__— -_- -_
• • o :is_ o '
VW •' . " '
.• • , °MI A .. 4, . ..f..:
. .;...__:...._.;,
i . . es X - '•
.:.- •• , 111411k*.._." ...„..„-•-■!--_.....Hir • • ••./,...--
rfr .• _..
rri SD
I pi. , ,
m = - 1 411°1
fa t0
44 4j / i, j . 1
441'1.ki:‘IPH\ Ei ito
Ai
Li
'Now■ _ ---!rol ,‘ i d
iii
I Plir" ' .
:----n -- • - ------------•- -" Nt4 .,,.', El illr - c A 1
i ifl _ _ ri.„.4.E.:.. _ ... .... ... ....
...... . il
ill
0 •
3 Or . r 7.3,,,4;,.•_-; t7.'
V) --/ _440°MN....-...:: —...11\
10t 11 0
Is
,...-- I 4 .
iir 4 , ,
...._
, , ...,, ... .
i Arir .
c 'I
, 7 411. lev . ,
% C):41111: i . - - - -. c) - cn ,
0
ft.- li lib
u . 1 id .1 I
K , :,
. ...,
. 2... .._
. . c. . Lip
> ,
) 11. 1 W - (;.---_, ,,-.; r i.
g el .,
• F 1
(.0 -1" .1 . ..c.
MEMO
_city of ea an -
9
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1995
SUBJECT: APC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
At its meeting of November 28,the Advisory Planning Commission unanimously approved
a recommendation that the City support the expansion of the current airport as the
preferred outcome of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Their reasons are
addressed more fully in the discussion below.
In coming to this conclusion, the Commission reviewed a series of ten criteria pertaining
to community planning and development impacts associated with the expansion of the
existing airport or its relocation to eastern Dakota County. To facilitate this review, the
Commission received copies of the Metropolitan Council study of Development and Policy
Impacts of Relocating the Airport, executive summaries of the Expanded Airport and New
airport Environmental Documents, traffic generation data for each option and the draft
language of the Regional Development Blueprint concerning planning policies for airport
relocation. The Commission also considered information presented at the public hearing
regarding this issue on November 15.
Through its analysis, the Commission indicated that some of the planning criteria
supported each option and that a number were neutral from the perspective of the City.
Overall, however, the Commission stated strongly that the planning criteria supported the
expansion of the airport at its current location.
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING MATRIX CRITERIA
Environmental Issues
Compatible Land Use: Safety and Noise Sensitive Uses. The relocation alternative would
be more compatible with land uses within the City due to decreased aircraft noise
impacts, fuel dumps and safety concerns for residential neighborhoods. The expansion
alternative would introduce new noise impacts in south and west Eagan and, in the long
run, in north and east Eagan if a north parallel runway were eventually built. The
relocated airport,being situated farther from Eagan would result in fewer overflights of the
City and at higher altitudes. The introduction of Stage III, quiet generation aircraft will
-- ,_-
reduce the impact of individual operations, but the growth of operations and its
concentration to the south and south east will offset that change.
The areas of additional impact present few opportunities for noise compatible
redevelopment. In addition, the City has already provided a substantial area of
commercial and industrial land use in the north part of the City. It does not appear that
this part of the region would reasonably support more of these land uses than have
already been provided.
Expansion -
Relocation +
Social: Residential Population Affected. The impacts noted above suggest that the
relocated airport would have, less impact on residential areas of the City and as such
would have fewer social impacts than an expanded airport. Because other factors are
involved in the social criteria,however, the difference between the alternatives is not as
great. While increased noise may affect many neighborhoods, a percentage of the City's
population and social structure of the community relates to the current location of the
airport. While it is unlikely that Eagan residents who work at the airport would need to
move if it were relocated, the relationship would be slightly less convenient. .
Expansion -
Relocation 0
Historical/Archaeological: Number of Resources. Trinity Lone Oak Church and School
would be the principal historical resource affected by expansion at the current airport.
Since much of the noise impact is already present and it could be affectively mitigated
through sound insulation,the net impact of the expansion alternative is minimal. No such
impacts were identified for. the relocation alternative.
Expansion 0
Relocation 0
City/Community Impact Issues
Demand for Public Services: Comparison of Supply/Demand. The two alternatives may
present different service burdens in that the current demand largely mirrors the demand
which would be created by an expansion of the current airport. As such, expansion is
likely to reinforce current trends in City service provision. Changes in traffic levels and
patterns and shifts in development associated with the relocated airport will result in
demands for increased police protection, development and redevelopment assistance,
transit improvements and other municipal services. Within this criteria, it appears.that the
demands would outweigh the benefits if the airport were to relocate.
Expansion +
Relocation -
Consistency with Plans: Qualitative Assessment. As noted previously, expansion would
largely result in traffic and development activity consistent with that the City has
anticipated in the past. Commercial nodes and residential neighborhoods would be
expected to remain intact and the build out of the community would largely follow the
City's expectations. Relocation would likely shift development patterns and the center of
the metropolitan area slightly to the south and east. Eagan would then lie between
downtown Minneapolis, the 494 strip and the airport and the City would need to do more
to adapt its various comprehensive plans to this situation. Since some of this shift could
have positive consequences for the City, the overall effect is expected to be neutral.
Expansion +
Relocation 0
Financial Issues
Capital Construction Costs: Dollars. Current estimates place the two alternatives about
$1.5 billion apart. This is a substantial cost which will be passed through to the airport
users. Unless the new airport's expanded capacity permits air traffic growth in excess of
the capacity of the current airport, the difference will be borne by the users. It is
significant, however, that even expansion will cost $2.9 billion. As such, it will be
important for the region to be certain that it is investing in the project which will meet its
needs in the future.
Expansion 0
Relocation -
Impact on Local Jurisdictions: Qualitative Assessment. While each alternative will have
unique costs and benefits as noted above, they tend to offset one another and do not
differentiate between the options.
Expansion 0
Relocation 0
Tax Base: The expansion of the airport at its current site would have a positive impact
on the Eagan's tax base because it will support continued commercial and industrial
development in the City. The relocation of the airport to eastern Dakota County would
have an even greater positive impact on the City's tax base because the new airport site
will shift the region's development focus to the south and east. This will result in even
more commercial-industrial growth along the corridors from the central cities and 494 to
the new airport site. If the new airport's capacity allows air traffic growth in excess of the
capacity of the expansion, there will be more net development for the entire region and
Eagan will be situated to capture a significant portion of that growth.
