Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/1995 - Airport Relations Commission• t AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM BLACK HAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL July 13, 1995 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Council Mitigation Concepts V. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Current Operations Committee B. Long Term Planning Committee VI. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Richfield Litigation C. Part 150 Program Update D. MASAC Meeting of June 27, 1995 E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition VII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VIII. INFORMATIVE IX. FUTURE AGENDA A- SMAAC Common Issues B. Alternative Departure Profiles X. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - Tuesday, August 8, 1995 CURRENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - Monday, July 17,199S LONG TERM PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE - Thursday, June 20,199S NEXT MASAC MEETING Tuesday, July 25,199S XI. ADJOURNMENT ., P. The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, • services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital 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 0 El MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT • RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JULY 6,199S SUBJECT% EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be beld on Thursday. July 13. 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the Blackhawk Middle School multi-purpose room. Please note the change in date to accommodate the Council's schedule. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603, if you will be unable to attend this meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the June 13, 1995 Airport Relations Commission meeting are enclosed on pages %S' through / ( for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in • order for approval by the commission. . III. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—Please remember to bring your three-ring binders for discussion of this business item. Enclosed and numbered IV -4 and IV -5 is a June 20 Star Tribune article relative to the remote runway plan. Please insert this in Section IV of your binders. Also enclosed and three -hole punched is the most recent MAC brochure concerning the new airport comprehensive plan. Please insert this in Section H concerning the new airport option. As the commission is aware, the Long Term Planning Subcommittee has been reviewing this issue over its past several meetings and a report from the committee is enclosed on pages JQ through_. The report includes a memorandum from the subcommittee to all members of the commission requesting that they do a preliminary rating of each of the options as a basis for further subcommittee work at its upcoming meetings. The subcommittee is also recommending a time line for a recommendation concerning this matter. That time line is in order for adoption by the commission. The commission is encouraged to have further discussions relative to the merits of various options in terms of the criteria and background information provided. Any input will be useful to the Long Term Planning Subcommittee in preparing its findings for commission consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To adopt the time line for preparation • of a' recommendation to the City Council concerning the dual track airport planning process. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Council_ Mitigation Concepts --For the past nine months, staff has participated with the Metropolitan Council and other communities that would be affected by expansion of the airport at its current site in a discussion of tools and concepts necessary for community implementation if the dual track process determines that the airport should remain at the current site. Staff has previously reviewed drafts of this information with commission members and has incorporated feedback from the commission in its discussion with the other cities. A time line concerning this activity is enclosed on page 16 for your review. It is anticipated that a final document will be forwarded to the commission in time for its meeting in August. The current draft is comprised of sevral parts including the principals and concepts for collaborative planning on pages through ,f. The community protection tools which are enclosed on pages through and an outline of anticipated uses within the City of Eagan on pages through . The commission is encouraged to review these items and provide final feedback to staff for incorporation in the final report which will be discussed at the joint cities meeting of July 20. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide concept approval of the draft as presented and provide additional comments to the working group in its regard. • V. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Current Operations Committee --A report from the Current Operations Committee is enclosed on pages 09 through for your review. Attached to it is a memorandum responding to questions raised by the eastern Eagan neighborhoods who are going by the name of the Eagan Citizens Airport Noise Committee. In addition, the subcommittee is inviting Mark Salmen and a representative of the Airline Pilots Association to their meeting of July 17 to discuss pilot training and responses to air traffic control instructions. The committee members may provide additional updates on their discussions at Tuesday's meeting. B. Long Term Planning Committee --The Long Term Planning Committee report was incorporated into the dual track business item above. Any additional comments relative to the committees meeting or discussions would be appropriate at this time. VI. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor --Staff continues to receive complaints from both eastern Eagan and northern Eagan concerning operations outside the corridor. Enclosed on pages through is a briefing concerning a meeting hosted by Senator Wiener and attended by a number of commission members. Attached to it you will find a copy of SL correspondence from Representative Pawlenty's office relative to a letter from the MAC concerning issues raised by Bob Mayer. Also attac ed is a list of some of the parties present at the meeting. Finally, enclosed on pages through S/ are copies of articles from the local papers relative to this meeting. One of the questions raised at the meeting was what the Airport Relations Commission should be doing regarding this issue. Several commission members responded with perceptions regarding corridor compliance and MAC representation. Staff will continue to participate in this activity and provide briefings to the commission. The conmussion will also be notified of the next meeting and your participation is encouraged. B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Richfield Litigation–Enclosed on pages .Sythrough 53 are copies of the correspondence forwarded to the MAC, Met Council and city of Richfield relative to runway extension. The next meeting of the mediation group is on Thursday, July 6. Staff will attend on behalfof th community and provide an oral report at Thursday's meeting. Enclosed on pages through �c is a copy of the Airport Noise Report article relative to the Richfield lawsuit. C. Part 150 Program Update–Homes within the community continue to be insulated and staff has no additional update regarding this item at this time. D. MASAC Meeting of June 27, 1995 --Several issues were brought up at the MASAC meeting of June 27 which are outlined below. The late night standard instrument departure for Runway 4/22 was discussed and it was indicated that an environmental assessment would • be completed relative to this proposed activity. It was further reported that the geographic positioning satellite technology will be installed at NSP in September. It will be the first such system in operation in the country. The GPS system will allow more precise location of aircraft both vertically and horizontally which may permit higher levels of compliance in the corridor and the opportunity to vary glide slopes for landing noise. It should be stressed that they will be adding the technology to aircraft over the next several years and the benefits of the technology will phase in over that time. With respect to Northwest's progress in bush kitting its DC -9 fleet, the airline indicated that 17 of its 93 DC -9's are hush kitted. They anticipate having a total of 35 retrofitted by the end of 1995 and that all DC -9's will be hush kitted over the next several years. Due to a bug in the ANOMS system, the full technical advisors report was not available for the month of May. A revised, complete report will be distributed when it's available. For Your information, excerpts from the partial report are enclosed on pages 4t�17 through &—a–• E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition–The next meeting of the NDCARC will be on Wednesday, July 19 at 7:30 am. at the Parker House in Mendota At its last meeting, the group discussed nighttime operations and expressed general support for the Runway 4/22 SID, as well as reduction of operations in the shoulder hours and expansion of the nighttime voluntary agreements. Like Eagan, other communities in the coalition anticipate asking to be involved in the Runway 4/22 mediation. The group also • discussed the need to do an environmental review of the proposed crossing procedure in the corridor prior to consideration of its implementation. 3 ., VII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD • Any visitors wishing to address the commission relative to items not on the agenda may do so at this time. VIII. INFORMATIVE Enclosed on pages through�is a copy of the staff memorandum relative to the commission's recommendations to the City Council. The recommendations were adopted as presented. A copy of the correspondence to the Metropolitan Airports Commission regarding these items is enclosed on pages ,�g S through _(g(e Also enclosed on page(L' is the City's comments relative o the second phase scoping document for the dual track EIS. Finally, enclosed on page (pff a copy of an excerpt from a July 5 Sun Current showing Commissioner Steve Soderling and his family at the Volunteer Recognition Picnic. Thank you to all of you for your efforts on behalf of the community and the commission. Staff is in the process of preparing the 1993 and 1994 annual reports for distribution. In the past, the annual report has been provided to all members of all commissions. In an attempt to be cost sensitive, the City is requesting the commission members indicate whether they would like to receive a copy prior to printing. Please indicate at Thursday's meeting whether you wish to receive a copy of the annual reports for the last two years. IX. FUTURE AGENDAS • Any commission member wishing to suggest agenda items for future meetings may do so at this time. X. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be on Tuesday, August 8, 1995. Schedule for other meetings are included with the agenda. M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m. unless extended by a majority vote of the members present to complete business pending before the group. Assistl&t to the City Administrator JDH/jeb 0 n lJ MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION June 13, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport. Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, June 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Steve Sodeding, Lance Staricha, Lois Monson, Jane Vanderpool and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohensteln. AGENDA Hohensteln suggested that New Business be heard before Old Business on the agenda. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, the agenda was approved as amended. MINUTES Hohensteln Informed the commission that the actions taken at the last meeting were not heard by the Council but will be at the June 20 City Council meeting. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Monson, with all members voting In favor, the minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS A. Operations Impacts - North and East— Hohensteln reviewed the memo on pages 10 through 13 of the packet. He informed the commission that at the last several meetings eastern Eagan residents have contacted the commission and those residents, Mike Padden and Bob Mayer are In attendance at this meeting. Hohensteln stated that there have been continuing complaints from the northern parts of the City relative to operations Impacts related to operations southeast of the airport With the wanner weather complaints have Increased. Input from the Airport Relations Commission has affected noise abatement but has not stopped IL Hohensteln stated that staff has outlined a number of alternatives to review In the memo. He suggested some of the points may need to be referred back to the subcommittees and others to the Council. The commission discussed each Item listed. Number one concerns nighttime restrictions. This Involves a 4/22 standard Instrument departure which would direct the aircraft to fly down the River Valley about 6 1/2 miles from runway end. Other options would be shoulder hours and voluntary nighttime restrictions. Number two concerns enforcement of the 105 degree heading at night. This would Involve discussion of population density and possibly a longer distance than 3 miles because of the standard Instrument departure being developed'around 4/22. Airport Relations Commission Minutes June 13, 1995/Page 2 Number three discusses modification or extension of the corridor which Is something the MAC and FAA will not consider. There has also been discussion of extension of the corridor along centerline but the response has been that this would cause air traffic congestion. Another option would be to modified fanning at the three mile point, allowing less congestion but allowing tracking north of the neighborhoods affected. Soder ing asked the reason for the congestion, are the planes actually catching up to each other? Hohensteln responded that it's easier for the tower to spread traffic than to keep them In a constrained area. Schlax stated that the handing off of aircraft from the tower to departure control to center and this happens quickly. Hohensteln stated that the MlnneapolisSt Paul Airport will be the first airport to have geographic positioning satellite capability which will give an opportunity for more controlled operations. Number four Involves dismantling the corridor and fanning of aircraft southeast of the airport which the City does not support. it would not dramatically reduce Impact anywhere In the City but would Increase Impacts In other areas of the City. Number five would Involve dismanding of the runway use system and a push for distributional equity. It would still Involve directing traffic where there are the least number of people. Number six involves MAC and MASAC representation. Eagan has one representative who Is located outside of the City. It would be necessary to pursue action legislatively to change this situation. 0 Number seven would be to seek modifications of Federal Aircraft Noise Act for nighttime • operations. This would involve bringing about Stage III aircraft in advance of current deadlines. This would be dl f ctdt to pursue because it is a limitation that affects the decisions MAC would make with respect to Stage 11 aircraft. The question Is where does the commission want to focus its energy and what should be discussed In the subcommittees or that they want directed to the City Council. Monson asked If #1 was basically taken care of. Hohensteln responded that this Is being discussed by the Operations Committee and is In the process. Vanderpoel asked If it would be appropriate to send a letter suggesting that it be sped up. Hohensteln responded that that could be done to support the activity. The standard Instrument departure they are discussing Is worth following. Schlax asked If MASAC always goes with the 45 degree heading. Hohensteln stated that the departure with be a part of the SIDS. This procedure would be utilized for late night operations when traffic can't be accommodated on parallels. Schlax commented about the 29 situation and why not deal with the 4/22 specdically. Is there a plan to do a 11 nighttime SID? Hohensteln responded that at the present time this wasn't discussed. This would be something to consider. Todd asked for any additions to the list that the commission might be Interested in pursuing. Schlax stated that alternate means should be considered. One way would be to buy off those noise affected resktents with state credits, local property tax relief or grants from the MAC. We really need to get creative In this area. Hohensteln responded that the Met Council Is coordinating a group meeting regarding land use tools available if the airport stays where it Is. He continued that from a strategic standpoint those • suggestions should be considered. • Airport Relations Commission Minutes June 13, 1995/Page 3 Monson asked If Richfield's position should be discussed and expansion of our position. Hohensteln responded that this has already been discussed and they're looking at additional things. Sodeding asked about departure profiles. Hohensteln replied the commission has taken a position and should be added to the list as an action Item. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Mike Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive asked If anything had been done about the request for flight data on the weekends mentioned at a previous commission meeting. Hohensteln replied that he has requested that Information from MAC. Mr. Padden asked if he could request from MAC how the flight paths of each plane are determined. How the control'is handed off from the tower. At what point is the decision made and what Is the chain of command? Who is making those decisions? He says they see patterns happening everyday. Hohensteln stated that staff can answer some of the questions and MAC can answer others. Mr. Padden asked what affect the winds have on aircraft. They see planes take off with the wind and N they prefer to take off Into the wind, why do they take off with it. He asked what concerns are there with the rapid descent of aircraft. He asked what altitude do they come In at and how soon do they leave the ground. He proposes planes take off at a more rapid ascent. He would like the air traffic to fan out at the end of the three-mile corridor. He would like to see late night flights go out to five miles before • turning and the airport to utilize one runway In the evening so they stay In the center of the corridor.. He asked why Eagan is the preferred runway? Hohensteln, responded that what he Is observing are planes taking off head to head. The reason aircraft are focussed to the southeast at all times Is because the corridor Is where the least number of people are located. There's no addressing those neighbors down range from the corridor, consequently, the result Is the late night noise. Mr. Padden stated that statistics show that Eagan has the highest levels of complaints and we are still the preferred runway. It's obvious the corridor Isn't working. Sodeding commented that without the corridor they would still be sending planes all over the Eagan area because of the River Valley. Hohensteln stated that the Issue is density and there are always two aspects to the corridor - land use and operational - three mile departure and four mile arrival Is needed for traffic In the area. All of these are affecting neighborhoods and causing more Impact. Mr. Padden stated that the population map Is not up to date and, consequently, the numbers are not accurate. He would like to see it updated or a comparison done for 1990 and 1995. Hohensteln responded that the most recent good data is the 1990 census. The concern about the map is Met they were showing densities based on ranges of population. The lowest range was 0 to 50 and ne)a one was 50 - 2,500. Urban areas In Eagan were showing the same density as rural Inver Grove Heights areas. It's not reasonable to say a density of 5o should show up the same as a density of 2,500. The federal census Is what gives us the numbers. Mr. Padden requested a detailed map of Eagan only with ANOMS flight tracking data to see where planes are flying. He asked Hohensteln how accurate the ANOMS system is. Hohensteln stated that ANOMS uses a combination of geographic positioning and radar, so the tracks are very accurate within a 40 few hundred feet of what is shown. Airport Relations Commission Minutes June 13, 1995/Page 4 Mr. Padden commented that the would still like the mobile noise monitoring system In place and he would like to be trained, i necessary, to use the monitors. He would like to see the Runway 4/22 traffic distribution analyzed. He would like more Information on the expansion of Runway 4/22. How long would It -be under construction and when? Hohensteln responded that the Runway 4/22 expansion has cleared the environmentals and is being held up by the Richfield litigation. I Richfield Is not successful in holding up the expansion, construction will start at end of 1995 and take one construction season. After the runway Is completed they will be able to shift part of the traffic on Runway 22. Low traffic period would be higher traffic volume than today. They could go up to 80 operations rather than the fD today. Mr. Padden asked I they are planning to shut down 22L for refurbishing. Hohensteln stated that right now 11R/29L reconstruction will include replacement of 12 Inches to 18 Inches of concrete by 1997 or 1998. It depends on when 22 becomes avaliable. The reconstruction will not add any capacity, the runway will be the same length but have a better quality surface. Mr. Padden stated that right now they re saying there will be no Impact - that there will be the same amount of flights. Hohensteln stated that it is capacity driven and they describe circumstances under which they'll use parallels but trying to translate that Into specific operations doesn't work well. Nothing about the runway extension changes the priority for the southeast side of the airport. The cross wind runway won't make It better and may make things worse In other parts of the City. • Bob Mayer of 3949 Avon Court, stated that he talked to Deanna Wiener and she will be • meeting with Pawienty, City Council