Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1994 - Airport Relations Commissiond v % AGENDA REGULAR MEETING RAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMIT RAGAN, MINNESOTA RAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY JANUARY 11, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Dual Track Planning Process Update C. MASAC Meeting of December 6, 1993 D. ENAC Update E. SMAAC/MPL Update VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD vii. INFORMATIVE VIII. NEST MEETING - Tuesday, February 8, 1994 IS. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide the aids, however this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 681-4600 with requests. MEMO TO: CHAIR RING AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT ABLATIONS FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: JANUARY 5t 1994 SUBJECT: RAGAN AIRPORT 1994 COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 11, A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, January 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Council Chambers. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4600 if you will be unable to attend this meeting. It should be noted that interviews for prospective committee and commission members will be held on the same evening and depending upon individual members' scheduled interviews, they may have to excuse themselves from part of the meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the Committee. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 3, 1993 meeting are enclosed on pages V through ._ for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the Committee. III. OLD BUSINESS There is no Old Business to come before the Committee at this time. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Indus- trial Guided Areas --Enclosed without page number is a staff memorandum covering background with respect to this item. In addition to the memorandum, enclosed on pages --?_ through are the summary comments and responses relative to the MAC's seven year capital improvements program. In particular, the second page of this enclosure indicates that any requests for buyouts of residential areas require an official request by the City to the MAC before it will be considered by that body. Also enclosed on pages —,q /D is a copy of correspondence sent by the City of Bloomington to the MAC relative to their request that 77 homes be acquired and redeveloped as a part of the Runway 4/22 extension project. Also enclosed on pages _,[L through 22_ is a copy of correspondence received by the MAC from the FAA clarifying the "squaring off of blocks" interpretation for residential areas crossed by a contour but not completely included within it. This interpretation bears on the extension of the Part 150 program to other residential areas adjacent to the contour. It does not necessarily bear on the issue of cities' approach to commercial - industrial guided areas. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON TRIS ITEM: There is no official action expected of the Committee at Tuesday's meeting. Staffwould appreciate direction for additional information or analysis for a future continuation of this item. V. STAFF REPORT A. Hagan/Mendota Heights Corridor --The revised Advisory Circular with respect to the noise abatement departure profiles is available from the FAA and staff has ordered a copy for the City to be shared with the MAC. As indicated at the Committee's tour of Northwest Aerospace Training Company, Northwest Airlines is interested in working with the MAC on analysis of these alternatives for operations at MSP. B. Dual Track Planning Process Update --The MAC is in the process of reviewing the long-term comprehensive plan for the existing airport as a part of the.dual track process. Once this review is completed, the MAC and Met Council will perform a similar review of the proposed Dakota County site. A copy of the most recent MAC airport fact sheet concerning the dual track process is enclosed on pages /.3 through 1!Y for your review. C. MASAC Meeting December 6, 1993 --The Committee received MASAC information with its December packet. In addition to the MASAC meeting itself, the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the City's request for nighttime tracking data and transparent overlays for ANOMS data. The Operations Committee indicated that Technology Integration, the ANOMS' consultant, is preparing software fixes which will permit both of these requests to be considered in the future. At the present time, the software requires that each of these be done by hand each month, defeating the purpose of the automation. MAC staff estimates six months for both of these software fixes to become available. D. HNAC Update --If any ENAC members are present at Tuesday's meeting, they can provide an update on that organization's activities. H. SMAAC/MPL Update --Enclosed on pages through are copies of an article from Airport Noise Report and the SMAAC newsletter concerning the current status of the Minnesota Public Lobby lawsuit. As noted in the articles, MPL has received a favorable ruling on. appeal. That indicates that Minnesota Pollution Agency standards do apply to the airport. As noted in the article, the MAC is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court. VI: VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the Committee can do so at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE Enclosed on pages IL through -.2L is a copy of Dakota County's correspondence to the MAC concerning the alternative environmental document for the airport site selection study. On the second page of this attachment regarding Section IV.c.4. Ground Access Impacts, the County is requesting that the ground access analysis of the AED be substantially expanded to address the kinds of concerns raised by the ARC several months ago. Also enclosed on page e22a is an article from City 8 State magazine regarding the new Denver airport. On pages 2 3 through 24� is the most recent airport fact sheet concerning new generation aircraft. Finally on page. -27 is a copy of correspondence forwarded to Kathleen Gaylord and Mark/ Salmen thanking them for their courtesy relative to the tour at the Airport Relations Committee meeting of December 14. VIII. NEST MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, February 8, 1994. IS. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m. unless extended by a majority vote of the members present to finish business underway at that time. As istant to the City Administrator Attachments JDH/vmd MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Eagan, Minnesota November 3, 1993 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Wednesday evening, November 3,1993 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Chair Tim Ring, Dustin Midck, Jane Vanderpool, Lots Monson, Pat Todd and Bob Cooper. Absent were Greg Langan and Alternate Al Bachel. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Jon Hohensteln. AGENDA Hohenstein requested the addition of a New Business Item concerning the Part 150 sound Insulation program. Upon motion by Vanderpool, seconded by Mirick, all members voting, In favor, the agenda was approved with the addition. MINUTES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoel, all members voting In favor, the minutes of the October 12, 1983 meeting were approved as presented. MINNESOTA PUBLIC LOBBY/MAC LAWSUIT Hohensteln outlined the recent ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals which found for the Minnesota Public Lobby In their lawsuit to require the Metropolitan Airports Commission to come into compliance with State noise standards. He indicated that it Is likely the MAC will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court due to the significant Impacts it would have on operation of the airport. Vanderpoel asked If other states are attempting to Impose their noise rules on airports. Hohensteln Indicated that he Is not aware of other state efforts In this regard. He said that the City receives a legal reporter concerning airport noise activities and that most of the cases concern public lawsuits for damages against airports.or lawsuits to affect operations or expansions of airports. The Commission Indicated a desire to continue to be Informed of activities In this lawsuit. There being no action necessary In this regard, Chair Ring closed the discussion. RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION EIS Hohensteln overviewed the Runway 4/22 extension project and Indicated that It would add 2,750 feet to the crosswind runway to allow a shoring of operations from the parallels to the crosswind and the evallabi ity of an 11,000 foot runway for heavy International flights to take off. He also stated that the extension EIS was reviewing two flight track aftematives. Alternative A would add two new flight tracks parallel to Cedar Avenue which would bring aircraft over Eagan more directly and at lower levels than Is currently the case and Alternative B would maintain the same flights as are currently in place but at a higher frequency of flight due to the shifting of operations. Todd stated that regardless of the alternative chosen, the City knows by experience that the tracks shown wig not be followed and that operations will disperse over a broad area. She further stated the City has opposed the runway extension In the past and feels that the current proposal should be opposed as well. Hohensteln suggested that even H the Committee chose to oppose the extension, that they consider a position on the flight track alternatives as a contingency. Vanderpool asked H the Cedarvale neighborhood was about the same distance from the aril of the new crosswind runway as the McKee Addition Is from parallel runways. Hohensteln stated that the distances Page 2/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING November 3, 1993 are approximately the same, although the crosswind runway will not be used as frequently as the parallels and there would be a wider dispersion of tragic so that not all of the operations to the southwest would track over Eagan neighborhoods. Monson elated that the runway extension Itself just means more noise for Eagan: it's simply a question of where the noise would occur. MI*A moved, Monson seconded a recommendation to oppose the extension Runway 4/22 because major expenditures at the airport should not be made until the dual track process is complete. The proposal will open new noise Impact areas of Eagan without significantly benefitting current noise Impact areas, the rerouting will result in other types of air pollution and aircraft will Impact a broader area of the City than Is Indicated by the tracks in the EIS. The motion also recommended that If the runway extension Is to be approved, the City express a preference for flight track Aitemative B with the condition that variance to the Indicated tracks not be permitted. Upon further discussion, all members voted in favor. The Committee recommended that a press release be prepared for the local media when the public hearing date for this Item becomes known. PART 150 SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM Hohensteln Indicated that the City had received word that the FAA had agreed to the squaring off of blocks for eligibility purposes for the Part 150 program. As a consequence, he stated that staff had Identified five additional properties that would be eligible under the 1992 contour currently being used for the Part 150 program. He stated that the Committee and the City had determined to suspend the. Part 150 program and Its lottery until a determination by the FAA tied been reached and asked if the Committee wanted to recommend reinstitution of the program at this time. Upon motion by Mirlck, seconded by Todd, all members voting In favor, the Committee recommended that the Cly directly contact the five property - owners which are still eligible under the 1992 contour to determine their Interest in the program. Hohenstein Indicated that it Is also possible that the 1996 contour which Is a part of the MAC amendment to the Part 150 funding application could be approved as early as January of this year. As a consequence, 1994 funding may be extended to areas such as the McKee Addition and homes along Lexington Avenue, Blue Gentian Road and Highway 55. He sold that the potential for these homes to become eligible raises a land use question for the Part 150 program as to whether or not the City should be Incurring costs for sound Insulation in areas which will eventually be redeveloped for commercial land use. Upon motion by Todd, seconded by Vanderpool, all members voting In favor, staff was directed to work with the Metropolitan Alrports,Commission on discussions of the potential to buy out the McKee Addition and other homes guided for commercial [arid use in the 1996 contour. Todd asked that for future discussion, would the Committee be provided with information on the other option available through the Part 150 program and a description of what other cities are doing with Part 150 funds. Vanderpool asked If the City had any sense of whether people In that area wished to have their homes purchased. Hohenstein stated that a response to the concept had been mixed In the past but that the relatively low level of funding In the initial year of the Part 150 program made any discussion of buy-outs an academic point. The Committee requested additional information be provided to them for further discussion at Its meeting of January 11. MASAC REPORT Monson stated that the MAC staff has indicated an intention to reduce the size of the ANOMS report to make it more digestible for decision -makers. Hohenstein stated that the Committee's requests for Page 3/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING November 11993 nighttime tracking Information and City boundary overlays have been forwarded to the MAC and are being scheduled for the November MASAC Operations Committee. NEXT MEETING Hohenstein Indicated that the next regular meeting of the Airport Relations.Committee would be on Tuesday, December 14, 1993 at the Northwest Aerospace Training Company Headquarters In Northeast Eagan. He stated that a packet will be distributed preceding that meeting Including Informative items and directions to the site. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting In favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Date F Chairperson Secretary JDH APPENDIX A SUMMARY - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Statement 1: Bloomington supports the extension of Runway 4/22 if the MAC can demonstrate that the extension is essential for economic growth and that noise mitigation has been adequately addressed. (Letter from Mayor Neil Peterson, City of Bloomington, Minnesota) Response: Comment noted. The supplemental EIS for Runway 4/22 will address the need for the project, environmental impacts, and mitigation strategies. Statement 2: If the MAC can demonstrate the need for the Runway 4/22 extension, implementation of noise mitigation should begin before construction. (Letter from Major Neil Peterson) Response: Comment noted. Statement 3: The CIP should include sufficient funds to complete the noise mitigation for Runway 4/22 extension on Bloomington within four years. (Letter from Mayor Neil Peterson) Response: The CIP includes $22.5 million designated specifically -to noise -mitigation for Runway 4/22 extension. The money is scheduled for the years 1994 through 1998. Statement 4: The proposed $6 million for the noise suppressor should be eliminated from the CIP due to lack of environmental benefit and the funds should be applied to acquisition or sound proofing of noise impacted homes. (Letter from Mayor Neil Peterson) Response: Comment noted. Statement 5: Due to the significant impact of aircraft noise already absorbed by Eagan, the City is opposed to the inclusion of the turns east of Cedar Avenue with the Runways 4/22 extension project. (Letter from Mr. Thomas Hedges, City Administrator, Eagan, Minnesota) Response: Comment'noted. The comments should also be directed to the Runway 4/22 EIS. Statement 6: The City of Eagan urges the MAC and FAA to expedite clarification of the FAR Part 150 interpretation concerning those areas which are eligible. (Letter from Mr. Thomas Hedges) Response: MAC is working with the FAA to clarify those areas eligible for inclusion in the FAR Part 150 program. Statement 7: The City of Eagan urges MAC to place a priority on the acquisition of other noise impacted areas which are exposed to significant noise levels around the clock, in particular, the McKee Addition of Eagan as it has for New Ford Town and Rich Acres. (Letter from Mr. Thomas Hedges) Response: The McKee Addition will be eligible for inclusion in the FAR Part 150 program upon certification of the 1996 DNL exposure map.. The City of Eagan must officially request the MAC to purchase this addition before it is prioritized. Statement 8: The City of Eagan strongly urges that the Run Up Noise Suppressor be constructed as scheduled in 1994 or that the funding be earmarked for sound insulation improvementsin Eagan neighborhoods affected by this phenomenon. (Letter from Mr. Thomas Hedges) Response: Comment noted. Statement 9: The City of Eagan realizes that it is essential to make capital improvements for the remaining life of MSP even if the relocation option is ultimately accepted. The City believes that it would be most prudent, however, for the MAC to postpone any projects in which the economic life of the improvement exceeds the dual track planning horizon, until the Legislature makes a decision in this regard. Due to the length of the CIP, certain items in the early years could be shifted to the later years to provide for this contingency. (Letter from Mr. Thomas Hedges) Response: Comment noted. Statement 10: The cumulative effects of the projects in the capital improvement plan on water quality. is unclear, especially as it relates to storm water -management in the Minnesota North and South Drainage Areas. Item DA of the AEE states the cumulative increase of runoff in these areas is estimated at 6.5%. Item DA further states that storm detention in this drainage basin is at or near capacity, and that modifications may be needed to handle the additional runoff. However, the discussion of water quality in Section I.B. of Appendix A states the basin's current capacity will not, be affected by the increased discharge, although the function may be diminished. This seems inconsistent. (Letter from Ms. JoAnn Kyral, Superintendent, National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, St. Paul, Minnesota) Response: Item DA summarizes the cumulative impacts of all the projects in the airport's seven year capital improvement plan. It correctly states that the capacity of the detention basins for the Minnesota River - North and South drainage areas on the airport may have their capacities exceeded, when all projects are constructed. BEcity of Bloomington, minnosota MUNc:pcl ddlding " 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • &oorrington. Minnesota 55431.3096 • (612)881.5811 a FAX(612) t8,-5:. Neil W. Peterson Mayor October 19, 1993 Nigel D. Finney Deputy Executive Director Planning and Environment Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Re: Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Improvement Program, 1994-2000 Dear Mr. Finney: Mark E. Bernhardson McncS<r On October 18, 1993 the Bloomington City Council authorized transmittal of the following comments regarding the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 1994-2000. The City is pleased to see MAC's commitment to aircraft noise mitigation. The CIP presents a balanced approach to noise mitigation and airport facilities. Bloomington supports extension of Runway 4/22 if MAC can demonstrate that the extension is essential for economic growth and that noise mitigation has been adequately addressed. The CIP noise mitigation funds are a good start toward addressing aircraft noise pollution. MAC still needs to demonstrate the economic benefit of the 4/22 extension. The extension may be necessary for operational and economic reasons, but it should not be "sold" as a noise reduction measure as currently portrayed in the 4/22 Environmental Impact Statement. The extension will expose thousands of Bloomington residents to aircraft noise while Minneapolis residents may not be able to notice any noise reduction. Is this worth $34 million? Certainly not when compared to other tangible noise mitigation methods like acquisition and soundproofing. However, if the runway extension significantly provides economic and operational advantages for MSP and noise mitigation is provided to the effected areas, the project may be worthwhile. If MAC can demonstrate the need for the extension, implementation of Runway 4/22 noise mitigation should begin before construction of the runway extension, not follow it. It is unreasonable to expose Bloomington residents to substantially increased aircraft noise prior to adequate noise mitigation and, soundproofing. The runway extension should not be completed until the 77 most severely effected homes (Noisepoint Neighborhood) are acquired and all of the other effected homes in Bloomington have been noise insulated (approximately 900 homes). AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/E � OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER TDO: (612)887-0677 M Nigel D. Finney October 19, 1993 Page Two MAC should work to restore public trust and credibility by acknowledging that aircraft noise mitigation efforts should precede construction of the runway extension. These efforts must include consistent communications to residents and commitment to stick to noise insulation programs after public commitments are made. Any federal funding application for the 4/22 extension should include the noise mitigation funding as part of the project and should contain a soundproofing and acquisition implementation schedule and funding request. The estimated cost of the Runway 4/22 noise mitigation in Bloomington is: Acquisition. relocation. and demolition of Noisenoint Neiohborhood Acquisition of 77 homes $ 7.2 million Demolition, Relocation, Administration and contingency $ 4.3 million $ 11.5 million Soundoroofing of 1,000 homes in 1996 LDN 65+ contour 1,000 homes at 90% participation rate = 900 homes 900 homes at $ 17,500 each $ 15.6 million Bloomington noise mitigation TOTAL $ 27.3 million The MAC CIP should include sufficient funds ($27.3 million + Richfield 4/22 mitigation program) to complete the noise mitigation within a four year time period. The proposed $6,000,000 expenditure for a noise suppressor should be eliminated from the CIP due to lack of environmental'benefit and the funds should be applied to acquisition or soundproofing of noise impacted homes. Thank you for the opportunity to review the MAC CIP. We look forward to working with MAC on timely implementation of noise mitigation measures. Bloomington seeks to initiate meetings with MAC to discuss these issues in more detail. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Greg Ingraham, Senior Planner at 887-9636 or John Nelson, Senior Environmental Health Specialist at 887-9634. cc: John Himle, Metropolitan Airports Commission Sondra Simonson, Met Council /D U.S. Department AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE - of Transportation 6020 28th Avenue South, #102 Federal Aviatlon Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706 Administration October 26, 1993 Mr. Richard Rein Director of Environment Metropolitan. Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2799 Dear Mr. Rein: We have reviewed your letters of September 10, 1993, requesting that twoac�as v,h;, see only partially encompassed by the DNL 65 dB contour of the approved 1992 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) be determined eligible for residentialnoise insulation projects under the tenors of the AEP 28-92 and 29-93 grant agreements. The two areas consist of the four - block Navy Annex neighborhood in south Minneapolis (bounded by 42nd Avenue on the west, 62 Crosstown Highway on the north, 46th Avenue on the east, and 59th Street on the south) and the two -block area in Eagan (bounded by Avalon Avenue, Burnside Avenue, Fairlawn Place, Beam Lane, Egan Avenue, and Vilas Lane). Following receipt of the September 10 letters, Mr. Steve Vecchi brought over a map showing an additional area in south Minneapolis which the Metropolitan Airports Commission desired to be determined eligible. This additional area in south Minneapolis is bounded by Edgewater Boulevard, Cedar Avenue, 16th Avenue, 57th Street, and Nokomis Lane. Based on Our review we have concluded that the three areas in question, as identified above, are eligible for residential noise insulation projects under the terms of AEP 28-92 and 29-93 grant agreements. Our conclusion is based on the following: L Residential noise insulation is eligible under the Airport Improvement Program if it is included in the sponsor's approved Noise Compatibility Program (A?CP). The Minnespoiis=h. Paul International Airport has an NCP which was approved April 2, 1990, and included NEM's for 1987 and 1992; When formulating the initial noise insulation projects, given the vast number of potential homes, we felt it more appropriate to use the 1992 NEM as opposed to the 1987 NEM as it didn't seem prudent to insulate homes which may no longer be experiencing DNL 65 dB noise levels, or if experiencing this noise level now, may not be experiencing it within a year or two. However, as both NEWS were a part of the approved NCP, both establish eligibility. While portions of the Navy Annex neighborhood and the other identified area in south Minneapolis (bounded by Edgewater Boulevard, Cedar Avenue, 16th Avenue, 57th Street, and Nokomis Lane) are outside the DNL 65 dB contour of the 1992 NEM, both areas are encompassed by the DNL 65 dB contour of the 1987 NEW 2. Paragraph 710.b. of FAA Order 5100.38A, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, states in part "... projects may be expanded to include a few otherwise ineligible parcels contiguous to the project area, if necessary to achieve equity in the neighborhood." 