Expansion +
Relocation ++
Mitigation: The expansion alternative will result in increased noise impacts in residential
neighborhoods. It is essential that these be mitigated as a part of the project and
Included in the project cost. In addition, sound insulation should be made available to all
schools, churches and other public gathering places within a reasonable proximity of the
runways. At a minimum, this would include Trinity Lone Oak Church and School and
Tesseract School near the runway ends. The City should also receive consideration in
the form of redevelopment assistance for areas where residential uses may no longer be
compatible with an expanded airport.
The relocation alternative will result in increased traffic and will require an upgrade of
Highway 55 and a new interchange between 55 and 494. It would be essential that any
improvements of the state and interstate highway systems include provisions for adequate
access to adjacent properties and that they be part of the project cost. Increased traffic
may have benefits for development in the northern part of Eagan, but the City should not
permit a repetition of the Cedarvale situation in which access and visibility are dramatically
reduced even though the traffic volumes which support commercial uses are increased.
Expansion 0
Relocation -
Local Infrastructure: In the case of the expansion alternative, most of Eagan's
infrastructure is already in place. As a consequence,this option would be neither positive
nor negative for the City. In the case of relocation, however, it is anticipated that most
of the mitigation necessary in Eagan would be in the area of infrastructure, particularly
transportation and access modifications associated with the upgrade of Highway 55. If
this mitigation is not adequately funded by the project, it could result in a direct burden
on the affected property owners and City taxpayers. Induced development is anticipated
to cover its own costs in either case, so it would only be the extraordinary impacts which
would differentiate between the alternatives.
LAND BANKING
While the Commission's findings with respect to the planning criteria support expansion
of the current airport over relocation at the present time, the maintenance of options for
the future was determined to be especially important. If growth in air traffic exceeds the
ability of the current site to meet the needs of the region, or if the impacts of expansion
are actually greater than that anticipated at this time, it is essential that the region
preserve its options. Land, banking of the Hastings location would insure that an
adequate site is available without having to recreate an eight year process for options
even more costly than those being considered now.
While the preservation of a site will add expense to the project in the near term, it would
be a valuable insurance policy that would protect the region's major airport from •
becoming landlocked. If it were necessary to acquire urbanized land for expansion at the
existing site at some point in the future, the costs would easily run into the billions of
dollars before any improvements were even begun.
Land banking by either acquisition or land use controls would permit the Hastings site to
continue to be used for agricultural production and prevent incompatible development in
the area which would limit future options and drive costs up.
Vi6PAAAAZL
As start to the City Administrator
•
•
27
,t .
I ,
•
•
MEMO
_city of eagan
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTE1N
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1995
SUBJECT: EDC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
-
At its meeting of November 30,the Economic Development Commission determined that
the expansion of the current airport would be the preferred outcome for the City of Eagan.
In making its decision, the Commission considered the Metropolitan Council study of the
Magnitude of Economic Development Around the New Airport Site and executive
summaries from the Expanded Airport and New Airport Environmental Documents. The •
Commission also reviewed the Metropolitan Council's draft language recommending
development within existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundaries if the airport is
relocated and a staff summary which highlights features of the alternatives. Full copies
of all documents are available for City Council review. The Commission also considered
information presented at the public hearing regarding this issue on November 15.
Like the Advisory Planning Commission and Airport Relations Commission,the EDC made
use of the decision matrix and criteria which will be used by the Metropolitan Council and
the Metropolitan Airports Commission in approaching a decision on this issue. Twelve
criteria were identified within four areas which relate to the areas of expertise of the
Commission. The findings regarding each are outlined below.
The Commission found that some criteria supported each option and that there would be
costs and benefits of each. Of the criteria the Commission reviewed, more supported the
expansion of the airport at the current location than supported relocation.
•
•
DISCUSSION OF MATRIX CRITERIA
Ground Access Issues
Value of Travel Time (Passenger): Dollar value of travel time. With the highway
improvements anticipated for each option, the Commission found that the expansion of
the current site, even with a new west terminal would be more convenient for Eagan
residents and businesses. It was noted, however, that Eagan's location made the new
site more convenient for Eagan than it would be for much of the rest of the region.
Expansion 0
Relocation -
Value of Travel Time (Cargo): Dollar value of travel time. The Commission came to
similar conclusions about the travel time for freight. Since much of the economic activity
in the region is concentrated in the same areas as the traveling public. It was noted that
the more efficient layout of a completely new airport could increase efficiencies once
cargo reached the airport and this may offset the additional travel time somewhat.
Expansion +
Relocation -
City Economic Issues
Short-Term Direct Economic Effects: Construction Payroll/Purchases. Because the
relocation project costs more, the short-term benefits to Eagan contractors and
businesses is likely to be greater than with the expansion, although the expansion will still
involve several billion dollars in economic activity. Major construction projects can bring
direct benefits to businesses as strategically located as those in Eagan.
Expansion 0
Relocation +
Regional Investment Climate: Qualitative Assessment. Due to the higher investment in
a capital facility, the Commission determined that a relocated airport would have a
significant effect on the scale of the region's economy. It would also offer opportunities
for investment in more areas of the region than would occur with an expansion at the
existing site.
Expansion 0
Relocation +
City Investment Climate: Qualitative Assessment. The Commission indicated that the
expansion of the current site would reinforce the City's current economic development
patterns and as such would be better for Eagan. A new airport would shift economic
activity from northwest to southeast across the region and, while Eagan would likely
29
•
•
capture a portion of it, the pressures for new development would be shared by other
areas of Dakota County. The new airport would probably not hurt Eagan's businesses
in general, but the Commission determined that expansion would concentrate more
activity in Eagan due to its proximity.
Expansion +
Relocation 0
Community Impact Issues
Job Development: Number of New Jobs. Both alternatives were anticipated to
encourage the formation of new jobs for Eagan. Because of Eagan's location between
a new airport site, downtown Minneapolis and 494,the Commission concluded that there
would be slightly greater benefit with this option. Similar to the effects of the investment
climate, however, it was clear to the Commission that the expansion alternative would
result in significant job formation as well.
Expansion +
Relocation +
Commercial/Industrial Disruption: Number of Jobs Lost. While Metropolitan Council
studies to date indicate that most existing. businesses in the airport area would remain
even if the airport were to move, a relocation still would affect those businesses directly
related to the airport. Surveys indicate that general office and manufacturing uses, hotels
and restaurants would succeed on and near 494 with or without the airport. Freight
forwarders, rental car agencies and parking facilities would likely establish locations close
to a new airport. As such, relocation may involve a slight amount of disruption and
expansion very little.