members and Airport Relations Commission members. The meeting will be set up at a time agreed to by all members. The meeting will discuss the flights over Eagan. Senator Wiener will look at legislation for changes. Mr. Mayer stated that he has noticed a shift In air traffic. He commented that Northwest Airlines has purchased DC -9's and MASAC Is denying ft. He asked how reliable MASAC is and he stated he resents being treated like a child and Iced to by MASAC. A letter of clarification should be written by Foggia on this situation to the City of Eagan and Its residents. Hohenstein stated that this Is something that's best brought up at MASAC. Leo Amundson of 1470 Hlghview commented that he has worked for many years to preserve the corridor. He stated that he noticed planes flying out of the corridor and would like to know how to keep them within the corridor. Hohensteln stated that the commission could recommend to the Council again that they are in favor of use of the corridor and how Important that Is. Schlax commented Vo he has observed that ft Is routinely done that planes are flying south of the corridor by 10% or more. Todd stated that the commission performed a three month study comparing 1994 to 1995 for corridor compliance and that there was some Improvement. Schlax commented that that Is not much Improvement when 500 flights are still flying over. Hohensteln stated that they were looking at the south parallel only. Eventually they combined the numbers for the north and south parallels. Fundamental problems are that areas are at thresholds where percentages won't make that much deference because of the high level of Impact Schlax commented that at the MASAC meeting Foggia said that the data was skewed and that ft's hard to change the perception that Eagan still consists of farmland. C� J • Airport Relations Commission Minutes June 13, 1995/Page 5 Monson stated that at the MASAC meeting she sees people saying they won't give up and then they do. its very Important that people stick with it and continue to complain because it will get their attention.. Hohenstein stated that MAC has indicated they don! want a policy based on complaints but they do seem to form policy on the absence of complaints. It's Important to call the complaint lines although it's not necessarily going to change policy, it's dearly a situation where they need to hear those complaints. Northwest does continue to purchase DC -9's and they are required to bring them Into Phase III compliance. They will be retiring the 727's in the next five years. Todd stated that one of the first hems for consideration Is reiteration of corridor compliance. Hohenstein stated that there are three ways of reiterating this Issue. The first Is to reiterate it with the requirement that the airport comply with the corridor by a direct resolution or correspondence. He stated that each of the hems In the memo should be voted on and sent to the Current Operations Committee, send to the Council or do nothing. Monson motioned send to the City Council reiteration of the commission's corridor compliance position and recommend that number 4 on page 12 be referred back to the committee, second was made by Soderling. Cooper recommended that numbers 1 - 5 go to the Current Operations Committee. • Soderling moved that number 1 (Nighttime Restrictions) should go to Current Operations Committee, Staricha seconded the motion. All members voted In favor. Upon motion by Soderling regarding #2 was to reiterate strict enforcement of 105 degree heading to the City Council and that establishment of an SID be referred to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Schlax. All members voted In favor. After further discussion, Cooper stated that all of number 2 should be addressed by the Current Operations Committee. Hohensteln rephrased the motion to state that the 105 degree heading be enforced either through standard procedures or standard Instrument departure.whh the understanding that a SID will be developed and that would be done In conjunction with the Current Operations Committee, all members voted In favor. Number 3 (Modification or Extension of Corridor) - A motion was made by Schlax to refer it to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members voted In favor. Number 4 (Dismantle Corridor and Fan Traffic) - A motion was made by Monson to refer this hem to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Cooper. All members voted In favor. Number 5 (Dismantle RUS and Push for Distributional Equity) - A motion was made by Cooper to send this to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members voted in favor. • Number 6 (MAC and MASAC Representation) - A motion was made by Sodeding and seconded by Stadchs to refer this item to the City Council. All members voted In favor. 9 Airport Relations Commission Minutes . June 13, 1995/Page 6 Number 7 (Seek Modification of Federal Aircraft Noise Act) - Schlax moved not to take action on this Item, seconded by Sodeding. All members voted In favor. Todd asked Hohenstein to respond to citizen questions from those present tonight. He commented that he will copy and distribute these questions to the commission. He will provide responses to the neighbors in writing of the things he can answer and the remainder he will discuss with the MAC. Stadcha asked Hohenstein if he Included the idea of tax credits. Hohenstein replied that this is being discussed by the Metropolitan Council should the airport remain where It is. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohensteln distributed an article to the commission. He suggested that the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission be included in the discussion. He recommended holding off on discussion until a later date. He stated that he would like the commission to move forward to adopting matrix recommended and then recommend comments of the scoping report Monson motioned to adopt the matrix, seconded by Vanderpool. Schlax shoed that they may take time to go over as It is more of a draft. Cooper asked what the matrix Is. Hohenstein replied that It is a decision making tool and will list all options that affect Eagan. All members voted In favor of the motion. • Schlax suggested that the commission members fill our the matrix and then discuss k. Hohenstein suggested members of the Long Tenn Planning Committee discuss the matrix and bring k back to the commission. White stated that the commission hasn't developed a rating system and would like Input on that also. Schlax suggested using # 1- 5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst Hohensteln stated that land banking was one of the aRematNes to be considered In the EIS and that needed to be voted on. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, the commission will recommend to the MAC staff to consider land banking as an option. Schlax asked Hohensteln I the MAC meetings will be available to the public. Hohenstein stated they are very thorough about notifying papers of meetings. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Current Operations Committee— The next meeting of the Current Operations Committee Is Monday, June 19, 1995. B. Long Terre Planning Committee— The next meeting of the Long Tenn Planning Committee is scheduled for Thursday, June • 10 Airport Relations Commission Minutes • June 13, 1995/Page 7 STAFF REPORT Hohensteln commended the commission members and neighbors for the work they are doing. He continued that it Is a long, frustrating process and he appreciates the work they are doing. Schlax stated that at the MASAC meeting they discussed the alternative departure procedures.. Foggia responded that they have given the data to a consulting fine. They are trying to analyze the best procedure and all the rammcatlons of h. Soderling said they still have two choices and he would like to come up with something that makes more sense. Todd asked about the status on the recommendation of an alternate take -off procedure. Hohensteln responded that a letter will be signed by the Mayor and mailed as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoel, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. JEH • Date Chairperson Secretary TO: Chair Todd and Members of the LONG TERM SUBCOMMITTEE • FROM: Mike Schlax DATE: 6-23-95 SUBJECT: Review of Subcommittee Meeting of 6-22-95 At the subcommittee's meeting of 6-22 several significant actions were taken. 1) A motion will be presented at the full ARC meeting of 7- 13-95 setting the following time line for presentation to the City Council of the ARC's Dual Track recommendations. August 1995 --Subcommittee prepares a draft document for full ARC review. Comments will be taken at the .August ARC meeting and a final draft paper prepared. September 1995-- Final draft document is submitted to the ARC for approval and published in the City newsletter and local press. September 1995-- Final document. is presented to the Economic Development Commission and Advisory Planning Commission for their comments. October 1995-- A public hearing is conducted by the ARC where citizen comments, either live or written, are taken for the record. October 1995-- Based on comments from other commissions and the public, a final document of the ARC's • recommendations is prepared and approved. November 1995--ARC's recommendations are submitted to the City Council. 2) Since August is coming fast, members of the Long Term Subcommittee are asked to DISTILL THEIR THOUGHTS on the Dual track process and PREPARE A ONE PAGE SUMMARY of the various issues for the Subcommittee meeting of 7-20-95. These papers will form the basis of the subcommittee's white paper. Also the subcommittee members are asked to SIFT THROUGH the many documents we have been given and PICK ONE OR Tw0 that clarify Dual Track issue/s best for them. This hopefully, will help us prepare a manageable reading file for those new or unexposed to the Dual Track issues. 3) Other items --The EDC and APC have very full agendas, so there will be no face-to-face meetings between the ARC and those two bodies. John will make presentations to the EDC and the ARC in July and bring us feedback. --The Current Operations Subcommittee expressed a desire that the Long Term group take over consideration of the Runway Use Program currently used by the airport. The LTS members present considered the change appropriate and a review of the RUS program • will be added to the LTS's calendar. • TO: Chair Todd and Members of the ARC FROM: Mike Schlax DATE: 6-24-95 SUBJECT: Dual Track Rating Matrix Attached is a copy of the Dual Track Rating matrix that the Long Term Subcommittee (LTS) has developed as a tool for evaluating the various options that are available as we reach decision time in the process. The topics in the matrix follow closely Met Council's survey sheet but the LTS has changed some of the areas skewing them toward a City of Eagan perspective and we have added two additional options which we feel we must consider --Land Banking and Remote Runways. Please take some time before the full ARC meeting of 7-33 and rate the topics for each option by the following scale: NOTE: Please try to be. as objective as possible when rating and keep in mind we're trying to do the right thing for all of Eagan! • 5 --rate means if the option were accomplished it, would have a very positive effect on the city. 4 --rate means a positive effect but a minor effect. 3 --rate means neutral, neither significantly positive or negative. 2 --rate means a negative effect, not a body blow but the effect would still be noticed. 1 --rate means if the option were accomplished it would have a very negative effect on the city. The purpose of having the ARC fill out the matrix at this time is: 1) to provide a 'first -look', if you will, as to how the ARC is leaning and 2) to de -bug the matrix so that others not familiar with the issues can easily use the form. The LTS used the matrix at their 6-22 meeting and found that the rating/conclusions drawn in some topic areas can be somewhat. inconsistent and some areas will have to be refined. But we also found the matrix to be pretty much all inclusive and is a helpful tool in organizing thoughts. Considering the rating also spurred several lively discussions. 7 think the exercise is very worthwhile so bring your filled out matrix to the July meeting. • Jon white willcrunch the numbers and give us a report at the August meeting. Airport Planning Process: Summary Tabulations, Description of Imp&...& • Manor" Alternatives Category of Issue Faster 'New Replacement N Develop MSP Remote Runways Land Banking No Protect Cay Camnnnly Impel kw" Jallownwormy Nuder of New Job W olanicoon Nunber alJab lot gvM Camperhan d SupprylDernerd lus Qualitative Aseaamerd Fhaw Issues C@VWCmdmftn Odds Par Psannow.Code oats Phadich Ealy of Fudhq Sween CuAtdve Asaeurnwd Impact on local Juhdeams OudWlw Aacunmod OppmlWy to Caplua bduWldvabss Oudlrlhe Asaansrd Ta baa MMSOon Local lrdrasbudua sbde* Wues FkxftWpBMwdMbMV OudldNa Asaewrsd Eased b oW andoft OrdldM Assewract ' Palficolf1rathillong PYobkma I OualtoM AsasarneN • Airport PAng Process: Summary Tabulations, Description of Impat • category of issue Factor AMbM Menem Hourly CaDsch. Al waeMer Alternatives New Replacement Alf�ort Develop MSP Remote Runways Land Banidng No Project Akporl OpersHonal lauaAirspace ConlMb Unovobsbb udelwlans R Uss8 Ground Trads Ground Access bum Value of Trssd Tbne DNwvan Vdua of Travel Time poW Vduu level of Ar Service Morlsb nerved lbrr Vds Ar Sandos Issues Love! of Alr 9eMa firdernsfiarvil Markeb Served Alrfbld S"9" far Hub" f ft"I" COM* Starpod Fedtlee UMlaradbl Fars Per Passenger Coat 8ervka A of Fades Em iron"Onbl bum Atnvdl Nalsa RasMaMsl Popubfion CMMMOM lad use Nobe Se stivs uses Social RsI I "'PopAdIonAffecled AY !qgy f O Numbs of Resources CIV Economic baues Shat - Term Dked Ecomnde EReds Carahucear PayroWkschass - Reglad bri abro Ciknda audWo Asseunrent CWImsWnoMCBrrde Uudllativa Assatnad — —_ Process and Timing Issues for MSP Communities Protection Package Timing: July 30, 1995: Complete entire package for distribution to key players (listed below) Key Players: September 1, 1995: Complete briefings of key players October 1, 1995: Complete additions/deletions to package October/November: Draft legislation December: Legislative Hearing Metropolitan Council MAC City Councils (Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Minneapolis, Mendota Heights, St. Paul) Mn/DOT Northwest Others: (?) Legislative Municipal Caucus Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Northern Mayors Key Legislators: Ted Mondale Ann Rest Doug Johnson Effective Model for Consideration: The successful development of legislation this session: "Metro Communities Livability Act." General Facts About TIF's This Session: 1) There were 34 special laws requested. 2) Wherever reasonable, the legislature chose to amend sections of the general law rather than pass individual special laws. Following this approach, the group may wish to:consider an "Airport Impact Zone." 3) Consensus on the pooling issue was not reached. The House wanted to. eliminate pooling, the Senate did not. 0 1] E Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' Collaborative Efforts in 0 Airport Planning GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments affected by airport operations are committed to maintaining themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality - of life perspective. To that end, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to redevelop the airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identification of the impacts of MSP operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of a community stabilization and revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the airport at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to airport -area communities should not be applied in such a way as to result in undue burden to individual residents of affected communities. These cooperative planning efforts should not be interpreted as supporting the retention of MSP at its current location or moving it to Dakota County. PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS: To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse impacts related to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include new tools and the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax -increment financing, should be made available in the airport development area. 2. Airport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied and may affect a community in other ways. 3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governments and school districts. 4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, funds should be provided to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere in that community if feasible. I r- The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact • assistance, and the burdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment and quality of life, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the maximum extent feasible. 6. Steps should be taken over time by each community in partnership with MAC and the Met Council to create compatible zones around the airport. These zoites should be accomplished through a combination of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopment tools to assure that the zones remain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities. 7. Steps should be taken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing high-intensity uses in areas where existing uses preclude application of safety zone development restrictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities to facilitate and expedite this process. No new schools, hospitals, and multi -family housing should be built in these areas. Airport development area communities should take steps to ensure that all new and infill development within the airport development area is compatible from a noise and safety perspective. This should be accomplished through the use of improved building codes, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions. 9. Steps should be taken to assure that existing as well as future community -wide redevelopment plans associated with airport.development area impacts are integrated'into the community's overall plan. (to include the addition of community -wide amenities...) 4r 10. The Met Council should take primary responsibility on behalf of and in cooperation with affected airport development area communities to ensure that the above -listed principles and concepts are fully considered in the dual -track process. These principles and concepts should be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the Dual Track Decision Document. 0 • MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT ENVIRONS COMfUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE—DRAFT Clarion Associates June 12,199S INTRODUCTION The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoothly functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County or remain at its current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current capacity and projected demand. While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also .apparent that it has significant impacts on the communities around it. While noise impacts are always the first issue that springs to mind, in reality there are others of equal significance— safety, ground traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental influences, and effects on property values and overall community stability. Most airport -impact mitigation efforts focus almost exclusively'on noise—and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has a established a good track record with its noise insulation and property buyout programs. However, it is.: becoming increasingly obvious that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation. programs are limited in their outreach. Moreover, in any case, if the airport is to be a good neighbor, and the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained in the face of expansion, these other impacts. need to be addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating existing houses closest to the airport is not enough. At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP that would hamper its efficient operation. To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission have been meeting informally since late 1994 with representatives of local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. The group's primary goal has been to identify and explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities in.the airport environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.' In essence, these discussions have focused on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. Recognizing that this effortwas a two-way street, • 'A summary of the operating principles adopted by the group is attached to this document. l7 the group also examined ways to prevent new incompatible development that might adversely • affect the airport. During 1995, the group has examined a wide range of tools and techniques and has developed a mitigation package that the group recommends be adopted in concert with any decision regarding location of MSP. This package includes several of the most promising approaches identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation: • Community stabilization techniques such as property. value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration. • Community revitalization approaches such as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks. • Incentive programs similar to those commonly used in siting large facilities to provide offsetting benefits (such neighborhood recreation centers) to a community or neighborhood. • Airport protection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures. are undertaken. The group also eemined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be trade available. While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level of noise (typically with the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can be made that the impact area should not be so narrowly defined. When homes are demolished within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable housing may be significant throughout the entire community. Likewise,'their may be a significant effect on a community's tax base. NEED TO BEEF THIS UP WITH OTHER EXAMPLES. Consequently, the recommendation here is to make impact mitigation tools available throughout any community, a portion of which lies within a 65 Ldn (or greater) noise contour line. ARE THERE BETTER ALTERNATIVES TO OFFER? SUMMARY OF MITIGATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport 2 40 area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize IS neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such as the, Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues. Property Value. Guarantees Where landowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely affected by noise from airport operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values, even though in some instances airport proximity may actually enhance property values. This perception may lead to a pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area, and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land uses. On the other hand, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. Experience in the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioration by providing guarantees against property value depreciation.' Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this. Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an $90 application fee which covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses. If after . five years the homeowner sold ata price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during that period. If su: ,stantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible. Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have it purchased by a village -established Equity Assurance Commission. Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears of property value loss. While over 160 homeowners initially. joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. Interestingly, no claims were ever.filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and remains a desirable residential community. Emulating this concept, local governments around MSP should be authorized to establish a Program that pledges to reimburse landowners for losses in property value caused by airport operations and impacts. Backup funding might come from the state or the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local governments would provide such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. Where owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value. Participation ?For a more detailed description of the Oak Park program and other community protection tools, see the report attached to this document. would be optional for all property owners within a designated eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone). 0 Housing Revitalization Programs As noted above, several of the MSP -area communities have undertaken aggressive and innovative housing revitalization programs. However, where these efforts involve direct government action as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit program in Minnesota (ADD CITATION and similar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged. Thus the state legislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit program for older homes in designated airport -impact areas. This would probably not encompass an entire community, but perhaps areas within specified noise contours or a specified distance of a delineated contour. In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage lending rates, down payment requirements, reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs for prospective homeowners --especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, the state legislature might direct the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency to devise special lending • programs, similar to those already in effect in other areas, to encourage first-time homebuyers, thus helping to stabilize,the airport -area neighborhoods. CAN LEGISLATURE DO THIS? Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proven to be useful tools in broader community stabilization and housing preservation programs. Typically, local governments create low-interest loan rehabilitation loan funds for designated areas (e.g., an historic district). Homeowners in the district can borrow funds for rehabilitation at below-market interest rates, thus encouraging investment of their private dollars. Payment can be made over a specified term or upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. Funding for such a program in the airport area might come from a one-time appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue bonds by MAC, or a combination of sources including some form of local match. Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of "preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally discovered that there are no "silver bullets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital investment funds. Again, MSP -area communities have some substantial experience with 4 0 =W_ • commercial and residential revitalization programs, but more is needed to enable them to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts. tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing (TIF) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization tool throughout the state. There are currently five general -types of TIF districts, and the municipalities surrounding MSP may qualify to use one or more of these districts. Generally, however, there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area, purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calculated, and areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport -impact issues. These recommended changes include: • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition tor i percentage of substandard housing, location within a noise impact zo o 60 Ldn or higher would trigger use of the district. • Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qualifying expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue bonds, community facilities, etc. • Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere within broader project area; do not limit just to district. • • Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero. Associated reduction in local government aid should be spread over seven county region reflecting the regional importance of the airport and.the special burdens borne by airport -area communities that benefit others throughout the region. Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports around the United States are encouraging non -aviation related commercial development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non -aviation commercial uses, and such properties should be included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to address airport impacts. NOTE: NEED TO EXPLORE THIS ISSUE FURTHER. P3 Community Development Bank . Availability of a steady flow of investment capital is often a key ingredient in the success of community revitalization programs. Experience shows that in blighted or deteriorating areas, bank lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization funding may dry up. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung that might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds. IS THIS TRUE? One of the most successful of these community development banks—the South Shore Bank in Chicago—is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhood that had been written off by most observers In most respects, this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks—credit worthiness of the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important difference, however, is that a significant amount of the banks funds are in "development deposits"—deposits by institutions and individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for neighborhood rehabilitation. As the bank's executive vice president has stated, "We are owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations, but who are also interested in economic development." The idea of a community development bank for MSP -area communities is worthy of further exploration. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these communities than • was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration in some residenticf areas and provide venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial antis, particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital -ft such.. a bank might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even the state who could deposit funds therein and area companies (particularly those associated with the airport) who might not only deposit funds but make program -related investments (which typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For example, the state has enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities within airport hazard area to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as part of its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are to be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP 6 • aq • pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a few airport -area municipalities have adopted the Met -Council noise standards, the majority have not (although most have some noise protection/insulation standards for new construction). • • If the aiipori is to continue to function in an efficient, safe manner, it is important that steps be taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider: • Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board. • Putting "lath" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that local compliance is ensured. At the same time, the state legislature must address the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage award against them. • Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they specify preferred result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in achieving a specified objective. 7 0?S USES OF AIRCRAFT NOISE RELATED TIF/FINANCING TOOLS • CURRENT AIRPORT SITE CITY OF EAGAN The potential uses of aircraft noise related financing tools in Eagan fall into at least eight categories. While the City of Eagan has worked hard to ensure land -use compatibility with aircraft noise impacts, the increase in traffic since airline deregulation has affected residential neighborhoods in more areas than were anticipated., Expansion of facilities and operations at the current airport location will further exceed the capacity of the compatible areas to absorb aircraft noise effectively. As such, the availability and application of redevelopment, relocation and development tools will be essential. It should also be noted that the extent of the applicability of the tools depends upon the eligibility area defined. Since residents and communities around MSP and around the country are aware that noise nuisance is not constrained to the federally recognized contour, it is essential that a rational, sufficiently large eligibility area in excess of the 65 DNL contour be utilized for these tools. If the area is too constrained, the best efforts of the communities will fail due to the dramatic difference in remedial capabilities inside and outside the boundary. It may be appropriate for tools to be tiered or graduated in some • way that takes into account distance from federal contours, the magnitude of change from current noise levels to post expansion levels or other criteria which recognizes the actual scope of the problem. 1. Office -Industrial Redevelopment - Concentrations of operations in northern and southwestern Eagan will increasingly make non- compatible uses even less compatible. Small pockets of residential development within these areas, such as the McKee Addition, are already bordered or surrounded by office and industrial development. The market has not yet reached a point where natural redevelopment of these areas would occur without assistance. The redevelopment of these areas will permit relocation of the affected residents while preserving tax base in more compatible uses. 2. Commercial Redevelopment - One of the areas of new noise impact from the north -south runway will be the Cedar Grove neighborhood near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13. For years this area has been anchored by the Cedarvale Shopping District which is currently in decline. In order to preserve the liveability of the area if the new runway is built, it will be essential for neighborhood services and facilities to be improved. Commercial redevelopment in this area would be one improvement in response to this need. There are also a limited number of scattered commercial properties in northern • Eagan which need to be redeveloped to better serve the employment base of the noise -compatible land uses. • 3. Residential Relocation - This use is implied by the redevelopment discussions above, but it stands as a separate category because effective relocation will need to occur in neighborhoods which may be outside of the eligible area. Relocation assistance must encompass not only housing replacement but also the obvious costs of dislocation for the resident. Other communities have current experience with programs of this kind. 4. Transportation Improvements - The City of Eagan continues to receive pressure for the rezoning and development of residential projects in noise impacted areas. This is partially due to traffic capacity constraints at interstate interchanges which affect commercial and industrial build -out within the community. The effect of the opening of the interstates on development was anticipated by MKDOT, but its scope was not. Lower intensity uses offer property owners a quicker return, despite their not being the highest and best use of the property. To insure the optimum developability of noise compatible uses within these areas of Eagan, a variety of transportation improvements will be necessary including interchange modifications, additional overpasses and arterial improvements. • 5. Sound Insulation - For those areas too extensive for redevelopment, expanded sound insulation assistance would be essential. Like relocation assistance, the extent of noise nuisance justifying remediation extends dramatically beyond the federally accepted contours. In no case should residents be the uncompensated carriers of the actual environmental costs of airport expansion. These costs must be recognized, externalized and compensated. 6. Community Amenities - New and upgraded neighborhood and community amenities should also be eligible costs for noise related financing tools to contribute to neighborhood stabilization, particularly in locations where residential development is too extensive to feasibly implement noise compatible redevelopment. Absent the parkway and the lakes, South Minneapolis residential areas might be even more impacted by noise than has been the case to date. The presence of quality recreational and community amenities may partially offset the impacts of expanded aircraft noise in Eagan neighborhoods as well. 7. Property Value Guarantees - This tool can either be used in concert with sound insulation or as a separate tool to stabilize neighborhoods affected by noise but not sufficiently impated to justify redevelopment. Since patterns of traffic • at the existing airport create substantial effects to the south over Eagan and expansion at the existing site will only add to the impacts, such a program will be essential. 8. Residential Noise Impact Tax Credits - Realtors and homeowners • often cite aircraft noise as a factor which depresses home values by limiting the market for the property. Unfortunately, many tax assessors do not take noise into account and compare the properties' values to homes not affected by noise. Such homeowners would benefit by a credit recognizing their impact from the regional benefit of the airport. Credits are the appropriate vehicle since adjustments in value in themselves would place the impact on the local taxing jurisdictions rather than the region. n U 0 • TO: FROM: DATE: • TEL: AIRPORT RELATIONS Jun 22,95 11:41 No.004 P.02 ARC CURRENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE JUNE 2111996 SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT MEMO On June 19, 1995, the Current Operations Subcommittee of the city of Eagan's Airport Relations Commission (ARCO) met from 6:30 p.m, to apprmdmately 7:00 p.m. in the municipal center. The topics that were discussed are listed below, along with a summary of the discussion, results. [of -7= =.1'. .411'1, - ilSll =0=011 � • 1 �.• The Subcommittee took notice of the recent appearance before the full Commission of several citizens to comment on airplane noise. Some of these citizens are from neighborhoods located in the eastern part of the city. We also learned that calls to the MAC complaint line from those areas have Increased In the past year. These Incidents seem to be part of a pattern of an increased perception of airplane noise by city residents. The Subcommittee Is Interested in correlating the data on airport and flight operations which MAC reports, or could report, to the noise impacts experienced by city residents. The operations data could potentially be an objective means for reinforcing the anecdotal information given to us by affected citizens. As the ARC members may recall, during the June 13 meeting, a list of questions and proposals was submitted to the Commission by the Eagan Cffizens Airport Noise Committee. The Subcommittee reviewed Assistant City Administrator Hohenstein's June 19 memo, entitled'EAGAN CITIZENS AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS/PROPOSALS; which provides answers or comments In regard to these Rams. As indicated in that memo, further action is pending in regard to several of the questions and proposals. Ih ms Referred to the Subcommittee by the Comnrlsslon We nwd reviewed a June 19 memo on the subject of 'AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS IMPACTS - NORTH AND EAST EAGAN' This memo (copy attached) summarizes the Items which the ARC referred to the Current Operations Subcommittee during the June 13 ARC meeting. The Subcommittee asks that item number 5 in that memo (i.e., a review and recommendation on whether or not to'Dlsmantle the RUS and Push for Distributional Equtty) be re-referred to the Long Tenn Planning Subcommittee. R-95% (^ t 06-22-95 11:43AM P002 1124 TEL: �._ Jun 22,95 11:41 No.004 P.03 The Subcommittee reviewed the ARC recommendations which will be considered by the city council at its next meeting. The ARC is recommending that the council take a position on several issues, Including the four Items discussed in the June 16 memo entitled, 4AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - CURRENT AIRPORT OPERATIONS! The four items discussed in that memo are: 1. Improve Compliance with Current Corridor Standards, 2. Improve Late Night and Offpeak Compliance with Corridor Standards, 3. MAC and MASAC Representation, 4. Additional ANOMS Monitors. in regard to the'Additlonal ANOMS Monitors" item, the Subcommittee adopted the position that an ANOMS site is needed now In the neighborhoods near Highway 13 in order to secure 'baseline' noise data for that part of the city (i.e., before Runway 4/22 is extended and before a potential norMouth runway Is added). • The Subcommittee noted that the city council will also be asked to adopt ARC recommendations favoring: (1) a land banking alternative In the dual -track EIS; and (2) a potential role for Eagan in the lawsuit which Richfield has initiated over the 4/22 extension (conditioned upon first reaching agreement with Richfield over acceptable and non -acceptable outcomes). South Turnouts from Corridor • The Subcommittee also spent some time discussing the broad topic of Eagan overflights, in combination with the apparently widespread perception that aircraft are flying over the city with greater frequency and with a greater dispersion than was the case one, two, or three years ago. The Subcommittee decided to extend this discussion over several meetings In an attempt to more fully define exactly what factors might contribute to an aircraft flying south of a 105 degree heading while over Eagan. Obviously, there will be a great number of such factors over which neither ARC nor the city has any Influence; such as the weather, a flight's destination, an general increase in the number of air operations, and air -safety protocols. However, the Subcommittee Is Interested in identifying factors which we may be able to Influence, and in exploring strategies which might influence the degree to which these factors vary between flights. Examples of these types of factors might be pilot discretion, company polices, and the type of tower or controller instructions given to the pilot. Our initial activities on this project will be to Invite representatives from a few airline companies to future meetings in order to get an Idea of how their company's policies may affect flight -paths. -Submitted by: L.Stariche (6/21195) sz) • • Eagan citizens airport noise committee 1. Review data on the different airplane flight paths for the weekends of April Nth and May 5th. 2. Request from MAC how the flight paths of each plane is determined. How and when the commands for direction change are given. 3. What effect does the. wind have on the aircraft during take -off and landings and how does this effect there flight paths. 4. What concerns are there if the aircraft make a more rapid decent into the airport on latenight landings. What altitude could they fly in at at what point would they have to start their decent. 5. Propose that the aircraft make a more rapid accent at takeoff. 5000 feet at.3 miles. 6. Propose that the aircraft fan at miles during daytime operation 7. Propose that late night flights go out 5 miles before they start their.turn. 8. Propose that late night flights utilize the center of the corridor for landing or take -offs. 9. Why is Eagan the preferred runway for daytime, latenight and early morning flights when Eagan has the highest number of noise complaints in the metro area. 10. Why is there not an equal distribution of the aircraft. Should we not utilize runways 4 &22 on low traffic times. Propose that we increase the usage on low traffic times. 11. Review the population map, or development map from 1990 through 1995 on a yearly comparison. 12. Request a more detailed map of Eagan (only) with the Anoms flight tracking shown on a weekly basis. 13. Show the locations of the noise monitoring microphones on this same scale detailed map. 14. Request a mobile noise monitoring system to be used by qualified Eagan citizens. 