Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1995 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING January 10, 1995 7.00 PAL L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS IV. NEW BUSINESS A. New Airport Alternative Environmental Document B. 1995 MASAC Initiatives V. STAFF REPORT A. Part 150 Program Update B. Runway 4/22 Update G Dual Track Airport Planning Process VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VII. INFORMATIVE VIII. FUTURE AGENDA . A. Alternative Departure Profiles B. $MAAC Common Issues IX. NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, February 14, 1995 X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its progrmns, service; actime; facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, se; disability, agA mantal status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JANUARY S, 199S SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMK[TPEE MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 1"S A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, January 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Since the City Council will not be making new appointments to the committee until mid-January, current committee members are expected to participate in the January committee meeting. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 6814603, if you will be unable to attend Tuesday's meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for consideration by the committee. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 13, 1994 meeting are enclosed on pages W through for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for consideration by the committee. III. OLD BUSINESS There is no Old Business to come before the committee at this time. Iv. NEW BUSINESS A. New Airport Alternative Environmental Document -Enclosed on pages Ll through is a staff report covering excerpts from the New Airport AED for committee review. The complete document is available from City staff if any member wishes to look into it in more detail. Staff has identified four preliminary comments for committee consideration and encourages the committee to review the attached documentation or any additional comments it may wish to make on this document. . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend comments for Council consideration on the New Airport Alternative Environmental Document. B: 10S MASAC Initiatives -At its meeting of October 4,1994, MASAC and MAC reviewed a series of slides identifying policy obje yes for each oup, specifically, detailing the MASAC objectives as outlined on pages through S& which are attached. You will note that detailed discussion of the MAC objectives is not provided although many of them are addressed within the MASAC objectives. You will also note that'a detailed objective page for. the night time standard instrument departure has not been included. This refers to instrument departures on all sides of the airport and could be used as a stepping off point for improved night time procedures in the corridor area. This item had been previously discussed by the committee following the MASAC meeting with the request that these initiatives be provided for a committee review. This is a discussion item and no.specific action is expected of the committee at this time other than additional direction with respect to committee expectations for City follow-up on any of the items identified V. STAFF REPORT A.- Part 150 Program Update—As of the end of December, staff had received 69 Part 150 applications. For 1995, 34 additional addresses can be submitted to the MAC. Staff is following up with MAC to get its noise based block priorities for preparation of Eagan's list. B. Runway 4/22 Update—An update was provided at the December meeting by MAC staff. No additional information has been forthcoming over the holidays since that time. Please refer to the minutes for any discussion of this. item. C. Dual Track Airport Planning Process --The New Airport AED item is a business item for the committee above. Previous comments had been submitted on the expansion AED with a file draft being prepared in January. Following last month's meeting, committee member Schlax asked whether the, committee would wish to revisit the City's position with respect to the dual track process. The City's current position on the expansion of thea*ort is embodied in the 1991 resolution which you find enclosed on pages,U throughl For additional information relative to this item, .please refer to the October committee packet for additional background information in this regard. In addition, it was reported at the September 20, 1994 MSP Technical Committee meeting, that a simulation of expanded MSP showed that up to 90% of the departures would be on the dedicated departure rumvay'during arrival pushes. The dedicated runway would be the middle parallel on the three parallel configuration and the north/south runway on that configuration. It was also noted that there were few configurations in which departures would not dominate runway 17. In the past, the City has not supported either expansion alternative because of the substantial levels of impact on different parts of the community. The comment period on the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan has closed so if any modification of comments is desired by the committee, it should be undertaken immediately. Also enclosed on page SN3 is a an article entitled "Getting Airport Financing Off. the Ground" which relates to airports improvement financing and, passenger facility charges. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the committee may do so at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE For the committee's information, enclosed on pages through M a copy of a letter from Anil Deodhar to Je amiel concerning increases in traffic southeast -of the airport. Also enclosed on page 'pis a letter from Senator Wellston responding to the City's correspondence on the FAA Airport Improvement Program. VIII. FUTURE AGENDA Committee members wishing to suggest items for future agendas should do so at this time. UL NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, at which time new members will be sworn in and officers will be elected. X. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00, unless extended by a majority vote of the members present for purposes of completing business on the agenda. Ass tant to the City Administrator T MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE December 13, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Rated= Committee was hell on Tuesday, December 13, 1904 at 7:00 p.rrL Present were Mike Schkix, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Steve Sodeting, Pat Todd and Alternates Rita Younger and Lance Staricha. Absent were Jane Vanderpoet and Dustin Midck Also present were Dennis Cornell from the FAA, Jeff Hamlet, John Foggia, Roy Furman and Tracy Erickson from the MAC and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohensteln. AGENDA Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Morison, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, the minutes of the November 9, 1994 meeting were approved as presented. FAA/MAC PRESENTATION Hohenstein Introduced the Rem and Indicated that MAC and FAA staff were present at this meeting to present ltommatton relative to corridor oompilanoe. Hohenstein Introduced Jeff Hammel, Executive Director of MAC. Hamlet gave background on the establishment of the corridor and the Increase In the number of aircraft over the years. He stated that while the Stage III aircraft are a sound abatement improvement, they are still unsatisfactory In reducing noise Impact He explained that due to the Increase In the number d aircraft which depart from the airport daily, 225 - 30D Stage I, a few years ago, to over 1,000 Stage II and III aircraft today, the now Impact hes worsened. He also stated that the MAC has;examined almost all available noise reduction methods with little success. He stated that MAC Is frequently encouraged by Minneapolis and other communities to dismantle corridor procedures which would have an impact on Eagan. Hamlet then Introduced John Foggia, a staff member of MAC, to further discuss flight patterns within the corridor. Foggia began his presentation with a discussion of the land use directly around the airport. Using 1990 land use maps as a guile, he stated that the purpose of the corridor is to take advantage of the land use Mendota Heights and Eagan have preserved for the lest 20 years. He stated that the corridor is the area between the extended centerline of the south parallel out three miles and due east of the north parallel, also out to the three mile line at 1-35E. He explalned that within that area R is primarily commerciel/Industriel. with a large area d vacant land. Consequently. when compared to other sides of the airport and the Impacts on residential areas, the corridor k the beat area to fly aircraft when considering Impact over a large-scatle area. He discussed the Hawthome Woods area, slating that this residential area was developed In 1992. Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13. 1994 Pape 2 Foggia wq)Wned the departure procedure within the corridor and related that alroaft depart to the southeast and arrive to the northwest at night, when there Is a low level of traffic. He also a osined that the corridor is for Jet propelled carrier, not propeller aircraft. In comparing maps for June of 1993 and June of 1994, Foggia showed that there was only a 2% Increase in flight traffic from 1993 to 1994. As a result, Foggia says there Is really no significant Increase In the total number of aircraft departing the airport when comparing the month of June for 1993 and 1994. Since that time, there has been a noticeable Irwease, from 1,200 flights in June to 1,330 currently. He explained that the utilization of the 29L ktcalirer which Is the southern boundary of the corridor, and Its use In funneling trafilc upon arrival. In a one week period, of 467 atrcxaft arrMng, 19 passed through the Hawthorne Woods area and of the 1,61)3 outbound flights In November of 1994, 6.8% passed through this gate. with altitudes averaging 4,300 feet, upon departure. passing over the Hawthorne area In summary, the percentage of air traffic over the Hawthorne Woods area has remained fairly constant for takecfls and landings for 1990 and 1994. Foggia stated flat the MAC did meet with the FAA and discussed the reasons for corridor noncompliance. The FAA was very Interested In communicating the results of the MAC study to thelr controllers and to understand the reasons for the situation. The FAA Is Interested in discovering whether there Is a correlation between certain controllers and how aircraft Is directed. Cooper asked Foggia what the altitude of the aircraft was at the 3 mile point upon departure. Foggia responded that the aircraft at that point have reached 3,000 to 4,000 feet, stating that the Stage II aircraft are at approximately 3,000 feet at that point and because of their Increased lit the Stage III are reaching dose to the 4,000 foot range. Foggia went on to describe the departure of aircraft on the 11 L and 11 R runways. He stated that the two conditions determining noise Impact are early turnout of aircraft before the 3 mile point and aircraft flying south of the corridor. Younger asked Nair traffic controllers are directing aircraft to fly outside the corridor. Foggia replied that he does not believe controllers are knowingly directing aircraft out of the corridor and that flights outside the corridor are sometimes due to weather