HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1995 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA
• REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BLACK HAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL
October 10, 1995
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A.' Dual Track Airport Planning Process
B. MSP Community Protection -Mitigation Program
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS
• VII. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Mitigation Survey
C. Sound Insulation Program Update
D. MASAC Meeting of September 26, 1995
E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
VIII. INFORMATIVE
IX. FUTURE AGENDA
X. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 14, 1995
CURRENT OPERATIONS COMM - 5:30 p.m. Monday, October 16, 1995
LONG TERM PLANNING COMM - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, October 19, 1995
NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, October 24, 1995
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs,
services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, 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
40
attempt to provide such aid.
U
MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: OCTOBER S, 1994
SUBJECT: EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 10
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday, October
10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the Black Hawk Middle School Multi -Purpose Room. Please contact
Jon Hobenstein at 6914603 if you will be unable to attend this meeting.
L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the Commission.
IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the September 12, 1995 meeting are enclosed on pages Cthrough 12for your
review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the Commission.
• HL VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Any visitors wishing to address items not on the Commission's agenda may do so at this time.
TV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—It will be necessary for the Commission to
review the most recent draft of the Commission findings and to consider additional information
relative to the dual track process. In particular, Item B of Old Business relates to the
Metropolitan Council's Community Protection - Mitigation Program which may be a part of the
mitigation aspect of the Commission's findings.
For additional background information, enclosed on pages /a through,[ is a passenger guide
for Denver International Airport. The concourse and terminal layout depicted in this brochure
is similar in concept to that being proposed for the relocated airport. Also enclosed on pages
J through -a is an article concerning airport relocation from the Star Tribune. This
article does an excellent job of delineating the pertinent regional issues associated with the
process. Enclosed, on pages J-.?— through .Ja is a Star Tribune article relative to Dakota
County's position opposing relocation and the article on pages z2L through A represents the
Eagan ThisWeek article. A copy of the Airport NOISE Report on pagespl.:3_ through -30
shows that all airlines have met the 1994 phase-out deadline for Stage 2 aircraft. The article
• discusses the targets necessary to reach the remaining interim deadlines and the 1999 deadline
I,
for an all -Stage 3 fleet. Also enclosed on page &31is an article from the Wall Street Journal
discussing off -shore airports. In the article, Northwest meteorologist, Tom Fahey, indicates that
a flat terrain would offer a smooth approach as compared to other land fors.
With that as background, enclosed without page number is the most recent draft of the dual track
findings which have been developed by the Long -ter Planning Committee. This will come
before the Commission for tentative adoption at its meeting of November 14 in anticipation of
the public hearing on November 15.
A final aspect of the findings would be a series of mitigation recommendations which have been
discussed in part by the Long -ter Planning Committee in the development of its review of
impacts. With respect to that, I would refer the Commission to the next business item concerning
protection and mitigation programs.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide interim feedback to the Long -
ter Planning Committee on the draft to date.
B. MSP Community Protection -Mitigation Program—Enclosed on pages-sathrough
�is the draft Community Protection Concept Package prepared by the Metropolitan Council
and MAC in concert with the cities immediately adjacent to MSP. The concept package would
be those elements necessary to mitigate the effects of the airport remaining at the current
location. The tools and techniques fall into four general categories: 1) community stabilization
techniques, 2) community revitalization approaches, 3) incentive programs and 4) airport
protection measures. It is anticipated that the package, if adopted by all affected communities,
would be presented to the Legislature concurrent with the dual track information to ensure that
the cost of mitigation would be considered more fully in the expansion and relocation decision.
As noted in the document, nothing about this information is intended to suggest that the
application of these tools would make expansion of the airport acceptable. It merely suggests
that tools would be necessary to begin to offset impacts in the broader impact area
These tools should be combined with recommendations regarding operations to for a complete
mitigation package for the City's position. In that regard, I would refer you to an airport noise
mitigation position prepared by the City of Mendota Heights which is enclosed on pages
��-F
through . It identifies eight specific operational requirements to go together with the
mitigation tools to improve the ability of the airport to coexist with its residential neighbors.
Other ideas raised by the Commission, including dedication pf operations to certain destinations
to specific runways, payments by the airport to noise -impacted communities, and other ideas
raised by the Commission and Committee in the past, could be inserted in this area
During the development of the document, the Committee has carefully separated the analysis of
impacts which makes up the body of the recommendation to date from a discussion of mitigation
which comes before the Commission this evening. I would encourage you to carefully review
the Mendota Heights position since it largely supports interests of the City of Eagan as well.
You may wish to revise certain aspects, but it is clearly different from previous positions by
Mendota Heights' organizations.
Ll
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) To endorse the Airport Area
Community Protection Concept Package developed by the Metropolitan Council and 2) to
recommend a mitigation package for inclusion in the dual track recommendation.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
There is no New Business to come before the Commission at this time.
VL COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Long-term Planning Committee's report is largely represented in the first item of Old
Business. The Current Operations Subcommittee which consisted of Lance Staricha on Monday
evening, September 25, prepared the report enclosed on page 5-0 as possible topics to be
discussed with the legislative delegation when they are invited to meet with the Commission in
December. The Committee's charge was to develop a list of items that the Legislature could
potentially impact on behalf of the communities. ,
VII. STAFF REPORTS
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor -Enclosed on page Vthrough Zis the corridor
gate penetration report for July and August showing 12.3% of all operations south of the corridor
in July and 13.2% of all operations south of the corridor in August. Also enclosed on pages
through -;&2is correspondence received from the FAA relative to a flight track observed
• by a resident on August 23. Lately, staff has actually been more successful in dealing directly
with the FAA on corridor compliance issues rather than going through the MAC.
B. Runway 4/22 Extension -Mitigation Survey -Staff will be meeting with the other
mediation representatives on Thursday, October 19, to interview the proposer for the mitigation
survey. Depending upon the final bid resulting from that meeting, staff will ask for Council
approval of Eagan's participation in the survey.
C. Sound Insulation Program Update -Staff anticipates distributing application materials
for 1996 Part 150 insulation opportunities. It appears that we will be able to finish the program
in 1996 or have only a few homes remaining in 1997.
D. MASAC Meeting of September 26, 1"5 --Enclosed on pages througb,&:V- are
excerpts from the Technical Advisor's Report for July and August 1995 which were the subject
of the most recent MASAC meeting. There were no other business items on the agenda at that
time.
E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalidon-Enclosed on pages ZQ through
rs the agenda from the most recent NDCARC meeting. The next meeting of the group will
be 6n Friday, October 13, at 7:30 A.M. at Inver Grove Heights. Committees and Councils from
all participating communities are invited to a presentation on geographic positioning satellite
technology to be given at the City of Mendota Heights on Wednesday evening, October 25, at
• 7:00 p.m. At its next meeting, the group will discuss requests for expanded MASAC
representation, a request to Dakota County for funding of other lobbying groups and the
mitigation package which was on the Commission's agenda for this evening.
VII. INFORMATIVE
Enclosed on pages & deev&_ is an article from the Airport NOISE Report regarding an
updated version of the Integrated Noise Model. Those of you with high-powered home
computers may wish to pick one up. The software seems reasonable; I'm sure that the cost of
input information will be a bit more expensive.
Staff received a series of questions from Commission member Jon White which may be
appropriate for further discussion or consideration on a future agenda In particular, Jon asked
whether a process exists in Minnesota to introduce an initiative or referendum on a policy issue
for the 1996 ballot. To my knowledge; very few political subdivisions in Minnesota have the
authority to place questions on a ballot in a manner similar to California or Colorado. I have
asked the City Attorney's office to provide a more definitive response to this issue. In addition,
Jon asked what role Commission members could play in debates concerning airport related or
unrelated issues. I do know the answer to this one. Nothing about your membership on a City
advisory commission prevents you from pursuing personal positions to organize citizens, write
letters to the editor, communicate with the City Council or others. The only qualification is that
when you act on behalf of your own interests, you may not imply that you are doing so in the
capacity of a City Commission member. You can only represent the Commission at the behest
of the Commission and you can only represent the community at the behest of the community.
Since the Commission is advisory to the City Council, you basically can only represent the •
Commission at the direction of the City Council. If in a presentation or letter to the editor you
wish to establish some credibility by indicating you are a member of the City's Airport Relations
Commission, you may do so, but it is essential that you make clear that you are representing your
own position unless you have the support of the Commission and Council to do more than that
This is a very important topic and I would be happy to discuss it further at Tuesday's meeting
or some future meeting. Jon also raised an issue relative to fair market value which may or may
not be discussed in the Community Protection -Mitigation discussion above. If any member of
the Commission wishes to discuss these matters more fully, they can be raised at Tuesday's
meeting or placed on a future agenda
Ais9tant to the City Administrator
Attachments
JDA/vmd
L�
0
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS
September 12, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 12,1995 at 7:00 p.rn Present were Pat Todd, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax, Jonathan
White, Jane Vanderpoel and Lance Staricha. Also present were Assistant to the City Administrator
Hohensteln, Commissioners Jim Mueller and Patrice Bataglia of Dakota County. Absent was Steve
Sodeding.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schley, the agenda was approved as presented.
All members voted In approval.
Hohensteln 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 Hohensteln
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—
Hohensteln reviewed a memo that informed the commission of the activities of the dozen'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 ne)d 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 It's 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 maldng process.
Sc lax 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 to he believes Mr. Harris was
approached by SOAR and the pressure was put on him so he went ahead with IL Mr. Mueller stated that
he's before the commission to get their Input.
Cooper asked Mr. Mueller 9 this was a result of the article In the This Week newspaper
concerning the Dakota Board getting lrrMved.ln the selection of the airport Mr. Mueller responded that
he was not aware that it was.
Hohensteln stated the first Issue before the commission was whether to take a position at
• all In this regard. The second question is 9 they do, what form should that position be in since the
commission Is stili In the process of forming a recommendation to the City Council.
ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995
Page 2
White stated that it's 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 Hohensteln how other cities are
developing their positions and whether it's feasible for the commission to recommend a position to the City
Council before they have finished the planning process.
Hohensteln stated that there are a number of cities In the same position as Eagan,
particularlyInver 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 B 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 Ile
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. Hohensteln 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 commission 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.
Hohensteln stated that Dakota County Is not going out sollciting cities' posmons. The cities
word 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, M 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. Hohensteln responded that the memo Includes
reasons Mr. Harris made for making a decision now and, In particular. making that decision to oppose the
airport Whet follows Is a staff review of each of those reasons. We not Mr. Harris' support of those
reasons. In many cases it's evidence opposing.
Hohensteln displayed overheads showing Impacted areas for both relocation of the airport
and expansion of the airport The cities of Apple Valley, Mendota Heights, L9ydaie, 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 bum. Hohensteln 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.
Hohensteln stated that more than 809(, 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 oommisison should be hrfonning them of what they are doing. He continued that
0
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
alrporL
Hohensteln Introduced Dakota County Commissioner Patrice Bstaglla. Ms. Batoglla asked
for clarification on whether this oommiasion 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 apprcodmately 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 Interests 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. Bateglia
emphasized that she Is not at the meeting to force a recommendation.
v
Vanderpool asked Ms. Battaglia that when she is talking about funding for SOAR or Mr.
Harris' resolution, Isn't SOAR currently funded by the County? Ms. Bataglia 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 213, 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 dear Dakota
County's support for Northern Dakota County cities in their demand for noise Impact mitigation' and also
#4 'consider use of existing funds to contract with SOAR to forward the County's position on the dual track
airport planning process.' 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 etatad 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 commissloners 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 Mlnneapolis/SL Paul Airport has
3,000 acres and the proposed site is 14,000 acres; the new airport In Deriver has 40,000 acres That doesn't
mean it can't be done where it's at but what is the criteria for do 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 Drat the draft Informational Impact studythat the commission fres 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 eva8eble 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 Batagila stated that
she cant speak for other commissloners but that Mr. Hams 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 tie would like an open process to listen
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 Bataglla responded that Mr. Harris sits In on all the airport
ARC Minutes/September 1$ 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 decisiorL 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. Vanderpool stated that the County Board must have assumed it would
take one sloe or the other on the recommendations. Ms. Bataglla responded that this Is true. Vanderpool
continued that I It's dear 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. Battaglia responded that when you say the
majority of residents are negatively Impacted by the airport, perhaps by noise or being In dose proximity
to the airport There are those who like the airport where I'a located and want to keep it there. In terms
of commissioners and how they vote on a partkx#ar 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 #r 4 - request that the County's decision be delayed until the City's
position Is determined. Vanderpool seconded.
Staricha 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 Wormed.
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 S.
Staricha suggested amending the motion to include all Rem 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
BumsMe 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 list 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
lime, second was made by Vanderpool.
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 fundlobbying efforts In this manner.
Ire as I SOAR is lobbying the residents of Dakota County to change opinions.
Schlax asked I In regard to the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition there
would be an advantage I the County funded SOAR they would have to fund this too. The commission could
demand the same type of funding for this group.
Hohensteln responded that the main question before the commission Is whether they wart •
to see equal funding. Should the County be contracting with a private agency at all? There are two Issues,
1
ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995
Page 5
• whether the County should be doing It at all and equal treatment for all.
Vanderpool 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. Bataglia 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.
Hohensteln stated that Ms. Botaglla's point is that of having a broader perspective of a wile
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 it that should occur that equal funds be distributed to groups wtth aftemative positions as stated
In number & Second was made by Schlax. All members voted In favor.
White thanked Ms. Bataglla 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.
Ma Bataglia said that her statement about a global Issue was the reason the dual track
process was begun. it was partly noise, partly 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 end Bataglia will be ratified of the meeting.
Monson stated that whether a decision Is made to build a new airport or s panslon of the
cid 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 formai presentation. Hohenstein stated that it depends on the action the City
Council takes at Its nerd meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Monson, the August S,1995 minutes were approved
as presented.
• VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Hohenstein stated that Dick Reid was present and is staying M touch with the process and
ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995
Page B
what It means to his neighborhood. •
DISCUSSION - LEGISLATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
AIRCRAFT NOISE AND OPERATIONS CONCERNS
Hohenstsin stated that these meetings held June 26 and August 16 and coordinated by
.Senator Wiener's office, were held for residents of noise affected neighborhoods. ft 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 Initlffifves.
Todd questioned why the memo from the MAC did not cover corridor compliance for the
two week period the commission asked for? Hohenstein 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 avallabie.
Schlax stated that the presentations Mr. Foggia and Mr. Hamlet gave were Informable but
Schlax said that he would like 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 leglslative 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 dies the Issue to be pursued than It should
be the some 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 Representable Commers. Hohensteln 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 on
the agenda and have It open to the public.
Monson. stated that people should be Involved by catling the commissioners and
representatives to let them know how they feel. Pudic Input Is very Importaft
Hohenstein stated that the Current Operations Committee at their nwd meeting could start
to name 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 legislaWe delegation, seconded by Staric ha.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— •
Hohensteln 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
/O
ARC Minutes/September 12, 1995
Page 7
40 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.
Hohensteln thanked commission members for their Input and Commission member Schlax for his assistance
In pfeparing 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 bell. Hohensteln asked Schlax to
comment on this dratt. Schlax stated that he had comments/additions to the packet - three things he
thought the commission needed out of this 1) a reading foe for public - he distributed a packet of Information
he prepared that condensed the Information received by the commission, 2) an owcuWe summary and 3)
mitigation factors discussed. Schlax continued that he will not be avallable for the next Long Term
Committee meeting or the Dakota County meeting, he asked that someone take over as spokesman.
Hohensteln stated that he would take over as to taking down comments but would like someone on the
commission to facilitate In Schiax'e absence.
Cooper asked why Schlax put together such a large summarywhen the commission wanted
to keep this as small as possible. Schlax replied that he warmed 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. Hohensteln stated he has also had problems getting
Information from MAC. He said he has requested additional Information from them but was not getting It.
White said that given that the commission has had no luck N getting Information from the MAC, is it possible
It's not being considered seriously? Hohensteln replied that the MAC has Indicated It does not see this as
a viable alternative. That should be referenced under strategic Issues, We difficult to make it a major Issue
when you can't get a lot of Information about It
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—
Hohensteln Informed the commission that according to residents, there continues to be a
problem with corridor compliance. Easter Eagan nelghborhoDds 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. Hohensteln replied fMet they should get it but with this
type of information, timeliness Is an Issue.
Is
Hohensteln 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 4/22 Extension - Mitigation Survey— •
Hohensteln stated that the Metropolitan Council has received only one proposal to do the
mitigation survey and that will be sent to participating agendas. The costs appear to have come in
substantially below what was expected. We still necessary to review the document for coruent. 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 MACS total fundlrig 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 19%.
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. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition—
Hohenstein 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 deafly our expectations and questions with respect to departure profile functions.
Schlax commented that he thinks the Pert 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.
Hohenstein 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 Sddax, 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 notion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m
JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary •
is
ENDGE--- J�
L 1
' L'+nil W. NNN[UN
nE1GNu
SIE..__ ANR FARING
IEFFESEN TERMINAL R LOGTED IUST SOUTH Of
THE CONCOURSES. DNA AMMffRDOY. VOLUNTEERS
TRAINED TO ASSIST TRAVELERS IN FINDING THEIR
WAY AT DA. CAN BE FOUND THROUGHOUT
THE AIRPORT UNTIL APRIL 1E. HTE. THEY ARE RMC.
OGWEMO EASILY RT THEIR wHm cowMOY HATS.
From your plane,
walk or take moving
walkways to the anter of
the concourse. Services are
available throughout the
concourses.
Take an elevator or
escalator down to the train
station The train trip from
die fartkg conmutx to the
Terminal takes less than
five minutes.7Yains depart
about every two minutes.
On Concourse A, you
have the option of taking
the train or walking across
the bridge to the Terminal.
Take an elevator or an
escalator up to the bridge.
•
7}
j
J
t
WEST PARKING
!..1....... ._.......
.
Fait the train at the
Terminal, and take an ele-
vator or escalator to the
atrium of the Jeppesen
Terminal. On the atrium
floor (Terminal Level 5)
are a Ground Transpor-
tation Information Center
and the Airport Informa-
tion Center. Also on Level
5 are public telephones,
paging telephones, auto-
mated teller machines,
rental car and other
transportation service
counters, lost and found,
luggage storage and
many other services,
shops, and restaurants.
0 (n
Denver I>rnationah
JEFEEN TERMINAI
.-- '_.r....._.1.,. /
Baggage Claim is
located on the east and
west sides of the Terminal
Level 5, according to air -
fine. if you flew America
West, Continental, Delta,
Frontier, Midwest Express,
USAir, TWA or Vanguard,
pick up your baggage on
the east side. American,
Mesa, MarkA)r, Northwest,
Sun Country, United and
United Express baggage
are located on the west
side of the Rrminal.
Hotel and ground
transportation information
boards are located oppo-
site baggage carousels.
m
LbYIREA
1 I
Once you get your ,
bags, proceed directly out
the doors to curbside if
you're taking commercial
transportation to your
final destination. If you
are being picked up a
by private car, take an
elevator or escalator down
to Terminal level 4
(Passenger Pick Up).
International travelers
arrive on Concourse A,
then clear Customs and
collect baggage enroute
to the Terminal. Greet
international travelers at
Level 5 north end of
Jeppesen Terminal.
E,
rAl
oLR,u ..r
PLIDeU+IaHLI (�
m
SPRINGS 9
DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IS LOCATED xr HIGHWAY MILES
(APPROXIMATELY rtNS MINUTES) NORTHEAST OF DOWNTOWN DENVER.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTS OF THE
DENVER MSERO AREA AND BEYOND.
Tjckgtiq
Em"
TERMINAL WEST
To get to DIA, take Inter.
. ,1 j:: r
state 70, exit Pais Boule-
;. r i:w
vard, and travel eight miles
.«
to ME Access Plaza. (If
7%
you are resuming a rental
Ansess
car, exit before the plaza)
Take a ticket and continue
1
on to the TermimL Parking
F
rates are $2 per hour,
maximum of $IO per day.
BG
Rates drop to $5 max-
Nw
imum for the third through
the sixth days, and $4
i.
maurnum--seventh day or
more. If you redeem your
ticket at the Access Plaza
Hx
within 30 minutes, there
YV
is no charge for parking.
For example, access/park-
F9
ing for 21/2 hours costs $6.
aP
1.0
Tjckgtiq
Em"
TERMINAL WEST
TERMINAL EAST
United
UA
Continental
Co
United Express xw7u
r
Continental
American
M
�� :,.:.+r..nx-r--,-�,-�..:.:, .
5:
Connection
'
BG
Northwest
Nw
;,i y __ i ; �..,, ��
'. �y.'.'I:s l'7-'1
1 America west
MP
Sun Country
lea ,— .,:.:
Mexicana
Hx
Mesa
YV
eur
�WEp PAu1rM: 1J A" PRRKwo
�
Frontier
F9
MarkAir
aP
` '� "` "
Midwest Express Yx
NPPEAN
TLRwN�L
USAir
us
•
TWA
Tw
Martinair
MP
Delta
OL
Vanguard
NI
LEVEL 6
PASSENGER
CHECO61M
TICKETING
.)r
a
LEVEL S
PARK OR DROP OFF ON EITHER
T
COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES/
yam,
;1'-.
TME EAST (GREEN) OR WEST (BLUE) SIDE OF THE TERMINAL
BAGGAGE CLAIM
BY AIRLINE. ROAD SIGNSON P LEVARD INDICATE AIRLINE POSITION,
:W
LEVEL6
RESSENGEII PICK-UP
L
AND VEHICLE LEVEL AT THE EIDE HAS THESE LEVELS OF ROADWAY.
For domestic travel,
luggage—including
skis --can be checked
at curbside. Use level 6
(Check-In/Ticketing) for
passenger drop-off by car
and curbside check-in.
Those dropped off
by commercial vehicles
including taxis, buses or
shuttles have curbside
check-in on level 5
(Commercial Vehicle/
Ground Transportation/
Baggage Claim.)
WES'
0
After check-in, follow
the signs in one of the two
security screening areas
located in the Terminal.
Automated teller
machines, telephones and
flight information moni-
tors with departure times
and gate assignments are
located opposite the secu-
rity screening areas
After clearing security,
descend to the train station.
If your plane gate is on
Concourse A. you have the
option of walking across
a bridge that links Con-
course A to the Terminal
e
The train trip to the
farthest concourse takes
less than five minutes.
Trains depart about
every two minutes
Baggage cans cannot
be taken on the trains.
Once you arrive at
the concourse, take an
escalator or elevator (past
the escalators) to the coo -
course level and follow
signs to your gate.
Each concourse
has many restaurants.
shops and services for
your enjoyment.
0
u
IN
,irport expansion
Ptions get clearer
idy of tradeoffs is in final stage
rh BWm We knows new airportwould cost lions and the anise that would in.
riles about $4.4 billion; expending the flicisormundingneighborhoods?
current airport would cost about
study of $2.9 billion.
upecnyy
a a new And in the next three willmonths.e the
a 0 new moat .Thiel sports will be so-
Mort ars land. Ther reports will to the
mo
more detailed coat estimates to the
two options; will outline financing
ding the schemes; will describe noise, In(Ilc
We know then would be differences
invublpc sans to the two locations.
