Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/1995 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM BLACK HAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL August 8, 1995 7:00 P.M. L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Briefing - Northwest 747 Emergency Landing 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 July 25, 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, September 12, 1995 CURRENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - Monday, August 14, 1995 LONG TERM PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE - Thursday, August 17, 1995 NEXT MASAC MEETING - Tuesday, August 29,199S XI. ADJOURNMENT 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, ser, 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 MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION. FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: AUGUST 3, 1995 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at Blackhawk Middle School. 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 adoption by the commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 13, 1995 meeting are enclosed on pages 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 bring your three-ring binders for reference relative to this business item. Enclosed in your packets for inclusion in the binder are the results of a MAC destination study. This should be included as pages I-75 through I-77. You will note that 70% of all departures from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport go to the southeast, south or southwest. This pattern is unlikely to change with expansions in traffic and, as a consequence, will bear on the flight tracks of aircraft from the adopted airport option. Also enclosed without page number is the most recent dual track update which discusses the plan completion of the economic and financial analyses, the environmental reviews and the remote runway study. The update also includes the dual track schedule culminatingin MAC/Met Council recommendation in July of 1996. Enclosed on pages through is a memorandum shared with the City Council concerning the pr cess to be followed in the next several months. Enclosed on pages through is a copy of definitions of the criteria included in the decision g matrix prepared y John White of the Long Term Planning Committee. This information will.belp respond to questions raised at that Long Term Plang* Committa meetings at which the matrix was completed. Also enclosed on pages 7through 1a1a is a draft set of findings and attachments submitted by the Long Term Planning Comabttee as was anticipated by our recommendation schedule. Please review the document in detail and be prepared to discuss your perspectives concerning it. In particular, the committee would be interested in the areas in which you strongly agree or disagree with conclusions and any recommendations you may have on appropriate support materials to be incorporated in the findings document. The committee will revise and refine the document and submit it to the commission for distribution to the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission at the September meeting. Staff would like to thank the committee and commission in advance for the hard work which has brought this process to the current point and appreciates you continued efforts in this regard. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend changes to the draft position paper concerning the dual track airport planning process. IV. NEW BUSINESS A Briefing - Northwest 747 Emergency Landing— As the commission is probably aware, a Northwest 747 had to make an emergency landing at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport on Wednesday evening, July 26. In doing so, the aircraft dumped more than 20,000 gallons of fuel over several communities. The effects were most significantly felt in Eagan. The background concerning the spill is enclosed in the press release in your packets on pages through. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: This item is being provided for commission information only and no action is necessary unless directed by the commission. V. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Current Operations Committee— The Current Operations Committee hosted Mark Salmen, Northwest Airline's Manager of Airport Operations, at their July meeting. A summary of the discussion with Mr. Salmen is being prepared by committee members and will be distributed as soon as it is received. B. Long Term Planning Committee— The Long Term Planning Committee's report is included in the Old Business item above. VL STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor— Staff is still awaiting corridor reports for the months of May and June which are being prepared by MAC staff following reconfiguration of their ANOMS computer network. If these reports are available prior to Tuesday's meeting, they will be distributed at that time. Staff continues to received constituent complaints regarding corridor compliance although there have been some indications that some days have been better than others. Staff is also awaiting the. MAC report concerning the weekends in late April and early May which the residents reported were substantially different in noise effect. B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Richfield Utigation— On Thursday, July 27, the .Metropolitan Council approved the mediation agreement prepared by the cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield and Eagan and the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council which provides for the physical construction of Runway, 4/22 provided that the mediation team continues to meet to develop a noise mitigation package. The City of Eagan has specifically included the need to discuss the additional headings east of Cedar Avenue as part of this mitigation discussion. The time line for the mediation committee's work will extend through May 1 of 1996. As a part of this activity, the cities will be conducting a joint survey on noise impacts which may also be instructive for the dual track decision. C. Part 150 Update— Homes in the City of Eagan continue to be insulated under the Part 150 program. A change has occurred at the Center of Energy and the Environment, Kathy Larson has transferred to a different CEE office and has been replaced by Mary Raasche. Staff has met with Ms. Raascbe and is working on eligible home lists for 1996. D. MASAC Meeting of July 25, 1"5— Enclosed on pagesthrough „is an abbreviated Technical Advisor's Report for the month of June. �is shorter than the typical reports due to the MAC computer network problems. E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— The coalition received a response from Northwest Airlines concerning its letter on departure profiles. Northwest focussed on the process for airports to select the profiles already designed. Staff of the participating cities is preparing a response indicating that the City's interest is primarily in the assumptions that go into the departure profiles rather than the selection process. VII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the commission regarding items not on the agenda may do so at this time. VIII. INFORMATIVE Enclosed on pages through ..is information prepared concerning the Part 150 survey and discussions involving residents of the McKee area in northern Eagan. This 3 information has been suggested by Lois Monson for members who may not have participated in that discussion and also as a reminder to those who did. It reflects the types of questions and opinions residents had about aircraft noise. Also enclosed on pages through _" is background information Lois discovered regarding the initial Richfield positions on the 4/22 extension. Jo than White has provided the article from Business Week on pages throughrelative to the economic situation for airlines and he has also provided a copy of a bill on pages Agthroughsubmitted by a New Jersey congressman relative to noise mitigation at existing airportsand the need to analyze noise changes for modifications in flight tracks or airports. UL. FUTURE AGENDA Commission members wishing to suggest items for future agendas should do so at this time. X. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be on Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. At the present time, this meeting is still anticipated to be held at Blackhawk Middle School. It may be possible that the October meeting will move back to the remodelled City HalL M.. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 unless extended by a majority of the members present to complete business pending before the commission. s' t to the City Administrator JDH/jeh 4 MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS 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 Pet Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Lance Stadcha, Lois Monson. and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohensteln. AGENDA Hohensteln 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. Hohensteln 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 errAronmental-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 complain line, attending MASAC meetings, keeping a log of his experlerures 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. Hohensteln responded drat ft's 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. Hohensteln stated that he talked to the FAA regarding that time period and it seems the radar problems 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 Hohensteln mentioned that the City of Eagan's annual report was available to commission members 0 they were Interested In recelving IL 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. s Airport Relations Commission Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 2 OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohensteln suggested reviewing the committee report first and then adopting the time line formally. Schlax presented the following time line 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 to the City Council. After further discussion regarding the time line, Schlax motioned to accept the time line as presented, second was made by Cooper, all members voted in favor. Schlax discussed the rating system developed for the Dual Track Rating matrbL 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 Tenn Planning Subcommittee talked about long -tern 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. Hohensteln 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 tong Tenn Planning Subcommittee meeting of July 20, 1995. Todd asked Hohensteln If there would be anyone speaking at the Current Operations Subcommittee. Hohensteln replled that Mark Salmen of Northwest Training and Ron Johnson will be attending the meeting on July 17. In referring to the time line, Staricha asked if there was something more speck occurring regarding the November 1995 deadline. Hohensteln 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 drat[ 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 alrpon 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 A0 Airport Relations Commission Minutes July 13, 1995/Page 3 Schlex motkxred to direct Hohensteln to draft a letter and/or resolution to encourage Dakota County to consider reviewing both options, the current.alrport and a new airport location. Second was made by White. Cooper suggested that the motion contain strong language since U's 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/resolutlon, second was made by Schlax, all members voted In favor. NEW BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Council MBigation Concepts— Hohensteln owed that for the past nine months, staff has participated wfth the group In a discussion of tools and concepts necessary for community Implementation of the dual track process 9 it is determined 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 Us 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. Hohensteln 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. U's the sense of the lobbyists participating In this process that provided that the cities 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 apply. That Is the case with Eagan, Mendota Heights, Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and a small portion of Bumsv lle. N 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. Hohensteln 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 0 there was a way that It could be used based on the ANOMS data or actual flight patterns. Hohensteln replied that this be considered as a policy discussion. it Is fairly 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. ft's Important to balance the Issue and that they should base the contours on the 2096 that are outside of the corridor. Sc hlax stated that he would like to know how residents would fed 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 nolse 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. Schlex stated that Eagan has reached a point of trying to find creative ways to help citizens live with the situation. Hohensteln 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 007 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. Schlex said that he couldn'tsee that they could avoid using creative methods to alleviate the Impact for residents. Hohonsteln stated that Impacts not mitigated should be compensated. This doesn't suggest that no one cares where operations are but where impact Is severe - Mere should be some benefit to the property owners by use of these tools. Monson stated that she didn't see any dollar amount mentioned. Hohensteln stated that the Met Council asked each of the communities to prepare comments on how the tools would be used. it's dflflc ult to put a money amount on IL 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 fl Mere 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 Mem, although Mere are some that may use one of the tools. Some communities may do sound insulation, others may do buy outs, etc. Cooper stated that fl It's deckled to do something. It could incorporate the whole City of Fagan. For Instance, how would a tax break affect Eagan? Hohenstein repled that it 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 whet they actually are. The City would still be collecting an amount as if the property were fully taxed. Schur 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 ft's necessary to follow the land use zoning and allow fewer variances. He commented that he would like to thank Mr. Hohenstein for the thorough preparation of the comments on pages 26 - 28 and that they seem to be appropriate. Hohensteln stated that he would like the commission to accept concept approval of this draft, R 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. Ali members voted In favor, except Monson who voted against. X31 -4l i? A. Eegan/Mendoto Heights Corridor— Hohenstein stated that enclosed In the packet Is a memo on a brisling Involving Senator wiener, Representative Pawlenty, a representative of B01 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 flights Is Mat because of ANOMS difficulties, 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 4/22 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 hand for Inclusion of the flight tracks so that they are not added when the runway Is extended. By keeping the flight 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. Bath 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— Hohensteln 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— Hohensteln 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 Hawthome 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. Hohensteln stated that they are In the process of selecting a new Executive Director. The existing one Is refiring from the law firm tial contracted with N.O.I.S.E., consequently, this position will be replaced. E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— Hohensteln 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. JEH Date Chairperson Secretary 11 Il —city of eagan TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JULY 20, 1995 SUBJECT: DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS PREPARATION OF FINDINGS, INTRODUCTION MEMO Over the next several months, the Eagan Airport Relations Commission, Advisory Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission will make`findings to recommend a position to the Eagan City Council for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The two tracks are the possible expansion of the existing airport by the addition of a north -south runway near Cedar Avenue and the relocation of the airport to a site which has been Identified near Hastings In eastern Dakota County. The ARC anticipates reviewing its preliminary findings with the APC and EDC In September to solicit additional comments regarding land use and economic impacts. A public hearing is expected to be held by the ARC in October. The comments of all three commissions and the public will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration in November. While the final report to the Legislature by the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission on the preferred track is still nearly one year away, the EIS for the two alternatives scheduled to be considered by the MAC in January will define the track which will most likely be the final recommendation to the Legislature. To date, the City of Eagan has maintained a neutral position with respect to the two tracks. Eagan's position is unique within the metropolitan area in that all of the expansion aftematives will Increase overflights of the City. Relocation of the airport, on the other hand may have economic impacts for existing and potential commercial Interests In Eagan. Simply put, the future scale and location of the airport could have both positive and negative Implications for Eagan's future regardless of the track chosen. As a consequence, the City will need to be an active participant in the Dual Track discussion to ensure that the City's needs are met regardless of the outcome. Background concerning the study process and a summary of actions to date and actions to come follow. An area map depicting the options is attached for your review. BACKGROUND - REVIEWS TO DATE The Airport Relations Commission has been reviewing and providing policy input to the City Council on each of the tracks of the Dual Track study throughout the process to date. Their recommendations have primarily focused on the adequacy and consistency of the environmental reviews for each track and the potential mitigation of noise impacts created by each. The City has purposely waited to this point to begin comparing the tracks because neither alternative is dearly better for the City than the other. As the process continues, the City will be able to take advantage of the best possible information available from the responsible agencies. That information consists in part of the Alternative Environmental Documents for each track, noise contours, an anticipated Metropolitan Council study of regional economic impacts and various other reports on air traffic growth, fleet conversion and other issues which may bear on a conclusion. Staff has excerpted and summarized certain of these reports and has compiled them for this review. In addition, complete versions of the documents are available at City Hall for those who wish to examine them in detail. Staff will provide other pertinent reports or material as it becomes available in the coming months. Staff will also attempt to provide any additional information or material which may assist Commissions or Council in making comments in this matter. The ARC has modified a matrix which is part of the Dual Track Environmental Scoping Document to be used as a decision making tool for the City. A copy is attached. Members of the APC and EDC will be encouraged to comment on the matrix criteria or suggest appropriate modifications that may help frame a decision for Eagan. EAGAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE DUAL TRACK ALTERNATIVES The City of Eagan lies immediately south of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Some neighborhoods of Eagan lie as dose as one and one-half miles from the runway