Expansion 0/+
Relocation 0
Financial Issues
Capital Construction Costs: Dollars. The Commission focused on the difference in cost
between the two options since both are multi-billion dollar undertakings. The $1.9 billion
• difference can be viewed'as either an additional expenditure if one assumes that demand
will remain the same regardless of the option or it can be viewed as an investment with
a return if the availability of efficient facilities and more capacity were to attract more
passengers and development than would have occurred with the capacity of an expanded
airport. While the Commission believed that some additional growth would occur with
relocation, it would not completely offset the cost difference between the options. It was
characterized as being close to a wash between the options, but not quite.
Expansion 0
Relocation -
Per Passenger Costs: Dollars. The discussion of this criteria largely mirrored the capital
cost discussion since it is assumed that most costs will be passed on to the user. Again
the presence of additional capacity may attract slightly more traffic, thus spreading the
capital and operating costs over a greater number, but the Commission does not expect
growth to be so much greater as to offset the difference.
Expansion 0
Relocation -
Opportunity to Capture Industrial Values: Qualitative Assessment. As industrial valuation
tracks with the attractiveness of the investment climate, the Commission determined that
the City would enjoy enhanced economic activity regardless of the option chosen. The
reinforcement of existing development patterns gives the slight edge in this criteria to the
expansion alternative.
Expansion +
Relocation 0
Tax Base: For the reasons outlined above, both of the alternatives will enhance the City's
tax base. Expansion may have slightly more benefit for the commercial-industrial segment
of the City's tax base and relocation may offer some level of benefit for the residential
segment. As a consequence, the alternatives are not perceived as being different under
this criteria.
Expansion +
Relocation +
Mitigation: The Commission indicated that the greatest need for mitigation in an
economic development sense would come with the relocation of the airport. The group
suggested that the availability of certain redevelopment tools would be essential to
facilitate an orderly modification of uses if some level of dislocation were to occur. While
the Commission acknowledged that there would be a need for mitigation of other effects
if the airport expands, they considered that to be under the other Commission's areas of
responsibility and did not comment on it.
Expansion +
Relocation 0
LAND BANKING
The Commission recommends that the City Council endorse Land Banking as a means
of preserving the Dakota County site for the future. While the Commission's support of
the expansion alternative is based on its belief that further development of the current site
is in the best economic interest of Eagan and the region, the group recognizes that an
adequate, efficient airport is essential to the economic vitality of a metropolitan area. As
such, the Commission indicated that it would be prudent for the MAC to control the
1
proposed site either by land use controls, option agreements or acquisition to ensure that
it would be available if traffic demands outstrip the capacity of even an expanded airport.
If the state does not take'this step at this time, the site will likely be developed in ways
incompatible with an airport and force the region and state to go through another lengthy
and expensive site selection process in the future. If any of the projections or
assumptions about expansion prove to be wrong, an option would still be available if the
land were banked. The $110 million cost of acquisition of the Dakota County site is
relatively minor in the context of a $3 billion project.
As istant to the City Administrator
•
•
•
■ Bublect to AeerevpJ
MINUTES OF THE
• EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS PUBLIC HEARING
- November 15,1!!5 . '
A special meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission to provide pubic input
regarding the Dual Track Airport Planning Process was held on Wednesday,November 15, 1925 at 7:00
p.m.Present were Bob Cooper,Mike Schiax,Jonathan White,Steve SoderIng,Jane Vanderpoel and Lance
Staricha. Also present were Assistant to the City Administrator Hohensteln. Absent was Pat Todd. In
the absence of Chair Todd, Commission member Schiax was the Acting Chair. •
AGENDA
Upon motion by Cooper,seconded by White,the agenda was approved as presented. All
members voted in approval -
PUBLIC HEARING-DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Background Presentation-
Schiax stated that the City would invite comments on the costs and benefits of the
expansion and relocation tracks or landbanldng for Eagan. He also asked for input on mitigation of the
cts•
Jon Hohenstein provided some background on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process,
and the City's activities with respect to the process to date. He referenced several items of background
information including the MAC brochures of each attemative. He indicated that the APC,ARC and EDC
would baize recommendations to be considered by the City Council on December 19.
MAC Presentation—
Nigel Finney of the Metropolitan Airports Commission was present to explain the MAC and
Metropoltan Council process to date. The following are points he discussed:
Expansion vs.Relocation -
- identifying the demand
What are the pros and cons of each option
— Recommendation by the MAC and MC to the legislature. -
- Environmental impacts-EIS,etc, The EQB and FM will address adequacy.
— Forecasts in brochures
— Higher growth in passengers than in traffic. .
— NWA expects hubbing to decrease to 45% of the passengers by the year 2010+ •
—• Bassin of 520,000 operations wh igh of 600,000+and bws of 300,000 If NWA
leaves
— Reviewed expansion afemative -
- Search areas as defined by Metro Council •
— Described relocation option
— Environmental reviews to date
r3
. •
v t _
•
•
•
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DUAL TRACK PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING •
NOVEMBER 15,1995 •
PAGE2
•
EC1B approved Alternative Environmental Document process
— EIS options (annual costs of delay In 2020) • .
. - No Action-$66 million annual cost
• - Expansion N-S Wriest terminal-$28 million annual savings
- New airport-same terminal with 6 runways-$58 million annual savings
- He stated that the fiscal impacts and financing studies will be available in December.
Vanderpool asked what the bottom tine was, $2.8 v. 4.7 and how much noise mitigation
is Included. Finney replied that mitigation Is only including the 65 DNL so far. He continued that mitigation
to 60 DNL requires a change in federal law.
Sodering stated that mitigation needs to go farther out and costs need to be Included for
costs farther out. Finney stated that this is being considered by the Met Council.
Cooper stated that the contours do not seem realistic compared to current noise. •
Finney explained that the switch to an all Stage HI fleet will cause contours to shrink even •
if the number of fights Increases.
White commented that the passenger and operations forecasts imply that operations activity
are increasing slower than the number of passengers due to full planes and bigger planes. Northwest -�
Airlines is hushkitting smaller planes.
Finney stated that the MAC is constantly revising projections and that they have multiple
projection scenarios.
Schiax opened the bor for public Input.
Mike Sullivan of 1478 Bridgewater stated that he is generally supportive of the current r
bcation, but wanted to know how we can check the credibility of contours. Mr. Finney replied that the
information is public, but 8 may be necessary to have this interpreted by a consultant
Don Knight of 1455 Highview stated that he Ives at the top of the hill and is probably
affected as much as anyone by noise from the airport. He said that he has lived at that address for 37
years and has seen a major Increase In the number of operations. He felt that they should not consider
a second airport site. The current airport is close to businesses and what they really need is new •
technology for the planes to climb faster and operate quieter. He felt that it would be an economic disaster •
If the airport were to move. He would Ike to see some kind of teeth in the standards for corridor operations.