1 A revised NCP for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is currently being reviewed by the FAA and includes NEM's for 1991 and 1996. While the 1991 and 1996 NEM's cannot be used to determine eligibility until accepted by the FAA, they do provide information in terms of what areas may or may not be eligible in the future. The Navy Annex neighborhood and the other south Minneapolis area are both totally encompassed by the DNL 65 dB contour of the 1991 and 1996 NEM's. The Eagan area appears to be about two-thirds encompassed by the DNL 65 dB contour of the 1991 NEM and slightly less on '-*" 111Of N"-iM. it should also be noted that a -1995 W; so ;iu . his Deer generated for the braft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Runway 4/22 extension and we have considered this noise map as well. This map depicts slightly more of the two -block Eagan area within the DNL 65 dB contour, all of the subject south Minneapolis area within the DNL 65 dB contour, and approximately half of the Navy Annex area within the DNL 65 dB contour. If the noise maps being generated for the Runway 4/22 DEIS are considered to be more accurate, the MAC may wish to have them substituted and accepted by the FAA as the official NEM's at some point in the future. This would require subjecting the noise maps to the public input/review process required by FAR Part 150. By letter of February 25, 1992, you requested our concurrence in the City of Minneapolis' lottery method for determining the order of sequence for residential noise insulation. In our letter of March 17, 1992, we responded that we felt the order of sequence should be dictated by the level of noise impact but that we would accept the decision of the Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). Having now had the benefit of working with the lottery selection process for the past two years we believe the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the PAC need to reconsider the decision to use the lottery process. The disadvantages of the lottery system appear to far outweigh any advantages. . Sincerely, n Robert A. Huber Assistant Manager /,2 2 AIRPORT FACT SHEET 107 Metropolitan � 5ro� The Airport Facilities Plannina Process This pamphlet explains why and how the MAC will continue to maintain and update MSP while studying the need for a possible new major airport. Legislature to Make Final Decision on Airport Needs Although a lengthy, complex process is underway in Minnesota that could lead to building a major new airport in the next century, Minneapolis -St. Paul International Current Use Since 1982, the number of takeoffs and landings at oil Metropolitan Air- ports Commission (MAC) airports has increased 50 percent. MSP has become a bigger hub, with more passengers using it as a connecting point for other destinations. from 1979 through 1982, 90 percent of MSP air travelers had the Twin Cities as their point of origin or destination. Now, only 60 percent of Airport (MSP) will be maintained and improved to meet the state's aviation needs for many years to come. The Legislature, representing the entire state of Minnesota, has all passengers have MSP as their origin or destination, while the other 40 per- . cent conned to other flights. In 1991, 19.3 million passengers passed through MSP's Lindbergh Terminal. The recent increase in passengers of MSP is one reason studies in 1987 and 1988 found that Minnesotans should plan now for future growth. Some people think existing facilities should Airport Needs Studied The key players in this process are the Legislature, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Air- ports Commission (MAC). They have not predetermined the outcome. Recommendations to be made to the Legislature in 1996 may or may not result in a decision to acquire land or to build a new airport. Much will depend upon trends in air travel and the aviation industry, growth of demand for air services in the region and the cost and feasibility of siting and building a new major airport. Many questions must be answered both by the MAC and the Metropolitan Council before a recom- mendation can be made: • Will passenger growth continue? • Will newer, larger, quieter aircraft accommodate passenger growth without a substantial increase in the number of flights? • Can MSP meet anticipated growth safely and with acceptable environ- mental impact? /.3 reserved for itself the authority to make the final -decision on whether or not to build a new, major airport. be improved and expanded. Others say a new airport should be built.' +' The 1989 Legislature decided to pursue both avenues. Because building a new airport is such a major project, it would take from 15 to 25 years to find and clear the land and build the facility. MSP will be kept up-to-date and safe while a possible new airport site is under study. • Is suitable land available for a major new airport? If so, where? • What would a new airport cost? • How would a new airport be financed? Who would pay for it? While airport needs are studied, the MAC will continue to maintain and improve MSP as necessary and prudent. This includes enhancing MSP's runways, terminal facilities, ramps, gates and ground access to adequately serve the region's aviation needs for as long as possible. Timetable The Metropolitan Council and the MAC have agreed in writing on a process for working together. Both agencies will provide 20- and 30 -year forecasts to the legislature. They will split the respon- sibility of selecting a new airport site. The Metropolitan Council has iden- tified a large search area in southern Dakota County within which a specific new airport site might be located. Working within that area, the MAC will conduct site selection and master plan studies and, by Jan. 1, 1996, iden- tify a specific site or sites that could be developed into a major new airport. In 1996, both agencies jointly will present a recommendation to the Legis- lature. The recommendation could be any of the following: Economic Impact The sustained economic growth of Minnesota and the Twin Cities will depend, in part, on the MAC's ability to provide facilities for safe, efficient, modern and convenient air service. MSP generates about $2.6 billion annually to the local and state economies. It is • Purchase a specific site and begin con- struction of a new airport immediately. • Purchase a specific site to be held for possible future development while MSP continues to be used. • Designate a specific site, but do not purchase land; continue to monitor trends and demand forecasts. • Continue to use MSP; do not purchase a new site; no longer consider a new site. The legislature also requires an annual report on the progress of the planning and MSP maintenance and improvement processes; trends in local demand for air services; and devel- opments in the national air transporta- tion system which could affect local capacity needs. directly and indirectly responsible for at least 84,000 jobs, according to a 1991 report. Continued economic growth will require rehabilitation and the extension of airport runways and improvements to terminals and other facilities while long- range airport planning is underway. Passenger/Traffic Summary —1986 to 1991 Forecasts based upon traffic and 1991, air traffic has leveled off, and passenger increases from 1975 even decreased since the peak in through 1986 show trends which, if 1986. This puts the forecasts some - continued, would have strained the what in doubt and reinforces the need capacity of MSP by the year 2000. for a dual track planning approach Although the number of passengers with annual monitoring of develop - has continued to increase through ments and trends. 425 20 400 18 375 16 35086 87 88 89 90 9114 PASSENGERS (in millions) OPERATIONS (in thousands) Here's the timetable the MAC and the Metropolitan Council Is following in studying and planning for a possible major new airport: • Annually by Feb. 15: The Metropolitan Council and the MAC prepare a long-range assessment of trends and factors that could affect major development for 10 years into the future Both agencies report about ongoing planning activities. • Dec. 1, 1990: The Metropolitan Council reports on availability of suitable land for a new airport. • Jan. 1, 1991: The MAC completes a conceptual design plan for a major new airport, including esti- mated cost and financing sources; completes a long-term, compre- hensive plan for MSP; and pre- pares estimates for facilities needed there for the next 10 years. • Jan. 1, 1992: The Metropolitan Council, in consultation with the MAC, designates a search area in Dakota County for a possible major new airport. • Jan. 1, 1993: The Metropolitan Council reports on potential re -use of the current MSP site. • Jan. 1, 1996: The MAC selects a site within the search area desig- nated by the Metropolitan Council, and prepares a comprehensive development plan and environ- mental analysis documents. • July 1,1996: The Metropolitan Council and the MAC report on recommendations for the siting, long-range planning and develop- ment of a major airport facility in the metropolitan areas. At this point, further action on the development of a major new airport will depend on legislative approval and direction. 0 Printed on recycled paper. Pubrnbed b AUC Pubrr Allain Depen l 6192 Minneapolis -St Paul Intl AIRPORT ASKS STATE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW STATE NOISE STANDARD RULING The Minnespolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission has asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to review a ruling by the state Court of Appeals, which found that the state's noise standards apply to the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport .. . The appellate ruling, reversing a trial court decision. bell that federal law preempts the pate from exercising control over aircraft flight operations, but does not preclude the sate from otherwise applying its noise rules to the airport _ The airports commission argued that the airport cannot be brought into compliance with the Minnesota Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency's noise standards without "restricting substantially" aircraft operations, "condemning large jwrum of South Minneapolis and other communities or relocating the airport." condemnation or relocation alternatives are Dot realistic remedies and in any event are matters of public policy properly reserved to legislative • determination." MAC attorneys argued. They asserted that the sats noise \ standards should not be enforced because they "are contrary to the requirements of the MICA enabling law." (Continued on p. 183) Cupyrists O 1993 by Airport Noir Repam, Adbmo: Va 2b 183 Minneapolis, from p. 181 MAC attorneys said they proved to the trial court that, to Deet the MPCA standards, a dramatic reduction in flights would be required, and that such a reduction would "substantially impair" the ai p s ability to maintain its status as a hub airport. 'MAC attorneys said that the Court of Appeals' failure to mention these facts "is a fatal flaw." "MAC clearly does not have the present ability to condemn much of the Twin Cities or to move the airport. Abus, on this tecotd any remedies within the realm of reality are preempted." MAC said that the court is being asked to resolve issues that are reserved to the state legislature. The legislature has set up a dual track planning process to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of moving the airport 'Mic MPCA noise rules. MAC argued, do not utast the criteria of MPCA enabling legislation that enforceable rules must have a sound technical basis and be reasonable in light of their economic impact MAC attorneys argued 'that the Court of Appeals wrongly declined to consider this issue. In related action, the attorney general for the State of Minnesota and the commissioner of its pollution control agency asked the state Supreme Court for leave to file a friend -of -the -court brief in the case. They urged the Supreme Court to deny the airport's petition for review on the ground that the appellate decision was very narrow, concluding only that, as a matter of law, the state ietains some authority to apply state noise rules to the activities of MSP International. Noting the airport commission's challenge of the state noise rules as contrary to MPCA enabling law, the state officials said they are uniquely qualified to explain the purpose and intent of the noise rules and enabling law. If the Supreme Court decides to review the appellate decision, (in State of Minnesota by Minnesota Public Lobby and South Metro Airport Action Council v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, No. C9-93-954) -the state officials said they would show that state noise rules fully comply with state enabling legislation and that no pending enforcement activity purports to control or affect aircraft operations. *SMAAC NEWS1J ETTER• SOUTH METRO AIRPORT ACTION COUNCIL v4mc.roha a r'Nwagwde eau in On Mayon Go", Mk rm sequ-Behan 75hrgs are looking up! THE GENERAL MEETING NOVEMBER 16,1993 SMAAC held its general meeting on Tuesday, November 16 th at the Mayflower Church Over 100 people attended to hear Sharon Sayles -Belton, Mayor -den of Minneapolis, Thomas Goodman, Attorney for SMAAC and NFL, and Charles Kennedy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Sharon Belton told the audience that she had learned a lot during the mayoral campaign about the noise problem in South Minneapolis. She agreed that poise pollution depressed properly values and therefore tax revenues for the city and school system. She said that, while the city may not always have the resources to do everything that SMAAC requested, SMAAC would nevertheless have a 'sympathetic ear' in the mayor's office. She also announced that Steve Cramer was her ill choice to represent the City on the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Tom Goodman went over the history and theory of the lawsuit. There were numerous questions at the end of his talk. We took as many of them as time permitted, but then had to move on with the program. Charles Kennedy, of the MPGA, described posable enforcement scenarios. While some members of the audience were plainly skeptical, veteran airport noise fighters were pleasantly surprised by the aggressive tack the MPCA appears to be taking on the issue. (cont. pg 2) /0r; DEC. 1993 the LAWSUIT Now that MAC has appealed our lawsuit we need to continue our fundraising efforts - now more than ever since we are s0000 close. At this point, it is no longer some untested legal theory, but a major victory that we need to preserve. Prior to this lawsuit, the MAC claimed unlimited power to make noise, and that the State had no power over the MAC to limit this noise pollution. The lawsuit asserts that legislation enacted in the 1970's is valid and applies to the MAC. ft is the first step in fighting noise pollution. It is on this decision that all futon: efforts to reduce noise will be based The city of Minneapolis has eontnbmed $5000 and Mendota Heights has Contributed $10,000. So far, SMAAC and NFL have raised about $70,000 for this lawsuit: an impressive figure. SMAAC, MPI.., and all the people who have contributed to the lawsuit can be rightfully proud of their efforts. Citizens do not willingly shell out than kind of money unless there is a serious problem; and our efforts send a clear message to our political leaders and to the MAC that there is a problem here they need to deal with. But, we need to keep going. Please help out m whatever way you can. Your contribution will ultimately help to preserve Twin Cities residential areas. To make a contribution, send a check made out to SMAAC to Eileen Scully, treasurer, at 5116 Columbus Ave. So. Minneapolis, Mn. 55417. Every cent will go to the lawsuit. •2 SOUTH Po7ETRO AIRPOt2T ACTION CDUNCIL . &:VA;w Tks Is m aamptr of What a roararEETMO shmid e.Uhl I The General Meeting (from pg. l ) In reference to a possible appeal by the MAC, Kennedy told the audience that the MPCA was considering entering the suit in support of the positions of SMAAC and MPL. Any appeal by the MAC (The MAC has in fact appealed) will necessarily put enforcement scenarios on hold. Kennedy