Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/12/1995 - Airport Relations Commission
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM BLACK HAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL September 12, 1995 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD IV. DISCUSSION - LEGISLATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS - AIRCRAFT NOISE AND OPERATIONS CONCERNS V. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Dual Track Position VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS VIII. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Mitigation Survey C. Sound Insulation Program Update D. MASAC Meeting of August 22, 1995 E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition IX. INFORMATIVE X. FUTURE AGENDA A. SMAAC Common Issues B. Alternative Departure Profiles XI. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 10, 1995 CURRENT OPERATIONS COMM - To be determined LONG TERM PLANNING COMM - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, September 21, 1995 NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 26, 1995 XII. 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, se; 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: SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 SUBJECT. EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center Council Chambers. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603 if you will be unable to attend this meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the commission. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 8, 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. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address items not on the agenda may do so at this time. This opportunity to speak will be limited.to ten minutes preceding the meeting and any continued discussion of items not on the agenda can occur following Staff Reports. IV. DISCUSSION - LEGISLATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AIRCRAFT NOISE AND OPERATIONS CONCERNS The City's legislative delegation held two meetings with residents of noise affected neighborhoods on June 26 and August 16, 1995. The meetings were initially coordinated through Senator Wiener's office as an opportunity for eastern Eagan neighborhoods to discuss their concerns and "frustrations with the noise situation in that part of the community. By the second meeting, comments regarding the meetings in the media resulted in higher attendance from a broader area of the community, including the Burr Oaks Hills neighborhood and the Highview neighborhood adjacent to the corridor. At the second meeting, a presentation concerning the history of the airport and airport noise abatement effV was provided by MAC staff. The memorandum enclosed on pages 1 through 3 represents art of the information discussed that evening. Also enclosed on pages through are copies of slides which the MAC uses to discuss the corridor procedure and airport operations. Some of these were reviewed at the August 16 meeting and the rest were reviewed at the MASAC meeting the following week. During the meeting, a group of residents which have chosen the name Eagan Citizens Airport Noise Committee submitted a list of proposals enclosed on page sem. The MAC is in the process of reviewing these proposals and responding to each. No correspondence had been received from the MAC in this regard at the time of packet preparation. Also enclosed on page Ce ?is a copy of correspondence received from residents of Burr Oaks concerning corridor modifications. A number of the residents at the meeting on the 16th indicated the corridor was in place when they purchased their houses and it should be complied with but not changed. In response to correspondence from the City on behalf of neighbors in eastern Eagan, letters have been received from the FAA relative to runway selection and short final approaches to the airport. These letters are enclosed on pages "through i(,_S The conclusion of the meeting on the 16th was a request by the legislative delegation that residents channel concerns regarding aircraft operations through the Airport Relations Commission for formal consideration and action by the City Council when appropriate. The issue before the commission is how best to pursue the issues raised by these discussions and what additional actions are to be recommended to the City Council. Of the proposals raised by the residents, the City has previously endorsed the concept of a steeper departure profile, the increased use of runway 22 in off peak periods, the use of the most recent demographic data in airport environmental reviews, the addition of- ANOMS monitors around the community and improved accountability for aircraft operations in the corridor. The commission has also discussed but not formally endorsed the concept of modifying Eagan's representation at MAC. It appears that the item that received the least consensus at the meeting of the 16th was the concept of corridor extension. In addition, MAC staff made it clear that flight delays resulting from such an extension would be unacceptable to the airport and the FAA. If the commission wishes to explore this item further, it obviously requires substantial education and public input and all parties should understand the minimal likelihood of an extension. In addition to the issues raised at the meetings, staff was directed at the last meeting to explore the noise abatement program at the Sarasota, Florida airport, especially as it pertains to compliance with their noise abatement corridors. The Sarasota noise abatement office is forwarding a copy of their noise abatement plan which does require airlines to document any deviations from the standard71atey:night ' ent departure for noise abatement. In addition, enclosed on pages _Ljthrough will find a memorandum and articles from Mike Schlax suggesting consideration noise fines (which are also imposed by Sarasota) and the possibility of relocating additional operations to other airports. While this item is primarily for discussion, it may result in staff direction or recommend- ations for City Council consideration. If so, the commission is encouraged to take whatever action is appropriate at Tuesday's meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process -- Enclosed on pages -Athrou hw is a memorandum and a most recent draft of the draft �j findings for consideration by the commission. A special thanks goes to Mike Schlax and all members of the commission for their additional meetings and hard work on this item. The commission should review this in detail and be prepared to discuss it at Tuesday's meeting. Commission member Steve Soderling was unable to attend Tuesday's meeting, but has sub tied the eats regarding the draft osition pa "r which are enclosed on pages through Also enclosed on pages throug are the cumulative totals the decision trix which was completed by most commission members. This was prepared by Jon White. Also enclosed without page number are colored copies of bar charts outlining the results of the analysis. In addition, staff made a presentation to the Economic Development Commission on September 31 and will be presenting to the Advisory PlanningCommission preceding the Airport Relations Commission meeting on September 12 regarding the matrix categories which relate to those commissions. Also enclosed as I-78 and -I-79 are articles relative to aircraft traffic growth and hub concentrations. On pages II -36 through II -39 are articles concerning the Denver and Berlin airports. Enclosed on pages III -42 are III- are articles regarding noise reduction at O'Hare, GPS and "free flight" Enclosed on pages IV -31 and IV -32 is a memorandum regarding the economic/fiscal impact study being conducted by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. Finally, enclosed as pages U-40 through II -43 are transportation planning diagrams relative to the two alternatives. These documents outline the major road improvements anticipated for each alternative. Enclosed on page W is an updated time line for the dual track process. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review and provide feedback on the draft position paper and to recommend background information for the "reading file" being prepared by Mike Schlax and the Long -Term Planning Committee. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Dual Track Position— Enclosed on pages to through —au a staff memorandum concerning this item. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend comments and a position to the City. Council for consideration by the Dakota County Board. VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS The Long Term Planning Committee and Current Operations Committee met in a joint session for the month of August to prepare the dual track position paper which was a part of Old Business above. Any committee member wishing to make additional reports should do so at this time. It should be noted that staff will be out of town on Monday, September 18 which would be the typical Current Operations Committee meeting date. The committee should identify an alternative meeting date for their September meeting. 3 VIII. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor— This item will be discussed under item number IV above. B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Mitigation Survey— By Tuesday evening, staff should have received copies of the responses to the Metropolitan Council request for proposals for the 4/22 noise mitigation survey. The City Council is withholding action on this item until it receives an indication of the City's costs. Staff will provide an update on this item at Tuesday's meeting. C. Sound Insulation Program Update— A Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee meeting will be held on Friday, September 8. At the present time, it appears that the City of Eagan will be able to insulate between 62 and 73 homes in 1996. This could largely complete the eligible area of our community. D. MASAC Meeting of August 22, 1995 -- Mayor Egan and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein attended the MASAC meeting. Ile primary item of business was a review of the Eagan neighborhood informational meeting which will be discussed in item IV above. Anyone with questions concerning the meeting may raise them at this time. Enclosed on pages Wj through (,Qi is an abbreviated operations and complaint summary for July. The length is a result of the continued problems the MAC is experiencing with the ANOMS system. We are sure that complete data for July and August will be made available in the near future. E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— Enclosed on pages tO through are copies of correspondence from the coalition to Northwest Airlines and Northwest's response. The coalition is in the process of getting signatures on an answer to Northwest's letter. A copy of that will be forwarded to the commission when it becomes available. DL INFORMATIVE Enclosed on pages 0 ghviis a copy of the MAC's 1994.report to the public. Also enclosed on pa a an advertisement from ort News indicating the current membership of the MA enclosed. on pages throughu a memorandum from the City Administrator relative to the City Council's goals for the next twelve months. You will note that one of the Council's priorities is to make a dual track airport planning process decision. Tj X. FUTURE AGENDA Any commission member who would like to recommend items for a future agenda should do so at this time. XI. NEXT MEETING The next meetings of the commission, its committees and MASAC are indicated on the agenda. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 pm., unless extended by a majority vote of the members present to complete business pending before the conin i«ion. I�f4l� •F:n •utiatar— S MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION August 8, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, August S. 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike SchLm Jonathan White, Jane Vanderpool and Lance Stariche. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohensteln. 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 Staricha, 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. Hohensteln 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 like 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 like to stay on the original time line. 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 matrbt 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. Hohensteln stated that the matrix Is a modified version of something that's 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 environmental considerations crossed Into other categories. The Issue should be focussing on airport operations so ?10 Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 2 ground tracks and runway use systems should be along the lines of efficiencies and limitations. The environmental aspect of those things should be handled under the environmental Item, that way we're careful to separate out Issues. Schlax asked M this was the original Met Council list presented to the commission. Hchenstein replied that he and Commission member White prepared this document He continued that he would like those who have not completed the matrbc to do so and that while the commission Is not at a decision making porn[, 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 thispoint to update the document Hohensteln stated that there will come wtime 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 wait 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 M 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. Soderiing 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? Hohensteln 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 confusion made. This can be done by referencing appendices or footnotes. Hohenstein 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. Errvtronmental Issues - ARC, APC S. Strategic Issues - ARC Hohenstein stated It's very Important for the Ckys 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. ft'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 conclusion for each of those criteria. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 3 Sodeding 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. Hohensteln stated that this would be the case. Different perspectives and conclusions are valuable to the City Council in assisting them with making a decision. Hohensteln 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 Long Tenn Planning Committee meeting to review the results. Schlax stated he would like 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 at the September commission meeting there can be further discussion as to how far theoe come and what needs to be done. Hohensteln 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. Sodeding 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 Sodeding, all members voted -In favor. Hohensteln 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 ScHax 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? Hohensteln 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 Staricha. 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 finished within the next week. He said that he would include it as a part of the next packet. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Mayer asked if it would be possible to get something done about the night flights. Soder ing asked If it was take -oft that were bothering him. Mr. Mayer replied that it was generally departures. Sodeding 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 wdt 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 Fagan 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 dean -up were passed on to residents. Hohensteln stated that there were callouts for firefighters and all other dean -up and monitoring of the waterways was done by City employees on regular shffts. 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 Al Briefing - Northwest 747 Emergency Lending— Hohensteln 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 Difley 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 ne)d day airport administrative staff received about 20 calls. During that day. City of Eagan Parks and Recreation staff checked the parks and ponds. The Fre 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 felt immediately. He stated that NWA offered to wash people's cars and that there have not been any significant concentrations of fuel. Sodeding asked that when referring to the 2,000 foot level, 9 that was above sea or ground 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 Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 5 travelling at 7,(100 feet They also told him that children and animals should be kept off the grass and out of swimming pods and that lawns should be watered. Soderling 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 bads 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 comparys emergency procedures. This experience brings Into focus the kinds of Impacts going on around us. Sodeding 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 eidines 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 Salmen at their last meeting. Chair Todd handed out notes on the meeting. She talked about comments Mr. Salmen 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 Soder ing to write a letter to Mr. Salmen 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 Vanderpoel, all members voted in favor. Soderiing 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. Salmen would be speedier than to go through the coalition. Sodeding amended his motion to state that he would like a letter written to both MASAC and Mr. Salmen 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 flights that do not stay within the corridors. He asked H FAA data can't be used to penalize airlines, how are they doing this. Hohensteln 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 Minneapolis/St Paul Airport Is unusual because it is regionally owned. Most airports are owned by the cities they're located kr. /V Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 6 Sodeding 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. Hohensteln stated that this bears commenting In the dual track process. White asked H 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/SL Paul Airport? Hohensteln 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. Hohensteln suggested combining the Long Term and Current Operations Committees to meet together on August 17. Schlax motloned to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m., seconded by Sodeding, 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 Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor was discussed under Committee Reports. B. Runway 4/22 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. Hohensteln 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 forth. Then the Met Council turned that Into their staff recommendation and they passed IL We met yesterday and all of the parties, even though they could not come to a consensus on the agreement, they all deckled to move forward as I 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 xommunftles. 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 timellne to get the study done by September or October with results In late October or early November. C. Part 150 Program Update— Hohensteln Informed the commission of a range of personnel at the Center of Energy and Environment. Kathy Larson has been replaced by Mary Raasche. He continued that at least the same Eagan Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 7 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 neud 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. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— The main focus of the group Is commenting to the airline's response to their concerns about departure profiles ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Schim seconded by Vanderpoel, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. JEH Date Chairperson Secretary la MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT TO: Louie Miller, Commissioner, Metropolitan Airports Commission FROM: John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Programs SUBJECT: Eagan Citizens Airport Noise Committee Questions/Proposals DATE: 16 August 1995 Enclosed are responses to questions posed by the Eagan Citizens Airport Noise Committee. Of the 18 questions, 11 were adequately addressed by Eagan Assistant to the City Administrator, Jon Hohenstein. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's Aviation Noise Programs staff prepared responses to the remaining questions. L Review -data on the different airplane flight paths for the weekends of April 29th and May 5th. MAC's Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) was used to analyze air carrier jet departures off Runways 11L&R at the Minneapolis -St Paul International Airport (MSP) over the weekends of 29 and 30 April 1995, and 6 and 7 May, 1995. Additional analysis through the same Hawthorne Woods neighborhood "gate" was previously accomplished for a variety of citizen requests, and preserved at the Eagan City Hall, Tuesday night, 13 December 1995. For comparison, all analysis time periods are compiled into Table 1, below. The flight track graphics data are included as anachment 1. Table 1. Air Carrier Jet AhvraftDeparting MSP Runway 11L&R with Gate Analysis A Departure Hour is an hour that MSP was operating with l lL&R Departures. as per the official Tower La& rme period % of 11LdiR Departure Hours is the number of 11L&R departure hours divided by the total number of hours during the time period The column labeled "% Departures Through Hawthorne Gate" in Table 1 indicates that the same basic percentage of 11L&R departures overflew the Hawthorne Woods neighborhood during the time periods indicated. This indicates that air traffic routing procedures have not changed. However, total airport traffic increased between June 1993 and June 1994, with a corresponding increase in total number of overflights over the Hawthorne Woods neighborhood. The deceased number of I lL&R departures during November 13 1994 is a function of transitory low pressure systems increasing the occurrence of northwest winds, thus allowing more departures off Runways 29L&R. Nighttime RUS procedures and typically light winds between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. skew departure hour totals toward 11 L&R departures. For the weekends of 29 - 30 April 1995, and 6 - 7 May 1995, air traffic procedures remained the same, but each weekend experienced 48 hours of I IL&R departures, and a correspondingly higher total number of aircraft overhead extreme southeastern Eagan. 2. What concerns are there if the aircraft make a more rapid decent into the airport on late night landings? What altitude could they By in at and at what point would they have to start their decent? Two conditions must be met for aircraft to land safely. First they must slow from en route speeds, and second, they must follow a stabilized approach to the runway using a shallow enough glidepath to allow the aircraft to be slow enough to safely land. In the en route environment, at altitudes between 18,000 and 45,000 feet, carrier jet aircraft cruise at speeds between 400 and 500 miles per hour. To transition to landing in airspace like Minneapolis' Class B Airspace, aircraft must descend to below 10,000 feet, and slow to speeds below 288 m.p.h.l Much like riding a bicycle downhill, an aircraft will tend to accelerate during descent, if no slowing actions are accomplished. Aircrews typically reduce power to flight idle, and extend drag devices such as speed brakes and flaps. Even with all drag devices deployed and power at flight idle, jet aircraft have a difficult time trading altitude and airspeed for landing. During periods of instrument meteorological conditions (i.e., poor weather) aiicraft must maintain at or slightly above 3' glidepath for landing, as prescribed by radio navigational aids. This translates to about 1400 feet above the ground inside the final approach fix, about 5 miles from the runway. Under visual meteorological conditions (i.&, good weather) aircraft maintain at most, about a 3.5 to 4.5' glidepath, translating to about 2000 feet above the ground on a 5 -mile final To accommodate the need to slow and descend from the en route structure, aircraft approaching MSP are typically descended to 10,000 by Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) controllers within 20 miles of the airport Terminal Radar Approach Controllers descend aircraft from 10,000 feet to 7,000 feet and "vector" or issue instructions that establish aircraft on a "downwind" leg - parallel to the landing runway and about 8 to 10 miles from the airport. Once established on the downwind leg, carrier jet aircraft are descended to 4000 feet, and continue slowing to final approach airspeed - typically 160 - 200 m.p.h., depending on aircraft. At about a 43 angle to -the landing runway, and 10 to 12 miles out, aircraft are turned toward the airport and descended to 2500 to 3000 feet, such that they are established on a straight -in to the landing runway between 5 and 8 miles out The final approach fix altitude at MSF for a Runway 29L arrival is 2643 feet, or about 1800 feet above the ground at 6.3 miles from touchdown: 3. Propose that the aircraft make a more rapid accent at takeoff. 5000 feet at 3 miles. An ANOMS penetration "gate", or window in space was constructed at 3 miles from the departure end of Runways 11L I? and is includedas attachment 2. For 530 jet aircraft penetrating the gate during the weekend of April 15 and 16, 1995, the average altitude was about 3000 feet, and ranged from 2100 feet to 4500 feet. Aircraft climb performance is a function of aircraft loading (aircraft weight, passengers, cargo, and fuel), air temperature, wind, and engine thrust. Thrust availability varies with -aircraft. Noise abatement 1. Pert 91.117 (a), Aircraft Speed, General Operating & Flight Rales, Federal Aviation Regulations and Airmen's Information Manual 1995 Edition. USA. departures typically call for a slight thrust and climb angle reduction within about a mile of the airport, with reapplication of power and remra to maximum climb performance 3 to 5 miles from the airport In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration tested and approved establishing two noise abatement departure profiles (NADP) - one addressing a "close -in" residential noise impact area, and one profile recognizing a "distant' residential noise impact area It is an air carrier's responsibility to develop a close -in and a distant procedure. for each of its aircraft, and the airports responsibility to determine which procedures to use off each end of the airport. Environmental work is in progress to analyze the most effective way to utilize the NADPs, given the specific demography surrounding MSP. Currently, Northwest Airlines utilizes a departure procedure simtil to the distant NADP. 4. Why is there not an equal distribution of the aircraft? aft? Should we not utilize Runways 04 & 22 on low traffic times? Propose that we increase the usage on low traffic times. An equal distribution of aircraft operations cannot occur at MSP because the volume of air traffic demands use of the parallel runways (29L.&R/11I.