He said they should fine those who violate corridors and we could ive with the airport if they can comply
to the corridor.
•
Dave Sturm of 750 Bridle Ridge agreed with what Mr.Knight said about the value of the •
airport remaining where it is. He said he contacted the FM at their regional office In Chicago and they -
have given different answers regarding corridor compliance. He continued that aircraft are not only flying
outside the corridor but too low. He said they need better controls at the current site. If this can't be helped
then the airport should move.
Gus Zucerro who Ives at 2841 Highridge Terrace asked if dollar estimates reflect all the
costs. Does It cover the costs of NWA and military relocation? He said that the contour from NM doesn't
• F494
•
•
•
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DUAL TRACK PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING - -
NOVEMBER 15,1995 •
PAGE 3 - -
•
- cross the drier. How would the north parallel affect Eagan? He felt that the airport should stay where k's
sit. •
Hohenstein Indicated that NWA and the military are part of the Dual Track Process and
those costs are in the estimates. Schtax stated that the north parallel would force more planes over
- residential parts of Eagan. • - - -
Marvin Sell of 1471 HIghview asked what would happen to the existing airport He stated
that the airport is in a good location and If the airport were to move people would move toward k and
. recreate the problem. -
• Hohensteln explained that a reuse study had identified three scenarios for the existing site.
Tom Monahan of 2840 Hlghrldge Terrace asked If plans for a new airport would permit
better control of land use at the new site. He felt that there should be control within five miles of the airport.
He also said that the 25 year planning horizon may be too short. K we are wrong, it will cost even more
. in the future. He felt that the best attemative would be to do nothing and land bank for the future. He
stated that he is opposed to spending $2.0 billion to expand the current airport. Mr. Finney replied that
current legislation allow the Met Council to control land use from 3-5 miles from the boundaries of the new
airport Because of this,they can ensure that land use is better controlled. The key question is whet do
you get for the money you spend.
t.. David Boyce of 4350 Livingston Drive stated that he Is generally supportive of the existing
site for business purposes.But he stated that his neighborhood has experienced more noise than was the
case several years ago when he moved in.He stated that he wondered If this would be the last expansion
- or will they need to something else later on? Mr. Finney replied that the average annual delay of four
minutes is considered a imlt. The N/S is necessary to keep the four minute delay. By the year 2020 the
third parallel will meet the four minute delay. -
Gus Zucarro stated that he felt land banking puts people in limbo and so would land use
oordroh. • -
Sodering asked if the new parallel runway would permit true independent operations and
intrude 15 degree divergence? Mr.Finney did not have an answer and stated he would check on this.
Sodertng asked how traffic would flow on the north-south runway or Runway 4172.Would
I be south and west from those runways Runway 422 and north and east on the parallels? Mr. Finney .
stated that k is not unusual to see that flow.
Jerry Segal of the Advisory Planning Commission stated that he was concerned that
. projec5ons assumed flubbing and was not sure how to incorporate that possibility In the consideration.
•
Schist stated that Kansas City it an example of an airport whin hixbbing went away.
Ron Voraoek of the Economic Development Commission stated that he was at the meeting •
to listen. He asked that if the airport relocated,what would control development? '
Hohenstein Indicated that the Met Councils poky is to retain the current standards for
. expansion of the MUSA fine so most new development would occur where utilities currently exist.
•
•
•
•
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION •
DUAL TRACK PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 15,1995 •
PAGE 4
•
• -• Schlax stated that studies Indicate much of the existing 494 economic activity would stay
In place.
Staricha stated that the mitigation plan for expansion includes only the Part 150 type
development. He asked if there were operational restrictions,wiU the airport reach capacity sooner? Mr.
Finney replied that there are no new operations controls In the current plans.
•
White asked how the expansion will affect the FM controls on parking,etc. Mr.Finney
• replied that It may in the short term but that It's a design not a cost Issue. -
Don Christenson asked why they would move the terminal. Mr. Finney replied for three
reasons-to double the ternninat size,increase the aircraft parking 68-83,and increase customer parking.
Two terminals would be more difficult than one bigger one.
Marvin Sell asked if they could spread out the(tights through the day rather than hubbing.
Hohenstein replied that hubbing requires peak hours.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper,seconded.by Soderling,the public hearing was dosed and the
meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
• JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary
•
•
I
November 15, 1995
Dual Track Position
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn 55122
Gentlemen:
I would like to express my opion regarding the plans
to expand the airport.
First, you will note by my address that I live right under
the corridor for departing and arriving flights. No one
tells you this when you build a home. We moved in May 1 ,
1992. I paid particular attention to airplane noise when
we visited the model home for Woodland Country Homes.
There was no noticeable noise. It all seemed to be over
Mendota Heights where we used to live. This seemed normal
to me and my wife. We later found out there was a test
going on which diverted more air traffic to Mendota Heights
instead of Eagan. Suffice to say we in Woodland Country Homes
are very upset about the 18-25 flights that go over our
homes at least four to five hours of the day. Including
flights as late as 11 :00 P.M.
We have called the complaint number but this is a joke.
We also attended a Eagan meeting to voice our complaints
about air traffic. The chairman was a former Northwest
Airlines employee and could only say the airline will
not do this and will not do that. So what is the use.
One item of interest that did come out of this meeting was
that the airport commission back in the seventies insisted
the city provide a corridor for flights. But I further
understand the commission has defined that corridor as a
three mile zone and after that the plane can divert right
ver the residential areas. . . .which is exactly what they do.
That corridor of three miles was established as I understand
it in 1975. Doesn't anyone think the city has changed in
twenty years. Why can't the planes stay in the "corridor"
bounded by 494 in the North to 149 in the South. We in NE
Eagan would still hear the planes but at least we could
open our windows in the summer. Or we could sit on our
patio 's which we cannot do now.
7 ?
As I am typing this letter planes are going right over.
This ar a has become a heavily dev loped industrial area
and yet there are going to be about 100 townhomes built
by Woodland and Westcott townhomes. One block away the city
is allowing single family homes of $400,000 to be built
in an area which is a high traffic area for trucks and noise
from the planes. In addition there is the Gopher re-Cycling
plant with its fans going 24 hours a day. Across from that
facility is a pit for recycling concrete. The noise for the
past six months has been so bad we cannot -open a window on
a nice summer evening.
. I frankly do not understand why two-thirds of the flights
have to come east. Many days both the North runaway aad
South runaway come close enough to this area that the noise
is doubled. I presume they do that when Mendota Heights
complains to much.