end, but most residential areas are three to six miles from the runways. Due to the configuration of the runways and the concentration of a majority of destinations generally south, east and west of the Twin Cities, Eagan receives a substantial number of overflights in nearly all wind and weather situations. In particular, the north and east portions of the City are affected by operations from the 11-29 parallel runways which are used a majority of the time. To its benefit, the City of Eagan was able to plan and develop a substantial portion of its northern tier as commercial and industrial uses which are more noise compatible than residential uses. The worst of the noise impacts continue to be concentrated in these areas, but increases in air traffic at the airport since airline deregulation occurred in 1978 affects broader areas of the City with some level of noise. Expansion of operations at the current airport will introduce additional overflights outside of the noise compatible areas. The north -south runway in particular will introduce concentrations of overflights in south and west Eagan at frequencies and altitudes uncommon for that area. Before any expansion or relocation occurs, however, federal law requires that all air carriers eliminate noisier Stage II aircraft from their fleets such that all airlines must be entirely Stage III by the year 2000. While this technological change in itself could reduce by up to one-half the noise energy received from any individual operation, traffic growth at the airport may offset some of the single event benefits. In addition, while -Stage III aircraft are quieter than comparable Stage II planes, they still produce levels of noise which may be bothersome to some people. Noise nuisance being subjective, the level of annoyance may not become apparent until the fleet conversion and growth actually occur over the next five years. The development of Eagan's commercial and industrial land uses has been and will be affected to some degree by the location of the airport. Some businesses relate directly to the airport including Northwest Airlines. Other businesses such as freight handlers and the City's growing hospitality industry take advantage of the airport as well but are less directly dependent on it. A large number of the City's residents also work at the airport or in airport -related industries. The opening of the last legs of the Interstate Highway system in the last decade have permitted easy access between Eagan's commercial areas, the airport and the rest of the region. It should be noted, that many other businesses and employers have located in or near Eagan for other reasons. The Interstate system, the 494 strip and Eagan's location and amenities are considerable economic advantages for business formation by themselves. Even so, the extent to which Eagan's current business base and potential economic development would be affected by expansion or relocation must be considered. The new airport relocation site lies approximately nine miles east-southeast of the City of Eagan. Environmentally, the additional distance will tend to diminish noise impacts especially when considered in light of the airport's predominant destinations. It is also likely to create some tension for induced development in eastern Dakota County. This may diminish Eagan's direct benefit from airport related growth or it may place Eagan's developable area at the front door of the 494 Strip and at the midway point between the airport and Minneapolis. In addition, the river crossings which have concentrated development north of the Minnesota river in the past may tend to concentrate airport related development south of the river in the future. SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to overview the fact-finding and recommendation process anticipated by staff for Commission and public input. Because of the many variables, the consequences for Eagan and the position the City should take on this issue are not obvious. In addition to Eagan's particular situation, expansion and relocation imply a variety of regional Issues Including direct costs, transportation and Infrastructure Improvements, the role of the Twin Cities in the national and international economies and a variety of other factors. It will be necessary to considers all aspects of the airport's relationship with Eagan and invite public participation In the decision regarding the City's position with respect to ft. MATRIX CRITERIA operational Iss Airfield Capacity: Factors to weigh for this item include operations per hour at peak capacity and impact of weather conditions on. operations (for instance, will heavy rains, unusual amounts of fog, wind, ice, or snow slow operations). Airspace Conflicts: Does airport location and layout present operational obstacles within airspace surrounding the site. This could be due to dependent runways, crossing flight paths, competition with nearby airfields, etc. Runway Use System: Evaluate from Eagan perspective. How will runways be used to manage traffic and how will this impact Eagan? (Will preferred departure runways be those pointed toward Eagan? How many arrivals will coast in over Eagan? Will any runway be preferred?) Use your best judgment. Ground Tracks: Evaluate from Eagan perspective. How many operations will fly over Eagan? You must decide how tracks will likely develop given runway layouts and flight originations / destinations. d Access Issues Value of Travel Time (Passenger): Dollar Value of travel time. While it is difficult to put a monetary value on each -minute of time spent getting to or returning from the airport, use your best judgment as to which options provide the most economical alternative for passengers traveling between Eagan and the airport. Value of Travel Time (Cargo): Dollar Value of travel time. Again, while it is difficult to put a monetary value on each minute of time spent getting to or returning from the airport, use your best judgment as to which options provide the most economical alternative for cargo (freight) traveling between Eagan and the airport. Air Service Issues Level of Air Service (Domestic): Markets Served. What level of domestic air service can be expected from the options presented? This will largely be based on capacity issues since fare levels are hard to predict. 13 Level of Air Service (International): Markets Served, Airfield Capacity. What level of international air service can be expected from the options presented? This will largely be based on capacity issues since fare levels are hard to predict. In addition, to what extent will runways be suited to carry international traffic (long runways needed to handle heavily laden international flights). Suitability for Rubbing: Runway Capacity, Support Facilities. Rubbing, by nature seems to require blocks of time where capacity is managed at peak levels. The more flights that can be jammed into the airfield per minute, the more suitable for hubbing. In addition, terminal design and support facilities are critical to hubbing suitability. These factors are difficult to gauge except by looking at proposed terminal footprints and runway layouts. Differential Fares: Per Passenger Costs. Evaluate this factor from an "air -side" perspective. How will each option compare on ability to constrain costs for travelers? This evaluation should take into consideration capital construction costs, operating costs (airport and airlines), revenue lost to shut -downs or delays, and competitive effects on pricing. Cargo Service: Availability of Facilities. Will facilities provide adequate space for existing cargo demands, competition, and future growth? Will those facilities be convenient to use? Environmental Issues Aircraft Noise: Residential Population Affected. Evaluate primarily from an Eagan perspective. How do the options stack up as far as noise impacted residents (within 60 DNL contour for example) and dislocations as a result of project considered. The more residents impacted, the lower the score. Compatible Land Use: Noise Sensitive Uses. Are airport noise levels suited to current / future land uses. Industrial (and agricultural) uses are less noise sensitive than residential uses of land. Therefore, the more residential is impacted, the lower the score. Social: Residential Population Affected. Evaluate primarily on a "number of Eagan residents affected". However, consider numerical impacts on other areas as well. Air Quality: Compliance. Project alternatives will each have some air quality impact on Eagan (and the Twin Cities in general). Those projects with the least impact on Eagan (and the Twin Cities) will receive higher scores. Issues to consider include precipitate (residue build-up on windows for example), gaseous emissions (ozone, CO2, NO, etc...) odor pollution, and health effects. Historical / Archaeological: Number of Resources. How many sites of historical and / or archaeological significance will be impacted and what is their relative value. Eagan again takes primary importance, but consider other Metro area sites as well. For instance, while Fort Snelling is not in Eagan, further degradation of the site would have an impact on the Twin Cities in general - including Eagan. The more impact, the lower the score. itv Economic Issue Short - Term Direct Economic Effects: Construction Payroll / Purchases. While this may be hard to gauge, any construction dollars spent will filter through and buoy local economies and governments whether it be through suppliers, laborers, or other direct beneficiaries. A portion of any project spending will find its way into Eagan. The question is which projects will provide the most economic benefit to the city, its businesses, and residents through the construction period? Regional Investment Climate: Qualitative Assessment. This provides an opportunity to consider the broader area for the economic benefits provided by each option to the region. What kind of impact will each project have in short and long term on the Twin Cities, MN, and upper midwest investment climates? While the dollar cost of projects is evident, the impact on the broader communities is not. For instance, "no project" will not sap funds from the private sector to finance construction. As a result, airport capacity may become constrained enough to discourage commerce through the Twin Cities. Conversely, funds that could have been spent on the airport could be invested into other efforts, such as education, that may prove to be better investments in the long run. City Investment Climate: Qualitative Assessment. Again, many nuances make this item difficult to score. In the end, what kind of impact can we expect on the city of Eagan for each project? What option will boost investment in Eagan the most? Which will have the most detrimental (or least positive). impact? City / Community Impact Issues Job Development: Number of New Jobs. For each option decide whether there will be more or less jobs in Eagan - new and relocated due to project. If you have an opinion, you may want to factor in type of job created. The more jobs, the higher the score. Commercial / Industrial Disruption: Number. of Jobs Lost. Same as preceding item. Demand for Public Services: Comparison of Supply / Demand. Projects may present added burdens to the city of Eagan which may or may not be offset by benefits provided by the project in question. Do you consider added pressures on Eagan (costs, city employees, traffic ...) to outweigh possible benefits for the option in question (revenue, new jobs and residents...)? If pressures outweigh benefits, score will be low. Consistency with Plans: Qualitative Assessment. Does a given project mesh with the Eagan Master Plan and to what extent? Be careful here. While use of the corridor may be consistent with plans, what flights do once outside the corridor (and altitude of execution) may not be consistent with plans (measure of the extent). Conversely, a new airport will have no corridor, but residents are farther from the new airport than the current airport. Finally, how do options impacts Eagan's "place" in the Twin Cities relative to other suburbs and to what extent is this consistent with plans? Financial Issues Capital Construction Costs: Dollars. How much will the project cost (for taxpayers and users)? The higher the cost, the lower the score. Per Passenger Costs: Dollars. What is the land -side (as opposed to "air -side") cost to move each person through the airport? Think of all the costs associated with airport operations, minus revenues, then divided by.the number of travelers that pass through the facility. On the cost side (apart from initial construction) there are road and parking facility construction / maintenance, terminal material costs, security and cleaning expenses, utilities, baggage handling equipment costs, and labor costs (to name a few). The airport will also generate revenue including advertising, on-site product / service provider leases, gate sales, parking charges, etc. Options with lower costs per passenger will receive higher scores. Predictability of Funding Sources: Qualitative Assessment. Use the following rule of thumb: the more expensive a project is, the more UNpredictable the funding sources (and thus, the lower the scores). Impact on Local Jurisdictions: Qualitative Assessment. How will the airport affect surrounding government expenditures? For example, a new airport may require added police and fire presence in Dakota County? To what extent will that impact the city, county, and their respective residents and businesses? How will bonding authorities be affected? I (X Opportunity to Capture Industrial Values: Qualitative Assessment: To what extent does Eagan stand to benefit from industrial development associated with various projects? Tax base: How will tax exempt airport lands affect government revenues? How will associated development affect government revenues? For Eagan? For Dakota County? Mitigation: The higher the cost of mitigation associated with a project, the lower the score. Local Infrastructure: Will Eagan a greater extent than the project residents be better off or worse standpoint with a given option? Telecommunications, etc...) What financial impacts on the city an Strategic Issues infrastructure be improved to will utilize? Will Eagan off from an infrastructure (Roads, Sewer, Water, will be the associated d taxpayers? Flexibility / Expandability: Qualitative Assessment. Does a. given option provide more or less of these qualities than another. Options with high levels of these qualities should score higher than those with lower levels of flexibility and expandability. Ease of Implementation: Qualitative Assessment. The more physically easy an option is, the higher the score received. Political / Institutional Problems: Qualitative Assessment. Options saddled with potential problems with public acceptance, legislative indifference (or acrimony), and other such burdens,, will score lower than those likely to face fewer human obstacles. TEL: Aug 03 95 10:39 No.003 P.01, , TO: Chair Todd, Jon Hohenstein, Long Ranga Committee•. MrAmbers FROM: Mike Sch]ax DATM:: 7-27-95 SUI(JF,CT: I.CR DUAL TRACK PROPOSAL --Firs 1. Cut Hoy is my face red --Thin took a lot longer than I ever imagined! First issue--Tm m"verl pages too long? I mlippose I'm long-winded again. VI] need your help in trimming il. down. My starting concept. waw Lo ittate the eoncl.uaion early He those nol, interested in the detell s would have what they needed quick and the supporting arguments would come later. Aut..somehow I Lbink there's a word mliltip.lier gremlin in my Processor. 1 never meant Par• i 1. Ln llet: to 8 pages. Second issue --1'n1 I anywhere near expressing Lhee Commit.tev's feelings? Third issue --What. did T miss? For -1.1i lssue.--Gan 1 get you marked up copies quick. Reir•ry but. August 8 iH nominK fast: and we'll need to have something for I.ler. Packet. by Aug 3 (eight Jon?) T'd hate to drop thiK on the full AR(7 on meeting night.. Fil'Lh issue --l' Jusi. reread the draft. Lots of spelling, synt.nx and ol.hcr gr•aolmal.ic:al problems. He]p. 11c1.p. HeelpI Post -It" brand tax tratrendttal memo 7671 .eeweM r 8 Gry 4 A46AIJ /IEtQlllUwWr*X ":4/MW *t.4YWA) 7?G - Z?31 .r �L we. 71G -819J orwr R-97% If v 08-03-95 10:38AM P001 7110 TEL: Aug 03 95 10:40 No.003 P.02 The following in a draft proposal to the Ragan City Council which includes the recommendations of the Airport Relations rommitteee concerning tho Duel Track Planning Process which will be going t.n the. dr.c:iaion-ma)eing during the. 1996 State Legislative session. CONCLUSION Aftor conmiderable study, analysis .and disc:ummion within the Oommitt.ee, L7' 16 Tli]? 0P1NlON OF THF :CUMMITTKK THAT THA' OVERALL 1NTRRESTS OM KAGAN WILL RR BEST SERVED BY THR U1'1'y St)P11ORTING THE Cf1NSTRUCTION OF A NEW AIRPORT AT THE S1TF TIIE MRT'ROPOI,]TAN A7RT,0WJ'8 COMMI'SSTON (MAL') HAS TDRNTTNIED AS OPTION THRIeF IN THEIR DAKOTA COUNTY SRARCH VROCESS. There are many factors the Committee weighed in coming Lo its decision. These will be reviewed later in th.im document, bil. Lhe crux of the issue (whether to build the new airport. or. expand Lha prosont mil.P) came down to two major factors --economic and environmental. )t. was Lhe opinion of the committee t.hat the economic: iNausa were eNMenl.imlly neutral and that there is little que,<I.ion that Eitgan will be mur.;h b(tl.l.e. r o r r environmentally if the new airport in built. Therefore the decision to support. construction of the new a i rport.. BACKGROUND The Committee .looked at five. options: 1 ) Ruild a new Airport at. the Dakota Courit.y Site 2) Txpand t.11r present site: with new runway/s and a now t.eerrrr i nnl 1) Expand the present site and Land Dank the Dakota Connt.v site for furthor/Later expansion 4) Huild Remota Runways in Rosemount and rail p&iKNt-ngcerN between the present terminal and the runways fi) Do nothing (keep operations at present site with tto changes to phyeicul plant and land bunk) For each of the fivo.options, the committee considered the fnllowing factors weighing each factor as a positive, neutral or negative rolativP to the City of Hagan. (Notot t.ho fac:t.ore roughly follow the MET COUNCIL'S guidelines). 