15. When is the expansion for runway 4 planned? How long will it be under construction? 16. When will runway 29L shutdown for rebuild? When it reopens how is the traffic pied? 17. What traffic is planned to stay on runway 4 when all runways are open? 18. Can we get a proposed flight route after the expansion of runway 4 for takeoffs and landings from runway 4. is 441 _city of eagan TO: BOB MAYER MIKE PADDEN • FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 19, 1995 MEMO SUBJECT: EAGAN CITIZENS AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS/PROPOSALS At last Tuesday's ARC meeting, the Eagan Citizens Airport Noise Committee presented a list of questions and proposals for the Commission's consideration. Answers or a status for each is outlined below. Where information is necessary from the FAA or MAC, that is noted. 1. Review flight track data from the weekends of April 29 and May 5. A request for this Information was submitted to the MAC on June 8. 2. What is the method for assigning flight tracks of each plane and when are instructions given to change direction? The control tower assigns aircraft an initial heading which should be in the corridor. As a part of the instruction, the tower tells the pilot to contact departure control. The pilot will switch to departure control when the aircraft is airborne and °cleaned up° meaning that the landing gear is up, the flaps are adjusted and so on. This can occur over several miles of climb. Once the pilot contacts departure, they should give them a heading toward a gate in the sky from which they will get enroute instructions to their destination. Since the pilot contacts each successsive controller as he/she is able, instructions may be received at various locations resulting in varying areas being overflown by different headings. 3. What are the effects of wind on take -off and landing? Wind affects both take -offs and landings. Because landings are lined up with the runway, either visually or electronically, they can crab into the wind and follow a relatively accurate course to the airport. Take offs are vectoring or flying at angles away from a point. Like a boat crossing a current, they may be pointed in one direction while actually drifting sideways resulting in a different track over the ground. 4. What concerns are there if aircraft were to make a steeper descent into the airport at night? At what altitude can they approach the airport and at what point do they need to begin their descent? The FAA and/or MAC need to address this issue. Aircraft operate between minimum and maximum altitudes in the airport vicinity and there is a standard glide slope. FAA and MAC need to explain how this works and what the possibilities are. 5. Propose that aircraft make a more rapid ascent on take -off. (5,000' @ 3 miles) The City is supporting an effort with the other northern Dakota County cities to request testing of steeper departure profiles to get aircraft away from noise sensitive areas vertically. Since aircraft performance varies widely by aircraft type and weight, 5,000' may not be achievable by three miles for all aircraft, but some combination of distance and altitude is the point of the five cities' position. 6. Propose that the aircraft fan at three miles during the daytime. This is the current operating standard, that aircraft may begin turns to their • destinations after three miles. The City is demanding that aircraft adhere to this standard. Obviously, turns are not necessary for aircraft that are generally headed east. It is highly unlikely that further fanning would reduce Impact in eastern Eagan and may actually intensify it If some aircraft that would have made more gradual turns to the south did so more quickly. 7. Propose that late night flights go out five miles before turning. The City is supportive of the 105 degree heading toward the middle of the corridor at low traffic and late night periods as Is currently required by the FAA tower order. This may have the same effect as extending the corridor by having aircraft farther north before beginning their turns. The ARC Current Operations Subcommittee is also discussing the development of a standard instrument departure (SID) for the same purpose. Such a procedure may also permit a discussion of extending the corridor and narrowing it for late night operations. B. Propose that late night flights utilize the center of the corridor. The 105 degree heading discussed above approximates the center of the corridor. 9. Why is Eagan the preferred runway at all hours despite having the highest number of complaints? . The area southeast of the airport is preferred because of the concentration of 33 compatible land uses such as commercial, industrial and parks and open space. • The concept is to concentrate noise where there are the fewest sensitive receivers. Higher concentrations of residential development exist closer to the runway ends on all other sides of the airport. Eagan has long taken the position that this concept should be carried to its obvious extreme and avoid people southeast of the airport, too. The FAA and MAC do not adjust policy from month to month depending upon, complaints, but they do assume that no problem exists where there are no complaints. 10. Why is there not an equal distribution of the aircraft? Should we not utilize Runway 4/22 on low traffic times? Propose that we increase the usage on low traffic times. For the majority of the day, air traffic is at a level which requires two runways operating simultaneously. This can only be done on the parallel runways between Minneapolis and Eagan/Mendota Heights. The single 4/22 runway between St. Paul and Bloomington/Richfield can only be used at relatively low traffic periods and should be maximized at those times. Even so, the current runway use system maintains some element of traffic over the corridor even in low traffic periods. 11. Review the population map from 1990 through 1995 on a yearly basis. The most complete population data Is from the 1990 census. More recent population figures are based on estimates. We can do an analysis, but it would . also be necessary to determine what we wish to compare the changing population to in order to narrow the analysis. 12. Request a more detailed Eagan map with ANOMS flight tracking data shown on a weekly basis. The City has previously requested that the ANOMS base map include city boundaries. There are some obvious challenges to doing this in black and white. ANOMS data is already reported on a weekly basis with separate maps for departures and arrivals. MAC will need to respond to this request. 13. Show the locations of the noise monitors on the same scale map. The MAC base map does show noise monitor locations. The City has previously requested that consistent scales be used from map to map to permit easier comparisons. 14. Request a mobile noise monitoring system to be used by qualified Eagan residents. The City is requesting more permanent monitor locations with full ANOMS capabilities. The City would also consider supporting a formal request from residents for a mobile facility. MPCA can also provide temporary monitors for • specified periods of time. • 15. When is the extension of Runway 4/22 planned and how long will it take? The runway extension is expected to begin as soon as the MAC and Richfield settle their lawsuit. It will take at least one full construction season from the time it begins. 16. When will Runway 11 R/291- be dosed for reconstruction? What traffic patterns are planned when it reopens? The south parallel construction will probably begin in 1997 or 1998. It is simply a rebuilding of the existing runway and will not add capacity or change runway use patterns when completed. 17. What traffic will remain on Runway 4/22 when all runways are open? The MAC hopes to redirect some of the traffic from south Minneapolis to Runway 22 over Bloomington and Richfield after the extension. This will account for eight to ten percent of traffic and will not diminish traffic southeast of the airport. 18. What are the proposed flight tracks after Runway 4/22 is extended? The proposed flight tracks are available in the 4/22 EIS. Staff will provide that • information to the residents. Please get in touch with me If any of this information raises more questions. I would also be happy to review the 4/22 EIS with you or lend you a copy to review. Thank you for your interest in this area. I hope that our combined efforts can bring some positive results for the neighborhood and the community. _ Acinz ssOant to the City Administrator cc: Fagan Airport Relations Commission 0 4b� city of aagan THOMAS EGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Council MemCers THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator i E. J. VAN OVERSEKE City Clerk June 21, 1995 MARK SALMEN NORTHWEST AIRLINES 5101 NORTHWEST DR ST PAUL MN 55111-3034 Dear Mark: To confirm our telephone conservation, this letter is to invite you to the Eagan Airport Relations Commission Current Operations Subcommittee meeting on Monday, July 17, at 5:30 p.m. at the Eagan Police facility at 3830 Pilot Knob Road. The purpose of the meeting is to help educate Commission members on the ways that pilots are trained to respond to air traffic control instructions. I am certain that many of the questions will focus on corridor procedures and aircraft performance. In addition to yourself, it Is the Intention of the subcommittee to Invite a representative from a different airline to determine whether there are any significant training differences. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this meeting. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, n Hohenstein Assistant to the ,City Administrator JDHfvmd MUNICIPAL CENTER 38M PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1897 PHONE: (612) 6814600 FAX (612) 661-4612 TDD:(612) 454.8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equol Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer n 0 MAINTENANCE FACILITY. 5501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681-4300 FAX: (612) 681-4360 TDD: (612)454-8535 CJ 0 11 •�" a.wrti.�;k —city of Wawa" TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CHAIR TODD AND AIRPORT RELATIONS C CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 27, 1995 MEMO SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP -SENATOR WIENER -NEIGHBORHOOD NOISE MEETING Senator Deanna Wiener hosted a meeting on Monday, June 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Conference Rooms concerning aircraft noise issues in eastern Eagan. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss what the City's legislative delegation may be able to do to affect MAC representation or other aspects of aircraft noise. Residents of eastern Eagan neighborhoods and Eagan Airport Relations Commission members were present. Representative Tim Pawlenty, MAC Commissioner Louis Miller and a representative of Representative Bill Luther's office also attended. Mr. Miller is the representative for Eagan's MAC Commission District which is made up of Metropolitan Council Districts 15 and 16. He also serves on the MAC Planning and Environment Committee and offered to take the residents' concerns back to MAC staff. The residents asked for improvements in the length of the corridor and compliance with the standards, Improvements in the altitude of departures and increased MAC awareness of development patterns. A list of their questions and proposals is in the attachment. Mr. Miller indicated that responses to the residents concerns need to take into account other neighborhoods in Eagan and other communities around the airport Staff and ARC members agreed that aircraft noise affects other areas of Eagan as well. The group discussed the effect that increased operations and perceived changes in operations have had in the areas surrounding the airport. The group also discussed its frustration that so much impact is absorbed by areas southeast of the airport and that Dakota County only has one MAC representative for all of its diverse interests. Senator Weiner and Representative Pawlenty indicated that they can introduce legislation aimed at changing the situation, but that they would need to approach it in a way which would receive support from legislators from other affected communities. MASAC representation was also discussed with Mr. Miller because of Eagan's size and the percentage of impact It receives. Representative Pawlenty indicated that he lives in the neighborhood and knows the • situation personally. He indicated that it appears that the issue involves three aspects: runway selection, length of the corridor and fanning versus compliance with the corridor. The residents indicated that they agreed and indicated that altitude of operations is also an issue. Senator Wiener adjourned the meeting at 8:00 and suggested that the group meet again in three to four weeks. tant to the City Administrator U n U Tim Pawlenty State Representative District 38B Dakota County Minnesota >` House of Representatives COMMITTEES: GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS: STATE GOVERNMENT FINANCE DIVISION; GENERAL LEGISLATION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND ELECTIONS: ELECTIONS DIVISION; INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION June 15, 1995 Bob Mayer 3949 Avon Court Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Bob: Enclosed please find a letter which I received from Pierson Grieve, Chairman of the MAC, in response to the letter I sent to him, requesting information. • I believe the enclosed letter is informative and will be helpful to us as we attempt to address airplane noise concerns in a meaningful fashion. As I indicated to you during a recent telephone message, the enclosed letter indicates "it's absolutely essential to point out that MAC can only request FAA to implement various operational procedures. FAA has sole jurisdiction over where aircraft may fly." If that is the case, ultimately our target audience will need to be the FAA with MAC perhaps being the most effective voice to make recommendations to the FAA. In that regard, a two -track approach might be most appropriate with contacts to federal representatives requesting a dialogue with FAA officials being one track and a simultaneous track involving state and local officials attempting to influence the MAC. • In any event, I believe the enclosed information will be helpful and I will make enough copies of the enclosed materials to bring to the organizational meeting which is apparently being scheduled by you and Senator Wiener. Please let me know the date of that meeting and I will make every effort to attend. Thank you, Bob, for your interest and efforts regarding this important issue. I look forward to working with you further. Very truly o` Tim Pawlenty State RepresentyZ�ire _ _ k A 1 Wv-I 4117 Country View Detre, Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 688-6105 State Office Building, 100 Constitution Ave, St. Paul, Minnesota 551551298 (612) 296-4128 .� House Fax (612) 296-3949 TDD (612) 296.9896 Remote Monitoring Site Locations Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System • • 0 Has olis FS/1 • F /8 F /9 F/ F 1 1• FS/4 O 0 • • FS/3 •F 10 O• FS/6 • FS/1 FS FS/7 • FS/1 F5 18 • 23 • • F5/13 k ,FS/ 19 • F /18 • •'F 4 FS/21 {% (1 FS/17 Inver H ghts 1/ � • FS �O�IIgtCII F ' O O 4 vy 10000 It Cu 4 • 0 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION • Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport r t 6040. 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 a Fax (612) 726-5296 May 30. 1995 Tim Pawlemy State Representative District 38B - Dakota County State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative Pawlemy: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns regarding aircraft operations southeast of the D irmeapol-,e-St. Paul Intanational Airport (MSP). In order to best address aircraft noise over Eagan. a brief history of noise mitigation at MSP is necessary. When considering noise distribution equitability, noise level and intensity of impact must be considered. An aircraft producing 90 dBA measured on the ground one to two miles from the airport, produces about • 75 dBA six to seven miles from the airport. Both levels create an impact for residents, but the intensity of impact is significantly different. No mater what the initial noise level, distance from the airport equates to altitude above the ground, and increased distance between noise sources (aircraft) and noise receivers (residents). Consequently. noise abatement programs at MSP, and at airports around the world, have concentrated on programs addressing the most intense noise impacts - closest to the airport - before addressing those impacts farther from the ru rways. Spreading traffic over a wide area (so-called fanning), is a valid noise abatemez, technique when no preferable alternatives exist. In the case of areas south through northwest through northeast of MSP, a nearly homogeneous developmem of residential land use exists. No direction for aircraft depatmms provides lesser residential noise impact than another direction. On the other hand, to the southeast, thanks to efforts on the part of Eagan, Mendota Heights, the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). land uses within three miles of the runway ends are predominantly river bottom. commercial. and industriaL This allows the highest imensity noise (when aircraft are dose to the airport and departing) to be concentrated over an area purposefully ftrtended to exclude residemial development. Land use policies dose to an airport represent the most powerful noise abatement tool availahle The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) overflies compatible land uses wherever possible, and through the Part 150 Program, encourages development and protection of compatible Lod uses as its top noise abatement strategy. Distegeoding an opportunity to utilize a cOmmerdWAndustrial "oomdoe' like the one ,southeast of MSP would be irresponsible noise,obatemew policy on the part of the Metropolitan Airports Cammission- MAC's noise abatement goal is to Mirlirrmim the highest ilmm'lty anise impacts by affecting the lowest number of residents close to the auport. 'Ibis requires assigning areas closest to the airport the highest priority relative to noise abatement strategy. To the northwest, over south Minneapolis and north Richfield, this implies spreading the highest imensity noise imp er a greater area, since no favorable direction The Metropolitan Airports V an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRlAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL . FLYING CLOUD . LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN exists to impact the fewest residents. The same technique must be employed for departures southwest, over • south Richfield and Bloomington, and northeast over Highland Park A long standing noise mitigation operational procedure at the Minneapolis -St. Paxil International Airport has been m direct as many aircraft operations as possible over the more noise compatible land use areas of Eagan and Mendota Heights, southeast of the airport. Significant industrial, office, and commercial zoning and development have been purposely concentrated in this commedal/mch strial "corridor". Aircraft were to remain north Of the extended centerline of the south parallel runway to avoid overflying areas south of the commerciaUmdustrial "corridor', especially the Highview neighborhood in Eagan. The northern boundary was essentially an operational limitation due to the proximity of the St Paul Downtown Airport. Public review of corridor utilization dates back to 1%8, and in 1969, the Preferential Runway System (PRS) formalized a publiclairpor/users consensus to concentrate aircraft overflights over the Minnesota River bottoms and the predominantly commercial/industrial land uses within three miles of MSP, in Eagan and Mendota Heights. Various adjustments and refinements to the Corridor occurred during the 1980s. In 1989, after much public debate, federal lawsuits, a 180 -day test with exhaustive analysis, and a number of environmental assessments, the basic principle of continued fin priority overflight of the river bottoms and the Eagan - Mendota Heights commerciaUundustrial corridor was reaffirmed in the Runway Use System (RUS): a refinement to the original PRS. The RUS, implemented in 1990, provides direction to controllers regarding how traffic should flow at MSP, within the constraints of wind, weather, and traffic volume. The RUS procedures are,highlighted below: RUS Priced - Daytom • �i Use Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor to greatest extent possible. ♦ Maximize use of Runway 04122 alone and in cambittadon with Corridor. RUS Procedure - Night (11 Pi- 6AM-1 ♦ Maximize use of Fagao/Hfendota Heights Corridor for both arriving and deputing traffic (read -co-head). ♦ Use Runway 04122 when corridor operations are not possible. Use in a balanced manner. Its absolutely essential to point out that MAC can only request FAA to implement various operational procedures. FAA has sole jurisdiction over where aircraft may fly. This is not so much "buck passing" between agencies. but rather. the reality that allows the complex National Airspace System to operate safely and efficiently. Even when FAA agrees to -implement an airport -requested procedure, it is a "best efforts" arrangement, tempered by safety of flight, day-to-day operational consaainrs, and weather. Disregarding the noise advantages of the commercial/mdustrial corridor for southeast departures would open residential areas very close to the airport in the city of Mendota, residential area in Mendota Heights north of Highway 110, and residential areas in Eagan south of Intestate 494 (inside of three miles) to extremely intense jet aircraft noise impacts. Noise events from 90 to 100 dBA are infrequently experienced in these areas today, but would become commonplace within 12 to 3 miles of the airport if a "fanning" departure were implemented This level of intensity is unacceptable in light of the option to avoid it by operating over the commerciaLhodustrial "corridor' close to the airport. Because taking advantage of the compatible land uses in the corridor is so critical to MAC's noise abatement strategies, MAC Aviation Noise Program staff are currently working closely with FAA to