It is my opinion the Airport Commission does not want to
hear how bad it really is. If you call to .complain you must
do it one flight at a time. Instead of keeping track that
twenty flights, with the time came in the last hour you must
call twenty times. They know no one is going to that on a
regular basis and therefore there complaint results do not
reflect the number of irate people.
The noise is so bad here, there are so many upset people that
I am along with others that I know of are moving out of this
city.
I hop this is of some help but you can't me for being skeptical.
With Northwest Airlines headquarters in this city I don't believe
anyone should move within ten miles of the airport.
Regards,
62-Z4a AlC21,144/"'
Richard H. Adrian
•
809 Ivy Lane
Eagan, Mn 55123
PS My first impression of the proposed survey is not favorable.
You need to 'call 150-200 people in Northeast Eagan. This
corner is the intersection for incoming planes from the ast
and south. I do not believe you will ever get a full appreci-
ation of the problem until someone comes out -here on a day
when most of these flights come in and go out. I used to sit
in Mendota Heights and say "the planes coming in actually
look romatic, thoughts of travel adventure etc". I don 't
say that anymore now that I live under those incoming planes.
C4?-1!J
74-; y:_ee,AC3
I. arLe:dti,41 02.440 cy-4.4,0zzot, ceeze,frqe
aivop.zze:e cub e.e4- - _Z-zetzed iv :z
eark zed.e-dA,
t,74) _40e.441 42.e.,ued Ve-gez
Leery%) 07,er-co Cfmely 42;<,
Ah Oei,;t4;44:410 CLACLJ
• .
e0991,4k2Th( 424)
• kafile-d - 17Zez<z
- ,OLe■ /94;t4-Cej Wt6 /-e‹) Ct"oce_r?/
„eadLecleicelee) rtae,Z0* (-7,a /zeia(?elez,
;a1.4, €64,4 0,204 • - fey.„10/4?z0.444,z, •
• pe-ae.),v
-7zeeri--ceire‹..t .
; ‘06,46 ,h-zzt zolte.47,6f.e..4,0,ri_e . v./ ce,zzz4 ,
4,-eillx..efte 4.o2-ee,ne
opeztko.
9532
• a./ze arizt 44i
1-/f9-244/2.
cc'czeorve-p,-)/ 7W-old S.5'4 _
P ? •
.4
•
• • Paul L. Johnson
Millicent M. Johnson
975 Cliff Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55123-1906
•
Dual Track Position
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
•
• To whom it may concern:
•
We, as Eagan residents and taxpayers,wish to go on record as favoring the expansion of
the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport at its present site, with a continuation of
noise mitigation efforts.
We have several reasons for favoring this approach. First is a large economic reason:
• We have a fine terminal which is undergoing expansion as this letter is being written. It
does not make any sense to abandon this facility and then spend billions of dollars to
build a completely new facility with all the maintenance requirements and forcibly
displace all the landowners at the proposed site. Lets not put a huge financial burden
on our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay for this (in one way or another).
One may argue the the costs would be paid by'the passengers....who are the
passengers?and can they or their employers afford the additional costs? Look at DIA,
Denver International Airport: Billions of dollars of cost over-runs and more than a
year late in opening. Can we learn from others mistakes?
New commuting facilities would need to be built to get passengers to and from the
new facility, such as high speed rail,expressways,busses, etc. The additional time
required to commute to the new facility would forever be a loss of productivity. New
roads would be an absolute requirement to handle the local trucking for air freight.
Newer aircraft are designed with quieter engines, so that as aging aircraft are retired
the overall noise should be reduced per aircraft departure. Along with this,the
continued insulation program for homes in the near flight path should reduce the noise
disturbance. •
These are but a few reasons why we oppose the construction of a new airport in
Dakota County.
Sincerely, -
•
9 •
•
1555 Mallard Drive .
Eagan,MN 55122
November 20, 1995
Dual Track Position
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan,MN 55122
Dear Council Members:
As a resident and home owner in Eagan I would like to express my opinion on the airport
location. I feel the airport should remain in the current location and expansions made as
needed.
• My household does experience some airport related noise and that will probably increase.
It is not realistic to live in a metropolitan area in this century and not expect to deal with
airport noise. In a time of corporate and governmental down-sizing and scrutinizing -
financial concerns it is ludicrous to abandoned an existing facility in good condition with
the capability of expansion for the dream of always wanting everything new.
My hope is that we as a city will take the position of being responsible to our resources,
be they natural,financial and material, and support the existing airport location. Thank
you for your interest in the citizens' opinion.
•
Sincerely,
tefriorhy"
Steven Buck
•
1
9/
•
Dual Track Position
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan,MN 55122
18 Novembei 1995
•
•
Dear Sirs:
My family and I are utterly,absolutely,and incontrovertably opposed to the construction of a new or
additional airport to serve the Twin Cities area.
Our opposition is based on moral,ethical,social,financial,and ecological reasons. I assure you that this
position is also held by a majority of my neighbors even though they may not take the time to write.
Please do what you can to prevent this abomination from continuing. •
Sincerely,
Greg Kleen
4257 Sunrise Road
Eagan,MN 55122
•
•
•
•
•
Dual Track Position, •
City of Eagan,
3830 Pilot Knob Road,
Eagan,M.N., 55122
I was not able to attend the public hearing,but I want to call your attention to a problem,
which you may not be aware of. The area near the Cedar bridge is over two miles across
with high bluffs on each side. The"22 flight pattern" causes echoes which reverberate,
reverberate, and REVERBERATE until the plane is out of sight. This does not always happen.
It depends where in that flight path the plane is flying. I have reported this,but if there is
increased use of that runway,it could be a real noise problem to Eagan along 13 and to the Mall
of America and their future plans. I do not favor the cost of a new airport,but the "22"flight
pattern,must be carefully planned and tested.
sincerely,
. •,= • C.Bassett,
2101 Wuthering Heights Road,
Eagan,M.N.,55122
•
•
•
•
93
, _
•
Airport Relations John T.Gorman
3695 Birchpond Road
Eagan,Mn.55122
Commission
November 26,1995
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan,Mn.55122
•
• Dear Commissioners: •
Per the request for citizen input outlined in the Eagan Sun Current Newspaper I am submitting this
letter. ft is my opinion that,the City take a stance against expansion of the airport at its current site
because:
• . The current airport site will not have sufficient land area to accommodate future growth needs
after this expansion.
• The new north/south runway parallel to Cedar Avenue in conjunction with the two existing east/ -
west runways will essentially encompass the entire city with nearly continuous overhead aircraft
noise.
• New pressure for flight curfews and noise mitigation in existing homes will result.