A Dakota Counly airport would be
a half-hour drive from the current
airport.
These an the comparisons that will
answer central questions behind the
airport decision. Those questions
include:
■ If SI.5 billion more were spent
for a new airport, what would we gel
fortheextmmoney7
Ona the final comparisons am on
the table, camps of public opinion
will jell quickly, with stakeholders
playing their cards for or against a
newairport.
Minneapolis, the Minnesota Cham.
ber of Commerce, the Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce, the city of
Eagan and Dakota County am
working on their positions. Bloom-
inglon and Richfield have never
waivered in their desire to have the
airport slay put.
■ Should almost $3 billion be spent
to upgrade the current airport,given
its small size, its expansion limits. Alrpod continued on page 7B
School
makes an
academic
Two airport pians compared Araw HnUW
. ewnitw�ar.,tw,'rtpehae stgaa.mdtaiwrW ebertlnpaen
erpaMedvWelm aftlaaawtespvt waldasrpaewan ei esmnr hsey.Y. i, -
:;rlornWv -
jf 7smkWl
' Bsrrrala s o1 maps y
ar'
r i
> New rwWsouth narway of ,.
about am hal {/r
>faidkgmmili robe rlplared l;
with mw mmamil an west side �.
of a:pat when rand WINS.
> Ad&bW gates to the eimtrg
cercarrses.An underground
pantie naer wedd bee
passegera (torn terreto
gatm
> =l adwga W Hwy& 77
> Mae pamkg - hon 2UW
Waxen to 38,000.
Traey K.tt.rgrq
madbMrflral-
below, at Filter
Wilnds School
la. bi
she.ald I Is.
aprdingg sskklllab
aprimary
=a"
wtner.
students In
grade.1-5 lm
Improved
reading awsconveyl
polnW a about
more than the
a-
lai�.5t4i+1.�'.%
a LArL..�C
'7.11WjY �'aT'� t.s12.5ONactuaww/-syaadto
Metro/ Regions
V.
Tribune
�'aerea :"�'�do 1 Ow
IN
,irport expansion
Ptions get clearer
idy of tradeoffs is in final stage
rh BWm We knows new airportwould cost lions and the anise that would in.
riles about $4.4 billion; expending the flicisormundingneighborhoods?
current airport would cost about
study of $2.9 billion.
upecnyy
a a new And in the next three willmonths.e the
a 0 new moat .Thiel sports will be so-
Mort ars land. Ther reports will to the
mo
more detailed coat estimates to the
two options; will outline financing
ding the schemes; will describe noise, In(Ilc
We know then would be differences
invublpc sans to the two locations.
A Dakota Counly airport would be
a half-hour drive from the current
airport.
These an the comparisons that will
answer central questions behind the
airport decision. Those questions
include:
■ If SI.5 billion more were spent
for a new airport, what would we gel
fortheextmmoney7
Ona the final comparisons am on
the table, camps of public opinion
will jell quickly, with stakeholders
playing their cards for or against a
newairport.
Minneapolis, the Minnesota Cham.
ber of Commerce, the Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce, the city of
Eagan and Dakota County am
working on their positions. Bloom-
inglon and Richfield have never
waivered in their desire to have the
airport slay put.
■ Should almost $3 billion be spent
to upgrade the current airport,given
its small size, its expansion limits. Alrpod continued on page 7B
School
makes an
academic
Two airport pians compared Araw HnUW
. ewnitw�ar.,tw,'rtpehae stgaa.mdtaiwrW ebertlnpaen
erpaMedvWelm aftlaaawtespvt waldasrpaewan ei esmnr hsey.Y. i, -
:;rlornWv -
jf 7smkWl
' Bsrrrala s o1 maps y
ar'
r i
> New rwWsouth narway of ,.
about am hal {/r
>faidkgmmili robe rlplared l;
with mw mmamil an west side �.
of a:pat when rand WINS.
> Ad&bW gates to the eimtrg
cercarrses.An underground
pantie naer wedd bee
passegera (torn terreto
gatm
> =l adwga W Hwy& 77
> Mae pamkg - hon 2UW
Waxen to 38,000.
Traey K.tt.rgrq
madbMrflral-
below, at Filter
Wilnds School
la. bi
she.ald I Is.
aprdingg sskklllab
aprimary
=a"
wtner.
students In
grade.1-5 lm
Improved
reading awsconveyl
polnW a about
more than the
a-
lai�.5t4i+1.�'.%
> Shnaraays-fa
'7.11WjY �'aT'� t.s12.5ONactuaww/-syaadto
D4=nram ir and
V.
1140, .:.',�,').; .!'
e6Wltrm sYrrsleap6 ddr9 1p
par oaatha.
AWY rs'pi!:;�IC -....
>7lwpandggaegn-aefOr
Vhms vVideS and are for mfd
gAM1a�
can taxis and now pntic
oaaaorwtrx
> a rush honih
ltredasg
she new hfmarpals,
raw br32
n*RA
Wes about 32 rtautes hem SLpeLL
an
> TaaeWh watlomrwldi a niwle
sm r oa ft
aiessoloft.
byOapyAOwmn
Bemidji's boom
is a mirage,
legislators told
`Mini -session' draws tales
of economic disparity
Airport Combined 6Om page 1B
The Metropolitan Airports Com.
Those delays indicate that the `oam-
minion (MAC) and the Metropoli-
ta t Council will make a remmmen-
comity will need major newt facili-
ties," Futterman seri adding: "We
dation to the legislature by spring.
medmotecapacity—ruowaycapac-
A final report reviewing the seven-
sty and terminal capacity. There's no
year planning process and explain-
f s, ands or buts about that. So it's
call the raommendation will follow
where do you put that new capacity,
byluly.
MSPoranewatrportr
The decision will be at the feet of
legislators and the governor in the
legislative session starting in Janu-
ary 1997.
Even alter SIO million worth of
study, however, it's entirely ppoosssit�t
ble, that the state's elected o ffetals
will do nothing with the stacks of
data.
'This whole thing somehow has to
capture the imagination of key deci.
simmakers. both public and pri-
vate," said A- rts Commissioner
Steve Cramerof Mianapolis.
'1f it nays at this highly technical,
msidetacntncbing-througb•Ihe-
process level of awumess, than 1
The economic analysis, which will
be finished by the and of December,
will address the consequences to the
state's economy of an airport oper-
ating with 20. to 30 -minute peak
hour delays. That will be mother
measure of the need for a new or
"padded airport.
Nigel Finney. MACdepuryexecutive
diseetorofplun ngsaid that, among
other things, the economic analysis
will answer them questions: "Do you
attract new economic growth with a
new aupon? Do you d�xourage busi-
ness by not having an adequate
Pont'
some people fo0owingthe
study, the question of nerd for stn
capacity is less f nnant than
whetherthe state can afford it.
think the outcome is somewhat pre-
dictable,andthatis:notmuchisgoing
"You can always make the case, and
to happen either way," said Cramer.
I think the report does show, there
That, he laid, "Wit be a mistake.
may be more demand for airport
capacity," said Richfield City Man -
Man -
During the course of the study, am-
6 Y
agerJim Prosser, who closely moni-
efals of MAC and the Metropolitan
tors airport issues. he questim is
Council have carefully avoided
whether or not people arc willing to
voicing opinions about whether a
pay the price,- he mid.
new airport is needed.
'Ifyou take Icok at the net potential
`The question never was do we
bmefrts,I don't think that investment
need it, but what's the best way to
fsgoingtopayoRforus. Ithinkweare
meet long-term needs," said Even
better off in making the investment.
Futterman, of Howard Needles
man example. in netghborhoodsorin
Tammen and BergendoQ, a chief
schcols,"Prosser said.
camultam an the airport study.
How much public investment
But in an em of federal cuts and
would be necessary to expand the
pinched nate budgets, it will be
current airport or build a new one
hard toavoid the question Oland.
will be spelled out in the financing
repos due by the end of December.
The study describes the nerd for
mrd Lynn Richardson, deputy exec.
extra capacity inseveral ways.
utivedireetorofMAC.
Assuming that the airport nays a
connecting hub for Northwest Air-
Ilnes, the study says, numbers of
flights and passengers will increase,
producing a need to add gates, dou-
bipassenger terminal space and double
Parking space.
And it predicts that adding no t
airport capacity would result in
lays so long that the airport we
mach gridlock during peak hour.
2020. Lines of planes on the gmi
waiting to take off would be an 1
they would block taxiways, lav
almost no room for arriving flit
to get oil the runway alter lands
Futterman said. Between 3 m
p.m., planes would wait 20 to
minutes to depart.
It will explore different ways to bor-
row the money for theDDroject and
different ways to pay OR that debt.
And it will outline how much each
option would cost the public and
the airlines. Based on the different
options, it will also present a range
at per -passenger cons that could be
Compared to costs at other airports.
Don Ganes, president of the Bloom-
ington Chamber of Commerce and
a member of the study staring
group, will be watching closely for
the per-passmigercan estimates.
ON
Star Trmure/Su claylSeplember 2411995
"When 1 bear about people getting
concerned about the high cost of
flying into the new Denver airport, l
want to be sure that whatever we do
does not make us las competitive
m a hub," he said.
It now cons $3 per passenger for air-
linestooperateoutoftheTwin Cities,
according to MAC. That compares
with the national average ofabout S7.
Officials of Northwest Airlines,
which provides 80 percent of the
service to the Twin Cities, have
made it clear that they oppose can.
struction of a new airport and even
major expansion of the current air-
port because it would raise the cost
of doing business there.
At the new, SS billion Denver air -
pan, for example, United Airlines
bas Pat oil IMM per ticket sur-
charge to cover additional airport
operating eons, mid Northwest
spokesman Jim Austin.
Based on their bat estimates of how
Northwest traffic will grow aSdBow
the airline industry will gror+,.Awe
come up with a number that says we
dont necessarily need a new facility
to accommodate the growth weirc
goiugto Mlierc,"Austin said.-. -
.
How strong a position the company
will take once the airport study Is
finished will depend on whet the
mnclusions are, Aunm said.
Passengers have direct Rightsto16
U.S. and 13 international destine.
tins because Northwest has made
the Twin Cities a connecting bub.
Fearful of discouraging Northwest
service with higher airport costs,
some my no decision should. be
made to build a new airport without
theapproval of Northwest.
Others say the nate must make its
Own decision about the airport; in-
dependent of Northwest, because
the state's economy, depends on a
strongarport link to thewodd.; .
• Iw lima molmm Naatmmt
• Fled 71trm and Eandlble
aubadluded Nater
• Term sea" h® sit bqe to hyena
• rebs loteat Parent Options
Ava l"
W mdq fbr rues on ogler roma
•mert'auul rW.da ft
,r,vara bws,absw,le,eeJy
G
Our RNM M
04wpkFlias lC*mw
71115v0aagbi Iter* tram
saeaaaea Yuvsmm eeeaaasa5
1-800-943-6843
or 612942-9880
`Dakota board
doesn't want
a new
airport
ort
�LarkBWu
aff Writer
DakotaCounty commissioners Tuesday
took a formal position against building a
new international airport in their back
yard, making it clear that they would not
welcome runways, terminals and planes to
the farmlands southwest of Hastings.
The board's stand is tignifivat becauu
it is the fust ma'or player to take a
position on whet
the Twin Cities
tbouid build a new airport or expand the
existing one to meet the demands of
AttursairtrsveL .
bar*%. And by getting out front, the Bounty took tome
heat from two of its cities for sot waiUag for the
Airport continued on page 4B
Denise Brow,
speaks out on
Driving drunk, withot
Stat( Photos by Rita Reed
A" un popped up during a Student drives run through tl
dldnl stop U tlrne to avold fftding a pedeatrtm The demautrs
Kids learn DWI dcp
Normae
StaffWriterpraper
-rm looking at purringg Dakota county ont front
X81 OW Colmty
on this issue," said Comty Commissioner Jo-
haSa8i81Ce
sephHarrisofHastings
eft=
-i think we've resisted taking a position for a
Wild anew
long enough penod of time," said County Com-
a
O"' W W �
missionerFiiehaOTumerofBurnsville.
be built More.
The board voted 6 to I against the option of
ooastroeting a new airport m the county, citing
Tuesday, IIS
environmental concerns, the lou of farmland
badefs decided
and costly road improvements.
flat pixiblerria
While the county is trying to take an early stand
Caused by the
to block the new airport, it remains only one of
_$4,4 bffion
several major players that will attempt toleinflu-
pro!W
ence the which will be made b
January 1997.
OUNVO1�d
ton andthe ov governor tartingin
bar*%. And by getting out front, the Bounty took tome
heat from two of its cities for sot waiUag for the
Airport continued on page 4B
Denise Brow,
speaks out on
Driving drunk, withot
Stat( Photos by Rita Reed
A" un popped up during a Student drives run through tl
dldnl stop U tlrne to avold fftding a pedeatrtm The demautrs
Kids learn DWI dcp
Normae
StaffWriterpraper
•dB• 101 Pill PtmAW"tIOBIMWTlbaa
,;Airport /County draws fire for not waiting for study
• CLallNw pew Par IR Ddela Coady dike IMI border b vat ■gab" IM NspM poakYn •1 IbInY IM ploees h" coasea rdioot aheatllng a11rIM pert. ToeM ahs ea. IM Cooaty
Mlaapoiis•BI. hoi Inlsralioal 6aauss aha waled b wW two
W pbyed on1,' Hertk pori. •1 pro MeY drl■YYl.wemreepplke• woe. hen b oempate for Mrinew
eomplgba eflM aaMogfn aavm. Airport, ■re we111qq Neill obey ea fhldaepurta dv years, and 1 don't think aylbiol
. yargodrdwwbuildomwoo lin IOW ibfamaioe bdoml■king thelr Mf rcdy ehanpd if an God res Two emml with aha Metroppoolis Ainans
r aistlnga 11anorMl.axwom ppo1essidtieodns. Officials d bah Blies •We really
1hw. Yat S of the this ronm feria Ion Iha uiicew of If tope cow °q� IM gaR Commission, :r coon. try la
1 wilt 11ba l� as to take RMI Y porllle" fur bate n many businesses u Pmrf �
•
will
l d Cal what months, s golly le 1taM ubtll that to omatian ie t 1 1O comment m b thus aur ahla cote an wpPn this 11P o< IM County u IM Yost d a new bin le as i the II,Pabaem urpsn
report to �be cillanry it cOmpkta,' apansion,tbyaedmdwmo& afrpurL she within pee ORlMCost abuts• t
' win deliver what many cons Ib,and aril arts IM dtin have sM said Do be f
ICpOrts most mortal to the decision. we
That Include refined coat est4
latmlbeurowq pedll00t'
bol le rrst
and do we want 10 be Out front
Commisdamae
. masa; fin■ncin schemes and how
•those wou.a act Northwest
'Ibis loos b ext mold) Ire. I
laking ■ porilfon wfim thea ea Int
eery shod n mlha b which to draw
s part report"
of a new airport
All,
• Knec Community Impact, including
b the city of Esgan,' Eam Mayor
• Tom Egan tad IM bwrd."IPC Notbalse
a rrrWkytothe picbrrshe aid.
Including coal
d buss ess develloopment
aha Iwrtq of fbet
reamebk to rush to a CoPlWims
willw°t IM beadil ofall IM furor•
The aha commiob"sr a. they
hM Iamd enough from IM study
lc Ilaahamm
Fud
irpqlues
prostim
g ac
world provide. °j}
Nti00.•Over
IM Pau eta )ears 10 conclude
wnMlthat•aeonahpmt
Papa and Mendota Heghle, lona
CbmmlWmer Parous Balaglb, of
LJledtle,em the say commtssbaa
watdd as bertefd
abecamty.
0•acle
I eoboeme; d
off purity rrom
Ion
r
Cocaplanner lobs Toch aa. InglMairpolL '
Villa 2`11•alo0gb Costly right now Considering that points and IM '•ii
wYgn'w.h°lbeMgbeafil.• Ion or it. Toho laid m..
rurpdmefmn•
Tarts a. IM boldus me op.nstrunron
end
an farmers in
posedbbedrpon-rdged bam
ia
devebpmeni. 1 M aid amu d
9 sell their tend
by tams hood.
IM businesses alit mead Selo•
care from IM aatkem pan of IM
s to quires wa,
tway tsar IM existing airport to
Wt spills and a
IM aoabera Pro, bar a am air.
M was not sure what IM Del bene•
Bbwco.be.
What Dakota Commy Codd aped
In lams of foal business devdop
amt will be addressed to the res
Ibnrydlocmw.
Protest /a z:;; exsmf l..f . `OP', Workshop / Aim is to foster discussion ab sit N
Downtown
projects
put dent in
business
Cautioned fresan Pp Is
But Rad was lakm for, I I e
her insistence. Despite a few n,lin;
during■ helf-bourevmt in whkbahe
8190 wn burdcurted, t be usually uCi.
able shop owner was grimaced and
ddumiDW to lhow that The city
Invited The acheduling of dowutowp
PMPOA
She fitted off she IM of this arm.
mal highly loquerin ted dfone
ascots work sissy Wehasha St. from
dah SI, to fish St.. The Civic Center
,addition and pavement lore exp
• abng KdIMMvd. and SI. PelaSt.
'•4 � '�" a"Lrh�"Peau o
•',': !�;, !•�. i' ■Csil the station orabineompsay
. �''�•• :..:.' • and complain. Take rub,. Apia,
_y�•_� Maroknnodd.
K
Them an no sigh a wmm� oro -
p
'1
worksboppresenler AanI Ha.
• ..a
•
man assured she group. The pig b
tog"
R*
i
Y ..::.
Pana aid child. talking
—and thinking.
t
'�•
'�
'faking Chap of Your TV- b a
:.
Joint project of the national PTA,
C
IM Nati0nal Cabin Tdnitim Also,
\i
wtim will Cabin In IMCkw mat
which Teesdayl
.•
PI on workshop
tY �•
at Minnapolw Shenon Mao
deme Hotel with IM mis . or
.._..
hmdaWealga,iratiors
bay grub bete" WabWo aPa
ng ops aide of them and IMa
The other. He also aid that the
PC 6 always cava mahlbbek
arm
The ppuespus of IM vroRdap was
training. Thos .vin took pan
agreed b conduct simlar work.
Yaps In their schools ml comma•
nein• using The tame vorkbwb'
aha vidsaupa employed",qday,
ARM a morning adiaCoabo. par-
ticipants broke into smslkr group
to practice beingworksMl prasW-
Ideas to foster critical viewing
cowow ur.- elm tMasnemangledmaspa haddm,er
Ilsten b whom a bugh 6actr b added b a ok°mn Thea ate rows ft
ways to taro tin mygay od a1 w.
CuanmWWyasMaaMMaonWufft ldarpMot
drdrerr. LW"MOParsdwdS"Mnatldbadwa.bol.
tinge ur appal Unum prasnkd.
Bass emhcho*m bwNdbcw byadit Imwgrvi*n
bel NyoddiYdleo.mouil r,bin abedn9mabanpaaawa
vbww:OWyouGFOBWll06M Offlour"honspIC&
limew.
W hal fear do*m am assir Mab spat hm bray Bra b b a
ompwtoky ft a aatMgatselyteatMpnsalq,ajuq
B0f P.blrytlms0�
NemhpmmmntDay.goamma,mowage Samoa
tlrkownwelolra
■MCMwWr C1rpdYorNA4NbpB■dbaYrpbr►was
emkofanmala Pdme
•All TV programs we crated or
congrucled to achieve specifer m
ails. For example, Pnidnn
sh
wets own dip of "reality'OW
such as 'Caps" Of, 'Ream 91 in
aha Wed to malyta bow IM view-
er's laponman manipulated by
ediling, lighting, made and aha
"Facts.
d��f�s�ed
RnCoUyp.niicippaaqwave
b rola
Play ens the •Tear k the
Nlghe• dip and imngine how eft.•
en a< d P %a ata, fr"s earl,
achaokn to puma, would 1e"I to
the violpsM
■ Video int s aw in a mm9 fge of
Ana bean{{ shows a montage of
"Home Alon , p from the !Ire
'Home Abse, Pnkipmis were
"whatever you behalf to It Is sit right
@a king a you Mn the skills to
Why cow. the e16b ladastry bp•
Wed to debate she ham " lack
Ihemoiordapakk mayhem.
gel
Wtalking ■M imaading,• u.
ng
Kamil,
pun s workshop 00 could fwd b
reduced vinwkd
• All TV progmau have a Order.
Ca son, dircna of
Cubic in the Claulonin. • cable•
Supported orpniatioo that works
Kamif a. sin daml believe Chat
1'k
lying eemomk purpose. Partkf
punts discussed • rat of kid-tayel-
people am r dy 10 watch m Can ed commercialsobst did eye y hag
en. They well Mve siom6be books b rruaene awereaea aeduational television, bo tin tby may a� from cuggemle the sive of tory 10
erawj small The WdbWrs St. eery flger.IM laborer bfella .rhea why lend serials. bu116ey pnyr■ms and to prpoovide leaCbaa dilfereur propama. liiolly that aall■In 6r■rrd afpma
S stored fb Aug,st, Rend bash of kwon. a. that M ba ware encouraged to be nuibk, b with;;L:lnmyd■ted a Inde
Thal her bndbM■ a boosted �ro.b ssed 10 pmpl� wlamg ■M Ilgw ■MalmPlovi". enealwouldaalaldiKa
tikes of Maya Nom Cas nipping "elf.• bel tun end The critical-vkwing, workshop
old City Council Profdeal were luso fuTaesdy.
Taube t. i n i1 opined at n to Brown /
Bio St. in 1991�� b b said. *That's way
a way for
brig,• M Family leamed B
Busmen is down JO perurgl said. •Tbat'100 coy far •lade of I f, r Wpb
MsamemPtha a Ilkab�om
M:r it w Sb•
ewnf ,a Ion tun UIIInWele Read ..a .a choked. of abuse afh* killings 3:
i•., 0l
d Ire smut ed ell. C"iftWUnd turad "tion, ,�'• '.',. etlkra
ue�■11 door final pints of r tI b
Messy adleaaw rrwwMn wets Ya• .arm Imaver�
FOUR
SECTIONS
News a Sports
General Section
Burnet Realty Section
Real Estate Section
Classified Section
68 pages
Eagan
k dipwa�
IFF il IN
Your Community Newspaper
Volurne 16, No. 31
October 1, 1995
Eagan woman shares
humor of life In
stand-up act ....... p.3A
Local politicians
fondly remember
Rudy Perpich.... p.IOA
Wildcat football team
overwhelms visiting
Lakeville ........... p.26A
? County takes stand against airport relocation
By EVELYN HOOVER
The Dakota County Board
jumped into the airport debate
Tuesday, adopting a position
against the relocation of the
airport to a site near Hastings.