&R). This implies that area northwest of the airport (south Minneapolis/north Richfield) and southeast of the airport (Pagao/Mendom Heights) will experience the majority of aircraft arrivals and departures, with wind determining the direction of the traffic flow. Because the Minnesota River bottoms and the Eagan/Mendota Heights industrial "corridor" provide more compatible land uses than residential neighborhoods directly northwest of the airport, areas southeast of the airport receive a higher proportion of parallel runway operations. A discussion of Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor history is included as anachmenr 3. RUS History In 1972, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) developed a Preferential Runway Use System (PRS) to route aircraft over less noise -sensitive areas. MAC recommended the PRS for implementation to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and it was subsequently adopted. The PRS used Runway 22 to shift departures. (and noise), away from high noise -impact residential areas in south Minneapolis. During the 1970s and early 1980s, air traffic volume at MSP was low enough to allow combined use of the crosswind runway (Runway 04/22) and the parallel runways. As airport operations increased during the mid-1980s, efficient handling of the greater traffic volume demanded more frequent use of the parallel runways. As opportunities to use the PRS decreased because of increaseddemand for the parallel rnnways, more and more frights were directed over the dense residential developments of south Minneapolis. This disparity between the distribution.of flights and density of residential development surrounding MSP led MASAC.to aggressively reassess the PRS, and search for alternative procedures. The MASAC Operations Committee considered a member of alternatives designed to achieve a more equitable distribution of aircraft noise impact (as opposed to equitable distribution of aircraft operations) among communities surrounding MSP, ultimately selecting the Runway Use System as the best combination of equitable noise distribution and FAA safety considerations. In February 1988, MASAC urged the MAC to recommend that FAA test the proposed RUS for 6 months. MAC and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency jointly analyzed data collected during the controversial and widely publicized 180 -day test After exhaustive analysis and significant public input (including 4 public hearings). MASAC voted in favor of implementing the RUS, and MAC requested that FAA implement the system in 1990. Because of runway construction, the RUS was not fully implemented until spring 1991. The RUS influences air traffic flows by establishing a series of priorities for mnway operations, and defining specific language to direct air traffic controllers. The RUS procedure for da operations is to: +Use the Eagan -Mendota Heights Commetoial/lndustrial Corridor southeast of MSP, to the greatest extent possible. and +Maximize use of Runway 04/22 (the crosswind runway) alone and in conjunction with the Fagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. The RUS procedure at nig&(U P.M. to 6 A.M.) is to: +Mammize use of the Fagan -Mendota Heights Corridor for bah arriving and departing traffic (so-called head-to-head operations) and. +Use Runway 0422 when Corridor operations are not possible. The crosswind runway is to be used in as balanced a manner as possible. The RUS is designed to maximize use of the Fagan -Mendota Heights Corridor and the crosswind runway to relieve the closest and most heavily noise -impacted residential areas in south Minneapolis. During low- volume periods, the RUS attempts to increase use of the crosswind runway, Runway 04/22, in a balanced manner to achieve greater equity in the number of flights off each end of that runway. Technical airspace management conditions make balanced use difficult to achieve, and the bulk of Runway 0422 operations occur over areas southwest of MSP, i.e., departing Runway 22 or arriving Runway 04. RUS Today One of the most widely reported airport conditions is runway use. For years, before explicit ANOMS radar tracking and noise data was available, runway use was tracked using surrogates such as airline schedules, airline landing reports, and spot checks of human observations. The routine availability of ANOMS data eliminated airport dependence on outside estimates, allowing a more accurate and unbiased view of airport traffic, and an objective look at the performance of the RUS. Crosstown etual ops UL 22 . 1993 ArkrivaLs - i8Z,253 qi 1993 Departures -177,464 11R .. 29R 04 f Runway use is reported through the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report The RUS is monitored through a variety of reports including: percent of operations off each end of the runway, day/night sorts of runway end data, graphics of weekly radar tracks sorted by arrivals and departures, and indirectly through numbers of noise evens greater than certain thresholds at each remote noise monitoring tower (RMI). The figures on the following page (page 4) reflect the yearly distribution of traffic at MSP, as measured using FAA radar data through MAC's ANOMS system., during 1993 and 1994. Increasing traffic volume from 1993 to 1994 deceased the number of hours the crosswind runway was available for use. Traffic shifted from over Bloomington/south Richfield to a northwest -to -southeast flow, i.e., increased arrivals over south Minneapolis/north Richfield, and increased departures over Eagan/Mendota Heights. 11L 22 Percent of = ' � Actual Ops 29R Air traffic volume dictates use of MSP's parallel runways for nearly all hours of the day (6 AM to 11 P.M). Only very selected portions of hours have low enough traffic volumes to allow air traffic controllers to move traffic to the crosswind runway. The dominance of "daytime" parallel runway use is demonstrated with about 45% of the traffic over neighborhoods northwest of the airport, and more than 50% of the traffic to the southeast of MSP. Low daytime usage of the crosswind nmway (04/22) reflects more the vohane of traffic at MSP than deficiency of the RUS, especially because over 97% of all jet traffic arrives or departs MSP during the day. At night (11 Px to 6 AM), effects of the RUS are pronounced, with significant shift of traffic imo the "corridor" southeast of the airport, and onto the crosswind runway. Again, the majority of crosswind runway operations (landings and takeoffs) overfly areas southwest of MSP, i.e., over Bloomington and south Richfield. Puture efforts toward achieving a balanced use of the crosswind runway should concentrate on increasing operations to the northeast of MSP during low-volume. nighttime hours [i.e., arriving Runway 22, departing Runway 041. C 11R d L 04 by . 6r 22 Percent of = ' � Actual Ops 29R Air traffic volume dictates use of MSP's parallel runways for nearly all hours of the day (6 AM to 11 P.M). Only very selected portions of hours have low enough traffic volumes to allow air traffic controllers to move traffic to the crosswind runway. The dominance of "daytime" parallel runway use is demonstrated with about 45% of the traffic over neighborhoods northwest of the airport, and more than 50% of the traffic to the southeast of MSP. Low daytime usage of the crosswind nmway (04/22) reflects more the vohane of traffic at MSP than deficiency of the RUS, especially because over 97% of all jet traffic arrives or departs MSP during the day. At night (11 Px to 6 AM), effects of the RUS are pronounced, with significant shift of traffic imo the "corridor" southeast of the airport, and onto the crosswind runway. Again, the majority of crosswind runway operations (landings and takeoffs) overfly areas southwest of MSP, i.e., over Bloomington and south Richfield. Puture efforts toward achieving a balanced use of the crosswind runway should concentrate on increasing operations to the northeast of MSP during low-volume. nighttime hours [i.e., arriving Runway 22, departing Runway 041. S. Request a more detailed map or Eagan (only) with the ANOMS Flight tracks shown on a weekly basis. A more detailed base map is now available through the Aviation Noise Program's geographic information system (GIS), and will be integrated into ANOMS reports, or provided to cities as a transparency overlay, at the same scale as ANOMS-produced graphics. Flight tracks are currently displayed on a weekly basis in the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report, (produced each month). 6. Request a mobile noise monitoring system to be used by qualified Eagan citizen. At the request of the MASAC Operations Committee, MAC's Aviation Noise Programs staff have placed a noise monitor temporarily at the Pinewood Elementary School, in the Hawthorne Woods neighborhood. The data will be reviewed by MASAC's Operations Committee in an upcoming meeting. An example of the data follows in Table 2. Table 2. Noise Events at 3 Sites ... 14 `June 1995 through 16 June 1995 The above table compares numbers of recorded noise events at three separate locations, during the same time period. MSP operated with Runway IlL&R departures continuously throughout the period of interest. The data reflect the effect of distance from the airport on magnitude of noise events. MAC will not be adding permanent noise monitoring towers to the existing array of 24. Interested cities or individual citizens can acquire noise monitors separately. 7. When will Runway 29L shutdown for rebuild? When it reopens, bow is the traffic planned? MSP's south parallel runway (29I/11R) is programmed for reconstuctioa in MAC's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) during the 1999 and 2000 construction seasons. Because runway deterioration is increasing, refurbishment may begin as early as 1998. When the runway reopens, air traffic routings will be the same as at runway closure. i Eagan - Hawthorne Woods .4 37 Eagan - Highview 142 262 Mendota Heights - Furlong 98 129 The above table compares numbers of recorded noise events at three separate locations, during the same time period. MSP operated with Runway IlL&R departures continuously throughout the period of interest. The data reflect the effect of distance from the airport on magnitude of noise events. MAC will not be adding permanent noise monitoring towers to the existing array of 24. Interested cities or individual citizens can acquire noise monitors separately. 7. When will Runway 29L shutdown for rebuild? When it reopens, bow is the traffic planned? MSP's south parallel runway (29I/11R) is programmed for reconstuctioa in MAC's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) during the 1999 and 2000 construction seasons. Because runway deterioration is increasing, refurbishment may begin as early as 1998. When the runway reopens, air traffic routings will be the same as at runway closure. �,_ �:, - 1� �'�; \ '., \t\.: `:\-( Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Gate Penetration Analysis June 1993 9.9% (170) Runway 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures Penetrating Gate Mpg 16,1995 Attachment 1 s rJgj O s�-. ,. • Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Gate, Penetration Analysis June 1994 9.5% (187) Runway 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures Penetrating Gate August 16. IM �� Attachment 1 i/�: /.J u/i 1�i\\ � .. �� .. 1 �` ':per ,� � ,j Z r �:,i � _i / _ �, `\. /Cr 1� ���\�� h1.1•i _. ,.�_ p -..', .l i��.�, Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Gate Penetration Analysis November 1994 6.8% (109) Runway 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures Penetrating Gate August 16,1995 Attachment 1 AL 71 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE O LEFT COUNT=46 (64.8%) 0 0 i 0 0 o • RIGHT COU NT=25 (35.2%) ---------- - - - - -- -------- --- --- '-------------- -- ,------------ ------------------------r--------•-------- - _________________'___.________� ----------------- I- ------------------- r----------------- • • -3000 -2000 - DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF CATE Attachment 1 • 0006 0008 ll KjNan1I11V w zi • • • I• 0 O 0 000c 0009 0005 000 000 0 0 0 z 0001 o KjNan1I11V w zi 530 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE LEFT COUNT=222 (41.9%) RIGHT COUNT=308 (58.17) o. 0 0 0 i .. -------------------------- ee • • •• • • • • M•. • • • •• • �• • ••• • ••4 4 • I0 •a•!1i • •• • • I••r•• I! • t • • ---•• --- fr-�t----a-- ��••• !- -� • -i- ------------------------ •• IV 0 •I �•; y •i • i •• • • •• � e •' • • �• M • • •� ••w�•i • l 0 o 0 o J � Q O N O i .. -------------------------- ee • • •• • • • • M•. • • • •• • �• • ••• • ••4 4 • I0 •a•!1i • •• • • I••r•• I! • t • • ---•• --- fr-�t----a-- ��••• !- -� • -i- ------------------------ •• IV 0 •I �•; y •i • i •• • • •• � e •' • • �• M • • •� ••w�•i • l -10000 - DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Attachment 2 O O ----------------- O -10000 - DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. A long standing noise mitigation operational procedure at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP), has been to direct as many aircraft operations as possible over the more noise -compatible land use areas of Fagan and Mendota Heights, southeast of the airport. The Minnesota River bottoms and significant amounts of industrial, office, and commercial zoning and development are concentrated in this "corridor" area. A chronology of Eagan -Mendota Heights Commercial/Industnal Corridor development, revisions and modifications follows (all indicated headings are magnetic): 1968 - MASAC and local FAA review MSP operational alternatives. 1969 - Development and implementation of Prefc ntW Runway System (PRS). 1972 - South boundary established. (runway heading. Fagan -runway 1=9L). 1973 - South boundary moved north. 110° from runway 11R departure end 1974 - New Terminal Castrol Area at MSP established requiring 150 separation for departures. 1974 - South boundary moved north. 105° from runway l IR departure end. 1975 - "River Departure" established for prop amt 1981--Air-Traffic Controllers Strilm. 1982 - New voices heard from communities on north side of corridor area 1984 - Significant iraease in traffic at MSP. 1984 - MASAC reviews discrimination of corridor headings toward Mendota Heights. 1984 - MASAC unable to resolve equity issue. 1984 - FAA implements "cone" of 090° to 1180 departure headings. 1985 - Tower Dual local Control imphemeuted- 1150 Rwy 11R. 0900 to 1000 Rwy l IL. 1986 - ATC unilaterally sets south boundary as Rwy heading and no northern boundary. 1986 - ATC agreed 090° (although not official north boundary) was operationally recognized. 1987 - MASAC establishes special Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor Cnnnniu 1988 - MASAC special committee considers alternative corridor operational procedures. 1989 - Eagan and Mendota Heights submit proposals for review. 1990 - MASAC unable to resolve issue: MAC Exec. Dir. appoints Blue Ribbon Task Force. 1990 - MAC / MPCA conduct Corridor Definition Study. 1991- FAA -ATC eooducts 60 Day Corridor Test requested by Blue Ribbon Task Force. 1991 - Task Force reviews 60 Day Test results and separate city proposals. 1992 - Task Face unable to agree after two years of deliberation. 1992 - MAC makes foal recommendation to FAA for approval. 1993 - FAA -ATC Manager suggests minor changes in the wording of the two proposals. 1993 - FAA Regional Staff determine an ELS is necessary before implementation Meiropollmtt Airport Commission-Agadan Noise Programs 3 Attachment 3 The "final recommendation" currently with FAA for environmental. review, is in the form of two separate "proposals", as follows: Whenever possible, under non-simo(faneous departure conditions: + Aircraft departing Runway 11R will be assigned a heading to maintain an approximate ground track of 1050 (M). + Aircraft departing Runway 11L will be assigned a heading to maintain a ground track along the extended runway centerline, approximately 1180 Whenever possible, ander simuUaneoug departure conditions (when diverging paths are necessary for aircraft separation): + Establish a Northern Boundary of 950 (NO from Runway IM departure end. + Maintain a Southern Boundary along the Runway 29L localixer. + Assign aircraft headings such that approximate ground tracks, as close as feasible, remain on or within the above boundaries The corridor refinement issue is on-going. By the mid-1980s, the Corridor basically included a southern boundary of the extended centerline of the south parallel runway (11R), an operational constraint of 090 *from the end of the north parallel runway (11L), and a turn restriction prior to 3 miles from the runways' ends, designed to take advantage of the commercial/industrial areas and river bottom southeast of MSP. An extensive, joint MAC/Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Corridor Definition Study in 1990, revealed potential for pushing the northern operational boundary over Mendota Heights, south to 0950, essentially moving aircraft flight tracks away from residential areas north of Highway 1100. Lengthy tests and debates culminated in two Corridor Refinement Proposals being passed to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for implementation. These proposals established a northern policy boundary of 0950, and,anempted to use the center of the corridor to the greatest extent possible. - Its absolutely essential to point out that MAC can only request FAA to implement various operational procedures: FAA has sole jurisdiction over where aircraft may fly. This is not so much "buck passing" between agencies, but rather. is the reality that allows the complex National Airspace System to operate safely and efficiently. Even when FAA agrees to implement an airport -requested procedure, it is a "best efforts" arrangement, tempered by safety of flight, day-to-day operational constraints, and weather. Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Perspective MAC encouraged communitymembers of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MA,SAC) to address the corridor issue during the mid-1980s. After meeting for three years without success, the MAC Executive Director appoimed a "Blue Ribbon Committee" of patties directly involved with the issue. Mendota Heights and Eagan were Metropolitan Airports Comminion - Aviation Noise Prognmu 31. Attachment 3 Ewen -Mendota Heights Corridor. the only cities appointed because they adjoin the airport. and corridor area, have existing, implemented land use policies relating to the corridor, and are exposed to the most incense noise impacts southeast of MSP airport. Because land use protection in Mendota Heights and Eagan extended approximately to three miles from the ends of the parallel runways, an agreement was reached with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue rum instructions after aircraft were three miles from the runway to help maintain the integrity of this commercial/Industrial corridor. This strategy kept aircraft from overflying areas south of the corridor. The northern boundary was maintained as an operational limitation due to the proximity of the St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP). When considering noise distribution equitability, noise level and intensity of impact must be considered. An aircraft producing 90 dBA measured on the ground one to two miles from the airport produces about 75 dBA seven miles from the airport, due to increased altitude farther from the airport. Both levels create an impact for residents, but the intensity of impact is significantly different. No matter what the initial noise level, distance from the airport equates to altitude above the ground, and increased distance between noise sources (aircraft) and noise receivers (residents). Consequently, noise abatement programs at MSP, and at airports around the world, have concentrated on programs addressing the highest level, most intense noise impacts close to the airport, before addressing those impacts farther from the runways. From the Mississippi River northeast of MSP, counterclockwise to the Minnesota River south of the airport, a nearly homogeneous development of residential land use exists. No direction for aircraft departures provides lesser residential noise impact than another direction. On the other hand, to the southeast, thanks to efforts on the part of Mendota Heights, Eagan, the Metropolitan Council, and MAC, land uses within three miles of the runway ends are predominantly river bottom, commercial and industrial. This allows. the highest intensity noise (when aircraft are dose to the airport and departing) to be concentrated over an area purposefully intended to exclude residential development Land use policies dose to an airport represent the most powerful noise abatement tool available. The FAA overflies compatible land uses wherever possible, and encourages development and protection of compatible land uses as its top priority for anise abatement strategy through the Part 150 Program. MAC's goal is to affect the lowest number of residents with the highest intensity noise levels. This requires assigning area closest to the airport the highest priority relative to noise abatement strategy. To the northwest, over south Minneapolis and north Richfield, this means spreading the highest intensity noise impact over a greater area, since no favorable direction exists to impact the fewest residents. The same technique must be employed for departures southwest, over south Richfield and Bloomington, and northeast over Highland Park Disregarding the noise advantages of the commercial/industrial corridor for southeast departures would open residential areas very dose to the airport in the city of Mendota, residential areas in Mendota Heights north of Highway 110, and residential areas in Fagan south of Imetstate 494, to extremely intense jet aitisaft Iroise impacts. Noise events from Metropolitan Airports Commis gy on Noire Progrnn s Attachment 3 90 dBA to 100 dBA are infrequently experienced in these areas today, but would become commonplace within one to three miles of the airport if a "fanning" departure were implemented. This level of intensity is unacceptable in light of the option to avoid it by operating over the existing commercial/industrial "corridor" close to the airport As with every public policy, trade-offs in benefits impact the most well-intentioned proposals. With respect to maintaining the integrity of the commerciai(ndustrial corridor, frequency of overflights for small pockets of residential uses inside of three miles from the runway ends is the immediate cost for protecting as many residents as possible from excessive aircraft noise levels. MAC is firmly dedicated to an extensive Part 150 Land Use Compatibility program to address those residential area close to the airport impacted by intense noise levels. The Part 150 program utilizes soundproofing, purchase guarantee, property acquisition, and combinations of these land use compatibility techniques to alleviate intense noise impacts. Distributional Farness is an on-going issue with respect to noise impacts. However, numbers of overflights must be weighted by nearness to the airport because aircraft dose to the facility are closer to the ground, creating a greater impact than they do farther out Retaining a compatible land use corridor is not the final word on corridor issues. Moving ahead with the corridor -refining proposal is just one phase in an on-going effort to minimize noise impacts for all airport neighbors. This position has been made dear on numerous occasions. MAC has explicitly stated that staff would address the most intense impacts closest to the airport as a priority, then move farther out to refine procedures. This avenue is chosen precisely because the Metropolitan Airports Commission does not represent one or two neighborhoods, but rather communities throughout the metropolitan area. An airport proprietor must exercise effective management by making the best decision based on the available knowledge. MAC policy is to minimize noise impacts for airport neighbors. Those closest to the airport are burdened with the most onerous noise impacts and should be addressed first The next step is to consider options for airspace management beyond three miles from the airport. Spreading aircraft overflights over a wider area does not necessarily spread noise impacts out "fairly". In the case of areas north, west and south of the airport, fanning represents an attempt at equitability. This so-called "farming" presents itself as the best alternative given the available technologies and existing demographics. However, MAC is often attacked for not reducing noise impact, but merely "spreading it out". By overflying relatively unpopulated areas in the industrial/commercial corridor, we realize an opportunity to actually reduce intense noise impacts on residential areas. by not overflying them. Additionally, maintaining the commercial/industrial corridor southeast of the airport does not "target" communities downstream from those areas closest to the runways. The Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), utilizing radar tracking information, continuous noise monitoring data, and GIS information, provides a multidimensional view of airport operations previously unavailable. The most sophisticated of its kind in the world, ANOMS will help the airport, surrounding communities, and the FAA reach reasonable. viable conclusions regarding how to operate the airport in the most responsible manner possible, especially farther from the runway ends where mare flexibility in operations exists. Metropoltmr At Wds Co n Noise Pmgr mr Attachment 3 Fagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. Each community surrounding the airport perceives its impacts to be greater than they should be exposed to. MAC understands this perspective, and agrees that the impacts should be minimised to the greatest extent possible. It must be noted that airspace decision-making is not accomplished by considering only the airspace above individual communities. Noise impact per flight is approximately equal at equal distances from the airport. In general, that impact decreases the farther a receiver is from the runway. Therefore, in considering impact at distances farther from the airport, number and frequency of overflights provides a reasonable measure of impact. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is prepared to work with the various communities surrounding the airport using ANOMS generated data to review alternative airspace management techniques to minimize distant noise impacts. Metropotimm Airporla Coemtissio>wA#4on Noise Programs Attachment 4 Noise Complaint Hotline Noise Complaint Hotline The Noise Complaint Hotline was conceived in the late 1970s as a tool to provide interested citizens with information regarding airport operations, and evolved into an Opportunity for citizens to vent frustration associated with aircraft noise by registering noise complaints. As the noise issue grew in the 1980s, so did the Noise Complaint Hotline. The staffing level of the complaint line became equated with the level of airport "concern" about the noise challenge pervading neighborhoods surrounding the airport. MAC's dedication to providing a hotline preceded any other airport's commitment to such a public interface, and the Hotline continued to grow to a 30,000 complaint -per -year service by 1990. The purpose of the Noise Complaint Hotline was to disseminate airport information, and provide an outlet fbr citizens to vent fivstration by registering citizen complaints. However, because of emphasis placed on the complaint line, aircraft noise complaints took on a larger meaning. Simply registering complaints and providing a frustration outlet soon became insufficient, and complaints were then analyzed. I was lured by the same ruse while at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in the late 1980s. Due to a lack of other pertinent airport information, I analyzed complaints as a surrogate for aircraft operations data Once the airport began elaborately analyzing complaints and publishing the results, a "scoring" mentality evolved with a certain onerous status associated with the community tallying the most complaints. With MAC continuing to solicit complaints both, implicitly and explicitly, a logical extension of the elaborate collection process evolved in the communities that assumed complaints would be collected, analyzed, and acted upon. But the purpose of the Noise Complaint Hotline remained as an outlet to disseminara airport information, and vent frustration through citizen complaints. Complaints were collected, sorted, parsed, distributed by time,analyzed for spatial density, carefully reproduced on elaborate colored charts, ... and filed away, later to be discarded Complaints are not acted upon. There never was any intention to make decisions based on complaints. Yet, by virtue of the publicity afforded the Noise Complaint Hotline, the remarkable time, effort and cost expended in handling and analyzing complaints, and the ever-expanding coverage to staff the hotline, the public could only believe that when enough complaints were gathered, decisions affecting air traffic would have to be based on complaints. It did not happen - does not happen. Not a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Environmental Assessment (EA), or comprehensive plan so much as mentions complaint densities, let alone bases any decisions on them. Complaints are not factored into the Dual Track Planning effort, Runway 04/22 Extension EIS, MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). or the Corridor Refinement EA, still under way with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Great Lakes Regional Office. Metropolitan Airports Corrrrnisrior�- Aviation Noise Programs Attachment 4 Of course, public input is not nearly as bleak as the preceding paragraphs imply. But public input to the very open processes of IIS, EA, LTCP, Dual Track Planning, etc., does not come in the form of complaints, but rather, through reasoned written comments and testimony at public hearings specifically designed for the purpose of soliciting input that must be answered. Objective, quantitative data can be acted on by FAA, airlines, airports, etc. The $1 million+ Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), provides explicit, reproducible, objective data for information dissemination and airspace analysis. The data -sparse aircraft operations environment of the past two decades is now rich with technical information that will change the way Minneapolis -St Paul International Airport airspace is managed. Though compliance with noise abatement programs was never driven by complaints, it will be monitored and controlled through unbiased aircraft operations data output from ANOMS. This is not to say that the Noise Complaint Hotline will be abandoned. Nor will the mission of the complaint line be changed. How that mission of disseminating information and providing a frustration outlet is accomplished is evolving in response to technological changes that impact all of our lives. We will continue to provide a 24 hours per day opportunity to vent frustration by leaving a complaint. If a noise phone clerk is on duty, they will answer the call. Otherwise, a digital recording machine will store the complaint. Currently, the Noise Complaint Hotline is staffed 17 hours, Monday through Friday, midnight to 5 P.M Through attrition, the staffing level will evolve to two persons on duty, Monday through Friday during business hours, with the Hotline available 24 hours per day. To improve MAC's original intent of providing information to the public regarding airport operations, I am proposing a number of initiatives to increase information eoverage. L Introduce Awomadc Terminal Information Service (ATM) as a choice to callers of the Hotline. Experience indicates that many callers simply are interested in the current operating made of the airport 2. Broadcast an ANOMS report similar to the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report on cable television. This would allow a much wider audience than is currently the case. to take advantage of specific airport intomauon. Additionally. citimm could peruse the information at their choice of time. without making a phone call 3. hmoduce a MAC Home Page on the internee providing a variety of airport informatim inclndmg noise -specific data 4. If the above choices are not sit, two phone clerics will be available weekdays. ging business hours. This program will be phased -in, and does not represent a retreat of the airport away from the public. On the contray, it opens airport operations to a wider audience, and places responsible emphasis on the complain line commensurate with its real impact. By not addressing the complain line's reason for being. MAC has implicitly allowed to spread, 2 MetropoWan Airports Commission - Aviiiiiiin NoW Programs Attachment 4 Noise Complaint HotUM the inflated purposes currently circulating throughout neighborhoods regarding the effect of calling the complaint hotline. Misinformation is rampant, and extends to the prim, television, and radio media. Changes to the Aviation Noise Programs' evolving complaint line address the false hopes raised by irresponsible, incorrect pronouncements like the following - an excerpt from a community flyers Register your complaint It is the ONLY nay that anything will change. Just one or two calls a day could mean less noise: resulting in peace of mind (and ear), higher property values. uninterrupted conversations, am ... em. -em Clearly, people are concerned about aircraft noise, and complain because they would like to see changes occur. Calling a complaint line wr71 not bring about any changes. However, the advent of sophisticated systems like ANOMS, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Differential GPS, with staffing and funding properly placed in program development and technical support positions, will allow airport operators, users, and the FAA to respond to citizens' concerns by defining existing airspace uses. and mapping future management plans that minimize impacts on airport neighbors, while balancing the needs of the National Airspace System. L Eagan Community Flyer. August. 1994. Metropolitan AigwM Commission vradon Noise Progruats �'�r��� S� History The Path to Public/User Joint Airport Involvement + Advent of the Jet Age - Early 1960s + Heightened Public Discontent with Noise + MASAC Chartered -1969 - Reduce Aircraft Noise - - Increase Public Knowledge - Study and Evaluate Complaints " Research and Recommend Noise Abatement Strategies Public Education of Aviation Noise Issues + MAC and MASAC Emerge as National Leaders in Aviation Noise Issues rij h,i MASAC Key to Success: Joint Communityllndustry Structure + Original Council - 26 Representatives Divided Equally Between Community and Aviation Industry + Current Council - 32 Representatives 9 Communities Surrounding MSP -16 Public Representatives 10 Airlines Serving MSP -11 Industry Representatives Other Industry Representatives Including: St. Paul Chamber Minneapolis Chamber ALPA MAC MBAA + Technical Advisors Including: FAA, ATA, MAC, USAF Guard and Reserve, MAC Staff + MASAC Officially Recognized by MAC through P&E Committee Process 35 EMASACAccomplishments Effective Communication - FAA, Airlines, Community and MAC Voluntary Nighttime Passenger Flight Restriction (11 PM - 6 AAI[) Construct "Earth Berm" Noise Barrier for Areas Bordering MSP Restrict Airline 'Raining Flights Nighttime Engine Runup Restrictions/Runup Pad Establish 24-hour Noise Complaint Hotline Preferential Runway Use System - 11PRS" (1972 -1990) Aircraft Noise Monitoring Program (1976 -1992) Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (Quiet Engine Power Ratio) Pilot and FAA Noise Sensitivity Training Sessions Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedures Departure Corridor Procedures (1972 - present) MSP Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Program Noise Surcharge for Landing Less Noise -Efficient Jets School Sound Insulation Program New Runway Use System - RUS (1990 - Present) Stage 3 Utilization Working Group Voluntary Stage 2 Nighttime Restrictions Permanent Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) Boeing 757 Bleed Valve Logic T-0 1 / - oVerview December 1994 - P & E MSP Departure Corridor + Why a Corridor? MSP Corridor Background & Histo + Corridor Operations Defined + Corridor Refinement Proposals + Corridor Compliance Study 41 IvItit, n , - Definition Eagan/Mendota Heights FAA Corridor Procedures Departures on 11R and 11L Shall be Issued a Heading: Runway 11R (South Side) - between 090° and 1050 or a track on or north of the 29L Localizer Runway 111,(North Side) - A heading between 090° and/or a track on or north of the 29L Localizer When Diverging Separation not necessary -105° Proceed on Assigned Heading Until at Least 3 Miles From Runway End --------------------------------.-------- - - - - - - NIGHT - Head -to -Head to Greatest Extent Possible I VIti L** Issues Corridor Challenges MSP Departure Corridor Downstream. Communities IGH, Eagan, Mendota Heights +Traffic Concentration +Lack of "Fanning" +Destinations +Distance from MSP ffA r A Zmy�Destc'nati'ons Top 15 Destinations From MSP July 1995 Official Airline Guide Scheduled Departures 3- Letter City Direction of • Travel # Deps ORD Chicago SE 1377 STL St. Louis S 528 DEN Denver SW 429 DTW Detroit SE 403 DFW Dallas -Ft. Worth S 362 FAR Fargo NW . MKE Milwaukee SE 322 CVG Cincinnati SE 321 D Sioux Falls SW 3.20 DLH Duluth N 3ll DSM Des Moines S 290 ATI, Atlanta SE 279 MDW Chicago SE 74 MEM Memphis SE 2 9 EVV7R Newark L 6 I VIti U10 Issues Corridor Challenges MSP Departure Corridor Corridor "Edge" Compliance Eagan and Mendota Heights Jet Early Turnouts ►South -Side Boundary +No rth=Si*de Proposed Boundary. a,r A n -- �rI 2t--1 WL; —Finally Corridor Conclusions MSP Departure Corridor • Corridor is .not Perfect • Critical Element of MSP's RUS • Represents only Preferable Fly Area • Corridor Compliance needs Attention Next Generation Aircraft and Navigational Technologies will make Significant, Positive Differences m AC A / A��-,� I V1 ti Loo Qis:�-Overvtew October 1994 - P & E Runway Use System - RUS + PRS and RUS Historical Background + RUS Procedures ... Defined + RUS and ANOMS + RUS Recent Issues Nighttime Crosswind Runway Use tol mtl q4m�� Histo ryy From PRS to R US Priorities of the PRS + MASAC -1969 + Preferential Runway System -1972 + PRS Priorities Reflect Demographics of the Late 1960s / Early 1970s ARRIVAL DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT AREA RWYs 29L&R RWYs 11L&R Eagan/Mendota Hts "Corridor" RMT 04 RWY 22 Bloomington/So. Richfield RWYs 11L&R RWYs 29L&R So. Minnepolis/No. Richfield RWY 22 RWY 04 St. Paul AAF A /"��- zviti�-History July Operations 1977 -1994 JULY YEAR Operations over Eagan / Mendota Heights Operations over Bloomington / So. Richfield Operadons over So. Minneapolis / No. Richfield Operations over St. Paul Highland Park Depart 11 Arrive 29 Depart 22 Arrive 04 Depart 29 Arrive 11 Depart 04 Arrive 22 1977 39 56 39 17 21 22 1 S. 1978 41 51 41 24 14 18 4 7 1979 43 51 47 31 8 14 2 4 1980 47 63 31 16 21 20 1 1 1981 34 67 48 8 18 20 0 5 1982 54 57 33 17 13 22 0 4 1983 58 53 21 12 21 29 0 2 1984 57 60 25 7 17 22 1 1 1985 49 64 22 4 28 23 1 1 1986 64 51 16 4 20 41 0 1 1987 73 32 6 7 20 64 1 0 1988 .54 47 12 4 33 44 1 5 1989 83 18 4 7 13 75 0 0 1990• 69 31 7 5 24 63 0 1 1991 70 48 9 5 20 42 1 5 1992 63 37 6 4 30 58 0 2 1993 55 46 4 1 41 51 1 1 1994 42 62 3 1 55 36 0 1 s� I VIti %00# ..- Definition AF A - ��'�_^ Runway Use System Procedures + RUS Procedure - Davt_: - Use Eagan/Mendota Hts Corridor to Greatest Extent Possib - Maximize use of RWY 04/22 Alone and in Combination with Corridor + RUS Procedure - Nht (11 P.M. - 6 A.M.): - Maximize Use of Eagan/Mendota Hts Corridor for Both Arriving and Departing Traffic (Head -to -Head) - Use RWY 04/22 when Corridor Operations are not Possible. Use in a Balanced Manner. Designed to Relieve So. Minneapolis and More Equitably Distribute on 04/22 Wind Effects on Flight • Runway Selection Criteria for Runway Use Systems *FAA Order 8400.9 • How Does it Relate • Crosswind and Tailwind Components Joint M eeting Outcome Goal Runway Selection is a Function of Wind, Weather, Runway Condition, Traffic Volume, and Noise Abatement Programs sD i�,V4 Tqby4FP IILL Tower Orders &FAA Orders •MSP ATCT Order 7110.4A Runway selection shall be in accordance with FAA Order 8400.9, National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Programs and Runway Use Systems Procedures Parallel runway selection shall be determined... based -on, but not limited to, wind, weather, and traffic conditions • FAA Order 8400.9 Under ideal conditions aircraft takeoffs and landings should be conducted into the wind. Wind Condition Clear & Dry - Crosswind Component:!9 20 kts Tailwind Component:!9 7 kts Not Clear & Dry - Crosswind Component 515 kts No Tailwind Component -11 A" i Wind and Runway Alignment Departing Runway 29 _5 eported Wind: 3300 @ 20 US Wind Direction = From 330° Wind Speed = 20 nm/hour' Runway Orientation = 290° or 110° Angle 0, between Wind and Runway 29 = 40° Runway 11= 220° Favors Runway 29 Operations Landing. i.e., a Northwest Traffic Flow Runway 29 Runway 29 Crosswind Component =13 kts Runway 29 Headwind Component =15 kts Runway 11 Tailwind Component = -15 kts 6� X A E 1993 Runway Us...co 3 MSP Runway Usage - All Operations t.o� Pemxot of Crosstown �Aet� ops 11L 22 45.4% 1993 Arrivals -182,253 ao.0 1993 Departures -177,464 as 11R 29R cc U04 54.0 4. .5% 29L I-494 U n 1994 zPl�� T Runwav Use A I 4A.C.-O. Crosstown 11L 44.8% 46.2 11R tr b U 1 04 I 22 X0:4% %Pereeut of �ctuall�s 1994 Arrivals -192,440 1994 Departures - 188,510 29R Fge II Nighttime Agreement ... 2°d Quarter 1993 Report Overnight Stage Night Stage Night Ops Percent Stage II Carrier III Ops Ops II Percent Ops Stage II of 'Ibtal Night Ops Airborne Express tt 93 62 31 33% 3% Emery Worldwide 0 0 0 0% 0% Federal Expressl 226 217 9 4% 1 % Ryan International$ 320. 22 298 93% 32% Sun Country 242 84 158 65% 17% United Parcel Service 62 62 0 0% 0% Total 943 447 496 N/A 53% Exception Notes: Airborne Express t Stage II DC -9s utilized only on occasions when Stage III DC -9s were unavailable and system capacity required that the second Airborne nightly flight to MSP utilize these aircraft. tt Effective July (1993), Airborne Ops has scheduled a single Stage III DC -8 to replace the two DC -9 flights which served MSP. Federal Express 4 Unexglained Stage II - 9. Ryan International t U.S. Postal Contract. Sun Country • Sun Country's performance if empty "ferry" flights are considered to meet Stage III noise criteria -18% of SCX Night Ops are Stage If, representing 5% of Total Night Ops. Of the remaining Stage II Night Ops, reasons for Stage If use: Weather Delay - 8, Maint. Delay - 2, Aircraft Swap - 4, Stage III unavailable -18, Unexplained Stage 11 - 11. Stage II Nighttime Agreement ... 4th Quarter 1994 Report Overnight Night Stage Stage Night Ops Percent Stage II Carrier Ops III II Percent of Total Ops Ops Stage II Night O s Airborne Express tt 49 44 5 10% 1% Emery Worldwide 0 0 0 0% 0% Federal Express, 247 230 17 7% 2% Ryan International* 294. 257 37 13% 4% Sun Country* 187 94 93 50% 10% United Parcel Service° 66 65 1 2% 0% Total 843 690 153 N/A 17% Airborne Express t Stage II DC -9s utilized only on occasions when Stage III DC -9s were unavailable and system capacity required that the second Airborne nightly flight to MSP utilize these aircraft. Federal Express 4 Unexplained Stage II -17. Ryan International * Unexplained Stage II - 37. Sun Country Sun Country's performance if empty "ferry" flights are considered to meet Stage III noise criteria - 35% of SCX Night Ops are Stage II, representing 7% of Total Night Ops. Of the remaining Stage 11 Night Ops, reasons for Stage II use: Weather Delay - 4, Payload Restrictions - 14, Maint. Delay - 4, Aircraft Swap/Stage 111 Unavailable/ Long Route- 31, Unexplained Stage II -10. UPS n Unexplained Stage 11 - 1. 1 /WA WWA WA LNoise Levels for U.S. Certified) and Foreign Aircraft Aircraft and Hushkit Comparison - 'Takeoff and Arrival Engine g� Aircraft Type Max Takeoff Wt (MTOW) Takeoff Arrival JT8D B727-100 1 96.5 105.0 JT8D Federal Express 160 92.5 98.0 JT8D 8727-100 169 9&0 105.0 JT8D Federal Expres 169 94.0 98.0 JT8D B727-200 175 100.0 105.0 JT8D Federal Express 175 96.0 1 99.0, JT8D B727.200 1 102.0 -To40 JT8D Valsan 190 92 0 99.0 JT8D B727- 205 102.0 105.0 JTSD VaLsan 205 95.0 99.0 JT8D DC9.10 90 9L0 102.0 JT8D ABS 90 87.0 95.0 JTSD DC9.30 105 95.0 102.0 JT8D ABS105 90.1 96.0 JT8D MD80 1 145 89.0 93.0 CFM A320 15 5.0 ;00z. 96.0 PW2000 B757 220 85.0 1 9&0 Advisory Circular 36-1F bb '� �PrA I'l� Hotline Information Dissemination Frustration Outlet • Introduce ATIS Option • Broadcast MASAC Technical Advisor's Report on Cable TV • MAC Home. Page on Internet for airport information • Phone Clerks available weekdays �'a�ad C�Ize�s Afrporf Norse Co�n�nliiee Proposals 1. We would like to request that a separate entity handle the airport statistics and complaint line instead of the current situation where MASAC reports on its own performance. 2. Require aircraft to assume a higher altitude upon departure as done at other airports such as OHare. This would require an altitude of 4000' to 5000' vs. the present 2000' to 3000' that is presently used. This should hold true for both approach and departure. 3. Review the present distribution procedures of aircraft type to specific runways. Equalize the distribution of aircraft between 29L and 29R vs. the current 29L preference for all traffic during peak and non peak times. 4. Increase the use of runway 22 on off peak traffic periods. 5. Revise and review the Eagan population map and produce a more realistic and accurate demographic. Also expand the scale of the current Eagan map at MASAC to more accurately show the actual flight patterns over Eagan with reference to the complaints registered. 6. Request that an ANOMS monitor be added and or repositioned to the areas most affected to more accurately monitor the actual flight paths. 7. Request that the Eagan corridor be extended to six miles instead of the current three miles. Also decrease the ground track to less than the current 105 degrees. Split the corridor to elevate traffic over the Bur Oaks area. Along with enforcing the requirement to stay within the corridor. 8. Establish an accountability system to ensure that flight arrivals and departures are adhered to as described to in our accepted proposals. To document failure to follow accepted restrictions and to impose fines as done by other airports. 9. Redistrict Dakota county to allow Eagan to have its own MAC representative in addition to the current Dakota County Representative. (0/ 7imot(ryS. andRieckia E. Rdlston 3237 Roaing Hills Drive Eagan, Mime rota 55M (612)686-9047 August 11, 1995 Mayor Tom Egan Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minncsota 55122-1897 (612)681-4600 FAX#: (612)681-4612 RE: Opposition of Proposed Flight Corridor Extension Dear Mayor Egan: The purpose of this letter is to voice our strong opposition regarding the proposed extention of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport flight corridor from its current three (3) miles to five (5) miles. We understand this extension is heavily favored by the newer neighborhoods located south of West Publishing. Although we strongly support the reduction of airport noise in Eagan as a whole, we do not believe it should be at the expense of other Eagan neighborhoods, particularly our own. Another issue of particular concern is the desire to have a "flight floor" established, which is essentially a minimum altitude at which the planes can fly. Although we would have prefered to attend the upcoming meeting at the Eagan City Hall, we will be unable to do so. In lieu of that fact, if you should have any questions or wish additional information, please contact us at the above listed address. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Timothy S. Ralston Riechia E. Ralston cc: Patricia Awanda, City Council Member Shawn Hunter, City Council Member Sandra Masin, City Council Member Theodore Wachter, City Council Member Patrice Dataglia, Dakota County Commissioner - Eagan Precinct 1-11 & 17 James Mueller, Dakota County Commissioner - Eagan Precinct 12-16/18-20 W R-96% 08-11-95 01:08PM P002 #08 X U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration August 8, 1995 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator City of Eagan Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 Dear Mr.�Iohenstein: Airport Traffic Control Tower 6311 - 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 The criteria used in determining runway selection at Minneapolis International is variable and at times complex. In this selection process we consider sur- face winds (no more than a 7 knot tailwind component is acceptable), winds aloft, visibility, current and forecast weather, sun angle (pilots can see the airport better on a hazy day with the sun behind them), airport construction, runway surface conditions (wet runways), etc. These are a few of the more im- portant factors taken into consideration during the runway selection process. The crosswind runway cannot be used during heavy periods of arrival, and/or departure traffic. Peak traffic periods generally have a demand rate ex- ceeding one (1) arrival and departure per minute. Additionally, the afore- mentioned criteria must be considered before the cross runway option is selected. The enclosed form will give you a general idea of the times when a cross runway option is not feasible due to heavy traffic demands. I hope this information is of help to you please let me,know. Sincerely, rUCe O� Air Traffic Manager Enclosure If I can be of further assistance Departures I�A � 7:AM8: —j--- 9:"10:"11: -- I 12: 1:P 2:PM3:PM4:1? — 5:PM6 P�7 PM'S:PMI9:PMllo:P I 11 P Arrivals The lines indicate times when cross -runway is not an option due to traffic volume.* • I I I ,a US Department of Transportation Fedemi Aviation Adminishotion August 8, 1995 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator City of Eagan Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, HN 55122-1897 Dear Mr. Hohenstein: Airport Traffic Control Tower 6311 - 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 We have researched your concern regarding short final approaches over the Eagan noise sensitive area and have not found any pattern of abuse by the associated airport users. We are, however, re-emphasizing to our controllers the necessity of issuing "turn a four (4) mile final for noise abatement," to any noise sensitive aircraft on a final approach course that could possibly compromise this procedure. Sincerely, AAruce'—i7-WaIgoOne- r Traffic Manager l� 70: Jon Eohenstein From: Mike Schlax Date: 9-1-95 Subject: Three items from the Airport News of 8-17-95 Buried deep in this article on concourse changes at MSP were two items of interest: 1) The comment by Lynn Richardson that Sun Country is a major noise violator and the proposed fine of $1000 per incident and a max of 25 incidents per quarter. Does Eagan have a policy on this? Is this a topic for MASAC consideration? My feeling is that we should support such actions against known offenders. Notice that the Management and Ops Committee watered down the MAC resolution. 2) The request by Dayton Hudson to expand hanger space at MSP. The article notes MAC's policy "...against promoting private plane use of MSP..." If MAC actually hassuch a.policy, they should be encouraged to live up to it. And the same goes of Military flying. It too should all be removed from MSP for while these two types of flying represent only a small portion for the total MSP flight ops noise budget, it's getting to the point in Eagan that every noise intrusion is significant and that any operator who could use other facilities should be forced to do SO. I suggest that either or both of these items be placed on the Sept agendas at both ARC and MASAC for discussion. 3) You think there would be anything worthwhile from the Reason Foundation's studies of Orange county. Maybe there might be something we could show Dakota county on the benefits of have a new airport. .also I got a lot out of that EDC meetine on Thursday and I couldn't help but recall Tom Hedges' comment about the difficulty of the Commissions communicating to their publics. My thought was that maybe one way to help this communication problem, at least within the commissions, might be to appoint a de facto representatives from each Commission to attend other Commission meetings. I'm thinking that on a monthly basis for instance, ARC members would attend the APC, EDC etc. meetings, (Solid Waste, Cable and Parks and Rec. not required) brief them on our activities, and bring back a report for the ARC on the other Commission's business. But you know I'm meeting happy! There's probably no one else interested in going to more meetings. But maybe worth some discussion though?^??? r� AUGUST 17, 1995 Private Airports Proposal Given For Orange Co. By using two different modes of priva- tization — contract management for John Wayne Airport and sale or lease of El Toro Airport — California's Orange County could raise at least 5250 million without violating federal airport -grants law, ac- . cording to the Los Angeles -based Reason Foundation. A Thecounty, would issue an requestfor proposal, seeking a single firm for two separate agreements—along-term eontract to manage John Wayne Airport a purchase or lease agreement to develop a commer- cial airport at El Toro. "This approach avoids all legal gray areas," said Robert Poole, president of the Reason Foundation and author of the re- port'"Ihere is no legal uncertainty about. contracting out the management of John Wayne Airport It's no different from what is now being done at Burbank and Indian- apolis. No airportrevenues would be trans- ferred to Orange County government from John Wayne, and all existing grant agree- ments could remain in force." The sale of assets, includingJohn Wayne Airport, has been discussed as part of the solution to Orange County's banlwptcy. However, the likelihood of litigation by the airlines — who claim that federal law prohibits the use of "airport revenue" (including sale proceeds) for non -airport purposes— led the county's AirportReve- nue/Sale Task Force to conclude that air- port privatization is not feasible. According to the Reason Foundation report, the issues raised by the airlines have no legal force at EI Toro it is not currently acomrn=ial airport.OnceOrangeCounty possesses clear tide to the El Toro site, it is free to sell or lease this property for airp� Not All purposes and keep the proceeds. so long as the Secretary of Transportation grants a waiver as allowed by the 1994 Surplus Property for Public Airports law. - "Residents of communities adjacent to El Toro would also benefit economically from privatized airport development," said Poole. "Either their governments could be guaranteed a portion of the sale or lease proceeds or individual citizens in noise - impacted areas could be given shares of stock in the airport company." According to the report, the critical first step toward implementing this approach is for Orange County to obtain clear tide to El Toro this year, by legislation or by admin- istrative action by the Clinton Administra- tion. "Ibe two-airportsystem wouldbe highly attractive to private airport firms," said Poole. "Under unifiedownership, we could expect the orderly development of EI Toro into a world-class airport offering a= - continental and trans -Pacific service, with John Wayne's role gradually shifting to short -haul, commuter, and general avia- tion -flights." "How -to Privatize Orange County's Airports" is the Reason Foundation's latest study on the Orange County bankruptcy and privatization. Related studies include: "Rescuing Orange County: "Guidelines for Airport Privatization" and "Privatizing Los Angeles International Airport: Ana- lyzing the Alternatives." Copies of each study may be obtained by calling the Rea- son Foundation at 310-391-2245. `TThe Reason Foundation is'a"riaiional public -policy research organization with a practical, market-based approach and an 'bgtside-Washington perspective. are Hidden only 3-1/2 hours from Minneapolis/St. Paul you'll find Minnesota's "diamond in the rough." Unearth the secrets AUGUST 17, 1995 Victoria's Secret, Chili's Top Choices Candnrred from Page I the plans at the Management & Operations Committee meeting chaired by Tommy Merickel. Victoria's Secret, which has outgrown its earlier renown for provocative lingerie and become a general retail outlet for women's apparel, was the No. 1 choice of travelers surveyed on what brand-name shops they'd like to see here. It would have 1,245 feet of space. . CIO's topped the listfor franchise food. It would have 4,500 feet, with a patio and space for 160 patrons.. A Chili's would be located at the en- trance of the RedConcourse, generally where the Bachman's flower outlet cur- rently is located. Victoria's Secret would flan[ the east side of the Gold entrance- way, generally behind Northwest Airlines ticket counters. The other shops and restaurants would be located at the entrance to the Gold Concourse, including the IntemationalCafe that would include a Pizza Hut and deli, serving beer and wine as well. The Minne. sota Restaurant would specialize in re- gional cuisine. The duty-free would be across the Red Concourse entrance from the current McDonald's with four staffed full-service cosmetics counters. On a less sexy note, a couple of new hangars. ---one forS un Country, another for Dayton -Hudson Corp.