help controllers live up to FAA's agreement • to maintain traffic inside the corridor. within three miles of the runway ends. Paas 2 • It is important to point out that the "corridor" extends to three miles only. The 3 -mile turn restriction is designed to protect properties in Fagan close to the airport, from repeated. high -impact overflight The turn restriction is possible because of Eagan and Mendota Heights' maintenance of basically commercial/ industrial land uses within three miles of MSP. Beyond throe miles, no restriction on aircraft departure operations exists. Runway assignment is basically a function of traffic volume and wind conditions, with requirements of the RUS (cited above) applied to the greatest extent. At MSP, during high volume traffic hours, the parallel runways (29IAWIIL&R) are required to handle operational demand. Since 98% of all traffic arrives or departs MSP between 6 AM and 11 P.M, the airport operates on the parallel runways most of the time. Wind speed and direction, coupled with the conditions of the RUS determine wbether the flow of traffic will be from northwest to southeast (departing over Eagan/Mendota Heights), or southeast to northwest (arriving over FagaNMendota heights). FAA's Controller's Handbook recommends assigning a wind favored runway when wind speeds are 8 !mots or higher. Below 8 (mots, runway selection is at the discretion of the controller, coupled with the requirements of the RUS. Equally important is that the corridor does not accommodate all the air traffic at MSP. During the most recent month (April 1995). MAC's Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) recorded that jet operations over communities southeast of the airport accounted for about 52% of the operations. However. closer -in neighborhoods in south Minneapolis and north Richfield accommodated fully 44% of the jet overflights. The following table reflects the past nine months of data. Community Overflight Analysis • Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Areas southeast of MSP experience slightly more total overflight traffic because of Nighttime RUS use of the Fagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. Because the volume of air traffic at MSP demands use of the parallel runways most of the time, use of the crosswind runway (Runway 04!22) is minima, Again, because of the Minnesota River botmms. and the Fagan -Mendota Heights industriWcommacial land use. the first priority for noise considerations between l I P.M and 6 AM is the area southeast of MSP. Tbough there have been no changes in airspace p ricedtnes, and the RUS functions as it las since Implementation in 1990. traffic at MSP has increased steadily over the past several years, and aircraft Operations reached their highest level in August 1994. With the increased traffic, MAC Aviation Noise Programs staff recognized significant numbers of aircraft south of the desired "tended centerline of the • south parallel runway. Though this transgression of the "southern boundary" of the corridor is not a violation of any air rules, it does highlight an agrced-upon procedure between the FAA and MAC. Therefore. MAC staff are working closely with FAA tower personnel to insure aircraft maintain agreed- upon areas within the corridor boundaries, to the greatest extent possible. Corridor te9nemmt is an ongoing issue, and though communities to the east of Eagan hotly comes[ maintaining the 3 -mile turn restriction ler alone extending the corridor w the east, it remains MAC policy to protect areas closest to the airport from undue impact, to the greatest extern possible. The Metropolitan Airports Commission encouraged community members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) to address the corridor issue during the mid-1980s. After futilely wrestling with the problem for three years. MAC's Executive Director appointed a "Blue Ribbon Committee" of parties directly involved with the issue. As far as community participation. Eagan and Mendota Heights were appointed because they adjoin the airport, had successfully dealt with land use issues relating to the corridor, and were exposed to the most intense noise impacts southeast of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Because the extent of basic land use protection in Mendota Heights and Eagan extended approximately to three miles from the ends of the parallel runways. the previous agreement was maintained - with the Federal Aviation Administration to issue tum instructions after aircraft were three miles from the runway to help maintain the integrity of this commercial/industrial corridor. As with every public policy, trade-offs in benefits impact the most well-intentioned proposals. With respect to maintaining the integrity of the commercial/Industrial corridor, frequency of overflights for small pockets of residential uses inside of three miles from the runway ends is the immediate cost for protecting as many residents as possible from excessive aircraft noise levels. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is firmly dedicated to an extensive Part 150 Land Use Compatibility program to address those residential areal close to the airport impacted by intense noise levels. Part 150 utilizes soundproofing, purchase guarantee, property acquisition, and combinations of these land use compatibility techniques, to alleviate • intense noise impacts. Fairaesss is an issue with respect to noise impacts. However. numbers of overflights mut be weighted by nearness to the airport because aircraft close to the facility are closer m the ground. creating a greater impact than they do farther out. Retaining a compatible land use corridor is not the final word on corridor issues. Moving ahead with a corridor -narrowing proposal is just one phase in an on-going effort to minimi x noise impacts for all airport neighbors. This position has been made clear on numerous occasions. MAC has explicitly stated that staff would address the most intense impacts closest to the airport, then move farther out to refine procedures. This avenue is chosen precisely bemuse the Metropolitan Airports Commission does not represent one or two neighborhoods, but rather communities throughout the metropolitan area An airport Proprietor must exercise effective management by making the best decision based on the available knowledge. Taking no action, or reversing se=ble noise abatement policy recognized the world -ova, would be irresponsible. Again, MAC policy is to minimise noise impacts for airport neighbors. Those closest to the airport are burdened with the most onerous noise impacts and should be addressed first. The aext step is to consider options for airspace management beyond three miles from the airport. Spreading aircraft overflights over a wider area does not necessarily spread noise impacts ant -fairly". In the case of areas north, west and south of the airport, fanning represents an attempt at equitali ty because of the homogeneous distribution of residential development This so-called 'Yarning" presents itself as the bet alternative given the available technologies. However, MAC is often attacked for not reducing noise . 8mpact, but merely "spreading it our". By overflying less populated areas in the industrial/commercial corridor, we realize an oppormnity to actually reduce intense noise impacts on residential areas. MAC's ANOMS system, utilizing radar tracking information. continuous noise monitoring data, and sophisticated analysis tools available in MAC's Geographic Information System (GIS), provides. a multi -dimensional • view of airport operations previously unavailable. The most sophisticated of its kind in the world. ANOMS helps the airport, surrounding communities, and the Federal Aviation Administration reach reasonable, viable conclusions regarding how to operate the the most responsible manner possible. In the • short term, it will help MAC's aviation Noise Programs staff more aggressively insure existing agreements are maintained. Included with this response is a copy of the latest MASAC Technical Advisor's Report. Summarizing recent ANOMS data The report contains summary statistics for all the noise monitors located around the airport. n For additional comparative purposes, I've included the following analysis. Let a "significant' aircraft noise event be one greater than 85 dBA. To illustrate the effect of distance from the airport on magnitude of aircraft noise events, the following table lists the number of noise events greater than 85 dBA during April 1995, at eight of MAC's Remote Monitoring Towers (F MTs), and each RMTs' distance from the runway ends. The attached map illustrates the location of each RMT relative to the airport. Selected RNITs and Number of Aircraft Noise Events Greater than 85 dBA - April 1995 Clearly- sites closer to the airport experience significantly higher noise impact. In fact, the number of noise events greater than 85 dBA is much more than an order of magnitude (up to 60 rimes) greater at 1 to 2 miles from the runway ends, compared to 5 to 7 miles away. This raw data is a graphic representation of why areas closest to the airport are traditionally considered first in noise abatement methodologies. Because non-residential areas exist dose to the airport off the southeast side, those areas receive the first priority in aircraft overflight Each community surrounding the airport perceives its impacts to be greaoer than they should be exposed to. we understand this perspective, and agree that the given impacts should be minim;zed to thet einem possible. It Must be noted that airspace decision-making is not accomplished by considering y the airspace above individual communities. Noise impact per Right is approximately equal at equal distances from the airport In general. that impact lessens the farther a receiver is from the runway. Theret'ore, in considering impact at distances farther from the aapoM member and frequency of overflights provides a reasonable measure of impact. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is prepared to work with FAA and the various communities surrounding the airport using ANOMS generwed data to review alternative airspace management techniques to minimize distant noise impacts. ( ps I sincerely hope this addresses the issues you raise in an honest, and straightforward manner. Though these • answers may not be the ones you were looking for, they should provide insight into the complexities surrounding the aircraft noise challenge. Many programs are underway addressing the noise challenge, but I hope my response helps illuminate the realities under which MAC functions. Because we simply are unable to operate with the autonomy necessary to bring sweeping changes to the environment around the airport. neither MAC, nor the Governor's Office, nor state or federal legislators can singularly effect large scale change. Collectively, airport proprietors, state and local governments, the federal government, and airport neighbors can bring about change. But because of the disparate interests, and the number of players. change historically has come slowly and in small doses. As we continue to move ahead in the noise abatement arena,l sincerely believe our "neat generation" aviation noise efforts will build upon the successes and failures of our past programs and bring meaningful change to noise impacted communities. S' y. SZLiL�I ��^ Pi Grieve vvv attachment Pap 6 n U • .4'1 %iQar eR s9'11 /Toeti CtCa'duw _ .SS/27 6El-$0A7 �r,CP.1 �i�an - � l✓eP� a- G a.- srlev 6 f6 -76r-& £a ionnff+( sS-o W ti� 3 4S Re �t _Ciq k r�vt -- �a�a�a•� SS�21 b�6 �'SZS Dance Sfarich4 3446 neoj*own c -t '%7 A-kP S'hltl c2 t�� ,rs Z G� - � z O Sue. 9 ar .j 7 - mo? �. Cl;tt-�cCi• 3�wN-sv;/(2,l4NSr3-7 2- Z, a und:tures, leaving the city th an extra $1.2 million. 'The City Council is very con. 'votive and has been for a long is. The management team is ry `rugal and so are the de- rtments in their operations,' dges said. Credit for the positive balance a given to all departments. r example, the Community velopment Department spent 12,000 law than was budgeted AUDM To Page 14A Rainbow of dreams Eagan High. School's Class of 1996 proceeds on to the field for greduatlon eeremodea June IL More area high, school grad• nation photos can be found on Page 9A. (BM Jonexatat! photographer) Jeighbors seek representation on airport issues menty agrees research idea r new Sue Hegarty If Writer Eager residents upsel`about noise in northeast neighbor• hoods don't think their com— plaints are being heard. In April, two neighborhoods registered more than 60 com- plaints each to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Three other neighborhoods in he vicinity made between 11 Pod 26 calla Complaints came from Hawthorne Woods. Aspen Ridge, Bridle Ridge, Stone- bridge, Coventry Pass, Stonebri- er, Country Hollow and Autumn Ridge neighborhoods. Jon Hohenstein, Eagan's as- sistant city administrator, .said the complaint hotline (726.9411) is a recording mechanism, not a method for change. 'It's not an instantaneous re. sponse where corrective action is taken,' Hohenstein said. Bob Mayer lives in the Stons. brier neighborhood and is one of me ean teacher learned rom Eagan High students Melissa Ber"itiet ff Writer Chore was a time when English was as ign ss Minnesota to Eladio Donee gut in the past year, both have become mdhand. )onoso, a native of Chile, is a Fulbright 'lar teacher, who taught English as a end Language (ESL) at Eagan High Dol during the past school year. - n Chile, Donoso said he teaches Eng - as ■ foreignlag* to his students, which is different than English as a sec• and language. Students who are learning English as a foieign language need the language for attending college or reading textbooks, he said. However, students learning English as a second language need it for communica- tion in everyday life, he said. "We harder to teach English as a sea and language, especially since it's not my TEACHERI To Page 19A the people trying to organics a neighborhood coalition Mayer's goal is to get an Eagan resident appointed to MAC. Commission - era represent districts. Eagan is in District H which includes all Dakota County. Zonis Miller of Farmington is the District H commissioner. 'He really doesn't have a first-hand experience of the kind ofproblemwe hays.' Meyer said. Be Mayer went to his neigh - bo,. Rep. Tim Pawlenty, M -38B, asked for legislation to cre- ate a new district for Eagan Pawlenty said he would imp. port the plan end has began to research the possibility. 'We're getting kind of the short end ofthe stick. It's not un- reasonable for Eagan to get a NOME: To Page 19A rekindics fixev o�rl s�iow� By Bae Hegarty; a s a` � pp a�atalle at W"N' and Lej(an.lpa Staff Writer, ° lioa.will durst traffic Aleohol;w111 bs Laded raefd"ente s� hegld pract►d diacouiragedad lfie�gan Pohte Chief Inc air "Oohs' and "Aahs' The y pat Gragap s FourW of July fireworks display wh[dt The' Lion's CIW%: which lied had been canceled hoe been reached• r► i tko pbarth ofJaly ceh+braefonn ibc Wed to an'alternata`. more tha:t'20 year l� canceled the 9ta Cify otiicialr received antiaMration >` worlu.ehm this year due to sooitruo� from the Federal Aviation Adminietre- $op on thaformersite. Tbeoarolval and :tion to offer a 20 -minute show on the'; parade remail paneled hrthie.yeat: grounds of Blue Cross Blue, Shield of city and'BCBS:o®dide worked to:" Minnesota et Highway 13 and Yankee : ((' ilther to pro" the altaenate alta Doodle hoed Fireworks will be Th The d}y la purchasing, 0,@00 bi t 10 p.m. There ire abort ZA00 ibr the,P.0 ?il?. " • • Apple VhftMoswWur4Eagan • 1005 IDA INoise: Complaints rise in, summer months ftPrge lou representative (on MAC),• Paw- lenty said The plan would require a change in statute. One commissioner Som each ofthe 12 districts is appointed by the governor. In addition, the mayors of St. Paul and Min- neapolis appoint one member. Z don't know why we'd give St. Pad a representative and not Eagan. The data dearly shows Eagan is experiencing more of the traffic,' Pawlenty said Air traffic at MinnespolielSt. Paul International Airport (MSP) is supposed to fly within an established three-mile corri. dor prior to turning over resi- dential areae. Residents say more and more planes are not flying within the designated cor- ridor. onridor. elf they did, they wouldn't be Teacher: ,tea From Page lA ��IfT native language' he said N., Donoso.said that teaching ESL was a challenge at first be. cause of the differences between spoken and written language. Tve need a lot ofShakespeare and know the grammar,• he said. But that's not how people talk.* Since he's been teaching at EHS, he's learned conversation- al slang, as well as how to say good morning in 14 different Ian - Pages. . . . Don000 eyed teaching RSL ' --gale the class was a melting 7 don't know why we'd give St. Paul a iW?wentadve and not Eagan.' — Rep. Tim Pawlenty flying over our neighborhoods,• Mayer said. Once pilots clear the corridor, which ends at about Knox Lum- ber in Eagan, they may turn to. ward their destination. Last July. MAC began tracking the percentage of flights which stray from the corridor. At fust, there was about a 90 percent noncom- pliance, but that hes been re- duced to about 20 percent, Ho- henstAn said Shakespeare Perhaps what residents are perceiving as increased noise stems from the increased num- ber of flights. There are about 100 more daily operations than last year. Hohenstein said. Other factors which might create leas tolerance of airplane noise include season, weather, type of aircraft and frequency of (fights. Noise complaints increase during warmer weather, Hohen. stein said. As residents begin to open their windows and spend more time outside, the noise is more noticeable, he said. Cloud cover and wind direction also are noise factors, he said. If the northeast neighbor- hoods form a graeeroota action group, Hohenstein said the Eagan Airport Relations Com- mission would be willing to work with them. Aaimilar action group formed in the 19MM called Eagan Noise Abatement Committee. 'There is some weight carried with each. Ifyou can combine the two, you increase your chances for success,• Hohenetein said. TRY NEW CANINE W!%oNw wee 'Tent tatin' living quarters Shellagh tasey, 6. leads her fellow 1r,.'am Tessseaat students into the tent daring the school's Outdoor Summer Adventures program at Camp Sacgjawea in Apple Valley June 16. (Hill Jonea teff Photographer) �V YY1 funds 'for ythe 1906.06 school year, It calla fdr sabatantial funding deereems in the follow• big years, Hare said. Joel Sutter, District 196 di. rector of support services, said the fund balance In the general fund is expected to increase from $2.6 million this year to $4.6 mil. Bon at the end of the 1906.96 school year. uc vu re up W roe board, tiers, said. — . owe .&I * Ike;save i Commit• We that will debate aiiUMQuak those issues,' he @aid.'fhere are some tough Issues coming up, but, Be you all know, i believe the committee process works.' The task force will meet dur. ng July and present its reWm- Imendatioas to the board in An. gust Hary said. Remote runway project expected to cost $4.3 billion Hy Mike Wastholder Staff Writer Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) members were told last month that a remote runway project would coat about $4.3 billion. Consultants Turner, Collie and Bran - den of Fort Worth, Texas, conducted a fea. sibility study for building a remote run. way somewhere in Dakota County that would be linked by rail to the current air port terminal at Minneapolisi t, Paul In. ternational Airport (MSP). Airport commissioners delayed their derision on the proposal until the firm submits its written report in July. The consultants are being paid $60,000 tocon. duct the study. Cost estimate for a new airport be. tween Rosemount and Hastings is about $4 billion while expanding MSP would cost $2.2 billion. A $4.3 billion price tag may prise the remote runway concept out of considera- tion, said Commissioner John Himle. 'Had the numbers come in somewhere between expanding the existing airport and building a new one, it would have been somewhat more viable; Himle said. 'Coat essentially makes it a non -option.' The cost, combined with the logistical problems of transporting passengers and luggage make the proposal all but dead, Himle said. Driving much of the cost is the con. struction of a rail system to link the ter minal to the runways, he said. That eystem would have to handle 20 mehon.pg`eeengers annually, rivaling the transit systems of many cities, Himle said. The trip from the terminal to the run. ways would take anywhere from nine to 21 minutes, dependingon the railway e". sidents 'ay�rtM;ibg�y: s . Staff Writer Mgyey who lives on resentative from f Luther's office and i lives from Easan'a tern contracted. An automated people. mover would travel at 60 mph while a high-speed rail locomotive could travel at 160 mph. The remote runway would eve. in y x �, lEivar'V tri tear• make B tw Oise over ,606 to iborhood, .dor ro L.eHne nr { a Committee also attended the meeting. The hourlong diaturhion was just the beginning to what residents hope will be more attention focused on noise abatement in Eagan. .Pawlenty and Wiener's iggostld four issues be researched: • M1 1.a taped gwati tllk ; . • , rid ANOMb-,iAlrpoK Natai aria C'booratidns Monlioring Systems) in eoutheaslsrn Eagsn to qualify nalw .. irorsconrplainta. - _..; Miller said he trenld trj+ld gef iftli': MOMS to monitor the noise level over. southeast Eagan:. . Jon Hohenstein,,Liigfl iM eeeielani': city administrator, said the city has of +' fectively planned around the. airport : and has supported the three-mile noise' coMdor over northern Eagan. The cor ridor is a designated three-mile stretch of airspace east of the airport in which departing flights are supposed to ny in before veering toward their destine tion. Residents allege that planes Are poesy a extension of the airport (fight corridor over the Minnesotah`1Ry(,YyPageeA evolve into a second airport with its own terminal, the consultants concluded. Residents from the south would went to park at the remote runway site and not drive to MSP and backtrack on the train, they said. 'People would literally drive by the air. Part on the way to the terminal only to ride back to the air strip,' Himle said. Proponents of the remote runway were disappointed with the study, said Norm Newhall of the Minnesota Public Lobby. '!t didn't study our proposal; Newhall said. 4t studied a vague, general propos. al to build somewhere in Dakota County.