6-97x Airport Operational Issues Ground Access Issues Air Service Issues Rr1vi rnnrtrc;trt.al Issues City of )cagan Economic City of )lagan Community Ninanclal 'lecauem Ftrut.agio ]Issues Issues Impact 7NNue.N ►r1 oe-d3-95 10:3dAM P002 #10 TEL: Aug 03 95 10:40 No.003 P.03' Airport Operational IBBUrH The Committee feels that there is lit.l.le doubt. that a new facility, engineered to 21st: Century standards, would be a marked improvement over the present. airport or an expanded layout.. Eagan would/could benefit by having the.. new airport, farther away and removed in it direction which would limit nxpoaure of overflight hecauso of airport use directions of flights (80% of I.rarfic: is vast, south, or west bound). We would also have the. advantage of being in on the negotiations far runway use and ground paths. So Lliere would likely be fewer airplanes. over Ragan wil.h either the Dakol.a or Remote options. The neKalA vo is 1.hnt arcuo of the city (i.e. month and southeast: sections) 1•hai, to date have experiencedlittle. nverrlight would he exposed to increased aciA viLy--all-be-it higher and less frequent than parts of Lhe city are presently .incurring. The secondary problem is l.lint. concerning these now areas, the City will have+ few options in 1.11e wey of mitigation since that. Routh and southeast. areas or t.he• city are ul.moet completely residentially developed arid the oppor•t.unity to create an commernial./industrial corridor such as we pr•esrriLl y }rave in the northeast section of the City will not. exist:. Air operations at the present site pose nothing but nogativos in the Committee's view. Certainly 'No Project' iH the best. of these presentsite alternatives relative to Lhe. City of Eagan. We have the 'corridor' (if only we could the FAA to honor it. more comple.t•ely) and we have semi -effect i.ve runway use and ground path procedures which keep most aect.ianH of the city relatively immune from overflight. impact.a. Another positive about. the 'no project.' opl.con i.K that. i.1, would const:rai.n growth forcing the MAC/FAA 1.0 tlae the present facilities better. Rxpnnrting the pr•ese.nl. airport. in all negative relative to air operal.lonm in Lite c:ommit:tee.'H opinion. Whether extending runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third parallel 11/29, all expansion options make Fagan's actuation worsn. There will be more flights (many of them over the Routh and west sections of Kagan), the present runway use program will have to he rene.got.iai,ed and Itagan'a lack of leverage and aupport. in Lhe MAC/FAA will undoubtedly produce negative result. We will. continue hear the litany of how the present airport is 'constrained' and how the southeast direction (over Eagan) provides the 'on.ly' option for expansion. (around Access ]ssuas The committee feels these issues are all negative with the remote runway option and it's rail link through Eagan the worst.. e::20 ' 09-Cr3=95 '1 OFISAM' "?063 #10 R -97x TEL: Aug 03 95 10:41 No.003 P.04 The naw Airport. and the remote runways would both rnguirt,. aignifi.aant surface road improvement and thew would likely spill over into Lagan. The exact effect of I.his is h+rrd to 9milge at. this time but thr.re. would surely he dimlocntionm especially along highway 65 uw tihAt route is upgraded. Tf the rarnol.e nlnways are built and present terminal linked by rAil through Eagan, major construction dimlocatior►m are assured and, depending on lova tion and engineering deniRions, whole moutions of Fagan surface streets could/would be truncated and iRol aLod. The 'no project' and expanded premenl. Rite opi.ions offer- Fagan the fcwawl. around access problems. The, present rand net would most likely he maintained and except for inrreased trafr•icr on the 494 and Cedar Ave Aridgem, Eagan should be little. impacted. One ncgnl.ive however is MAC's inmist.ence that it needs a new terminal an the west. wide of the airport. This would inc:re+aRo travel Lime 1.0 the Airport.. The travel. time immun ror both passenger and cargo mermen a nrut.ral. While. I.hn new airport would he furthor diml.ant., - inryroved access should make the total time umed to get to a ne.w facility Jm about equal to that used in going to the present mi1.A. The remota runwny immue has another negative and it is pr;u1mr•ily pmycholonical.. Hagan residents having to hack-trAck, so -to - speak, to get: to the train to take them bark to Rosemount. They wo,ild undoubtedly find this annoying. Air Service lmmues The conclusions here for the commliA.e.e. were obvious. New facilities --well. planned and well engineered --will make for more effir.ient: and expanded air service. In this rewperl. the adage we believe, "Dui.id it and they will come" is appropriate. And I.him applies to expanded present airport also. 1n all probability, there would be addi.t.innnl regional rlightS. Most likely there would be increased long haul dnmomt.iv. I.rutt'll: and potentially more international traffic t.00.. Air rargo operAtionA And charter flying would increase as new and/or better facilities are added. l►,1: while the shove appears attractive, as we have provioumly noted, any expunalon of flying usual3y produceR neastive impart. on F:Agan's quality of life. Those airplanes will have to go somewhere and withi.n the options (especially the expanded proment site) that somewhere will almost always be over. Lagan. a/ 08-03-95 16:38" P004 #10 R-97% TEL: Aug 03 95 10:41 No.003 P.05 As pari. of this issuP., 1.he committee also looked as the fare c:han(;es that inighl. anrur. The more grandiose I.he project, t.l1P more Lhe traveling public and airport users will have to pay. 'flie no project option seems to he the best in this regard with a aonled back (no new terminal) expansion option next best est, 2.6 billion dollars (Note here that the commiti.nP feels many of the miLlgation costs of an expanded MSP have not, accurately been factored in to t.h i m nilmher) . As we have seen al. I.lre new Denver airport, passengers and users take a big hit. with new construction. The Dakota (eat'.. 4.1 Billion dollars) or Remote (est 4.9 billion dollars) optionn are likely cause a substantial increase in fares and user fee..w. But. the Denver sr:e.narin aeema to he discrediting name of the nngatA vity here. passengers and OperaLorK do not seem to be avoiding Lhe new Denver facility even with il.K expanded costs. Fnvi.rammr.nl.al Taauea For the Committee this was the big issue! Thr. no.iae. immue. Obviously ooniinal.ea eonKideration of this factor but there are other issues that affect Eagan also. As mr..n Unnod previously, the vast. majority of flight operations from the no project or expanded present mite optiona are. sure 1.0 he routed over Eagan with a norreKponding increase. in noiKe.. Arid while there is hope for monin improvement in corridor ennip.1.3anr.:c with naw navigal.lonal aids and techniques, less noise from fewer nta(ie TT mirc:raft., and redefined 'noise impacted' areas al)owing greater partici.pal..ion in part 150 noise abntomcnt programs, mora flights will inevit.abl.y mean more noise. The obvious advantage of the Dakota or Remote opLions is that. they are, farther from Eagan and in a direction which will produce fcwnr overflights of Lhe City, The Remote site in Rosemount is closer than Lhe Dukota County site near Hast.inRK and Lhernl'orc the Rosemount site would he leas desirable than Ilastings but both would be better than operal.ions from the existing airport.. And noise is not just. a function of Flying Cperationa--Frigi ne Comte rind other on-airt,orl. I'unct.ions also produce noise and again t.hc farthar away the beitt:er so the Dakota opt.iori is again hest for 1Sa{!an . Air qunli.t:y issues are also m factor. Jet engines produc:ii c:onsidcrable amountu Of air. pollution. Citieena. under Che flight paths often c:oniplain of soot build-up and the recent experience or fuel dumping attest:m 1.0 the potential of this problem. Anil again the father and higher the airplanes mra the bel.l.r.r favar.ing the Dakota county site. 08-03-95 10:38AM P005 #10 IEL: Aug 03 95 10:42 No.003 P.06 Another envirorlmenl,al iaauo for the committec is the Minnesota IlJvOy Valley wild life area. This is a tremendous, and under- ul.ilip,ed resource right in Fagan's backyard. Uses for this nraft are almost limitless but. are severely impacted by air opsrat.ionm from the prcesent. site. Airplanes pose a hazard to the flying creatures and generally detract from an area that. ahouJd he kept Fin pristine as pocesible.Removing the flying to Daket.a county would allow the River wildlirs area to deve-lop to it. rul] roten1.ial. The Dakol:a site is-rurul farmland and few dimrupttons arc AnticipnLed or mentioned in the knvironment:al Impact. Rtatemont of the Ihcal Track Scoping Documccll., City l''.Cnnrlm i e: l aeuos Under t.hi.m I.opic: the Committee looked only at. broad scale ismurtc. Specific impacts will be reviewed under Finanoial 7amurm later. Short term the c:ommi.l.l.ee feels (Sagan would hr little iulpac:l.ed by activity at. the present site but, Lher•n is potential for the conatructa on period at both the. Dakota county or Remote runway site. Tieing one of the closest full-servics suburbs to the now sites, Eagan would surely benefit. Eagan could H]mn benefit by building a Flew airport since it. Proven that. the economic C]imate surrounding pr•o;jerts of a four Ili] -lion dollar plus scale tend to simulate hn1.11 regional and local economics. The committee J'cc:ls that I.hia would not be the case if the Premnn'I, mite were expanded. Eagan might get, some minor economic stimulus but. '.)lc vast. majority of activity here wnuld po to Bloomington/Minneapolie/Ric}Yield/ St. Paul. City Community Tmpaot• TasueK Bryant] thn const.rurt.ion phase, the commi I.I.rr. Per.IK that novo of the options would have serious, long term nanmequennem for t:ho City of 1taEan. Crew jobs would be lost since most airport, re]al.e•.d businesses have indicated they would stay where they are regardless of which of the airport options arc scloctod. There is the possibility that Eagan might see Kafue long term development associated with the now airport: options Pspecially along an uPgr•aded highway 66 and in the south and uouthoast mec:tions of I.hee city. Most 01' the negatives associated with the new airport; options come from the diaruptiona amused by construction and demand for new servic: lil,l.lrin LI,hiK ExpahKton of the old site would affect Pagan . rejlarct. v 08-03-95 10:36W P006 1110 TEL: Aug 03 95 10:42 No.003 P.07, As highway' 66 is upgraded there will be major disrupi.ione+ in the east. par -1. of !Sagan. This upgrade must be c)oaely monitored to temrture that adequate access is provided so that sections or the City are not isolated. The same can be said for a rail sysl.nnl to support the: remote runway option. There also may be a demand evrrtLually to upgrade city surface st.reeta to handle. residential and commercial development between the new airport and Engen. Almo the extension or the Metro Service Area (sewer and water) may oanme metro planners to upgrade existing services ceueNirIg Hagan to rode) some of its infrast.ruc:t:ure. Costs cloud and shnuld lip. mitigated but such dislocations eou)d ire large. Another item to he c:onmidered under this issue is Conmimt.ency with plans. Thim is entirely negative relative to t.ice new airport options. The secLions.of Lagan thst. would become: expoked with Lhe new airport. Options give. the city little or no room to time its planning/soning uuthoritiea. The south and aouthcast ecctionm or t.hp city are almost totally developed and ff-w if any Administrative enrn:.tiderat:ions could be implemented. One o1' t.be pomit.ives concerning the presrtlt airport is (.hut. (Sagan has been able to establish a corridor where airplane operat.i.on affect Ragnn to the least possible extent. Ragan has been very diligent in proteot•ing thin corridor but unfortunal.r.)y Lhe. FAA and MAC pay (v11y lip service to keeping I.he airplanes in the corridor. So while Lhis s)lould be a very positive for they present, site the committee feels this is only a slight positive for the premeni. airport because of the way, the corridor is used. 113ilancial lasues This in a tough on(:! The best estimate we.. have meen come from Jon Ilohensteinrs Exchange Club presentation numbe.rm included here em attachment #1. Basically the new airport appears to be about double the cost of expansion of the preme.nt. Pita. We Pay appears because we are nlrar)y sleulicuL about some of the numbers MAC has produced in Nrepport.ing the nxpausion option. 2.6 billion is probably 11votrral.e for bricks and mortar, but we feel they have grossly underestimated the mitigation cost:m much am llnme buy-oul. . programs, part 150 programs and major marewny/rlyway real eml.atv purchason required south of the airpor•L. The, Aakotai or Remote runway opl.icrrlm with their 4.5-6 billion dollar price tats are expensive but at, least the numbers we see are realistic: numbers. (The big unknown is the cost of rail connection for the remol.o runway option.) 9-97% - ....... .... 1 0e-03-95 10:39AM P007 #10 R-98% TEL: Aug 03 95 10:43 No.003 P.08 So with those numbera in mind the question becomes, what iK Lagan'K exposure when it comaR time to pay for the option sclr.cLed? The committee feels Lhnt: Lagan As an enl.it:y has only a very 119OLed exposure regardless of the amount spent since MAC and/or Stat.e bonding authorities would he used to finance t.hr. projects. individual citizens or the city itself would be little imparted when it comes to payina.for thr bonds, The impact will be felt by those in Sagan who use the expanded of new airports --that includes both remidents anti husinosseg who use the airline and Lhe airport. They will undoubtedly sec n Rignificant incronse in their airport. fees. At the now Denver airporL Lbe per passenger costs have gone up about $15 and Denver has a $3 PVC LAX- Costs for contractors at the airport will eo up a]ao. Vendors in the terminal, Freight Forwarders and Northwest. Airlines all would fee] the bite as their coml. increase. overall from t.hr.2t I' i nano i al aspect, there can be J i I.I.1'r doubt that the no pra,joal. option would be best, the expanded airport. next. and r i n,el l y the two airport options the worst. Ono other item to be considered under financial issues ani one we have talked little about to t.hi.a point --Land Ranking. Regardless of rcaKoni if the options to build the DakoLm Airport ur Remote runways are rejected during the 1988 Dual 'Track decision process, the Commit.t.ee feels the City of kAVan should support and encourage the MAC Lo land Bank the sites in Dakota Cotinty and Rosemount to assure that opt.iona are still availcible. al'Ler the year 2000. The committee feelR Lhmi, after all the time and money that. has been spent researching Lhee Lwo new options, it would be foolish just to cut those areas adrift. Cons itie rat ion must be made to assure those two laTid blocks continue i.n lin available should a now airport be required in the near future (a poasibility). .'1'hia ]and banking should be accompliKhed an Cheeaply as possible, but it should be done.. Whr.t.her by coning, planned use agreements, option Purchases or out. -right. pur-uhasor., the designated areas should be protected. TO THE COMMITTEE: I'm running out of gas hese..-that: did 1 miss under financial? Ht.r,al.egi C. lsavee From the long term standpoint there can again tie 1iLi.le doubt that, the new runway options provide the greatest flexibility if' say at. 2020 Purther airport expansion becomes necessary and the, Dakota site is the best of the new options in this regard. The present site is constrained on throe sides by reeeident.inl eireety and on the fourth by the Minnesota River. The proposed expansion program will about max out that area for additional axpar:K'inn. as 08-03-95 10:38AM P00 8 #10 R-97% TEL: Aug 03 95 10:44 No.003 P.09 I'hc present airport. site does have the advantage of case of implementation. MAC already owns the ground so no projccl. or expansions should encounter few unsurmount.able barriers. The Remote Runway options should be relatively easy also since this site Belongs to a Government agency (the. University of WrineRota) and a lead swap should be easy. The Dakota site will likely be difficult with many lawsuits, contentious hearings, and finally government 'takings' to gain possession of the land. And rinally the Political/Inst.itutional. problems. At thi.R writing drrrinp the summer of 1995 there seems to be little support for the Dakota site option and even less for the. Remota runway concept.. Several key plays including Northwest Air]ines have challenged the MAC's growth projection figures which MAC is using t.o.justAty the projects. No project will have subtant.ial support. aril should be Fagan's position if the new airport plans are rcjrtul.erd. Hut MAC seems to have this lust to spend 3-5 billion and the City will have to he very prnaetivo in the hearings at the SI.al.e Legislature and at the negotiations and lawsuits that, are sure to follow. Minneapolis and St. Paul have shown that there are few aull.e.rists on airport issues. It's „very city for itself and i.hose that make the most anise are the cries who get. consideration. Ragan will be one of the most iiili)ar:t.ed city in thiR whole process. Vagan needs to be a active Player to assure the best intcreaLs of its viLizens are protected. .08-U3-95 id:73HJV P069 111b' h:FB yati.,lviy�. NBNS —City of @a9an FE I LEASE 1191; 11 1, A I_ —:111; _ Contact: LEAD: CITY TO MONITOR FORPOSSIBLE EFFECTS Tom Hedges OF JET FUEL FALLOUT 661-4600 The City of Eagan felt the effects of a Northwest 747's aborted take off on Wednesday evening, but City officials feel fortunate that the effects weren't worse. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 27, Northwest Flight 56 to Amsterdam lost power in one of its four engines during take off and the crew turned the plane back toward the airport for an emergency landing, flying over central Eagan in the process. Following standard safety procedures, the crew released about 20,000 gallons of Jet fuel to lighten the aircraft. Unfortunately, the airliner was so close to the.ground that odors and residues from some of the fuel reached the ground in a large area of Eagan east of I -35E. 'Northwest tells us that the aircraft was not in .any danger of crashing,' said City Administrator Tom Hedges, 'but the pilots have to take the appropriate safety precautions because they cannot tell If the situation is going to get worse. In this case, the engine failure occurred so soon after take -off that some of the fuel had not vaporized before it reached the ground.' a7 Eagan and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency officials indicate that the environmental effects of the fuel dump are expected to be minimal. Police and Fre Department personnel responded to calls Immediately after the incident and were unable to find any fuel on the ground. City Parks and Public Works maintenance personnel also surveyed the area on Thursday morning and reported no evidence of fuel In area ponds. MPCA staff indicates that jet fuel tends to evaporate quickly and that Thursday's rains probably reduced the concentrations even further. The fuel will naturally dissipate over a short time and should not cause any residual effects. During the time the vapor was in the air, however, the Eagan Police Department received a large number of phone calls from residents bothered by the odor or even suffering from headaches and respiratory discomfort. In addition, a number of residents complained of a sticky residue on homes, plants, cars and other items which were outside when the jet went over. To respond to resident concerns, Northwest -has set up a special office which can be reached at 727-0603. Customer Service Representatives can answer questions about the effects of the fuel. Northwest Is also responding to concerns about property damage at the same number and the company will have insurance representatives available to assess possible impacts on resident's homes. The airline also offered free car washes at the Mermaid Car Wash in Eagan Town Centre for residents in the areas which were most likely to have been affected by the fuel. 'City staff will continue to monitor lakes and ponds to be certain that there are no effects from run-off,' Hedges said. Ve take this situation very seriously, but we are also very grateful that the effects weren't greater and that our staff and Northwest responded so promptly to the resident's concerns.' Additional information concerning this matter is available through Tom Hedges at the City of Fagan, 681-4600. aR Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary June 1995 Complaint Summary by City Apple Valley' 3 15 18 06:00 - 0639 0.8% ArdenH0ls 0 4 4 0.1% Afton 0 1 1 0.1% Bloorningon 6 10 16 0.7% Burnsville 0 12 12 0.5% Eagan 25 483 508 23.0% Eden Prairie 0 1 1 0.1% Edina 0 17 17 0.7% Inver Grove Heights 7 175 182 83% Lakeville 0 1 1 0.1% Little Canada 0 1 1 0.1% ' Maplewood 2 1 3 0.1% Mendota Heights 2 248 250 113% u1nneavolis 319 672 991 1 44.9% Mtnuetonka 4 2 6 1 0.3% Oakdale 4 11 15 1 0.6% Mymouth 0 1 1 0.1% Prescott 1 0 1 0.1% Richfield 3 39 62 2.8% Rosemount 0 1 1 0.1% South St Paul 1 13 14 . 0.6% St. Louis Park 9 2 11 0.5% St. Paul 69 9 78 1 33% Sunfish Lake 0 6 6 1 0.3% W St. Paul 1 0 1 1 0.1% Wayzata 2 2 4 0.1% Woodbury0 1 1 0.1% :=g F'-`,C,iVW9�''-of„m`';: R'�R �C`�. .