—were on the agenda, too. Sum Country has hesitated on plans for a proposed new hangar, mainly because it wants to know the statusof gate allocations in the Humphrey Terminal and how much NWA F Northwest Airlines keeps n The MSP -based carrier in V/ overall load factor of 76.8%, u from last year. That translates' rev '1 Ieeway they will have in flying noisy air. craft here. _ .. ------_----- Lynn Richardson, MAC's deputy ex. ecutive director of airports, noted that Sun Country is "the major violator of noise - restrictions restrictions at MSP. The MAC suggested $1,000 penalty per noise violation with a 25 -incident cap per quarter. The commit- tee removed the cap, and the staffwill attempt to resolve the other issues Northwest has"agreed tentatively to let Sun Country stay in its present hangar, which NWA owns, until anew S8.5 million hangar can be erected at the junction of Runways 29L and 4/22 sometime next summer. David Maib of Dayton Hudson flight operations, has asked the MAC to develop a hangar for corporate aircraft at Twin Cities International. The MAC has had a policy against promoting private pline use at MSP, preferring to encourage them to use such reliever airports as Downtown St .Paul. However, current corporate tenants— such as Dayton Hudson, Cargill, Honeywell and others—need more space at this airport for their expanding fleets. About 35 corpo. rate jets are based at this airport, many using the Signature Flight Services facili- ties on Post Road. MAC staff will meet with these tenants to determine the size and location of such hangar expansion here and what type of ownershiparmngementis being proposed.. The expansion, if approved, would be pri- vately fmanced. Possible sites include vacant space along Post Road Another possibility would be to expand the Hon- eywell hangar, taking some of the em- ployee lot parking space. illing Planes growing. July had an p 3.3 points mho 6 billion enue passenger mu es, up from 5.5 bil- lion last year. The airline flew 4.6 million passengers for the month, up 9.5% Domestic RPMs were 3.5 million, up 9%; available seat miles were 4.7 million, up 2.490. International RPMs were 2.5 million, up 9%. while ASMs were 3.1 million, up 7.5%. So far in 1995, the airline has flown 28338,765 passengers, 8.5% more than, 1 TO: Chair Todd, Jon Hohenstein, Members of the ARC FROM: Mike Schlax DATE: 8-27-95 SUBJECT: ARC DUAL TRACK PROPOSAL-- draft Attached is the third draft proposal which was completed by the Long Term subcommittee on August 24. You will note that the final draft excludes City Economic Issues and City Community Impact Issues. These two issues were passed on to the Economic Development Commission and the Advisory Planning Commission respectively as agencies more well founded in these areas of expertise than the Airport Relations Commission. It is anticipated that the City Economic and City Impact issues will be added to this proposal before it is forwarded to the City Council. The ARC action for the 9-12 meeting will be to further modify the proposal or, favored from my personal standpoint, vote to approved the proposal making it the official draft proposal for the full ARC. If the subcommittee proposal is approved, I think we then need a discussion as to the next step --which in my mind is informing the public of the issues preparing for the Town Meeting on the subject in November. We've added three things to the proposal since last you've seen it. 1) An executive summary rating each of the options according to Jon White's matrix numbers and listing the major points for each factor. The hope here is that the summary will be a little less daunting than our full fifteen page proposal for the general public. 2) I'm putting together a reading file for those interested in more background. I have some pertinent 'stuff' on everything except the remote runway option and I've tried to keep the material as objective as possible. 3) Mitigation items -- things that can be done to lessen airport impacts. Sorry I don't have the summary and the reading file ready to go for the September Packet but I will have some roughs for the meeting. Obviously the summary and file will be presented for an up or down vote by the Commission for inclusion with the proposal. I didn't mean to spring this on the Commission, this was/are just some late thoughts.as to how we can cl.a-ify the proposal. coq 2 INTRODUCTION: The following is a draft proposal to the Eagan City Council which includes the research and recommendations of the Airport Relations Commission concerning the Dual Track Planning Process. The Council will formulate the City's position during the winter of 1995 and 1996 and it is assumed the City will be very proactive at all levels of the decision making process. The final decision on the airport expansion/relocation issue is scheduled for action by the Minnesota State Legislature during the summer of 1996. BACKGROUND: As the options for airport use in the metropolitan area were examined, the decision process focused on present airport and three possible sites for a new airport (see Attachment #1). In 1992 the Met Council directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to look at sties in Dakota County. MAC eventually selected site #3 in southeast Dakota County near Hastings as the preferential site (see attachment #2) and other political entities continued to press for the remote runway concept in Dakota County (see attachment #4). The options for continued use of the present airport site are listed in attachment 13. The Eagan Airport Relations Commission looked at five options: 1) Build a new Airport at the South Dakota County Site (hereafter referred to 'DAKOTA') 2) Expand the present site with new runway/s and a new terminal (hereafter referred to as 'EXPANDED') 3) *Land,Bank the Dakota County site for further/later expansion (hereafter referred to as 'LAND BANK') 4) Build Remote Runways in Rosemount and create rail link for passengers between the present terminal and the runways (hereafter referred to 'REMOTE') 5) Do nothing (keep operations at present site with no or minor changes to physical plant) (hereafter referred to 'NO PROJECT'] 9 *For Land Back Concept see page Yl For each of the five options, the Commission considered the following factors weighing each factor as a positive, neutral or negative relative to the City of -Eagan. (Note: the factors are essentially similar to those in the MAC/Metropolitan Council Draft Decision Document. ?0 1) Airport Operational Issues 2) Ground Access Issues 3) Air Service Issues 4) Environmental Issues 5) City of Eagan Economic Issues (Referred to Eagan Economic Development Commission for recommendations) 6) City of Eagan Community Impact Issues (Referred to Eagan Advisory Planning Commission for recommendations) 7) Financial Issues 8) Strategic Issues CONCLUSION: After considerable study, analysis and discussion within the Commission, IT IS THE OPINION OF THE ARC COMMISSION THAT THE OVERALL INTERESTS OF EAGAN WILL BE BEST SERVED BY THE CITY SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AIRPORT AT THE SITE THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC) HAS IDENTIFIED AS OPTION THREE IN THEIR DAKOTA COUNTY SEARCH PROCESS. Therefore the Commission recommends the council support new airport construction and actively lobby that position. There are many factors the Commission weighed in coming to this decision. These will be reviewed in detail later in this document, (see the Executive Summary attachment #5 for a quick synopsis). The crux of the issue (whether to build the new airport or expand the present site) came down to two major factors -- economic and environmental. The Airport Relations Commission, based on the information available to the committee and considering that MAC bonds and not taxes will be used to pay for new construction, is of the opinion that the economic issues are essentially neutral (APC and EDC Commission's input should be considered here). For the ARC there is little question that Eagan will be much better off environmentally if the new airport is built. Therefore the decision to support construction of the new airport over other the alternatives available. DECISION MAKING FACTORS EXPLAINED: For those wishing some background on the issues, refer to Attachment #6 which is a short reading file on related topics. Airport Operational Issues The Commission feels that there is little doubt that a new facility either DAKOTA or REMOTE, engineered to 21st Century standards, would be a marked improvement over the NO PROJECT or an EXPANDED options. �r 4 Air operations at the present site have several negatives in the Commission's view. However, the 'NO PROJECT -B' option may be the best of these present site alternatives relative to the City of Eagan. We have the 'corridor' and we have semi -effective runway use and ground path procedures which, for the present, keep most sections of the City relatively immune from overflight impacts. Another positive about the 'NO PROJECT' option is that it would constrain growth forcing the MAC/FAA to use the present facilities better. Expansion and continued use of the present site will mean the essentials.of the present airport operation problems will continue to exist. Safety is a key issue and poses several negatives at the present site. Having major populated areas in close proximity to the airport could turn an accident into a major disaster. The birds of the Minnesota River valley also pose a hazard to airplane operations. Another problem with expanding the present site is that there will be difficulty in fitting the proposed plans on the present site. The basic concept is to expand capacity. But even the optimistic plans for expansion include built-in restrictions to capacity growth due to complicated taxi and ground movement options. Restrictions on runway use will continue to be difficult since six of the potential ten runways will be intersected. Additionally runway use agreements will have to be negotiated with near -by cities and there will be the necessity of creating safety flyways over populated and developed areas. A new airport (either DAKOTA or REMOTE would qualify here) located in an essentially rural area would allow for almost limitless capacity expansion with efficient ground and runway development. Multiple independent runways would allow for simplified ground and flight paths, and zoning and use covenants could be used to protect the safety ways. The DAKgTA site is in close proximity to the Koch Refinery and planners will have to take this into account when planning safeways. Ground Access Issues The Commission feels these issues are negative for Eagan for all options with the REMOTE runway option and its associated rail link through Eagan the worst solution possible. The DAKOTA option would require significant surface road improvement and these would likely spill over into Eagan. The exact effect of this is hard to gauge at this time but there would surely be dislocations especially along highway 55 as that route is upgraded. 8 If the REMOTE option is built and present terminal linked by rail through Eagan, major construction dislocations are assured. Depending on location and engineering decisions, whole sections of Eagan surface streets would likely be truncated and isolated and there is the possibility that there may be pressure to upgrade city streets since the remote site is closer to the City than any of the other options and air cargo trucks would have to have surface access to the REMOTE site. The remote runway issue has another negative and it is partially psychological. Eagan residents will have to back -track, so -to -speak, to get to the train that will take them back to Rosemount. They would undoubtedly find this annoying. The 'NO PROJECT' and EXPAND options offer Eagan the fewest ground access problems. The present road network would most likely be maintained and, except for increased traffic on the 494 and Cedar Ave Bridges, Eagan residences and businesses should feel little impact. Associated with the EXPAND option is a proposed new terminal on the west side of the airport. This would marginally increase travel distance from Eagan to the EXPAND site but improved roadways would mitigate the increased distance. The travel time issue for both passenger and cargo between the old or new sites seems about the same to the Commission. While the DAKOTA option would be more distant for Eagan than -the present site (7 vs 19 miles), The Commission feels improved access could make the total time used to get to a new facility is comparable to that used in going to the EXPAND site. Air Service Issues For this factor relative to the DAKOTA and REMOTE options, the adage The Commission feels, "Build it and they will come", is appropriate. New facilities --well planned and well engineered -- will make for more efficient and expanded air service. And this applies, but perhaps to a lesser degree, to EXPAND option also. With improved facilities (especially at the DAKOTA and REMOTE sites), there would be capacity for additional regional flights. Most likely there would be increased long haul domestic traffic and potentially more international traffic also since there would be more numerous and longer runways. Air Cargo operations at the and charter flying would increase at the DAKOTA and REMOTE sites as new and/or better facilities are added. The limited expansion room at the present site would be a negative here. :i As part of this issue, the committee also looked at the potential fare changes that might occur. The more grandiose the project, the more the traveling public and airport users will have to pay. The NO PROJECT option seems to be the best in this regard with a scaled back (no new terminal) EXPAND option next best. (Estimates are 2.5 billion dollars for EXPAND) The Commission feels many of the mitigation costs of an -EXPAND have not accurately been factored in to this 2.5 billion number and that the actual number will be considerably higher. As we have seen at the new Denver airport, passengers and users pay a higher price (initial estimates indicate and increase of $15-$20 per ticket) to support new construction. The DAKOTA (est. 4.1 billion dollars) or REMOTE (est 4.3 billion dollars) options are likely cause increased fares and user fees although extra capacity supporting increased competition could keep these increases down. The Denver scenario seems to be discrediting some of the negative impacts. Passengers and Operators in large numbers do not seem to be avoiding the new Denver facility even with its increased costs. Environmental Issues For the.Commission this was the big issue for Eagan! Eagan would/could benefit by having the new airport farther away and removed in a direction which would limit the city's exposure of overflight because of airport use directions (800 of traffic is east, south, or west bound). We would also have the advantage of participating in the negotiations for runway use and ground paths. So there would likely be fewer airplanes over Eagan with either the relocation option. The negative is that areas of the city (i.e. south and southeast sections) that to date have experienced little overflight would be exposed to increased activity --albeit higher and less frequent than parts of the city are presently experiencing. The second problem concerning these new areas, is that the City will have few options in the way of mitigation since that south and southeast areas of the city are almost completely residential. As a result, the opportunity to create a commercial/industrial corridor such as we presently have in the northeast section of the City will not be possible. Whether extending runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third parallel 11/29, all expansion options make Eagan's situation worse. .Expansion will result in more flights (many of them over the south and west sections of Eagan), and the present runway use program will have to be renegotiated and Eagan's lack of leverage and support in the MAC/FAA will undoubtedly produce a negative result. We will continue hear the litany of how the present airport is 'constrained' and how the southeast direction (over Eagan) provirlPs the 'only' option for expansion. 7 The noise issue obviously dominates consideration of this factor but there are other issues that affect Eagan also. As mentioned previously, the vast majority of additional flight operations from the present site are sure to be routed over Eagan with a corresponding increase in noise. And while there is hope for some improvement in corridor compliance with new navigational aids and techniques and less noise from fewer stage II aircraft, more flights will mean continued serious noise problems. The obvious advantage of the DAKOTA option is that flights are farther from Eagan and in a direction which will produce fewer overflights of the City. The REMOTE site in Rosemount is closer to Eagan and therefore the Rosemount site is less desirable than either the Hastings site or, depending on•runway layout and use patterns it may be or may not be better that the EXPAND option. Other than overflights, engine tests and other on -airport functions also produce noise. Again the farther away the better so the DAKOTA option is again best for Eagan. Air quality issues are also a factor. Jet engines produce considerable amounts of air pollution. Citizens under the present flight paths often complain of engine burn residue and the recent experience of fuel dumping attests to the potential of this problem. Again the farther and higher the airplanes are the better favoring the DAKOTA county site. Another environmental issue is the Minnesota River Valley wild life area. Airplanes pose a hazard to the birds and airplane noise generally detracts from natural beauty of the area. The DAKOTA site is rural farmland and few major disruptions are anticipated or mentioned in the Environmental Impact Statement of the Dual Track Scoping Document. It is noted, however, that planners will have to take into account the Mississippi River flyway which will be closer proximity to the DAKOTA site City Economic Issues This topic was referred to the City's Economic Development Commission their consideration and recommendations. City Community Impact Issues This topic was referred to the City's Advisory Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendations. 8 Financial Issues Basically the DAKOTA or REMOTE options appear to be about double the cost of EXPAND proposal. 'Appear' is the operative word because the Commission feels some of the numbers MAC has produced in supporting the EXPAND option are understated. $2.5 billion is probably accurate for bricks and mortar, but we feel MAC has underestimated the mitigation costs such as home buy-out programs, part 150 programs and major real estate purchases required south of the airport for safety purposes. The DAKOTA or REMOTE runway options with their $4.1 to 4.5 billion dollar price tags are expensive but the numbers we see are realistic numbers. (The big unknown is cost for the REMOTE option is cost of the rail connection.) So with those numbers in mind the question becomes what is Eagan's exposure when it comes time to pay for the option selected? The committee feels that Eagan as an entity has only a very limited exposure regardless of the amount spent since MAC and/or State bonding authorities would be used to finance the projects. Individual citizens or the city itself should be little impacted when it comes to paying for the bonds. Senator"Diana Wiener points out that Eagan resident will be somewhat exposed to increased taxes in Dakota county to support infrastructure development and that at least short term Dakota County could lose tax base as 8600 acres are taken from the rolls. The commission feels two actions should be taken to mitigate this situation: 1) All operation on the airport including MAC should be subject for Dakota County property tax or mitigation refunds and 2) Dedication of public land for on airport functions should be kept to an absolute minimum assuring development_ of private (taxable) facilities. The State or the MAC should be prepared to financially reimburse to local governments for impacts from any of the options including property value subsidies. Some financial impact will be felt by those in Eagan who use the EXPAND or DAKOTA or REMOTE options depending on which is built -- that includes both residents and businesses who use the airlines and the airport.. Unless passenger traffic increases dramatically to offset construction costs, any of the options will cost more and that burden will undoubtedly be passed on to users. Passengers will likely see an increase in their airline/airport fees. At the new Denver airport the per passenger costs have gone up about $15 per ticket and Denver has a $3 PFC tax. Costs for contractors at the airport will likely go up also. Vendors in the terminal, Freight Forwarders and Northwest Airlines all would feel the bite as their cost increase. E Overall from the short term financial aspect, the NO PROJECT option would be best, the EXPAND option next and finally the two new airports (DAKOTA and REMOTE options) the worst. Long term, the case can be made that the new options will be more financially beneficial. One other item to be considered under financial issues and one we have talked little about to this point --Land Banking. There are some factors other than construction costs that should be considered. These are harder to identify but ultimately may impact the total cost of construction. Land banking is one of these factors which is probably less of a policy than an implementation device. Regardless of reason, if the options to build the DAKOTA or REMOTE projects are rejected during the 1996 Dual Track decision process, the Committee feels the City of Eagan should support and encourage the MAC to Land Bank a site in Dakota County to assure that options are still available after the year 2000. The committee feels that after all the time and money that has been spent researching the Dakota County option, it would be foolish not to keep future development of this site a possibility. Consideration must be made to assure the land blocks continue to be available should a new airport be required in the near future (a possibility since no one appears to have a crystal ball when it comes to anticipating airport needs). This land banking should be accomplished in the most cost effective manner, but it should be done. Whether by zoning, planned use agreements, option purchases, out -right purchase, or other techniques the designated areas should be protected. Strategic Issues From the long term standpoint there can again be little doubt that the DAKOTA or REMOTE options provide the greatest flexibility if further airport expansion becomes necessary. The DAKOTA site is the better of the new options in this regard. The present airport site is constrained on three sides by residential and business areas and on the fourth by the Minnesota River. The proposed EXPAND program will max out the present airport for additional expansion. If further expansion is required, acquisition of major developed road, residential and commercial property will be necessary in Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis. The sensible action at that point will be to want to build a new airport and if you have not land banked the Dakota county site the whole process will be repeated but now 30-40 mile out. 10 Expansion at the present airport site does have the advantage of ease of implementation. MAC already owns the land so NO PROJECT or EXPAND plan would encounter few insurmountable barriers in this regard. The REMOTE option should also be relatively easy also since this site belongs to a Government agency (the University of Minnesota) and a land swap should be easy but cooperation between agencies will be necessary. The DAKOTA site will likely be difficult with many lawsuits, contentious hearings, and potentially government 'takings' required to gain possession of the land. And finally there are the Political/Institutional issues to consider. At this writing during the summer of 19.95 there seems to be little support for the DAKOTA site option and even less for the REMOTE runway concept. Several key players including Northwest Airlines have challenged the MAC's growth projection figures which MAC is using to justify the projects. NO PROJECT will have considerable support and Eagan's position could logically be argued here too if the DAKOTA plans are rejected. But MAC seems to have concluded that it is necessary to spend 3-5 billion somewhere. Eagan will have to be very proactive in the hearings at the State Legislature and at the negotiations and lawsuits that are sure to follow to assure its best interests are protected. It will be easiest for relatively disinterested parties to leave the airport at its present site, but it is the Commission's opinion that this only puts off the inevitable. The region needs a new airport and it best to do it as quickly as possible. When it comes to airport issues there are few altruists in the process. It's every city for its and those who are the most active and persuasive are the ones who get consideration. Eagan will be the most impacted cities in this whole process. Eagan needs to be a active player to assure the best interests of its citizens are to be protected from all the potential ramifications of this process. 7 S- 001 Supplemental Items to be added to the proposal packet 1) Attachment #1 --Three original sites Attachment #2 --New Airport Site Selection process Attachment #3 --Present airport options Attachment #4 --Remote runway concept Attachment #5 --Executive Summary Attachment #6 --Reading File Attachment #7 --Impact Mitigation Suggestions �9 09/07/95 08:16 Fxl 6129374515 HTS S1STE31S 1@001/005 / 09/07/95 08:17 Rkl 8129971515 MTS SYSTEMS 0002/005 7 As part of this issue, the committee also looked at the potential fare changes that might occur. The more grandiose the project, the more the traveling public and airport users will have to pay_ The NO PROJECT option seems to be the best in this regard with a scaled back (no new terminal) EXPAND option next best. (Estimates are 2.5 billion dollars for EXPAND) The Commission feels many of the mitigation costs of an EXPAND have not accurately been factored in to this number 2.5 billion number and that the actual number will be considerably higher. As we have seen at the new Denver airport, passengers and users pay a higher price (initial estimates indicate and increase of $15-$20 per ticket) to support new construction. The DAKOTA (est. 4.1 billion.dollars) or REMOTE (est 4.3 billion dollars) options are likely cause increased fares and user fees although extra capacity supporting increased competition could keep these increases down. The Denver scenario seems to be discrediting some of the negative impacts. Passengers and operators do not seem to be avoiding the new Denver facility even with its increased costs. Environmental Issues For the Commission this was the big issue for Eagan! Eagan would/could benefit by having the new airport farther away and removed in a direction which would limit the city's exposure of overflight because of airport use directions (80% of traffic is east, south, or west bound). we would also have the advantage of participating in the negotiations for runway use and ground paths. So there would likely be fewer airplanes over Eagan with either the relocation option. The negative is that areas of the city (i.e. south and southeast sections) that to Hate have experienced little overflight would be exposed to increased activity --albeit higher and less frequent than parts of the city /V0 (.1 DoF- save A-E' yaki$F- ��- �FY�` P` c (0 A/ VfV Gv. , Cfl- "r R-97% e 5 5 09-07-95 08:18AM P002 #49 09/07/95 08:17 FAS 8129973515 SITS SYSTEMS U003/005 are presently experiencing- The second problem concerning these new areas, is that the City will have few options in the way of mitigation since that south and southeast areas of the city are. almost completely residential. As a result, the opportunity to create a commercial/industrial corridor such as we presently have in the northeast section of the City will not be possible. Whether extending runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third parallel.11/29, all expansion options make Eagan's situation worse. Expansion will result in more flights (many of them over the south and west sections of Eagan), and the present runway use program will have to be renegotiated and Eagan's lack of leverage and support in the MAC/FAA will undoubtedly produce a negative result. We will continue hear the litany of how the present airport is 'constrained' and how the southeast direction (over Eagan) provides the 'only' option for expansion. The noise issue obviously dominates consideration of this factor but there are other issues that affect Eagan also. As mentioned previously, the vast majority of additional flight operations from the present site are sure to be routed over Eagan with a corresponding increase in noise. And while there is hope for some improvement in corridor compliance with new navigational aids and techniques and less noise from fewer stage iI aircraft, more flights will mean continued serious noise problems. The obvious advantage of the DAKOTA option is that flights are farther from Eagan and in a direction which will produce fewer overflights of the City. The REMOTE site in Rosemount is closer to Eagan and therefore the Rosemount site is less desirable than either the Hastings site or, depending on runway layout and use patterns it may be or may not be better that the EXPAND option. other than overflights, engine tests and other on -airport R-97% D15 09-07-95 08:18AM P003 #49 09/07!95 EI i� ... ii .I vt.6 f v"k...: 3.tS A 08:18 F.A1% 0129974515 MTS SYSTEM U004/005 i ._..... �............