Loading...
01-13-1999 ARC MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 13, 1999 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Roszak, Fitzer, Leuman, Stein and May. Commissioner Des Roches was excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. Commissioner Leuman moved approval of the December 9, 1998 minutes. Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 DISCUSS/COMPARE THIRD PARALLEL RUNWAY CONTRACTS Administrator Batchelder explained that in November, the MAC and the City of Minneapolis agreed to a contract on the Third Parallel Runway. He explained that the Commission briefly reviewed the contract at their December meeting and that the Commission requested a comparison, contract to contract, with the Mendota Heights contract. Administrator Batchelder explained that the Commission's goal should be to make a recommendation to the City Council suggesting changes to the contract between the MAC and the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission discussed the following comparisons between the Mendota Heights contract with MAC prohibiting a third parallel runway and the recently signed MAC/City of Minneapolis contract. (The comparisons are listed below along with specific discussion as generated by the Commission). CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Recitals Lqyax�,r I I Z V, I Recitals Section 1 of the Minneapolis contract includes additional language as follows: "That provides the corporation (MAC) may not construct a third parallel runway without the affected city's approval". Commissioner Roszak suggested that a copy of the 1994 State Statute referencing the above recital be included as a source of reference to the contract. Section 2 is identical in each contract. Section 3 is identical in each contract. Section 4 of the Minneapolis contract has an additional sentence that reads "The City and MAC have identified other matters of mutual interest that are also addressed in this contract. Administrator Batchelder questioned whether the additional sentence should be added because this item is addressed later within the contract under land purchases. Chair Beaty suggested that Runway Use Projections should be included. Administrator Batchelder reminded the Commission that the EIS was not completed at the time the Mendota Heights contract was signed. He stated that the MAC, at the time of the contract signing, agreed to give Mendota Heights the same provisions as the City of Minneapolis. Commissioner Roszak stated that the MAC may not agree to add new language. DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS Section 1 of the Minneapolis contract has additional language defining "generally parallel". The Commission noted that the additional language "generally parallel" should be added to the Mendota Heights contract. The Commission noted that this definition encompasses all runways. The second sentence of Section 2 has the additional clause stating "so long as the acquisition of any property to the north of and generally parallel to the existing parallel runways includes". The Commission discussed this clause and inquired if the definition included acquisition of land. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that he is still waiting for a copy of the contract or some form of confirmation that the MAC will not be constructing a third parallel runway on the Bureau of Mines land. The Commission determined that additional review to determined what is preferred or not is necessary. Commissioner May arrived at 7:40 p.m. Section 2 of our City's contract ends with Their contract has the additional the restrict covenant running for the language "as defined in paragraph benefit of the affected property owners 4 below". "and the City". The Commission felt that Mendota Heights language "and the City" is the preferred language. Batchelder stated that this is better language because it gives the City same third party benefit rights as third party property owners. Section 3 is identical in both contracts. Section 4 has additional language in parenthesis stating (whether a legal owner or an equitable owner) The Commission felt that adding "whether a legal owner or an equitable owner should be added to the Mendota Heights contract. It should be noted that the diagram designating the area meeting the "affected property owner" criteria Has not been approved by the City. Sample maps were produced by MAC, but have not been approved by our City. It is not known if MAC and Mpls. have produced diagrams for an exhibit to their contract. Regarding the diagram, the Commission discussed Ldn 65 contours and how affected property owners should be identified. Commissioner Roszak pointed out that the map should be built off of specific legal descriptions. Chair Beaty stated that not all areas are referred to correctly. Commissioner May stated that all pictorial' documents should be drawn to scale and should be surveyed as well He stated that there is a need for an accurate representation of property. The Commission felt that the City of Mendota Heights should inquire if the City of Minneapolis agrees with the diagrams. Commissioner Roszak suggested that a letter be sent inquiring about the interpretation of the third parallel runway usage. Terms Terms Our agreement runs through December Their term runs to December 31, 2050. 31, 2020 with provisions for three, automatic, additional ten year terms, unless we mutually agree to terminate the automatic renewal. This would go to January 1, 2051. Our contract has a provision that after Their contract has a provision that January 1, 2021, the agreement may be after January 1,,2036, the agreement terminated by the Legislature. This may be terminated by the termination language is identical in each Legislature. Contract, only the year is different. Section 2 is identical except the date, which The promise date in the MpIs. contract in our contract is December 31, 2020. Is December 31, 2035. The Commission felt that the above Minneapolis language should be added to Mendota Heights contract. Our Section 3 is identical to MpIs. Section 4, with the exception that they have added the following language "the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final Environ. Impact Statement, May 1998 ("DTAPP/EIS") A document not available at the time of execution of our contract. Our Section 4 is similar to their Section 4. We have an additional clause that starts Section 4 as follows "It is intended by the Commission and the City that". Their Section 3 has additional language in the first sentence with the following clause inserted after Agreement. "related to the prohibition on construct. of a third parallel runway. Administrator Batchelder stated that there is no differences between the two contracts. Our Section 4 refers back to the language in Terms, 1st Paragraph, which is different dates than in Mpls. agreement. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that Mendota Heights language is much narrower. Our Section 5 is identical to their Section 10. Our Section 6, allowing other affected cities to adopt our contract, or reach a separate agreement, is not contained in the Mpls contract. At Section 5 of the Mpls. contract, their contract diverges significantly from our contract with additional provisions that are not in the Mendota Heights/MAC contract. Their Section 5 discusses the use of Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Dual Track FEIS, Appendix A, page A.3-17. This is to prevent departures to the north off of Runway 17/35, except under limited safety and weather conditions. This section further refers to a letter from the Mayor of Mpls. detailing percentages of arrivals from the north. Section 5 also discusses operating Runway 17/35 in a manner designed to maximize airfield capacity, reduce community noise and equitably distribute noise throughout the community. This section also commits MAC to not seek to permanently close down one or both parallel runways without the approval of the City, or request any changes to the runway use system, which would be inconsistent with pages A.3-17 of the FEIS. Regarding Section 5 of the Minneapolis contract, the Commission discussed air noise distribution. Commissioner Roszak stated that the air noise should be distributed throughout the metropolitan area and not just throughout a specific community. In Section 6, MAC agrees not to acquire for use as air operations any land within Minneapolis north of TH 62 without the approval of the City, except for runway approach protection, Part 150 or to located navigational aids. Administrator Batchelder stated that Section 6 does not affect the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission discussed how the City of Mendota should have a guarantee that no land within Mendota Heights will be used for off site airport use (i.e., car rental agencies, car washes, etc). In Section 7, MAC agrees to immediately expand the Noise Monitoring System in the area affected by the existing parallel runways. It is not known whether the current ANOMS expansion satisfies this requirement of the contract. Regarding Section 7, the Commission discussed the possibility of adding more monitors and that the Mendota Heights contract should include this Section. In Section 8, MAC affirms its overall commitment to a fairer distribution of air traffic, specifically its commitment prior to completion of the North South Runway to use Runway 4/22 to distribute traffic to other parts of the Metropolitan area. Regarding Section 8, the Commission felt it important that the City of Mendota Heights include this section within its contract. In Section 9, the contract limits MAC's potential use of the Bureau of Mines property currently being considered for acquisition by MAC. Paragraph E describes the allowed land uses. Paragraph F addresses demolition of existing buildings on BOM land. Regarding Section 9, Administrator Batchelder stated that he does not see the potential of developing park land. Commissioner Roszak inquired if there are any goals that the City should inform MAC about. Administrator Batchelder stated that the MAC should be made aware of the 2005 Runway Usage Projection. He stated that the City has been concerned with the operations being inequitable and that the Mendota Heights contract should reflect more equitable distribution of air noise throughout the metropolitan area. Commissioner Roszak moved to recommend that the City Council direct the City Administrator to send a letter to the Metropolitan Airports Commission requesting the commencement of official negotiations to resolve the differences between the Mendota Heights and Minneapolis Contract (s) Prohibiting a Third Parallel Runway. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 RECORD OF DECISION FOR RUNWAY 17/35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Administrator Batchelder provided the Commission with a copy of the Record of Decision for Runway 17/35 - Executive Summary. Batchelder informed the Commission that Executive Summary discusses Low Frequency Noise Impacts (Pages 39 and 40). He informed the Commission that the Summary refers to the Mendota Heights Contract along with MSP expansion concepts. Commissioner Roszak inquired if the City of Eagan has shared their contract with the City of Mendota Heights. Administrator Batchelder stated that he has not heard from the City of Eagan. Roszak inquired if the City of Mendota Heights has a "me too" contract with the City of Eagan, and if so, is it in letter format. Roszak noted that if the City of Eagan weights in and cuts a deal, will the City of Mendota Heights be able to do the same. Batchelder stated that he would need to speak with Eagan's new assistant. Runway 4/22 Settlement by MAC/Richfield Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that Mr. Jeff Hamiel will fax any documents pertaining to this issue and that he will forward it to the Commission as soon as it is received. Airport Controlled Property Administrator Batchelder explained that the test cell site which Northwest Airlines runs its engine testing is an indoor facility and that it runs 24 hours a day. Richfield Settlement The Commission briefly reviewed an article within the Airport Noise Report, Vol. 10, No. 25) regarding the Richfield settlement. Guest Speaker in February Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, will be the Commission's guest speaker at their February 10 meeting. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee agenda for December 11. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MAC Planning and Environment Committee Agenda for January 5, 1999. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Reports - Volume 10, Numbers 22-25. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Reliever Airport Article - Met Council Newsletter. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NOISE Policy Statement and Legislative Alert. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for January 12, 1999. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan Letter on Temporary Noise Monitor Request. There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary .I-