•�'�7 A ��.I. �VVA so:: Inme of Day Nature of Complaint 00:00- 0539 41 Ex sive Noise 2096 06:00 - 0639 71 Earl AAte 61 07:00 -1139 596 Lownying 30 12:00- 15:59 304 Structural Disturbance 6 16:00- 19.39 418 Helicopter 0 20:00- 2139 545 Ground Noise 7 22:00- 2239 191 Engine Run 4 23:00 - 23:59 31 Pr ea 13 � MEW� 'bfal ::;2217 ri:: nt Tower Log Reports June 1995 AU Hours Nighttime Hours MEMO _ cfty of Wawa" TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN- DATE: MARCH 11, 1994 SUBJECT: PART 150 OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION Enclosed you will find a copy of the. mailing being forwarded to the Part 150 eligible residents in commercial -industrial guided areas. In addition to the cover letter, they will receive the transcribed comments and questions with staff responses and information on the sound Insulation demonstration house. For your information, the following is a tabulation of the questionnaire responses received to date. Level of Impact Low Moderate Significant Severe No Response 1 Never 1 1 Monthly Weekly Daily 1 3 2 2 > Daily 11 28 Similar Time Frame Four Years v. Twelve Years Insulate 22 27 Purchase 23 17 Either 3 4 Neither 2 2 cc. Advisory Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Dear Resident: This letter is a follow up to the Open House held on March 7 concerning airport noise and the airport's Part 150 Sound Abatement Program. The Airport Relations Committee would like to thank those of you who were able to attend or who mailed your questionnaires to the City. Enclosed is a list of the questions and comments which were returned. We have included answers to your questions so that everyone can have the same information. Your participation in this discussion is very important. The City has the opportunity to use federal funds to either sound insulate or purchase noise -impacted homes. The Airport Relations Committee's purpose is to deal with the noise problem in the best, most cost-effective way possible. This is an airport noise issue and not a redevelopment issue. The City will only ask the airport to acquire a neighborhood if no other alternative would serve the best interests of its residents. The Airport Relations Committee is reviewing the results of the survey and have begun discussions about next steps with respect to this program. The committee will meet on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center to accept public comment to be considered with the questionnaire responses. They are also expected to make a recommendation at that time which will go to the City Council. The meeting is open to the public and you are invited to attend. Again thank you for your attention to and participation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JVn Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator Enc. 3� PART 150 OPEN ROUSE QUESTIONS NARCR 7, 1994 1. Nov Can flight patterns be changed? The volume of traffic at the airport today is three times what it was in 1978. That being the case, flight patterns cannot be changed to completely avoid the neighborhoods close to the ,airport. This volume of traffic results in a fanning of traffic from southern Mendota Heights neighborhoods all the way to northern Eagan neighborhoods. Regardless of flight tracks, the areas eligible for the Part 150 program will continue to receive high levels of noise. 2. (Row would the airport go about the) purchasing of homes in 4 block area? If a decision were made to purchase the four block McKee Addition, the entire area would be purchased over a period of three to four years. The airport would request federal funding to cover the costs and would enter into negotiations with individual property owners to determine a fair market value for each home. Federal law requires that if property is to be purchased for public purposes, it is at its fair market value. - If negotiations did not result in a sale for a particular property, condemnation proceedings would occur and each party would submit an appraisal to a panel which would determine the property's fair market value and award that to the homeowner. In addition, property owners would be entitled to a federally established relocation allowance of approximately $20,000. 3. If the majority of home owners want to sell, how will that impact the remaining homes? If the City decides to ask the airport to buy a neighborhood, all homes in that neighborhood would be purchased because it would be unfair to the remaining neighbors, whether they wish to sell or not, to have parts of their neighborhood purchased and vacated while they are left behind. It would also be necessary if and when the area is to be redeveloped to have the entire area available. The City may decide to treat each neighborhood differently than the others however. 4. Now will insulating the Dome impact taxes? The sound insulation improvements E= result in an increased valuation of the home for tax purposes. The City is exploring whether a program exists to abate the increase or limit it. The improvements themselves, which cost the resident nothing, average $15,000 to $20,000 and substantially reduce the indoor noise impact for the resident. It also tends to reduce energy costs because it improves the energy efficiency of the home. Unlike the purchase option, sound insulation is a completely voluntary program. Residents will need to determine for themselves whether the noise and energy value of the improvements is worth a potential increase in property taxes. 5. that is the budget per house and taz impact? (Revalue of house) See answer to #4. 6. Row are you going to insulate and when? When your home is selected for the sound insulation program, the airport will have an architect visit you at your home and prepare a design which takes into account the current condition and inside noise level of your house. Typically, the program involves many of the same things which are done for energy insulation: new windows and doors, storm windows, caulking, wall and attic insulation, modifications to vents and other openings in the house. If you do not have air conditioning, it will be provided in the program to allow you to keep your windows closed when you wish to. You will have the opportunity to review the architect's plan and you can approve it, ask for modifications or opt out of the program. Once you have approved the plan, it will be scheduled for bid and construction will be begun within the year. Construction will take four to eight weeks depending upon the plan approved by the owner. The airport's current funding allocation for Eagan will cover the sound insulation of approximately 30-40 homes per year. If funding remains constant and the City decides to sound insulate all of the homes eligible under the program, it will take four to five years to do them. The City uses a lottery to determine which houses are done each year. 7. Cost replacement on buyout? See answer to #2. 8. Row soon (Will a buyout occur)? If the City asks the airport to buy a neighborhood, it will take several years to get the separate grant funding necessary to do so. Once the funds are secured, the time necessary would depend on the size of the neighborhood. If the McKee Addition were to be purchased, it would likely take three to four years after the funding was received. 9. I would like to have explained ezactly what soundproofing entails. See answer to #6. I J 10. what does insulation require? what is the process? How long does it take? See answer to #6. 11. Any cost to us? There is no cost to the homeowner for the improvements associated with the plan they.approve for this program. If the homeowner wishes to do other remodeling work or upgrade their home at the same time, that cost must be covered by the homeowner. 12. Can airport or City buy us out if we don't want to sell? See answer to #3. 13. when would we be informed of a buyout (month, year)? The City's Airport Relations Committee hopes to make a recommendation to the City Council yet this spring on the best approach for the area. If a decision is made to pursue a buyout in any of the areas, the City would work with the airport to attempt to identify the funding source and"a timeline. An actual date to begin the purchase.may not be known for several years, however. The City would maintain communication with the effected residents throughout that time to be sure that you can plan accordingly. 14. what areas would be bought out and in what order? The purpose of the open house and.public discussion is to help the Airport Relations Committee develop recommendations to sound insulate or purchase. If a decision is made to purchase one or more neighborhoods, a recommendation will also be made as to the priority order for each. 15. would it be a forced buyout or an optional sell? See answer to #3. 16. why don't planes follow the 55 corridor? See answer to #1. 17. what effect would a new airport in Dakota County have en our area? If a now airport were built near Hastings, the current airport would be closed and the noise impact from the new airport would be substantially less than you experience today. The current airport is three miles from the McKee Addition. The proposed airport would be fifteen miles from the McKee Addition. Sound insulation improvements would continue to be important in the near future, because a new airport would not be operational for about fifteen to twenty years. 3t7 18. Will the insulating process stay the same (same procedures)? The process is not expected to change. see answer to #6. 19. Is the City going to upgrade the streets and sever system? The City will continue to monitor and prioritize streets and utilities for improvements. If the City decides to ask the airport to purchase an area, normal maintenance would continue until the buyout is complete. The City would not do major reconstruction if an area is scheduled to be purchased. 20. If the houses were purchased, would they buy a block at a time or would it be a checkerboard deal? See answer to #3. . 21. If they were insulated, would you have to live in it a certain length of time afterward before you could sell? No. 22. geed more information on how effective the sound insulation will be and if purchased, what the purchase price would be. Residents who have responded to the City's follow up questions about the sound insulation program have indicated a high level of satisfaction with the noise reductions. Information concerning the Sound Insulation program Demonstration House in Richfield is included with this mailing. The Demonstration House has rooms sound insulated at three different levels for residents to view and is open weekdays for tours. For a description of the purchase process, see answer to #2. 23. Row do you defend your stand on payment or choice of whom to pay in terms of equal compensation? I•f homes in an area are to be purchased, the law requires that a fair market value be paid as just compensation. The law prohibits equal compensation because not all properties are equally valued. The choice of whether to purchase an area or not will be based on the City's.understanding of the public good of each option. The City will consider a number of factors including the responses of the residents, the nature and extent of the noise impact, whether the area is likely to be redeveloped to a more noise compatible use by private interests and so on. 24. Why invest when or if you are going to lose it and never recover the losses? To minimize the time of uncertainty about this matter, the City intends to make a decision in this regard yet this spring. If sound insulation is identified for an area, it will be assumed that the properties will remain residential for the foreseeable future and residents would want to maintain and invest accordingly. If a purchase option is l� identified for an area, the airport and City will work to set out a timeline and expectations as soon as possible to allow residents to plan accordingly. -25. If you insulate today, what guarantee is there you will not purchase tomorrow? Or won't you be throwing away your. iasulation money if you have to purchase at a later time? To answer the second question first, it would be inappropriate to invest in the improvement of 'a property if it is likely to be purchased for redevelopment in the near future. That is why it is important to discuss whether a purchase option makes sense in the near future before moving ahead with insulation. If a private purchase is not likely within the near future, it makes sense to improve the indoor noise environment of the homes. The City has no specific redevelopment plans for the areas eligible for the Part 150 funding. The only reason the City would consider asking the airport to purchase an area at this time would be to alleviate the noise impact on residents. 26. actual timeframes for both plans. See answers to #6 and #8. 27. Process for insulation and any caps in spending for NeRse Addition or is it set up in terms of current home improvements? There is an annual allocation to the City of Eagan from the airport and the typical sound insulation project costs between $15,000 and $20,000. There is no cap for any of the eligible areas, but the costs of insulating each home will determine how many homes can be done in a year and how quickly the airport can insulate all eligible homes. see answer to #6. 28. Buyout issues. See answers above. 29. When decision will be finalised. See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 30. Row soon will the RAC action happen? See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 31. Why insulate the houses as we can not enjoy our yards from 3130 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at all every day all summer? Sound insulation will only improve the indoor noise environment. It will not change a person's ability to enjoy their yard. Insulation is done so that at least the part of someone's property that can be improved is improved. Metropolitan Airports Commission SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM OFFICE AND DEMONSTRATION HOUSE The Sound Insulation Program Office and Demonstration House is located at 6314 Standish Avenue South in Richfield near the end of one of the airport's busiest runways. The home is owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and will be used by the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment (CEUE) as the program office. Three rooms have been sound insulated, with one of these rooms designed to be a 'quiet room'. The rest of the home was left as is. People are able to walk from room to room and compare the different sound levels. The Demonstration House office phone is 348-9337. The Demonstration House visitor hours are: Monday - Friday 9.00-4:30 Please call 348-9337 before stopping in, so we can have staff available for you. Location RICHFIELD Principles of sound insulation Noise enters a house in two ways: Information Program Office 348-9337 MAC 726-8100 1) Noise is airborne. Open windows are obvious examples, but noise can enter through even the smallest cracks. Acoustical caulks, sealants and special weatherstripping keep the new windows, doors walls and ceilings very tight. Air conditioning ducts have been baffled. A House Doctor crew has tested the hoose to make sure there is adequate ventilation. 2) Noise is structure -borne. Sound will cause a structure to vibrate. This vibration will transfer the sound directly through a wail or roof, albeit in a diminished manner. Added mass in the form of additional sheetrock and acoustical windows with thicker panes of glass have been added to the acoustically treated rooms. This extra weight makes it harder for a wall or window to vibrated and pass noise through. 3) To make the transfer of structure -borne noise even more difficult, additional space between panes of glass and discontinuous construction (where a new wall and ceiling-, separated by a gap, is built adjacentto existing structure) are featured in the dir, ig 'quite" room. i� :-OUND INSULATION MQD4Mo 7Q15TDWER The Dlene,nshtetion Nouse SDs +hRee rooms that - Pave been sound insula+ed. The rest tF f►,e JIM" hos not had Cpecial acauSVCSl woRlc done but St 11 provides ,Round a 29 d BA CA u*i tlktd decibels - closest -to huwiaw n I ATR he2R6y ►�otse level reduchbo, 4F om **f meosumA outside. Tf takrs a •IodBA deep +o cu+ +he peRceived nofse in half. DOWNSTAIRS DEN — New STC- 37 LW ;TERINlndows # Solid Cone klKtRy doo>Z :fvRQOM g LIVINU PoOM - Ne&Nl CM 44 windows, second rpIId1i15 5Ja,, = = doOR, 2 new solid cone 2Nd 2 new hymn, of yegWll tad. QUIET ROOM - See details pe!ow. STC - Sovndpt2m-4 uKiph GI2S6. The hintieR"" STL J the betdeA 4LA sf oppink nor e. "C' uD0DEV° ORQDQD[� C The owet Room hes been desired to aNeve fhe highest kwisoF naso naduc- +IWL I+ 4taluReb ♦he 4110win3; Mtw faeeslondin9 well and Ceiling WIN, 2 new layeRS of WVall bd. • �f�•ted � shielded AC duct in Ceilin' • New Sra w window wt+l,, s/ib IDW%Inafied 9Fas5 and yt`pI'+e . 41x5 Se}*xted br a 4h' OP. Sj m- • &?RS tare¢ of gs• wall b aaA on (. 'gide wwls and gaRa5e Wail 21•nJo Q.R. • 5fG W} Vrindow in nom below and Rig beagl. iaM>; is 4)ZOP, • New solid CW wood entP/ dooR W SECTION A -A THROUGH QUIET ROOM PART 150 COMMENTS MARCH 7e 1994 Cannot even talk on phone or outside when plane is going over - house shakes. My house at 2799 Linde Lane is a duplex. Due to severe aircraft noise, it has been almost impossible to rent. At one time, it was empty for 5 months. When tenants do move in, they only stay a very short time because of the severe noise problem. This has been very costly due to rent loss. I tried to sell, but no one was Interested because of the proximity to the airport with all the noise. Keep airplanes over 494. My biggest concern is that I would be forced to sell my house. I think that with proper noise insulation and soundproofing, the majority of the problems could be solved. It's not that bad where a person would need to sell! The winter months noise is not bad at all. It would be nice if the "corridor" was built in stone and that EPA restrictions insofar as noise is concerned were adhered to. Cannot use phone in spring and fall. Can't air house. I have never called or written to complain about airplane noise. I have lived on my property since July 1960. In the 601s, it was very noisy because of propeller -type engines. At that time, airplanes did not gain altitude as fast so house and contents shook. I wish = to sound insulate, but eventually to sell my home when I can get a buyer. And really, I don't want to sell. I an 68 years old and I know I will definitely be out within 5-10 years. Safety concerns. Condition of street related to buyout. I think it is urgent that something be done to the McKee Addition. I believe a buyout is the smarter choice considering the age of the neighborhood, but whichever is decided, it must be done soon. You must also consider that when the older residents in the area pass away, who is going to want to purchase the house knowing about the noise problem? I also want to say that insulating is sort of like putting a bandaid on the problem. It's not a good long-term solution because it does not help you if you're outside in your yard during the summer playing with your children or what have you. People can't be expected to have their homes closed up all spring, summer and fall and never open the windows to let the breeze blow in, especially with the rising cost of electricity and the value of conserving our resources. How can you justify all the electricity used to run central air units in 130 homes just in my neighborhood 150 days a year, year after year after year. _ CDXXENTS (page 2) I would like you to ask: If the buyout was implemented that if they could make it a speedy buyout because people's living is being affected by this. They want to fix their house up and keep it up, but why should they if they are waiting for a buyout? Affects television and phones. Wakes us up, etc. Windows and cupboards rattle. Items move and fall off shelves at times. We can't bear on telephone when planes fly over. There are times we cannot speak andbe beard -in a normal voice due to air traffic. Family members have not come to visit due to the noise. .We can't sit outside in the summer when it is so hot in the house. No AC, so windows have to remain open. I see no point in insulating. The main impact of aircraft noise is that it prevents us from using our yard. This is a lovely, peaceful neighborhood except for the noise. Many of us do lots of walking and gardening (with our hands over our ears). If money is going to be spent, first priority should be buying out the elderly 'People who want to go, but can't afford anything comparable in a less noisy area. They bought their homes before they had any inkling that there would be a noise problem. The rest,of us knew (at least partly) what we were getting into. Should have much lower assessed value on homes due to noise. My tax value is such too high. Nobody in right mind would pay assessed value with noise present. Our neighborhood is victim to excessive airport noise -due to our being surrounded on all sides by commercial property. -This noise is sometimes so bad, one cannot hear one think. The planes are so close to my home, you can read the number on the plane itself. We are planning to sell our home in the future and will certainly have to overcome the noise factors to potential purchasers. Therefore, I feel we are at a loss not only on a daily basis, but also on a long-term financial basis. I would like them to purchase our home at a price we deem fair to the value. Insulating will only help the problem when you are inside. When you are outside playing with your•chiidren, the noise is so loud, you can't hear them laugh. What effect does this have on children's hearing? Let's get this resolved as soon as possible. This land is more valuable than the homes. Good location for airport parking lot. I bet it would be filled daily. Shuttle buses could go to airport and back for a small fee. This location is bad for homes. We are sitting in the middle of an industrial park and right under flight path. Couldn't get any worse. leave the airport where it is. I have lived here for 99 years and I don't mind the planes. CONVENTS (page 9) I get jet fuel scum on my picture windows the planes come so low over our house. We are in line with the main runway and sometimes I vision an object falling off the plane right into the house. In summary, I would be in favor of supporting the buyout. I've owned the home since 1974 and believe it's long past due to accomplish.this. We purchased this.home in Sept. of 1072 and have lived with this nuisance since. We want to have our home insulated the next year or two or ASAP. With windows closed there isn't too much problem. Then in this area if it isn't airplanes, it's trucks one after the other as you let the industry build all around us. Actually McKee area should be industry only. CITY OF EAGAN- . PART 150 LAND vsrb.PROGRAM RESIDENT QLZS4L;,AXAIRE I. Nov frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly Weekly "Daily veral Times a Days 2. Now would you describe_the.aircraft noise impact at your home? Low Moderate Significant Revere 3. If you could have your home sound insulated or purchased to deal with the noise nuisance, which would you prefer? Insulate Purchase Do Nothing 4. If you could have your home insulated within the next four years or purchased within the next twelve years, which would You prefer? "iasuiate Purchase Do Nothing 5. What questions or concerns would you like to see addressed at a public meeting regarding this issue? 