Sincerely,
Zl
T.Gorman
•
•
•
•
• 95/
•
Timothy S. &Riechia E. Ralston
3237 Rolling Hills Drive
Eagan,Minnesota 55121-2344
(612)686-9047
•
. Mr.1onHoeastein . . ••-•-.-
--
• Assistant to the City Adaimstrator
Dual Track Position
The City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
. Eagan,MN 55122
•
Dear Mr.Ro stein•
This letter is to serve as a response to the Airport Location articles in last week's Sun Current and This Week. Due to being
out of town for a family member's illness,we were tenable to attend the public hearing on November 11,1995.
We,Me any other homeowners in our residential area,would very much like to see the airport moved if the noise level is
going to continue to worsen over future years. We moved into But Oaks Subdivision ••• _of the current air traffic
situation However if air traffic and noise leyel are going to increase over time,rather than H H r. botli residents and property
values suffer,we would like to see the airport relocated to a more rural area,like most other cities across America have
dons. •
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, 1
,
Riechia&Tim Ralston
•
•
•
I
•
s
2-96X 012-686-9047 11-27-95 10:30AM P002 #36
•
Metro State University TEL:612-772-7669 Nov. 27'95 1148 No.002 F ..=
Ta
Qty of Eagan
[Sty Council
Advisory Planning Commission
Airport Relations Commission
Economic Development C mmission
•
From: 0, E.Messier
1523 Aspen Drive
Date: November 27, 1995
RE: Airport Location •
I am writing to ask the City of Eagan to officially request that the current 'twin Cities
Metropolitan Airport be relocated to rural Dakota County.
I believe that this is the best alternative for several reasons; •
1) The airport noise would impact the lives of fewer people,
2) Potential aircraft(Busters asters would probably occur in loss populated areas.
3) The City of Eagan would experience a faster rate of economic development,-
such as evid tuxes evidenced 47. the es between the Kansas City airport and downtown
Kansas City,Missouri.
•
4) The further development of the present site is great' restricted by its size and
the surrounding environment,i.e.,industrial,co ,and residential areas.
5) It is imprudent ent to believe that older, noisier aircraft will not be used here in the
foreseeable future. Present deadlines for quieter aircraft may be extended. Even
with quieter, more Mel efficient used airmail available, Northwest Airlines has
recently purchased old DC 9's. ► t
•
6) A commitment by Northwest Airlines to remain in the Twin Cities and Eagan is
• irrelevant because;
a) Tice airline will probably be sold or merge within the next two to three
years. !
b) Minneapolis/S Paul remain a hub as long as the hub system is used
within the airline O. (Milwaukee is too close to both Chicago and
Detroit; De$ Mollies, Omaha, and Sioux Falls are too small; and Kansas
• City and Dover are too distant to serve this section of the country.)
c) A com mitnncnt from Northwest to remain would be as valid as their
pp vious commitment to build a major overhaul facility in northern
I� sota. .
(I) When N orthwest Airines is col d, its offices would y attract .
other major area employers such as American Express - « . Services
(formerly IDS).
9' .
ale ,,',, ',GAO , ._. b_nc ♦n.eeev onni Rio
L.-07W
- _
E e trSigo is 1. t•• .*nisi ss t air mows'ii 1 i Isis/71TV ". 6.' "U -
i)3,01 11 1 lb
. 3 .
...
•- •
. .
•
• .
• :7-,....: •
i . .
• •
•
.AMMInham •i'-'-' '''..201=4-=. 966/ . ,
I i/ '•" -
.:,. 2", -0.r••22°"ft2"=i2=1. AIM r2 =OS PM ■ .-
Ara....E.R.c.,...,. -in inuleM SC% • I • .
a. . _. 7' r W d Z' arnannr
• . ._._ .,,.
....., ET-.. . .....,..........._ ..t.
ill-e...; -
- -• .•____... . ___________ ..... • .
,..
-• _ _ _____ . .
i t 1 1 .--7-----1---r-- ! -T--- 4 . ._
1
L 1
. .
,
1 : •
. 1 .
. .
• •
; .
- - ISib...1.1 ,11t..i. ' '
. .
11}ki Pi i 1 I I
: d
o
• ,
, . J I i 1 1 I I
1
• ...L.4 I;
ti .•
.4
,
. •
mi. ! I li
-.,. . i
1 .
,,,,,,
...,
, s i 1 1 1 ,
, . •:
, , . ..,. : . , _ , .
• .
! ,
• .
, ,
I I 1
11 , , , ,
i • .. .....
Ck i
. i I t i
i t i - 1---1'. 1-- ' I . - - • --,--- P --- - • . : .
•
•
. .
. :
i I
__ _i__._,__ . ,
. . .1. , .._,
.1 • L + i -
__ : ...
.4..... -1; I 4.'ii •• 1 1 1 1--.- 1 1 -1:1 1. ! •
tr ;
1 ,
..., d-- : - . ... .. .
:• • .
i .
• , 1 ,,,1 4-I _ • , 2 .
• 1 • .. ....
..... ..
i .
i 1 1 1
to
_...._...,
1
1 •
. : I
i'") '• ' - : a , . . .
i ,
_._,,__ , ,. .....1 : , - t- , , • • 1 - : , . . ...
_. _
. 1 1 1
illi1 " 1111: 111iill !
, ,
__ __
• i 1
November 22, 1995
Dear Committee:
We are residents of Eagan and live on Diffley Rd. between Cedar Rd. and 135E.
We hear and see the planes going directly over our townhouse. We can hear them
from 5:30 A.M. till 11:00 P.M. at night. We thought we would let you know that we do
hear the jets and they are annoying especially at early and late hours.
We love to see the airport moved. We didn't realize when we bought in Eagan that we
were in the flight pattern, we were told it goes north east of us BUT they certainly do
not. We can see them over us day and night.
Thanks for your consideration. -
Donna and Dale Falksen
Li 6 o k
•
•
liveirao )q95
tatizzY
.. 11.3 / • AZtum / RAC:
• init/ I 5-570/A
it/t- Aftlazdo Zz) -6/te
azippL 4Y2t-pocetk v.tm vsic ..(40 //nr ,rito or?
q i- • /
ot'•, 400 do
)Z6146 . GtJ,Q 41_2/_fL, I / „,wlX _
)chzued 44-e viArlipte JO / d ;0 .442,e
61 c IATUA' , sI a A'-ruo 7'.0 iZ�id CpD lU JA
4J - Ohm .tee 99 o ) .-e/JeLe
aazitiLiiwLc,y)ivyl Aroid 0/ _�i a Aid pit/ s" '/J /' I n .. t.�
• / / A Wit/ I/ .�
/
'/��
'�3�-�� /w ' (mP / 'y'..• � BPD ._,6/4a ht,&o
.b/nbotanalugnd etitzo ,x* O , ' / / jai av7& c44
0,vi ,1 ,ex,rne.m.e 97/79 t6i
,ham AO/a .