• The consultants used an arbitrary 20• mile distance to the runways, which is farther than the site in Rosemount pro• Posed by Newhall and others. Proponents would have the runways bent about 10 miles away fierrr MSP on 7,000 acres of land owned by the Univer. sity of Minnesota near Rosemount. They would also use railroad right at way owned by the Canadian -Pacific Rail. road which runs from the proposed vita to the Minnesota River just south of MSP. Under their proposal, the remote ran. way would cost considerably less than the estimated $4.3 billion, Newhall said. Alec, the consultants have not consid. ered the coat of building an adequate road system to Hastings if an airport is built there, he said. According to remote runway supporter Henry Snyder, road construction to Haat. Inge would cost about $1.6 billion. The railway system to Rosemount would cost about $240 million, Snyder ' RUNWAY: 1b Pr eA Mediation may avert 4=22 runway lawsuit Ri By Mlle West udder Staff Writer Mediation sessions concern. ingthe 4-29 runway extension at Pony Looking For A unique Idea I Nest Birthday Prstyt Take �. ""r" Petting Zoo Pmsf .Meeting: Research begins on abatement proposals Ministers goes. Miniature shmp. Potbellied Pigs. Rabbits R Mtge Pony A Pony Cart Rldea • Personalized Cake Provided rale the Mui out of pasty plsnolm by bringing the pony to =1 Call now to be stirs that special deft is available. theI finneapoli@43L Pad hater - national Airport resume this week in hope of resolving a dis- pute between the city of Rich- field and the Metropolitan Ain ports Commission (MAC). The Metropolitan Council int - Mated the mediation process which includes representatives ham MAC and the cities of Sidi - field, Minneapolis and Bloom- ington. According to Nacho Dias of the Met Council, the talks have been somewhat productive. 'So far, things have been going reasonably well,' he said. Met Council staff plans to make a recommeadatloa to the council by the and of the week if resolution to the conflict can't be reached through negotiations. Diez said. The Met Council requested the mediation sessions last month to try to prevent a legal battle ever the 160 mifion run- way extension. Richfield City Council has Mod lawsuits in both state and federal courts claiming the pro. ject's environmental impact study is inadequate and was im- properly conducted. Eagan's Airport Relations Commission, an,advisorycom. ads" to the City Count% abet opposes the runway extension because It will increase the noise Impact in western and southern Eagan. While the commission does not recommend that Eagan con- tribute finds to the Lawsuit at this time, it has suggested that the City Council remain ready to appropriate finds for the pend. ing lawsuit. Defendants in the suit in. dude MAC and the MinimmW Department of Transportation. If funding is authorized, on. struction will begin as aeon ns possible. Runway From Page U said. 'The consultant knew our proposal ... but com- pletely ignored these WW Newhall said. MAC staff opposes the remote runway plan and directed the oonsultante to reinforce their position, Newhall Said. 'It was away to kill the idae' he said. Newhall said his group would continue their ef- forts. For more Information and part' bookings, call: g, Pony & A Party L69 -e.1361 From Page IA leaving the earridor too early or are not ascending high enough prior to leaving the corridor. 'We have kept people away from aircraft, but the aircraft have act stayed away horn the people, Iiohensteinsaid. A lot has happened to Eagan since the noise corridor was do. signed 20 years ago. Residents want the corridor extended fivm three to five miles in order to draw traffic over brae populated areae, such as parte of Inver (Trove (Height& Miller, who lives In Lakeville, represents Dakota County mm- munities for MAC. lee fivetrat- ing, he said, because all the com- munities went to avert aircraft noise over their neighborhoods. 'The fimdamental struggle is how to make the noise level eq- uitable,' Miller said. Corridor boundaries are ultimately the decision of the Federal Aviation Administration, he said. Another strategy proposed by residents is to'change the make• up of the MAC board. 'MAC's makeup is hrdicroua Someone has to look at the over- all venall MAC concept and why it coo- tines the way it doss,'said Mike Scilla; a member of the city's Airport Relations Commission. Minneapolis and St. Paul mayoress appoint a represen- tative to MAC Yet Eagan, which reportedly receives a majority of airport noise, is lumped with other cities and represented by Miller of Lakeville. Residents, though not unbap- py with Ms71er's representation, asked how Eagan can get its own seat on the MAC board 'Deanna and I can do that,' said Pewlenty, referring to Sen- ator Wiener of Eagan. At Winner's suggestion, the group agreed to meet in a few weeks to continue their diemw skins. (OMIN4 JULY I Q2c' IN Qlm ... 11 city of aagan June 26, 1995 PIERSON GRIEVE CHAIR, METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 RE: RUNWAY 4/22 Dear Mr. Grieve: THOMASEGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACKIER £ Council Mwnbea THOMAS HEDGES City ArArnYtrator E. J. VAN OVERBEKE CITY Clerk In action taken at its meeting of June 20, the Eagan City Council formally requested that the City be included in the mediation of the Runway 4/22 litigation pending before the MAC and Metropolitan Council. The City strongly believes that Eagan and other communities in northern Dakota County which may be affected by the extension of the runway should be parties to discussions to resolve this matter. Please contact us as soon as possible regarding this request. If you have any questions, please feel free,to contact me. /SinceTTfl� ` Tom Egari Mayor cc: Curt Johnson, Metropolitan Council Chair a MUNICIPAL CENTER BUD PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 65122-IB97 PHONE: (612) 601.46W FAX (612) 681-4612 Too: (612) 454.8555 c. THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/AtNrtnatNe Action Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 6501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN. MINNESOTA $5122 PHONE: (612) 661.430D FAX (612) 681 -AW TDD: (612) 454.8535 • 41 llb�`P r city of eagen June 26, 1995 JIM PROSSER MANAGER, CITY 6700 PORTLAND RICHFIELD, MN OF RICHFIELD AVENUE 55423 RE: RUNWAY 4/22 LITIGATION Dear Mr. Prosser: THOMAS EGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Aotrwltmalor E.J. VAN OVERBEKE CRY Cart In official action taken at its meeting of June 20, the Eagan City Council authorized support for your city's lawsuit opposing the extension of Runway 4/22. In taking this action, the Council made the following findings: 1. Eagan opposes the redistribution of noise contemplated under the extension because it will not diminish impacts in northern or eastern Eagan and it will increase impacts in western and southern Eagan. 2. Eagan opposes the runway extension because it has the potential to increase capacity of MSP. 3. While the City of Eagan is not in a position to contribute funds to the lawsuit at this time, the City Council remains ready to consider the option of appropriating funds for this purpose in the future. 4. If there is a temporary redistribution of noise to accomodate reconstruction of other runways, procedures should be followed which avoid sending more traffic over Eagan. Please contact our office at your earliest convenience to discuss expanding the City of Eagan's role in this matter and with respecet to the current mediation of the issue. Separate correspondence is being forwarded to the MAC and Metropolitan Council in this regard. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, cv Tom Hedges City Administrator MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 66122.1897 PHONE: (612) 661.6600 FAX (612) 661-4612 TDD: (612) 456.8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Afl"ClWe Action Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 65122 PHONE: (612) 601.6300 FAX (612) 681.4760 TDD: (612) 450.6535 c Airport Noise Report .e�_ A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Vohime % Number 1l. Jane 7, 1"S ICAO TIGHTER NOISE STANDARDS WILL BRING FEW BENEFITS, HIGH COSTS, REPORT FINDS hnrneasms the stringency of moonanonal noise standards fm new abcraft types could coat the airlines as much as $1.7 billion and will have only minimal benefits in toms of reducing airport noise commits. according to a report by the Economic Analysis Subgroup of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee An Aviation and Environmental Protection (CAEP). The report will be discussed by members of four working groups of the CAEP Committee meeting in Bonn, Germany, June 615 to begin formulating a recom- mendation on whether to make 1CAO's noise and emission standards for new aircraft designs tighter. Final working group reports will be refined during the latter half of the year and presented at a meeting of the full CAEP committee this December in Montreal, at which point a decision will be made. It is expected that representatives of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and airlines will assert that the cost1benefit study in the economic analysis suh- group report strongly argues against any increase in noise standard stringency. But, European countries are expected to argue that, regardless of negligible benefits, the standards should be tightened because such action will be viewed by the public as (Continued on p. 82) Minneapolis/St Paul Int rl RICHFIELD ASKS EIGHTH CIRCUIT TO BLOCK RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT Me City of Richfield, MN, filed soft in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit May 25 challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's Final Environ- mental hopact Statement on a project to extend Runway 422 at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and seeking to block the airport from beginning tine F*M 7be city alleged that the Final EIS on the project was extremely inadequate and violated the National Environmental Policy Act and several other federal sunnnes. The action in federal court follows a similar suit filed in state court on April 27 against the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Minnesota Depart- ment of 1Yansportaoon alleging that the review and approval of the Runway 422 Extension Project violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (7, ANR, 65). Steven Fflaum of the Chicago office of the law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, which represents the City of Richfield, said he hopes that both the state and federal courts will put the cases on hold until the end of a mediation process requested by the Metropolitan Council, the regional planning agency in the Minneapolis area. Pflaum said that short statutes of limitations in orale and federal court forced Richfield to file its lawsuits before the Metropolitan Council completed its process (Continued on p. 82) CopyripM O 1995 by Airpon Noire Report. Ashburn, Vs 22011 SV In This Issue... ICAO ... CAEP economic analysis report shows high costs, very little benefit from making ICAO noise stan- dards more stringent - p. 81 MS1`Inf7... Richfield challenges EIS on runway extension project in federal appeals court - p. 81 INM ... New version of MI due out this summer will have little impact on contour size, shape - p. 83 Health Effects ... Individ- ual variability to noise needs studied, phychologist tells Acoustical Society - p. 84 Denver ... Stage 2 aircraft being moved off runway to avoid costly violations of noise agreement - p. 85 Grants ... FAA announces awards to 32 airports - p. 86 Part 150 Program ... FAA approves program for Bishop International Airport - p. 87 Monitoring ... Ben Gurion Airport selects Lochard monitoring system - p. 84 . Hushkils ... AvAERO 737 kit achieves higher gross takeoff weights - p. 88 ANR will take Its annual vacation over the next two weeks. The next Issue will be published on July S. L7 • C, J • 82 Airport Noise Report CAEP, from p. 81 progress. Despite the findings of the report. if European countries vote in a block, the ICAO noise standards could be made mote stringent, one observer told ANR. No decisions will be made at the Bonn meeting, but it will give an indication of which way the vote will go, he said. The cosdbmefit study looks at benefits in terms of how. much the 55 and 65 dB DNL noise contours around 13 U.S. and European airports and the population within them will shrink between the years 1992 and 2015 if the ICAO noise rules are made more stringent compared to if nothing is done, but the phaseout of the Stage 2 flea occurs. Even if the most stringent noise rule option under consideration (tightening sideline and flyova standards by 4 dB and approach by a 2 dB by 1998 over current Stage 3 standards) were put into effect, it would rause the 65 dB DNL noise contour to shrink only by an additional 1.9 percent and the 55 dB DNL contour to shrink by an addi- tional 3.8 percent, the report concluded. The phaseout of the Stage 2 fleet will shrink the contours dramatically by about half, the report concluded, but making new aircraft meet tighter noise rules will only further reduce this shrinkage by negligible amounts. But, there is room for CAEP members to argue about these data For one thing, the study included only 13 airports and the findings cannot be applied to other airports Because the conditions at every facility are so unique. Also, when averaged, the data show a decrease in noise contours, but when individual airports are broken out, increases in contours are expected by 2015 at some airports if noise standards are not made more stringent The cost analysis considered making the airlines comply with tighter ICAO noise standards in 1998 or in 2003. It considered both how much it would cost manufactures to make new aircraft comply with tighter noise and emission standards and how the adoption of such standards would devalue the existing fleet. The report reached the following conclusions regarding cost: • Meeting the most lenient option for tightening the rules (2 dB at sideline and flyover and 1 dB at approach) would cost the airlines $44 million if they had to mea the stan- dards in 2003 and $70 million if they had to mea them in 1998; •'Increasing the stringency by 3 dB at sideline and flyover and 2 dB on.apptoach would cost the airlines $363 million in 2003 and $582 million in 1998; and • Increasing the standards by 4 dB at sideline and flyover and 2 dB at approach would cost the airlines $1.3 billion in 2003 and $1.7 billion in 1998, the report concluded. •The report noted that members of the Economic Analysis Subgroup disagreed on the assumption made in the study that tightening the ICAO noise rules a^II encourage airports to impose more stringent noise rules. Some members of the group felt that the lack of new ICAO standards will encour- age the implementation of a variety of new local noise odes. That is obviously an issue that will be debated in Bonn. Justification to Go No Further The FPA gave a briefing on the report. Charles Price, executive director of the National Organization to Insure a Sound -controlled Environment (NOISE), attended and told ANR that his impression of the report is that it seems to be a justification for the FAA to go no further in making noise standards more stringent. He noted that the report was prepared without input from citizens, communities, or environmental groups. "It appears to be almost wholly dependent on an airline industry study and statistics which reflects their bias," Price said The report seems to understate the benefits of increasing the ICAO noise standards by ignoring benefits that are not easily quantifiable, he said, which has the effect of overstat- ing the costs. The most important finding of the report appears to be that doing nothing really gives you as good a result as making the standards more stringent, he said. But, Price cautioned that the findings will arouse suspicion among groups like NOISE that the study is self-serving." I understand that some of this arises from limitations they could do nothing about" he said, but added, "they do have some obligation to make limitations clear to the public. Price pointed to the thousands of noise complaints that have been registered at the new Denver International Airport from areas far beyond the 55-65 dB DNL contours as evidence that the noise problem extends to people outside those eonmursA Minneapolis, from p. 81 of deartnining whether it will approve the project The council's approval is the last step required in the state approval process. However, the council asked the parties involved in the litigation to engage in a mediation process before it addressed the merits of the project The mediation process is still taking shape, Pflaum told ANR. The parties will try to complete the mediation proem before the end of June. Parties to the mediation include the MAC, the cities of Richfield and Minneapolis, and MnDOT. Pflaum said it is possible that the FAA will ultimately become involved in the mediation, but that has not yet been determined. He said he plans to rise the issue with the agency. He said it is possible that action by the council . could obviate the need for the litigation. EIS `Fails Miserably' The stated objectives of the project are a longer runway to increase operational flexibility when the south parallel runway is reconstructed, and a proposed redistribution of noise to provide relief for residents in south Minneapolis and northeast Richfield. It is thq redistribution of noise that most concerns Richfield Airport Noise 1995 Richfield alleged in its lawsuit that the EIS on the runway extension projects "fails miserably" to achieve its vital purpose of providing information to the public on the project. The city contended that the EIS does not adequately describe the project or its purpose and need, and does not adequately analyze alternatives. The EIS included inade- quate analyses of noise impacts, land use impacts, social impacts, socioeomomic impacts, air quality impacts, construction impacts, safety impacts, cumulative impacts. and impacts on energy resources, parks, short- and long- term productivity, and impacts associated with the recon- struction of Runway 11 R -29L, Richfield asserted. It toted that the EIS failed to analyse environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts after the year 1996. Richfield also alleged that the FAA violated NEPA by having the EIS for the project prepared by a consultant, Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff (HNTB), selected by the MAC and not the FAA. The city contended that information provided in the final EIS "is insufficient to establish HNTB's lack of any conflicts of interest." It noted that the consultant has not provided a disclosure statement that complies with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations. HNTB's "ongoing responsibilities in relation to projects at MSP, as well as its role in the preparation in 1991 and 1992 of the Federal Aviation Regulation Pan 150 Study Update for MSP, deprived it of the objectivity necessary to prepare an adequate EIS for the project," Richfield told the court. Inadequate Noise Analysis Among the deficiencies in the noise analysis in the EIS cited by Richfield it its suit were: • The IIS is based on an exaggerated premise regarding the extent to which Runway 22 would be used for depar- tures because the EIS ignores the numerous operational problems associated with shifting departures to that runway; • The IIS fails to disclose how many residences and people that currently experience noise levels between 60 and 65 dB DNL would be exposed to a 3 dB DNL increase as a result of the project, and thus, would be subjected to significant adverse noise impacts; • The IIS fails to disclose the projected fleet mix, runway usage, number of persons who would be exposed to noise above 65 and 70 dB DNL, or the projected annual, daily, or hourly level of operations for any years after 1996; and • The IIS fails to disclose any historic information regarding the relative noise impacts (as opposed to numbers of overflights) experienced by areas northwest and south- west of MSP needed to evaluate the extent to which the project and potential alternatives or mitigation treasures would accomplish the stated objective of "permit[ting] redistribution of air traffic to redress the disparity in noise impacts that has evolved from 1972 to 1990."A 83 Measurement NEW INM VERSION WILL HAVE MODEST EFFECT ON CONTOURS • The Federal Aviation Administration's latest version of its Integrated Noise Model, due out this summer, will have only a "modest" effect on the size and shape of airport noise contours compared with previous versions of the model, Jake Plante of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, told the Acoustical Society of America June 2. An upgraded and improved version of the INM, knows as INM 5.0, will be released to the public in July. Plante said. He said the new version of the computer tool is very accurate. It came within 0.7 dB of actual measured noise levels of an MD -80 aircraft in a field test recently conducted by the FAA, he said. The INM model is used by over 700 organizations in 35 countries to study changes in noise impact for new or extended runways or runway configurations, new traffic demand and fleet mix, revised routings and airspace structures, alternative flight profiles and modifications to air traffic control operational procedures. INM 5.0 will have significant improvements over earlier versions. Output capabilities include the use of geographic information systems (GIS) such as Census population and street map data, topography, and airport layout drawings. Analysts can obtain population count by contour level, overlay different nose level contours, apply lateral disper- sion techniques to INM tracks, build new flight profiles, and* process Official Airline Guide (OAG) flight data. While earlier versions of the INM provided eight standard noise metrics, version 5.0 provides 13 predefined standard metrics, including single noise event metrics. These metrics cannot be changed, but users can define their own noise metrics if they wish to do so. Modeling Departures The current way to model aircraft departure profiles is to use the standard departure profiles contained in the FAA's INM noise model, but state -of -the -an airport noise monitor- ing systems have the capability to determine actual flight profiles for each departure as well as a range of profiles for a specific aircraft, according to Paul Dunholter of Mestre Greve Associates in Newport Beach, CA. The INM model accounts for different departure gradients based on the flight distance to the aircraft's destination, he said. Aircraft flying a longer distance are assumed to be heavier and, as a result, would climb at a lower gradient. But new techniques involve the use of actual flight profiles from the FAA's ARTS radar data, from which aircraft identification, type of operation, and aircraft position can be gleaned. Using this technique, the departure profiles used in the model account for not only the departure distance, but . also pilot techniques, the actual aircraft load, as well as meteorological conditions such as altitude, density, and wind speed. The result is that the modeling of aircraft Airport Noise Report V Mevopoli= Airpm -ts Commission Operations and Complaint Summary May 1 to 19,1995 Operations Summary - All Aircraft MSP May Fleet Mix Percentage x11994 � .995 CopoE 1994 'Couni1945 Stege 2 579% 55.4% 58.2% 55.6% Stege 3 42.1% 44.6% 41.8% 44.4% Airport May Complaint Summary iirport `,:`', m1994 ;Y°1995 : . MSP 1417 1380 Atrlake 1 0 Atmlta 2 1 crystal 2 0 FPA% Claud 6 11 l aloe 17mo 0 1 St Paul 7 6 lw. 5 2 . 