told us that the MPCA looked forward to working with the community on the problem: and that interested parties should contact him at his office - 296-7372. Steve Cramer and Carol Johnson, former Council Members from the 11th and 13th wards appeared, and were thanked by the group for their efforts. Brian Herron, Dore Mead, and Steve Mia, the new Council Members from the 9 th, 1 I th, and 13 th wards were introduced, and gave a brief description of their positions on the problem of airport noise pollution in South Minneapolis. Dennis Schutstad was out of town and could not attend the meeting. Jean Wagenius, Jane Ranum, Wes Skoglond and Joe Gasper answered a number of questions about the MACS position. Each of the speakers sparked considerable interest in the audience, and a lively question and answer session followed each of their presentations. All in all, the meeting was a great example of who a 'Town Meeting" should bel 7 SMAAC NEWSLETTER • SMAAC PLAQUE AWARD TO Loren Simer has been awarded a SMAAC PLAQUE for his role in designing and advocating the Airport Noise Operations Monitoring System. As we have said on several occasions, the data from A.N.O.M.S. has given graphic evidence to the extent of the noise pollution from the airport It has documented our case for relief and will play an important role in MPCA efforts to bring the airport into compliance. Thanks Loren Your contribution will be a fundamental tool in our continuing efforts to reduce the burden of noise pollution on residential arms. • SMAAC NEWSLETTER TO THE NEW CITY COUNCIL The SMAAC board was delighted that Sharon Sayles -Belton came to the general meeting. And we were very pleased with her comments at the meeting. She showed a sincere appreciation for the problems in dealing with noise pollution faced by city residents in this part of the city. We look forward to working with her, as well as with Council members Dennis Schulstad, Dore Mead, Brian Herron, and Steve Minn in dealing with the problems of airport noise pollution facing this part of the city. So far, residents of South Minneapolis have fought this battle largely an their own. SMAAC and MPL have nosed over $70,000 in contributions to fund the lawsuit, and individuals have put in hundreds, sometimes even thousands of hours of their own time. The city has contributed $5,000 toward the legal expenses. We have requested help from Hennepin county, as well as other communities in the area affected by airport noise. We will probably have to go back to the city for additional support. (eon't) This battle cannot, and should not be fought by private citizens alone. It is ultimately the obligation of government, both local and state, to uphold the laws of the state and defend its residents and taxpayers against unlawful pollution of any kind. The city's recent contribution shows that the City of Minneapolis intends to support its residents' battle against obtrusive and illegal noise pollution from the airport. One factor driving middle class flight to the suburbs in the past has been the feeling that the city has not been sufficiently concerned with the welfare of its residents. We are very much encouraged by the thinking and approach of the new Mayor and Council Members. We hope to see Minneapolis come together under their leadership. 3• Special thanks to l � STEVE ` 1 Steve Cramer has served the I 1 th ward well during his tenure on the City Council. SMAAC would like to thank him especially for his efforts in getting the city to file an uncus brief in our lawsuit against the MAC and for his leadership in providing $5000 in city funds to help with the expenses of the lawsuit. Sharon Belton has asked him to represent the city on the MAC board, and we certainly hope that comes to pass. RENEWAL Your membership is absolutely vital to our success in the fight to preserve Minneapolis neighborhoods against the onslaught of more and more airport wise. Please check you mailing label to ace if your membership is up to date. In order to cut our coats, we will be forced to drop inactive memberships. Please tenewl We need you and we want to keep you informed. 50 DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER November 23, 1993 Mr. Richard Braun, Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Mr. Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Gentlemen: OFFICE OF THE COUNTYBOARD (612) 438-4418 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 In reviewing the New Airport Site Selection Study "Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED)," Dakota County generally fords the document to be a thorough investigation of the physical characteristics of the Search Area particular to Sites 2, 3, and 6. Even though Dakota County does. not want a new major airport, Dakota County agrees that Site q3 should be the alternative carried forward for further analysis in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Dakota County would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention the following issues that we believe need to be addressed. In Section III.C. Table 5, the AED identifies regional employment trends within the Search Area and adjacent listed communities without a New Major Airport. After comparing Table 5 with Section IV. Table 28. Year 2020 Employment with a New Airport, there are conclusions reached that Dakota County does not accept. Specifically, Tables 5 and 28 say that with or without a New Airport in Dakota County total employment in Apple Valley and Lakeville would be the same. Similarly, Hastings would see an increase of 100 jobs, and Eagan would gain approximately 1200 jobs if a New Major Airport was relocated to Dakota County. Further, in Section IV. D.1. Induced Development, the AED states the following: "The spatial distribution of induced development was also determined based on the Metropolitan Council's adopted development policy... Under, this approach, about one-fourth of the induced development would occur at the intersection of the airport access road and TH55... The remainder would occur inside the current MUSA communities..." If we are to believe Table 28, very little induced development will occur within "current MUSA communities" in Dakota County. Indeed when you try to compare Section IV. Tables 28 and 29 to Section III. Table 5 to the appropriate Appendix, Induced Development becomes confused and misdirecting. The Minnesota State Legislative Auditor stated that one of the primary goals of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process should be to produce documents that are more readable by and understandable to the general public. In this instance Dakota County believes the AED needs serious revisions. The question then becomes when did the Metropolitan Council adopt a policy of nodal development with regard to a New Major Airport as described throughout the induced development discussion both in the AED and the Appendix? AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 01/03/94 11:10 Page 2 Draft ABD Revlew DROTR C3.WY-LIESTFRN SERV. CTR. 002 How is this nodal development policy fora New Major Airport being irs; . orporated into the current revisiwh of tie Metropolitan Councils Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework WIF)? FMIbW. how does this concept flu with the orderly development conoapt ptevlously mentioned by limiting development to arbitrary nodes? Still further, when ate the nodes, where'Is a map of the nodca end the rationale for their location? On114,11gure 7 only -show§• less tion 5 feet from the surface. Dakota County be t Figure 7 or antWint mph ah w bedrock less than 50 feet from the surface because It coin prove important, in assessingg and oo Iah'ng other I environmental impacts. An example would be Section III: D.1 J. Siukh es,.U% the s=probability rating system used In Aletmpder and Vlab(1983146—r DURM ..., the shallow dept[ to bedrock -portions of Sites 2 and X*Ould grin fhb rtiddd• ability category...' (Auacbment A) - in Se�ddt DI'D.14. FlOodplaius.+" umy believes that another moral drainage basin.. otxmr8 Seam h Area stent fly ting Siees 2 and 3. lois informatkm has been mcmdy. devil , �'ptodtia ofe �ligiml leffa el developed by Dakma County for the AirQort Dakota C`ottnty would ftke'io p ose that further Investigations be made into the. Oonsequeorxa of this lnformetion. Dakota County also bclievcs 1[ fe o[ti,nt to rote dist-the south branch of the Vetmfllion River nos through the anter o[ the New Mot or Airport Conceptual Design TTerminal Buildiftnhg� in Six p3, and would lllx to kirow whet impact that would have on natural (Attacfimsht B) On page III -45, Section H.3.1. Groundwatertibility.. Figure 18. The AED should state that 90+% of the moire Search Area is in the High�tvity.Category and 5+% Is ht the Very High Sensitvlty Category with potential contamination measured in lours to days. The map should be made eas to read In Section III. I. Farmland. Dakota County appreciates the emphasis on commercial and prime agriarhutal farmland as well as the descr flop of the Agricultural Preserves farmland, Instead of just relying on the Crop Equivalency Rating (CBR). Section IV. C.1. Social Displacement impacts.page IV -23 states the following: "Comparable and available replacement housing in the area will be difficult to locate for residents whose homes would be taken by a Candidate Site. Dakota Cotmty again raises the Issue of the need for an Interactive planning Process that would go beyond a Residential Relocation Study to thoughtfully and completely address these frnporlant soeiel issues in a mamhCr similar to how they were handled during the MSP Comprehensive planning Proeeas. In Secflon IV. CA. Ground Access impacts. Dakota County has serious reservations about rite Ground Access Impacts as presented. Dakota County believes that given the problems pointed out with the location and intensity of Induced development in Dakota County or elsewhere, the Ground Access Impacts are grossly understated for much of Dakota County.. Dakota County expects that during do preparation of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan that Ground Access Impacts will receive a much greater focus and a more technical examination of any results. In Section IV. C.4.6. Ground Access Mitigation Meastum you must look to Saxton IV. Tables 25 and 27 to learn that at least 5 maior river crossings would require slonitieaut addltlons in lane capacity In order to facilitate surface traffic to a New Major Airport. Moro Interesting Is the fact that 4 of the . 5 major river crossings cannot be expanded on their exleting structures. That translates into additional bridges. This very Important Information Is burled -In tables and needs to be clearly brought out In the text of tho AM. M. Page 3 Draft AED Review On page IV -57, Section F.2.-3.. Airport Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) Option, the Vermillion River Discharge paragraph makes assumptions that could severely limit the forecasted growth in Lakeville and Farmington. From presentations to the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee, it had always been understood by Dakota County that any required WWTF would be constructed within the boundaries of the New Major Airport and that its WWTF requirements would not impact existing facilities. The issue of discharges into the Vermillion River and the location of those discharges also remain of serious concern. In Section IV. F.3. Groundwater Impacts; Surface Water Runoff. the AED used a.10 -year storm event to calculate water storage requirements. Dakota County believes that a 100 -year storm event should be used in all calculations and that the AED should specifically state that it intends to address and apply NURP standards. Realizing the serious potential that exists for groundwater contamination (Sec. III, Figure 18), Dakota County believes that its Ground Water Recharge Areas will need special protection if a New Major Airport is constructed south of Hastings. Dakota County would like to restate its concerns that all potential additional Environmental Impact Studies that may need to be undertaken and completed to facilitate the Dual Track Airport Planning Process should be identified and listed. For example, major river crossing bridges, new or expanded highways, as well as required County and City projects. .11 Finally, Dakota County strongly suggests that discussions related to governance issues be initiated between the State, and its agencies, and Dakota County and its cities and townships. �Sincerely,, FievenLoeding, Chairman DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS cc: Dakota County Board of Commissioners Dakota County Legislative Delegation Dottie Rietow, Chair, Metropolitan Council Robert Dunn, Chair, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator Louis J. Breirrhurst, Dakota County, Physical Development Director John Tocho, Dakota County Office of Planning Costs rise as Denver By RODD ZOI.ROS Staff Writer Delays In the opening of the new Denver International Airport keep driving up the final price tag of the $3 billion project - The postponement of the opening, hem Dec. 19 to March 9, means will winto its original tion date by more than four months This latest setback also MeRM meet :t o city has to find ways to million in monthly capitalized Enter - est costs and $3 million a month in operating and maintenance ex- penses for nearly three more months before the airport — the country's largest public works project — )opans and fees begirt roiling in from the airlines that use It. Acoording to Genrnifer Sussman, the airport's finance director. the city has the necessary resources, and the added costs will be met without tapping general city revenue. After the interest cost is reduced by revenue from the passenger facil- ity charge and interest income from the reserve fund, about $15 million in monthly interest costs remain to be covered. Ms. Susemes said. Airlines using the facility will Irick In about $29 million toward operations and maintenance and capitalized interest costs between now and the opening. They'll reim- burse the city for their share of op- eration and maintenance costs over three yeses and capitalized interest over