41tp J &rid ‘.D )314o ciaApi;of 477? fl ,'1 C�lia�.Q Goa J #� g
I _1 �
lei !i Ll'D .� ' aD IlI _ _�% //L
tO
. ezi)javi
LO I". tte/CP06 Alqg 0-4A,
• 146.e. aQ. / /. .wind / iI► ♦ i I _Y7.I .
1106kM 1,11,1 c:micut 1--1 .; A k 005-4s
sr9
ti• _
_ .
da eL 2/1, • 0/ 11)014.4, J 1041171- A0.49
LAA, to1 / fret, ae,r-ga4/ /
Pragairct i2aetIM WAR. id_glipte .6t a dezadrA
4/ibte- /mina:to •
AA- /
• izzi/ * I i , Ir
,11_22deef eyg-A (
R. • 141 /
• W. 0 I a- ipd/4 14'&_1_8 Y • /14.2j,ei&
Wg77461 7 Idez:e4, Y.40 .a_ Ath0 •
- I ' 4/114 0,0' ' Jffi
edtli .14' A • de)91itakOte
„la , I.tr • Al Ad_404/14170/
A -% Al Z. et
L 104;1 eir dit - AL*
•
4W/17)47 „ • •
• JAI
I.
eel/1E0nd
./
•
•
•
•
•
• •
/6-6
1,1/27/95 16:33 FAX 812 856 0626 F.HIAR/TRASHTRAX
• • _ _ Ob001/..__
To: Airport Relations Commission
City of Fagan
• From: Floyd Hiar
3720 Knoll Ridge Drive
-Eagan, MN 55122-3139
Phone 456-0387 -
Data November 27, 1995
Re: Recommendation to City Council
Dual track airport planning process -
DO NOT SUPPORT EXPANSION OF THE MSP AIRPORT.
When we moved to Eagan • 1986, our neighborhood was a quiet and
peaceful place to live. Ina d air traffic at MSP each year since, has
had a negative impact on o family/and the enjoyment of our home.
Expansion of MSP will result in more and more flights over neighborhoods
that were never intended td be directly under aircraft corridors. The city
of Eagan will end up like south Minneapolis, blanketed by constant aircraft
{ noise, and will experience declining real estate values.
I am to predict that'after the proposed Cedar Ave runway is
operating that our city will experience late night and/or early morning
flight disturbances. Also the airline industry has promised Stage III for
years as a noise solution,yet we see little progress ,eing made. If you
believe the FAA or airline industry promises, 9 I have some great land in
Florida you might be interested in purrrasing."
p
Ex ns oon of MSP is NOT
.
In the best interests • •
ofi Ea an. neighborhoods.
1 •
-
/o/
2■97X 612 456 0626 11-27-95 05:33PL P001 #04
u
- _ ._._. ... <N........ _....v.._ ___ _. .._ i
4 ,,t ry-.4.T . .
_ a
NO AIRPORT EXPANSION
We are writing to you to ask that the Airport Relations
Commission, the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic
Development Commission recommend no expansionof the current
airport to the city council.
The expansion proposal will result in an increase in the
proximity and the frequency of flights over our neighborhood. We
do not want to experience living in Eagan with an increase in air
traffic and air noise pollution. We do not want to see our property •
values drop as a result of the proposed expansion. It is our
position that the expansion of the airport will have a negative
effect upon our quality of life as Eagan residents.
Name • Address
� /h9-1.2 27t-ts '��it ,'l�' 12,,
Cannitia f 954444_:- 1 r
‘t11017.)0144) 31351-4
73 - 'S"› - i D -
lie-4
. - 13ir( k&I --- /ot ,
-94-12
cv r- ��
---- 36??) ti-e-t-egici)Lei/_,- •
ion.. -oil, . ,
/ . 8,e-4--t-I frA-,, s-c--, -1-1---
0:;-- ,,,‘,/, (,), 3.-.5.,
a P L.,
f. 111
NO AIRPORT EXPANSION
We are writing to you to ask that the Airport Relations
Commission, the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic
- Development Commission recommend no expansionof the current
airport to the city council.
The expansion proposal will result in an increase in the
proximity and the frequency of flights over our neighborhood. We
do not want to experience living in Eagan with an increase in air
traffic and air noise pollution. We do not want to see our property
values drop as a result of the proposed expansion. It is our
position that the expansion of the airport will have a negative
effect upon our quality of life as Eagan residents.
Name • ddress
?ate
aaft.4,0 31/ 5 d
i,c.
f
. ) 51. —o i So
,igya t
3` O o //&a/ e. ,
ea 0
ett 37?0 Kivoif tet, •e bx
12ad,L/)/1
% 37 go 4_ - !v 7.301 f.S '76/5
r,:-LA.L C =�u Pcic) k'r c9it �; c&;:= Dl :g5Q._ '3oz
�,4 f ��s�� l�, li ���may• z2 ��'�'- 64)
47,17 �Az� ,
z no
Y
NO AIRPORT EXPANSION •
We are writing to you to ask that the Airport Relations
Commission, the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic
Development Commission recommend no expansionof the current
airport to the city council.
The expansion proposal will result in an increase in the
proximity and the frequency of flights over our neighborhood. We
do not want to experience living in Eagan with an increase in air
traffic and air noise pollution. We do not want to see our property
values drop as a result of the proposed expansion. It is our
position that the expansion of the airport will have a negative
effect upon our quality of life as Eagan residents.
Name Address
�? ,^.
?d" .- / '7! 9 /K)/LGo L4Le t
71rxislv`� 6. VLF
Cra 1 372 K ,11 3,-.
2rAoyne 61. 3Co 6.S kiwel DA--
•
/°'
_
--,---.--..-_-, • -
. ... _ 11,
----
—_. -— -- - ---- ----- — ---- - . —.—
—..
I -..,,.----- •• .•_-
- ..,
I-
..._
_.... ,
. 1, ... •_.._ _ ._._
. _. . .
r41, A.72.41.4,1"\1 -
,1 -Ze_. ..,..... ..
. , .:... • •. .. .
, . ,, .• •
_
.. ..
.. ... .
. .. . _ _
__ __.• ...•_. ._ • .._ __
_ __. ._
, ...., _ • . ,_.