'iA0117 May Operations Summary - Airport Directors office Aviation Noise Programs 1 X 0 0 .• • 0 Wtropolitan AirMu CoMmissim Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary May 1995 Complaint Summary by City ' �J ::i s i.N' Y2�."x 3 S•� a M.. �r 4 i 3L'>aV� ' Apple Vali 1 19 20 1.546 Arden Hills 1 1 2 0.1% Bloomington 1 14 15 1.1% Btuasviue 3 21 24 1.8% Columbia Heipjas 0 1 1 0.1% Eagan � 49 323 372 27.2% Eden Prairie 0 3 3 0.2% Edina 0 11 11 0.8% Falcon Heights 0 1 1 0.1% Inver Grove Heiahts 3 152 155 11.3% Maplewood 2 0 1 2 0.1% Medina 1 0 1 0.1% Mendota Heights 15 114 129 9.4% Mtnnea lis 123 426 549 40.1% Oakdale 0 3 3 0.2% Prescott 1 0 1 0.1% Richfield 4 36 40 2.9% Roseville 0 2 2 0.2% S. St. Paul 1 6 7 0.5% St. Louis Perk 5 0 5 0.4% St. Paul 19 3 22 1.6% W. St. Paul 0 2 2 0.1% FM Woodbury 1 1 Tow r 1139 > L 1368 X00% : ; Tune of Day Nature of Complaint ion 00:00 - 05:59 27 Excessive Noise 1285 06:00- 06:59 54 Early/Late 45 07:00-11:59 365 Low Flying 23 12:00- 15:59 181 Structural Disturbance 7 16:00- 19:59 289 Helicopter I 20:00 - 21:59 336 Ground Noise 102 Engine Run-up 8 22:00 - 22:59 4 23:00 - 23:59 26 Frequency 1l31i0 `'>< 9btat 7 :1380 Avw= Noise P qp= Page 2 Mmropolitsn Airports Co ==cxl All Operations Runway Use Report May 1 to 1 ,1995 11 29 04 iso 50.2 U% Runwaey ArrlvaU Ikparture fou°t Ptage MBy 1994 teunt 'flay 3994 . ;Peetage. 04 A 185 1.5% 247 1.6% 11L A 3021 25.1% 3987 25.5% 11R A 2626 21.8% 3774 24.2% 22 A 29 0.3% 242 1.5% 29L A 3278 27.2% 3892 24.9% 29R A 2900 24.1% 3478 22.3% �btal llrr , 04 D T2839 16 0.1% 65 0.4% 11L D 3090 25.7% 4391 28.7% IIR D 2942 24.5% 4124 27.0% 22 D 245 2.0% 726 4.8% 29L D 2981 24.7% 2918 29R ToW Dep.:, D 2773 23.0% 3069 ; 42047100% ,` X293 t1<0o% M 0 C7 • 0 Mecopoh= Airpom Commission Nighttime - All Operations Runway Use Report May 1 to 12,1995 SJ 22.9°!a 11 29 04.8 3.3% .s 2.9% Aviation Noise Programs 6 Page 6 Me=poU= ALrparu Com LWco Carrier jet Operations by I�pe May 1 to 19, 1"5 • AiraraR 39P Count Tlemwagi B727H 94 0.6% DC9H 862 5.8% B707 1 0.0% B733/4/5 759 5.1% B747 107 0.7% B74F 9 0.00/0 8757 1070 7.1% B767 I 0.01yo DAIO 12 0.1% DC10 549 3.7% DC87 104 0.7% EA32 1558 10.4% FXIO 654 4.4% L1011 5 0.0% MD11 30 0.2% WDSO 827 5.5% BAIO 3 0.00/0 BAIL 1 0.0% B727 2675 17,9% B737 474 3.2% DC8 w 0.4% DC86 23 0.2% DC9 5059 33.8% FK28 35 0.2% Fq3btal 14971:, ;100°9 71 (.c/ — AviWon Noise Agv®s 44.4% Stage M 55.6% Stage H 0 n LI 40 _ city of eagan MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 16, 1995 SUBJECT. AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -CURRENT AIRPORT OPERATIONS At its meetings of May 9 and June 13, the Airport Relations Commission recommended several positions for Council consideration and referred others to their Current Operations Subcommittee for further development. Their present recommendations,are outlined as follows: &3 1. Improve Compliance with Current Corridor Standards - Comments from • residents in northern and eastern Eagan and flight track information indicate that aircraft noise nuisance has Increased dramatically in those areas. At least part of this is due to the fact that an average of ten percent of all operations southeast of the airport are south of the corridor. In a typical month, this can account for over 600 operations affecting Eagan neighborhoods to a greater extent than is appropriate. The Commission is recommending that the City strongly reiterate its position with respect to the corridor by demanding that the FAA, MAC and airlines cooperate in improving compliance to reduce the number of operations south of the corridor to zero. 2. Improve Late Night, and Offpeak Compliance with Corridor Standards - Noise nuisance in Eagan neighborhoods adjacent to the Corridor is especially serious during the night and it is particularly bothersome when operations utilize the full width of the corridor even when they do not require it. Current standards stili call for a standard heading of 105 degrees when diverging headings are not necessary. If nighttime and offpeak operations follow this standard, there is less concentration of traffic at the edges of the corridor and more distribution within the noise compatible -and less populated areas. The Commission is recommending that the City demand strict compliance with the 105 degree heading when diverging separations • are not in use. &3 3. MAC and MASAC Representation - The Commission believes that Eagan is entitled to greater representation in MAC and MASAC due to the City's substantial exposure to the consequences of airport decisions. The MAC consists of sateen members, fourteen of whom are appointed by the governor and one each is appointed by the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Four are appointed from greater Minnesota and two are officers. The remaining eight are appointed from districts throughout the metropolitan region. Eagan is typically represented by someone from another community despite the City's substantial impacts from aircraft operations. The Commission is recommending that the City pursue legislative and other means of ensuring representation on MAC by Eagan residents. Eagan currently has only one MASAC representative despite being the fourth largest City in the organization. Richfield which is smaller has two representatives while Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish Lake each have a representative despite their combined population being less than two-thirds of Eagan's. The Commission is recommending that the City demand expanded representation for the City of Eagan in proportion to its population, overall exposure and nighttime exposure to aircraft operations. 4. Additional ANOMS Monitors - The MAC's automated noise monitoring system has the capacity to be expanded. Currently there are three • monitors in Eagan located within or immediately adjacent to the corridor. At the time the system was developed, Eagan also indicated the need for monitors at the corridor boundaries to determine noise levels in neighborhoods and whether the corridor is absorbing the worst of the noise. Since the current system of twenty-four monitors has been In place for over two years, the Commission 1s recommending that the Council formally request additional ANOMS monitors in Eagan. Staff would recommend that these be placed in the Woodlands and Coventry Pass neighborhoods and near Pilot Knob School. If Runway 4/22 is extended, the City would also need monitors in neighborhoods near Highway 13. These recommendations largely reflect existing policy, but the Commission recommends that strong statements be made in their regard to keep the City's agenda before the airport, FAA and airlines. If you or any member of the Council has any questions, please let me know. As Cant to the City Administrator 0 • city of cragan THOMAS EGAN Mayor JPATRICIA AWADA June 26, 1995 SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER PIERSON GRIEVE Councu Mdmoors CHAIR, METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION THOMAS HEDGES 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH CITY Adminatrolor MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 E. J. VAN OVERBEKE CKy Clerk RE: AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT AND MEASUREMENT CITY OF EAGAN Dear Mr. Grieve: At its meeting of June 20, the Eagan City Council formally acted to demand improved compliance with the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor and to request additional ANOMS noise monitors to be located within the City to better measure the noise impact of aircraft outside of the corridor. Specifically, the Council's action encompassed the following items. It should be noted that the first two do not require policy consideration since they reflect current MAC and FAA policy. The City Is. dissatisfatction with the current level of compliance requires strong action. 1. Improve Compliance with Current Corridor Standards - Comments by residents in northern and eastern Eagan and ANOMS flight track information indicate.that aircraft noise nuisance has increased dramatically in those areas. At least part of this is due to the fact that an average of ten percent of all operations southeast of the airport are south of the corridor. In atypical month, this can account for over 600 operations unnecessarily affecting Eagan neighborhoods. The City strongly reiterates its position with respect to the corridor by demanding that the FAA, MAC and airlines cooperate in improving compliance to reduce the number of operations south of the corridor to zero. 2. Improve Late Night and Offpeak Compliance with Corridor Standards - Noise nuisance in Eagan neighborhoods adjacent to the Corridor is especially serious during the night and it is particularly bothersome when operations utilize the full width of the corridor even when they do not require it. Current standards call for a standard. heading of 105 degrees for both parallel runways when diverging headings are not necessary. This heading MUNICIPAL CENTER THE LONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 65122.1897 THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 3301 COACHMAN POINT MINNESOTA 122 PHONE: (612) 661.4600 PHONE:(612) 6814=GAN, FAX (612) 681.4612 Equal OpportunRy/AtRrrllaTNe Action Employer FAX (612) 681.4360 TDD: (612) 454 -MS / e_� TDD: (612) 4544WS If nighttime and offpeak operations follow this standard, • there is less concentration of traffic at the edges of the corridor and more distribution within noise compatible and less populated areas. The City demands strict compliance with the 105 degree heading during offpeak and nighttime hours when diverging separations are not necessary. 3. Expand Eagan's MASAC Representation - The City of Eagan currently has only one seat on MASAC despite being the fourth largest city in the organization. Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish Lake each have A representative despite their combined population being less than two-thirds that of Eagan. The City demands expanded representation in proportion to its population, overall exposure, nighttime exposure to aircraft operations and anticipated exposure from MSP expansion. 4. Additional ANOMS Monitors - The MAC's automated noise monitoring system has the capacity to be expanded. Currently there are three monitors in Eagan located within or immediately adjacent to the corridor. At the time the system was developed, Eagan also indicated the need for monitors at the corridor boundaries to determine noise levels in neighborhoods and whether the corridor is absorbing the worst of the noise. Since the current • system of twenty-four monitors has been in place for over two years, the City formally requests four additional ANOMS monitors in Eagan. The City asks that these be placed in the Woodlands and Coventry Pass neighborhoods and near Pilot Knob School. The City would also request an additional monitor in the Cedar Grove neighborhood near Highway 13 to measure existing noise and possible impacts from the potential expansion of Runway 4/22. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Jon Hohenstein of our staff. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator cc: Bruce Wagoner, Federal Aviation Administration n U • city of aagan RE: CITY OF EAGAN COMMENT DUAL TRACK SECOND PHASE SCOPING DOCUMENT Dear Mr. Orcutt: At its meeting of June 20, the Eagan City Council" reviewed a recommendation concerning the Second Phase Scoping Document for the Dual Track EIS. In action taken at that meeting, the Council directed that land banking be included as an alternative considered in the EIS. The land banking alternative is important because it would permit the region to have an option in the event that the airport is not relocated and operations growth exceeds current estimates. It would also provide a middle ground between the two polar positions. In other respects, the Council found the Scoping Document to be adequate. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact me. Sincerely, Jon Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission MUNICIPAL CENTS( BUD PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1597 PHONE: (612) 6814600 FAX: (612) 681.4612 WD: (612) 454.8538 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/ARlnnati a Action Employer / /1 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 661.6300 FAX: (612) 681.4360 TDD: (612) 4544535 - THOMAS EGAN Mayor June 26, 1995 PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER GLEN ORCUTT Coun`e Mernben FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THOMAS HEDGES AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE CSV AamMMrntor MSP—ADO-600 E. J. VAN OVERBEKE 6020 28TH AVENUE SOUTH - ROOM 102 City Clark MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 RE: CITY OF EAGAN COMMENT DUAL TRACK SECOND PHASE SCOPING DOCUMENT Dear Mr. Orcutt: At its meeting of June 20, the Eagan City Council" reviewed a recommendation concerning the Second Phase Scoping Document for the Dual Track EIS. In action taken at that meeting, the Council directed that land banking be included as an alternative considered in the EIS. The land banking alternative is important because it would permit the region to have an option in the event that the airport is not relocated and operations growth exceeds current estimates. It would also provide a middle ground between the two polar positions. In other respects, the Council found the Scoping Document to be adequate. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact me. Sincerely, Jon Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission MUNICIPAL CENTS( BUD PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1597 PHONE: (612) 6814600 FAX: (612) 681.4612 WD: (612) 454.8538 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/ARlnnati a Action Employer / /1 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 661.6300 FAX: (612) 681.4360 TDD: (612) 4544535 O POLICE/COURTS yfriend charged stabbing, rape rReport he boyfriend of an Eagan tan was charged June 27 stabbing her in the neck a pair of scissors after re- adly raping her. xarph Earl Williams, 33, is gad with one felony count of first degree aeeauk and degree criminal sexual ken- , a000rdingto a criminal core - it filed in Dakota County. He in custody at the Dakota sty jail in Hastings awaiting irst court appearance July S. is June 25. Eagan Police re- ad a call from the victim. to police arrived at her rtment, she was holding a d -soaked towel over her rid and told police that her fiend, Williams,'went crazy stabbed her with a pair of are,* according to the com- a. Williams apparently fled rparlment with the scissors. port time later, Ragan Police +shed the area and placed iams under arrest. he victim told officers lame became angry earlier in evening because he believed saegoingtoratur toherhus- L He held a pair of adeeore to rock andfurred her to have sex him. Williams threatened to her if she did not. He repeat - he ad a abort time later. The in told police that when she 1 to leave the apartment, Isms held the door rlosad sad in choking her. He then W the edmme down her neck across the side of her neck r the breast bane, just missing jrrgrdar vein, according to the plaint Doctors toldLMIke the fm's injuries requIlneavers -9 orsurgery and tHESenna. ve damane will result. to County Corena is Office. The death of Linda Libman, 38, was ruled a suicide and the polka hroestigatian iscloeed. said Eagan 11ce Chfef Pat Geegen. Her husband, Carey Libman, reported her missing at 10 am. June 16, sayingshe had gone out for a walk and never returned. Her clothed body was found next to a park bench near& small pond. Three Eagan residents, in- cluding a physician, came across the body while jogging in the park. A seek containing a hypo- dermic needle and a syringe were found nearby. The phyd cion did a cursory exam and do- termined that she was dead, Geagan said. Police sealed off' the area and summoned the Dakota County coroner. Harry Patch Park is near Pilot Knob Road and Diflley Road. Civil suits dropped In Ford, Roars trial Staff Report A civil lawsuit alleging 'wrongful death' has been dropped against Susan Roers, the South St. Paul woman re- cently acquitted of criminal charges that she killed 1 -year- old Ryan Ford of Eagan in 1992. A Dakota County jury found Rama not guilty Maly ii following a throe -week criminal trial. Roars had been Ryan's day can provider at the time of his death. The civiltrial was scheduled to begin June 27, but Jennifer Ford, Ryan a mother, requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, accord- ing to Roars' allomoy Earl Grey. Ford's allomey, William Sieben, did not return phone calla In the civil complaint filed in Dakota County District Court, Ford alleged that Roars negli- gently struck, dropped or han- dled Ryan, who sustained a skull Comment sought on storage facility Gopher Resource Corp., which operates a lead -acid list - troy recycling and lead manufac- turing facility at Yankee Doodle Drive and Highway 149 in Eagan, plane to expand its ca- pacity for temporary storage of batteries and other lead -con - The Minnesota Palfin CITY BRIEFS Control Agency has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)an the propos- aL The EAW describes the pro- posed project and identifies po- tential environmental impacts associated with the facility. Copies of the RAW are available for review at the Wescott Li- brary, 1340 Wescott Road in the�Eor by request imme7798 Public cant period ends July 19. Evening programs scheduled In park Eagan's Parka and Recre- ation Department has scheduled a series of'Evening in the Park' entertainment. All perfor- mances are at 7 p.m. Wednes- days at Trapp Form Park, 841 Wilderness Run Road. If it rains, events are moved to the park pavilion. An interpreter will sign. • MEMO — city of eagan TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR .HEDGES FROM: , ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JULY 10, 1995 SUBJECT: RUNWAY 4/22 MEDIATION This memo is a follow up to our discussion regarding this matter. The issue before the Council is whether to continue to participate in the Runway 4/22 mediation process, whether to commit funds for the City's portion of a public opinion survey to be considered as a part of the mediation team's work and whether to support the draft Mediation Proposal. At its meeting of June 20, the City Council voted -to support the Richfield lawsuit opposing the extension of Runway 4/22 and the redistribution of aircraft operations from Minneapolis to the areas southwest of the airport. In the past, the City has opposed the extension because it will not reduce impacts in neighborhoods near the Corridor while it will add flight tracks east of Cedar Avenue and approximately 75 more operations a day southwest of the airport. As a part of the litigation process, the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Cities of Richfield, Minneapolis and Bloomington agreed to participate in a mediation process to attempt to resolve the issue before going to court. Based upon the Council's action, Eagan was permitted to join the mediation team and staff participated in mediation sessions on July 6 and 7. The mediation team is being facilitated by a member of the Minnesota Office of Dispute Resolution. The mediation team is considering the attached proposal which divides the 4/22 issue into two parts, the physical extension of the runway and future discussion regarding the redistribution component. The reason for this division is that the redistribution issue is expected to take several months and additional Information due out this fall may bear on the issue. At the same time, the MAC is certain of FAA funding for the extension If construction begins this year. If not,- federal funding is less certain in future years although it is possible. All parties are looking for assurances that noise mitigation funds will be available if the redistribution decision occurs later. Eagan's interests are served by the mediation proposal provided that the additional flight tracks are deferred until and are included in the redistribution discussion. It is likely that only communities involved in the mediation will have an Impact on the noise mitigation aspect of this issue. Participation does not insure success, but non -participation will likely lead to exclusion from any benefits of the discussion. The City's other alternative would be to investigate separate litigation concerning the flight tracks themselves. It appears however that the window of opportunity for the most effective challenge has passed. Richfiled's lawsuit was filed to preserve their rights to challenge the EIS on the final day of the tolling period for that purpose. Further participation in the mediation team is contingent upon the City becoming a signatory of the Agreement to Mediate which is also attached and our agreement to commit up to $20,000 for an opinion survey of affected communities' residents concerning noise mitigation alternatives and whether residents dealing with some noise impacts now would accept more in exchange for sound insulation. The survey would likely be conducted by a professional firm such as Decision Resources. As we discussed, the likely source for this allocation would be the fund balance although staff will explore other budget alternatives before returning the matter to the City Council for formal action. In addition, staff will investigate the scope of the survey and whether the costs indicated represent a realistic or conservative estimate and whether they can be reduced in some way. If you have any questions in this regard, please let me know. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL: in the Runway 4/22 Mediation process, participation in the opinion survey, and to Proposal. rr To approve or deny continued participation including concept approval for financial give staff direction on the draft Mediation 07/07/95 15:45 FA% 812 881 9749 CITY-RICEFIELD R-95% 1. The Runway 4/22 cKhmsioa project has two main objectives - noise redisttbimon and operational teams. The operational considerations include the need for an 11,000 foot runway to avoid the cat mhy constraints imposed by tine closure and nxoaauvetion of the south parallel runway, end theaeed fora longer runway to accomodate long-haud domestic and mtemidwal Bights. RecouUnmddW ; Met Council approves constr uedon ofthe mawalon to Runway 4/22. 2. The participating agencies and surrounding communities should have mots time to itvestipte the merits of noise redistribution and other measures that provide relief from mase. These other mesnnes include, but are not limited to, increased fimding for sound mmlenan and operational possibilities such as dedieened Stage III runway use. Rwounuemdation: Met Council defers the noise ndt Bata m element of the extension project rood a reaenanendadonfiam the meaUxion team Isforthcomft and subjea to dismissal of Me Chy ofRkJ*Id s perm knvmdt 3. A broad targe of noise mitigation options and the future of the went airport site must be considered inthepolicy decision on the noise rsdistribation aspect ofthe project Factorsto be considered include the followiar.. • The perceptions and desires of the impacted public ate significant factors in deciding what noise rellefmeasures are provided To this end, MAC and Met Carmol and the simmodmg communities agree to expand up to 520,000 each for a survey to gauge public opinion. Results of the survey, to be. conducted in September, will be utilized in the decision malting process. • Richfield and Eagan would Mm to review the environmental impacts that will be experienced as a result of the north/south runway, should MSP be expanded. Bloomington and Mmacepolis site interested in the possibility of moving up the construction time table for the north/south runway as a way of providing noise relief from 4122 overBloomington and 29LP29R over Minneapolis. MAC may also wish to pursue the north/south runway for capacity purposes. • Mmeapolis and Fagan are both in the process of reviewing info>ruation regarding tate Duel Track. Both expect to develop City policies in that regard sometime in October. Rowmmendathm: Tho medmtion ream conducts opinion research and reviews the research results: reviews the"ElSfor the Dual Dad Phoning Process: and reviews the Mbmeq"Il s and Eagvmposition stat¢merm' on the Dual Trak IZ 002 4, ABua reviewing tha above infiamanon, the mediation team will wrack to develop a noise mitigation plan that is soruptable to ell parties If oealsenaus catmot be reached, the decision vrM be made by the Met Council on U noise redistribution proposal)submiued ire loka MAL Recommendations Tim mediation team rom mtendr a noise mitigation plan to MAC and Met Councllfor approval. 612 e6l 9749 07-07-95 03:41PM P002 #28 MINNESOTA OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION Agreement to Mediate Case No. The undersigned parties are willing to participate in a mediation process in an effort to reach a voluntary agreement to resolve issues relating to: Mediation will be conducted in accordance with the following terms: I. The parties agree to share information openly. 2. The mediator's role is to help the parties clarify the issues and interests, explore and evaluate options for settlement, and assist in writing up an agreement. 3. In this capacity, the mediator is not a judge, hearing officer or arbitrator. The mediator will not make decisions or recommendations for the solution of the disagreement. 4. The parties will not subpoena the mediator, the Office of Dispute Resolution staff, or any records or documents of the mediator or the Office. 5. The parties will not attempt to discover or use as evidence in anytsubsequent Admi .;Q ,.,m€ative o�t' legal proceeding any communications made during or related to the mediation process, or any document, including meeting notes, developed in or as a result of the mediation process. A binding agreement may be used in subsequent administrative or legal proceedings. Gt�*-i 6. Mediation may be terminated by �tth6 party or the mediator upon written notice delivered to all people who signed the "Agreement to Mediate" firm. Pursuant to the requirements of the Minnesota Civil Mediation Act, the Office of Dispute Resolution advises the parties that: (a) the mediator has no duty to protect the parties' interests or provide them with information about their legal rights; (b) signing a mediated settlement agreement may adversely affect the parties' legal rights; and (c) the parties should consult an attorney before signing a mediated settlement agreement if they are uncertain of their rights. 8. The parties will abide by the terms of the written mediated agreement which were mutually agreed upon by the parties, subject to ratification, if necessary, by a governing body. over please City Signa Signature-. City of - hfield City of Signacu re Signa Date Date G �z tiS Date—/2 —SS Date 0 -/-Z - �S cu re BI Date l�rrr� Date lv�/2�q5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Metropolitan Council Signature, office of Dispute Resolution Date Date Date 05-//I/57j- Signature //2/9f Date Date MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION July 13, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Thursday, July 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Lance Staricha, Lois Monson, and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA Hohenstein suggested that Visitors to be Heard following approval of the minutes. With this change, the agenda was approved by acclamation. MINUTES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, with all members voting In favor, the minutes of the June 13, 1995 meeting were approved as presented. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Richard Reid of 3690 Birchpond Place spoke to the commission regarding the Increase in noise levels over the years. He commented that he has seen a dramatic Increase In air traffic as well as changes in flight patterns over the past year. He stated It appears that the planes are fanning out early. Todd stated that this has been one of the biggest issues. Hohenstein commented that according to the FAA, there has not been a change in procedures. He stated that fanning is generally done during emergency situations or poor weather conditions. People have really noticed the changes In flight patterns. The FAA would need to do an environmental assessment to substantiate this. Changes in operations recently may have been due to July storms and also because the radar was out recently. Hohensteln explained to Mr. Reid that it Is very Important for him to voice his concerns at Airport Relations Commission meetings, calling the noise complaint fine, attending MASAC meetings, keeping a log of his experiences and writing to the MAC as to what he has observed. Mr. Reid asked if the early turnouts are a decision made by the tower or by the pilot. Hohenstein responded that Its a combination of the two. The pilot Is responsible for the aircraft and will make decisions as to what to do. Pilots do take FAA Instruction unless they need to get out of the way of other planes. Mr. Reid commented that the planes were flying directly over his house. Hohenstein stated that he talked to the FAA regarding that time period and it seems the radar problem caused more separation. The aircraft were not fanned as they should have been. Cooper commented that he doesn't understand the separation issue. If planes fly the corridor they can separate by radio and they would be miles apart. Hohenstein mentioned that the City of Eagan's annual report was available to commission members If they were interested In receiving it. Because of costs for printing, rather than providing a copy to each member, he would like to know who was interested in receiving one. Todd suggested that they take one report and share It among all members. Airport Relations Commisslon Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 2 OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein suggested reviewing the committee report first and then adopting the time One formally. Schlax presented the following time One regarding the Dual Track Airport Planning process to the commission: August 1995— Subcommittee prepares a draft document for full Airport Relations Commission review. September 1995— Final draft document submitted to Airport Relations Commission,Economic Development Commission and Advisory Planning Commission for review and published In City newsletter and local press. October 1995— Public hearing conducted by the Airport Relations Commission November 1995— Airport Relations Commission's recommendations are submitted tothe City Council. After further discussion regarding the time One, Schlax motioned to accept the time One as presented, second was made by Cooper, all members voted in favor. Schlax discussed the rating system developed for the Dual Track Rating matrix. Cooper commented that the rating system seemed complicated and felt is could be somewhat simplified. Monson stated that she was confused by the rating scale. She questioned whether the matrix has any value for the commission and that it may be too time consuming to use. White commented that the Long Term Planning Subcommittee talked about long -tens planning and it is difficult because some things might be good for one area and bad for another so it ends up being neutral. Schlax responded that the matrix Is a good tool for the group to make comments and the Input is needed. There was further discussion on the usefulness of the matrix and rating system. Hohenstein stated that it is meant to be a tool and functions best as a workshop type of exercise. He suggested that members of the commission meet in a workshop session and do the exercise together. The commission members agreed to meet in a workshop session at the Long Term Planning Subcommittee meeting of July 20, 1995. Todd asked Hohenstein if there would be anyone speaking at the Current Operations Subcommittee. Hohenstein replied that Mark Salmen of Northwest Training and Ron Johnson will be attending the meeting on July 17. In referring to the time One, Stadcha asked if there was something more specific occurring regarding the November 1995 deadline. Hohenstein stated that the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be issued by the MAC in November. The target laid out for the group was to have a recommendation before the Council when that came out so that during the comment period the City would be ready to present a draft position. Chair Todd stated that the work that has been done on the matrix has been Impressive. Hohensteln stated that he has run into resistance to his request for base map data on the existing airport because of the County's emphasis on the impacts of potential relocation. He continued that the commission may want to recommend to the Council that equal time and effort be placed on both airport options. White commented that it would be good to pursue this area with other Impacted communities. Hohensteln stated that this is a good idea and that issues that are brought to that group are Initiated by one City and shared by the rest. Airport Relations Commission Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 3 Schlax motioned to direct Hohenstein to draft a letter and/or resolution to encourage Dakota County to consider reviewing both options, the current airport and a new airport location. Second was made by White. Cooper suggested that the motion contain strong language since its a very important Issue. White moved to amend the motion to include other impacted cities in northern and western Dakota -County as a part of the letter/resolution, second was made by Schlax, all members voted in favor. NEW BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Council Mitigation Concepts— Hohenstein stated that for the past nine months, staff has participated with the group in a discussion of tools and concepts necessary for community implementation of the dual track process If it Is deterrnined that the airport should remain at the current site. The purpose of the group is to analyze the tools and regulations for the airport if It were to stay In Its present location. He said that the group does not Intend to make policy but are using hypothetical situations. At the next meeting, they will be discussing special tax treatment of Impacted areas. Schlax stated that he was impressed with all the tools considered. He said that any of the tools were useful. Hohenstein said that the Intention of this report Is to submit a plan to the legislature and lobby for these tools for all the cities involved. It's the sense of the lobbyists participating in this process that provided that the dries come forward with a joint position and valid reasons for this kind of mitigation, it stands a chance to be passed. He continued that some portion of the community, needs to be within the 60 LDN contour in order to have any of these tools appy. That is the case with Eagan, Mendota Heights, Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and a small portion of Burnsville. If a portion of that city is within that contour, than the concept is to allow the tools within a three mile area of the contour. Hohenstein displayed a map regarding the contour and explained that the parallel runways will continue to impact the northern part of the community while the new north/south runway will bring the 60 LDN to our residential doorstep. He explained that these tools are a dramatically greater step than we had with the Part 150 program. He stated that not all the tools maybe available in all the areas and that homes that are closer In may have more aggressive things done than those homes that are farther out. Todd stated that we continue to base the 65 LDN contour as a guideline for the noise Impact. She asked If there was a way that it could be used based on the ANOMS data or actual flight patterns. Hohenstein replied that this be considered as a policy discussion. It Is fairy straightforward but once you say base it on where you are, you step away from the argument that they ought to fly where they said they were going to fly. It's Important to balance the issue and that they should base, the contours on the 20% that are outside of the corridor. Schlax stated that he would like to know how residents would feel about a series of options Including lowering of property taxes, reevaluation of property value, and so on. Hohenstein presented an overview of options being considered for impacted residents, they include property value guarantees - not related to noise impact, housing revitalization programs, expansion of tax increment financing which would develop and revitalize severely Impacted areas, sound insulation and special tax treatment. He stated that Northwest could be encouraged to offer flight privileges or passes - giving benefits to residents to help offset the Impact. That Is the brainstorming that's been going on with the group, ways to mitigate the noise problem. Mr. Reid stated the approaches are good ones but that the bottom line Is protection of property values and that this is the key issue. Schlax stated that Eagan has reached a point of trying to find creative ways to help citizens live with the situation. Hohenstein stated that the challenge we're up against with the corridor is that the traffic growth has exceeded the capacity of the corridor to handle it easily. The corridor barely contains traffic at' Airport Relations Commission Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 4 the current levels and, eventually, traffic will be forced Into the middle of town and even with the quieter Stage III aircraft, It will still cause more of an impact. Staricha stated that property value guarantees seem to be one of the more promising possibilities. The housing revitalization should be encouraged. He does not believe in pooling the money; the Impacted areas should be where the money goes. He stated that he is against allowing planes to fly anywhere and compensating people for this Impact. Schlax said that he couldn't see that they could avoid using creative methods to alleviate the Impact for residents. Hohenstein stated that impacts not mitigated should be compensated. This doesn't suggest that no one cares where operations are but where impact is severe - there should be some benefit to the property owners by use of these tools. Monson stated that she didn't see any dollar amount mentioned. Hohenstein stated that the Met Council asked each of the communities to prepare comments on how the tools would be used. It's difficult to put a money amount on k. Unless the impacts are addressed, you're hiding half the costs of staying at the present airport. Those benefitting from the airport operations, whether it's state or regional, should somehow offset the Impacts to the residents. Cooper asked if there was any other community in the United States that has this type of compensation. Hohenstein replied that he was not aware of communities with all of them, although there are some that may use one of the tools. Some communities may do sound Insulation, others may do buy outs, etc. Cooper stated that If Its decided to do something, it could Incorporate the whole City of Eagan. For Instance, how would a tax break affect Eagan? Hohenstein repled that ft would be more in the way of a homestead credit or similar program where there is an offset against what the taxes would be as opposed to what they actually are. The City would still be collecting an amount as if the property were fully taxed. Schlax stated that MAC could use Its taxing power to reimburse the governmental agencies involved. Hohenstein stated It Is a question of flow of money rather than adjusting value. Staricha stated that it will be difficult to find an appropriate place for funding of the reimbursement and that lt's necessary to follow the land use zoning and allow fewer variances. He commented that he would Oke to thank Mr. Hohenstein for the thorough preparation of the comments on pages 26 - 28 and that they seem to be appropriate. Hohenstein stated that he would tike the commission to accept concept approval of this draft, if they are comfortable with it. Monson stated that she would rather vote on a final concept rather than a draft concept. Schlax moved to provide concept approval of the document, second made by Staricha. All members voted in favor, except Monson who voted against. STAFF REPORTS A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor— Hohenstein stated that enclosed in the packet is a memo on a briefing involving Senator Wiener, Representative Pawlenty, a representative of Bili Luther's office and Louis Miller who Is the MAC representative for this area for Dakota County. One of the things that will make it more difficult to gauge fights is that because of ANOMS difficultdes, reports will be incomplete for a period of time. This will make It very difficult to monitor noise problems at a time when there are quite a few complaints. B. Runway 4122 Extension - Richfield Litigation— Hohenstein stated that the City of Eagan is pushing hard on the Issue of additional flight Airport Relations Commission Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 5 tracks for Runway 4/22. A number of concepts have been discussed and not agreed to by a number of parties. Eagan is pushing hard for Inclusion of the flight tracks so that they are not added when the runway is extended. By keeping the fight tracks in the discussion, they can be negotiated throughout the process. The direction is a recommendation concerning the physical part of the runway which appears to be necessary for the reconstruction of the south parallel. The Eagan City Council did endorse the Richfield lawsuit. Both Minneapolis and Eagan are developing their positions on the dual track process. There will be a revised mitigation proposal presented at the next Eagan City Council meeting. C. Part 150 Program Update— Hohenstein commented that the Part 150 Program is going well and that it may be possible to accelerate the insulation of homes toward the end of the year. D. MASAC Meeting of June 27, 1995— Hohenstein stated that the complaint and operations data Is complete but the flight track and noise data are not. The ANOMS system was down between the May 19 and June 12, consequently, reports will be incomplete until July or August. Cooper asked if there was any movement towards the ANOMS monitors requested by the commission. Hohenstein replied that the MAC has placed a temporary monitor In the Hawthorne Woods area for one month. There has been no response to the request for permanent monitors. The request for data on the two weekends in late April and early May will be provided by the first week or two in August. Also, the temporary monitor results should be available in August. Schlax asked about changes with the N.O.I.S.E. organization. Hohenstein stated that they are in the process of selecting a new Executive Director. The existing one is retiring from the law firm that contracted with N.O.I.S.E., consequently, this position will be replaced. E. Northam Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition- Hohenstein stated that this is a coalition of cities interested in participating in the mitigation. At the last meeting the group discussed nighttime operations and expressed general support for the Runway 4/22 SID, as well as reduction of operations in the shoulder hours and expansion of the nighttime voluntary agreements. Other communities in the coalition anticipate being involved in the Runway 4/22 mediation. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Monson, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary JEH