sltuatlons. He also explained that the reason airplanes drift south may be winds driving the planes south or other airplanes nearby drifting south. Younger also asked If the MAC believes that the percentage of aircraft flying south of the corridor Is acceptable. Foggia said that they would like to see all aircraft within the corridor and the MAC has not determined the number of aircraft that would be acceptable south of the corridor. Soderling asked Foggia why 15% of the air tramp departs south of the corridor and only 1 % north. Foggia replied that this occurs due to operational reasons and that most destinations are heading south or east Soderling asked whether the controllers could adjust headings so that the air tramp Is directed farther north than canterfirm Foggia stated that because of technical reasons, this Isn't possible. Cooper asked whether data Is broken down Into types of aircraft and whether there was a larger number of the bigger aircraft heading south. Foggia stated tial the Information is broken down to type of aircraft. He further stated fiat there was a 10 -15% difference - there are more Stage 11 than Stage III aircraft flying south of the mor. Hchensteln stated list there are 60% Stage II and 40% Stage III aircraft In the fleet mbL Monson asked for an update on the 4/22 extension and how it will Impact the area of Eagan south of Highway 13 and Cedar Avenue. Hamlet addressed this question and stated that the 4/22 eodension has been at a standstill for 16 years. The city of Richfield hes retained legal council and Bloomington has voted to support Richfield. He stated that there has been discussion about the wasrslon being done dl* Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 3 Including operational procedures but without the environmental . change. Minneapolis wants the environmental change Included and there was to be a meeting between those cities concerning the extension. Hamish stated that unless 4/22 Is Wended, the dosing of the south parallel runway for reconstruction would cause a reduction In the number of flights The runway would be extended and the operational procedures worked out later. He also stated that a parallel runway Is necessary for high demand tralflc and that air traffic can not run cross wind. He said that without environmental procedures, there will be the same departure procedure as exists today. Younger asked whether previous information received by the committee Included all aircraft or Just the carriers. Hohensteln. explained that the Information Foggia Is presenting Is a combined percentage of all operations to the southeast. Staricha expressed his frustration with the data and believes that they are Just feeling their way. He believes it's a perception problem and that depending on who Is Interpreting the data, there are different Interpretations. He feels that there has been a large Increase In flights south of the corridor. Hohensteln gave an overview of the Airport Relations Committee and Its directives and then Introduced Dennis Cornell, Air Traffic Control Tower Assistant Manager of the -FAA Mr. Cornell provided background on the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport He stated that there has been a significant Increase In tragic and that the airport Is committed to being good neighbors with surrounding communities and as participants with MAC. He stated that there Is adherence to operate within the corridor as much as possible. He said that during the day the use of runway 4/22 Is maximized He stated that It's necessary to provide 30 minute Increments between departures on runway 4/22 but because of the Increased traffic and departure times closer together, it Is not used as frequently. He stated that operations on 11R head south or southeast and 11L head west, east or northeast. He also explained Lthat the 11L runway has more maneuvering room and that more arrivals and departures are to the southeast, due primarily to weather and wind directions. In answer to the questions submitted by the committee (Attachment A) Cornell commented that it Is Important for the FAA to work with neighborhoods and the MAC. Standard headings operate with 15 degree divergence. This can be lessened under visual conditions, however when traffic Is heavy the coordination required with going to a smaller than 15 degree conversion. would be almost Impossible to complete under heavy traffic conditions. At times controllers are hesitant to use less than the 15 degree divergence when weather Is a factor. They use the 105 degree heading under nonsimultaneous conditions and during the night. He stated it would be rare that there would be a simultaneous departure on runways 11L and 11R during the night Using the 105 degree heading would keep aircraft to the middle of time corridor as much as possible. Runway 4/22 Is used as much as possible. When traffic is light enough runway 4/22 is used for departure traffic. Tracks are monitored for corridor compliance periodic*. Cornell stated that they took a dose look at the percentage of air traffic south of the corridor and they have assn significant Improvement In corridor compliance. To ensure separation, aircraft may be turned out early. Also during significant weather events, such as thunderstorms. Occasionally, a missed approach will require an aircraft to tum out to ensure separation with other aircraft. If It Is observed anal air traffic Is drifting south of the localber, a correction Is made and antimer heading Is Issued off the runway. Younger commented on the number of aircraft that seem to be flying south of the corridor, particularly In the month of July. She questioned whether air traffic controllers had been spoken to about this Mr. Cornell stated that they had discussed compliance with the corridor and whet was good enough. The goal Is to have zero flights south of the corridor but this may riot be feasible. He stated that there Is Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 4 a heightened awareness among the controllers and he believes they are not Intentionally directing ab traffic out of the corridor. Younger commented that perhaps a percentage of aircraft south of the corridor was not due to weather but to procedure. Comell explained that procedures haven't changed but operating methods may have changed slightly. Soderling questioned whether shifting degrees could be done farther north. Mr. Comell explained that this would depend on whether flights were running simultaneously on runways 11 L and 11 R. since simultaneous takeoffs can't be headed for centedine. • Cornell discussed the hrstellatlon of the Gacen radar which will be In service In the fall at 1995, and that it will make it possible to run simultaneous approaches rather than staggering them as Is done now. Sodeding expressed his concern about the increase in wast bound traffic over his home. He questioned whether this Is a dramatic change over the last two years. Mr. Cornell responded that an Increase in traffic and In use of runways 11L and 11R were the cause and not procedural changes. Cooper asked why departures on runway 4/22 could only be done In 30 minute blocks. Mr. Cornell stated that it takes longer to get the aircraft out and that each operation has to be precise, since they are crossing two arrival runways on departure. Cooper also commeraed on the number of planes he has seen flying low over Highway 13 and then turning Into 29L He asked tow aircraft can be allowed to do that Mr. Comell commented that he was not aware of this happening. Mr. Hamlet stated that on departures there is a river departure procedure off of 11L and 11R which allows military aircraft to tum across 11 R across the river but because of Increase In air traffic Is not used frequently. He commented that he has never had a clearance to tum Inside the three mile gate. Cooper sedd that he knows this Is. what Is happening and that they are commercial Jets. Hamiel stated it would be very difficult for a tum such as that and that it would require a 35 degree banked tum. Younger asked Mr. Comell how the City of Eagan can promote corridor compliance. Mr. Comell stated that the FAA actively participates with the MAC and MASAC. He said that awareness must be heightened to monitor corridor compliance, bringing to the FAA's attention any major noncompliance. Hamlel responded to the questions from the handout He stated that number 1, 5 and 9 were more MAC specific. In reference to question number one, he stated that the airport has a significant economic Impact on the state of Minnesota. Also, looking at the metropolitan area as a whole, only 5 -10% of the people care about the actual operation of the airport. If the Wee could be eliminated, 30% of the MAC's time would be freed up to tackle other items. Safety Is very Important and so Is the economic stability of the area. Regarding #5, Hamlet stated that ANOMS Is monitoring 24 hours a day. There is continuous communkoation between staff but on otxaslon other th" may get the attentlon. In reference to #9, he stated that the lokalizer change from 295 to 299 does not affect the shifting of operations south of centerline and yes, the change In runway designation will be 12/30. This should not impact surrounding residents any differently. VISITORS TO BE HEARD George NNlmarth of 2930 Burnside Avenue said that it seems that there is new documented evidence of activity south of the corridor within the three mile radius. He feels the best shout term solution t� Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 5 would be for the FAA to acknowledge this Information and the variance is a real life situation because of traffic patterns and weather situations, variances tend to be south of the corridor. We Important that they respond to that with additional acoustical Insulation of homes to Include all homes that are within a certain variance from the corridor. He recommends that ARC admonish the FAA and react In an emergency way Own would be dealt with Immediately. Hamlel responded that he Is supportive of Part 150 funds to be used for sound Insulation In homes that are qualified. John Dech of 1459 Hlghvlew Avenue has the same sentiments about the corridor boundary adherence. He believes that contours are archaic and asked where the three mile limit actually is located. He objects to the edenslon of those contours and with it ending 150 feet from his house, there can't be an significant attenuation of the noise. He asked where the end of the Ila was and whether there is a geographical boundary. Hohensteln stated tat the contour for sound inundation eligibility Is based on current operations not on historical data The contour Is generated by a model rather than actual ground readings. The challenge with eligible neighborhoods Is that a dividing line has to be agreed to as the boundary. The FAA for the Part 150 program, saki that Ka block Is bisected with a contour, you can go to the and of the dock to a specific area such as a park or cross street The area that Is actually within the Part 150 program may include a few homes outside the contours. Hamlel commented that Fagan Is the only community with a line drawn on a map. Consequently, the contour methodology used by the FAA assumes that aircraft are north of the mor on that line. If they are actually south of the line they are not taking Into consideration the noise Impact on those neighborhoods. Foggia stated that the nwd time they run the contours this Information will be taken Into consideration. The ANOMS has the capability of taking the tracks and finding the centers of gravity of those tracks, using the reality of the situation currently affecting residents. A motion was made by Cooper that the meeting be continued past 9:0W, seconded by Schley, all voted In favor. A resident made the comment that MAC had done decibel readings near his house and yet his neighbor received sound Insulation and he didn't Foggia responded first the best way to determine noise Impact Is in reviewing radar readings. Noise monitoring Is done at the request of citizens to determine the noise impact and is not the Input used to determine eligibility for the Part 150 program. Michelle Padden of 3906 Stonebridge Drlve.stated that she gets eady morning air traffic, between 6:00 am. and 6:30 am. and late night flights around midnight or later. She stated that the Increased number of departures has been the problem. She also stated that on weekends she has counted 170 - 20D flights over her home In one day. Ms. Padden commented that In the last two years homes have been built In her area and that the studies need to Include these areas as a noise Impact area. She feels that we should share some of the noise with other communities. Don Knight of 1455 Hlghvlew Avenue stated that he Is located on the north side of Highvlew and south of Hlghridge Terrace. His area was excluded from the Part 150 program. He finds this difficult to understand since he Is closer to the flight pattern than others who have received assistance. John Soentges of 1043 Savannah Road feels that the FAA needs to have an objective for 1995 for as low a percent as possible for nancompfianoe of the corridor boundaries. Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1894 Page 6 Todd asked for a time frame for potential revised contours for the Part 150 program. Foggia responded that I the runway use Is changed, contours would need to be. rerun since the assumptions for the 1996 eligibility forecast contour are no longer valid. This could occur within the nad ab( moWm He continued fiat there is a movement to redo the contours which would be approdmately a one year time frame. He stated that there are two parts to the Part 150 program. Orie Is the actual study that looks at techniques and tools that can be used to address the problems and the second Is the noise map. The study would not need to be done agah but the noise map would need to be redone. He said even I the contours are redone, there will always be someone just outside the area, Ineligible for the Part 160.program. He stated that those who have had the Insulation done are very pleased with the results. Hohensteln commented that the Part 150 program Is Intended to be a prospective program kxAdng forward five years Into the huture. The contour currently Is a 1986 contour developed In 1991. When the contour Is redone, It will look five years Into the future. It will take Ito consideration flight tracks, volume of traffic and fleet mbk that will affect the shape of that contour. Younger asked I the ANOMS will be used In preparing that contour. Foggia responded that it will be used. Younger ward on to say that she believes that some homes receiving Insulation are receiving lower noise levels than those not eligible. Foggia responded that noise levels will not be used In preparing the contours, He stated.that after recording a noise evert, this Is correlated with radar data and the type of plane and Its location. SodedUhg stated he does not want to see a relaxation of corridor boundaries. Foggia responded 00 they would look at trends over a year and they would like to see a movement of the planes to the north where they should be. Schlax mentioned to Hernial that the map that was displayed was not up-to-date. Schlax feels that MAC still has the attitude that Eagan Is still a town with extensive undeveloped areas which Is Inaccurate. He asked why Eagan Is not represented on the MAC. Hamlet responded that the members are appointed by the governor. The MAC has eight jurisdictional boundaries around the 25 mile radius of the Twin CIUes. Eleven of the members are from the Twin Cities area. The membership Is not based on specific Issues such as noise problems. Schlax asked I the MAC will be going any further with property tax relief for noise affected cies. Foggia replied that that was a technique to generate funds. With the dual track study winding down. this will not be Implemented In the now future. Cooper questioned that I the legislature were to approve mo ft the airport it would take 15 to 20 yeare. Hamlet responded that I the decision were made, It would be based upon demand. it would be when the airport reached growth capacity and there would be no particular data. Cooper stated that the new contour might take a year, it would take four more years to come up with the money and he questioned whether the MAC would make much of an effort to sound Insulate I they're planning to move the airport in ten years. Hamlet said that it will take several years to make a decision to move the airport With land purchase and building of the faculty, it would be almost 20 years before a new airport would be ready. With that, the changing of the contours and FAA funding would still leave 15 years of amortization for the Part 150 program. He stated that runway and facility Irnprovemerts will be cotlnued because is Important to keep the current facility operational and competitive to justly the growth projection for a new tadty. Hoherstein responded In regard to the Part 150 program, that the funds contributed by the FAA were 1/4 to 1/3 of the grant request The MAC made up the difference and. consequently. the program Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1984 Page 7 was not scaled back Noise Is a big Issue but In regard to this program, they could have out it back but did not do this and their commitment to the program Is appreciated. Morison questioned do fl building of a new airport were to go to the state and be approved, would it be possible for it to be overturned by the Federal government. Hamlet stated that there Is a federal review process to determine that service does rat deteriorate. The review Is Just a more extensive review than previously. Schlax asked why plats weren't using course tracks. Comell stated that these have been UM before but were not as accurate as headings used now SoNwc stated that other airports are using Oft system, why doesn't It work for our airport. Hernial stated that this was tried but was not reliable nearer to the airport. Course tracks are not Implemented for noise abatement reasons. There would be no way to scatter traffic and capacity Is reduced, causing traffic to backup. Hohenstein stated that staff and commission appreciates the extensive work Involved to prepare the snaps and Information presented. He asked whether the City could get a depiction of the flight tracks of ahmilt within the corridor. His reasoning was to get a sense for neighborhoods down range and whether or not Improvements In corridor compliance within the first three miles will benefft them downrange. Foggia stated that this is possible but because of staff and time constraints, these type of requests have to go through the Operations Committee of MASAC. 9 they say it's an importen Issue, then they cadd review IL Hohenstein asked about the complaint line and mentioned that it was filled up at times. Foggia stated that at the beginning there were problems with capacity. They have worked out the problems and seems to be working fine since August Hohensteln questioned Hamlet as to whether the MAC believes the airport will move evenfuafiy. Hamlet responded that they're looking at the year 2020. it will Include building a new runway and buildings In the meantime but it can be done. The cwrrent'sle will not have the capacity eventually If the growth continues at the same rate. Younger mentioned adding on to the request to MAC regarding compliant and non- compliant flight maps. Hohenstein stated that the MAC hes a map that depicts noncompliant aircraft and how they relate to the community. Feels that the negative of the tracking prep should be prepared regarding those Chet do comply and where they fall with respect to the community. That would show whether compliance would be helpful for down range neighborhoods. Motion made by Soderfing, seconded by Sch lax to request this Information from the MAC, all members voted In favor. V. NEW BUSINESS Hohensteln discussed the Council survey fomts and told committee members that the Ommcl is Interested In their Input as to how the committee Is -doing and whet they have accomplished. Hohenatein referred to a memo describing the committee's accomplishments. Monson feels that the committee goes beyond Just attending meetings and would like that reflected N the memo. A motion was made by Cooper to add Monson's comments to the memo and seconded by Sodeding, all members voted. �o Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 8 VI. STAFF REPORT A. Part 150 Program Update= Hchensteln reported that there Is funding for 57 homes In 1995 up from 40 In 1894. Of that number, at the recommendation of the committee, the City has forwarded 23 homes from last year's list to keep the MAC program moving forward. There will be 34 additional homes taken out of the appilc b The MAC will provide a contour map Indicating raise level by blocks. The City will be _required to go by those blocks this year. Hohensteln stated that places that appear farther away from the airport are Impacted more severely than those closer. He said the FAA is requiring this Information to be used for the Part 150 program. Schlax asked if there Is a list of homes wafting for sound kmsulation. Hohensteln responded that that Ifst Is being prepared at the current time. B. Runway 4/22 Update— Hohensteln stated 00 because of the negotiations on the 4/22 runway with Minnsapofis. Richfield and Bloomington, If the FAA decides not to Incorporate the environmental conditions, there would be less Impact for the City of Eagan. He suggested that the committee monitor the progress of these discussions. Monson stated that we need to be Involved and that we need to let them know that we are monitoring the situation. Schlex feels Eagan needs to take a more proactive rde In this process. Hohensteln stated that they are negotiating with them currently and If the committee agrees, they could contact them to see when the group will be meeting. A motion was made by Monson that Eagan be represented at any meeting that has to do with the extension of runway 4/22 and that the representative reports to the Airport Relations Committee and the City Council. seconded by Schlex, all members voted In favor. C. Dual Track Update— Hohensteln stated that there is a diagram included In the packet depicting airport noise levels by aircraft type. He stated that it shows ranges of aircraft noise levels. There will be a substantial reduction in noise for the DC -9's by retrofitting engines and redoing kterfors. The larger planes do make more noise even though they are Stage III aircraft While Stage III Is a substantial Improvement, people should be careful to note what alnxaft types are Included in Stage III. Cooper commented that the sound of the planes can determine how much impact they have. He stated that he prefers a 747 to go overhead than a screaming DC -9. Hohensteln stated that he will be bringing the New Airport AED back In January because comments are due to the MAC In February. Sctfax asked that Information be brought to the neon meeting regarding the option of the north parallel as opposed to 18/36. He would like to be filled In on the decision-making process regarding this. Hohensteln slated that it would be Irnportant to dim pervieptiams and tow they fit with the reality of the efiumtlon. Monson thanked Hohensteln, on behalf of the committee, fox all his effort and assistance with Issues brought before the committee. Airport Relations Committee Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary /42� Attachment A MAC/FAA PRESENTATION QUESTIONS December 13, 1994 1. Which is more important to the MAC and FAA: 1) Operation of MSP as an engine of economic growth for the metropolitan area or 2) Operation of MSP in a manner which impacts the airport's surrounding neighborhoods the least? 