The County Board, meeting
as the Physical Development
Committee, approved an anti -
airport relocation and anti-
landbanking position, despite
the requests from Eagan and
Mendota Heights officials to
hold off on taking a stand.
The board's vote, 6-1, came
after a lengthy staff presenta-
tion on the pros and cons of
airport relocation and expan-
sion of the existing airport.
Commissioner Patrice Bataglin
cast the dissenting vote.
Bataglia agreed with city of-
ficials in her district who said
there'd be no harm in holding
off on taking a position for a
couple more months when all
information would be avail-
able.
"Do we want to be first and
do we want to be out front
when there are two very short
months to draw a finality to a
aix-year process?" Battaglia
asked board members.
Eagan Mayor Tom Egan said
that by wailing until December
or January, the board would
have the benefit of looking at
the environmental impact
statement and other informa-
tion.
In addition, he said, all of the
cities in Dakota County will
most likely have taken a stand
on the issue by then. Right now
only Rosemount, Hastings,
Farmington and the townships
(See Airport. p.13A)
District .196 board
changes levy question
it will put to voters
State law prompts it to
ask for another. $117
0 0
t.. 9
0
• �� ������ � � �d� �.� � �.�8��� - a � � ° �.� �. �.� ��
is
• n � � f � . _ � a i i 5 ] ilia � � ° g 6 � I i $g � �=�s`i a B s � a � a F�
���$i8���lr.� 6`�E9n�eu� is ;aga�sa[eJ.ee��� 968• ���I��ag1j�. �°j��j% �9,a
•�$� g 9�n�ab�—� a� g��I9��g �S�Eg.°i��������, �!'���°���
a�1'.114111�������ie'����xi��i�l�9a
ea 8 ��9 ajg,a Avil g.: J 99_1_ o re2:� eJ.�b9 i • g "' ���'^ 9
�•bn Y b g �g�e Zx 5°��� a3 gg� �b�:11.1�§ 9
9 ka �i'! B.9i b_� 1�.��.9, 9§ei i i
.1� � a s y � � 3 Eek _ �tt s�
gge.3� 4d� i $ni 3_lii9 ��9� 1.�.a®€� lb g Q,
1111111114'
ab��a
! L' CyyBpp r�
SAN g��F9 ^' 5c gp9 i b�_S �Y�� Gx d � � m 9.�� � `� � 9� if
pg lilt] g@ a
SHga a' et:21F 6. 9y avJ: 9m&�g H;a9y®eF�i3 b� �9 g g5 "� $555222 d8�@ 1 t � A� 9 a8 .m �Ji�He 9�� ag 5 313 1 Es °°i �l�i3 i 5
LJ
Airport Noise Report
A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
cm'
Volume 7, Number 15 August 30, 1995
Fleet Mix
ALL AIRLINES MET FIRST PHASEOUT GATE;
STAGE 3 PERCENTAGE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE
All airlines met the first interim compliance deadline for phasing out Stage 2
aircraft from their fleets at the end of 1994, although TWA and Northwest Airlines
just squeaked by, according to the Federal Aviation Administration's annual report
to Congress on the airlines' progress in meeting its Part 91 regulations, which
require all Stage 2 aircraft operated in the United States by foreign and domestic
airlines to be retired by the end of 1999.
The Part 91 regulations provide the airlines with two options for meeting the
Stage 2 phaseout deadline at the end of 1999. One option is to phase out 25 percent
of their noisier Stage 2 airplanes by the end of 1994, 50 percent by the end of
1996, and 75 percent by the end of 1998. The other option is to attain a fleet
comprised of 55 percent quieter Stage 3 aircraft by the end of 1994, 65 percent by
the end of 1996, and 75 percent by the end of 1998. The fleet must be 100 percent
Stage 3 by the end of 1999, although the regulations do allow waivers if an
`• operator can demonstrate they would be in the "public interest."
The FAA's latest report to Congress detailed the progress of U.S. major,
national, cargo, and charter airlines and foreign carriers in meeting the fist interim
(Continued on p. 119)
Fleet Mix
UPS WILL BE FIRST ALL STAGE 3 AIRLINE;
WILL BEAT FAA DEADLINE BY THREE YEARS
It appears that United Parcel Service will be the first airline to have an all -Stage
3 fleet and will do so by the end of 1996, three years ahead of the federal deadline.
In an agreement announced Aug. 10 at Airshow Canada, UPS will pay more than
$70 million to re -engine seven Boeing 727-100 aircraft during 1996 with Rolls-
Royce Tay 651-54 engines. The Dee Howard Co., a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of
Alenia, will perform the modifications at its facility in San Antonio, Texas.
Currently, 93 percent of UPS' fleet of 179 jet aircraft comply with Stage 3 noise
standards, the company said.
UPS already has installed new engines on 44 of it 727s. It also operates DC -8s,
757s, 747s, and 767s that meet Stage 3 noise standards.
Federal Aviation Administration Administrator David Hinson said the UPS
announcement "is evidence that the federal noise policy is having the desired
effect of reducing aircraft noise." The FAA chief applauded UPS "for meeting the
1999 rules ahead of schedule and for setting an example for the airline industry."
Tom Weidemeyer, president of UPS Airlines, said, "I don't know of any better
•way of demonstrating that we're serious about operating a quiet airline than by the
actions that we've announced. All of us at UPS are extremely proud that our entire
(Continued on p. 120)
Copyright 0 1995 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 22011
In This Issue...
Fleet Mix ... The FAA
submits its third annual report
to Congress showing the
airlines' progress at the end of
1994 in meeting Part 91
regulations requiring the
phaseout of all noisier Stage
2 aircraft from the commer-
cial fleet by the end of the
century. The report indicates
that, collectively, the airlines
are well ahead of schedule in
terms of the percentage of
quieter Stage 3 aircraft they
have in their fleets. An
industry analyst says the
airlines should be able to
meet the next two interim
fleet mix deadlines at the end
of 1996 and 1998, but may
have trouble meeting the final
Stage 2 phaseout deadline at
the end of 1999. Tables from
the FAA report showing the
fleet mix for various catego-
ries of domestic airlines
begin on page 114.
Fleet Mix ... United Parcel
Service announces ilial it will
be the first major airline to
have an all -Stage 3 fleet. By
the end of 1996, it will re -
engine the last of its Stage 2
aircraft, seven B -727-100s,
with quieter Rolls-Royce Tay
engines - p. 113
114
REPORTED FLEET COMPOSITION
Noise
January 1, 1994 - December 31, 1994
OPERATOR CATEGORY
"
BASE
LEVEL
1994
STAGE 2
1994
STAGE 3
1994
TOTAL
FLEET
I994
PItASEOUT
(1)
1994
FLEET MIX
(2)
DOMESTIC TOTAL (126 OPERATORS)
2260
1686
2883
4569
25.4%
63.1%
U.S. Majors (0 operators)
1519
1077
2241
3318
29.1%
67.5%
"U.S. Notlonals (13 operators)
125
84
173
257
32.8%
67.3%
U.S. Cargo (25 operators)
558
376
395
771
32.6%
51.2%
Other U.S. (79 operators)
58
149
74
223
-157% (4)
33.2% (4)
FOREIGN TOTAL (173 OPERATORS)
836
S64
1544
2108
32.5%
73.2%'
Major Foreign (56 operators)
620
422
1255
1677
31.9%
74.8%
Other Forelgd (117 operators)
216
142
289
431
34.3%
67.1%
ACTIVE FLEET TOTAL(299 OPERATORS)
3096
2250
4427
6677
27.3%
66.3%
Inactive Fleet (22 operators) 290 (3)
BASE LEVEL TOTAL (331 OPERATORS) 3386
Notes
(1) Difference between base level and number of Stage 2 airplanes divided by base level, showing the percentage of Stage 2
airplanes phased out. Individual operators mast have phased out 25 percent or more atter 12/31/94 to comply under the
phaseout option. Calculations resulting In fraclloro may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole
number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, same percentagesare lower than the compliance percentnges prescribed In the
regulations. "
(2) Number or Stage 3 airplanes divided by total fleet, showing the percentage of Stage 3 airplanes. Individual operators must
Have a fleet of no less than 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after 12/31/94 to comply under flee( mix, option (25 percent to
comply as nese entrant). Calculations resulting In fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next
whole number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed
In the regulations.
(3) Inactive operators are those operators that have gone bankrupt, surrendered their Certificates, at are no longer operating
to the contiguous United Slates.
(4) This category includes 10 new entrants that were added without base level, contributing 30 Stage 2 airplanes to the lotal,
and 1 f operators that had not reported In the past. Many of these operators have Ihrec or fewer airplanes and under the
rounding rule achieved compliance without removing Stage 2 or adding Stage. 3 airplanes to their neets. These factors
Dull In the negative phaseout percentage and the low fleet mix percentage.
Airport Noite Report
aye
•
U,
J
30, 1995
115
1993 -1994 PROGRESS COMPARISON
STAGE 2SUMMARY
OPERATOR
CATEGORY
BASE
LEVEL
(1)
1993
STAGE
1994
STAGE
STAGF.2
CHANGE.
(2)
1993
PHASEOUT
(3)
1994
PBASEOIrr
(3)
PIIASEOUT
CHANGE
DOMESTIC TOTAL
2260
1802
1686
-116
15.9%
25.4%
9.5%
U.S. Majors
ISt9
1213
1077
.146
19.4%
29.1%
9.7%
U.S. Nationals
125
66
94
18
34.0%
32.8%
-1.2%
U.S. Cargo
S58 -
374
376
2
16.0%
32.6%
16.7%
Other U.S.
58 '
139
149
74
-74% (4)
-157% (4)
-83%
FOREIGNTOTAL•
936
570
S64
-6
21.7%
32.5%
10.8%
MajorForelgu
620
446
422
-24
24.8%
31.9%
7.1%
Other Foreign
216
124
142
18
8.1%
34.3%
26.1%
ACrM FLEET
30%
2772
2250
122
17.4% .
27.3%
10.0%
TOTAL
STAGE 3 SUMMARY
OPERATOR
CATEGORY
1993
STAGE 3
1994
STAGE 3
STAGE 3
CHANGE
1993
FLEET hIIX
1994
FLEET NUX
FLEET MD
CIIANGE
DOMEST11CTOTAL
2624
2983
259
59.3%
63.1%
3.8`70
U.S. Majors
2112
2241
129
63.3%
67.5%
4.2%
U.S. Nationals
-126
173
47
65.6%
67.3%
1.7%
U.S. Cargo
313
395
82
45.6%
51.2%
5.7%
Other U.S.
73
74
1
34.4%
33.2% (4)
-1.3%
FOREIGN TOTAL
1319
1544
225
69.8%
73.2%
3.4%
Major Foreign
1108
1255
147
71.3%
74.8%
3.;%
Other Foreign
211
299
225
63.0%
67.1%
4.1%
ACTIVE FLEET
3943
4427
484
62.4%
TOTAL
Notes
(1) Gatw changes In base level have occurred since the 1993 report due to the return of U.S.-owned airplanes (raced to
foreign operators and reports rrom operators that had not reported in the past.
(2) Inrremses resulted from the addition of new entrants and airplane data that was not previously tcfawled to FAA.
(3) 1993 phaseout computed against base level of 2870 airplanes. 1994 computed against bate level of 3096 airplanes.
(4) This category Includes 10 new entrants that were added without base level, contributing 30 Stage 2 airplanes to the
total, and 11 operators flint had not reported in the mo. hinny or that operators have (liver or (ewer nh planes and
under the rounding rule achieved compliance without removing Stage 2 or adding Stage 3 airpl:ma to their fleets.
• Tliese ractors result in the negative phasenut percentage and the Tow fleet mix percentage.
Airport Noise Report
Pis -
116
1994 PROGRESS REPORTS SUMMARY - U.S. MAJORS
Noise Report
OPERATOR
BASE
LEVEL
19941994
STAGE 2
STAGE 3
1994
TOTAL
FLEET
1994
PHASEOUT
(1)
1994
FLEET MIX
(2)
America West Airlines
33
25
64
89
24.2%
71.990
American Airlines
174
88
559
647
49.4%
86.4%
Continental Airlines
196
119
193
312
39.39E
61.9%
Delta Air Lines, Lie.
224
180
364
544
19.6%
66.9%
Northwest Airlines
284
205
156
361
27.8%
43.20.0
Southwest Airlines
32
50
149
199
-56.3%'
74.9%
TWA
134
101
84
185
1 24.6%
45.4%
USAir
203
135
277
412
33.5%
67.2%
United Airlines
239
174
395
569
27.2%
69.4%
U.S. MAJORS TOTAL
(9 OPERATORS)
1 1519
1077
2241
3318
29.1%
67.5%
•
Notes
(1) Differencebetween base level and number or Stage 2 airplanes divided by base level, showing the percentage of Stage 2
airplanes phased out. Individual operators mast have phased out 25 percent or more nfter 12/31/94 to comply under the •
phaseout option. Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole
number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages arc lower than the compliance percentages prescribed to the
regulations.
(2) Number of Stage 3 airplanes divided by total Beet, slowing the percentage of Stage 3 nirplanes. Individual operators must
have a Beet 'of no less then 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after 12131194 to comply under Beet mix option (25 percent to
comply as new entrant). Calculations resulting. in fractions maybe rounded to permit the continued operat Inn of the next
whole number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower ttian the compliance percentages prescribed
In the regulations. '
Airport Noise Report
1995
• 1994 PROGRESS REPORTS SUMMARY - U.S. NATIONALS
•
117
OPERATOR
BASE
LEVEL
1994
STAGE 2
1994
STAGE 3
1994
TOTAL
FLEET
1994
PIIASEour
(1)
1994
FLEET hflx
(2)
Air Wisconsin
0
0
12
12
0.0%
100%
Alaska Airlines
32
8
63
71
75.0%
88,7%
Aloha Airlines
19
12
4
16
36.8%
2-4.0%
American Trans Air
8
19
22
41
-138%
53.7%
• Business Express
0
0
3
3
0.0%
100%
Carnival Air lines
9
10
17
27
-11.1%
63.0%
Ifawslian Airlines
6
0
7
. 7
100%
100%
Markatr
9
5
to
15
44.4%
66.7%
Midwest Express
12
9
10
19
25.0%
52:6%
Sun Country Airlines
7
7
7
14
0.0%
50.0%
Tower Air
7
5
10
15
28.6%
66.7%
USAir Shuttle
16
9 1
4 1
13
43.8%
30.8%
World Airways
0
0100%
U.S. NA11ONALS TOTAL
(13 OPERATORS)
125
84
173
257
32.8%
67.3%
Notes
(1) Dirrerence between base level and number or Stage 2 airplanes divided by base level, showing the percentage or Stage 2
airplanes phased. out. Individual operators must have phased nut 25 percent or more after 12/31/94 to comply under the
phaseout option. Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation or the next whole
number or Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed in the
regulations.
(2) Number or Stage 3 airplanes divided by total Deet, showing the percentage of Stage 3 airplanes. Individual operators most
have a Ileal of no less than 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after 12/31/94 to comply under Bee mix option (25 percent to
comply as. new entrant). Calculations resulting In fractinns maybe rounded to permit the continued operation of the next
whole number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentage% are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed
In'the regulations.
Airport Noise Report
118
1994 PROGRESS REPORTS SUMMARY - U.S. CARGO
Noise
OPERATOR
BASE
LEVEL
1994
STAGE2
1994
STACE3
1994
TOTAL
FLEE[
1994
PIIASEOur
(1)
1994
FLEET MIX
(2)
• Air Transport international
8
7
15
-33.3%
46.7%
Airboroe Express
48
38
86
.35.1%
44.2%
American International Airways
d43
21
9
30
S1.2%
30.0%
Amerilet International
7
0
7
22.2%
0.0%
Arrow Air
23
18
.0
I8
21.7%
0.0%
• Alias Air, Inc.
0
1
5
6
0.0%
93.3%
Buffalo Airways
7
6
0
6
14.3%
0.0%
'Burlington Air Express, Inc.
16
5
11
16
68.8%
68.9%
Challenge Air Cargo
3
1
3
4
66.7%
75.0%
DEQ. Airways, Inc.
16
11
13
24
31.3%
54.2%
Emery Wart Airlines
66
44
22
66
33.3%
333%
Evergreen International
33
18
3
21
45.5%
14.3%
Express One Internlional, Inc.
30
23
16
39
23'.3%
41.0%
Federal Express
1S7
102
118
220
35.0%
53.6%
• Fine Air
0
3
0
3
0.0%
0.0%
Florida West Airlines
7.
6
0
6
14.3%
0.0%
• Kitty Hawk Airrargo, Inc.
0
5
1
6
0.0%
16.7% -
Millon Air
5
4
0
4
20.0%
0.0%
• Patriot Airlines, Inc.
0
1
0
1
0.0%
0.0%
•
•
Notes
• A new entrant that did not operate Stage 2 airplanes during the time period used to establish base level.
(1) Difference between base level and number of Stage 2 airplanes divided by base level, showing the percentage of Stage 2
airplanes phased out. Individual operators must have phased out 2S percent or more after 12/31/94 to comply ander the •
phaseout option..Calculalions resulting In fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole
number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed In the
regulations.
AirportNoise Report
C2 4/
1995
1994 PROGRESS REPORTS SUMMARY - U.S. CARGO
OPERATOR
BASE
LEVEL
1994
STAGE2
1994
STAGE 3
1994
TOTAL
.FLEET
1994
PRASFOUT
(1)
' 1994
FLEET MIX
(2)
• Polar Air Cargo
0
7
2
9
0.0%
22.2%
Ryan International Airlines
1
1
1
2
0.0%
50.05'x.
Southern Air Transport
13.
2
4
6
54.6%
66.7%
• Traits Continental
0
3
0
3
0.0%
0.0%.
United Parcel Service
47
25
142
170
40.4%
53.55E
• 7anlop International Airlines
2
3
O
3
-50.0%
0.Ove
U.S. CARGO TOTAL
(25 OPERATORS) .
555
376
395
771
32.6%
51.2%
(2) Number of Stage 3 airplanes divided by total Beet, showing the percentage of Stage 3 airplanes. Indhidual operators must
hare a fleet or no less than 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after 12/31/94 to comply under fleet mix option (25 percent to
comply as new entrant). Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next
whole number of Stage 2 airplanes.Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed
In the regulations.
Fleet Mix, from p. 113
compliance gate at the end of 1994. The report indicates that
the combined fleet easily met the 55 percent Stage 3 fleet
mix requirement. In fact, Stage 3 aircraft comprised 66.3
percent of the collective fleet, a proportion that already
surpasses the fleet mix requirement at the end of the next
interim compliance gate at the end of 1996, when the fleet
must be comprised of 65 percent Stage 3 aircraft.
The high percentage of Stage 3 aircraft in the collective
fleet mix is driven by foreign airlines (with a 74 percent
Stage 3 fleet) and U.S. major and national airlines whose
fleets are comprised of 67 percent Stage 3 aircraft. Ameri-
can, Delta, and United are aggressively pursuing an all
Stage 3 fleet.
Of the nine U.S. major carriers, American Airlines
continues to have the highest percentage of Stage 3 aircraft
in its fleet (86.4 percent), followed by Southwest (74.9
percent), America West (71.9 percent), United'(69.4
percent), USAir (67.2 percent), Delta (66.9 percent), and
Continental (61.9 percent).
Northwest and TWA just made it through the first
compliance gate. Northwest's Beet was only 43.2 percent
Stage 3 at the end of 1994, but it complied with the Part 91
rules by phasing out 27.8 percent of its Stage 2 fleet. TWA's
119
fleet was 45.4 percent Stage 3, and it phased out 24.6
percent of its Stage 2 aircraft.
Collectively, the U.S. cargo carriers have a fleet com-
prised of 51.2 percent Stage 3 aircraft, reflecting the
strategy of most of that industry to operate their Stage 2
airplanes as long as possible. But, UPS stands out as a real
exception. It had a fleet comprised of 83. 5 percent Stage 3
aircraft at the end of 1994 and recently announced that it
will have an all -Stage 3 fleet by the end of 1996, making it
the first airline to reach that goal and doing so three years
ahead of schedule (see related story in this issue).
Barbara Beyer, president of the aviation consulting firm
AVMARK, Inc., speculated that the airlines will lie able to
meet the next interim compliance deadlines at the end of
1996 and 1998, but some may have great difficulty meeting
the final Stage 2 phaseout deadline at the end of 1999.
She foresees the financial cycle slowing, with a possible
recession in 2001. People generally start cutting back on
their purchase of airline tickets a year ahead of a recession
in anticipation of the slowdown, she explained, adding that
this could have an impact on the airlines' ability in meet the
final phaseout deadline.
Some airlines have decided to convert to an all -Stage 3
fleet and are moving ahead with that and others, like
Northwest, have decided to hushkit their fleet, Beyer said.
Airport Noise Repos
2�
120
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Mark Atwood, Esq.
Galland, Khmasch, Morse & Garfinkle
Washington, D.C.
Lee L. Blackman, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
ten Angeles. Calif.
Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP
Demi. School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling
College
Ellol Culler, Esq.
Cutlet & Stanfield
Washington. D.C.
J. Spencer Dickerson _
Senior Via President
American Association of Airport Executives
Edward J. DIPolvere
Administratm, National Association of Noise
Control Officials
Richard G."Dkk" Dyer
At" Environmental Specialist, Division of
Aeronautics, Calif. Dept. of Transportation
E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq.
Hogan & Hanson
Washington, D.C.
Julie H. Ellis, Esq.
Managing Director -
Federal Expreas Corporation
Angel M. Garcia
Co-Chaimran
Citizens Against Newark Noise
E.H. "Moe" Haupt
Manager, Airport and Environmental Servicer,
National Business Aircraft Association
Charles Price
Executive Director, National Organization to Insure
A Sound -Controlled Environment
Robert P. Silverberg, Esq.
Bngileo. Silverberg & Goldman
Washington. D.C.
Joanne W. Young, Esq.
Baker & Hostetler
Washington. D.C.
Noise
"But many operators ate still sitting on the fence and haven't decided
what to do yet and are operating Stage 2 aircraft that are essentially junk,
but they don't want to trash them yet because they are revenue genera-
tors," she said. "It's a very complicated equation" for airlines to decide
how to meet the phaseout rules, she said.
Only one foreign airline appears to be in real trouble in terms of
meeting the phaseout deadline. Aeroflot has a fleet of 84 aircraft, 77 of
which are Stage 2. It has a fleet mix of 8.3 percent Stage 3 aircraft and
only phased out 24.5 percent of its Stage 2 fleet at the end of 1994.
In 1993, 235 active operators' fleets comprised 2,372 Stage 2 airplanes
and a base level of 2,870. In 1994, 299 active operators' fleets comprised
2,250 Stage 2 airplanes and a base level of 3,096. The number of opera-
tors in 1994 increased due to new entrants, correction of inaccurate data;
and identificatiogof additional operators. Total base level of Stage 2
aircraft increased due to reports from operators that had not reported
earlier, the return of airplanes leased overseas, and operators' confusion
over whether to claim certain B-747 airplanes as Stage 2 or 3.A
UPS, from p. 113
jet fleet will meet the:new noise regulations three years early — before any
comparably sized airline."