six years. Fitch Investors Savin tae and Moody's Investors Service Inc. both responded to the Oct. 28 announce- ment of the delayed opening by af- firming their existing Denver air- port bond ratings of BBB and Baa 1 conditional, respectively. ,•Moody'and Fitch both had an immediate and pretty positive reac- tion,- Me. Sussman said. Analysis at Standard & Pooes Corp. seemed more taken aback by the lengthy delay, however. "We all knew that the Oct. 31 date was a little bit aggressive," said Ernest Ferez, director in the trans- portation group at Standard & Pooes Corp., New York "We always anticipated a little bit of a delay but we anticipated it to be until some time in January, February tops, So we're very surprised." While Standard & Poor's affirmed its BBB rating of the Denver air- port's bonds, it did so In a strongly worded statement that noted that since Denver International's rating .s City & State December g, 1993 airport slow to take off Grounded: Denver's new airport is still under constmctlon after delays. is one of the lowest airport ratings S&P maintains, the additional cost and schedule pressure does not now warrant a rating action. Additional delays or further cost increases, however. could have a negative impact on the airport's ret - jug, Standard & Poor's cautioned. "The security for the outstanding airport bonds remains the same. and the project can withstand the an- nounced delay and caste." Standard "%a Pcor's noted. "However. a delay of this length should not have come after repeated and strongly worded assurances that the project was on schedule and within budget." In announcing the new opening date, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb noted that the Oct. 31 date had been set by his predecessor, Fe- derico Pena, and that much of the cost additions at the airport have come as a result of revisions re- quested by the airlines. We are not building the same airport that was started In the fall of 1989," Mr. Webb said. "The scope of this project has changed and grown as a result of the solid support it has generated in the airline Industry." The new airport's project manage- ment team had reported to the mayor that among the critical com- ponents of the new airport that would not be ready until March are the baggage handling and fire/ safety systems. The $300 million, fully automated baggage system is being touted as the largest and most complex ever built. The airlines actually favored the March date so they could have a 80 -day training period for employ- ees without a holiday break. By Jan. 3, the city is due to make the airport available to the airlines for testing of Its stste-af-the-art equipment. a Tribal success has official followers By CAGY ENDS Staff Writer Lobbyists and votem step aside. An enterprising group of 282 Mas- hantucket Pequot Indians and their Connecticut gambling Palace have become the most persuasive force to hit governments it the Northeast. Lawmakers who once rolled machines at racetracks, they may be setting themselves up for an un- healthy competition, resulting in disappointing revenue for all. "As a way to Painlessly solve the fiscal problems of sate government, gambling Is a mirage," wrote Steven Gold, director of the Center for the Study of the Sates. Albany, N.Y., in an October report alleging that the revenue -raising potential of lott- AIRPORT FACT SHEET 105 (:° The "New Generation" Aircraft This pamphlet gives an overview of the "Stage 3" or "Quiet' aircraft now serving the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Introduction Noise reduction at Minneapolis SI.Paul International Airport (MSP) is a high priority for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). In the past 25 years, the dramatic increase in the number of jet aircraft takeoffs and landings brought increasing aircraft noise to neighborhoods surrounding MSP. The problem intensified after the How is aircraft noise generated? Aircraft noise is generated by two sources—the jet engines that power the aircraft and the flow of air over the air. frame and its components. Air -home noise is particularly objectionable when the aircraft is in a landing config- uration with its lift and drag devices extended and landing gear down. As more of the aircraft is exposed as it moves through the air, more noise is generated. While considerable progress has been made in reducing noise caused by the engine, little has been done to lower air -frame noise. Noise generated by a jet engine is most apparent during an aircraft's takeoff and landing. Takeoff noise differs from that produced in the land- ing approach; the two sounds origi. nate from different sources within the engine. airline industry was deregulated in 1978, and become especially severe from 1984 through 1986. Aircraft noise reached its peak in the summer of 1986. The development in the early 1980s of MSP as a major hub for two Minnesota-based airlines, Northwest and Republic, had a direct and dro- matic effect on MSP; takeoffs and land- ings increased from 747 a day in 1982 to 1,164 a day during the sum- mer of 1986. The subsequent merger of Northwest and Republic Airlines reduced takeoffs and landings by more than 100 per day. Currently, however, there are still about 1,000 takeoffs and landings at MSP each day. Boeing 747400 The takeoff noise is dominated by the "roar" of the high-temperature exhaust gases which leave the engine's turbineand toilpipe of high velocities to mix with colder outside air. This deep rumble and roar is diffi. cult to muffle, and is responsible for a large portion of the noise produced by older turbojets and earlier fan jets. The development of fan jets in the mid-1960s greatly reduced aircraft noise. In the 1970s, new technology led to a generation of quieter, Stage 3 jets which comply with even tighter Federal Aviation Administration regula- tions. The various "stages" of aircraft The Federal Aviation Administration jFAA) identifies three "stages" describ- ing aircraft noise: • Stage 1 aircraft generate the most noise. They include DC8s, Boeing 707s and BAC -111 s. All Stage 1 air- craft operations were banned in the United States in January 1985. e Stage 2 aircraft make up the bulk of the current U.S. domestic fleet. They include 727's, 737's and most DC9s. They are less noisy than Stage 1 air- craft but still create a noise problem. e Stage 3 aircraft have the most strin- gent noise limits. According to FAA policy, all new jet engines certified and manufactured after 1976 must meet Stage 3 noise standards. Stage 3 takeoff noise varies with an aircrah's weight and number of engines. The Stage 3 aircraft most frequently using MSP are the McDonnell Douglas MD - 80 and DC-10; the Boeing 757, and the Airbus A320— all flown by Northwest. Other Stage 3 aircraft include later models of the Boeing 737 and 747. Boeing 737 Manufacturers of newer, quieter Stage 3 aircraft engines decided that the amount and velocity of the hot dis- charge air must be substantially reduced to significantly lower the noise level. This led to the development of the "high bypass ratio fon jet," the characteristic engine of Stage 3 air- planes. Most of the thrust of this engine is obtained from a "bypassed" portion of air generated by a large fan in the engine. To produce a given amount of thrust, the high bypass ratio turbofan accelerates a larger mass of air at a lower speed than a low bypass ratio turbofan. Lower jet velocities generally produce lower noise levels. Noise reduction in Stage 3 aircraft also comes from steeper rates of ascent on takeoff. This ascent rate gets the plane higher much more quickly after takeoff—making it higher and quieter over more populated areas. While takeoff noise is dominated by the roar of the exhaust gases, the landing approach phase of a jetliner is marked by a shrill, high frequency sound emanating from the engine's fan and compressor. This sound has been reduced.in Stage 3 engines by reduc- ing the rotating,speed of the engine's fan, lining the fan exhaust ducts with sound -deadening material and making other adjustments to the fan mecha- nism. The chart on the facing page shows the noise "footprint" compar- isons of a Stage 2 Boeing 727 and two different Stage 3 aircraft—the MD - 80 and the Boeing 757. Aircraft in Airline Service at MSP SCHEDULED DAILY MSP TAKEOFFAANDING CYCLES' (1 /91) Stage Aircraft Number of. Cycles Airline. 2 DC940/30/50 124 NW, TW, Cargo 2 727-100/200 80 NW, TW, CO, DL, UA, PA, Cargo 2 737-200 8 CO, DL, UA 3 757 32 NW UA 3 MD -80 28 NW, CO, AA, DL, TW, ML, US 3 737.300/400 14 CO, Dl, UA, US,. HP 3 DC-10 14 NW, Cargo 3 747 5 NW 3 DC8.71 - 1.5 Cargo 3 A320 7 NW •A —A. ,-nneidc of . nn InnAnn and nne Inkenff Airline Codes: NW -Northwest; TW-TronsWorld Airlines; CO -Continental; DL -Della; UA -United; PA -Pan Am; AA -American; ML -Midway; US-USAir;HP-Americo West; Cargo - various cargo carriers 1) LZ Noise Abatement Over the years the MAC has developed a number of methods to ease the impact of aircraft noise on the airport's neigh- bors. One method is to use a noise abatement runway use system which regulates the direction and frequency of arriving and departing flights. This noise abatement runway use system attempts to route flights over less -populated areas whenever weather, wind and traffic conditions allow. Another method is a voluntary night curfew that limits scheduled passenger flights between 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. The voluntary curfew has reduced the aver- age number of scheduled Rights from 28 to about 1 1 per night. Other noise reduction strategies STAGE 2 Boeing 727 MD -80 include takeoff profiles that get aircraft to higher altitudes more quickly while they are still above airport property and a procedure for the use of the crosswind runway more often. In a pilot project, soundproofing insulation was installed in four schools and ten residences. These procedures have been suc- cessful in lowering the noise levels expe- rienced by many airport neighbors. However, the most effective long-term noise reduction must come from the main source of aircraft noise—the jet engine. Comparison of Stage 2 and Stage 3 Aircraft Noise STAGE 3 McDonnell Douglas STAGE 3 Seeing 757 MILES —ONTOUR AREA SQUARE MILES DISTANCE FROM LANDING 6.9 2.5 1.2 MILES DISTANCE FROM START OF TAKEOFF me cnaa above gives o comparison of the noise contours, or "footprints' of aircraft representing Stage 2 and Stage 3 guidlines. The footprints show the area oBected by a noise level of 85 dBIAI.Sourcelhe Boeing Company. Average daily noise levels decline In 1987, the MAC negotiated volun- tary agreements with the major airlines serving MSP to reduce average daily noise levels (based on MSP's August 1986 level( from 1 1 to 24 percent dur- ing the June 1987 to June 1992 peri- od. During MAC's six year step - reduction plan the airlines can meet the yearly noise reduction caps in two ways: by flying fewer takeoffs and landings, or by using more Stage 3 aircraft instead of the noisier Stage 2 aircraft. Several of the airlines have dra- matically increased their use of Stage 3 aircraft. More than a third of Northwest Airlines' 325 aircraft are Stage 3. About 28 percent of Northwest's flights of MSP use the qui- eter airplanes. All American and America West takeoffs and landings at MSP use Stage 3 aircraft. More than Conclus ion It seems likely that the number of take- offs and landings of MSP will never revert to prederegulation levels. Consequently, increased use of Stage 3 aircraft is clearly the best way to alleviate the noise problem in commu. nities surrounding the airport. Timely delivery of Stage 3 aircraft already ordered by the airlines will be a major factor in future noise reduction. The MAC and MASAC continue to work on precedent -setting noise abate- ment batement programs. One result is the nego- Hation of a unique environmental sur- half of the Air Cargo Carrier aircraft used of MSP are Stage 3 jets. As of December 1990, 34 per- cent of commercial jet operations at MSP were flown with Stage 3 aircraft. Increasing use of Stage 3 aircraft caused the average daily noise at MSP to decrease from 20 to 24 percent between mid -1988 through mid-1990. Average daily noise has stayed well below agreed-upon limits. During the next two years, the airlines are expect- ed to increase their use of Stage 3 air- craft to remain below the yearly noise limits. In contrast to the 34 percent of air- line operations of MSP that are Stage 3 aircraft, nearly 60 percent of take- offs and landings on the East and West Coasts of the United States are by Stage 3 aircraft. This difference is largely attributable to the average charge for all MSP landings to help fund off -airport noise abatement and insulation programs. Under the agree- ment, greement, Stage 2 aircraft pay a higher noise abatement landing surcharge than Stage 3 aircraft. Another result is MAC's proposal to eliminate Stage 2 aircraft in the 1 1 p.m. — 6a.m.late night period by April 1992 and to phase out Stage 2 activity during the 10 p.m. — 7a.m. period by 2000. . Although it will not be easy, MAC is confident that with the continued cooperation of the airlines and with the length of flights to and from coastal cities and to the concentration of inter- national and coast-tocoost flights which use wide-body, Stage 3 aircraft. For example, the overage flight to and from MSP is 750 miles, compared with 1,500 miles to and from Seattle. The aircraft most often used on shorter flights are the 727 and the DC9—both noisier, Stage 2 aircraft. The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) formed the Stage 3 Implementation Study Group to attempt to accelerate the use of Stage 3 aircraft at MSP. MASAC consists of equal numbers of represen- tatives of the airlines and communities affected by noise. The FAA and the MAC are cooperating in this effort. The MAC supports total elimination of all noisy Stage 2 aircraft by the turn of the century. ongoing purchase and delivery of more Stage 3 aircraft, noise can be kept within agreed upon levels. The summers of 1991 and 1992 will be the greatest challenges because the levels require 21.5 percent and 24 percent average daily noise reductions respectively. MAC's goal is to dramatically increase airlines' use of Stage 3 air- craft during the 1990s and eliminate the use of Stage 2 aircraft at U.S. air- ports by the year 2000. 