2. What are the standard procedures/headings given aircraft on each parallel runway during simultaneous operations (when diverging separations are in use) and non -simultaneous operations? How many hours of the day is the tower in simultaneous and non -simultaneous configurations? 3. What are the standard procedures/headings given aircraft on each parallel runway at night? Does the FAA make additional efforts from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to keep aircraft near the middle of the corridor at 105 degrees? (In particular, there is often a 6:10 a.m. westbound flight which is especially loud and is mentioned by residents throughout the community.) 4. How is the Runway Use System used to distribute traffic on the runways? In particular, is the crosswind runway (4/22) used to the maximum extent possible? How many hours of the day is 4/22 typically used? 5. How frequently are tracks monitored for corridor compliance? How frequently are headings adjusted? 6. At what crosswind speed do controllers adjust corridor headings? Is this measured on the ground or in the air? 7. Is it possible to do a monthly report which cross tabulates wind and weather conditions with corridor compliance? S. Are tower personnel coordinating operations (using less than fifteen degree separations) during either simultaneous or non - simultaneous operations? Can this be done more to avoid the south boundary? 9. The IMSP/IHKZ localizer has shifted from 296 to M. Has this had anything to do with operations south of centerline? Will this result in a change in runway designation to 12/30? Will a change in designation have any impact on operational flight tracks? 10. Residents in Eagan neighborhoods downrange from the corridor have noticed an increase in overflights in the past six months to one year. Are the tower, departure or enroute controllers issuing turns to south and westbound destinations earlier than in the past? Are they issuing different vectors resulting in tighter turns than in the past? /pZ rA 11. How have procedures and corridor compliance changed since Eagan raised concerns about the MAC corridor compliance reports? 12. How can corridor operations be managed to keep them better contained during the initial three miles and to limit or mitigate impacts beyond three miles? 13. Can the FAA formulate corridor procedures based on present navigational aids (MSP VOR 115.3, MS NDP 266 or the 11/29 Localizer 110.3) to better maintain traffic within the corridor? Can the FAA and airlines use geographic positioning satellite technology in the future for that purpose? 14. Will the FAA's Precision Radar Monitor system be used to control departure traffic to maintain operations in the corridor when it comes on line next year? 15. With improved navigation aids would the FAA consider seperations of less than fifteen degrees? 16. What is the status of the MAC's Corridor Recommendation submitted to the FAA in 1992? mm" —ddy of Wawa" TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT. MEMO CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN 27, 1994 NEW AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT The purpose of this memo is to provide background on the Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the new airport track of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The following excerpts from the AED are attached: 1) Executive Summary, 2) Fleet Mix Assumptions and 3) Selected Appendix Diagrams. Comments on the AED are due by February 3, 1995. You will note that the AED compares three alternatives of progressively smaller size located on the preferred relocation site southwest of Hastings. The more compact configurations also require minor operational restrictions but typically result in some mitigation of impacts and costs. As in the past, the purpose of the AED review Is to consider the adequacy of the comparisons and data and not necessarily to Identify a preferred alternative. The data may suggest that one alternative is better than another and if that is the case, the Committee may wish to include such a finding in its recommendation to the City Council. Staff has reviewed the full AED document and has identified the following preliminary comments for Committee consideration: 1. Air Quality Assumptions - III -2 -The analysis of aircraft operations includes as one of its prototype assumptions a DC -9 representing stage II and general aviation jets. This seems incongruous In that the new airport would not be operational until after the federal phase out of stage II airliners. DC - 9's will still be operating, but in a stage III configuration. Since general aviation jets will still be in the mix, it is probably appropriate to include some prototype to represent them. It would seem more reasonable to select a prototype from among the aircraft operating at that time, however. /3 2. 2005 Projected Fleet Mix - III -38 - III -39 - The 2005 projected fleet mix in the New Airport AED does not match the fleet mix in the Expanded MSP AED. In particular, the New Airport AED indicates 105 hushkitted DC -9's and 10 F -100's. The MSP AED indicates 33.7 DC -9's and 81.3 F -100's. To the extent that noise and other analyses are, based on these mixes, they should be Identical unless operating restrictions exist which require different equipment at one location or the other. 3. 1992 Daily Roadway Taffic - Figure 28 - The base case roadway traffic in the New Airport AED is does not match the base case In the MSP AED. While the differential analysis will be done in the EIS'phase, the documents should share base assumptions. Interestingly, the MSP AED shows higher base levels than the new airport AED on the most transportation legs even though the former has a base year of 1990 and the latter 1992. 4. Future Growth - Regardless of the configuration initially chosen for the new airport, the plan should maintain sufficient land area, land use protections and flexibility, to insure that expansion is feasible to absorb growth beyond the planning horizon. Staff would also encourage the Committee to review the flight track, and. noise impact data which is attached as it relates to Eagan. As was indicated at the time the site was being selected, the runway end nearest Eagan is eleven miles from the City's southeast comer. This would imply a lower aircraft noise environmental impact for Eagan than would expansion of the current site. This should be considered In light of the potential transportation and business dislocation impacts which may also occur ff the site were to move. Ao::; "— sst t nt to the City Administrator Att. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • WnneapOUS, MN 55450.2799 Phone (612) 726.8100 • Fax (612) 726.5296 TO: Interested Persons and Agencies FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director DATE: December 2, 1994 RE: Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) New Airport Comprehensive Plan Dual Track Airport Planning Process Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the development of a comprehensive plan for a possible new major airport in Dakota County. This document was adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on November 21, 1994. Written comments on the Draft AED should be directed to Jenn Unruh, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450. Comments are due by February 3, 1995. A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the Hastings Senior High School auditorium, 11th and Pine Streets, Hastings, MN. This AED is one element of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota Legislature, and is being conducted under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in March, 1992, and in general conformance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. MW h&ft0P ft= AhVOM �ezod" Amon "PI'm. VAUsm Akwu: ADilAn • ANOM MUNI M ANE • l7 MAL 0 nY= GDUD • LMM EU10 • SAM PAUL DDWNf01VN ' New Airport Comprehensive.Plan Draft Alternative Environmental Document Executive Summary Purpose of 960 document This document contains the results of evaluation of the Impact on the environment of three different development plans under study by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) for a potential new replacement airport in Dakota County. The MAC is required to complete a 30 -year comprehensive plan for a new airport by January 3, 1996, to toast the requirements of the Legislature in the Dual Track Airport Planning Ptocess. The 1999 Minnesota Legislature directed MAC and the Metropolitan Council to engage In a seven-year planning process to determine how best to meet the region's future aviation demand. The agencies were directed to compare expansion of the current airport with building a new replacement airport, and to make a recommendation to the Legislature in July 1996. ' The MAC will use the environmental evaluation found in this document, along with operational and cost date developed for the new airport comprehensive plan, to seleet a preferred development plan for a new airport. That decision will occur in April 1995. That plan, along with the development plan for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, a no -action option and other feasible alternatives will be compared in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and in the 1996 report to the Legislature. New Airport Study process to Date As a part of the Duel Track process, the Legislature charged the Metropolitan Council with identifying a general search area within which MAC would select a specific site for a potential new airport. After identifying and screening candidate search areas within the Greater Metropolitan area, the Council in December 1991 selected a 115 -square mile, 74,600 -acre section of land in east central Dakota County as the.final search area. The search area encompassed the cities of Coates and Vermillion, and Empire and Vermillion Townships, as well as parts of Nininger and Marshen Townships and the City of Rosemount. The City of Hastings is on its northeast border. ■ In 1992, MAC identified seven sites in the Dakota County search area as possible locations for a ■ potential new airport. The Commission then narrowed the group to three sites in February 1993. After further analysis and evaluation, MAC selected Site 3 in January 1994 as the preferred new airport site. t it is a 10,000 -acre area of land located east of the Vermillion River, along the southern edge of the search area. The Commission is now examining airport development alternatives within the selected site to meet aviation demand in the Year 2020. The comprehensive plan includes all the necessary development within the airport boundaries including runways, taxiways, aprons, internal roadways, terminal, concourses, people mover, building, areas and other facilities. Draft AED - New Airport Comprehensive Plan i AltwRmd as Studied The three alternatives under study for the new airport comprehensive plan vary in size from 8,840 acres to 9,880 acres. Each has six runways, — four main parallel runways oriented northwest -southeast, and two crosswind runways roughly perpendicular to the main