6. What is your address: Please return this completed form to the open Nouse on March 7 or mail it to: Jon Nohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 March 14, 1994 Airport Relations Committee c/o John Rohenstein SUBJECT: Part 150 Land Use Program Thank you for allowing us to have input on the 9150 Land Use Program•. To review our brief discussion on the evening of March 7, 1994,we are a very unique neighborhood involving five homes on Lawrence Avenue and Linda Lane surrounded by commercial buildings and open land. In the past 17 years that we have been residents on Lawrence Avenue, we have been approached twice with propositions to buy our home. In both cases these major corporations have backed out on their formal offers. We purchased our first home at 916 Lawrence Avenue in the spring of 1977 knowing that the property was zoned •planned development•. in 1986, due to a growing need for a larger home and our love for the area, we sold our home at 916 Lawrence and bought our present home at 908 Lawrence. Economics, closeness to employment, community service, and all the other amenities made it very desirable to stay in the City of Eagan. Economics involved selling our home at a reduced rate because of the aircraft noise proximity. Since that time, we have not had any outside interests in purchasing our property and we have not pursued being bought out. We have settled in with a confident feeling that we can exist as a real neighborhood. I acknowledge that it is in the best interest of the City to someday turn these five pieces of residential real estate into a good commercial tax return. I believe that this will indeed happen sometime in the next 15 years. When this does happen, I believe it will happen by.itself. Unlike the •McKee Addition• this property will sell without any input by MAC. With the recent failure of the two motels and being surrounded by available open land, this section of real estate is climbing on the list of eligible commercial property. I believe that MAC should not spend 150 funds on land buyouts in the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood. I do believe, that we as homeowners, should be eligible for the sound insulation program. We have endured many years -of aircraft noise and have yet grown immune. I believe the majority of homeowners agree that noise insulation is the best form of relief that we can receive. Please discourage any type of buyout in the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood and please recommend that we be eligible for the Sound 150 Program. We have spent 17 years raising our family in this. neighborhood and will continue to live here as long as we can. We understand your lottery system gives priority to those residents living in their homes prior to 1978. I have lived on Lawrence Avenue since 1977 except that I have lived in two different homes. Will I still be given priority, as are other pre -1978 residents? Please consider our request and contact us if you need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, 74 John & Mary Seth Neska 908 Lawrence Avenue Sagan, MN 55121 NOTE Date: March 21, 1994 TO: Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to the city administrator FROM: Lantaricha (of Airport Relations Committee) 03Newtown Court Eagan, Mn 55123-1552 Day: 296-1902 ext 136 (direct line with voice mail) Night: 688-8817 SUBJECT: Property Tax Treatment of Insulation 'Improvements" I did locate a simple brochure prepared by the city of Mpis to explain the new (i.e. 1993 assessment) state law which defers the value added due to improvements for homestead real estate (copy enclosed). Also enclosed are the materials that the Department of Revenue sent to each county. The Department's 14 -pages of materials, plus application form, are not what I had in mind when I pictured a "brochure." Of even more importance, I think, is the fact that it's a total deferral only for houses 70 years old or older. For houses between 35 and 70 years old, the program only allows a deferral of 50% of the added -value. If the house is less than 35 years old, there is no potential for deferral. I realize that some of the houses -in McKee may be 31 years old, but I still regret that my comments were misleading as to the generosity of this program. All in all, it may be best simply to encourage interested persons to have a discussion with someone from the assessor's office BEFORE they make up their mind, along the lines of what you have already done, in the letter summarizing the neighborhood meeting. If you have any feedback for me on this, or further questions, please call (or look me at the next ARC meeting)! 49 C THIS OLD HOUSE A TAX INCENTIVE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF OLDER HOMES AN EXAMPLE Minneapolis homeownersJune and Bill Brown add an upstairs bath and expand the kitchen of their 78 -year-old bungalow. They contract the plumbing and electrical and do the rest of the work themselves. These improvements increase the market value of their home from S80,000 to $100,000. Before THIS OLD HOUSE, their an- nual property taxes would have increased from $1213 to $1765. With THIS OLD HOUSE, they are not taxed for ten years on the S20,000 increase in value. The exemption is then phased out over five years. At current tax rates, their savings over 15 .:ars total S6,900. THIS OLD HOUSE i,,,, incentive for homeowners to improve their older homes. Approved by the Minnesota Legislature in 1993, the ]aw•excludes from property taxes up to 550,000 in increased estimated market value resulting from home improvements. TH6 OLD HorsE guidelines: • The house must be owner occupied. Owner -occu- pied duplexes and triplexes are eligible. • Improvements must be made to the dwelling or garage. Landscaping and swimming pools are not eligible. Neither is normal upkeep including roofing and painting. • Building permits must be obtained. Improvements must have been made after Januan 1. 1993. ♦ A home between 35 and 70 pears old can obtain a propene tax exclusion equal to half of the increase in value. The maximum exemption for a 35- to 70-pe2r- old house is $25,000. • A home more than 70 pears old can obtain an exclusion equal to the entire amount of the increase in value. The maximum is 550,000. • The entire exclusion is good for 10 rears. until the home is sold, or until it is no longer owner-occt �. It then phases out over the next five pears - • Both sweat equity and contracted improvements are eligible. Owners can make improvements up to three different times over a 10 -bear period. • Minneapolis homeowners do not need to apply for the exemption. The owner's annual property' tax statement will report the amount of the exclusion. • There are no income or property value limits. Minneapolis homeowners can call the Cit• Assessor, 673-2387, for more information. Homeowners in Other cities should call their local assessor. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) low-interest improvement loans. including - a Middle -Income Housing Program that finances improvements equal to at least a third of a home's value and provides for a deferred loan of up to five percent of the.mongage. Call 673 -\ICDA. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. Corers! OF Ane= 28 Airport Noise Report Mt ismoftt-St Pautlntmt RICHFIELD CRMCIZES RDEIS ON RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT The City of Richfield, MN. recently Sled comments asitioal of a Revised Draft Environmental impact Statement m a projea to extend a aow-wind runway at Miooeapolis- St. huh International Airport to mere equitably distribute aI 11101614 7be purpose of the nmwey Mutation it to reduce the noise impact northwest of the airport, o8 the two main parallel smwWL 7be Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Minnesota Dgwm .nt of Transportation contend that extending the 8.25&foot crass -wind runway will allow more aieaaft to ee it and facAitare the redistribution of noise. i But. amreeyt for tie City of Richfield asserted that the ' airport has and "uucalistic and msupponar assumptions about tie eaterut to which the extended runway could be teed in the fashion contemplated 7be city claims that 61MMO al and airport design constraints would severely impair the capacity of the extended runway and that it would be and less than contemplated or its use would result in ground delays. 70 inflated capacity aaumed in the DEIS undermined the esvroa9ntal analysis and justification for the project, according toJames Prosser, Richfield City Manager, and Steven PSaum of the Chicago law firm McDermott, Will d Emery, which represents the city. They contend that, if the runway Is used less than ex- pected, then the "true environmental consequences of the project would be vasty different from those projeetad.' 7bey also criticised the Revised DEIS for not directly addressing Richfield's aidds s of the original document, which were submitted in July 1992. At fiat point Richfield Std expensive comments asserting that the document failed to amply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and that it violated the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. Section I(f) of the Department of Thinsporaton Act, and the National Historic: preservation Act The city aho asserted that the RDMS faded to include ■ - M ieaty long -tam analysis of the runway extension's win impacts 7be emvirenmeetal document only bots at suite impact mal the year 1996, but Frosser and PAsm t acted that environmental impact statements for runway sommalow rod Sew runways routinely include ao analysis of a" impacts based on a 10 year or bnga planning period. Even the DELT for the prc&a included as analysis mail the year 2000. Without much a bng-term wise analydt, there at M evidence to support the arpon's conclusion that the project will have a long-term benefit in teems of more agoisbly distributing noise impacts, they said. Looking at Boise impacts only until 1996 "charm. bots tie imp" and tie efficacy of the project." they argued. 'Perhaps this point it best Illustrated by the five-year, =3 =Mica mite mitigation program described in the RDEIS. Now can MAC and the FAA decide to spend fiat kind of money on mitigation without knowing what the noise environment will be like when the mitigation program is fully implemented? In other words, why Spend millions of dollars mitigating noise impacts Southwest of the airport if by the time the mitigation is completed in 1999. increased Sight levels will have sharply reduced the ability of the runway extension project to direct departures to the sonth- wear They asserted the rmway project "is an idea whose time has come =and gone,' noting that the price reg has tripled in the two years Since the DEPS was released and is now estimated at $50 million. "if the project aver had merit, and shat is doubtful, it is clearly M-coweived Dow that existing Bad projected operational levels at MSP will preclude attainment of the project's primary stated objective of facilitating increased departures on Runway 22.' 7be stubborn refusal of the RDEIS to consider in its environmental enalyms the various stumbling blocks to the proposed use of Runway 22 for departures andaminea the validity of the entire document. More fundamentally, that lack of candor obscures the folly of spending M million on a project that will never work as claimed. Rather than wasting public funds in that fashion, including mom than SM million on mitigation for an area that my not require .mitigation by the time the mitigation program is completed. it would be far room sensible and efficacious for MAC to on the entire S50 million to mitigate areas northwest of the aapW tiny said. Clear Answers Sought Aosser told ANR that Richfield wants to avoid litigation, if possible, but will move ahead if it mast. He said the city has had a good working relations hip with the airport, but diasgtees with it on this project'We don't know what tie seal impact of the project will be,' he said, adding that it will vary in diffaem pars of &a city. He said the city would Me elan answers on hose much the cross -wind runway will be used and who the noise impact will be. Frossa also said the $22 million earmarked for mite mitigation in Richfield and neighboring Bloomington, which will be hit more severely by noise, is insufficient. Each City has estimated DOW mitigation ass at $50 million, he said. Richfield wants noise mitigation that includes sound msalatm, Bequdsitim and relocation of a IPS 7be City of Richfield also eooteoded that it has been 419011811 a."meaningful opportunity" so comment on the revised DEIS became it was rot Sim SddWmul time to Comment on the domtmem of to interview key FAA personnel or the consultants who helped prepare time DEIS, and because MAC failed to produce all the documents requested bl'the city. '71be failure of the FAA and bIWXy ' to gum as exten- sion reinfinees the already prevalent Impression the the runway extension is a 'done "'and that the FAA and AbM Hare tterw . pat-e3tesusoso .y �l G C A 1994 MaDOT eaerely view the NEPA process as a paper shuffle designed to document their prior decision to approve the paojecr,«Richfield said. 7be FAA and MAC's insistence that Richfield submit its comment on the Monday following the New Year holiday weekend «appears anmgant at best and ptaitive at worst:, dw city acid. nird Chicago Airport STATE TRANSIT OFFICIAL SAYS NEW AIRPORT NEEDED autos Secretary of Transportation Birk Brown told the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Feb. 17 that a Iliad Chicagaares airport is needed despite the finaneial .tape and downs of the airline industry. Brown and El. Gov. Jiro Edgar support a new airport site fro Pe000ne,14 lowed in the suburbs south of Chicago, however, that location is opposed by Chicago Mayor . Richard Daley. Daley pushed for a new airport at Lake Cahoot on Chicago's South Side. but that plan, which would have involved a major environmental clean-up, fell d mugb in 1992. Daley now contends that a new noway at O'Hare international Airport can handle the additional as aaffie expected in the Chicago arra. No airline has yet voiced support for the propor d $1.8 billion Photons site. Brown old the planning commissioners dua he is hopeful that the airlines will eventually support the site, and said it will not be built without airline support Brown noted that the airlioes are beginning to recover from Lom the financial losses incurred between 1989 and 1992. The Canton Administration last December denied Gov. Edgar's request for $2 million great to conduct planning studies for the Petrone site. 7be administration, reneging on a sorb Administration pledge of the funding, acid that pester regional consensus between the Stara of Emu and INdias and the City of Chicago was needed on the location oda sew airport site before It would fund any planning aea� meal pow reports noes that Maya Daley, a Democrat. MANY bare persuaded the Ctiatnn Administration to strange cn the phoning gram, and that Daley may be maneuvering MA aegotiNte a deal in which he supports a new airport in exchange for ante approval for fioadq carrot. In middanuory Gov. Edgar earmarked S2 million in state Rods o begin the plan nm8 study proeas fora new aapat 7be six month study will -wanting six potential mita for the Nae' airport and the option of bulldog no new airport for the nom An additional S4 million would be needed for the teeoad Phase of lbs planning study. That funding is as expected to he a problem, ANR was oldA 29 IN BRIEF ... EIS on EECP The FAA pleas to issue its final Envaonmeotal Impact Statement on revised air mute changes made over New Jersey order its Expanded Fru Coast Plan by the third or fourth week in March. New Jersey oommumitia want the FAA to revise the air mutes to funnel mom air traffic over the Atlantic Ocean to red, noise over New Jersey communities. 7bc plan would mean that aircraft departing New Jersey would pass over New Yak airspace, increasing congestion and limiting options for reducing existing noise problems ova Queens and Long Island. Queens Borough President Claim Shulman led the New York congressional delegation in submitting a lata of protest to Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena over the plan. But Mix Reports Feb. 15 was the date by which airlines had to submit thea annual reports to the FAA documenting their progress in converting their fleas to quieter Stage 3 aircraft. The FAA is under no legal deadline for releasing its mpott on fleet compliance and as of Feb. 23 had not received all the airline data yet. The agency would tum speculate on when its report Would be released. Burbank Petition Denied A California appeals cart Feb. 24 denied a petition Sled by the Burbank-Gleadsle•Pasadem Airport Authority seeking an immediate stay of enfotmement of a superior coot judge's ruling finding the Environmental Impact Report on a new semina] Project inade9uate. MW ruling bars the airport Som taking any action to approve or implement the proposed project, including acquiring land and aPProvinB reargues in upon operations that could lead to significant increases in as or water pollution. Richard Simon, of the Los Angela law firm Mcl)ermou, Will it Emery, which represetrs the aapat, said he was disappointed with the court's action and felt that the lower oxam ruling had see a bad precedent in terms of process ander California's Eavaonm Ial Quality Ant He said the airport phuus o revise Its M as requested by the court, and that Should be dos before its motion appealing the ruling is beard. EA for Atiaudc City InCI On Feb. 3, the FAA announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment on various alternatives for development at the Atlantic City International Airport. The South Jersey Transportation Authority will act as joint lead agency nn the aasaame L AtiPu NOW Nepw 1041-83ILSM,30 / Runway 4-22 issues 1.) rnoundsiae congeseion: where do following aircraft wait when taxiway, Q tsfu0. how do they interact with arrivals taxiing to the gate. 2.) Runway 22 R ra_x wov D gMdMity.