1/91 6� • THOMAS EGAN Moyor - PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER r. Counce Member, THOMAS HEDGES ON Administrator December 20, 1993 , E. J. VAN OVERSEKE City Clerk KATHLEEN GAYLORD MARK SALMEN NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 5101 NORTHWEST DRIVE N7310 ST PAUL MN 55111-3034 Dear Kathleen A Mark: On behalf of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee, thank you very much for the time and courtesy extended to our group on Tuesday evening, December 14. The presentation and tour were informative and interesting and went a long way to help our members understand the work that Northwest Airlines is doing in the area of noise abatement. It also was valuable from the standpoint of allowing our resident members to meet with you personally and directly and put faces with the names they hear about in MASAC and official correspondence. We also appreciate your willingness to allow the meeting to be videotaped. It has appeared on our local cable station several times since the meeting and has been well received by those who have seen it. Again, I wish to express our appreciation for your consideration in this regard. I hope you are both enjoying the holiday season. If you ever wish to discuss matters of airport policy with the Committee in the future,. please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, IA4 n Hohenstein Assistant to the JDH/vmd MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1897 PHONE: (612) 661-460D FAX (612) 6814612 TDD: (612) 464-835 City Administrator THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/AttlrmoWe Aotlon Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681.6300 FAX: (612) 681 .8360 TDD: (612) 454-0535 TO: CHAIR RING AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JANUARY 6, 1994 SUBJECT: PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM SOUND ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL GUIDED PROPERTIES The purpose of this memo is to frame the discussion of the aircraft noise, land use compatibility options for properties guided to be commercial -industrial in Eagan's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. Ultimately, this issue will also need to be considered by the City's Advisory Planning Commission. Due to the nature of the ARC and its relationship with the funding sources which might be available for the various options discussed, the issue is being brought before the Committee first. This is not a simple issue and, therefore, it is anticipated that this discussion will take a number of meetings to resolve. Despite this, MAC deadlines and other priorities may require that the Committee and City take interim positions on aspects of this issue while working to resolve it in general. V-747,707mo The City of Eagan anticipates that a broader area of the City will become eligible for Part 150 Noise Compatibility Funding during 1994 when the FAA approves an expanded 65- DNL contour submitted by the MAC. A copy of the revised contour is attached. This expansion will result in the addition of five residential areas to the program that have commercial or industrial Comprehensive Plan designations. These areas are denoted on the attached Zoning Map and Comprehensive Guide Map. Enlargements of the individual areas are also attached. Previously, the City determined to confine its Part 150 Program to sound insulation of eligible homes because the costs of property acquisition were beyond the short-term resources of the program. Since that time, three factors have changed. The MAC's Part 150 Grant has been funded at higher levels than the initial year of the program. The City's proportion of the grant has increased due to a modification of the MAC's funding formula. In addition, the City of Richfield was successful in working with the MAC to request additional federal funds for the purchase of the New Ford Town neighborhood, thus broadening the potential funding sources for other alternatives. Before moving forward with sound insulation of the five areas identified, it appears appropriate to revisit this policy issue and consider all aspects of any decision on the City's approach to the area. The three alternatives currently included in the MAC Part 150 application are: 1) Sound Insulation, 2) Purchase Assurance and 3) Acquisition. Descriptions of each are attached. The cities eligible to participate in the program are Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Mendota Heights and Eagan. To staff's knowledge, none of the cities in the MAC program are currently using the purchase assurance option. All of the cities are using the sound insulation option. Mendota Heights and Bloomington have expressed interest in exploring acquisition of certain properties and Richfield is pursuing acquisition through other funding sources as noted above. All of the programs are available anywhere within the eligible contour, although the FAA generally discourages the higher cost acquisition alternatives at the outer edges of the 65 DNL contour. This fact should not preclude the discussion of potential acquisition in light of the unique characteristics of each of the areas in Eagan, but it is an issue to consider. Descriptions of Areas The five eligible areas in Eagan which are guided for commercial -industrial uses vary from free standing homes to clusters of large lots to the 108 lot McKee Addition. Their age also varies, but typically they are of a 1950-60's vintage construction. Some of the free standing homes are somewhat older. The properties tend to be well maintained. Most are served by City utilities, although some maintain well and septic systems. Due to the age and type of housing and the noise and development environment of the area, many of the homes tend to offer affordable housing opportunities to younger families and senior, fixed-income households. 1. Area 1 (Pilot Knob Road north of Avalon Avenue) consisting of two single family homes on medium. sized lots flanking a gift shop across Pilot Knob Road from the Eagandale Business Campus. Noise Considerations - This area lies within the 65 DNL contour and is the closest of the five areas to the 70 DNL contour. it is approximately two miles from the runway end and is adjacent to the extended runway centerline of Runway 11 R/29L. it receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Runway 11 R/29L is also the primary runway for night-time operations. Land Use Considerations - Both properties are zoned Agricultural (A). They are bounded to the east, west and north by property zoned for Commercial Planned Developments (PD). Highview Acres subdivision to the south is zoned Single Family (R-1). The Lost Spur Country Club lies to the west as well. One of the homes is currently for sale and the other is a rental property belonging to an adjacent home owner. The scale of the property is smaller and probably less complex than the other areas under review. One possible redevelopment scenario would be to incorporate the property into the Wyndham Corporate Center PD, although no activity has occurred on this property since the Wyndham Gardens Hotel discontinued its project for the site. 2. Area 2 (Lexington Avenue between Lone Oak Road and Hwy 55) consisting of eight single family homes in two clusters on either side of Knox Lumber. Lots in the area vary in size ranging from medium to large. Noise Considerations - This area lies between the southeast edge and the middle of the 65 DNL contour. It is approximately three miles from the runway end and is under and between the extended runway centerlines of the parallel 11/29 runways. It receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Runway 11 R/29L is the primary runway for night-time operations. Land Use Considerations - Seven of the properties are zoned Agricultural (A) and one is zoned Light Industrial (LI). The southerly cluster is bounded on all sides by Light Industrial (LI) and Commercial Planned Development (PD) uses. The northerly cluster is bounded by Light Industrial (LI) the McKee Addition (R-1) which is Area 3 and I -35E. Knox Lumber (LI) lies between the two. Lot 2, Block 1 Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 10 Addition wraps around the southerly cluster and includes a large pond and one or more smaller wetlands. As a consequence of limited access to the site from Lone Oak Road and Lexington Avenue, it would appear that any redevelopment of these properties' would need to be considered together with the surrounding lot. Even without incorporation of Lot 2, it appears that the only feasible redevelopment of the area is the combination of all four of the parcels in this cluster. An additional factor in the southern cluster is Dakota County's need to acquire a portion of the property for the 1994 upgrade of the Lone Oak Road -Lexington Avenue intersection. The County Highway Department has made a preliminary contact with the City to gauge interest in acquisition of the entire property for noise purposes, potentially changing the economics of the project cost for the road improvement. The northerly duster is irregular and triangular in shape with a significant area of potentially excess 1-35E right of way on the west side. If it is to be redeveloped, it may be worthwhile, to attempt to acquire and combine this part of the ROW into the parcel to give it a more developable configuration. Despite their similarity of circumstance and location, the two dusters are not directly dependent upon one another for redevelopment and will obviously develop as two separate uses whenever that occurs. 3. Area 3 (McKee Addition) - consists of a five block, 108 single family home subdivision dating back to the 1950's and 1960's. While it is actually three subdivisions, it functions as a single, integral neighborhood. The typical home in the area is a single level with two or three bedrooms and a detached garage. Lots in the area range from 10,000 to 11,000 square feet. Noise Considerations - This area lies at the end, near the middle of the 65 DNL contour. It is approximately three miles from the runway end and is under and between the extended runway centerlines of the parallel 11/29 runways. It receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Runway 11 R/29L is the primary runway for night-time operations. Land Use Considerations - The McKee Addition is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). The area is bounded on all sides by Light Industrial (LI) and Commercial Planned Development (PD) uses, with the exception of the western edge which is partially bounded by the northerly cluster of Area 2 which is zoned Agricultural (A). The McKee Addition is the largest of the five areas under review, comprising just over 30 acres. If it were to be acquired and redeveloped, it appears that a commitment should be made to do it in total as there is no logical means of dividing the area. At this size, however, it offers significant flexibility for potential redevelopment. The most significant challenge to redevelopment would probably be that few individual users require this much property. As a consequence, the City and the. MAC may need to pursue a public-private partnership with a private development firm or request proposals for development of a multiple user project as is being done with the Metropolitan Center property. 4. Area 4 (Kolofski's Plat at Hwy 55 and Lawrence Lane) consists of five single family homes on medium to large lots near the former Airliner Motel. Noise Considerations - This area lies at the eastern edge near the middle of the 65 DNL contour. It is approximately three and one-half miles from the runway end and is under the extended runway centerline of Runway 11L/29R. It receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Land Use Considerations - The area is zoned Commercial Planned Development (PD) and is included in the larger Robins Planned Development which takes up much of the property between I -35E, 1-494, Hwy 55 and Hwy 149. The .PD does not have a current specific development plan. However, it has been discussed in the past as a location for retail or office uses to take advantage of the freeway intersection visibility. Despite its visibility, however, access to the site from the interstates is not obvious which may present a challenge to its future development. Despite its inclusion in this PD, it appears that the homes have not been acquired by the Robins interests and that individuals still own them. The area is surrounded on the north, east and west by the remainder of the PD. The property south, across Hwy 55, is zoned Light Industrial (U). The obvious redevelopment scenario in this case would be to incorporate the ownership of the sites under the Robins PD either before or at the time that development moves forward for the overall site. 5. Area 5 (Blue Gentian Road north of Hwy 55) consists of eleven single family homes on large lots immediately above the intersection 1-35E and 1- 494. Noise Considerations - This area lies near the middle of the 65 DNL contour. It is approximately three miles from the runway and and is under the extended runway centerline of Runway 11 L/29R. It receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Land Use Considerations - The portion of the area north of Blue Gentian Road is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), while the portion south of the road is zoned Agricultural (A). Like the McKee Addition, the area tends to function as a neighborhood, although it does not have the same scale and numbers of homes. The area is adjacent to the Robins Planned Development which takes up much of the property between I -35E, 1-494, Hwy 55 and Hwy 149. As noted above, this PD does not have a current specific development plan, although retail or office uses have been discussed in the past. Again, an obvious redevelopment scenario would be to incorporate the ownership of the sites under the Robins PD either before or at the time that development moves forward for the overall site. The area is strategically located at