runways. Each has main rhighway access from the north to a centrally located terminal area. The main difference between the alternatives is the size of the layout plan, the placement of the runways, and the resulting placement of the other facilities. A description of the three alternatives under consideration follows: Alternative f — At 9,800 acres, this is the largest of the development options and it is designed to maximize the operational efficiency of the airport. The two sets of main parallel runways are staggered to reduce taxi times, while the runways within each set are also staggered to eliminate runway crossings. A/temetive 2 — This airport development plan Is similar to Alternative 1, except the southern crosswind runway is moved closer to the terminal to reduce taxi times and decrease the size of the airport. That change reduces the size to 9,330 acres, with a slight reduction in operational efficiency. Aitemefive 3 — This development alternative is designed to minimize the size of the airport. At 8,840 acres it Is the smallest of the three development options. The main sets of parallel runways as well as the inboard runways within each set are less Sr;: staggered to reduce taxi times and land area. With the stagger reduced, some runway crossings may be required and some other operational constraints may result. An illustration of each of these alternatives can be found in Figures 2, 3 and 4, in Appendix S. Environmental Evaluation The three alternatives were examined for environment impacts in 14 areas, and where necessary and possible, potential mitigation measures are discussed. The 14 areas selected earlier In the scoping process for evaluation are air quality, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird -aircraft hazards, construction impacts, farmland, floodplains, historic/architectural resources, land use, noise, socioeconomic, transportation, access, water resources, and wetlands. The environmental evaluation did not reveal any critical finding that would preclude development of anyof the alternatives. In fact, because the alternative development plans were very similar In size and location, very few significant environmental differences were Identified between the alternatives. Differing environmental impacts were more prevalent In the site selection process where alternative sites of 9,000 to 10,000 acres were evaluated within the 74,800 -acre search area. The following summary section highlights those environmental Issues which are key 1 environmental concerns for the new airport site and those which differentiate between the J alternatives. A chart summarizing the findings for all 14 evaluation criteria follows at the and of this executive summary. _ Draft AED - New Airport Comprehensive Plan ii ' /7 r• Archaeological — All alternatives have four archaeological sites (19th Century farmsteads) that would be disturbed. All sites require further evaluation to ' determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. • Blotto Communities — All three alternatives contain two breading territories for ' the state threatened species, loggerhead shrikes. While little could be done to avoid the direct Impacts, mitigation measures would need to occur such as acquisition and management of alternative breeding territories for shrikes off the airport property. • Bird -Aircraft Hazards — Alternative 1 has 1,800 more aircraft operations at altitudes of less than 500 feet over areas in proximity to the airport where birds ' congregate , giving It a higher potential for bird strikes than Alternatives 2 and 3. • Farmland — The U.S. Department of Agriculture Is required to identify prime ' farmland and farmland of a statewide importance that would permanently be taken out of production by a federally -funded project. The alternatives very in impact from 7,300 to 8,000 acres of farmland in those categories. r• Floodplain — Each of the alternatives results In the loss of acres of floodplains to airport development that would have to be restored. The alternatives range from a low of 160 acres for Alternative 2 to a high of 320 acres for Alternative 3. • Noise -- The alternatives contain 655 to 670 people impacted by noise, utilizing t the Year 2005 DNL 60 noise contours, and between 115 and 195 within the DNL 65+ contours. • Socioeconomic -- Each of the alternatives would displace 11 businesses and r242 employees. Alternative 1 would displace 590 residents, Alternative 2 would displace 556 residents and Alternative 3 would displace 467 residents. All of the alternatives would also reduce the tax capacity of Marshan and Vermillion townships, and School District 200. • Transportation -- All three alternatives have the some northern access to the regional highway system so there is no difference between them. Previous work done in the selection of this site found that the travel demand to the airport would require up to eight lanes at freeway design standards between the airport and Trunk Highway 55, In addition to other highway upgrades and improvements. Water Resources — All potential sites will affect the Vermillion River. Development of airport facilities will involve construction of runway structures across the river, filling of floodway fringe areas and alteration of existing drainage. There Iii also the potential for surface water runoff in the Mississippi and Vermillion rivers. The alternatives are also comprised of areas classified as highly sensitive or very highly sensitive to ground water contamination due to the permeability of the soils and proximity to the acquifers. Draft AED - New Airport Comprehensive Plan 8i Hearing and Approval Propss The contents of this draft alternative environmental document will be reviewed by the ' Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public hearing will be held, a final version of the document will be reviewed by the Commission, and the environmental analysis will be part of the decision ' to adopt one of the development alternatives for the new airport comprehensive plan: Below Is a schedule for that process. Commission Reviews Draft Document November 1994 Public Hearing on Draft Document January 1995 Commission Reviews Final Document March 1995 Commission Adopts New Airport April 1995 Comprehensive Plan As was stated earlier, similar environmental analysis and comprehensive plan development is being conducted for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and will be completed early in 1995. Evaluation, analysis and comparison of both of these alternatives and other feasible alternatives will be presented in the final EIS, with a recommendation to the Legislature in July 1996. Ir. Draft AED . New Airport Comprehensive Plan IV . r9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS CRRERION RNPACT OF ALTERNATIVE 7 2 3 PAIraualiftymber of times that concentrations of carbon monoxide, 0 0 0 yrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, suffur oxides and particulates would exceed standards. Archaeological Resources 2. Number of known archaeological properties potentially eligible 4 4 4 for the National Register that would be disturbed. 8iodc Communities 3. Number of species on federal list of endangered and threatened O 0 0 species (nesting bald eagles) that would be jeopardized. 2 2 2 4. Number of affected breeding territories of loggerhead shrikes (threatened species In Minnesota). BhdAbereff Hazards Spring Lake Area 0 0 0 S. Difference in monthly aircraft Gores Pool Wildlife operations less than 500 feet over Management Area 0 0 0 1,800 0 0 @fees where birds congregate. Protected Watlend 341W 0 0 0 Protected Wetland 340W 0 0 0 Pine Bend Landfill Farmland 6. Number of farmsteads within the airport boundary. 44 43 35 8,000 7,794 7,367 7. Acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide Importance within airport boundary. 2,790 2.365 2,325 S. Aeras of Isolated, triangulated and severed farmland. Floodplain 9. Acres of floodplain lost to airport development that must be 230 180 320 recreated. 11,6storic/Architectural Resources 10. Number of known historic/architectural properties eligible for 0 0 0 the National Register that would be demolished. 1 0 0 11. No. of known historic/architectural properties eligible for the National Register within the ONL 65+ noise contour. Laird Use 12. Number of communities, within three miles of airport, 5 6 5 potentially requiring changes In existing/planned land use. Draft AED . New Airport Comprehensive Plan V ELI CRITERION Noise Douglas Twp. 13. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 DNL 85+ noise contour. Hampton Twp. Morahan Twp. Nininger Twp. Ravenna Twp. Vermillion Twp. TOTAL 14. Number of persons residing in the year Douglas Twp. 2005 DNL 80.85 noise contour. Hampton Twp. Morahan Twp. Nininger Twp. Ravenna Twp. Vermillion Twp. TOTAL 15. Number of noise sensitive land uses in year 2005 DNL 85+ noise contour. SNPACT OF ALTERNATIVE 7 5 2 15 3 5 0 0 O 70 50 110 <5 <5 <5 0 0 0 50 40 75 130 115 195 115 105 110 15 10 0 270 275 285 80 75 90 15 15 10 185 175 190 855 880 870 1 1 1 Socioeconomic 16. Number of residents displaced. 17. Number of households displaced. 18. Number of businesses and Businesses employees displaced. . Employees 19. Percentage of tax capacity lost by Morahan townships. Vermillion 20. Percentage of tax capacity lost by School District 200. 21. Difference In estimated development costs (millions). 590 558 487 173 103 137 11 11 11 242 242 242 31.8 28.4 20.4 18.4 15.7 21.3 3.29 2.95 2.85 929.8 120.2 50 Transportation Access 22. Difference in impacis of potential roadway improvements due to airport. 0 0 0 Water Resources 23. Difference in Impacts of stormwater discharges to Vermillion River watersheds. 0 0 0 Wetlands 24. Number of acres of wetlands filled. 0 0 0.2 Draft AED • Now Airport Comprehensive Plan vi of TABLE 18-2006 PrsJaesed PAM MIs and AvMP Daly AnhWs Abctah Tyne Day NkM Total Ab Canter dost: 29.2 8.6 37.8 DCB 1.1 1.7 2.8 DC9.301NL18NKITl 97.7 7.3 105.0 MD80 32.8 2.7 35.5 MD90 6.6 0.4 7.0 DC10 10.0 1.4 11.4 MD11 3.9 0.7 4.6 97271NLISNKITI 11.6 3.2 14.8 8737 300/400800 27.2 1.8 29.0 8737 200 0M9NKIT1 0.2 0.1 0.3 B747 200/900/400 7.5 0.98.4 8757 81.0 7.9 98.9 6767 2001M 3.7 0.3 - 4.0 8777 - 1.4 0.1 1.5 A300 0.5 0.7 1.2 A320/321 68.5 6.4 74.7 A330 4.7 0.3 5.0 A340 0.4 0.1 0.5 0011 0.6 0.6 1.1 BAe 146/RJ/F•70 0.9 0.1 1.0 F•100 8.0 2.0 10.0 EM145/CanRJ 7.1 0.9 6.0 Subtotal 375.4 39.5 414.7 Air Gaoler Turboprops: CNA/PAGBEC 3.0 3.4 6.4 SWM/J31BE1BE9 29.2 8.6 37.8 SF340/DNB/J41 61.6 - 8.2 70.0 62000 27.2 3.7 30.9 L188/CVR/F27/ATP/ATR 15.7 6.6 21.3 Subtotal 136.9 29.5 MA 6enaral Aviadon: GA Jot 32.8 4.2 37.1 GA Turboprop - 15.4 2.0 17.4 GA Piston 21.7 2.6 24.5 subtotal 69.9 6.0 79.0 MMT 4.0 0.1 4.1 TOW 586.2 78.1 664,2 Source: NNTS analysis, basad on MSP LTCP Volume 6, Revised Activity Fwgcros 1Dacemoer, 18931. Draft AED - Now Airport Comprehensive Plan 111.38 R TABLE 19.2006 Prejaelsd FMa1 Mir rd AverageDiy Derma Aberah Type Day mom Taut Ab carrier Jab: 30.9 6.9 37.8 DCB 1.0 1.8 2.6 DM30IHVSNKm 96.8 9.2 '706.0 MO80 32.9 2.6 35.5 MD90 6.6 0.4 7.0 OC10 10.1 1.3 11.4 MD11 4.0 0.6 4.6 8727 OWSNKRI 11.6 3.0 14.B 8737300/400/500 27.2 1.8 29.0 8737 200 (NUSNKM 0.2 0.1 0.3 6747 2001300/400 7.5 0.9 8.4 8757 81.0 7.9 68.9 8767 2001300 3.7 0.3 4.0 8777 1.4 0.1 1.5 A300 0.5 0.7 1.2 A3201321 66.4 6.3 74.7 A330 4.7 0.3 5.0 A360 0.4 0.1 0.5 L7011 0.7 0.4 1.1 6M 148/RJIF-70 1.0 0.0 1.0 F-100 6.9 1.1 10.0 EM145/CanRJ 7.6 0.4 8.0 Subtotal 376.4 38.3 414.7 Ab Carrier Tueaoprops: CNAIPAG/BEC 2.9 3.5 6.4 SWM/J311BE1IBE9 30.9 6.9 37.8 SF3401DN8/441 86.6 3.4 70.0 52000 29.3 1.6 30.9 L1S81CVR/F27/ATP/ATR 16.7 4.6 21.3 Subtotal 146.4 20.0 166.4 Ooreral AvtaNan: GA Jet 31.4 8.7 37.1 CA Turboprop 14.7 2.7 17.4 CA Piston 20.7 3.6 24.5 Subtotal 86.8 12.2 79.0 3.8 0.3 4.1 Total 593.4 70.9 864.2 Source: NNTB tnNysis, bessa on MSP LTCP Volume 6, RevisW Ac&Aty Forecasts lDecernber, 15931. - Draft AED - Now Airport Cantpraharbiva Plan 111.39 �3 W. . ,tit 8747-400 _._.. 