_...... ate... � .....� .. o Ow l l�� it CeLAJ4 r 0 ' i{{ t � ...� ..... GJ ....... t� f I. ✓� q..�y .,�-q-�__,,._.� �-'l .....'....r. � ... ......!, . _....... ... .... .. ........ r coy / �...�df_..._._.G+�..�ti.� ,,c off it d4-..... . (� i' ,r c G] C`�[J P�%v� i '• S 1 C� l rt Ptiu f �p/ �!/ 9-97% N 29 15 09-07-95 08:18AM P004 #49 09/07/95 08:18 F.1Y 8129971515 MTS SYSTEMS 10005,1005 ............_cc _..� ......... 0� . al l. _.. r..._. _... cif ;.�' off`__ ..:..... .....r....._._a..(.(__._..... . cz�eu...S._......_._.._ .. _ ...vL_. _......_ . _ . _.. _ �c7•......_............ ICock ....... ��vr_�c�i..eJ'.._©vie.✓ ..G.���....... ... ................. .._...._ lie.... - ..sN4do �.......o ....._.1�-.• R-97% l5 09-07-95 08:18AM P005 #49 0 Airport Planning Process: Summary Tabulations, Description of Impacts Total Included = 7 , Afaster Category of IssueFactor Measures Alternatives New Replacement Airport Develop MSP Remote Runways Land Banking No Project Airport Operational Issues Airfield Capacity Capacity. AII-weather 4.86 3.43 3.86 2.57 1.57 Airspace Conflicts -Hourly Unavoidable Interactions 4.71 2.29 3.43 2.00 1.71 Runwa Use S tem 4.86 1.71 2.86 1.71 1.29 Ground Tracks 4.57 1.71 2.86 1.71 1.43 Ground Access Issues Value of Travel Time Passen er Dollar Value 2.43 3.86 2.29 2.43 2.57 Value of Travel Time . Ca Dollar Value 2.71 3.71 2.43 2.43 2.43 Air Service Issues Level of Air Service Domestic Markets Served Dollar Value 4.57 3.43 1.57 __ 0.00 _ _ 0.00 __3.00 0.00 _________2.43 0.00 __ ___ _ 0.00 Level of Alr Service International Markets Served AJrf' I Ca 4.86 3.29 3.43 2.2_9 1.57 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 Suitability for Hubbing Runway Capacity Su n Facilities 5.00 3.14 2.57 2.86 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Differential Fares Per Passen er Costs 2.00 2.14 1.71 1.86 2.00 Car o Service Availability of Facilities 4.71 3.43 2.71 2.57 2.14 Environmental Issues Aircraft Noise Residential Population 4.43 1.14 2.71 2.00 1.71 Compatible Land use Noise Sensitive uses 4.00 1.71 2.57 2.00 1.86 Social Residential Population Affected 4.43 1.29 2.71 2.29 1.71 Air OualitV Compliance 4.14 1.43 2.86 1.86 1.71 Historical/Archaelogical Number of Resources 3.14 2.71 3.29 2.71 2.86 City Economic Issues Short -Term Direct Economic Effects Construction PayroNPurchases 4.14 4.00 3.57 2.71 2.29 Regional Investment Climate Qualitative Aesessment r 4.71 3.57 3.43 3.29 1.57 C Irnectment Cllmat Qualitative Assessment 4.291 3.29 3.14 2.86 - 2.29 08/24/95 09:25 AM Airport Plannina Process:. Summary Tabulations, Description of Impacts Total Included = Master Category of Issue Factor Measures Alternatives New Replacement Airport Develop MSP Remote Runways Land Banking No Project City Community Impact Issues FJb Develo ment CommerclaVlndusidal Difiru tion Number of New Jobs Number of Jobs Lost 3.71 2.86 3.71 2.71 3.43 3.00 3.00 2.57 2.00 2.29 Demand Iw Publie Services Comparison of Supply/Demand 2.43 3.00 2.71 2.00 2.57 Consistent w8h Plans Qualitative Assessment 3.29 2.14 2.29 2.14 2.43 Financial Issues Capital Constructlon Costs Dollars 1.86 2.57 1.71 2.29 3.29 Per Passenger Coats Dollars 2.29 2.43 2.00 2.43 2.86 Predictability of Fundin Sources Qualitative Assessment 2.00 2.14 - 1.86 2.14 2.57 Impact on Local Jurisdictions Qualitative Assessment 3.29 2.57 2.14 2.29 2.43 Opportunity to Capture Industrial Values Qualitative Assessment 3.43 3.00 2.86 2.43 1.86 Tax base 3.57 2.71 2.86 2.71 1.71 Miticiation 3.14 1.43 2.14 2.29 1.86 Local Infrastructure 3.00 2.29 2.43 2.29 2.29 Strategic Issues Flerdbil" /Ex ndabll" Oualita8ve Assessment 4.43 1.57 3.00 3.71 1.57 Ease of Implementallodl Qualitative Assessment 2.43 2.57 2.00 2.71 3.43 PoldicaVlnstitutlonal Problems Qualitative Assessment 2.86 3.00 2.29 2.57 2.71 Subtotals Ai ort Operations 19.00 0.14 13.00 8.00 8.00 Ground Access 5.14 7.57 4.71 4.86 5.00 Air Service 21.14 15.43 17.43 12.00 9.00 Environmental r 20.14 8.29 14.14 10.86 9.86 CityEconomics 13.14 10.85 10.14 8.86 6.14 City Community Impact 12.29 11.67 11.49 9.71 9.29 Financial 22.57 19.14 18.00 18.86 18.88 Strata is 9.71 7.14 7.29 9.00 7.71 Totals _ 123.14 89.14 92.141 82.141 71.86 08/24/95 09:25 AM Subtotals Airport Operations Ground Access Air Service Environmental 'City Economics City Community Impact Financial Strategic Totals Subtotals Airport Operations Ground Access Air Service Environmental �i City Economics t City Community Impact ---�1 Financial Strategic Totals 08/24/95 09:53 AM New Develop Remote Land No Airport I MSP I Runways Banking Project 19.00 9.14 13.00 8.00 6.00 5.14 7.57 4.71 4.86 5.00 21.00 15.43 13.43 12.00 9.00 20.29 8.29 14.14 10.86 9.86 13.14 10.86 10.14 8.86 6.14 12.29 11.57 11.43 9.71 9.29 22.57 19.14 18.00 18.86 18.86 9.71 7.14 7.29 9.00 7.71 123.14 89.14 92.14 82.14 71.86 New Develop. Remote Land No Airport I MSP I Runways Bankina Pro'ect 95.0% 45.7% 65.0% 40.0% 30.0% 51.4% 75.7% 47.1% 48.6% 50.0% 84.0% 61.7% 53.7% 48.0% 36:0% 81.1% 33.2% 56.6% 43.4% 39.4% 87.6% 72.4% 67.6% 59.1% 40.9% 61.4% 57.9% 57.2% 48.6% 46.5% 56.4% 47.9% 45.0% 47.1% 47.2% 64.8% 47.6% 48.6% 60.0% 51.4% 72.4% 52.4% 54.2% 48.3% 42.3% Possible Score 20 10 25 25 15 20 40 15 170 Possible Score 20 10 25 25 15 20 40 15 170 Soderling Schlax White Monson Staricha Todd Cooper Data 8 Average % Score ►' 08/24/95 10:11 AM New Develop Remote Land No Airport MSP Runways Banking Project 127 80 77 81 91 115 82 82 59 91 123 89 110 90 77 114 105 96 102 62 125 91 105 106 97 127 83 64 137 85 131. 94 111 0 0 123.14 89.14 92.14 82.14 71.86 72.4% 52.4% 54.2°x6 48.3% 42.3% Metropolitan Airports Commission Dual Track Airport Planning Process Schedule PROCESS COMPLETION Task Name Start Eno 1995 1996 -- Mar Apr May - Jun Jul Aug Sep • Oct NovDec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun PROCESS COMPLETION OcVO1/941 Jun/29196 - IDENTIFICATION OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES OcU011941 Jul/26195 MAC Determines MSP AED Adequacy FeW211951 FeW21/95 MAC Selects Preferred MSP Comprehensive Plan FeW21/95i Feb/21/95 MAC Determines New Airport AED Adequa Apr/17/951 A0017/95 MAC Selects Preferred New Airport Comprehensive Plan Apr/17/951 AOn17/95 ff♦• J A Screening of Omer Altemanves to Determine Feasibli OWl01/94: A r/20/95 Prepare Draft EIS Smoing Report Mar/201951 Apr/la/95 Dual TraCk Task Force Review of Draft Scoping Report A d25/95i A r/25/95 Mailing of Swptng Report to MAC Ma /08195i Ma /06195 MAC Adapts ScapiReport for Public Comment Maryllsis5i M /15!95 �I �I II �. EOB Monnor/Fede21 Register Notice May/15195i May/28/95 Pub11C Comment Period Ma /30/951 Jun/28195 Public Heann s Jurd26/95i Jun/27/95 Owl Tract Task Force Remew of Scoping Decision Jul/131W Ju01L95 EOB Board Presentation Jul/20/951 JuV20195 1 L •'_ Mailing of Scocing Omsion to MAC JUVI91951 JUV19195 MAC Approval of Scoping Derision (—Special Meeting Date') Jul12B/95i JuV26/95 EVALUATION OF FINAL ALTERNATNES Feb101/951 Mar/01/98 Review Process for Recommendadon with MAC! MC Feb/01/95i A r/02/95 Evaluate MSP. New Airport. No Action Alternatives FeW21/95i SeW30l95, 1 Evaluate Other Feasible Alternatives from SOD Feb/21/95l SeW30195 Dual Track Task Force Review Meean s Feb/21/95i SeW30195 I MAC/Metro Counul Progress Bnefin s Feb/21/95i S 30195 Public Information Meetings JurV01/951 JuU31195 i Prepare State/Fede210EIS JuV26/95i Se 24/95 I 1 L I Prepare Draft Technical Report an Dual Track Alternatives Mar/26/95i Sea/24/95 • MAC/FAA Review of DEIS/Technical Report Se 25/951 0025/95 Dual Track Task Force Review OCU17/95i OCU17195 Revise DEISiTecnmcal Report OCV26/951 Nov/13195 1 Mailing of DEIS and Technical Report to MAC/Metro Counal Nov/13195i Nov/13/95 L 1 ! L . L - �1 MAC ReviewlDis usslon of Technical Report Nov/201951 Nov/20/95 I MAC Adapts DEIS's for Public Comment Nov/20/951 Nov20/95 EOB Monitor/Federal Register Notice Nov/201951 DeCJ04/95 Public Comment Penod on DEIS Dea01/95i JaN30/96 _ Public Information workshops Der117/951 DerJ21195 1 I-� I L 1 L' 1 L 1 ' Public Heann Snal Date Not Set 1 Jan/141961 Jan/14196 ' Respond to Comments I JaW31/961 Mar/01198 Dual Trach Task Force Review of Draft EIS/Tech Report FeW20/96lFeW20l9B and Dision of Revised Technical Report 1 Feb/19/98 FeW19/96 MAC/ MC Reviewrmss FINAL DOCUMENTATION 1 Janl3V961 JuN29196 1 1 1 i I 1 1 Prepare Deft State FEISlRemsed Federal DEIS for MACIRemew JaN311981 FeW21/96 I MACIFAAIEOB Staff Draft FEIS Review I Feb/22981 Ma198 I Prepare Draft Report to the Legislature I Jan/311%1 Mar/07196 1 Amend Draft FEIS for EOB Submittal FeW29/96i MaN08196 MAG MC 0; cession of Draft Report Mar/18/981 Mar/18/96 1 1 1 •� — 1 1 `L I 1 L Mailing of Draft State FEIS to MAC Mar/12196i Mar/12/98 Mailing of Draft Recon to the LegWattine to MAC/MC Mar/12196i Me112*6 MAC Ade Is Draft State FEIS and Submits to EOB Marti 8/981 Mar/18/96 MAG MC Review of Deft Report to the Legislature Mar/1111961 Mar/1B/96 E08 Review of Draft State FEIS Mar1181961 M /16/96 1 !1 1 1 - — I I 1 EOB Adequacy 0elerminatipn of State FEIS M /161961 Ma /15/88 • Final Revisions to Report to Legislature Ma /16/96/ JuN10/98 1 Mailing of Report to Legislature to MAC/MC Jun/10/961 Jun/10/96 MAC/ MC Final Review of Report to the Legislature Jun/17/961 Jun/17/96 • Fnal Revisions to Report to the Legislature JurV17/961 JuW29198 1. •• - 1 I 1 I SUbmiRal of MACrMC Report to Legislature JUM29/981 JurV29196 � Pnnted: Aug/09195/T► Milestone , Summary Page 1 `vUn/ Faed ONay - - •�yyl h'hVni MEMO city of eagan TO: CHAIR TODD AND MEMBERS OF. THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY CONSIDERATION OF A DUAL TRACK POSITION At its meeting of August 22, the Dakota County Board's Physical Development Committee had scheduled a presentation by the SOAR, a southern Dakota County lobbying group which is opposed to airport relocation. The presentation was used as a springboard for Commissioner Joe Harris, also an opponent of relocation, to suggest that the County direct staff to prepare a resolution for the County to oppose relocation to be presented at an upcoming Commission meeting. Commissioner Patrice Bataglia, who represents northern Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota and Lilydale contacted staff prior to the meeting suggesting that other cities attend the meeting. Staff discussed with the Commissioner the fact that the City is in the process of completing its consideration of the same issue and that an action by the County would be premature. Staff. then contacted Commissioner Jim Meuller who represents southern Eagan and Inver Grove Heights to express our concern that a decision now by the County would fail to consider the interests of its most populous areas. Staff made several calls to ARC members to see if anyone could attend on short notice. Staff also contacted the cities of Mendota Heights, Inver Grpve Heights and Burnsville, most of whom attended the meeting. City Administrator Hedges, ARC Member Jon White and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein A copy of the Committee's agenda, packet dictation and its support information is attached. It should be noted from•the SOAR letter that Commissioner Harris asked that they make the presentation. At the meeting, the Commissioners acknowledged the City of Eagan resolution, also attached, but the Committee Chair stated a. belief that it was broad and general. In its presentation, SOAR stated that they have appreciated the County staff's information for their activities to date and asked that the Board allocate funds to support their activities in 1996. They indicated that they are opposed to relocation or land banking and that they are interested in encouraging mitigation for the areas which will be affected by expansion. They stated a desire to work with other cities, but acknowledged that most of their activities to date have been with other relocation opponents. Commissioner Harris stated his position that the time had come for the County to take a position. His reasons were that relocation would cost the region too much, that it affects 15,000 to 20,000 acres of prime farm land, that it will affect growth and transportation patterns and that the airport site will be lost tax base to the County. He also quoted a MAC consultant who had indicated the need for new airports to have extra land for noise, expansion and on-site commercial development. He noted that even though the new Denver airport is in a remote location, it is closing two runways to night flights because of noise. The Committee did not invite further comment from those present, but City Administrator Hedges did ask about the future process and made comments regarding the City's process for approaching the issue. Jon White had prepared comments which are attached, but did not receive an opportunity to present them at the meeting. Commissioners Bataglia and Meuller spoke to the need to invite more input from the other affected cities before rushing to a conclusion. Other commissioners agreed that more input would be appropriate. The Committee then directed the staff to prepare a draft position paper opposing relocation and land banking or site preservation and to allocate funds to oppose these efforts at the legislature. In a reference to the cities present, the Committee indicated that the position should also address correction of impacts of the existing airport on Communities in northern Dakota County. This draft is to return to the Physical Development Committee Tuesday afternoon, September 26 and will likely be forwarded to a County Board meeting soon thereafter. The City will be expected to make presentation at the meeting on the 26th. We are in a somewhat awkward position due to the fact that our Advisory Commissions and Council will not complete their review and public hearing process until November and December. One of the possible outcomes of the City's deliberations may be to support expansion at the current location with mitigation requirements, but we won't know that for three months. Some of the County Commissioners expect that the northern cities will simply submit their mitigation needs for the position paper. At a minimum, the City has the following options: Concur with the County's position without public input or further study. 2. Offer mitigation recommendations. 3. Encourage the County to hold public hearings, conduct public opinion survey research or use other means to engage all potentially affected residents about the issue. 4. Request that the County's decision be delayed until the City's position is determined. 5. Continue the City's process and disregard the County's position. 6. Suggest that other resident groups be given equal funding to support alternative positions. 7. Suggest that the position focus only on mitigation of impacts regardless of the airport's location. 8. Present evidence to the County that there would be benefits associated with an airport southeast of the metropolitan area. 9. Reiterate the City's resolution that the County consider all impacts of both alternatives before making a decision. 10. Suggest that more County residents will be affected more by the current airport than will be affected by the relocated airport. By distance from a runway end, approximately 240,000 of the County's 300,000 residents will be closer to expanded MSP than the Dakota County site. 11. „Suggest that the predominant destinations from MSP (southeast, south and southwest) will mean that the most populous portions of the County will be more affected by expansion of the current site than will be affected by relocation. 12. Other. The Commission needs to be in a position to recommend action to the City Council for consideration at its meeting of September 20 and the Physical Development Committee meeting on September 26. Assi 6ant to the City Administrator q � Vow 11» 10: di DAKOTA C11UNTY-ADr1INISTRATI0N 902 •••A 0 E N D A•" DAKOTA COUNTY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Op THE WHOLE August 22, 1995 WESTERN SERVICE CENTER ROOM L130 1. CALL TO ORDER AND RQ1 I QAII . 10:30 A.M. or Immedlately bllaMng the Community Services . Committee of the Whole meeting. a G�1 8. CDNSFNTIINFORM T10NA1 8.1 Approval of Minutes for the Physical Development Comml 1995 (Page i) Oae of the Whole Meeting of July 18. 82 Solid Wasta Management Coordinating Board Update, &EQMWa IQM Enol Management (Page T) 8.3 Plat Comrrds;Jon Update, INFORMATION Surrey and Land 1. ft., (page 8) 8.4 Summary of Cannon Rhw summit, omce of Planning (page 18) 0.5Change.of COurlty Bikeway Designe0on la Apple Valley to Include Pilot Knob from Diamond Path to County Road 42 on the Bikeway Sysoam, once of planning (Page 25) 8. RF[s1 a mp 1 YA FtInAITHMA 8.1 Cnange Of County SUMMy Designation in SUMM0e and Capital Improvement Request, Office of Planning (Page 28) 82 Sold Waste Facility LtOanee for SI® Source Separated Organic Waste CompoMil Faotlily, ErMmnnvw" Management (Page 32) 1:00 P.M. 0.3 Pre3entation by BOAR. (page 38) 8. DTH R B SIN Sc NOTE PVC108.22 R-95% NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 28, 1898 10:30 A.M. LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM (L139) WESTERN SERVICE CENTER Any action talw by this Committee of the Whole mnsOlutes a mwmnerldation to the County Board for final approval. For addldormd information, piease owl 991 7000 612 438 4405 00-21-95 10:18AM P 002 SkY u8/ltt/96 ;,:00 F.- 456 0826 F.HIAR/TR.4SHTRAS 13AKOY,A COUNTY 17MMICAL 0EVL=LOPB1v7 COWDUiMES OF THE WHOLE hd -Wr- OFrsCE O1: PLABL UC•, Peream. JACK DtYMORE lie Nrmlber. BM -7M7 I Ey: JOHN TOCHO Publle Canummil: iTEM: P:zehfsiion by SOAR Inrormtkonal: _(m Nott-Budgetsti: Oihe it Funding: NIA: y_ 12002/003 On August 10, 1995, Dakota Couri(y received a latter from SOAR, a registered non-profri corporation ba_ -ed in D gwta CoUdy. SOAR hzs actively mw:tcred the Dusl Tr.--* Airport Planning Proem since 1591. In that latter; Wandy Wustenberg, Presldent of SOAR, request --d an opportunity to matte a brief presentation to the Physical Dave?r lcrent Cdrrm i ee of the Whole The leiter Is attached to this Raquesi for Committee Review form for ref ranca. (Sao AliGchment i.) Am�u LoLU J. Breimh .,,2, Dir r Jack Ditmore, Deputy Director PHYSICAL DEVELOPMEW DMSIONI PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DMSIOI\ ' r Bradt Richamson COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n:jta&Z 0.J 40 TA R-98% 612 456 0626 000036 08-18-95 04:08PM P002 431 08/18/95 14:09 F.AI Z:2 456 0626 F. HI AIR/TR.4SHTR,Lr ljj003/003 fNJG 10 'S� 13: 68 kkzTFZeT-G Cci�_TYtw,. •+i+--��_ •Acre. t 1a, .1%5 Mr. I -On Bre+ haw. Sub Ficiti3q Wady Wud--a&-xg i'erS,ojk`2,'4�._ 1tgt�,,t for iicecnde Augem i? r995. . 1'J�1GWit1.g Y2QT?�7G bf �0+ •S*iOn l .TG:.Firt'S: ialS tnon.nxavimm l!l:ests o TikS• 1'~ Q�rQ ". 1 E]2 6ri Lrtu y to a&he6. i%Etion $O_A , = �2:- ]..,.95 for the V=O- of ut �^asssn Dayslopm�t Com3zlitt on l rgusj - a •. stat�•s. of th, Dunt. 7•i• ak Airport pjmtjUig. + Yriinw q tT a. Si no pfofit c3rPM- do4 besbd in Ddi mta Comty wgch snx 1-991_ -Es bei t ptiv3ege oimsny of us an the go3 r3 =*ex aPrsoi L-4 pos &u is r -Clow �r� fer hot 't [h it• w 1 3rdYnc I>` M �Cormty. At �thi9 the wa ' raetd at �od =nd ce ZmEL-ble for gmel nne: Par] iiic�, yy�,�y,y-- �:., n L� �Y'C•at� efT�:�3i�; gens Carroll, r "'Y`l•�rr��� the r: Llor�, rc : _ d�3tt7 na tlfeciry of R A oinnT�+ f Cc AdVs55 n Ping laLata tiji old. t MAC Papal Ta* Fare -,and Siet; rY 1 on ' =rPra� nd ±np Ii as prat of SOAR- Only one of es, r;761t, d ,g4,�, TA be LS�i fc_* �e �uz�osa of a brims S -l0 minntE eresNnia don. ?' 7 k&M—'iion is•r—ied, 1P fess &c to t^nt3Ct 3t 450.8340. Thant )•au f t_ -cry -;nom • WN�IY\• 1,'•:¢/\IRTNIy�pyY�) !ONlO Ah,ri ONY�yv sed •, F's e�¢:n j�Nu. NN S,U2, Flee¢ P.. 812 460 (iRiO ()00011 R-97% 612 455 0626 08-18-95 04:08PM P003 #31 citVoFainglan Dear Commissioner Hams: In official action taken at its meeting of August 1, the Eagan City Council formally adopted the attached resolution urging the County Board to look after the Interests of Dakota County residents regardless of whether the airport expands or relocates as a part of the dual track airport planning process. As a community which lies between the two alternatives, the City of Eagan is acutely aware of the economic, environmental and public service ramifications that both altematives will have. While it is anticipated that the City will ultimately support one alternative or the other, we have an intense interest in the mitigation of all of the impacts of the airport's future. We appreciate the significance of the decision before the region and the Legislature and the effects it will have In the longterm for our common constituents. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence or the attached resolution, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We look forward to your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Enclosure TLH/vmd MUNICIPAL CENTER 36M PUOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1807 PHONE: (612) 6814600 FAX (612) 6814612 TDD: (612) 4548535 THr=E OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/AttlrtnaRve Action Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 5501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55171 PHONE: (612) 6814300 FAX (612) 661-4360 1DD: (612) 454 -MS THOMAS EGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN August 14, 1995 THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES . CKy AOT**ftoror COMMISSIONER JOSEPH HARRIS, CHAIR E. J. RSEKE DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Ik CRy Clerk 1590 WEST HWY 55 HASTINGS, MN 55033 Dear Commissioner Hams: In official action taken at its meeting of August 1, the Eagan City Council formally adopted the attached resolution urging the County Board to look after the Interests of Dakota County residents regardless of whether the airport expands or relocates as a part of the dual track airport planning process. As a community which lies between the two alternatives, the City of Eagan is acutely aware of the economic, environmental and public service ramifications that both altematives will have. While it is anticipated that the City will ultimately support one alternative or the other, we have an intense interest in the mitigation of all of the impacts of the airport's future. We appreciate the significance of the decision before the region and the Legislature and the effects it will have In the longterm for our common constituents. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence or the attached resolution, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We look forward to your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Enclosure TLH/vmd MUNICIPAL CENTER 36M PUOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122.1807 PHONE: (612) 6814600 FAX (612) 6814612 TDD: (612) 4548535 THr=E OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/AttlrtnaRve Action Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 5501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55171 PHONE: (612) 6814300 FAX (612) 661-4360 1DD: (612) 454 -MS CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION URGING DAKOTA COUNTY TO CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF BOTH ALTERNATIVES OF THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission are conducting the Dual Track Airport Planning Process to analyze alternatives to meet the Twin Cities' regional aviation needs in the future, and WHEREAS, the cities of Dakota County will be significantly affected regardless of the track chosen in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, and WHEREAS, Dakota County and its cities and townships are participating in the study process by analyzing costs, benefits, public service needs and potential mitigation opportunities, and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan has yet to take a formal position in. support of either expansion or relocation of the airport, and WHEREAS, Dakota County has an obligation to support the interests and needs of all of its residents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan strongly urges Dakota County to thoroughly consider all aspects of both alternatives of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, including their costs and benefits to all Dakota County residents, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County should support adequate and appropriate mitigation of financial, environmental and public service impacts regardless of the airport alternative ultimately selected by the State of Minnesota. CITY OF EAGAN q7 Motion made by: Awada Seconded by: Masin Those in favor. All Those against: None Dated: August 1, 1995 1, EJ. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 1st day of August, 1995. EJ. anOverbeke City Clerk City of Eagan M My name is Jon White. I am a resident of Eagan and a member of that city's airport relationsadvisory commission. As a member of that citizens advisory group I have become fairly well versed on airport issues, particularly in regard to the dual track planning process. Members of the commission have been immersed in the issues associated with expansion, remote runways, and proposals for a new airport in Dakota County. We have dissected many of the studies commissioned by the MAC and have conducted lively debates regarding potential impacts of the various options. With this background I would like to address the commissioners on this topic. A new airport in Southern Dakota County will no doubt have an adverse impact on a number of people in that area. Citizens of Hastings, New Trier, Hampton, Ravenna, Miesville, and Vermillion, among others would experience impacts from airport noise and increased traffic. In addition, thousands of acres of "prime farmland" would be swallowed up by the airport footprint. Wetlands and shrikes would be impacted as well. I have visited these areas many times, and have been charmed by their bucolic nature. I can certainly understand efforts to preserve this quality. However, should the commissioners of Dakota County focus exclusively on this area and its needs, a significant opportunity would be missed. At this time, I would like to point out a number of reasons the County should support relocation; there are economic, social, and other intangible factors that make airport relocation desirable. Economic A new airport will generate increased economic activity within Dakota County. This, I think, is self evident. Where the airport goes, so go its accompanying jobs, support services, and taxable revenues. While airport land itself may or may not be taxable, associated development most certainly is (hotels, restaurants, cargo and shipping facilities, convention / visitor activities and so on). While these associated developments will likely take some time to reach a crescendo, they will certainly bring vitality to a somewhat economically moribund region of Dakota County. The airport will be a job and transportation center, its economic activity will spill over into the surrounding region. Continued development of MSP will bring its own economic rewards to Dakota County, but in my estimation, these would be dwarfed by relocation to Dakota County. Social While a new airport will affect hundreds of residents in Southern Dakota County (either by relocation or noise impacts), MSP expansion would affect thousands more. Residents all along the Western and Northern tiers of Dakota County will find two new runways pointed in their direction like loaded rifles. A proposed north -south runway will shoot traffic over Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville while a third parallel runway would further augment traffic levels over Eagan, Mendota Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, and Sunfish Lake. The number of taxpayers in those cities affected by airport noise will skyrocket even further. On a related note: In my experience, and that of my neighbors, Dakota County tax assessment procedures are inherently flawed. It appears home values in this county are calculated in a vacuum where airport noise does not exist. As a result, fair market value is not being accurately calculated for homes in airport noise affected areas. A case in point: The house across the street from my own was purchased for roughly $25,000 less than the calculated fair market value (off by more than 15%). Why? Because over 300 flights per day barrel overhead at 2,000 feet. Noise generated by these flights directly lowered the price of their home. That is obvious to anybody who knows anything about real estate. But not to the county. Is not a price agreed upon by buyer and seller in the open market generally assumed to be an accurate gauge of fair market value? My new neighbors, flabbergasted at such a gross over -exaggeration of their property value, tilted at windmills and pressed the County to lower the assessed value. Their appeals fell on deaf ears. The value of their property on the open market is clearly compromised by aircraft noise, but to our beloved county, the aircraft simply do not exist. Already there are efforts under way to alleviate this grossly unfair burden bom by those of us in the shadow of the airport, MSP expansion will no doubt add to that momentum. Intangibles A Dakota County airport would benefit the county and the region. A larger parcel of land, coupled to enhanced runway use and airport operational considerations would no doubt allow for greater efficiency and capacity in the entire region. This kind of infrastructure enhancement benefits everyone. In addition, by locating in Dakota County, the airport would heighten the position of Dakota in the Twin Cities arena. No longer would we be separated from all economic activity hubs by the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Dakota would be established as more important player in local politics and economics. While the prestige of having an airport may not seem like a big deal to many, I think a visionary commission could leverage this jewel to fashion a more attractive crown for the county. Conclusion In the end, it is my opinion, and one that is shared by a vast number of Dakota County residents, that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of relocation. The best interests of the overall county are not served by rejecting relocation. Further, any funding of efforts to do so would be met with a fierce backlash from communities negatively affected by the current airport. Therefore I urge the council to welcome a new airport in Dakota County and to work to minimize negative impacts on residential areas throughout the county. Even if the state legislature opts to expand MSP, Dakota should preserve this site for future relocation if the need should arise. History, incidentally, informs us that the issue will be resurrected. It is only a matter of time. /co .Metropolitan Airports Commission Operations and Complaint Summary July 1995 Operations Summary - All Aircraft MSP July Fleet Mix Percentage Airport July Complaint Summary July Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office Aviation Noise Programs to 1 Page l lvilnneapons - it. caul international Airport Complaint Summary July 1995 Complaint Summary by City Page 2 Time of Day Nature of Complaint )u4-26-1495 08:25 NORTHWEST AIRLINES June 1, 1995 612 726 0374 P-02 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION Cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota, Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake Mr. John H. Desburg Northwest Airlines, Inc. 5101 Northwest Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Desburg: As communities located southeast of the airport which receive well over half of all noise impacts from Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport, the cities -of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota, Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake are cooperating on issues in which we have a common interest. This group, known as the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition, has identified a number of common concerns we would like to see addressed. The first of these concerns relates to "distant' and 'close -In" departure procedures as outlined by FAA Advisory Circular No. 91-53A. We understand that Northwest and the other airlines are in the process of developing these procedures and that they will be presented to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council for Implementation at MSP by runway end. For aircraft departing MSP to the southeast, a modified departure procedure would greatly lessen the air noise impacts currently experienced by the residents of our five cities. As Mayon: of our respective communities, we unanimously request your cooperation in developing and testing these departure procedures which promise to improve the noise environment surrounding MSP. ' JUN -et, -1'" ) 0b-.0 ..L.1utin �..- —� Ute. . . Mr. John H. Dasburg June 1, 1995 Page 2 We look forward to actively working with you on this important endeavor and we await your reply. For convenience, please direct your reply to Mayor Egan at 3630 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan. MN 55122. Sincerely, Tom Ega3F/ Charles Mertensotto Jim Toy City of Eagan City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota ge A ins Frank Tiffany of Inver Grove Heights City of Sunfish Lake .cc: Mr. Sandy Grieve, MAC Chair Mr. Bob Johnson, MASAC Chair Mr. John Kern, NWA VP -Aircraft Operations &3t& AL /O Y TOUL P.03 NORTHWEST AAIt L I N E S 310 t number M Northwest Airlines. Inc. 5101 Northwest Drive St. Paul MN 55111-3084 July 7, 1995 The Honorable Tom Egan Mayor, City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mayor Egan: The Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition letter to Mr. John H. Dasburg, dated June 1, 1995, has been referred to me for response. . Northwest Airlines has historically been a front-runner in the development and implementation of noise abatement techniques which improve the noise environment in surrounding airport communities. In the 1970s, Northwest Airlines was instrumental in the development and*implem,:ntation of the first noise abatement departure profile. Again, in the early 1990:;, Northwest Airlines was an active participant in the development of FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, and was one of the first air carriers to implement new, FAA approved, noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs), which were based on the guidelines of this advisory circular. Northwest Airlines prides itself in operating as a good neighbor. It is Northwest's corporate policy to comply with noise abatement policies and procedures to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the safe operation of the aircraft. Since January 1, 1994, Northwest Airlines has had FAA approved, close -in and distant community NADPs in use by its entire fleet of aircraft. These procedures have been, and continue to be, used at Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport (MSP). At MSP, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), through the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and the MASAC Operations Committee, will be evaluating the benefits of the close -in community and distant community NADPs, to those communities impacted by aircraft noise generated at MSP. The final determination for assignment of a specific NADP for each of MSP's runway ends, will be blade by the MAC, not the air carriers who use the airport. The MAC's final.decision will be based on the recommendation received from MASAC:..: QLD q KLM The Honorable Tom Egan Page 2 v July 7, 1995 All cities in your coalition, except the city of Mendota, have representation on MASAC. Additionally, the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have representatives who are active on the MASAC Operations Committee. I would recommend that since your coalition has significant representation on both MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee, that all city and coalition input, which may be useful in formulating MASAC's recommendation to the MAC, be forwarded to MASAC through your city representatives. Please contact me with any questions regarding Northwest Airlines' noise abatement policies or procedures. Sincerely, W�/,dam., Mark J. Salmen Manager, Airport Operations cc: R. Anderson J. Dasburg C. Foushee S. Grieve D. Jacobs R. Johnson J. Kern Minneapolis -St. Paul Commissioners Inside flap International Airport provides convenient. uncongested i From the Chairman 2 access to 160 non-stop or one :`. From the Executive Director 3 stop destinations throughout _ Dual Track: Key Decisions Remain 4 the U. S. and international routes linking the U.S. with Dual Track: Improvements At MSP 6 Asia and Northern Europe. Global Task Force At Work 8 The global symbol on the cover depicts MSP's strategic MAC's Economic Impact location as"America's North Continues to Increase 11 Coast Gateway" to the world. Noise, Glycol Remediation Passengers and cargo are effi- ciently transported[oand from Top Environmental Issues 12 U.S. and international destina- Relievers Complete MAC System 15 tions through Northwest Airlines' hub and the Financials 16 Northwest/KLM system. Increasing the number of international flights serving . MSP is a high priority for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). International air service is vital to the economic health of the region we serve. MSP will have many more international routes and flights in 1995, thanks to the Canada- U.S. agreement to "open the skies" between the two coun- tries and to growing demand for service from MSP to Europe and Asia. _ '///� oF METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION O In the brief time I've had to become familiar with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) since becoming chairman on April 12. 1995. I've been impressed with the competence, dedication and pride in performance of the tvtrtl, management and staff. I've been equally impressed with the judgment, diligence and dedication of the 14 commissioners. The Twin Cities and, indeed, the whole state, are very well served. Minneapobs-St Paul International Airport (MISP) has a respected and enviable record for safety, efficiency and conve- nience. In order to maintain and enhance that record, there is a constant need for improvements and increased capacity to meet the continuous, growing demand for air service. Here are the major projects that are either under way or planned: • Since the last major expansion of the Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal seven years ago, annual passenger levels there have near- ly doubled. A $5 -million improvement project will reduce conges- tion, expedite baggage handling and provide more efficient Federal Inspection Service processing of passengers through Customs. Immigration and agricultural product inspections. • Construction of a second Federal Inspection Service location in the Lindbergh Terminal will enable processing of arriving interna- tional passengers at the main terminal. Connecting passengers will have easier, quicker access to flights. This $25 -million project will be funded by Passenger Facility Charges. This is a major effort to increase convenience and to make our airport more attractive to international air carriers. • Sun Country Airlines, a growing charter airline based at MSP. needs more hangar space. We are negotiating an agreement to build a new hangar for Sun Country which would be funded by lease payments. • Construction of three more parking -deck levels at a cost of $24 million will provide much-needed additional public parking and enable auto rental companies to service vehicles faster. Parking demand will exceed current capacity by 1997, according to projec- tions. Future parking revenues will pay for the parking expansion. One level of the parking deck addition will be used by the auto rental companies and will be funded from their revenues. • The 2.75O -foot extension of MSP's crosswind runway to a length of 11,000 feet will make it the airport's longest runway. It will pro- vide operational flexibility and permit fully loaded aircraft takeoffs under all weather conditions for long-haul nonstop flights, includ- ing those to Europe and Asia. © METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION • Negotiations arc under way to install a satellite - based navigational system for instrument approaches to MSP and the six other MAC airports. It would be the first of its kind installed in the U.S. The "Global Positioning System" per- mits precise guidance of air- craft to landings, and it reduces noise and air traffic congestion. It also identifies and tracks vehicles on the airfield. Each of these projects was approved based on an analysis that included three criteria: • Customer need - making MSP user friendly. • A payback on the investment in a reasonable time. The MAC system of airports is able to make these improvements and operate efficiently without any property, sales or income tax revenue. Our revenue comes from those who use our airports. • The impact on the dual track airport planning process. These improvements are part of the dual track process, in which the MAC and the Metropolitan Council are working toward a 1996 recommendation to the Legislature. The options are: improve MSP to meet the future capacity needs: or build a new airport The information we have, combined with some assumptions about air transportation needs for the year 2020, indicate that either the current airport or a new one could accommodate air traf- fic at that time. We need to know more about costs and economic and environmental effects. If the Legislature decides to proceed with a new airport. MSP could continue in service for at least 15 years. The governor, the Legit lature and the MAC support continued development at MSP as part of the dual track process. The projects approved in 1994 are prudent invest- ments in our major airport and the regional economic future. As the new chairman, I support improvements that keep MSP a first- class, safe and convenient airport that will attract more international and domestic service in this decade of global competition. GU-J,� Mt6mz Pierson M. "Sandy" Grieve Chairman Minneapolis -St Paul International Airport is among the dozen busiest airports in the U.S. and among the 20 busiest airports in the world, based on total passen- gersserved. And, as a hub for a major air - e. MSP provides its customers with an unusually large number of U.S. destina- tions -160 other communities with either non-stop or just one-stop flights. But in an economy that is increasingly global and not just domestic, one of our goals is to increase the number of internation- al destinations and the frequency of service to those destinations. International air service is vital to the economic health of the state and region we serve. Studies demonstrate that international flights create more jobs for a community than domestic flights, and bring in more income because: • International flights carry more passengers and cargo: they require more handling. • Foreign passengers spend about 45 percent more than U.S. passengers. • International cargo generates new business and new jobs: corpo- rate headquarters, branch offices and distribution centers locate where there are adequate international flights. • Foreign visitors stay longer. As Leo Schefer, president of the Washington. D.C.. Airports Task Force and an expert on international air service, says: "If you don't get your community on the world's air service map now, you aren't going to be on the economic map next century." MAC surveys show that Twin Cities businesses want to ship cargo by air, and they want more international flights. Currently, however, about two-thirds of the cargo they ship by air internation- ally first goes by truck to Chicago or other airports where there are more international flights at competitive rates. We have a large "hidden" market that has been underestimated by the airlines. That problem can become an opportunity. We are making progress toward becoming "America's North Coast Gateway" - a designation that accurately reflects our accessibility to destinations in Canada. Europe and Asia. We are working with other U.S. airports that could become feeders of cargo and passengers to MSP and receive one-stop access to the world. A Global Access Task Force was formed by the MAC in 1994. The task force of shippers, freight -forwarders, airlines, busi- ness associations and govermnent agencies is sharing information about cargo and passenger service needs to increase the potential for international flights at MSP. The task force and the MAC both recognize that it would be foolish to compete head-to-head with major gateways such as Chicago. Miami, Los Angeles and New York. MSP can compete. however, by finding niches in the international cargo and passen- ger markets. For example. MSP's location and hub airport status led to Northwest's decision to inaugurate daily round-trip service to five Canadian cities following the signing of the open skies agreement between the U.S. and Canada early in 1995. Although we are encouraging several airlines to add interna- tional service to Europe and Asia, the most likely source of addi- tional routes and flights is the Northwest/KI-M affiliation. One example is the successful route from MSP to Amsterdam started in. 1991 by KLM and continued under Northwest/KLM. As a result of demonstrated customer demand. Northwest/KLM will double the weekly number of flights to 14 on a seasonal basis in 1995. Using a formula developed by consultants Kurth & Co.. the economic value to the Twin Cities and Minnesota of the Northwest/KLM route would grow from more than $400 million a year to more than $800 million, based on the 1995 weekly flight schedule. MSP can add international service without significantly increasing noise generated by landings and takeoffs. Only a few flights would be added each day. Quieter, Stage III aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and the DC-10 are used on overseas routes. We cannot afford to be passive about international air service. In a global economy, convenient air service is a necessity, not a luxury. Jeffrey W Hamiel Fxecutiue Director METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION DUAL TRACK: KEY DECISIONS REMAIN The dual -track airport planning process, established by the 1989 Minnesota Legislature. is mov- ing toward a July 1996 recom- mendation to the Legislature from the Metropolitan Council and the MAC. The process provides for study OL two options. Both options are being examined in the context of the types of airport facilities that will be required to meet projections of future demand for service. One option addresses ways to provide the needed capacity and facilities through improvements at the current site (MSP). The MAC also is evaluating a new, replacement airport to meet future needs. The dual -track approach is unusual, compared to similar studies undertaken by other cities or regions operating major airports. Instead of deciding that a new airport is needed, and then starting to search for a site, the dual track process simultane- ously examines need and site options. It does not prejudge any decision. The most recent forecasts of aircraft and passenger demand were based on 1992 data and used to prepare plans for both options. The forecasts indicate that about 33.4 million passengers would use the airport in the year 2020. compared with 24.5 million in 1994. The number of aircraft takeoffs and landings is projected to increase to about 520,000 in 2020, compared with 454.000 in 1994. To assess the MSP option, the MAC prepared and recently updated a Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP. The other option required the Metropolitan Council to desig- nate a search area within which a new airport could be sited. From a 74,600 -acre search area in east central Dakota County designated by the Council, the MAC and citizen advisory committees evaluat- ed three sites. A 10,000 -acre site was selected because it offers the best opportunity for airport development with the fewest adverse effects on the environment and surrounding communities. The selected site is about five miles southwest of Hastings and three miles east of Vermillion. MAC and its citizen advisory committees have completed a New Airport Comprehensive Plan similar in scope and detail to the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The new airport plan describes the size, location, phasing and initial design of runways, taxiways, passenger terminals, road access, parking, air cargo facil- ities and utilities. In early 1995. the MAC approved a recommended facilities layout at the proposed new airport and determined that economic O METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION I impact studies for the new airport site are adequate. The major milestones leading to a recommendation to the Legislature in July 1996 are: • June 1995 MAC receives consultant's report on feasibility of moving aircraft operations at MSP to a remote site, retain- ing existing terminal and support facili- ties at MSP and transporting passengers between the sites. • June 1995 MAC receives report describing economic, community and financial impacts of preserving land at the proposed new airport site for 10-20 years. • November 1995 Draft j J Environmental Impact Statement. - addressing all feasible alternatives, login 1 prepared for public review and R comment. • December 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation completes report on feasibility of moving certain aviation activities from MSP to an existing airport, possibly reducing the need for new MSP facilities. • December 1995 MAC receives results of study to determine cost and financial feasibility of MSP expansion and construction of a new airport • December 1995 MAC receives study quantifying and documenting economic impacts of each airport development alternative. • December 1995 MAC receives report on commu- nity impacts associated with expansion of MSP versus construction of a new airport. • July 1996 MAC and Metropolitan Council recommend an alternative to the Legislature and provide reasons. r ..A130ea l 1 ftzs a. .� -- A - 77 is - .�" Arrivals `- «- Arrivals _ 3 a � ? ? � aL Departures � � � J MAC facilities constantly are updat- ed to provide the safest, most convenient service possible. Even while the Dual Track air- port planning process is under way, necessary upgrades are being made at MSP and the six lever airports. In fact. commission- ci, nave made a point of stating that continued upgrades at MSP should not be interpreted as interfer- ing with the Dual Track process. As the Star Tribune said in its Oct 20, 1994, editorial. "Indeed, those who worry that improving MSP now might fore- close the new airport option have just as much reason to fear that not improving MSP could produce the same result. If the current airport isn't improved, it will be much less able to handle project- ed air traffic growth. Dwindling growth could then become a powerful argument against the need for a new airport. What's needed now and what may be needed later are two separate questions. The answers should be kept separate as well. - Recently retired MAC Chairman Richard P. Braun point- ed out that capital improvements are needed at MSP because: • If and when the Legislature decides to proceed with a new airport. MSP could still be needed for at least 15 years - perhaps longer. • The MAC will still have to meet its statutory charge in the inter- im. That charge is to promote aviation locally, statewide, nationally and internationally in a safe and dependable manner, and to mitigate noise in surrounding communities. • Carrying out the MAC's charge means continued improvements must be made at MSP to meet the needs and aviation demands of the traveling public, cargo shippers and to meet the region's economic interests. Travelers arriving at or departing from MSP will notice con- struction work on the upper and lower roadways, in front of the main terminal. New elevated roadway lanes are under construc- tion. Once they are complete, the old elevated roadway lanes will be demolished and reconstructed. The number of lanes in front of the terminal will be increased from four to seven. The work is nec- essary to accommodate an increased volume of auto traffic, to replace the existing roadway, and to improve pedestrian safety. Inside the main terminal, security checkpoints were relocat- ed from each concourse entrance to the six portals passing through the ticket counters. The change allows connecting passen- gers to move from concourse to concourse without stopping for additional security checks. About 52 percent of MSP's passengers make connections to other flights. The relocation was funded by Passenger Facility Charges 0 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION paid by airport users and by Northwest Airlines. the major tenant at MSP. Security checkpoints are staffed by a ven- dor hived by the airlines. Commissioners have approved up to S239 million in major capital improvement projects to occur in 1995.96. The INUC's capi- tal'rnprovement plan calls for additional projects totaling $359 Million from 1997 through 2001. The approved 1995-96 projects include: • Facilities for the Federal Inspection Service (FIS) in the Lindbergh Terminal. FIS services include Customs. Immigration and agricultural inspections. The new facilities will be capable of handling 800 passengers an hour - expandable to 1,200 an hour - allowing international Flights to arrive at the Lindbergh Terminal as well as at the Humphrey Terminal. Equally important. turnaround time for international flights will.be reduced from 2.5 hours to 1.5 hours, an advantage in attracting international routes. Construction will cost an estimated S20 million. • Added space at the Humphrey Terminal to relieve congestion. During peak winter periods the terminal cannot accommodate all the demand for domestic and international charter flights. • A new Sun Country Airlines hangar maintenance bay, apron and parking lot to accommodate Sun Country's expanding fleet. Negotiations are under way to determine the size and exact cost of the expansion. • Improvements to the car rental facilities. Changes include con - structing a quick -turn -around facility and storage area for ready and returned cars, and adding approximately 1,100 new public parking spaces. The parking spaces would be added by constructing three new levels above the single elevated parking the Minnesota Department of Transportation are funding the con - deck. The project will cost an estimated $24 million. • Continued home acquisitions and insulation programs. In 1995- 96, 99596, the MAC will spend an estimated $14.4 million to continue acquisition of homes in New Ford Town and areas of Rich Acres and subsequent removal of all structures. During the same period, the MAC also will spend more than S24.9 million to provide sound insulation for 1,300 homes in south Minneapolis, Richfield. Bloomington. Eagan and Mendota Heights. • Extension of the cross -wind runwav to 11.000 feet. The 2,750 additional feet will provide operational flexibility, permit takeoffs of fully loaded, wide-body aircraft in all weather conditions. and redis- tribute some aircraft noise. The extension and associated noise - reduction steps will cost up to S56 million. Pending further information, commissioners still are consid- ering a proposal to add an automated people mover from the Lindbergh Terminal to the car rental facilities. In addition, the FAA will construct new air traffic control tow- ers at MSP and St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP). The'NLAC and struction of a tower at Anoka County/Blaine Airport. The air traffic control towers will improve safety and operat- ing efficiency. The MSP tower will be 37 Feet higher than the pre- sent tower, providing controllers a better view of the airfield. It will have state-of-the-art. "rapid scan" radar, which will permit simulta- neous- landings on the parallel runways during periods of reduced visibility. The installation of new ground radar will enhance con- trollers' ability to locate and identify aircraft operating on the air- port at night and in poor weather conditions. Both will dramatically reduce the number of weather-related delays at MSP and improve service to all passengers. The new tower at STP will be on the southwest side of the airport for a better view of both ends of the new, 6,700 -foot runway. Anoka County/Blaine had 195,000 takeoffs and landings in 1994, making a control tower desirable for safety reasons. The local FAA office, U.S. Representative Martin Sabo and Senator Paul Wellstone were instrumental in obtaining funding and approvals for the new towers. Il METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION GLOBAL TASK FORCE AT WORK A new Global Access Task Force is working with the MAC to obtain new international cargo and pas- i senger service. The Task Force includes representatives from business. the airlines, U.S. Customs and the MAC. Subcom- ttees are focusing on passenger ser- ,.argo service and airport facilities. Among the Task Force's first goals is development of more air cargo commitments from local shippers. The commitments will be used to persuade airlines to establish more wide-body interna- tional flights from MSP to meet cargo demand. Additional cargo and passenger service would have far- reaching effects on the Twin Cities and the surrounding region. "The successful urban areas of the 21st Century will be those that are able to provide efficient production, processing and distribution," MAC Executive Director Jeffrey Hamiel told commu- ' nity and business leaders at a symposium, Global Access '94. "Growth of our airport is interconnected to the economic health of the region. Passengers and cargo pass through MSP because there are businesses supplying the jobs and products that create the demand for air transportation." Hamiel said. When international passengers and cargo are routed to other airports: • Locally -based airlines lose a substantial portion of these passen- gers and cargo to other airlines. • Shippers have less control of their cargo: shrinkage can result from loss and damage in trans -shipment. • Transit times are slower than with direct service. • A community is viewed as "off -fine" and businesses move closer to gateways that meet their travel and distribution needs. For these reasons, the MAC has identified cargo transporta- tion as a marketing niche. The Twin Cities and our region generate € large amounts of international air cargo. But two-thirds of that cargo goes by truck to Mail/Cargo metric tannage at Minneapolis/St Paul 37a Chicago and other airports International Ai;;�,t (thousands) 320 with more international 302 flights and more competi- 266 272 tive rates. The Detroit airport, Northwest Airlines' other major hub, has nearly three times more international flights than MSP. And Chicago's O'Hare, only 350 miles from MSP, is the busiest airport in the world. 