-- - - - - - - - • standard is 400 ft minimum between oroterllnes • project spacing is 199 4 must vacate taxiway to depart r/w 22 tan length. 3.) Runway 22 midrx1d departure C4=& • project estimates up to 45 departures per hour may use mid -field r/w 22. • such estimates do not allow for departure bubbles 4.) Runway 22 deaadm rates based on extreme wind erne& • project cites FM Order authorizing 20 knot cz oaswind, 7 Pinot tailwind. • actual operations will be significantly less. S.) Runway 22 extension wilt create an addidon [ operas g conffimmifon, • landings on runways III, & UR, departures from mid -field runway 22. • Increased traffic, frequency of use, noise Impacts, trades, not evaluated. 6.) Mid. Id te e ffl-must be held for: • all 29L arrivals that decline to hold short • all r/w 29L arrivals recrossing r/w 22 on taxiback to the gate. • all heavy jet arrivals on r/w 291, & recrossing r/w 22 on taxibadi to gate. • all r/w 29R operations if heavy jet is departing r/w 22 mid -field.. • all t/w E crossings must be held for departing jets from rid -field r/w 22. • all r/w 29R arrivals crossing r/w 22 midfield to gates on south aide. 7.) Be&Xt users_&ns encounter ambLms due to minimum owing used '" paj r�,-t • t/w Q is restricted to B7V & smaller, aircraft design group IV. • no room exists on t/ws for heavies to hold for. mid -field r/w 22 departures • assumption Is made that only 23 heavies per day will need fail r/w 22. B.) No condderod_An t given to #jrnj&n►eoMplCa v. • project is unique in that it is predicated on restricting operations both behind and in front of the departing aircraft in a high volume environment. AMC FAA's Winultanegus Operneons an tnterseeling Runway • Cdkda not MWI • "present airport capacity/acceptance rate wfll be increased." • "arrival/departure delays will be reduced." • "a reasonable savings in ftrd consumption will result." Otder 7210.3 ,4, . L Ii. 8,J3lis. pn.� CIN OF RICHFIELD'S ANALYSIS OF - THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 422 AT MINNEAPOLIS - ST PAUL L IMR A77ONAL AIRPORT NATURE OF PROJECT C. 'e Cid c,�+ ) k�T.Ctic • Extend Runway 422 to the southwest�y 2,750 feet. Construct queuing taxiway for departures on Runway 22. Provide sound insulation for bornes. impacted by increased operations on Runway 22. • Utilize extended runway up to 8 hours per day with operational mode involving departures to the southwest on Runway 22 and arrivals to the west on Runways 29L & 29R, with arrivals on 29L holding short of (LL, not crossing) Runway 22. Departures on Runway 22 are to begin takeoff roll from releasepoint southwest of intersection with Runway IM -29R. Thus, departures from Runway 22 are to be independent of arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R. • Cost of project S50 million ASSERTED RATIONALE FOR PROJECT • to shift noise from areas northwest of airport to areas southwest of airport • Secondary =Mose: to provide a longer runway for long-haul intercontinental flights SLIMIARY OF RICHFIELD'S FINDINGS 1. Tire extended runway will not operate in the fashion represented by project proponents. The following factors will combine to Emit the use of the extended runway to a small fraction of the 8 hours per day claimed by proponents: • Weather conditions alone will reduce use of the proposed mode of operations by approximately two-thirds. Winds permit departures . on Runway 22 when there are arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R only 27 to 3S percent of the time. • Pilots will frequently not accept bold short restrictions for arrivals on Runway 29L The FAA estimates that, even without a tail wind and with dry and clear conditions,'fully 20 percent of all arrivals on Runway 29L will not accept the bold short restriction. Moreover, Northwest Airlines has advised MAC that they will not ` ^1 accept bold short restrictions at night Arrivals that do not accept the hold short restriction will slow the rate of departures on Runway 22, thereby reducing the capacity of the proposed mode of operations. The lower the capacity of that Operational mode, the less frequently it can be utilized. Depertues by jumbo jets like the DC -20 and &747 will totally disrupt the proposed mode of operations. Jumbo jets will begin their takeoff roll from the north end of Ruaway 22, rather than the mid -runway release point Due to the proucmity of the queuing taxiway to Runway 22, that taxiway will have to be vacated before the jumbo jets can depart This, in turn, will exacerbate the already severe congestion near the west end of the passenger terminal and delay the departures of other aircraft waiting to depart These consequences will further reduce the amount of time that the proposed operational mode can be utilized. 2. The runway extension is intended to shift, not reduce, noise in areas near MSP. in truth, if the project works as represented it will increase the noise impacts near the airport The following information from the Revised Draft IIS reveals that the proposed extension would increase the total number of people exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 DNL (the level above which noise levels are considered incompatible with residential use): Tainberitf =' ` ".c:? =1996; = ;111th.. :::`.ii+ry::::? esidedts Et�jo "" .;: �o i�Toiseia ]:xcess -:, ,,sr•r1::,i:i•;:'::1Ext::;- ........... t. - 65 DIV:': c - - :r6.. ...... 70::r::: i pvb Tota�� DNL _: .70 lbo ;d Os` S•7 hove N>V `° ;>0 - T. '�tiieI'. =Above: _._._<....._....._. .. - - =- Minneapolis 12,3901 4.3001 16,690 14.3601 SAW 1 20,250 Northern portion of 1,560 i 760 2,320 L680 I 11050 , 2,730 Richfield i Southern Portion of 2.1301 7301 2,860 0 0 0 Richfield Bloomin on 411401 401 4,180 A 1 01 0 Eagan 5301 301 560 SS01 301 580 Mendota Heights 6601 1401 800 750 1401 890 TOTAL 21,410 1 6,000' 27,410 17,340 7,110 24,450 • Scientists have discovered a correlation between airport noise and the percentage of people who are highly annoyed .by the noise environment The following table reveals that, if the proposed project works in the manner represented by project proponents, it will increase the number of highly annoyed people. 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long-haul intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis contained in the Revised Draft EIS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4.22 have acknowledged that the project is merely at short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project awed: "The proposed evension of PaAn*ay 4-22 is considered a short•rerm noise abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise in the most heavily impacted area to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operasiont bsnease at MSP, She umnber of hours Jtun*V 4.22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20.21 (emphasis added). s-3- .............:.............. 3�IJIVJBER't3F InGHLY ANNOYED : - :PEOPLE ': - =3i192;EsIstlnY' -.�,996��vSF6'H}iy". �'•'- . -::1996�VItIiont'Rwy .. iMSDIMON:. _ '"`1Ezieiisiots":=:' Minneapolis 4990 3300 4091 N. Richfield 801 484 601 S. Richfield 146 SS8 0 Ft Snelling S 0 0 Bloomington 43 692 0 Mendota Helzbts 224 149 163 Eagan 1111 96 99 TOTAL 6320 5279 4954 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long-haul intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis contained in the Revised Draft EIS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4.22 have acknowledged that the project is merely at short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project awed: "The proposed evension of PaAn*ay 4-22 is considered a short•rerm noise abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise in the most heavily impacted area to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operasiont bsnease at MSP, She umnber of hours Jtun*V 4.22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20.21 (emphasis added). s-3- IV, CONCLUSION The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 is a S50 million boondoggle that will not work in the manner claimed by its proponents. If it did work, it would simply increase the noise impacts associated with operations with MSP. Moreover, most of the purported benefits from this SSO million project would disappear as flight levels at MSP increased. Under these eircumstamces, the proposed runway extension sbould be abandoned now, before tens of millions of dollars in public funds are wasted on this ill-conceived project. V t101�OtOM 1 i�lOdRti►.00] GG ; Q1.F TA�- USDepormwe W.1redwd AN WIN uJ AdmNshollon AF„ is i.3 Airport Traffic Control Tower 4311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 April 13, 1993 Mr. 8111 Wlllkie EMTB 99 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314-1536 Dear Mr. Hillkiee The enclosed responses have been prepared to Questions raised in the RAX received dated March 31, 1993. If you have any Questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Paterson at (612) 725-4230. Sincerely, co B. agora Air Traffic ger Enclosures 0 The following responses have been prepared to questions raised in the PAX of March 31, 1993, from SNTB regarding the Runway 22 BIS. I. The number of Runway 29L/R arrivals that would preclude use of the 165 degree heading is difficult to estimate. The use of the 165 degree heading off of Runway 22 and the interaction of arrivals on Runway 29L/R is not clear cut. The factors that influence the use of the heading are not only the number of arrival aircraft but the direction from which the aircraft arrive. Aircraft from the MEIN2(south) and the DUNKR(west) arrival gates would have a such greater influence on use of the 165 degree heading than aircraft from the NICKL(eaet) or the DAYLE(northwest) arrival gates. If the majority of the arrivals were from the west or south, the number of inbounds that would stop the use of the 165 degree heading would be less than if the majority of inbounds were from the east or northwest. Since the 165 degree heading is not used today and has never been simulated by computer model it becomes extremely subjective to furnish hard and fast numbers of arrival aircraft that would stop the use of the heading. The best estimate that can be furnished due to the difficulty of the situation, sine& you require a specific number of arrivals for modeling purposes, is that up to 20 arrivals per hour could be accepted before stopping the use of the 165 degree heading. More than 20 arrivals per hour would require the use of 290 or 200 degree headings for aircraft that might have previously been assigned the 165 degree heading. 2. Land Runways 11L/R depart Runway 22 Configuration. Although this operating configuration may not be consistent with the goals of the RU6, there may be times when this scenario is used due to inclement weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. The fact that the potential does exist to use this configuration, even though it may be a small percentage of the time, necessitates its evaluation in the EIB. 3.. Runway 22 SID Issues, Departure Intervals. She Runway 22 SID has been tested but only by widely spaced aircraft that were used to obtain noise data. The SID has never been operated under actual working conditions to determine the exact amount of space needed between successive IRR departures to Preclude the lose of IRR separation. /actors that would determine the interval between 2 successive departures would be differences in speed and climb characteristics as well as well as the final destination of the aircraft involved. Due to the single departure track dictated.by the use of the Runway 22 SID, and the fact that the SID has never been operational make any accurate estimate difficult at best. The best estimate that can be furnished at this time would be at least a 6 mile interval would be required between successive departures using the SID. Page 2 4. RUB Mode Assumptions, Departure Levels for Land Rwy 22 Depart ll's Configuration. The land Rwy 04 depart 11'8 configuration allows for the uniform dispersal of departure traffic due the location of the departure oaten in relation to the Position of the approach area for the itnnway 04 final. The land Rwy 22 depart 11's configuration does not allow for .the uniform dispersal of departures due to the Position of the Runway 22 final in relation to the departure otes. In the configuration traffic With the xrionftheJ106MM, DLL and ODI departures must right turn Off the airport to leave MSP airspace in the appropriate departure gates. The lower departure rate is a direct result of the complexity of the configuration for the departure controller. 5. FUS Mode Assumptions, Capacity of 04/11 Configuration for Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2. Alternative 1 which displaces the Runway 04 threshold 1550 feet from the proposed runway extension does yield a slight operational advantage over Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would add approximately 1200 feet to Runway 04 southwest of Runway 11R. The additional length would make 3800 feet of runway available from the 11R. Thisurunway4lengthhold to the would allowhold short SOIR Groups oit lnandf2Rtowland Runway 04 and hold short of Runway 11R. SOIR Croup 1 includes Short Takeoff and Landing Aireraft(BTOL) and Croup 2 includes light twin engine and single engine aircraft. It was felt that these aircraft comprise such a small percentage of traffic at MSP that any increase of departure capacity a6 a result of the displaced threshold would be negligible. f March 220 1993 Mr. Bill Willkie NNTS Alexandria, Virginia 22714-1529 Dear Mr. Willkie, Airport Traffic Control 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Tower $5450 The following responses have been prepared as a result of the discussion and meeting of January 20, 1993, with MAC, 6NT2, Minneapolis Airports District Office, and Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower. We have been advieed by NWA that their pilots will not use 80IR at night. This may change some of the Information provided. If you have any questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Paterson at 612-725-4230. 63nofreiy, CiGt/ /l�! GhG✓ r/ /lace s. Wagoner Air Traffic Man a r =nelosures Threshold Alternatives Description bLT61WAriVs 2 Issues, 4. Air traffic Controllers ars currently required by /AA Order 7119.650, Air Traffic Control, Paragraph 2-45 b, dated June 25, 1992, to operate the Sequenced !lashing Lights of an Approach Lighting System at the Pilots request. flight Track Alternatives Description ALTSRNATIVS A Issues, 2. Minneapolis ATCT has on numerous occasions Commented .on the Use of four departure headings for the dispersal of aircraft off, prOf Runway 22.(See enclosed Memorandum to the Minneapolis Airports ocedures for theadispereal�o1992.) Theft Onlyly acceptable cce! abliither from 165' degrees to 360' de grees(Alternative A) or from 2601 hsadingsttromeif$' degreestth through degr will oa Baited to Periods of light arrival traffic due to the enclosed Memo. the reasons stated in If use of the 165' degree heading is mandated, Utilisation of the arrival tra/22 ic. Configuration would be scenario doestexistiunnder light Alternative A to remain on 29/22 for longer period@ of the -RunWayr22hduringbPeakparrival!he period@ degree 1 0eaorn200 degree headinarrivaltrafficbuthis wouldcstilleallowdthe@use ofeRunnwwaay 22 -for departures. After the arrival volume diminished, departures would resume using the 165' degree heading. When a full tan traffic is not a on the first fix is available Under ALTMATIVI A and arrival outside MEP Airspacewouldigen railyg bentua deed rspece Departure leading Heading avalne(W1) see, Rochester(UT) 216 =11 Mason city(MM) 296', 221' � O' "(0 )' Sioux Falls(m) 2210 22421 Grannd(forko(M), 70 21116 911' 291'. 211' Green3raIne9ay ORB), :106h(DL8) 350, 251' 2501 X51 0. The crosswind and tailwind Currently dictated by 1AA Order Components for any runway are 9410.91 National safety and V 0" ratienai Criteria For Runway Use programs, 1981. The crosswind component for any runway than 26 knots at 99# degrees.end the tailwind greater than 7 knots. 2 dated November 9, cannot be greater component' Cannot be do on-RUS and Use 7116.68 and 7210.2Rrequire tM ions are as iimullaneousollows� FAA Orders on Intersecting Runways (80=11 are conducted on dryrruriways and there are no reports that braking action is sass that dood, Conducted in Wit Conditions and that Component for aircraft ithere is no tailwind Intersecting runway, Instructed to hold short of an Pilot Concurrence with the ATC clearance to hold short of a departure/arrival runway ie needed in order to conduct any-80IR operation. A pilot's refusal to hold short Of Runway 22 for departure traffic impacts the efficient use of the runway for departures, thus lowering the number of departure slotf available and could result in a parallel operation sooner than warranted by traffic volume. As an excmple, if the pilot of an aircraft landing Runway 29L does not accept the clearance to hold short of Runway 22 for departing traffic, the Controller can of release the Runway 22 departure until the landing aircraft either rolls through the Runway 22 intersection or turns off Runway 291, short of Runway 22. Northwest Airlines has often refused to accept an 2011t operation at night. As a Consequence, the loss Of departure slots often results in a parallel operation sooner than the traffic demand dictates. Additionally, when utilising any Cross runway operation not requiring an aircraft to land and hold short of a runway the visibility must be greater than one all*. ALT MATZVs 8 iesu*s. 2. The primary departure heading issued to aircraft are listed In the table under ALTZMATIVQ A Issu*a. OM -14 'LIOaT 2RACK ALTOWATIVIB issues. 2, A o'opy of the Memorandum sent to he Ninn teapoll• Airports District Office is enclosed with this letter. n2. If Runway 22 is extended as proposed an additional operating Oofiguration will become available at Map, The a Would allow for landings on Runways SIL/ R and xtdepart*oft of nd� runwaye Runway 22 from the'psoposed Queuing Taxiway. In the land it's depart 22 Configuration there is an interdep*ndency only between the Runway 22 and Runway 11R intersection, Departures area Runway 22 would be required to roll through the Runway 11R intersection between arrivals. A similar situation exists today When landing Runway 64 and departing Runway 11L/2. The land it's F ms's �9• I Vi � � • - �. ..� .. L part 22 scenario could be best utlli:ed during peak arrival rlodt to maximlxe the use of the parallels for landing reratt. As the departure demand increases, a switch to a 'raight parallel operation or a combination of departures. off Runway 22 and Runways 11L/R would be used to accommodate partures off Mop. Departure headings eft o! Runway 22 could tntlally extend from 220 degrees Counterclockwise to 090' rees. 2• The operating scenario for landing Runways 29LM and inbound demandsfor26ither ALTaRNATIVg Aerlods Of lpe aewoouldrbe and low eombinitlon of departing Runway 22 and departing Runway 29R and/or 29L simultaneously. This Combination of runway use would Inct only expedite departures off MSp but also has the potential Once fthe lt Of demand has diminumber Of nish d* thrturesOver se of Runwayls. and/or 29L for additional departure Capacity would not be needed and a true 29/22 Configuration would be reinstituted. RMAY 22 BSD Issues. I . A Departure BID of! Runway 22 using a single departure track Could be used in either the Build or No -Build scenarios. 2, Nowever, due to the Capacity limiting nature Of thr single track, the BSD would not be used it more than one aircraft was ready to depart, No Build Runway I Mode Assumptions or Lose Arr-30 or Less Dep -70 Arr-se or Dep -20 or or 11 q arr-le or Dep -40 or rector Driving to Parallel ape. I More than 30 Dep I per Sour I Arr w20 or I Dep N0 2 arm . A ... ✓ 4 Alternatives lA, is Takeoff Landing Arrival Departure factor Driving to Runway Runway Push Push Parallel Ops.