8727-200 8737.200 DC -9.30 A MD -80 8737.300 s Commuter (Prop). the impact of multiple noise sources. For example, the total level produced by two 100 dB noise sources is 103 dB, not 200 dB. The level of 10 such sources Is 110 dB, and the level of 100 sources Is 120 dB. The human ear is more sensitive to higher frequency sounds; therefore, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBAI was developed to take into account this greater sensitivity. The dBA scale Is most frequently used In aircraft and other environmental noise analysis. Typical dBA levels of some common sounds are shown in Table Al. TABLE Al - Common Sounds on the DBA Beale Sound Level Rdeft loudness Round (dBAI (Approslowte) WWOW Military let fighter takeoff at 500 fast 130 128 10,000,000 Rock music with at coli s (uncomfortably bull 120 64 11000.000 Loud motorcycle at 20 feet 110 32 100,000 M plus tNuoff (1117271 at 1000 fest 100 16 10,000 Orchestral crescendo at 25 feet; Motorcycle at s0 6 11000 25 fest; Diesel locomotive 120.30 mph) at 50 feat .Busy stress Diesel truck (moderately loud) 40 s0 4 .. 100 mph at 50 lea Interior at department store: Vacuum caner at 70 2 10 10 het ordinary conversation of 3 fast; Ab conditioner so 1 1 at 20 fest Quist urban dayttmo; Dishwn.W next room 50 1/2 0.1 Average office 40 1/4 0.01 City residence Ivory quiet) . 30 7!8 0.001 Quiet country residence 20 - 1/78 0.0001 Rustle of leaves Bust audible) 10 1/32 0.00001 Threshold of human hawing 0 11/64 0.000001 source: NNTB analysis from nadtipM sources. According to the FAA Advisory Circular Noiae Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports IAC 15015020.11, the 'A -Weighted Sound Level has been found to correlate well with people's subjective judgement. Its simplicity and superiority over unweighted sound pressure level In predicting people's response to noise have made it the most widely used metric for assessing the impact of aircraft noise and for comparing that,noise with other community noise sources.' The FAA has determined that A - weighted levels should be used when measuring and describing Instantaneous noise levels. The maximum A -weighted level reached during an aircraft noise event is perhaps the most common and simplest way of describing the noise of the event. Draft AED - New Airport Comprehensive Plan A-4 a� M M i, i i i � MMM -MIM i i mm i m m i i a! a -m m mm i am i mm i i i i i i ('11a mmm-m a am am am= a a a a am a 7 Dual Track Airport Planning Process New Airport Alternative Environmental Document 517 -1 - T- I -1 L — 1. fj'7_`� L L C It! . ...'d ITI . i 1-1 Ilk. W. I 4 A, 1 A will % I.A 7 V f.. 71 NA TOM .,t 4K vt� I r k N a 1601 WELe6 r go %is is I FAL tA 0 689"0 i a 01. F search Area Boundary Monthly Arrivals Bohm 2.000 Feet 0 1 2 3 4 Monthly Departures Below 5.000 Feet Scale. , 11111111101 Scale fn Miles N 2005 Flight Tracks - Alternative 1 i m i ,M 1:1, Dual Track Airport Planning Process rnnc HNTB New Airport Alternative Environmental Document Figure 23 Dual Track Airport Planning Process New Airport Alternative Environmental Document Figure 24t •e SN - Dual Track Airport Planning Process MAC New Airport -Alternative Environmental Document Figure 25' Dual Track Airport Planning Process i New Airport Alternative Environmental Document Y- f -z • N � Z s o � H • 1O 3 F � o ----- 1 a m= _ ® en•e► m 1 $ p p ea a r• ''" l N m Ift,e ��•.� 1e.0p0 i ooa n 00 091 .e(Oc l � 1 oo3p0 as SoVes x 8, ep0 O ca Q El °a b _ ® i = ese•n f r °� • � �Ir- moi' ea•ul Y � . e»•nr, 0 � neral � o»�ro�oa•:o� oCnl s o �• r� �Lo,o�. 11 d � 93 tr/ v �4r �6 47 4f 4f t - � 30 CITY OF RAGAN RESOLUTION CONCERNING METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION COMPRESENBIVE PLAN FOR TEE NYPAN8ION OF TSE CURRENT AIRPORT WHERRAB, the City of Eagan is an active participant in the long term planning of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, WBEREAS, the MAC, as a part of the dual track planning process, has developed three runway alternatives and two terminal alternatives for the potential expansion of MSP, and WHEREA8, the MAC, the cities and the region have analyzed certain aspects of the various alternatives to attempt to determine relative impacts of each to the respective cities and the region, and WSEREAB, the City of Eagan and its residents will receive an increase in direct overflights under any of the runway alternatives under consideration, and WEEREAS, relocation of the terminal, facilities to the west side of the airport will significantly impact the economic ! advantages and development potential of Eagan's business community as well as limit the redevelopment alternatives for severely noise impacted neighborhoods, NOW, THEREFORE, B8 IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan does not support any of the runway alternatives under consideration at MSP due to the nature and extent of their impacts and that, in particular, the City opposes Concepts 3 and 4 (the south parallel runway) due to its proximity to residential neighborhoods, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eagan opposes the west terminal alternatives (Concepts 2, 4 and 6) due to the reorientation of the airport's front door away from the City of Eagan with the consequent impacts to the area's current economic vitality and development potential, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has outlined certain concerns in the attached comments to the MAC Interactive Planning Group as a part of the MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Planning Process. These comments include but are not limited to operational and land-based mitigation strategies which will be necessary if the current airport is to be expanded, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City continues to review both the expansion and relocation tracks of the dual track planning ( process and reserves the right to support or oppose either track as T/ I additional information becomes available in the course of the deliberations by the Legislature, Metropolitan. Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission. Motion Made by: McCrea Seconded by: Wachter Those in favor: All Those against: None I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meet , ng thereof assembled this 18th day of June, im a k w E.W. VanOverbeke, City Clerk 54x INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE - Getting Airport financing Off the Ground By Kathleen Evers airports in the United States operate as unite of lo- percentage of total insured airport revenue bond issues has Most cal government but are closely linked with the private risen steadily over the past 10 years, from 23 percent of the sector as they provide service to profit -driven airlines. This market in 1984 to 76 percent in 1993. "public-private" structure allows airport management to Year-to-date statistics for 1994 show that more than 90 take advadtage of a wide range of options — including di- percent of the airport revenue bonds issued as of the end of rect government support and federal grants, a new source May were insured. By contrast, about 36 percent of all mu - of capital funding called the "passenger facility charge" and nicipal bonds issued in 1993 were insured, and industry ex - debt issuance — for financing capital improvements. perts predict that about one-third of municipal bonds issued While direct support can be provided by any level of gov- in 1994 will be insured. ernment, most airports receive little direct local funding. The majority of new airport revenue bond issuances are Small airports are an exception because their importance to insured bncause insurance improves the marketability of the local econamymayjustifyfoodingcapital improvements these revenue bonds to credit -conscious investors by an. with local government dollars. hanciag the credit to 'triple-A" status. More important are capital grants provided by the leder- Most iaiportantly, in the airport bond sector, issuers typ- al government through the Federal Aviation Administra- ically malize an interest rate savings of 10 to 15 basis points, lion's Airport Improvement Program. These dollars are es- where the basis point is 1/100th of 1 percent. While this sential for small airports because their ability to may seem like a small number, the savings can raise capital by issuing debt can be limited, quickly add up tohundreds of thousands of dol - whereas medium and large airports tend 1. lars. For example, an airport of average to have more financing options avail- credit quality issuing $60 million in able. bonds maturing over 30 years can save A relatively netv source of cap- as much as $450,000 in cur- ital funding ie the passenget _ rent dollars after paying the _ facility charge (PFC),! cost of the insurance which allows an air- port toadd up to $3 ��� _ premium. Just as each au- to the cost of an airline port has its own approach to ticket. Permission to _ raising capital for its needs, levy PFCs must be each bond insurer has its granted by the Federal own underwriting criteria Aviation Administra- for airport revenue bonds. tion, and projects fund- Criteria for reviewing an is - sue may include the demo - ed by PFC revenues must be approved under o N graphics and size of the ser - the FAA's Airport Im- ��..; m vice area, the cost to air- pmvementProgram....r.r� - lines to serve the airport, Airport management .' the availability of cempet- �„ sen use PFC proceeds tis .;� ! = = EyR �' ing airports or other modes the a pay-as-you-go basis or to pay debt service on of transportation, na- ture of airline operations bonds. If PFCs are end the legal structure securing the bonds. pledged as rev- Facilities with a significant concentra- enues for debt tion of connecting activity, where passen- service, then an additional back-up pledge of general airport gera simply transfer from one flight to another provided by revenues is necessary because the ability to levy PFCs can the same airline, will be closely scrutinized because it im- be terminated by the FAA plies the airport is vulnerable to the financial health of one In general, capital programa for medium and large air- ' airline. A cost structure that is higher than average must be ports are funded primarily by a combination of federal air- supported by strong demographics and demand for airline port improvement grants and proceeds from airport revenue service. Credit concerns such as these are specific to airport bonds- These bonds are typically secured by a combination revenue bonds, and the risks associated with them will affect of rates and chargee paid by the airlines as well as conces- the decision to insure the bonds and the coat of the insur- sion revenue generated by passengers. As a result, airport ance policy. management must work closely with the private sector to For many medium and large airports, implementing cap - ensure sufficient revenues to meet operating expenses and ital improvement plana will require not just one of these fi- repay debt nancing options, but a combination of them. When access to Because airport revenue bonds are repaid from a rela- the capital markets is necessary, credit enhancement can lively narrow and potentially volatile revenue stream, in- improve the marketability of airport revenue bonds and re- vestors are particularly concerned about credit quality. duce