,,.., — . —
r": __ - - — - • . - . ... -
-X- .-L
_. - ....,---7-,.....---- - ,
' r---.a - ---"------ - ' .1 -- 9.1_,---e=e" ..1::;t: ..--.{ - ''. ..4.,-)c:..* -,.- --*N -• _
11 = ._ . . .... . _
. .
i !
4.
1 ... , ._ ..- . . _
....- . _ • __. . .
-
.,.. _. . .. . .
r..L.::__ ...-.__ _ _ _ . . .. ,_....a... ....{.... ..a, . _.. . _ _
•• _
, ..7 _ . _ _._•
to- 117 --'"
- -:
..._
• ei ,....6.-.2... .--- ,..<7-....) ....- --et__ ...e.e. •
1 .••• ..._...., ....",' ' _.e_., _....,...• : ..
./.. • 7
- "
ar
11 /
- . ......-••+""..- ...- • ./
a _
..s.. _ —_.... __..0_.... .01:_ _ _ _-_, ____, .• -
1--. III .......... .. - .
. -.
i!, ••4-.0W-•,_..e.s.'
— ''2.!.„1,•..r.:.. ..,..... i'-e-e.4%e,&,....1.../ .■ _..-4./1 i 444°,7' _
. I I
,
.:-
/
— . -
• . _
• ...••••-irr• — _
z.,e___..- -
.......4 _
- i I . _ _ "._.., ,••••- " -
. I 1 . • -
.• .
..
i t •
I I
• . •
. .
-_ • . -I
°-.
• • _
. , - • 0 Aor -. .
-i- .
•• ,i
j - . 7 /. . . I i /'.' .•
Ir . 1 1 • .
t .
' i i -. •
I i
✓ :i ,..,..A.-2.;..".N...._. ,....--e_- ....._.e.,,,,,,40 -. .......e__ .. e...e...._ /4.. ..es ,_
1 fr--.-. 71 e=-0----2-19 777- .--1-e-- ----e-e--- ...._..-->z------_ _• ...._i _ .. ._ ...
.
it
11 . _
. . .
•
• )
7E- i 1
V- I I ..?..GIL7.1e.e....t...f...f...e...•1;
1 1
f .
s 1 I i f 2 ..10779e...>t PC.•
1 ,,
il
1 t .
I II • 4,..:71........._,
•,
•,.. .
/OS
I;I
-3 —
.I .
. , ..
, I
•
• : �_ 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
~` - = ` City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch ' Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
.Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
November 16, 1995 •
ra
Mr.Thomas Hedges
City Administrator NOV 2 1 I
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road ;•4'
Eagan,MN 55122
Dear Mr. Hejes:
The City of Richfield is seeking your support and participation in promoting legislation to further
the community protection concept package. The community protection concept package is a
product of more than a year of discussion and planning by the Metropolitan Council,
. Metropolitan Airports Commission and the cities of Bloomington,Eagan,Mendota Heights,
Minneapolis and Richfield. The planning process was a result of requests made by airport-
impacted communities to the Metropolitan Council. The protection concept package includes
community stabilization techniques,community revitalization approaches,incentive programs,
and airport protection measures.
The City of Richfield intend to introduce legislation to promote these concepts in the 1996 •
legislative session. An executive summary and a full text report are attached. If your
community/organization is interested in participating in this effort,we would like to hear from
you not later than December 8. '
•
We realize that there may be some concern regarding the timing of introducing this legislation,
however,Richfield legislators believe that a delay in introducing the community protection
concepts until the 1997 legislative session may decrease the likelihood of approval of these
concepts.cerely,
• s D.Prosser -
i Manager ' . .
Attachment /4 (,4
The Urban Hometown
Teleph no(612)861-9700•Fax(612)861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Protection Concept Package
MSP Surrounding Communities •
•
Background:
The Community Protection Concept Package is the product of more than a year of
discussion and planning by the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and
Richfield. Met Council initiated the planning process as an unofficial supplement to the
Dual Track Planning Process. A similar process was begun among Dakota County
parties. The collaborative community planning around MSP has produced a proposal that
recognizes the current and future airport-impacted environments, and offers solutions for
the potential impacts that are likely to be experienced.
There were two competing rationales driving the MSP collaborative, relative to the Dual
Track Planning Process. The first scenario was that a mitigation package agreed upon by
all airport impacted parties would make it more palatable for legislators to keep the
airport at its present location, knowing that tools would be available to protect
communities from greater airport impacts. The second scenario envisioned approval of a
new airport,but one that probably would not be functional for 15-20 years or more. The
reality of such a scenario is that in the interim period MSP will continue to adversely
impact surrounding communities. It is vital that protections be implemented now to
avoid the potential disinvestment which is likely to occur.
Whichever rationale the reader subscribes to,the fact is that the concepts included in this
package represent proactive reinvestment now rather than reactive rehabilitation later —
which is more expensive and less likely to succeed.
Protection Concepts
The concepts that are included in the community protection package are a combination of
those which have proven successful in the MSP impacted communities and others from
around the country that have been similarly successful in achieving desired outcomes.
Concepts that would have merit in application are:
• Community Stabilization Techniques - Possible programs include property value
guarantees underwritten by the participating municipalities, tax credits for housing
revitalization in noise impact areas similar to recent Met Council incentives for
homeowners in declining neighborhoods, and acquisition of incompatible land use
prior to deterioration such as the New Ford Town and Rich Acres buyout.
/0-7 - - •
r , •
•
Community Protection Concept Package -
Executive Summary
Page 2
• Community Revitalization Approaches - Examples would be tailored tax increment
financing districts and community development banks,both of which would make it
easier for communities to revitalize or redevelop areas where necessary. Tax
increment financing represents one of the few remaining ning tools for fully developed '
cities to implement needed redevelopment, given the costs of such projects in an
environment of increasingly limited financial resources.
• Incentive Programs - Similar programs are often utilized as a trade-off for
developments and other land uses that provide more of a benefit for regional users
than is received by those directly impacted; e.g., recreation centers built as
compensation for large industrial developments. •
• Airport Protection Measures-These would include local land use controls to prohibit
or control future developments that may be incompatible with airport impacted areas,
unless appropriate mitigation measures are taken.
Desired Outcome of Proposed Package
Much of what is included in the Community Protection Concepts Package would require
legislative approval and/or funding. Ideally, the package would be accepted completely
and implemented to utilize as many of the programs possible. However, the planning
group recognizes that some of the proposals are more politically feasible than others and
a more realistic approach would be an incremental phase-in of those programs most likely .
to show measurable results.
The best selling point for this package, when faced with the competing interests inherent
in the legislative process, is that this collaborative planning effort represents the best
progress ever made in remediating airport impacts.
•
/�
•