1!, O METROPOLITAN' AIRPORTS COMMISSION I According to air transportation consultants Kurth S Cu., each new international route injecLs $100 million to $300 million annually into a local economy. MSP now has nonstop, daily service to London and Amsterdam and weekly service to Frankfurt and Tokyo. Northwest/KLM Airlines hubs in Amsterdam and Tokyo provide service to additional destinations in Europe and Asia. In fact, in three years the Northwest/KLM affiliation has built the number of weekly round-trip flights between Amsterdam and MSP from three to 14 during the peak seas In the next two to three years, more U -S. and foreign air carriers will make affili tions such as the Northwest/KLM arrange mens These affiliations will determine which airports and routes dominate future international air traffic. ft's important to gei MSP on that list by retaining existing inter- national service and attracting more. The Canada -U.S. "open skies" agreement, signed early in 1995, resulted in 11 new daily round-trip flights to five Canadian cities, including new direct ser- vice to Calgary. Saskatoon. Regina, Montreal and Vancouver. It was the sin- gle largest expansion of international service in U.S. aviation history. The MAC played an important behind -the - scenes role in Washington to help pave the way for the agreement. Bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and nine smaller European countries look promising. These nine nations - Iceland. Norway, Sweden. Denmark. Finland. Belgium, Luxembourg. Austria and Switzerland - are home to seven passenger airlines, four charter carriers and several cargo carriers. The MAC is contacting selected carriers that are most likely to be interested in serving MSP. The MAC also is develop- ing proposals for foreign flag carriers from the larger European countries. In 1994, passenger and cargo air carriers transported 378,E 0 metric tons of cargo �1 Ip Nlow- j "A" a 7'Y1 07�6r In r "-A r6b "17 AN elm il L j Al. l Ci . ....... .. .. .... . . .. . ..... . .. . . . ..... .. ... ...... . ........ . ......... joo .............. .. ... .... . .. ... T, .............. .. . . ............ . ... ....... . ......... ... through MSP. an increase of 1S percent- s tree to import goods. provide value-added improvements or service Of that, 61,000 metric [ons were shipped [ and export them within the Federal Trade Zone while delaying or to international destinations. avoiding import duties. Recent MAC decisions that will As part of the international marketing plan. MAC has hired a increase global accessinclude: cargo marketing specialist, participated in air cargo trade shows, •Conversion of at least four gates in produced a brochure on the advantages of MSP as America's MSP's Lindbergh Terminal to accommo- North Coast Gateway," and hosted a symposium for Twin Cities date international arrivals. business, government and trade officials about the potential for • Adding federal Customs. Immigration .`• additional cargo service. and agricultural inspection facilities at Already. 17 non -hub airports have indicated a strong interest the Lindbergh Terminal. in using MSP as a one-stop cargo gateway to Europe. Asia or both. • Expanding the Humphrey Terminal to The MAC and Northwest Airlines have met with officials from five handle additional charter flights. of them: Kansas City. Edmonton, las Vegas, Hartford. Conn., and • Extension of the cross -wind runway Baltimore, Md. All of these airports serve major cities but lack to permit fully loaded, wide-body air- i direct international flights either to Europe or Asia. craft to take off in all weather condi- The MAC is gathering information on each of the 17 air - tions for nonstop flights to Europe and ports, including the amount of international cargo. type of cargo. Asia most frequently requested destinations, and whether local shippers These investments will be there will organize and create local demand for one-stop interna - financed through a combination of fed- tional service through MSP. eral funds. passenger facilities St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) also is the subject of an charges and other airport user fees intensive marketing effort Since 1981. the NL4C has spent more (leases, concessions and other than $20 million on improvements at STP. Regent Aviation reports charges). that these efforts increased transient corporate aircraft traffic by 25 And, the entire MSP airport percent in 1993 as compared to the previous year- Among the mar - has been designated a Foreign keting efforts is a 30 -minute video magazine featuring improve - Trade Zone. Using the Foreign [ ments at STP and aired over Channel 6. the Twin Cities regional Trade Zone status. businesses are cable television station. " y Higher air fares, as well as previous studies in 1990 and 1986. Changes in the methodology increased passenger and freight account for part of the differences in the comparative numbers. ��fErd activity, produced sharp increases € Martin Associates, which conducted all three studies. has in the number of jobs, revenue i used the same methodology to estimate the economic impacts of a and [axes generated by dozen other major U.S. airports. Data is obtained from interviews Minneapolis -St. Paul and statistical reports. It includes effects of airport construction International Airport in 1994. and expansion; changes in passenger levels, passenger characteris- MSP's economic impact in tics and cargo volumes; spending profiles of visitors and other eco - 1994 was significantly larger [ nomic factors. - than the impacts reported from 1986 1990 1994 Jobs On and Off the Airport 73.000 84.000 113.000 Revenue into Economy $1.96 billion $2.5 billion $5.5 billion State and Local Taxes Generated $157 million $208 million - $382 million Total Operations (Takeoffs and landings) 389,000 380,000 455.000 Total Passengers 17.1 million 19.2 million 23.1 million lMETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOISE'y, _GLYCOL" RE'MEDI'ATION _ TOP,.`;ENVIR'ONMENTAL ISSUES "What am I bid?" Auctions were held in the spring of 1994 not for fine art or antiques or machin- ery, but for houses next to two runways at Minneapolis/St Paul International Airport. They were part of the MAC's aircraft ise abatement program. Nearly rov nomes in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods of Richfield were purchased by the MAC in 1994 and 24 of them were offered at auction. New owners were required to move the homes. Money raised by the auctions was used to offset the cost of acquiring and demolishing homes and other structures in the designated area. The housing buyout program is funded by an initial $12 million grant from the Federal Aviation Administration and $3 million in MAC funds. The total program is expected to cost approximately $55 million; the MAC anticipates additional federal grants to complete the buyout. Acquisition and demolition will con- tinue at a rate consistent with the availability of federal funds. For 1995, the INUC estimates that S7.2 million will be available. Priority is given to homes in northwestern New Ford Town closest to a runway, and the buyouts proceed block -by -block to the southwest Special priority is given to homeowners who must sell quickly for medical. job or relocation purposes. Home values range from $60.000 to S100,000, as determined by the price of similar homes sold in similar neighborhoods. Other airport neighbors may be eligible for the MAC's home insulation program. A total of 1,043 homes in south Minneapolis. .6Richfield. Z Bloomington. a' Eagan and Mendota Heights have received 63rd St. t sound insulation 6" s.. 63th St. by since the program 66th St. '9c started in 1992. iaa s About 8,900 more ;v a homes near MSP i& are scheduled to be insulated at no cost ' ren S..InnR to the homeowners i C..." the program ends in 2002.' Homeowners ww participating in the insulation program New Ford Town and Rich Acres report that the ®METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION quality of living in their homes _ has improved. Up to 92 per- cent report improved quiet _ for typical home activities Nf such as talking on the phone, listening to radio or television, sleeping and relaxing. The homes receive _ improvements including _ window reconditioning, exterior acoustical win- _ dows, wall and attic insu- lation. storm door or primary outside door replacement, vent baf- fling, central air condi- tioning (if needed) and forced air fur- naces ('d needed to replace gravity flow furnaces). The aver- age cost per home has declined from about $22.000 in the first year to about 515,000 in 1994. About 80 percent of the cost is paid from federal funds, and about 20 percent is paid by the NWC. The airlines also are working to reduce noise. The FAA requires that two-thirds of every airline's aircraft fleet must be quieter, Stage BI planes by the end of 1996 and all commercial air- craft must meet that criteria by the ead of the decade. Northwest Airlines began retrofitting its older, noisier DC9- 30 jetliners in 1994. The fust jetliners to be overhauled with engine muffling, new flight systems and interiors reentered service begin- ning in the spring of 1995. All 40 jetliners scheduled for the "hush kit" treatment will be in service by the end of 1995. This will bring i one-third of Northwest's DC9 fleet into compliance with the new federal standards. The remainder will be completed by 1999. Forty percent of all aircraft operating at MSP now meet Stage III requirements. Noise is not the only environmental area where the M. C can report progress. Because MSP includes large impervious areas such as runways and parking facilities, storm water runoff into the Minnesota River must be controlled. Runoff from MSP contains i total suspended solids (TSS) very similar to conventional urban runoff, glycol (used to de-ice aircraft) and urea (used to control snow and' on airport runways). 11� I, e The major concern for storm water runoff is that it can stifle oxygen in rivers. Water samples from the Minnesota River during the 1993-94 winter sea- son showed that airport runoff had very little impact on dissolved fxygen levels. NUIC will conduct extensive river water quality mon- itoring, analysis and modeling over the coming years. Results of this study will allow the MAC to evaluate its ongoing storm water runoff control programs to see if enhancements are needed. The NLAC continues to control glycol runoff. De-icing is an important safety precaution required by the F..kA and conducted by the airlines or fixed base operators. The airlines, not the MAC, are responsible for de-icing operations. Pure glycol or a glycol/water fixture is sprayed on aircraft when necessary during the winter to prevent ice or snow buildup. The fluid is similar to automobile antifreeze. De-icing is conducted at gates or ramp areas shortly before an aircraft takes off. The MAC reached its goal in 1994 of reducing the amount of glycol runoff reaching the Minnesota River by half, as compared to 1992-93 levels. This was accomplished by collecting the fluid mixture in storm sewers and transporting it to holding ponds. "There it is grad- ually released into the sanitary sewer for treatment by the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Treatment'Services. The esti mated cost of glycol containment, monitoring and reporting is million over two years. By 1996, the MAC will consider other control options, includ. ing on-site treatment by a glycol recovery/recvcliu, facility. Snow and ice control chemicals are the R'inml-most aieniti- cant material detected in storm water runoff. after glycol. The %LLC uses 600 to 1,000 tons of urea each Year to control snow and ice. Urea is used because salt is too corrosive for aircraft surfaces and engines. Starting in 1995. the MAC will test alternate materials such as liquid potassium acetate. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION lad UWE I The'vL:%C system of six reliever airports accommodates more than 900.000 general aviation takeoffs and landings each year. Just 5 percent of general aviation operations occur at NISP. Vlore than half of the general aviation traffic at \dSP consists of corporate aircraft which are compatible with airline operations. The other six airports "relieve" NISP of slower and smaller aircraft providing a compatible mix of aircraft at our largest air- port That is one reason MSP has been cited as one of the five safest airports in the world by the International Airline Pilots Association. The MAC system of airports, together with South St. Paul Municipal Airport serves nearly half of the 5,500 licensed gener- al aviation aircraft in the state — as well as substantial amounts of transient traffic. The other half is served by 138 airports elsewhere in the state. MAC system of airports \ D ` METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ACTIVITY STATISTICS FOR MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1990-1994 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE RELIEVER AIRPORTS 1990-1994 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Total Passengers' 23,164,874 22,070,715 21,407,415 19,336,533 19,167,427 Aircraft Operations -I 454,723 439,990 413,502 382,017 379,785 Mail and Cargo Volumes 378,240 320,893 302,201 272,328 266,824 (metric tons) 179,546 173,150 189,910 Anoka County/Blaine Airport (est) Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission Activity Report. 195,650 195,650 195,650 215,000 1-Aircrah operations represents the total number of takeoffs and landings at the airport. 71,000 69,950 69,950 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE RELIEVER AIRPORTS 1990-1994 Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission Activity Report. 1-Aircrah operations represents the total number of takeoffs and landings at the airports. REVENUES Ex *Airports' passenger counts vary in definition and type. The passengers reported above are revenue origination and destination (0 8 D) passengers and connectingg passengers only. Non -revenue passengers are not included. In addifion, 1,376,434 non -revenue passengers passed through the MSP terminal in 1994. These are airline employees returning to their home airports from the termination point of their Bights, or em loyms and/or their families traveling on free passes as pan of the benefits provided to employees. Because Northwest is based in the Twin Cities and has 18,000 employees here, MSP has a higher number of non -revenue passengers than airports that do not have a high concentration of airline employees. Many international magazines use total passengers (revenue and non -revenue( to rank airports. The total passengers at MSP in 1994 were 24.5 million, which on that basis, ranked MSP as the 15th busiest airport nationally, and the 20th busiest in the world. At MSP in 1994, A8 percent of the revenue passengers originated or completed their trip at MSP, and 52 percent connected to other Bights. MSP, as a major Northwest Airlines hub, has a higher percentage of connecting passengers than non -bub, Q METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 St. Paul Downtown Airport 145,834 132,531 152,378 168,450 190,333 Flying Cloud Airport 238,838 218,745 198,306 186,496 227,408 Crystal Airport 185,991 183,554 179,546 173,150 189,910 Anoka County/Blaine Airport (est) 199,000 195,650 195,650 195,650 215,000 Lake Elmo Airport (est) 71,000 69,950 69,950 69,950 66,950 AirLake Airport lest) 82,500 81,087 81,087 74,745 67,980 Total Aircraft Operations at the Reliever Airports -1 923,163 881,517 876,917 868,441 957,581 Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission Activity Report. 1-Aircrah operations represents the total number of takeoffs and landings at the airports. REVENUES Ex *Airports' passenger counts vary in definition and type. The passengers reported above are revenue origination and destination (0 8 D) passengers and connectingg passengers only. Non -revenue passengers are not included. In addifion, 1,376,434 non -revenue passengers passed through the MSP terminal in 1994. These are airline employees returning to their home airports from the termination point of their Bights, or em loyms and/or their families traveling on free passes as pan of the benefits provided to employees. Because Northwest is based in the Twin Cities and has 18,000 employees here, MSP has a higher number of non -revenue passengers than airports that do not have a high concentration of airline employees. Many international magazines use total passengers (revenue and non -revenue( to rank airports. The total passengers at MSP in 1994 were 24.5 million, which on that basis, ranked MSP as the 15th busiest airport nationally, and the 20th busiest in the world. At MSP in 1994, A8 percent of the revenue passengers originated or completed their trip at MSP, and 52 percent connected to other Bights. MSP, as a major Northwest Airlines hub, has a higher percentage of connecting passengers than non -bub, Q METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1990-1994 lin thousands of dollars) Traffic $ 23,770 Concessions 35,097 Rentals 15,131 Other 2,395 Total Operating Revenues 76,393 Add: Interest Income 41,776 PFC Revenue 28,472 Gain an Sale of Building 448 Total Revenues $147,089 Source: Audit reports for the last five years. TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 1990-1994-1 lin thousands of dollars) 1993 $ 21,082 32,626 14,915 2,506 71,129 40,572 28,596 $140,297 1993 $22,739 966 4,984 4,974 5,809 7,406 19,258 352 66,488 34,812 $101,300 1992 $ 19,634 28,882 14,228 2,603 65,347 34,238 14,607 $114,192 1992 $22,308 923 4,813 4,412 5,907 7,088 17,976 0 63,427 27,544 $90,971 1991 $18,481 26,405 13,348 2,205 60,439 15,838 $76,277 1991 $21,168 668 3,731 3,665 5,581 7,003 16,214 276 58,306 9,430 $67,736 N)EjyE1 $16,176 26,206 12,330 2,233 56,945 15,744 $72,689 1990 $19,153 715 3,043 4,070 5,074 6,763 14,662 566 54,046 7,943 $61,989 06 Printed on recycled paper containing 50 percent recycled fibers and 10 percent post -consumer waste. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 1994 Personnel $ 23,293 Administrative Supplies and Expenses 839 Professional Services 4,681 Utilities 5,287 Operating Services 7,995 Maintenance 6,743 Depreciation 21,048 Other 289 Total Operating Expenses 70,175 Add: interest Expense -2 34,018 Total Expenses $104,193 Source: Audit reports for the lost fire years. 1 -Figures for.1990 and 1991 have been adjusted to reflect reclassification of leases. 2 -Interest Expense is net of capitalized interest. A full financial statement is available on request 1993 $ 21,082 32,626 14,915 2,506 71,129 40,572 28,596 $140,297 1993 $22,739 966 4,984 4,974 5,809 7,406 19,258 352 66,488 34,812 $101,300 1992 $ 19,634 28,882 14,228 2,603 65,347 34,238 14,607 $114,192 1992 $22,308 923 4,813 4,412 5,907 7,088 17,976 0 63,427 27,544 $90,971 1991 $18,481 26,405 13,348 2,205 60,439 15,838 $76,277 1991 $21,168 668 3,731 3,665 5,581 7,003 16,214 276 58,306 9,430 $67,736 N)EjyE1 $16,176 26,206 12,330 2,233 56,945 15,744 $72,689 1990 $19,153 715 3,043 4,070 5,074 6,763 14,662 566 54,046 7,943 $61,989 06 Printed on recycled paper containing 50 percent recycled fibers and 10 percent post -consumer waste. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1995 ALL OF MINNESOTA HAS A VOICE IN THE FUTURE OF AVIATION HERE A unique form of government for the Twin Cities International Airport and Its regional airport, systema come, from through. out the Twin Cities, the suburbs and the entire slate of Minnesota. These are the citlrene who make up the Metropolitan Airports Com. mission — an -aviation governmeml" that has served the airport, here for 00 years. Commissioner, are appointed by the Governor and by the mayors of Minneapolis and 9t Paul. They are selected from within the seven -county metropolitan area districts and from statewide lova. tions to serve all the people of Minnesota and to help stimulate the economy through worldwide commercial and private evisitan. Your commisalonera work with the Metropolitan Airports Commis. alon staff of professionals to provide safe, reliable transportation and passenger convenience. �l .� Da -Ar Deal T. Johnson Nlek Mancini Maple eGrict A DistrictB Cityof9t Pad Maple Glove Wayants 9L Paot METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MEMO —city of eagan TO: ALL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 SUBJECT: CITY GOALS At a special work session held on July 18, the City Council completed its review of Council, Administrator and staff goals for the next twelve months. Attached is a copy of a recap of the consolidated City goal list. Also attached is a line - item list of Council goals, the Administrator's goals and staff goals as referenced in the attached memo. We continue to become more strategic in our organizational planning efforts. As we approach comprehensive land use planning, five to ten year financial operational planning, as well as preparing capital improvements budgets, the Council goals are an integral part of getting work programs developed by advisory commissions, C�"IA&2 SIP. City Administrator Attachments TLH/vmd cc: Community Development Director Reichert Parks & Recreation Director Vraa Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein Communications/Recycling Coordinator Foote has liin4 �I.S Y... �y _ city of -eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: AUGUST 25, 1995 SUBJECT: CITY GOALS MEMO At a special work session on July 18, the City Council completed its review of Council, Administrator and Staff goals for the coming year. There were many common priorities among the lists for each and many of them rose to the top of the Council's goal list. What follows is a recap of the consolidated City Goal list. 1. Improve Local Government Efficiency and Image Appoint Charter Commission Define a Community Vision - Enhance Public Relations 2. Complete Capital Building Projects Police/City Hall Expansion - Civic Arena 3. Complete Fre Department Space Needs Analysis Administration Training Fire Station 4. Community and Park Development Central Area Development Community Center Ring Road Park Referendum Municipal Goff Course Second Ice Sheet 5. 