• 22 29L/R Arc -69 or Less Arr-6e or Less More than 46 Dep Dep -40 or Less Dep -49 or Less per Sour •• 1IL/R •4 - Arr-29 or ss Arr-is or Less Arc Ple or Dep -29 or Less Dep -49 or Less Dep 8-46 , it /R .22 Arr-2e or Less Dep -20 or Less Arr sze or Dep b29 • NOTSe Loss of 90IR wind or runway contaminants would also require a parallel operation. •• NOTEs A combination of departing 29L/R and 22 would be used accommodate departure demand. Alternatives 2A, 23. same as Alternatives 1A, is Above. Additionally 2 weeks of hourly traffic at.KSP is incluasd with this response. 31. 0 AIRLINES HOW HIGH CAN THE AIRLINES FLY? A banner year; but new taxes and labor troubles lurk Summertime, and the airports are jumping: From 1_4x to O'Hare to LaGuardia, the nation's landing strips ate jammed with vamtioners such as Kim Abram, a Chicago Housing Au- thority administrative assistant flying with h'er kids to Las Vegas to visit the sister she hadn't seen in three years. 'The little ones didn't sleep the night before the flight because they were so excited," Abram says. "we'd never tak- en a family trip like this before." Add in the throngs of executives traveling to keep up with the growing economy and foreign tourism cashing in on the weak dollar. and the airline in- dustry is in the midst of an unaems- tomed bonanra After a bruising five- year span in, which they lost an accumulated $13 billion, carriers should record $1.3 billion in profits for 1995 (chart, page 26). On Julv 21, even umjr Group Inc., just months ago an industry basket case, reported an eight- fold earnings increase in the second quarter, to $112.8 million. Four days later, tat. Corp., parent of United Airlines Inc., weighed in with net in- come of $151 million. nearly triple profits of a year earlier. Airline stocks are up 52% so far this year, tuAL shares alone climbed $4, to $149.50, on -the company's earnings news. why the boom? Look at the industry's formidable operating data Planes are flying 72% full, up 15 points from last year. Airfares in June were 5% higher than those a year ago, with lu- crative business-class.fares up 7%. That boosted yields, which had been down earlier this year, by 22% to 13.52e per passenger mile. Even the beleaguered aircraft construction business is showing signs of strength Although U.S. car- riers aren't buying new jets, demand from overseas has lifted orders at Boeing Co. to 203 planes this year, well above 1994's fltll-year total of 120 orders. Skeptics, nonetheless, believe that the turnaround is a Bake that's bound to fade fast. The industry, they argue, is profiting im from a healthy economy, fuel prices that are 5% below last year's level and free of federal tax- es, relatively few fare wan. and cost structures lowered by austerity plans. The lull could prove deceptive: "There eas an economic impera- tive to cut costs when the industry was losing billions of dollars," says Jeffrey, Long, analyst with J. P. Morgan Secur- ities Inc. "Now that _airline stocks, as a group, have climbed an impressive .32% so far _his year BUSINESS WEEK: AUGUST 7. 199525 they're making money, they've got to keep their motivation. And its a long, long recovery process." Airlines say they're up to the task. Consider some highlights from the ma- jor carriers. Northwest Airlines Corp., on the brink of bankruptcy only two years ago, has eliminated mutes, nego- tiated wage cuts averaging 15%. tut aircraft orders, and turned in record profits. American Airlines Inc. has been grounding costly 727s and DC -10s; rn He might look just a little harder. The biggest immediate threat to car- riers is the government's plan to imple- ment a fuel tax in October that could cost the industry $500 million a year. The Air Transport Association is lob- bying heavily against the tax. "Labor in the industry has given up $1 billion in concessions," says an ATA spokesman. 'The tax would wipe them out" So far, at least, the pitch seems to have worked: A majority of the tax -writing duction and reengineering at headquar- ters are expected to save $93 million a year - Delta Air Lines Inc. could save $80 million by cutting travel -agent commis- sion and is outsourcing information sys- tems and other operation. And United, employee -owned since last summer, has cut wages by $70 million and put em- ployee teams to work on such problems as absenteeism and ticketing costs. "We're supposed to protect ourselves from exuberance during the good times." says United chief financial officer Douglas A. Hacker. -But I don't see any sign that the good times are in danger of going away." House Ways & Means Committee is backing a bill to extend the fuel -tax ex- emption beyond its October expiration. The profit turnaround could be soured by another key issue: labor rela- tion. Consider usAir. In the days be- fore the once -struggling carrier an- nounced its second-quarter profit. flight attendants voted down a tentative con- tract, machinists delayed a vote, and the pilots' executive council decided against asking rank -and -file to vote on a proposed deal. ❑sAir isn't alone. Delta and Ameri- can both are negotiating with pilots like- ly to use the profit turnaround to dodge wage and work -rule concessions the car- riers have proposed. Delta wants pilots to give up $340 million a year in pay, but is resisting the pilots' push for an equity stake and board representation. "As the profit picture improves, you ll see our attitude harden," predicts Delta pilot Cam Foster, who is part of the Air Line Pilots Association negotiating team. ROFRUJXL But the majors will have to keep pushing their cost-cutting pro- grams if they hope to compete with low-cost carriers. Even as ValuJet Air- lines Inc. flies planes 85% full on some weekends and runs at a cost of only about 7.7e per mile flown—nearly half that of major carriers—the Atlanta- based startup is looking to cut expenses. "We're debating whether we can contin- ue with both peanuts and pretzels," jokes ValuJet president Lewis H. Jor- dan Low-cost veteran Southwest Air- lines Co., which saw profits decline in the first quarter, has rebounded in part by cutting unprofitable weekend flights and improving its reservations capac- ity. It will expand into the huge Florida market next year, putting more pres- sure on vsAiA Continental, and Delta Discounters may be capping the abil- ity of the major carriers to cash in on increased traffic. Although low -fare car- riers claim they're fighting for vacation- ers who would otherwise drive, they're actually attracting a growing share of the business market, too. Indeed, de- spite strong demand and Continental's decision to abandon its Continental Lite low -fare strategy, domestic discount fares are down 7% this year. "The air- lines have people hanging off the wings because the planes are so crowded, but the revenue has barely jumped." grous- es Barbara L. Beyer, president of con- sulting firm Avmark Inc. That's why few executives are crow- ing about the good times. "History will definitely repeat itself," says Southwest Chief Financial Officer Gary C. Kelly. "You'll see fare wars, overcapacity in certain markets. No one can predict whether or not a fuel spike is in front of us, and when or whether we'll be in re- cession." The airline industry has bred a bunch of pessimists. Better that, though, than executives fat, happy, and awash in red ink. By David Greising in Atlanta, with Wendy Zellner in Dallas, Susan Chan- dler in Chicago, and bureau reports mhe most immediate threat to airlines is a plan for a fuel J. tax that could cost the industry �6�00 million a yeas• United States 104th 1995 US H 1971 950703 Congress -- 1995-96 Regular Session AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE [A> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America _in Congress_assembled,_ ._ _ <A] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Aviation Noise Limit Act of 19950. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The accurate assessment and control of aviation noise impact is necessary to protect the public health and welfare while increasing and improving aviation capacity. (2) Airspace management without noise impact assessment and moderation can have a significant impact on an area distant from an airport. (3) The Federal system for determining noise impact at airports, which currently serves as the basis of noise compatibility programs receiving Federal assistance, does not adequately protect the public health and welfare. (4) The Federal system for determining noise impact at airports does not take into account the characteristics of an area, including the area's proximity to an airport and the area's non -aircraft background noise. (5) The Federal system for determining noise impact at airports is less restrictive than the criteria used by many State and local. governments, usurping a zoning role normally allocated to the States. (6) The Federal system for determining noise impact at airports is inconsistent with the maintenance of accepted interior levels of quiet'for existing residences and has been demonstrated unsuccessful in identifying problems and predicting.community reaction. (7) The Federal system for determining noise impact at airports does not protect against significant disturbances in human activities such as sleep and conversation and promotes Federal interference with the constitutionally protected right to quiet enjoyment of private property. (8) Research showing that low levels of noise affects human health and welfare requires changes in Federal programs managing noise levels. (9) Population density, background noise levels, and distance from an airport are factors which affect an individual's expectations with respect to aviation noise and an individual's acceptance of aviation noise. (10) Changes to the noise environment of a developed and populated area should be treated differently from changes to the noise environment of a nonpopulated or industrial area. SEC. 3. AVIATION NOISE LIMITS. (a) REDUCTION OF AVIATION NOISE IN AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORTS. - (1) DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN. -The Secretary shall develop a staged plan to reduce by at least 75 percent on or before January 1, 2001, the number of individuals residing in residential areas in the vicinity of an airport who are exposed to a yearly day -night average sound level of 60 decibels or above. (2) CONSIDERATIONS. -In developing the plan pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider various methods for aviation noise reduction, including soundproofing, relocation incentives, use of quieter aircraft, operations restrictions, and revision of air routes. (3) FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. -As part of the plan to be developed pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make recommendations on actions and policy changes on the part of Federal departments and agencies (including but not limited to the Department of Transportation) which could assist in meeting the objective described in paragraph (1). (4) MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS. -The Secretary shall modify regulations issued pursuant to section 102 of the Aviation and Safety Noise Abatement Act of 1979 to assist in meeting the objective described in paragraph (1). (b) MANAGEMENT AND REDUCTION. OF AVIATION NOISE IN OTHER AREAS. - (1) AIRSPACE TRAFFIC CHANGES. -Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may make an airspace traffic change only if the Administrator determines that the change will not result in an increase in aviation noise in violation of paragraph (2). (2) REQUIREMENTS. -A violation of any of the following requirements, which apply only to residential areas that are not in the vicinity of an airport, shall be considered to be a violation of this paragraph: (A) HOURLY AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL. -The hourly average sound level, with combined aviation and nonaviation sources, over any 1 -hour period may not exceed 6 decibels above the background sound level for such 1 -hour period. (B) SINGLE EVENT MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL. -Under normal circumstances, the single event maximum sound level - (i) may not exceed 70 decibels; (ii) during nighttime hours, may not exceed 55 decibels; and (iii) may not be more than 20 decibels above the background sound level for the 1 -hour period in which the event occurs. The requirement of this subparagraph shall be considered to have 70 been met if there are no more than 3 violations of the limits contained in this subparagraph in a 24-hour period. (C) DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL. -If the day -night average sound level, with combined aviation and nonaviation sources, exceeds 45 decibels, then aviation activity may not contribute more than 3 decibels to such sound -level. (3) PAST AIRSPACE TRAFFIC CHANGES. -The Administrator shall review airspace traffic changes made by the Administrator which continue to be subject to significant complaint or controversy and shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that such air traffic changes do not result in increases in aviation noise which violate aviation noise limits contained in paragraph (2). (d) DETERMINATION OF VICINITY OF AIRPORT. - (1) ALTERNATIVE BOUNDARIES. -In the event that operations procedures of an airport result in a ground noise distribution substantially different from the geographic area defined in section 4(10), an airport operator may, on or before the 180th day following the date of the enactment of this Act, transmit to the Secretary for approval alternative boundaries of the vicinity of the airport which conform to the ground noise distribution of the airport; except that the geographic area enclosed by such alternative boundaries may not include an area with a day -night average sound level of less than 60 decibels for the 1 -year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. -In the event that an airspace traffic change or other action makes it unfeasible or impracticable to meet the sound level limits contained in subsection (b) within a residential area, then such area may be added to the area considered to be in the vicinity of the airport upon acquisition of the property or by acquisition of easements to the property by the airport operator or the Secretary of Transportation. (e) REPORT. -Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the plan to be developed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and a description of actions taken with respect to airspace changes pursuant to subsection (b)(3), together with recommendations for appropriate administrative and legislative actions. SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION. In complying with this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall assume responsibility for all non-military aviation activity, within and outside controlled airspace, and shall regulate such activity to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Act in normal circumstance a. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply: (1) ADMINISTRATOR. -The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. (2) AIRSPACE TRAFFIC CHANGE. -The term "airspace traffic change" means a change in aircraft flight paths, operating procedures, nature of aircraft traffic, and quantity of aircraft traffic which is applicable in normal circumstances. (3) AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL. -The term "average sound level" means the level, in decibels, of the mean -square, A -weighted sound pressure during a specified period, with reference to the square of the standard reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals. (4) BACKGROUND SOUND LEVEL. -The term "background sound level" means the hourly average sound level, in decibels, measured at a site representative of a relatively quiet residential location within an area (with aircraft noise contributions excluded). (5) DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL. -The term "day -night average Bound level" means the 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, for the period from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels during nighttime hours. (6) NIGHTTIME HOURS. -The term "nighttime hours" means the periods between midnight and 7 a.m. and between 10 p.m. and midnight local time. (7) NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. -The term "normal circumstances" means all circumstances other than unusually adverse weather and emergency circumstances. (8) SECRETARY. -The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Transportation. (9) SINGLE EVENT MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL. -The term "single event maximum sound level" means the level, in decibels, of the maximum A -weighted sound pressure during an aircraft overflight obtained using a standard sound level meter under a slow response setting. (10) VICINITY OF AN AIRPORT. -The term "vicinity of an airport" means the geographic area surrounding an airport established before the date of the enactment of this Act described nominally as follows: (A) The area extending in all directions a distance of 1.5 miles from each runway established before such date of the enactment. (B) The rectangular area defined by drawing a straight center line a distance of 4 miles from the end of each runway established before such date of the enactment in the direction of heaviest traffic and extending 1.5 miles perpendicular from the center line on each side of such runway. END OF REPORT Enter Bill $ (or END to exit), _> USAGE: argv # args Unrecognized state abbreviation ()I Available states in bill text are: US,AK,AL,AR,AZ,CA,CO,CT,DE,FL,GA,HI,IA,ID,IL,IN,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MS, MT,NC,ND,NE,NH,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OK,OR,PPA,RI,SC,SD,TN,TX,UT,VA,VT,WA,WI,WV,WY /PL— Please enter a complete bill number. You may use_a suffix to specify any special -session bills. Acceptable examples are: casb35 ush12 cosl0a pas100 Or, enter END to exit. Enter Bill # (or END to exit) _> ti MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS August 8, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White,Steve SoderEng, Jane Vanderpool and Lance Stadcha. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. Absent were Lois Monson and Bob Cooper. AGENDA Upon motion by Vanderpool, seconded by Schlax, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES Upon motion by Stadche, seconded by Schlax, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the July 13, 1995 meeting were approved as presented. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein stated that staff has discussed the availability of the financial and business Impact studies the MAC is conducting. These will be available in November or December. It was recommended that the commission consider modification of the commission time table since this Information would be very valuable in respect to the decision making process. Subcommittee members Schlax and White have worked considerably on this. Hohenstein asked Schlax to update the commission on the work that has been done by the Long Tenn Planning Committee to date in regard to the dual track airport planning process. Schlax stated that extending the deadline is a very good Idea. He continued that there appears to be gaps in the financial end. He said that he would like feedback from the commission and that it is Intended to be a draft document. Hohenstein stated that staff would like to spend time with the MAC to find out when to expect a final document since it will be a large document and the commission would like them to have time to review it so moving the timeline back 30 days will give them time to review the document. Schlax stated that he is concerned about the amount of time spent on this and commented that he would still Eke to get the drafts back from commission members as soon as possible so that he could update something before the meeting on the 17th. So in that respect he would Eke to stay on the original time One. The commission decided to make written changes to the document and send them to him the Monday before the Thursday, August 17 meeting. Hohenstein suggested discussing the rating process and matrix. He stated that It Is a decision making tool and he would like to see results shared. He also stated that the focus should be on operations rather than environment. White said that the commission has five completed matrices. He said that totals for each option were as follows: new replacement airport - 120.8, develop MSP was 90.2, remote runway was 88.8, land banking was 88.4, no project 85.4. Hohenstein stated that the matrix is a modified version of something there in the draft decision document put together by the MAC and Met Council. The criteria Include airport operational, ground access, air service, environment, city economic, city/community, Impact, financial and strategic. He stated that he would like the commission to provide any suggestions to improve these areas. He continued that what stood out in the matrix was how often Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 2 environmental considerations crossed into other categories. The issue should be focussing on airport operations so ground tracks and runway use systems should be along the Ones of efficiencies and limitations. The environmental aspect of those things should be handled under the environmental ftem, that way we're careful to separate out Issues. Schlax asked if this was the original Met Council list presented to the commission. Hohenstein replied that he and Commission member White prepared this document. He continued that he would Oke those who have not completed the matrix to do so and that while the commission Is not at a decision making point, the commission has a draft document before them and they may want to discuss It and raise questions in order to assist with the changes for the following week. Schlax responded that he would not be prepared at this point to update the document. Hohenstein stated that there will come a time when they will vote on their findings but they are also putting Information together for the public and If they have any preliminary feedback on the draft, now would be the time to say those things rather than waft. Schlax stated that he had never thought that the document would get to a point where it had to be voted on. He had hoped it would be by consensus of the commission. Todd said that the commission did a great job preparing the document. She continued that the conclusions could say the reasons why the commission went one way rather than another. She asked how will the new airport be funded and how will it Impact Eagan and the state of Minnesota. Schlax asked If the purpose of this document was to look at broad scope issues such as state and regional Impacts or do we want to keep our focus on what this means to Eagan? Todd replied that as a Minnesota resident it Impacts her. She suggested making a general comment that decisions are based on the impact on Eagan and that the commission is not taking into consideration regional or state impacts. Soderling stated that the commission doesn't have enough Information to address these types of Issues. He suggested sticking to what the commission is familiar with. Schlax stated that this was a concern of his - do we need more justification, do we need to quote sources or should it be more of a general statement of opinion? Hohenstein stated that to that extent the commission can point to specific documents for specific conclusions that would be valuable. It's not necessary to footnote every conclusion made. This can be done by referencing appendices or footnotes. Hohensteln said that he will brief the Advisory Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission. He suggested that since the commission may have difficulty with certain issues such as land use, It may be appropriate to take those types of issues and let the APC and EDC handle them. The following issues are listed with the commissions most appropriate to review them. 1. Airport Operational Issues - ARC 5. City of Eagan Economic Issues - EDC 2. Ground Access Issues - ARC 6. City of Eagan Community Impact Issues -APC 3. Air Service Issues - ARC 7. Financial Issues - ARC, APC, EDC 4. Environmental Issues - ARC, APC 8. Strategic Issues - ARC Hohensteln stated We very Important for the City's deliberations that we have a broad range approach to this and that Is a logical way to plug the other commissions into the process. Schlax stated that this was a good way to handle these Issues. He said that at times he felt that the Airport Relations Commission was operating within a vacuum. It's Important to get outside Input. He asked Hohenstein if the other commissions would publish their own position papers or submit suggestions to the ARC. Hohenstein responded that each commission would do that particular section and could submit paragraphs to the ARC. It may be worthwhile, in addition to coming to an overall conclusion, to also come to a Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 3 conclusion for each of those criteria. Soderfing suggested putting the ARC's comments down for each of the criteria and then adding to them with comments from the APC and EDC. All the perspectives could be put in there. Hohenstein stated that this would be the case. Different perspectives and conclusions are valuable to the City Council, in assisting them with making a decision. Hohenstein said that it would be good to do as an exercise. He suggested having a work plan as to how to do the last three or so of the matrices for those who haven't had a chance to do those and give feedback to Schlax and for all commission members to gather at the next tong Term Planning Committee meeting to review the results. Schlax stated he would tike feedback on his document by the following Monday. He stated he will bring back an updated document with all the commission members' input. Then they can decide on what they want to put together. He suggested pushing the September deadline on the timellne back to October. It would give the commission more time to review the document. Then st the September commission meeting there can be further discussion as to how far they've come and what needs to be done. Hohenstein suggested that the commission members not spend too much time on the City economic issues and community Impact issues that are going to be reviewed by other groups. If you have comments that would help others to make decisions Include those. The commission should focus Its attention on the other six Items and use these as Input to the other groups. Soderling suggested that they put in overall conclusions based on the commission's thoughts, not details about specific categories. A motion was make by White to move the timeline back a month, seconded by Soderling, all members voted in favor. Hohenstein stated that the intention is to give the City Council Information on what the commission Is doing. The City Council is very amenable to the process and appreciates the work that has been done by the commission. Their comments were how to plug in Input from the EDC and APC in a logical fashion. Both groups have workshops in September and October which would be a good time to present the information to them and get responses. from them concerning the criteria. Vanderpoel stated that she had not been to a committee meeting in a while and was amazed at the amount that has been done in such a short period of time. She thanked member Schlax for all his hard work. Todd said that the dual track planning will be before the other committees as an Informative item in August and a discussion item in September and October. How would the other commissions feel about ARC members being available at their meetings to aid in discussing these items? Hohenstein responded that he will notify the ARC members when the EDC and APC meetings are and perhaps two or so people could volunteer to attend the meetings. A motion was made by Schlax to consider Visitors to be Heard ahead of the Old Business items, second was made by Stadcha. All members voted in favor. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Robert Mayer of 3949 Avon Court stated that planes are flying overhead all night long making it very difficult to sleep. They seem to be using the 11 R/291- runway which Is Eagan's runway. He stated that he would like to request that the MAC show appropriate runway maps in the MASAC reports. . He also asked if there was any information available on the flight patterns of the two weekends requested at a previous meeting. Hohensteln stated that the item was submitted last month and anticipated to be Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 4 finished within the next week. He said that he would Include it as a part of the next packet. Mr. Mayer asked if it would be possible to get something done about the night flights. Soderling asked if It was take -offs that were bothering him. Mr. Mayer replied that it was generally departures. Soderling stated that he had seen a lot more arrivals over his house after 11:00 p.m. Mr. Mayer stated that he would like to see something done and Is looking forward to meeting next week with legislative representatives. White asked Mr. Mayer in what direction the planes are flying over his house. Mr. Mayer replied that they are starting to tum over his area and heading In a southern or western direction. White commented that he has been watching planes and has seen them turning towards Hawthorne Woods area. He referred to a Wall Street Journal article that discussed what they'll be doing with the new positioning system and what it will enable them to do. They're looking at free flight patterns. Currently, the FAA requires long approach patterns whereas with the new system it will shorten them considerably, consequently, impacting Eagan. Mr Mayer stated that it will impact Eagan quite a bit and may result In a fanning pattern. He commented that this system could work with a longer corridor. Hohenstein stated that the preference at night is to use the south parallel runway. Planes will be landing directly behind those taking off. He went on to explain the report and how the percentages were broken down. Mr. Mayer referred to the fuel spill Incident and asked whether the costs for clean-up were passed on to residents. Hohenstein stated that there were callouts for firefighters and all other clean-up and monitoring of the waterways was done by City employees on regular shifts. Mr. Mayer questioned the reason that the fuel was dumped over Eagan when they could have headed for a less populated area. He commented that perhaps procedures should be reviewed by airlines to prevent an accident in a densely populated area. Hohenstein replied that this is a question best asked of a Northwest official. He continued that when there is an emergency aboard an airplane, they have certain procedures they need to follow. According to reports of the incident, those procedures were followed. Mike Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive spoke to voice his displeasure over the Incident and that he felt that planes should avoid populated areas. He also stated that he was Informed that they dumped fuel for 20 minutes. NEW BUSINESS A. Briefing - Northwest 747 Emergency Landing— Hohenstein informed the commission concerning the NWA 747 emergency landing and that incident occurred when one of the aircraft's engines quit running. Hohenstein stated that residents of Eagan indicated that fuel was being dumped as the plane left the airport. The plane flew over Eagan from east to west near the Diffley Road area. He stated that there were 200 calls received within 45 minutes of the Incident. The first calls were about the noise and to find out what happened. The nature of the calls changed after about 15 minutes. The callers were asking about the fuel problems and Its effects. The callers were informed as to how to deal with the fuel spill. By the next day airport administrative staff received about 20 calls. During that day, City of Eagan Parks and Recreation staff checked the parks and ponds. The Fire Department was called out also to check for concentrations of fuel and could not find any. The EPA was in touch with the City and said that the fuel is a very biodegradable substance and washes away easily and any III effects would have been fell Immediately. He stated that NWA offered to wash people's cars and that there have not been any significant concentrations of fuel. SoderOng asked that when referring to the 2,000 foot level, If that was above sea or ground Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 5 level. Schlax stated that emergency procedure calls for the pilot to keep the plane at 2,000 feet above sea level. White stated that when he talked to the airport the next day, they said that the plane had been travelling at 7,000 feet. They also told him that children and animals should be kept off the grass and out of swimming pools and that lawns should be watered. Soderfing said that he thought planes could fly on two engines. Schlax stated that they can but that a 747 Is a very heavy plane and was on its way to Amsterdam. The eight hours in flight would be a long time without all of the engines running, consequently, the plane had to head back. He said that the crew had no Idea what else could happen and they needed to follow the emergency procedures as quickly as possible and did it exactly the way the airline wanted them to. Hohenstein stated that it would be a good Idea to check out the company's emergency procedures. This experience brings Into focus the kinds of Impacts going on around us. Soderling stated that the emergency procedure issue Is a valid one to bring Into the dual track document. The new airport could provide procedures over less populated areas. Hohenstein commented, that what that will fall Into is compatible land use under environmental Issues. It's something that would not have been discussed had the situation not occurred. A motion was made by Staricha, to ask airlines to review their emergency procedures and share that Information with the commission. The motion died for lack of a second. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Current Operations Committee— Hohenstein stated that the Current Operations Committee met wth Mark Salmon at their last meeting. Chair Todd handed out notes on the meeting. She talked about comments Mr. Salmon made regarding the steps a pilot goes through for a departure. The tower will have the planes for about 17,000 feet which is within 20 miles of the airport. She stated that the tower can change the heading within the corridor and the planes can be handed off to the pilots during that time. A motion was made by Soderling to write a letter to Mr. Salmon to ask specifically for Information as to how to get the planes to stay within the corridor, at the highest altitude and to fly as quickly as possible through It. A second was made by Vanderpool, all members voted in favor. Soderling stated that this letter could be a follow-up with specific points on how to get the distant community profile changed to get planes to fly higher and faster. Todd stated that we may want to address how this is different than what we as a part of the Dakota Community Coalition has put forth to them already. Hohenstein stated that the question is not much different but that it takes a lot of time to get through these. He stated that a letter to Mr. Salmon would be speedier than to go through the coalition. SoderGng amended his motion to state that he would like a letter written to both MASAC and Mr. Salmon and the content of the letter would ask for a change in the distant community profile to Increase speed and altitude within the corridor, second made by White, all members voted in favor. White stated that it would be Important to add that the request be worded with respect to the five City process that's in progress. He commented that there are airports that penalize fights that do not stay within the corridors. He asked if FAA data can't be used to penalize airlines, how are they doing this. Hohenstein replied that there is a monitoring fine but they have never had to pay one because they have shown in those communities that they were for safety or weather reasons. He continued that in terms of the ANOMS agreement with FAA Is that they will not use data to penalize airlines. The situation with the Minneapolls/St. Paul Airport Is unusual because it is regionally owned. Most airports are owned by the cities they're located in.. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 6 Soderling stated that a large percentage of the out of corridor flights may be due to the 15 degree procedure and that they could press for them to cut back on capacity to stay In the corridor. Hohenstein stated that this bears commenting In the dual track process. White asked If there has been an effort to evaluate creative ways that there could be penalties for flying outside the corridor for non -safety reasons at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport? Hohenstein replied that there has not. The MAC states that they can't but there are places that do. White suggested that the commission find out how other airports are doing with Imposing of penalties. Hohenstein suggested combining the Long Term and Current Operations Committees to meet together on August 17. Schlax motioned to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m., seconded by Soderling, all members voted in favor. B. Long Term Planning Committee— The report for the Long Term Planning Committee was discussed under Old Business. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor— The EagenlMendota Heights corridor was discussed under Committee Reports. B. Runway 4122 Extension - Richfield Litigation— Schlax referred to an article in the paper concerning the 4/22 extension and asked what the commission agreed to relative to that extension. Hohenstein replied that the City has been involved in mediation with Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, MAC and the Met Council and were able to draft a tentative agreement which was not agreed to by all of the councils In its exact form. Then the Met Council turned that Into their staff recommendation and they passed it. We met yesterday and all of the parties, even though they could not come to a consensus on the agreement, they all decided to move forward as if it was an agreement. They approved the extension of the runway contingent upon all the parties continuing to mediate between now and May 1 of next year to develop an equitable noise mitigation plan which may or may not Involve redistribution of traffic to that runway. The position we took was that regardless of what happens on the redistribution there should be no additional flight tracks east of Cedar Avenue and that that community already absorbs more than their share of noise impacts. If there Is true redistribution it should not be done in a fashion to add more traffic to a community. We will also be doing a survey of affected communities. It's meant to look at citizen attitudes about level of noise versus mitigation alternatives. The initial Idea of the study was whether the redistribution would accomplish anything for south Minneapolis or whether the noise level would be so high that a percentage going In a different direction would be of more value to them than increased noise mitigation, sound insulation and those types of things to a broader area. So much of this concept also relates to the dual track process which Involves operations versus mitigation. We'll be trying to make this Informative for 4/22 and for you for the dual track process. We're on a timeline to get the study done by September or October with results in late October or early November. C. Part 150 Program Update— Hohenstein Informed the commission of a change of personnel at the Center of Energy and Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August S, 1995 Page 7 Environment. Kathy Larson has been replaced by Mary Raasche. He continued that at least the same number of homes will be done in 1996 as were done in 1995, possibly more. A large portion of the McKee Addition will be done this next year. D. MASAC Meeting of July 25, 1995— Hohenstein stated that the technical reports were abbreviated because of problems with computers and the network The July operations report should be in total. E. Northam Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— The main focus of the group is commenting to the airline's response to their concerns about departure profiles. e ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Vanderpoel, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary JEH