Flight tests show that the area on the ground [hat is affected by noise
from the re -engined aircraft is reduced by 70 percent from 22 square
miles to 6.5 square miles. There -engined aircraft achieve noise reduction
a full 12.4 dB below the limits set by Stage 3 regulations, UPS said, and
fuel consumption is reduced by 18 percent and exhaust emissions are
reduced by 22 percent on a typical flight.
In addition to re-engining the 727 aircraft, UPS also is modernizing the
cockpits with new electronic flight information systems and navigation
equipment. "The end result is a rejuvenated aircraft that can fly quietly,
cleanly and reliably into the 21st century, reducing UPS' reliance on
leased aircraft during its peak demand seasons;' Weidemeyer said.
UPS has been repeatedly recognized for its effective noise reduction
program. In May 1994, the aviation board for the New Orleans Imerna-
tional Airport awarded UPS the board's first Good Neighbor Award kir
excellence in noise control. The Triangle Airport Coalition of Raleigh-
Durham, NC, and New York City's Queens Borough also have given UPS
quiet airline awards.
UPS is the world's largest package distrbution company with revenues
of $19.6 billion on a volume of more than 3 billion packages and docu-
ments in 1994.A
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Marguerite Lambert, Production Coordinator
Mark A.Wolski, Contributing Editor; Anne Jacobs, Circulation Editor, Maria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 25 times a year al 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 22011; Phone: (703) 729A867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
Price $450.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA.
Airport Noise Report
30
r1
L-A
0
•
OCT 3'95 14:40 FR ADMIN 2ND FLOOR 612 483 7821 TO 96814612 P.02
WALL STREET JOURNAL.
0 Ism Dow Jana & Q *07, fix a it & R4rertxd
9111"M TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1995 DoMenues MMA
L _J
•
R-94%
San Diego Cowide'i
A Floating Airport,
But Mil It Fly?
• Y •
One Is Proposed, While Japan
And the Pentagon Have
Visionary St=, Too
By 111c"M J. MCCARM
&o Rep~ N'aa vv &w Jw vx"
Por years, It seemed tike a Bight of
faner. a Boatiog a%w t.
But In so past few months, Japanese
aviation ofEd& began seeking horde rur
an offshore airport near Tokyo that could
east more than S20 billion. A group of
Japanese steel companies Mod ship
builders is bidding to desip red construct
the Vellect, named Mega -Float
Meanwbne, in the A. tiu!Floatpott, a
proposed Boating airport off San Deep.
was buoyed recently when the small firm
that designed It woe a 31.6 million federal
rePAr i1-cmtMM
Outlandish?
Bold m. Now comes the Pentagon, ad
The MOB Connection. The Defense Depett-
ment has been toying with the Ulna of
amara, mobile bases It Can deploy an a
dime. The idea world be to tow jumbo
pontoons, loaded with soldiers, planes or
artihery, tlmm one edict to another.
8908 Deatmgs
The Pentagon bee budgeted 531.9 mll-
tim to develop Boating Flatmnts, the
biggest roes under a project tailed Mobile
offshore Bases. or MOR
One MOB comae went to Pleat Ire,
theCCmpW thardrewup the Fbatpott for
SM Diego. 18 Aeeust Float was awarded
53.5 million to design a football3ield-size
version of Its so-called Poemnafic SIabi-
Road Platform. DevMMPMept anrads
with other dm for dJBuent types of
BaCeg plMCmmt are being negot�
ds»mtruetion Inc.. ed Marin
e sa4
ago "ARUND UPO M M" toys Mort
MU, a Bechtel engineer and markatio�
maoager.'� aaatiog airport ts teaefele.'
Bur don't reach nor year, sm-cm0dm
notation device just yet. Maty avmtbm
specialists UM view the Bafg airport as
a Img abet, despite the Vegetation of
t»ve ptr>jacts.
Cep about notse and tend costs
already have pushed many Im ww oat
kmthewater - for example. theories that
tat two San Frard"D Say. TheJapanese
last year opened a num4nede tstand ah -
port in Osaka Bay. and a similar project is
order way in Yong Sort;.
But the rM people are convinced mat
their free -!bating cunmt is ready to to
Diego saamcmOmeareplacement for d
d Uedbetgh Fidd.
labmdod by three mea - an ardtItem a
former weapo10stompany, executive and
anmen ogteraft -tbesmellcompanyde-
algaed a big raft mat it says wiu that m
30.000 eeactete eyhnders, eachfourstories
tell. A honeycomb of tubas, buoyed by
bspped air. would act as a wave about
Gettizig absortia.
to the FMVM
Before adding a terminal, an.alrtref-
Bacontmitower and other
amemrermemts,
Float ligums private investors would have
to be timed up to spend at IeeaR 93 billion.
about 55 minim per sere, for the haze
plaCasm. The raftwould heanchared three
miles 01110M. and passengers would
move to and fro by rapid transit via a
tunnel. They alsomuld hydroplane oat and
back to sea taxis.
Terhmhatfy. the pMjW might hold
water, bbrushinut the tompWs markeliogneeas
to reassure
skittish Eyes.Fbabrochures uwoff
the slogan: "A crash m water is more
survivable than me on land. -
The pitch hasn't wowed City Barn.
When Flare scientists met briefly with
Sa10 Dlego Mayor asnuo Golding twoyeats
ago she referred them m the city's Offim
of Givmmmn Sew- a post as created Md
IS ami of an ambedrman, While Sae Diego
swees
iabeyeax. � �� �
.'AHoward Mood.
t this
t, a former
neeaft professor and vire president for
defense contractor Gould W-. "we have a
Mdtblaty problem."
And a Ig Ike of skeptics. Notlmg the
delays and $3 billion cost overr ons at the
now Denver arporL Bill Rfesen, talifor
1011'3 airparp Wet.a64qppa6 launWmg an
airport at see Could 4% cost twice as
much as a comparable land-basW Pole &
"Wena not too ba on the Idea," he says.
Needed Depth
Sven in Washington Rata, a leader to
Rotation technology, (a five -lane Barker
bridge nSeameapselakeWedingtow.
ransportatioft officials have their doubts.
'Moss rWb' Ind down bard on the
Visas Robert Joawhso . a
al
612 483 7821
Bavironmentalist groups in San
anvisket let feel poles the bey- 1'be
We sMworry flet the thB Cole8s81
ptsticrm vot,M diaropt the alietatim of
whales. The Surfrider Fomdefim. k seit
Clemente, thinks the Fla"d might af-
fect the surf. Awesome? No. awful. "We
are waves as a natural reOmCC to be
protect ted " bays PleMceFlYeo, the fonada-
tlon'a totecutive draemr.
The PloatparL which dedgoers say
Auld tab a decade to complete, would
have two le of
handitn8 jumbofjets. long nmwm gaas the
rummy doesn't hire u'h and down like an
ahcratt-carder deck, says Capt Frank
StabW,who files; Baeitt 0o.?a7sforTrans
World Airlines. -Td try IL"
The Pkalport would be nBrored by
mmori10g dallies atiamed M anCft= em-
Oeddetl 1n the Ote8m1 Boor. Float research
ers arecteMent n could withstand choppy
seas and tides. And B a typboon, or even a
tsmamL were to, toll In they say, the
FTatport would simply shut down, which
already is steaderd practice at airports in
hurricane territory.
Happy Ludkv
TheughfogwWlldsee Sm tbbe�eadddrawback. mela-
orallogists Absent mcam-
talos.skysma� persandothescbstedasW
can whip ftp air turbulence, says lima
Fahey.lmlsj�bill pager --& compisafor �
Would Oita a tauiy UMM eppeoacb."
Helping WMbcibethe �t SMI)
of the 30st
,00D, four -ray cybders would
weigh 90 to 190 tom. -M isn't tian going
Oman a rowboat."Says Dr. Blood. "This Is
M Mammoth structure. Smaller verstons.
adds Jolm was lsDa, Fiat's mcadve
vitt president, could work as floating
Islands for taaeatim or tmatsm, on refin-
eries, ravlrconversim plants and ship
ping Parts.
RVM their cramped San Diego oMW4
where they I" a plastic tiock-up of the
Floatpart, F7oatreseffieheieworry thazthe
Japanese will beat than to IL Saavel
"rt. opened a year ago in Osaka Bay,
was conceived as floater. Dedgurs later
opted fora mea -etude Mandwhichevew
Welty eaea 33 feet end regtdred sons orsdi
and oak m 1hWe it ap.The ad»aMng4hPM
problem gave new IBe to the floater torr
ttW-
BluDr. Blood wants the U.S.10gtab atl-
Me glary In this tectinoMeal wnartam
'When we get cols thing am there,
will be coming from all over the world 0
crawl on Il." its says. "Mark m' words."
Mos TOTAL PAM. OM nos
10-03-95 02:40PM P002 #06
L,.
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT -AREA COMMUNITY
PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE
Prepared For
Metropolitan Council
City of Bloomington
City of Eagan
City of Minneapolis
By Clarion Associates
Denver, Colorado
Metropolitan Airports
Commission
City of Mendota Heights
City of Richfield
in association with
Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota
July 1995
3cZ
0
0
L�
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT -AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION
CONCEPT PACKAGE—DRAFP
Clarion Associates
in association with
Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.
July 1995
INTRODUCTION
The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary
economic assets and engines in Minnesota -Not only does it provide substantial direct economic
benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy.
The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoothly functioning,
modem and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County or remain at its
current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that
even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current
capacity and projected demand.
While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also apparent
that it has significant impacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are always the first
• issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of equal significance—safety, ground
traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental influences, and effects on property values and
overall community stability. Most airport -impact mitigation efforts focus almost exclusively on
noise—and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has established a good track record with its,
noise insulation and property buyout programs. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious
that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation programs are limited *in their
outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at least the next twenty years, and
the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained, these other impacts need to be
addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating existing houses closest to
the airport is not enough. Airports are dynamic facilities, at least if they are successful.
Operational requirements are constantly changing and new runways and other facilities need to
be added from time -to -time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, continually
changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts. At the same time, steps need
to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP that would
hamper its efficient operation in the long terns.
To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan
Airports Commission have been meeting informally since late 1994 with representatives of local
governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan,
Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. The group's primary goal has been to identify and
explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities in the airport
E
1
35
environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.' In essence, these discussions have focused .
on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of surrounding
neighborhoods and businesses. Recognizing that this effort was a two-way street, the group also
examined ways to prevent new incompatible development that might adversely affect the airport.
During 1995, the group has examined a wide range of tools and techniques and has developed a
mitigation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision
regarding location of MSP. This package includes several of the most promising approaches
identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative
action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private sector
businesses:
• Community stabilization technique such as property value guarantees, tax
credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible
land use prior to deterioration.
• Community revitalization approaches such as tailored tax increment financing
districts and community development banks.
• Incentive programs similar to those commonly used in siting large facilities to
provide offsetting benefits (such as neighborhood recreation centers) to a
community or neighborhood. These would include incentives from private firms •
(e.g., the airlines, car rental companies) as well as from public agencies.
• Aipart protection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure
that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not
occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures are undertaken.
The group also examined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available.
While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level
of noise (typically with the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can
be made that the impact area should not be so narrowly defused. When homes are demolished
within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable housing may be
significant throughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a
community's tax base. Of course, airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts
on a community, for example, major changes in traffic levels and patterns.
Based on such considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine
which communities should be eligible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First,
only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC
would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within
which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods within
'A summary of the operating principles adopted by the group is attached to this document.
one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted on the attached map. The definition of the precise
• boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legislature to the
Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected
neighborhoods.
11
SUMMARY OF MTTIGATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help
stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport
area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize
neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such
as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are
limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues.
Property Value Guarantees
Where landowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely affected by noise from airport
operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception may lead to a
pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area,
and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land
uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some
owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them.
Experience in the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates
that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioration by providing
guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee
program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this.
Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an
$90 application fee which covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses. If after
five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled
to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assurning the house had been maintained adequately during
that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible.
Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have
it purchased by a village -established Equity Assurance Commission.
Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears of property value loss. While over
160 homeowners initially joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. Interestingly,
no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and
remains a desirable residential community.
3
3S
Emulating this concept, local governments around MSP should be authorized to establish a •
program that pledges to reimburse landowners for losses in property value caused by airport
operations and impacts. Backup funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the
Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local governments would pass through such
reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive
any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for any equity reimbursement, the rationale being
that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where
owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to
purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the
state or MAC. Participation would be optional for all property owners within a designated
eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone).
Preferential Tax Programs
To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or social
stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have
adopted a variety of income and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of
Minnesota recently adopted an urban homesteading program that authorizes the Metropolitan
Council to designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that are in transition to blight and
poverty. Any person buying or occupying a home within such a zone is eligible for an exemption
from Minnesota taxable income for up to five years (up to a limit of $15,000 for married
individuals filing a joint return) in specified circumstances.
Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special property tax benefits to encourage owners
of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fouirth mile of major transit stops.
The goal is to encourage job density around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible.
The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax -benefits to businesses locating
in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes
Section 473.3915)
In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep
existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a
designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved
out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be
recaptured.
Housing Revitalization Programs
As noted above, several of the MSP -area communities have undertaken aggressive and innovative
housing revitalization programs. However, where these efforts involve direct government action
as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local •
jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit
4
36
• program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make improvements to
homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and
similar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into
spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged. Interestingly,
in Minnesota half of the credits have been claimed by owners of homes with values less than
$85,000. Thus the state legislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit
program for homes in designated airport -impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective by reducing
the age limitation to fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a
wider range of housing.
In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly
encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage lending rates, down payment requirements,
reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs
for prospective homeowners—especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, special
lending programs embodying these concepts, in addition to those already in effect in other areas,
to encourage more aggressively first-time home buyers, thus helping to stabilize the airport -area
neighborhoods.
Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proven to be useful tools in broader
community stabilization and housing preservation programs. Typically, local governments create
low-interest loan rehabilitation loan funds for designated areas (e.g., an historic district).
Homeowners in the district can borrow funds for rehabilitation at below-market interest rates, thus
• encouraging investment of their private dollars. Payment, can be made over a specified term or
upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. A similar program
is currently available in Minneapolis through MCDA—the Middle Income Housing Program: This
program is not limited to first-time homeowners; it makes loans available for housing
rehabilitation such as putting a new roof on a house.
Funding for such a program tailored for the airport area might come from a one-time
appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue
bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a combination of sources including
some form of local match.
Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of
"preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally
discovered that there are no "silver bullets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will
depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital
investment funds. Again, MSP -area communities have some substantial experience with
commercial and residential revitalization programs, but more programs are needed to enable them
to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts.
•
3 %
Tax Increment Financing .
Tax increment financing (TIF) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization
tool throughout the state. There are currently five general types of TIF districts, and the
municipalities surrounding MSP may qualify to use one or more of these districts. Generally,
however, there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area,
purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calculated, and areas
within which funds can beexpended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport
impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could
become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport -impact issues.
These recommended changes include:
• Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to. a specified
percentage of substandard housing, location within'an airport impact zone would
trigger use of the district.
• Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in
addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qualifying
expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue
bonds, community facilities, etc:
• Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere •
within broader project area, perhaps the entire airport impact zone; do not limit
just to district.
• Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero.
Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the
communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax increment financing in,
thequalifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another
alternative for consideration would be to spread over the seven county region the
reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special burdens
borne by airport -area communities that benefit others throughout the region.
• Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of
airports around the United States are encouraging non -aviation related commercial
development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of
an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of
buffer properties for non -aviation commercial uses, and such properties should be
included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to
address airport impacts.
m
• FIscal Disparities
MAC -controlled property is treated differently from other similar use property in the area for
purposes of fiscal disparities. Valuation of the property is not included in any tax based sharing.
Many options are available for consideration including the payment of a shared area rate.
Additionally, growth in existing commercial and industrial property uses within the airport could
be made eligible for sharing under the fiscal disparities program.
Community Development Bank
Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient
in the success of community revitalization programs. Experience shows that in blighted or
deteriorating areas, bank lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization
funding may dry up or conventional financing may not be sufficient to stimulate private
investment. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung up that
might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest
financing.
One of the most successful of these community development banks --the South Shore Bank in
Chicago --is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted
• residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has
been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhood that had been written off by most observers In
most respects, this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood
financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks—credit worthiness of
the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important difference, however, is that
a significant amount of the banks funds are in "development deposits"—deposits by institutions and
individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for
neighborhood rehabilitation. As the bank's executive vice president has stated, "We are owned
by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations, but who are also interested in
economic development."
Community development banks often make rehabilitation funds available at below-market interest
rates or with extended payment schedules. This non-traditional financing is often the key to
getting the revitalization ball rolling. Funds for such non-traditional programs come from a
variety of sources—community development funds, Community Reinvestment Act programs, and
private sector contributions, to name only a few.
The idea of a community development bank for MSP -area communities is worthy of further
exploration. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these -communities than
was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration
in some residential areas and provide venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial areas,
particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital for such
• a bank might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even
the state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the
7
39
airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program -related investments (which •
typically must be.paid back, but at very low rates of interest.)
In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly common practice to
provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the
impacts or burdens associated with a large facility. (e.g., a large industrial development or ski'
resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of
significant amounts of park land to offset loss of open space on-site or increased demand on local
parks associated with an influx of new workers. The types of other incentives offered by
developers include:
• Community and recreation centers;
• Contributions towards. local police, 'fire, and emergency medical
services/equipment;
• Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts;
• Special rates for use of commercial facilities (e.g., discount tickets at a ski
resort).
In a general sense, these incentives and benefits are intended to protect and possibly enhance the
quality of life in an area in which a new development is viewed as potentially compromising that
quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major
development.
In the context of the airport, an incentive/mitigation package might include, for example, funding
for additional indoor recreational facilities. . The logic would be that such facilities would help
"compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for the adverse impacts airport noise has on the use of
outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this direction by making
some of its land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreational
opportunities, but also provides an important buffer for neighboring Richfield.
Private companies might also be enlisted in this effort. In many communities, airlines contribute
free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. For example, to
encourage community involvement in planning for the redevelopment of Stapleton Airport in
Denver, Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for
school-age children to suggest interesting uses for the site. The MSP communities feel that the
many companies and funis that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more
than willing to weigh in on the side of keeping the airport at its current location have an obligation
to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation programs,
because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the
airport, let alone the serious secondary effects discussed above.
•
8
4/0
A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing
construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps
have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For example, the state has
enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities
within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or
expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as partof
its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are
to be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these
requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP
pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a few airport -area
municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not (although most
have some noise protectiontinsulation standards for new construction).
If the airport is to continue to function in an efficient, safe manner, it is.important that steps be
taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider:
• Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council
noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board.
• Putting "teeth" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that
local compliance is ensured. At the same time, the state legislature must address
the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local
governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage
award against them.
• Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they
specify preferred result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in
achieving a specified objective.
• Providing land use planning assistance to local governments so that they can
comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to. airport impacts.
FA i 7Z#7; nu i ��i�c7�Y C�7`r ►'�:o) l�XY11TiT/:i;i'I
TOOL
SOURCE OF
EXAMPLE
AUTHORITYIFUNDING
Property Value Guarantees
MAC/State of Minnesota
Oak Park, Illinois, equity
assurance program.
Preferential Tag Programs
State of Minnesota
Minnesota urban home-
steading legislation.
Housing Revitalization
State of Minnesota
Minnesota "This Old House"
Programs
legislation tax credits for
home renovation.
Tag Increment Financing
State of Minnesota
Current state tax increment
Expansion
financing legislation.
Community Development
MAC/State/Airport-Related
South Shore Bank in
Bank
Businesses
Chicago.
Community Incentive
Airport -Related Businesses/
Large real-estate
Programs
MAC
developments; ski resorts.
r'1
u
C,
J
UY.
e I .. 1•
✓ n 1_ Iq s Y
Valle i
1 j �
_ _ 1 •11 r I
S Ednt aui -
10D1 1
1 e .Lan 1
is 1 Minne olis
Park li ; 494
/ u
D
West
is 1 11 al St. P ul
i L i South 1- ......
Edina - li St. Pa �.
c2f ndA
1 ndotal� Newport
PlRi)cif`ld
h unis11
0 1
(�1
j r
494
\ u
w St. Paul
' 17Inv r Grove Park
n // H ights �T1�
Bloom* gton ' �`�� ZOH 1 I,
71 1' RE
le / gan CLOUD
r S
32
�•. , -- Ij 1:4.11
1
I
13
Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' Collaborative Efforts in
Airport Planning 40
GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue to operate for
an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments
affected by airport operations are committed to maintaining themselves as healthy communities
from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspective. To that end, they have agreed on the
following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to redevelop the
airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identification of the impacts of MSP
operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of a community stabilization and
revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for
inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the
airport at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to
airport -area communities should not be applied in such a way as to result in undue burden to
individual residents of affected communities. •
These cooperative planning efforts should not be interpreted as supporting the retention of
MSP at its current location or moving it to Dakota County.
PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS:
To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse impacts related
to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include new tools and
the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax -increment financing, should be
made available in the airport development area.
2. Airport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of
mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts
are varied and may affect a community in other ways.
3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a
concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by
a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governments and school
districts.
4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, funds should be provided •
to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere
in that community if feasible.
Z
5. The lonefi�{rport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact
• assistance. burdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment
and qualityaSe, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the
maximum Zfeasible. ,
6. Steps shou]i%ken over time by each community in partnership with MAC and the
Met Councilpreate compatible zones around the airport. These zones should be
accomplishftugh a combination of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopment tools to
assure tb2t#Bftes remain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities.
7. Steps sho» l b aken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing
high-inten*.fts in areas where existing uses .preclude application of safety zone
develOPInWiftictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities
to f2cilitate4expedite this process. No new schools, hospitals, and multi -family
housing SbW& built in these areas.
8. Airport deuqIftent area communities should take steps to ensure that all new and infill
developmatWCn the airport development area is compatible from a noise and safety
perspective. I& should be accomplished through the use of improved building codes,
zoning regi, and similar restrictions.
9. Steps shotd 4 taken to assure that existing as well as future community -wide
redevelopmga*m associated with airport development area impacts are integrated into
• the cOmmWs overall plan. (to include the addition of community -wide amenities...)
I�
10. The Met Gaal should take primary responsibility on behalf of and in cooperation with
affected aiMdevelopment area communities to ensure that the above -listed principles.
and conce}ot ate fully considered in the dual -track process. These principles and
concepts **be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the
Dual TmckOision Document.
,�s
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MSP AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION NEEDS •
As a community directly and severely affected by aircraft operations at
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP), the City of Mendota Heights is
very concerned over the future configuration and operation of the airport. As part
of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the City has been approached by the
Metropolitan Council to discuss ways in which our community is impacted by the
airport, and strategies for mitigating these impacts.
The Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Community Protection Concept Package
prepared by the Metropolitan Council represents the product of these discussions
and attempts to provide a number of tools and techniques by which Mendota
Heights and other nearby communities will be able to address airport related
impacts. The City of Mendota Heights supports the adoption of the Metropolitan
Council Community Protection Package based upon the following justification of
need and operational considerations.
As the number of MSP aircraft operations has grown, air noise impacts
within Mendota Heights have increased dramatically. Many of the noise impacted
areas within our City are older residential areas (built in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) •
which clearly pre -date the surge in air traffic experienced at MSP during the
1980's and 90's. As a result of increased noise exposure, these older Mendota
Heights residential neighborhoods have experienced disinvestment and decline. In
order to stabilize these areas and maintain their viability, the use of property value
guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization, aggressive sound insulation
programs, and other described community stabilization programs is necessary and
warranted.
Residential neighborhoods potentially eligible for these programs include
the Furlong Addition along State Trunk Highway 55, Curley Addition along
Lexington Avenue, Rogers Lake Addition along State Trunk Highway 149, Friendly
Hills Addition along State Trunk Highway 149, and other scattered neighborhoods
located in identified noise impacted areas.
Revitalization of industrial properties within the City's Business Park will
similarly require substantial resources over time. In order to maintain the long
term economic health of this area, the City Council would consider the selective
use of community stabilization and revitalization tools described in the Community
Protection Concept Package.
•
J�6
• City of Mendota Heights
MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs
Page 2
The Community Protection Concept Package also discusses a number of
airport protection measures designed to prevent incompatible land development in
airport impacted areas. As a community incorporated in 1956 and comprehen-
sively planned in 1959, the City of Mendota Heights has a number of established
land use patterns which limits its ability to make sweeping land use modifications
for the sake of airport expansion. For instance, the City of Mendota Heights is
already 90-95% developed. Nonetheless, the City of Mendota Heights has for
many years.cooperated with the Metropolitan Council in adopting and enforcing
land use controls related to the airport.
In 1987, the City of Mendota Heights became the first.and only city to
adopt the Metropolitan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has
strenuously enforced the Metropolitan Council's Guidelines for Construction Within
Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones. In addition, the City has made a concerted effort
to limit the total number of new residential units located in areas overflown. by
aircraft, and has experienced substantial costs in support of litigation to achieve
these goals.
• The City takes seriously its responsibility to control the development of
noise incompatible land uses within Mendota Heights. As such, the City does not
support the creation of another regulatory body, such as the Airport Zoning Board,
to usurp the land use authority vested in our duly elected public officials. If
"teeth" are to be put into the enforcement of land use patterns, the cities
themselves should be the enforcing authority, not some distant, non -representative
board such as the Airport Zoning Board.
This is not to say that the Legislature, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and the Metropolitan Council do not have important roles to play in
regulating air noise generation and exposure. If MSP is to continue to exist in its
present location, it is essential that "teeth" also be put into the regulations
affecting the operation of the airport. Long term community compatibility with
MSP is premised on the following:
1) The aircraft departure corridor should be narrowed over Mendota Heights
and Eagan to take full advantage of the latest air traffic control technology.
The introduction of a Global Positioning Satellite navigation system at MSP
in Fall 1995 should greatly improve the safety of airspace management, and
will also lessen the distance aircraft need to be separated from one another
41on
ensure passenger safety. Other precision air traffic control advancements
on the horizon will only help the MAC and FAA better utilize the airspace
surrounding MSP to minimize air noise impacts over residential areas.
City of Mendota Heights .
MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs
Page 3 41
2) The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor should be
eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is finite, and communities
overflown by aircraft using the corridor ought not be expected to endure air
noise exposure beyond a fair limit. All communities surrounding MSP
receive significant economic benefit from its close proximity. Similarly, all
should be expected to bear a reasonable and equitable share of the
associated noise burden as well.
3) Over the Mendota Heights/Eagan area, departing aircraft should be directed
to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, less noise sensitive areas, such as
industrial park property and highway rights of way. These areas have been
planned in conformance with existing and approved airport runway
configurations, are in conformance with Metropolitan Council guidelines,
and have been approved by the Metropolitan Council. To fully accomplish
this goal, aircraft during non -busy hours should be directed to fly a crossing
pattern in the corridor, rather than being given departure headings which
overfly close -in residential areas. This crossing procedure during non -busy
times has been approved by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and is
currently awaiting implementation by the Federal Aviation Administration. •
4) Once modified to take advantage of the latest air traffic control technology
and adjusted to correct for air noise distributional inequities, the boundaries
of the aircraft departure and arrival corridors should be specifically defined,
and air noise exposure standards should be established along this corridor.
Aircraft operators violating these standards should be subject to substantial
monetary fines, similar to the system recently put into place at the new
Denver International Airport.
5) Nighttime aircraft restrictions should be put into place immediately to ensure
that only Stage III quieter aircraft are flown between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions should be mandatory and violation of
the standards should result in a monetary fine to the offending air carrier.
6) Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (related to how quickly aircraft gain
altitude upon departure) should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the
full performance capabilities of Stage III aircraft are being utilized. The
ability of these aircraft to rapidly gain altitude, thereby minimizing aircraft
noise levels experienced on the ground, should be quantified and made part
of air traffic departure procedures at MSP.
0
City of Mendota Heights
MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs
Page 4
7) In -its MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC has identified a future runway
construction project located on the west side of the airport property. This
new North/South runway, if built, is expected to accommodate air traffic
needs well beyond 2020. The face of aviation will be considerably different
by that time and will hopefully include later generation aircraft which will be
substantially quieter than the current Stage III quiet aircraft, and high
precision air traffic control technology which will ensure safe airspace
management with a minimum of aircraft separation. With this in mind, the
MAC should commit that any airport expansion identified in subsequent
MSP Comprehensive Plans will be "noise -neutral", meaning that no new
noise impacts over residential areas will be generated off of the airport
property as a result of the future addition of new runways.
8) Also related to the MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC should establish
measurable criteria by which the performance of MSP is to be judged in
deciding whether or not airport expansion is warranted. These performance
criteria should be frequently and regularly reported to allow interested
• parties to monitor the need to undertake the improvements described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
•
Ll9
Current Operations Subcommittee Report
Draft Issues for Legislative Consideration •
1. Direction to MAC to Install more Noise Monitors
2. Require MAC to provide cities with their own ANOMS terminals.
3. Equitable, Impact -Based Representation on MAC for area
Southeast of the Airport - 1/2 of all flights and focus of
expansion plans entitles City to designated representative.
4. Require Focus Groups outside of usual MAC advisory groups for
MAC input on airport operations, noise mitigation, etc.
5. Require MAC to Institute Incident -Based Aircraft Noise
Compensation Mechanisms and Punitive Fines
Tax Credits payable by MAC
Direct Payments for Exceeding a Noise Budget (Denver)
Noise Fines (European airports)
6. Require MAC to require FAA to justify every individual
deviation from the corridor. (Sarasota)
7. Support Eagan Is Dual Track Decision - Don't prejudge outcomes.
8. Need for Realistic Mitigation Costs to be Integral to Dual
Track Decision - Actual impacts not contained within 65 DNL •
•
Metropolitan Airpms Commission
Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995 •
1.0% (40) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 0950
Corridor Policy Boundary
S c2,
Pop 2 Avisdm Naim Pzogmm
•
0
40
Metropolitan Airports Commissim
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
33 ... Carrier Jet Departures (0.S%
North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
�3
Aviation Noise Progems Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 111, and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
Z... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout
(North Side Before Three Miles)
7.
s/
Pape 4 Aviation Noise Programs
0
[]I
0
:.:.:..............................._..............
-.... ..........-.-
7.
s/
Pape 4 Aviation Noise Programs
0
[]I
0
s/
Pape 4 Aviation Noise Programs
0
[]I
0
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
• July 1995
E
12.3% (501) Carrier Jet Departures
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
SS
Aviation Nose Pmgrems pap 5
Nlwopoh= Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
427... Carrier Jet Departures (10.6%
South of Corridor (South of 29L Locafizer)
Page 6 Aviation Noise Programs
E
171
0
U
Metropolitan Azpom Co,3=ssjm
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 11L and UR Carrier Jet Departures
R... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (LMb
(South Side Before Three Miles)
S7
Aviation. Noise Programs Pap 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4.0% (164) Carrier Jet Departures 51, South of Corridor
(50 South of 29L Localizer)
4
IN,
--- - ------
. ...... --------
...........
♦
.... ...................
Se
Page 8 Aviation Noise Prognons
0
W�
•
r,
E
Metropolitan Aupom Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
0 ... Carrier Jet Departures (2.2 %
5* South of Corridor (5* South of 29L Localize'r)
Aviation Noise Programs Page 9
L;
Aviation Noise Programs Page 9
4b
%•
-0
Aviation Noise Programs Page 9
Metropolitan Aiqorrs Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
July 1995
4080 ... Total 111, and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
U ... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (1.8%
(South Side Before Three Miles)
66
Page 10 Aviation Noise Program
a
0
0
a
00
66
Page 10 Aviation Noise Program
a
0
0
Metropolitan Ahpcm Cammmsicm
Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
0.5% (48) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 0950
Corridor Policy Boundary
06 4:?5.
Page 2 Aviadon Noise Pmgrmns
Metropolitan Airports C M=Ssia®
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
8089 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
28 ... Carrier Jet Departures (0.3%)
North of Proposed 0950 (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
63
Aviation Noise Programs Page 3
Metmpo1RwAiTomC=mi sion
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1"5
8089 ... Total 111, and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
M ... Carrier jet Departure - Early 11irnout (0.2 %
(North Side Before Three Miles)
Page 4 Aviatim Noise hqpm
..............................
.......................
Page 4 Aviatim Noise hqpm
Metropolitan Ai[pons Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
13.2% (1066) Carrier Jet Departures
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
m
Aviation Noise Pmgams
Page 5
Metropolitan Airpomra mi sim
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
8089 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
272 ... Carrier Jet Departures (12.1 %
0
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
t vittle.•
Page 6 Avistim Noise Pmg®s
Metropolitan Airports C=mssicm
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
8089 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
$Z... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (11W
(South Side Before Three Miles)
Avid Noise Programs Pap 7
•
%
Avid Noise Programs Pap 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
3.2% (260) Carrier Jet Departures 50 South of Corridor
(50 South of 29L Localizer)
Y,
----------
is
•
..............
............
................
----- . ......
............. .. ........ ........
. ...... .......
A . .. ... .
V,
'N"
......... ...
3: N -------
A
14-
0/49
Pap 8 Avieti® Noise Programs
WtropoliAzp= Ca mig6m
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
8 M9... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
M... Carrier Jet Departures QJM
S° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L Localizer)
6y
Aviatim Noise 1?mgams page 9
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
August 1995
8089 ... Total 11L and 1IR Carrier Jet Departures
84... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (1.0%
(South Side Before Three Miles)
71
•
•%
%
�Q
Pap 10 Aviafm Noise Prognow
U.5 Department
of Tramportahon
Federal Aviation
Administration
September 29, 1995
Jon Hohenstein
Assistant to the City Administrator
Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, HN 55122-1897
Dear fir. Hohensteine
Airport Traffic Cnntro] Tnw- r
6311 - 34th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Hirnies?ta 57,150
This is in response to your letter of August 23, 1995 regardinq a t7m-t111.1e51.
aircraft on landing approach near Pilnt. Bnnh Road. T share your c-n^.urn for
ensuring adherence to established procedures which provide not « reli.-f rn
communities surrounding the airport and for operations at. low altitude.
We researched voice recordings of the approach control posit ions responsible for
approaches to runway 29L and 29R for the time indicated in ynur latter. We
determined that all arrivals were instructed to make at least i fnnr mile fin;.)]
when arriving from the south to runway 29L and 29R. Additinnelly, we reTiestr�
ANOMS data from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) for the time identA -
fied. Due to problems that the MAC was. experiencing with the Atio11S program thi
data did not arrive until this week. Upon review of the ANOIK: •lata lie vere able
to identify a Northwest, DC -9, which executed an "S" turn on the fin -+l for runv?y
29L which placed the aircraft near Pilot Knob Road reentering t.ho final approach.
This aircraft initially turned final approximately 4 miles from the end of. rnnyay
29L. The "S" turn, while not a regular occurrence, is not in nnurnal m?nn"T-
It appears that in this case the "S" turn was accomplished to ensure proper rim -
way separation existed between an arrival and a departure.
The proper use of the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor continues to he hiohliahred
at our all supervisors meetings, all hands meetings and face to face briefings.
Please contact me if there are any questions regarding this event, or when -ver yon
have concerns relating to the use of the c_orridnr.
Sincerely,
Rruce netl/�
Air Traffic Manager
Enclosure
W
51211g!5
;�-a.vy 38
;7qL aA.`
cq
(VI/JA za-o
14Ig9-753
a
Wtropolitmm Aupons Com=ssim
Operations and Complaint Summary
July 1995
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
MSP July Fleet Mix Percentage
Airport July Complaint Summary
A€rport � F
� 1994 "
i99S
MSP
2950
2086
Aalake
1
0
Anoka
4
2
Crystal
1
0
Flying Cloud
2
5
Lake 17mo
0
0
SL Paul
3
7
hfisr-
3
1
1'AL
July Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
Aviarim Naim Proarams
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
July 1995
Complaint Summary by City
Pap 2
Crt ;' t� �'
Arrival
re
"flotal
Pereeat <`
Apple Valley
0
19
19
0.9%
Arden Hills
11
31
42
2.0%
Bloomington
2
29
31
1.4%
Burnsville
0
27
27
1.3%
Circle Pines
0
1
1
0.1%
Columbia Heights
0
1
1
0.1%
Eagan
53
309
362
17.4%
Eden Prairie
0
4
4
0.2%
Edina
0
47
47
2.2%
Falcon Heights
0
1
1
0.1%
Inver Grove Heights
3
56
59
1 2.8%
Little Canada
0
1
1
0.1%
Medina
0
1
1
0.1%
Mendota Heights
8
92
100
4.8%
Minneapolis
103
1023
1126
54.2%
Minnetonka
2
4
6
0.3%
Oakdale
2
6
8
0.4°!0
Plymouth
1
5
6
0.3%
Richfield
5
96
101
4.9%
Roseville
1
2
3
0.1%
Shoreview
0
1
1
0.1%
South St. Paul
0
2
2
'0.1%
St. Louis Park
5
5
10
OS%
St. Paul
91
23
114
5.4%
W. St. Paul 1
0 1
1
1
0.1%
Wayzata
1
1
"ibtal
s „ as:
zo7s
° IOOala s a
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Aviation Noise Programs
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway
Metropolitan Airports Commission
,;�6
Aviokn Ndse Roams
vee c
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use
Metropolitan Airports Commismor.,
�7�
Aviadm NaLn Programs
Page 7
Carrier Jet Operations by Type
July 1995
Alrcrgft Type
Coyat y
Percentage
B727H
202
0.990
DC9H
1498
6.890
B707
2
0.0%
B733/4/5
1177
5.4%
B747
171
0.890
B74F
12
0.1%
B757
1787
8.2%
B767
1
0.0%
DA10
6
0.0%
DC10
800
3.6%
DC87
138
0.6%
EA32
1964
9.0%
FK10
1067
4.9%
L1011
13
0.1%
MDII
57
0.3%
MD80
1236
5.6%
BA10
5
0.0%
BALI
0
0.090
B727
4066
18.6%
B737
558
2.6%
DC8
64
0.3%
DC86
2
0.090
DC9
6990
32.0%
aFK28
52
0�..2�%
o"ODO
s7iA►/0 7`yr
Y y
46.3% Stage III
53.796' Stage H
Metropolitan Airports Commissicn
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
July 1995
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Eadh RMT
• Site 12 is eptly being relocated due to city sweet impmenunns.
79
Aviaem Mdse Pmgrams
Page 13
'gin c G7t� °` ��,
A 4rOlril119ie Strep Locahan
'c r
Ev{er��tys�
,.'t1rl{rp�.70VLLV
, tps
'<`7NY$
Er�vents
E1vMen�t�s
'1VItiD.
1
Minneapolis
Xaa Avenue & 41st Sum
1794
37
1
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Avenue & Ord Strew
1431
136
0
0
3
Minneapolis
W Elmwood Strew A Belmont Avenue
1622
722
24
0
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Street
1537
473
3
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Street
1345
937
236
0
6
MOBS
25th Avenue & 57th Stmat
1150
792
247
6
7
Richfield
Wentwor& Ave & 64th Snow
153
23
1
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Strew
230
1 14
0
1 0
9
St. Paxil
Saratoga Strew & Hartford Avenue
192
122
6
0
10
St Pahl
Uasca Avenue & Bowdom Street
231
161
5
0
11
St Paul
Film Street & Scheffer Avenue
48
2
1
0
12
13
..�_
Mendota Heights
A
.i.m.,r.<..
Sondwan end of Mohican Corot
u..xx4ue "..
3 /
�
*,
../ >
176
7
2
2
14
Eagan
Fast Saw & McKee Saes
2596
41
9
1
15
Mendota Heights
Call® Suety & Lexbwm Avenue
708
17
2
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Was Lace
3516
1761
8
0
17
Bkuomiogton
84th Sum & 4th Avenue
148
46
0
0
18
Richfield
75th Sew & 17th Avenue,
104
31
0
0
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Sum
36
3
0
0
20
Richfield
75th Street & 3rd Avenue
41
4
1
1
21
liner Cave Heights
Barbara Avemue & 67th Saes
203
6
0
0
22
levet Grove Beights
Anne Marie Trail
2207
10
0
0
23
Meadota Heights
Emd of Kmdm Avenue
1370
22
2
1
24
Eagan
Chapel Lane & Wmn Lar
2207
252
107
1
• Site 12 is eptly being relocated due to city sweet impmenunns.
79
Aviaem Mdse Pmgrams
Page 13
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
July 1"5
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RNff
0 Site 12 is corrently being relocated due to city street hquvoements.
Pan 14
F`D
Avi2fim Wrim A w a c
Hg
B
Minneapolis
Xcrm Avenue & 41st Street
926
253
2
0
2
MkIncapolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Sam
1251
429
12
0
3
Nfmncqdn
W Elmwood Sum & Belmont Avenue
2725
655
125
6
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Sum
3354
1144
266
19
5
IdInneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Sum
5957
3519
1532
355
6
Minnevolis
25th Avenue & 57th Sam
7021
3953
1723
750
7
RkNleld
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street
3287
1 1112
145
1 3
8
Iv humpolis
Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street
2312
562
89
6
9
St. Paul
SMRWP Sweet & Hartford Avenue
54
10
0
0
10
St. Paul,
hLwa Avarn- & Bowdoin Saw
1312
37
3
1
11
St. Paul
Fm Sum & Scbeffer Averse
343
15
4
0
13
Mendota mpoghtq
Southeast end of Mahican CAx=
1974
568
37
0
14
Eagan
Fast Street & McKee Saw
2246
362
59
7
3
15
MendotaHeights0,11en
Sum & IcxbWm Avenue
3191
691
89
7
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Vdas Lane
3400
1345
298
26
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
720 1
121
21
1
is
Richfield
75th Sow & 17di Avenue
1185
344
136
13
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Sum
774
339
126
6
20
Richfield
75th Street & 3rd Avenge
631
86
17 1
1
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Avenue & 67th Street
1333
305
0
0
22
Inver GroveHeights
Anne Marie Trail
1316
200
2
0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kendon Avenue
3880
1297
672
94
24
Eagan.
chapel Law & Wren Law
1573
218
55
1
0 Site 12 is corrently being relocated due to city street hquvoements.
Pan 14
F`D
Avi2fim Wrim A w a c
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast End or Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
lMliT�� 3
k
yy
3k F
07120/9517:30:03
B727
102.9
A
07)20/9517:33:18
B727
102.6
A
07105/9513:1453
B727
96.8
D
07/30)95 9:54:17
B737
968
D
07/19/95 9:49:50
DC9
96.7
D
07)05/9513:24:33
DC9
96.6
D
07)0295 930:09
B737
955
D
0721/9518:21:16
B727
95.1
D
07/15/95 1204:12
DO
95.0
D
07)2919516:49:13
B727
95.0
D
RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
YAIQ �
yy
07/05/9513:29:05
B727
102.4
D
07)05/9511:2557
B727
101.8
D
07)05/95 9:41:38
DC9
101.7
D
07/1295 8:14:07
B737
101.6
D
COMM 9:29:16
B727
1015
D
07/0595 7:12:20
B727
101.4
D
07259513:32:07
DO
100.9
D
07/1995 9:49:15
DO
995
D
07A219518:13:46
B727
98.2
D
07121/951351:43
B727
979
D
Par 18
Y/
Avietim Noise Pw mos
RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St.
t
07/14)9521:25:19
B727
102.4
D
072695 13:50:04
B727
101.7
D
07/05)9514:36:56
B727
100.7
A
0725/9513:26:42
B737
1002
D
07/19/95 9:38:38
B727
98.7
D
07(30)95 95658
B727
98.6
D
07/14195 23:43:55
B72%7972
1009
A
07/19/95 9:19:17
DC
100.8
D
07/1595 21:36:27
B72
100.4D
D
07/10/9510:04:43
B73
1003
D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Was Lane
07RAM 12:01:19
B727
'102.7
D
07/19/9513:38:09
B757
1019
D
0726)0513:40:59
B737
101.6
D
07299513:26:59
8727
101.4
D
07/1095 939.27
B727
101.1
D
07/1595 20:29.45
B737
1009
D
07/3095 9:40:50
8727
1009
D
071059514.28:41
DC10
100.8
D
07259513:38:15
8727
100.4D
07/30/95 9:44:31
B727
1003
ED
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Inver Grove Heights
aDauT�
R.
A/D
07120/% 10.52:45
B737
90.0
A
07121/9516:16:15
B727
88A
D
07/1519511:48:40
DC9
882
D
07!11)951211:07
B727
88.0
D
07125/95 22.01:01
B747
87.6
D
07/05/95 9:23:13
B727
875
D
(Y7/21/9515:1259
B727
872
D
07/21/95 7:11:17
B727
87.1
D
07/27195 9.29:41
B727
87.0
D
070M 10,05:19
SF34
86.8
D
RMT #23: End of Kendon Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date1LBL
R.
�°�w1
E F9
B727
94.3
v -
l
MOM 7:19:28
B727
91.6
3
07/19195 9:49:31
B727
1055
D
07121195 9.54:11
DC9
105.1
D
07/05/9516:39:10
B727
105.0
D
OWL% 18:20:45
B727
104.6
D
07/21)9510:03:21
B727
1043
D
07/21/9510:14:32
DC9
104.3
D
07103195 9:48:38
B737
1042
D
07/301959-.53:46
B727
103.8
D
07/27/9513:0850
DC9
103.7
D
07105/95 13:1428
B727 1
103.1
D
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
k
R.