0% Tax Rate Change - If Tax Capacity Permits, Lower Rate Complete 1996-2000 Capital Improvements Program a� COUNCIL GOALS Successfully Complete Major City Construction Projects - 5 0% Tax Rate Increase in 1996 - 4 Resolve Central Area/Ring Road/Downtown Park/Community Center - a Form Park Referendum Question for Fall 1996 - 3 - Park Construction and Acquisition - 3 - Art Park - 3 Establish Charter Commission/Form Question for 1996 Ballot - 3 Fund and Begin Boulevard Tree Planting Program - 2 Define Community Vision - 2 Adopt Airport Dual Track Position - 2 Explore Municipal Golf Course - 2 Enhance Local Communications/Public Relations - 2 Increase Youth Involvement - 1 Implement Needs for Fire Administration Space - 1 Build Second Ice Arena - 1 Improvements in Parks Program - 1 Improvements in Public Works Program - 1 Dismantle Fiscal Disparities - 1 Review Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Policy : 1 Begin Organized Waste Collection - 1 Streamline Development Process/Reevaluate Ordinances - 1 Update Capital Improvements Programming Initiate Hwy 55/149 Transportation/Redevelopment Plan - 1 Cable Issues/Local Access/Franchise Renewal/New Technologies - 1 STAFF GOALS 1. Improve Local Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Review Options and Incentives for Improved Service Delivery - Reformat City Code and Codification Process - Adjust Development Review Timelines to Conform with State Law - Continue Problem Oriented Policing - Review Police Report Writing Procedures - Conduct Special Enforcement Activities (Curfew, Alcohol, etc.) - Multi -Housing Crime Free Program - Acquire and Equip Emergency Support Vehicle - Acquire Fire Prevention Safety Trailer - Refine Government Buildings Maintenance and Management - Coordinate APRNRC Subcommittees - Review Staffing and Fill Positions in Finance, Community Development and Public Works 2. Improve Public Communications and Define Community Direction - Adopt Comprehensive Communications Plan - Complete One Year City Council Goals - Initiate Citizen Police Academy - Continue Safe and Sober Enforcement Program 3. Complete Capital Building Projects Police/City Hall Expansion Civic Arena Fire Department Facilities 4. Community and Environmental Improvements - Consider Golf Course Financing/Acquisition - Downtown/Opus Development Review - Prepare 1996 Parks Referendum - Coordinate Holz Farm Task Force - Develop Septic System Permit Process - Complete Water Supply & Distribution Plan U date - Prepare Water Conservation/ Emergency SupplyrLergy Audit Plan - Prepare Wellhead Protection Plan & Groundwater Model - Process Pedestrian Crosswalk Study and Policy for Council - Develop Borchert Ingersoll Property Enhance and Protect Natural Resources S. Manage Local Government Finances 1996 Budget Preparation 1996-2000 CIP Preparation Conduct Public Improvement Bond Sale (3o MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS C September 12, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Jens Vanderpoel and Lance Staricha. Also present were Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein, Commissioners Jim Mueller and Patrice Betaglla of Dakota County. Absent was Steve Soderfing. AGENDA Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, the agenda was approved as presented. All members voted in approval. Hohenstein Introduced Dakota County Commissioner Jim Mueller and stated that he was present to discuss the pending consideration by Dakota County of an airport position and Hohenstein suggested discussing New. Business first. . Schlax moved to discuss New Business before Approval of Minutes, seconded by White, all members voted In favor, except for Stadcha and Cooper who voted against. NEW BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein reviewed a memo that informed the commission of the activities of the citizen's lobbying group SOAR and their efforts to prevent airport relocation, as well as the push by Dakota County Commissioner Harris to pass a resolution for the County to oppose relocation of the airport. He stated that the presentation to the County was not shown as an action item but, based upon It, commissioners will be considering taking a position on the dual track planning process in the near future. It was determined that It would be continued to the next Dakota County Board's Physical Development Committee meeting In September. Then, depending on their action, it will go before the County Board. Since the commission Is reviewing a dual track position We not anticipated that the City Council will be taking a position until sometime in December. As a consequence, the action by the County is premature to that time frame. The issue before the group is to provide Input to that decision making process. $chlax stated that this seemed to come out of the blue and asked Mr. Mueller to give background on how this came to be so quickly. Mr. Mueller stated that he believes Mr. Harris was approached by SOAR and the pressure was put on him so he went ahead with it. Mr. Mueller stated that he's before the commission to get their Input. Cooper asked Mr. Mueller if this was a result of the article In the This Week newspaper concerning the Dakota Board getting Involved in the selection of the airport. Mr. Mueller responded that he was not aware that it was. Hohenstein stated the first Issue before the commission was whether to take a position at all in this regard. The second question is if they do, what form should that position be in since the commission is still In the process of forming a recommendation to the City Council. ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 2 White stated that Its Important to survey the citizens to find out what they think. They need to educate the public about the actual affects of the airport to surrounding areas. The process needs to be slowed down; it seems like it's being railroaded through. He asked Hohenstein how other cities are developing their positions and whether ti's feasible for the commission to recommend a position to the City Council before they have finished the planning process. Hohenstein stated that there are a number of cities in the some position as Eagan, particularly Inver Grove Heights, who are considering their position in the same time frame. Other cities who are not as severely Impacted have not been as active in the process but could potentially be affected If a north/south runway were added or a third parallel were added at some point In the future. Hastings and surrounding townships have supported SOAR, as well as the city of Rosemount. Those cities who He between the two options see benefits both ways and are considering recommendations. White asked how appropriate it would be for the commission to make a recommendation at this stage. Hohenstein responded that It depends on what the recommendation Is. The City is not in a position to make an Informed policy decision on a track, consequently, the commission is not in a position to say absolutely yes or no as to relocation of the airport. The options the commission could consider are listed in the memo on pages 90 through 92 of the packet and the commission could choose any of those options as a recommendation to the County. Monson stated that the commission reports directly to the Council and that if the County has something they want to look Into they should be talking to the City Council after the commisslon makes their recommendation to the Council. She questioned why the County came to the commission asking for direction and that the Information provided is not complete. She asked why the commission should make a decision on this now while they're working on their own proposal. Todd replied that the County is not coming to the commission with a proposal. They are saying that they are considering a stand and want the input of cities to help them make a decision. Cooper referred to pages 91 and 92 and stated that a combination of number 3 - encourage the County to hold public hearings, conduct public opinion survey research or use other means to engage all potentially affected residents about the issue, and 4 - request that the County's decision be delayed until the City's position is determined, would be good options. Hohenstein stated that Dakota County is not going out soliciting cities' positions. The cities went to the County and asked them to allow them to give the County input before they made a decision. The commission would make a recommendation to the Council, then it would be modified or ratified by the Council and they, in tum, would make a recommendation to the County. Monson stated that it also seems to be written in a way of persuasion rather than fact finding. Hohenstein responded that the memo includes reasons Mr. Harris made for making a decision now and, in particular, making that decision to oppose the airport. What follows is a staff review of each of those reasons. It's not Mr. Hams' support of those reasons, in many cases it's evidence opposing. Hohenstein displayed overheads showing impacted areas for both relocation of the airport and expansion of the airport. The cities of Apple Valley, Mendota Heights, Ulydale, Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota, South St. Paul and W. St. Paul are closer to an expansion of MSP than they would be to a relocated site. The cities of Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville and Rosemount would be divided but the more populous portions are closer to MSP than not. The cities of Hastings, Farmington and townships would be closer to the relocated airport. Monson stated that these are 1994 estimates. She asked when the new airport would be built. Hohenstein replied around 2010 or so. Monson stated that expansion of the airport would be sooner and a new airport many years away, consequently, that could affect those figures. Hohenstein stated that more than 80% of the county's population is closer to one than the other. Cooper stated that the crux of what the commission does Is to influence the Dakota County Commissioners and the commisison should be Informing them of what they are doing. He continued that ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 3 MASAC Is always saying that Minneapolis is more densely populated so they should be getting noise mitigation. This is the point of the discussion, if the airport Is relocated, the County could take the steps necessary to Isolate the areas of growth and put them in areas where residents will not be Impacted by the airport. Hohenstein Introduced Dakota County Commissioner Patrice Bataglia. Ms. Batag0a asked for clarification on whether this commission does not have a position but the Council does. Todd replied that the commission will make a recommendation to the City Council In regard to this Issue and they will make the final recommendation. Ms. Bataglia stated that approximately two months ago Mr. Harris put the County Board on notice that he thought that the County Board should take a position this year on the dual track process. She stated that she was surprised that the issue was presented recently at a Board meeting. She stated at that point she contacted Mendota Heights and Eagan to notify them of this Issue. She said that she is very disappointed in the fast track that Is proposed for the County and for the cities in the northern portion of the County. She stated she is also disappointed that a citizen group and a commissioner would request that the County, who are to represent the County's best Interest as a whole, would consider providing funding for a private intereste group through taxes. Governmental groups such as the County should not be funding citizen groups and she stated she will vote against such a measure. Ms. Bataglia emphasized that she Is not at the meeting to force a recommendation. Vanderpool asked Ms. Bataglia that when she is talking about funding for SOAR or Mr. Harris' resolution, isn't SOAR currently funded by the County? Ms. BatagOa responded that the funding for SOAR is to partner with them in contract. The resolution as prepared stated that "now, therefore be it resolved, that Dakota County Board of Commissioners directs staff to prepare the,September 26, 1995 Physical Development Committee of the Whole meeting appropriate agenda items that will establish the board's opposition to the relocation of any new major International airport to Dakota County, establish the Board's opposition to land banking or any type of site preservation that would make possible at some future date the relocation of any new major international airport to Dakota County and to make clear Dakota County's support for Northam Dakota County cities in their demand for noise impact mitigation" and also 94 "consider use of existing funds to contract with SOAR to forward the County's position on the dual track airport planning process.w She stated that Hastings has already voted to combine and contract with SOAR for lobbying. The County's position should not be to partner with special interest groups. She stated that Met Council and the legislature will be addressing this issue making decisions based on six years of study. What does that mean to the County commissioners and advisory commissions on airport issues? What do we base our decision on? All the criteria that has been studied is for the best future for the state of Minnesota, not just Dakota County or Eagan. For instance, the current Mlnneapo0s/St. Paul Airport has 3,000 acres and the proposed site is 14,000 acres; the new airport In Denver has 40,000 acres. That doesn't mean it can't be done where We at but what is the criteria for that decision. We're looking at the future of Minnesota and where it fits into the world as a global economy. There are other options but this is one Issue that we have to give consideration to. because of the amount of money and time professionals have expended and we need to base our decision on facts and findings of fact. Schlax stated that the draft informational impact study that the commission has been waiting for Is due in November and the economic study due in December. There are five or six major source documents that aren't available to anyone. Why is Dakota County trying to make these decisions In this vacuum at this time? If a decision is made can It be reconsidered at a future time? Ms. Bataglia stated that she can'tspeak for other commissioners but that Mr. Harris stated that he's ready now and has been for some time. Whether he votes today and/or in December, he will not change his mind. One of the commissioners stated that he knew exactly how he would vote but he would like an open process to Osten to communities. Schlax stated that these discussions need to take place and the whole process at the County is premature and should be delayed for two or three months. Vanderpool asked Ms. Bataglia how the County has been preparing to make a decision on the dual track planning process so far? Ms. Bataglia responded that Mr. Harris sits in on all the airport ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 4 commission meetings and he works with the SOAR group so he has been prepared. The County Board has not spent any kind of committee or meeting time preparing for a decision. She stated that the remaining commissioners are knowledgeable and have been Informed as to pros and cons and impacts but are not really prepared for such a decision. Vanderpoel stated that the County Board must have assumed it would take one side or the other on the recommendations. Ms. Batagria responded that this is true. Vanderpoel continued that if Its clear that most of the residents of Dakota County, in terms of population, would be negatively affected by leaving the airport where it is rather than moving it to a new location, why do you think It Is that Mr. Harris would win on his resolution? Ms. Betaglia responded that when you say the majority of residents are negatively Impacted by the airport, perhaps by noise or being in close proximity to the airport. There are those who like the airport where its located and want to keep it there. In terms of comrnissioners and how they vote on a particular Issue, this has to do with their beliefs and familiarity with the Issues. Cooper motioned to advise the City Council to consider # 3 - encourage the County to hold public hearings, conduct public opinion survey research or use other means to engage all potentially affected residents about the Issue and # 4 - request that the County's decision be delayed until the City's position Is determined. Vanderpoel seconded. Stedche stated that this is too drastic a motion and is not sure the commission is in a position to dictate to the County what they should do. We should encourage them not to make a decision at this time and let the commission keep them Informed. Schlax stated that the language should be even stronger. He stated that all of the positions should be considered with the exception of numbers 1 and 5. Stadcha suggested amending the motion to include all item numbers except 1, 5 and 7. He also suggested that on number 3 that the County educate not only itself and commissioners but also people who are affected before they go ahead and take a public opinion survey. He stated that people in Burnsville will not react the same without additional information on new runways that may affect them. Second was made by Schlax. The amended motion reads as follows: The commission will advise the City Council to consider all items on the fist except for numbers 1, 5 and 7 and add on as number 12 - educating the County, commissioners and cities on the dual track planning process. All members voted in favor of the amendment and the motion. Todd stated the commission may want to take a position as to whether to support the funding of SOAR. Staricha motioned that the commission advise the City Council to Include in Its recommendation to the County that for the County consider funding to the SOAR group is premature at this time, second was made by Vanderpoel. White stated that as far as this being premature he would agree with that. He stated he has an ethical issue with that because It is inappropriate for the County to fund lobbying efforts in this manner. Its as if SOAR is lobbying the residents of Dakota County to change opinions. Schlax asked If in regard to the Norther Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition there would be an advantage if the County funded SOAR they would have to fund this too. The commission could demand the same type of funding for this group. Hohenstein responded that the main question before the commission is whether they want to see equal funding. Should the County be contracting with a private agency at all? There are two issues, ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 5 whether the County should be doing it at all and equal treatment for all. Vanderpoel stated that it would be highly Inappropriate and unusual for the County to enter Into a contract lobbying arrangement with a special interest group. The County already spends an enormous amount of money for lobbying. She stated that the commission needs to take a strong position against this. If the County should decide to proceed with this they should open up an equal amount of funding for other groups. Ms. Batagfia commented that the use of funds for SOAR will be a separate decision. If the County should support the funding of SOAR, that would not guarantee or ensure an equal chance for funding for other agencies. Schlax stated that this Is a very parochial Issue - everyone has their own vested Interest in this. If you start looking at the global Issue, it affects the County and it may end up becoming a north/south Issue. Hohenstein stated that Ms. Bataglia's point is that of having a broader perspective of a wide variety of criteria. He went on to explain how the commission started out on a broad scale and narrowed these down. Stadcha withdrew the motion. White made a motion that the City take opposition to disposition of funds to support SOAR and that if that should occur that equal funds be distributed to groups with a@emative positions as stated In number 6. Second was made by Schlax. All members voted in favor. White thanked Ms. Bategtia for standing up against this and encouraged her to continue. He stated that her comment that it's a global issue was looked at by the commission and it is also a local Issue. Ms. Bataglia said that her statement about a global Issue was the reason the dual track process was begun. It was party noise, party the increase in air traffic and knowing that If we don't expand beyond where we are today, they are all relevant to each other. She stated she appreciates the work the commission Is doing and would like to be kept informed about the decisions the commission makes. Hohenstein stated that there is a public hearing for the City's position scheduled for November 15 and Commissioners Mueller and Bataglia will be notified of the meeting. Monson stated that whether a decision Is made to build a new airport or expansion of the old one, SOAR has been around for a long time. Schlax asked whether the commission would have a plan of action for the public hearing and if they will be making a formal presentation. Hohenstein stated that it depends on the action the City Council takes at its next meeting. as presented. MINUTES Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Monson, the August 8,1995 minutes were approved VISITORS TO BE HEARD Hohenstein stated that Dick Reid was present and is staying in touch with the process and ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page6 what it means to his neighborhood. DISCUSSION - LEGISLATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AIRCRAFT NOISE AND OPERATIONS CONCERNS Hohenstein stated that these meetings held June 26 and August 16 and coordinated by Senator Wlener's office, were held for residents of noise affected neighborhoods. It was an opportunity for residents to provide input with legislative representatives present at the meetings. The outcome of that meeting was to encourage those residents having concerns to channel them through this group so that there would be official recommendations to the City Council rather than individual neighborhoods bringing forward Initiatives. Todd questioned why the memo from the MAC did not cover corridor compliance for the two week period the commission asked fort Hohensteln replied that reports were incomplete and that this was due to the network problems the ANOMS was experiencing. Todd stated that the commission members believe there was a difference in corridor compliance during this two week period and would like that data when it becomes available. Schlax stated that the presentations Mr. Foggia and Mr. Hamlel gave were informative but Schlax said that he would Oke to see them back again when there could be more interaction between them and the citizens. He continued that he would like to see the legislative representatives present at those meetings also. Hohenstein stated that the fundamental issue that came out that evening were that there are contrary opinions with respect to extending the corridor. If that's the issue to be pursued than it should be the same educational process that we've encouraged others to do. This may not happen regardless of what the outcome may be because the FAA Is against this procedure. Schlax stated that there are Issues that the legislative representatives would be an Ideal forum for citizen Input. White stated that perhaps preparing an agenda offering some of the mitigation options discussed here. He suggested Inviting Representative Commers. Hohenstein stated that Representative Commers has been in touch with the process but could not attend the meetings because of a conflict. Todd stated that the Current Operations Committee could put legislative representatives an the agenda and have It open to the public. Monson stated that people should be Involved by calling the commissioners and representatives to let them know how they feel. Public input is very important. Hohenstein stated that the Current Operations Committee at their next meeting could start to frame some Ideas to discuss with the legislative delegation at future meetings. Schlax made a motion to submit to the Current Operations Committee as an agenda Item to set a date for another meeting with the legislative delegation, seconded by Stadcha. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein said that the Economic Development Commission was briefed on the dual track airport planning process on September 22. They will be providing feedback to staff and having a full ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 7 discussion at their October meeting. They are Interested in being part of a public hearing process before making a final recommendation in November. The Advisory Planning Commission will be meeting In a workshop and will receive a similar briefing. They will have a full discussion at their workshop in October. Hohenstein thanked commission members for their Input and Commission member Schlax for his assistance in preparing the draft document. Hohensteln referred the commission, to pages IV -31 and IV -32 which includes an outline of issues raised by communities with respect to the economic Impact analysis the commission is looking forward to. The focus of the study relates to the cost of the airport itself. Hohenstein asked Schlax to comment on this draft. Schlax stated that he had comments/additions to the packet - three things he thought the commission needed out of this 1) a reading file for public - he distributed a packet of information he prepared that condensed the Information received by the commission, 2) an executive summary and 3) mitigation factors discussed. Schlax continued that he will not be available for the next Long Term Committee meeting or the Dakota County meeting, he asked that someone take over as spokesman. Hohenstein stated that he would take over as to taking down comments but would like someone on the commission to facilitate in Schlax's absence. Cooper asked why Schlax put together such a large summary when the commission wanted to keep this as small as possible. Schlax replied that he wanted to give people background Information that would be readable by someone not Involved in the process. Todd commended Schlax on the good job he did In preparing this summary. There was discussion regarding Schlax's Draft Dual Track Proposal document. White pointed out that It may be necessary at a future time to do some additional editing and add more attachments to the document. Schlax stated that he has had some problem getting the Information he needed, particularly in reference to the remote runway Issue. He stated that he has gotten no response to his calls to the Metropolitan Airport Commission. Hohenstein stated he has also had problems getting Information from MAC. He said he has requested additional information from them but was not getting lt. White said that given that the commission has had. no luck in getting information from the MAC, Is ft possible its not being considered seriously? Hohenstein replied that the MAC hes Indicated it does not see this as a viable alternative. That should be referenced under strategic Issues. Its difficult to make lt a major issue when you cant get a lot of information about lt. COMMITTEE REPORTS The Current Operations Committee was scheduled to meet on Monday, September 25 at 5:30 p.m. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor— Hohenstein informed the commission that according to residents, there continues to be a problem with corridor compliance. Eastern Eagan neighborhoods continue to contact staff about perceived operational changes on a regular basis. There should be no operational changes without public Input but aircraft are getting away with things they always have, possibly more often. Not having good compliance data through the summer has had a negative effect. Todd asked if the commission will be getting that missing data once the system is working property. Hohenstein replied that they should get It but with this type of information, timeliness is an issue. Hohenstein stated that the commission may want to reiterate to the MAC desire for the data and Improved compliance. ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995 Page 8 B. Runway 4122 Extension - Mitigation Survey— Hohenstein stated that the Metropolitan Council has received only one proposal to do the mitigation survey and that will be sent to participating agencies. The costs appear to have come In substantially below what was expected. It's still necessary to review the document for content. The City Council was concerned about spending $20,000 for the survey. C. Sound Insulation Program Update— Hohensteln informed the commission that the City of Eagan will be able to insulate between 62 and 73 homes in the city in 1996. This will depend upon the MAC's total funding for their capital Improvements program. This should complete the Initial eligible areas. If not this year, at least by 1997. Ten homes that were not Included earlier in the year will be Included In 1996. D. MASAC Meeting of August 22, 1995— Hohensteln stated that the background on the meeting Is in the packet. He stated that there was a resident who attended the meeting who complained about air traffic over his home in Inver Grove Heights. Hohensteln said that the problem with his situation is that It's a less densely populated area. Air traffic was following appropriate flight patterns. E. Northam Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition— Hohensteln stated that there are two letters regarding departure profiles in the packet He said that a letter was sent to thank Mark Salmen for his presentation at the Current Operations Committee that explained more clearly our expectations and questions with respect to departure profile functions. Schlax commented that he thinks the Part 150 program has been a great success. Hohensteln stated that the commission may want to make recommendations in that regard now because funding for the program Is being considered. Cooper asked if the money comes from the MAC or the FAA. Hohensteln responded that it is financed by both agencies. The program itself is a federally funded grant program requiring matching funds from a local agency. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Monson, staff was directed to write a letter to MAC and the FAA to commend them on their efforts with the Part 150 program. White amended the motion to include a letter to the legislature to encourage continued funding of the Part 150 program. All members voted in favor. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary JEH