the high point of the property above the intersection and offers the best potential visibility for the overall site from the interstates. If it were not incorporated into a masterplan for the area, it would probably develop at a less intense level than the remainder of the site and, as a consequence, may be underutilized. f Redeveloomen Staff has yet to undertake a detailed analysis of property values in the area. Any analysis will also be affected to the extent that some property owners may pursue premiums above the residential value of.properties due to their potential reuse for commercial or industrial purposes. Not all of the acquisition costs are unrecoverable, however. By way.of example, if a typical'home in ,the McKee Addition were to sell for $70,000, standard federal relocation assistance of $22,500 would make the cost of acquisition $92,500 per home.. At 108 homes, the total cost of acquisition would be approximately $10 million for the entire addition. An exact estimate of the cost of preparing the property for redevelopment is not available at this time. As a comparison, however, the City of Bloomington is estimating that demolition, relocation, administration and contingency costs for 77 homes would be $4.3 million or $56,000 per home. Using the same multiplier would add approximately $6 million, bringing the total cost of acquiring the McKee Addition and preparing it for sale to $16 million. At current market rates, the resale value of the thirty-one acres would be one dollar per square foot or $1.35 million. This amount could be recaptured to lower the net cost of the acquisition or it could be reallocated for other acquisition or sound -insulation projects under Eagan's Part 150 Program. L =7CMViT-P The current MAC funding formula gives each of the five eligible cities under the Part 150 Program five percent of the annual grant total as a base with the remainder spread among the cities on the basis of the number of eligible households. Eagan has 2.1 percent of the total homes. Together with the base, this equates to 6.57 percent of the annual grant total. In 1994, the MAC submitted an application for approximately $10 million. Of this, Eagan's portion would be $657,000. In recent meetings, the FAA indicated that the MAC should anticipate a grant award similar to that in 1993 which was roughly $4 million, of which Eagan's portion would be $262,800. While either amount is substantially above the $110,000 received in the first year of the program, it would still take a significant number of years to make substantial headway on acquisition of the largest areas. If areas are to be acquired, it is apparent that Part 150 funds can only leverage a fraction of the overall cost. It may be necessary to approach the MAC as Richfield and Bloomington have done concerning a separate grant process to provide additional funds for this purpose. It may be possible to acquire the smaller areas in a reasonable period with Part 150 funds, however, N the McKee Addition could be acquired under a separate grant. Conversely, if it is determined to move forward with sound insulation of the 150 total Eagan homes eligible under the 1996 contour, it will take four to ten years at the proposed funding levels to complete the project. The policy issues associated with this matter vary. Some relate to the properties generally and others will relate to the individual circumstances of each area. It may be that the City will differentiate between the circumstances and apply one approach in one area and another in others. It may also prioritize the areas on the basis of circumstance or feasibility. The task before the'Committee and ultimately the Planning Commission is to provide an analysis and options for Council consideration in this regard. Impacts on Future Redevelopment - The primary issue is whether it is prudent to invest in capital improvements in residential uses that are anticipated to become commercial or industrial in the long run. Any sound Insulation of properties will tend to extend their lives and will likely make their ultimate cost of acquisition higher when private or public efforts to redevelop them do occur. This is complicated by the time frame within which any redevelopment may occur. If it is in the distant future, the investment now may have an incidental impact on the ultimate cost. 2. Nature of Improvements - The time frame of redevelopment also bears on the human element. Many of the residents of these properties have lived with noise as a nuisance for a substantial period of time. Either relocation or sound insulation will assist these people. Relocation does so permanently, while insulation incrementally improves the living conditions inside the home: 3. Long -Term Noise Exposure - Another issue relates to the expectations of the City with respect to the impact of a quiet generation Stage III fleet after the year 2000. Is it perceived that the area of severe impact will shrink sufficiently to make some or all of the identified areas more liveable? - 4. Social Impacts - It is also important to consider whether the dislocation associated with accelerated redevelopment is worth the effort. Acquisition of entire areas has social and human impacts beyond the obvious financial ones. Do the benefits of converting some or all of these areas to commercial use justify all of the costs? 5. Affordable Housing - Should the areas be maintained in their present or an improved state to provide affordable housing options? 6. Private Redevelopment - Another issue is the relative likelihood that areas will ultimately convert to their guided use without public participation. It could be argued that some of the smaller areas which are adjacent to larger proposed developments could be easily incorporated into those developments. In the case of Area 4, this is already the case. A single large subdivision, such as the McKee Addition probably will never redevelop without public participation. Is it therefore prudent to consider it now rather than later? 7. Market Environment - The current state of the commercial -industrial real estate market must also be considered. While the MAC could dear and hold the property until development. pressures make it financially feasible to sell it, the property would be off of the tax rolesin the interim. In addition, it would compete with other available undeveloped property, meaning that the public benefit needs to justify -the competition with the market. B. Noise Exp - Ultimately, the issue also relates to the perceived seriousness of the impact in the area and whether it is appropriate to permit residential uses to be maintained in areas of that levelof noise exposure. 9. Other Imperatives - Do circumstances such as the County's interest in acquiring property for the County road improvement project affect the priorities in this regard? 10. Other - The list above is preliminary and may be expanded or modified on the basis of discussions of this matter. As noted at the outset, this memorandum is intended to frame and initiate the discussion of this issue. it identifies the areas in question,their characteristics, the resources available and the general policy questions apparent at the present time. Additional information will be provided as necessary and as requested. If you have any questions before the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. . Stant tO the City Administrator EA 5 _ -j .� •/ / - - - _ NFHM1Mt MTS \ C Alt,t S AR v_ -j. - ( ;' I _\ \ i • AREA 4 d :e AREA 1 ' i✓ .• _D ARE,, W , I� AREA 2 t9, . 111 •,• /�...� ;, ,' � n ,I;':C`�I'j i \. - % ,{' 6P n.^- •1tG , ti rl ' i;. . is is — //�• .%,✓ i � f11 1— I _::: ...., �._.: dii.�..+e ell 'Ll 36C • i t #s°�i it, .::. ( LL 1 YJ� rn 4•• • _ •ii\ I� 4�� I �i T. � l\,(i AJ. • yY ::y �: - �+'.�.-.-;.LQ �YYy,��lYYll�44 t S I' ' r3' xis \F 19 cQ1 � Q�� II .. — f •t - iu f'/ '+� n it rr' , _.— lei '' '�, irf11 _ 46 AIR 71 iw.E 1 Zoning Map — city o/ Eagan Ionrn p MaJr /ndalrJnp _ -l•..... is Rory .....I � � tr.. ....... a � �.+.-.,• ' 1 1 •\� I 1I, \ I II , I AREA 5pp p, .�' MD 2 1 ' AREA 1 AREA 4 - \ 14 r, ";. PF r 04 „ AREA 3 I PF !-raM,'• AREA 2 .. .. ua ca raw e me C R&D M• y V IA P " IPF Le wR • . - Da 1 WI Dd \T y , l i w rO F4/� "Labs I HwbY ' \ 1 D� II �.� ♦O 1.,.. D-1 '\ I nuon +u. •.. PF isrt 03. PF PF = I 14 D•1 p PF RRI u 4 19 N -11111Vv raV�.rr Tr 111 \�^ ��t�/II / �I /I11�/ r1) M Fool t / \f 1 � ) < < � / — / 11� � ��. \ \ / I (/ , � / / 1 � ��— i��•!,'0 j(/// ////,b / �\\to\Il�sl /_ cL"vv �I a. 1i1/�(�_�������\__�/ 1/� \\`��� /II Y'�I�H�`II\•_,y��///!�\\� �_ �_Ii ilF\\ 171}11111//// 1j'��-�'/�`�==1iB�i\^\\����—// �\•\\�\\� //���`�-/yam a�1�}��/'-'fl�f�/�/ ' ���•.r , /,•,, / 0 1 6101 1 Io I \-1 \ 150-000 / % /:1,. i 1/�/F '\��\ \\` �\` \\ Ali\:J +` �� I I�/�_�` moose/�////////� (,• ��� ���.: \\ �\\' V\\`ill4%\ /r'° `9./jjs(/i-i�/ %ter/, 1► � -� ! \ \ \ � \ / � � — —___ ` 1 / — � \ � ,/ i /) I � .I Illl )►1�/( ill )^' �� `��'- /) j. . ��LQlnot 1�1 1 1 1\ Izo- o / ► II I h \ 0\ \ \ II l� ���� \•pea`1 1\ 1 �� \\\I\\,\\1111{�\.V�r-• �'////i//// /'/`I l \ I � //` I i \ \\,� � — .Jlllll�.�w�l.r—�//� . AREA o ` it �(�j , \ ••.\ p. 1 /j////l/ ,/ r {/j , /'�%/ S 040`\5. 07 61 zVz )) I 90 f //J�//� / / / /�/ r — IVY/ I am /, `•i, lat�sl 22 1 //,b///i/ i'/1/ 4" //%//%J/1/ It • ' / � / //'// + l:'7/ �,/// 111 '�/ / \ I 'd t�// / J n /%• // ) f �'//j///>./ /�''.s,� ://�6+ /�J/ \ \ 02U\76�i / �• a _ ,\ .; r% ' � 77 r1 Y/(I/- I - _. — _tun l' __ _ / I I iV1.7 'e' / ••/ S` / //// !i i ./ / +il( / / \ III b _ _ -' / ///�,ni i i / // ),�'�/ ///// // p:•, �� / � I III �+ --._,_` -- "' , .'rr '+/. .rj:,• Ill! / '' // � �,9�,r •.:J.. // // ( � \fie. J, \< f I�ri � �r iii.' \( 'Ni /i•ii�i"��j�/i' /rt/J/%' ;�/' illim00 ' `L' 117J1_ i t — i,//1// 111111\II l ..e. //•III ` A•Q�\r\ !,/ /,% r/ //� //•1/ /j�'/ __./_//_( 1__C//. � � \\ \.. 1 \\.�.".2 � i of � i �/moi' �/ t•/ /I,///,Ill lyi w/ \11\\\\\�\ ����` �/ �. 'ac"upon t^ss ;go �L i It ?vim ! 1 tiv\ ` r \ — II III / 1 \ �� — \ .•-,-•—� �1_ :�7I1 ij� F� oil I 6. Ii RJ r /l• :0 r sr!�Mnv '��[�Tr' LCI L A,� .j k7 iE l irk G� 1.J HIMi I■` �1 �� ����■ �� P16 Id„=SII 126 St j7r._i, NO III A\■ :�7I1 ij� F� 00 / -N 1,r 1�1' 'J null I I DIII1 fit •/ ; - , , .� 1 \� \<\\ter \ 4-- —i- > - --\\,Iil-fl lift - I� I11 \/ I11 "\Mlln1\�\\\\\\1\ _\\\\� I '•\ IIglllllill 111 hllpltilll 11 11111\11V1��\ I\ T-28��11�/ /lll�ll �j1(11\ \\` 1 \\ /) /� I 11\\\�\\\ \i \\ oZOR2811\� 1/ ///�1/'� I / rI \\ I 1 11 f C AREA 0-9 71•w /f// -- \\\ \\\\ ` \ L -'i �i iter'%ii `V'••i \ `r //i \ \ I \ J -/ / f j�B b�// r i l 1 or _ \ onn On \ C AREA 0-9 71•w /f// -- \\\ \\\\ ` \ L -'i �i iter'%ii `V'••i \ `r //i \ \ I \ J -/ / f j�B b�// r i l 1 I I z, --•g ��'�\U 5/ ./ low) A 1 i 1•,\� �ii11''\\ lilt "II \t...�.`tia:, ,\\.\`–�//i�/////moi'^� .I,:>•\�` 1 \` If\Ile•// �' �_—= —'� 1 t I 1 �r !f �IIIJII II JI ^I, b f/')�. 1 I t X61\\\ t. •.`i Vii,/ii i/__—_� 111 t � l�!'llr 1111 I I` \ l �ii/ //l; / E l IN. I`11111� illllr I1111F�\\\•\�Y 1 t Illll l l g.71 11i11 / 1 \g\\\ (if Z 10l II/ ( 14 q li ,i \ 16,1\'m�\\\\\\`. •� \b\ _r J / / rr ,_. �Illl / \ \I . \\ , cll � `, Itlll I\\ •�\ \,,;\ r / I I\.II.Olk '----✓ •��1111\ e/ / //�h���ll rl!\ �\ ; o1\I1 I ////': //lll it \ pl�� II II 1�,�rlll 1pill ull\\111\111l1111111fVl�1ll/ I Yff frill//%�i�•. '�.��1. � i� I!.'1 ////'el'I!l \Ilm �/) I II1ItIN4 IIl tli 7 -�- >I II \\ \ 09F—/ \Q4\` 1 1 -max% `.\l , O\I __ )• ^ 7,- : fie%//A-%III \\\\\��.17i �/ //� \\ - \\\ \\\Is\I \3 It11 IR /' /[i/, // //!✓i \\\♦\\\\\\\\ / // \ ` \ III` I \\\\1 \\\\ //1�\ l0\\\1 \���\�,\\.\ate' �\ -\\�\\\•�\\Q�\\www ,� ESTI moi_/�% I ' �iB \//''j � /r///%// — _ _�__� PS _ _------------------ �- _ – �_ \r `– . J` _- \`•F jyrr,C ���x `moi`\\ ✓ A sound insulation program is a corrective land use measure intended to alleviate the impact of aircraft noise by providing indoor locations where normal activities can be enjoyed without interruption. The program involves modifications to reduce the amount of noise entering from the outside. Priority will be given to the sound insulation of single and multi -family residences, and schools. Homeowner participation in the program is not mandatory, but is encouraged. Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the previously - approved 1992 Ldn contours in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. When the 1996 Ldn contours are approved by FAA after MAC's December '91 submission, they will be used to determine program eligibility. The program will be implemented on a block -by -block basis. The individual cities will determine if a house -by -house priority system within the blocks will be established. Within these guidelines, the responsibility for selecting and prioritizing specific blocks will be assigned to the individual cities. Once a block has been identified by the city as'eligible, the homeowner will be responsible for submitting an application to the program admininstrator requesting participation in the program. If a homeowner chooses not to participate in the program at the time it is initially offered, he may later submit his application and be eligible for funding. Each individual city can determine what the priority will be for homeowners who delay participating in the program. The criteria to be used in the program is essentially to achieve an interior level not exceeding Ldn 45. Whereas this standard is probably applicable to the largest airports, it does not take into account the very high single -event levels - up to Sound Exposure Levels (SELs) of 110 db - experienced at many of the homes adjacent to MSP. The noise reduction proposed for residences will be designed to provide an interior noise environment similar to that provided by the Ldn 45 standard at the largest airports. Typically, this means that habitable rooms directly exposed to aircraft noise would be provided with the following additional noise reduction (NR): Proposed Minimum Maximum Avg Cost IAn Areas Avg NR Increase NR Increase NR Increase Projections 75 13 dB 10 dB 15 dB 522,500-25,000 70 8 dB 5 dB 10 dB $11,500-22,500 65 3 dB 0 dB 5 dB. S 0 - 22,500 Page 1 of 3 12-16-91 The actual amount of additional noise reduction required within the 5, 10, or, 15 dB packages for any given directly -exposed room would depend on the exterior DNL, the type of construction, and the window -wall area ratio. Other habitable rooms in each home that are not directly exposed to aircraft noise would receive additional noise reductions equal to, or less than the amounts shown above. Air- conditioning and ventilation will be provided as part of the sound insulation package. Homeowners would have some limited ability to select alternative modifications to some elements, i.e., windows or walls, provided that the overall sound insulation was not degraded by more than a specified amount. MAC will contract with an outside agency or firm who will administer the sound insulation program among the five eligible cities. This would include program management, engineering, quality control, and supervising the remodeling contractor(s). In the event homeowners want to upgrade to a higher level of sound insulation, or make other misc. improvements, additional work can be done simultaneously by the same contractor at the homeowner's expense as long as the proposed changes are consistent with the scope and character of the work being performed. Construction guidelines for sound insulation and lists of approved material suppliers will be provided to eligible homeowners who wish to remodel their homes prior to the availability of the program in their area, and to homeowners living outside the 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour who wish to add sound insulation treatments at their own expense. The costs of this remodeling would not be reimbursable. Program participants would sign an Avigational Release as a condition of participating in the program. Eligible homeowners who grant an avigation release to MAC would not be required to contribute toward the cost of the program (according to FAA guidelines). Those not granting such a release would be required to contribute 20% of the cost of modifications to their home. Page 2 of 3 12-16-91 During the construction of the sound insulation modifications to each of the eligible residences, the program will pay and provide o& for the following finishing work: Walls and ceilings of treated rooms would be repainted either "off-white or with a paint provided by the homeowner. Surfaces modified or altered by the sound insulation construction would be restored with a finish surface of similar materials comparable to the surface prior to construction. (For example, existing "sculptured" surfaces would be replastered.) All mouldings would be replaced. Any exterior stucco and aluminum window trim would be replaced. All, applicable building permits must be obtained by the contractor or homeowner prior to sound insulation modification work. There will be a $25,000 cap on sound insulation modification work to be done on single residence. -The individual homeowner .will have the ability to reject recommended sound insulation modification plans, as long as the final insulation modification plan selected has no less than 5 dB of attenuation in any directly - exposed room. Homeowners with hot water heat would be able to keep their existing heating system, in the event they received an air-conditioning (forced air) package through the sound insulation modifications. Each city will be responsible for determining how long a participant in the Sound Insulation Program must wait before being eligible for another Part 150 program. Page 3 of 3 12-16-91 * Intended to retain "residential" status of land use. * Voluntary program for homeowners residing within 1996 Ldn 65 contour. * Priority: single and multi -family residences, schools. * "Block by Block" implementation. * City will be responsible for selectin and prioritizing blocks for program participation. * . Degree of sound insulation modification packages determined by - Exterior noise level Construction type of. house Window/wall area ratio * A recommended sound insulation modification package will be drafted for each home within the Ldn 75, 70 and 65 noise contours as follows: Lin Average NR Minimum. NR Maximum NR Average Am Increase Increase Increase cost 65 13 dB 0 dB 5 dB $ 0 - 22,500 per home 70 8 dB 5 dB 10 dB $11,500 - 22,500 per home 75 13 dB 10 dB 15 dB $22,500 - 25,000 per home • Homeowners can modify recommended packages, select from an "approved - contractor" list and determine window, door, wall replacement type based on FAA guidelines. • Air conditioning and ventilation will be included in program modifications. • Signing of an Avigation "Release". • MAC will contract with a central agency to administer the program among the 5 participating cities. 12-16-91 PART 150 LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM In general, a land acquisition program is a convective land use measure intended to alleviate noise effects in areas of incompatible land use. Under the land acquisition program for . the MSP International Airport, property would be acquired only at the initiative and approval of the local jurisdiction where it has established there is a reasonable consensus among residents to vacate the area. Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the 1996 Idn 65 noise contour in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. The neighborhood boundaries will be identified by each participating city to include areas which may be outside of the Idn 65 noise contour. (Areas outside of the Ldn 65 noise contour are subject to FAA approval through the MSP Part 150 Update/FAA review process.) Acquisition priority will be based on the location within the noise contours. The homeowner must have lived in the home for two years prior to the implementation of the program unless adequate funds are made available to allow the purchase of all properties within the identified area at the same time. Property will be acquired by voluntary agreement with the homeowner or through standard condemnation proceedings. The fair market value of all properties identified for acquisition will be determined by the current federal and local guidelines. Property to be acquired will be identified by the individual cities on a block -by - block basis. Once a property has been acquired, homeowners will be processed through normal appraisal and closing procedures, as with any other type of property sale. No specific timeframe for completion of the transfer of property will be defined. The payment or reimbursement of moving/relocation expenses will be determined by current federal regulations (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act). The property will then be cleared immediately to reduce maintenance and upkeep costs. All acquired property will be held by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). If the property is not to be converted for airport use, it will be released by MAC for resale as a compatible land use (non-residential), as soon as possible. 12-16-91 LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM DEFINITION * Intended to change existing residential land use to either airport or non- residential use. * Either voluntary or condemnation program for homeowners residing within 1996 Ldn 65 contour. * "Block by Bloch" implementation. * City will be responsible for selecting and prioritizing blocks for program participation. * Program includes payment or reimbursement of moving/relocation expenses in addition to "fair market value" reimbursement. * Aviption Easement to deed. 12-16-91 PART 150 PURCHASE GUARANTEE PROGRAM In general, a purchase guarantee program is a corrective land use measure to alleviate noise effects in areas where neighborhood stability can be maintained and existing residential development is considered a compatible land use. With most purchase guarantee programs, if aircraft noise levels are found to be intolerable by individual homeowners, and the owner has made a "bona fide" effort to sell the property, the property is acquired at a fair market value and returned to residential use with appropriate sound insulation measures, releases, and restrictions. (The fair market value of all eligible properties will be determined by the current federal and local guidelines.) Homeowner participation in the program will be voluntary and based on the city -specific implementation. decisions. The purchase guarantee program is not intended nor designed to acquire all, or a substantial portion, of a designated area but rather to provide the homeowner the opportunity to sell his home at a guaranteed fair market value on a "house by house" basis. Purchase Guarantee Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. Each participating city will be able to determine the location and number of homes eligible for participation based on their yearly Part 150 dollar allocation. The participating home must be owner -occupied. (Owner -occupied condominium units are also eligible.) Homeowners must have resided at the property for at least two years prior to being offered participation to enter the program. Once a home has been deemed eligible for participation in the Purchase Guarantee Program, a fair market value will be established for the property through a certified appraisal process that meets federal and local guidelines. Then, a Letter - of -Intent will be signed by both the homeowner and the program administrator (Metropolitan Airports 'Commission (MAC)). The Letter will be a binding contract which describes the program elements, such as: Predetermined length of time that property will be listed for sale before owner receives reimbursement of fair market value. (Note: this defines a "bona fide effort" and is based on the Multiple Listing Service data (MLS) for each individual neighborhood provided by each city.) * Sound insulation package modification details and schedules. • Granting of an avigation release to the MAC. Page 1 of 2 12-16-91 There are two possible methods within the Purchase Guarantee Program to transfer the ownership of a participating home. If -the house does sell on the open market before a predetermined period expires, the transfer of ownership is similar to a normal open market real estate transaction. If the house does not sell on the open market before a predetermined time period, then the owner is reimbursed the fair market value of the home and the property is re -listed by the administrator (MAC) on the open market until it is sold. Each home participating in the Purchase Guarantee Program will receive a complete sound insulation package modification based on its location within the Ldn 65, 70, & 75 noise contours and its construction. In the event the house sells before the predetermined listing period, sound insulation modification will be done immediately after the new owner takes possession. In the event the house does not sell during the predetermined listing period, then sound insulation modification will be done in the interim period after the original owner is reimbursed the house fair market value and before it is re -listed on the open market by the administrator. (It should be noted that before being re -listed, the home will be re -appraised to determine a new fair market value that reflects the sound insulation improvements.) MAC will develop an educational program that participating realtors will be required to attend in order to become "certified" by MAC as having a working knowledge of the purchase guarantee and sound insulation programs. This will insure that prospective homebuyers are aware of the location of the property within the noise contour, that the home will receive sound insulation treatment as a condition of the purchase, and of the avigation release. Additionally the homeowner would be certain that his home is being marketed by a qualified realtor. Note 1: Based on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act for voluntary programs, the Purchase Guarantee Program will not include payment or reimbursement of movmg/relocation expenses. Note 2: Any adjustment of the 1996 Ldn 65 boundary to determine eligibility will be subject to FAA overall approval. Each city will be responsible for determining the length of time for either acceptance, or refusal of program participation, once a homeowner becomes eligible. This determined length of time may be different among participating cities, based on each city's specific yearly implementation phasing goals. In the event of refusal, each city will be responsible for determining how long a participant must wait before being eligible again for another Part 150 program. Page 2 of 2 12-16-91 PURCHASE GUARANTEE PROGRAM DEFINMON * Intended to retain "residential" status of land use. * Voluntary program for homeowners residing within 1996 Wn 65 contour. * Only "owner -occupied" homes with a minimum of 2 years owner residency. * "House. by House" implementation. * City will be responsible for selecting (program participation and eligibility) and prioritizing homes for program participation. * Participating homeowner is guaranteed "fair market value" reimbursement. * Sound insulation modifications are included. * Process for eligible homes: - Fair market appraisal process Determine length of time home will be marketed before homeowner is reimbursed. Signing of "Letter of Intent". * SCENARIO 1: House sells before predetermined period. Normal real estate transaction (with Avigation Release to new owner) - New owner is given sound insulation modifications. * SCENARIO 2: House doesn't sell before predetermined period. Original homeowner is reimbursed fair market value. Home is taken off market and given sound insulation modifications. Home is re -appraised. Home is re -listed on market and sold to new owner (with Avigation Release). 12-16-91 AVIGATION RELEASE DEFINITION * Recommended replacement for easement. * "Release" on current and future noise litigation from Part 150 program participating homeowners. Signing of an Avigation "Release" before implementation of Sound Insulation and. Purchase Guarantee program. ' Release language would be based on current noise levels from operation and maintenance of existing MSP runways. ' Any increase of 1.5 db (Ldn) or more over a yearly Ldn 'base" contour will invalidate the Avigation Release. ' Ldn base contours will be updated yearly. 12-16-91