07/11/9512:47:03
B727
94.3
D
MOM 7:19:28
B727
91.6
D
07/105 7:21:37
B727
87.9
D
07121/95 7:33.05
B727
87.8
D
(Y7/03)9515:56:34
B727
87.7
D
07/2119518:42:07
B727
87.6
D
07/05)95 7:1858
8727
86.9
D
07/05)9514:29:55
B727
86A
D
07/0619519:54:31
B727
855
D
07/10195 18:21:58
B727
85.3
D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
k
R.
07/019516:57:46
8727
1005
A
07104)9516:58:48
B727
1003
D .
0/102/9516:35:25
DC9
99.6
D
07/019512:45:51
8737
99.4
A
07/1819512:29:35
FK10
99.0
A
0710119517:33:39
DC9
98.4
A
07/319518:10:34
B73S
98.4
A
O7/O]J9516:40.13
DC9
98.3
D
071019518:33:15
DC10
98.1
A
0110719514:38:21
B727
97.7
A
m
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
July 01 to July 31, 1995
Noise Monitor 14=tions
Page 24
* Lon dm "mmy-jbur hours ofdwa airnwe
AvistimNdmPhmmms
1
573
58.4
653
669
76.5
793
675
=61=8
49.152.7
•
2
572
579
65.1
61A
69.9
69.6
49.7
54.7
68.0
'69.9
51.9
•
3
55.8
56.9
62.6
61.2
69.0
69.8
45.7
51.6
639
67.2
55.6
4
61A
62.8
68.2
64A
73.5
70.8
1 56.0
1 57.8
50.9
56.1
54.2
1•
5
59.5
60.7
66.2
67.3
75.7
79.7
68.0
64.7
57.1
58.2
55.8
•
6
48.1
52.0
65.5
62.1
49.6
0
7
49.7
42.8
46.8
50.6
66.5
67.1
589
539
40.6
42.5
8
52.7
54.7
569
61.7
71.2
733
57.0
55.6
1 409
552
44.7
9
57.1
59.2
65.7
68.0
77.2
80.0
67A
65A
47.0
46.1
48.2
•
10
54.1
573
625
65.3
74.6
763
64.6
589
47.1
51.9
53.8
•
11
54.0
56.6
63.5
61.0
71.4
70.1
499
472
40.0
54.5
44.0
•
12
56.4
592
65.6
64.8
752
74.6
623
61.8
57.0
643
49.1
•
13
45.9
49.0
51A
51.0
* '
682
553
533
52.8
58.3
•
14
55.4
57A
68.6
.669
80.4
1 81.5
1 67.6
4 9
9 68
52.7
612
1 54.1
1•
15
559
58.7
65.5
632
79.4
78.3
65.5
59.3
-
49.8
55.8
51.3
•
16
57-3
60.7
67.5
69.6
79.0
81.5
693
66.8
51.0
44.0
532
•
17
58.6
59.6
65.6
67.4
78.1
81.1
71.1
1 66.7
49.7.
502
55.7
•
18
58.8
60.0
64.0
69.6
1 772
80.6
66.7
65.7
54.6
45.7
54.1
•
19
56.7
60.1
662
68.3
76.7
79.8
67.5
64.6
61.0
67.2
56.8
1•
20
57.6
60.5
66.6
69.5
78.5
80.6
682
63.0
63.1
70.8
51.7
•
21
61.9
63.0
70.8
692
78.9
80.6 1
65.5
63A
653
69.7
66.8
•
22
58.7
60.7
68.0
70.3
78.0
803
682
63.7 1
499
48.2
50.7
•
23
55.5 1
59.9
65.8
71.4
77.7
81.0
653
65.6
459
513
50.7
•
24
55.7
59.2
62.1
69.8
77.1
80.2
673
61A
49.0
54.7
55.0
•
25
579
60.0
67A
68.2
77.0
79.7
65.8
64.2
44A
57.8
52.8
•
26
58.6
61.2
65.8
63.5
71.6
70.7
56.8
51A
47.7
48.1
47.0
•
27
61.1
62.1
693
67.6
77.6
78.4
66.5
64.8
51.2.
59.1
54.2
•
28
562
592
639
67.9
763 1
79.8 1
65.1
643
453
52.5
49.9
•
29
54-9
58.1
64.2
65.0
73A
742
60.4
58.6
62.0
64.8
43.7
•
30
553 1
58.8
66.1
66.8
779
782
60.8
623
69.0
71.4
52.8
•
31
59.8 1
603
64.7
'6657
71.0
78.5
SOA
69.8
67.7
483
523
54.9
•
682
76.1
7927
66.5
64.7
6057
778
557
•
Page 24
* Lon dm "mmy-jbur hours ofdwa airnwe
AvistimNdmPhmmms
0
Metropolitan Airports Ca=Issice
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
July 01 to July 31, 1995
Noise Monitor Locations
Lan zwnmp&Wawes qjdm amiahk
#24'
1
573
64.9
59.9
70A
65.8
•
733
56.9
56.6
•
69.8
71.1
2
65.8
59.8
68A
70.0
59.2
•
543
55.6
62.0
60.4
76.6
65A
3
63.5
57.7
662
69.8
61.1
•
603
54.5
602
58.8
74.6
58.3
4
63A
59.9
68A
70.1
44A
•
51.1
46.8
593
57.6
753
65.7
5
67.2
67.6
71.1
74.7
58.8
64.1
63.0
57.4
602
62.5
75.9
1 67.7
6
48.7
44.0
0
59.9
0
40.0
•
44.6
■
483
•
SIA
7
•
44.9
45.5
523
42.8
343
•
485
•
49.7
56.8
583
8
42.6
46.5
50.0
61.9
51.5
63-1
65-6
44.3
40.9
50.1
513
58.1
9
46A
58.0
48.5
69.0
65.1
73A
70A
63.1
54.5
56.6
59.7
61.8
10
59.6
60.2
61.9
j 71.5
61.2
68.4
j 68A
49.8
55.9
57A
71.9
62.1
11
619
56.8
63A
69.9
473
605
52.1
50.7
57.0
56.0
71.9
49.0
12
643
61.0
673
71.6
563
•
50.7
643
58.0
55.8
742
58.7
13
553
53A
56.5
67.0
*
■
46.1
54.1
42.2
50.5
68.6
52.5
14
54.9
68A
62.2
70.0
59.7
58.2
55.6
61.0
52.7
59.1
64.8
66.7
15
66.2
683
65.6
74.5
59.8
60.6
473
473
60.8
585
75.8
62.8
16
52.9
59.5
47.9
68.5
57.3
71.1
67.5
66.7
45.2
58.6
56.2
633
17
51.7
62.6
55.8
68.8
59.2
62.7
61.6
56.9
46.5
58.9
61.7
65.2
18
48.2
66.1
59.3
70.7
623
72.9
72.2
58.2
53.5
57A
62.8
64A
19
62.5
613
65.1
71.0
61.6
70.4 1
71.0
573
573
582
72A
61.8
20
58.1
61.5
52.9
69.6
62.0
70.4
71.8
53.6
34.6
56.1
57.0
62.0
21
67.1
65.1
68.5
73.0
59.6
68A
67.0
64.8
62.6
62.8
76.2
632
22
54.6
64.7
58A
69.0
61A
735
753
60.0
543
56.8
66.5 1
49.6
23
48.5
639
53.9
67.7
62.6
•
71.1
57.7
55A
55A
56.8
52.6
24
529
•
58.0
66.6
629
•
73.5
60.8
46.7
54.5
61.3
55.0
25
60.2
61.7
63.7
723
54.0
59.5
58.6
56.5
60-5
61.8
71.7
63.8
26
639
■
65.0
73.9
629
73.9
69.2
58.5
62.3
62.5
75.1
59.3
27
653
67.7
66.6
71.6
57.0
71.8
67.1
69.0
61.6
603
74A
63A
28
473
68.0
55A
72.0
59.3
71.6
72.6
58.0
50.3
WAS
61.7
58.1
29
619
•
63.6
723
62.5
703
73.8
52.6
58.1
60.2
73.7
57.5
30
59.6
65.7
603
71.0
LI
61A
55.0
55358.1
5 " 1
712
51.9
31 1
57.6
632
60.0
67.8
•
68.7
64-3
1.8
L5
5 .4
E6
63.8
66A
Mo. Ldn 1
619
68.8
64.8
71.6
.1
71.1
69.7
613
59.1
60. 7 -
72 .3
66.9
Lan zwnmp&Wawes qjdm amiahk
Mevopohmn Airp Commissim
Operations and Complaint Summary
August 1995
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
MSP August Fleet Mix Percentage
Airport August Complaint Summary
August Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
Aviedon Naive Pfamms
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
August 1995
Complaint Summary by City
..... . City..
Arrival
1627
129
Tbtal'.:':
Percentaig!e
Apple Valley
3
10
13
0.790
Arden Hills
1
0
1
0.1%
Bloomington
0
8
8
0.445
Burnsville
0
20
20
1.190
Eastan
25
497
522
29.0%
Edina
0
10
10
0.5%
Falcon Heiahts
0
1
1
0.1%
Hopkins
0
1
1
0.1%
Inver Grove Heights
8
97
105
5.8%
Lakeville
0
1
1
0.190
Mavlewood
2
1
3
0.1%
- Mendota Heights
5
187
192
10.7%
- Minneapolis
260
515
775
43.0%
- Minnetonka
3
2
5
0.3%
Oakdale
3
13
16
0.8%
Richfield
4
49
53
2.9%
Roseville
1
1
2
0.1%
South St. Paul
0
10
10
0.5%
St. Louis Park
9
3
11
0.6%
St Paul
43
3
46
2.6%
Sunfish Lake
0
2
2
0.1%
Shakopee
0
1
1
0.190
W. St. Paul
0
1
1
0.1%
Wayzata
0
1
1
0.1%
te Bear Lake
1
0
lime of Day
Nature of Complaint
00:00 - 05:59
112 Excessive Noise
1627
129
06:00-06:59
32 Earl yAAw
07:00 - 11:59
377 Low Flying
33
6
1
12:00 - 15:59
178 Structural Disturbance
16:00 - 19:59
404 Helicopter
20:00 - 21:59
470 Ground Noise
16
I
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23799
166 Enidne Run-up
Frecuenev
5
."?,
4A
Page 2 . Aviodw Ndw Pmpms FF
,Wa-opolitm Airports Commis im
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report August 14
Fd
Metropolitan Airports Catamiasim
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report August 1 5
04
A
19
3.4%
0
0.090,
11L
A
73
13.3%
15
2.6%
11R
A
49
8.9%
67
11:4%
22
A
28
5.1%
3
0.5%
29L
A
250
45.5%
392
66.9%
29R
A
131
23.8%
109
18.6%
04
D
1
OS%
0
0.0%
11L
D
64
33.7%
26
20.0%
11R
D
95
50.0%
76
58.4%
22
D
21
11.1%
4
3.1%
29L
D
8
4.2%
17
13.1%
29R
D
1
OS%
7
5.4%
Aviadm Ndae Pe swu / Pan 7
Carrier Jet Operations by Type
August 1995
Aircraft Type "'
Court
Percentage ,
B727H
219
0.8%
DC9H
1881
7.5%
B707
3
0.0%
B733/4/5
1201
4.8%
B747
188
0.7%
B74F
8
0.0%
B757
2005
8.0%
B767
1
0.0%
DA10
14
0.1%
DC10
904
3.6%
DC87
202
0.8%
EA32
2362
9.4%
FR10
1232
4.9%
L1011
14
0.1%
boll
63
0.3%
IM80
1444
5.8%
BA10
0
0.0%
BAll
2
0.0%-
B727
4643
185%
B737
538
2.2%
DC8
86
0.3%
DC86
0
0.0%
DC9
8033
32.0%
FX28
48
[0.2%J
0
D.- 0
46.8% Stage III
53.2% Stage H
Metropolitan Airpom Commie im
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
August 1995
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Eadh RMT
RMT
ID _ ztg
Aftproxi�te Sterzet Lecatlon
Ie
Everts
>ft6dB
s Events >
< >1i0d13,:
Events
,>90dB
Events
1000
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Avemre & 41st Strew
4006
77
1
0
2
Mmoeapolis
Frmm Avmue & 43rd Street
1778
447
3
0
3
Minneapolis
W Ebnwood Street & Behnmt Avenue
3276
1 1685
12
1
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Street
2897
1005
27
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Avetme & 58th Street
3739
2763
603
2
6
Minneapolis
25th Avenue & 57th Street
3312
2891
836
1
7
RirL6eld
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street
268
53
4
0
8
Minneapolis
I.meellow Avenue & 43rd Street
198
1 42
1
0
9
Sc Paul
Saratoga Strew & Hartford Ave =
83
30
6
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Avenue & Bowdom Strew
88
45
7
0
11
St. Pad
St�ru�ty&ySc�ha�ffer�Av®e
50
21
0
0
jyFi=
13
Mendota Heights
. Southeast and of Mohican Cant
62
19
3
0
14
Fagan
Fast Street & McKee Street
3609
179
11
0
15
Mendota Heights
Call" Street & Lesmgtm Aveme
234
58
5
0
16
Fagan
Avalm Aveone & Was Lane
2719
1920
28
1
17
Bloomingtm
84th Street & 4th Avenne
97
60
2
0
18
Ridfield
75th Street & 17th /lvemte
152
73
4
0
19
Bloomington
16th Avemte & 84th Sweet
52
24
3
0
20
Richfield
75th Street & 31d Avenue
17
9
1
0
21
Inver Gove Heights
Barbera Avenue & 67th Street
147
27
0
0
22
hwarcmenpi
Arne Marie Tall
1229
16
6
1
23
Mendota Beig6ts
Fad of Kendra Avemre
1275
83
14
0
24
Fagea
Chapel Laos a wren Lane
1057
106
7
0
• Site 12 is amently being mlocamd due to city sweet maprovemeots,
Aviation Naive Pmgmu Page 13
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
August 1995
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
T'EYetlL4
ID
9tg
_
A' Atli a Stt+e� iAcetioa
;
>63dB
Eyents.�
•>SOdB•:
EYentsEYEntB:.;
>9OdB
>400dB`
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street
234
88
0
0
2
Mmaevolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Strut
268
123
5
0
3
Mmoespolis
W Elmwood Sum & Belmmt Avenue
1055
392
62
0
4
aa;,umempolis
Osldsod Avmne & 49th Street
1346
703
130
11
5
b=spuds
12th Avenue & 58th Suva
2872
1431
785
206
6
h f newts
25th Avenue & 57th Sues
3053
1643
854
403
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave & 64th Sam
1528
305
81
5
8
rlm*aors
Laogfellow Avenue & 43rd Sunt
891
127
32
3
9
St. Pail
Suatogs Strut & I udard Avenue
81
32
0
0
10
St Pail
Lacca Avenue & Bowdon Sued
98
61
1
0
St Paul
Sum &�Scheft Avame
62
14
3
1
f11
y • 12
S t*
& ,a S'
�yFun
A1rmSboeet.Btlta�reoe�d Avemre
i�,t
.�,}
f !
'!:
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohuem Cant
511
327
47
1
14
Eagan
Fnit Suint & McKee Suit
2860
730
166
3
15
Mendota Heights
C ullm Suva & Lmdngtm Avenue
2302
508
98
2
16
Eegm
Avalon Aveme & VHm Lase
3406
1561
506
11
17
Bloamiogtm
84th Street & 4th Averme
177
69
11
0
18
Richfield
75th Sues & 171h Avenue
344
130
64
12
19
Bloommgrm
16th Avenue & 84th Some:
299.
78
46
6
20
Richfield
75th Stmet & 3rd Avmne
218
23
11
1
21
Inver Caove Heights
Barbara Avenue & 67th Suet
862
176
0
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Am Marie Tmil
12M
117
0
0
23
Meador Hdghts
End of Readai Avenue
3904
1994
919
36
24
Eagm
Chapel Lase & Wren Looe
589 1
289 1
105
1
• Site 12 is ctmendy being relocated due to city sues imp vmne .
9�1
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
Dah7iaae
B727
101.4
D
08/29/951139:03
DC9
100.1
D
0825/9513:2621
B727
99S
D
08)28/9514:14:42
B737
97.7
D
08106/95 9:32:41
B737
97.1
D
08/15/9518:19.07
B737
97.1
D
0888195 9:42:27
B727
96.3
D
08/17/9511:40.56
8727
96A
D
08106/9511:3951
DC9
96.0
D
08/02/95 9:48:26
DC9
955
D
08/1319511:35:36
B727
955
D
RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
08/12/9521:55:50
B727
101.4
D
OBA619519.36:10
8727
100.8
D
08/30/95 8:09:36
B727
995
D
088919518:1137
DC9
989
D
08A8195 20:09.52
9727
98.7
D
088419519:54:11
B727
98.6
D
08/18195MOM
B727
98.4
D
0829195 20:18:09
B727
982
D
0824195 21:201
B727
98.1
D
08/04/9516:1754
B727
98.0
D
9.�
Page 18 Aviadm Nein Pmgmna
RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St.
Eagan
mom"
„Y
,
T tlr-
0888/9518:03:47
B727
100.4
D
08/31/95 21:02:35
B727
1002
D
08/21195 13:45:21
B727
100.1
D
08/3019519:57:54
B727
99.8
D
08/15195 8:02:06
B727
99.7
D
08/1719518:39:40
B727
99.6
D
08/16195 7:1338
B727
98.2
D
08/18/9513:07:47
B727
97.8
D
0810119513:56:00
B727
95.7
D
08/16/9513:56:02
B737
955ED!
D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
„Y
,
T tlr-
08/13195 17:55:16
DCB
1023
A
08/1719513:28:47
DC9
1019
D
08)2619515:39:54
B727
101.6
D
08/1119510:30:56
B727
101.4
D
08/16/9513:36:35
B737
101.1
D
08123/9513:23:31
B727
100.9
D
0686195 8:07:09
8727
1009
D
08/1519512.42
B727
100.8
D
MOM 13:45:52
DC10
100.4
D
MOM 13:24:04
DC8 1
1003 1
D
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th Sl.
Inver Grove Heights
laaLti9me
A1C
Ma=
,
08/1119522:02:52
B747
89.8
D
08108/95 21:44:29
B727
895
D
OWS)95 4:23:41
B727
87.6
D
08/29/9519:11:11
B747
87.6
D
08/17/9519:16:55
B727
875
D
08/02195 7:15:17
B727
87.4
D
08/05/95 7:34:37
B727
873
D
08/23/95 7:17:44
B727
87.1
D
08f2*95 9:30:38
B727
87.1
D
001/9513:59:26
DC9
87.0
D
RMT #23: End of Kendon Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
Datel�e
AAC
Mai
Atp' ;:
08/02,95 9:47:43
DC9
105.0
D
08/2919517:0758
B727
104.9
D
08128,95 9:41:58
B727
104.6
D
08)07/9516:5156
B727
103.8
D
08108/9510:10:06
B727
103.8
D
08/06,95 9.32:21
B727
103.7
D
0810219517:2455
B727
103.6
D
08/071951658:24
B727
103.6
D
08/05/9519:16.08
B727
1035
D
08/26/951&40:12
B727
103.1
D
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
Datel�e
AAC
Mai
Atp' ;:
08!30/9516:37:27
B727
1017"A
D
08/30/9516:54:01
8727
98.3
A
08120,9516:41:36
DO
97A
A
08(30/9516:39:09
B727
97.4
A
08/10)9517:04:07
DC9
96.3
A
06(11/9514:28:42
DC9
96.2
A
08f30/9517:03:05
DC9
91.6
A
08/05/9515:36:43
B727
88.6
D
08/17)95 20:22:19
B727
89.5
D
08129195 20:42:35
B727
89.3
D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. A Wren Ln.
Eagan
Ak.5
a..
fit
AID.':
08/11,95 20:17:35
B727
101.4
D
08/31,95 20:14:03
B727
99.6
D
0828,9518:4452
DC9
98.8
D
083195 20.34:01
B737
98.7
D
004,9516:48:45
B727
98.6
D
08121,9515:43:33
B737
985
D
08!30,9519:03:41
B727
98.5
A
08/3019517:10:22
8727
97.4
A
001/9518:14:50
B727
972
A
08/!1,9521:01:20
B727
97.2
D
0
m
WtropoU= Airports CommiSSIOC
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
August 01 to August 31, 1"5
Noise Monitor Locations
- Lou am ftwqfav ADUM Gfdw 0=1"
06
is
012 :
1
58A
60A
63.1
69.9
72A
70.6
66.1
62A
60.0
58.60
55.1
•
2
60.1
61.7
64.8
70.8
71.0
739
63.3
61.6
63.4
57.3
56.5
•
3
55A
61.3
67.0
71.3
72.3
74.7
675
66.9
62.3
64.9
56.0
•
4
57.9
1 62.7
65.6
66.2
71.6
77.8
1 66.0
60.7
1 55.6
56.5
56.3
•
5
54.9
•
63.2
ag
69.0
752
66.5
59.1
52.2
55.9
53.7
•
6
60.7
•
70.4
66.6
69.1
70.7
579
662
61.8
65.8
59.1
•
7
602
•
66.0
62.7
703
80.1
52.2
58.6
62.8
67.7
52.6
•
a
63.1
•
69.2
66.2
70.9
69.4
52.6
60.7
613
66.0
489
•
9
57.4
•
67A
685
7,8.5
80.4
1 69.2
64.0
57.1
60.7
50.2
10
55.8
1 61.6
65.7
69A
79.7
30.5
67.8
63A
50.9
55.1
46.1
•
11
57.8
61.5
63.3
63.3
74.0
72.5
62.8
64.1
47.1
55.9
49.8
•
12
59.6
63.1
679
67.2
76.1
763
60.6
61.8
53.6
57.8
60.0
•
13
59A
59.7
•
64.3
76.5
745
65.8
62.5
52.6
55.6
52.0
•
14
57.0
•
64.3
68A
77.6
80.3
67.7
66.0
45.6
50.2
52.6
•
15
58.4
•
60.6
64.7
709
71.6
57.8
60.1
59A
57.7
479
•
16
582
•
633
65.2
71.7
72.2
56.8
59.4
1 46.0
51.5
533
•
17
60A
•
65A
66.6
73.5
73.0
56.8
59.1
453
34.5 1
449
•
18
59.8
•
64.1
67.0
73.5
743
59.0
60.8
54.2
59.1
58.9
•
19
58.2
59.7
•
70.1
78.2
80.8
713
63.7
43.7
50.8
48A
•
20
56.5
38.5
•
70.1
77.7
81.0
663
643
55.4
62.5
51.2
•
21
58.4
59.7
•
68.6
77.5 1
80.7
67.1
653
58.8
51.0
49.7
•
22
58.2
58.8
0
63.2
703
71.0 1
55.7
57A
•
59.8
49A
•
23
56.0
58A
63.2
633
73.8
.74.7 1
61.6
60.0
0
53.1
47.6
•
24
60.1
64.0
68.5
0
73.7
73.5
53.0
629
52.2
57.4
55A
•
25
565
62.1
662
66.7
72.8
73.8
30.0
SSA
62A
57.5
52.8
26
58.8
61.4
65.3
659
763
73.6
64.2
52,4
50.6
443
45.6
•
27
57A
613
67A
62.6
0
69.1
49.5
51.0
•1
523
45.6
•
28
5842 1
703
•
77.2
65-9
-62.1
•
569
56.5
•
29
58.7
59-9
6733
71.0
•
72.5
&.7
61.2
•
64.2
47.7
•
30
59A
L58967.3
60.8
66.2
70.6
763
79.5
68.5
66.8
•
65.6
553
•
575
582
63.6
68.0
769
802
69.0
64.9
49.6
30.8
43.5
•
Mo. Ldn
92
5 59
61.5
65.8
8
68.1
2
75.8
772
55
55.1
•
- Lou am ftwqfav ADUM Gfdw 0=1"
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
August 01 to August 31, 1"5
Noise Monitor Locations
,date0
441%
414 5:
I
61A
67.5
65.7
72.8
60.1
•
63.1
5770
•
613
71.1
•
2
63.0
69.8
68.6
71.6
59.8
•
59.1
60.0
60.7
63.7
72A
•
3
44.2
64.0
58.8
69.0
642
75.6
72.8
63.5
50.4
58.7
58.7
•
4
64-5
689
UA
73.6
65.2
68.2
683
1 552
61.0
1 613
76.7
•
5
63.5
713
65.6
74.8
63.1
71.3
1 72.8
52.7
61.5
61A
75.7
58.8
6
67.0
71.1
71.6
75.3
62.9
63.3
60.3
57.3
60.4
64.5
78.9
64.3
7
66.2
69.7
67.5
73.6
58.9
61.7
473
49.0
60.8
63.8
77.0
57.1
8
64.9
68.9
, 69.0
72.9
49.2
•
50.9
49.2
61.3
•
74.8
63.5
9
51.2
69.7
56.5
70.3
66.5
•
73.5
64.1
50.5
•
59.1
63.3
10,
52.7
66.5
57.6
70.0
64.8
•
73.0
632
54.6
58A
66.7
54.8
11
64.7
69.7
66.0
74.3
563
57.7
51A
52A
64.0
61.0
75.6
619
12
63.0
69.8
68.7
75.6
57.5
66.7
54.0
58.9
61.0
61A
759
59.7
13
66.0
71.8
68.6
76.1
59.6
65.7
62.5
57.7
GIA
61.8
78.0
62.8
14
495
64.8
56.9
69.5
64.0
732
1 733
57.2
612
58.1
61.1
64.1
15
65.7
71.7
66.3
74.0
63.8
•
58.5
55.1
619
62.5
76.3
58.3
16
63.5
72.0
65.1
749
58.0
•
49.8
43.6
60.8
61.9
75.3
59.8
17
65.8
70.6
67.5
74.8
52.1
•
522
51.6
63.3
63.5-
77,7
59.8
18
662
703
69.1
73.1
*
65.7
48.2
52A
62.3
61.7
76.6
60.9
19
47.1
64.6
47.3
0.6
50.8
55.0
463
56.5
46.7
59.1
55.8
•
20
50-4
66.2
54.1
69.0
60.1
03
0.6
51A
53.0
57A
58.8
•
21
44.6
61.2
53.1
67.0
57.6
699
72.0
56.3
53.7
542
57.1
•
22
65.2
68.7
66.6
72.1
523
61.0
56.2
523
61.5
60.4
763
699
23
64.6
713
65A
73.7
62.1
61A
48.7
46.7
62-1
61.1
75.6
70.6
24
66.0
*
693
71A
637
622
512
42.5
63.8
62A
75.6
72.8
25
66A
65.3
65.2
719
56.6
545
52.0
56.3
60A
59A
73.6
66.6
26
613
69.8
63.9
73.6
612
605
50.7
47.8
589
60.5
74.1
•
27
61A
•
64.1
703
58.8
59.8 1
463
40.4
57A
57.7
72.8
•
28
61.5
•
64.3
72.0
56.1
56.7
515
50.6
579
60.6
73.6
•
29
65.9
69A
67.8
-71.7
47.6
50.9
53.1
50.7
60.1
•
75.5
•
30
62.6
661
68.5
70.6
533
632
683
492
579
•
737
31
41.1
633
53.4
693
652
725
71.7
56.7
61A
61A4
i58.6
M73.9
Mo. Ldn
642
714A
67A
7327
.0
=0 1
67
I
75.0
74.1
PAw 26
Avim6m Knim A w 9
* LOU #m.twRfYfw howl Cjrd= awaftbk
Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
September 27, 1995
7:30 A.M.
St. Anne's Episcopal Church
Charlton Road & Hwy 110
Sunfish Lake
%.✓. Call to Order.
✓1. Adoption of Agenda
%A( Approval of Minutes of.
ugust 16, 1999`.
City Updates. SLµ O� �AA,p i /�1u/fl/r�rwel„
MO .� Cn eoo i�.s �•�c� dwK.
✓�. GPS Satellite Presentation Schedule.
Northwest Airli es L tter Regarding Departure Profiles.—
%tjWWW.
7. Review Original Li --
t of Airport Issues.
Olo
Other Business. < MC g�` � �4ri'd �.� .
9. Discuss Future Meeting*Dates and Agenda tems.
10. Adjourn. p�' •
Odd ����Ad3
'/"�""'b
/�Vz
09/18/95 12:44 FAX 612 452 8940 MF.\00'F.A HEIGHTS 0002
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 1995
The August meeting of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
(NDCARC) was called to order at 7:35 a.m. in the Large Conference Room at the
Mendota Heights City Hall. Presiding over the meeting was Tom Lowell, Mendota
Heights, with the following representatives present: Sunfish Lake, Mayor Frank
Tiffany, Glenda Spiotta (arrived 8:20 a.m.); Inver Grove Heights, Pete Amish,
Steve Hughes, Will,q2�� and Linda Cummings; Eagan, Jon Hohenstein;
Mendota Heights, EI savor Stein.
Approval of July 19 1995 Minutes
Coalition members reviewed the minutes of the meeting held on July 19, 1995.
Upon a motion by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Hohenstein, the minutes were
approved as written.
Global Positioning Satellite Presentation
Mr. Lowell noted John Foggia, MAC Noise Abatement Office, was unable to
attend today's meeting to provide a presentation on the capabilities and
Implementation schedule of global positioning satellite technology at MSP. Mr.
Foggia would be willing to schedule a presentation before the group sometime in
the future. It was suggested this be an evening presentation where each City
could invite its full Commission membership to attend. Mr. Lowell indicated he
would check with Mr. Foggia on possible dates for the presentation. Mr. Lowell
also Indicated he had available a video tape which shows GPS approaches being
flown along the Potomac River into Washington National Airport. The group
decided to view the videotape at the end of the meeting.
Letter to Northwest Airlines Regarding Departure Profiles
The Coalition members present reviewed the letter from Mark Salmon, NWA
Manager, Airport Operations dated July 7, 1995, and the draft Coalition response
dated July 24, 1995. A number of suggested revisions were discussed, including
an expanded "carbon copy" distribution list. Mr. Hohenstein agreed to make the
recommended changes and send out for Mayoral signature an original copy of the
letter.
103
09/18/95 12:45 FAX 612 452 8940 MENDOTA HEIGHTS Z003
NDCARC Meeting Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page. 2
City Updates
Mr. Hohenstein noted that the City of Eagan is currently preparing its position on
the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Several of their City Commissions are
currently working on this Issue, including their Planning Commission and Economic
Development Commission. - They Intend to work on this issue this Fall, in hopes of
Issuing their formal City position in November, 1995.
Mr. Hohenstein also updated the group on the status of the Runway 4-22
Extension issue. Due to the direct impact an extended 4-22 would have on the
southern portion of Eagan, they are closely following this issue and are
participating in the Metropolitan Council -led mediation discussions. It now
appears as If the runway extension will be built, but that a decision on the noise
redistribution plan for the runway will be postponed. The Metropolitan Council has
formally approved the extension. The noise redistribution issues will be discussed
later this year and into 1996, in hopes of reaching some agreement in May 1996.
In general, the extension of 4-22 could help alleviate some of the departures using
runways 11 L and 11 R, but could mean a slight increase in the number of arrivals
using runways 29L and 29R.
Mayor Tiffany noted Sunfish Lake remains Interested in airport related issues, but
has no separate airport related commission or committee working an the issue.
Mr. Amish distributed a letter dated August 4, 1995 which was received by the
City of Inver Grove Heights from Mr. Salmon in response to a letter they had sent
to him dated May 25, 1995. The letter Involved the subject of noise abatement
departure profiles and read similar to the one Mr. Salmon sent to the NDCARC in
early July, 1995.
Mr. Edgeton stated Inver Grove Heights continues to be unhappy with the
structure of the MASAC organization and its lack of progress in dealing with
airport noise Issues. Structurally, he expressed concerns about the off -setting
membership requirements of MASAC which ensure that the group has an equal
number of community and industry representatives. This approach renders the
group Ineffective and Inefficient, and therefore structural changes to MASAC are
necessary. Mr. Hohenstein noted that in recent years, most airport noise issues of
Importance have by-passed MASAC altogether. Those present discussed the
application of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition model to
other quadrants around the airport. It was agreed that this topic should be further
discussed at an upcoming NDCARC meeting.
=I
09/18/95 12:47 FAX 812 452 8940 MEQ\'00'1'.4 HEIGHTS 0004
NDCARC Meeting Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 3
Mr. Lowell brought the group up-to-date on the status of the Dual Track Process
and related issues currently being addressed by the Dakota County Board of
Commissioners. On August 22, 1995, the County's Physical Development
Committee, which Is comprised of all Dakota County Commissioners, met to hear
a presentation by a southern Dakota County group opposed to having the airport
located In their area. The County Board was asked to endorse a position opposing
airport relocation and/or landbanking in Dakota County. Thanks to the efforts of
Commissioner Bataglia, the Board held off making such a decision to allow cities a
chance to let their concerns be known prior to the decision being made. The
Physical Development Committee will again discuss this issue on September 26,
1995 at 1:00 P.M.
Mr. Lowell also Informed the group of discussions underway between the
Metropolitan Council, the MAC, and the cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Eagan,
Mendota Heights, and Richfield on the subject of a Community Protection Concept
Package. The purpose of the package is to assist these communities in dealing
with MSP expansion impacts, should a decision be made to expand the airport in
Its present location. Many of the community stabilization and redevelopment tools
contained within the draft package would require State approval to make them
available. The draft package currently makes no mention of operational changes
which would need to be made to accommodate future airport expansion. Mendota
Heights will be arguing that operational changes are mandatory if the airport is to
stay put. The group discussed the noise monitoring system in use in Denver
where monetary fines are levied for noise level violations. It was the consensus of
the group that the implementation of such a system should be explored at MSP.
Future Meeting Date
The Coalition established Wednesday, September 27, 1995 as the date of their
next meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:30 a.m. and will be held in the City of
Sunfish Lake. As one agenda topic, the Coalition members decided to review the
original list of airport issues for possible additions, deletions, and reprioritization.
The group then adjourned to the City Council Chamber to video the global
positioning satellite flight approach videotape.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
/03�
04/19/95 16:05 FAX 612 452 8940 %IE\OOTA HE
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY
AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION
RANKING OF AIRPORT RELATED TOPICS
FOR MIILTI-CITY COLLABORATION
APRIL 19, 1995
City
Interest
1. Phase -Out of Noisy Stage ii Aircraft. 0
2. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. 4
3.
Composition.of MAC Body - Accountability Issues.
2
4.
MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Planning Issues -
0
Expansion of Existing Airport.
S.
Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site.
0
6.
Remote Runway Development Option.
0
7.
FAA Airspace Usage Study.
0
S.
FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures.
4
9.
Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
2
10.
Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
4
11.
Runway 4-22 Extension Issue.
0
12.
Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and
1
Related Land Use Controls.
13.
Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn65 Contour.
1
14.
Equity of Current Runway Use System.
2
15.
Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA
0
Part 150 Program.
16.
Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring
3
System (ANOMS).
17.
Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over
1
Minneapolis.
18.
Aircraft Engine Run-up Noise.
0
11.
* I TAbpol"
NMI
TOPICS FOR MULTI - CITY COLLABORATION
PRIORITY TOPICS
TIER I.
No. 8 FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departures Procedures
No. 2 Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations
No. 10 Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures
TIER II.
No. 16 Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations'Monitoring
System (ANOMS)
No. 3 Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues
No. 9 Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues
No. 11 and 14: Runway 4 - 22 Extension Issues and Equity of
Current Runway Use System
No. 13 Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour
Airport Noise Report
Noise Modeling
FAA RELEASES NEW VERSION
OF INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL
The Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Environ-
ment and Energy recently released Version 5.0 of the
Integrated Noise Model (INM), culminating a three-year
redesign and development effort. The latest version of the
INM offers faster noise calculations, more automated data
preparation, and new graphics and plotting capabilities.
The INM is the standard computer tool used for airport
noise assessments. More than 600 organizations from 35
nations currently use the INM to analyze new airports,
runways, arrival and departure routes, and flight procedures,
as well as to makeforecasts of future operations and fleet
mix.
As the FAA's standard noise methodology, INM is
required for FAA environmental assessments and Environ-
mental Impact Statements and for airport noise contours
developed under the Pan 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
Program for Airport Improvement Program eligibility.
Version 5.0 users will be able to analyze population
impacts by contour, to evaluate noise abatement departure
profiles and alternative arrival and departure procedures,
and to measure the effects of lateral dispersion of noise.
Advancing the INM goal of "integrated" noise metrics.
Version 5.0 incorporates five more metrics, including
maximum level of noise data and other single -event noise
descriptors. Single event inl'urmutiun can be useful in
environmental studies to supplement analysis using the
standard cmnulative metric DNL (day -night average sound
level).
The most visible change in Version 5.0 is the new
Windows environment. Users also will see immediate
benefits from faster runtimes and new graphical input and
analysis tools, including combined displays of contours,
terrain, Population and streets, radar tracks, airport layouts,
and special points.
To facilitate case concoction. Version 5.0 supplies FAA
static airport and navigational data (e.g., Navaids, fixes) for
the entire United States as well as the means to display
processed ARTS radar data for generating INM tracks.
Users also can import information from the Official Airline
Guide for developing annual operating schedules.
Computer Requirements
The minimum hardware and software requirements for
Version 5.0 on the INM are:
• 486DX 66-Mllz processor,
• Microsoft Windows NT(V3.5) with 32 -Mb RAM or
Windows (V3.1) with 16 -Mb RAM;
• 640080 16 color VGA display;
• Mouse input device;
• 3.5 inch, 1.44 Mb floppy disk drive;
• 300 -Mb hard disk drive (INM system 20 Mb; studies 1-
30 Mb each); and
September 13,1995
• CD-ROM drive for terrain and census data processing
(optional).
r
Version 5.0 was developed under Windows NT (V3.5)
and can be run on both Windows NT (35) and Windows
(3.1). INM is expected to run on the future Microsoft
Windows -95 operating system but the conversion is not
completed yet. -
! The FAA recommends using Windows NT (3.5) for
Version 5.0 when more memory is required for larger
studies (thousand of flight operations) or when high-
resolution contours (higher INM refinement levels) are
desired. In comparison with Windows 3. 1. the NT operating
system is faster (full 32-bit processing), uses more RAM (no
16 Mb limit), and offers greater stability.
INM training was conducted previously by the FAA
Academy in Oklahoma City. At present, the Academy does
not have the necessary bank of 486 computers to offer
hands-on Version 5.0 instruction. Consequently, the FAA is
developing an INM 5.0 training manual. When completed in
the next few months, this manual will be available to the
public for independent course development. The FAA
Office of Environment and Energy will maintain a list of
organizations that offer INM training using the FAA manual
and curriculum.
The designing and testing of Version 5.0 was accom-
plished with the help of a 25 -member technical advisory
group of FAA representatives and other government and
private sector experts in the fields of aviation, acoustics, and
computer modeling.
The cost is $250, which includes Version 5.0 software
capable of running on both Windows NT (V3.5) and
Windows (V3.1), the User's Guide, the Technical Manual
(pending), shipping and handling, limited technical support,
mailings and minor upgrades.
For more information on the INM, contact Jake Plante,
(202) 267-3539 or John Gulding (202) 267-3654; FAX
(202) 267-5594 in the FAA's Office of Environment and
Energy.A
Part I50 Program
PALM SPRINGS, ROCKFORD,
SPINKS PROGRAMS APPROVED
The Federal Aviation Administration recently announced
its approval of the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
programs for Palm Springs Regional Airport, Greater
Rockford Airport, and Fort Worth Spinks Airport.
• Palm Springs Regional—On Aug. 21,.the FAA granted
outright approval for 24 of the 26 proposed measure for
noise mitigation on and off Palm Springs Regional Airport.
The use of the National Business Aircraft Association's
departure procedures was approved by the agency,but the
use of the noise abatement departure procedures contained
in the recently revised FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A was
disapproved pending submission of additional information.
Arpun Nuiw Rrpun /D9
Aapon Noi+
ID:
rNTRODUCTION8
DCT 05'95 8:50 No.001 P.02
The following is a proposal to the Eagan City Council that
includes the research and recommendations of the Airport
Relations Commission concerning the Dual Track Planning Process.
The Council will determine the City's position during the winter
of 1995/96 in order to add its voice to the lengthy decision-
making process concerning the airport. The final decision on the
airport expansion/relocation issue is scheduled for action by the
state Legislature during the 1997 legislative session.
As the options for airport use in the metropolitan area evolved
in the Dual Track Planning Process, the focus was narrowed to
expanding the current airport site or relocating (and expanding)
the airport to one of three possible new sites (see Attachment
41) .
In 1992 the Metropolitan Council directed the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) to look at sites in Dakota County. MAC
eventually selected site #3 in southeast Dakota County near
Hastings as the preferential site (see attachment #2). At the
same time, other political entities continued to press for the
remote runway concept in Dakota County (see attachment 14). The
options for continued use of the present airport site are listed
in attachment #3.
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission looked at several options:
1) Build a new Airport at the South Dakota County Site
(hereinafter called DAKOTA')
2) Expand the present site with one or more new runways and a
new terminal
(hereinafter called `EXPANDED')
3) Land Bank the Dakota County site for future expansion*
(hereinafter called 'LAND BANK')
4) Build Remote Runways in Rosemount and create a rail link for
passengers between the present terminal and the runways
(hereinafter called `REMOTE')
5) Do nothing -- continue airport operations at the current site
with no or minor changes
(hereinafter called `NO PROJECT')
* For more information about the Land Bank Concept, please see
page 9
The remote.runway option seemed a viable option during most of
the Commission's time spent on this project. When it appeared to
be a Head issue, it was removed from this report.
R-97% 10-05-95 09:56AM P002 7138
ID:
OCT 05'95 8:50 No.001 P.03
For each of the five options, the Commission considered the
following factors, weighing each factor in a comprehensive matrix
as positive, neutral or negative for Eagan. The factors are
similar to those used by the NAC in its analysis. The factors
are:
1) Airport operational Issues
2) Ground Access Issues
3) Air Service Issues
4) Environmental Issues
5) City of Eagan Economic Issues (this section will be prepared
by the Eagan Economic Development Commission)
6) City of Eagan Community Impact Issues (this section will be
prepared by the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission)
7) Financial Issues
8) Strategic Issues
CONCLUSIONt
THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS BELIEVE THE OVBRALL
INTERESTS OF EAGAN WILL B8'BEST SERVED BY CONSTRUCTION OF A NEG)
AIRPORT AT THE SITE IDENTIFIED 8Y TRE MAC AS OPTION THREE.
The Commission recommends that the City Council express its
support for this option and that it use whatever opportunities
exist to influence the ultimate airport relocation decision.
The Commission weighed many issues in.reaching this
recommendation. These will be reviewed in detail later in this
document (see attachment #5). For most commission members,. the
most crucial factors were economic and environmental. We
concluded the economic issues are essentially neutral but
environmental issues clearly pointed to an advantage for Eagan
citizens with a relocated airport.
our conclusion was
and not taxes will
it's possible that
better information
based in
be.used
some ARC
becomes
far %a we could come given
part on the assumption that NAC bonds
to pay for new construction. Also,
members' opinions might change if
available in the futurer this is as
current information gaps.
The information available to us is contained in attachment #6,
which is a short reading file on topics related to the issue of
airport expansion/relocation.
Airport Operational Issues
The Commission feels that there is little doubt that a new
airport facility, engineered to list Century standards, would be
a marked improvement over the NO PROJECT or EXPANDED options:
R-96% 10-05-95 09:56AM P003 7;38
ID: OCT 05'95 8:51 No.001 P.04
3
The Commission believes there are many negatives with operations
at the present site. They include proximity of parallel runways
causing physical_ separation problems for aircraft; runways
crossing each other limiting their use; constraints on additional
flightst expanding capacity would result in greater congestion
and delays..
A positive about the NO PROJECT option is that it would constrain
growth, forcing the MAC/FAA to use the present facilities more
efficiently. Our expectation is that problems with the current
operations will be perpetuated if the airport is expanded.
Safety is a key issue and poses several negatives at the present
site. A busy, crowded airport for a major urban area so close to
heavily populated areas could turn an accident into a major
disaster. The recent emergency landing of the Northwest 747
showed how easily a major disaster could happen, and emphasizes
the consequences of initiating emergency in-flight procedures
over highly populated areas. A more rural location could allow
designation of less populated areas for emergency procedures.
The birds of the Minnesota River valley also pose'a hazard to
airplane operations.
Another problem with expanding the present site is fitting the
proposed plans on the present site. The'basio reason for
expanding the airport 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 four of five runways intersect each other. There
are no independent runways except for the south and of the new
2/34 runway, when it is constructed. Also, runway use agreements
will have to be negotiated with nearby cities and it will be
necessary to create safety zones over populated and developed
areas.
Ari airport in a new rural location would allow for almost
limitless capacity expansion with the freedom to design from the
group up a more efficient runway system. Multiple independent
runways would allow more simple ground and flight paths, and
zoning and use covenants could be used to protect potential
safety zones.
aroand Access Issues
The DAKOTA option would require significant surface road
improvement for access to a new airport, which would likely spill
over into Eagan. The exact effect of this is hard to gauge at
this time but would almost certainly result in dislocations along
major routes such as Highway 55 as upgraded becomes necessary.
R -9Z% 10-05-95 09:56AM P004 #38
ID:
OCT 05'95 8:51 No.001 P.05
The NO PROJECT and EXPAND options offer Sagan the fewest ground
access problems. The present road network would most likely be
maintained and, except for increased traffic on the 494 and Cedar
Avenue bridges, Eagan citizeps and businesses should feel little
impact. The EXPAND option assumes building a new terminal on the
west side of the airport, which would marginally in travel
distance from Eagan; the additional time for that travel could be
mitigated.by improved roads_
The travel time issue for both.poseenger 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 citizens than
the present site (7 vs 19 miles) is, we feel improved access
could make the total travel time to a new facility comparable to
that needed to get to the EXPAND site.
Air Service issues
Commission members think the Hollywood adage, "Build it and they
will cozen is appropriate for the DAKOTA site. New facilities --
well planned and well engineered -- will provide more efficient
and expanded air service. This also applies;,perhaps to a lesser
degree, to the EXPAND option.
Improved facilities (especially at the DAKOTA site),, would create
capacity for additional regional flights. Additional runways,
and longer ones, could result in more of the longer domestic
flights and potentially more international flights. Air cargo
operations and charter flying would increase at the DAKOTA site
with new or better facilities. The limited expansion room at the
present site is a negative.
As part of this issue, the Commission considered potential'fare
changes. 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 soaled back (no new
terminal) EXPAND option next best. (Estimates are a•$3 billion
prioetag for the EXPAND option.) The Commission feels many of
the mitigation costs of the EXPAND option have not been factored
into the current estimate and that the actual cost will be
considerably higher.
As we have seen at. the new Denver airport, passengers and users
pay a higher price (initial estimates indicate an increase of $15
to $20 per ticket) to support new construction. The.DAKOTA
option (with.an estimated cost of $4.5 billion) is likely to
cause increased fared, though greater capacity and competition
could keep such increases to a minimum. The Denver experience
seems to discrediting some fears of negative effects. There are
no apparent indications that passengers and operators are
avoiding the new Denver facility even with its increased costs.
8-97% 10-05-95 09:56AM P005 #38
ID: OCT 05'95 8:52 No.001 P.06
M
Environmental Issues
This is the most critical issue for Eagan. Commission members
spent the most time discussing this section.
Eagan could benefit from a more distant airport and -one that is
laid out in a geographical configuration that limits the city's
•exposure'to overflight (80 percent of air traffic leaving the
metropolitan area is east, south, or west bound). We would also
have the advantage of participating in.the negotiations.for
runway use and ground paths. The expectation is that moving the
airport will result in fewer flights over Eagan.
The NO PROJECT option might be the best of the preesnt site
alternatives for Eagan. The 'corridor' and semi -effective runway
use and ground path procedures, at least for now, keep most
sections of the City relatively immune from overflight noise.
All expansion options at the current site -- whether extending
runway 4/22, building a new north/south runway or adding a third
parallel 11/29 -- make Eagan's situation worse. Expansion will
result in more flights, many of them over the south and west
sections of Eagan. The current runway use system would have to
be renegotiated and the cityPe historic lack of support at the
MAC and FAA indicates resolutions favorable for Eagan are
unlikely. With expansion at the current site, city officials and
citizens should expect to continue to hear the philosophy that
expanding in the southeast direction (over EagsA) is the only
choice.
The noise issue obviously dominates consideration of.this
environmental section, but other issues also affect Eagan. As
disouased-previously, the vast majority of additional flight
operations from the present site are likely 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 aide and aviation techniques,.and less noise from
fewer stage II aircraft, more flights will mean a continuation of
the serious noise problem faced by many Eagan citizens.
The obvious advantage of the DAKOTA option is that flights -are
originating further from Eagan and heading in a direction that
will produce fewer overflights for the city. In addition to
overflights, engine tests and other on-site activities also
produce noise at the airport. Again, the more distant DAKOTA
option is an advantage for Eagan.
Another environmental concern for Sagan it
expanded is corridor violations. Already,
documents that xx percent of flights in th
ethe current airport is
we know from MAC -
last year (six
B-97% 10-05-95 09:56AM P006 7138
ID: OCT 05'95 8:53 No.001 P.07
6
months?) have violated the corridor, sometimes for weather
reasons. Violations occur when start their turn away from the
airport before the three-mile marker from the parallel runway
and, approximately the corner of Lexington Avenue and Lone Oak
Road. Aircraft that violate the corridor are turning south and
going directly over Eagan. The corridor's purpose is to help
control noise for homeowners by containing it in areas that have
been designated for industrial or commercial development. The
corridor will be unable to absorb added flights from an expanded
airport without causing even more violations, which will result
in even more noise for Eagan citizens.
Air quality is also an issue for Eagan. Jet engines produce
considerable amounts of air pollution. citizens under the
present flight paths often complain of engine burn residue and
other irritants. The recent emergency dumping of a Northwest
747's entire fuel load over the city showed an extreme example of
this problem. Again, Eagan is clearly better off with flights
that are further away and higher over the city, as they would be
with the DAKOTA option.
Another environmental issue is the Minnesota River Valley wild
life area. Birds are a potential hazard to airplanes and
airplane noise generally detracts from the area's natural beauty.
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 to the DAKOTA site than the current
airport.
city Economic Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Economic Development
commission for its consideration and recommendations.
city community Impact Issues
This topic was referred to the city's Advisory Planning
Commission for its consideration and recommendations.
Financial Issues
The DAKOTA option appears to cost about 50 percent more than the
EXPAND option, with estimated pricetags of $4.5 billion and $3
billion, respectively. However, we believe MAC has
underestimated some of the costs for the EXPAND option. The $2.5
billion it expects is probably accurate for bricks and mortar,
but we feel the MAC has not accurately anticipated mitigation
costs. Home buy-outs, sound insulation for hundreds or thousands
R-98% 10-05-95 09:56AM P007 #38
ID: DCT 05'95 8:53 No.001 P.08
7
of newly affected homes, and major real estate purchases required
south of the airport for safety purposes will cost more than the
MAC estimates -- and that assumes only costs for current
programs, without considering costs for other options such as
property tax relief for noise -affected areas.
The DAKOTA option is expected to coot $4.5 billion, and that
seems realistic.
With such huge expenses on the horizon, an obvious question in
whether Eagan has any financial responsibility for the option
that is eventually chosen. Commission members feel that Eagan
will have very limited financial exposure regardless of the
amount spent. It is our understanding that MAC or state bonds
will be sold to finance the projects. The bonds will be repaid
with revenue generated by the travelling public and other airport
users, not individual taxpayers or neighboring municipalities.
state sen. Deanna Wiener points out that Eagan residents could be
subject to slight increases in the Dakota County portion of their
property taxes to help pay for infrastructure development if the
DAKOTA option is chosen. In the short term, property taxes also
could be affected if Dakota county loses the ability to levy
taxes on 14,000 acres of farmland at the new airport site, though
land zoned for agricultural purposes has a very low tax rate. We
believe it's reasonable to assume the increase in
commercial/industrial development near the new airport would more
than offset the loss of the 14,000 acres needed for the site.
some financial impact will be felt by those in Eagan who will use
the facility under either the EXPAND or DAKOTA option -- both
citizens and businesses that use the airlines and the airport.
Unless passenger traffic increases dramatically to offset
construction costs, any of the options will almost certainly
result in costs being passed on to users. Passengers will likely
see an increase in their airline/airport fees. The new Denver
airport resulted in an increase in the per -passenger cost of $15
per ticket; Denver also has a $3 PFC (passenger facility charge)
tax. Costs for contractors, vendors and freight forwarders at
the airport will also likely increase.
In the short term, the No PROJECT option offers the lowest risk
of any financial exposure for the city and its residents. The
EXPAND option is and the DAKOTA option appears to offer the most
risk for additional financial responsibility. In the long term,
though, it's expected that any additional costs to the city and
its taxpayers will be offset by a greater tax base generated by a
new airport in Dakota County.
one other item to be considered under financial issues is one
discussed little to this point: Land Banking. Some factors other
than construction costs, such as land banking, should be
R-98% 10-05-95 09:56AM P008 #38
ID: . OCT 05'95 8:54 No.001 P.09
8
considered.
Regardless of the reason, if the DAKOTA option is rejected in
the 1996-97 Dual Track decision process, Commission members feel
the Eagan city Council should support and encourage the MAC to
land bank a site in Dakota County to assure that options are
still available in the future. We feel that after all the time
and money that has been spent researching the Dakota County
option, it would be short-sighted not to keep future development
of this site a possibility. Land banking should be accomplished
in the most cost-effective manner, but it should be done through
a variety of techniques: zoning, planned use agreements, option
purchases, out -right purchases, or others.
strategic Issues
From the long term standpoint, there is little doubt that the
DAKOTA option provides the greatest flexibility if further
airport expansion becomes necessary. The present airport site is.
constrained on three sides by residential and business areas and
on the fourth by the Minnesota River.
It's hard to imagine any greater expansion at the current site if
the proposed changes under the EXPAND option are made -- there
isn't much more that could be squeezed onto such a small site.
If .further expansion is required, acquisition of major developed
roads, residential and commercial property will be necessary in
Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis. The sensible action at
that point will be to relocate the airport on a site that already
has been land banked for that purpose. If we fail to landbank,
and we assume a relocated airport is inevitable sometime in the
future, a new airport would and up being inconveniently loobted
an additional 30 or 40 miles away from the metropolitan area.
The EXPAND option does have the advantage of ease of
implementation. MAC already owns the land needed for physical
improvements at the current airport site except land needed for
safety zones, so the No PROJECT or EXPAND options present few
insurmountable barriers. Relocating the airport to the DAKOTA
could be more of a challenge, with the possibility of lawsuits,
contentious hearings, and potential eminent domain proceedings to
collect the necessary amount of land for anew airport.
Finally, there are political and institutional issues to
consider. At this writing (the fall of 1995) there seems to be
little support for the DAKOTA option. Several key players
including Northwest Airlines have challenged the MAC's growth
projection figures that MAC uses to justify either the EXPAND or
DAKOTA options. As discussions continue, the No PROJECT option
will have considerable support from those with investment at -the
current airport, and Eagan's position could logically be argued
ID: OCT 05'95 8:55 No.001 P.10
G
here too if the'DAKOTA option is rejected. But the MAC seems to
have concluded that it is necessary to spend several billion
dollars somewhere.
our assumption is that Eagan officials and citizens.will have to
become a player in the process from this point forward to assure
our best interests are voiced.and protected.
We believe the region needs a new airport and it should be
constructed as quickly as possible, despite the predictable
difficulties.and expense of such a huge public works undertaking.
R-98% 10-05-95 09:56AM P010 #38
ID:
OCT 05'95 8:55 No.001 P.11
10
For the Mitigation section -- moved from the Financial issues
section: Dakota County could lose tax base if 14,000 agricultural
acres are no longer taxed. 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.
R-98% 10-05-95 09:56AM P011 #38
ID: OCT 05'95 8:55 No.001 P.12
11
Supplemental Items to be added to the proposal packet
l) Attachment #1 --Three original sites
Attachment #z --New Airport Site Selection process
Attachment #3 --Present airport options
Attachment #4 --Remote runway concept
Attachment #8--8xecutive Summary
Attachment #6 --Reading File
Attachment #7 --Impact Mitigation Suggestions
R-97% 10-05-95 09:56AM P012 #38
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS
October 10, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday,
October 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax, Jonathan
White, Steve Soderfing and Lance Staricha. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator
Hohenstein. Absent was Jane Vanderpoel.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Schlax, the agenda was approved as presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Starichs, the September 12, 1995 minutes were
approved as presented.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning—
Hohenstein directed the commission to provide feedback to the Long Term Planning
Committee on the draft position statement. He suggested that comments be provided at this time and action
to be taken after the November 15 public hearing in order to provide for public and business Input and to
incorporate final comments in the report at that time. Hohensteln thanked committee members for their
assistance with preparation of the document.
Schlax asked t the document will be used as a tool to be used in terms of briefing the
citizens prior to the November 15 meeting. Hohenstein replied this document will be provided to the public
as a draft and this will be publicized by means of press releases and articles educating the public. Basic
information will be provided to the public on the Issues concerning the Dual Track process in the City
newsletter and In newspaper articles. Soderling asked what the forum of the public meeting will consist of.
Hohenstein stated there will be an overview that will be provided at the meeting. He continued that the
MAC may attend and if they do they would present information and the public would provide feedback.
Soderling asked if the City staff will make presentations and what will the forum be If the MAC Isn't there.
Hohenstein stated that staff would make a presentation and that the commission could also make a
presentation provided itis unbiased. He stated that it is very important that the commission members relay
the Information without taking sides by balancing the pros and cons The commission Is expected to be a
hearing body and would be hearing comments rather than discussing the issues. The public will comment
and the commission will deliberate on the comments separately. The Advisory Planning Commission and
Economic Development Commission members should be in attendance also so that they could provide
input, perhaps not at the meeting, but It would help them form their recommendations.
Monson stated that she thinks the MAC representative should be there to answer questions.
Todd stated that she would like to see them there and she fell that It was Important that the MAC be
concise in their delivery of their information. White suggested that a time limit be set for the MAC.
AIRPORT RELATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
PAGE 2
The commission discussed meeting times and dates. Hohensteln stated that public
comments are received for ten days after a public hearing, consequently, the commission may want to
extend the next commission meeting date to later in the month. After further discussion, the commission
agreed to the following dates and times for subsequent meetings: Current Operations Committee - October
16 at 5:30 p.m., Long -Term Planning Committee - October 19 at 7:00 p.m., a GPS presentation on October
25 at 7:00 p.m. at Mendota Heights, Dual Track Public Hearing - November 15 at 7:00 p.m., the Long Term
Planning Committee and Current Operations Committee joint meeting - November 20 at 7:00 p.m. and the
Airport Relations Commission meetings - November 27 and December 12 at 7:00 p.m..
Schlax commented that We important to control the discussion at the public hearing. If all
citizens are Interested In speaking, it would be necessary to keep the discussion on track. Hohenstein
stated that the commission may want to set a time limit for presentations. He stated that the Chair must
manage the time limit and that everyone should have a chance to speak before someone speaks again.
Hohenstein referred to handouts he distributed regarding recent articles in the local papers,
one relative to Dakota County's position on the Dual Track Planning Process, another article concerning
Northwest Airlines' Detroit hub and an article in regard to discussions in the airline industry of takeovers.
B. MSP Community Protection -Mitigation Program—
Hohenstein referred to pages 32 through 45 In the packet. He said that the Airport
Relations Commission needs to endorse the airport community protection concept package. He introduced
a document from Mendota Heights which discusses airport noise mitigation. He explained that the
commission should review the document and make a recommendation on a mitigation package, similar to
Mendota Heights.
Schlax asked if the comment on page 37 meant that homes of a certain age will not be
sound insulated. Hohenstein stated that this is meant to encourage owners of older homes to remodel and
update their homes without the worry of property tax impact.
White stated that he feels all housing affected by runways that are built should be included.
Hohenstein stated that one of the questions is whether to treat new impact areas differently than those who
are going to be dealing with existing impacts.
Schlax asked about fiscal disparities. He asked if that money would be returned because
of mitigation back to the sties. Hohenstein responded that It doesn'treally refer to the cities. There is no
reference to distribution back to the cities. The commission may want to comment on this portion of the
document.
White stated that maybe that language could be expanded to include areas around the
airport affected by airport noise. He interpreted it to mean relocation.
Schlax suggested that most of the development should be off airport property so it would
be subject to taxes.
Hohenstein stated that the reason the statement does have merit for noise mitigation is the
last line in the paragraph stating that the increment equivalent being paid Into a fund to be used to address
airport impacts.
AIRPORT RELATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
PAGE 3
Staricha stated that he does see confusion between the two. On page 38 it is talking about
areas that surround the airport land, whereas, fiscal disparities Is talking about property on the airport
proper.
Hohenstein stressed to the commission that they need a dear direction because they will
not meet again until November 27 and they need to be very concise as to that direction.
Hohenstein stated that he is concerned that they address the Issue of operations. That
mitigation take two tracks, one being land use and tax treatments and the other being the expectations of
operations at the airport if it stays.
Hohenstein stated that If the airport were to go from a voluntary to required compliance they
may run up against negative reactions. As long as ANOMS Is depended upon, they can use that
information. He continued that a real time monitoring system at other airports Is providing information and
better technology.
Cooper stated that foreign aircraft don't have to conform to Stage III. Hohenstein stated
except in the case of waivers they do have to conform to U.S. standards.
Monson stated that she recalled a discussion that there would be problems if they use other
than voluntary compliance. Hohenstein stated that there Is a fine system in place at the Denver Airport.
In the case of Deriver, it is the city that would pay the fines. Their situation is different in that Denver owns
the airport. If a new airport were built in Dakota County, many of the same types of things would be done
there.
Cooper asked if all planes will be required to have the GPS system. Hohenstein stated that
the FAA expels all aircraft over time to get the GPS system. Hohenstein replied that by the time the
runway is opened, in approximately five years, most planes will already have the GPS system. Schlax
stated that it should happen fairly quickly and it is not expensive. The GPS type approaches enable
airports to line airplanes in a parallel position.
The commission discussed the points prepared by Mendota Heights on pages 47 through 49.
1) The aircraft departure corridor should be narrowed over Mendota Heights and Eagan to take full
advantage of the latest air traffic control technology.
Commission members agreed with this point.
2) The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor should be eliminated.
Staricha stated that all communities surrounding the MSP should bear a reasonable and equitable
share of the impacts. Soderfing said that it's necessary to limit capacity possibly by having flight
tracks that allow southeast/northeast departures off of Runway 11 and southerlyMresterly
departures off the north/south runway. That would be one way to five with airport expansion without
a major noise impact.
AIRPORT RELATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
PAGE 4
3) Over the Mendota Heights/Eagan area, departing aircraft should be directed to utilize less noise
sensitive areas such as industrial park property and highway rights-of-way.
White stated that, particularly with airport relocation, they should make sure flight tracks go over
agricultural areas not over downtown Hastings. It should be generally stated that the aircraft should
fly over sparsely populated areas. He suggested that they should add departing aircraft along with
incoming. Hohenstein stated that the commission may want to reference existing policy contours
that acknowledges the traditional expectations relative to flight tracking.
4) There should be specific penalties for violation of corridor boundaries.
Hohenstedn stated that the commission has discussed this before and MAC Is opposed to fining.
There was discussion concerning fining those who are non-compliant. Hohenstein stated that
Sarasota requires justification of any noncomp0anoe in writing. The difference in philosophy is that
if I'm non-compliant in Sarasota, my airline's going to get a letter and have to spend time
responding to it. Hohenstein stated that they should decide when building a new airport as to what
policies should be in force. Sodeding said that they should make it clear that this is very serious
and expect the guidelines to be followed.
5) Need for nighttime aircraft restrictions with a monetary fine for violations.
White asked if the nighttime hours of 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. can be adjusted. Monson asked how
they came to decide on those particular hours. Hohenstein replied that it corresponds with historic
schedules. White and Staricha suggested encouraging a change in hours to 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
There was a vote on requesting a change in hours from 11:00 p.m. to e:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m to
6:00 a.m. The vote was four commission members for 11:00 p.m. to e:00 a.m. and three
commission members for 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Because of the lack of a majority vote, the time
was left at 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
6) Relates to noise abatement departure procedures and Identifying an optimum procedure for use
in the corridor area.
Hohenstedn stated that this refers to the nolle abatement departure procedures and improvements
in those procedures to get air traffic higher and it seems consistent with previous policy. Schlax
asked If the report came back from the consultant as to which of the two profiles are more
beneficial. He stated that information would have some Impact and he would like to see some data
before making a decision. Sodeding asked if there was a response from Mr. Salman to the
commission's request that planes fly as fast and as high as possible through the corridor.
Hohenstein replied that he did write a letter to Mr. Selmen but did not receive a response. White
stated that he would like departures and arrivals added to the lest sentence. Soderfing asked
commission member Schlax why the climb is steeper for airplanes departing than arriving. Schlax
replied that primarily it has to do with the instrument landing system and also has to do with airport
arrival rules which allow a three degree descent. Departures have more to do with ability of the
airplane as well as comfort of the passengers.
n The MAC would commit that any airport expansion be'noise neutrar, meaning that no new noise
Impacts over residential areas will be generated off of the airport property as a result of the future
addition of new runways.
AIRPORT RELATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
PAGE 5
Staricha asked if a noise neutral policy was realistic? Its not possible to expand without concern
for noise impact. White stated that this can be interpreted as operations are added and should
balance out by reducing noise impact In other areas.
S) To set up a file of justifiable criteria on whether or not expansion is warranted.
The commission members agreed with this point.
Hohenstein replied that this is something that the commission already had Input on. He
referred to page 43 of the packs and asked the commission members If they thought the zone should be
extended. Todd commented that this could be considered as an option. White said that expanding the
corridor would only cause more problems for already impacted areas. Hohenstein suggested that they deal
with the corridor situation as a separate item in an open forum In the future and not deal with it at this time.
He continued that the commission is dealing with concepts and they have already agreed to opdndze the
use of noise compatible areas, consequently, this could be the basis of the commission's comment at this
time. At some point in the future the commission may want to consider alternative corridor procedures.
Schlax stated that the commission needs to be as specific as possible and discuss the corridor situation
as soon as possible. He suggested it be included as an agenda Item for the next meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Staricha discussed the eight Items on page 50 that the Current Operations Subcommittee
prepared to discuss with the legislative delegation. Hohenstein stated that they can adopt these Issues or
discuss them at another time. White suggested that the Current Operations Subcommittee prioritize the
eight issues for discussion at the next commission meeting.
Cooper moved to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m., Schlax seconded. The members
all voted in favor.
STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor—
Hohenstein stated that he finally received July and August ANOMS data on corridor
compliance. The commission may want to reiterate in strong language to the MAC and FAA about
compliance levels and their inadequacy.
Schlax moved, Cooper seconded a motion to recommend a strongly worded response to
the MAC and the FAA regarding corridor compliance and, further, the commission requests that ANOMS
fight track data be overlaid on a base map to allow community analysis. All members voted in favor.
Staricha referred to the ANOMS data and the difficulty reading and understanding the
information. Hohenstein stated that it would be helpful to have Information relate to a base map. He said
there are other types of information available if the commission was interested.
B. Runway 4122 Extension - Mitigation Survey—
AIRPORT RELATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
PAGE 6
Hohenstein Informed the commission that he will be meeting with other mediation
representatives on Thursday, October 19 to interview the proposer for the mitigation survey.
C. Sound Insulation Program Update—
Hohenstein Informed the. commission that he will be distributing application materials for
the 1996 Part 150 insulation opportunities. He stated that it appears that they will be able to finish the
program for 1996 or have a few remaining in 1997.
D. MASAC Meeting of September 26, 1995—
Hohenstein referred to excerpts from the Technical Advisors Report for July and August.
E. Northam Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition—
Hohenstein informed the commission that the next meeting of the Northern Dakota County
Airport Relations Coalition will be on Friday, October 13 at 7:30 a.m. in Inver Grove Heights. He stated
there will be a presentation on geographic positioning satellite technology to be given at the City of Mendota
Heights on Wednesday, October 25 at 7:00 p.m.
Hohenstein Informed communion members about changes in land use requirements as a
result of legislation passed to conform land use to existing conditions. The zoning on the comprehensive
guide and zoning ordinances need to be in closer conformance. Specifically, this refers to the MdCee
Addition which Is zoned residential and comp guided as industrial/commercial. The residents have
requested by petition that the City change the land use to residential to conform with the zoning. Policy
statements will need to be made in the comp guide concerning these transitions.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Date
Chairperson
Secretary
JEH