borrowing costs. L ) Without some form of credit enhancement, the majority of airport revenue bonds are rated 'A7 or below by Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch. Kathleen Evers is vice president of the utilities and trans - In this environment, credit enhancement is proving in- porialion group of Financial Guaranty Insuronee Co., creasingly popular. "ding to Securities Data Co., the New York. 14 S� Deeamber ll"4 AMERICAN CRY i COUNTY FROM: And N. Deodhar 592 Hawthorne Woods Dr Eagan, Mn 55123 To W. Jeff Hamiel Executive Director MAC December 19, 1994 Reference: Aircraft noise over Hawthorne Woods housing tract in Eagan Dear Sir: Several homeowners in our tract attended the MASAC meeting on December 6, 1994 and complained about increasing jet noise overhead. Each attendee stated that "there has been a significant increase in aircraft nolle from 1992-1993 time frame to 1994". When many of us bought our homes during 1992 and 1993 we did careful research and verified that the level of noise was not noticable. After having purchased our properties and almost 10 months later starting mid June 1994, the level of noise has gone up dramatically. The MASAC representative at the meeting stated many times that this was not due to any changes initiated in aircraft routing procedures. He -attributed increased noise to changes in wind. We find such explanation hard to accept. Attached is an extraction of data from MASAC technical report for month of October 1994. The attachment shows a 250% increase in departure traffic on runway 11R between October 1993 and October 1994. Wind direction alone cannot explain such phenomenal increase in traffic. A more logical explanation lies in a change in routing procedure such that as long as the wind does not exceed 12 knots in a westerly direction, all departures are directed over Eagan. Such was not the case last year. We in Eagan were treated fairly. Provided that wind did not exceed 12 knots West, departures were allowed both over Eagan and Minneapolis equally. We urge you to initiate a study to explain this huge increase in departures over Eagan and assist us by reverting to the procedures in existance during 1992-1993 period. As always, a courtesy of a response from your office in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Anil Deodhar Cm. J. Hohawtein s� Source. MASAC Technical advisor's report for Oct 1994 ITEK Data for Data for October 1993 October 1994 Number of departures 29146 59111 on runway 11R Night time departures 19.2'$ 36.1 % on runway 11R Departures over Ragan 28.5 % 67.5 % as a fraction of all departures at NSP DC -9 and 727 comprise of 60 % of all operations. These are the two worst noise producing aircraft in service. During October 1994, at the three Remote monitor towers (RMTs) in Eagan, there were 29 instances of jet noise exceeding 93 Dba and most were over 100 Dba. Anil Degdhar Da 13,1994 so MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS January 10, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Dustin Midck, Mike Schlax, Lois Monson, Pat Todd, Jane Vanderpool, Bob Cooper, Steve SoderOng and ARemate Lance Stadcha. Absent was Rita Younger. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA With an addition under Staff Reports of D. Commission Retreat, there was a motion by Todd, seconded by Vanderpool, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as amended. MINUTES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting In favor, the minutes of the December 13, 1994 meeting, were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS A. New Airport Alternative Environmental Document— Hohenstein reviewed the enclosed memorandum regarding the dual track process. He explained thatit includes four proposed comments that would ensure that the new airportAED and the MSP AED are using comparable numbers and reasonable criteria. The memorandum is not Intended to Identify a preferred afiemative. Schlax questioned why the road traffic count was so skewed. Hohenstein responded that It may have been an oversight and the same numbers may not have been used for comparison. Schlax asked if the flight tracks were based on the Highway,55 approach to the airport. Hohenstein responded that the tracks from the current airport to the new airport area are only part of the picture which would also Include Cedar Avenue and 494 and other various traffic legs. Schlax asked whether the Council has considered the potential for Highway 55 becoming another 494 strip. Hohenstein responded that they have not and feels that that may be accurate in that it will begin to look like other freeways in the metro area. Soderling commented on the 65 Ldn contour and the assumption that the FAA believes that there is no noise Impact beyond that contour. Hohenstein stated that the FAA recognizes this as the standard and that there is need to lobby the FAA to change this. Soderling asked whether the proposed north/south runway ending with the 65 Ldn In the Minnesota River Valley, is factored Into tax reduction and property tax relief for affected residents. Hohenstein responded that this concern has been raised by other communities and that hidden costs to Impacted residents should be assessed. Schlax asked whether there was anything that the City Council or Airport Relations Commission could do in this area. Hohenstein replied that staff has participated in the Environmental Committee meetings and informed them that Impacts are underrated; comments have been made and will be made again. Soderling asked if there was any reasonable way to affect the dual track process. Hohenstein stated that by making comments and encouraging the City Council to state a position. MINUTES/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 2 Cooper asked whether the 65 figure was used nation wide for noise levels and commented that It would be necessary to lobby throughout the United States for change. Hohenstein stated that this Is true and it would take many people to make this change. The process is controlled by state and regional processes. Sodering stated that this makes sense and people should write to their congressmen. Hohenstein responded that this has been done and that there are no easy or quick answers. However, It Is Important to keep trying and to lobby to make results happen. Schlax commented that he had seen a notice in the paper of an AED meeting in Hastings. He asked whether they will take comments at that meeting and If this could be a potential vehicle if the Council wished to address this direly. Hohenstein responded that is a public meeting and they will accept comments. Hohenstein stated that they have compared the nolse complaint Issues in the past and MAC may not respond to all Issues but it is an opportunity for MAC to be made aware that there is concern out there. SoderOng would Ike Airport Relations Commission to provide a written comment. A motion was made by Soderling to direct the staff to prepare an additional comment on the Inadequacy of the 65 DNL Contour and DNL metric for environmental impact comparisons. Schlax seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. A motion was made by Schlax, seconded by Soderling, to include the comment In the memorandum and recommend the comment to the City. B. 1995 MASAC Initiatives— Hohenstein explained the concept of the initiatives and the outcome of what areas to tackle regarding noise abatement. MAC and MASAC are Increasingly aware of areas of financial impact. He explained what the initiatives involved and wants the commission members to keep in mind the dual track process and that It will be coming to a head. The time frame for recommendations to the City Council regarding the dual track process is sometime this summer, consequently, the next six months will Involve discussion of the dual track process. Mirick stated that MASAC is searching for a position in a regulated, ever changing environment. MASAC is asking what they can do and how they can do ft. Todd stated that she was Impressed with the plan and initiatives and would Ike a thank you sent to them for the information provided, letting them know how much it was appreciated. Schlax stated that he thought that Jeff Hernial of the MAC had commented that property taxes were used to fund their projects, not to compensate impacted residents. He asked whether they are looking at property tax relief for Impacted residents and what MASAC's position is on this. Midck responded that objectives were obtained by lengthy brainstorming sessions and he believes that MASAC is looking at the property tax issue. Hohenstein stated that the MAC has not used its statutory authority to tax the region since the 1960's. They are self-supporting and do not rely on taxes. They do have the authority to levy taxes but none of the initiatives have been adopted but rather a list they are planning on discussing. One of the things they want to look at is tax relief and that would be funded by airport users or an adjustment to value. Soderling asked if MASAC Is looking for feedback from communities as to what they think is Important and what should be worked on. Hohenstein responded that we requested an opportunity to review the Initiatives and are free to comment on the them. Soderling stated that he feels some are good MINUTESIEAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 3 and some are not and didnt feel they could endorse all of them, particularly discouraging 29 departures and 11 arrivals at night. Midck stated that this has been a nine month process that MASAC has been going through and discouraging flights over south Minneapolis as a concern of MASAC. Monson stated that it is appropriate to have these items in mind and watch when they come up for discussion at MASAC and have the Airport Relations Commission comments ready at that time. Cooper agreed and stated the commission should observe and watch, keeping the MASAC representative Informed, telling him/her what to talk about at those meetings. Soderfing asked if ARC could have access to MASAC agendas. Midck stated that it would be difficult to receive MASAC meeting agendas as they are distributed one week prior to the meetings. Monson stated that she would like a 1995 calendar of the MASAC meetings and would like to have a representative from the Airport Relations Commission attend those meetings. She feels that Eagan should be represented consistently at those meetings by Eagan citizens. Hohenstein stated that MASAC meets on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 7:30 p.m., at the MAC Building, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. Mirick asked that the next MASAC meeting be placed on the commission agendas as an informative. Soderfing asked if the MASAC agenda Is publicized. Hohenstein responded that it is not but that they could be added to MASAC's mailing rest for agendas. The problem would be the time frame in that by the time the initiatives show up at their meetings. They are broad and significant enough that by the time they are before MASAC, there would be time for the Airport Relations Commission to review them and provide comments. STAFF REPORTS A. Part 150 Update— Hohensteln stated that there are 69 Part 150 appl cations for the 1995 funding cycle. He commented that 67 addresses will be allowed this year, 23 of which were submitted from 1994. There will be 34 additional addresses that will go Into rotation for 1995. He stated that the FAA has required that they do what they refer to as the 'horst first" homes for insulating. Schlax asked how far into the McKee Addition they will get. Hohenstein responded that because of the shapes of the contours, some of the Blue Gentian homes will be done first but they should get substantially into the McKee Addition. B. Runway 4122— Hohenstein stated that the most recent update was in last month's packet but that it will be on agendas because they are in the middle of making a decision and should be coming up in February. C. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein Introduced the item and commented that in 1991 the configurations Involved adding a third parallel or a north/south runway along Cedar Avenue to the existing airport. The concern Is that Eagan residents are significantly affected no matter which is chosen. The analysis at the time was that if you added a third parallel, that parallel runway would be dedicated to arrivals and one of the other parallel runways would be dedicated to departures and the third runway would be dedicated to departures and arrivals as it Is today. Hohenstein added that with what is known about safety separations and the dedicated departure runway, that one runway by Itself would use up all the corridor. As a consequence, this would cause aircraft to tum away from traffic in the middle of the corridor and fly over neighborhoods one to one-half miles from the runway end and throughout the community as they travel south, east and west from there. The north/south runway is also of major concern. It would point at the Intersection of Highway 13 and Cedar Avenue, about three miles from runway end. Traffic would fan over the southwest area of A MINUTES/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 4 the community. He stated that the issue is to choose which of the two options will have the least impact on Eagan or to decide that the ARC does not support ether one of them. Schlax stated that If we are committed to the noise corridor MAC would have to decide how far south air traffic can go and they should state a definite boundary. He believes that the third parallel runway would be the better of the two options and that it should be endorsed after researching Its benefits. Soderfing commented on simulations showing that up to 90% of departures would be on a dedicated departure runway and that if they went with the north/south runway, that would be the dedicated departure runway. Soderling stated that if that were the case, the corridor wouldn't mean anything anymore. Hohenstein stated that the corridor would still be Important for arrivals and for the time periods when departures were In that configuration. The key is that it's up to 90%. There would be times when you would continue to see the flow of traffic as ft is today which Is a combination of operations on both parallels, both departures and arrivals. If it's a departure push, the remainder of the departures would be on the north/south runway taking off one after the other. It's a simulation model that shows how to more effectively use the runway crossings if they have a dedicated runway in the system. He stated that whether it Is the north/south or a third parallel, they would have a very high traffic runway, if designated. Monson asked if there have been comments from Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs on these two options. Hohenstein replied that Eagan is the only community In this situation. Mendota Heights opposes the 3rd parallel, prefers the north/south. Minneapolis has been blunt about relocation and prefers the north/south. Richfield and Bloomington prefer the north parallel but would like to see the existing airport. Cooper commented that We time to take a stand and we don't like either one of the two options. He feels a statement should be made that we support the new airport. He would like the commission members to discuss this issue. Monson stated that ft's necessary to consider the economic impact to the Eagan area with airport relocation. Cooper stated that the relocation process will take 20 years before ft's completed. Schlax agreed but thinks they'll build the runways and extend 4/71 anyway unless the city of Richfield stops them with a lawsuit. Cooper agreed about the north/south runway being built but stated that we should not back either one and that the commission should say we dont want either altemative. Soderfing agreed with Cooper and stated that he feels with what they're discussing about doing with the terminal that the front door at the airport is Just about as close In Hastings as It is in Richfield and that Highway 55 would bring economic pluses if it became like the 494 strip. Monson stated that Eagan will still be impacted, even with a new airport. Hohenstein commented that It would make sense to anticipate the next few meetings for discussion of these issues. As material on the airport comes through, there will be a chance to review it and with more information, it will help to make conclusions to recommend to the City Council. Cooper asked if the Airport Relations Commission could meet other than scheduled monthly meeting times. Hohenstein stated that commission could meet as many times as it would like but If they do so, it should be publicized. Vanderpoel believes that even though ARC is an open meeting, Its important to let the public know about the meetings. Cooper stated that he would like a workshop to discuss the alternatives. Vanderpoel stated that in order to consider an alternative, it would be helpful to have a summary comparing alternatives, how they affect Eagan residents, LDN, economic development and accessibility to the airport. Hohenstein commented that the draft EIS should have those types of analyses in It. Much of the discussion Is speculative and a very complex issue, with commission members needing to use their own Judgement after reviewing the facts. MINUTES/FAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 5 Schlax questioned whether there would be a symposium in February. Hohenstein stated that the commission retreat to analyze the work program and goals for the next year would probably be in June. A motion was made by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, to schedule a workshop after receiving the EIS Information In order to discuss the three choices available - the north/south runway, parallel runway or neither. Hohenstein stated that the decision of a preferred alternative will be made in February by the MAC. He stated that the EIS will review whether relocation or expansion is a better alternative. Schlax stated he would Oke to amend the motion to have a meeting as soon as possible and said that within the next two weeks would be appropriate, Soderling seconded the motion. Todd stated that she would like to see new members involved in meetings and that they should be kept in mind. Schlax stated that he feels that its a sense of urgency to meet soon and that new members may not be able to contribute much. Hohenstein stated that the commission and the City have already commented on the expansion AED and that comment period is closed. The Issue is not whether there Is time in the next several weeks to put together additional information and revisit the whole Issue. The question Is whether it Is obvious to the group that we should have gone in another direction because, if so, a decision should be made at this meeting. In the next few weeks the MAC is going to discuss the AED and adopt it, so that in February that part will be completed. The challenge is that there is no time to bring up detailed pros and cons. After further discussion, it was decided to withdraw the previous motion and amendments. Hohenstein stated that we will have the next several months to pursue this Issue and the issue is what runway do you want to see first because both of them will be built eventually. Schlax stated he would like to see a meeting held when its convenient to discuss this issue. D. Commission Retreat— Hohenstein explained that the Airport Relations Commission will meet for a retreat with a consultant and the focus will be to Identify the direction to take for the coming year. What the commission sees that it has accomplished so far, also what they see as the roles and functions of the Airport Relations Commission in the future to better serve the Council and the community. He stated there will be information on the retreat in the next few weeks and a date as to when it will be held. Hohenstein stated that appointments to the ARC will be held Tuesday, January 17 and the orientation session will be on Tuesday, January 24 at 5:00 p.m. He stated that he would like to encourage commission members to attend the meeting and assist with orientating new commission members. He asked that if any of the members are interested in attending to let him know. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Anil Deodhar of 592 Hawthorne Woods Drive commented on the third parallel runway and how it would affect his neighborhood. Hohenstein stated that it would increase traffic in the community. The north parallel would likely Increase traffic in the northern and eastern parts of Eagan. The north/south runway would affect more directly the southwest and central portions of the community, although the east MINUTES/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1995 PAGE 6 bound flows from that would affect the eastern part of the city as well. Mr. Deodhar asked exactly where this runway was going to be. Midck responded that there are separation requirements with a third runway and that two of the runways would be for landing and one for departures without violating air space requirements. Hohenstein stated that the parallel runway would continue to be a mixed runway. Hohensteln explained that the current runway configuration which Includes the north and south parallels and the cross wind runway which bisects both of them. He stated that one alternative is to add a third parallel runway outward of the north parallel and the operation configuration for this would be that these two runways would act independent of one another where the arrivals would be guided to the north parallel and departures to the middle parallel. The south parallel would continue to function as it does today with departures and arrivals. There would be a lot of aircraft within three miles of each other which would create more traffic in the corridor. The north/south runway Is another alternative. It would function much Oke it Is today; air traffic would spread through all parts of Eagan. This runway points at Highway 13 and Cedar Avenue. There would be an expansion of aircraft activity throughout Eagan. Airport critics tend to say that it makes little difference which one is chosen because eventually they will both be Implemented over time. Soderfing asked about western winds and how they would affect operations. Hohenstein responded that possibly arrivals would be affected, if all winds were out of the west. The configurations will be used as they are now to adjust for conditions and that wind Is not the only factor in the configuration. INFORMATIVE Hohensteln mentioned a letter from Senator Wellstone regarding funding of the Part 150 program, congratulating the City on the program. He mentioned the letter from Mr. Deodhar and a response from Jeff Hernial of the MAC. FUTURE AGENDA It was suggested that a third item be discussed on a future agenda - C. Dual Track Comparison. Hohenstein feels it will be dominating discussion in the next few months. Monson made a motion to give appreciation to Dustin Mirick for his years of service with the Airport Relations Commission, seconded by Schlax, all members voted In favor. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Soderfing, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary